U.S. rail network still vulnerable to terror

[Anonymous]

To answer the first post: No thanks. This should be a hobby of escape, and fun only. Instead of security cameras, guards, etc, my model railroad has goofy names for industries, etc. I like John Allen's dinosaur pulling a car in the yard. That's model railroading. Leave the terrorism to the real world, and keep it away from my basement, if only for an hour a week.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

QUOTE: It's true that the liberals are not entirely to blame.

AntonioFP45, this is a pretty loaded statement--it suggests that you are convinced that "the liberals", if not entirely to blame, are at least partially to blame.

It's only the 99 per cent of liberals who give the rest a bad name.[}:)]

"Invade their countries,
Kill their leaders,
and convert them to Christianity." - Ann Coulter

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Anonymous]

and then the Bush** Admin will bomb the hell out of another railroad that had nothing to do with Amtrak, then we'll occupy all their depots with national guard soldiers while lying about their terroristic freight rates.

[}:)]

Paul

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The Bush administration has a quick, easy and cheap fix.

Cut the funding for Amtrak.
No trains.
No target.
No problem.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

We've been at war before and somehow our railroads, our civil liberties and our children's financial future have all managed to survive mostly intact.

Wayne

[Virginian]

Well, I agree with cutting Amtrak funding. I agree with cutting a WHOLE LOT of funding in all areas. If we could find a way to restrain our zeal for lawsuits, someone would find a way to make passenger transportation a paying business. The government isn't efficient at anything. We used to be good at war, but we can't even do that anymore because we are too worried about collateral damage and bad press coverage.
Make no mistake, we are in a war. They hate us and want us dead. Period. I do not think we are going to win by re-educating them, or helping them achieve a higher level of human rights. Why can't Americans understand they are different than we are. They think different, and most important they BELIEVE different.
They don't want human rights. To them, their own women are second class, and they like it that way. We are a threat to all they hold dear.
It is said they are so hard to defeat because they are not afraid to die. The Japanese were not afraid to die either as I recall.
Perhaps we do not need to kill all of them. Just enough so there aren't enough left to start a riot in a small town.

[Train 284]

Qoute: The Bush administration has a quick, easy and cheap fix.

Cut the funding for Amtrak.
No trains.
No target.
No problem.


I completly agree with this statement!

[dinwitty]

these terrorists are sometimes more weak words than action.
Serious wartime efforts try to cut off the effectiveness of the enemy as fast as possible, the terrorists are wimps at this, they want to do damage thats significant and makes a point, their overgrown boisterous wimps who dont givadam

I lost interest in the terrorism ordeal, and focus on my interests of the hobby that makes it enjoyable. No terrorists allowed.

Read my lips, you terrorists are your own terror to yourselves. happy self terrorizing... 8-P

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: It's true that the liberals are not entirely to blame.

AntonioFP45, this is a pretty loaded statement--it suggests that you are convinced that "the liberals", if not entirely to blame, are at least partially to blame.

This is NONSENSE.

Am I willing to give up more of my freedom to gain a bit more security? Hell no. If what we are supposed to be defending is "freedom", then we make a mockery of what we are supposed to be defending by sacrificing freedom for an illusion of security.

The measures put into place do serious harm to the Constitution without significantly increasing our safety. The steps taken by the government do serious harm to our international reputation and encourage more people around the world to hate us, fueling America's real enemies.

I refuse to bow down to any totalitarian. The fact that some totalitarians wear suits and ties and go to churches with a cross on them does not make them better than totalitarians in turbans who go to mosques. The enemy of freedom is my enemy, even if he's waving an American flag while plotting to steal our rights.

This thread should probably be locked soon. It doesn't have anything to do with trains anymore.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be called 'americanism.'"--Huey Long

[grayfox1119]

This has been a very interesting thread to read. Many of you have made some excellent points.
I would like to add my thoughts, having been around since WW2, I have a longer viewing period to witness the actions and re-actions of the people.

First, the majority of Americans did not want to get involved with the war in Europe, nor did they want to get involved with what Japan was doing in the Pacific. The liberal Press had the majority of people convinced that we should remain neutral.
What brought us into the war with Japan, was not the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It started with the U.S. placing an embargo on all scrap metal being shipped to Japan. Japan had no natural resources such as iron, to build planes, tanks, ships, etc. so they relied heavily upon what the U.S. had been shipping. Japan regarded this as an insult, a public slap in the face. They could not let this pass, so they planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Winston Churchill had advance intelligence that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but it is said that he withheld this info, because he knew that the U.S. could not remain neutral, that we were the only hope as an industrial nation to save the free world with our vast resources.
It is also said that Roosevelt also knew that Japan was planning to attack. But, as we all know, American's need a "kick in the butt" to wake up and smell the roses. And we got just that.
Then, Moussilini declared war on the U.S. An act of a mad man. Soon afterward, Hitler did the same, which was fairly innevitable because the U.S. was shipping so much war material to England and Russia, that Hitler was bound to turn his U-Boats against the cargo ships.
How does this all relate to today you ask? People who do not LEARN from history, will surely be DOOMED by it.
As for terrorist? It is easy for them to take down many targets in any country of choice. Our borders are like a sieve. Sooner or later, if we do not stop them in their own country, they will hit again, and I only hope and pray to God that it is not a nuclear, or biological weapon. Can you just imagine if just one of these fanatics carries his infected body on a plane to England and the U.S with a deadly virus? Or worse yet 10 or 20 of them to major cities around the world?
We live in serious times gents, our best defense now is "us". We ALL need to be vigilant for any activities that are suspicious.
In the meantime.......we go on living free men, we do not give up to terrorists by cowering, millions did not die before us, and still are dying in Iraq, to have us hide in fear.
Remember what history had taught us, no nation in the entire history of the world has been able to maintain it's freedom without fighting for it with a strong military and will of the people.

God bless us all,

[dwRavenstar]

They say the Homeland Security needs are cutting into the money that had been allocated for local law enforcement efforts.
The apparent plan is to remove all markings from hazardous chemical loads on the railroads and highways to confound potential terrorist actions. (Also confounded will be the efforts of local first responder units when something goes wrong)
Hazmat truckers will soon have to have special screening and certification even though the certification isn't necessary if you want to steal a truck and drive it into a city.
If an attack on a passenger train would be shocking an action against a hazmat carrying freight would be devastating.
The general thinking is that if you want to smuggle a nuclear device into this country you only have to hide it inside of a bale of marijuana to succeed.
I wish I had answers but even more I wi***he question had never been asked. Now that it has we all have to keep our eyes open.

Dave Wyland (dwRavenstar)

[AntonioFP45]

Yes, BrothaSlide has a very good point.

We can discuss these issues civily which so far has been thought provoking

10-4 and Peace!

[IRONROOSTER]

One major problem is, we don't really know how much of a problem or threat there really is. Considering the amount of WMD found, our intellience is suspect at the moment. While I don't doubt their desire to kill us and others, Al Qaida's history suggests that they are mostly opportunistic and not really capable of big operations more than one every few years. Guarding against the low tech/easy things is probably the best thing to do right now while keeping the heat on the Al Qaida organization.

What we don't want to do is sacrifice our rights and freedoms in panic and fear. We also need to get realistic - usually in a war we raise taxes not cut them. Trying to do security on the cheap is not the answer and sacrificing the rest of our way of life isn't either. The deficit will probably have a bigger impact on us than another attack. We need to get the budget under control and this probably means raising taxes.

Eventually, we will, hopefully, come to a point where we do the security things routinely, but not obsess over them. Which comes back to train security. Yes we need to do something, Spain showed us how easy it is to do an opportunistic attack using the trains, so some security is needed. Getting rid of the passenger trains is not the answer. I think as the population increases in this country we will need passenger trains more not less especially for medium length runs in places where the airport capacity is getting filled up. Just as we don't expect the road system to pay for itself, we shouldn't expect the passenger train to pay for itself - it's an investment in our national infrastructure that benefits us all.

Enjoy
Paul

[brothaslide]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcammack

I think that this thread is getting way too political. I hope it gets locked just as quickly.

I will say that it is disconcerting just how easy it is for someone knowledgable to break a freight train in half without anyone being able to prevent it. Happened in San Antonio last year.

Yes it is getting political, but. . . IF we can express our opinions like adults and not loose our tempers, etc, then this is a very interesting discussion.

Take care,

[bcammack]

I think that this thread is getting way too political. I hope it gets locked just as quickly.

I will say that it is disconcerting just how easy it is for someone knowledgable to break a freight train in half without anyone being able to prevent it. Happened in San Antonio last year.

[AntonioFP45]

RailroadingBrit, MuddyCreek

I respect what you guys are saying, but Al-Qaida being "fragmented" offers them advantages. By being fragmented, locations of the leaders "on top of the food chain" remain secret.

An attack on a plane, train, or city district could quickly spread fear (thanks to our lightning fast media) among many U.S citizens which effects our economy.

If you remember, after 9/11 a deranged man with that appeared to be Arab, slashed a Greyhound bus driver's throat with a knife while onboard. Look how fast Greyhound shut down its system!

It doesn't take a great deal of organized fire power, to effectively damage our economies or rapidly spread high fear among populations that aren't accustomed to attacks like what happened during 9/11 or 4/11(Spain).

Should attacks like these occur, and the liklihood exists, more people than what is expected would demand "improved protection and security, regardless of costs!". Many of the citizens today that cry "Foul! Let's get the ACLU involved" when terrorist suspects are detained would likely sing a different tune if a dirty bomb were detonated in Boston or New York. Or, if several airplanes or even commuter trains were wiped out.

As mentioned above, talk is very cheap. Talk about attacks was dirt cheap just before Pearl Harbor and before 9/11/01. IMHO, the conflicting talk today between protection and civil liberties is also cheap. It will be cheap.............until something happens.......and like 9/11, if it happens when least expected.

It's true that the liberals are not entirely to blame. We're pouring money in rebuilding Iraq and Tsunami hit countries but from what I've read, grade school age kids can sneak across the Mexican border!

Peace!


The attack in Spain was horrid,

[Anonymous]

This is pretty topical here at the moment - our government are trying to force through a series of highly undemocratic measures intended to help fight terrorism. To my mind, these are unnecessary. I don't believe that "Al Quada" and their assorted member groups (which are more of a fragmented assembly than a single monolithic unit) present as much of a threat as we've been led to believe. This is based on having read assorted works and debated the question in seminars over the past two years - my degree course covers a lot of things related to this. If these people are committing crimes, then we gather evidence and go through the normal court process. Holding people for many years without charges or trial is not the solution - consider post-WW2 when the millions of German POWs had to be screened to check if any Nazi high command were hiding amongst them, we were able to do this fairly quickly and with a very good success rate, so why can we not do this today? I'm not advocating being "soft" - in the event of the situation being reversed they would not be - but I am suggesting that abandoning all the freedoms that our ancestors fought hard for is not the way to win. We can defeat these people without compromising our way of life, surely that is a better way to fight?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps funding the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission would be a start towards a safer infrastructure. Talk is cheap but cheap talk does nothing without funding. Cheap talk doesn't provide firefighters with equiment. Cheap talk doesn't put security equipment in our ports.

I don't think it was "Teddy Kennedy & the likes" that decided money would be better spent elsewhere. Blaming "The Liberals" is too simplistic.

Wayne

[AntonioFP45]

Well guys,

I understand what you're saying but let's think realistically. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 and citizens, while "slightly more alert" are basically "complacent" again. If we look back in history, we knew well in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be slammed, but would not take it seriously since we were the big "free nation" of the world.

If we ever start experiencing the rash of bombings and attacks like some of the Europeon and Arab countries have been experiencing for years, it's a sure bet that attitudes will change very quickly!

Statistically, the chances of attacks have increased dramatically and unlike most of us, this enemy has no fear of dying. One of the Islamic Extremists (Oh yeah, terrorists) credos is: Every American male over the age of 13, should die!

Many citizens won't mind sacrificing a few liberties if they feel it will make them more secure. I don't cheri***he idea, but it's a reality we may have to deal with if the situations begin to occur.

God forbid, that the wack-nut-job in North Korea sells nuclear material to these idiots (if he hasn't already). There would be a lot more to think about than the loss of some of our "civil liberties". While the ACLU has helped in some cases, it at times seems like they and some of the liberal media outlets have been helping terrorists in their cause.

Not trying to doom-and-gloom guys, but again we have to face reality. So before you flame me, again these are just the observations of a 41 year old Tech-Ed teacher.

Peace out!

[davekelly]

If we change our way of life - the bad guys win.

[Jetrock]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--
Benjamin Franklin

[Anonymous]

Do you want reasonably priced travel and the ease of doing so, or do you want to be paranoid the rest of your life because something MIGHT happen? Face it, none of us gets out of here alive! I would rather have the miniscule possibility of terrorism and live life freely!

[Jetrock]

See, the problem is that we'll be vulnerable to some extent, no matter what we do!

There is NO way to guarantee that no terror attack will ever be successful.

We can take reasonable steps--ones that, hopefully, will achieve a margin of safety without making a mockery of our Constitution. But there is no point to trashing our freedom in the name of security. And no point in trashing the national passenger rail system because of something that MIGHT happen.

[gvdobler]

Yes they are still vulnerable.
Our enemies want us dead.
They don't want to talk, negotiate or settle.
They want us to die.
Til Teddy kennedy and the likes understand that, we are all still very vulnerable.

Jon - Las Vegas

[dehusman]

The Bush administration has a quick, easy and cheap fix.

Cut the funding for Amtrak.
No trains.
No target.
No problem.

Dave H.

[Javern]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7069390/

brings up a new idea for our layouts, having a secure railway. Secuirty guards, cameras, undercover agents, etc. Got to keep those dangerous cargos safe from terrorists