are you for real? maybe you're from the prc or gdr or north korea so it's cultural/historical. in america, we say 'give me liberty or give me death.' just us.

I'm from the UK where we had over 20 years of IRA terrorism and learned, the hard way, we had to take precautions. Are you really suggesting that the USA should take no precautions and let the terrorists have a free hand to murder and maim its citizens because you say "give me liberty or give me death."

I'm from the UK where we had over 20 years of IRA terrorism and learned, the hard way, we had to take precautions. Are you really suggesting that the USA should take no precautions and let the terrorists have a free hand to murder and maim its citizens because you say "give me liberty or give me death."

You miss the point of the word terrorism. Terrorism's purpose is to terrorise, to scare people for whatever goal. That is why the word is not murderism. If the purpose of terrorism is to murder people, then there are much easier ways to do that than hijacking planes or suicide bombs where the pepetrators get away and not have to sacrifice themselves. Killing is a means, but merely a means to a goal. Their goal is to force a change upon a society. By changing our lives, by living scared, we hand the terrorists that piece of victory. Instead, by living our lives the way we always have, and the way we want to, we repudiate the terrorists and force them to realize the uselessness of their actions. It is the only way to win against them. I'm not against taking precautions, but there are precautions and there is idiocy. Much of what is done in the USA is idiocy in response to terrorism. The precautions have to be balanced against stripping the freedoms and rights that this country was founded on. If those are gone, what is the point of this country? The terrorists would have succeeded in destroying the US at that point. Citizens who want to do something about the terrorists should channel those energies into useful actions, but the government should not force all citizens to change their lives for terrorism. Just out of curiosity, where is your line, mgh? Do you feel that the government should do whatever it wants in the name of precaution? How much of your life are you willing to hand over?

I don't miss the point of terrorism. Terrorists believe in their cause (what ever that may be) and murder and maim in support of it. They choose spectacular ways because it gets world-wide attention. They are often fanatics who willo give their lives for the cause. Because they have a cause living our lives the way we always have won't make them realise the uselessness of their actions as long as that cause exists. As a consequence we have no choice but to take precautions to protect ourselves against them. I saw onTV tonight the NYPD stopping and seaching vehicles in the vicinity of ground-zero. I've no doubt the similar checks are being made, albeit less visibly, throughout the transport system. Is that an unacceptqble infringement of the liberty of the vehicles' drivers? I fly frequently in Europe and am accustomed to having to empty my pockets, to have the contents x-rayed, to walk through a scanner and, sometimes, to be patted down if it beeps. Should I have the liberty to walk straight onto the aircraft without being checked at all?

And it is the attention that the media gives them which is the reason why they use these tactics. If they did not get this kind of attention for their threats of violence, then they would have to adopt tactics other than violence. The media plays as their tool because society lives in such fear of violence. By fearing the violence, society gives the threat of violence value to the terrorists. No, you shouldn't walk onto an aircraft unvetted. The vetting you receive should be vetted to ensure that it is compatible with the rights of an innocent person in the country you live in. You have not answered my question. Obviously, you accept what you have to undergo so far without question. I asked the question of where you limit lies. What if they decreed that flightsims are to be banned? What if they decreed physical cavity searches for everybody? They've found the limits of a lot of people here. If we in the US were to live without questioning the decrees of the government as you do, we would have never bothered to revolt from you guys in 1776. But we do feel that the word innocence has meaning. So we question what happens here. And our questioning reveals that there are things that the government does in the name of security that are inconsistent with the goals of security and benefits versus their costs in terms of expenditure and cost in terms of the giving up of the rights of the innocent can be argued as unfavorable.

It is all about striking a balance. Every nation is different. I live in a nation where the police on duty still don't carry a gun. They need to call in armed response when there comes a situation. They talk about arming our police but that isn't something that won't happen anytime soon. Imagine unarmed police in the USA....That is something that will never happen. When you travel domestically here if you are getting on a 737 or an A320 they put you through a metal detector and that is about it. If you are getting on a Dash 8 you can walk straight onto the aircraft without any security or checks or scanners. I fly regularly here and I like that I can arrive at the airport and step onto a Dash 8 without any security or scanners. It is very civilized and gives a level on trust in the society for which you live. I would say I live in one of the last places in the world that has not given up these freedoms. We are also involved in the war on terror or the 'Overseas Contingency Operation' and we do have inteligence actively pursuing threats like any other nation. However their is a tremendous difference between us and other places in that we have not given up any of our freedoms or quality of life in the past 10 years here. In my business it is amazing how many new clients I have started working with in the past year that have recently moved here from the USA. People just tired of what it has become. One girl today moved from North Carolina and is now getting into the Rugby World Cup right now. Learning new cultures in her new country. She is a former Pittsburgh Steelers supporter and now an All Black's supporter....

"She is a former Pittsburgh Steelers supporter and now an All Black's supporter.... " Has she learned the Haka yet? (You know, there should be a smiley for that ).

Yea she has. She went out on Friday Night to the waterfront to watch the opening ceromonies. She is right into the Rugby now and never brings up NFL anymore. I asked her if she was going to watch the NFL opening and she says she is tired of people here making fun of her and calling them not real men like Rugby.....She's got all the All Blacks gear now. Anyhow, I am still an NFL fan and always a Buffalo Bills fan. I don't like this Toronto situation with Buffalo as it is alienating the hardcore fan base so I may have to start throwing my support behind the Steelers if this continues like this. Still on the fence about that one though.

It's pure politics - DHS is constantly trying to justify their existence and these little missives remind folks they still exist. DHS is an institutional bureaucracy grown out of fear that has never accomplished any of the missions that it was created for. It has, however, succeeded in creating a climate of fear that ensures continued funding. After years of dealing with these folks in various roles, I can tell you they are as clueless as they come - there are some good folks in the department but they are overshadowed and usually overruled by the bureaucracy they work for. The GA community doesn't have the clout to tell these folks to (politely put) go away and get a grip, so they're easy targets - pretty much like the FAA which also is constantly explaining why many DHS demands are nonsense. Look at it logically for a moment... cars, trucks, weapons, and commercial air all have powerful lobbying groups backed by a ton of money so DHS doesn't want to deeply annoy them since congress will be all over them if they do. The AOPA is a nice organization but just doesn't have the same clout as GM, the NRA, and major airlines of your choice - so there it is. DJ

Well said Ubersu. On September 12th 2001 the head/s of every bureaucracy in the US and most of the world saw opportunity in the crisis of 911 to "to never let a crisis go to waste".The implication being that they can now manipulate, regulate, and control and limit even more of peoples activities and the costs associated with them. Having followed these sorts of discussions at the AOPA Forums pre 911 it should be no surprise to any real world aviator that the current "regime" has "overreached" once again with its "regulatory responsibilties" Most of the political side of these discussions remind me of a phrase which I think was attributed to Ben Franklin."Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security will have neither and deserve neither." Edit: Here's the actual quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." PS. Does anyone remember the kid down at Tampa/St. Pete who copy catted the 911 insanity with a 172 into a building. How about the Cirrus into the building along the Hudson?Plenty of knowledge on the damage done by GA whether by malice or accident but not enought to cause us all to wet our pants like little girls..even if the "agencies" would like for us to do so....

This "war" has been going on for quite a wile, im sure it will get nowhere tho GA is where flight began!

This "war" has been going on for quite a wile, im sure it will get nowhere tho GA is where flight began!

That's a nice thought, but GA will be absolutely unaffordable as we know it before too long. I hope you've been reading all of this and keeping up with legislation, etc.!

PS. Does anyone remember the kid down at Tampa/St. Pete who copy catted the 911 insanity with a 172 into a building. How about the Cirrus into the building along the Hudson?

The Tampa crash in 2002 was a 15-year-old kid with problems. (His mother filed a large lawsuit, subsequently dropped, against the makers of his acne medication, claiming that was the cause.) The 2006 New York crash was ruled pilot error. The plane was owned and flown by a pitcher for the Yankees, and he had an instructor on board. The first was a 9-11 copycat, but not the second.

The Tampa crash in 2002 was a 15-year-old kid with problems. (His mother filed a large lawsuit, subsequently dropped, against the makers of his acne medication, claiming that was the cause.) The 2006 New York crash was ruled pilot error. The plane was owned and flown by a pitcher for the Yankees, and he had an instructor on board. The first was a 9-11 copycat, but not the second.

BarfbagMy point was that whether intentional or accidental there is ample evidence of the level of damage caused by GA aircraft contact with public buildings in the examples presented.Nevertheless the "regulatory agencies" will twist such "evidence" to the extent they can add another layer of either control or cost. All of this tends to what some have called a war on GA Flight.

That's a nice thought, but GA will be absolutely unaffordable as we know it before too long. I hope you've been reading all of this and keeping up with legislation, etc.!

Zach, the local FBO guys who have been paying attention are extremely frustrated over yet another onslought/layer of cost on their freedom to fly.

are you for real? maybe you're from the prc or gdr or north korea so it's cultural/historical.in america, we say 'give me liberty or give me death.' just us.

KDFWTo which the regulators answer: "We'll slowly erode your liberty until your death."

And it is the attention that the media gives them which is the reason why they use these tactics. If they did not get this kind of attention for their threats of violence, then they would have to adopt tactics other than violence. The media plays as their tool because society lives in such fear of violence. By fearing the violence, society gives the threat of violence value to the terrorists. No, you shouldn't walk onto an aircraft unvetted. The vetting you receive should be vetted to ensure that it is compatible with the rights of an innocent person in the country you live in. You have not answered my question. Obviously, you accept what you have to undergo so far without question. I asked the question of where you limit lies. What if they decreed that flightsims are to be banned? What if they decreed physical cavity searches for everybody? They've found the limits of a lot of people here. If we in the US were to live without questioning the decrees of the government as you do, we would have never bothered to revolt from you guys in 1776. But we do feel that the word innocence has meaning. So we question what happens here. And our questioning reveals that there are things that the government does in the name of security that are inconsistent with the goals of security and benefits versus their costs in terms of expenditure and cost in terms of the giving up of the rights of the innocent can be argued as unfavorable.

Are you suggesting that the freedom of the press to report events should be restricted? I didn't answer your questions becauuse they were hypothetical and unanswerable without knowingn in what circurmstances they might be proposed. They are as unaswerable as asking you how have many deaths arising because of terrorist activity you'd need accept restrictions on your liberty. Bearing in mind the fundamental misunderstandings shown in this thread, I'd rather put my faith in those who actually have responsibility of security rather than those who have none. This thead began with a claim that a circular suggesting continued awareness and vigilance in the run up to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was a war on GA, even though it impsed no restrictions. This was linked to Exxon's decision to cut-back of production GA fuel. Peter and the wolf?

MGH,Are you an AOPA Member?RW GA Pilot?

Are you suggesting that the freedom of the press to report events should be restricted? I didn't answer your questions becauuse they were hypothetical and unanswerable without knowingn in what circurmstances they might be proposed. They are as unaswerable as asking you how have many deaths arising because of terrorist activity you'd need accept restrictions on your liberty. Bearing in mind the fundamental misunderstandings shown in this thread, I'd rather put my faith in those who actually have responsibility of security rather than those who have none. This thead began with a claim that a circular suggesting continued awareness and vigilance in the run up to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was a war on GA, even though it impsed no restrictions. This was linked to Exxon's decision to cut-back of production GA fuel. Peter and the wolf?

I'm sure you'd love to see the government impose speech restrictions, mgh, but no, that is far from what I am saying. The terorrists have leverage because the employees of the media companies believe that that is the kind of press that will garner viewership and generate higher ad revenues. In short, terrorists capitalize on the media rule that sensationalism sells. That is what I am saying. The sensationalism given by the media to all things death and destruction related feed and sustain terrorism. And that is no one's fault but our own. If the media profession did not believe that the general public lived in such fear of terrorism, then they would not see terrorism as a sell and put their resources at other topics that can generate a better return. With the result that terrorists are deprived of their soapbox and their reason for violence. People need to realize that their fear of terrorism only serves to sustain terrorism. The question may seem hypothetical to you, but it is real to us here. From the strip searches to the constant attacks against groups such as general aviation, the limits of what we are willing to put up with in the name of security is quite tangible. I'm sure your faith is blind, but some of us are blessed with sight, and it can clearly be seen that many things that are done in the name of security is but farcical, people are being forced to give up basic rights for little return in added security, while real holes in security remain unaddressed.