New demands for more GA security

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:33:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::


It would be interesting to know precisely what "officials" said this, but
the article refers to them only as "officials" throughout.

For those who care to read more about this without divulging their
personal information to the NY Times, here are the more important
parts of the article:



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/po.../14terror.html
Government Report on U.S. Aviation Warns of Security Holes
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: March 14, 2005


ASHINGTON, March 13 - Despite a huge investment in security, the
American aviation system remains vulnerable to attack by Al Qaeda and
other jihadist terrorist groups, with noncommercial planes and
helicopters offering terrorists particularly tempting targets, a
confidential government report concludes.

Intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda may have discussed plans to
hijack chartered planes, helicopters and other general aviation
aircraft for attacks because they are less well-guarded than
commercial airliners, according to a previously undisclosed 24-page
special assessment on aviation security by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security two weeks ago.

....

While Homeland Security and the F.B.I. routinely put out advisories on
aviation issues, the special joint assessment is an effort to give a
broader picture of the state of knowledge of all issues affecting
aviation security, officials said.

The analysis appears to rely on intelligence gathered from sources
overseas and elsewhere about Al Qaeda and other jihadist and
Islamic-based terrorist groups.

A separate report issued last month by Homeland Security concluded
that developing a clear framework for prioritizing possible targets -
a task many Democrats say has lagged - is critical because "it is
impossible to protect all of the infrastructure sectors equally across
the entire United States."

The aviation sector has received the majority of domestic security
investments since the Sept. 11 attacks, with more than $12 billion
spent on upgrades like devices to detect explosives, armored cockpit
doors, federalized air screeners and additional air marshals.

Indeed, some members of Congress and security experts now consider
airplanes to be so well fortified that they say it is time to shift
resources to other vulnerable sectors, like ports and power plants.

....

Still, the new aviation assessment, examining dozens of airline
incidents both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, makes clear that
counterterrorism officials still consider the aviation industry to be
perhaps the prime target for another major attack because of the
spectacular nature of such strikes.

The assessment, which showed that the F.B.I. handled more than 500
criminal investigations involving aircraft in 2003, will likely serve
as a guide for considering further security restrictions in general
aviation and other areas considered particularly vulnerable, the
officials said.

The report, dated Feb. 25, was distributed internally to federal and
state counterterrorism and aviation officials, and a copy was obtained
by The Times. It warns that security upgrades since the Sept. 11
attacks have "reduced, but not eliminated" the prospect of similar
attacks.

"Spectacular terrorist attacks can generate an outpouring of support
for the perpetrators from sympathizers and terrorism sponsors with
similar agendas," the report said. "The public fear resulting from a
terrorist hijacking or aircraft bombing also serves as a powerful
motivator for groups seeking to further their causes."

The report detailed particular vulnerabilities in what it called "the
largely unregulated" area of general aviation, which includes
corporate jets, private planes and other unscheduled aircraft.

"As security measures improve at large commercial airports, terrorists
may choose to rent or steal general aviation aircraft housed at small
airports with little or no security," the report said.

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

Sure, you want to call people names, but you don't like being called
names
in return. You commie scum. What a hypocrite.


Hey, you asked a question, I gave you an answer. I never called you any
names. You didn't like the answer and began the name calling.

No, Fleischman. You called people neocons. If you can't see how offensive
your political grandstanding is, then it is I who feels sorry for you, you
sick, twisted, foul-mouthed commie pond scum.

You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as accurate
as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.

My other point is that, unlike the people you deride, you have no sense of
humor.

However, I see that you are incapable of learning, another thing typical of
commie pond scum, so I have no more time to waste with you.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Tom Fleischman" wrote)
Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside yourself and get some
help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
hate and anger inside.


He's Mormon and so probably still a little upset that his people never did
get paid for digging that tunnel on the first transcontinental railroad.


WHAT?!? We never got paid? I want reparations right now!

C J Campbell wrote:

You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as
accurate as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.

Ah, but there *is* a whole group of formerly liberal-minded people who
realized the error of their ways.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eoconservative

Does that describe you?

It sometimes cracks me up when I hear people use that term as a slur -
especially ones I *know* have no idea what the term really means, but rather
have picked up the phrase from others and are simply trying to incite
people.

Too bad it actually works from time to time...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as
accurate as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.

Ah, but there *is* a whole group of formerly liberal-minded people who
realized the error of their ways.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eoconservative

Does that describe you?


You can make up any dictionary entry that describes anyone you hate and then
apply an obnoxious term to them. So what? It is no different than when
slaveholders tried to define "human" so narrowly as to exclude blacks. The
same motivation, really.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Tom Fleischman" wrote)
Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside yourself and get some
help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
hate and anger inside.


He's Mormon and so probably still a little upset that his people never
did
get paid for digging that tunnel on the first transcontinental railroad.


WHAT?!? We never got paid? I want reparations right now!

Now that I think on it, I want reparations for the nine homes my ancestors
were burned out of or were seized by mobs protected by the governments of
New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I want reparations for those tarred
and feathered in those places, for those who were whipped and beaten, and
for those who were killed at Hahn's Mill in Missouri. I want reparations for
those who died while fleeing, virtually naked, across the plains of Nebraska
and Iowa in the dead of winter while pursued by forces of the Federal
government and militia from Illinois and Missouri -- even while others were
being forced to fight for those same governments in their illegal war with
Mexico.

I want compensation for Fort Bridger and other supply centers burned to the
ground by the Federal government or which were destroyed when President
Johnston sent an army against my ancestors to quell a rebellion that did not
exist. I want reparations for homes and property seized by the Federal
government in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, including thousands of head of
cattle. I want reparations for those ancestors who were disenfranchised on
account of their religious beliefs, forbidden to vote because of what they
believed, not what they practiced. I want reparations for the gold stolen by
illegal squatters after my ancestors discovered it at Sutter's Mill and
other places in California, and reparations for the property that was stolen
by prospectors who just helped themselves to whatever they wanted on their
way to those gold fields, for the women they raped, and for the homes,
wagons, horses, and other property they destroyed.

I want reparations for the modern buildings that are still being vandalized
and destroyed by thugs, for the cost of defending our rights to build
churches and temples being obstructed by corrupt government officials, and
for the physical threats, violence, and harassment we put up with today. I
want reparations for the hate and lies published in vicious tracts and
pamphlets sold in so-called Christian bookstores to this very day.

On the other hand, I really don't want reparations for any of this stuff. It
is tainted money and I would not soil my hands with it. Maybe I get a little
sarcastic and sensitive when people start criticizing religious belief or
even, as some here have suggested, that maybe a little genocide will solve
all the world's problems. Maybe I have my reasons.

C J Campbell wrote:

You can make up any dictionary entry that describes anyone you hate
and then apply an obnoxious term to them. So what? It is no different
than when slaveholders tried to define "human" so narrowly as to
exclude blacks. The same motivation, really.

My point is really the silliness that liberals think it's some sort of slur
against conservatives to call them "neocon". Their motivation may be to get
insult you, but even if you are a former liberal now showing conservative
colors, why would it be an insult?

It's only effective as an insult when you let it offend you.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:46:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::

Now that I think on it, I want reparations for ...

You overlooked this:
http://frank.kirkman.com/MMM/reopeni...rdemystery.htm

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:46:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::

Now that I think on it, I want reparations for ...

You overlooked this:
http://frank.kirkman.com/MMM/reopeni...rdemystery.htm

You're. I want reparations for the perpetuation of this slander, too.

The actual history of the Mountain Meadows massacre is that a bunch of
Missourians headed to the California gold fields tried to cross southern
Utah in the middle of a drought. Brigham Young had tried to persuade them to
take the safer northern route but they were in a hurry (odd behavior for a
man supposed to be trying to kill them, but conspiracy theorists were never
known for their logic). The Missourians, who bragged about their treatment
of the 'Mormons' in Missouri, quickly ran out of supplies and resorted to
stealing what they needed from local settlers and Indians, most of whom were
on the point of starvation themselves. They killed several Indians in cold
blood and stole their horses, enraging the local Utes and Paiutes. All the
while they bragged about their murders and how they were going to rape
women, etc.

The band was finally attacked by Indians who surrounded the wagon train.
Local settlers, not all of them Mormons, negotiated a cease-fire and then
treacherously slaughtered all the adult members of the group, despite pleas
from Church leaders, including Brigham Young, to let them go. While the
behavior of the local settlers was out and out murder, you have to wonder
just how much any group that was as isolated, persecuted, and hounded as
they were by these people is supposed to take. The perpetrators of the
massacre were tried and convicted and some of them were hanged, which is far
more justice than the mobbers in Missouri and Illinois ever got.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:47:35 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

You're. I want reparations for the perpetuation of this slander, too.

The actual history of the Mountain Meadows massacre is that a bunch of
Missourians headed to the California gold fields tried to cross southern
Utah in the middle of a drought. Brigham Young had tried to persuade them to
take the safer northern route but they were in a hurry (odd behavior for a
man supposed to be trying to kill them, but conspiracy theorists were never
known for their logic). The Missourians, who bragged about their treatment
of the 'Mormons' in Missouri, quickly ran out of supplies and resorted to
stealing what they needed from local settlers and Indians, most of whom were
on the point of starvation themselves. They killed several Indians in cold
blood and stole their horses, enraging the local Utes and Paiutes. All the
while they bragged about their murders and how they were going to rape
women, etc.

The band was finally attacked by Indians who surrounded the wagon train.
Local settlers, not all of them Mormons, negotiated a cease-fire and then
treacherously slaughtered all the adult members of the group, despite pleas
from Church leaders, including Brigham Young, to let them go. While the
behavior of the local settlers was out and out murder, you have to wonder
just how much any group that was as isolated, persecuted, and hounded as
they were by these people is supposed to take. The perpetrators of the
massacre were tried and convicted and some of them were hanged, which is far
more justice than the mobbers in Missouri and Illinois ever got.

Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm

Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

Corky Scott