Also, what kind of cowards let a plane get hijacked by cutters? How can 90+ people fail to neutralize 5 criminals with pocket knives? Wasn’t it the extreme expression of a selfish sissified society (would be a good idea for the next Atomic Dog)?
I don’t mean no disrespect for the memory of the hijack victims, but I for one, would have never sat on my ass watching a plane get hijacked. I’d have called everyone to get their little plastic forks and went after those criminals - and I’m a hardcore pacifist![/quote]
You’re a tool. Cowards? You do realize theses people probably believed there was a bomb on-board, right? That for most, a hijacking simply meant hours being captives until freed, with maybe a couple dead.
In a situation like that, do you charge the hijackers and risk killing everyone? These victims probably weren’t thinking along the lines of Islamists who ultimately used the plane as a weapon, instead of a bargaining chip. You better believe that passengers will now consider any future hijacking as a possible martyrdom operation, and act accordingly.
You would never have sat back and watched? You’re a joke. Is that like how you’d throw your life away to save dozens, without question? I’m paraphrasing, but that’s what you claimed in another post. I then challenged you to head down to the Sudan. Plenty of lives to attempt to save there. Of course, you whined about how hard it would be to get there. I guess the effort involved in sacrificing your life for those dozens is too hard?
Quit your heroic grandstanding. No-one is buying it. And yeah, my response is emotional this time. What a crock of shit for you to sit here and say.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, we’re getting ready to abandon the arab world as hopeless. So we have to arm someone there to run the show. The Saudi government is the best bet. Who should we leave in charge? Syria? Or maybe Morocco? [/quote]
Sorry buddy. Saudis are far from the best bet. They’re actually as close as any country can get to Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
You need to back up secular people, not the religious freaks that are the Islamists and the Zionists.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re a tool. Cowards? You do realize theses people probably believed there was a bomb on-board, right? That for most, a hijacking simply meant hours being captives until freed, with maybe a couple dead.
In a situation like that, do you charge the hijackers and risk killing everyone? These victims probably weren’t thinking along the lines of Islamists who ultimately used the plane as a weapon, instead of a bargaining chip. You better believe that passengers will now consider any future hijacking as a possible martyrdom operation, and act accordingly. [/quote]
Bombs on board? I never heard that before. Anyway, last I checked the idea of using commercial airplanes as weapons was considered a very plausible scenario. It was attempted as early as 1974. Take a look at Air France Flight 8969 for another example. It even made it into popular culture before 9/11 even happened.
[quote]You would never have sat back and watched? You’re a joke. Is that like how you’d throw your life away to save dozens, without question? I’m paraphrasing, but that’s what you claimed in another post. I then challenged you to head down to the Sudan. Plenty of lives to attempt to save there. Of course, you whined about how hard it would be to get there. I guess the effort involved in sacrificing your life for those dozens is too hard?
Quit your heroic grandstanding. No-one is buying it. And yeah, my response is emotional this time. What a crock of shit for you to sit here and say.[/quote]
Let’s face it, Sudan is a complicated issue. It’s not like I or anybody else can save any lives by showing up there unarmed. The Sudanese army and Janjaweed have got heavy artillery. What do I have? Fists. It’d be as suicidal as barring the road to a tank. Yes, it’s been done in Tienanmen and is a daily sight in the occupied territory, but in that context, it’s meant as publicity for a cause or grievance.
I wouldn’t think twice about giving my life away if my sacrifice has high chances of making a difference (think throwing yourself on a grenade in a crowded area). I never claimed to be a “caped crusader” going after the bad guys. I just said that if I were put in a situation where my sacrifice could save a group of people, I wouldn’t hesitate. An entire plane failing to neutralize a handful of thugs with pocket knives? The concept of non assistance to persons in danger is alien to every culture that puts money over welfare of society. Sadly, the “what’s in it for me” mentality seems to be prevailing in modern times. I resent that.
The truth is that were there a few T-men on those planes, 9/11 may not have been as disastrous as it turned out to be.
The truth is that were there a few T-men on those planes, 9/11 may not have been as disastrous as it turned out to be. [/quote]
Tell me, oh brave Lixy, when was the last time (pre-9/11) commercial airliners had been used as missiles? Now, how often have they been hijacked, and used as political tools? Pre-9/11 I’m not fighting hijackers. Pre 9-11 I’m entertaining a strong possibility that an explosive device has been smuggled onboard, and at least one hijacker has the trigger. I’m thinking that any heroic actions by myself or others would actually kill more people, as opposed to simply arriving at the hijackers destination and waiting out negotiations.
Add on a possible implicit, explicit, or simply assumed bomb threat to keep passengers compliant. Pre 9-11 the smart thing was to comply and let authorities handle any stand-off after touchdown. Post 9-11 has definitely changed how to weigh one’s options.
Furthermore, do you know where the 9-11 phrase “let’s roll” comes from? Passengers, who did become aware of the suicidal mission of these terrorists on one airliner (from clandestine cell phone calls relating the WTC strikes), did fight back. It’s probably why that plane went down in an empty field instead of some high profile target.
Don’t sit here building yourself up as some hero while suggesting these people were cowards. Use common sense for once , Lixy. If these people knew they were going to be doomed to die, no negotiations for release possible, there would’ve been nothing to hold them back. Certainly not the fear of death. No, the most obvious explanation is that these “Non T-men” believed compliance would actually save the most lives. That they’d sit for a couples hours on some runway until negotiations were over. Think man, think.
Nice excuses for missing the Sudan trip, by the way. For a guy who brags how heroic he is, you sure make a lot of excuses. “Oh gosh, the planets don’t align just right.” STFU.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…Also, what kind of cowards let a plane get hijacked by cutters? How can 90+ people fail to neutralize 5 criminals with pocket knives? Wasn’t it the extreme expression of a selfish sissified society (would be a good idea for the next Atomic Dog)?
I don’t mean no disrespect for the memory of the hijack victims, but I for one, would have never sat on my ass watching a plane get hijacked. I’d have called everyone to get their little plastic forks and went after those criminals - and I’m a hardcore pacifist![/quote]
You sure talk a big game for a self-proclaimed pacifist who sounds like he’s never even been in so much as a fist fight.
Previously, you claimed you would dive on a grenade in a crowded bus to save everyone (without a second thought, no less!), and now you’re leading the charge to take down terrorists with nary but a plastic fork in your hand.
Get real, Rambo. You have no clue as to how you’d react until you’re actually in that situation. Nobody does.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The truth is that were there a few T-men on those planes, 9/11 may not have been as disastrous as it turned out to be.
Tell me, oh brave Lixy, when was the last time (pre-9/11) commercial airliners had been used as missiles? Now, how often have they been hijacked, and used as political tools? Pre-9/11 I’m not fighting hijackers. Pre 9-11 I’m entertaining a strong possibility that an explosive device has been smuggled onboard, and at least one hijacker has the trigger. I’m thinking that any heroic actions by myself or others would actually kill more people, as opposed to simply arriving at the hijackers destination and waiting out negotiations.
Add on a possible implicit, explicit, or simply assumed bomb threat to keep passengers compliant. Pre 9-11 the smart thing was to comply and let authorities handle any stand-off after touchdown. Post 9-11 has definitely changed how to weigh one’s options.[/quote]
Good points. I clearly have no right judging a situation based on nothing more than the few details made public. I take back that rant above. I misplaced my anger towards complacent SOBs who wouldn’t lift a finger to help a fellow human being out.
Sincere apologies.
I was trying to make the point that attacks on American soil are easily averted provided a few people do their jobs correctly. Can’t say the same about the capacity of Iranians to intercept US bombs.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Look, we’re getting ready to abandon the arab world as hopeless. So we have to arm someone there to run the show. The Saudi government is the best bet. Who should we leave in charge? Syria? Or maybe Morocco?
Sorry buddy. Saudis are far from the best bet. They’re actually as close as any country can get to Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
You need to back up secular people, not the religious freaks that are the Islamists and the Zionists.
[/quote]
Who? We tried creating a secular and rational Iraq, but the maniac Iranians next door hate democracy on their doorstep.
I seriously can’t think of any country there that should be ‘large and in-charge’; Saudi Arabia not sharing a border with Iraq or Syria being one of their few positives.
Again, who? When we leave, btw, we’ll then see the new ‘Killing Fields’ like in Cambodia. Is that what you want?
It was reported that on all the flights except Flight 77,that at least one of the hijackers had a red box taped to their torso like it was a bomb…also Flight 93 actually fought back and the hijackers just crashed the plane because they were losing control. Just imagine if it had its intended target…Camp David…or White House…Lixy,you’re great!
Also…your point is rubbish…we’re not going to attack Iran by hijacking planes full of innocent people, kill them and whomever in the “name of God.” The 9/11 attacks shouldn’t even be mentioned in comparison to us attacking Iran…Lixy, you’re great!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who? We tried creating a secular and rational Iraq, but the maniac Iranians next door hate democracy on their doorstep. [/quote]
Yeah, you’d think those evil Iranians would just watch while their sworn enemy sets up military bases across the border. Silly Iranians…
[quote]I seriously can’t think of any country there that should be ‘large and in-charge’; Saudi Arabia not sharing a border with Iraq or Syria being one of their few positives.
Again, who? When we leave, btw, we’ll then see the new ‘Killing Fields’ like in Cambodia. Is that what you want?[/quote]
Why should anyone be in charge? Can’t they all get along? Wait, I get it. Nobody will be buying your weapons anymore, and you’ll have no more reason to intervene in the oil-rich region.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Also…your point is rubbish…we’re not going to attack Iran by hijacking planes full of innocent people, kill them and whomever in the “name of God.”[/quote]
Agreed. You have other means.
I didn’t. GKhan did. I took the bait and vented my anger at the jerks that stand idly by when an old lady gets mugged. It wasn’t appropriate and I apologized for that.
Can we move on? The Israelis confirmed the $30bn aid package.
Also, what kind of cowards let a plane get hijacked by cutters? How can 90+ people fail to neutralize 5 criminals with pocket knives? Wasn’t it the extreme expression of a selfish sissified society (would be a good idea for the next Atomic Dog)?
[/quote]
You obviously don’t understand the policy they had in place. The US security was all about preventing guns from getting on planes. At that point, I would say that is all they were primarily concerned about. They were not looking for box cutters and the terrorists knew this.
I am not an expert on this, but maybe someone who is could chime in. I believe the policy was for the pilots and air personal not to fight the terrorists but to give into their demands.
If you look at the hundreds of hijackings that have happened world wide prior to 9-11 there were no cases of the planes being used as weapons. More than likely the planes were averted to airports and after negotiations, all the passengers were released. Time and time again this was the case.
The people in the airplanes would have thought nothing different. The ones in the flight who fought back had time to call their friends and relatives and found out what was happening elsewhere. Then they fought back with all they had.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I didn’t. GKhan did. I took the bait and vented my anger at the jerks that stand idly by when an old lady gets mugged. It wasn’t appropriate and I apologized for that.
Can we move on?
Getting back to what we were originally talking about:
Lixy said Iran has zero chances of attacking us.
I merely said that prior to 9-11, one would have thought Kabul would have had zero chances of attacking us as well…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The people in the airplanes would have thought nothing different. The ones in the flight who fought back had time to call their friends and relatives and found out what was happening elsewhere. Then they fought back with all they had.[/quote]
Well said. It’s not about the people being sissies, it’s about them having the wrong expectations.
Presumably, all the same sissies have been flying around since 9/11. And how many hijackings have there been since? Exactly.
Note that in the fourth plane, as news of what had transpired in the first three became known, an assault was mounted on the cockpit by the passengers. Once their invalid expectations where corrected, people acted.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Anyway, last I checked the idea of using commercial airplanes as weapons was considered a very plausible scenario. It was attempted as early as 1974. Take a look at Air France Flight 8969 for another example.
[/quote]
Too bad the hijack victims weren’t as up to date with terrorists and their strategy as you are. . .