Fighter escorts worry some

USA TODAY ^ | 1/09/04 | Alan Levin and Tom Squitieri

[Peach]

tap, tap, tap...waiting for an answer to my #38.

[Peach]

Well, I hung around for 20 minutes to see if you could respond. I gather you've looked through my in-forum posts and been unable to find a single statement where I advocate shooting down airliners.

I don't appreciate your attributing statements to me that I did not make. If you want to be provacative, at least use actual statements (links would be appreciated) that provoked you.

[snopercod]

To: snopercod

The HORROR of being searched. I guess you'd rather watch some other high value buildings get hit with an airplane and lives destroyed.

Just what do you propose we do? If you have better ideas, we'd sure like to hear them.

posted on 01/06/2004 6:31:03 PM EST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Did I misunderstand your meaning? If you don't support shooting down airliners, then I will certainly apologize.

[An Old Man]

"I've flown hundreds of hours of these missions since Sept 11. Almost nothing in this article is accurate. And when I'm not out goofing off in my shiny fighter jet, I fly a large commercial airliner. I have full confidence in the process that is in place."

Thank you.

In the event orders are given to bring a commercial flight down, what precautions are in place to prevent the resultant debris from being scattered over populated areas?

I ask this question because it has occurred to me that even if the second plane over NYC had been shot down the results would have been similar to what happened, with only the location of the crash changing.

Your opinion would be most appreciated.

Semper Fi

[Peach]

Yours: From discussions I've had here recently, most FReepers are not only willing, but eager for the U.S. military to shoot down any aircraft that strays off it's normal flight path, or loses radio communication. (They want to "feel safe" you understand.)

No one is eager for anything, except for you to get a grip.

Do I SUPPORT shooting down airplanes? Vs. what? Loosing several thousand people and $500 billion out of the US economy?

You plant these false premises and then pretend that everyone is EAGER for planes to be shot out of the sky.

There are certain realities about has happened and what could happen again. You advocate permitting civilians to carry guns onboard airplanes so it doesn't happen again.

I see several hundred "accidents" just waiting to happen with your scenario. Hijackings. Murder. Mentally unstable people committing mayhem.

Given that the likelihood of a terrorist incident such as 9/11 is less than being hit by a meteorite, or so we've been told, I'd prefer our current status. The likelihood of murder onboard planes, using your suggestion, is quite likely, given the murder rate in the country.

And how will you screen out the terrorists from the citizens carrying guns? AQ is trying to recruit non-Eastern looking people, women included.

Your answers to the problem don't work for me. But you just keep pretending that Freepers are actually EAGER (your words) to shoot innocent planes out of the sky.

Starting a conversation by actually misrepresenting what is said is never a good beginning, and is unlikely to persuade others to see your viewpoint.

[Rokke]

F-16's have VHF radios and can communicate with commercial airliners, but the point is largely irrelavent. What do you suppose the pilot of an F-16 should say to a suspect aircraft? Imagine yourself calling someone on the phone and asking them if everything is OK. How do you know who you're talking to, or whether the person you are talking to is responding while under gunpoint? There are no communications the pilot of a fighter can have with the crew of a commercial airliner that haven't already taken place between that airliner and countless other controlling agencies.

[Rokke]

If you shoot an airplane down, you really don't have any control over where the debris lands, other than to try and shoot it down far away from any populated area. Having said that, if one of the 767's full of fuel had been shot down, then most of the fuel they carried would have burned in the air instead of in a relatively concentrated area of a large skyscraper. The rest of the debris would have rained down on NYC/Washington D.C., but I would guess the results would be less dramatic (albeit a little more spread out).

[ladyinred]

AMAZING!! If something happens they would be screaming "Why weren't the jets escorting these planes?"

[Johnny_Cipher]

I'm sorry, but you guys or girls don't have a clue.

I suppose I should feel flattered that you chose to ping me to this post, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why you chose to do so.

But in your defense, you have a lot of company here on FR. I've pinged some of them. From discussions I've had here recently, most FReepers are not only willing, but eager for the U.S. military to shoot down any aircraft that strays off it's normal flight path, or loses radio communication.

Your statement is not only downright inaccurate on its face, it is insulting and borders on libel. I categorically deny ever having said or posted the words you attribute to me here in this or any other forum.

If I am on one of your ping lists, remove me and never place me on any other ping list you control. Now.

[snopercod]

Obviously, you never even read my proposals, although you continue to ask me for "better ideas" or "suggestions".

This post, for instance, was addressed to you in response to that very question. You never answered.

To: Peach

If you have better ideas, we'd sure like to hear them.

Yes, I DO have a better idea:

Let each airline determine it's own security procedures, then let the flying public decide on which airline they want to fly.

Airline "A" might want to leave things as they are and let the TSA take care of their security.

Airline "B" might provide several armed security people of their own on each flight. (Obviously, a ticket on this airline would cost a little more.)

Airline "C" might want to let properly trained, certified and identified passengers carry weapons onboard.

I call this revolutionary concept "freedom of choice".

485 posted on 01/07/2004 7:34:57 AM EST by snopercod (Wishing y'all a prosperous, happy, and FREE new year!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Several times I have posted that for passengers to be armed on aircraft, they would need to be properly trained, certified, armed, identified, and willing to take on the responsibility.

But the most important is my original suggestion that the airlines be allowed to choose their own security and let the public decide.

[snopercod]

If you have better ideas, we'd sure like to hear them.

[Peach]

My mistake. You did make suggestions. I found them so unacceptably naive that I didn't respond.

[snopercod]

Freedom of choice is unacceptably naive? I suppose you would rather buy your food at a state-run store, too, than shop at the one that suited you better.

[snopercod]

I don't keep ping lists, but will not direct any comments your way in the future.

I'm glad you pinged the A_M. They should know when a member threatens another member with libel as a way to avoid defending his position.

[arm958]

Most FReepers think shoting down passenger planes full of innocent Americans is a great idea

Put down the bong.

[Johnny_Cipher]

I don't keep ping lists, but will not direct any comments your way in the future.

Thank you.

Since you are addressing commentary specifically to me in this post, I will respond to your points here but this will be the last time I address you by name unless you address me first.

I'm glad you pinged the A_M.

I'm actually sorry that you made it necessary for me to do so. 20-20 hindsight tells me that I probably should have pressed the abuse button instead, but I felt that the way I handled it was more efficient.

Poster for poster, I have found that Freepers as a rule generally know better than to mischaracterize and attribute statements falsely to others by innuendo. Those who don't receive responses like this one every time.

They should know when a member threatens another member with libel as a way to avoid defending his position.

I deny "threatening" to "libel" anyone, whatever the hell that means. I either libeled you or I didn't; the concept of "threatening to libel" borders on the ludicrous. On the contrary, you used my handle and the handle of others to make statements you characterized as views you apparently believe that I hold. Simply objecting to your attribution to me of statements and views I do not hold is not libel, and projection is a poor debating tactic.

After reviewing some of your posts in other threads, it is apparent that most of your opinions are simply not worthy of comment other than strictly within the guidelines of this web site.

Finally, your speculation about my sex in your post is irrelevant and I will not dignify it with a response. Goodbye.

[Criminal Number 18F]

That is the range of the heat-seeking missiles carried on the F-16?

But that's an immaterial fact. No one is going to authorise any military aircraft a BVH (beyond visual horizon) engagement on anything in US airspace. The fighters will be required to close and establish a visual ID of the aircraft at the most irreducible of minima.

Also, there have been very few crashes in urban areas that caused mass fatalities on the ground. The two I can think of are cargo planes that crashed due to poor maintenance on takeoff, striking apartment blocks near the airfields: El Al in Amsterdam, and a Soviet-era Antonov in the USSR.

Even when two liners mid-aired over NYC in the mid sixties, the great bulk of the victims were the poor unfortunates on the planes.

I dislike the necessity for such measures but don't see an alternative, and have a good degree of trust in our pilot officers and our military and civilian leaders. Put yourself in their position: how would you draft the ROE? What safeguards would you impose? (They may already be in place; these are matters legitimately kept secret). And what alternative can you offer us?

Arming pilots and pax would be good but it is not a guarantee. What if one of the pilots is a sleeper for Al-Q? He doesn't even have to be an Arab, he could be an American who is compromised, or who will trade his life for money for his family. There are not many such Judases but the enemy need only find one (and you can be sure they are looking).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[snopercod]

Put down the bong.

Cute.

You might want to read the comments on Plane Enters LGA Without OK before you make a bigger Clymer out of yourself. Samples:

cheesebus: this plane should have been splashed into the East River without a second thought.(removed by Moderator)

jstolzen:God help us all. We're at Orange "plus" and we let this kind of crap happen over and over.

It's time to start being a TAD more aggressive in our protection protocols, IMHO.

ChefKeith: RADAR and FOX1 = SPLASH = The End.

There are many more. FR has come down with a case of the stupids over this matter.

[snopercod]

I can't offer you perfect safety.

All I can offer is this: If some 22-year-old F-16 pilot shoots down an airliner full of people, then on that day the war on terror will be over. The Taliban will have won.

Remember that DC-10 in Iowa that lost all it's flight controls and wandered around the state for a while before "landing"? I wonder what would have happened had that occurred over NYC in today's hysterical environment.

[Blue Jays]

Good Evening All-

From my reading of Snopercod's posts, he doesn't appear to be directly quoting anyone...but is simply providing commentary on a mindset that seems to be growing in prevalence on FreeRepublic.

His examples are likely meant to shine some light on the absurd situations that have REALLY been taking place. For example, in the past eighteen months, I have overhead this conversation (almost word-for-word) on two separate occasions. The first time it was between two men and when I heard it again about five days ago, it was between two well-dressed, professional women:

Middle-aged professional woman: "If I was on a flight that was scheduled to land in New York, it would make me feel safer if an Air Force plane could escort us in...in case we had problems with terrorists, they could be there to help us."

Younger professional friend: "Yes, it would make me happier too, knowing that we weren't up there alone and we could be helped by a soldier or someone..."

At that point, I wanted to butt-in and say, "Ladies, sorry to be nosey, but the way the USAF will 'help' you is by INCINERATING YOU with an air-to-air missile."

Obviously, these two women are too far gone to recognize the error of their ways. They would NEVER think to take matters into their own hands and try to regain control of the aircraft from terrorists. Yup, wait for Big Government to, to, to, to do something.

Now, as far as the examples Snopercod put in red font in Post#4, that is an illustration of the slippery slope. There are FReepers that would "default" to opening fire on a rental truck that somehow misses a bridge checkpoint...ignoring the fact the driver might be innocent and is simply having a mechanical problems. Meanwhile, bullets would potentially be flying all around the George Washington Bridge...but we would be doing something. Don't bother with that minor complication of innocent Americans being caught in the crossfire.

Lastly, if people on FreeRepublic disagree on topics...that's fine. That is what makes this such an interesting, dynamic, and educational place. I agree with many people on this board, disagree with a handful, but RESPECT every single one of them.

State your case and make your point on the threads. We've got people who registered less than a month ago pinging the Admin Moderator and/or hitting the abuse button for no reason whatsoever. Others are using sophomoric retorts like "Put down the bong.." and they're not called to task by thread participants. That is not intellectually fair.

Snopercod, you're OK in my book. It looks like you're primarily playing the devil's advocate in an otherwise one-sided discussion.

Just my humble opinion,

~ Blue Jays ~

[snopercod]

Bless you my child. You have figured out exactly what I have been thinking.

And thank you again for even mentioning my feeble attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Amid all the haughty denials, veiled threats, and childish insults hurled at me on this thread, not ONE poster even attempted to address any of the logical issues I brought up:

1. Does it make sense to shoot down a passenger (or private) aircraft to prevent it from destroying a building? (Framing the question another way, "What is more valuable, the certainty of ending the lives of 300 American citizens, or the chance of damaging a government building."

2. Can such a thing be accomplished without increasing the death and destruction from what it otherwise would have been?

3. Would such a thing deter a terroist, or motivate him (or her)?

4. Is doing so legal under our system of law? (Obviously, I don't believe that it is.)

5. And finally, If we as a country are going to toss out our Consitution and our body of common law in order to shoot down passenger aircraft in the name of the two people you overheard on the street, then why not destroy school busses and Ryder trucks as well? In other words, if we choose to go down this road, where will it take us?

Frankly, I have been seriously considering leaving FR over the mindless mob mentality that seems to have overtaken the forum. Not over this thread in particular, but I mean really, why argue logic with some of these people?

Thanks to you, I think I'll stick around for a little while longer.