LOL, as bad as government schools are in the US, one thing they seem to be capable of achieving excellence at is team sports. I'll note that coaches positions are typically not unionized..... hint hintalexjrgreen wrote:If you've been to a good school, sure. The rest of the population aren't as well prepared.TallDave wrote:I think you'd be surprised at the effectiveness of untrained American males. Most of us have some informal training in applied group violence, even if it's just football or hockey.
We're a pack, not a herd.
To those concerned Obama was anti-nuclear (IntLibber)
-
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
There was no precidence for planes being used as missiles before 911. The passengers on Flight 93 had knowledge of the prior planes being flown into buildings that day though cell phone calls. Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.alexjrgreen wrote:People in the other planes that day just sat there and let the highjackers get on with it.
regards
-
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.
Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.
Ars artis est celare artem.
People watch banks get robbed because their deposits are insured. No point risking your life for an insured deposit. Hijackers threaten passengers lives, not their money. What was unique however about 9/11 was the point of the hijacking. Historically hijackers were after either money, release of political prisoners, or escape to outlaw jurisdictions with no extradition.alexjrgreen wrote:Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.
Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.
Note: There had never been a successful hijacking in the US until the FAA banned passengers from flying armed. Airplanes are much softer targets than banks.
The passengers on 93 knew they were going to die and acted accordingly. The passengers on the 'other' flights didn't know they were going to die and acted accordingly. People seeing a bank robbery don't even think they are going to die and they act accordingly.alexjrgreen wrote:Every time a bank gets robbed, people stand around and let it happen.seedload wrote:Unfortunately, the people on the other planes didn't have the same prior knowledge. They were the prior knowledge. If they had known, I am sure they would have fought back. I suggest that we don't need to tear them down to build up the heroic passengers of 93.
Saying that the people in the other planes behaved like the rest of the population isn't tearing them down. That's why the passengers of Flight 93 were such a humbling example.
Nothing about the latter two examples takes away from or adds to the bravery of those in the first.
Apples and Oranges.
Carried firearms were banned on planes in the US in 1958. Screening was implemented in 1973.hanelyp wrote:Fascinating data point. Could you cite a reference I could share with skeptics?IntLibber wrote:Note: There had never been a successful hijacking in the US until the FAA banned passengers from flying armed. Airplanes are much softer targets than banks.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_59576754
The first hijacking in the US did not happen until 1961, three years after carrying firearms was banned.
This PPT: http://www.bibalex.org/Supercourse/Supe ... 1/4811.ppt
Has a slide number 18 I believe, that charts global hijackings since 1948.
Making airliners gun-free-zones has made them prone to hijackings, necessitating the imposition of ever more tyriannical fascist security measures to seek to prevent hijackings yet never attaining the level of safety that existed when anybody could carry a gun on a plane.
Sheesh. Don't ya think there are a bunch of other variables in play?
Hijacks not only coincide with the gun ban, they coincide with the increased frequency of Screaming infants on airplanes. Should we blame them too? Perhaps we should.
So far no International financiers, bankers, high level diplomats, captains of Industry or other folks on fruitful business hijacked any airplanes despite the gun ban. I wonder why not? They didn't do it in the 50's either, I guess. They're the ones who flew back then. Flying used to be expensive and uncommon. Folks stood out.
I remember an "All in the Family" where Archie's solution to Hijackings was indeed to"Arm all your Passengers". Sheesh.
Hijacks not only coincide with the gun ban, they coincide with the increased frequency of Screaming infants on airplanes. Should we blame them too? Perhaps we should.
So far no International financiers, bankers, high level diplomats, captains of Industry or other folks on fruitful business hijacked any airplanes despite the gun ban. I wonder why not? They didn't do it in the 50's either, I guess. They're the ones who flew back then. Flying used to be expensive and uncommon. Folks stood out.
I remember an "All in the Family" where Archie's solution to Hijackings was indeed to"Arm all your Passengers". Sheesh.
As I happen to live in a state with a lower overall crime rate, murder rate, and property crime rate less than switzerland, a state where carrying a pistol publicly without a permit is legal and ownership of machine guns is also legal, I live daily in a society where Archie is exactly correct.Helius wrote:Sheesh. Don't ya think there are a bunch of other variables in play?
Hijacks not only coincide with the gun ban, they coincide with the increased frequency of Screaming infants on airplanes. Should we blame them too? Perhaps we should.
So far no International financiers, bankers, high level diplomats, captains of Industry or other folks on fruitful business hijacked any airplanes despite the gun ban. I wonder why not? They didn't do it in the 50's either, I guess. They're the ones who flew back then. Flying used to be expensive and uncommon. Folks stood out.
I remember an "All in the Family" where Archie's solution to Hijackings was indeed to"Arm all your Passengers". Sheesh.
Where do you live again?