Screwdrivered Security (a little long)

(Wes) wrote in message . com...
Jeffrey Voight wrote in message ...

[sorry about the attribution for the text below-- I snipped it out
inadvertently]

Jude wrote:
the nations that support them [terrorist groups and funders] and allow them to live
and organize and
train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies.
snip
I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
terrorists and intelligence.

Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
destroyed all his credibility, both within and without.

I totally concur.
snip
And you're right, it was our supposed "allies" who were doing
the most to incite the terrorists, especially Saudi Arabia, by
spreading radical Wahhabism worldwide, teaching their *kids* to hate
Jews and Christians in their textbooks, and blaming their own failures
and corruption on the West.
snip
It wasn't
smart for the US to have posted the troops in Saudi Arabia like that
since 1991 (they were there just to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq
and could have been rotated to more peripheral nations), and the Iraqi
sanctions weren't working, but the main wellspring for terrorism was
Saudi Arabia's corrupt policy and deflection of culpability for their
own inadequacies in the position of a ruling government. Fortunately,
the Saudi officials are starting to cooperate now more intensively
snip

I should add that over the long term, the best bulwark against
terrorism originating in the Arab world is for the moderates-- esp. in
Saudi Arabia-- to gain some traction in the region's culture war, and
I don't view this to be as difficult a challenge as many portray it.
In spite of some bitter resentment in the region toward the US, the
predominant reactions in the Middle East (as well as everywhere else)
toward the 9/11 attacks, the Lockerbie bombing, the 1998 embassy
bombings, and the Bali bombing in 2002 were outright revulsion
directed at the perpetrators. Political conflict and even violent
clashes are a fact of life throughout the world, and attacks against
an invading army, a garrison, or occupying force have long been an
element of armed struggle; what made all the attacks above so vile was
that they were directed *specifically* at unarmed, noncombatant
civilians.

There is absolutely no moral, ethical, or political philosophy that
remotely condones such actions. Indeed, in the Muslim faith and
Quranic teachings, physical attacks are permitted in immediate
self-defense and against an armed opponent, but never, ever against
unarmed civilians (and no amount of sophistry can be used to ever
justify them). Violators of this precept are invariably bound for
eternal damnation in hell. (And somebody at the Onion "followed up"
on this idea: http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hi...surprised.html
See also http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/go...dont_kill.html
Genuine classics of journalism.) Although there were some asinine
cheerleaders of the September 11 atrocity, most were appalled, and
this is why so many in the region bought into that addle-headed
conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were a Mossad plot or some
such nonsense; Sept. 11 and assaults like it are repugnant at an
intrinsic level, and people don't want to own up to them as being
committed by members of their culture. (Even in Syria, not exactly a
US friend, the locals were apparently greeting tourists with anti-al
Qaeda sentiments post-9/11-- even as they castigated US policy in many
areas.)

Besides their moral reprehensibility, 9/11 and similar attacks were
strategically stupid; being as indiscriminate as they were against
noncombatant targets, they probably killed many people who might have
been otherwise sympathetic to al-Qaeda's supposed anti-colonial cause
(chiefly removal of the US troops from Saudi Arabia and ending the
sanctions in Iraq), angered people so much that they unified and
galvanized opponents, and gave rise to harsh reactions to al-Qaeda
operatives and state supporters (chiefly the Taliban). Even in Iraq
right now, when news stations have those interviews with insurgents
attacking US and other Coalition troops, the guerrillas tend to be
pretty careful about drawing distinctions-- attacking armed convoys
and cooperating individuals in the country, but not directly targeting
civilians in any case. These are *hardened fighters* saying this.

Thus there's both a moral and strategic case for moderates throughout
the Middle East to make their voices heard, and they probably know
that having a Gandhi-like figure would do vastly more to further their
causes than 100 Osama bin Ladens. (Indeed, al-Qaeda has probably done
more damage to the region's aspirations than any other organization,
Muslim or otherwise.) So the best assistance for US counterterrorism
operations will ultimately be from within the Muslim world itself. We
can help out by escaping our oil dependence (photovoltaic solar panels
are a beautiful sight) and making sure to respect the wishes of the
people on the "Arab street," rather than kowtowing to corrupt and
oppressive officials. The intelligence war against al-Qaeda
operatives (big fish and little fish) is still crucial, and
apprehending Ayman al-Zawahiri, Saif al-Adel, Midhat Mursi, Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith, and other operations chiefs would gut what's left of
al-Qaeda. But it's ultimately a war of ideas, and hopefully the war
will be won by cooler heads within the Muslim world, for its own sake
and for everyone affected by the more fanatic elements therein.

Wes Ulm

Wes, your analysis is right on, the ONLY terrorist minimizing method of air
transport is in 4 place (maximum) airplanes that cannot physically exceed
250 knots... That way there will be no aiplanes flying over this country
capable of inflicting mass casualties or mass property loss... I expect you
to demand that your congress critter introduce a bill shutting down the
cattle haulers they call airliners..
denny

"Wes" wrote in message

Judah wrote
I was with you until the very end of your post here...

Thousands of people are hit by drunk drivers or other accidental injuries
and deaths caused by motor vehicles.

Yes they are. Did you know that if you fail to take reasonable
security precautions with your car, and it is used to do damage, then
you are liable? That includes leaving your keys in the car, lending
your car to a drunk, etc. I'm sure you know that it is illegal to
operate a car on the public roads of any state without proof of
financial responsibility (either a policy of liability insurance or
bond in lieu). Did you know it's illegal to manufacture and sell a
car that fails to meet certain safety standards in regard to braking
ability, crashworthiness, etc? Did you know automakers have been
successfully sued for manufacturing defects that made the cars
dangerous? Pinto anyone? Did you know that corporations have been
successfully sued for failing to exercise proper safety controls over
their fleets?

And we're talking passengers cars here - which are roughly equivalent
to small light singles in damage potential. No form of land-based
transport is equivalent to a 747 with the tens of thousands of gallons
of fuel it carries in terms of ability to do damage to innocent
bystanders (rather than passengers) but when it comes to sea transport
- well, anyone remember the Exxon Valdez and the lawsuits that
folowed?

My point is that airlines are not entitled to any special protection,
but should compete on the same basis as any other form of
transportation. That includes taking reasonable precautions against
killing their passengers, and it includes some very stiff protection
for innocent bystanders. Certainly a steel door to the cockpit is not
too much to ask.

A Ryder Truck was used to kill thousands of people in Oklahoma City. And
yet it didn't take very long for Ryder Trucks to go back to normal renting
operations.

And frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to rent a truck to someone
without at least a show of ID. Of course that doesn't happen anyway.
In any case, a Ryder Truck can't do the kind of damage a heavy
airliner can do. The appropriate level of security is defined by the
relative risk.

Thousands of people have died in Amtrak accidents either because they were
in a train that derailed, or because they were hit by a train as they
walked or drove across the tracks.

Yes, Amtrak is very dangerous - to the passengers. But the people who
were hit by a train were invariably doing something they should not
have been - crossing the tracks without looking. The people in the
WTC did nothing wrong. That's the main issue here. Thousands of
innocent bystanders were killed, and while the primary cause of death
was criminal acts on the part of the terrorists, airline negligence
was certainly contributory.

Imagine you own a gun, and you keep it on your coffee table. A
criminal steals it and commits murder. Sure, he's a criminal. It's
his fault. But you should have kept that gun in a safe place, and
because you didn't you will face civil liability. It is no more
unreasonable to require airlines to prevent access to the cockpit by
unauthorized persons than it is to require gun owners to keep their
guns in a safe place. An airliner is a far more effecive weapon than
a gun, so much greater protection is warranted.

Little or nothing has been done to modify the security of these modes of
transportation, yet the REALITY is that these machines are equally as
dangerous as airplanes.

To their passengers certainly, but not to innocent bystanders. And
that's the basic issue. Innocent bystanders did not consent to the
risk, and are thus entitled to a significantly higher level of
protection than the people who chose to be passengers.

Michael