Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:23:59 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:


I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are
full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be
catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be
difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are
located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention.


I would say that the motive of attacking a plane would be either to gain
control of it or to use it as a hostage taking opportunity, something which
disabling it would be rather counter-productive. The attempted hijacking
would be of no value whatsoever, especially if the cockpit were secure and
it was known that an aircraft would be shot down if it deviated from it's
scheduled route. You could post diagrams of electronic, hydraulic and fuel
systems for all the difference it would make then. The most a terrorist
gang could do is crash the airplane, presumably causing the death of those
on board, but at least you would eliminate, I mean totally eliminate, the
possibility that terrorists could ever commandeer an aircraft and fly it
into a building again.

While I agree that a terrorist would not be able to precisely direct an
aircraft under such conditions, that doesn't mean such an attack would
be ineffective. Is it acceptable to have "only" 200 or 300 people die at
a time in a terrorist act? Would people not feel far less safe about
flying - and in general - if more planes were brought down? Consider the
collateral carnage that would occur if one or more planes were blown up
over cities and the debris rained down on the population. While the WTC
and Pentagon attacks were symbolic, random acts of terror are actually
more effective in terrorizing a population. No one will feel safe since
there are no longer obvious target areas to avoid.

As I've shown above, that's incorrect.

You've shown that aircraft are rather fragile things, relatively, but you
have not shown at all how a terrorist (or terrorists) could succeed in ever
flying a plane into a building (or anything else) if some rather simple
measures were taken.

First off, those "rather simple measures" have already been taken. Where
have you been. Second, as I've shown above, directing a plane precisely
is not necessary.

The bottom line is that your argument that lifting restrictions on
passengers carrying firearms and the like is a ridiculous idea. Should I
be allowed to carry the little Swiss Army Knife that I carry with me all
the time on the ground? Sure, but there is no justification or need for
me to carry a firearm. BTW, I own firearms and have no qualms about
carrying one for personal protection if need be, but armed passengers on
airplanes (other than police & sky marshals) is not going to make flying
safer.

Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the
nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have
a reasonable discussion or not?


Remember those little "CD" (for Civil Defense) markings that used to be on
radios? Remember the "duck and cover" drills? I can remember "Fallout
Shelter" being stenciled on various caves. (Caves are very, very poor
places to escape radiation, however the feds looked into it several years
ago and at the time thought they would be dandy places to safely stash
people.) Those are only a few.

What bearing does this have on the current situation? This all happened
50 years ago!

Can you name any comparable measures this
administration has taken with the public in regards to the threat of
terrorism? Being alert, buying duct tape and stuff or otherwise
encouraging folks to go shopping, etc. isn't exactly similar.

Let me see if I've got this straight; you're now criticizing the
administration for NOT advocating useless measures? What is your magic
formula for dealing with the public in the face of terrorism? It seems
to me that "be alert, but go on with your lives" is the only sensible
approach. That's exactly what the administration is advocating.

That's already been done.

Securing the cockpits? The most I've been made aware of is to lock doors
and reinforce them. I believe crews and others have been instructed on how
best to impede the progress of those who might try to gain access to the
cockpit, but cockpits are hardly "secure." When the current "security"
measures are tested, they fail miserably time and time again, even when the
FAA does the testing.

Doors are locked and reinforced. Pilots are armed. Flight crews are now
taught to resist attacks rather than complying with demands. Sky
marshals are more prevalent. However, the most effective security
measure is that passengers now know that THEY have to resist attackers.
No terrorist or group of terrorists is going to be able to fend off
200-300 passengers. That is, unless we follow your ridiculous idea and
allow people to carry guns on planes. Now do you see the stupidity of
that concept?

What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone.

Bush and others have remarked that among the other things we realized from
9/11 is that the oceans don't protect us any longer. That has been one of
his rationales for pre-emptive action.

"Remarked" is the right word. The fact is that they're correct, though
the realization of it has come too late. Whether consciously or not,
Americans had become complacent about our security, since we live "over
here" and the bad guys were "over there" and we're bordered by friendly
countries. The events of 9/11 were a wake-up call in that regard.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to
re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take
what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into
criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top
of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack
them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I thought a missile shield idea was
folly from the get-go. It is indeed unfortunate that the events of 9/11
had to happen to get the administration to realize that building some kind
of missile umbrella wasn't exactly a top priority.

I'm not so sure that it's a bad idea, but it certainly appears that the
technology for implementing it successfully is not available yet and
that other priorities should take precedence.

Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown
into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft
related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but
the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced.


The incidence is down, not the threat. And, yes, shortly after 9/11 some
guy flew a plane into a building in Tampa.

Shortly after is correct. There has been nothing since and nothing at
all involving large commercial aircraft.

It reminds me of the story of a
drunk on the corner snapping his fingers to keep the tigers away. His
"proof" of the efficacy of his snapping his fingers is the seemingly
incontrovertible evidence that you don't see any tigers around.

You could make that same silly argument about any security measures.
What's the point? It proves nothing.

So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all
died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead
people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related
conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in
those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role?


No, everyone involved in the plot did not die. Only those who actually
were on the aircraft. I do not believe that only the 19 who died were
involved.

Nor do I. However, most of the organization apparently occurred offshore.

I just find it slightly incredible that in this length of time
the government has prosecuted absolutely NO ONE. Not even anyone related.
In fact, I think only a single person has been charged to date, and even he
hasn't had a trial or anything.

OK, "Galen the Supersleuth", why don't you tell us how you would go
about tracking down the guilty parties?

There have been numerous related arrests in Europe, where the planning
took place.

I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease
or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both
capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're
not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in
one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one
aspect and not the entire picture.

If the treatment is wrong it doesn't matter what balance is struck. If
"terrorism" is a disease, this administration is hardly in the forefront of
prevention, let alone in preparation for an event in the future.

And once again, what is your solution? Measures are being taken and
whether it suits your timetable or not, it can't be done overnight.
Logistically and economically, it's impossible.

Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that,
I truly feel sorry for you.


I only know that the NYFD will not appear with Bush anymore. I suspect it
has to do with their treatment by the administration after Bush made his
comment with the bullhorn. After that well-televised event, I, and I don't
think I'm alone, imagined the New York firefighters would be solidly behind
Bush. They aren't.

And what does that prove?

What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on
creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of
Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration,
hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate
attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any
viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em.

I have presented specific ideas time and time again.

Where? Go back and point to specifics! You've made a few vague
references to non-specific measures, that's all. If that's what you call
solutions, you make the actions of the administration look damn good in
comparison.

I have volunteered
with the local police department and the US Coast Guard (I don't live too
far from the Gulf Coast in Florida).

Now that's positive action and I commend you for it.

I get much farther with locals than the current administration.

Exactly what does that mean? Again, another vague reference.

If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain
some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the
Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is
wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments.

I'm not saying that everything the administration and Bush do is wrong. In
this case, however, I think it is more "window dressing" than actually
doing something.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.