Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

And still, even with inaccurate reports of 2003 (which is a separate year of 2001 and had fewer, not more, terrorism-related deaths, discounting stuff everyone else would count as acts of war) the automobile deaths in crashes from drivers were higher than terrorism deaths.

So the real solution is to ban cars and make it harder to drive in cars, not airplanes.

[Truean]

And still, even with inaccurate reports of 2003 (which is a separate year of 2001 and had fewer, not more, terrorism-related deaths, discounting stuff everyone else would count as acts of war) the automobile deaths in crashes from drivers were higher than terrorism deaths.

So the real solution is to ban cars and make it harder to drive in cars, not airplanes.

I don't have the time to go through the report line by line, nor should I have to. I did  more than enough in the last post I made addressing this. You asked me to show you where it was wrong. I found some areas supporting my previous points. I picked a random year and dove in. I'm not spending my Friday night digging through statistics for all years of the report. I proved my point of view was reasonable and had some legitimacy. My point still stands, the reporting is sloppy.... I picked a random part of it and found tons of errors in minutes.... The government should've done a better job, because it is the reporter's burden of proof to prove what they are reporting. If I missed something like that in my job, either the opposing attorney, the judge or the client, would smack me over the head with it....

I'm not saying ban cars; I'm saying license them and their drivers. Maybe I'm saying license their passengers too, but no one is saying ban them. Given what's at stake, can you at least see this as not being completely and utterly unreasonable? Can you do that much,please?

I personally don't want any restrictions either, but with the world we live in, I stand by my point of saying its necessary. Reasonable, well thought out restrictions with remedies for the government going overboard....

[Luke_Prowler]

And still, even with inaccurate reports of 2003 (which is a separate year of 2001 and had fewer, not more, terrorism-related deaths, discounting stuff everyone else would count as acts of war) the automobile deaths in crashes from drivers were higher than terrorism deaths.

So the real solution is to ban cars and make it harder to drive in cars, not airplanes.

Except cars aren't actively trying to kill you, and the same could be said about guns

[Phmcw]

Hmm honestly, I wasn't expecting that from you. Of course you can!(to an extend)
Look the first thing is : terrorists don't grow on trees.
Like the report says, first thing is, identify the causes of resentment among vulnerable communities. You'll want help from them first, so build a climate of trust. (Of course social security, health-care available for foreigners help, along with comprehensives judges).

Understanding terrorists is VERY important, their average profile is intelligent, impressionable young boy that are enrolled in a destructive process for a "greater good". A tiny bit of logic tell us that your average terrorist is an idealist, and certainly not someone selfish. I mean, he's going to blow himself up for his goddamn "greater good". Simply shifting his view of what is the greater good can do wonders, I remember one interview with a top American interrogator, who explained that once the terrorist understood that the peoples in front of him were human, he has won, and would have any information he wanted. Oppositely, manhandle the suspected terrorist and all his preconception would be confirmed, and you'll probably don't get any information.

But that's not all, If his community is dead set against you, you won't have any support or information, but if you can get them to cooperate...

Edit : did you read the document on the link? It give the context, the tough process and most importantly the results.

[Kogan Loloklam]

The point isn't the inaccuracy in a report. The point is the degree of inaccuracy that would have to happen before such data gets to a point where it justifies ANYTHING after 9/11.

The Degree of inaccuracy required would have to be at least two 9/11 incidences every year PLUS all the tiny incidences that occur to justify the airport and Patriot act security measures that we had, or ANY additional measures, for that matter.

[Truean]

Hmm honestly, I wasn't expecting that from you. Of course you can!(to an extend)
Look the first thing is : terrorists don't grow on trees.
Like the report says, first thing is, identify the causes of resentment among vulnerable communities. You'll want help from them first, so build a climate of trust. (Of course social security, health-care available for foreigners help, along with comprehensives judges).

Understanding terrorists is VERY important, their average profile is intelligent, impressionable young boy that are enrolled in a destructive process for a "greater good". A tiny bit of logic tell us that your average terrorist is an idealist, and certainly not someone selfish. I mean, he's going to blow himself up for his goddamn "greater good". Simply shifting his view of what is the greater good can do wonders, I remember one interview with a top American interrogator, who explained that once the terrorist understood that the peoples in front of him were human, he has won, and would have any information he wanted. Oppositely, manhandle the suspected terrorist and all his preconception would be confirmed, and you'll probably don't get any information.

But that's not all, If his community is dead set against you, you won't have any support or information, but if you can get them to cooperate...

And I absolutely get that and agree with it. It is just a shift in attitude of such a huge magnitude that ... just wow. Here's the thing, everything you just said, seems to rely on one critical assumption: the suspected terrorist has meaningful, real contact with you. He can get to know you, talk to you and interact with you at length before resorting to extreme violence. I think the dominant attitude here is "once someone has gotten to the point of being that pissed off that they're willing to kill themselves to harm you, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do."

That attitude or way of thinking about it that I just pointed out above this sentence, that is huge when considering this in this discussion.

The question becomes, is there some sort of reconciliation that can occur? <-- The differing answers matter, a lot.

Edit Answer:

Edit : did you read the document on the link? It give the context, the tough process and most importantly the results.

Yes, I did read it. That's part of why I'm so damn fascinated and astonished by it. Do you understand what it would mean if we could achieve similar results here? Do I?

The point isn't the inaccuracy in a report. The point is the degree of inaccuracy that would have to happen before such data gets to a point where it justifies ANYTHING after 9/11.

The Degree of inaccuracy required would have to be at least two 9/11 incidences every year PLUS all the tiny incidences that occur to justify the airport and Patriot act security measures that we had, or ANY additional measures, for that matter.

1.) Deaths alone? Injuries? Property damage? People displaced/disrupted? <--- All important, valid concerns. I'm sorry, the inaccuracy and incompleteness of a report you cite as a main source is a valid concern, especially when you ask to be shown "where it's wrong."

The point is the degree of inaccuracy that would have to happen before such data gets to a point where it justifies ANYTHING after 9/11.

2.) Anything? Really? A major terrorist attack doesn't justify any additional security measures? Am I misunderstanding this? If I am, then I would truly like to know.

The Degree of inaccuracy required would have to be at least two 9/11 incidences every year PLUS all the tiny incidences that occur to justify the airport and Patriot act security measures that we had, or ANY additional measures, for that matter.

3.) Please see section "1" above. Look, I'm not saying, the Patriot Act is justified. I hate that damn thing. I'm not saying the level of airport security is justified. I don't like that at all. I really don't understand where you're getting this from? Has anyone here said anything like "the Patriot act was ok?" Where are you coming from man?

What is currently currently in place is not OK, it has severe problems in need of correction. That correction would be reasonable security measures that do not have the severe problems the current ones have. I'm sorry, I don't see, "no security measures at all," happening. They need to be reasonable and no infringing on people's rights. <--- that's all I'm saying.... How is that bad?

I have real, detailed, sincere problems with the legal and governmental system as it stands. It isn't fair. I'd really like to make it more fair.

[Kogan Loloklam]

And I absolutely get that and agree with it. It is just a shift in attitude of such a huge magnitude that ... just wow. Here's the thing, everything you just said, seems to rely on one critical assumption: the suspected terrorist has meaningful, real contact with you. He can get to know you, talk to you and interact with you at length before resorting to extreme violence.

This is quite easy. The only time they won't talk to you is when they are actually engaged in their attack. People talk and listen to each other. You just have to be willing to listen and talk back.

1.) Deaths alone? Injuries? Property damage? People displaced/disrupted? <--- All important, valid concerns. I'm sorry, the inaccuracy and incompleteness of a report you cite as a main source is a valid concern, especially when you ask to be shown "where it's wrong."

Automobile crashes. Do you get anywhere in the vicinity of Automobile crashes? If you don't, and can't show how freedom is taken regarding those, nothing you have to say regarding terrorist attacks has any validity. Iraq IEDs are war devices and have nothing to do with any United States terror devices. Where's the IEDs on American Soil, if they are so deadly? They are devilishly simple to make. It'd take me less than a day to fashion one out of crap I got around my house. We are talking about justification to drop the pretense of liking citizens here. A little bit of measure of security in exchange for a tiny amount of freedom. I say it has no justification at all.

2.) Anything? Really? A major terrorist attack doesn't justify any additional security measures? Am I misunderstanding this? If I am, then I would truly like to know.

Nope, you hit the nail on the head. Anything. Any damn thing. From simple metal detectors in courthouses to the Patriot act. All of it should not be there, no matter how badly you feel about 9/11. Terror is a weapon. It is what people want. No response because of a terror attack is the correct action.

3.) Please see section "1" above.

Please see the response to "2" above.

They need to be reasonable and no infringing on people's rights. <--- that's all I'm saying.... How is that bad?

Like what? What would be a "security measure" that infringes upon nobody's rights. I say that there is no such animal. The best you can have is a security measure who infringes on rights you don't feel very important. My line of rights that I feel were important was crossed when security measures in excess of what existed on September 10th, 2001.

[Truean]

And I absolutely get that and agree with it. It is just a shift in attitude of such a huge magnitude that ... just wow. Here's the thing, everything you just said, seems to rely on one critical assumption: the suspected terrorist has meaningful, real contact with you. He can get to know you, talk to you and interact with you at length before resorting to extreme violence.

This is quite easy. The only time they won't talk to you is when they are actually engaged in their attack. People talk and listen to each other. You just have to be willing to listen and talk back.

1.) Deaths alone? Injuries? Property damage? People displaced/disrupted? <--- All important, valid concerns. I'm sorry, the inaccuracy and incompleteness of a report you cite as a main source is a valid concern, especially when you ask to be shown "where it's wrong."

Automobile crashes. Do you get anywhere in the vicinity of Automobile crashes? If you don't, and can't show how freedom is taken regarding those, nothing you have to say regarding terrorist attacks has any validity. Iraq IEDs are war devices and have nothing to do with any United States terror devices. Where's the IEDs on American Soil, if they are so deadly? They are devilishly simple to make. It'd take me less than a day to fashion one out of crap I got around my house. We are talking about justification to drop the pretense of liking citizens here. A little bit of measure of security in exchange for a tiny amount of freedom. I say it has no justification at all.

2.) Anything? Really? A major terrorist attack doesn't justify any additional security measures? Am I misunderstanding this? If I am, then I would truly like to know.

Nope, you hit the nail on the head. Anything. Any damn thing. From simple metal detectors in courthouses to the Patriot act. All of it should not be there, no matter how badly you feel about 9/11. Terror is a weapon. It is what people want. No response because of a terror attack is the correct action.

3.) Please see section "1" above.

Please see the response to "2" above.

They need to be reasonable and no infringing on people's rights. <--- that's all I'm saying.... How is that bad?

Like what? What would be a "security measure" that infringes upon nobody's rights. I say that there is no such animal. The best you can have is a security measure who infringes on rights you don't feel very important. My line of rights that I feel were important was crossed when security measures in excess of what existed on September 10th, 2001.

I'd imagine a lot of "terrorists" don't talk to their potential victims beforehand. Hence why I pointed out the assumption relied upon that they do in order to persuade them

If the report you cited is incorrect and there is no other data, then how are we to know "if it approaches automobile crashes?" Fair question. Also, why is that the bar it must pass? Talk to any one of the people effected by terrorism, especially the dead ones if you can, they'd say otherwise I think.....

I'm afraid you and I will not agree that there are NO additional security measures justified at all that were not in place before 9/11. My God, I pointed out how Airline Pilots, Crew and Passengers were told to go along with hijackers.

As for a non invasive security measure: I suggested a license and a background check. No, nothing can be perfectly non invasive, that's not how rights work in the real world. People get into controversies because rights at some point inevitably conflict. I want that conflict to be as minimal as possible. License, background checks, reduced patdowns and security lines.

You seem to be seeing things in very black and white terms. nothing is. "Freedom of speech" means suffering the imposition of hearing other people talk when you can't stand what they are saying....

[Kogan Loloklam]

I lived with a certainty that I would be killed if a plane I was riding in was hijacked in a pre 9/11 world Truean, but I STILL think it was an okay view when you consider the lives of the people on the planes. Any other attitude results in a significantly higher casualty rate amongst the passengers, for reasons I explained before.

As for why Autobiles, because Automobiles have very few restrictions against freedoms, which were less than flight in 9/11 world, even though they cause more deaths than terroristic actions.

More US service members died in Automobile accidents than the wars. It's not a joke. The studies I had are all internal DOD stuff, so I can't provide you reliable reports, just shit like Wikipedia which is often inaccurate by broad degrees. The point isn't that it IS inaccurate, but that it is mostly accurate.

So, to be a passenger on an airplane, you propose that people should have to present identifying documentation and register at a central agency? Or is this just in general? Everyone has to have an ID in this country?

Why? Because someone who got in the country legally and whom wouldn't have been stopped even by CURRENT measures crashed some planes into a building and killed a tiny handful of people (relative to the population in that area, as well as the average deaths in the entire country)

[SalmonGod]

My God, I pointed out how Airline Pilots, Crew and Passengers were told to go along with hijackers.

Isn't this pretty standard for civilians in interacting with someone violent, especially in a hostage situation?  What are they told to do now?  I thought it was always 'sit tight, don't be an hero, wait for authorities'.

And I absolutely get that and agree with it. It is just a shift in attitude of such a huge magnitude that ... just wow. Here's the thing, everything you just said, seems to rely on one critical assumption: the suspected terrorist has meaningful, real contact with you. He can get to know you, talk to you and interact with you at length before resorting to extreme violence. I think the dominant attitude here is "once someone has gotten to the point of being that pissed off that they're willing to kill themselves to harm you, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do."

That attitude or way of thinking about it that I just pointed out above this sentence, that is huge when considering this in this discussion.

The question becomes, is there some sort of reconciliation that can occur? <-- The differing answers matter, a lot.

The way I see it, is there's a fundamental choice here.  You can fight in the here and now, increasing your odds of short term self-preservation while destroying any chance of reconciliation.  Or you can be vulnerable, decreasing your odds of short term self-preservation while making reconciliation possible.

Anger isn't the only motive behind violence.  People fight and fight dirty because they don't feel like they have a choice.  They see our aggression the same way we see their aggression.  We don't expect our enemies to stop fighting, so we don't stop fighting.  Our enemies don't expect us to stop fighting, so they don't stop fighting.  We build these walls of violence between us.  They will always be there unless we start taking chances at reaching through them, expecting to get hurt along the way.  Somebody has to take the first step in letting their guard down, so that the other side can feel like they have the opportunity to do the same.

And that doesn't mean placing our heads on a chopping block.  I do think there should be some basic security in airports and on planes, in the form of trained people just being there in case something happens.  What I mean is ceasing retaliation, and creating license and background checks as people sorters for filtering out enemies to discriminate is a form of retaliation; another brick in the wall.  Driver's licenses at least serve a benevolent purpose of ensuring that a person is competent enough behind a wheel not to endanger anyone, though I know that's far from their only purpose.

[Truean]

I lived with a certainty that I would be killed if a plane I was riding in was hijacked in a pre 9/11 world Truean, but I STILL think it was an okay view when you consider the lives of the people on the planes. Any other attitude results in a significantly higher casualty rate amongst the passengers, for reasons I explained before.

As for why Autobiles, because Automobiles have very few restrictions against freedoms, which were less than flight in 9/11 world, even though they cause more deaths than terroristic actions.

More US service members died in Automobile accidents than the wars. It's not a joke. The studies I had are all internal DOD stuff, so I can't provide you reliable reports, just shit like Wikipedia which is often inaccurate by broad degrees. The point isn't that it IS inaccurate, but that it is mostly accurate.

So, to be a passenger on an airplane, you propose that people should have to present identifying documentation and register at a central agency? Or is this just in general? Everyone has to have an ID in this country?

Why? Because someone who got in the country legally and whom wouldn't have been stopped even by CURRENT measures crashed some planes into a building and killed a tiny handful of people (relative to the population in that area, as well as the average deaths in the entire country)

Automobiles have massive restrictions on freedoms. There are entire sections of state law codes devoted to their sale, operation, manufacture, licensing, etc. Cars are massively regulated and chock full of safety and other regs. Driving is full of safety regs and restrictions on freedoms. A stop light is a restriction on your freedom: a necessary one. How many stop lights are there? Lots. I submit you're just used to the restrictions on automobiles and thus don't mind them.

I'm saying I don't know how accurate the reports are, or if they are "accurate enough." I poked holes in them in minutes....

Wanna drive, license. Wanna fly, license. Don't wanna drive or fly, no license. Simple.

The thing about preventable deaths is, they're preventable. You're talking about people like they're statistics. What is the acceptable number of people to give a shit about when we're deathly serious and the preventable death we're serious about might be yours. 1.

My God, I pointed out how Airline Pilots, Crew and Passengers were told to go along with hijackers.

Isn't this pretty standard for civilians in interacting with someone violent, especially in a hostage situation?  What are they told to do now?  I thought it was always 'sit tight, don't be an hero, wait for authorities'.

And I absolutely get that and agree with it. It is just a shift in attitude of such a huge magnitude that ... just wow. Here's the thing, everything you just said, seems to rely on one critical assumption: the suspected terrorist has meaningful, real contact with you. He can get to know you, talk to you and interact with you at length before resorting to extreme violence. I think the dominant attitude here is "once someone has gotten to the point of being that pissed off that they're willing to kill themselves to harm you, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do."

That attitude or way of thinking about it that I just pointed out above this sentence, that is huge when considering this in this discussion.

The question becomes, is there some sort of reconciliation that can occur? <-- The differing answers matter, a lot.

The way I see it, is there's a fundamental choice here.  You can fight in the here and now, increasing your odds of short term self-preservation while destroying any chance of reconciliation.  Or you can be vulnerable, decreasing your odds of short term self-preservation while making reconciliation possible.

Anger isn't the only motive behind violence.  People fight and fight dirty because they don't feel like they have a choice.  They see our aggression the same way we see their aggression.  We don't expect our enemies to stop fighting, so we don't stop fighting.  Our enemies don't expect us to stop fighting, so they don't stop fighting.  We build these walls of violence between us.  They will always be there unless we start taking chances at reaching through them, expecting to get hurt along the way.  Somebody has to take the first step in letting their guard down, so that the other side can feel like they have the opportunity to do the same.

And that doesn't mean placing our heads on a chopping block.  I do think there should be some basic security in airports and on planes, in the form of trained people just being there in case something happens.  What I mean is ceasing retaliation, and creating license and background checks as people sorters for filtering out enemies to discriminate is a form of retaliation; another brick in the wall.  Driver's licenses at least serve a benevolent purpose of ensuring that a person is competent enough behind a wheel not to endanger anyone, though I know that's far from their only purpose.

The Captain is the authority on a plane. Who were we waiting for? Now we have Sky Marshals. They carry guns and actively intervene.

Other than that, it's basic game theory.
Namely it's a lot like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Biology

The bigger the numbers, the better. "Hawk," means fight. "Dove" means peace. If both sides fight, the numbers are 20,20, the lowest possible. If one fights and the other doesn't fighting gets 80 and non fighting gtes 40. If both are peaceful,  60,60.

Prisoner's problem: You've gotta trust the other guy not to screw you over if you don't screw him over. Good luck with that. This is especially true when the stakes are incredibly high.... 

[Kogan Loloklam]

Automobiles have massive restrictions on freedoms. Their are entire sections of state law codes devoted to their sale, operation, manufacture, licensing, etc. Cars are massively regulated and chock full of safety and other regs.

I'm saying I don't know how accurate the reports are, or if they are "accurate enough." I poked holes in them in minutes....

Wanna drive, license. Wanna fly, license. Don't wanna drive or fly, no license. Simple.

Only in Arizona do you need to worry about having a license to be a passenger. (Only partially true, but it applies enough)
Once upon a time, families could see their loved ones off at the docking area. Be it ship or airplane, where it docked with it's version of the port, families could wave to their loved ones as they entered the craft.
But suddenly, people discovered airplanes can actually crash into the sides of buildings! Now Airplanes have special laws. Laws ships and trains don't have. Odd, when you consider the damage a train can do if deliberately hijacked. Or a Ship. But terrorists haven't struck terror there.

The thing about preventable deaths is, they're preventable. You're talking about people like they're statistics. What is the acceptable number of people to give a shit about when we're deathly serious and the preventable death we're serous about might be yours. 1.

Preventable deaths:
Any death by lightening. Ever walked outside in a storm where lightning occured? No? Well guess that one doesn't apply.
Death by being hit by a drunk driver while in the passenger seat of a vehicle. Ever been in an automobile as a passenger? No? Well guess that one doesn't apply.
Any death by Cancer. Do you eat healthy, regularly exercise, avoid all vices, and get regular checkups? Yes? Holy shit, your life must suck!

Obviously I doubt that you really do avoid "avoidable deaths", because ultimately there are other considerations besides the fact "Oh crap, this might kill me!"
I've actually weighed a lot more scenarios than you think I have though, and have long ago decided the freedom is worth the slightly increased chance of death.

...
Other than that, it's basic game theory.
Namely it's a lot like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Biology
...
The bigger the numbers, the better. "Hawk," means fight. "Dove" means peace. If both sides fight, the numbers are 20,20, the lowest possible. If one fights and the other doesn't fighting gets 80 and non fighting gtes 40. If both are peaceful,  60,60.
...
Prisoner's problem: You've gotta trust the other guy not to screw you over if you don't screw him over. Good luck with that. This is especially true when the stakes are incredibly high....

The Prisoner's Dilemma disintegrates with communication. Both want the best for themselves. With communication, as long as neither decides they want to screw the other for no purpose except to screw the other, you are able to get the ideal situation for both people the most often.

The Prisoner's Dilemma disintegrates with common interests. If both people are similar, the natural empathy will encourage the gamble that they will be like you, so you again are able to get the ideal situation for both people.

The Prisoner's Dilemma disintegrates with consequences. If the consequences for anything except an ideal for both parties situation are severe enough, neither side will act destructive to the other for fear of the consequences of the lesser form even if it gives a chance of total victory.

It's not always about trust, and the lack of communication is the only thing that allows the prisoner's dilemma to be a dilemma. Terrorists aren't playing to cause chaos, they are playing to win, and to win that means they want the ideal outcome for them. Cooperation gives them a better outcome than mutual attacks, but someone has to be trustworthy for the other to trust, even if it's at the risk of losing a few rounds. Communication ensures that the ideal situation is what occurs most often.

[SalmonGod]

I'm aware of game theory, but getting increasingly annoyed with it.  It feels designed to convince people that two people making the right choice is the least likely outcome, so the most sensible choice is also the worst one... and then it's just self-fulfilling prophecy.  If people saw choices less like a gamble to avoid personal loss and more like a responsibility, then maybe things wouldn't be so complicated after all.

But I know you're aware of this, Truean, and do sacrifice for the sake of doing the right thing regularly.  So this isn't anything against you.  Just a general complaint.

[Dakk]

America becomes a police state, CERN comes to a few breakthroughs in phisics... John Titor's predictions are comming true a bit late, but its rather scary. Joking , but its a nice piece of sci fi hoax you might wanna look up, especialy due to how it the setting for it and this year's crazyness match almost perfectly.

/off topic

Sorry.

[SalmonGod]

Don't know much about the John Titor thing, but I was predicting this state of politics since 2007... It was obvious that Obama was going to win.  I had no faith in him back then and was telling everybody that around the third year of his term, the nation would begin erupting in disappointment, disillusion, cynicism, desperation, and anger.