Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

Not as flashy.

You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident? Especially given the national pride in their high
speed rail systems.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
so on.

Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

No, it doesn't have to be that exotic. They simply carry something
aboard in the crowd, like they did on the Madrid trains. No place where
the public gathers is immune from that type of attack, and we can't
protect them all.

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

Yes, they are exposed, but they don't seem to be the target of choice
for sabotage. Occasionally, they are successful, but it hasn't been too
often, and the results have usually been relatively minor.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

It's not as easy as it looks, given that it has been tried, and has only
rarely been successful. Trains manage to hit things left on the track
all the time without too much damage in the normal course of their
operation.

James Robinson wrote:
You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident?

In the USA, Amtrak derailments are common place and attract just a mention in
the national newscasts. The terrorists would have to warn of bombs on tracks
in advance so that when it happens, the media would go into a terrorist frienzie.

But if there were a new york subway derailment or fire, people would
immediatly suspect terrorism.

The real question is whether Al Queda want to keep Bush regime in power or
not. If they make an attack against the USA between now and the election, it
would influence the outcome.

But I am not sure how. Would americans wake and and see that all the measures
the Bush regime has done did nothing to protect them, or would they fall back
into the protective custody of their Bush "father figure" who would tell
americans to trust him and that he would work even harder to protect them from
the evil doers ?

My guess is that an attack now on the USA would result in the Bush regime
sending more troups to Iraq and finding some sort of way to tell americans
that this is to prevent further attacks against the USA.

Following up to James Robinson

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

Its worth noting that even adding in terrorist casualties its
still much safer in a train than in a car.

Were we to stop using trains to defeat terrorism, it would just
move somewhere else where groups of people are together until we
just hid alone in our homes.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

The distances are too long.
Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
range,

And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.

and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.
Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.

That's a shame, too, I like trains.

And the vast majority of Americans have decent cars, so "long" trips by
European standards are common weekend trips by US standards.

Yet more pollution.

--

In article ,
"Marie Lewis" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
range,

And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.

Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

All most trains do is *move* the pollution to places outside of the
cities.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in
om:




Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

I wonder how -they- handle the fly ash problem from burning coal?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in
om:

Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

I wonder how -they- handle the fly ash problem from burning coal?

"They" don't count. they're poor, and don't live in really huge cities.

Basically, that's the attitude of many folks in the world...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:07:25 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in
om:

Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

I wonder how -they- handle the fly ash problem from burning coal?

"They" don't count. they're poor, and don't live in really huge cities.

Basically, that's the attitude of many folks in the world...

I assume "they" in this case is the UK? In which case we do more or
less what the US does with it's fly ash - use it in concrete, road
building, cement and so on. It's not rocket science to use inert
minerals.

Although what living in cities has to do with fly ash I'm not
sure......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Chad Irby wrote:

"Marie Lewis" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
range,

And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.

Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

In comparison to aircraft, trains are significantly more efficient. UK
statistics show that aircraft use about 6000 BTU per passenger-mile,
while long distance trains use about 1550 BTU per passenger-mile. Those
are the actual numbers, not claims, and include electric generation
losses.

All most trains do is *move* the pollution to places outside of the
cities.

Given that trains are relatively efficient, and move pollution away from
populated areas, is that really so bad?