• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cruise Ship sinks!

only Americans could turn a cruise ship sinking thread into another paranoid terrorists going to get us thread
 
Tigger said:
What is so bizarre about it, Adam?
Click to expand...

What's bizarre about being so paranoid about being attacked that you are willing to completely circumscribe your movements so as to avoid ever having to be someplace where you can't be armed? Seriously?

It would be like refusing to ever leave your home because you're afraid of being hit by lightning.
 
AdamT said:
What's bizarre about being so paranoid about being attacked that you are willing to completely circumscribe your movements so as to avoid ever having to be someplace where you can't be armed? Seriously?

It would be like refusing to ever leave your home because you're afraid of being hit by lightning.
Click to expand...

Not paranoid, prepared. There is a difference. I learned early in life that there are VERY FEW people on this planet who deserve my Trust. None of my common acquaintances get it. Only a very small percentage of my close friends even truly earm my Trust. I have learned to assume that at any time I could be the target of a potential threat. To that end, if I am not comfortable with the level of security a location provides and am not allowed to maintain my own security in that location, I will avoid it. That's just common sense so far as I'm concerned.
 
Tigger said:
Not paranoid, prepared. There is a difference. I learned early in life that there are VERY FEW people on this planet who deserve my Trust. None of my common acquaintances get it. Only a very small percentage of my close friends even truly earm my Trust. I have learned to assume that at any time I could be the target of a potential threat. To that end, if I am not comfortable with the level of security a location provides and am not allowed to maintain my own security in that location, I will avoid it. That's just common sense so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is paranoia.
 
Tigger said:
Not paranoid, prepared. There is a difference. I learned early in life that there are VERY FEW people on this planet who deserve my Trust. None of my common acquaintances get it. Only a very small percentage of my close friends even truly earm my Trust. I have learned to assume that at any time I could be the target of a potential threat. To that end, if I am not comfortable with the level of security a location provides and am not allowed to maintain my own security in that location, I will avoid it. That's just common sense so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

so if you wanted to go fishing or on a picnic with the family do you scope out the area first?
 
AdamT said:
I'm sorry, but that is paranoia.
Click to expand...

No. That's simply proper prior planning. I got an opportunity to see into the darkness of the human heart early on in life, and I have never forgotten that lesson, Adam. I'm 5'-5" tall and weigh about 160 lbs. I'm not the sort of person who is going to excell in a fistfight. To that end I attempt to avoid situations and locations where there might be the potential for an altercation. When that's not possible I go armed to ensure that I'm the one who ends up walking away if necessary. If neither option is possible, I avoid the location and situation entirely.
 
Higgins86 said:
so if you wanted to go fishing or on a picnic with the family do you scope out the area first?
Click to expand...

I would rarely go to an area that I am not already familiar with for that sort of event. If I was attending with someone else who knows the area better than I do, I would be talking to them about it ahead of time.
 
Tigger said:
I would rarely go to an area that I am not already familiar with for that sort of event. If I was attending with someone else who knows the area better than I do, I would be talking to them about it ahead of time.
Click to expand...


going to a city for you must be a nightmare
 
Higgins86 said:
going to a city for you must be a nightmare
Click to expand...

Not something I do very often. I definitely stay in the main areas of the city and do not stray off into side neighborhoods or places like that. I'll go into Boston or Springfield only if I'm armed. I won't go to NYC at all if I can help it.
 
Tigger said:
True, but considering that the last bunch to hit the US did it with commercial aircraft, I don't put much by today's terrorists. The fact that I would not be allowed to carry any of my personal self-defense tools onto the ship is a large part of why I would never even CONSIDER taking a cruise. I go out of my way to not be around large groups of people without appropriate self-defense tools on my person whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes?
 
AdamT said:
Tell that to the sailors aboard the USS Cole.

INTEL-COGNITIVE-Cole.jpg
Click to expand...

Tell em what? That small boat was loaded with explosive and damage did not cause a total loss.

17 sailors were killed during that attack and it was really more to do with luck as the strike hit the galley right at lunch time.

But actually, that attack proves my point. Did the Cole sink? Modern ship design takes into account for damage stability in regards to the floodable length curve. Furthermore, most cruise ships only consist of crew accommodations at the water line.
 
Fishstyx said:
Tell em what? That small boat was loaded with explosive and damage did not cause a total loss.

17 sailors were killed during that attack and it was really more to do with luck as the strike hit the galley right at lunch time.

But actually, that attack proves my point. Did the Cole sink? Modern ship design takes into account for damage stability in regards to the floodable length curve. Furthermore, most cruise ships only consist of crew accommodations at the water line.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have to be a sinking to be considered a serious attack. And my guess is that the Cole was a bit more robust than the typical cruise ship. And for a cruise ship you could pack an 80 or 100' boat with explosives ... if you had enough money.

It is what it is. There are thousands of potential targets in any free country where a determined terrorist could wreak havoc. The amazing thing is that it doesn't happen more often.
 
AdamT said:
It wouldn't have to be a sinking to be considered a serious attack. And my guess is that the Cole was a bit more robust than the typical cruise ship. And for a cruise ship you could pack an 80 or 100' boat with explosives ... if you had enough money.

It is what it is. There are thousands of potential targets in any free country where a determined terrorist could wreak havoc. The amazing thing is that it doesn't happen more often.
Click to expand...

Seem to be shifting the discussion. Never said it wouldn't be a serious attack, said its not a soft target, especially considering that AQ shoots for a significant body count in attacks they plan in US. To load a 80 or 100' boat, you'd need a sh!t ton of explosives. Not like you can just roll into HomeDepot and pick that stuff up. This scenario with the logitics required is exactly why a cruise ship is not a "soft" target.
 
Fishstyx said:
Seem to be shifting the discussion. Never said it wouldn't be a serious attack, said its not a soft target, especially considering that AQ shoots for a significant body count in attacks they plan in US. To load a 80 or 100' boat, you'd need a sh!t ton of explosives. Not like you can just roll into HomeDepot and pick that stuff up. This scenario with the logitics required is exactly why a cruise ship is not a "soft" target.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't take a 100-foot boat loaded with explosives to completely cripple the cruise line industry. And it wouldn't take more than 20 people with bottle bombs to cripple our economy. The question I'm always asking myself is, "Why isn't that **** happening?"
 
MaggieD said:
It wouldn't take a 100-foot boat loaded with explosives to completely cripple the cruise line industry. And it wouldn't take more than 20 people with bottle bombs to cripple our economy. The question I'm always asking myself is, "Why isn't that **** happening?"
Click to expand...

I don't disagree as I clearly stated a few posts ago. A crazy guy with small arms could have a huge impact on the cruise industry. But as far as a large number of people being killed aboard a cruise ship during a terrorist attack, highly unlikely.

As far as why? I'd say it two reasons on the top of my head. One, AQ's goal for an attack in the US is something produces a significant body count. Doesn't appear they've changed this at all. Two, the ability to organize in the US is obviosly prohibitively difficult.
 
Anyone read the latest? That damn captain needs to be keelhauled.

I'll see if I can find the link with the newest update. Capt claimed to coast guard capt that he was going to "assist from shore". Like...WTF????
 
Enola said:
Costa Concordia: coastguard 'ordered captain to return to the ship' | World news | The Guardian


Costa Concordia: Captain 'Left Ship And Called Taxi' After Crash


I say hire the capt of the coast guard to be new captain of any cruise ship launched after this disaster.
Click to expand...

Thereafter, all radio calls to the stricken liner went unanswered. But at 00.32 the coastguard managed to contact Schettino by telephone. By then, the evacuation had been under way for only about 40 minutes. The captain was asked how many people were still aboard.

"Two, three hundred," he replied. Ten minutes later, the coastguard rang him again. By then, said Il Fatto quoting a local fire brigade commander, Schettino had left his ship and was on the rocks at Punta Gabbianara. He was again asked how many people were still aboard.
"I've called the ship owners, and they tell me that about 40 people are missing," he replied. "So few? How is that possible?" asked the coastguard, before adding: "But you're on board?" "No. I'm not on board because the bows of the ship are coming up. We've abandoned her." "What do you mean? You've abandoned ship?" "No. No way have I abandoned ship. I'm here."

The final, and most dramatic call, took place at 1.46am when, after confirming that he was speaking to the captain, a coastguard officer told him: "Right. You are now going back on board. You are going to go back up the rope ladder, return to the bridge and co-ordinate operations."

There followed a long silence, Il Fatto reported. "You must tell me how many people there are," the coastguard officer continued. "How many passengers, women and children – and co-ordinate the rescue." Schettino protested that he was on land. "Captain," said the coastguard officer, cutting across him. "This is an order. Now I am in command. You have declared the abandoning of a ship and are going to co-ordinate the rescue from the bridge. There are already dead bodies."

"How many?" asked Schettino. "You're the one who should be telling me that," came the reply. "What do you want to do? Go home? Now, go back up and tell me what can be done: how many people there are and what they need." "Alright," said Schettino. "I'm going." [He never did.]
Click to expand...

He's a coward.
 
I don't see the hub-bub behind the outrage against the captain.

What, is he supposed to go down with the ship and die?
 
Wake said:
I don't see the hub-bub behind the outrage against the captain.

What, is he supposed to go down with the ship and die?
Click to expand...

It is maritime tradition that the Captain is among the very last to leave a sinking ship.
 
MaggieD said:
It is maritime tradition that the Captain is among the very last to leave a sinking ship.
Click to expand...

Tradition that may be, but if it places the captain's life in danger, I don't think he should have to die.
 
Wake said:
I don't see the hub-bub behind the outrage against the captain.

What, is he supposed to go down with the ship and die?
Click to expand...

No, but he is supposed to organize the people to get off the ship as safely as they can. There obviously was time for him to do so since the coast guard captain said that he had been arguing with him for about an hour about returning to the ship to help get the rest of the people off it.

A Captain no longer has to go down with their ship but they most certainly should be one of the very last people off and certainly shouldn't leave before all living passengers are off the ship. This guy had to be off before a good number of the passengers if they were still trying to rescue them an hour after the Coast Guard started fighting with him to go back and work to get the rest of the people off.
 
Wake said:
Tradition that may be, but if it places the captain's life in danger, I don't think he should have to die.
Click to expand...

It's his responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers and crew. Every captain knows that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom