Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on September 09, 2003, 03:22:55 PM
-
this can't be healthy for America
Sept. 11 Suits Vs Airlines Get Go-Ahead (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030909/bs_nm/airlines_lawsuits_dc)
-
Does it mean that anyone who negligently causes death or injury to a person should get off free because the damage can't be undone?
Also, even though the family mamber will not be brought back, the money will sure help his widow raising his children. It's not the same but better than nothing.
miko
-
No, they're money grubbing scumbags who happened to have something tragic happen to them and their families.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this can't be healthy for America
Sept. 11 Suits Vs Airlines Get Go-Ahead (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030909/bs_nm/airlines_lawsuits_dc)
This (http://www.usdoj.gov/victimcompensation/) probably isn't healthy either.
-
I find this sickning and to see a Federal Judge let this proceed. Someone should have him removed from the bench.
The family's have gone through enough as it is.. I hope the lawyer who thought this up rots in hell.
-
Originally posted by SOB
No, they're money grubbing scumbags who happened to have something tragic happen to them and their families.
SOB
Harsh language, but I agree.
Any security implemented by humans can be defeated by humans. You'll never protect yourself from everything. And suing someone to get them to protect you from everything will only make them bankrupt.
Hell, everyone just sue everyone whenever anything bad happens. This way, everyone but the lawyers and the media will be bankrupted and never have to worry about money again. That will solve everything.
-
I might have worded it a little lighter, however our government has even seen fit to offer compensation to help the victims, but this lot chose to sue instead. Scumbags, money grubbing scumbags every one of them.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
No, they're money grubbing scumbags who happened to have something tragic happen to them and their families.
SOB
Yeah, how the F' dare they, they should just suck it up and move on.
-
You're right Jimbear. They should sue everyone one under the sun to try and milk as much money out of this tragedy as they possibly can. What WAS I thinking?
-
How was boeing responsible for the 757/767s crashing?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
How was boeing responsible for the 757/767s crashing?
or United or American
how bout the WTC ppl? what were they thinking building a 100 story skyscaper?
lawyers will get the most out of this - as usual
-
Well its america...:rolleyes:
-
Call it what you like, I view it as the opening shot in a war.
Did the Pearl Harbor victims sue Japan? Or the US government? Or the companies that built the USS Arizona?
-
You guys do realize that in the long run we will lose this war right?
-
The suits are disgusting. I have nothing but disdain for the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
-
Almost as bad as your local slip and fall.
-
What do you mean we will lose?
-
just when some of the airlines started hiring back pilots. Weeeeee, its all about to hit the fan.
I should have moved to Montana long ago.
-
Are all the Finns on this board tools?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What do you mean we will lose?
I mean we won't let ourselves win....
-
Originally posted by Udie
I mean we won't let ourselves win....
I don't think it's possible to win....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't think it's possible to win....
well I've always been scared of that. I did think at the begining though that maybe just maybe we could get along enough to do what needs to be done. I think it's clear that's not going to happen.
-
You do not think we are going to win the war on terror?
Or we are not going to win the war with the islamic culture?
Sandman, define what we are not going to win?
I am kinda lost here....
-
I wonder how much these people are being pushed into this by lawyers. Though I don't beleive all lawyers are bad people, I beleive a lot of lawyers are the reason we have such a litigious scociety, one not willing to take responsibility for what happens to them or what they do.
I think the whole situation stinks myself. I might feel differently if I was a close relative to one of the victims, it would be harder to look at objectively, and I wonder if we are ever going to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Is this kind of litigiousness going to continue to grow? It has to stop sometime...
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You do not think we are going to win the war on terror?
exactly....
-
99% of the lawsuits in the United States initiated by scum like this would never happen if the US civil judicial system didn't allow litigators to take a percentage of the judgement.
In Canada, lawyers are generally not permitted to take a contingency fee (i.e., you only get paid if you win, and then you get a percentage of the damages). The result is that (a) plaintiffs don't start lawsuits that don't have a reasonable chance of success and (b) the lawyers don't have dollar signs in their eyes. Our civil judgements are also capped to a large extent (i.e., no $1 billion jury awards).
What always amuses me about lawsuits like this is that people have no concept of the cost that it imposes on the rest of society. Assume that the lawsuit is successful against Boeing...
1. Boeing's insurance would likely cover a good portion of the judgement. Result - Boeing's insurance premiums go up, the cost of an aircraft goes up, the cost to the airline of buying the aircraft goes up, the cost of a ticket goes up. And, by the way, the cost of insurance to everyone else who has insurance with the same insurance company goes up.
2. If Boeing's insurance doesn't cover the claim, the result is anywhere from an increased cost to the purchaser of an aircraft (see #1 above) to Boeing needing to cut costs. Result - Workers at Boeing may be layed off, layed off workers don't contribute to society or pay taxes, the rest of the working population needs to take up the slack, etc.
I say just add the amount of the lawsuit to Dubya's $87 billion as an additional cost of the war on terror...but the lawyers don't get a penny.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You do not think we are going to win the war on terror?
Exactly... we can't win if there is no end.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Exactly... we can't win if there is no end.
Speak to the Israelis. Ask them if they've won their war on terror.
-
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?
I understand with situations like palistine, terrorism will never go away, but we can not force these people to work withen the system by making them pay a higher and higher price for their actions? Hmm this will only work for the ones who want to live....
As for this lawsuite Scum, they are already getting tons of money from the gov, and now they are going to sure over something lame............ sometimes I just can't believe how lame people are.
-
People need to realize that we "won" WW2 when we supplied Europe with food and money (Marshall Plan). We "won" the cold war by building and forcing the other guy to build and outspending them and by allowing the Beatle's White Album to be smuggled into Russia.
The war on terror cannot be won with bullets. Those are just the preliminary means to get to the end. We need to win the hearts and minds of the potential enemy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
People need to realize that we "won" WW2 when we supplied Europe with food and money (Marshall Plan). We "won" the cold war by building and forcing the other guy to build and outspending them and by allowing the Beatle's White Album to be smuggled into Russia.
The war on terror cannot be won with bullets. Those are just the preliminary means to get to the end. We need to win the hearts and minds of the potential enemy.
we can't even get our own hearts and minds into this thing, what makes you think we'll win theirs? Don't get me wrong, I think we're doing the right thing in Iraq. Personally I think the Marshall plan should be the model. But we've only been there for 6 months, actually less, and we're about to eat ourselves alive over here. I work in civil engineering. NOTHING gets done in the first 6 months of ANYTHING. People are too stupid to project that far in advance. Hence I have zero faith that my country will win this war. I think we have the ability to for sure, but as a nation we lack the collective resolve to do what needs to be done.
Bush is to blame for this (the PR failure, not the war).....
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?
I understand with situations like palistine, terrorism will never go away, but we can not force these people to work withen the system by making them pay a higher and higher price for their actions? Hmm this will only work for the ones who want to live....
As for this lawsuite Scum, they are already getting tons of money from the gov, and now they are going to sure over something lame............ sometimes I just can't believe how lame people are.
The point is that as an "ideology", there is no "cost" to being a terrorist. You cannot defeat someone's willingness to die for their cause by hunting them down and killing them. Of course, you do remove that individual threat, but the killing itself merely motivates the balance of the horde.
There is no "price" to pay for their actions in ISRAEL, as you can never eliminate all of the terrorist infrastructure, and attempting to do so does not serve as a deterrent to others.
The "problem" is that citizens of democracies typically value and celebrate life. Terrorist ideologies do not. You cannot defeat an enemy who values his life less than you do yours.
As one of the previous posts pointed out, it takes more than bullets to win a war.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
The "problem" is that citizens of democracies typically value and celebrate life. Terrorist ideologies do not. You cannot defeat an enemy who values his life less than you do yours.
As one of the previous posts pointed out, it takes more than bullets to win a war.
I don't believe terrorism is an idealogy. It's simply a tool currently used for waging asymetric warfare. Terror is used to test the resolve of your opponent. We've used it as have others. It is effective.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?
So far... the cost is that the government that harbored Al-Qaeda lost their country.
From current reports, the Al-Qaeda are far from extinguished.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't believe terrorism is an idealogy. It's simply a tool currently used for waging asymetric warfare. Terror is used to test the resolve of your opponent. We've used it as have others. It is effective.
I disagree. To those who practice terrorism it is part of a greater conviction seen as an acceptable method to achieve ones goals. Call it what you will, but it is effective, difficult to defend against, almost impossible to eradicate, and the people who perpetuate it are committed to it more so, in my view, than the will of the people who are trying to stamp it out.
-
We could change sides and become a militant radical muslum nation but then we would have to ship sandman to finland.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So far... the cost is that the government that harbored Al-Qaeda lost their country.
From current reports, the Al-Qaeda are far from extinguished.
And the cost to the Free World? $87 billion plus and counting, 400 or so U.S. and U.K. soldiers, "our" civilian casualties, etc., etc.
That's not to say that I don't believe in what is being done, but my fear is that the will to fight will wane as soon as the cost (primarily financial) become apparent to the US public. You can't manufacture $87 billion out of nowhere. Either taxes go up or services get cut. Not to mention a need to expand the US military given that it is already overextended. Combine the above with an economy that is trying to recover.
Frankly, I don't think that the Taliban are as upset about living in their caves as the US public may eventually be when the true cost of war begins to hit home. At that point the true test of which side is more committed to their fight will become apparent, and hopefully at that point our commitment is stronger than theirs.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I disagree. To those who practice terrorism it is part of a greater conviction seen as an acceptable method to achieve ones goals. Call it what you will, but it is effective, difficult to defend against, almost impossible to eradicate, and the people who perpetuate it are committed to it more so, in my view, than the will of the people who are trying to stamp it out.
What? You think someone is going to go toe to toe with the U.S?
"If the enemy is settled, be able to move him; appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects." - Sun Tzu
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What? You think someone is going to go toe to toe with the U.S?
"If the enemy is settled, be able to move him; appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects." - Sun Tzu
Why would an enemy who is overmatched in terms of firepower and resources meet you on the battlefield on your terms? Of course they won't go toe to toe with you. So the Sun Tzu quote really doesn't apply since the enemy is not "settled". The Chinese master was referring to set piece battles and flanking manoevers (i.e., traditional warfare).
I disagreed with your argument that terrorism is not an idealogy, but otherwise I thought we both agreed it is effective. You will have as much a chance of defeating terrorism, in the sense of eradicating it, as you did in defeating the Viet Cong and the NVA.
Again, a quick call to the Israeli Defence Forces should clarify any doubts about the difficulty of eradicating any terrorist organization. Or perhaps a call to the British Army for a briefing on their Northern Ireland experiences. The Soviet military perhaps, and some insight into Afghanistan I.
To paraphrase Ho Chi Minh, you are the elephant, they are the mice. The problem is trying to find the mice in order to stomp on them.....all of them.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm
You do not think hunting them down and making the cost of being a terrorist very high will work?
As far as Al-Q is concerned, it is working. The terrorist groups Israel faces have the advantage of a population base that indoctrinates suicide bombers from a very young age. Al-Q does not have this. In Arabic culture people like a winner. Al-Q hasn't 'won' in the eyes of the populations they recruit from for some time now. Ask yourself this - when was the last time you saw a televised rally like the ones shortly after 11SEP01 - the ones where you had people waving placards with bin Laden's face on them, etc.?
Al-Q doesn't have a lot in common with the terror groups Israel faces. They don't have the same pure, simple ideology - 'Destroy Israel and Return Palestine to it's Rightful Owners'. First the U.S. was evil because there were U.S. troops in Saudi. Now all Democracy is evil because it corrupts the pure disciples of Islam. That may work on scattered teenagers with nothing to lose, but Ali Babba may not think Democracy is so bad when one of his kids get sick and he can get to a doctor that can save him.
Israel isn't involved in a war against terror - they are involved in a war for their survival - being as they are still here, despite being 3 on 1'd almost since their beginning as a Nation, I'd say they are winning in a significant way.
The groups attacking Israel have a huge advantage as long as their are Nations neighboring Israel who support terrorist attacks against Israel. They cull some dumb-ass indoctinated teenagers every month or so and send them into Israel to blow up some women and kids. The terror groups don't put their experienced cadre at risk any more than is necessary. Their fund raising is sanctioned by Sovereign Nations. They have a relatively secure infrastructure. And their target is close by - they need to cross one border to 'get to work'.
Al-Q doesn't have it near as easy, especially since the Taliban went away. For every 'support specialist' (forger, fraud expert for generating funds, 'fixer', etc.) that they have in a safe place they probably have 2 that have 'gone to ground' in a 'hostile' Nation. These guys can't ask for direction, they can't receive directions, and every once in awhile someone in Gitmo gives up a little data that allows one of these guys to get picked up - he then gets grilled, gives up some data, etc.
Regardless of what certain politicians and media outlets say, Al-Q has lost no small # of experienced personnel that they are not going to be able to replace. Do you think a freelancer is going to do anything for Al-Q these days? When the money to betray them to the good guys is 3 times as good? Do you think Al-Q is going to trust a freelancer with all that reward money floating around?
Al-Q had a tougher mission than the guys targeting Israel. Except for instances like the U.S.S. Cole, where they could stage an op from 'friendly' territory (meaning Yemen, which is no longer so 'friendly') they needed the ability to position cells in different hemispheres for ops. They needed to keep those cells hidden. They were good with their COMSEC so they would arrange personal meetings between cell leaders and senior leadership in 'safe areas' (Afghanistan).
All of that is no longer a 'for sure' option. They have guys that need to travel but don't dare because they don't know if they are being looked for *yet* (which is something that lawyers who want all the documentation of every interrogation and/or prosecution revealed to everyone either don't get or don't give a damn about).
They were set up very well from a 'beat enemy COIN ops' standpoint because their leaders were trained by the U.S., U.K., France, etc. to operate as cells against the Soviets in Soviet controlled Afghanistan. This made them very hard to detect and penetrate.
But post-11SEP01, when basically the entire world of intelligence and CT put them on the 'burn these as$holes first' list, that structure became a hindrance. Because when a senior leader goes missing (dead? captured? did he talk? is he just hiding?) there's no automatic 'second in command' to take over from where that senior leader was when he was 'forced to leave'. Some of the other senior leadership probably has a good idea of what's going on, but the contact information isn't memorized by everyone, etc.
You see that system - that operational cell based system - it was developed by the CIA, the KGB, etc. So there was always a 'safe' HQ that had all the data *somewhere*. A place that could not be penetrated or destroyed. John Smith is running 7 cells each headed by some Eastern European recruit and each operating somewhere in the Soviet Bloc. There is no way that John Smith is every going 'over the fence'. If John Smith gets nabbed, 7 cells worth of guys are at risk. Each cell leader knows John Smith by a different name. Some of them think he works for the U.S., and a couple of them probably think he works for another Nation.
The 'John Smiths' of Al-Q are in hiding, or captured, or dead for the most part. There are still Al-Q cells - with no orders, no support, and no real way to contact HQ and find out what is going on. When you read about some senior Al-Q leader being captured in the news, they didn't leak that information to have Baskin Robbins sponsor a 'Free Ice Cream For Agency Guys' week. They leak that because sometimes such information makes people panic. "They got Habib? Holy Camel - he's our senior planner, they're gonna know about us before the week is out! We've got to cross the border before Wednesday and get some serious miles between us and this safehouse!".
Also there has never been a 'terrorist group' were everyone was commited to die for the cause. Some guys are the 'Gene Hackman' of terrorists - they go from group to group because that's all they've ever done and they make lots of $$$ doing it. The senior leaders are usually diehards. But it's a safe bet that no small number of Al-Q 'sleeper cells' have basically dissolved. Once some guys find out they aren't anonymous - that they can be zapped before they get the chance to park the truck bomb in front of the Rose Parade, they lose a little 'fanaticism'. Especially when the leaders are off the phone for months, etc.
The short version - the Israelis have a much tougher situation on their hands because they are fighting an enemy that can stage operations from a few km away and that enemy has a near-limitless supply of 'suicide attackers'. That's the case where the 'Hearts and Minds' statement really applies - the Palestinian people have to come to the understanding that the terrorist leaders who claim to be 'fighting their cause' are only using them as 'human bullets' not to deliver the Palestinians, but to destroy Israel. This is also starting to happen - Palestinian parents are beginning to get annoyed at terrorist recruiters cruising the cigarette joints where the kids hang out.
Mike/wulfie
(p.s. This is a 'quick and dirty' reply so please excuse the spelling. Also, I'm getting ready to 'go away' from regular computer access again for awhile so I'll get a chance to reply tomorrow and then I'll be offline - if I don't reply after that I'm not ignoring you).
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Why would an enemy who is overmatched in terms of firepower and resources meet you on the battlefield on your terms? Of course they won't go toe to toe with you. So the Sun Tzu quote really doesn't apply since the enemy is not "settled". The Chinese master was referring to set piece battles and flanking manoevers (i.e., traditional warfare).
Turn it around and look at it from the attacker's perspective. The U.S. is effectively settled, defenses are in place.
-
Wulfie,
Good post. I loved the reference to the "Gene Hackman" of terrorists. Had me laughing for a while on that one. :)
-
Great post as usual Wulfie.
-
they think $$ will bring them back?
The money grubbing started almost immediately after 9/11. Many of us Americans started trying to make a buck from it - From singing cops putting out 9/11 albums, to camera-conscious fire fighters copywriting photos of flag raising - and suing people for using the image, to ambulance chasing attorneys hired by victims' family, friends, acquaintances, and the victims themselves, to vendors of T-shirts, silk screened pillows showing the towers, to memorial coins and so on. Its the American way.
The outragious lawsuits and ridiculus jury awards will continue to get larger and more out of control until we support Tort Reform in this country, across the board.
I don't think we can count on the lawyers to excersize self control or put any decent limitations on their attempts to get money.