Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" spake unto us, saying:

Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
Who says so?

Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
its users.

In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.

People are free to post in other languages here as long as it doesn't
violate the charter of the newsgroup (I suspect the character of rta,
if it exists, doesn't specifically specify English, though it could).

However, I would expect a non-English posting to receive fewer answers
here since the majority of the posters here are English-speakers, and I
suspect a minority of those are bilingual.

"Barring" someone from USENET is a fairly difficult task. :-)

--
-Rich Steiner --- http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner --- Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

"Richard Steiner" wrote in message
...
Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" spake unto us, saying:

Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
Who says so?

Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
its users.

In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.


But, this was a cross posting to, among others, rec,travel europe, where
there are often people of different nationalities.

The fact that posts "tend" to be in English does not mean that all have to
be.

ML

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:

Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.

Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just
a
convenient word to make it sound otherwise.

No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.



The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in
the
USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

That's not really what chauvinism is though.

Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
the universe..


Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of Napoleon,
right or wrong.

Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

Not as flashy.

You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident? Especially given the national pride in their high
speed rail systems.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
so on.

Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

No, it doesn't have to be that exotic. They simply carry something
aboard in the crowd, like they did on the Madrid trains. No place where
the public gathers is immune from that type of attack, and we can't
protect them all.

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

Yes, they are exposed, but they don't seem to be the target of choice
for sabotage. Occasionally, they are successful, but it hasn't been too
often, and the results have usually been relatively minor.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

It's not as easy as it looks, given that it has been tried, and has only
rarely been successful. Trains manage to hit things left on the track
all the time without too much damage in the normal course of their
operation.

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:

Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout
history
extremists on the left and the right have used it to their
advantage.

Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is
just
a
convenient word to make it sound otherwise.

No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.



The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
in
the
USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

That's not really what chauvinism is though.

Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
the universe..


Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of
Napoleon,
right or wrong.

Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.

Not in the "everyday use" of those who really know what it means.

Chad Irby wrote in message .com...
In article ,
"nobody760" wrote:

So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
some place else.

Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
six-hour plane flight...

...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

US Customs lines are much longer than anyplace else I've gone through
customs. The last time through US customs was pre 9-11 and it took
over an hour to clear immigration and customs (and I'm a US citizen by
birth). I spent about 10 minutes in the El Salvador International
Airport processing my tourist card then 2-3 additional minutes going
through customs, 5 minutes in Honduras at the International Airport in
San Pedro Sula processing my tourist card and 2-3 minutes at customs.
Both of these during the peak Christmas travel season 2003.

James Robinson wrote:
You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident?

In the USA, Amtrak derailments are common place and attract just a mention in
the national newscasts. The terrorists would have to warn of bombs on tracks
in advance so that when it happens, the media would go into a terrorist frienzie.

But if there were a new york subway derailment or fire, people would
immediatly suspect terrorism.

The real question is whether Al Queda want to keep Bush regime in power or
not. If they make an attack against the USA between now and the election, it
would influence the outcome.

But I am not sure how. Would americans wake and and see that all the measures
the Bush regime has done did nothing to protect them, or would they fall back
into the protective custody of their Bush "father figure" who would tell
americans to trust him and that he would work even harder to protect them from
the evil doers ?

My guess is that an attack now on the USA would result in the Bush regime
sending more troups to Iraq and finding some sort of way to tell americans
that this is to prevent further attacks against the USA.

nobody wrote:


Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack another
country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council resolution


Uh, no. If is also allowed if an ally of yours is attacked,
in this case, Kuwait. There was no peace treaty after the Kuwait
attack,
so we are still entitled under that rubric.


Doug McDonald

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:47:38 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:



Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
the universe..


Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of
Napoleon,
right or wrong.

Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.

Not in the "everyday use" of those who really know what it means.

I guess you are telling the rest of us who don't know then?

:-)

(AKA presomptuous... Oh well.)

How many times have you carried 'goot' Dutch drugs over the border?

Your anti-American and anti_religious "prejudices" are all OK though?

Tim K

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"Tim Kroesen" schreef in bericht
link.net...

Should I then subsequently be singled out for additional scrutiny
as I
cross other European borders if my passport was stamped; possibly;
but
that goes with traveling to a well known drug liberal country and
culture, now doesn't it...

I am *from* that "well known drug liberal country and culture " and I
can't
even remember when was the last time I even had to open my suitcase at
customs - let alone I had any "additional scrutiny" (and I do about 75
border crossings per year, most of which outside Europe). So I can
only
conclude that your prejudices have replaced your brain again.

Sjoerd