Electroliner 1935 daveklepper We know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban. Dave. Can you supply the source of that statement "he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban" I thought that was NOT the case. Except thaas his father emigrated from Afghanistan, he probably did have contacts before he left but are there known contacts since he left?
daveklepper We know that he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban.
Dave. Can you supply the source of that statement "he had lots of contact with terrorist groups, and that his own father had contacts with the Taliban"
I thought that was NOT the case. Except thaas his father emigrated from Afghanistan, he probably did have contacts before he left but are there known contacts since he left?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-orlando-shooters-afghan-roots/2016/06/13/d89a8cd0-30e4-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html
Father and son both sound unstable. The son was born on LI in New Hyde Park in 1986. His Afghani parents seem to have come to the US in the early 1980s sometime after the Soviet invasion of 1979.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperI do have to point out that what my critic calls bigotry as result from old age migh just be a good memory of important events that may not even be considered by younger people. For example, the French resistance against the Nazi occupation was led by the Communists. But most French people were not and are not Communists. The USA State Department had selected Darlan as leader of the French Government in Exile, moved from London to North Africa, because Darlan, who had been appointed North African Governor by the pupit Vichy French Government, had taken his power from supporting Vichy and the Germans to suporting the Allies. But Eisnenhower and Roosevelt knew from intelligence that the Communists would fight a Darlan government and military forces with the same zeal they fought the Germans. So the State Department was overruled, and a more popular French leader, De Gaulle, was selected.
You would have to be about 95 years old to have personal knowledge of all this. Otherwise, you are no different than the rest of us with second hand info, ie, history.
ouibejamn daveklepper You would have to be about 95 years old to have personal knowledge of all this. Otherwise, you are no different than the rest of us with second hand info, ie, history.
daveklepper
I believe Dave has a head start on the rest of us for the number 95, while not at the number he is closer than most on here.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Dave was quite young but certainly old enough to read. No doubt he took an interest in the war.
1. The newspapers reported EMAIL contacts.
2. Born Jan
1932
Newspapers
1938---
Possibly I need to straighten out an impression. I am not saying that I believe it was a terrorist attack. I am sayinig that as far as I know the possibility of a terrorist attack was not (completely?) disproved.
OK, so what do I believe. I believe the CHANCES ARE it was not a terrorist attack, but there is a 50-50 chance that a rock or something similar did hit the windwhield and may have contributed to the loss of attention and even consciousness and memory. I understand that most terrorist attacks involve the use of weapons of one sort or another, and that rocks are usually thrown by youngsters dissatisfied with society. President Obama, as told in several media editions by his ex-college roomate, was a Socialist. His whole political life has been based on populism. If blame can be deflected entirely from both terrorists and the "underclass," he would obviously be happy.
In the earlier days of my normal PC, Conrail, then Metro-North commute, rock incidents in the Bronx Park Avenue Cut occured, but fortunately, at least in my memory, there were no serious injiuries. Fences improved, police security improved, and leasure-time activities for Bronx youth improved. I think the sistuation is much better today.
.... or it could be that your own predjudices won't let you accept that it could be exact what the NTSB says it is. It fits nicer into your world view if it is a rocking event and if the FBI and NTSB are lying.
After researching a lot of other incidents myself, the NTSB explanation is very easy to believe and is more consistent with other incidents than any rocking scenario that has been put forward.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
What you call prejudices others on this site may call experience and observance. I received the following from the Emeritus Editor and Chief of the Journal of the Acousical Society of America, also Emeritus engineer of Aironauatics at Boston University:
Thanks for proving my point.
Let me remind everyone that since David lives in Jerusalem he's certainly gotten a bit more insight into the terrorism dilemma than the rest of us would like to have.
Bigotry has nothing to do with this.
Living in the bullseye, if not the nine-ring, tends to make a person see the world as it is, not as he wishes it was.
That's all.
daveklepper What you call prejudices others on this site may call experience and observance. I received the following from the Emeritus Editor and Chief of the Journal of the Acousical Society of America, also Emeritus engineer of Aironauatics at Boston University: You may have seen this, but it is a big flag as to what is wrong with the Obama administration The Department of Justice is scrubbing references of radical Islamic beliefs from the transcripts of calls Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen made to police during his massacre, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Sunday. “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch told NBC. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].” The calls could confirm Mateen's motives in the wake of Facebook postings from the killer that already reveal Islamist leanings. “I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me,” Mateen wrote in one post during the attack. “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west” …“You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance.” Other posts include warnings to the U.S. and Russia to stop bombing the Islamic State and a prediction that more ISIS attacks would follow Mateen's assault. But that "radical Islam" angle is likely to be missing from Monday's release. Critics blasted the move by the administration, which has rejected branding terrorist acts as motivated by radical Islam and has sought to paint the Orlando attack as a gun control issue. Orlando Nightclub Shooting | Graphiq "This is not just a simple wording issue," Ric Grenell, a Fox News contributor and former aide to UN Ambassador John Bolton told Fox and Friends Monday morning. "The fact that Loretta Lynch is somehow redacting the specific enemy that is being called out here is a PR move.
The Attorney General has since reversed her redaction of the reference to ISIS in releasing the transcript of the 911 call in the Orlando shooting. Obviously, the Obama Administration is in denial over the possibility of terrorism being claimed to be inspired by Islam. But all that is needed for such inspiration is a perception of Islam. Radical people have radical perceptions. It has nothing to do with what Islam actually is. The term, “radical Islam” is not an insult of the religion. It only refers to a perception of the religion.
Yet, the Obama Administration has twisted itself into a pretzel over the term, “Radical Islam.” From his comments in a recent speech, Obama seems to believe that it is a slur based on discrimination against a religion. Yet he himself has said that ISIS has "perverted Islam into a twisted interpretation of the religion." What is the difference between a “twisted or perverted interpretation” of Islam and an interpretation of Islam that is “radical”? There is no difference.
dehusman Thanks for proving my point.
What else would one expect from a person who lives in a country where an ally of Netanyahu in the Knesset and the current Minister of Justice publicly embraces bigotry and genocide?
"Ayelet Shaked is a member of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, which is part of the ruling coalition. Shaked holds degree in electrical engineering and computer sciences and she worked in marketing for Texas Instruments. She has past ties to Benjamin Netanyahu. From 2006-2008, she was the office director for the office of Netanyahu. She then established “My Israel” with Naftali Bennet, but in January 2012 she was elected to serve as the coordinator of Likud. She later became a Knesset member for the Jewish Home Party, a successor party to the National Religious Party. The party is committed to a nation governed by Jewish law under the belief that Jews are divinely ordained to rule over the Land of Israel. The party has been active in supporting the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and largely represents Orthodox Jews according to news report. She posted this on Facebook in 2014: “Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”[from https://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/17]
Meanwhile, back in Philadelphia......................................
Norm
Amen to that Norm. Gentlemen, I respectfully suggest we get back to the original topic, we're skating on very thin ice here.
Personally, I think there's very little to be said at this point about the original topic, which is why you haven't heard from me concerning it for quite some time.
I have one lingering question related to the cause of the wreck of #188. How are Amtrak riders going feel secure with the knowledge that their safety is in the hands of one person who can derail the whole train at over 100 mph just by being distracted by a conversation over the company radio?
Firelock76Amen to that Norm. Gentlemen, I respectfully suggest we get back to the original topic, we're skating on very thin ice here.
Perhaps someone should tell that directly to Dave Klepper, since he's persisted in repeating his terrorist meme since he first suggested it last year, on May 15, 2015: "I am with you, KP, and the spray was released by the same terrorists that produced the "projectiles" that damaged the SEPTA train windshield."
Euclid I have one lingering question related to the cause of the wreck of #188. How are Amtrak riders going feel secure with the knowledge that their safety is in the hands of one person who can derail the whole train at over 100 mph just by being distracted by a conversation over the company radio?
Seems to me a pretty good argument for two-man head-end crews, on passenger AND freight trains.
Personal opinion, but I think most will not have a problem with it. Accidents on a highly structured, regulated and access controled line such as the NEC are relatively rare in comparison to the number of trains they operate. OTOH, there are those who feel insecure getting out of bed in the morning. There are no guarantees of safety in life no matter how hard we try to eliminate hazards. I am under the impression that ACSES has been installed at the Frankford curve. That should help assuage the fears of most riders.
Here is how the Germans plan to solve that problem ..
http://www.businessrevieweurope.eu/technology/910/Deutsche-Bahn-wants-driverless-trains-in-Germany-by-2021
EuclidI have one lingering question related to the cause of the wreck of #188. How are Amtrak riders going feel secure with the knowledge that their safety is in the hands of one person who can derail the whole train at over 100 mph just by being distracted by a conversation over the company radio?
As secure as they are with the knowledge that their safety anywhere is in the hands of one person who can crash and kill them from distraction just about anywhere. We call those people "drivers", the things they drive "cars", and the distraction "phones", "alcohol", "drugs", "fatigue", among others.
If someone is that afraid, they better hide in their bubble at home. Excpet many accidents happen in the home - so they are boned either way. *shrugs*.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Firelock76Seems to me a pretty good argument for two-man head-end crews, on passenger AND freight trains.
If multiple crew members insured that crews wouldn't exceed the speed limit or exceed their authority then most railroad collisions, passing red blocks and speeding would have occurred in the last 5-10 years. But since there have been accidents with 2-3-4-5 people in the cab of the engine since there were cabs on engines it really doesn't guarantee anything. I'm sure it will lessen the chances of a mishap, but it won't eliminate them because having more people in the cab in the past didn't eliminate mishaps in the last 150 years.
zugmann Euclid I have one lingering question related to the cause of the wreck of #188. How are Amtrak riders going feel secure with the knowledge that their safety is in the hands of one person who can derail the whole train at over 100 mph just by being distracted by a conversation over the company radio? If someone is that afraid, they better hide in their bubble at home. Excpet many accidents happen in the home - so they are boned either way. *shrugs*.
I am not suggesting that life must be made entirely free of risk. But there must be some degree of proportionality and relativity in in assessing risk. A distracted driver may put some people at risk, but not as many as may be typically riding on a passenger train.
Like the finding about thrown rocks, I am perhaps even more skeptical of the NTSBs whimsical explanation that the engineer failed to control the train because he was distracted by a radio transmission. Under the terms of that explanation, the engineer was not at fault. Rather, he was an innocent victim of distraction. What could he have done different to avoid the catastrophe?
They could have concluded only that the engineer lost situational awareness. After all, that is actually all they really know. But they had to speculate that his loss of situational awareness was due to being emotionally affected by a radio transmission that included the report of an injury to a fellow worker. Why would they speculate? Why not just leave it at what they know?
So my overall point is not that life must be free of risk. It is about how the whimsical speculation on the part of the NTSB opens the door to a boatload of risk if we are to believe their explanation. So I want to know how we are to deal with that new boatload.
EuclidLike the finding about thrown rocks, I am perhaps even more skeptical of the NTSBs whimsical explanation that the engineer failed to control the train because he was distracted by a radio transmission. Under the terms of that explanation, the engineer was not at fault. Rather, he was an innocent victim of distraction.
You are making one hell of a jump to reach that conclusion. Where does the NTSB say that he is an innocent victim?
zugmann Euclid Like the finding about thrown rocks, I am perhaps even more skeptical of the NTSBs whimsical explanation that the engineer failed to control the train because he was distracted by a radio transmission. Under the terms of that explanation, the engineer was not at fault. Rather, he was an innocent victim of distraction. You are making one hell of a jump to reach that conclusion. Where does the NTSB say that he is an innocent victim?
Euclid Like the finding about thrown rocks, I am perhaps even more skeptical of the NTSBs whimsical explanation that the engineer failed to control the train because he was distracted by a radio transmission. Under the terms of that explanation, the engineer was not at fault. Rather, he was an innocent victim of distraction.
How can he be anything but an innocent victim if he was distracted by something that was a legitimate part of his job? It is the nature of distraction to not be able to prevent it. You can't see it coming, and once distraction arrives, it prevents you from realizing that you are distracted.
EuclidHow can he be anything but an innocent victim if he was distracted by something that was a legitimate part of his job? It is the nature of distraction to not be able to prevent it. You can't see it coming, and once distraction arrives, it prevents you from realizing that you are distracted.
It still doesn't mean you are innocent. That is just the conclusion you jumped to.
Let me ask you this: you look down to change the radio station in your car. You run over a pedestrian. That mean you are innocent?
Point is: where did the NTSB ever say he was innocent? We can all speculate on what they mean - but that's an exercise in futility. What they wrote is what matters.
zugmann Euclid How can he be anything but an innocent victim if he was distracted by something that was a legitimate part of his job? It is the nature of distraction to not be able to prevent it. You can't see it coming, and once distraction arrives, it prevents you from realizing that you are distracted. It still doesn't mean you are innocent. That is just the conclusion you jumped to. Let me ask you this: you look down to change the radio station in your car. You run over a pedestrian. That mean you are innocent? Point is: where did the NTSB ever say he was innocent? We can all speculate on what they mean - but that's an exercise in futility. What they wrote is what matters.
Euclid How can he be anything but an innocent victim if he was distracted by something that was a legitimate part of his job? It is the nature of distraction to not be able to prevent it. You can't see it coming, and once distraction arrives, it prevents you from realizing that you are distracted.
The NTSB did not want to say he was innocent, so they just implied it by speculating that he was a victim of distraction. That makes it necessary to jump to a conclusion, so I jumped to innocent rather than guilty. How can he be guilty of something he had no control over?
As to changing a radio station, it would be hard to make the case that it was so distracting that it caused a driver to run over a pedestrian. Or it may be a crime of distracted driving if you run over a pedestrian and claim that you were distracted by changing the radio station.
The engineer of #188 did not commit any crime by listening to the radio transmission.
Nah... never mind. Screw it. Don't care.
zugmann It is not neccesary to jump to a conclusion. But you get off on it, so whatever. There are rules on situational awareness. And the NTSB never said he was an onnocent victim. No matter how you try to justify it in the Buckyverse.
It is not neccesary to jump to a conclusion. But you get off on it, so whatever.
There are rules on situational awareness. And the NTSB never said he was an onnocent victim. No matter how you try to justify it in the Buckyverse.
Well, my conclusion would be that he is guilty if the NTSB said he violated a rule prohbiting the loss of situational awareness. Bear in mind that my conclusion of the engineer being innocent is based only on the premise stated by the NTSB that the engineer lost situational awareness because he was distracted by the radio conversation.
However, that reason for losing situational awareness was only a hypothetical assumption on the part of the NTSB. I believe they qualified it with the word, "likely." So they left themselves a way out of their claim. But to the extent that their claim stands, I have to conclude that the engineer must be innocent. It makes no difference that the NTSB did not say he is innocent. It just naturally follows from what the NTSB said.
I strolled by here because I saw Zug's name.
Here in our burg, a man was driving, looked down to change the radio or put in a CD (I don't remember) and t-boned another vehicle, killing the driver.
Motor vehicle manslaughter.....and he was a middle-aged gentleman, going to work and not speeding. Probably a very careful driver normally - just not thinking safely for a split second.
It happens and then it runs downhill....
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.