3 Years and 77,000 bodies later

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Yes, but to what end?

Do you think that someone's bank account number will link to a billed item of "plane blower-upper : 10,000" which will be seen and identified prior to flying?
jc

Well if it doesn't that sure would be a failing, but it's like anything, if you don't mow the lawn the grass will remain growing.
If they don't gather the information, they sure as heck won't be able to scrutinise it.
I suppose it's down to at this stage a belief or not in their scrutiny capabilities.

As for all of the biometrics stuff....all of the hijackers had valid, legal passports. They could have validly, legally had their prints taken, retinal scan recorded, and all of the rest, and they'd still have beeb allowed on those planes.

Fair enough,but I was talking about measures after the 9-11 event.
Sure it's not going to prevent those legally already in the states from having malace a forethought but undoubtedly it increases scrutiny on those intent on malace that may attempt to come in.
Obviously, if some get through,then the accountability for that lies within the U.S jurisdiction as it is the rules for entry there which we talk of here and not anywhere else.

Personally, it makes me more nervous to know that so many people are fooled into thinking they're more secure....because they'll be more inclined to just go back to complacently trusting the system - which is the real danger.

That begs the question from me to you,do you feel less safe, more safe or about the same when boarding a plane than you did say two years ago.
I feel more safe but not entirely safe.
If you feel less safe , is it more to do with the increasing frequency/likelhood of attempts at attacks as a result of the policies of the Bush administration or is it because the security measures aren't good enough?

If it's the former, then thats understandable, but to continue to fly it implies that security will only have to get tighter.
If it's the latter,you'd have to recognise that the security measures that were in place pre 9-11 world wide wouldn't be good enough either.
After all the only totally secure way to fly (or ride a train for that matter)when there are terrorists intent on mallace, is to not fly at all or not stirr out the front door.
Or put the anti war movement into a majority in the U.S congress...

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Thats credit history. Big difference. Also under Irish law you are entitled to see what information they have about you.

That doesn't matter in what I'm saying, the point is,people that I have no control over have access to it.
Lets say, I want to buy a house and someone else in that bank wants the same house,then they know how much mortgage approval I have and can make a higher bid.
Thats unlikely, but of the same likelyhood or more maybe than a terrorist taking my credit card.
ie so small as to be a negligible worry for me.

A lot of which has been debunked either here or on MM warroom site. For example the point you made, the Bin Ladens did in fact profit from the group. They didn't leave until October 27th, when it was reported a month previously that they had in fact made a profit from the attacks (WSJ 27/9/01). It is also unknown how much they invested or took out (only 2 million is public). They only left because it was made public.

Well that Brendan Nyhan article was written in July of this year,you can dismiss spinsanity if you like, again thats your preogrative, but it all comes down to position and we could spend all day swapping links regarding Mr Moore,but lets not-theres work to be done ( shock - horror, someone on boards who promotes work )
He's far from infallable as am I.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Fair enough,but I was talking about measures after the 9-11 event.

What I was pointing out was that if another similar group tried to carry out a similar action, the new set of biometric monitoring tools etc. wouldn't find them.

You don't send someone who's face is known around the world to be the actual gunman on an op. You send someone unknown (or most likely unknown) - you send someone who hasn't done a major job for you before (very necessary on suicide missions!). These people will not be found.

Is the US safer because they can be (say) 100% certain that the likes of Osama himself cannot try coming into the country on a public flight??? Not really, but thats the realistic impact that I see these steps taking against the terrorism they are supposed to be targetted at.

but undoubtedly it increases scrutiny on those intent on malace that may attempt to come in.

Sure it does...but until they actually do something malicious, it doesn't help much. And it also increases scrutiny on those not intent on malice but who happen to fit the racial (or other) demographic being monitored.

That begs the question from me to you,do you feel less safe, more safe or about the same when boarding a plane than you did say two years ago.

Given that I fly in Europe, where relatively little has changed....I'd probably say slightly less safe. For flying in the US? I'd say definitely less safe. However, as Hobbes (I think) pointed out, its a relative thing. I'm still more likely to die from the plane suffering a natural catastrophe then from terrorism.

If you feel less safe , is it more to do with the increasing frequency/likelhood of attempts at attacks as a result of the policies of the Bush administration or is it because the security measures aren't good enough?

I don't think you can dissociate the two. I believe Bush's policies are making the threat larger in nature, whilst the actions to add security on planes are not countering this increased threat effectively.

I also think that the entire focus on aircraft is dangerously misguided. The terrorsits chose that method of attack because it was one which was quite badly protected. The more people concentrate on planes, the more they're going to be knocked for six all over again when the terrorists choose a different angle of attack. And then the questions will be asked as to why X wasn't secured "like the airports". Just like people mistakenly say that Bush has prevented a repeat of 9/11, once the terrorists exploit a different avenue of attack, I worry that the authorities and busineses will try and sell us the notion that a different angle proves that what was done in teh airports was enough....and that this is what needs to be done everywhere.

If it's the latter,you'd have to recognise that the security measures that were in place pre 9-11 world wide wouldn't be good enough either.

They weren't. My objection is to replacing a broken system with a broken system that tries to hide just how broken it is. Its a needless expenditure for no more real benefit than acting a comfort blanket.

jc

Boggle

R.E. Plane safety...

Whats the point of extra checks if you are going to place a gun on the plane yourself? The marshall may be well trained but if he was suddenly rushed by 4-5 people then what chance has he of retaining control of the firearm?

If I wanted to do this all I would need to do is stage some drunken incident whereby the marshall would come forward to restrain the guy (happened earlier in the year where a man hit a stewardess and the marshall on the flight had to restrain him) and either later in the same flight or at another flight I would target the guy. Easier than ever!!

Unlikely though, no-one likes a one trick pony!!

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

What I was pointing out was that if another similar group tried to carry out a similar action, the new set of biometric monitoring tools etc. wouldn't find them.
jc

True,I'm thankfull nothing has happened, but wondering why nothing has happened.
I suppose what you and others are saying, is that if they want to attack, it's eventually inevitable,I'd agree to an extent as short of total close down of everything, theres no solution thats going to stop someone that determined eventually.
As regards replacing an imperfect system with another imperfect system, and window dressing security,I'd fear that even if the toughest regime were implimented, there would still be cries of fowl, this time at it being too much.

Mind you we're back now to assuming that AL Q'ueda are planning an attack on the U.S-they're either biding their time or aren't very good or are afraid to do so.
I mean a train bombing or two would be their style and why have they not done so-I'm puzzled, it's either they don't do what they say on the packet or they are being caught quietly before they do any thing or it's pure luck.

I also think that the entire focus on aircraft is dangerously misguided. The terrorsits chose that method of attack because it was one which was quite badly protected. The more people concentrate on planes, the more they're going to be knocked for six all over again when the terrorists choose a different angle of attack. And then the questions will be asked as to why X wasn't secured "like the airports". Just like people mistakenly say that Bush has prevented a repeat of 9/11, once the terrorists exploit a different avenue of attack, I worry that the authorities and busineses will try and sell us the notion that a different angle proves that what was done in teh airports was enough....and that this is what needs to be done everywhere.

Well, yeah I agree with you there, but it's not a reason to un impliment the airport security improvements,I don't think thats what you are saying, you want them better and more effective?
Theres a dodgy balance there I think between, busy holidaymaker packed airports and security delays and the need to keep people flying and commerce going.
Just look at the Measures taken in the UK and especially NI during the height of the IRA campaign, they were extreme and quite thorough, but still the bombers got through.
The issue you touch on, is the extent of the protection needed,It will take a lot of convincing those intent on holy war at this stage to back down, so I guess we are stuck with it.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

That doesn't matter in what I'm saying, the point is,people that I have no control over have access to it.

Under Irish law you do. You also have the right to have information removed/changed if incorrect.

Not the case with the so called list. The only way to circumvent it is seems is to reword your name when booking the tickets.

Lets say, I want to buy a house and someone else in that bank wants the same house,then they know how much mortgage approval I have and can make a higher bid.

Certainly a different scenario that I am going on about. Lets say through no fault of your own your accidently put on the list (or prehaps someone else in the government knew you and wanted to annoy you). How do you think you can get yourself removed from the no-fly list?

Thats unlikely, but of the same likelyhood or more maybe than a terrorist taking my credit card.
ie so small as to be a negligible worry for me.

I've had my credit card stolen (many years). Turned out it was hacked from somewhere along with 1000's of others and used to purchase mass amounts of goods from Amazon.com and sent the lot to a warehouse in Israel.

Do I know who got my credit card number or how? No. Should I be worried? In Ireland no, but what if that criminal group had terrorist ties in USA. That is enough of a link to get you flagged in the US.

Well that Brendan Nyhan article was written in July of this year,you can dismiss spinsanity if you like, again thats your preogrative,

I read the site. As I said a large amount of it has already been discussed and refuted here and elsewhere. I don't even take moores site at face value.

dahamsta

Earthman wrote:

I travel based on my assessment of the risk Dahmasta,if it's so easy to over run air marshals and take over planes now in the States since 9-11 , why hasn't it been done?

I honestly have no idea Earthman. I could give you a lot of "perhaps", but what would be the point? But I genuinely don't believe it's because of the security measures that have been implemented. As I said: If they wanted to, they could. Easily. FFS, /I/ could.

adam

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Under Irish law you do. You also have the right to have information removed/changed if incorrect.

I don't have the right to stop random bank officials known to me, knowing my business which was the point i was making.
If I was buying the house too, said random officials could advance more money to a preferred customer if we both want the same house and bank at the same bank. Thats a fact of life regarding information about , you and me or anybody that we cannot change.

Do I know who got my credit card number or how? No. Should I be worried? In Ireland no, but what if that criminal group had terrorist ties in USA. That is enough of a link to get you flagged in the US.

Yes it's possible but as unlikely as my house situation.

I read the site. As I said a large amount of it has already been discussed and refuted here and elsewhere. I don't even take moores site at face value.

I understand that,Moore is not infallable and neither are spinsanity,but surely you are not dismissing all of what they say regarding moore?
I came across that site a few years ago and it's an interesting diversion, so when you asked me to point out anything false( I took from the question that you thought there were none ) in farenheit, I didn't have to google,I just plucked up that resource from bookmarks.

dahamsta

The point about Moore is that /no-one/ in the chain is truly objective or truthful. Moore twists the truth to make a point, and his detractors twist it to make theirs. He's partisan (or possibly "anti-partisan"), so are they. However when you get right down to it a very large majority of Moore's work is based on fact, and I dare anyone to work up the numbers for any one of his works to prove me wrong. Nitpicking about the small minority of inaccuracies is simply diverting attention away from the horrific truth of the large majority. People that are too partisan or too stupid to see that really shouldn't be allowed to vote.

adam

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

I don't have the right to stop random bank officials known to me, knowing my business which was the point i was making.

Those bank employees generally have to sign a contract stopping someone like youself bringing them to court and sueing their asses off for such senario you mention. It certainly is illegal, although very hard to prove.

But as I said you are arguing a different senario.

so when you asked me to point out anything false( I took from the question that you thought there were none

Remove moores slants on the facts, and you are still left with disturbing facts. The site you posted claims that they didn't profit on a contract because they had left by that time. Which is true, however it was noted before they left (a month before) that they did in fact profit from 9/11.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Mind you we're back now to assuming that AL Q'ueda are planning an attack on the U.S-they're either biding their time or aren't very good or are afraid to do so.

Or - as has been pointed out by others recently - there is no tightly-knit world-spanning anti-US organisation, but rather a loose alliance each of whom have different - but roughly aligned - interests and targets.

I mean a train bombing or two would be their style and why have they not done so-I'm puzzled, it's either they don't do what they say on the packet or they are being caught quietly before they do any thing or it's pure luck.

There's a lot of possible reasons. As you say above, they could be biding their time. They could be people who've decided that they're still getting all they wanted (whatever that was) as a result of the backlash post-September-11, so they don't need another major op. They may be of the opinion that another major attack on the US could push it too far against them. They may be still training their next group of suicide-terrorists for whatever big job it is (any desperate or extremist will strap explosives to his back, but to form a trained group who will act in concert, who are skilled, trained and willing to die and who can be trusted in this capacity is a much harder prospect).

Look - terrorist attacks are not about the mindless killing of people. There is always an underlying reason. If you want to buy into the whole "they hate our freedom" as being that reason, then sure it doesn't add up....but neither does the huge lack of attacks in the last couple of hundred years while we also had these freedoms.

If on the other hand, you consider what the other reasons might be, the long-term objectives, and accept that the people running these organisations are rarely religiously-blinded maniacal idiots.....then I would be very very wary of assuming that the security has made things better.

Maybe it has, and maybe the US is keeping schtum about how well its really doing. I'm just surprised in an election year that Bush is allowing all this flak about what he's gotten wrong to fly around stealing votes off him if the truth would prove otherwise.

Well, yeah I agree with you there, but it's not a reason to un impliment the airport security improvements,I don't think thats what you are saying,

I'm saying many of them were a waste of money, and that continuation with the projects will be an equal waste of money. I can't see how they can get away from it now, though, having already done their damndest to sell it to the public as their way to a safer tomorrow....without turning round and saying "we got that completely ar5e about face".

Theres a dodgy balance there I think between, busy holidaymaker packed airports and security delays and the need to keep people flying and commerce going.

Is there?

Most of the security measures that were recommended and discarded for US airport security were those unworkable impractical solutions that are standard across Europe (and much of the rest of the developed world, in fact).

Another gem - the bullet-proof door for the pilot....dismissed because its too expensive. Someone did the math and showed that over the average lifespan of a typical commercial aircraft, allowing for typical passenger numbers, it would add something like 1/2 a cent to each ticket.

And on it goes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't find flying in Europe to be that difficult a proposition, but the US flat-out refused to implement much of the European security model on the grounds that it was simply economically inviable...whilst then turning around and encouraging the European airports to adopt the US' solutions on top of what they had already....

Just look at the Measures taken in the UK and especially NI during the height of the IRA campaign, they were extreme and quite thorough, but still the bombers got through.

Bombers got through the airports? When? Or are you equating the border control with airport security - which is hardly a fair comparison?

The issue you touch on, is the extent of the protection needed,It will take a lot of convincing those intent on holy war at this stage to back down, so I guess we are stuck with it.

We are indeed. That doesn't make it any good though, or mean that security has - in real terms - improved.

jc

bonkey

dahamsta wrote:

However when you get right down to it a very large majority of Moore's work is based on fact,

So are a very large majority of arcadegame2004's statements on this forum.
So was the movies U-571.

Being based on fact is simply not enough.

Being factual isn't even - in my book - good enough (as this would rule out U571 for comparison, but not necessarily many of arcadegame's statements).

Moore crafts his factual statements very carefully so that it is very very easy to misinterpret what is being said and to get the wrong impression, or come to the incorrect conclusion. I would go so far as to say I believe this is often his intention in the way he presents information.

Now, don't get me wrong. Moore's "moviespeak" is no different in purpose, technique, or effect to "politicspeak" as practiced by Bush et al (and many/most other politicians). The major difference is that Moore is using his moviespeak to complain about how others used their politicspeak to fool us...and effectively how using such techniques is a bad thing.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe he has to fight fire with fire to get the man in the street to even realise there is another side. But whenever he does so, I think most who are already versed on whatever issue he tackles come away with a bad taste at how he has deliberately misrepresented things.

jc

dahamsta

bonkey wrote:

I would go so far as to say I believe this is often his intention in the way he presents information.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say "I would go so far as to say" bonkey! I'd be surprised if it wasn't his intention to present the information in this way, because I think he does believe he needs to "fight fire with fire". Because if there's one thing the Bush administration is good at, it's twisting the truth. Although at this stage they're down to "I'm rubber, you're glue"...

adam

Lemming

Just a random thought/question for those of you saying that the airport/plane security measures make you safe ....

That reference to the airmarshals ......

how do you feel about having a full on fire-fight develop at 10,000 ft? How do you rate your survival odds?.

Putting a gun on an airplane is insane. The only reason why nobody has tried to hijack a plane since and use it as a weapon is that they know they'll be shot down ASAP. Ergo it's a pointless exercise.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Look - terrorist attacks are not about the mindless killing of people. There is always an underlying reason. If you want to buy into the whole "they hate our freedom" as being that reason, then sure it doesn't add up....but neither does the huge lack of attacks in the last couple of hundred years while we also had these freedoms.
jc

I don't know about that,some of these Taliban types wouldn't want the pervasion of western ideas into a society controlled by them,we know this by the education system they provided for women in Afghanistan and still aspire to providing.Call me a heretic, but in my humble opinion if a woman doesn't want to wear a burka and wants to be educated, she should be entitled to that.

It's just the taliban types are more fanatical about opposing that than the saudi or other Arab governments.
Hundreds of years ago,nay even 30 years ago,it was easier to avoid westernisms
Theres usually an underlying reason for the terrorism alright, but it isn't always a logical one.
Call me a heretic, but in my humble opinion if a woman doesn't want to wear a burka and wants to be educated, she should be entitled to that.
It's not a case that I buy into this whole it's our freedoms against them thing,I just know Osama followers want a holy war with Christendom or at least thats my understanding-I reckon they've always wanted that and current policies are turning their ilk from being a tiny minority to a more significant and dangerous tiny minority.

Bombers got through the airports? When? Or are you equating the border control with airport security - which is hardly a fair comparison?

No I put it as an example of as good a lock down as you can get,yet still bombers did their stuff ie no amount of limitations could ever be foolproof.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Lemming

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, I don't feel that security is pointless. What I do consider pointless is "political" security, such as placed people with firearms on flights, scanning people's shoes at airports, yet allowing a car pull up to the terminal entrance, a "profiling" system that simply has too many false negative alerts with no way off it, etc.

I am in favour of *sane*, _practical_ security measures that will make a difference. Not this half-assed "We need to look good right now to the voters" crap.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Not give into AQ demands.

Determine what would drive people to AQ to begin with. You know it is a lot easier to become a terrorist when the people who are fighting the terrorists justify the terrorists demands.

Take Iraq for example. Almost 0 AQ presense (because Saddam hated them as much as the US). Now you have them queuing up to kill Americans. Granted it is only on their homeland, give it time and the fight is moved to people who don't pay attention unless it directly affects them.

I don't know about that,some of these Taliban types wouldn't want the pervasion of western ideas into a society controlled by them,

Not wanting western ideals is based on the actions that western ideals have changed their country.

Lets pretend the reverse. US is attacked on 9/11 and suddenly a large number of the population see the attack as "Middle-Eastern ideals". Before 9/11 you would be hard pressed to find people to point out Afganistan on a map (let alone Iraq). But people don't actually bother check the history of the countries actions that would of pushed people to do this.

Remember at one point OBL was actually friends with America. What do you think made him think that the US was the enemy? Find that, and you find your answer on how to solve the problem.

It's not a case that I buy into this whole it's our freedoms against them thing,I just know Osama followers want a holy war with Christendom or at least thats my understanding

Actually AQ inital demands were.
- Remove US troops from Saudi Arabia (which the US has done due to Iraq)
- Not support Israeli terrorism.

Now they have added a few demands since then, but that was thier initial demands list prior to 9/11.

dahamsta

dahamsta wrote:

I wouldn't even go so far as to say "I would go so far as to say" bonkey! I'd be surprised if it wasn't his intention to present the information in this way, because I think he does believe he needs to "fight fire with fire". Because if there's one thing the Bush administration is good at, it's twisting the truth. Although at this stage they're down to "I'm rubber, you're glue"...

adam

Michael Moore is on a learning curve in that regard-I actually like his work but more perfected though Farenheit was,it still contained inacuracies and pointers to conclusions/innuendo that weren't proven and could be shown as unproven.
Thats his problem,he doesn't have the budget for spin his competitors have.
Incidently,last time I was in the states there were queues to see it(I'd seen it already and was queue-ing for the bourne supremacy at the time) but I heard two ladies in their sixties( who seemed like true americans and who were also queue-ing for the Bourne supremacy - LoL ) saying that it was an excelent film-it broke some box office records didn't it? and where alas are the Bush ratings going in the polls?

dahamsta

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If I'm to take Hobbes' statement that "no amount of security is going to make people safer" literally, then no, I don't feel like that. Intelligent security measures will certainly protect people from terrorists and criminals, both international and domestic.

However it could well be argued that if anything many of the security measures instituted by the Bush administration have weakened security, both psychologically (by creating a false sense of security) and even physically (false alarms from hastily created watchlists, badly paid TSA staff).

Plus of course the actions of the Bush administration, as Hobbes points out, are creating even more of a risk by the day. Until 9/11, America had rather a lot of hardline enemies, but by it's actions it's created quite a lot of "softcore" enemies in recent times, who could well be less sympathetic if another atrocity on the scale of 9/11 happens over there. It's a slippery slope.

adam

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Those bank employees generally have to sign a contract stopping someone like youself bringing them to court and sueing their asses off for such senario you mention. It certainly is illegal, although very hard to prove.

But as I said you are arguing a different senario.

I don't think I was, its a case where information is held about me and usable against me and down right impossible to prove.
It also might happen in as rare a case as your credit card being used by terrorists.
The other point I made in relation to that is, Banks have the power to decide who buys a property if more than one of their potential customers is looking for that property regardless if both have a similar ability to pay.
I know this to be a fact.
I brought it up because it's another case where information that you provide is involuntarally used in some cases to your detrement.
It's a fact of life in some cases. Mind you the simplest way , if one doesn't like it to avoid giving credit card details to the U.S authorities is not to travel there.

Gizzard

irish1 wrote:

Well I'm sure anyone that has risen today and looked at a calendar has thought of the Twin Towers being devastated this day 3 years ago.

3 years on and Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Queda terrorist group is still killing. I remember sitting in a bar watching Sky News as the events unfolded on that day and thinking how so many people had lost their lives. The official figures state that 2752 people died as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.

The US have since invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and estimated figures put the current death toll for both areas at 75,000 collectively. Thats more than 27 times the number of people that died on 9/11. However of the the brave men that the US have sent to Iraq 1000 have died. The US refused to release official figures for the number of Soldiers killed in Afghanistan however is estimated that it also nears a 1000.

My question is with 75,000* Iraqi's and Afghanistan's dead along with nearly 2000* US Soldiers is the US a Safer place???
* estimated Figures only

Not with Bush there it is nnot safe, USA is the terrorist state now to the rest of the world

dahamsta

That last post was like Godwin's Law without the Nazis.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Heh, he gave me negative feedback for my post. I'm gutted.

Anyway, here's another example of the Bush administration's committment to domestic security:

Kerry on attack over weapons ban

The US Democrat presidential candidate has attacked President Bush for failing to push for the renewal of a 10-year ban on private use of assault weapons.

John Kerry accused his rival of placing gun lobby interests above those of police and gun crime victims' families.

The law expired at midnight on Monday after Republican legislators refused to make time for a vote to extend it.

The move means that ordinary citizens will now be allowed to keep powerful assault weapons in their homes.

President George W Bush has said he supports the ban but he has not pressured Congress to extend the prohibition.

[...]

Villain

I never expected this thread to get so much debate, however I'm still unsure as whether or not it is a safer place, although at the moment it's the weather thats offering the biggest threat.