On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:05:44 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

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

Are you referring to these words?

"Right. The same folks that told us "everything changed on 9/11. We are
no longer protected by two oceans." During the entire "duck and cover" era
I, and I'll bet I'm not alone, did NOT feel protected by two oceans. I
don't know many people who felt oceans were much protection against ICBMs.
I can't remember a soul in Texas during the Cuban missile crisis that felt
much protection, either. As far as dealing with threats, there is a lot of
expense going on at airports regarding passengers and what they can carry.
If the cockpit door is secured (and I have talked about this several times
with my brother, a retired USMC pilot who after his Marine career piloted
some of that heavy metal for commercial airlines) then it doesn't matter
what the passengers carry. They can carry AK-47s if they want, they still
aren't going to get control of the plane if the cockpit is secure. That
and instructing pilots that it would be a possible "shoot down" type of
offence if they deviate from their flight schedules. Bingo. Never again
will a commercial aircraft fly into a skyscraper, and passengers needn't
even be bothered."

That is what I said. Perhaps you can find something else that is
illustrative of my suggesting that a ban on firearms on aircraft should be
dropped. I can't find anything that might resemble that, this is the
closest I can find, and it is a far cry from a recommendation that airline
security be dropped with regards to firearms.

I have been losing my ability to speak these past few years, and, as a
consequence, find myself observing conversations far more often than I
participate in them now. One of the things I have noticed is that it
doesn't take very long at all for someone to come up with a response to
what someone is saying. Often the response is being thought about and
formulated early on while the other person has just started talking. You
can see it in facial expressions, body language, a bunch of things, not to
mention that the response is often not about what the person said but about
what the responder *thought* the person was going to say. You see this
time and time again in conversations. This is not to be confused with
politically charged reactions, which are often an "us against them" type of
knee-jerk response.

I don't know the reason behind it, but you seem to reach conclusions that
are more tuned to what you want to hear than what is actually said.
Perhaps your desire to "win" an argument overcomes your ability to read and
comprehend.

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

Wasn't 45 years ago either. I guess the difference is that you haven't a
clue, do you? Like I say, I do. I was there.

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?

Hardly, but it can be argued that would be better than the nothing
effective that they are doing now with respect to the public and
terrorism.

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.

I'd possibly "throw it back," although that would not be a goal of mine at
all.

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.

When the president reminds us constantly that his first priority is to
protect the American public, one tends to expect the federal government to
do something promptly. And if the government does happen to hit on
something effective (they often are, even though I point at obvious
failures) then it is indeed a solution, even if it is done NOW.

An investigation was inevitable. Everyone knew that.

Except Bush and his advisors it seems. Although even they gave in
eventually.

What do you expect, bank vault doors?

No. Some "re-inforcements" are better than others.

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

Maybe, but we are trying to frighten the terrorists, not the passengers and
flight crew.

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

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? As a broader point, you might
detail what they have *ever* done for passenger safety that wasn't
federally mandated.

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.

Nope. I can't let it go. I used to be stationed at Andrews Air Force Base
in Maryland, just minutes from Washington DC and the Pentagon. I still
don't understand why fighter jets weren't scrambled promptly on 9/11. My
brother is a (retired) USMC pilot and he can't explain it either. It isn't
like there aren't a bunch of military installations and government
buildings there. I guess the lesson is that the government isn't going to
do *anything*, so it's up to the passengers and crew. I think the general
public is begriming to realize that.

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

No, it was in response to your claim that terrorists couldn't control two
or three hundred. Obviously they can, and have. It wasn't on an airliner,
either.

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.

Nonetheless, it did serve to show that terrorism is not only in other
countries, it is homegrown as well.

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

It's also pretty evident that such a "threat" is rather remote, to say the
least.

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

Denied, forgotten, "conveniently" forgotten, whatever.

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.

Especially if they were relatives of Osama and were allowed to fly private
jets out of the country right after 9/11 when no one else could.

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.

What's it been, about 2 1/2 years? Is anything SLOW enough for you?

You really don't get it, do you?

Certainly not the way you'd like me to see it.

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

You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?

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

Nope. I haven't interviewed any New York firefighters. I used to see
pictures of them with Bush, a lot of them. Somehow I'm on some Republican
mailing list and I get tiny photos (with offers for bigger ones if I "give"
to the Republicans) often. Then I quit getting photos of Bush with the
firefighters, though I still got others. I asked around. I was told by
several folks that the NY firefighters in particular were pretty ****ed at
the empty promises Bush made to them especially in the wake of 9/11. I
haven't heard any contradiction to that, I haven't even heard of it being
explained as some Democrat plot, yet...

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

Has it ever occurred to you to ask why the locals should need more help
than the feds, especially when terrorism is a *national* problem and local
measures are *federally* mandated?

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.

Maybe you think yours do, but I would never spank any of my kayaks.
Besides, they are too well behaved.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future