Waterboarding

[Michiana]

Direct your energy in a positive direction

And I thank you for your service. You fought a hard war and I can't imagine the horror you saw.

Very few people who served in Vietnam including myself saw any horrors which shows your lack of knowledge in these areas. You presume too much. I give all the credit to the guys who were front line taking all the crap; I was involved in patrolling the coastline stopping junks trying to get contraband into the country. I am not interested in any at-a-boys as I was one of millions of citizens who volunteered to serve this great country of ours in various branches of services.

You just need to do a little more research before you ask people what they are willing to do for this country, especially someone still wet behind the ears like yourself. Because people do not want to get on your bandwagon does not mean they are not patriotic or community minded. Perhaps you need to re-examine your position if you are finding little or no support to your causes, as noble as they are. You and your very tiny band of supporters on this site could better channel your energy by going to the VA hospital and volunteer to help the guys who are coming home without legs instead of organizing group OC protests at Wal-Mart and greasy spoons.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think you took all of what I said a little far out of context. I'm sorry you presume so much of what I know. Excuse me for not knowing that you weren't on the frontlines like so many thousands were. Maybe I should do background on everyone before I thank them for their service.

And what research should I do before asking people what they are willing to do for their Country? Should I give them options instead of them looking for themselves? I thought it was a simple straightforward question. A serious question. I wasn't being a smartass, just asking. As for my cause, I guess asking Americans to stand for what is right, or just to stand and do something is too much? Had you looked at the website you would have seen it was a place to discuss ideas. Not "Here is my idea, this is what we are doing."

So I guess asking people what they are doing to save this Country is too personal of a question. I won't ask anymore. And if asking people to help save themselves by fixing this Country is so wrong then this Country is lost beyond repair and it's hopeless. I won't presume this is how you feel but it's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Annie Oakley]

I don't think that there are very many on this board that don't love this country, want to see it kept strong or don't vote. Many are vets from one time or another. Others are LEO and do their duty to their community and country as well. The rest of us find ways to do what seems right or helpful. Part of the reason that this country is so great is because these kinds of discussions can take place. Being a part of that is not being anything other than willing to exchange ideas and opinions. I doubt that anyone who has posted here hates their country. We have been damned lucky to have been spared any further terrorist attacks on our soil. To say that anyone is foolish (my word) to be concerned about that is to stick your head in the sand because there will at the very least be another attempt, at worst it will happen eventually.

 

[BloodEclipse]

We have been damned lucky to have been spared any further terrorist attacks on our soil. To say that anyone is foolish (my word) to be concerned about that is to stick your head in the sand because there will at the very least be another attempt, at worst it will happen eventually.

I think the policies we have in place now have more to do with why we haven't had another attack than luck.
It is scary to see who Obama wants as the head of the CIA. That is kind of thing (with a change in policies) that will get more Americans killed.
Not only do I love my Country, I love my fellow citizens. The safety of Americans is extremely important. There is a fine line between security and loss of freedom. We can debate that till we are blue in the face. If we get hit again and it is due to a policy that restricted our ability to obtain the information we needed to stop it, then my friends you will see a greater loss of freedoms than you perceive that we have now.

 

[Annie Oakley]

I think the policies we have in place now have more to do with why we haven't had another attack than luck.
It is scary to see who Obama wants as the head of the CIA. That is kind of thing (with a change in policies) that will get more Americans killed.
Not only do I love my Country, I love my fellow citizens. The safety of Americans is extremely important. There is a fine line between security and loss of freedom. We can debate that till we are blue in the face. If we get hit again and it is due to a policy that restricted our ability to obtain the information we needed to stop it, then my friends you will see a greater loss of freedoms than you perceive that we have now.

I agree with you and using the word "luck" wasn't the best choice. I also agree with what you say about that fine line and the loss of freedoms if/when we are hit again.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[Drail]

If this country gets hit with another attack I sincerely hope that our government's response is better than it was in 2001.

 

[Panama]

If this country gets hit with another attack I sincerely hope that our government's response is better than it was in 2001.

Out of shear curiosity, would you care elaborate?
Please

 

[Drail]

I was referring to the response of the U.S.Air Force. Read the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

[Panama]

If this country gets hit with another attack I sincerely hope that our government's response is better than it was in 2001.

I was referring to the response of the U.S.Air Force. Read the 9/11 Commission Report.

I have read it.
My question is, exactly what do "you sincerely hope" they do better.
Details please.

Personally I am "hoping" we don't have to respond, I much prefer stopping it BEFORE it happens, which is what we have done since 9/11.

You can only respond, if you have failed to stop it in the first place.
See my point?

 

[Drail]

You cannot "stop" attacks like 9/11 anymore than you can stop crime. The reason we carry weapons is to deal with the crime when it happens. If you have read the 9/11 Commission Report do you accept the reasons given by the Air Force Generals who testified as to why they were unable to intercept those aircraft? Do you accept the claim that "we never thought that anyone would use civilian aircraft as a weapon? " Do you accept the claim that " our system of defenses were only looking for threats outside the CONUS?" We have had plans to deal with these exact threats for many many years. The fact that we had hijacked airliners flying around in the northeast corridor for OVER AN HOUR and the Air Force was incapable of intercepting these aircraft raises serious questions in my mind.

 

[Michiana]

Not really

You cannot "stop" attacks like 9/11 anymore than you can stop crime. The reason we carry weapons is to deal with the crime when it happens. If you have read the 9/11 Commission Report do you accept the reasons given by the Air Force Generals who testified as to why they were unable to intercept those aircraft? Do you accept the claim that "we never thought that anyone would use civilian aircraft as a weapon? " Do you accept the claim that " our system of defenses were only looking for threats outside the CONUS?" We have had plans to deal with these exact threats for many many years. The fact that we had hijacked airliners flying around in the northeast corridor for OVER AN HOUR and the Air Force was incapable of intercepting these aircraft raises serious questions in my mind.

The US Air Force did not shoot down the hijacked aircraft because no one wanted to give the order to kill a plane load of civilians on the chance that the plane “might” be used to do something. Now we know and I doubt they will let that happen again. Live and learn the hard way.

We are a civilized nation and we need to learn to play the same as the enemy or we will lose this war and thirty years from now our grandkids will be wearing rags on their heads and saying their prayers five times a day bowing to the east. Like water boarding you have to do something that is not “civilized” to save the masses. This has nothing to do with why you like to carry a gun so please don’t even go there when you are talking about these kind of terrorist attacks. They can only be prevented by professionals.

 

[Panama]

You cannot "stop" attacks like 9/11 anymore than you can stop crime. The reason we carry weapons is to deal with the crime when it happens. If you have read the 9/11 Commission Report do you accept the reasons given by the Air Force Generals who testified as to why they were unable to intercept those aircraft? Do you accept the claim that "we never thought that anyone would use civilian aircraft as a weapon? " Do you accept the claim that " our system of defenses were only looking for threats outside the CONUS?" We have had plans to deal with these exact threats for many many years. The fact that we had hijacked airliners flying around in the northeast corridor for OVER AN HOUR and the Air Force was incapable of intercepting these aircraft raises serious questions in my mind.

You still never answered my question, you said "If this country gets hit with another attack I sincerely hope that our government's response is better than it was in 2001"
What do you want to be done differently when and if it should happen again. That was all I was asking, since you are hoping, what different are you hoping for?

The US Air Force did not shoot down the hijacked aircraft because no one wanted to give the order to kill a plane load of civilians on the chance that the plane “might” be used to do something. Now we know and I doubt they will let that happen again. Live and learn the hard way.

We are a civilized nation and we need to learn to play the same as the enemy or we will lose this war and thirty years from now our grandkids will be wearing rags on their heads and saying their prayers five times a day bowing to the east. Like water boarding you have to do something that is not “civilized” to save the masses. This has nothing to do with why you like to carry a gun so please don’t even go there when you are talking about these kind of terrorist attacks. They can only be prevented by professionals.

What you said is correct, and if one were to suggest that the Air Force should have shot down a commercial airliner loaded with American citizens it begs the obvious questions.
1. How loud of a murderous outcry would have come from the Bush haters had he done just that, shoot down a commercial airliner loaded with INNOCENT American citizens. I honestly think it would have been unimaginable!
2. But if you still say that's what he should have done then, where do you shoot it down, over New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia?
What if the downed airliner crashes into a school, a hospital, YOUR FAMILIES HOME?

I do not see a good answer on what should have or what should be done if the same situation were to come up again.

However, I believe we can stop it before it happens! I believe we have stopped it from happening again, it hasn't! You can't argue that it hasn't happened since 9/11.
Do you think it is because they do not wish to hit us again? I firmly believe they want to and would if they could, and if we let out guard down trust me, it will happen again!

 

[SavageEagle]

Shooting down a jetliner isn't what Hollywood would have you believe. You don't have to shove a missle in the ass of the jet to stop it or force it to the ground. Put some 20mm bullet holes it the tailfin would be a good incentive to force it to land. Shooting the wing is too risky as it COULD ignite the jet fuel. Although, a couple shots to the engine would likely just malfunction the engine and force them to land aswell. If that were to fail, I have enough confidence in our piolts to put rounds into the cockpit as a final resort. All but the engine and cockpit shot would deter any civilian piolt to continue on course. If it were hijackers hell bent on destruction, only the last two options would deter them. Otherwise you have no choice but to send rockets down range.

Of course this is just my brainstorming. I've studied aviation most of my life and these seem to be the only forceful viable options that don't involve inevitable death and destruction unless need be.

 

[Michiana]

who knows what went on these past seven years

I don't know the right or wrong answer but if another plane was hijacked and was headed towards the Sears Tower or the Rose Bowl or some other place full of thousands of people I would think at the last moment there would be no choice but to shoot the plane down. I would not want to make that call. I agree 100% that Bush and his people have taken a lot of flack for what has been going on in this country, some deserved, but I believe they probably stopped many attacks from happening that we will never know about. They did not forget about us for the past seven years while they continued to attack other countries.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think the reason we've not seen any more planes into buildings is simply that the same tactic would not work twice. Conversely, we've not seen water supplies, electric power, (or both at the same time, i.e. hydroelectric dams) attacked in the last seven years. We've seen a smattering of attempts put down by the continuing and accelerated rise of the police state, and this is my largest problem with that.

Dick, with respect, you said that only professionals can deal with such things as hijackers on planes, and I must disagree. Given men with the will to attack the attackers and strong spines on the part of the others on board, these attack can be put down by individuals. Ryan, you commented that shooting the tailfin is an incentive to make the pilot land. Also, with respect, I cannot agree. If the terrorist pilot has already planned to go and meet his virgins, he may be convinced to crash into something other than the original target, but once he's decided to die, no one and nothing that is not on that plane will bring about any kind of controlled landing.

Sorry, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. You don't have to agree with me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Michiana]

agree to disagree

I

Dick, with respect, you said that only professionals can deal with such things as hijackers on planes, and I must disagree. Given men with the will to attack the attackers and strong spines on the part of the others on board, these attack can be put down by individuals.l

Bill, what I am saying is these planned attacks will not be stopped by you or I with a handgun who happens upon some guy doing whatever. They are well planned and have the backing of a lot of money and people. We will prevent the thug from assaulting some lady in a parking lot or some dirt bag trying to break into our houses but I sincerely doubt will have much affect on stopping another 9/11. We can agree to disagree on this one. Still, good debate going on

 

[SavageEagle]

...Ryan, you commented that shooting the tailfin is an incentive to make the pilot land. Also, with respect, I cannot agree. If the terrorist pilot has already planned to go and meet his virgins, he may be convinced to crash into something other than the original target, but once he's decided to die, no one and nothing that is not on that plane will bring about any kind of controlled landing.

I can understand that and I knew I should have been more clear. In my mind I was figuring that since no one had contact with the plane, it would be unclear as to if it was hijacking or comms problems. Certain other ways of communication could be established between fighter and jetliner, but if there was refusal to do so, or whoever was piolting the jet didn't have ill-intentions, or maybe wasn't ready to die (read: mid-air robbery/kidnapping), they would have not many other choices but to land the plan. If the shooting of the tailfin did not work, more extreme measures could be taken.

Sometimes I forget people are not mind readers and cannot SEE my thought process. I know I left some other things out in that explaination but I have kids about to go to bed and can always explain any other qquestions later...

 

[Michiana]

won't work with these people

Shooting down a jetliner isn't what Hollywood would have you believe. You don't have to shove a missle in the ass of the jet to stop it or force it to the ground. Put some 20mm bullet holes it the tailfin would be a good incentive to force it to land. Shooting the wing is too risky as it COULD ignite the jet fuel. Although, a couple shots to the engine would likely just malfunction the engine and force them to land aswell. If that were to fail, I have enough confidence in our piolts to put rounds into the cockpit as a final resort. All but the engine and cockpit shot would deter any civilian piolt to continue on course. If it were hijackers hell bent on destruction, only the last two options would deter them. Otherwise you have no choice but to send rockets down range.

Of course this is just my brainstorming. I've studied aviation most of my life and these seem to be the only forceful viable options that don't involve inevitable death and destruction unless need be.

The only way to stop people who have no fear of dying is stop them in their tracks; blow them up or shoot them dead. They will not land the plane because you shot holes in the tail; they will crash the plane into the first large target they can find. You are dealing with nuts; look at the Kamikazes in WW2; they would be on fire and still aim for the carrier. These new terrorists, in my opinion are much more fanatical than the Japanese.

 

[SavageEagle]

The only way to stop people who have no fear of dying is stop them in their tracks; blow them up or shoot them dead. They will not land the plane because you shot holes in the tail; they will crash the plane into the first large target they can find. You are dealing with nuts; look at the Kamikazes in WW2; they would be on fire and still aim for the carrier. These new terrorists, in my opinion are much more fanatical than the Japanese.

You are most likely right, but please refer to my previous post.