Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Overreacting or Under-reacting?

Overreacting or Under-reacting?
Thread Tools
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:07 PM
 
This article contains statements that some of you might find offensive. I am not sure what to think of it myself.

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/...&articleid=711


Terror in the Skies, Again?


By Annie Jacobsen

A WWS Exclusive Article


Note from the E-ditors: You are about to read an account of what happened during a domestic flight that one of our writers, Annie Jacobsen, took from Detroit to Los Angeles. The WWS Editorial Team debated long and hard about how to handle this information and ultimately we decided it was something that should be shared. What does it have to do with finances? Nothing, and everything. Here is Annie's story._

On June 29, 2004, at 12:28 p.m., I flew on Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles with my husband and our young son._ Also on our flight were 14 Middle Eastern men between the ages of approximately 20 and 50 years old._ What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats.


On that Tuesday, our journey began uneventfully. Starting out that morning in Providence, Rhode Island, we went through security screening, flew to Detroit, and passed the time waiting for our connecting flight to Los Angeles by shopping at the airport stores and eating lunch at an airport diner. With no second security check required in Detroit we headed to our gate and waited for the pre-boarding announcement. Standing near us, also waiting to pre-board, was a group of six Middle Eastern men. They were carrying blue passports with Arabic writing. Two men wore tracksuits with Arabic writing across the back. Two carried musical instrument cases_- thin, flat, 18" long. One wore a yellow T-shirt and held a McDonald's bag. And the sixth man had a bad leg -- he wore an orthopedic shoe and limped._ When the pre-boarding announcement was made, we handed our tickets to the Northwest Airlines agent, and walked down the jetway with the group of men directly behind us.


My four-year-old son was determined to wheel his carry-on bag himself, so I turned to the men behind me and said, "You go ahead, this could be awhile." "No, you go ahead," one of the men replied. He smiled pleasantly and extended his arm for me to pass. He was young, maybe late 20's and had a goatee.__ I thanked him and we boarded the plane.


Once on the plane, we took our seats in coach (seats 17A, 17B and 17C). The man with the yellow shirt and the McDonald's bag sat across the aisle from us (in seat 17E). The pleasant man with the goatee sat a few rows back and across the aisle from us (in seat 21E)._ The rest of the men were seated throughout the plane, and several made their way to the back.__

Read the entire article: http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/...&articleid=711
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:17 PM
 
I saw them on TV yesterday. They seemed honest enough, but when the men were investigated, it turned out they were in a band and there was nothing suspicious about them at all. It appears she was simply wrong, and I'm not sure why they keep talking about it.

[edit] I wanted to add this.

In the article, she says:
So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of_14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?
Why does she think they weren't screened? Of course they were screened - everyone is screened before boarding a plane.

It sounds to me like a group of guys had a McDonald's lunch before getting on the plane and had to use the bathroom once or twice while on the 4-hour flight. I can understand her feelings, but I'm not sure why she keeps pursuing this in the media.
( Last edited by BRussell; Jul 20, 2004 at 01:35 PM. )
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:21 PM
 
What's offensive about that article ?

Heck, if I saw 14 syrians on some flight acting highly suspicious, I'd be damn weary also. That might just have something to do with the fact that syria is a major terrorist sponsor. Why we even let syrians in the country is beyond me.

I've read countless polls, I know what many in the arab world think of the US and of 9-11.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 01:02 AM
 
Response from a pilot on Salon.com

[...]
Fourteen dark-skinned men from Syria board Northwest's flight 327, seated in two separate groups. Some are carrying oddly shaped bags and wearing track suits with Arabic script across the back. During the flight the men socialize, gesture to one another, move about the cabin with pieces of their luggage, and, most ominous of all, repeatedly make trips to the bathroom. The author links the men's apparently irritable bladders to a report published in the Observer (U.K.) warning of terrorist plots to smuggle bomb components onto airplanes one piece at a time, to be secretly assembled in lavatories.

"What I experienced during that flight," breathes Jacobsen, "has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats."

Intriguing, no? I, for one, fully admit that certain acts of airborne crime and treachery may indeed open the channels to a debate on civil liberties. Pray tell, what happened? Gunfight at 37,000 feet? Valiant passengers wrestle a grenade from a suicidal operative? Hero pilots beat back a cockpit takeover?

Well, no. As a matter of fact, nothing happened. Turns out the Syrians are part of a musical ensemble hired to play at a hotel. The men talk to one another. They glance around. They pee.

That's it?

That's it.

Now, in fairness to Jacobsen, I'll admit that in-flight jitters over the conspicuous presence of a group of young Arabs is neither unexpected nor, necessarily, irrational. She speaks of seven of the men standing in unison, a moment that, if unembellished, would have even the most culturally open-minded of us wide-eyed and grabbing our armrest. As everybody knows, it was not a gaggle of Canadian potato farmers who commandeered those jetliners on Sept. 11. See also the legacy of air crimes over the past several decades, from Pan Am 103 to the UTA bombing to the failed schemings of Ramzi Yousef, the culprits each time being young Arab males.

Air crews and passengers alike are thus prone to jumpiness should a certain template of race and behavior be filled. Jacobsen's folly is in not being able to step back from that jumpiness -- neither during the flight itself, at which point her worry and behavior are at least excusable, nor well after touching down safely. Speaking as a pilot, air travel columnist, and American, I find Jacobsen's 3,000-word ghost story of Arab boogeymen among the most overwrought and inflammatory tracts I've encountered in some time.
[...]
BlackGriffen
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 01:09 AM
 


Yeah, very funny picture, hardy har har.

Terrorism in the skies is a very real threat. It's as if some people have forgotten about 9-11 already. That was just the beginning, as other terror attacks on planes have been prevented since then.

That pilot is obivously extremely naive, and I hope he is not my pilot the next time I fly somewhere.

The next time some terror attack happens on a plane, with people slitting the throats of stewardesses etc. , I'll be sure to post that pic again.
     
RonnieoftheRose
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 01:11 AM
 
Last time I boarded a plane a few months ago I had less of a tan than I do now. I kept looking across the aisle out the window as the plane took off and also kept looking around for a stewardess so I could get a drink. But apparently a tanned guy acting weird is suspicious and people just blanked me for ten minutes as if I was a terrorist! I'm not even Arab! As soon as I ordered a scotch they eased up.

But the real crunch is that Islamic terrorism could be commited by a Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon or even Chinese Muslim. To bring race, colour or physical appearance into this is a weird sort of racism.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 01:17 AM
 
Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
But the real crunch is that Islamic terrorism could be commited by a Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon or even Chinese Muslim. To bring race, colour or physical appearance into this is a weird sort of racism.
That is exactly true, and as a matter of fact they are trying to recruit people of various races inorder to commit attacks. There is no coming away from the fact that the overwhelming majority of al-qaeda people are from middle eastern arab countries. I can't stand islamic terrorists regardless of what color they may be.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 01:19 AM
 
Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
As soon as I ordered a scotch they eased up.
Why ? Al-Qaeda terrorists are hypocrites. The 9-11 terrorists even visited strip joints.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 02:12 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Why ? Al-Qaeda terrorists are hypocrites. The 9-11 terrorists even visited strip joints.
You should pretend that you care on the Internet.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 02:39 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
You should pretend that you care on the Internet.
I have to admit, your last two replies to me have made no sense at all. If you have something to say, then say it, and stop being cryptic.

This was your other reply to me from a previous thread, and I still have no idea what you meant.

Originally posted by MindFad:
sup ghost_flash?
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 05:17 AM
 
I just thought the whole statement was pointless. You sound like you are pretending to care that they went to strip joints for the sake sparking argument.

The ghost_flash and tissues is because I think you're as whiney—hell, possibly whinier—than he is.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 05:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
Overreacting or Under-reacting?
O-V-E-R-R-E-A-C-T-I-N-G!!!!!!

and it sounds like the terrorists have won
***
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 05:46 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
I just thought the whole statement was pointless. You sound like you are pretending to care that they went to strip joints for the sake sparking argument.

The ghost_flash and tissues is because I think you're as whiney—hell, possibly whinier—than he is.
You are of course entitled to your opinion that my statement was pointless, and you are correct that I do not care if they went to strip joints or if they had sex with a donkey for that matter.

I was pointing out that I found it ironic that just because somebody ordered a scotch, this automatically discounted that person from being an Al-Qaeda operative in the eyes of suspicious people. The fact that the 9-11 terrorists visited strip joints backs up this statement. They are attempting to westernize as much as possible, and an Al-Qaeda terrorist is most likely not going to have a huge beard or wear traditional muslim clothing or anything like that on a plane. This is silly stereotypes, and only naive people believe that terrorists planted in the USA would look like that. My knowledge is from reading their terror manuals. Their techniques are no big secret.

If you find me whiney, well too bad, you are free to jump over my posts if you so desire.
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 05:57 AM
 
I wonder if this screening process would have made her feel comfortable or not.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
I wonder if this screening process would have made her feel comfortable or not.
That screening process was obviously not good enough, and there are efforts being taken to improve upon it.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:55 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
I can't stand islamic terrorists regardless of what color they may be.
Interesting, but you do like christian or jewish terrorists or maybe hinduistic, pagan or atheistic terrorists?

Interesting is also that you don't see your own terrorists, that are conviently part of your government, from the oval office to the secret-agencies to the pentagon, espescially prefering air-bombardments as it saves the lifes of your own groundforces.

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 08:34 AM
 
Somebody needs to straighten out the USA, obviously.


Teach us a lesson.


Won't be *your* sorry-ass nation, however.

They're far too weak.

Maybe France will give ya'll a hand.

lol
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; Jul 22, 2004 at 08:43 AM. )
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 09:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Interesting, but you do like christian or jewish terrorists or maybe hinduistic, pagan or atheistic terrorists?

Interesting is also that you don't see your own terrorists, that are conviently part of your government, from the oval office to the secret-agencies to the pentagon, espescially prefering air-bombardments as it saves the lifes of your own groundforces.

Taliesin
You cannot be a Christian terrorist.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Shouldn't women have changed the world, at least 30 years ago or more...?

Many of today's "women" seem to be even worse than "men"!

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Sven G:
Shouldn't women have changed the world, at least 30 years ago or more...?

Many of today's "women" seem to be even worse than "men"!
Men, women bah. Ain't no difference. We are the same race and same genetic make. We are raced in the same society and eat the same food. We live together and more often than not sleep together. For all intents and purposes there is no difference between men and women. I wouldn't hope for much better things from their hands than from the hands of the men before them. Ann Coulter springs to mind as a woman nut.

The woman that writes the article for Women's Wallstreet is no Coulter, but rather sounds like a normal human being with valid questions, even while she seems to drop into some odd conspiracy theories at times. The issues she raises are first and foremost are airport security and background checks of people from muslim nations. She is basically pointing out that despite 3 years and lots of promises, air marshals and FBI agents on planes, the passangers aren't that much safer. Terrorists that are prepared to commit suicide to achieve their goals are still a very real threat. The inept baggage checks at the gates or security checks in airports seem to be a major issue in the US and quite frankly sounds awfully lax compared to what we are used to in most of Europe.

I read this article as a reminder to the US govt. that their actions to tighten security and be step ahead of the potential terrorists are inefficient and not working. The message was clear in the end, the author was not pleased with her experience and thought the authorities and carrier were not doing an impressive job keeping the passengers safe. To beat the terrorists one has to be step ahead of them. All the time.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 02:20 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:

Yeah, very funny picture, hardy har har.
lol. Very funny indeed!
Terrorism in the skies is a very real threat. It's as if some people have forgotten about 9-11 already. That was just the beginning, as other terror attacks on planes have been prevented since then.
Posting from the bunker again?
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 05:57 PM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
You cannot be a Christian terrorist.
Well you can't really be a Muslim terrorist either since both religions condemn violence.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Interesting, but you do like christian or jewish terrorists or maybe hinduistic, pagan or atheistic terrorists?

Interesting is also that you don't see your own terrorists, that are conviently part of your government, from the oval office to the secret-agencies to the pentagon, espescially prefering air-bombardments as it saves the lifes of your own groundforces.

Taliesin
Terrorism = the deliberate targeting of civilians for political gain.

Military force = the deliberate targeting of military or combat units for military gain.

You seem confused.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:13 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Terrorism = the deliberate targeting of civilians for political gain.

Military force = the deliberate targeting of military or combat units for military gain.

You seem confused.
Actually it is you(though mostly others) that are confused. Read up on Lehi and other Israeli terrorist organisations and a few of Israel's PM's. Then check up on US involvement in countries like Nicaragua, Afghanistan and other countries. The west is just as guilty as the Arab nations when it comes to terrorism. The difference is that we pay others to do our dirty work while the Arabs do it for themselves.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:19 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Terrorism = the deliberate targeting of civilians for political gain.

Military force = the deliberate targeting of military or combat units for military gain.

You seem confused.
Actually you seem confused, just look at the bombardment of civilian german towns in ww2, or the firebombing of japanese towns as well as the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the napalmising of Vietnam-villages or the bombardment of Cambodia killing 600,000 civilians!

Everytime in these examples civilians were deliberately targeted to break their will, as they are the backbone of the fighting armies.

And what brought the change in war-fare about from fighting between armies only, to also deliberately targeting civilians? Technology, in the form of air-planes able to carry bombs that can be thrown down, and able to fly over the groundforces to the civilians behind the frontier.

As for your convenient differentiation between political and military gain, both go hand in hand and are just two sides of the same coin. Just look at the use of military-forces in Iraq for political gain, or the Vietnam-war, which was led for political gain, in order to prevent Vietnam of falling to communism.

Taliesin
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually you seem confused, just look at the bombardment of civilian german towns in ww2, or the firebombing of japanese towns as well as the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the napalmising of Vietnam-villages or the bombardment of Cambodia killing 600,000 civilians!

Everytime in these examples civilians were deliberately targeted to break their will, as they are the backbone of the fighting armies.

And what brought the change in war-fare about from fighting between armies only, to also deliberately targeting civilians? Technology, in the form of air-planes able to carry bombs that can be thrown down, and able to fly over the groundforces to the civilians behind the frontier.

As for your convenient differentiation between political and military gain, both go hand in hand and are just two sides of the same coin. Just look at the use of military-forces in Iraq for political gain, or the Vietnam-war, which was led for political gain, in order to prevent Vietnam of falling to communism.

Taliesin

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2004, 06:49 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Well you can't really be a Muslim terrorist either since both religions condemn violence.
Yes that is also correct. At least violence against against innocents.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Rain
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2004, 08:22 PM
 
AIR MARSHALS SAY PASSENGER OVERREACTED
By ERIC LEONARD
KFI NEWS
http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

LOS ANGELES | July 22, 2004 – Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

Jacobsen, a self-described freelance writer, has published two stories about her experience at womenswallstreet.com, a business advice web site designed for women.

“The lady was overreacting,” said the source. “A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane.”

The middle eastern men were identified by federal agents as a group of touring musicians travelling to a concert date at a casino, said Air Marshals spokesman Dave Adams.

Jacobsen wrote she became alarmed when the men made frequent trips to the lavatory, repeatedly opened and closed the overhead luggage compartments, and appeared to be signaling each other.

“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.

Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.

“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.

The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.

FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Los Angeles and the men were questioned, and Los Angeles field office spokeswoman Cathy Viray said it’s significant the alarm on the flight came from a passenger.

“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”

Several people were questioned, she said, but no one was detained.

Jacobsen’s husband Kevin told KFI NEWS he approached a man he thought was an air marshal after the flight had landed.

“You made me nervous,” Kevin said the air marshal told him.

“I was freaking out,” Kevin replied.

“We don’t freak out in situations like this,” the air marshal responded.

Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.

“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.

“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said. Each of the men were checked through a series of databases and watch-lists with negative results, he said.

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”

KFI reporter Jessica Rosenthal contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 KFI NEWS. All rights reserved.
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2004, 09:14 PM
 
This woman flat-out panicked. The Detroit-Metro area has one of the largest (if not the the largest) Arabic-American populations in the country. Arab-Americans are all over Metro Airport as employees, travellers, etc. My God, if she found out that an Arab might've been handling her luggage, she might've swooned.

This chick needs to get out more.
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2004, 09:44 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Terrorism = the deliberate targeting of civilians for political gain.

Military force = the deliberate targeting of military or combat units for military gain.

You seem confused.
Your personal dictionary is pretty neat. Have you compared it with those of scholars of those fields in an objective search?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 01:07 AM
 
So, now we have a critique from a (generic) airline pilot and statements from federal air marshals that the biggest danger on the plane was this woman in a self-inflicted panic.

It seems that the picture form the Salon.com article was right.

That woman should be required to be sedated when flying. That, or I'm sure we could find a pet carrier big enough to contain her paranoid @ss.

BlackGriffen
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:00 AM
 
There are now armed sky-marshals in planes? That would mean that it could be even easier for terrorists to highjack these planes when they spot the skymarshals and overwhelm them and steal their weapons and use them to get access to the cockpit and to keep the passengers in check, no?

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:11 AM
 
yep. All you hafta do is spot *all* the air marshalls on the flight and disarm them - and the whole time you've got to try to look American, because if you're Middle Eastern then everybody will be staring at you - and, then, somehow get through what amounts to a bulletproof cockpit door before 230 passengers tear your limbs off. You've got 8 rounds in the chamber. Good luck.
     
chalk_outline
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: sleep
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
There are now armed sky-marshals in planes? That would mean that it could be even easier for terrorists to highjack these planes when they spot the skymarshals and overwhelm them and steal their weapons and use them to get access to the cockpit and to keep the passengers in check, no?

Taliesin
I think they are trained to kill you before you even know they are there. I'm a lefty that wants to destroy America and even I don't have any problems with them having guns on a plane.

But I think the plane thing is old and busted. To really freak america out all you need is backpack and a bus pass. Blowing up a bus in a small town would scare the crap out of alot more people then driving a plane into a building. As long as they focus on planes and skyscrapers only a small percentage of people will be scared. Blow up a McDonalds and you just freaked out 99% of the population.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 06:30 AM
 
Originally posted by Rain:

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.
The rest of this article is probably pretty accurate, but then from out of left field, this bizarre accusation comes off as just plain goofy. Sounds a little ‘let’s play victim’ if the air marshals really said this.

Come off it- Jacobsen may have acted like an absolute ass, but I don’t see ANY real reason she or anyone else had to know who the air marshals were and where they were seated. It makes no sense.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 08:02 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
and, then, somehow get through what amounts to a bulletproof cockpit door before 230 passengers tear your limbs off. You've got 8 rounds in the chamber. Good luck.
Just don't fly Iberia. Yes Sir, Mr. Terrorist. How high?

One thing that is interesting is that the flight 93 terrorists apparently tried the "bounce the aircraft and knock everyone off their feet so they are helpless" thing. I guess it didn't work. I think I'd rather put my faith in giving the bad guys sudden and overwhelming lead poisoning.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The rest of this article is probably pretty accurate, but then from out of left field, this bizarre accusation comes off as just plain goofy. Sounds a little ‘let’s play victim’ if the air marshals really said this.

Come off it- Jacobsen may have acted like an absolute ass, but I don’t see ANY real reason she or anyone else had to know who the air marshals were and where they were seated. It makes no sense.
Heh? That's the point the air marshal was trying to make, wasn't it?

BG
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 01:30 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just don't fly Iberia. Yes Sir, Mr. Terrorist. How high?
Tasteless and stupid joke.

Iberia isn't one of my favorite airlines but it sure beats the socks out of Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa and their ilk. Ugh. Best airlines I've flown with are SAS and Sabena. Iberia is above average though. Like SNCF and British Rail are a pile of dung compared to Renfe, DSB and NSB. Don't know how the UK and French people can put up with their crappy carriers.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 03:18 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Heh? That's the point the air marshal was trying to make, wasn't it?

BG
Well it sounds to me like they’re blaming her for blowing their cover, like she herself could have been part of a terrorist plot. I just think that’s going overboard with an accusation in the opposite direction, as there’s no way Jacobsen herself could have blown their cover. No one needed to tell her a damn thing about any air marshals onboard, and certainly not tell her who and where they were. So that’s a pretty dippy ‘terrorist plot’ accusation in and of itself.

In other words, now it’s the air marshals over-reacting.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
I think this shows how weak our nations defenses really are.

I'm willing to bet, the next terror attack is commited by someone who wasn't born in the middle east.

Remember this guy:



That will be my bet. And I'll aks guarantee you, after the fact, it will be shown he was obviously up to something. And nobody will be charged with wrongdoing for letting him get away.



Why? Simply because America simply will not stand for everyone being looked at as possible suspects. No matter what the cost. Want proof? Lost at post 9/11 stats regarding how far Americans are willing to go. People are more than willing to ban based on minority race. But as soon as it's 'univeral' security precausions, the stats drop below 20% of people supporting it.


And if the general public notices this loophole... you can bet Al Queda knows it as well.


Al Queda didn't get this far by luck... they are a well planning organization. They do a lot of research and planning before any attack. That's why they have been so successful.


There's no reason why they wouldn't take the easiest loophole in our security plans. All they need are a few white guys (or better yet, a woman). And they have really bypassed most of our nations security.

Sad, but it's the truth.

Heck, someone could even undergo a michael jackson like process if they had the cash/time.


Remember. This guy was already being looked at by the Feds, notably for his anti-government associations.. and was able to rent a truck, and park it under a federal building, without anyone even questioning his actions.


In reality, there's no way that he and Nichols should have been the only one in court. Security officers at the Federal Building, as well as serveral from the FBI should have also had neglegence charges brought for allowing it to happen.


Wasn't until after Oklahoma City that most parking facilities started to investigate *all* trucks.

Even though he was an obvious risk... he was allowed to just park his rented truck, filled with an unknown under a building.



And the one thing that makes Oklahoma City even more rediculus:

Almost 2 years after the WTC was attacked in a *very* similar manner. Ironically.


They were strongly advised to be searching all cars/trucks. But declined that was necessary, and decided to spot check, based on driver's appearance.

169 people died as a result.



Just a great example of our 'security' measures being absolute [email protected]


Oklahoma City should have never taken place. There were dozens of warning signs. Why would a rented truck park under a federal building? Why wasn't it at least searched? Why didn't they even ask McVeigh to show a license or ID?


Did they do anything illegal? Nope. They were given complete discression on how to take care of security.



169 people died because of American security standards. Only in America would these types of security standards be thought of as effective.

It doesn't work. We know that.


My question is why isn't the US improving?
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 04:55 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I think this shows how weak our nations defenses really are.

I'm willing to bet, the next terror attack is commited by someone who wasn't born in the middle east.

Remember this guy:



Um, he may not come from a middle eastern country, he did however have something in common with the al-qaeda terrorists. Guess what that is.

As I said previously, this has nothing to do with race or anything, it has to do with extremist islamists who sympathize with the terrorists or are terrorists themselves.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:07 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well it sounds to me like they’re blaming her for blowing their cover, like she herself could have been part of a terrorist plot. I just think that’s going overboard with an accusation in the opposite direction, as there’s no way Jacobsen herself could have blown their cover. No one needed to tell her a damn thing about any air marshals onboard, and certainly not tell her who and where they were. So that’s a pretty dippy ‘terrorist plot’ accusation in and of itself.

In other words, now it’s the air marshals over-reacting.
No, what they said was her hysterics could have been a plot to blow their cover, not that she did blow their cover. Frankly, I'm glad they suspected her. They were cautious, but calm, just like they should be. Because for all they knew, she was part of a terrorist plot. They probably received training for just such a situation.

You seem to be oh so trustful of police when they don riot gear, why the mistrust of them now?

BG
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:14 PM
 
And one more thing, why is it not possible to talk about muslim terrorists, without bringing up the Oklahoma City bombing every single time ? The dude has been executed, that story is done with. McVeigh does not pose a threat anymore, unless you believe in zombies.

I'll bet you what - If Al-Qaeda recruits a white American or black American or whoever, I bet you they won't be a Christian.



All extremist islamist groups should be looked into, and this is exactly what is happening.
Stop trying to pretend that this has zero to do with islam. Islam has a serious problem with extremist loonies at the moment, more so than other religions at the moment. No other religion has declared a world wide JIHAD against us, so stop deflecting from the facts.

Am I anti- Islam ? No, not at all. I am 100% anti-extremist islam, the type that breeds, supports and finances these terrorist murderers.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:22 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]No, what they said was her hysterics could have been a plot to blow their cover, not that she did blow their cover.
Oh please. Two passengers fighting over the seat being back too far, or some lush who’s had a few too many and gets crude with the stews could then be a ‘terrorist plot’ by that logic. Every time Courtney Love flies anywhere and pulls her in-flight shenanigans, it must be at the direct command of bin Laden!

Come off it. There was no need for any air marshal to blow his cover because some lady was suspicious of other passengers on the plane. That’s ludicrous.

Over-reacting and seeing fake ‘terrorist positives’ everywhere is not any kind of professional air marshal I want on any flight I’m on. They’re doing the very thing this lady has made a bonehead of herself over.

You seem to be oh so trustful of police when they don riot gear, why the mistrust of them now?
WTF does this lame comment have to do with anything?
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:37 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Um, he may not come from a middle eastern country, he did however have something in common with the al-qaeda terrorists. Guess what that is.

As I said previously, this has nothing to do with race or anything, it has to do with extremist islamists who sympathize with the terrorists or are terrorists themselves.
Motive is irrelevent in this discussion.

There's no way anyone will be able to see motive when someone walks on a plane.

Originally posted by PacHead:
And one more thing, why is it not possible to talk about muslim terrorists, without bringing up the Oklahoma City bombing every single time ? The dude has been executed, that story is done with. McVeigh does not pose a threat anymore, unless you believe in zombies.
But there hundreds who view him as a saint for what he did. Sadly, they exist, and they are still a threat.

Our FBI does their best to keep tabs on all of them... but eventually one is bound to slip by.



I'll bet you what - If Al-Qaeda recruits a white American or black American or whoever, I bet you they won't be a Christian.
Or they just don't like America.

All extremist islamist groups should be looked into, and this is exactly what is happening.
Stop trying to pretend that this has zero to do with islam. Islam has a serious problem with extremist loonies at the moment, more so than other religions at the moment. No other religion has declared a world wide JIHAD against us, so stop deflecting from the facts.
[/b][/quote]
Actually, you may want to hear what some christian groups have said worldwide in the past 50 years. People tend to always look towards the mormons as the crazy ones because of polygamy. But that isn't the only group.

Many Militant American organizations claim to be Christian organizations.

If you support the US government, or aren't chrstian... your an enemy.

Their problem is in the media, but it's not the only one.

Heck there are still Christian groups in South America/Africa commiting attrocities to those who refuse to believe in Jesus. (while other christian groups go out thera as missionaries trying to help relieve the situation... but we can't call them terrorists.


Your looking for problems on one side... and avoiding problems on the other side. Obviously intentionally.



And that still doesn't address the topic of this thread. It just proves a point: our nation is so terribly unprepaired it's sickening.

What's worse is that there are people like you who think terrorists are going to wear nametags when boarding a plane.

When in actually, the #1 recruiting target intelegence has been showing is in western nations: They want people that will blend in.


That's something the US is absolutely not prepaired for.

That's something the rest of the world has been preparing for some time.


Europe has been expanding it's Airport security for years to become more encompasing. In Europian Airports, everyone is searched quite thoroughly.

In the US, only select people are really given any sort of worthwhile search/check.

You want to talk about safety. Your much better off boarding a plane in Europe where your bags will most likely be checked more than once (including once behind the scenes). Your ID is checked more than once, and EVERYONE is questioned in most airports.

In the US, only a select group get that type of attention. In Europe, that's standard. The people that raise a flag during that check get even more.

The US is a sitting target. It's waiting for another attack unfortunately. And it's sickening, considering we know the fix, and most people agree the problem exists.


Do we really need another attack to realize how lax American security is?
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Oh please. Two passengers fighting over the seat being back too far, or some lush who’s had a few too many and gets crude with the stews could then be a ‘terrorist plot’ by that logic. Every time Courtney Love flies anywhere and pulls her in-flight shenanigans, it must be at the direct command of bin Laden!

Come off it. There was no need for any air marshal to blow his cover because some lady was suspicious of other passengers on the plane. That’s ludicrous.

Over-reacting and seeing fake ‘terrorist positives’ everywhere is not any kind of professional air marshal I want on any flight I’m on. They’re doing the very thing this lady has made a bonehead of herself over.
No, but the point is that they could be. Therefore, air marshals are apparently trained to stay out of any incidents that the flight crew should be able to handle.

It's a very simple tactic. It's the same sort of thing that those fish with little rods on their heads use to catch other fish (ie bait). So, in the event it was a possible terrorist plot, air marshals are trained not to take the bait.

Also, where's your evidence that the air marshal reacted at all, let alone over reacted? From the sounds of it, he was trained not to react, but keep an eye on things just in case. The 'just in case' is precisely what the air marshal is describing.

WTF does this lame comment have to do with anything?
That is left as an exercise for the reader.

BlackGriffen
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 05:55 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But there hundreds who view him as a saint for what he did. Sadly, they exist, and they are still a threat.
As opposed to MILLIONS who view Osama as a saint. You tell me which one is a bigger problem.

And I do agree with you that security could be better in this country.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 06:05 PM
 
Actually, I'd like to retract that last statement about Millions, make that Tens of Millions, or even over 100,000,000

     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 06:07 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
As opposed to MILLIONS who view Osama as a saint. You tell me which one is a bigger problem.

And I do agree with you that security could be better in this country.
1. Lets see specific numbers.
2. Are they even capable of being in the right hemisphere

Can we legally discriminate on these grounds?


There are millions who think Eric Rudolph is a martyr as well. can we condemn Chrstianity has a hostile religion? Despite his actions completely violate the Bible, and most Christian teaching.


Despite the fact that both faiths have over 1 billion followers.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Again... if we can do it to one faith... why not the other? Just because you like to ignore the bad in Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Now can we forbid both groups because bad exists? Or should we outlaw the bad?
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2004, 06:33 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
1. Lets see specific numbers.
2. Are they even capable of being in the right hemisphere
Can we legally discriminate on these grounds?
There are millions who think Eric Rudolph is a martyr as well. can we condemn Chrstianity has a hostile religion? Despite his actions completely violate the Bible, and most Christian teaching.
Despite the fact that both faiths have over 1 billion followers.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Again... if we can do it to one faith... why not the other? Just because you like to ignore the bad in Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now can we forbid both groups because bad exists? Or should we outlaw the bad?
There's bad people and scumbags in all religions, and nobody is ignoring any other religions. I haven't seen any extremist Christians slaughter thousands of Americans lately, because they were on some evil crusade against Americans.

My beef is with fundamentalist islamo-nuts and terrorists who want to see me dead. I see little difference between those nuts and fascist nazis.

If you feel that Christian extremists or Jewish extremists or whoever pose a huge threat to the USA and their numbers are mindboggling, then feel free to make a thread on this, outlining your concerns.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,