All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
How much do the security guards in Israel get paid vis a vis the "dopes" in the TSA? Perhaps we get what we pay for.

aV

I agree completely.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You misunderstand Penske. Unless I'm mistaken, Savimbi, for example, did not have government troops. He just liked to blow kids up. (As did so other terrorist organizations that Reagan and the Repub right-wing supported in Africa, like Renamo in Mozambique.)

I'm not claiming to understand Penske, just saying that you don't either.

I agree that I don't understand Penske, except that "terrorist" appears to be a label for bad people who he doesn't like.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another email from a friend of mine (needless to say I wasn't invited to this briefing).

I attended a White House briefing led by Vice President Cheney. He noted, in his matter of fact way, that the terrorists have no illusion that they will defeat the United States militarily. Rather, they desire to break our will, to have us retreat behind our two oceans noting that we had no business inserting ourselves in Middle East affairs. Then, with the sole remaining superpower out of the way and demoralized, they can dominate the region.

It does seem that many in the United States are pushing for such an outcome. They argue that we have lost too many lives already, it is not our battle, and that we have made no progress. This latter point is buoyed by the observation that a civil war seems to be inevitable in Iraq. The reasoning apparently goes that our efforts have ultimately failed if the terrorists are lobbing bombs at their own people as opposed to us. And therefore we should retreat.

If the retreat of the US is the goal of the terrorists, we have too many voices urging our cooperation. I am certain that there is room for improvement in our efforts in that region, but we can not allow the harassment of our enemies, be it on the battlefield in Iraq or in our commercial airlines overhead, to cause us to retreat.

You are absolutely right. Ned Lamont wins a primary on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Muslims are caught planning to blow up a dozen planes.

Coincidence? I don't think so. We have emboldened our enemies.

We must all recognize: In order to stop terrorism, we must, simply must, keep pouring money and lives into Iraq. I cannot understand why members of my party fail to see that connection.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) I admit the British did a good job with this conspiracy. I'm not sure why this is an admission. It's not like I'm opposed to good law enforcement work.

(2) If you read that post, you'll see that Johnson was talking about the danger of binary explosive years ago. Do you think our government has done anything about that threat since then? Johnson doesn't, and he knows a little more about the subject than you or me.

How do you reach the assumption our govt wasn't doing something about binary explosives? Are you or Larry suggesting the international community didn't consider the possibility of their use? That the CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, whatever... were all somehow unaware of the possibility of this sort of thing?

Larry puts the rabbit in the hat. His is the sort of terrible cheap argument you might see some badly trained low grade lawyer offer in discovery court.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How do you reach the assumption our govt wasn't doing something about binary explosives? Are you or Larry suggesting the international community didn't consider the possibility of their use? That the CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, whatever... were all somehow unaware of the possibility of this sort of thing?

Larry puts the rabbit in the hat. His is the sort of terrible cheap argument you might see some badly trained low grade lawyer offer in discovery court.

Have you carried liquids onto a plane in the last couple of years? Could you do it yesterday?

If you really were born yesterday, you were busy and don't need to answer that second question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are absolutely right. Ned Lamont wins a primary on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Muslims are caught planning to blow up a dozen planes.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Nor was it a coincidence that the White House has been attacking Democrats as weak on terrorism this week, after it learned of the plot and before the news broke. "[A] senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are absolutely right. Ned Lamont wins a primary on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Muslims are caught planning to blow up a dozen planes.

Coincidence? I don't think so. We have emboldened our enemies.

We must all recognize: In order to stop terrorism, we must, simply must, keep pouring money and lives into Iraq. I cannot understand why members of my party fail to see that connection.

Sidd, you know damn well he wasn't arguing the connection you make up front (recognizing you're kidding, of course... but also recognizing that your first point could be taken literally by someone with shit for brains, and that maybe you'd allow a fool's misapprehension to persist [as I know I might]).

Anyhoo... I congratulate you on bookending your post with an equally vacant ending. Gives it anice frustrated arc.

You could have just said "Fuck you, penske, I'm mad your side looks better this week."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Have you carried liquids onto a plane in the last couple of years? Could you do it yesterday?

If you really were born yesterday, you were busy and don't need to answer that second question.

Are you suggesting Bush was lax because we have been allowed to carry beverages on planes for the past few years?

You're the debate equivalent of a tuna. The longer you stay on the line, the deeper you dive.

You should have tried to snap this one fast or just given up early.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you suggesting Bush was lax because we have been allowed to carry beverages on planes for the past few years?

Are you suggesting that the new restrictions this week on carrying beverages on board were an empty gesture?

I'm having a hard time following you. Yesterday you agreed that DHS is incompetent, but you said that was OK because the GOP doesn't tax you and you can drink three scotches before flights. Today you think DHS is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nor was it a coincidence that the White House has been attacking Democrats as weak on terrorism this week, after it learned of the plot and before the news broke. "[A] senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism."

Tony Blair is part of the plot to increase Cheney's oil money?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you suggesting that the new restrictions this week on carrying beverages on board were an empty gesture?

If he's not, I am.

It could be that they've been wanting to do it for a long time, but knew it wouldn't go over well, and that they are taking this opportunity to push it through. That's the most generous assessment I can give, though. If it's really that easy to transport chemicals that (a) are hard to screen for and (b) can be mixed to make a pretty damn powerful bomb, then they should have been banning all of this stuff all along, because it's a method that would seem to be highly likely to be used.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Sidd, you know damn well he wasn't arguing the connection you make up front (recognizing you're kidding, of course... but also recognizing that your first point could be taken literally by someone with shit for brains, and that maybe you'd allow a fool's misapprehension to persist [as I know I might]).

Anyhoo... I congratulate you on bookending your post with an equally vacant ending. Gives it anice frustrated arc.

You could have just said "Fuck you, penske, I'm mad your side looks better this week."

I was responding to Spanky, and his notion that anyone who opposes the ongoing fiasco in Iraq wants to pull back to our borders and thus serve our enemies' ends.


eta: Though how do you reach the conclusion that the Repubs "look better" this week. Did going to war in Iraq prevent the bombing of our planes? Or did it encourage that effort?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Israelis have a real commitment to security. They hire smart people who use their judgment to identify passengers who might pose a risk. TSA hires dopes whose judgment can't be trusted, and so rather than relying on their judgment it imposes stupid rules on everyone. Does it make sense for octogenarians in wheelchairs to get the same scrutiny as young men?

?

I generally agree, so this may be the instance where I think the government should be paternal and cram down the commitment on the people. And if they don't like it, find other forms of commerce for travel (which are bound to develop anyways).

That said, if you want me to criticise the government (Admin and Congress) on this. Sure. The "increased security" measures over the years since 911 are bullshit. It should be the Israeli model. It works. Why reinvent the wheel?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure what you mean by profiling in this context, but we probably agree.

It means that a swarthy 30something (I look 30something, fuck all y'all!!!) such as myself should get more scrutiny than the wheelchaired octogenerian from Sweden, until we have real reason to believe that the latter might pose a threat.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How long before laptops all have clear cases?

Before a D is elected Pres again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you suggesting that the new restrictions this week on carrying beverages on board were an empty gesture?

I'm having a hard time following you. Yesterday you agreed that DHS is incompetent, but you said that was OK because the GOP doesn't tax you and you can drink three scotches before flights. Today you think DHS is the best thing since sliced bread.

No. When the problem rears its head, deal with it. But its not realistic to ban everything that can be made a weapon. Taken to its logical conclusion, under your reasoning, we'd have to fly naked. There is a certain amount of risk in anything. You're using an unrealistic standard to try to make our govt's efforts look bad. Suppose we discover bombs can be fashioned from cotton due to some Islamist chemist's brilliant discovery of some ion that turns the fiber to an explosive. Given that info, whould we then bar cotton clothing on planes?

I don't think its the best thing since sliced bread at all. Like I said yesterday, I recognize the govt can only protect us so far. Like I said yesterday, I don't expect it to be my guardian angel, as so may of your Democrats do. Life's terminal, Ty. Uncle Sam cannot save you all the time.

But fuck all that. You understand the govt's limitations. You'll attack our GOP admin right now on anything - even if it forces you to hold it to absurd standards - because you'd rather chew shale than give up an opportunity to take shots at it, or worse, concede its doing an ok job on some fronts.

I know what you're doing, and its pretty toolish. Just drop this one. You're beginning to look like me arguing with Fringey about ERISA.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You misunderstand Penske. Unless I'm mistaken, Savimbi, for example, did not have government troops. He just liked to blow kids up. (As did so other terrorist organizations that Reagan and the Repub right-wing supported in Africa, like Renamo in Mozambique.)

I'm not claiming to understand Penske, just saying that you don't either.

Fuck you.

It was in part a civil war, asshole. And it was an oranges and computers comparison to compare what Reagan did with SAvimbi, to what every admin up until Bush II, the UN and Weurope did with Arafat. The continuing legacy of effect is quite different.