Harrod's department store in London was bombed on December 16, 1983 by the northern Ireland terrorist organization Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). The bombing killed five, including one U.S. citizen, and injured ninety-one others.

That U.S. citizen had a name, and a wife. Both are/were friends of mine.

Did you lose anyone on 9/11? Was it a friend? A member of your family?

I know what is dangerous and what I am fearful of. I am fearful of people like you, who have not yet had their first bitter taste of terrorism. Your glib attitude is dangerous. Your smugness is dangerous.

I don't see terrorism in the abstract. Imagine the ugly irony of a husband purchasing Christmas gifts for his soon to be twenty-something widow.

What is dangerous is people like you, armchair-quarterbacking. People like you who won't come off of the sidelines in the war against terrorism.

People like you are dangerous for offering a lame critique of actions designed to protect you. What is your alternative? Where is your perfect plan?

I would not wish it on anyone, but when you taste it firsthand, you will drop your "cutesie" views on terrorism like a hot potato.

The enemy relishes "soft-targets" like you; philosophers so enamored of their own folly and ignorance that taking them out is scarcely a challenge.

[This message has been edited by FlyAAway (edited 10-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by FlyAAway (edited 10-24-2001).]

FlyAAway,

So am I to understand that your loss would have been prevented had someone stopped IRA members from boarding commercial aircraft with "certain" reading material?

I understand clearly that you are afraid.

I submit that your own self-imposed sense of fecklessness to have either prevented the loss of those you cared about or bring those responsible to justice make you believe that myself and anyone else who chooses not to share your views are also somehow responsible.

This is a childish argument and you are a fool for making it.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-24-2001).]

I'm sure it wouldn't even occur to me to worry about what book I'm reading (although it does now, obviously). That said, it certainly doesn't bother me in the least that it got undue attention, so we're in agreement there.

I consider it "irresponsible" that once they determined the guy was just reading an unfortunate selection from the library, they still denied letting him fly. Then they told him he COULD fly later that day. Then they stopped him AGAIN when he showed up to fly.

It is, at the very least, unprofessional in the extreme to treat your customers in such a non-straghtforward manner.

I never used any of those adjectives previously, and I'm not bothered by the security personnel's investigations -- I'm bothered by the airline refusing his boarding (with apparently no reason, or they would have arrested him), then telling him he could fly, then refusing him again when he comes all the way back to the airport.

Sure. Why would it bother me? It's just a book. If the guy was frothing at the mouth, then I'd worry.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
If you think the guy exercised responsible behavior, I will respectfully disagree.

---

I believe he acted responsibly in allowing the search, answering their questions, and contacting the airline afterwards to find out how he could travel. He acted responsibly in arriving the second time with a different book.

This is like asking if I think the first person caught with nail clippers after 9/11 was irresponsible -- no, I don't. I'm sure all the folks with nail clippers are simply not thinking about it and bringing them along accidentally. If you want to paint them as irresponsible hooligans for not cleaning out their toiletry items, thats your prerogative.

It is not correct to assume that, if only another had gone through the same experiences as you, they would agree with your opinions. There are many relatives of 9/11 victims arguing against the bombings, many arguing they should be enlarged, many still sorting it all out.

I believe it would also be incorrect to assume that no one else on this board of well-traveled persons has lost loved ones to terrorism, or seen its effects up close.

Not everyone here wants to advertise the ways in which they've been affected by the events in the past 6 weeks, but by discussing the aftermath we can try to sort out our feelings in a socially acceptable and productive way. It sure beats crying ouselves to sleep at night! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by artboy (edited 10-24-2001).]

I see no reason to back away from anything stated in the post.

You have every right to say what you said, but I disagree.

You can't begin to know how wrong your assessment of me is.

What exactly is your measure of a man? If I am a coward, what constitutes bravery?. If I am a fool, what is it, exactly, that differentiates you from me? No sarcasm, I am serious. Spell it out.

I am a decorated combat-veteran. My bravery is documented.

If not wanting to lose another friend (yours or mine) to terrorism makes me a fool, so be it. I am very comfortable in my own skin, and am happy to greet the man in the mirror.

I hope the proliferation of attitudes like yours does not lead to the destruction of your cozy little world, but it might. If it is preserved, and I hope it is, you will have a coward and a fool to thank (in part).

The world is still waiting for your perfect solution. Hell, I will even be happy to see your better, but flawed, solution.

What security measures have you proposed that are better?

While my blood boiled, the entire point of the post was to learn if you had lost a friend, or family-member, on 9/11 (or previously), to terrorism.

You failed to answer the question.

If you were to answer in the affirmative, would your attitude change? Would you be comfortable letting your mom, wife, daughter, dad, brother, et al. fly without any restrictions whatsoever? Can you acknowledge that it is in the realm of possiblility that the young man could have been a danger? How can you so blithely believe he could not be?

Will you answer the questions? It is simple "yes" or "no" material. Could you possibly manage to respond without calling me names?

If it makes you feel brave, smart, and quite adult, call me names. Just answer the questions.

Artboy,

Well said, sir. Your post merits a serious response, but I must step out for my weekly Bible study (yes, I am serious and understand this might cause a feeding frenzy, but it is true).

I will edit this post, later.

I appreciate your gentlemanly and articulate response.

Originally posted by anrkitec:

[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-24-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the edit, I think.

FlyAAway,

I make no assessment of you as a person other than to the extent that I can read your words. I never said otherwise.

First let me point out that I edited my post to remove the word "coward" for two reasons. The first is that I felt it would be seen by many here merely (as you say) as name-calling (though I stand by my opinion that the argument you make is in fact foolish). The second reason is that I felt that you would not be able to understand that whether or not a person is or is not a coward is based on far more criteria than whether or not one is "a decorated combat veteran".

While I in no way belittle your contributions, military service is not the ultimate "measure of a man". That you feel a need to bring attention to your "documented bravery" suggests an unbelievable insecurity about something on your part. This really isn't a pissing contest.

My initial response based on your words were that you were a coward because rather than lay the blame for 9/11 and the events that took the life of your friend where they rightfully belong (with the individuals that actually committed those acts) you none to subtly suggest that the world would be a better place by "taking [me] out" and that my "liberal" views somehow contributed to what happened. I felt that you were being cowardly because rather than face the real enemy you turn your fear and hatred towards me. Regardless of my views and opinions I had nothing whatsoever to do with the loss of your friend or the events of 9/11 and to suggest otherwise is quite simply cowardly.

Those in my life that I have lost and the particular circumstances that surround those losses quite frankly are none of your business and I see no need to share any of this with you. That you chose to do so is your prerogative.

I do not "sit on the sidelines" of this fight against terrorism. I wholeheartedly support the efforts of our government to bring those responsible to justice and prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future. As I am over twenty-eight I am ineligible for military service, which appears to be your only benchmark for either having or being allowed to express an opinion on this matter.

To bring up the notion of a "perfect" anything is again a childish argument in that no rational adult believes that anything can be perfect. I submit that there is room somewhere between the unachievable "perfect" solution and the censoring of ones reading material and confiscation of nail clippers.

No one, myself included ever suggested that we "fly without any restrictions whatsoever". This is a rather weak use of hyperbole on your part IMHO. What others and myself here have clearly said is that the choice in ones reading material is of absolutely no threat whatsoever and it was more than a simple over-reaction to prevent this individual from flying because of that. That others and yourself actually believe that this and many other recently imposed and equally feckless "security measures" protect anything is at the very least interesting




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-24-2001).]

Good judgment? Hmmm ... interesting point, and I suppose my personal reaction is to agree with you. On BDL-ATL-SAV last weekend I wasn't going to be carrying terrorism novels, bomb textbooks or the Koran. Wouldn't bring 'em on BDL-ATL-LAS this weekend, either.

But the bigger question is whether an air traveler MUST exercise that caution. And the answer -- at least in a sensible, democratic society -- is no.

Was it reasonable to ask him a few questions? I suppose. But ultimately, the guy was either a threat or he wasn't -- carrying a book (regardless of how offensive) doesn't make him a danger. The job of law enforcement & security doesn't extend to enforcing standards of taste, preference, etc.

Keeping the guy off the flight qualifies as ham-handed and enormously incompetent. Wand him, double-wand him, hand search his carry-on and even checked bags, run his name through NCIC and whatever anti-terrorism lists the feds have established since Sept. 11 .... do what it takes to determine whether he's truly dangerous. But if he isn't, it's absurd -- and wrong -- to harass him, let alone bar him from the flight he held a ticket for.

That's the same nonsense that happened with a DL flight about a week after Sept. 11 ... a bunch of passengers and some crew got edgy about an Arab-looking guy on the plane. Airport security and police checked him out, and determined he wasn't a threat ... but he was kept off the plane anyway.

That's NOT security. It makes nothing safer. It's exactly the kind of garbage that American freedom is against.

As for authorities clamming up when the press got wind of this, I believe your criticism is far better directed toward them. If their cops/gate agents/security staff were all innocent, the bosses should've produced them & let them be interviewed. Failure to do so speaks volumes.

Just another man's opinion.

Well, FlyAAway, I guess we're headed back toward the same discussion I backed out of in another thread. I just can't stand it. My own weakness, I guess. We'll see how long I last this time.

Yes, I lost a very good friend on 9/11, the first officer of one of the downed planes. I and my partner spent a great deal of time with him and his partner. Talk about irony (or foreshadowing, or some other literary device I don't remember the correct term for) I remember the four of us walking around lower Manhattan on a weekend trip a few years ago just under the WTC, chatting it up without a care in the world. The memory is gutwrenching, in retrospect.

I've got no perfect plan. I don't think there is a perfect plan. Even if we suspended ALL our civil rights and gave unfettered discretion to law enforcement to do whatever they like in attempting to fight terrorism, we wouldn't be 100% safe.

And I'm just not willing to do that, or anything close to it. While I've lost a dear friend due to terrorism, I've also had loved ones who have suffered terribly due to overzealous, out of control law enforcement. Have you? Until you have experienced the other end of the spectrum, maybe it's you who doesn't have the necessary life experience to make an informed judgment.

I love my life and want for me and my loved ones to be safe. But I also want that life to be one worth living, one that enjoys the freedoms that make America, despite its many faults, the best nation on Earth. There's a balance to be struck. We can disagree about where that balance point is, but I wish that you'd acknowledge that the liberties our founding fathers guaranteed for us are worth something, and worth preserving as much as possible, even in wartime.

To say it a different way, there are nations that are extremely safe and orderly. Singapore comes to mind. But that degree of safety comes at a high price, a price I and many others are not willing to pay.

Though i hate to even mention it in this context http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif the cutoff is anywhere from 28-35 (depending on branch and career field), and you can get a waiver pretty easily if you are a good candidate.

But you are too old to be drafted! (26) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ...

artboy,

Thank you for the clarification. So I now have a potential of two years of both NCAA eligibility and military service eligibility. I don’t think my knees would stand up to either. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-24-2001).]

Dude,



I don't recall suggesting that it was the sole criteria. It might be based on more than your opionion, as well.



You are incapable of effectively belittling my military service. It may not be the ultimate measure of a man, but I offered it because it is quantifiable and relatable to a large segment of the population. Insecure? Your opinion. It merely suggests that I was not blowing smoke. Until you offer the ultimate measure of a man, or what constitutes bravery, perhaps it is a "urinary olympiad."



Sir, I neither fear nor hate you. Did I use the word "liberal" at any time? Did I suggest you personally had anything to do with my loss? If it was not clear, what I am suggesting is that a less than cautious attitude might lead to more deaths. I regret the implication that you had personal responsibility. I hold you blameless in the Harrod's bombing. I never said the world would be better without you. Please read it again. I said that your attitudes would facilitate the enemy in his effort to remove those that hold your views. I did not say it was a good thing, or that I wished it upon you. I do not wish you ill.



I agree with these statements 100%. Your losses are none of my business. I did not "need" to do so. This was the first time I have mentioned it; I feel it was quite germane to the argument. Again, I offered it for a reason; I am not just grandstanding.



I think it is a great benchmark, but certainly not the only one. If you wanted to serve in the military, I will help you pursue a waiver. Also, I think you are still young enough for certain specialties. Don't sell yourself short! Of course, this begs the question, what kept you away prior to turning 28? The Reserves are a great way to serve and subsidize college expenses.



Wholeheartedly? With no exceptions? You have some heartburn with airport security, do you not?



Re-read the post; I believe I amended that notion and said I would accept a flawed solution. I will agree with you about a solution "somewhere between"; now just tell us what it is.



Several rational adults believe just that; step into a Lexus dealership and you will experience "the relentless pursuit of perfection." Better yet, drive one. You may become a believer, too.



My only response to this is that you remind me a lot of me, when I was 28. I say that with no malice. You have shown the capacity to make my blood boil and the capacity to make me laugh. I do applaud the courage of your convictions. You are obviously, to the extent of what I read here, and in your profile, an accomplished young man. Speaking of insecurity; do you have issues surrounding your vocabulary? Yours is actually quite well-developed, but enough with feckless. You don't have to pull your six-shooter out everytime you leave the bar to unhitch your horse. The childish argument is also overstated here. You are a worthy adversary (competitor?) and you do keep an "old" guy on his toes. I have been known to be wrong. I have also been known to admit it.

I am anxious to hear your reasoned response.

[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-24-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]



[This message has been edited by FlyAAway (edited 10-24-2001).]

chazas;

Happily, it would appear that we are headed down a different road.

First of all, my sincere condolences on your personal loss. It is a tragedy of the first order. It saddens me that this happened to you. As bad as the Harrod's bombing was, the WTC was even more horrific.

I appreciate your response here; it was quite poignant. It is in no way indicative of weakness.

As you know, I attempt to answer each post with zeal. Perhaps too much. Yours deserves a response. I agree with your statement on balance. I would like to address your post as I have the others, but it is 10:00 p.m. on the West Coast and I must rise at 3:45. I have spent far much time on-line this evening. I am passionate about the subject. I do respect your passion, as well.

Again, I am moved by your loss.

FlyAAway,

Yes, I am guilty of using feckless[ness] twice in the same thread. It seems to me that this word in particular, both phonically and etymologically are particularly appropriate these days. I might just have easily used futile, ineffective, incompetent, etc...

What kept me away from military service was the pursuit of two bachelors and two masters degrees coupled with five years of internship and practice. As the United States has no compulsory military service requirement I submit that it was not un-patriotic for me to do so.

I was born into a world of relative peace and freedom won through not only the military service of my grandfather, you, and those that came before you but also by the intellectual labors of many other patriots (both historically and contemporaneously) who never fought or served for whatever reasons but provide the ideological framework, rights, protections, and laws that are the true foundation of this nation.

I remember my grandfather telling all of his grandchildren that he volunteered, fought, and was injured in WWII precisely so we could do such things and that from his point of view our family had "paid their dues." It was/is his sincerest wish than none of his progeny ever have to fight again. Just because I never served nor choose to support every position of the current administration do not presume that I do not honor and respect the sacrifices of others on the battlefield.

Yes I do wholeheartedly support the efforts of our government in the pursuit of the terrorists and yes there are exceptions. These ideas are not inconsistent. Disagreement and criticism of the government or current administration even in times like these are not unpatriotic and do not enhance the likelihood of future terrorist acts. Following in unquestioned lockstep with what any government or administration says is a sure recipe for bad government at best and totalitarianism at worst.

While I may not have every answer to every question as to the proper solution, I do know that it will not be found in preventing passengers who read "certain" books from flying on commercial airlines.

Also, while the Lexus is a fine automobile, I come from a family of Jaguar (for their warmth and personality) and Mercedes (for their precision) owners. A Lexus would be heresy. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As for the ultimate measure of a man, that can only be found in the degree to which he can be honest with and true to himself. Anything worth any real value will flow from that. As for myself I make mistakes everyday of my life. But I do what I say. I suppose that is how I define "being a man".




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 10-25-2001).]

anrkitec,

Well said.

Very eloquent and civil.

I have precious little experience as a driver of Mercedes or Jaguar, but I have enjoyed the pleasure of being a pampered passenger.

I like the Lexus and have owned two BMW; we currently have an X5. I commute in a Honda Civic. My practical side.

I hope I did not infer that you were not a patriot. I trust that you are. As for what kept you away from the military, I envy your academic accomplishment. My company would fund, totally, a Masters Degree. Perhaps I am a fool.

If your grandfather is still with us, thank him for service on my behalf. I salute him.

Now, if I can patch things up with Don I can really sleep well.

Are you a Tom Petty fan? (Won't back down)

Now it is really late! Good night.