Salon story details Govt warning to Airlines...

[Guest Paul_W]

>You gave me the best laugh of the day... Methinks you have >a severe case of selective amnesia.Well I'm glad you think this dialog is so very funny. Heck, if I'm trying to challenge your "all over the place" emotional and faulty logic, and you just end up laughing at me, what's the point? In fact quite frankly I don't think you're up to a decent discussion on a subject like this--you rely too much on demeaning sarcasm, hackneyed reactions such as "that was the best laugh of the day," and gems such as "your efforts to converse with me are an embarrassment (it has two "r"s by the way) to 'intelligent conversation'."Still I'll make a few points before I stop reading and responding to anything I see here that has your name on it.No, I don't have selective amnesia--I'm simply trying to get to the heart of your faulty arguments without lots of sub-points and conditional statements and disclaimers.>no one has the >courage to draw a distinction between the guilty and the >innocent>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, It's war. It's war with terrorists. And you accept that war can be a confusing affair don't you? You accept that all the enemy combatants and those suspected of being enemy combatants might not have an up-to-date and validated Al Qaeda membership card with them at the time of their capture, and therefore the transportation of some otherwise innocent folk to a detention camp could in fact happen? And you accept that this can be discovered later and that some people can then be released?And do you accept the notion that our military is filled with and run by professionals who do what they do as humanely as possible? Do you believe the military is in fact reluctant to get into many conflicts? In short, based on all your accumulated knowledge of US military operations and tactics, especially when compared to those of various enemies, shouldn't we be giving the military the benefit of the doubt in matters of such overwhelming importance as the means of transit to a detention camp?Can you understand that people who expend such intensity and emotion on whether members, or suspected members, of a trained and determined terrorist group should be transported with hoods on can be construed as having a misplaced set of priorities? That's what I believe you demonstrated on that issue, along with a less than constructive method of making your point.As for hoods, I've flown on airliners across the Atlantic where passengers wear blackout masks over their eyes, presumably to keep the lights out and to help them get some sleep. In fact I believe that in the little kits that Virgin Atlantic Airlines hands out to its passengers these types of masks are made available for the passengers' comfort, along with socks and toothpaste and that kind of thing. So why you would get so darned upset about people who can't see where they're going is beyond me. I only bring it up because you're willing to say dire things about terrorists on the one hand, while arguing strenuously about your concerns involving their transportation on the other, which strikes me as very odd. And since you're so outspoken and intransigent on these issues, I thought I'd take the time (far too much time as a matter of fact) to challenge your logic.>As for ignoring threats, I've also made myself very clear, >that I would like the PRESS to back off.>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. Do you remember the massive publicity and fear and the disruption of the economy in the Washington DC / Virginia area at the time those snipers were on the loose? Had the threat been played down businesses wouldn't have lost so much money, and after all, there really was a very small chance that if you'd been loading goods in your car after a trip to a shopping mall in that area that you'd end up being shot dead.Still it happened, and repeatedly, and there was a crescendo of media coverage and pervasive fear...and it all eventually led to the capture of the perpetrators. Because the public was listening, and everyone was working together, eventually these needles in the haystack were found. A truck driver listening to a media report made a note of the license plate of the suspects' vehicle, and within hours it was located.A similar thing happened here in Southern California after the very, very tragic kidnapping and murder of little Samantha Runnion. There was massive media coverage, and daily briefings by the Orange County Sheriff, along with the FBI and the Highway Patrol, etc. And they didn't have much to go on at first, but they instructed the public on what to look for, and what the clues would be, and sure enough they received some information that led to the apprehension of the killer within a few days. Without massive media coverage and public involvement and vigilance though, it wouldn't have happened.Sometimes the media can do very good work. Whenever there's some disaster in Southern California--and there have been a number--I've seen that and appreciated it. On the other hand there's the Russian approach: Some time ago I read about a murderer on the loose in some Russian town or city. He was victimizing women, but there were no media reports because the powers-that-be decided not to upset the public and tarnish the image of the place. And the killings went on, and people were not aware of the basic need to be prepared and vigilant....We just can't ignore the terrorists or their tactics you see.>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.Now how do you conclude that the current enemy has perfected an impenetrable form of personal stealth? Recent reports have indicated the US has captured more than one top terrorist operative, eliminated a carload by missile in Yemen, and arrested members of terrorist cells in more than one American city. The government also broke up a massive plot to blow up New York City's Lincoln Tunnel as well as other bridges and tunnels by terrorist fanatics in the early 90s. It may even be that the government and police agencies received tips about suspicious activities that led them to some of these arrests, and the tips might well have been the result of...publicity about suspected threats.>The whole campaign on terrorism is highly political.I think it's highly practical and that the government is doing its best to keep the population safe, and they've succeeded since 9/11/01.And one last observation for you: It's perfectly plausible to hold diametrically opposite points of view and still have a decent discussion in which you don't make an effort to be demeaning and sarcastic. But if you do, and one suspects you'll continue that approach, I expect others will respond to you in kind. Remember though, someone who disagrees with you doesn't actually have to be an amnesiac to reach his conclusions about your point of view. It could also be that you're missing something somewhere in the scheme of things.Now I'm out of time, and certainly out of interest. Your oft-stated views here needed some counterpoint though, and I hope you'll broaden your thinking a bit.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"and still have a decent discussion in which you don't make an effort to be demeaning and sarcastic"The tone of your posts launched the "demeaning and sarcastic" theme. but you can't see that, as you seemed blinded by something. You certaintly are stating everything as fact, vs. points to be "discussed". And you follow the same pattern all of your posts do--turning attacks on thoughts to attacks on the person. You are right--"discussion" is over. And I said it with a lot less prose than you, didn't I?

[Guest Paul_W]

>And you follow the >same pattern all of your posts do--turning attacks on >thoughts to attacks on the person.That's pure rubbish JohnCi. The only thing I'm ever interested in discussing is the issue at hand; when I run into individuals who suggest people they disagree with are amnesiacs and incapable of intelligent conversation I sometimes try to bring those annoying tactics to their attention and suggest they stick to the subject at hand. It's all about being constructive on the forums, and I've said that many, many times. That nonsense above proves to me you've learned nothing, and that your judgment can't be trusted.>You are right--"discussion" is over. And I said it with a lot less >prose than you, didn't I? No. You're an individual who spends a lot of your time transferring your highly opinionated and narrow thoughts to a public forum, and sometimes you're bound to be challenged. If the already high number of your posts tends to rise more slowly in the future, perhaps your observations about less prose will have more validity. Believe me, I wouldn't take the time to write all this if you hadn't managed to build up quite a reserve of indignation by the sheer volume and frequency of your narrow writings here.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"If the already high number of your posts tends to rise more slowly in the future"You insist on being insulting and unfair, don't you. Now you're attacking the number of my posts? Why don't you take time to do a study on them.... I help a large number of people in these forums, and answer questions concerning my software. My "hangar chat" posts make up a small percentage of my participation here. Who started the insults? You mention a locked thread, and derive meaning out of context against what I said. Basically you argue that I can't view things my way. Fine, let's move on. But if you continue to offer attacks on my person (come on, my spelling? PHD's don't know how to spell, and mine is pretty d*mn good). I feel I said something--my remark about "intelligent discussion" that you viewed as a personal attack. Far from it. I do want to hear sound views. But at the same time, I have a right to say what I say without the character attacks you seem to feel necessary. You saw my responses to Braun and Joe, and still you came in with no objective other than to defame me. Fine. So one last time, I'm offering you a chance to drop the insults and insinuations (such as your "benign" comment") and engage in real discussion, even if you want to do it offline. Too often I have agreed with your posts, and considered your opinion the final word to lose that respect for you over this.

[Guest Paul_W]

>I help a large number of >people in these forums, and answer questions concerning my >software. My "hangar chat" posts make up a small percentage >of my participation here. Well, I agree, and that's a very fair point. Surely I've learned many things from the gurus, and yes, I think you are one of them.Yes, I was referring to the number and the tenor of your posts in this section; while a small percentage, they do outnumber mine.John, I have to go. I'm simply concerned that many conversations can't occur here and on many other forums without gratuitous nastiness, and it doesn't have to be so. But apparently you feel the same about me, so let's try to do better, okay? Of course everyone's welcome to their opinion, but all the negative stuff tends to deter any decent discussion, or make it that much more difficult when one does get involved. I mean I've spent too much time on this, and should probably not have responded when I saw your original post above.Okay, let's focus on Thanksgiving now. I'm off to San Francisco tomorrow. Enjoy your holiday too.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Do you remember the massive publicity and fear and the disruption of the economy in the Washington DC / Virginia area at the time those snipers were on the loose?"I do, since I worked in Montgomery County for a number of years even after moving to Phoenix (it was a heck of a commute). I have dozens of friends there, many who lived mere blocks from some of the shootings. The media did a great service, yet at the same time, I have to feel the snipers were also playing the media and killed some just to seen "their names in lights" so to speak.BTW, we've implemented our version of "Amber Alert" here in Arizona, and it was just triggered the first time over the weekend. It saved a girl's life. I'd be a fool to say the media is all bad. There's a difference between asking for restraint, and asking for no media at all."I've flown on airliners across the Atlantic where passengers wear blackout masks over their eyes"I've been offered those as well on my transpacific and transatlantic hops. But they are far different from hoods. Imagine having a pillowcase over one's head for 15-20 hours. You're breathing your own CO^2, and the feeling of suffocation can be overwhelming. Had the prisoners been blindfolded, I wouldn't have blinked an eye. "I think it's highly practical and that the government is doing its best to keep the population safe, and they've succeeded since 9/11/01."I don't disagree with that, but there are always lower tier government officials trying to play oneupmanship against our President and our military. They are usually the ones leaking "threats", only for political points."Now how do you conclude that the current enemy has perfected an impenetrable form of personal stealth?"That's not my conclusion--that's the governments. There is grave concern over our ports. We have to gain the mindset that terrorists will hit us off balance. They will hit where we are weak. As I said above, boat people are slipping in every day. Our borders are not yet secure. So in a sense I am being like Braun--I'm raising an alarm. I am not a boater, but I hope our offshore boaters are vigilant.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

You no good bum! You get to go to Frisco! :) That is one plan I agree with....Enjoy Thanksgiving. BTW, I did respond to some of the points you made, while you were writing this. Please give me an honest opinion of what you think, and I'll accept your thoughts without rebuttal...Regards,John