[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Maybe if you had included the proper link to the “scare” version… two different links, two different headlines.
The “scare” version is the one in the OP. And if you read my post closely, you’ll see that I reply to TB who claims my article didn’t mention scare. I simply quoted the title, which article it was from was evident from the thread.
Here’s an excerpt of how it went:
[i]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, Lixy - we are all waiting on you to admit that your “scare story” doesn’t exist in the article you cited and is one more example of you not reading the article you posted in opening the thread on a particular (scary) topic.
The title of the article reads “Fair dinkum! Lingo sparks US scare”.[/i]
Then I went on to show that other papers have used the same tone of “scare”. I named the paper from which the new article was caught (Herald Sun), quoted it, then linked to it. That you got confused because of your low attention span does not excuse your attitude nor your language.
Try to keep up.[/quote]
You provided two links. I followed the one that called it a farce.
I like it better.
How does one keep up with someone engrossed in chasing their own tail? Why would I want to?
I asked a fairly simple question. A yes/no/don’t_know would have done the trick.[/quote]
The different forms of transportation get different regulations - airlines are regulated federally. Depending on whether the other forms of transport cross state lines or not will answer your question, and you might get more than 50 different answers.
Welcome to American federalism - and go learn up on our system of government.
And the point remains - how other forms of transport are regulated was irrelevant to the point that airlines have a very strict set of guidelines, governed by federal law, enacted completely outside the context of terrorism.
Yes, people are certainly paying more attention - by the way, how did Americans react after the attacks on the World Trade Center? From the flight over Pennsylvania to Robert Reid, the passengers weren’t “terrorized” into cowering - quite the opposite.
By the way, you should diversify where you get your news - we still enjoy our liberties here in the US, plus a few mild inconveniences. The terrorists have prodded us into being more awake and less complacent, but they haven’t won anything.
You tend to speculate entirely too much about how Americans think and act. Oh, Americans have stepped up their emotions about terrorism, no question. Just not exactly the way you think.
[quote]AllDurr may be onto something when he says that such incidents started catching the attention of the media post-9/11, and that may very well be true for this case. We can only speculate. One thing is for sure though, the guys asked to remove their T-shirts before boarding the plane would have definitely been reported if it had happened pre-9/11. More than that, it would have caused an uproar.
The job of an Al-Qaeda style terrorist is simple: Die, scare, and kill people in that order of importance. On all accounts they have succeeded in their despicable mission. Refusing to acknowledge makes you sound like an overly proud kid who lives in a fantasy world and refuses to see the reality.[/quote]
They definitely kill people, and people are certainly more scared than they used to be. So what? Who didn’t acknowledge that? But, we still are back to the beginning - the incident with the Australian lady is evidence that “the terrorists won!”, as per your thinly-argued statement in the OP. Completely false, and it is quite clear you wanted to start yet another thread that looks and smells like propaganda.
Terrorism is quite scary, in fact - fascist murderers hell-bent on bringing Sharia law to all parts of the world under the pain of sword. How could this not be scary? What you do with that fear is the more salient concern - do you cower? Or do you put your fist under their collective nose?
Rest assured, if a terrorist pops up on a flight, he had better hope and pray the airport security gets to him before the passengers do.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dealing with a troublesome passenger, even if excessively, is a “totalitarian measure”? It remains hard to take you seriously - you continue to foster a paranoia that can’t be sustained on the basis of the facts on the ground (or in the air).
[/quote]
Try not to follow in Rainjack’s footsteps and invent stances for me so that you can knock them down. Quite simply, that is a fools game. I’d never try to state that was a totalitarian measure by itself, but there are lots of tiny little steps point in that direction… which is a very different thing.
[quote]
No doubt there is “influence” after 9/11 - and there should be. That is the process of learning through experience. Part of our vulnerability is our being an open, liberal society - so adjustments are naturally made to try and close a few windows of vulnerability.
But no one’s civil liberties got put in the cross-hairs because some lady acted bizarre on a flight - as Al Durr said, this is a non-story.[/quote]
The question, really, and none of us really know, is whether or not there was even any bizarre behavior. You and Rainjack are believing the airline spokesperson, while some of us are believing the report from the person affected. Until we get more information, we are simply dealing with conjecture based on incomplete facts.
Of course not. However, it is taking steps to empower government, and believe you me, those are amongst the hardest steps to undo at a future date. The government does not often let go of grabbed powers. If you wish to trust all future administrations with those additional powers, that is certainly your option.
Personally, I worry about the reaction that happens next time, which hopefully will never happen, but what if. It will be so easy to sell another round of smackdowns on liberties and freedoms… and so many people are willing to buy it at any price if it might lead to more safety.
Try not to follow in Rainjack’s footsteps and invent stances for me so that you can knock them down. Quite simply, that is a fools game. I’d never try to state that was a totalitarian measure by itself, but there are lots of tiny little steps point in that direction… which is a very different thing.[/quote]
Stop wasting your time giving lectures on “how to behave”.
As such, you mentioned the word “totalitarian” - even if you are saying there are little steps heading in that direction, then show us these little steps.
An ordinary disagreement over an unruly passenger in this case - no matter who is in the right - is neither a totalitarian measure nor a “little step”.
Actually, I have no opinion on who I believe - I am not siding with either party. My stance is that regardless of who is right, this incident is zero evidence of an erosion of civil liberties. Maybe the airline workers were patently overzealous or outright jerks - so what? This is not an example of a little step toward totalitarianism.
I am a jealous guardian of my liberties - that is why I am a conservative (a liberal) and not a left-winger. That said, in order to preserve some of them, in a time of war, certain adjustments have to be made.
As I have argued prior, if we don’t tinker with some small restrictions, will that mean larger restrictions later? I think that is true - and the tradeoff is worth it, so long as the usual civic audit procedures are in place.
Yes, that is precisely my concern - next time. If we don’t do a little now to do our best to prevent the “next time”, the “next time” will usher in a much higher level of restriction. I want to make “next time” a little bit harder than it was the last time in hopes that more drastic measures won’t be needed.
That said, you haven’t really made the case that there is a current “smackdown” of liberties and freedoms - outside of some fevered rhetoric, there is little evidence of a “smackdown”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Stop wasting your time giving lectures on “how to behave”.
[/quote]
Then stop behaving like an asshole.
If members of the public are now more enamored of authority, such that even minor behavioral outbursts are becoming serious problems, and that the “rules” are now more important than “sticking it to the man”… then there is a social shift. I know, I know, you consider most social theory aspects “trendy” or something, but this behavior shift is just a barometer or thermometer of public attitudes and willingness to accept certain directions.
I’m sure you’ll disagree, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t make me wrong and you right… and I’m not claiming it has to be me right and you wrong either. Many things in life are simply unprovable and we all have to simply form our own opinions.
It’s pretty much impossible to guarantee safety, in that with a determined enemy there will almost assuredly be a next time, and then a time after that. Each time you will find it easier and easier to trade away some liberties in the hopes you’ll be safer.
Your “set point” with respect to protecting liberties seems to be a bit lower than mine. That’s not an insult.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The different forms of transportation get different regulations - airlines are regulated federally. Depending on whether the other forms of transport cross state lines or not will answer your question, and you might get more than 50 different answers.
Welcome to American federalism - and go learn up on our system of government.
And the point remains - how other forms of transport are regulated was irrelevant to the point that airlines have a very strict set of guidelines, governed by federal law, enacted completely outside the context of terrorism. [/quote]
So I take it in some instances of a bus crossing state lines trying to light a fag would earn you the title of criminal. Ok, I didn’t know that either.
I think I understand why you’re so defensive. You think that I’m singling out the United States. You got it wrong. I’m concerned about the “fear” and “scare” surrounding all air travel. I don’t know what’s going on in the US in that area. I just have second hand reports. What I know for certain is that the “scare” is real in Europe. You should see British airports. It’s insane!
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the US’ domestic policy. When I said that the terrorists won, it was because I witnessed first-hand governments making the best out of the situation to grab more powers. You may wanna kid yourself and say that they’re actions to make you safer, but I don’t like it one tiny bit.
There’s a world outside the US you know.
As Vroom pointed out, it’s a matter of defining what is a “win” for the terrorists.
I’m trying to figure out what you guys think about air travel post-9/11 and whether there is the same paranoia surrounding it that I see elsewhere in the world. Besides Moriarty and Hedo, few have actually shared their experiences on this thread. You just kept rattling about how you’re not afraid. Most - and I mean MOST - accounts of people who have been there post-9/11 are appalling to say the least. A friend of mine was held at JFK for three days for no reason whatsoever. They took out all the pictures he had on him and started asking him about the details of everyone in the pictures. They asked him to give them the encryption key of his hard-drive and when he refused, they started threatening him with violence. Those are the kinda stories I get. BTW, this particular person is the kind that never sobers up…
[quote]They definitely kill people, and people are certainly more scared than they used to be. So what? Who didn’t acknowledge that?
[/quote]
So, you might say that they succeeded at their job, no?
Ok, we’re running in circles here. Let’s settle this once and for all. What makes a terrorist win? Answer that and we might get somewhere.
My point exactly. Even if by some chance, they happen to be on a plane carrying only 80 years old women US bingo team, and managed to take control of the plane they’ll be taken down in a matter of minutes by jets. In that context, asking people to remove their shirts before being admitted to board the plane seems like shear hysteria to me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?
Oh, wait…I am a white, protestant conservative. Therefore, I must be a fox news fan, no? [/quote]
Grow up! How do I know if you’re white or red? More importantly, why should I care?
I simply stated a fact. The link you liked is from a news company owned by Murdoch. That’s a stone cold fact. What’s it gotta do with anything? I thought it was an interesting tidbit. You may disagree but at least, you’ll have learned something.
And notice, any and every reader - tis Vroom that lobs the first name-calling exercise in a substantive discussion.
I instructed you not to lecture me on how to behave in the forum, largely because you has no basis to do so - you had mentioned the word “totalitarian”, so if I misunderstood your meaning, all that was necessary was some clarity.
Instead, you opt to call me an asshole. The record speaks for itself, for everyone to read.
And not particularly convincingly.
But it may just be a stronger reflection that people don’t so much “worship authority” more than they used to, but rather that they are feeling extra vigilant about protecting the liberties they hold dear.
This bugaboo that Americans suddenly trust authority is more complicated than you put forward.
Super.
And of course, making no adjustments leaves you as vulnerable as you were prior, and that is a surefire recipe to inviting more aggression from those that would destroy a system of freedoms (directly or indirectly and possibly losing more as a result.
And no one is trying to guarantee safety, merely trying to balance vigilance with the enjoyment of the freedoms that define our character. Every generation has to deal this, and I think we have done quite well. Not perfect, but well.
Best part is, non-American critics can’t decide which caricature of Americans they like best: the gun-totin’, hair-trigger yahoos that will “fire at will” at anyone that mentions the benefits of a welfare state, or mindless cattle under the spell of authoriatarians, chewing a cud and following government types like Lemmings?
I think I understand why you’re so defensive. You think that I’m singling out the United States.[/quote]
I am not defensive - it is just a worthless line of questioning.
[quote]I don’t give a rat’s ass about the US’ domestic policy. When I said that the terrorists won, it was because I witnessed first-hand governments making the best out of the situation to grab more powers. You may wanna kid yourself and say that they’re actions to make you safer, but I don’t like it one tiny bit.
There’s a world outside the US you know.[/quote]
Lixy, I have worked, studied, and lived outside of the US. I have family in France and Germany. Daily, I read newspapers from Europe. You must get over this notion that your opponents “don’t know the rest of the world” like you - it makes you look juvenile.
There is no nice way to say this - but I don’t believe a word of your story. You simply don’t seem like a credible source to tell such a story, given your ideoloical baggage.
What makes a terrorist win? When Western countries start operating like Arab countries. Mild security adjustments - subject to civic audit in our government - are normal during war. The US - a fantastically free place - has been through wars before, and yet - inexplicably - we don’t live in a police state. We value our liberties too much to indulge in your fantasies.
“Rumors of America’s demise are greatly exaggerated.”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And notice, any and every reader - tis Vroom that lobs the first name-calling exercise in a substantive discussion.
I instructed you not to lecture me on how to behave in the forum, largely because you has no basis to do so - you had mentioned the word “totalitarian”, so if I misunderstood your meaning, all that was necessary was some clarity.
Instead, you opt to call me an asshole. The record speaks for itself, for everyone to read.[/quote]
I told you not to behave like an asshole. You are jumping the gun a little bit. Sorry to disappoint. Inventing an opinion on my behalf so you can then knock it down is equally inappropriate.
Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn’t. I’m not sure how having authorities interview a passenger in the manner described shows vigilant protection of liberties.
Perhaps you’ll agree that many adjustments can be made when one has become aware of a threat. In fact, most adjustments made were probably of a nature that they did not have (whether arguable or not) impact on liberties. Some, however, most certainly did.
I told you not to behave like an asshole. You are jumping the gun a little bit. Sorry to disappoint. Inventing an opinion on my behalf so you can then knock it down is equally inappropriate.[/quote]
I see - calling me an “asshole” and telling me “not to behave like an asshole” are materially different phrases.
Why would you need to tell me not to behave like an asshole unless you thought I was acting like an asshole?
Keep typing, Vroom - everyone can read it for themselves.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Ok, we’re running in circles here. Let’s settle this once and for all. What makes a terrorist win? Answer that and we might get somewhere.
[/quote]
You’re right, let’s settle this.
If you’re still taking what Islamic terrorists say at face value, as you were earlier, then there’s no need to speculate. Their own, stated definition of a “win” includes:
The complete removal of foreign presence from Arab soil.
The complete destruction of Israel.
Worldwide rule of Sharia law, made possible by the destruction of western liberal democracy.
Those are the goals they have stated. Achieving those goals is the definition of a “win”. Terrorism is a means to those ends. Your definition of “win” is confusing the means with the ends. It’s like saying scoring a run in baseball is a win, even though you’re down 20-1.
Now that that’s answered, please begin presenting your case that the terrorists are “winning”. From my vantage point they are failing at all three of their stated goals.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Buying a ticket doesn’t give you the right to be an asshole or create your own environment. Don’t fly if you can’t be civil at least for a few hours.
[/quote]
So? How about a bet, let’s see how far you’d get in an airport or on a plane wearing a shirt that says “I want to kill every Muslim I see.”
I think you’d be thrown off as well. So, what’s the point?
This thread is totally insane from what I’ve read so far. What do some of you think? There should be no security measures from the impact of 9-11? Because there are, implying that people are frightened is just ignorant. To survive, the airlines have to give people the illusion of security. Too bad if you can’t figure that out or make yourselves feel bigger because you have to belittle us because of it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Technically, the goal of a suicide bomber is to terminate his life and bring down as many people with him as possible. In the sense that the 9/11 crew won their ticket to the afterlife, they unequivocally won. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I see - calling me an “asshole” and telling me “not to behave like an asshole” are materially different phrases.
Why would you need to tell me not to behave like an asshole unless you thought I was acting like an asshole?
Keep typing, Vroom - everyone can read it for themselves.[/quote]
Dude, in the context of you telling me to not tell you how to post, when I complained about your behavior, yes.
I can’t believe you’ve been sitting around looking for me to get frustrated and then call me out. That’s laughable. You are right… everbody can go ahead and read the thread and see for themselves!