Who needs bombs?

[Tokorona]

Okay, I went and reread it. You're right. None happened on US soil. So, yes, you can either credit our security, or not. And the likelyhood is still low, yes. However, if they had no security, you'd go up in flames from the government not caring. You seem to assume that since only one occured, we should relax security. Do I read that right, or am I wrong?

[Crissa]

Already linked to it, and...

...It was American airline security that was under debate.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Only one what?

-Crissa

[MrWaeseL]

1157431001[/unixtime]]Yeah, I gots a solution:

QUIT SCREENING PEOPLE BEFORE THEY GET ON AIRPLANES. DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND TAX DOLLARS!

The terrorist tactic of taking over airplanes and crashing them into buildings lasted for all of 90 minutes before free men with ready access to information decided that it was worth their very own lives to counter this tactic. It won't work again in our lifetimes, now that we've ditched the assumption that hijackers just plan on rerouting the plane and will eventually be willing to trade hostages. Now that we are aware that they might want to use the plane itself as a weapon, the response patterns of both hostages and authorities have changed accordingly.

My solution would have saved Europe half a billion dollars within the past month alone. Now convince me that the terrorist attacks which those measures supposedly prevented would have done more damage in that time. But that's going to be impossible for you to do, since the details aren't being released to the public and we're just supposed to take it on faith.

I don't get this post. People can still blow up planes under Josh's rule, and that's still pretty bad.

[Maj]

I don't get this post. People can still blow up planes under Josh's rule, and that's still pretty bad.

I think the point is largely that before 9/11, people assumed that hijackers were just going to reroute airplane flights, not fly them into buildings. Now that we know better, the chances of someone succeeding at doing so is very slim as the passengers of any hijacked flight will do everything they can to prevent the attack.

Which makes you wonder why the government is panicking and spending kajillions of dollars screening passengers. With Josh's "system," passengers who do nothing are guaranteed death. It's those who do something that have a chance of survival.

[Crissa]

1157685491[/unixtime]]I don't get this post. People can still blow up planes under Josh's rule, and that's still pretty bad.

But the 'system' as it's been executed is no different than before 9/11 - planes still blow up, and that's pretty bad.

Stopping gatorade on flights does nothing to make us safe.

-Crissa

[Ramnza]

But the 'system' as it's been executed is no different than before 9/11 - planes still blow up, and that's pretty bad.

Stopping gatorade on flights does nothing to make us safe.

Yes, it's a lot to go through, but I do feel better about the extra steps we're trying to take. I fly frequently. Let me tell you, it's annoying to go through the security process, but if that means that one more person can't fly a plane into a building, hell, go for it.

I think it's about having a feeling that you're taking control of a situation that no one could really control. We feel the need to do something about it, so we do.

[Crissa]

Do you get wanded every time?

Do you have to take off your gloves while you're covered in acetylcholic urticaria, make you drink the water you've carried to keep yourself properly hydrated while you're ill, and inspect the hairclip and my boots, as if the fact that they didn't show on their metal detectors was /odd/...

None of that makes us safer. It didn't stop the 9/11 guys, and it won't stop the next batch.

-Crissa

[Desdan_Mervolam]

So, what you're saying is you've started all these threads and kicking up all this shit, because you felt inconvienenced in an airport?

-Desdan

[Crissa]

1157834529[/unixtime]]So, what you're saying is you've started all these threads and kicking up all this shit, because you felt inconvienenced in an airport?

Uhh... No?

How about 'because none of these 'inconveniences,' as you call them, don't actually make us safer? Just a footnote from the reality community.

-Crissa

[fbmf]

Cite?

Game On,
fbmf

[Crissa]

1157847076[/unixtime]]Cite?

I would, but it's not on the open internet, that I know of.

Locked flightdeck doors and better ground security for the baggage and aircraft handlers probably do more to keep aircraft safe; it's really hard to tell.

Especially because our methods essentially haven't changed post 9/11 - airport screeners are still minimum wage jobs with little education beyond their methods required, and in the US, the laws covering who can and can't fly are secret.

Yes, you read that right, secret. As in, I don't know them, you aren't supposed to know them, and the administration claims it doesn't have to tell the courts them, either.

That, however, I can cite, lemme dig it up.

-Crissa

Hey! It didn't take as long as I'd thought. Hooray for Google and remembering where I read about them:
Political Animal, December 2005

[fbmf]

...none of these 'inconveniences,' as you call them, don't actually make us safer? Just a footnote from the reality community.

Locked flightdeck doors and better ground security for the baggage and aircraft handlers probably do more to keep aircraft safe; it's really hard to tell.

Make up your mind.

Game On,
fbmf

[Zherog]

So... as your proof of secret laws you cite some guy's blog, where he says he once heard a tale from a guy he knows about a lawyer he knows...

[Crissa]

1157951243[/unixtime]]Make up your mind.

Uhh, fbmf, those are different lists... And it's hard to tell what does have an effect because there's no studies. There's no side-by-side studies of airports with different security or airlines with locked cabins vs not - because no one ever wants to take the chance.

And yet we don't require, nor encourage; sterile flightdeck, locked and reinforced doors or further security on the ground. It's just not a priority. We have less flight controllers on duty than ever - these are federal employees despite the fact that they are hired, fired, and scheduled by the local airport.

Certainly, stopping people from bringing drinks and costmetics onto an airliner stops... What, exactly?

What does stopping people from bringing boxcutters and toenail clippers and knitting needles do to make a flight safer?

Why is it more important to stop people from bringing these things aboard an airliner and not a train, bus, or boat?

-Crissa

[Crissa]

1157529859[/unixtime]]Okay, I went and reread it. You're right. None happened on US soil...

No, none done by muslims were done on US soil.

Terrorist acts happen in the US every year - from hate crime to clinic bombings to package bombs or suspicious powders to actual deaths.

But to be unaware of it - and credit our security to anything the administration has done - is foolish.

And yes, we have secret laws. No one has come out from our government denying that - at least none from the administration.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

One last thing...

1157984547[/unixtime]]So... as your proof of secret laws you cite some guy's blog, where he says he once heard a tale from a guy he knows about a lawyer he knows...

Sure. "Some guy's blog" that headlines one of the premier political magazines in the country.

I sure 'some guy' wrote Common Sense, at one point, too.

What? It's not real until it's on FOX?

-Crissa

Since you can't be bothered to follow the links which support the article (far more than you'd get from most news sources), or peruse the list of cases up before the Supreme Court this quarter... http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

[Zherog]

I don't care if it's the freakin' pope. It's still some dude's blog, and it's still "Trust me - I know a guy who knows a guy."

And I don't watch Fox news - unless you mean the local news.

[Username17]

OK here's the deal: you can blow up airplanes. You can blow up office buildings. And so can I. And so can uncle Bob.

You can do it from the ground while they are in the air, you can do it from the airplane itself if you're feeling suicidal, and you can do it while they are grounded on the runway. And so can. And so can uncle Bob.

And it really doesn't matter what you can and cannot bring into your checked baggage or your carry-on, because the fact is that you can blow up airplanes anyway.

Regulating terrorist attacks is a matter of social engineering, not law enforcement. There are literally thousands of hazardous materials recognized by the UN, and there are an actually unlimited number of increasingly obscure hazardous materials that aren't. You can't check for them all. It's literally impossible.

Whacking airplanes isn't even a particularly impressive way to kill people. The Oklahoma Bombing was a damned truck and it wasn't done well and it killed more people than are on any airplane. You can do better.

And yet, people don't. Because it's dumb. People genuinely don't want to blow up their own neighborhoods or kill people on airliners or any of that crap. You can't stop them from doing it, but you can stop them from wanting to do it.

Is that hard to understand? Should people be underlining things more? Is the fact that you are made of meat and totally vulnerable your entire life somehow beyond your understanding? What's the deal?

You are as safe with all this crazy Homeland Security stuff as you are without it. Believe me, I've sat through the HLS training. The only changes that it makes are that we have to report everything to HLS and not tell anybody. It's not about making people safer, it's about making them more afraid.

Well stop being afraid. You could be killed at any time and no power on Earth can save you. But it hasn't happened yet, and it isn't likely to because you are surrounded at all times by millions of people. And those people, while they have the power to destroy you, are also basically good people, and they aren't going to.

Have some fvcking risk assessment. Please. Even 5 years ago on September the 11th, you were still safer flying an airplane than driving a car in Texas. Terrorism is a very small concern, and wasting billions "fighting" it is just that - wasting billions.

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

But Frank, then the Government couldn't use fear in order to gain spiffy new super powers, and we can't have that now, can we.

It's all a blatant government power grab, that's all. It's all about secret rules, slipping huge anal rapery bit by bit through unrelated bills as riders, and controlling the American people.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it:

Z, you seem to think the rules aren't secret. then perhaps you can tell us exactly what puts one on the no-fly list, since it's not secret.

Personally, I think you're being far too trusting of the government, but I'm going give you the chance to prove you know more than we do, so spill it. what puts one on the no fly list?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

All Z's saying is that blogs are not a place to go for reliable, unbiased news. And you know what? He's absolutely right.

-Desdan

[Username17]

The criteria are indeed secret, at least according to MSNBC. Or for that matter the Wikipedia entry for the No-Fly List.

Or from CNN:

PHILLIPS: All right, so how do you get off the list?

BROOKS: Good question. They have to be taken off by the Department of Justice. The FBI manages these lists. And they won't tell you -- let's say, the no-fly list, for example, the airlines don't even know who's on the no-fly list. You know how many planes have taken off and then they send the jet fighters? Well, that's because they weren't on the no-fly list, but then, after the plane takes off, they go run through the manifest, they run the names. They go, hey, this guy was on the terrorist watch list. And it could be a friend of a friend who was in an intelligence report that was found in a cave in Afghanistan. What the criteria is to get on these lists, we still don't know.

It puts me in quite a bind. I'm a Communist. That means that ultimately I want more things to be in the hands of the government. Just... not this government.

You have a government because 12 packs are cheaper than buying 12 bottles individually, and the savings on doing that enough are big enough that we might as well all chip in on the same grocery bill whatever it is that we personally happen to eat. That method of doing things is so amazingly efficient that even with corruption and nepotism and government pork projects in Alaska that you don't understand - it's still flat rational to work together, inevitable betrayals and all.

But when the people at the top are going out of their way to destroy it all, what then? What reason is there for me or anyone else to even pay lip service to this crumbling empire? What has it done for me lately?

I know Cheney is evil, and I know Bush is stupid. I'm not sure if Bush is also evil or if Cheney is also stupid. If I was paranoid enough, Cheney's actions in destroying this country could actually be a rational, if horrible plan. I'm not sure if that would be more comforting than the idea that he's just a monumental fvck up and all of his friends are amazingly shitty at every task they ever put their minds to. What would Occam do? I'm not sure I know anymore.

-Username17

[Zherog]

1158412581[/unixtime]]Oh, and while I'm thinking about it:

Z, you seem to think the rules aren't secret. then perhaps you can tell us exactly what puts one on the no-fly list, since it's not secret.

What Des said.

Personally, I think you're being far too trusting of the government,

No, I just frankly don't give a shit about the no-fly list.

That said - is the no-fly list a law, or is it procedure from the FAA, FBI, etc? I don't know (and see above about how much I care).

[Crissa]

Does it matter if it's a secret 'law' or 'rule' or 'regulation' or whatever?

There is a law saying you can be arrested for violating these things that you can't know about!

...And maybe 'blogs' aren't a balanced place. But neither are major news sources: FOX news has an audience that gets answers to issues that were reported on FOX wrong more than half the time. Did they report it in a way that was balanced?

If my blog has a link leading to the frinkin' US SUPREME COURT, do you think the link might, perhaps, be relevent? It's like a glossary. I know some people don't believe in having supporting documentation (Ann Coulter, etc), but that's what people who live in the 'real world' do.

-Crissa