Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...


And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three
months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

TFRs that were not reasonable, that were not justified, and should have
been
criticized loudly. Inasmuch as you sit around claiming that they *were*
reasonable, you deserved to be grounded.

Let me put it to you this way: how many people three years ago thought we
would make it through to today with not a single domestic attack?

Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue in
an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation. The TFRs were probably
an extreme over-reaction but sometimes these things are clear only in
hindsight.

From my perspective, the one possible benefit to a Kerry administration
might be to reduce the level of mistrust that's out there, though I suspect
the fever-swamps of the right might just trade places with the Michael Moore
left and indulge themselves in equally ludicrous persecution fantasies. In
WWII the country was effectively united 100% on this issue of winning the
war. Today it is not and the lack of inter-party trust is a key faultline
there, that poses a great threat to our ability to respond effectively.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the
corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything.

Everything? That seems a little extreme. How, exactly, do you suggest
that
we'd lose literally everything? Near as I can tell, we'd lose very
little.
Our government is reasonably well protected from problems even when the
"top
brass" is killed. Frankly, while I can't stand to think of anyone being
killed, sometimes I think we could benefit from losing the entire top
echelon of government so we could start over. I certainly don't believe
we'd lose everything, or even close to everything.

Well, it all depends on magnitude. A dirty bomb that renders a large part of
a major city uninhabitable, or a chemical attack that kills into the
thousands, could be enormously destabilizing to a host of tightly
interconnected systems. The economy would be devastated as it's just now
recovering from 9/11, and this could cause major issues in the global
economy. The price of oil could surge even more, which digs the hole deeper.
Exchange rates could go wacky and upset all kinds of arrangements. A global
depression is a very real possibility.

No, OK, this is not "everything," perhaps I am being a little hyperbolic,
but I think you're being far too blithe about the cost of the kind of
destabilization such an attack entails.

And of course, if we did lose a significant part of the government, or a
very large number of civilians, we could be looking at a lot more war than
just Iraq. To paraphrase an old Navy man, the US has not yet begun to fight.
If the people of this country got well and truly *****ed off* and were
willing to really commit to a no-holds-barred war, well, I shudder to
consider the consequences. The US has a very potent martial streak that has
not yet been fully awakened by the GWOT. Another big attack could shift the
national mood in unexpected directions, some of which would prove very
unpleasant for the sandier parts of the world.

Of course, if you think the whole terrorism thing is a big lie ginned up by
Karl Rove to get Shrub elected, there's probably no point in discussing the
issue further.

Best,
-cwk.

C Kingsbury wrote:

Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue in
an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation.

Not only that, but Kerry will not be privy to much of the information until he's
elected (*if* he's elected), so he can't really have a good idea of what he will do
about many of the situations we face today.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in
message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: (Paul Tomblin)

In a previous article, Nomen Nescio
] said:
So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file,
there
are probably
twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a
paragraph
on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as
evidence against
me.

But you can get anything you want at Barnes Airport. Except freedom.

I was wondering if anyone would catch the reference. Still got your
tie-dye shirts?
The whole "Alice's Restaurant" thing kept going through my head on the
drive
home from Barnes. I wonder why. g
I used to live down the road from Arlo when I was in High School and
I'd bring my
guitar over to his place and jam with him, sometimes. I once asked him
how true the
whole story was. His response..."Yea, pretty much, man, pretty much".

Amazing!
I used to play a fair to middling bit of guitar myself. I've actually
been on the same stage with Arlo, Doc Watson Pat Sky, Gordo Lightfoot,
Eric Andersen, Bonnie Dobson, and a few others.
In fact, because I've lost my right hand as that applies to something
like Travis picking :-) I've just sold my beautiful Herringbone Martin
D28 last year. I carried that ax with me almost everywhere I went for
most of my life. I'm afraid my guitar days are behind me now, but it's
fun to remember all those good times we had at the coffee houses pickin
downstairs in the basement or in the back room.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C Kingsbury wrote:

Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue
in
an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation.

Not only that, but Kerry will not be privy to much of the information
until he's
elected (*if* he's elected), so he can't really have a good idea of what
he will do
about many of the situations we face today.

George, you make a very good point...

Because he can't be privy to all the info, he's left with only being able to
attack what has gone before. And of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Which, in turn, leaves all of us with the Hobson's Choice of: Do we
continue as we are currently going (with all the inherent risks...) or do we
change horses and hope the new horse doesn't balk at the bell.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this coming election is
one which will have very far reaching implications for our future.

No matter what your preferences may be...please, everyone, GO VOTE!!!

Remeber, if you don't vote...you can't ever say "Don't blame me, I didn't
vote for (Insert Winner.)"

;o)

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

"Jay Beckman" wrote:

Which, in turn, leaves all of us with the Hobson's Choice of: Do we
continue as we are currently going (with all the inherent risks...) or do we
change horses and hope the new horse doesn't balk at the bell.

There's risk either way, as there is whenever one has a choice to change
or not change something. There *is* a recent history on which to form an
opinion about the current leadership, but not nearly as much on which to
base an opinion about how good or bad the alternative might be. Some say
the current leadership has had its chance ... if you aren't satisfied,
it's time to give someone else the reins. Either way, as you said ...
vote.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

Which is the long way around to saying absolutely nothing.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

In a previous article, FullName said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:
At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge
while black. See http://69.93.170.43/

that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
socialists... look at his website...
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/

Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right
to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. I guess I was wrong.

Being "on the far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists" is not
grounds for being threatened by multiple police just because you took
a picture of a public structure.


And to ask a middle eastern man on a expired visa to why hes learning to
only fly a airplane and not land or take off was a Racial insult on Sept
10th.

Things are different now and when you fit the profile and what can
appear to be casing a major structure Im damn happy someone is walking
up and asking a few questions.

free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And being that the socialist wish to remove our Republic and want to
replace it with a their form of opression does in fact qualify them to
be interrorgated on the street.

and I quote "The American way to Bill of Rights socialism
by Gus Hall, National Chair, Communist Party USA
This article was reprinted from the July 26, 1997 issue of the People's

Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights
reserved - may be used with PWW credits.


We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a
capitalist system that has served its purpose but no longer meets the
needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

We believe that Socialism USA will be built according to the traditions,
history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be
different than any other socialist society in the world. It will be
uniquely American. "

Hey folks. Just ignore Mr. FullName...he's clearly a nut-ball with
fascist, extreme right beliefs.

In a previous article, FullName said:
free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.

And being that the socialist wish to remove our Republic and want to
replace it with a their form of opression does in fact qualify them to
be interrorgated on the street.

You know, if facist overreaction like yours wasn't the biggest threat to
the constitution, you'd be laughably contemptable. As it is, you're only
contemptable.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I picked up a Magic 8-Ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so
good.' I said, 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'" - unk.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:09:21 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

--Gary

I have to agree with Gary. When you are in public, you are fair game
for any photography. Infact, there was a case that went to court a
year or so ago where some perv had a camera on his shoe and was
actually walking up to women with skirts on and getting "everything"
on film. He actually won the case because they were in public. I
would have hoped that they would have taken it to the supreme court
but I dont know how far it actually got, but it just goes to show that
when you are in public, you can be photographed, even if you dont
agree to it or not.

Scott D.