RGPer REPORTS FROM THE PENTAGON
NolanDalla
Tuesday September 11, 2001
9:30 am: I am awakened by the sound of an enormous explosion. I run out onto
the balcony to see the entire west side of the Pentagon complex engulfed in
smoke and flames. For those who do not know, the Pentagon is an enormous
structure. Only about a fifth of the building appears to be damaged. My
vantage point is the 9th Floor of a high rise building in Crystal City
(directly across the street from the Pentagon facing the south side of the
building). I have a partially obstructed view of the area. A Raddison hotel
was constructed about five years ago in front of my building -- otherwise I
have a clear view of the entire Pentagon and surrounding area. My first
reaction is shock. A bomb? Gas explosion? Terrorist act? Who knows.
Airplanes fly over the east side of the Pentagon all the time (directly over
the Potomac) to land/take off at National Airport, so the last thing I think
about is a plane crash.
9:40 am: By now, both TVs in the living room are turned on. Broadcasts show
both World Trade Center buildings in flames. Oddly enough, in my shock and
horror at watching the scene in New York, I don't make a mental connection to
the Pentagon disaster. TV reports begin to show the Pentagon and it becomes
clear that planes caused the destruction in both cities.
9:50 am: I see thousands of people -- military and civilian -- pouring out of
the Pentagon into the south parking lot. Streams are coming down the sidewalks
in front of my building. Emergency vehicles. Helicopters. Military and
police are everywhere. Although it's chaotic and scary to watch, I'm amazed at
the calm and methodical manner of the emergecy and rescue efforts. It's a
strang thing to say in a time of tragedy, but I'm impressed with the efforts.
Obvioulsy, the Pentagon is filled with an enormous amount of talented people
who are used to emergencies.
10:00 am: About this time, the phone begins to ring. Family in Texas calling.
One freind in California. Marieta, who is in the District on Pennsylvania
Avenue (about two blocks away) calls and says there is an evacuation ordered
for the immediate area as another aircraft is feared targeted at the White
House or State Department. Just as we are talking, I watch in absolute stunned
silence as the first tower of the World Trade Center crumbles to the ground.
The shock of this sight is beyond my ability to express. I'm not even sure
what I said or did the next couple of minutes.
10:10 am: Marieta and I talk again by phone (call was interrupted somehow).
The question is how to get her out of the District safely, but quickly. Fire
alarms in my building start to go off, which means evacuation is ordered (the
fourth hijacked plane is still feared headed towards the city). A short time
later, as I'm getting dressed and about to get out of the building, I see the
second World Trade Center collapse on television. I've never seen anything
that has ever had such a profound emotinal impact. Fear is that both New York
and Washington might be blown off the map. For the first time it hits me, that
my life and the lives of my loved ones are in danger. I tell Marieta to get
out of the office immediately and walk around the State Department (which is
just south of her location). We agree to meet at the north side of the Lincoln
Memorial.
10:30 am: I have to get to the Memorial. But all roads are in chaos. I
consider riding a bicycle, but instead start walking due north. In between the
Memorial and my building is the Pentagon, directly to the north. I walk into
the south parking lot and see thousands of military personnel talking on cell
phones, with makeshift tables set up. It appears the military command is
operating out of a parking lot. The sight of generals barking orders into cell
hones is surreal. F-16 type aircraft buzz overhead. There is fear another
plane may be coming and it looks like a war zone.
10:40 am: I walk along the east side of the Pentagon building. The area of
damage is on the other side, and I begin to see people sitting on curbsides
with injuries. Areas begin to get closed off by security people. I get
trapped between areas where there was yellow ribbon (crime scene tape) being
put up. I walk closer to the west side of the building and see the smoke and
flames up close. Maybe a dozen people seem to have injuries of some kind. It's
not something I focused on. Obviously, there are hundreds dead laying in the
ruble. My thought was -- it's remarkble how many rescue vehicles have
responded within such a short period. Fire trucks, ambulances, etc. are
everywhere. They seemed to come out of nowhere. I continue walking north and
after another ten minute walk get to the Memorial Bridge, which is the
connection into the District.
11:10 am: Thousands of people are pouring across the bridges leaving the city
by foot. I'm walking against the traffic and after ten minutes of search I see
and reach Marieta.
11:45 am: We get home. The area is filled with smoke. We walk to 23rd Street
in Crystal City and go into a bar to watch the latest coverage. My thoughts
are on what is happening in New York. Having not seen any news in the last
hour, I am literally running to the TVs to catch the lastest news. Mayor
Gulianai is speaking.
Since I've rambled off topic, and have watched coverage of these tragic events
non-stop since yesterday, I believe three points:
1. There was NO breech of security at the airports. The terrorists boarded
the planes with sharp objects, which were described as box cutters. All the
metal detectors and x-rays machines in the world will not pick up this kind of
thing. Hiring five times more security officers will not stop these terrorist
acts. Again, people are literally in the STONE AGE when it comes to combating
terrorism. Another point that is obvious: The terrorists cut the throats of
the pilots IMMEDIATELY and took control of the planes. They then completed
their missions. All the talk of increased security at airports is totally
useless and a wste of energy amd manpower. There is NO WAY to defend against
this type of attack on the ground. The only measure that seems feasible is to
place an armed officer on every single commerical flight (probably, a good idea
-- and cost effective as well).
2. The perpetrators of these crimes will NOT be caught. These acts were NOT
commited by a nation, or a group of nations. These acts were commited by a
very small group of well-funded and well-trained terrorists. It's even
conceivable that terrorist Osama bin Laden was not directly responsible for
these acts. A small cell of terrorists loosely under his umbella of influence
could have acted on their own to commit these acts. The saddest thing, beyond
the devastation and incredible loss of life in New York and Washington, is that
no one may ever be punished for these crimes. That's not pessimism, it's just
being realistic.
3. The US. Intelligence Community is a bloated beauracracy that is
ineffective, and perhaps even counter-productive to fighting a war against
terrorism. 60,000 paper-pushers sitting on their asses in Langley and Fort
Meade are not going to stop incidents like this. The entire intelligence
operation should be overhauled from the ground up. Anaology: Just as casinos
hire ex-cheats and people with shady pasts to do their security, the U.S.
Government must develop better human intelligence by working with, hiring, and
paying terrorists, criminals, and other people who are able to gather
information. Everyone should be outraged that these beaurocrats are now going
to get more and more power. America loves to throw money at a problem,
thinking that will resolve the issue. What a sickening and sad response by a
nation calling itself a "super-power." If you aren't angry at your inteligence
community and leaders for the waste, misplaced priorities, and mismangement of
resourses, you shouild be. You are now seeing the effects of it.
Finally, a point on-topic. I believe the long-term ramifications for poker and
gambling from these devastating incidents will be noteworthy. I expect a
serious decline in this sector during the coming months (particularly visits to
Las Vegas and Atlantic City).
-- Nolan Dalla
conrad
hijacked planes and then hit three out of four of their targets...it doesn't
speak well for US domestic security arrangements. While I take your point
about the limits of airplane security, most people would agree that basic
checks are still necessary, but it would appear that was missing in these
cases - surely some precaution is better than none at all.
Great post by the way. I am a big fan of NYC and the shock you felt was
shared around the world. I have happy memories of going up the WTC and
enjoying the view. It is painful to hear how many have suffered and how many
have died in that place. There is great and genuine sympathy for what
America is going through here in London.
NolanDalla <nolan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010912100842...@mb-cq.aol.com...
Edward Hutchison
yesterday's tragic events should prompt others of us to record our own
thoughts and experiences.
Apart from the psychic benefits of trying to find words to express the emotions
we all feel, any record we might leave would be considered a treasure by our
own descendants. Can you imagine how grateful you would be if you possessed a
journal written by your ancestor on the occasion of some historic event such as
Armistice Day, "Black Tuesday," or Pearl Harbor?
Nolan predicts a decline in the gambling sector, citing particularly a decline
in visits to Vegas and Atlantic City. T
Time will tell, of course, about the effects on gambling, but the sad events of
yesterday provoke another thought for me: Isn't it about time that we question
the practice of erecting huge buildings that concentrate so many people in a
limited geographical space.
In this age of Internet connectedness, why do we have people commuting hours
each day so that they can sit before a computer in a place like the World Trade
Center. We may now come to view this practice as militarily indefensible but
we long ago should have thought of it as a logical absurdity.
Ignoring the aesthetic benefits, the quality of life arguments, and the other
benefits of decentralization, how sad it is that we may now have to view it as
the better military option.
Edward Hutchison
Jackson, MS
If Squire Skimp, Kosciusko Pete, or J-D, ring a bell, please see
my Home Page at: http://ehutchison.homestead.com/HP.html
LouKrieger
From: nolan...@aol.com (NolanDalla)
I believe three points:
1. There was NO breech of security at the airports. The terrorists boarded
the planes with sharp objects, which were described as box cutters.
All the talk of increased security at airports is totall useless and a wste of
energy amd manpower. There is NO WAY to defend against this type of attack on
the ground. The only measure that seems feasible is
to place an armed officer on every single commerical flight (probably, a good
idea
-- and cost effective as well).
2. The perpetrators of these crimes will NOT be caught. These acts were NOT
commited by a nation, or a group of nations. These acts were commited by a
very small group of well-funded and well-trained terrorists. It's even
conceivable that terrorist Osama bin Laden was not directly responsible for
these acts. A small cell of terrorists loosely under his umbella of influence
could have acted on their own to commit these acts. The saddest thing,
beyond the devastation and incredible loss of life in New York and Washington,
is that
no one may ever be punished for these crimes. That's not pessimism, it's
just being realistic.
3. The US. Intelligence Community is a bloated beauracracy that is
ineffective, and perhaps even counter-productive to fighting a war against
terrorism. 60,000 paper-pushers sitting on their asses in Langley and Fort
Meade are not going to stop incidents like this. The entire intelligence
operation should be overhauled from the ground up. <<
Incredibly insightful post, Nolan. I tried calling you immediately after i saw
the pentagon go down, but of course all the lines were busy, even my cell phone
couldn't get through.
Regarding your observations.
1 Given our appalling screening process for hiring airline security employees
I would not be surprised if the terrorists got through with the assistance
ofairline security employees, not simply in spite of them. You can placed
armed officers on each flight. El Al does. And because this kind of terrorist
act represents a threat to national security, there is a good case that can be
made for federalizing the airport security system. Of course, that's no
guarantee of a better system...just witness our out-of-date our air traffic
control system.
2. Another way to harden the target would be to seal the pilot's cabin like a
time lock on a vault, and have it opened only by an electronic switch
controlled by someone on the ground.
3. It seems like Bin Laden had the funds to do something like this, but we
need to punish the nations that harbor him as surely and as swiftly as we need
to deal with any terrorists, and if bin Laden didn't happen to be the guy
behind this incident, and we kill him anyway, so what? He is guilty of enough
terrorist acts that ridding the world of him would be a public service.
As to the nations that harbor terrorists, it's important to remember that none
of them are nations as we understand the concept. None of these nations govern
with the consent of their citizenry. They are not democarcies; they are simply
rogue states, no better nor worse than gangs of organized criminals, except
they legitimatize their actions through the veil of statehood.
Because these harboring nations are, in effect, criminal organizations,
completely eliminating their governments is a moral act that one should take
pride in accomplishing. Attacking and destroying the government of Afghanistan
is not the same as attacking a democartically elected government.
4. I agree completely that the intelligence community is filled with
careerists who have sat on their asses for years and not accomplished very much
at all. Moreover, some of their rivalries are counterproductive. The FBI, the
CIA, the DIA all have turf wars, and are woefully slow to cooperate with one
another, and in my opinion, they ought to be rebuilt from the ground up.
The only thing sadder than the fact that an act of this magnitude could have
been done by a small terrorist cell is that it required a long lead time and an
incredible amount of planning. That being the case, I'm appalled that our
intelligence system did not gather any of this information in time to prevent
it. While we can and should hold accountable those who did this eveil deed, as
well as the nations that provided shelter to them, we need to look our
intelligence community square in the eye and tell them they failed miserably in
their core mission.
Lou Krieger
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Great post, Nolan. Thanks.
Just a couple of comments... (below)
>Since I've rambled off topic, and have watched coverage of these tragic events
>non-stop since yesterday, I believe three points:
>2. The perpetrators of these crimes will NOT be caught.
I think I would disagree with this point. The terrorism
experts (not politicians using bombast) seem to think
they will (from what I've seen on TV)- and they're already
turning up info. The FBI just announced that they've
already identified some suspects and there may be
arrests soon. For all these cowards that got on the
plane with their knives, there would also (logically) be
some kind of support group that aided them. If they
sweat a few of these people and they talk, the whole
thing may pop out. The mistake was that the group involved
was too large to hide every bit of the trail.
>3. The US. Intelligence Community is a bloated beauracracy that is
>ineffective-- The entire intelligence
>operation should be overhauled from the ground up.
Absolutely true. The CIA intelligence record in the last
20-30 years has been abysmal. From the Bay of Pigs to the
fall of the Shah of Iran and numerous other historical
examples that could be cited, a Big Blank was drawn at
the very time we needed it most. We need to stop pouring
all the money into satellite type technology and get more
people on the ground in these countries. Airpower and
technology can only go so far. Money is a weapon too
which can be used. Having some of the locals walking
around with cash and paying off people can produce
key information.
>Finally, a point on-topic. I believe the long-term ramifications for poker and
>gambling from these devastating incidents will be noteworthy. I expect a
>serious decline in this sector during the coming months (particularly visits to
>Las Vegas and Atlantic City).
If the economy takes a downstroke, that could happen.
It would certainly have an effect.
What the terrorists don't understand is that this
country goes on. Period. They could wipe the entire
City of New York off the map and this country would go on.
This is what we do. They don't understand the American
character. When wagon trains went West and some
friends and family died along the way, the rest moved on.
It's what we do. And if it's something we can point to that
caused the deaths we unleash hell.
Wayno
SigAlEp18
1) No more carry-on items, except for reading materials. Period.
2) Random body searches, like they already do in London.
3) No one from any Middle-East country or any nation not considered a reliable
ally of the United States allowed entry.
4) Any non-citizen from the above-mentined countries has 30 days to leave.
Mark Harman
Jonathan Kaplan
if it comes to this (especially 3 and/or 4)
then the terrorist act has already succeeded.
we have lost.
items 3 and 4 above are so dangerously unAmerican
that if we actually would do these things,
then i will no longer be proud to be an American.
just my opinion.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are...
CardPlayerCruise
Thanks for the report. I am so glad that both you and Marieta are safe. What an
awful thing to have witnessed. I wish I could be with you to give you a big
hug, but will have to send it through cyberspace. Be safe.
Linda Johnson
LouKrieger
Items 3 and 4 above are so dangerously unAmerican that if we actually would do
these things, then i will no longer be proud to be an American. just my
opinion. <<
Actually, it is our country, and that give us an absolute right to restrict
entry to residents of any country we so choose. Wouldn't you agree?
Lou Krieger
Gary Carson
Sure. And, we should send those niggers back to Afrca too. What Klan
meeting have you been going to?
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Jonathan Kaplan
yes.
who is "we" in this case? some politicos, forced to this act by an emotional
public? the risk from the great mass of ANY nation that visits here is benign,
helpful, a valuable part of the national politic.
when my ancestors came to this country, they were considered undesirable. same
for you too, Lou. same is true for alot of the ethnicities that make up this
nation. but we all benefited from that diversity, immensely i believe.
i am not going to stand in the way of anyone trying to enter the US for any
reason other than individual, definable reasons, generally. almost every muslim
that comes to the US comes here to see what it is like, to maybe live here.
these people are a positive force, here, and back in their homeland, when they
sing the praises of their US lives. there are many reasons to not be restrictive
in this way. the final symbolic one is written on a "sacred" monument, standing
in NY harbor, not one mile from the rubbled streets.
i didnt say we couldnt do this, that we couldnt restrict immigration/visitation
to the US, in ways that were described.
i just said that i would no longer be proud to be an American, if we do.
Jarrett40
Jarrett >garyc...@alumni.northwestern.e
MisterBearHarman
considered undesirable.<<
Gary Carson writes and quotes others (including myself): >> >>> 3) No one
from any Middle-East country or any nation not
considered a
>reliable ally of the United States allowed entry.items
>
>Items 3 and 4 above are so dangerously unAmerican that if we
actually would do
>these things, then i will no longer be proud to be an American.
just my
>opinion. <<
>
>Actually, it is our country, and that give us an absolute right to
restrict
>entry to residents of any country we so choose. Wouldn't you agree?
>
Sure. And, we should send those niggers back to Afrca too. What Klan
meeting have you been going to?<<<<<
You guys are willing to take a chance to sacrifice more lives due to POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS? Give me a break!
This is not about being like the Klan...poor analogy, Gary, and I might be in
the minority when I say most of the time I think you make cogent posts. The
Klan works against our own citizens.
And it's a far cry from comparing my suggestions to our ancestors coming over
years ago. The hard fact is that today, certain countries' citizens pose a
credible threat to our security. It is more than reasonable to prevent them
from entering until it's determined the risk is acceptable. It's more than
reasonable to revoke the visas of non-citizen Middle Easterners in this
country.
I ask again, how many more lives are you willing to risk?
Mark Harman
Kyamvet
are a very sincere person.
Jonathan Kaplan
says...
>
>Jonathan Kaplan writes: >> when my ancestors came to this country, they were
>considered undesirable.<<
>
>Gary Carson writes and quotes others (including myself): >> >>> 3) No one
>from any Middle-East country or any nation not
>considered a
>>reliable ally of the United States allowed entry.items
>>
>>Items 3 and 4 above are so dangerously unAmerican that if we
>actually would do
>>these things, then i will no longer be proud to be an American.
>just my
>>opinion. <<
>>
>>Actually, it is our country, and that give us an absolute right to
>restrict
>>entry to residents of any country we so choose. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>
>Sure. And, we should send those niggers back to Afrca too. What Klan
>meeting have you been going to?<<<<<
>
>You guys are willing to take a chance to sacrifice more lives due to POLITICAL
>CORRECTNESS? Give me a break!
>
if you think this is about political correctness, then you really need to read
more history, and travel the world more, and meet more people. but mainly, read
more history.
i prefer my answer to Lou K.'s post, not Gary C's reply.
did you even read my reply?
>And it's a far cry from comparing my suggestions to our ancestors coming over
>years ago. The hard fact is that today, certain countries' citizens pose a
>credible threat to our security. It is more than reasonable to prevent them
>from entering until it's determined the risk is acceptable. It's more than
>reasonable to revoke the visas of non-citizen Middle Easterners in this
>country.
>
why dont we just throw them all in concentration camps till the risk has passed?
that worked really well, when we committed that obscenity on japanese-americans
during WWII. but wait, that travesty was over two generations ago, so i wouldnt
expect you would know anything about that.
i am not saying we cant take numerous steps to protect national security. but
this is not a reasonable step, i think. there are many better, less risky steps.
i expect we will take many of those.
>I ask again, how many more lives are you willing to risk?
>
i'll ask you, how much freedom are you willing to give up to ease your
conscience and exorcise your own personal demons?
the approach i suggest risks lives at a rate approaching ZERO, if you know
anything about how that situation works. your approach risks the US losing
something that many people have already died over the last few centuries to keep
dear. you want to just throw it out, like it is used bath water.
but what i find most disturbing about your comments is that they show that you
very much do not know the history of the United States, and how our population
came to be the wonderful body politic that currently exists.
the "ancestor" argument is almost exactly appropriate, and quite relevant, in
the effect it would have.
on them and perhaps more dangerously, on us.
Gary Carson
(MisterBearHarman) wrote:
>from any Middle-East country or any nation not
>considered a
>>reliable ally of the United States allowed entry.items
>>
>>Items 3 and 4 above are so dangerously unAmerican that if we
>actually would do
>>these things, then i will no longer be proud to be an American.
>just my
>>opinion. <<
>>
>>Actually, it is our country, and that give us an absolute right to
>restrict
>>entry to residents of any country we so choose. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>
>Sure. And, we should send those niggers back to Afrca too. What
Klan
>meeting have you been going to?<<<<<
>
>You guys are willing to take a chance to sacrifice more lives due to
POLITICAL
>CORRECTNESS? Give me a break!
I didn't say anything about political correctness. Call them sand
niggers if you want, I don't care. That's not the point al all.
>This is not about being like the Klan...poor analogy,
Well, it's exactly like the Klan.
>Gary, and I might be in
>the minority when I say most of the time I think you make cogent
posts. The
>Klan works against our own citizens.
The Klan doesn't work against anything. It just promotes violent
reaction fo easily idenfifiable groups of peoplle as a way to help
downtrodden rednecks feel powerful.
It's a positive force in the life of many. It gives them a sense of
control over their life.
That's pretty much what y'all are proposing by suggesting we close our
borders to those dangerous sand niggers -- it's a way to give a sense
of control to those helpless feeling white boys in LA, or something.
>And it's a far cry from comparing my suggestions to our ancestors
coming over
>years ago.
I think that was from Jonathans post.
>The hard fact is that today, certain countries' citizens pose a
>credible threat to our security.
The hard fact is that that's exactly the arguement used by those who
wanted to bar the Irish from immigrating to our shores years back.
>It is more than reasonable to prevent them
>from entering until it's determined the risk is acceptable.
LOL. And, who'se going to determine that? You?
Do you know what the base rate fallacy is?
It's like when players who play in a loose game observe many hands
being won by weak starting cards and conclude from that that weak
starting cards win more than their share in a loose game. It's a
fallacy of observation.
In the case of these dangerous Arabs, you've noticed that most of the
terrorists seem to be Arabs. From that you conclude that most Arabs
must be terroists.
Well, it just doesn't follow. It doesn't even follow that Arabs are
at a higher risk than other visitors of being terrorists.
Even if it's true that Arabs are more likely to be terrorists than
others (I think it probably is true, you just havn't established it)
that probability is very small.
You'd fit right into every Klan group I've ever known of. And, I have
known a couple of them.
The Baron
> Here's some basic things we can do to reduce the risk:
>
> 1) No more carry-on items, except for reading materials. Period.
Good plan. No diabetics, asthmatics, people with heart conditions or any
other conditions requiring medicine. Take care of the terrorist problem and
all of those pesky in-flight medical emergencies.
> 2) Random body searches, like they already do in London.
Excellent. Throw that annoying Bill of Rights away. All it does is get
in the way of illegal searches and self incrimination. Don't need protections
against those anyway.
> 3) No one from any Middle-East country or any nation not considered a reliable
> ally of the United States allowed entry.
Brilliant thinking. We'll just require each newspaper and all of the
broadcast media to list the days current "reliable allies." That way when it
changes, everyone will be expected to know. After all, we certainly didn't
need any of those people like Von Braun and certainly couldn't need anyone
from an unreliable nation in the future. They'd just get in the way.
> 4) Any non-citizen from the above-mentined countries has 30 days to leave.
Great. Let's get rid of those resident aliens, students, business
visitors, academic visitors, and everyone else who hasn't become a citizen.
Wouldn't do to have them running free in the country.
--
J.A. James
(The Baron)
Proud member of: The Radium League
Dedicated Fixer for: Evil People Inc.
SigAlEp18
my posts astounds me.
I never concluded most Arabs must be terrorists. We are not giving up "our"
freedom to restrict certain foreigners from entering the country. Our
ancestors did not come from countries producing terrorists who have as a very
real goal the destruction of the United States. As for throwing away the Bill
of rights concerning body searches, you are already being searched anyway.
Gary, comparing me or my arguments to a Klansman is bogus. I do not subscribe
to the superiority of the white race. I would not support killing a race or
ethnicity. I welcome Arabs who are US citizens, either born here or
naturalized, with open arms. I am supporting restricting people from countries
that produce these terrorists who have, as their goal, destruction of United
States lives and property. If these terrorists were from England or France,
for example, I would say the same thing.
Try again, boys.
Mark Harman
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>....lack of logical thinking regarding
>my posts astounds me.
ironically, i was thinking the very same thing, about your reactions to these
events, particularly, the lack of historical perspective. luckily, this world
(and the US, still, for the moment anyway), allows for different viewpoints.
>
>...As for throwing away the Bill
>of rights concerning body searches, you are already being searched anyway.
>
yeah, let us just slide willy nilly down this slippery slope, since we have
already started in that direction.
whee......
>...I welcome Arabs who are US citizens, either born here or
>naturalized, with open arms....
oh, so YOU know where to draw that line? these countries that produce terrorists
have been doing so for quite some time. if your argument is correct, and your
plan is valid, why are you drawing the line at that point? are you going to be
able to hold the line, at that point? are you going to want to hold the line, at
that point, when push comes to shove?
>I am supporting restricting people from countries
>that produce these terrorists who have, as their goal, destruction of United
>States lives and property. If these terrorists were from England or France,
>for example, I would say the same thing.
>
would you mind listing those countries whose people you are going to bar, then?
how do changes occur in that list?
who is in charge of that?
>Try again, boys.
>
maybe. but probably not, anymore. your emotion-laden logic and lack of
understanding about history wears me out.
good job. feel free to help the US make the same mistakes that have been made
before. let us repeat some of history's mistakes again, maybe the next
generation will learn from them. but i am not holding my breath.
do the analysis. if you could, you might see that your approach takes huge
risks, diminishing what it means to be an American, with the door open to more
diminishment in the future, in my view. the rewards of your approach are tiny
and very infrequent, in reality. the penalties will be felt every day, in many
ways, by many Americans. there are other methods to accomplish most/all of the
goals you want, without the drastic actions you propose. (as just one example, i
have no problem with considerably heightened background checks of INDIVIDUALS
trying to enter the US, and barring those INDIVIDUALS who are problematic, even
if only slightly so. i have a big problem with barring whole GROUPS because of
the actions of the tiny minority of that group. that is so unAmerican as to make
me want to puke.)
but you are emotional right now, as are we all. so i dont fault you for
proposing these methods. i just say, there are better, less risky methods, that
do much the same thing.
CoyneMark
rational judgment.
I've always prided myself about making judgments with as little emotion as
possible and as much logic as possible.
But I'm beginning to think I was wrong to scorn those who let emotion enter
into their thinking on certain subjects. You see, we are not just logical,
intellectual beings. We are also emotional beings. It's part of being human,
no matter what we might want.
So, it might have taken a horror of this magnitude to realize that to make
judgments without emotion is to exclude our whole being from making that
judgment.
As for making a distinction, I see no problem with drawing a line between
citizens and non-citizens. I can't see us welcoming Germans into the country
during WWII. Today, we face the same situations.
I don't know (and I'm too weary to do the research) if it was you or someone
else who said something about our government interring Japanese-
Americans during WWII. Well, these were our own citizens. It was wrong. I'm
not advocating jailing non-citizen Arab-Americans. I'm saying I believe in
keeping non-citizens Arabs from known terrorist states out, at least until we
can determine the risk of allowing them in is acceptable.
And that does require making judgments. I'm sorry, but life is full of making
judgments - we all do it every day. And now our country must make judgments on
what course of action to take. It can't be avoided.
So maybe I was wrong about your lack of logic. Perhaps you are too logical.
Mark Harman
Alden Chase (tyro)
"Jonathan Kaplan" <NutN...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Q05o7.7068$%u4.4...@www.newsranger.com...[snip]
>> >...As for throwing away the Bill
> >of rights concerning body searches, you are already being searched
anyway.
> >
>
> yeah, let us just slide willy nilly down this slippery slope, since we
have
> already started in that direction.
> whee......
Look how you misrepresent the Bill of Rights to create a fallacious
argument. The searches at the airport are not illegal. They do not violate
the Bill of Rights. You voluntarily submit to the search as a requirement
of entering the terminal of the airport.
Jonathan Kaplan
you are correct, in the sense you meant. i agree to concede specific aspects of
(more than) one of the rights, by entering the airport. the government has a
very reasonable justification for search in that context, and if done with known
procedures, i have no problem with that.
i dont have to fly, if i dont want to be (potentially) subject to search.
i apologize for using a loose argument.
but the reason why i said it that way is not because of the specific
technicalities of the Bill of Rights, or the Constitition in general. i used the
"slippery slope" term because that is exactly what i fear would happen, the more
people think like that, even when technically correct. i am an extremist, when
it comes to freedom. that is a main reason why i live in the US, and consider
myself an American. i'll use ANY argument to protect individual freedom,
generally, as long as no real, known harm accrues to other beings. i am pretty
sure that is apparent in my recent writings.
you picked that specific out of all the mass of what i have written on this
topic? any other places i made errors that are worth pointing out?
just curious.
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>Jonathan, perhaps you're right. Perhaps my emotions are getting in the way of
>rational judgment.
>
>I've always prided myself about making judgments with as little emotion as
>possible and as much logic as possible.
>
>But I'm beginning to think I was wrong to scorn those who let emotion enter
>into their thinking on certain subjects. You see, we are not just logical,
>intellectual beings. We are also emotional beings. It's part of being human,
>no matter what we might want.
>
>So, it might have taken a horror of this magnitude to realize that to make
>judgments without emotion is to exclude our whole being from making that
>judgment.
>
i appreciate this line of thought (generally), and agree with you. we are
thinking, feeling beings. we shouldnt try to ignore either the thinking OR the
feeling.
>As for making a distinction, I see no problem with drawing a line between
>citizens and non-citizens. I can't see us welcoming Germans into the country
>during WWII. Today, we face the same situations.
>
>I don't know (and I'm too weary to do the research) if it was you or someone
>else who said something about our government interring Japanese-
>Americans during WWII. Well, these were our own citizens. It was wrong. I'm
>not advocating jailing non-citizen Arab-Americans. I'm saying I believe in
>keeping non-citizens Arabs from known terrorist states out, at least until we
>can determine the risk of allowing them in is acceptable.
>
>And that does require making judgments. I'm sorry, but life is full of making
>judgments - we all do it every day. And now our country must make judgments on
>what course of action to take. It can't be avoided.
>
>So maybe I was wrong about your lack of logic. Perhaps you are too logical.
>
smile....first time anyone has called me too logical....feel like Spock, almost.
in my case, i am not being too logical, i think. it is just that i have THREE
huge set of emotions working right now, some in conflict, and no complete
clarity in any of those emotions.
one, i am in the wall street biz (for 20 years) and i know alot of people who
are currently missing, in NYC. i am so sad about this it makes me ill.
literally.
two, i am jewish. while i am quite lax in this belief, i do identify more with
the Israelis than the Palestinians. i know enough about the history to make that
identification anyway, but i am probably biased, nonetheless.
three, i am quite extreme in my love of freedom, and my love of the processes
that have made this country great. any dilution of that (as i see it), and i
will be a pit bull to protect "freedom" from this injury. i dont like any thing
that threatens (what i see as) the great American truths.
so, i am a jewish american equity trader. i have plenty of reasons to be
emotional about this horror, and i am quite torn up.
even if you disagree with what i am saying, and have said recently in these
types of posts, i think one thing might be apparent.
i am an American, first. the other classifications come after.
and i really, truly, believe that.
Bing
wrote:
> yeah, let us just slide willy nilly down this slippery slope, since we have
> already started in that direction.
> whee......
What slippery slope is that? people keep talking about this
slippery slope in relation to civil liberties, abortion,
drugs, guns, and whatever. Yet, in this country, it seems
extremely rare that we ever actually go down the slippery
slope.
Since we're talking about airport security, let's look at
the slippery slope. In the late 70s, due to terrorists,
metal detectors and X-Ray machines were installed. Everyone
whined about the slippery slope. Yet, 20 years later, no
draconion procedures, depriving everyone of their civil
liberties, have been put in place.
How about that slippery slope of nuclear weapons? In WWII,
we dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Many have cried about how
we will soon be dropping nukes on every country that pisses
us off. Yet, through Veitnam, Korea, Iran, and so on, no
nuke has been dropped.
Seat-belt laws? There was a lot of crying aboiut that
slippery slope, yet we don't seem to be at the bottom
of any slide.
It's a rare "slippery slope" that ever amounts to any
real problem.
No one is seriously considering throwing out all Arabs.
That's just something people say in the heat of the
moment.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
SigAlEp18
differences.
Mark Harman
Kim Scheinberg
>In the following post, siga...@aol.com says...
>> Here's some basic things we can do to reduce the risk:
>>
>> 1) No more carry-on items, except for reading materials. Period.
>
> Good plan. No diabetics, asthmatics, people with heart conditions
>or any other conditions requiring medicine. Take care of the terrorist
>problem and all of those pesky in-flight medical emergencies.
I'll leave my kids' diapers in my checked bags, too
-k.
Alden Chase (tyro)
> In article <hj8o7.5853$Ed3.9...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, tyro\ says...
snip
> you picked that specific out of all the mass of what i have written on
this
> topic? any other places i made errors that are worth pointing out?
> just curious.
I think the points are all open for discussion. This was the only one that
I felt there was a "mistake". You were certainly reasonable and thoughtful
in your response. I think your other points have some very valid bases.
The difficulty for me is determining the line between protection of all
human life and protection of individual freedoms. We could discuss this for
hours I am sure. I do not want to spend that much time at it, although, I
think about it constantly.
Alden