I Don't Believe This!

[Timebuilder]

I agree that we should use racial profiling. But lets not forget who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.

I'm glad you mentioned that.

The people that we know about, McVeigh and his friends, were not themselves representative of a large group of white Americans of Irish descent who are bent on the destruction of the United States. If they were, I'd be all for keeping them off airplanes.

You might want to read this, and ponder if McVeigh had some help from people who DEFINATELY want to destroy the US:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22122

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Timebuilder

I'm not sure if I understand your point. This pilot's father could be in contact with Iraqi nationals too for all we know. Just because you don't LOOK suspect, doesn't mean you aren't. Now, if the father is being escorted by someone with a SIDA including his son, then that should be OK. There shouldn't be any difference between the pilot and the CP's secretary.

 

[Timebuilder]

I just want to point out that the example of OKC, which is often given as a response to the idea of profiling the 9-11 hijackers, may actually contain a relationship between McVeigh and Al-Queda.

Also, there is no worldwide organization exclusively made up of people from the gender, religious, and ethnic backgrounds of McVeigh and Nichols who wish to bring destruction to the US.

To date, we have a very clear picture of which groups are involved with this kind of activity. We are simply refusing to put that information to use in our airports. Instead, we are driving every little old lady, former senator, CMH honoree, and discretionary traveller from our sagging industry.

What folly.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

I may have to add that to my signature, it's great. Can I credit it to you, or did it come from someone else?

regards,
8N

Glad you like the quote enigma. I read it a few years ago in a Wall Street Journal commentary. Your Ben Franklin quote is right on the money and is certainly applicable to today's society.

 

[TXCAP4228]

TXCAP,

I think the point that many of us are trying to make by way of humor is being missed.

I for one would be behind the TSA if any of the measures they have implemented thusfar actually did anything to improve safety.

So far, all I have seen is an increase in the taxes imposed on an already over-taxed industry. The creation of yet another over-funded beauracracy. The federalization and resultant cost expansion of previously minimum wage workforce. Not to mention an exponential increase in hassle factor for the very passengers we need to return to help save the industry.

The net return thus far has been to have Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, elderly grandmothers, 18 month old babies, and flight crews being strip searched at security checkpoints, and the arrest of a couple of moron pilots who showed up to work reeking of booze.

Meanwhile, the agency tasked with ensuring our safety goes out of their way not to check the people who happen to "fit the profile" of those out to do us harm for fear of being accused of racial profiling.

Absurd.

As I said, I am all for increasing security. I will readily give up certain freedom if the sacrifice of those freedoms means a real increase in security. What I do not support is the spending of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and the additional burden on our industry for a feel-good, smoke and mirror dog and pony show.

As far as the ticketed passenger in the terminal debacle, I have to quote the NRA:

If you make it crime to have a gun, than only the criminals will have guns.

Same logic. Keeping innocent people out of terminals does nothing. The bad guys will still get in if they really want to.

I see two distinct issues in Typhoon's lament:
1) The TSA is imposing ridiculous, overburdening and probably ineffective restrictions on all of us.
2) These restrictions should be laid at the feet of the current President and his administration.

I am not a big fan of the TSA either, and I think they're going WAY overboard. For crying out loud I am a business traveler and I sometimes have to deshoe and deshirt to get through security. Of course I thinks its ridiculous.

I also agree with the argument that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns.

However, my reply is:

1) These restrictions happen because the public wants to feel secure and all politicians (not just the president) want to show they're doing something.
2) W. has been criticized time and time again for not doing enough to protect us - by most of the leaders of Typhoon's political party of record - and now people are saying he is going overboard. You can't have it both ways. The truth is rarely an extreme, and any president would be in the same position as he is post 9-11. I think Typhoon's comment is disingenuous - at least a little bit - for that reason.
3) Memebrs of BOTH parties approved of the TSA and supported it legislatively. Go back and review the congressional record.

4) Finally, W. and his cabinet did not atack America, terrorists did. If anyone is to blame, let's blame the terrorists.

We need to accept the reality that the entire world changed as a result of 9-11 and its unlikely to EVER go back to the way it was.


What we ought to do as pilots and as good citizens is make sure our voice is heard. I reccommend joining AOPA as a start. I also suggest writing your congressmen.

I don't disagree with the premise that the TSA has gone overboard, but I think I am being a little more objective in my placing the blame.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hear, hear!

 

[Typhoon1244]

W. has been criticized time and time again for not doing enough to protect us--by most of the leaders of Typhoon's political party of record--and now people are saying he is going overboard. You can't have it both ways. The truth is rarely an extreme, and any president would be in the same position as he is post 9-11. I think Typhoon's comment is disingenuous--at least a little bit--for that reason. Memebrs of BOTH parties approved of the TSA and supported it legislatively. Go back and review the congressional record.

I'm very disappointed, TXCAP.

First of all, I'm neither a registered Republican or Democrat, so I'm not sure how you established my "party of record." My general feeling is that Republicans and greedy and Democrats are foolish, but they somehow balance each other.

My comment is disingenuous, huh? Go back and read my post. After a careful review, you'll see that nowhere did I blame George II for the attack, nor did I blame him for failing to anticipate it. There's no way anyone could have anticipated it! But I do blame him and his administration for their failure to react appropriately in the post-9/11 world...for example, failure to profile, regardless of how the left squawks about it. If the President is not responsible for the conduct of his administration, who is?

(I have noticed that the same people who try to shield George II from blame for anything are usually the same ones who blame Slick Willie for everything from the Vietnam War to athlete's foot.)

Yes, you're right, congressmen from both parties did support the TSA. What bloody difference does that make? We're talking about the same group of people who tried to save the day that morning by singing songs on the Capitol steps.

John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, and Tom Ridge are running the domestic war on terrorism on behalf of George W. Bush. If they and their advisors are commiting serious errors, who do we blame, John Kerry? Tom Daschle?

The blame for the 9/11 attack belongs to Osama bin Laden and nineteen dead men.

The blame for the resluting Barney Fife security belongs to those men who forcing the nation to fight a "War on Terror" with one arm tied behind its back.

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, let's see.

A great many powerful Democrats spoke out against the idea of profiling, along with some Republicans. Both parties feared the damage that a support for profiling would do to their political futures.

Among Democrats, support for profiling would cause them to lose their place in their party, a party of ACLU members and trial lawyers, not to mention unions of teachers and government employees. This party of political correctness and symbolism over substance was completely at odds with itself when considering making the obvious sources of credible threats the focus of examination and scrutiny in America.

For Republicans, focusing on any group or groups would bring out the usual suspects: the Schumers, the Carvilles, the Pelosis, all calling the Republican position bigoted, racist, narrowminded, maybe even "white supremacist" in nature.

Since we are a country of many kinds of people, there is an innate fear that "we are next" in this situation. There is a great conflict in that we try to be a country of total freedom, yet that is impossible for humans because so many, particularly terrorists, will take advantage of that freedom.

Profiling is, when done correctly, almost always effective. Just ask the NJ State police. They found it was a farce to stop middle aged white people driving late model cars when looking for drug traffic on route 95 crossing into New Jersey. When they stoped young Hispanic and Black men driving overloaded older cars, the number of drug arrests skyrocketed. Amazingly, they were forced to stop this very effective targeting of a group that produced consistent and predictable arrest results. What made the profiling effective? Common sense. In the words of a notorious gangster, banks were robbed "because that's where the money is".

So, until we as a nation, not as Democrats or Republicans, agree to use profiling as the most effective weapon in our arsenal of security, we'll be checking those diapers, grannys, and retired senators every day, and wondering what happened to our guts.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I'm very disappointed, TXCAP.

First of all, I'm neither a registered Republican or Democrat, so I'm not sure how you established my "party of record." My general feeling is that Republicans and greedy and Democrats are foolish, but they somehow balance each other.

My comment is disingenuous, huh? Go back and read my post. After a careful review, you'll see that nowhere did I blame George II for the attack, nor did I blame him for failing to anticipate it. There's no way anyone could have anticipated it! But I do blame him and his administration for their failure to react appropriately in the post-9/11 world...for example, failure to profile, regardless of how the left squawks about it. If the President is not responsible for the conduct of his administration, who is?

On the "party of record" comment, I did in fact know from prior conversations that you claim no affiliation so I applogize for lumping into one side. This is my bad.

My point about Bush being blamed for the attack or for not preventing it is that one side of the political spectrum - the side you generally take on this particular issue - criticizes the president frequently for not doing enough. Many vocal members of the political left in America have even blamed him for letting the attack happen. My intention was not to say that you were blaming him, only that many people who share your opinions of the TSA do blame him. Which gets us to the d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't problem.

Further, anything that you would propose as a more appropriate reaction in a post 9/11 world is absolutely going to be criticized as either draconian or woefully insufficient by somebody.

You can't please everybody all the time. Leaders make decisions. They act. "W" has done that. Compared to America's reaction to the 5 previous terror attacks against us under the prior President, I'd say dubya's solution is about a thousand times better.

Humbly submitted. I didn't mean to offend you, Typhoon.

 

[Typhoon1244]

In case nobody reads history nor watched Hitler on CBS tonight: about thirty days after Adolph Hitler became Chancellor, the German Reichstag burned. Historians still disagree about who set the fire--there are well-founded suspicions that it was the Nazis themselves--but Hitler's administration blamed Communist terrorists.

As a result, Hitler announced that certain civil liberties would have to be curtailed to meet the emergency.

Sound familiar, Mister Ashcroft?

Who were Hitler's strongmen at the time? The "S.A."

Does that sound familiar? Like maybe T...S.A.?

See, I knew if we looked carefully enough, the truth would appear! (I wonder if you could get through airport security faster with a copy of Mein Kampf under your arm...)

 

[sf3boy]

If we are going to blame Bush and his administation for the new laws and policies at the airports today and not the terrorists that actually made the changes necessary, I would like to toss Mr. Clinton's name in the ring to share some of this blame. Why did we not get rid of Bin Laden after the 93 attack? Anyone? I think Clinton failed, just as some of us on here have said Bush and Ashcroft failed.

 

[Timebuilder]

As a result, Hitler announced that certain civil liberties would have to be curtailed to meet the emergency.

I'm not convinced that my inability to watch airplanes from the end of the concourse or carry a nail file onto an aircraft are civil liberties that even begin to approach the steps taken by the third reich for their "security". In fact the liberties that we did give up here in America for the purpose of defeating Hitler during WWII went far beyond what we have given up in our fight against terror today.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I'm not convinced that my inability to watch airplanes from the end of the concourse or carry a nail file onto an aircraft are civil liberties that even begin to approach the steps taken by the third reich for their "security."

I assumed that everyone would take my Third Reich post for what it was, a joke. I guess the "" didn't give it away.

I just liked the SA/TSA bit...

 

[Typhoon1244]

If we are going to blame Bush and his administation for the new laws and policies at the airports today and not the terrorists that actually made the changes necessary, I would like to toss Mr. Clinton's name in the ring to share some of this blame.

Why stop there? It was our military response to the 1990-91 Gulf War that put the burr up bin Laden's tailpipe in the first place. And it was the Middle East poilcies of Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., that precipitated the Gulf War. Distantly, I grant you...but if we'd gotten out of there in the first place, September 11th would be just another day on the calendar.

I don't blame George II for the 9/11 attacks. That'd be a pretty silly thing to do. But do I think the President and his administration have made American security a laughingstock? Yes, I do. They had a tough job, one I wouldn't wish on anyone. They just blew it, that's all. Maybe the next White House will do better, even if it's still George II with a new cabinet. Maybe this country will stop whining about "profiling" so that the TSA can actually get some work done.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ah.

I didn't realize the "" applied to the entire concept, rather than the part about having Mein Kampf under the arm.

My bad!!

 

[Timebuilder]

Maybe this country will stop whining about "profiling" so that the TSA can actually get some work done.

Remember the line from the Star Trek movie about the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China"? It's a reference to the fact that only a political figure who had been so anti-communist could make a gesture of diplomacy such as a visit to China without being labled as a communist sympathizer.

Similarly, a shift to profiling the dangerous terrorist element in our security plans would have to be led by those who are usually the most anti-profiling in American politics.

And sadly, that isn't about to happen.

 

[JediNein]

If we're going back in time to find blame, let's just start with George Washington and that whole bunch.

How dare anyone want freedom from prosecution, no taxes, and awesome business opportunities?

How dare we want to live FREE?

True FREEDOM is a concept most of the world does not understand, and to a point, may not be able to understand.

At Iraq right now, these people, who were grusomely murdered for dissenting, overnight have to choose a government.

How in the h*** do you handle freedom of choice when for the last 400+ years you were killed for having an opinion?

And your religion still says that you may not possess an opinion?

So, us Americans (and Canadians and Brits and Aussies) have been living in freedom for centuries, and that is really pissing a lot of these terrorists types off. With freedom and NO FEAR, the terrorists have no power.

How do you make a 2 year old have a temper trantrum? You tell them they can't have their way?

How do you make a terrorist have a temper tantrum? You tell them they can't have their way?

So what have we (USA/CAN/AUS/UK) been telling these Middle Eastern power mongers for the last 300 or so years?

And we are *really* pissing 'em by getting rid of our dependence on their oil, their last power they have over us.

The blame is theirs.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[TXCAP4228]

Remember the line from the Star Trek movie about the old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China"? It's a reference to the fact that only a political figure who had been so anti-communist could make a gesture of diplomacy such as a visit to China without being labled as a communist sympathizer.

Similarly, a shift to profiling the dangerous terrorist element in our security plans would have to be led by those who are usually the most anti-profiling in American politics.

And sadly, that isn't about to happen.

Great point Timebuilder. I hope your phone is ringing off the hook, by the way.


from Typhoon1244:

Why stop there? It was our military response to the 1990-91 Gulf War that put the burr up bin Laden's tailpipe in the first place. And it was the Middle East poilcies of Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., that precipitated the Gulf War. Distantly, I grant you...but if we'd gotten out of there in the first place, September 11th would be just another day on the calendar.

Typhoon, the truth about the Middle East is that this part of the world (and its culture and its religion) has a history of supporting violence and terrorism. To argue that by the United States withdrawing from the region would protect us is like saying that if my home is on fire maybe I will be safe if I just close my eyes and do nothing.

As early as Thomas Jefferson's presidency the United States encountered the theocracies of North Africa and their support of the barbary pirates.

The middle east, and the nation states we find there, have been in the terror business for longer than the United States has existed. We only put ourselves at greater risk by pretending not to watch.

 

[Typhoon1244]

To argue that by the United States withdrawing from the region would protect us is like saying that if my home is on fire maybe I will be safe if I just close my eyes and do nothing.

Really bad analogy. Here's a better one:

Suppose you had a neighbor whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours. (Say he's a gay athiest who voted for Al Gore. ) Furthermore, this neighbor is much bigger and stronger than you are, and he regularly comes into your home to tell you how to run your household.

How long would you put up with that before you finally decided to crash a 767 into his house?

If we left the place alone, they'd spend all their time killing each other instead of us. That means no more buying Saudi oil, no more support for Israel, and very little military presence in the region.

These things'll probably never happen, and I'm sorry I don't have any more constructive ideas about how to deal with the Middle East. As long as we have ties to that region, we're going to be attacked by terrorists. We're just going to have to come to grips with that and prevent what attacks we can.

 

[Timebuilder]

ALL good people can expect to be continually attacked by evil. This is only one aspect of evil: those who are clearly in the wrong, but blinded by it, attacking those who are in the right, us, for our freedom and lifestyle.

Withdrawing from the mideast would not only fail to change that, but we would be removing the only moderating force against evil in that region, allowing the evil to grow ever stronger.

We are better off if we stand and fight, rather than turn tail and run.

 

[Typhoon1244]

We are better off if we stand and fight, rather than turn tail and run.

Stand and fight who? How do you "stand and fight" with a terrorist who fights from the shadows? A terrorist's weapons are the ideas in his head. As long as those exist, stopping terrorism is nearly impossible. (Maybe we should just cauterize the entire region.)

Besides, I'm not talking about "turning tail." I'm talking about, among other things, positioning our nation so that we can tell the Saudi's what to do with their oil. Like it or not, they need us! And I'll bet they'd put a stop to M.E. terrorism really quick if they thought we weren't going to buy their oil anymore.

Withdrawing from the mideast...we would be removing the only moderating force against evil in that region, allowing the evil to grow ever stronger.

Nobody was saying that when we were selling arms to Saddam.

There's evil all over the world. How come all I ever hear about is Iraq and North Korea? What about Nicaragua? Ethiopia? The Congo? Or how about Las Vegas, Miami, and Los Angelas?

 

[Timebuilder]

Stand and fight who? How do you "stand and fight" with a terrorist who fights from the shadows? A terrorist's weapons are the ideas in his head. As long as those exist, stopping terrorism is nearly impossible.

I never said that we could stop terrorism. We can however, resist it.

Telling the Saudis what they can do with their oil is a great idea. Now, we have to convince several thousand Sierra Club types that it's a good idea to pump our own oil, and be willing to do so where we find it.

Nobody was saying that when we were selling arms to Saddam.

Not really. We were choosing the least of two evils at that time. Sometimes, that's the only choice you have. In the alternative, someone else was standing in line ready to sell what we would not. The evidence after the recent war suggests that several others did just that.

There's evil all over the world.

Absolutely. The places you hear about are the ones with the most potential to hurt us at this time. We can't be everywhere, so we must make reasoned decisions about where we can be most effective. While this isn't easy, it is wise.

 

[JediNein]

Or how about Las Vegas, Miami, and Los Angelas?

We just had a bunch of morticians hold a protest against violence in LA.

Their reward? Three shootings of teenagers that night instead of the usual two.

The only way the evil of LA will go away is for the next big one to knock us all into the ocean.

Ahhh, it is fun while it lasts...


Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[Typhoon1244]

We just had a bunch of morticians hold a protest against violence in LA. Their reward? Three shootings of teenagers that night instead of the usual two. The only way the evil of LA will go away is for the next big one to knock us all into the ocean.

This is actually a big part of my argument. Our nation is willing to go halfway around the world to step on a tyrant...well, certain tyrants, anyway. Meanwhile, we can't stop our own priests from molesting children.

Don't we need to get our own house in order before (or at least while) we try to fix everybody elses?

Automobile accidents in the U.S. kill more people each week than Saddam did in a typical month. I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Road Safety."

Twenty months after 9-11-02, our borders are as porus as ever. I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Border Security." Well, not counting Pat Buchanan. (That's the one thing I agree with ol' Pat about!) Priorities: lets make sure terrorists can't get into our country, then let's hit them where they live.

 

[Timebuilder]

Don't we need to get our own house in order before (or at least while) we try to fix everybody elses?

Sadly, many of the problems we have are a result of freedom. In a free society, people often make what we consider to be "bad" choices. Others will defend the fact that those choices are "bad" as being irrelevant. Second, how would we determine when we had done enough within the constructs of our nation to allow us to reach out and circumvent the actions against us, such as Al-queda?

We have been forced, in a very real sense, to reach out from our own confines to capture and neutralize those who are plotting to come here and hurt us.

I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Road Safety."

I've been hearning those messages my whole life, starting with "buckle up for safety", Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, and "mothers against drunk driving".

I haven't heard anyone declare a "War on Border Security."

I'm with you there. I'll go to Arizona and help build the wall when we decide to have the guts to do it. Maybe the better idea is to annex Mexico and clean house...

 

[TXCAP4228]

Really bad analogy.

No its not. See below.

Here's a better one:

Suppose you had a neighbor whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours. (Say he's a gay athiest who voted for Al Gore. ) Furthermore, this neighbor is much bigger and stronger than you are, and he regularly comes into your home to tell you how to run your household.

To really be my opposite he'd couldn't be an atheist... but that's another thread.

Aside from that your analogy falls from the beginning. The United States does not regulalry go into people's homes. On 9-11-01 WE WERE NOT ANYWHERE THAT WE WERE NOT INVITED.

How long would you put up with that before you finally decided to crash a 767 into his house?

If we left the place alone, they'd spend all their time killing each other instead of us. That means no more buying Saudi oil, no more support for Israel, and very little military presence in the region.

1) I would not fly an airplane into anyone's house, regardless of disagreements I have with them. I contend that while there may be the occasional Tim McVeigh in America, we as a nation and as a people will absolutely not be inclined to perpetrate acts of violence and terror on innocent people. Religious fanatics in the Middle East ARE inclined to do so.
2) No one in the world Trade Center Towers was in the Middle East uninvited - AND HAD NEVER BEEN TO THE MIDDLE EAST UNINVITED - they were in the United States. Your analogy is proven wrong on a second point.
3) The terrorists did not attack people who were harming them, they attacked symbols that to the terrorists represented everything that they hate about America - wealth, freedom, openess, oportunity. Listen to the tape of Bin Laden talking about it. Your analogy is proven wrong on a third point.
4) In 1800 we were definitely not engaged in that part of the world, and the barbary pirates attacked us. Typhoon, history proves you wrong.

These things'll probably never happen, and I'm sorry I don't have any more constructive ideas about how to deal with the Middle East. As long as we have ties to that region, we're going to be attacked by terrorists. We're just going to have to come to grips with that and prevent what attacks we can.

We will be attacked by terrorists because they despise the freedom and tollerance that they see in the western world. We will be attacked by terrorists even if we are not involved in the Middle East. If we disengage in our foreign policy, we will only expose ourselves to great risk.


You can't burry your head in the sand and pretend the world will love you because you aren't hurting anyone. History shows time and time again that you are wrong on this one.

 

[cessna_driver2]

Re: Re: No poopin'?

Didn't I hear something once about "the buck stops here?" Are you suggesting that the President has no influence over his Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security?

Osama and his lackeys may have perpetrated the 9/11 disaster, but our ineffective leaders didn't have to respond to it the way they did. George, John, and Tom gave the terrorists exactly what the wanted.

I agree. I wish I knew who said this quote (I hope a I quote it correctly as well.) "The first thing a scared people will give up is their freedoms"

I honestly believe there is a better way to be secure. Give me time. I thinking on it

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Re: Re: Re: No poopin'?

I agree. I wish I knew who said this quote (I hope a I quote it correctly as well.) "The first thing a scared people will give up is their freedoms"

I honestly believe there is a better way to be secure. Give me time. I thinking on it

Yes, we seem to be allowing GWB, John, and Tom an unchecked run with our rights and constitution. For example, recently the guberment has blessed themselves to have full access to your medical records. Personally, I cannot think of a more strategic move in the name of security than having access to innocent Americans medical records. The guberment also annointed themselves to have full access to your IP provider to see what you've been up to on your computer. Granted some of this makes sense but what ever happened to probable cause? If this were slick Willie, King Hillary, and Janet all the alleged conservatives would be hollering.
Instead of the guberment serving the people we are now servants of the guberment.

 

[Typhoon1244]

You can't burry your head in the sand and pretend the world will love you because you aren't hurting anyone. History shows time and time again that you are wrong on this one.

Good lord. It's like you're not really reading anything I'm posting.

Nobody's talking about burying our heads in the sand. I'm talking about ending our dependence on the Middle East! (Obliquely, I'm also talking about ending Israel's dependence on us.)

So I'm wrong, huh? Okay. Your way (continued U.S. intervention in M.E. affairs) hasn't been working for the last fifty years. All it's done is fueled the hatred of the bin Ladens of the world.

So what do we do?

 

[Long Time Gone]

And to think that this thread started because someone wanted to take his Dad into the airport...

While trying to jumpseat out of MCO today, I actually had a dumb*ss from TSA jump in my face because I didn't have a boarding pass. I explained to him that I am jumpseating and don't require one (I was not in uniform and of course had my ID). He told me to back to the ticket counter and get a boarding pass. I told him that it wasn't required and walked past him to the detector. I then talked to the GSC about the incident, and was told that I was right and the TSA was wrong. These idiots have no idea what they are doing.