Re: F-35, not F-22, to Protect U.S. Airspace

[hcobb]

On 9/11 random airline passengers were better prepared to defend
America than the USAF was.

What exactly has changed since?

-HJC

[150flivver]

On Feb 1, 6:48*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On 9/11 random airline passengers were better prepared to defend
> America than the USAF was.
>
> What exactly has changed since?
>
> -HJC

Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? I guess the
Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
warming either.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

150flivver ha scritto:
> On Feb 1, 6:48 pm, hcobb > wrote:
>> On 9/11 random airline passengers were better prepared to defend
>> America than the USAF was.
>>
>> What exactly has changed since?

> Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? I guess the
> Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
> warming either.

Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?

Certain Air Forces (surely the Japanese) can accept this, with the
ultimate sacrifice (It's fully conceivable that a Japanese Pilot with
this order choose to wilco it ramming the hijacked a/c, atoning his act
with his sacrifice (and place in the Yasukuni shrine..) but about many
other A/F & their pilots & aircrews ?

It's a rather loaded issue in Military Ethic, I fear....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 1, 10:18*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:

> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?

I'm fairly certain American pilots would, if they were in a 9/11 type
scenario or had a good reason to think they were faced with one- i.e.,
you have a hijacked airliner that's heading for a major city. I
remember reading an Aviation Leak article that interviewed the two
F-16 pilots who were scrambled to intercept Flight 93 short of
Washington- one had no ordinance whatsoever, the other had half a
magazine of 20mm. Their plan was for the first guy to empty his gun
into the airliner, and if that didn't work the wingman was going to
try to ram it. Thanks to the heroics of the Flight 93 passengers they
never had to put that plan into action, but both of them seemed
completely convinced that they would have gone through with it if
required.

> Certain Air Forces (surely the Japanese) can accept this, with the
> ultimate sacrifice (It's fully conceivable that a Japanese Pilot with
> this order choose to wilco it ramming the hijacked a/c, atoning his act
> with his sacrifice (and place in the Yasukuni shrine..) but about many
> other A/F & their pilots & aircrews ?

I'm not sure you can assume most Japanese pilots would feel that way-
Yasukuni is still very much bound up with the rest of pre-WWII style
militarism in Japan, and tends to be the province of the far political
right more than a universal cultural icon. No doubt there are a good
number of Japanese pilots who would feel that way but I wouldn't
assume that JASDF pilots as a whole would be any more or less
conflicted than any other air force's pilots. If we were discussing a
similar scenario in the 1930s or early 40s, I might go along with you.

-JTD

> It's a rather loaded issue in Military Ethic, I fear....
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

[hcobb]

On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
> Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? I guess the
> Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
> warming either.

Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
aircraft in American skies?

Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?

-HJC

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Jeff Dougherty ha scritto:
> On Feb 1, 10:18 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> > wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
>> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?
>
> I'm fairly certain American pilots would, if they were in a 9/11 type
> scenario or had a good reason to think they were faced with one- i.e.,
> you have a hijacked airliner that's heading for a major city. I
> remember reading an Aviation Leak article that interviewed the two
> F-16 pilots who were scrambled to intercept Flight 93 short of
> Washington- one had no ordinance whatsoever, the other had half a
> magazine of 20mm. Their plan was for the first guy to empty his gun
> into the airliner, and if that didn't work the wingman was going to
> try to ram it. Thanks to the heroics of the Flight 93 passengers they
> never had to put that plan into action, but both of them seemed
> completely convinced that they would have gone through with it if
> required.

I can agree on this (and both pilots, esp. the Wingman) but back then
these was desperate measures under exceptional circumstances. Another
thing is actually planning & ordering the deliberate killing of
civilian, many of them citizens of the same country of the AF involved
(I keep this on the general perspective) this is the major military
Ethic issue I refer.... I'm sure many air forces have contingency plans
on this, but that the orders will be given and carried, is a really big
unknown;
And if in the aftermath is ascertained that was a false alarm, (that is,
the a/c wasn't hijacked and/or the hijackers has no intention to use the
a/c as weapon) the morale of the entire AF involved is guaranteed to
plummet to the very low, esp. of the people more or less directly
involved in giving executing that order.


>> Certain Air Forces (surely the Japanese) can accept this, with the
>> ultimate sacrifice (It's fully conceivable that a Japanese Pilot with
>> this order choose to wilco it ramming the hijacked a/c, atoning his act
>> with his sacrifice (and place in the Yasukuni shrine..) but about many
>> other A/F & their pilots & aircrews ?
>
> I'm not sure you can assume most Japanese pilots would feel that way-
> Yasukuni is still very much bound up with the rest of pre-WWII style
> militarism in Japan, and tends to be the province of the far political
> right more than a universal cultural icon. No doubt there are a good
> number of Japanese pilots who would feel that way but I wouldn't
> assume that JASDF pilots as a whole would be any more or less
> conflicted than any other air force's pilots. If we were discussing a
> similar scenario in the 1930s or early 40s, I might go along with you.

You seems to dismiss the culture & mindset of Japanese (and Eastern
people in general) whose are much more inclined towards self-sacrifice,
Divine Wind or not (think about deaths caused by overwork (seems to me
that in Japanese is called "kuroshi", but I'm not sure...)

>> It's a rather loaded issue in Military Ethic, I fear....


Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[hcobb]

On Feb 2, 8:18 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?

No.

That is the business as usual, USAF SOP, pre-9/11 thinking that got us
into this mess in the first place.

The terrorists have already ensured the deaths of the hostages and
that blood is not on the hands of our brave airmen.

Their job is to first protect as much of America as they can and
second defeat America's enemies.

MAD is perfectly acceptable, against a rational foe that values their
own lives. Against others preemptive kills will be required. Again
this is no fault, no crime and no sin on the heads of America's
warriors.

Now if Europe fails to back President Neo against terrorist states and
so forces America to take action to take out the danger (that is even
more acute for Europe simply because they don't got no Atlantic moat
for the limited protection that offers in a global world), then the
blame for the hundreds, thousands or millions of lives to be lost does
not fall on America.

-HJC

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 2, 4:55*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:18 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
> >> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?
>
> > I'm fairly certain American pilots would, if they were in a 9/11 type
> > scenario or had a good reason to think they were faced with one- i.e.,
> > you have a hijacked airliner that's heading for a major city. *I
> > remember reading an Aviation Leak article that interviewed the two
> > F-16 pilots who were scrambled to intercept Flight 93 short of
> > Washington- one had no ordinance whatsoever, the other had half a
> > magazine of 20mm. *Their plan was for the first guy to empty his gun
> > into the airliner, and if that didn't work the wingman was going to
> > try to ram it. *Thanks to the heroics of the Flight 93 passengers they
> > never had to put that plan into action, but both of them seemed
> > completely convinced that they would have gone through with it if
> > required.
>
> I can agree on this (and both pilots, esp. the Wingman) but back then
> these was desperate measures under exceptional circumstances. Another
> thing is actually planning & ordering the deliberate killing of
> civilian, many of them citizens of the same country of the AF involved
> (I keep this on the general perspective) this is the major military
> Ethic issue I refer.... I'm sure many air forces have contingency plans
> on this, but that the orders will be given and carried, is a really big
> unknown;
> And if in the aftermath is ascertained that was a false alarm, (that is,
> the a/c wasn't hijacked and/or the hijackers has no intention to use the
> a/c as weapon) the morale of the entire AF involved is guaranteed to
> plummet to the very low, esp. of the people more or less directly
> involved in giving executing that order.

I don't think it's an unknown at all. We know that two more-or-less
random pilots were willing to down an airliner on 9/11 without having
*any* time to absorb the concept that a passenger plane could be used
as a weapon. That seems to suggest rather strongly that USAF pilots
in general would be willing to carry out orders to down an airliner in
a "new 9/11" scenario, which is what you were talking about above, and
I'm not aware of anything that would make me think pilots from other
air forces would act differently.

I'm not sure how either of the "false alarm" scenarios would happen
either. There have been several cases since 9/11 where airliners have
mistakenly squawked 7700, but it's always been sorted out- the flight
crew would have to accidentally trip the hijack switch, accidentally
fail to answer repeated calls from ATC, and then fail to notice the
very concerned F-16 driver flying formation lead on them and letting
them see some real Sidewinders. Not that it couldn't happen ever, but
if it does it takes so many coincidences it's almost an act of God.
As for the hijackers not planning to use the plane as a weapon, how
would you know that at the time? (Remember, the 9/11 hijackers told
the passengers aboard their planes that they were returning to their
origin airports.) You have to assume that the plane full of fellow
citizens is about to be used to kill thousands of fellow citizens on
the ground. And even if it turns out months later they were planning
a hostage play...well, then the pilot would have made the best call he
could based on capabilities, not intentions.

(Anyone planning an airline hostage play in today's world would be
well advised to plan their takeover to happen while the airplane's
over nothing in particular and to have a landing field scouted out in
the middle of nowhere. If you take over an airplane these days and
ask to be diverted near a major city, I wouldn't count on getting
there.)

> >> Certain Air Forces (surely the Japanese) can accept this, with the
> >> ultimate sacrifice (It's fully conceivable that a Japanese Pilot with
> >> this order choose to wilco it ramming the hijacked a/c, atoning his act
> >> with his sacrifice (and place in the Yasukuni shrine..) but about many
> >> other A/F & their pilots & aircrews ?
>
> > I'm not sure you can assume most Japanese pilots would feel that way-
> > Yasukuni is still very much bound up with the rest of pre-WWII style
> > militarism in Japan, and tends to be the province of the far political
> > right more than a universal cultural icon. *No doubt there are a good
> > number of Japanese pilots who would feel that way but I wouldn't
> > assume that JASDF pilots as a whole would be any more or less
> > conflicted than any other air force's pilots. *If we were discussing a
> > similar scenario in the 1930s or early 40s, I might go along with you.
>
> You seems to dismiss the culture & mindset of Japanese (and Eastern
> people in general) whose are much more inclined towards self-sacrifice,
> Divine Wind or not (think about deaths caused by overwork (seems to me
> that in Japanese is called "kuroshi", but I'm not sure...)

I'm quite aware of Japan's cultural distinctness, I just think you're
overgeneralizing. The scenario you posited could certainly happen,
but as with any culture Japanese people have a wide spectrum of
beliefs, and without some actual data I wouldn't be prepared to say
that a JASDF pilot would be more or less likely to fire in that
scenario than a USAF or RAF pilot.

-JTD

> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

[frank]

OK guys, take a deep breath.

Couple of points. Its a GAO study. Some of them are good, some of them
are well, studies. GAO does not have subject matter experts. Think of
grad students that go out and write a paper on something. Like I said,
some good, some bad. Some really atrocious.

One point to consider. It costs a lot of bucks to keep planes ready on
the tarmac. Backups, maintenance, crews. And its boring. Some places
like Alaska, yeah you get some launches. Most places you end up
playing games.

And remember, 9/11 was launched INTERNALLY.

Anybody here want to shoot down an American airliner? Over the US?
Thought not.

And yeah, there are still NORAD or ADC sectors that take care of air
traffic. Lots of them. I think it was Vanity Fair that broke the story
on this when the tapes from the sector that dealt with NY and DC were
declassified.

Read through the transcripts, its like anything else, real time,
nobody knows what's going on. Like we always used to joke, best Intel
was from CNN. That's not too far from the truth.

Bluntly, we don't need a lot of effort spent on this. It'll probably
never happen again, and there are better ways to prevent it. OK,
besides letting groups of Arab looking guys get on the same flight
with box cutters. IF you look at what happened on 9/11 and where the
system failed, I'm not going to say the US is doing much better on all
this. At least El Al has professionals doing their flight screening.
But we can't afford to do that. Or we will until the first quarter
bill comes in.

[150flivver]

On Feb 2, 3:08*am, hcobb > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> > Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? *I guess the
> > Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
> > warming either.
>
> Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
> aircraft in American skies?
>
> Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?
>
> -HJC

9/11 was a criminal act conducted by foreign criminals. Calling it
war doesn't make it so. Law enforcement is something I don't want the
military involved in. The FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this one,
not the Air Force. Shooting down airliners filled with hostages/
citizens is something the Soviet Union would do, not what the USA does.

[Archaeopteryx]

On Feb 2, 6:52*pm, frank > wrote:
> OK guys, take a deep breath.
>
> Couple of points. Its a GAO study. Some of them are good, some of them
> are well, studies. GAO does not have subject matter experts. Think of
> grad students that go out and write a paper on something. Like I said,
> some good, some bad. Some really atrocious.
>
> One point to consider. It costs a lot of bucks to keep planes ready on
> the tarmac. Backups, maintenance, crews. And its boring. Some places
> like Alaska, yeah you get some launches. Most places you end up
> playing games.
>
> And remember, 9/11 was launched INTERNALLY.
>
> Anybody here want to shoot down an American airliner? Over the US?
> Thought not.
>
> And yeah, there are still NORAD or ADC sectors that take care of air
> traffic. Lots of them. I think it was Vanity Fair that broke the story
> on this when the tapes from the sector that dealt with NY and DC were
> declassified.
>
> Read through the transcripts, its like anything else, real time,
> nobody knows what's going on. Like we always used to joke, best Intel
> was from CNN. That's not too far from the truth.
>
> Bluntly, we don't need a lot of effort spent on this. It'll probably
> never happen again, and there are better ways to prevent it. OK,
> besides letting groups of Arab looking guys get on the same flight
> with box cutters. IF you look at what happened on 9/11 and where the
> system failed, I'm not going to say the US is doing much better on all
> this. At least El Al has professionals doing their flight screening.
> But we can't afford to do that. Or we will until the first quarter
> bill comes in.


Agreed.

> Bluntly, we don't need a lot of effort spent on this. It'll probably
> never happen again, and there are better ways to prevent it. OK,
> besides letting groups of Arab looking guys get on the same flight
> with box cutters.

In a purely speculative sense, one would think that some common sense
measures that were mandated to be in place years ago - especially
secured cockpit doors and bulkheads proof against small arms - would
pretty much render the question hypothetical. While hijacker(s) of any
motive might get loose in the cabin with a box cutter or even a small
arm of some variety, if they can't get into the cockpit, they can't
control the aircraft.

A hijacker is essentially reduced to two gruesome options: threaten to
start carving up passengers if his demands aren't met - which, while a
psychological burden on the cockpit crew, it isn't likely a demand to
be met post 9/11, or threaten to detonate a bomb which will destroy
the plane - which is a possibility, but lack of control denies them
the aircraft itself as a weapon of any accuracy.

Not much point in shooting down an airliner that can't be hijacked
from its intended course, regardless of whatever tragedies might
occurring in the cabin.

[Ian B MacLure]

hcobb > wrote in news:652ccc48-41dd-4d32-923a-
:

> On 9/11 random airline passengers were better prepared to defend
> America than the USAF was.
>
> What exactly has changed since?

Klintoon is out of office.
And we've had 8 years to think about the consequences of letting
our guard down. Plus ample demonstration of the kind of domestic
enemies who still think its 9/10.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

150flivver > wrote in news:e6533896-54b5-46bc-b1d8-
:

> On Feb 1, 6:48*pm, hcobb > wrote:
>> On 9/11 random airline passengers were better prepared to defend
>> America than the USAF was.
>>
>> What exactly has changed since?
>>
>> -HJC
>
> Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? I guess the
> Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
> warming either.

The Air Force wasn't at fault.
It was a massive and systemic intelligence failure made possible
by obstructions to the sharing of what we did know put in place by
Klintoon and krew.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Jeff Dougherty > wrote in news:61f32a71-61f7-
:

> On Feb 1, 10:18*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> > wrote:
>
>> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
>> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?
>
> I'm fairly certain American pilots would, if they were in a 9/11 type

In a new 9/11 situation the hijackers wouldn't have made it out
of their seats. The other passengers would disembowel them with
plastic cutlery and use their guts to tie the remains into very
small bundles. Some looney went nuts on a plane here recently and
wound up subject to the undivided attention of some very ****ed
off fellow passengers.
Anything that looks even slightly hinky around me gets reported
and I start looking for something to use as a weapon until the
cavalry arrives.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> a/c as weapon) the morale of the entire AF involved is guaranteed to
> plummet to the very low, esp. of the people more or less directly
> involved in giving executing that order.

In mission control at NASA there is a switch that destroys
the launch vehicle should it show signs of endangering
the civilian population.
That protocol includes the manned vehicles.
Its a bitch of a responsibility but necessary.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

hcobb > wrote in news:da77e6cd-ee43-4fcb-8644-
:

[snip]

> Now if Europe fails to back President Neo against terrorist states and
> so forces America to take action to take out the danger (that is even
> more acute for Europe simply because they don't got no Atlantic moat
> for the limited protection that offers in a global world), then the
> blame for the hundreds, thousands or millions of lives to be lost does
> not fall on America.

And of course the Eurabians including Il Dottore's country all
have enormous Mooselimb fifth columns resident therein and a
power elite that seems determined to hand them the knives they
will use to slit Eurabian throats.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

150flivver > wrote in news:359a3711-b5ea-4741-
:

> On Feb 2, 3:08*am, hcobb > wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? *I guess the
>> > Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
>> > warming either.
>>
>> Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
>> aircraft in American skies?
>>
>> Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?
>>
>> -HJC
>
> 9/11 was a criminal act conducted by foreign criminals. Calling it

It was an act of war by a non-state actor. We quite properly
took it at face value and opened hostilities on the actors
and their supporters.

> war doesn't make it so. Law enforcement is something I don't want the
> military involved in. The FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this one,
> not the Air Force. Shooting down airliners filled with hostages/
> citizens is something the Soviet Union would do, not what the USA does.

The FBI and CIA had been knecapped by Jamie Gorelick at Klintoon's
behest. It was more than your career was worth to ask inconvenient
questions or, god forbid, share information. Many of the necessary
dots were already plotted. They just could not legally be connected
and it took an enormous effort against determined Dhimmicrap
opposition to change that situation.

IBM

[T.L. Davis]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:25:48 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
wrote:

>Jeff Dougherty > wrote in news:61f32a71-61f7-
:
>
>> On Feb 1, 10:18*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Trouble is, in a new 9/11 emergency, Pilots will have the will and
>>> nerves to shoot knowing that they are killing also civilians ?
>>
>> I'm fairly certain American pilots would, if they were in a 9/11 type
>
> In a new 9/11 situation the hijackers wouldn't have made it out
> of their seats. The other passengers would disembowel them with
> plastic cutlery and use their guts to tie the remains into very
> small bundles. Some looney went nuts on a plane here recently and
> wound up subject to the undivided attention of some very ****ed
> off fellow passengers.
> Anything that looks even slightly hinky around me gets reported
> and I start looking for something to use as a weapon until the
> cavalry arrives.
>
> IBM

The one all purpose carry on weapon still allowed is the big heavy
cowboy belt buckle. Slip off the belt and raise hell.

Sorry for the rant and the unrealistic scenario, but it just blows my
mind that only slightly more than a dozen fighters were on station.
Might as well phase out NORAD altogether except for missile defense
and retaliation.

TL

[Peter Skelton]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:45:03 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
wrote:

>hcobb > wrote in news:da77e6cd-ee43-4fcb-8644-
:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Now if Europe fails to back President Neo against terrorist states and
>> so forces America to take action to take out the danger (that is even
>> more acute for Europe simply because they don't got no Atlantic moat
>> for the limited protection that offers in a global world), then the
>> blame for the hundreds, thousands or millions of lives to be lost does
>> not fall on America.
>
> And of course the Eurabians including Il Dottore's country all
> have enormous Mooselimb fifth columns resident therein and a
> power elite that seems determined to hand them the knives they
> will use to slit Eurabian throats.
>
Could I humbly sugggest that you look into muslim populations
before you spew your tripe? The US has a larger Muslim population
than any European country but Russia. On a per cant basis it is
near the European median.

That or use smileys.

Peter Skelton

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 2, 9:51*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> 150flivver > wrote in news:359a3711-b5ea-4741-
> :
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:08*am, hcobb > wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> >> > Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? *I guess the
> >> > Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or global
> >> > warming either.
>
> >> Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
> >> aircraft in American skies?
>
> >> Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?
>
> >> -HJC
>
> > 9/11 was a criminal act conducted by foreign criminals. *Calling it
>
> * * * * It was an act of war by a non-state actor. We quite properly
> * * * * took it at face value and opened hostilities on the actors
> * * * * and their supporters.
>
> > war doesn't make it so. *Law enforcement is something I don't want the
> > military involved in. *The FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this one,
> > not the Air Force. *Shooting down airliners filled with hostages/
> > citizens is something the Soviet Union would do, not what the USA does.
>
> * * * * The FBI and CIA had been knecapped by Jamie Gorelick at Klintoon's
> * * * * behest. It was more than your career was worth to ask inconvenient
> * * * * questions or, god forbid, share information. Many of the necessary
> * * * * dots were already plotted. They just could not legally be connected
> * * * * and it took an enormous effort against determined Dhimmicrap
> * * * * opposition to change that situation.
>
> * * * * IBM

IIRC Clinton left office in January 2001, the FBI and CIA continued
their feud that says "I won't tell you anything you can use", and FBI
telephone taps that should have been tied to that "Osama bin Ladin
wants to do harm to the US" line in the PDB. As near as I can tell
that division still exists, perhaps expanded by the NSA being able to
say "I know something you don't". We now have an extra level of DNI to
add to the various inter service and interagency versions of that same
attitude. I would bet that more useful intelligence gets stuffed into
burn bags than gets into the PDB.

[Ian B MacLure]

T.L. Davis > wrote in
:

[snip]

> The one all purpose carry on weapon still allowed is the big heavy
> cowboy belt buckle. Slip off the belt and raise hell.
>
> Sorry for the rant and the unrealistic scenario, but it just blows my
> mind that only slightly more than a dozen fighters were on station.
> Might as well phase out NORAD altogether except for missile defense
> and retaliation.

Your Peace Dividend at work. If we'd managed to put the pieces
we had together in time the hijacked flights would never have
left the ground so what Continental AD posture was is kind of
a secondary consideration.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Peter Skelton > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Could I humbly sugggest that you look into muslim populations
> before you spew your tripe? The US has a larger Muslim population
> than any European country but Russia. On a per cant basis it is
> near the European median.

Oh really? And we have the same sort of exurban ghettos populated
by pig ignorant hill tribesmen from gawd only knows where ( outside
of Dearbornistan and al-Hamtramck of course ). Different demographic
and despite your claims nowhere near the numbers.

I dare say al-Qanada has, at some 600,000, or so a higher Mooselimb
population (percentagewise) than does the US.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Jack Linthicum > wrote in
:

> On Feb 2, 9:51*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>> 150flivver > wrote in
>> news:359a3711-b5ea-4741-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 3:08*am, hcobb > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? *I guess
>> >> > t
> he
>> >> > Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or
>> >> > global warming either.
>>
>> >> Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
>> >> aircraft in American skies?
>>
>> >> Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?
>>
>> >> -HJC
>>
>> > 9/11 was a criminal act conducted by foreign criminals. *Calling it
>>
>> * * * * It was an act of war by a non-state actor. We quite prope
> rly
>> * * * * took it at face value and opened hostilities on the actor
> s
>> * * * * and their supporters.
>>
>> > war doesn't make it so. *Law enforcement is something I don't want
>> > th
> e
>> > military involved in. *The FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this
>> > one, not the Air Force. *Shooting down airliners filled with
>> > hostages/ citizens is something the Soviet Union would do, not what
>> > the USA does.
>>
>> * * * * The FBI and CIA had been knecapped by Jamie Gorelick at K
> lintoon's
>> * * * * behest. It was more than your career was worth to ask inc
> onvenient
>> * * * * questions or, god forbid, share information. Many of the
> necessary
>> * * * * dots were already plotted. They just could not legally be
> connected
>> * * * * and it took an enormous effort against determined Dhimmic
> rap
>> * * * * opposition to change that situation.
>>
>> * * * * IBM
>
> IIRC Clinton left office in January 2001, the FBI and CIA continued
> their feud that says "I won't tell you anything you can use", and FBI

Funny you should mention that cause theres a PBS show on right
now about what was known about the 9/11 and how the FBI who had
agents assigned to the CIA unit tracking Bin Laden could not legally
be told what the CIA knew. So far all the narrative takes place
well prior to mid January 2001.

> telephone taps that should have been tied to that "Osama bin Ladin
> wants to do harm to the US" line in the PDB. As near as I can tell
> that division still exists, perhaps expanded by the NSA being able to
> say "I know something you don't". We now have an extra level of DNI to

Up until about two eeks ago any FedGov agency practicing that sort
of dog in the manger routine would ahve found themsleves assigned
to sorting through jihadi trash heaps in Indian country. Now that
Soetaro is calling the shots who knows?

> add to the various inter service and interagency versions of that same
> attitude. I would bet that more useful intelligence gets stuffed into
> burn bags than gets into the PDB.

And yet the air over Pakistan is filed with the remains of recently
deceased al-Qaeda leaders.

IBM

[frank]

On Feb 3, 10:47*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 9:51*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> >> 150flivver > wrote in
> >> news:359a3711-b5ea-4741-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Feb 2, 3:08*am, hcobb > wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 2, 6:45 am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Exactly how was the Air Force supposed to prevent 9/11? *I guess
> >> >> > t
> > he
> >> >> > Air Force wasn't prepared to prevent the banking crisis or
> >> >> > global warming either.
>
> >> >> Which service is it that's supposed to at least intercept hostile
> >> >> aircraft in American skies?
>
> >> >> Perhaps this also should be handed over to the USMC?
>
> >> >> -HJC
>
> >> > 9/11 was a criminal act conducted by foreign criminals. *Calling it
>
> >> * * * * It was an act of war by a non-state actor. We quite prope
> > rly
> >> * * * * took it at face value and opened hostilities on the actor
> > s
> >> * * * * and their supporters.
>
> >> > war doesn't make it so. *Law enforcement is something I don't want
> >> > th
> > e
> >> > military involved in. *The FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this
> >> > one, not the Air Force. *Shooting down airliners filled with
> >> > hostages/ citizens is something the Soviet Union would do, not what
> >> > the USA does.
>
> >> * * * * The FBI and CIA had been knecapped by Jamie Gorelick at K
> > lintoon's
> >> * * * * behest. It was more than your career was worth to ask inc
> > onvenient
> >> * * * * questions or, god forbid, share information. Many of the
> > necessary
> >> * * * * dots were already plotted. They just could not legally be
> > *connected
> >> * * * * and it took an enormous effort against determined Dhimmic
> > rap
> >> * * * * opposition to change that situation.
>
> >> * * * * IBM
>
> > IIRC Clinton left office in January 2001, the FBI and CIA continued
> > their feud that says "I won't tell you anything you can use", and FBI
>
> * * * * Funny you should mention that cause theres a PBS show on right
> * * * * now about what was known about the 9/11 and how the FBI who had
> * * * * agents assigned to the CIA unit tracking Bin Laden could not legally
> * * * * be told what the CIA knew. So far all the narrative takes place
> * * * * well prior to mid January 2001.
>
> > telephone taps that should have been tied to that "Osama bin Ladin
> > wants to do harm to the US" line in the PDB. As near as I can tell
> > that division still exists, perhaps expanded by the NSA being able to
> > say "I know something you don't". We now have an extra level of DNI to
>
> * * * * Up until about two eeks ago any FedGov agency practicing that sort
> * * * * of dog in the manger routine would ahve found themsleves assigned
> * * * * to sorting through jihadi trash heaps in Indian country. Now that
> * * * * Soetaro is calling the shots who knows?
>
> > add to the various inter service and interagency versions of that same
> > attitude. I would bet that more useful intelligence gets stuffed into
> > burn bags than gets into the PDB.
>
> * * * * And yet the air over Pakistan is filed with the remains of recently
> * * * * deceased al-Qaeda leaders.
>
> * * * * IBM

Yeah, but talk to anybody who has been in DC, cultures never change. I
remember when JFK wanted to dismember the CIA and strew it to the
winds over what it said about Cuba. i.e. they'd love us, rise up, we'd
be heroes (hmmm where have I heard that recently??).

Go read the seminal papers in political science on groupthink. there
is a reason they are still assigned 20 plus years later in graduate
school. I read them as an under grad, later after I decided to go back
for a PhD.

bureaucracies really get entrenched. one reason is they self select
for people that agree with the current mindset. pick an idea. fight
mafia in the USAF, anything. cultures are difficult to change. you
can't fire everybody.

maybe in a generation after all the old farts retire, you can get
something done.

there is probably a reason it took a good 20 plus years to get the IRA
to get to the peace table.

much as I admire the military, its not the solution to all the
problems. though its easier to go to a military solution.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Ian B MacLure wrote:
> Peter Skelton > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> Could I humbly sugggest that you look into muslim populations
>> before you spew your tripe? The US has a larger Muslim population
>> than any European country but Russia. On a per cant basis it is
>> near the European median.
>
> Oh really?

Yes ! Really !
.........have a boo at this page....
http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php

>And we have the same sort of exurban ghettos populated
> by pig ignorant hill tribesmen from gawd only knows where ( outside
> of Dearbornistan and al-Hamtramck of course ). >Different

As opposed to those lovely *fascist* 'Right To Work States', esposed by so
many lovely Southerners etal .

> demographic and despite your claims nowhere near the numbers.
>
> I dare say al-Qanada has, at some 600,000,

Canada
.... pop. 31, 592,805 muslim pop. 1.5% = 473,892
....oops wrong again !

>or so a higher Mooselimb
> population (percentagewise) than does the US.

US pop. 278,058,881 muslim pop. 3.5%= 9,732,061

You have us beat by a ratio of 2 to 1, dildo ! Enjoy !

cheers....Jeff


> IBM

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Jeffrey Hamilton" > wrote in message
...

>
> Canada
> ... pop. 31, 592,805 muslim pop. 1.5% = 473,892
> ...oops wrong again !
>
>>or so a higher Mooselimb
>> population (percentagewise) than does the US.
>
> US pop. 278,058,881 muslim pop. 3.5%= 9,732,061
>
> You have us beat by a ratio of 2 to 1, dildo ! Enjoy !
>
Hah! We're number 1!

Glenn D.

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:47:06 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
wrote:

> Funny you should mention that cause theres a PBS show on right
> now about what was known about the 9/11 and how the FBI who had
> agents assigned to the CIA unit tracking Bin Laden could not legally
> be told what the CIA knew. So far all the narrative takes place
> well prior to mid January 2001.

Ayup. The FBI and CIA always had separate spheres of influence but,
IIRC, the legal prohibition on sharing information dates to the '70s
when "anti-war activists" got the Congress to forbid exchanges of
information. I'm sure they thought they were dealing with an abuse of
power stemming from Viet Nam War era activities; just one more
demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

It remains to be seen what kind of "change" the new guy will put in
place in DC. So far he is a Master of the Media and Sultan of
Soundbites. The substance of anything is yet to be known.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 4, 3:19*pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:47:06 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
> wrote:
>
> > * * * * * *Funny you should mention that cause theres a PBS show on right
> > * * * * * *now about what was known about the 9/11 and how the FBI who had
> > * * * * * *agents assigned to the CIA unit tracking Bin Laden could not legally
> > * * * * * *be told what the CIA knew. So far all the narrative takes place
> > * * * * * *well prior to mid January 2001.
>
> Ayup. *The FBI and CIA always had separate spheres of influence but,
> IIRC, the legal prohibition on sharing information dates to the '70s
> when "anti-war activists" got the Congress to forbid exchanges of
> information. *I'm sure they thought they were dealing with an abuse of
> power stemming from Viet Nam War era activities; just one more
> demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>
> It remains to be seen what kind of "change" the new guy will put in
> place in DC. *So far he is a Master of the Media and Sultan of
> Soundbites. *The substance of anything is yet to be known.

example

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1217/p2s1-usgn.html

[Ian B MacLure]

[Horse**** snipped]

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Mooselimbs of all kinds are 0.6% of the US population
about one/third the Jewish or Mormon slice.
You can spin it any way you like but the bottom line
is that the US has nowhere near the kind of Mooselimb
demographic that Eurabia has. The US for instance did
not for instance import Mooselimbs as cheap labo(u)r.
In short we may have them but they aren't generally
susceptible to the same kind of issues that makes oh
say Fwance the Car-B-Que capital of the World. Nor
are US Mooselimbs multi-generational strangers in a
strange land as in Germany. To be sure there are some
recent immigrants who'd like to have it that way but
time isn't on their side and cultural assimilation
will proceed apace. I know people who have converted to
and from Islam. Its one of many choices they make in life.
To digress a little, there is, in the Imperial valley of
Kalifornia, a numerous clan of Mohammeds all Catholic.
A couple of generations ago their forebear immigrated
from the Punjab and eventually married a local Hispanic woman
with the stated result.
And you completely ignored one very important component of the US
Mooselimb population. African Americans either of the Nation of
Islam or orthodox persuasion represent something like 1/3 of the
Mooselimb population. I have issues with the NoI as racists but
but they aren't terribly dangerous except at times to themselves
unfortunately.
Not like having a population nearly all closely connected with some
fetid Jihadistan or other as is the case in Eurabia.

IBM

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:40:46 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote in
:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Could I humbly sugggest that you look into muslim populations
>> before you spew your tripe? The US has a larger Muslim population
>> than any European country but Russia. On a per cant basis it is
>> near the European median.
>
> Oh really? And we have the same sort of exurban ghettos populated
> by pig ignorant hill tribesmen from gawd only knows where ( outside
> of Dearbornistan and al-Hamtramck of course ). Different demographic
> and despite your claims nowhere near the numbers.
>
It seems you are ignorant and too stupid to look stuff up when
challenged.

> I dare say al-Qanada has, at some 600,000, or so a higher Mooselimb
> population (percentagewise) than does the US.
>
Canada's Muslim population is aobut half the US's on a per
capita basis.

Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:52 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
wrote:

>
> [Horse**** snipped]
>
> According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
> Mooselimbs of all kinds are 0.6% of the US population
> about one/third the Jewish or Mormon slice.

You must have looked hard for that bit of miasinformation. It's
the low end of teh US state department estimate as published in
the CIA factbook and Wiki. We know the US state department is
always right and never tells any fibs.


Peter Skelton

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 7:36*am, Peter Skelton > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:52 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > * * * * * *[Horse**** snipped]
>
> > * * * * * *According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
> > * * * * * *Mooselimbs of all kinds are 0.6% of the US population
> > * * * * * *about one/third the Jewish or Mormon slice.
>
> You must have looked hard for that bit of miasinformation. It's
> the low end of teh US state department estimate as published in
> the CIA factbook and Wiki. We know the US state department is
> always right and never tells any fibs.
>
> Peter Skelton

Yes, the World Almanac has each about the same number which, by logic
impressed in me by my high school math teachers, would mean each is
about the same percentage of the population. I read 1.5% or so for
each

Jews 5,729, 147
LDS 5,310,598
Islam 4,760,437

all from the World Christian Database, which seems to be members only.

[Ian B MacLure]

Peter Skelton > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:52 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> [Horse**** snipped]
>>
>> According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
>> Mooselimbs of all kinds are 0.6% of the US population
>> about one/third the Jewish or Mormon slice.
>
> You must have looked hard for that bit of miasinformation. It's
> the low end of teh US state department estimate as published in
> the CIA factbook and Wiki. We know the US state department is
> always right and never tells any fibs.

Even the unindicted co-conspirators at CAIR don't have
the chutzpah to claim the numbers you do. Kanuckistan
is crawling with rabid ****lamists. Only place I ever
ran into a full-on honest to gawd burqah burdened bint
was in Montreal. Complete with the grillwork over the
eyeholes.
The US State Department couldn't find their own ass with
both hands and close recce by multiple SEAL Teams.
All the upper end estimates have been criticized heavily
for suspect methodology.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Jack Linthicum > wrote in news:989e1ec7-9182-
:

> On Feb 5, 7:36*am, Peter Skelton > wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:52 -0600, Ian B MacLure >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > * * * * * *[Horse**** snipped]
>>
>> > * * * * * *According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Publi
> c Life
>> > * * * * * *Mooselimbs of all kinds are 0.6% of the US popul
> ation
>> > * * * * * *about one/third the Jewish or Mormon slice.
>>
>> You must have looked hard for that bit of miasinformation. It's
>> the low end of teh US state department estimate as published in
>> the CIA factbook and Wiki. We know the US state department is
>> always right and never tells any fibs.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
> Yes, the World Almanac has each about the same number which, by logic
> impressed in me by my high school math teachers, would mean each is
> about the same percentage of the population. I read 1.5% or so for
> each
>
> Jews 5,729, 147
> LDS 5,310,598
> Islam 4,760,437

And don't forget that 1.6M of the 4.8M are African Americans.

IBM.