FAA

[edew]

Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<STRONG>... Deterrents are really effective.


[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: its_me_mango ]</STRONG>

Deterrents are effective in moving the plan from one method of implementation to another. It's not at all effective in preventing the goal from being reached. If we had sky marshalls, they might have rented small cessna and loaded it with bombs. (My understanding is that general aviation -- i.e., non-commercial aviation -- in the US is pitifully under secured. Other than acknowledging you're going to take off, there's really nothing else you have to do.)

If not an airplane, they could have blown up something else with a bomb. Heck, they could just back up the sewage system in NY and cause a massive e coli contamination. If the eventual goal is to kill innocent civilians, there is absolutely nothing that can be done in terms of deterrent safety measures.

That's why the ultimate response the US have to take is understand why the terrorists, whoever they are, wanted to do this. If it's because they made a bet, we have to address that. If it's because their religion requires them to destroy countries whose names start with an "U" and followed by an "n", then we have to deal with it differently. If it's because it's an act to "right" a perceived greviance, then we have to address that.

If the solution is the same for the above three possible reasons (among many others), then it's clear that the solution is wrong. Just put yourself in their shoes, assuming any of those three possible reasons, and see what might convince you to stop your actions.

[Stryder]

Edew-

So you think we should address the issue they want us to address? If they want us to get out of Isreal, and if we do, they promise never to do it again. Is that it?
Is that the precedent you want to set? "If the US isn't on your side, blow something up and they will be."
If we react in any way to their demands we are paying them for their work. If they want us out of Isreal, we must ignore their needs. Even to react against their cause will fuel more attacks.

US policies cannot be swayed in the slightest by terrorism. Unless we want to paint ourselves as targets for everyone and anyone with an axe to grind and boxcutter.

[sabreuse]

Profiling based on suspicious behavior is alright but, if you start profiling based on ethnic background or religion, I'm going to have a big problem. That starts us down a slippery slope that leads to having people in internment camps just because they physically resemble The Enemy. The fact that other countries may do it does not make it OK. Wasn't there just a big hue and cry on this very BBS about the fact that the Taliban was making Hindus wear an identifying mark on their clothes? Discrimination against Muslims and Middle Easterners is just as bad as discrimination against any other group.

On a more extreme note, there's an Indian restaurant near here that's usually packed at lunch time because they have such a good buffet. This past week, the place has been half empty. Ignorance in any form is bad.

[its_me_mango]

give it up, the debate is ended, it's almost a done deal, they're moving on this rapidly. i called and e-mailed about 100 people and they in turn did the same thing, you have to move fast on this sort of stuff. bye

[attila]

You go Mango! Go all the way to the Army recruit station nearest you. Sign up and go to faraway exotic locations meet all those nice terrorists and make them pay for what they did. Like my brother in law who is a tank driver. Though , he isn't as "excited" as you are about the the whole thing. Bummer is he was due to get out in two months. Probably won't now.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>

If the solution is the same for the above three possible reasons (among many others), then it's clear that the solution is wrong.</STRONG>


Nope. Not at all "clear"---and saying so doesn't make it so, anywhere but in your opinion.

<STRONG>
Just put yourself in their shoes, assuming any of those three possible reasons, and see what might convince you to stop your actions.</STRONG>


Death. The solution in all three cases, and whatever their conceivable "reasons" ( about which I STILL don't give a rat's you-know-what ) will "stop their actions". ALL of their actions. Permanently. And if that causes others to avenge those deaths, again, death will stop them, too.

There are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Muslims in the world. But the supply of crazy fundamentalist ones willing to resort to mass murder of civilians is quite small. It can be exhausted.

Death.

[edew]

Death will convince someone to stop their actions? Threatening death to a suicidal maniac will convince him to not commit the suicidal act? How absurd can that be?

Speaking of safety in airplanes, sometime last year, a manic-depressive paranoid person was on board a jetliner when he ran into the cockpit and tried to force the plane into the ground. He thought there were people (or demons or whatever) chasing after him. He had no weapons, and it took the work of several other passengers to hold him down until the plane landed safely. But before it landed safely, the plane apparently had ascended and descended like today's DJIA. How could THAT be prevented with some of the ideas bounced about: retina/facial recognition programs, national ID cards, no curb-side check-ins, confirmation of travel, etc?

Certainly, locked cockpits, sky marshalls and maybe some other ideas would have thwarted that incident. However, in the heat of this calamity, the congress is leading the charge to offer all sorts of useless safety measures which totally scraps any sense of civil liberty...and for what? Certainly not for any actual improvements in safety.

If you think hanging a horseshoe over your front door will help improve safety, go right ahead, just don't legislate it and require everyone to do so.

[Stryder]

"...If you think hanging a horseshoe over your front door will help improve safety, go right ahead, just don't legislate it and require everyone to do so..."

Interesting coming from someone who is probably against the unchecked right to keep and bear arms.

"..Speaking of safety in airplanes, sometime last year, a manic-depressive paranoid person was on board a jetliner when he ran into the cockpit and tried to force the plane into the ground..."

Maybe an onboard therapist could have prevented it.

[Inquartata]

Don't be deliberately obtuse, edew. Yes, death will "convince someone to stop their actions". If you intend to walk a bomb into a shopping center and blow yourself up and I shoot you in the parking lot---or before you leave your house---or as you try to purchase the explosives---you're pretty permanently stopped, aren't you?

I'm not talking about "convincing" anyone of anything. I'm talking about removing them from the earth, before they can do any ( or any further ) harm.

Airline safety---The other night I saw a news story about a solution that already exists. Apparently one can modify airliners so that in an emergency the air traffic control can switch off the cockpit control entirely and land the plane by remote control. Cost to fit new planes, about $300,000 each; more to retrofit older ones. ( And hence it'll never be done. ) That would also solve a problem that, say, arming the pilots would not. Anyone recall the crash attributed to one of the pilots deliberately putting the plane into a dive, while shouting "God is great!" or some such?

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

[Event Horizon]

Even though there are a lot of dissagreements about how to improve airline safety, I have to say that this is probably the best time to fly. I don't think I've ever seen security so good at the airports and airlines. It is probably the most safe time to fly than ever before.

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>Don't be deliberately obtuse, edew. Yes, death will "convince someone to stop their actions". If you intend to walk a bomb into a shopping center and blow yourself up and I shoot you in the parking lot---or before you leave your house---or as you try to purchase the explosives---you're pretty permanently stopped, aren't you?

I'm not talking about "convincing" anyone of anything. I'm talking about removing them from the earth, before they can do any ( or any further ) harm.

Airline safety---The other night I saw a news story about a solution that already exists. Apparently one can modify airliners so that in an emergency the air traffic control can switch off the cockpit control entirely and land the plane by remote control. Cost to fit new planes, about $300,000 each; more to retrofit older ones. ( And hence it'll never be done. ) That would also solve a problem that, say, arming the pilots would not. Anyone recall the crash attributed to one of the pilots deliberately putting the plane into a dive, while shouting "God is great!" or some such?

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]</STRONG>

So I guess we should applaud that a-hole in Arizona who shot the Sikh because *maybe* that Sikh might one day do some dastardly thing.

The trouble is, you're not allowed to stop someone by killing for their *intended* acts. Of course, it's done all the time, but still I personally don't approve of it.

[edew]

Originally posted by Stryder:
<STRONG>
Interesting coming from someone who is probably against the unchecked right to keep and bear arms.

</STRONG>

I personally abhor guns, do not own one, do not allow one in my house, and do not associate with those who are fanatical about them. That said, I have nothing against people owning them. The constitution -- currently -- gives people the right to bear arms, and as a libertarian/constitutionalist, I can't see how I can feel otherwise.

Should there be checks for those owning guns? Personally, I feel people owning guns should be checked in the same way that they're checked for owning a car, or a medical license, or any other item that may pose a safety issue.

Other than that, I have no problems with people owning guns. If they want to increase the odds of death or injury in their house, that's their choice. Same goes with smoking in bed and running with scissors.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>

The trouble is, you're not allowed to stop someone by killing for their *intended* acts. </STRONG>

Certainly you are. It's a well-established principle in law. The police needn't wait until someone carries out an "intended" murder, for example. For certain crimes, "Attempted" is all you need; and had a policeman been there when that goon was preparing to shoot that innocent Sikh gentleman I WOULD fully support his right to put the most final end imaginable to any future "attempts" by said goon.

However, I only advocate this strategy against those with clear backgrounds of this sort of rabid behaviour and clear evidence of intent. Some of those involved in the recent attacks would certainly have qualified. The Sikh you mention was distinguished by neither...

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>

Certainly you are. It's a well-established principle in law. The police needn't wait until someone carries out an "intended" murder, for example. For certain crimes, "Attempted" is all you need; and had a policeman been there when that goon was preparing to shoot that innocent Sikh gentleman I WOULD fully support his right to put the most final end imaginable to any future "attempts" by said goon.

However, I only advocate this strategy against those with clear backgrounds of this sort of rabid behaviour and clear evidence of intent. Some of those involved in the recent attacks would certainly have qualified. The Sikh you mention was distinguished by neither...</STRONG>

How about Amadou(sp?) Diallo? How about Rodney King? How about the Japanese exchange student who knocked on a door for trick-a-treat during Hallowe'en several years ago? There are literally hundreds of people who were killed because some person misinterpreted the *intent*. Me, I'd rather die than kill someone because I suspected the person intended to kill me. Of course, that doesn't imply that I'm gullible to get into tight situations.

I actually have been in several incidents where I could have been killed (by a person who might intend to deliberately kill me, if you like). All occurred while I lived in Philadelphia. In no case did I do anything stupid as to try to defend myself with aggressive tactics. Calm discussion, respect for myself and the other person put the situation into a more amiable atmosphere and eventually no physical injury resulted.

[Stryder]

"..Personally, I feel people owning guns should be checked in the same way that they're checked for owning a car,.."

Common anti-gun rhetoric and like most of it, it's a lie.

NO ONE in this country has EVER had to buy a license or register or undergo a background check for the purchase of an automobile.

We register cars for the privilege of driving them on millions of miles of specially made, federally and state funded roads and highways.

It is lawful and common practice to purchase cars without registration and park or drive them on private property.

Now, if you want to spend the trillions of dollars that have been spent to make driving easier on shooting ranges in every corner of every city, town and hamlet in the country, then I will gladly register my guns and subject myself to background checks to obtain the right to use them every day for free.

[edew]

Stryder, let's not go to a pro-gun/anti-gun argument here. There's plenty of lies from both sides, plenty of rhetoric from both sides.

[Stryder]

"..Me, I'd rather die than kill someone because I suspected the person intended to kill me.."

I guess that makes you a better target than me. Me, I'd rather kill someone else than die. Call me violent. Call me selfish. Just don't call me "The late Mr. Stryder."

Plenty of rhetoric on both sides of the 2nd amendment issue, true. But the lies only come from the side that is wrong.

As usual, a perfectly good arguement has boiled down into knitpicking of why we are doing the things we all know are necessary. And how far we should go to assure peace.

Military force will not be used for revenge, only justice. We will not bomb anyone who is not currently standing in the way of that justice, (ie. obstructing justice by interfering with the apprehension of a known fugitive.)

Racial profiling may be debatable, but no American citizens will be detained or ID'd or in any way mistreated by our government and any such mistreatment by it's citizens will be punished.

America will soon become complacent enough to start slipping away from the Constitution and back into the arms of liberals who seek to weaken our country from within. Bin Laden and his kind cannot stop the ponderous mechanism that is America. They will do what they can to hurt us, we will do what we can to stop them, and so it shall continue.
We will not let this act go unpunished. But we will not commit genocide or any other crimes to try to keep it from happening again.

Gun control on the other hand, might make a better topic for discussion!

[attila]

Stryder

You are one wacky dude. I'm a liberal. I own guns. Speaking as a liberal. I am not aware of this "conspiracy" you are going on about--news to me.We love our country as much as anybody else, maybe even more. I know we are more tolerant of the differences among "all" other Americans. The one thing we liberals really are against is the "Tyranny of the majority". A place where no dissent is allowed is an incubator for estremist views. Can you imagine this country if Jerry Falwell was president and rev. Roberts was VP? Shudder the thought. Anybody ever read " A handmaiden's tale"?......

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

There are current job openings for Federal Sky Marshalls. The job kind of sucks though; read the job description: "...Away from home ...limited time off ...On call 24 hours a day."

The government is of course instituting the use of sky marshalls along with increased ground security.

Due to the large number of flights and limited number of sky marshalls, I am guessing only the large aircrafts would get sky marshalls.

[attila]

Well, yeah, but. There is an up side. You might actually get a shot at taking down a bad guy and saving a few lives. Plus, you'll never have to "pay" for a bar drink for the rest of your life! If I were younger, I would consider the job. Imagine all the fencing you could do on your days off at so many clubs around the country....