8/10 Terrorist conspiracy

[Darth Rotor]

Surely you understand that threat status systems have been a standard part of military life for a very long time?

Sure, and that is where it should remain. The public "terror alert" presentations are explicitly aimed at providing the illusion that the government is "doing something about terrorism" and is aimed at heightening anxiety and fear. It is part of a propaganda campaign aimed at the American public.

Having a threat status for airlines simply reflects an acknowledgement that there is a serious and continuing threat to airlines.

And offers an excuse for all manner of pointless harassment that is a placebo, a gesture meant to sell the (false) message that the government can provide sucurity in an environment in which it not only can't, but has never been able to by those sorts of measures. The increased luggage screening after Locherbie, and the increased luggage screening since 9-11 are positive measures that make sense. Better control of cargo and baggage handling would be another place for process improvement.

You will notice that, in response to this recent hijacking plot, the British, with their "get on with it" approach, upgraded their own threat status to the highest possible.

Yes indeed, and I am as disappointed with the Government's fear mongering in London as I am with the crowd in Washington. I can't blame the government completely, however, as the media shills have amplified the cry far and wide.

I am pretty sure the US Constitution would have something to say about letting everyone but members of a particular religion carrying blades onto an aircraft.

Strawman, red herring, or just plain BS. A pocket knife is no problem against a pilot armed with a pistol. I once again point out that my mother's shoes are no threat to anyone, and neither are my nail clippers. Neither are manicure scissors.

The threat of a gun, or explosives is a relevant concern, as would be the threat of an aerosol can filled with Vx, Sarin, or another nerve agent.

The list of prohibted items ignores the fundamental problem, which is behavioral: sit there and take it like a good little sheep. The struggle against terrorists is a struggle against people who are at war with out entire way of life. That means everyone has a stake in this, not just the military, not just the cops. You can no longer afford to delegate your own safety en toto, you've got to participate. The folks in Flight 93 showed us all the way. The airline pilots who are (not all of them) wearing side arms are also a part of the way forward. Increased use of Air Marshalls is part of it. The sheep rising up and fighting for their lives will, or won't, be part of it, depending on whether or not any of them reach between their legs and find a set.

The next time you board an airline, for a flight, take an inventory of all items in your possession and on your person as you sit down. Which if them is a weapon you can use in close in fighting? How do you intend to use them? Some sonofabiscut may want to take over your flight, and I want to know why you'd just want to sit there and take it. You have the means, but do you have the will?

My carry-on bag always includes a bar of soap. I always wear socks. I always wear a belt with a buckle. I always carry a metal writing pen.

If you aren't approaching your own safety with a proactive frame of mind, since the 11th of September 2001, and given the global threat condition, then you and every other able bodied passenger who plays the sheep is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

What worries me is more that, far as I can tell, after 9/11 everyone went back to sleep.

Not everyone, good friend gumboot.

Cheers.

DR


-Andrew[/QUOTE]

 

[Nutcase]

My personal opinion is that this "war on terror" is indeed a war for resources. I do not believe that 911 was an "inside job", but rather a very well thought out plan executed by Osama Bin Laden and AQ. Having said that I do believe that 911 was/is the perfect excuse for the U.S. to go into Iraq, and eventually Iran to secure the "west's" position in regard to oil resources. Just to clarify I am not a 911 denier or an anti-semitee (in fact I'm jewish). Lastly I do believe that there is a clear cut Neo-Con aganda to "democratize" the middle east in order to seize the vast oil reserves there.

 

[Gravy]

He actually doesn't identify a location AT ALL.

And he uses "Osama bin Laden" in quotes purely as an example.

Basically his actual prediction was:

The US government is going to fake a terrorist attack so they can impose martial law, and they'll blame one of assorted "bad guys" manufactured by the CIA.

So really, he got it all wrong.

The government didn't fake it, they didn't impose martial law, and they didn't blame it on someone manufactured by the CIA.

Three strikes, you're out.

See? It's all a matter of interpretation.

-Andrew

Sorry I missed this discussion. I had looked into this last week because someone at Ground Zero made this "prediction" claim. You're absolutely right, gumboot.

 

[gumboot]

Sure, and that is where it should remain. The public "terror alert" presentations are explicitly aimed at providing the illusion that the government is "doing something about terrorism" and is aimed at heightening anxiety and fear. It is part of a propaganda campaign aimed at the American public.

I don't entirely agree. Certainly I think it can be used it this way. And it may be being used this way - I don't live in the US so I don't know.

But I do believe it serves a purpose.

There's no illusion about governments doing something about terrorism - I see ample evidence that they are. The British Government claims to have stopped four major terrorist plots since the London Bombings.

The problem for governments is the age-old balance of freedom and security. More security means less freedom. Most populations will give up temporary freedoms of a minor nature if they think it provides some long term substantial security benefit. What they won't do is give up their freedoms indefinately without a security benefit.

This is where the threat system comes in. First, it indicates the measures are temporary. When NZDF installations went to Ringfence Amber during the APEC summit in New Zealand, I couldn't have friends to visit me on the base where I lived, our cars were searched entering the base, there was razor wire everywhere, dogs, armed soldiers at the gate instead of security guards, etc. I simply could not get home without my ID card.

Things like that are find because everyone knows once the situation is over we'll return to Ringfence Black, the razor wire and armed soldiers will disappear, and my friends can visit again (actually, as a teenager I thought the whole thing was pretty cool, but nevermind...).

Same with these terrorist threat levels. The "normal" level at the moment in the US is an elevated level, and it means certain measures are in pace that impede on freedoms. People are okay with that, because they know when the threat level is lowered to "no threat" levels, all will be well again. Of course, we all know it's unlikely to ever go lower again, but people can rationalise the government's actions, instead of the government just cruising in and slapping some restrictions on everyone without warning.

The other thing is, when people do not have the threat visibly there in front of them, they switch off. On 9/11 everyone rated the threat of terrorism really high, because it was right there in everyone's face. But what about the years between 1993 and 2001? People forget about it. People go back to sleep. Having a threat level reminds people the threat still exists.

Yes indeed, and I am as disappointed with the Government's fear mongering in London as I am with the crowd in Washington. I can't blame the government completely, however, as the media shills have amplified the cry far and wide.

Are you saying the British Government were wrong in raising the threat level when they feared a back-up plot of terrorists that they weren't aware of?

Strawman, red herring, or just plain BS. A pocket knife is no problem against a pilot armed with a pistol.

So you're saying terrorists SHOULD be allowed to take knives onto planes? Frankly, I'd rather pilots kept their minds on flying the plane, not on taking pot-shots at hijackers and hoping not to penetrate the hull and cause depressurisation.

Certainly, I think there's some enormous overreations - nail clippers can't hurt, and neither can a nail file.

The list of prohibted items ignores the fundamental problem, which is behavioral: sit there and take it like a good little sheep.

I think this is one particular way in which September 11 has improved airline security dramatically. As more recent incidents have shown - people don't sit there and do nothing any more.

(To be fair to previous hijacking victims, given all previous hijackings, the best chance of survival was to shut up, sit down, and do exactly what the hijackers told you. And the crews were taught exactly the same thing).

The struggle against terrorists is a struggle against people who are at war with out entire way of life. That means everyone has a stake in this, not just the military, not just the cops. You can no longer afford to delegate your own safety en toto, you've got to participate.

This attitude is, of course, fundamental to democracy. Unfortuantely we forgot this principle about 23 centuries ago.

Not everyone, good friend gumboot.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's awake. I'd rather not wait for a full scale threat to western civilisation before waking up.

It's a bit depressing to constantly be called a war-mongerer. I can relate to how Churchill felt.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

My personal opinion is that this "war on terror" is indeed a war for resources.

Aren't they all?

-Andrew

 

[Darth Rotor]

The problem for governments is the age-old balance of freedom and security.

*Trots out the Ben Franklin quote along the lines of "those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."*

You saw that coming, I suspect.

The other thing is, when people do not have the threat visibly there in front of them, they switch off. On 9/11 everyone rated the threat of terrorism really high, because it was right there in everyone's face. But what about the years between 1993 and 2001? People forget about it. People go back to sleep. Having a threat level reminds people the threat still exists.

There's some truth in that.

So you're saying terrorists SHOULD be allowed to take knives onto planes?

No, and please don't deliberately misconstrue that yet again.

Frankly, I'd rather pilots kept their minds on flying the plane, not on taking pot-shots at hijackers and hoping not to penetrate the hull and cause depressurisation.

I'd rather remind all sheep that the pilot is, from engine start to engine shutdown, responsible for the safe conduct of the flight, his passengers, and his crew. Give him the tools to do the job. At altitude, it takes but one pilot to keep the plane headed in the right direction. Most, though not all, airline pilots I know were more than willing to fly armed, and still do. It adds risk, sure, but risk management is what flying is all about. Once hijackers with death in their eye are a factor, tis better to be prepared than not.

(To be fair to previous hijacking victims, given all previous hijackings, the best chance of survival was to shut up, sit down, and do exactly what the hijackers told you. And the crews were taught exactly the same thing).

A policy well known by the Al Q gang on 9-11. Bad policy, and a loophole to exploit, sheep to slaughter.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's awake. I'd rather not wait for a full scale threat to western civilisation before waking up.

Uh, it's there, but that is a different topic. It's called China.

It's a bit depressing to constantly be called a war-mongerer. I can relate to how Churchill felt.

Me too, and I am also fond of whiskey and cigars.

DR

 

[jon]

I'd say the US government should leave that decision to the Columbian government, if it pertains to matters on Columbian Turf. The Tamil guys seem to me to have a local, not global, interest behind their efforts.

*shrugs*

It's a cruel world out there.

DR

Even aside from ethical concerns (it's obviously not a good thing when large numbers of non-American civilians are getting killed by terrorists) I'd argue that there are 'pragmatic' reasons for the US to take a wider interest. In part because terrorist groups often share techniques, in part because the violence from this type of group can be unpredictable and there's always the possibility that it will move to new targets, and partly because it makes it harder for the US to ask other countries to take anti-terrorist measures if they turn a blind eye to (or arguably, with Plan Columbia, even assist) terrorist violence when they are not the target.

Actually, I'm very pleased by the British public response (at least what I know of it) to the recently blocked attacks. I'm sure time will tell whether the government was right to up the threat level, but at any rate the public response was far from hysterical - more along the lines of acknowledging that it's good that the attacks were stopped...and there were then lots of soundbites from passengers at airports, anything but panicked, complaining about delays to flights and limits to carry-on

 

[gumboot]

*Trots out the Ben Franklin quote along the lines of "those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."*

You saw that coming, I suspect.

Heh, yes, I did. I always wondered how someone like Franklin could be so stupid enough to say something so patently absurd, until I discovered he is frequently misquoted:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

(my bolding).

It should also be pointed out that it's not certain that Franklin actually wrote it.

From wikiquote:

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.

No, and please don't deliberately misconstrue that yet again.

Well, given that we don't know who are terrorists and who aren't, we can't allow anyone to take anything onto a plane unless we're willing to allow terrorists to take it on to a plane.

A policy well known by the Al Q gang on 9-11. Bad policy, and a loophole to exploit, sheep to slaughter.

It can only be exploited once.

-Andrew

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Heh, yes, I did. I always wondered how someone like Franklin could be so stupid enough to say something so patently absurd, until I discovered he is frequently misquoted:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

(my bolding).

It should also be pointed out that it's not certain that Franklin actually wrote it.

From wikiquote:






Well, given that we don't know who are terrorists and who aren't, we can't allow anyone to take anything onto a plane unless we're willing to allow terrorists to take it on to a plane.




It can only be exploited once.

-Andrew

Not to be a wet blanket; but wouldn't it be better to split this and have the split thread over in Politics?

 

[gumboot]

Not to be a wet blanket; but wouldn't it be better to split this and have the split thread over in Politics?

You're right, this is getting off topic.

I'm happy to drop it and return to the topic at hand...

-Andrew

 

[Darth Rotor]

Heh, yes, I did. I always wondered how someone like Franklin could be so stupid enough to say something so patently absurd, until I discovered he is frequently misquoted:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

(my bolding).

It should also be pointed out that it's not certain that Franklin actually wrote it.

From wikiquote:






Well, given that we don't know who are terrorists and who aren't, we can't allow anyone to take anything onto a plane unless we're willing to allow terrorists to take it on to a plane.

It can only be exploited once.

-Andrew

Any loophole can be exploited until it is closed. The closure was the implementation of armed pilots and more Air Marshalls, IMO. (And stronger cockpit doors, I am led to understand.)

Richard Reed almost pulled it off, but in a different manner.

DR

 

[T.A.M.]

Darth Rotor;

I hope I misunderstood your comment earlier. Were you stating that in your opinion, Canadians are "Born Losers".

I for one am Canadian, and I am not a "Born Loser". I also know that many of th e top posters at this site are Canadian, including some that alot of people here hold in very high regard wrt the "Debunking" movement, if that is what it would be called.

I hope we misunderstood your comments, and that you really don't think that all Canadians are losers do you.

Especially the Canadian troops that have fought for the Americans, in Afghanistan, so that the US Gi's could go fight in Iraq. Are those Canadians losers.

I hope we misunderstood.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor;

I hope I misunderstood your comment earlier. Were you stating that in your opinion, Canadians are "Born Losers".

I for one am Canadian, and I am not a "Born Loser". I also know that many of th e top posters at this site are Canadian, including some that alot of people here hold in very high regard wrt the "Debunking" movement, if that is what it would be called.

I hope we misunderstood your comments, and that you really don't think that all Canadians are losers do you.

Especially the Canadian troops that have fought for the Americans, in Afghanistan, so that the US Gi's could go fight in Iraq. Are those Canadians losers.

I hope we misunderstood.

Good Sir T.A.M. (any chance you are related to Simon and River?)

Who is this "we," paleface?

The poster at whom I tossed that barb made a big deal about being a French Canadian, a Canadien, after I remarked in a jest about 'True Canadian' as a play on words based on "True Scotsman." With that opening, I tossed a barb at him that fits -- see the Wolfe Montcalm piece of the remark -- that it makes him a born loser, which was semantically a poor needle. Rather, it makes the much vaunted heritage of the Quebecois that of losers.

In simpler terms, I was being a jerk.

I served with Canadians in a variety of my military assignments, and have nothing but good things to say for them, professionally, even the Canadians of Froggy ancestry. The beer speaks for itself.

I will apologize on behalf of America (though I have neither the authority nor the power to do so) for the nefarious use of a hottie-baited-theft-conspiracy that deprived you Canadians of your national treasure, The Great One, if it will make you feel better.

Remain affronted, or not, as best suits your judgment. Or call in the lynch mob, pitchforks and torches held on high.

With warmest regards from the Lower Forty Eight (and I do mean warmest, it's bloody hot down here!)

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Darth Rotor has a peculiar sense of humour. I am just starting to get it

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Frankly, I'd rather pilots kept their minds on flying the plane, not on taking pot-shots at hijackers and hoping not to penetrate the hull and cause depressurisation.

They tackled this one on Mythbusters.

They sealed a discarded aircraft fuselage, pressurized it well above sea level pressure and started shooting holes in it with a handgun. What they found was that a handfull of handgun slugs will not cause an explosive depressurization like in the movies with hurricane force winds tearing up the aircraft interior.

Eventually they gave up (in classic Mythbusters fashion), strapped a brick of C4 to the window and blew the #$%& outta the plane.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I will apologize on behalf of America (though I have neither the authority nor the power to do so) for the nefarious use of a hottie-baited-theft-conspiracy that deprived you Canadians of your national treasure, The Great One, if it will make you feel better.

Aside from a couple years in Denver Colorado, I've lived my entire life in Edmonton Alberta. When news of the Gretzky sale came through, there was a greater feeling here that then Oilers owner Peter Pocklington was to blame than anyone else.