Re: Way off topic: Hijacked airplanes and the no-good US govt
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:39:54AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:10:29PM -0500, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you should talk to the family of the 3300 people in the WTC that
> > died because the FBI, CIA
> > or Special Services didn't have or couldn't intercept the many mail, fax
> > and cell phone communications
> > that went between the cowards that flew planes into the buildings.
Even the religiously deluded still need guts to do something like that.
They weren't cowards, they were brainwashed. As for the intelligence
people, they had info, some of it passed on to them by other countries, and
they they should have been able to put it all together and figure it out.
The problem wasn't lack of ability to invade privacy, but rather a lack of
coordination between different parts of the intelligence agencies. (I don't
have any evidence I can point to to back that up, it's just the conclusion
I've come to from paying attention to the news. (including sources other
than govt. cheerleaders like CNN or Fox.))
> >
> > You know, I feel safer now than I did on 9-11. The price of freedom is
> > costly.
> >
>
> Hmm, the price of freedom is costly....
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> -- Ben Franklin
>
> Perhaps you would do well to consider that the US military should never
> have allowed those planes to hit anything.
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
The only types of aircraft this document mentions destroying are "derelict
objects", and I'm fairly sure they are _only_ talking about unmanned
objects. E.g. page 15:
2. Policy. This instruction provides guidance for the destruction of
derelict objects (e.g., unmanned free balloons, moored balloons, kites,
unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, UAV or ROV) over United
States or international airspace.
None of those examples even remotely apply to hijacked airplanes. Hijacked
airplanes are dealt with in other sections of the document, which call for
the plane to be optionally escorted by military jets, and followed until
they enter another nations airspace. There is no mention of destroying
planes with people on board in any of that document. (I don't know why they
would bother with escorts if they aren't going to shoot it down, but maybe
that's just to see where the hijackers go.)
> Why don't you google what the standing intercept orders are for aircraft
> that stray off course or that lose communications.
Would the results be similar to the PDF you linked to?
> Then ask yourself
> why only the plane that was headed for the Whitehouse was downed.
It was in the air after the other planes impacted, and the passengers found
out what was probably in store for them. They took action. What you seem
to be suggesting looks (to me) like a conspiracy theory with little merit.
> The Washington propaganda machine is in full force in this country. Use
> the Net to understand what is really going on here.
Now that, I agree with. If you watch US TV news, listen Counterspin every
week to make sure you're not getting the wool pulled over your eyes.
http://www.fair.org/. Their archives are only in Real Audio,
http://www.webactive.com/webactive/cspin/cspinarch.html, but they have more
Free Software-friendly mp3s: http://www.fair.org/counterspin/mp3.html.
I guess I'd better stop now, because debian-security isn't really about
this kind of security. Sorry to fill up your mailboxes with this stuff, but
it's important.
--
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@llama.nslug. , ns.ca)
"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BC
Reply to: