Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:



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.

I told you how to prevent planes being flown into buildings, not your
speculations, suppositions and fantasies.

No, you suggested that passengers should be allowed to carry firearms on
planes (Do you have a memory problem or something?) and I'm explaining
why that's an incredibly stupid and dangerous idea.

First off, those "rather simple measures" have already been taken.

No, they haven't.

Where
have you been. Second, as I've shown above, directing a plane precisely
is not necessary.

Correction, directing a plane is not necessary according to one (some?) of
your speculation.

OK, so it's fine with you if people die, as long as the plane isn't
directed into a building? Get a grip! It's not acceptable for people to
be killed by terrorists, PERIOD!

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.

I haven't advocated lifting restrictions on carrying firearms on planes.
The only thing I can see that might have led you to make this somewhat
fanciful leap is my contention that if the cockpit were secure then
passengers could carry AK-47s for all the good it would do. They could
probably do as well with nuclear devices, are you going to state that I
advocate passengers carrying nuclear bombs on planes now?

Go back and read your own words. You definitely have a memory problem.

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

Wasn't all 50 years ago. I know. I was there.

OK, 45 years ago. What's the difference?

Let me see if I've got this straight; you're now criticizing the
administration for NOT advocating useless measures?

Useless under today's examination. I assure you, these were not thought
"useless" by either the general public nor the people in government that
suggested them.

So what? Are you actually stating that you think it would be a good idea
for the government to advocate useless measures as a way of asuaging
public concern? Why, so you can turn around and point out that the
measures are useless and throw it back in their faces? You're getting
more ridiculous with each post.

What is your magic
formula for dealing with the public in the face of terrorism?

I don't have any "magic" formulas. I'm not sure there are any.

So, it appears that you're part of the DO SOMETHING NOW! crowd, even if
it's pointless. Would useless government actions actually make you feel
better. It sounds like that's what you're looking for, the government to
tell you to do something to take your mind off the problem and make you
feel better. Sorry, but that's not a solution.

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.

Being as how the administration fought any investigation into 9/11 tooth
and nail, that may be the only recommendation they have, because they are
essentially clueless about the situation, and don't care to look into it.
There wouldn't even be a 9/11 Commission (such as it is) except that the
administration was pressured into it.

An investigation was inevitable. Everyone knew that.

Doors are locked and reinforced.

Sort of.

What do you expect, bank vault doors?

Pilots are armed.

Not true.

Ok, SOME pilots are armed. That still has a significant deterrent effect.

Flight crews are now
taught to resist attacks rather than complying with demands.

Some are, and some better than others. There is yet to be an adequate
response from the FAA, the Justice Department, the Commerce Dept., the
Department of Transportation, you name the federal agency, it doesn't
matter, no one in the government has issued anywhere near adequate
guidelines regarding airline crews and terrorists.

The airlines have taken it upon themselves (and rightfully so) to deal
with much of this.

However, the most effective security
measure is that passengers now know that THEY have to resist attackers.

Maybe because they realize the current administration sure isn't going to
do anything effective.

You just can't let it go, can you? Once again, you're wrong. The public
now understands the nature of the threat and what they need to do about
it. That's why they'll fight back.

No terrorist or group of terrorists is going to be able to fend off
200-300 passengers.

I think you underestimate terrorists, as is often done. Experiences in
Russia suggest you incorrect.

So now you're trying to equate Russian airline "security" with ours?
That's a bad joke and you know it.

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?

Not tired of that strawman yet, I see.

You brought it up, so live with it.

"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.

That is a common story, repeated by this administration. I have told you
before I don't think that is true, and I have given examples. I think
Oklahoma City showed us that not only were the terrorists not just "over
there," they could live and work among the rest of us undetected. In fact,
some of them could even be ex-GIs.

Oklahoma city never seemed to have the impact that it probably should
have on the public. I'm not quite sure why, though I suspect that some
of it is that we've become desensitised to domestic violence. For some
reason, we seem to be more accepting of us killing each other than of
foreigners killing us. I don't see the difference personally. Dead is dead.

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.

Whatever your feeling, it would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent
9/11, or anything like that in the future.

Who claimed that it would have? It's a missle defense system. It's
designed to protect against missles. That's pretty evident.

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

But you will admit that a plane did fly into a US building in Tampa,
something you denied earlier.

I never denied that. Admittedly, I had forgotten about it until you
brought it up, but it was a minor incident anyway.

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

The fact that an event did not occur does not mean you had any hand in
preventing such an act.

It also doesn't mean that you didn't have a hand in preventing it.

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

And of the remainder, only one single person has ever been charged in the
US regarding the attack. How long ago was it?

So what? Either there isn't anyone here in the US to charge or we
haven't found them yet. It's a big country with lots of places to hide.
It's entirely possible that anyone who was here has fled.

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

I am not paid track them down, hell, they don't even ask me, but I would
start with an investigation, something the current administration didn't
want.

There are plenty of investigations going on. I know that NOTHING will
ever happen fast enough to suit YOU, but I'm satisfied that the issues
are being investigated fully an vigorously.

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

See. It could be done here too, where the actual event took place, not
just the planning.

You really don't get it, do you?

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.

Investigate it openly and thoroughly right afterwards? That would have
been a good start.

Back to that again, eh? You really have nothing constructive to say, do
you?

And what does that prove?

It doesn't prove anything, it wasn't meant to.

Then why bring it up?

I just would have expected
the firefighters in New York to be more supportive of Bush, especially
after he made his speech with the bullhorn at the WTC wreckage. It seems
they were for awhile, but now refuse to be even photographed with him.

And you know this how? Have you interviewed any New York firefighters?

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'm not going to play the "gotcha" game with you.

Nonsense. You have contributed nothing, so there's nothing to go back to.

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

Whenever I have approached the administration, either through the website,
letters, etc. I get a (polite, mind you) rejection of any and all offers.
However, when I make the same offers to local officials (who don't know me
or know of me any more than the feds) I get an entirely different
reception, and any offer of help I've found quite welcome.

Has it ever occurred to you that they simply need the help more?

Regardless, I've had enough of this stupidity. It's obvious that your
only intent is to whine and complain about the administration. I've got
better things to do than respond to your pointless circular arguments
and endless bleating. There are kayaks that need paddling.