Sign in to follow this  
Guest groundpounder75

Salon story details Govt warning to Airlines...

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

How are terrorists victorious? Through fear, and those who help them by perpetuating it. It's time to give their agenda a rest.... They want people to post links like this. They want to wreck our economy, and people staying off air carriers out of fear would do just that. I know it's not your intention, but have you ever asked yourself which side you're really helping? Do you really know what terrorism means? It feeds on building fear of all the ways we can meet our maker. Actually, not that they are listening, but my post is just as much for CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc..... I'm sick and tired of hearing them pander to the terrorists' agenda for a few soundbytes. Same goes for some less than bright government officials who post the "warning of the week".The terrorists are winning this war. Our biggest weapon has gone unused--that of ignoring them, and treating them as the criminal animals they are rather than as humans with a cause. God forbid we ever give gangbangers the same press. I'm more likely to be killed by one of them than any fool with a missile.I think it's time you practice restraint in your posts Braun, so we can truly have "Victory in all we do". Lending a terrorist cause or control over aviation is their victory, not ours.Just my two cents, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,You said:"The terrorists are winning this war. Our biggest weapon has gone unused--that of ignoring them, and treating them as the criminal animals they are rather than as humans with a cause."I'm afraid that ignoring terrorists does not work. The United States of America has been subject to these attacks since at least 1979.So how long should we ignore them. Exactly how many innocent civilian lives have to end until they are no longer ignored?Would like like a list of terrorist acts that, IMHO, have already been ignored in the past? Ignoring them is what will continue the attacks, IMHO.Regards,Joe :-waveHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe...Are you suggesting I said we shouldn't go after them? That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we shouldn't give 'em the press they crave or the fear they crave. I think I made that point very clear in this post and others I've made on the forum. You are way out of line to suggest that I feel we shouldn't go after these cowards and punish them for being the criminals they are. Unless you mean we shouldn't "ignore" them by instead catering to their needs, but I am not going to put that meaning into your post, as I don't think that's your point.My point, is we should quietly and without publicity go about our business, while rooting out and exterminating these creatures that believe genocide is the only way to handle their bogus cause. Bin Laden being a "man of the Muslim world" is just that--bogus. He's a wealthy man who craves the headlines like that found in Braun's link. Take that away, and you take away the water these terrorists feed by. And any expert will tell you the same thing. So to sum up: ignore them in the PRESS, but hunt 'em down.-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is not something that I want to read. I am trying to go to flight school now and reading that crap scares me. The way I feel about it is all we need is one more attach on our airlines and that will be it as far as air travel goes and public confidence. Traveling by plane will be the last resort for a lot of people if we sustain another mass attach on our already screwed up airlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John...not entirely directed at you. I am completely amazed at the hostility and open anger directed at me for simply posting links to articles such as these here in this forum. No one NEEDS to read them, those that wish to may, those that don't...pass.The way I see it, we have lived with these threats all along. Simply calling them out, for all to see, does not give them power, nor make them reality. In fact, the opposite is quite true. Far too long, we have ignored the constant stream of data, which shows our world is not all that warm and fuzzy any more. We have a growing threat against our way of life, and that there is a contingency of folks who wish us nothing more than the utmost of harm.If you don't think that Stinger missiles and commercial aircraft are a reality in today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey John,cant' handle the heat, or what?I am not out of line. They were your words. You said, specifically in this post:"Our biggest weapon has gone unused--that of ignoring them,"Your words, John, not mine.Here is my nickel.The next time a Terrorist takes out a major target, there will be hell to pay if there is no warning posted.Just like Iraq. If Iraq is shown to blow up Paris with a nuke, the same people will be complaining that we didn't do enough in order to serve their own warped political agenda.Just like these forums, you have choice, john.You said:"......CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc..... I'm sick and tired of hearing them pander to the terrorists' agenda for a few soundbytes."John, that is pretty sad, IMHO. If you are so sick and tired, (in your own words), then why do you continue to listen to them. I have not watched CBS, or ABC nightly news in a long, long time. I rarely watch MSNBC. CNBC Is the only channel I get at work, and I get my "Press" from mainly the following sources:1) Dow Jones2) AP Feed wire....Not the slimmed versions.3) Direct Reuters wire feed4) Fox news and Drudge for comedy, and entertainment.You see, John, I make sound, reasonable choices IMHO, and I know when to turn the crap off the TV, and not subject myself or my kids to the dribble that is shown on the tube. So make a choice john, if you are sick and tired, do you have the mental fortutude to just turn it off.Or just don't read the threads. No one is forcing you too, but if you decide to post, then others, like me will as well.The press has every right to report on whatever issues they want to as long as they don't endanger lives willingly. It is your responsibility, john, to not watch it, or to turn it off, and tell others not to watch, IMHO. You know what, john, that is what I do when I talk with friends or clients or whoever.So do you believe in Freedom of the Press, and freedom of speech?And there is my nickel because I never jave just two cents.So as for me being out of line. I disagree, and you are entitled to your opinion as am I. :-)Have a day,Sonar5Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Braun,Don't worry about it. I appreciate you listing the links, and while you don't make comments anymore regarding them, I do see where others attempt to interject your actual opinions out of posting a link.It is quite comical to see others make assumptions out of posting a link.You never said whether you agreed or disagreed with the article yet everyone can plainly see the LEAPS that are made out of you posting a link.You did comment after recieving a certain reply....It is quite sad.I appreciate you posting it, and thank you.Best Regards,Joe :-)Here are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for what it's worth Joe, I felt you did express your opinion taking issue with my thoughts, and not me. I appreciate that.After Desert Storm, I was one of perhaps thousands of American tourists in Europe. As I was preparing to board my flight home, the gate agent told me "we're informing all passengers that although no specific flight has been threatened, the airline is being threatened". I was offered passage home on another flight, if I wished.I flew as planned.Next time a terrorist makes a threat, I'm not going to change my routine. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand. But they make their threats knowing that the media will faithfully report it, and knowing that some will be scared from going about their lives. The more of us who play along, the more the terrorists have to celebrate.I have no problem with freedom of the press. I'm asking that the press choose self-restraint. If they don't, I'd fight like heck if the government tried to censor them. But as for freedom of the press, so goes freedom for both of us to express our opinions. Let's agree that that is more important, and more worth fighting for....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"in case you have not noticed yet, the world IS on fire, and there are plenty of conspiracies out there"I guess it comes down to, is the cup half full, or half empty. I prefer the half full view, because a world where we focus on the fire is truly an empty one. All my life, people have been scared of this or that. In the 60's, it was communists everywhere. The 70's, it was dope, or the SLA (and communists everywhere). In the 80's, it was dope....and communists everywhere, and an odd Arab here and there. I'd say the 90's were the Arab's decade, and now the 00's.But go back fifty years. 100. 500. When hasn't the world been on fire? Yet going back through the same time, what brings hope and a reason not to fear are the stories of heroism. The London blitz, and the way the British made their way through that. The Jews, as they somehow survived ###### oppression with dignity. The Indians, who bravely fought for their land and their beliefs and somehow still hold onto their traditions today--my wife's ancestry originates from a tribe that populated central Mexico.I read these threads because this forum belongs to all of us. As long as there are those who want to refute (and have the right to refute) something I say, I'm going to offer my opinion. So like it or not, you're stuck with that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there are those who want to refute (and have the right to refute) something I say, I'm going to offer my opinion. So like it or not, you're stuck with that :)Amen! Your opinion is as valuable as anyone else's. Please never stop offering yours up. You see...when we stop discussing, stop debating...we really have lost!Cheers to you John!bt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to answer this statement...You're right. You're right. Your premise is sound. Truth is though, dope can't kill thousands with one stroke. Can't be used as a weapon. No matter who your boogie man is, in the old days, even if we wanted to kill thousands (basic human nature) it was too hard. Not any more:StingersSmallpoxDirty bombsAirliners into buildingsWhy don't you kill your best friend, when he really ####### you off? Because you have compulsion, morals, upbringing, humanity, compassion, and a million other euphemisms.Today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise a good point--the scale of destructive risks today is far greater. Or is it? I don't know the answer, but I do know whether I'm killed in a terrorist attack or by a gangbanger, I'm just as dead. My world (at least this one) would be over. I can argue that drug use has killed more than all of our nuclear weapons ever have, especially if you include alcohol and tobacco. Daily, thousands are killed in alcohol/drug related accidents on this planet.Airplanes flying into buildings? How about aircraft carriers, as witnessed by our seamen in WW-II. Yet somehow the world survived, and the terrorists of the day ended up part of our world again. Go back further, to the mustard gas of WW-I. To the mass slaughter of Indians to whom the gun must have seemed as much of a weapon of mass destruction as our nuclear weapons do today.Yet look at the other side of the coin. If we somehow survive all the cr*p coming our way that can hurt us or kill us, we have a chance at a far better life than even our fathers did. I live in my own home, own two cars, can type on this keyboard at eleven o'clock at night. I live better than 99 pct. of the world, through no fault of their own. I don't feel I have the right to be worried about a chance encounter with a terrorist, when someone born in the depths of Africa is lucky to make it out of their teens. All of us in these forums are living, even if not by intention, against the time of others who should be getting more press attention than the terrorists do.When I was but a young boy, we all sat clustered around our TV sets, fearful that one misstep in Cuba would bring our end. I hardly knew what was going on, but I was old enough to see the fear in my parents eyes as my father--a nuclear physicist, drilled us on how to decontaminate ourselves. I argue that the world was more dangerous then, at that moment 40 years ago. Today most experts agree that our enemy can bring mass terror, and perhaps destroy the population of a city. But we are likely not to face the "mutual assured destruction" that was doctrine as many of us grew up. None of us has to grow up living in Hanoi at the end of '72, which must have seemed like the end of the world to the children living there who were my daughter's age.I can't say I want to see us shake hands and make peace with our enemies. At least a portion of the Muslim world has said, out of some need for revenge, that our destruction--genocide--is their goal. It is my feeling that in self defense, we kill them first before they kill us. And we make it clear that the friend of our enemy is also our enemy, which despite our talk, hasn't been made clear. But I don't want to see our press drawn in towards showing the terrorists what an impact they have on our lives. If I were to heed things which cause fear, I would not get in the car to go to work. Every day, without fail, someone is injured or killed on the Loop 101, the 60 mile stretch of freeway in Phoenix I use. That puts my odds of getting hurt about 1-100,000, give or take. Unless I count the time two years ago when a weapon of mass destruction...a SUV....decided that my stopping was an inconvenience, compressing the rear half of my compact into the size of a woman's compact. I walked away. My car was lifted off the ground, and spun several times before landing in a bush, which saved my hmmhmm. Now my car is two cars...the "old" front end and the "new" rear end they grafted onto it to make it a car again :) I plan on buying an SUV.At the end of '99, I stood atop the WTC, one tourist among many. That was less than two years before 9/11, and by then the plot to destroy the WTC was well under way. The day I went up, visibility was over 60 miles, very much like 9/11. If I just count the days that could have been used to attack the WTC, my odds were what-- 1-1000? I knew going up there what had happened in '93, and I knew going up there what a target it was. But I'd rather die in my 40's having lived, than live to 90 living scared. I think that's the decision my British cousins made during the Blitz, and the decision my wife's Indian cousins made when they confronted the strangers in their world.BTW..I'm too lazy to spell check tonight, and proofread, so read at your own risk :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Our biggest weapon has >gone unused--that of ignoring them, and treating them as the >criminal animals they are rather than as humans with a >cause.In a recent thread weren't you arguing, strenuously and emotionally, that the method of transporting arrested members of Al Qaeda to the detention center in Cuba was inhumane? You seem to have veered away from your benign approach with that statement above.And in message 9 I see you've referred to the WWII Blitz of London. Churchill, of course, wasn't exactly in the habit of "ignoring" the enemy in his day, even though those in power during the 1930s certainly wanted to ignore his constant warnings about the growing threat. And when he became Prime Minister he wasn't in a mood to ignore the reality facing the nation: he told the British people he had nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. Of course, the specific threat from the bombers wasn't ignored either: children were evacuated to the countryside, lights were turned off all over the city to prevent its easy identification from the air, and people took shelter in the stations of the London Underground. And Britain survived.So perhaps it's good not to ignore the enemy: Perhaps it's best to face the realities by identifying the foe and his likely tactics, and by preparing the population with threat assessments and defensive measures, and then fighting the conflict, while taking all reasonable precautions when dealing with suicidal fanatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You seem to have veered away from your benign approach with that statement above."What?Paul...You gave me the best laugh of the day... Methinks you have a severe case of selective amnesia. I was very clear in that thread that the terrorists who are guilty don't deserve any human courtesy--they didn't allow the 9/11 victims any, or the Cole victims, or the emmbassy victims in Africa. And I noted in that thread, and again now, that no one has the courage to draw a distinction between the guilty and the innocent--but I do accept the fact that some feel that such means of transportation was needed regardless of the guilt of the prisoners, even if I don't.I didn't like what I saw, because it is a known fact that our government mistakenly hauled off some innocent victims of the Taliban to Cuba. We don't even treat our own domestic prisoners by throwing hoods over their heads, unless we plan on executing them. I can't make it any clearer than that, but it seems that you and Sonar would rather take words from my posts, rather than meaning. Who is censoring whom?As for ignoring threats, I've also made myself very clear, that I would like the PRESS to back off. Same goes for government officials on the low rungs of the ladder with their fr*ggin "leaks". If a credible threat comes in where a city has to be evacuated, let it be published with the help our government's leadership. But articles such as the one Braun cited serve only one purpose--to cite potential and uncertain threats, to sow worry and concern, and to disrupt our economy.If you and Sonar and Braun are interested in publishing all the ways terrorists can nail us, let me help you:The can easily attack our dams and our bridges. We have no screening system in place to detect trucks full of explosives, any of which can bring down a bridge or a building. Take a boat, and you can bring down a dam.Any inflatable boat is big enough to bring a small nuclear device into one of our harbors. An enemy ship can easily come within an hour's striking distance, and outside our twelve mile limit, from which an inflatable can be launched. We can't even detect boatloads of "boat" people.Our subways are helpless against a gas attack like that in Japan.Your citing of the measures the British took was comparing apples and oranges. The British dealt with an enemy that could be detected by radar, and one which oddly enough played by some rules of war, although not always. We're facing an enemy that can't be detected by any means, and that plays by no rules. So what are the alternatives--let the press post vaugue warnings, and give the terrorists success in sowing fear? Or let our government do its job, and post legitimate and specific warnings when needed. So far, vague warnings like "the threat is high" or "they'll use missiles against our airplanes" are more for political and ratings points. The whole campaign on terrorism is highly political. And it's a ratings game in the press. But no good will come from crying wolf--because when we do get a legitimate warning, our public may allow the terrorists to go unnoticed.Personally, I think this reply will be a waste of time. When people focus on words more than meaning, then they are simply grandstanding. I'm not going to rehash everything I said in a locked thread, but next time, please get your ducks in a row before you quote me out of context. It's an embarassment to the phrase "intelligent conversation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this