I've followed this thread since the start and I've been lurking because 1) it's off topic and 2) while the debate was interesting, it seemed to be going down that familiar road of people talking (posting) AT each other rather than pursuing a collective discussion (i.e. respecting someone else's opinion and defending one's own with intelligence, civility and flexibilty).

When I read FlyAAway's post above, I was ready to jump in if and when there might be a "feeding frenzy" about his Bible study. Luckily there was not, but the fact that he included that remark in his post is telling. Intolerance exists everywhere, among people of all types of "persuasion": political, religious, sexual, racial, etc. Unfortunately, it is NOT the exclusive domain of any one group.

Moving on. FlyAAway, I read your posts regularly. I may not always agree with you, but I appreciate and admire the way you post your opinion (which is not always a "popular" one) on an issue and then defend it with intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. You solicit substantive responses from others. You don't give up easily, but you are wise enough to admit when you are mistaken and make amends. You also are willing to pursue information elsewhere in search of answers to the issue at hand.

And, at least in this thread and one other current thread in OMNI, your arguments give me some meat to chew on (food for thought?) regarding stands on certain issues that I may not have considered before. I believe you are/were in the military? Well, thanks for acting as my intellectual drill sergeant from time to time.

{Edit}: punctuation and spelling

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

And here I thought we could have a discussion about security at airports without talking about ethnicity.

Personally, as a lot of other Americans, I'm interested in reading the Koran myself (just like I've read parts of the Bible even though I'm not Christian). For me, the best time to read is when I'm on a plane. However, I decided against it -- and looks like I made the smart decision

Anyone read Fahrenheit 451...

------------------
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

I would submit that in the everlasting American attempt to balance liberty with security, there are times such as extended periods of relative peace that security must be emphasized lest we upset the balance.

This situation is just the opposite. In this climate of knee-jerk reactionism when emotions run high (and I admit to being peronally guilty of this myself), it is imperative that we emphasize liberty in order that it not be lost.

There was a Denzel Washington/Bruce Willis movie about terrorism in New York a couple years ago that made this point rather eloquently, I thought.

Dup

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

I probably should let sleeping dogs lie. I probably would have posted earlier but have been to busy to be keeping up.

Just to start by answering Flyaways questions. I do not believe in saying mine is bigger than yours. Yet you seem to only want to hear from people that you feel are equivalent to yourself in experience. So here goes. I was a parachute qualified, ranger badged army officer. I do not have decorations for bravery because I was not in service in a time of war. I have studied war and terrorism since high school, I continue that study now. I did lose a couple of friends at the Khobar Towers bombings. I went through airborne school with a marine injured at the marine barracks bombing. I have been in England when the IRA set off bombs. I was even on a plane landing at Heathrow when the IRA set off improvised mortar/rockets from an adjacent car park. So hopefully I qualify to speak on this issue.

The majority of the governments response to airport security has been eye candy designed to get the public thinking that the problem is solved. Actually as I and many others have stated here and other areas, the major reason this operation succeeded was policy. If somebody got up and said they were hijacking the plane everybody was supposed to do what they said. No weapons needed, the same policy as at banks during a robbery. Changing that policy is the major solution to the attacks that occured. We also need to be honest that the terrorists can succeed in attacking if they want to. The only way to stop a terrorist is to destroy him.

England as you mention has had to deal with the IRA bombing long before the Harrods bombing. The reason Harrods was still open and available for business is that they had realized that you can try and make your target less vulnerable and more raise security awareness, but still be open. People still need to go about their business and not give in to threats.

The government can either be honest and say that there are still risks, or be stupid and give into hysteria and ban people from planes for what they look like, read etc. That is not to say that we don't profile, search luggage etc. As someone already mentioned, how many other people were looked at less carfully if there really were 12 "security" personel on this one issue. I can agree in only allowing people flying that day should to go through the security check point. That means less people to look at. It is always better to limit the amount of people to search if we want it to be the most effective.

Actually a good book to read is the autobiography of the British commander during the Gulf. He makes an effective arguement that I agree with. The US response to attacks has been to more and more wall ourself off from the host country population. That has not protected us from attacks it has just made the terrorists increase the destructiveness of their attack. Actually Khobar was initially considered safer than necessary because of the size of explosive need to attack it and the safe area around the building.

His analysis is that it is easier to get the population to demonize us and accept/look the other way in attacks on us, if they do not interact with us. The same can be said of keeping people off of planes that have passed security. If the government keeps giving into hysteria the terrorists will have won because we will have walled off our popualtion both inside the US and the US from the rest of the world. That Flyaway will cause the US more damage than lax security will ever do. Again I do not suggest that we just open the gates but this type of incident is stupid. (though I will be the first to admit that I think there was more to this incident than was reported. The comment about an officer recognizing him from the earlier ruckus?) Still once he was determined to not be a threat he should have been put on board. As I said I still study war. I consistently carry on books that are military/ terrorism related. Many of which could be considered worse than his. These same books are on the reading lists of many spec ops officers.

Of the friends that I have talked to since 9-11 that are still on active duty, all would agree that we will have more incidents, they will not be the same and that we are wasting effort that could be used to prevent them trying to stop the last op. We needed to change policy, step up the red flag tests and then in general improve the security level around the US. Lets not try to win the last war again.



------------------
Robert

Actually, in times of crisis, the American way is to mindlessly scream bloody murder and blame lawyers.

I guess for "national security" maybe we should not only be allowed to read what we want, but also not be allowed to attain lawful rederss of harm when wronged.

Tort reform is a nice buzz phrase, but let's see how it would impact your life if it actually went into effect.

It wouldn't shock me to see something like that attempted to be pushed through under the guise of national security in this time of crisis.

The movie Kokonutz is talking about is 'The Siege' released in 1998. Find out more at www.imdb.com if you are so interested.

Don't bring a book about it however

I wonder what would have happened if they had caught me with the book I had on my recent MCO trip, Jihad vs McWorld by Benjamin Barber. As it turns out, it ended up in my checked bag both ways, but still, imagine the closed-minded reaction to the word Jihad in the title, nevermind what the book is about. For those who don't know, it's a nonfiction piece attempting to explain some of the differences between western capitalist culture and Islamic culture. Dates to about 5 years ago. I haven't actually had a chance to read it yet. Didn't open it during my trip.

On my first flight after September 11th I took along John Nance's "Blackout" as my reading material. The story concerns people who seem to be terrorists crashing airliners. Nobody batted an eye.

And to answer a question posted above: I have read Fahrenheit 451 and seen the film.

Everybody qualifies, including you. I only tried to emphasize my experience because I thought it was germane. No put down intended. Be what you are and be proud. Thank you for your service; I salute you. It actually sounds like yours might be bigger than mine.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The majority of the governments response to airport security has been eye candy designed to get the public thinking that the problem is solved. Actually as I and many others have stated here and other areas, the major reason this operation succeeded was policy. If somebody got up and said they were hijacking the plane everybody was supposed to do what they said. No weapons needed, the same policy as at banks during a robbery. Changing that policy is the major solution to the attacks that occured. We also need to be honest that the terrorists can succeed in attacking if they want to. The only way to stop a terrorist is to destroy him.

I agree.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
England as you mention has had to deal with the IRA bombing long before the Harrods bombing. The reason Harrods was still open and available for business is that they had realized that you can try and make your target less vulnerable and more raise security awareness, but still be open. People still need to go about their business and not give in to threats.

Again, we agree.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The government can either be honest and say that there are still risks, or be stupid and give into hysteria and ban people from planes for what they look like, read etc. That is not to say that we don't profile, search luggage etc. As someone already mentioned, how many other people were looked at less carfully if there really were 12 "security" personel on this one issue. I can agree in only allowing people flying that day should to go through the security check point. That means less people to look at. It is always better to limit the amount of people to search if we want it to be the most effective.

True, true.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Actually a good book to read is the autobiography of the British commander during the Gulf.

I will put it on the list, thank you.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
He makes an effective arguement that I agree with. The US response to attacks has been to more and more wall ourself off from the host country population. That has not protected us from attacks it has just made the terrorists increase the destructiveness of their attack. Actually Khobar was initially considered safer than necessary because of the size of explosive need to attack it and the safe area around the building.

His analysis is that it is easier to get the population to demonize us and accept/look the other way in attacks on us, if they do not interact with us. The same can be said of keeping people off of planes that have passed security. If the government keeps giving into hysteria the terrorists will have won because we will have walled off our popualtion both inside the US and the US from the rest of the world. That Flyaway will cause the US more damage than lax security will ever do. Again I do not suggest that we just open the gates but this type of incident is stupid. (though I will be the first to admit that I think there was more to this incident than was reported. The comment about an officer recognizing him from the earlier ruckus?) Still once he was determined to not be a threat he should have been put on board. As I said I still study war. I consistently carry on books that are military/ terrorism related. Many of which could be considered worse than his. These same books are on the reading lists of many spec ops officers.

Agree that there is more to the story. Your special ops officer friends probably would not flaunt these titles at the checkpoints. I think they are smarter, don't you?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Of the friends that I have talked to since 9-11 that are still on active duty, all would agree that we will have more incidents, they will not be the same and that we are wasting effort that could be used to prevent them trying to stop the last op. We needed to change policy, step up the red flag tests and then in general improve the security level around the US. Lets not try to win the last war again.

I agree with your active duty brethern with the exception of the wasted effort. The effort will have to do until the improved effort arrives.

Without revealing specifics, we have altered procedures for when "non-crewmembers" aboard our weapon system. Some of it is long overdue (or, due back), some of it is just plain silly.