What?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
that?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6971582.ece
Ray Haddad
The US wanted it on all flights, not just those to the US. Why does
Canada only want them to the US?
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:56:54 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >The US didn't want higher security for flights to the US? What's with
> >that?
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6971582.ece
>
> The US wanted it on all flights, not just those to the US. Why does
> Canada only want them to the US?
> --
> Ray
Possibly because the US constitues 80 % or so of the destinations or
overflights that move outside Canada? I don't know. Israel likes to
have higher levels of security at airports than any other country, I
can't see why the US would have refused if it was do-able at the time.
looks like that's what's going to happen any way now.
Would have save a lot of people a lot of grief if it would have been
in place and they caught this guy before he got on the plane.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 3:17�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:56:54 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >The US didn't want higher security for flights to the US? What's with
>> >that?
>>
>> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6971582.ece
>>
>> The US wanted it on all flights, not just those to the US. Why does
>> Canada only want them to the US?
>
>Possibly because the US constitues 80 % or so of the destinations or
>overflights that move outside Canada? I don't know. Israel likes to
>have higher levels of security at airports than any other country, I
>can't see why the US would have refused if it was do-able at the time.
>looks like that's what's going to happen any way now.
>
>Would have save a lot of people a lot of grief if it would have been
>in place and they caught this guy before he got on the plane.
They didn't refuse. Read more carefully. They wanted it for ALL
flights to ALL destinations. Why is that so hard for you to
understand? Must be the Canadian interpretation.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:52:12 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Ok, so, if it is offered to you, but you don't take it, because you
want everyone else to have it, that does not consitute a refusal of an
offer?
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 4:51�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:52:12 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >On Dec 30, 3:17�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:56:54 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> >> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >The US didn't want higher security for flights to the US? What's with
>> >> >that?
>>
>> >> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6971582.ece
>>
>> >> The US wanted it on all flights, not just those to the US. Why does
>> >> Canada only want them to the US?
>>
>> >Possibly because the US constitues 80 % or so of the destinations or
>> >overflights that move outside Canada? �I don't know. Israel likes to
>> >have higher levels of security at airports than any other country, I
>> >can't see why the US would have refused if it was do-able at the time.
>> >looks like that's what's going to happen any way now.
>>
>> >Would have save a lot of people a lot of grief if it would have been
>> >in place and they caught this guy before he got on the plane.
>>
>> They didn't refuse. Read more carefully. They wanted it for ALL
>> flights to ALL destinations. Why is that so hard for you to
>> understand? Must be the Canadian interpretation.
>
>Ok, so, if it is offered to you, but you don't take it, because you
>want everyone else to have it, that does not consitute a refusal of an
>offer?
It makes it a negotiation for the safety of ALL flyers, not just those
going to the US. Even Canadians.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:57:59 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Yes but Ray, most of these people just want to blow up things in the
USA. The rest of the world may not need that level of security.
And when was the last time a Canadian Jet was taken over?
Ray Haddad
>Yes but Ray, most of these people just want to blow up things in the
>USA. The rest of the world may not need that level of security.
>
>And when was the last time a Canadian Jet was taken over?
What difference does that make? You're really stretching things just
to win some obscure notion that the US was being somehow negligent
when the real negligence was with the Dutch.
See your own use of the word "may" up there? It may also be that the
next plane full of Canadians will be the target. Besides, Canadian
buses are what the morons in your neck of the woods hijack.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:18:12 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
And just how were the Dutch negligent. The US embassy had info on this
guy not the Dutch embassy. THe US did not pass that info on to the
Dutch. The Dutch offered full body scans for American flight and the
US said no. How is that being negligent? They feel that the only real
danger is on US flight so the offer more security rather than impose
it on all people using the airport.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>And just how were the Dutch negligent. The US embassy had info on this
>guy not the Dutch embassy. THe US did not pass that info on to the
>Dutch. The Dutch offered full body scans for American flight and the
>US said no. How is that being negligent? They feel that the only real
>danger is on US flight so the offer more security rather than impose
>it on all people using the airport.
Whoa! What has this to do with screening for ALL destinations? Should
the US now only be concerned for US interests? Ignore Canadian
dangers? With your depleted armed forces that won't set well if you
have security issues.
The request was not for one individual but even if it was, the port of
exit was Dutch, not American. The Dutch were responsible for letting
this guy through. End of story, mate. You can't do it this time John.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:35:34 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Has this not always been the case?
The plane was American registed and owned by an American airline, was
it not? The captain of the plane was American, was he not? The captain
is responsible for the safety of his passengers is he not?
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 8:51�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:35:34 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >And just how were the Dutch negligent. The US embassy had info on this
>> >guy not the Dutch embassy. THe US did not pass that info on to the
>> >Dutch. The Dutch offered full body scans for American flight and the
>> >US said no. How is that being negligent? They feel that the only real
>> >danger is on US flight so the offer more security rather than impose
>> >it on all people using the airport.
>>
>> Whoa! What has this to do with screening for ALL destinations? Should
>> the US now only be concerned for US interests? Ignore Canadian
>> dangers? With your depleted armed forces that won't set well if you
>> have security issues.
>>
>> The request was not for one individual but even if it was, the port of
>> exit was Dutch, not American. The Dutch were responsible for letting
>> this guy through. End of story, mate. You can't do it this time John.
>
>"Should
>the US now only be concerned for US interests?"
>
>Has this not always been the case?
Not at all. For certain it wasn't this time and that's my point.
Finally. You get it.
>The plane was American registed and owned by an American airline, was
>it not? The captain of the plane was American, was he not? The captain
>is responsible for the safety of his passengers is he not?
So what? You're conflating two incidents into one pretending that they
are related when they are not. The system was rejected because it
wasn't to be applied to all destinations. That's quite unselfish.
Leave it to you to see it otherwise.
--
Ray
Mark
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> And when was the last time a Canadian Jet was taken over?
Probably when Celene Dion demanded extra nuts.
--
Mark
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:09 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Cite? Thanks.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well, she did make it to Vegas, didn't she?
Mark
wrote:
Unexplained phenomenon exist with regularity and
to a large degree I understand much of it
--
Mark http://www.hosanna1.com/
DOCTOR Mary Ellen Hall McIntire Yasay, Ph.D, (Div.)
Translation: Mark knows why his gonads are full of fleas.
--
I'm unfaithful, divorced, lost my kids, bankrupt and remarried
a slant-eyed karate instructor. You, however, can call me
DOCTOR McIntire! Come Poke Me! http://preview.tinyurl.com/mh9ucn
Ray Haddad
>"The system was rejected because it
>wasn't to be applied to all destinations. "
>
>Cite? Thanks.
John, it's in the article YOU cited. What do you think I've been
discussing?
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:10:13 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Here you go Ray:
"The U.S. had not wanted these scanners to be used previously because
of privacy concerns but now the Obama administration has agreed that
"all possible measures will be used on flights to the U.S.," Dutch
Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst told a news conference."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gkRk1rPTKHbfKgcGLYkPc-dSrcig
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:09 -0800 (PST), "Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> "Should
>> the US now only be concerned for US interests?"
>>
>> Has this not always been the case?
>
> Not at all.
Heh.
--
He always finds himself lost in thought
- it's an unfamiliar territory
-- Anon.
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Ray Haddad
>Here you go Ray:
>
>"The U.S. had not wanted these scanners to be used previously because
>of privacy concerns but now the Obama administration has agreed that
>"all possible measures will be used on flights to the U.S.," Dutch
>Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst told a news conference."
>
>http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gkRk1rPTKHbfKgcGLYkPc-dSrcig
That's not what the article you cited stated. Keep looking and you'll
be reaching into Wiki for answers next. They still wanted them to be
used for all destinations or none. Noble intent.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:50:57 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> That's not what the article you cited stated. Keep looking and you'll
> be reaching into Wiki for answers next. They still wanted them to be
> used for all destinations or none. Noble intent.
> --
> Ray
I've looked Ray. There was no noble intent.
What there was, was a percieved discrimination to passengers heading
for the US and a perception of guilt. that was all tied up in a nice
package called "privacy concerns" that Americans should not feal as if
they had less privacy at airports than other who used the airports.
This "invasion of person" on foreign soil could only be sold to
Americans if all others using the airport were subject to the same
invasions, hence the call for blanket screening for all.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I've looked Ray. There was no noble intent.
>
>What there was, was a percieved discrimination to passengers heading
>for the US and a perception of guilt. that was all tied up in a nice
>package called "privacy concerns" that Americans should not feal as if
>they had less privacy at airports than other who used the airports.
>This "invasion of person" on foreign soil could only be sold to
>Americans if all others using the airport were subject to the same
>invasions, hence the call for blanket screening for all.
That's noble intent. Why is privacy not an issue? Why is
discrimination not an issue? You're an odd fellow, John. When it comes
to Americans, your rules change.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:26 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
So tell me Ray, given all these facts, how is it a Dutch failure?
Yup, i've been an odd fellow all my life. Never liked to hang with
your kind of sheep. Never liked to toe the line. Never followed orders
blindly. Always asked difficult questions. Always dug for answers.
Never took anything on faith.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 4:33�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:26 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >I've looked Ray. There was no noble intent.
>>
>> >What there was, was a percieved discrimination to passengers heading
>> >for the US and a perception of guilt. that was all tied up in a nice
>> >package called "privacy concerns" that Americans should not feal as if
>> >they had less privacy at airports than other who used the airports.
>> >This "invasion of person" on foreign soil could only be sold to
>> >Americans if all others using the airport were subject to the same
>> >invasions, hence the call for blanket screening for all.
>>
>> That's noble intent. Why is privacy not an issue? Why is
>> discrimination not an issue? You're an odd fellow, John. When it comes
>> to Americans, your rules change.
>
>So tell me Ray, given all these facts, how is it a Dutch failure?
Until now, I never said it was. I said it was the US decision not to
allow JUST Americans to be searched.
>Yup, i've been an odd fellow all my life. Never liked to hang with
>your kind of sheep. Never liked to toe the line. Never followed orders
>blindly. Always asked difficult questions. Always dug for answers.
>Never took anything on faith.
. . . and always looked the fool. But I still like you, John.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:41:25 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
"The Dutch were responsible for letting
this guy through. End of story, mate."
Hmmm
Ray Haddad
>"The Dutch were responsible for letting
>this guy through. End of story, mate."
>
>Hmmm
Oh, come on, John. We're discussing the installation of the scanners
and you want to harp on that single incident yet again. What are we
discussing? Is it the scanners or the bomb attempt? Make up your mind.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 05:49:39 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
both
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 9:47�am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 05:49:39 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> Oh, come on, John. We're discussing the installation of the scanners
>> and you want to harp on that single incident yet again. What are we
>> discussing? Is it the scanners or the bomb attempt? Make up your mind.
>
>both
Choose one and stick to it. We can discuss both but one is solely down
to the Dutch and the other is a noble attempt to include all
passengers in the safety net of inspection. In neither case is the US
to blame for anything. Had the Dutch implemented a US only approach,
the attempt would have been made on another plane going to another
destination. As long as there are Americans on the plane, that's a
suitable target and you know it.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:07:51 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Cite?
"As long as there are Americans on the plane, that's a
suitable target and you know it."
We should keep Americans off planes and we'll all be safe then.
If that were the case he would have detonated anywhere in flight. But
given that he was on the approach to Detroit at the time, I would make
one wonder if the target was not Detroit and it's airport (both in the
USA, just across the river from Windsor Ontario Canada).