Oh look, now we're doing TOO much. Boo-Hoo.

sdw2001sdw2001
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It now looks like the Bush Administration is being criticized for doing too much to stop another 9/11 in the air. I'm sorry, but if we need to cancel flights that are "questionable", then I'm all for that. I do not see how ANYONE can criticize the US for demanding marshals on international flights, and insisting that worrysome flights be canceled during a period of high alert. Can you imagine what would be said if another 9/11 plane attack happened?



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    I would agree, but of course, whoever complains, they'll make the news. I'm sure there are plenty of people who find it perfectly reasonable.
  • Reply 2 of 42
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Hey, it's an election year - all bets are off, common sense is out the window and there'll always be people who'll automatically gainsay anything you do.



    (No there won't!)





    Hey, who said that?



    (Anyway....)
  • Reply 3 of 42
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    It's all about the money, honey. These staunch allies of ours are worried about the economics of their airlines and profitability. It's OK to cancel a few flights here and there, but otherwise everything has to be called into question in the name of profit.



    I'll grant them that the list probably has its share of false positives, but that's no reason to dismiss a flight with several of those names on it for example. "Better safe than sorry" will always be a good enough excuse to hold back or delay a flight in my book.



    It's just a fact: some people are going to miss flights and business meetings and all the rest. Boo hoo. Life's a bitch. Would you rather risk plummeting into a building / the ground?
  • Reply 4 of 42
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    They should only stop the flights that are actually full of terrorists.



  • Reply 5 of 42
    mcsjgsmcsjgs Posts: 244member
    Maybe they could advertise a terrorist discount or charter?
  • Reply 6 of 42
    superkarate monkeydeathcarsuperkarate monkeydeathcar Posts: 2,407member
    how about a terror section....

    "will you be first class, business, tourist, or terror?"

    could put the smokers in there too.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    It now looks like the Bush Administration is being criticized for doing too much to stop another 9/11 in the air. I'm sorry, but if we need to cancel flights that are "questionable", then I'm all for that. I do not see how ANYONE can criticize the US for demanding marshals on international flights, and insisting that worrysome flights be canceled during a period of high alert. Can you imagine what would be said if another 9/11 plane attack happened?



    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=



    The 9/11 flight was an american one. Before 9/11 the security in internal US flights where very low.



    My parents took a plane in Miami, and in the plane there was a bagage lost with no owner. My parents tell the plane staff that it was dangerous to have an unknow baggage in a plane : the staff looked weirdly my parents. At the time (it was before 9/11) my parents where astonished by the lack of security of the companie.



    For the air marshals : why not. But he must be a professional. And it's efficient ( ellal have proven it) but it cost money.
  • Reply 8 of 42
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Powerdoc could you remind me where Richard Reid came from and what flight he was on?
  • Reply 9 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Powerdoc could you remind me where Richard Reid came from and what flight he was on?



    Luckily Richard Reid was neutralized.



    No security system is 100 % waterproof however.



    Just pointed it out, that admin tend to react always after and not before.

    US believed that it was a sanctuary. Unluckily it wasn't. It's always hard to discover that your life can be threaten.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001:

    Oh look, now we're doing TOO much. Boo-Hoo.



    What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?



    Yes, it is amazing.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?



    Yes, it is amazing.



    lol...you seem surprised shetline. Haven't you been paying attention?
  • Reply 12 of 42
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murbot

    They should only stop the flights that are actually full of terrorists.







    Annnd... short of actually double-checking and/or interviewing certain people from a suspicious passenger list, they would be able to ascertain that how exactly? Wait until the aircraft slams into the MGM Grand?
  • Reply 13 of 42
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Annnd... short of actually double-checking and/or interviewing certain people from a suspicious passenger list, they would be able to ascertain that how exactly? Wait until the aircraft slams into the MGM Grand?



    Talk to the Israelis. They've never had a problem even though they're probably the biggest target of all. And if you do talk to the Israelis you'll find that they criticize the US policies and practices.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?



    Yes, it is amazing.



    shetline, you are like a tiny god
  • Reply 15 of 42
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Talk to the Israelis. They've never had a problem even though they're probably the biggest target of all. And if you do talk to the Israelis you'll find that they criticize the US policies and practices.



    I heard that too somewhere. What are they saying? They are pretty much the biggest target; I wonder why we're not taking their advice.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Whisper

    I heard that too somewhere. What are they saying? They are pretty much the biggest target; I wonder why we're not taking their advice.



    I honestly don't know, but I'll cast my vote towards the 'Bush is more dangerous to this country than he was to Iraq' pile. Rather than intelligently monitor people flying, the administration tries to control with an iron fist. They're a bit whacky if you ask me.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The Israelis just give everyone the third degree, check everyone's backgrounds who fly, and carefully screen all luggage, and have armed troops at every station. This process obviously takes hours, and the American airlines cry that this would affect their bottom lines, which are in so much trouble already. So they cut corners, and they try to come down hard when they do find something. It's uneven, and terrorists can play their chances. It really just isn't very rigorous or safe compared El-Al.



    I think that the angle of the argument. It would be ridiculous to say that the administration is "doing too much" now with regard to flights. If flight cancellations are necessary to check or thwart these sorts of things, sobeit. But people might wonder if the process that decides this is meticulous enough to make that decision reliably.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I honestly don't know, but I'll cast my vote towards the 'Bush is more dangerous to this country than he was to Iraq' pile. Rather than intelligently monitor people flying, the administration tries to control with an iron fist. They're a bit whacky if you ask me.



    Could you please detail the "iron fist" that they use? Or is that just more unintelligent commentary from you?
  • Reply 19 of 42
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Could you please detail the "iron fist" that they use? Or is that just more unintelligent commentary from you?



    If you look at in in regard to what he was saying isreal does... Actually, I am not entirely sure I would want an isreali system working here. Civil liberties are a hallmark of the US, and Isreal can tramp all over those of the palestinians because, well, they are a homogenous state to a large degree. The US hears something and blocks the flight, while this is a somewhat blind and retarded way of doing it, it doesnt unnecessarily single out a group of people (except airline travellers).
  • Reply 20 of 42
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    If you look at in in regard to what he was saying isreal does... Actually, I am not entirely sure I would want an isreali system working here. Civil liberties are a hallmark of the US, and Isreal can tramp all over those of the palestinians because, well, they are a homogenous state to a large degree. The US hears something and blocks the flight, while this is a somewhat blind and retarded way of doing it, it doesnt unnecessarily single out a group of people (except airline travellers).



    So let me get this straight: Israel's security procedures are due to the Palestinian conflict? Please. It's much larger than that. And you assume that their security violates civil liberties, which is an unsupported notion (and more on that point, the notion that there has been mass assault on civil liberties in this country since 9/11 is also unsupported).



    As far as the US "hearing something and blocking the flight"....why is it, as you put it, "retarded"? So we hear rumors (from whatever source) that there may a problem, and we DO NOTHING? Isn't that what the problem was leading up to 9/11? Isn't that what the Left has been literally screaming about....that Bush knew...or should have known due to the intelligence presented to him? In this day and age, we MUST cancel or resecure any flight that is even supsected. It's the only prudent thing to do. What the hell would you do? Don't call something retarded without presenting an alternative.



    As far as your last comment, you again are assuming that Israel's security is only to "single out" a group of people...presumably the Palestinians. I'd have to disagree and say that it seems to me it's to single out TERRORISTS.
Sign In or Register to comment.