If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway
if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by
New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and
money with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety? I'm sure the NYPD
would mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who
refuses the search. Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags
who want to destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political
correctness" hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to
combat terrorism. Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
airplane?? Aaargh!
Rant off
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who
>>>*do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the
>>>imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?
>>
>>Why would they search "old white ladies"? My point exactly. It's a waste
>>of time and resources. I can't imagine why you'd pick that argument with
>>me, of all people, as I've already stated that I think it's a useless
>>tactic. and expensive.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> OK, I'll tell you, rather than clutter this thread with 300 messages before
> we get to the point. You said certain people will whine about racial
> profiling. Solution: Even if they're being sarcastic, and privately shaking
> their heads later, the NYPD can honestly say "No...we're searching little
> old white ladies, too". It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
> their critics.
>
> Simple, yes?
>
>
I'll stop LONG before we get to 300...
An article on Google news reminded me of this: we are such a
running-scared government that we have to spend more money to feed the
scum bags at GitMo than other prisoners because they "need" a special
diet!!! SCREW their special dietary needs! Feed them, but don't spend
additional funds to provide a diet that keeps the protesters happy!
Dave
David wrote:
> If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway
> if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by
> New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
> declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
> who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
No, merely followed to his next terrorist club meeting. :-)
> Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and
> money with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety?
No matter how futile the effort is, the public wants to see its
government doing something.
> I'm sure the NYPD
> would mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who
> refuses the search.
Yes, there are such issues. Much of the press coverage of this plan
focuses on how random and racially neutral the process is going to be.
I don't believe any of that. For every white grandma searched, there
will be dozens of young Arabic males.
> Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags
> who want to destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political
> correctness" hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to
> combat terrorism. Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
> airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
> airplane?? Aaargh!
You arghed before finishing your presentation. What "meaningful and
more cost effective ways" do you advocate?
David wrote:
> Dhakala wrote:
>
> >
> > David wrote:
> >
> >>If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway
> >>if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by
> >>New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
> >>declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
> >>who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
> >
> >
> > No, merely followed to his next terrorist club meeting. :-)
>
> They won't follow everyone home who refuses to be searched. No manpower
> and totally impractical.
You really think a lot of innocent people will refuse to be searched,
preferring to miss their bus or train to work? This is America, where
money comes before liberty.
> > No matter how futile the effort is, the public wants to see its
> > government doing something.
>
> Actually, I think the public wants EFFECTIVE measures implemented,
> rather than token photo ops.
Well, we'd all love to see effective measures... as long as they don't
slow down our commutes. Have you any examples of such measures?
> We'll get to pay higher airfares as soon as all the airliners are
> equipped with anti-missle measures. And some of us will die during
> future terror operations. Yet we still have morons who are bitching
> about the detainees at Gitmo. go figure...
I figure those bitching about detainee abuse are the ones who most
highly value the things for which our troops are fighting.
> And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like
> finger-nail clippers??
Another of life's imponderables.
> I wanna go back to the good ole days of the Cold War.
OK, go duck under your desk and cover your head.
David wrote:
> Dhakala wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>I wanna go back to the good ole days of the Cold War.
> >
> >
> > OK, go duck under your desk and cover your head.
> >
> Nah, I'm gonna stay in my bomb shelter instead. I remodeled it recently
> to include cable TV and internet access. :)
While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
terrorists cheaply.
David wrote:
> Dhakala wrote:
>
> >
> > While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
> > terrorists cheaply.
> >
> CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so
> ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark.
> Negative profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I
> mean by "negative" profiling...
It means targeting people based on their appearance. Cops do it all the
time to good effect. Searching grannies is just a nod to the civil
rights activists.
As for surveillance cameras, they are creeping into U. S. society quite
rapidly. All of the park-n-ride lots here in Denver have them,
ostensibly to deter thieves. And I don't know what those traffic-light
cameras are filming when they're not catching light-runners. :-)
The Brits seem to have taken off their gloves. I see today they ran
down a bombing suspect and shot him five times in the head - to avoid
setting off any explosives that may have been wired to his body. I
presume somebody got a good look at the wires before the guns came out.
David wrote:
> ...
> Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
> airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
> airplane?? Aaargh!
>
This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
meet existing profiles.
In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
--
FF
David wrote:
>
>
> For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
> don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
> terrorist.
You advocate the approach that allowed the bomb aboard the flight
that exploded over Lockerbie. No need to search the luggage
belonging to a young European Woman.
--
FF
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Doug Kanter wrote:
> >
> >> What purpose is served by searching a few people who are absolutely,
> >> positively NOT terrorists? Hint: There *is* a purpose.
> > Not when the public is free to reject the search and leave the area. DOH!
> >
> > Dave
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who
> *do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the
> imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?
If they are not searched, then they are the ones who will be used
to carry bombs.
Pretty obvious, isn't it?
Been done twice recently too, only they were younger.
--
FF
Dhakala wrote:
> ...
> It means targeting people based on their appearance. Cops do it all the
> time to good effect. ...
Can you show that it is really being done to 'good effect'?
I am reminded of the LA paid police informant who admitted he
was giving police random addresses. He was considered 'reliable'
because police found illegal drugs or unregistered guns at
more than a quarter of the locations he gave them.
Makes you sort of wonder if there aren't multiple motives
on the part of officials who want to search commuters.
One of the problems noted with the racist 'drug courier' profile
used by the NJ State Police was that it included African
American as part of the profile despite the actual statistics
that showed African Americans to be under represented (less
common that amoung the general population) amoung drug couriers.
It seems the authors of the profile hadn't relied on any factual
information they just wrote the profile up based on what they
_knew_.
--
FF
David wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> >
> > I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because it was
> > (and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again. You're
> > hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar with the
> > word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
> >
> >
> point taken. THEN you follow with a snide comment that I may not
> understand the word germane. My, my. Can we stay on topic?
>
> Dave
Not all that bad an idea. Shall we try---gasp!--woodworking?
David wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > David wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
> >>don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
> >>terrorist.
> >
> >
> > You advocate the approach that allowed the bomb aboard the flight
> > that exploded over Lockerbie. No need to search the luggage
> > belonging to a young European Woman.
> >
> Ever heard of a bomb sniffing machine such as the one I watched my
> luggage go through at the airport last week???
So why not sniff the passengers for bombs?
> Police frisking
> people at random and then letting those who refuse is a total waste of
> time.
Agreed.
> IF the police would detain anyone who refused, that would be a
> different story.
Agreed. If police are allowed to detain people for refusing to be
searched then the story is that we are no longer a free people.
--
FF
David wrote:
> BobS wrote:
>
> > Plenty of other places in the newsgroups for this diatribe. Take it
> > someplace else next time. Just because you say OT does not make it okay to
> > post your bitching here.
> >
> > This is rec.woodworking - the bullshit is in the other newsgroups for your
> > reading pleasure.
> >
> > Bob S.
> >
> >
> >
> And you are intruding into a clearly marked OT thread. so are you more
> right
Yes. There is a reason _why_ Usenet is divided up into many
newsgroups.
> than the rest of us who are enjoying a bit of discourse??
>
Some of us who enjoy a bit of discourse are less enamoured of anarchy
than you seem to be.
--
FF
David wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> > "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>David wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
> >>>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
> >>>>airplane?? Aaargh!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
> >>>if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
> >>>simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
> >>>this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
> >>>
> >>>Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
> >>>onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
> >>>by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
> >>>
> >>>A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
> >>>because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
> >>>meet existing profiles.
> >>>
> >>>In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
> >>>luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
> >>>sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
> >>>I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
> >>>
> >>>Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
> >>>could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
> >>>hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
> >>>flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
> >>>a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
> >>>
> >>
> >>true, the terrorists HAVE changed tactics lately with regards to choosing
> >>the types of sympathizers to carry out their evil deeds. Will all our
> >>best efforts be for naught, in the end? Will the bastards win?
> >>
> >>Dave
> >
> >
> > Sympathizers? We're talking about using people who have no idea their
> > luggage is being utilized to carry bombs. That's not a "sympathizer".
> >
> >
> check out the pictures of the guys in London that hit yesterday. they
> were hardly innocent carriers of bombs, my friend.
Check out the pictures of Nezar Hindawi's fiance. Does she meet your
profile?
> You are hung up on
> Lockerbie.
No, I point out the obvious, that if profiling is used to exclude
certain
persons from security precautions, those are the people the bombers
will
use. I really cannot fathom why you cannot understand that, unless
security
is not relevant to your agenda.
That _some_ bombers curently meet _some_ profile doe snot disprove
this.
That some bombers ahve admitted they shose their patsies to evade
profiling does prove it.
The focus of security precautions should be to sniff out bombs, not
make some sort of political statement about the demographics of
certain enemy elements.
> Only if the searches mandatory will they be any sort of
> deterrent.
If I understand what you mean by 'Mandatory searches', they have been
prohibitted by the Constitution since it was first amended. On the
issue of Constitutional Authority I am an unabashed conservative. If
you violate the Constitution of the United States of America you
attack the United States of America herself. Here I differ from the
radical anarchists who argue that all policies should be ad hoc and
adopted without regard to the rule of law I ackowledge that there are
damn good reasons for the resptirctions placed on our government and
so we have to work within those restrictions.
> Problem is, that a suicide bomber will detonate himself at
> the checkpoint and kill bystanders, so that's hardly a solution now is
> it? solution?
Agreed, yet you advocate it notwithstanding. Amazing.
> MORE money for surveillance, wiretaps, anything to help
> locate and apprehend these scum. We need ACTION instead of reaction.
>
Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
act on their own.
--
FF
David wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > David wrote:
>
> > Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
> > scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
> > depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
> > that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
> > effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
> > act on their own.
> >
> So you are equating law enforcement with the terrorists?? No wonder we
> don't see eye to eye...
>
> Dave
Dave, I believe it is you who is attempting to drag our law enforcers
down to the despicable level of their quarry. Law enforcement enforces
the law first upon itself. Otherwise, it's legalized terrorism.
We in the U. S. happen to be blessed - or stuck, some say - with a
system of law that places certain limits upon what our enforcers can do
to combat crime. If we dispense with those limits, then we are no
longer the same nation.
David wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > David wrote:
>
> > Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
> > scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
> > depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
> > that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
> > effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
> > act on their own.
> >
> So you are equating law enforcement with the terrorists?? No wonder we
> don't see eye to eye...
>
So, you equate crimes committed against innocent victims with
law enforcement?? No wonder we don't see eye to eye.
--
FF
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like
> >>finger-nail clippers??
> >
> > Or belts.
>
> Or disposable plastic cups. Folded the right way, you can cut meat with the
> resulting point. Or throats.
Damned near everyone on any conveyance carries weapons and no one
thinks of taking them away. Any pen, particularly ball points, is an
effective stabbing weapon, as are pencils. You would simply not believe
the damage you can do with a thin newspaper, rolled up tight--or one of
those inflight magazines. Shoe laces are effective garrotes, as are
some cheap necklaces strung on nylon. The list goes on. It isn't
endless, but it's longer than most security guards have to deal with
these days.
Charlie Self wrote:
> Damned near everyone on any conveyance carries weapons and no one
> thinks of taking them away. Any pen, particularly ball points, is an
> effective stabbing weapon, as are pencils. You would simply not believe
> the damage you can do with a thin newspaper, rolled up tight--or one of
> those inflight magazines. Shoe laces are effective garrotes, as are
> some cheap necklaces strung on nylon. The list goes on. It isn't
> endless, but it's longer than most security guards have to deal with
> these days.
Unless they work in a public school. :-)
David wrote:
>
> Here is an excerpt from an article regarding the new searches in NYC:
> "I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact,"
> Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a
> shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.
So?
>
> Most of us don't complain about having our bags searched before boarding
> an airplane. Why the uproar over Constitutional issues if bags are
> searched in front of other public transportation? Or were you only
> upset at the thought of someone being "unlawfully" detained?? Seems to
> me each time I'm waiting in a line at the airport security checkpoint,
> I'm being "detained".
That's becuase you do not understand that 'detained' is a legal term of
art. You are free to not fly or take any other public transportation.
It you decide you do not want to quit standing in line at an airport
you are free to leave. You are not 'detained' so long as you are
free to leave.
> but I don't mind, except that like anyone else, I
> detest waiting. But the inconvenience is well worth the time it takes
> out of my air travel prep.
I know you don't mind, and I am happy to accept that and allow you
to be searched if you want to be searched. Now, what do you offer
in return to somone who does not?
--
FF
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:40 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
> >> for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
> >>
> > I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
> > than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
>
> Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
> explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
> series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
> about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
Dave H., you're wasting your time. remember that this is bay area dave
you're arguing with....
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>> their critics.
>>
>> Simple, yes?
> ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
> the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>
> And can we skip the personal comments?
>
> Dave
What personal comments???
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people.
>
> If I misread you're part in the thread, then you have my apologies.
>
>> Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today between us
>> and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position?
>
> No I wouldn't feel bad about our current position. It's a nice thought,
> but
> entirely outside the bounds of reality. I'm sure that terrorists view
> continuing with their ideology in the same way that the USA views it's
> activities in Iraq. If the USA was to quit now, all the effort (and loss)
> sustained so far will have been a complete waste.
>
> There's only one way to deal with terrorists whose thinking is so
> diametrically opposed to ours and that's to wipe them out completely as
> I'm
> sure, they think the same way about us. My only middling regret about all
> of
> this so far is that our Canadian government did not more directly support
> the USA in Iraq.
>
>
Why would the Canadians want to get behind a list of reasons, all (but one)
of which have turned out to be nonsense? I'm not aware of any international
treaty which requires other countries to do stupid things.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who
>> *do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the
>> imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?
>
> Why would they search "old white ladies"? My point exactly. It's a waste
> of time and resources. I can't imagine why you'd pick that argument with
> me, of all people, as I've already stated that I think it's a useless
> tactic. and expensive.
>
> Dave
OK, I'll tell you, rather than clutter this thread with 300 messages before
we get to the point. You said certain people will whine about racial
profiling. Solution: Even if they're being sarcastic, and privately shaking
their heads later, the NYPD can honestly say "No...we're searching little
old white ladies, too". It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
their critics.
Simple, yes?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:07:59 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>> their critics.
>>
>> Simple, yes?
>>
> ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
> the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
Unless your senator is Russ Feingold, your senator didn't vote against
it. Have you taken it up with them?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:43:26 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:07:59 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>> Unless your senator is Russ Feingold, your senator didn't vote against
>> it. Have you taken it up with them?
> I was referring to crackpots; not legislators.
Then ask that question to the crackpots. I don't care for Feingold as
my senator, but once in a while, he votes the way I agree with, even
though I invariably disagree with his reasons.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:46:39 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> I asked your age for a good reason. If you're young enough, you may have no
>> idea about some of the more interesting things the FBI got away with in the
>> late 1960s and early 1970s, with regard to surveillance.
> so you are equating the terrorists with some of the folks who were
> scrutinized back in the McCarthy era???
You are going out of your way to intentinally miss his points, over and
over. It's the only explanation.
> Wake up and notice how the
> world has changed in the past few years!
...and if you think that history doesn't repeat itself, over decades and
centuries, you haven't studied it well enough...
Dave Hinz
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:40 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
>> for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
>>
> I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
> than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:25:54 GMT, Doug Kanter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
>> explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
>> series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
>> about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
> Uh oh. Now he's gonna think I was trying to frame him.
Sorry, my bad. Didn't consider the audience.
Why are you trying to frame the guy, Doug? Seems more like a unibody
type to me...
David wrote:
...
> Here is an excerpt from an article regarding the new searches in NYC:
> "I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact,"
> Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a
> shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.
>
> Most of us don't complain about having our bags searched before boarding
> an airplane. Why the uproar over Constitutional issues if bags are
> searched in front of other public transportation? Or were you only
> upset at the thought of someone being "unlawfully" detained?? Seems to
> me each time I'm waiting in a line at the airport security checkpoint,
> I'm being "detained". but I don't mind, except that like anyone else, I
> detest waiting. But the inconvenience is well worth the time it takes
> out of my air travel prep.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Brits seem to have taken off their gloves. I see today they ran
> down a bombing suspect and shot him five times in the head - to avoid
> setting off any explosives that may have been wired to his body. I
> presume somebody got a good look at the wires before the guns came out.
>
I *hope* somebody had a good reason, and that he wasn't just a suspect for
pickpocketing who panicked. On the other hand, anyone who'd mess with the
cops in a London subway in the current environment can't be too smart.
Darwin at work.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David wrote:
>
>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to
>>> contain explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you
>>> subsequently visit your library and take out a book like "Taunton's
>>> Complete Illustrated Guide to Box Making". Even though you're not a
>>> terrorist, how would you feel, knowing that your library activities were
>>> probably being monitored for an unknown period of time, and perhaps your
>>> e-mail and phonecalls, too?
>>>
>> Maybe you shouldn't check out a book on bomb making if you don't want to
>> be subject to scrutiny. It's a no-brainer.
>>
>> Dave
> I don't see the connection between a Taunton book for woodworkers and a
> bomb, but I can see that you are trying to make that connection in the
> minds of the authorities. Rather far-fetched.
>
> Dave
How old are you? I'm not trying to offend you, but it's germane to the
discussion.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>...
>> Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
>>airplane?? Aaargh!
>>
>
>
> This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
> if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
> simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
> this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
>
> Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
> onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
> by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
>
> A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
> because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
> meet existing profiles.
>
> In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
> luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
> sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
> I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
>
> Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
> could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
> hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
> flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
> a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
>
true, the terrorists HAVE changed tactics lately with regards to
choosing the types of sympathizers to carry out their evil deeds. Will
all our best efforts be for naught, in the end? Will the bastards win?
Dave
CW wrote:
> To a great degree, they already have.
>
> "rarely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>If we are allowed to search everyone on a whim /at will, the terrorists
>
> have
>
>>won
>
>
>
I agree, that to some point they already have, by making the "Free"
world nations alter their laws, and placing apprehension, if not fear in
there citizens' hearts.
Unfortunately with our country's fighting terrorists it's like playing a
game of monopoly with us following the rules and the opponent not having
any. There's a better than even chance that we will lose the game or
give up and go home. At least if we loose we can all feel good about
playing by the rules and not cheating.
As my Dad says " It's better being wrong and alive than right and dead"
These are broad statements and just a few of my thoughts. To clarify I
would have to write a bloody book and and I ain't doin' that.
Toss political correctness out the window and Give the bastards what
they deserve.
Oh well, another bucket of fuel on the fire :)
All the best to one and all in these troubled times
John
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> David wrote:
>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because
>> > it was
>> > (and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again.
>> > You're
>> > hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar with
>> > the
>> > word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
>> >
>> >
>> point taken. THEN you follow with a snide comment that I may not
>> understand the word germane. My, my. Can we stay on topic?
>>
>> Dave
>
> Not all that bad an idea. Shall we try---gasp!--woodworking?
>
Here? :-)
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> I agree, that to some point they already have, by making the "Free" world
> nations alter their laws, and placing apprehension, if not fear in there
> citizens' hearts.
Aw hell....how many states altered their laws regarding sex offenders over
the past 10-15 years? Does that mean our system is threatened in a massive
way by sex offenders? Why doesn't the guvmint conduct raids on Catholic
churches, looking for pornographic materials?
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>I agree, that to some point they already have, by making the "Free" world
>>nations alter their laws, and placing apprehension, if not fear in there
>>citizens' hearts.
>
>
> Aw hell....how many states altered their laws regarding sex offenders over
> the past 10-15 years? Does that mean our system is threatened in a massive
> way by sex offenders? Why doesn't the guvmint conduct raids on Catholic
> churches, looking for pornographic materials?
>
>
You've got me buggered?? They conduct raids on peoples homes looking for
bombs!!!!
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Dhakala wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
>>>>terrorists cheaply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so
>>>ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark. Negative
>>>profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I mean by
>>>"negative" profiling...
>>>
>>>
>>>On another note, not related to your cost question:
>>>
>>>I was happy to see the patriot act extension was passed by the House.
>>>This current epidemic of terrorism is not a game; we are at war with
>>>these bastards and should avail ourselves of EVERY method to apprehend
>>>their sorry asses. Civil rights activists can't seem to get their
>>>priorities straight
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to
>> contain explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you
>> subsequently visit your library and take out a book like "Taunton's
>> Complete Illustrated Guide to Box Making". Even though you're not a
>> terrorist, how would you feel, knowing that your library activities were
>> probably being monitored for an unknown period of time, and perhaps your
>> e-mail and phonecalls, too?
> Maybe you shouldn't check out a book on bomb making if you don't want to
> be subject to scrutiny. It's a no-brainer.
>
> Dave
Don't change the subject. If you think the FBI's field of vision for
surveillance will be limited to books on bomb making, you're being naive.
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>I agree, that to some point they already have, by making the "Free" world
>>>nations alter their laws, and placing apprehension, if not fear in there
>>>citizens' hearts.
>>
>>
>> Aw hell....how many states altered their laws regarding sex offenders
>> over the past 10-15 years? Does that mean our system is threatened in a
>> massive way by sex offenders? Why doesn't the guvmint conduct raids on
>> Catholic churches, looking for pornographic materials?
> You've got me buggered?? They conduct raids on peoples homes looking for
> bombs!!!!
And they shoot plumbers for the crime of dressing incorrectly for the
season. :-(
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Agreed. If police are allowed to detain people for refusing to be
>> searched then the story is that we are no longer a free people.
>>
> Me thinks you are oversimplifying when you say "no longer a free people".
> There are plenty of rules and regs to keep one from feeling footloose and
> fancy free, without the inclusion of rules aimed at terrorism per se.
>
> Dave
You're right, I guess. History previous to 1980 has hereby been erased.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>>>
>>>>their critics.
>>>>
>>>>Simple, yes?
>>>
>>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>>>
>>>And can we skip the personal comments?
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>
>> What personal comments???
> oh, just the rude comment about my age. :) That's not the sort of thing
> we should be getting into if we are to have a serious discussion on the
> merits of law enforcement's method of dealing with the terror threat. My
> point is that in order to appease a segment of society, law enforcement's
> efforts have been overly expensive and ineffective. I'd like to see a
> more focused approach taken BEFORE the next big catastrophic event.
>
> Dave
I asked your age for a good reason. If you're young enough, you may have no
idea about some of the more interesting things the FBI got away with in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, with regard to surveillance. But even so, your
U.S. history courses should've told you about the McCarthy era. Do not
entertain any fantasies about the FBI or any other law enforcement
organization knowing when to limit its own powers.
Since you seem to be such an expert mind reader, tell me what I'm thinking
about you right now. After you're done with that, go back a read what I
said. What is the point of terrorism? To instill fear and paranoia? Yes.
Have they done that? Yes, to great effect egged on by an administration who
finds it suits their purposes quite nicely.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people. My
> point was that, contrary to the CW's assertion that the terrorists have
> already won, I don't believe they've won much of anything. I don't
believe,
> as I suspect he does, that the Constitution has been flushed down the
toilet
> and our civil liberties are significantly curtailed by the dreaded Patriot
> Act. The bottom line is that I think life is pretty good in the US at the
> moment, so if this is what it feels like to lose, I'll call it a day if
the
> terrorists will. Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today between
us
> and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position? I
don't,
> which was my point.
>
> todd
>
>
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:40 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
>>>>for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
>>>than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
>>
>>Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
>>explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
>>series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
>>about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
>>
>
>
> Uh oh. Now he's gonna think I was trying to frame him.
>
>
uh, we already covered this earlier...
Dave
BobS wrote:
> Plenty of other places in the newsgroups for this diatribe. Take it
> someplace else next time. Just because you say OT does not make it okay to
> post your bitching here.
>
> This is rec.woodworking - the bullshit is in the other newsgroups for your
> reading pleasure.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
>
And you are intruding into a clearly marked OT thread. so are you more
right than the rest of us who are enjoying a bit of discourse??
Dave
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Why would the Canadians want to get behind a list of reasons, all (but
> one)
>> of which have turned out to be nonsense? I'm not aware of any
> international
>> treaty which requires other countries to do stupid things.
>
> Obviously, there's far fewer reasons now (such as not finding any WMDs)
> than
> there were just before the war in Iraq began.
I guess this is where we differ. It sounds like you're taking an "OK....we
were wrong" stance. I, on the other hand, am focused on evidence that
President Rove knew even before 9/11 that we'd be going to Iraq, and that
any reason he provided to the public were a complete crock, except for the
"Saddam's a bad man" thing, which was true, but a red herring.
The
> authorities have already mentioned the fact that what they are doing is
> just a highly visible show to calm folks nerves and they (the cops) know
> it isn't effective.
>
> Dave
By "isn't effective" I mean the searches aren't going to be effective
against bombers. It MIGHT be effective at quelling a bit of the
public's fear. It wouldn't give me any additional confidence...
Dave
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
>>>>>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
>>>>>>airplane?? Aaargh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
>>>>>if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
>>>>>simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
>>>>>this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
>>>>>
>>>>>Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
>>>>>onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
>>>>>by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
>>>>>because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
>>>>>meet existing profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
>>>>>luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
>>>>>sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
>>>>>I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
>>>>>
>>>>>Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
>>>>>could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
>>>>>hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
>>>>>flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
>>>>>a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>true, the terrorists HAVE changed tactics lately with regards to choosing
>>>>the types of sympathizers to carry out their evil deeds. Will all our
>>>>best efforts be for naught, in the end? Will the bastards win?
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>Sympathizers? We're talking about using people who have no idea their
>>>luggage is being utilized to carry bombs. That's not a "sympathizer".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>check out the pictures of the guys in London that hit yesterday. they
>>were hardly innocent carriers of bombs, my friend.
>
>
> Check out the pictures of Nezar Hindawi's fiance. Does she meet your
> profile?
>
>
>
>>You are hung up on
>>Lockerbie.
>
>
> No, I point out the obvious, that if profiling is used to exclude
> certain
> persons from security precautions, those are the people the bombers
> will
> use. I really cannot fathom why you cannot understand that, unless
> security
> is not relevant to your agenda.
>
> That _some_ bombers curently meet _some_ profile doe snot disprove
> this.
> That some bombers ahve admitted they shose their patsies to evade
> profiling does prove it.
>
> The focus of security precautions should be to sniff out bombs, not
> make some sort of political statement about the demographics of
> certain enemy elements.
>
>
>>Only if the searches mandatory will they be any sort of
>>deterrent.
>
>
> If I understand what you mean by 'Mandatory searches', they have been
> prohibitted by the Constitution since it was first amended. On the
> issue of Constitutional Authority I am an unabashed conservative. If
> you violate the Constitution of the United States of America you
> attack the United States of America herself. Here I differ from the
> radical anarchists who argue that all policies should be ad hoc and
> adopted without regard to the rule of law I ackowledge that there are
> damn good reasons for the resptirctions placed on our government and
> so we have to work within those restrictions.
>
>
>
>> Problem is, that a suicide bomber will detonate himself at
>>the checkpoint and kill bystanders, so that's hardly a solution now is
>>it? solution?
>
>
> Agreed, yet you advocate it notwithstanding. Amazing.
>
>
>> MORE money for surveillance, wiretaps, anything to help
>>locate and apprehend these scum. We need ACTION instead of reaction.
>>
>
>
> Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
> scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
> depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
> that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
> effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
> act on their own.
>
Here is an excerpt from an article regarding the new searches in NYC:
"I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact,"
Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a
shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.
Most of us don't complain about having our bags searched before boarding
an airplane. Why the uproar over Constitutional issues if bags are
searched in front of other public transportation? Or were you only
upset at the thought of someone being "unlawfully" detained?? Seems to
me each time I'm waiting in a line at the airport security checkpoint,
I'm being "detained". but I don't mind, except that like anyone else, I
detest waiting. But the inconvenience is well worth the time it takes
out of my air travel prep.
And I reiterate that the whole charade is just eye candy. The
authorities have already mentioned the fact that what they are doing is
just a highly visible show to calm folks nerves and they (the cops) know
it isn't effective.
Dave
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people.
If I misread you're part in the thread, then you have my apologies.
> Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today between us
> and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position?
No I wouldn't feel bad about our current position. It's a nice thought, but
entirely outside the bounds of reality. I'm sure that terrorists view
continuing with their ideology in the same way that the USA views it's
activities in Iraq. If the USA was to quit now, all the effort (and loss)
sustained so far will have been a complete waste.
There's only one way to deal with terrorists whose thinking is so
diametrically opposed to ours and that's to wipe them out completely as I'm
sure, they think the same way about us. My only middling regret about all of
this so far is that our Canadian government did not more directly support
the USA in Iraq.
In article <[email protected]>, "bridger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave H., you're wasting your time. remember that this is bay area dave
>you're arguing with....
>
I don't think so. Not the same ISP, not the same browser, not the same OS.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
> Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
> scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
> depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
> that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
> effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
> act on their own.
>
So you are equating law enforcement with the terrorists?? No wonder we
don't see eye to eye...
Dave
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're wrong, as usual. Care to try again.
Sorry, I just can't compete with that. I mean, you know you've been had
when someone busts out "you're wrong". For a second, I thought my points
had merit, but then you said "you're wrong". I guess you really showed me.
todd
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>
>> *I* am not equating movie stars (accused of being Communists during the
>> McCarthy era) with terrorists, but the law enforcement community
>> certainly did exactly that. Do you think these citizens were hauled
>> before senate hearings to practice their acting skills? Hell...they were
>> even sniffing around Einstein's door. Next time this happens, it may not
>> be limited to high visibility individuals. It could be you. If you think
>> this is OK, then you MUST be very young because you have NO idea what
>> life was like in the USSR. Their society was like that WITHOUT threats of
>> terrorism.
> I know, I know! That was clearly unacceptable, but in today's world we
> have more pressing matters that require some broadening of the
> government's ability to ferret out the murdering bastards. To worry that
> they will focus on Joe Sixpack is just more paranoia in my book. the
> authorities have their hands full with potential real terrorists to be
> wasting time railroading innocent Americans. I can't believe that you
> really think that would be the result of the Patriot Act or similar future
> legislation that may be required as things heat up further.
>
> Dave
Keep in mind that legislation is harder to get rid of than it is to put in
place. Most of the legislators who spoke out against the renewal of the
Patriot Act (without modifying it a bit) ended up voting to keep it, just as
it is. So, saying "we need it now" sounds innocent enough until you find
that it's impossible to get rid of.
By the way, my definition of paranoia involves fear of things that are
imaginary. The abuses you've been told about have already happened, and they
will happen again. Bank on it.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway
> if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by
> New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
> declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
> who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
>
> Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and
> money with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety? I'm sure the NYPD
> would mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who
> refuses the search. Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags
> who want to destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political
> correctness" hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to
> combat terrorism. Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
> airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
> airplane?? Aaargh!
>
> Rant off
>
> Dave
HISTORY TEST
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test. The events are actual
Events from history. They actually happened!
Do you remember?
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and
thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and
a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were
used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So,
to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent
on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to
profile certain people. They must conduct
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with
proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's
security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of
Honour winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males
between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and
other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to
thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves -- if they have any
such sense. As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so
aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Come on people wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your
address book. Our Country and our troops need our support.
And guess who just bombed London?
And then who did it again!
I think they can stop searching little of ladies now...
Phil
You're wrong, as usual. Care to try again.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people.
My
> > > point was that, contrary to the CW's assertion that the terrorists
have
> > > already won, I don't believe they've won much of anything. I don't
> > believe,
> > > as I suspect he does, that the Constitution has been flushed down the
> > toilet
> > > and our civil liberties are significantly curtailed by the dreaded
> Patriot
> > > Act. The bottom line is that I think life is pretty good in the US at
> the
> > > moment, so if this is what it feels like to lose, I'll call it a day
if
> > the
> > > terrorists will. Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today
> between
> > us
> > > and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position? I
> > don't,
> > > which was my point.
> > >
> > > todd
> > Since you seem to be such an expert mind reader, tell me what I'm
thinking
> > about you right now.
>
> I predict you're thinking that if you keep top-posting, I'll be really
> annoyed about having to keep fixing it. You're right.
>
> > After you're done with that, go back a read what I said. What is the
point
> of terrorism? To instill fear and paranoia? Yes.
>
> Well, it isn't paranoia if they're really out to get us, is it, genius?
>
> > Have they done that? Yes, to great effect egged on by an administration
> who
> > finds it suits their purposes quite nicely.
>
> I can see it's installed paranoia in at least one person.
>
> todd
>
>
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:--
> scum bags at GitMo than other prisoners because they "need" a special
> diet!!! SCREW their special dietary needs! Feed them, but don't spend
> additional funds to provide a diet that keeps the protesters happy!
Kind of a thoughtless statement. I can lock you up, impound all your
belongings, deny you all access to the outside world and basically deny you
any access to legal counsel. But if I feed you well with whatever you want,
there's no doubt you'll continue to be happy, right?
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And they shoot plumbers for the crime of dressing incorrectly for the
> season. :-(
What? You mean there's people out there who don't like seeing the thong a
plumber is wearing when he's fixing your sink?
David wrote:
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to
>> contain explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you
>> subsequently visit your library and take out a book like "Taunton's
>> Complete Illustrated Guide to Box Making". Even though you're not a
>> terrorist, how would you feel, knowing that your library activities
>> were probably being monitored for an unknown period of time, and
>> perhaps your e-mail and phonecalls, too?
>>
> Maybe you shouldn't check out a book on bomb making if you don't want to
> be subject to scrutiny. It's a no-brainer.
>
> Dave
I don't see the connection between a Taunton book for woodworkers and a
bomb, but I can see that you are trying to make that connection in the
minds of the authorities. Rather far-fetched.
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who
> *do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the
> imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?
>
>
Why would they search "old white ladies"? My point exactly. It's a
waste of time and resources. I can't imagine why you'd pick that
argument with me, of all people, as I've already stated that I think
it's a useless tactic. and expensive.
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Dhakala wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
>>>terrorists cheaply.
>>>
>>
>>CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so
>>ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark. Negative
>>profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I mean by
>>"negative" profiling...
>>
>>
>>On another note, not related to your cost question:
>>
>>I was happy to see the patriot act extension was passed by the House. This
>>current epidemic of terrorism is not a game; we are at war with these
>>bastards and should avail ourselves of EVERY method to apprehend their
>>sorry asses. Civil rights activists can't seem to get their priorities
>>straight
>
>
> <snip>
>
> You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to contain
> explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you subsequently visit
> your library and take out a book like "Taunton's Complete Illustrated Guide
> to Box Making". Even though you're not a terrorist, how would you feel,
> knowing that your library activities were probably being monitored for an
> unknown period of time, and perhaps your e-mail and phonecalls, too?
>
>
Maybe you shouldn't check out a book on bomb making if you don't want to
be subject to scrutiny. It's a no-brainer.
Dave
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Nice soundbite. GMAFB. If the status quo is defined as terrorist
victory,
> I'd agree to cease hostility on both sides right now and concede defeat.
Sorry, but you're deluded if you think that would come close to solving
problems. Conceding defeat means that you're capitulating to their way of
life, whatever they decide it should be. Gone would be every luxury in life
you've ever known. Medicine, viable health care, enough food to live on.
Poof, all gone! In effect, you're saying that by conceding defeat, you're
willing to become a virtual slave.
I'd prefer to die now fighting back than endure the limited life span I'd
have at the hands of terrorist gatekeepers.
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because it was
> (and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again. You're
> hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar with the
> word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
>
>
point taken. THEN you follow with a snide comment that I may not
understand the word germane. My, my. Can we stay on topic?
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
> *I* am not equating movie stars (accused of being Communists during the
> McCarthy era) with terrorists, but the law enforcement community certainly
> did exactly that. Do you think these citizens were hauled before senate
> hearings to practice their acting skills? Hell...they were even sniffing
> around Einstein's door. Next time this happens, it may not be limited to
> high visibility individuals. It could be you. If you think this is OK, then
> you MUST be very young because you have NO idea what life was like in the
> USSR. Their society was like that WITHOUT threats of terrorism.
>
>
I know, I know! That was clearly unacceptable, but in today's world we
have more pressing matters that require some broadening of the
government's ability to ferret out the murdering bastards. To worry
that they will focus on Joe Sixpack is just more paranoia in my book.
the authorities have their hands full with potential real terrorists to
be wasting time railroading innocent Americans. I can't believe that
you really think that would be the result of the Patriot Act or similar
future legislation that may be required as things heat up further.
Dave
As I said...take your BS someplace else troll....
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BobS wrote:
>
>> Plenty of other places in the newsgroups for this diatribe. Take it
>> someplace else next time. Just because you say OT does not make it okay
>> to post your bitching here.
>>
>> This is rec.woodworking - the bullshit is in the other newsgroups for
>> your reading pleasure.
>>
>> Bob S.
>>
>>
>>
> And you are intruding into a clearly marked OT thread. so are you more
> right than the rest of us who are enjoying a bit of discourse??
>
> Dave
David wrote:
<SNIP>
> An article on Google news reminded me of this: we are such a
> running-scared government that we have to spend more money to feed the
> scum bags at GitMo than other prisoners because they "need" a special
> diet!!! SCREW their special dietary needs! Feed them, but don't spend
> additional funds to provide a diet that keeps the protesters happy!
>
>
>
> Dave
>
I have an idea. Why don't we feed them the protesters?
;-)
Glen
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> What purpose is served by searching a few people who are absolutely,
>> positively NOT terrorists? Hint: There *is* a purpose.
> Not when the public is free to reject the search and leave the area. DOH!
>
> Dave
That doesn't answer the question. Try again. I'm talking about people who
*do* get searched, but are clearly not a threat by any stretch of the
imagination? Why would they search little old white ladies?
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> David wrote:
>
>> Those who would do anything to 'apprehend these scum' are the same
>> scum themselves. That they have the opportunity to commit their
>> depravities under the guise of the color of law does not change
>> that. The scum you would turn loose on us either are a bit more
>> effective in their social skill, or simply lack the courage to
>> act on their own.
>>
> So you are equating law enforcement with the terrorists?? No wonder we
> don't see eye to eye...
>
> Dave
When you use the phrase "protect this country", what values and beliefs do
you think you're protecting? Our ability to get lots of channels on TV, and
all the beer & chips we want?
Hint: Constitution
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>
>>For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
>>don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
>>terrorist.
>
>
> You advocate the approach that allowed the bomb aboard the flight
> that exploded over Lockerbie. No need to search the luggage
> belonging to a young European Woman.
>
Ever heard of a bomb sniffing machine such as the one I watched my
luggage go through at the airport last week??? No need for profiling.
The young European Woman didn't bring down the plane; the bomb did.
That's what technology is for: locating the bombs. Police frisking
people at random and then letting those who refuse is a total waste of
time. IF the police would detain anyone who refused, that would be a
different story.
Dave
> "rarely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > If we are allowed to search everyone on a whim /at will, the terrorists
> have
> > won
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To a great degree, they already have.
Nice soundbite. GMAFB. If the status quo is defined as terrorist victory,
I'd agree to cease hostility on both sides right now and concede defeat.
todd
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people. My
> > point was that, contrary to the CW's assertion that the terrorists have
> > already won, I don't believe they've won much of anything. I don't
> believe,
> > as I suspect he does, that the Constitution has been flushed down the
> toilet
> > and our civil liberties are significantly curtailed by the dreaded
Patriot
> > Act. The bottom line is that I think life is pretty good in the US at
the
> > moment, so if this is what it feels like to lose, I'll call it a day if
> the
> > terrorists will. Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today
between
> us
> > and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position? I
> don't,
> > which was my point.
> >
> > todd
> Since you seem to be such an expert mind reader, tell me what I'm thinking
> about you right now.
I predict you're thinking that if you keep top-posting, I'll be really
annoyed about having to keep fixing it. You're right.
> After you're done with that, go back a read what I said. What is the point
of terrorism? To instill fear and paranoia? Yes.
Well, it isn't paranoia if they're really out to get us, is it, genius?
> Have they done that? Yes, to great effect egged on by an administration
who
> finds it suits their purposes quite nicely.
I can see it's installed paranoia in at least one person.
todd
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because it
>> was (and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again.
>> You're hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar
>> with the word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
> point taken. THEN you follow with a snide comment that I may not
> understand the word germane. My, my. Can we stay on topic?
>
> Dave
Everyone misunderstands words sometimes. Even me.
"Some of these people have even been trained to disassemble. That means to
not tell the truth".
-George W. Bush
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
>>>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
>>>>airplane?? Aaargh!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
>>>if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
>>>simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
>>>this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
>>>
>>>Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
>>>onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
>>>by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
>>>
>>>A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
>>>because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
>>>meet existing profiles.
>>>
>>>In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
>>>luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
>>>sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
>>>I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
>>>
>>>Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
>>>could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
>>>hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
>>>flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
>>>a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
>>>
>>
>>true, the terrorists HAVE changed tactics lately with regards to choosing
>>the types of sympathizers to carry out their evil deeds. Will all our
>>best efforts be for naught, in the end? Will the bastards win?
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Sympathizers? We're talking about using people who have no idea their
> luggage is being utilized to carry bombs. That's not a "sympathizer".
>
>
check out the pictures of the guys in London that hit yesterday. they
were hardly innocent carriers of bombs, my friend. You are hung up on
Lockerbie. The main focus should be to sniff out bombs, not randomly
search or threaten to search and release anyone who refuses to submit to
come back another day when they aren't randomly picked for another
search. Only if the searches mandatory will they be any sort of
deterrent. Problem is, that a suicide bomber will detonate himself at
the checkpoint and kill bystanders, so that's hardly a solution now is
it? solution? MORE money for surveillance, wiretaps, anything to help
locate and apprehend these scum. We need ACTION instead of reaction.
Dave
If we are allowed to search everyone on a whim /at will, the terrorists have
won
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway if
> I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by New
> York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
> declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
> who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
>
> Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and money
> with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety? I'm sure the NYPD would
> mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who refuses the
> search. Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags who want to
> destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political correctness"
> hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to combat terrorism.
> Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at airport screening
> stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an airplane?? Aaargh!
>
> Rant off
>
> Dave
Upscale wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:--
>
>>scum bags at GitMo than other prisoners because they "need" a special
>>diet!!! SCREW their special dietary needs! Feed them, but don't spend
>>additional funds to provide a diet that keeps the protesters happy!
>
>
> Kind of a thoughtless statement. I can lock you up, impound all your
> belongings, deny you all access to the outside world and basically deny you
> any access to legal counsel. But if I feed you well with whatever you want,
> there's no doubt you'll continue to be happy, right?
>
>
they are on a hunger strike, according to news sources just today!
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>their critics.
>>>>>
>>>>>Simple, yes?
>>>>
>>>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>>>>
>>>>And can we skip the personal comments?
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>What personal comments???
>>
>>oh, just the rude comment about my age. :) That's not the sort of thing
>>we should be getting into if we are to have a serious discussion on the
>>merits of law enforcement's method of dealing with the terror threat. My
>>point is that in order to appease a segment of society, law enforcement's
>>efforts have been overly expensive and ineffective. I'd like to see a
>>more focused approach taken BEFORE the next big catastrophic event.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> I asked your age for a good reason. If you're young enough, you may have no
> idea about some of the more interesting things the FBI got away with in the
> late 1960s and early 1970s, with regard to surveillance. But even so, your
> U.S. history courses should've told you about the McCarthy era. Do not
> entertain any fantasies about the FBI or any other law enforcement
> organization knowing when to limit its own powers.
>
>
so you are equating the terrorists with some of the folks who were
scrutinized back in the McCarthy era??? Wake up and notice how the
world has changed in the past few years! Ham string the authorities
enough, and you just might pay the price with your life.
Dave
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:07:59 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>> It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>>
>>>their critics.
>>>
>>>Simple, yes?
>>>
>>
>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>
>
> Unless your senator is Russ Feingold, your senator didn't vote against
> it. Have you taken it up with them?
I was referring to crackpots; not legislators.
Dave
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Keep in mind that legislation is harder to get rid of than it is to put
>> in place. Most of the legislators who spoke out against the renewal of
>> the Patriot Act (without modifying it a bit) ended up voting to keep it,
>> just as it is. So, saying "we need it now" sounds innocent enough until
>> you find that it's impossible to get rid of.
>>
>> By the way, my definition of paranoia involves fear of things that are
>> imaginary. The abuses you've been told about have already happened, and
>> they will happen again. Bank on it.
> So what's the solution? Laissez-faire? You gotta break a few eggs to
> make an omelet. The stakes are so high, that civil rights (to some
> extent) will take a deserved back seat to the methods needed to thwart the
> terrorists. It's NECESSARY, or there won't be any more "us" to debate
> this issue.
>
> Dave
OK then. You go first.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David wrote:
> ...
>> Here is an excerpt from an article regarding the new searches in NYC:
>> "I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact,"
>> Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a
>> shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.
>>
>> Most of us don't complain about having our bags searched before boarding
>> an airplane. Why the uproar over Constitutional issues if bags are
>> searched in front of other public transportation? Or were you only
>> upset at the thought of someone being "unlawfully" detained?? Seems to
>> me each time I'm waiting in a line at the airport security checkpoint,
>> I'm being "detained". but I don't mind, except that like anyone else, I
>> detest waiting. But the inconvenience is well worth the time it takes
>> out of my air travel prep.
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
We are not giving up an essential liberty, but are obtaining long term
safety. If carrying these bags works out to be a great way to make an
attack, then we are going to see no end to them. That would not promote
liberty or safety.
There are rules governing which bags may be searched, and how they can be
chosen. There are limits to how our liberty is limited.
Michael
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>, David
>> > <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons
>> >>like
>> >>finger-nail clippers??
>> >
>> > Or belts.
>>
>> Or disposable plastic cups. Folded the right way, you can cut meat with
>> the
>> resulting point. Or throats.
>
> Damned near everyone on any conveyance carries weapons and no one
> thinks of taking them away. Any pen, particularly ball points, is an
> effective stabbing weapon, as are pencils. You would simply not believe
> the damage you can do with a thin newspaper, rolled up tight--or one of
> those inflight magazines. Shoe laces are effective garrotes, as are
> some cheap necklaces strung on nylon. The list goes on. It isn't
> endless, but it's longer than most security guards have to deal with
> these days.
>
Even mentioning newsgroups in mixed company could produce enough illness to
be disabling. :-)
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
> don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
> terrorist.
Think quietly for a moment. Try thinking like a high ranking person in the
NYPD. You know that this subway search thing is going to generate flak about
racial profiling, right?
Stop. Take your hands off the keyboard right now. Think quietly.
What purpose is served by searching a few people who are absolutely,
positively NOT terrorists? Hint: There *is* a purpose.
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>*I* am not equating movie stars (accused of being Communists during the
>>>McCarthy era) with terrorists, but the law enforcement community
>>>certainly did exactly that. Do you think these citizens were hauled
>>>before senate hearings to practice their acting skills? Hell...they were
>>>even sniffing around Einstein's door. Next time this happens, it may not
>>>be limited to high visibility individuals. It could be you. If you think
>>>this is OK, then you MUST be very young because you have NO idea what
>>>life was like in the USSR. Their society was like that WITHOUT threats of
>>>terrorism.
>>
>>I know, I know! That was clearly unacceptable, but in today's world we
>>have more pressing matters that require some broadening of the
>>government's ability to ferret out the murdering bastards. To worry that
>>they will focus on Joe Sixpack is just more paranoia in my book. the
>>authorities have their hands full with potential real terrorists to be
>>wasting time railroading innocent Americans. I can't believe that you
>>really think that would be the result of the Patriot Act or similar future
>>legislation that may be required as things heat up further.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Keep in mind that legislation is harder to get rid of than it is to put in
> place. Most of the legislators who spoke out against the renewal of the
> Patriot Act (without modifying it a bit) ended up voting to keep it, just as
> it is. So, saying "we need it now" sounds innocent enough until you find
> that it's impossible to get rid of.
>
> By the way, my definition of paranoia involves fear of things that are
> imaginary. The abuses you've been told about have already happened, and they
> will happen again. Bank on it.
>
>
So what's the solution? Laissez-faire? You gotta break a few eggs to
make an omelet. The stakes are so high, that civil rights (to some
extent) will take a deserved back seat to the methods needed to thwart
the terrorists. It's NECESSARY, or there won't be any more "us" to
debate this issue.
Dave
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>
>>For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
>>don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
>>terrorist.
>
>
> You advocate the approach that allowed the bomb aboard the flight
> that exploded over Lockerbie. No need to search the luggage
> belonging to a young European Woman.
>
I'm going for a bike ride in a minute. If I see any Young European Women
along the way, I'll be sure they are thoroughly frisked. :)
Dave
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because it was
>>>(and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again. You're
>>>hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar with the
>>>word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>point taken. THEN you follow with a snide comment that I may not
>>understand the word germane. My, my. Can we stay on topic?
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Not all that bad an idea. Shall we try---gasp!--woodworking?
>
We "wood", but this topic has been clearly labeled as "OT", Charlie. so
as long as we are OT, we are not allowed to discuss woodworking. :)
Dave
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>oh, just the rude comment about my age. :)
>
>
> Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
> for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
>
I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
Dave
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>their critics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Simple, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>>>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>And can we skip the personal comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What personal comments???
>>>
>>>oh, just the rude comment about my age. :) That's not the sort of thing
>>>we should be getting into if we are to have a serious discussion on the
>>>merits of law enforcement's method of dealing with the terror threat. My
>>>point is that in order to appease a segment of society, law enforcement's
>>>efforts have been overly expensive and ineffective. I'd like to see a
>>>more focused approach taken BEFORE the next big catastrophic event.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>
>> I asked your age for a good reason. If you're young enough, you may have
>> no idea about some of the more interesting things the FBI got away with
>> in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with regard to surveillance. But even
>> so, your U.S. history courses should've told you about the McCarthy era.
>> Do not entertain any fantasies about the FBI or any other law enforcement
>> organization knowing when to limit its own powers.
> so you are equating the terrorists with some of the folks who were
> scrutinized back in the McCarthy era??? Wake up and notice how the world
> has changed in the past few years! Ham string the authorities enough, and
> you just might pay the price with your life.
>
> Dave
*I* am not equating movie stars (accused of being Communists during the
McCarthy era) with terrorists, but the law enforcement community certainly
did exactly that. Do you think these citizens were hauled before senate
hearings to practice their acting skills? Hell...they were even sniffing
around Einstein's door. Next time this happens, it may not be limited to
high visibility individuals. It could be you. If you think this is OK, then
you MUST be very young because you have NO idea what life was like in the
USSR. Their society was like that WITHOUT threats of terrorism.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people.
>
> If I misread you're part in the thread, then you have my apologies.
>
> > Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today between us
> > and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position?
>
> No I wouldn't feel bad about our current position. It's a nice thought,
but
> entirely outside the bounds of reality. I'm sure that terrorists view
> continuing with their ideology in the same way that the USA views it's
> activities in Iraq. If the USA was to quit now, all the effort (and loss)
> sustained so far will have been a complete waste.
Does anybody friggin' read anything? Of course if we unilaterally stopped
our efforts, it would be chaos. My point is pretty simple. I support my
stance that the terrorists haven't "already won" by stating that *if*
hostilities ended now on both sides, I believe most people would not feel as
though we had lost. I don't advocate a cessation of hostilities on our
part, because it, of course, would not be reciprocated.
todd
Dhakala wrote:
>
> While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
> terrorists cheaply.
>
CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so
ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark.
Negative profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I
mean by "negative" profiling...
On another note, not related to your cost question:
I was happy to see the patriot act extension was passed by the House.
This current epidemic of terrorism is not a game; we are at war with
these bastards and should avail ourselves of EVERY method to apprehend
their sorry asses. Civil rights activists can't seem to get their
priorities straight--what law abiding citizen needs to be concerned
about the broadened powers of the government in protecting them if they
aren't into committing atrocities themselves?? GB has the right
idea--over a million cameras are looking at public areas. If I'm not a
mugger or a thief, why the heck should I care if cameras are watching
over the streets and subways? I'd rather know the chances of being a
victim of crime are reduced because the cameras are there, rather than
whine about how intrusive the cameras are. It's not like there is a
live body watching all the feeds 24/7. The images are archived and
reviewed when an incident occurs. I'd be happy to see the same thing
here in the U.S. Of course I'm not talking about surveillance cameras
peering into one's back yard. What's the worse thing you think that the
cameras would catch the average guy doing? Picking his nose. Scratching
an itch. Whoopee. We already have far more cameras watching our daily
lives than you'd probably imagine. Most chain stores have cameras
inside and outside. Banks. Workplace parking lots. Airports. Why not
extend the coverage to most urban public areas (assuming the cost
doesn't put us all in the poor house)? I predict we will follow GB's
lead, even if it takes years.
Dave
In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like
>finger-nail clippers??
Or belts.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:40 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
>>> for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
>>>
>> I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
>> than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
>
> Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
> explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
> series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
> about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
>
Uh oh. Now he's gonna think I was trying to frame him.
To a great degree, they already have.
"rarely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If we are allowed to search everyone on a whim /at will, the terrorists
have
> won
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Nice soundbite. GMAFB. If the status quo is defined as terrorist
> victory,
> > I'd agree to cease hostility on both sides right now and concede defeat.
>
> Sorry, but you're deluded if you think that would come close to solving
> problems. Conceding defeat means that you're capitulating to their way of
> life, whatever they decide it should be. Gone would be every luxury in
life
> you've ever known. Medicine, viable health care, enough food to live on.
> Poof, all gone! In effect, you're saying that by conceding defeat, you're
> willing to become a virtual slave.
>
> I'd prefer to die now fighting back than endure the limited life span I'd
> have at the hands of terrorist gatekeepers.
Apparently following a thread isn't the strong suit of some people. My
point was that, contrary to the CW's assertion that the terrorists have
already won, I don't believe they've won much of anything. I don't believe,
as I suspect he does, that the Constitution has been flushed down the toilet
and our civil liberties are significantly curtailed by the dreaded Patriot
Act. The bottom line is that I think life is pretty good in the US at the
moment, so if this is what it feels like to lose, I'll call it a day if the
terrorists will. Let me ask you...if all hostilities ended today between us
and the terrorists, would you feel bad about our current position? I don't,
which was my point.
todd
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>> It's a polite way of saying "Shut the f**k up" to
>>
>>>their critics.
>>>
>>>Simple, yes?
>>
>>ever thought of standing up to the critics??? Look at the protest over
>>the Patriot Act. It was enacted anyway.
>>
>>And can we skip the personal comments?
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> What personal comments???
>
>
oh, just the rude comment about my age. :) That's not the sort of thing
we should be getting into if we are to have a serious discussion on the
merits of law enforcement's method of dealing with the terror threat.
My point is that in order to appease a segment of society, law
enforcement's efforts have been overly expensive and ineffective. I'd
like to see a more focused approach taken BEFORE the next big
catastrophic event.
Dave
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like
>>finger-nail clippers??
>
> Or belts.
Or disposable plastic cups. Folded the right way, you can cut meat with the
resulting point. Or throats.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>> Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
>>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
>>>airplane?? Aaargh!
>>>
>>
>>
>> This was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out then,
>> if authorities rely on racist profiling the bombers will
>> simply use people who do not meet the profile. Not only is
>> this pretty obvious on it's face, it has already happened:
>>
>> Current theory on the Lockerbie bombing is that the bomb was carried
>> onboard in the luggage of a passenger who was deliberately selected
>> by the bomber becuase she did NOT meet the existing profiles.
>>
>> A similar attempt was thwarted by British authorities
>> because the searched the luggage of a passenger who also did not
>> meet existing profiles.
>>
>> In both cases the passenger who actually had the bomb in her
>> luggage was not even aware she was carrying a bomb. I'm pretty
>> sure that in both cases the bombs were in checked luggage.
>> I do not think it would be any harder to trick grandma.
>>
>> Using just a _little_ imagination you can also see how one
>> could recruit or trick such a person into carrying the bomb
>> hidden on their body too. E.g. if the targetted flight is a
>> flight into Saudi Arabia, recruit the patsy to smuggle in
>> a Bible and put the bomb in the Bible.
>>
> true, the terrorists HAVE changed tactics lately with regards to choosing
> the types of sympathizers to carry out their evil deeds. Will all our
> best efforts be for naught, in the end? Will the bastards win?
>
> Dave
Sympathizers? We're talking about using people who have no idea their
luggage is being utilized to carry bombs. That's not a "sympathizer".
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:25:54 GMT, Doug Kanter <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Get over yourself already, FFS. His question about your age, as he
>>> explained, was so he would know if you had experienced a particular
>>> series of political historical events in person, or if you had read
>>> about them as history. It's what's called a "framing question".
>
>> Uh oh. Now he's gonna think I was trying to frame him.
>
> Sorry, my bad. Didn't consider the audience.
>
> Why are you trying to frame the guy, Doug? Seems more like a unibody
> type to me...
>
American gothic, ya know?
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>And they shoot plumbers for the crime of dressing incorrectly for the
>>season. :-(
>
>
> What? You mean there's people out there who don't like seeing the thong a
> plumber is wearing when he's fixing your sink?
>
>
Any plumber not wearing overalls and/or braces should be declared a
public menace :)
Todd Fatheree wrote:
>>"rarely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>If we are allowed to search everyone on a whim /at will, the terrorists
>>
>>have
>>
>>>won
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>To a great degree, they already have.
>
>
> Nice soundbite. GMAFB. If the status quo is defined as terrorist victory,
> I'd agree to cease hostility on both sides right now and concede defeat.
>
> todd
>
>
You don't negotiate with murderous terrorists, so why would you
"concede" defeat?? do you think their campaigns of terror would stop
suddenly?? They are hell bent on destroying us, regardless of the price
they individually pay. They certainly don't care what a black mark
their actions place upon their "fellow" Muslims. With all that's going
on the world right now, I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race, so
I can scarcely imagine the embarrassment and dismay of law abiding
Muslims. I seriously doubt that ALL of them have murder in their
hearts! It's too bad that the non-terrorist Muslims can't locate and
turn in the ringleaders for prosecution.
Dave
This a terrorist weapon now? Sounds like bad stuff. :)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> doe snot
Dhakala wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>If I was a terrorist, I'd hardly break stride on my way to a NYC subway
>>if I knew that IF (same chance as winning the lotto) I was stopped by
>>New York's finest, I could walk away from a potential search merely by
>>declining to be searched! The police have admitted publicly that anyone
>>who refuses a search is refused entry to the subway, BUT NOT DETAINED!!
>
>
> No, merely followed to his next terrorist club meeting. :-)
They won't follow everyone home who refuses to be searched. No manpower
and totally impractical.
>>Does anyone else see the lunacy of this vast expenditure of time and
>>money with basically a ZERO payoff in public safety?
>
>
> No matter how futile the effort is, the public wants to see its
> government doing something.
Actually, I think the public wants EFFECTIVE measures implemented,
rather than token photo ops.
>>I'm sure the NYPD
>>would mention all sorts of legal issues with detaining someone who
>>refuses the search.
>
>
> Yes, there are such issues. Much of the press coverage of this plan
> focuses on how random and racially neutral the process is going to be.
> I don't believe any of that. For every white grandma searched, there
> will be dozens of young Arabic males.
BULLSHIT.
>>Screw the ALCU--let's get tough with the scumbags
>>who want to destroy our country. Logic is in short supply; "political
>>correctness" hampers all meaningful (and more cost effective) ways to
>>combat terrorism. Why are grandmothers being carefully searched at
>>airport screening stations? When was the last time grandma blew up an
>>airplane?? Aaargh!
>
>
> You arghed before finishing your presentation. What "meaningful and
> more cost effective ways" do you advocate?
For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
terrorist. That change will never fly, due to the whining civil rights
bozos, so I didn't mention it before. And don't forget our porous
borders. I know the limitations of our government, hence, my earlier
"aaargh!".
We'll get to pay higher airfares as soon as all the airliners are
equipped with anti-missle measures. And some of us will die during
future terror operations. Yet we still have morons who are bitching
about the detainees at Gitmo. go figure...
And how come long fingernails haven't been termed potential weapons like
finger-nail clippers??
I wanna go back to the good ole days of the Cold War.
Dave
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>>oh, just the rude comment about my age. :)
>>
>>
>> Some people are too young to remember some things us old farts take
>> for granted. Then again, the memory is the second to go.
>>
> I mis-spoke earlier. His was a rude QUESTION regarding my age, rather
> than a COMMENT, as he knows not my age.
>
> Dave
I told you I was not trying to offend you, but asked your age because it was
(and still is) germane to this discussion. Go back and read it again. You're
hearing what you want to hear. Is it possible you're not familiar with the
word "germane", and that somehow causing you problems?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For starters, don't waste dollars hiring screeners to check people who
>>>>don't come within a million miles of fitting the profile of a potential
>>>>terrorist.
>>>
>>>
>>>You advocate the approach that allowed the bomb aboard the flight
>>>that exploded over Lockerbie. No need to search the luggage
>>>belonging to a young European Woman.
>>>
>>
>>Ever heard of a bomb sniffing machine such as the one I watched my
>>luggage go through at the airport last week???
>
>
> So why not sniff the passengers for bombs?
>
>
>> Police frisking
>>people at random and then letting those who refuse is a total waste of
>>time.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>IF the police would detain anyone who refused, that would be a
>>different story.
>
>
> Agreed. If police are allowed to detain people for refusing to be
> searched then the story is that we are no longer a free people.
>
Me thinks you are oversimplifying when you say "no longer a free
people". There are plenty of rules and regs to keep one from feeling
footloose and fancy free, without the inclusion of rules aimed at
terrorism per se.
Dave
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>Keep in mind that legislation is harder to get rid of than it is to put
>>>in place. Most of the legislators who spoke out against the renewal of
>>>the Patriot Act (without modifying it a bit) ended up voting to keep it,
>>>just as it is. So, saying "we need it now" sounds innocent enough until
>>>you find that it's impossible to get rid of.
>>>
>>>By the way, my definition of paranoia involves fear of things that are
>>>imaginary. The abuses you've been told about have already happened, and
>>>they will happen again. Bank on it.
>>
>>So what's the solution? Laissez-faire? You gotta break a few eggs to
>>make an omelet. The stakes are so high, that civil rights (to some
>>extent) will take a deserved back seat to the methods needed to thwart the
>>terrorists. It's NECESSARY, or there won't be any more "us" to debate
>>this issue.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> OK then. You go first.
>
>
I'm not concerned about being scrutinized or abused by the government
due to thier additional new powers. (The've already been there and done
that and I survived and it had nothing to do with extradodinary powers
granted by the Patriot Act).
Dave
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dhakala wrote:
>
>>
>> While you're down there, send us a note detailing how to catch
>> terrorists cheaply.
>>
> CHEAPER, not "cheaply". Right now the counter-terrorism measures are so
> ineffective, that the cost/benefit ratio is out of the ballpark. Negative
> profiling would be a start. I'll let you figure out what I mean by
> "negative" profiling...
>
>
> On another note, not related to your cost question:
>
> I was happy to see the patriot act extension was passed by the House. This
> current epidemic of terrorism is not a game; we are at war with these
> bastards and should avail ourselves of EVERY method to apprehend their
> sorry asses. Civil rights activists can't seem to get their priorities
> straight
<snip>
You'd better hope some terrorist doesn't use a fancy wooden box to contain
explosives. You might get a visit from the FBI if you subsequently visit
your library and take out a book like "Taunton's Complete Illustrated Guide
to Box Making". Even though you're not a terrorist, how would you feel,
knowing that your library activities were probably being monitored for an
unknown period of time, and perhaps your e-mail and phonecalls, too?
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Why would the Canadians want to get behind a list of reasons, all (but
one)
> of which have turned out to be nonsense? I'm not aware of any
international
> treaty which requires other countries to do stupid things.
Obviously, there's far fewer reasons now (such as not finding any WMDs) than
there were just before the war in Iraq began. Nevertheless, I'm of the mind
that a country should support its neighbour since much of the commerce and
lifestyle between our countries is so inexorably linked. That doesn't mean
that it should follow it into some completely ridiculous situation, just
that Canada shouldn't have adopted such complete hands off policy. Just
because Canada doesn't have a significant military presence, doesn't mean
that we can't contribute in other areas.
Don't forget, the war in Iraq (forgetting about oil for the moment) was at
least partially considered a humanitarian war. Sadam was a proven dictator
subjugating much of his people to incredible hardship at will. Just because
the war in Iraq hasn't turned out so far as hoped, doesn't mean that there
wasn't some merit behind going there in the first place.
One of these days, there's going to be a terrorist situation originating
from an out of country source in Canada. It's not a question of it might
happen, it's just a matter of when. If it's serious enough and on the off
chance that Canada decides to go to war over it, I know that the USA will be
there to support us in almost every respect. I believe this with everything
I know. How can I feel any different with the roles reversed?