September 11th.......never forget

[Hozzie]

30 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

There is a big difference between flying pre and post 9/11.  Pre 9/11 you just walked through a regular metal detector and could carry ordinary tools like small pocket knives in carry on.  You didn't have to go through the silly taking off your shoes, belt, etc silliness to go through security.  Heck up until the 70's you just walked on the plane.  Now people are being patted down like criminals or run through body scanners to get on a plane because of 9/11.  US citizens were only searched that hard before 9/11 when you went through customs, not traveling within the country.  I would say that freedom from unreasonable search is a big freedom to lose when traveling within the US.

The US military should have been allowed to fight to win before US citizens' freedoms were reduced within our country.

Granted, I don't take a knife with me, but I simply go through a normal metal detector 90% of the time now as well and don't take off my shoes, or remove my belt, computer, etc.  I understand I get that because I am a known traveller, but even if you aren't, is it really that much of a hardship?  I think most people are way to sensitive these days.  It's way more annoying to fly with the once a year flier who thinks they are an expert traveler than having to go through security.

We have to admit to ourselves that we don't live in the 70's anymore.  Just because you used to be able to smoke on a plane, are you ok with it now?  People used to dress up to go on a plane.  Now your damn lucky if someone doesn't smell like ass and has washed in the last 3 days.   Again, I am not saying I think the screenings do all that much, but I suspect it has caught some things. 

How many of the terror attacks were conducted by US citizens since 9/11.  Answer, most of them.  This isn't the Cleaver's US anymore like it or not.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Hozzie

[crossfire]

34 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

 

The US military should have been allowed to fight to win before US citizens' freedoms were reduced within our country.

The U.S. Military hasn't been allowed to fight to win since before Vietnam.

Edited September 12, 2016 by crossfire

[Garufa]

1 minute ago, crossfire said:

The U.S. Military hasn't been allowed to fight to win since Vietnam.

 

Try World War II.

[crossfire]

11 minutes ago, Garufa said:

 

Try World War II.

Your right , I talk of my own experience. 

[Just2Honor]

I will never forget.  Spent three weeks in NYC with the Red Cross.  The site and smell is with me.

[Wingshooter]

The airline I was flying for on 9/11 furloughed huge numbers of pilots. 9/11 changed my world and my career, but it is nothing compared to what so many experienced. I want people getting screened that sit behind me at 40,000'. Sure it could be done more efficiently and be less of a pain, but it is what it is right now. I don't agree with all of the changes to government and policies that have developed, but the fact is we live in a different world because of islamic terrorists. 9/11 opened the world's eyes to an evil that still seeks to destroy us, and we must never forget what they are capable of. It bugs me that some people want use 9/11 to bash our own county. It is a day to reflect, remember, mour the loss of life and take account of whether or not you would be ready for the next attack. 

[Capbyrd]

On September 12, 2016 at 4:39 PM, 300winmag said:

The US military should have been allowed to fight to win before US citizens' freedoms were reduced within our country.

 

The US Military should have never been involved.  I don't recall the military being used after any other terrorist's attack on us.  

[TNWNGR]

27 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

The US Military should have never been involved.  I don't recall the military being used after any other terrorist's attack on us.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

[Capbyrd]

2 hours ago, TNWNGR said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

You got me there.  But I was referring to recent history.  As in OK City or the Unibomber or Waco.

[monkeylizard]

Since when was Waco a terrorist attack on the US?

[Chucktshoes]

From Wikipedia:

 

 

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,^[6] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terrere (e, terreo) meaning "to frighten".^[7] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BCE that the Jacobinscited as a precedent when imposing the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.^[8][9] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.^[10]

Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people^[11]for political purposes in such a way as to create a spectacle.

 

Sounds like a pretty spot on description of the events at Waco to me. Pay special attention to the last sentence. 

[monkeylizard]

I wasn't disagreeing that it was terrorism. Look more closely at the last 3 words of my post.

 

In context, the discussion was about deploying (or not) the military over domestic terrorism and Waco was mentioned. I was implying the rhetorical question "Why would the .gov deploy military assets against themselves?"

Edited September 14, 2016 by monkeylizard

[TNWNGR]

https://michaeltabman.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/international-vs-domestic-terrorism-a-primer/

There's a difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism so when discussing use of military assets keep that in mind.

[Chucktshoes]

12 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

I wasn't disagreeing that it was terrorism. Look more closely at the last 3 words of my post.

 

In context, the discussion was about deploying (or not) the military over domestic terrorism and Waco was mentioned. I was implying the rhetorical question "Why would the .gov deploy military assets against themselves?"

Ahhh. Gotcha. 

I didn't pick up on the implied separation between the US Gov. and the people. Is that the correct reading? 

[monkeylizard]

More of the distinction of the perpetrator rather than the target, but yes.

[TNWNGR]

5 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

You got me there.  But I was referring to recent history.  As in OK City or the Unibomber or Waco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

While this attack didn't take place on US soil the perpetrators  targeted US Military personnel, to which the US responded. Most of us know that after this Khadafy was making a point to leave this country alone. Up until the current POTUS and SOS H. Clinton we just kept an eye on him. The rest is history.

Edited September 14, 2016 by TNWNGR

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, monkeylizard said:

More of the distinction of the perpetrator rather than the target, but yes.

I too was making a distinction of the perpetrator. In this case, the US government. So yes, i agree it wouldn't make any sense that the US gov would deploy military assets against another arm of itself for engaging in acts of terrorism against the US populace.