-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Score: Air Marshals 1 ; suspect 0
- Thread starter Adam_MA
- Start date
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,049
- Likes
- 9,615
Weer'd Beard said:
Oh they would find the loophole there too. After all the Bolo warriors in the Philippines were fortified by drugs when they attacked and the .357 inch bullets used at the time had little effect.
The 9/11 terrorists succeeded for basically one reason. Up until that time, no hijacking had seen the plane itself turned into a weapon, so the standard orders were to comply and wait for rescue. (sound like the "call 911" doesn't it?)
Today, given the events of 9/11, I'm pretty sure that you'd have a planeload of passengers and crew that would respond with "F U". Has there even been a hijacking since?
The fact is that TSA is an all show waste of money and resources. Think about it, you've seen the line waiting to get through security. Imagine a suicide bomber getting into the middle of that mob and detonating. Imagine that at a large hub like O'Hare, Memphis, Dallas/Ft Worth, LAX, Heathrow, etc. Imagine it occuring at the SAME TIME at several such major sites. You'd have pretty much shut down all air travel for weeks.
Or how about a car bomb in the new I90 tunnel to the airport behind a busload of kids traveling to Washington DC?
Or a large Truck Bomb on the Pike's Prudential offramp tunnel during the middle of the day?
Or crashing a truck through the doors of a crowded mall and detonating it in the middle. Heck, do it to a dozen around the country. (and there is always one entrance that doesn't have the crash barriers so they can get the promotional cars and other stuff in and out)
Heck, Stop a UPS truck in the 'truck court' have 12 guys jump out in UPS uniforms (or close copys) and each wheel a 300 lb bomb to 12 different places in a crowed mall and one guy hits the transmitter....
Do the above in the Sears Tower in Chicago all on the same floor - near the main supports.
But hey, if I can come up with stuff like this without even trying, I'm sure determined terrorists who are willing to die can do even better.
The fact is there are a crapload of possible targets besides in-flight. That we haven't seen anything since 9/11 is a miracle, not a sign that we are actually any safer. If anything, the more time that passes, the more likely such attacks will occur as society becomes comfortable in their illusion of safety.
Katie Couric
Linkie...
http://newsbusters.org/node/3123
Excerpt...
Katie 'Oakley'? Couric Suggests Air Marshals Shoot at Specific Body Parts
Has Katie Couric watched too many westerns? You know, the kind where the sheriff shoots the gun out of the bad guy's hand?
You'd think so, given the repeated questions she posed to a former air marshal in the wake of yesterday's shooting of a frantic passenger claiming to have a bomb aboard an American Airlines flight .
Katie's guest was former air marshal Tony Kuklinski, who stated that "by all accounts I've seen, what [the air marshals] did was necessary."
Katie wasn't so sure:
"Do they always shoot to kill, Tony? In other words, I guess the average person hearing this [on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Katie?] might think: isn't there a way where they could have shot this person and not killed him? Wounded him or incapacitated him in some way without killing him?"
As Kuklinksi patiently and professionally explained:
"law enforcement officials aren't trained to shoot to kill; they're trained to shoot to prevent the action from taking place. We're not trained to precision-shoot in the knee or in the arm or in the finger to prevent something from taking place. Your accuracy goes down, the potential for a stray bullet or a missed shot hitting a bystander goes up tremendously."
That wasn't enough to satisfy Katie:
"I know that last July, London police shot and killed a Brazilian electrician because they'd mistaken him for a terror suspect. It raises the question: should there be further training? Do you think that air marshals should be taught to shoot at a specific location on a body?"
One sensed Kuklinski's rising frustration. Yet he remained patient and polite, and gave what is really the key answer:
"Federal air marshals have one of the best training programs anywhere in the country. [Precision shooting creates] too much potential for secondary casualties. There's no time to sit there and take precision aim. [Attempting a more precise shot] - to shoot him in the shoulder, shoot him in the leg - it may not prevent the crime from being committed.
It makes you wonder: what questions do you think Katie might pose if an air marshal, following her recommendations, shot a terrorist in the hand, who as a result was capable of detonating his bomb that in turn brought down a jumbo jet filled with passengers?
Linkie...
http://newsbusters.org/node/3123
Excerpt...
Katie 'Oakley'? Couric Suggests Air Marshals Shoot at Specific Body Parts
Has Katie Couric watched too many westerns? You know, the kind where the sheriff shoots the gun out of the bad guy's hand?
You'd think so, given the repeated questions she posed to a former air marshal in the wake of yesterday's shooting of a frantic passenger claiming to have a bomb aboard an American Airlines flight .
Katie's guest was former air marshal Tony Kuklinski, who stated that "by all accounts I've seen, what [the air marshals] did was necessary."
Katie wasn't so sure:
"Do they always shoot to kill, Tony? In other words, I guess the average person hearing this [on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Katie?] might think: isn't there a way where they could have shot this person and not killed him? Wounded him or incapacitated him in some way without killing him?"
As Kuklinksi patiently and professionally explained:
"law enforcement officials aren't trained to shoot to kill; they're trained to shoot to prevent the action from taking place. We're not trained to precision-shoot in the knee or in the arm or in the finger to prevent something from taking place. Your accuracy goes down, the potential for a stray bullet or a missed shot hitting a bystander goes up tremendously."
That wasn't enough to satisfy Katie:
"I know that last July, London police shot and killed a Brazilian electrician because they'd mistaken him for a terror suspect. It raises the question: should there be further training? Do you think that air marshals should be taught to shoot at a specific location on a body?"
One sensed Kuklinski's rising frustration. Yet he remained patient and polite, and gave what is really the key answer:
"Federal air marshals have one of the best training programs anywhere in the country. [Precision shooting creates] too much potential for secondary casualties. There's no time to sit there and take precision aim. [Attempting a more precise shot] - to shoot him in the shoulder, shoot him in the leg - it may not prevent the crime from being committed.
It makes you wonder: what questions do you think Katie might pose if an air marshal, following her recommendations, shot a terrorist in the hand, who as a result was capable of detonating his bomb that in turn brought down a jumbo jet filled with passengers?
The whole thing sounds like "Suicide by Air Marshall".
Since we're suppossedly innocent until proven guilty, it must be a good shooting, since I haven't heard one scrap of evidence that it wasn't.
Since we're suppossedly innocent until proven guilty, it must be a good shooting, since I haven't heard one scrap of evidence that it wasn't.
Of course he was a nice guy. He's dead.
How many times do you hear about someone that was gunned down by the police or by a drive by and the people on the news say, "That guy was a schmuck, he needed to be shot."
It's always, "He's a great guy, I don't konw why he would have done that. He owns puppies."
How many times do you hear about someone that was gunned down by the police or by a drive by and the people on the news say, "That guy was a schmuck, he needed to be shot."
It's always, "He's a great guy, I don't konw why he would have done that. He owns puppies."
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
senorFrog said:
Yup. Still am. Doesn't mean that I believe everything that CNN says. Have you gone to their home page today? Seen the wonderfully "unbiased" reporting they've done?
Let me help you:
Look at all the words they're using and how: "simple man", "desperate man", "claimed to have a bomb", and my favorite: "Luggage destroyed".
Fair reporting? I'm sure it was true... but the way they use the words clearly show a bias against the air marshal and his action.
"Luggage destroyed". Hmm... they've got a guy who claimed to have a bomb, and now they don't know if maybe the bomb is in the luggage or not. Are they going to do the Tom Cruise/Mission Impossible thing and xray them and try to cut the red wire? No, this is real life. They're going to set them off in a controlled explosion. But the implication is that it was "destroyed":
Destroyed? Or
See the difference?
"simple man" - Sounds like we're talking about someone's favorite Uncle Fred, right? This "simple man" was telling federal marshals that he had a BOMB. How do they know he's off his meds? Answer: they don't and can't take the chance.
how about "Many could not reconcile that image with the one authorities painted of Rigoberto Alpizar -- that of a desperate man..." Notice how they imply that the "authorities" are lying? And how subtly it's done?
Most folks will read this article and assume that the marshal overreacted... which, I suspect, is what CNN wants. If it's not because of a political agenda, then it's to assure that folks will watch the station (assuring market share) and click on their website (getting exposure for their advertisers).
When I say I'm a "fence straddler", I mean that there are some things in the Democratic/Liberal platform I agree with, and there are some things in the Republican/Conservative platform I agree with.
dwarven1 said:
Hell, that isn't a "Fence Straddler", that's what some folks call a MODERATE. Libertarians fall into this definition as well. And, most folks on this forum are either Libertarians or Moderates, in case anyone hasn't figured that one out yet.
Nickle said:
That's one of the things that makes this forum good.
Back to the topic; I'm so glad I missed Katie's interview this morning. I can just imagine how they'd be raking the Air Marshals over the coals if he had a bomb & had the chance to detonate it. Can't win...
dwarven1 said:
Dwarven1, let me apologize, Sorry but it was not meant in a derogatory way or accusing you of being a liberal, conservative, etc, etc. The CNN comment struck me as funny b/c it was so extreme.
Of course, we all pick and choose positions on the issues. I understand that.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
senorFrog said:
Nothing to apologize for! I didn't take any offense, and I'm sorry if it seemed I did. But the way that various news media subtly slant the news by what words they use has been a pet peeve of mine for many years.
Chris,
I don't have the knowledge to prove this wrong, but I think empirical evidence suggests that this is the wrong conclusion. I think the problem is that all of the hypothetical attacks you describe actually take a large amount of organization and expertise. It's easy to suggest "build 12 bombs, get 12 guys to dress up like UPS deliverers, and spread cardboard-box-disguised bombs around a mall.", but those 12 guys need to be radicalized mass murders (i.e., someone has to radicalize them), they need to be vetted, recruited and supported in training. The bomb materials have to be assembled and the bombs constructed, and the whole process needs to be funded. Furthermore, for a safety there has to be a layer of obfuscation at every level in the organization.
I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the logistics, but I think that the requirements actually grow to be quite large - in the 30-75 person range. AND they have to be grown in easily identifiable areas: the cells exist parasitically within otherwise peaceful, Muslim communities. That's why we've had success since 9/11. The FBI, Homeland Security, local police are jumpy enough to pick at the loose ends of these cells. The bad guys have to spend all of their time in deep cover; they can't grow their cells large enough to be effective without risk of capture.
So, it's not simply pure luck that we've avoided attack. I think the pressure we've brought to bear on the terrorists is actively surppressing their ability to carry out attacks.
I agree with you that as time passes and people become less vigilant we will be in greater danger. That's why the long term strategy can't just be suppression, it has to be to break Radical Islam, so that no one wants to recruit for or be recruited to the movement any more.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Jeremiah,
I'd love to believe that the pressure we're bringing to bear has something to do with the lack of a followup attack following 9/11. Truth to tell, I don't have any idea why we haven't had one!
I fully expected a bloodbath in a shopping mall to be the next step (and strangely enough, so did Tom Clancy... or at least he wrote about one in Teeth of the Tiger). I deliberately avoided shopping malls on Black Friday of 2001 for that reason.
I don't think that it takes that many to organize an attack, but I don't have any data to back that up... so you may well be right. Whatever the reason, we've been lucky so far. Just hope it ocntinues!
I'd love to believe that the pressure we're bringing to bear has something to do with the lack of a followup attack following 9/11. Truth to tell, I don't have any idea why we haven't had one!
I fully expected a bloodbath in a shopping mall to be the next step (and strangely enough, so did Tom Clancy... or at least he wrote about one in Teeth of the Tiger). I deliberately avoided shopping malls on Black Friday of 2001 for that reason.
I don't think that it takes that many to organize an attack, but I don't have any data to back that up... so you may well be right. Whatever the reason, we've been lucky so far. Just hope it ocntinues!
Similar threads
