Larry Jaques wrote:


The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)


So are you suggesting that these mentally deficient fish ****s really
want total control and if they don't get will take their bat and ball
back to their Sunday night prayer meeting where every one agrees with them?

Lew

Pretty bad. I would have thought they would have paid special attention to a
9 foot pencil. Wasn't it a bit hard on your pocket?

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

Yeah, I walked on board with a 9' hardened weapon sticking out of my
shirt pocket. That freshly sharpened pencil had passed by the keen
eyes of a TSA inspector just minutes before.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:31:01 GMT, the inscrutable Lew Hodgett
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote:

The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)

So are you suggesting that these mentally deficient fish ****s really
want total control and if they don't get will take their bat and ball
back to their Sunday night prayer meeting where every one agrees with them?

One could only WISH that to happen, and immediately at that.
I'm for a much more limited government, aren't you?

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design

Larry Jaques wrote:

One could only WISH that to happen, and immediately at that.
I'm for a much more limited government, aren't you?

It depends.

Gov't creates the environment that either allows society to flourish or
collapse from lack of proper care.

Gov't is also a lot like making sausage, very messy business.

Right about now, the country could use a good dose of Harry Truman, but
unfortunately, one isn't available right now.

Lew

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Because ANY projectile could be deemed as "armor piercing" if
travelling fast enough. It's a back door way to ban everything.

Appin wrote:

But guns had to be licensed before anyway, and only the tiniest
fraction of the population in the UK have the slightest interest in
owning a gun of any sort and those who would want a handgun are a mere
"handful".
57,000 approx. or 0.1% of the population.
I was one of that 0.1% who had legal handguns, the ~8,000 pounds (about
$14,500 US) compensation paid for a new kitchen and half the wifes
secondhand 4x4, most of the money was for reloading gear, brass and the
like.
The 6 guns were a .22 single shot precision target pistol, .32 berreta
(uncles leaving present from H.M. gov'ts VIP protection service), S&W
66, Pre WW1 colt 1911, S&W .455 WW1 officers name engraved revolver and
a S&W .44 mag with the 8" barrel and optics barely made 1200 pounds of
the total, they returned my speedloader blocks and my 1911 compensator,
even though they have no other use.
Of course lots more people would have liked to have had handguns, but
the law put too many barriers in the way of them doing so legally.

Handguns however are not completely banned, certain historic metallic
cartridge guns, hunters/vets and others requiring the means to kill
animals can still have them. Muzzle loading guns are also still legal,
though my 3 legal and registered flintlock pistols seem to be causing
some angst to the police at the moment.

Illegal handguns however are plentiful according to some police officers
I meet.

Now, the ban on kids owning pocket knives is something that does make
life difficult for guys -- can't even buy a Stanley knife or chisel!

Can't buy, but not banned from owning, our Scouts still have pocket
knives, though some stupid people think non-locking folding blades are
suitable....Fixed or locking, you don't want it to close on YOU whilst
your using it!

Niel, also a Scout leader.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


Crap like that ****es me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
stop green women!

Crap like that ****es me off. If a crime has been comitted police
will stop persons who phyusically resemble the suspect. That is
NOT racist profiling. Racist profiling, for example is the NJ state
police using 'black' in their profile for drug courier despite the
fact that statistically blacks were underrepresented among drug
couriers arrested in NJ.


If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.


Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.

There is a conclusion that appears obvious to me, but some other
people seem to have a hard time with it.

--

FF

Actually they have determined that it was one of the girlfriends of the
conspirators, who carried an altitude triggered bomb on board in her
checked baggage. That is where the old, pre 9-11, questions about: has
anyone else had control of your luggage, and did someone else pack your
luggage came from.

wrote:


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


Crap like that ****es me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
stop green women!


Crap like that ****es me off. If a crime has been comitted police
will stop persons who phyusically resemble the suspect. That is
NOT racist profiling. Racist profiling, for example is the NJ state
police using 'black' in their profile for drug courier despite the
fact that statistically blacks were underrepresented among drug
couriers arrested in NJ.


If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.



Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.

There is a conclusion that appears obvious to me, but some other
people seem to have a hard time with it.

wrote:




Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.



Then

Randy wrote:
Actually they have determined that it was one of the girlfriends of the
conspirators, who carried an altitude triggered bomb on board in her
checked baggage. That is where the old, pre 9-11, questions about: has
anyone else had control of your luggage, and did someone else pack your
luggage came from.


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


--

FF

Banning swimming pools would save far more lives each year than
banning guns, and after all, they are not constitutionally protected,
nor could many people justify a "need" for one.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

On 5 Jun 2005 15:41:50 -0700, wrote:

wrote:




Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.



Then

Randy wrote:
Actually they have determined that it was one of the girlfriends of the
conspirators, who carried an altitude triggered bomb on board in her
checked baggage. That is where the old, pre 9-11, questions about: has
anyone else had control of your luggage, and did someone else pack your
luggage came from.


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


... OK, and then how does body-searching middle-aged white males, aging
grandmothers or grandfathers help solve this? Pre-screening baggage for
explosives and carrry-on resolves the entire issue you are discussing above
-- and that is, theoretically, already done and has been the norm for
years. The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude), and does nothing to solve the
problem. All this in the name of attempting to show no bias despite the
fact that the most likely perpetrators match a specific profile.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 15:41:50 -0700, wrote:

....


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


... OK, and then how does body-searching middle-aged white males, aging
grandmothers or grandfathers help solve this? Pre-screening baggage for
explosives and carrry-on resolves the entire issue you are discussing above
-- and that is, theoretically, already done and has been the norm for
years. The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude), and does nothing to solve the
problem. All this in the name of attempting to show no bias despite the
fact that the most likely perpetrators match a specific profile.


My personal opinion is that invasive searches of people who do not
trigger the metal detector are unnecessary to prevent hijackings
regardless of whom is searched. One security measure, (recommended
by a panel chaired by Al Gore and originally scheduled to go into
effect in the Spring of 2001) requires that cockpit doors be closed
and locked befor takeoff and in general kept that way during flight.
That, coupled with the the sort of response to a hijacking attempt
one expects today from fight attendants and passengers is sufficient
to prevent a hijacking using the same sorts of weapons that were used
on September 11.

I suspect two other reasons for the invasive searches. One, for show
like sending national guardsmen to the airports in the days just
after September 11. The other is for the WOD.

However, a person could conceivably smuggle a bomb onto a plane on
his/her person even as the 'shoe bomber' did.

In that regard, you seem to have missed three important facts from the
hen Hindawi case:

1) Hen Hindawi deliberately chose a person who did not fit the
expected profile.

2) The person carrying the bomb did not know she was carrying a bomb.

3) The attempt was thwarted because a passenger NOT matching a profile
was searched.

In the Lockerbie bombing, sadly, only two of those three statements
are applicable.

If in the next five minutes you cannot think of one or more ways al
Queda or another paramilitary group could utilize a middle-aged or
elderly white male or female to unwittingly carry a bomb on their
person onto an airliner you aren't trying very hard.

We should expect the enemy to try hard.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude),

Good, less flying, less pollution, or is that what they really intend????

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:45:31 GMT, the opaque Badger
spake:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude),

Good, less flying, less pollution, or is that what they really intend????

The intent is a much more tightly controlled population. The fact that
they don't search -everyone- and don't even search any of the CARGO
speaks volumes, oui?


-------------------------------------------
Crapsman tools are their own punishment
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== ====

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:45:31 GMT, Badger
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude),

Good, less flying, less pollution, or is that what they really intend????

Lower pollution from airplanes is only a side effect. What about the
increase from automobiles which surely must be the mode of
transportation some/most will switch to if at all feasible. In the
end, this may result in a net increase.

Maybe someone will do or has done an analysis on this.

On 13 Jun 2005 16:04:18 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 15:41:50 -0700, wrote:

...


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


... OK, and then how does body-searching middle-aged white males, aging
grandmothers or grandfathers help solve this? Pre-screening baggage for
explosives and carrry-on resolves the entire issue you are discussing above
-- and that is, theoretically, already done and has been the norm for
years. The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude), and does nothing to solve the
problem. All this in the name of attempting to show no bias despite the
fact that the most likely perpetrators match a specific profile.


My personal opinion is that invasive searches of people who do not
trigger the metal detector are unnecessary to prevent hijackings
regardless of whom is searched. One security measure, (recommended
by a panel chaired by Al Gore and originally scheduled to go into
effect in the Spring of 2001) requires that cockpit doors be closed
and locked befor takeoff and in general kept that way during flight.
That, coupled with the the sort of response to a hijacking attempt
one expects today from fight attendants and passengers is sufficient
to prevent a hijacking using the same sorts of weapons that were used
on September 11.

I suspect two other reasons for the invasive searches. One, for show
like sending national guardsmen to the airports in the days just
after September 11. The other is for the WOD.

However, a person could conceivably smuggle a bomb onto a plane on
his/her person even as the 'shoe bomber' did.

In that regard, you seem to have missed three important facts from the
hen Hindawi case:

1) Hen Hindawi deliberately chose a person who did not fit the
expected profile.

2) The person carrying the bomb did not know she was carrying a bomb.


Your information above indicates that it was in a bag she was carrying.

3) The attempt was thwarted because a passenger NOT matching a profile
was searched.


The attempt was thwarted because the bag she was carrying was searched as
is all carry-on -- that attempt should have been caught by the x-ray or
random explosive swipe of the luggage (not the person).


No, you seem to have missed my point. No invasive search of the pregnant
woman was needed to find the device being placed on board the plane, that
should have been identified and found in the normal search to which *all*
carry-on items subjected. You can argue that a person could unwittingly
be duped into somehow actually carrying a bomb on their person that could
only be detected by invasive search, but that is a huge stretch. i.e, the
point is that screening of all carry-on precludes the introduction of
problems by unwitting passengers, the invasive search of *people* not
matching a specific profile is a waste of resources.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 16:04:18 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 15:41:50 -0700, wrote:

...


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


... OK, and then how does body-searching middle-aged white males, aging
grandmothers or grandfathers help solve this? Pre-screening baggage for
explosives and carrry-on resolves the entire issue you are discussing above
-- and that is, theoretically, already done and has been the norm for
years. The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude), and does nothing to solve the
problem. All this in the name of attempting to show no bias despite the
fact that the most likely perpetrators match a specific profile.


My personal opinion is that invasive searches of people who do not
trigger the metal detector are unnecessary to prevent hijackings
regardless of whom is searched. One security measure, (recommended
by a panel chaired by Al Gore and originally scheduled to go into
effect in the Spring of 2001) requires that cockpit doors be closed
and locked befor takeoff and in general kept that way during flight.
That, coupled with the the sort of response to a hijacking attempt
one expects today from fight attendants and passengers is sufficient
to prevent a hijacking using the same sorts of weapons that were used
on September 11.

I suspect two other reasons for the invasive searches. One, for show
like sending national guardsmen to the airports in the days just
after September 11. The other is for the WOD.

However, a person could conceivably smuggle a bomb onto a plane on
his/her person even as the 'shoe bomber' did.

In that regard, you seem to have missed three important facts from the
hen Hindawi case:

1) Hen Hindawi deliberately chose a person who did not fit the
expected profile.

2) The person carrying the bomb did not know she was carrying a bomb.


Your information above indicates that it was in a bag she was carrying.

3) The attempt was thwarted because a passenger NOT matching a profile
was searched.


The attempt was thwarted because the bag she was carrying was searched as
is all carry-on -- that attempt should have been caught by the x-ray or
random explosive swipe of the luggage (not the person).


No, you seem to have missed my point.

I got your point and explained why it was wrong. I explain in greater
detail below.

No invasive search of the pregnant
woman was needed to find the device being placed on board the plane, that
should have been identified and found in the normal search to which *all*
carry-on items subjected. You can argue that a person could unwittingly
be duped into somehow actually carrying a bomb on their person that could
only be detected by invasive search, but that is a huge stretch.

I do and it is not a huge stretch. Remember DeLorean?

Here are two hypotheticals, one using your example of a middle-
aged male, the other a grandmother:

1) Disguise. A young man (who does meet the profile) poses as a
middle-
aged man (who does not meet the profile), disguises himself as that
older man (bleaches his hair, uses make-up on his face) uses false ID
and boards the plane with a bomb or plastic knife hidden on his person.

2) The Al Queda operative finds a little old lady with a desparately
ill family member who has no health insurance. That operative posses
as a drug smuggler and convinces the little old lady to smuggle a
package of drugs on her person. Only the package of drugs is really
a bomb. It is nontrivial to make a bomb with a timer or altimeter
fuse without metal, but it is doable. It doesn't have to be drugs,
it can be any contraband--the bomb can be put into bibles to be
smuggled into Saudia Arabia.

i.e, the
point is that screening of all carry-on precludes the introduction of
problems by unwitting passengers, the invasive search of *people* not
matching a specific profile is a waste of resources.


Wrong. The point is that if a profile is used by security, it will
be used to defeat those security measures by anyone who is at least
a little bit clever.

--

FF

Larry Jaques wrote:


The intent is a much more tightly controlled population. The fact that
they don't search -everyone- and don't even search any of the CARGO
speaks volumes, oui?

Living in a virtual police state, B Liars NuLabias NuBritain welcome to
"ban'd-it ****ry", I can only agree, B Liar even called it "the third
way"...Who else said that!

Badger.