Posted on 07/21/2004 4:03:26 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
Yeah, don't all groups of businessmen carry boxcutters with them while boarding aircraft...They are as common as palm pilots aren't they?
Once again I'm stunned and amazed at the sheer brilliance of the Monday morning quarterbacks here on FR.
I heard on the radio that one of these guys put up a bit of a fight when stopped. You'd think that that might have raised eyebrows. But, perhaps a lot of people get irritated at having to be searched.
Does anyone have a direct link to the video? ABC wants $$$$ for it. I figure it's gotta be somewhere else for free. Thanks...
I'm sure Chrissy Matthews already has them booked for after the release of the report tomorrow, and they're saving their comments for then. Of course, their comments will be along the lines of "how we're infuriated at the Bush Administration's blatant attempt to distract from their utter failure to prevent 9/11 by attacking and smearing a man of such integrity and honesty as Sandy Berger." Mass media orgasms will then take place throughout the land.
Really? So that is the storyline everyone has been missing. How American timidity and passivity ruled the day on 9/11.</end sarcasm>
As you probably recall, passengers in Flight 93 fought back and seemingly won. Had the cockpit been secured, they would have landed safely. Cops and firefighters perished by the hundreds, while saving thousands.
Let me be perfectly blunt. I am more than a bit unhappy with the insinuation that American reaction on 9/11 was characterized by cowardice.
As I recall, it was still a minority of the folks on board that fought back. And on 3 of the other 4 flights, either no one, or very few, fought back.
As for "winning", the passengers had a 10:1 numerical advantage and wound up dying anyway. If you want to call that "winning", be my guest.
I'm not interested in playing "feel-good emotional" games on this issue. The truth is that 19 thugs overpowered 300 Americans and killed 3000 people on 9/11.
So it's important to examine why this occurred. I don't think 19 foreigners could have taken 300 Americans 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. So what changed?
My point is simply that the "warrior mentality" has nearly been eradicated by the gov't in this country. People are taught from the time they are in gov't schools that you "shouldn't fight back" and "do what the bad guys say", and "weapons are bad". Well, the results of this corrupt ideology were seen on 9/11.
Had the cockpit been secured, they would have landed safely
Up until 20 years ago, the cockpits were quite secure since pilots could carry guns. And 40 years ago, planes were even more secure since passengers could bring guns on board.
I am more than a bit unhappy with the insinuation that American reaction on 9/11 was characterized by cowardice.
What happened on those planes wasn't "cowardice". It was the result of 40 years of programming by the gov't, law enforcement, the media, and the education establishment, that "average citizens" should not resist tyranny. In many areas, it is even a criminal offense to "fight back". (This mentality still persists today in many areas-- a retired NYC cop was recently arrested in New Joisey for "fighting back" against a carjacker)
Fortunately, a few brave passengers on Flight 93 overrode this conditioning, fought back, and saved hundreds of lives.
In the aftermath, *some* Americans have snapped out of this submissive mentality and acquired the tools and skills to successfully fight back (although their government still bans them from being armed on planes). And other Americans have become even more servile.
It's the best security you can buy for $6.25 an hour.
Me too, and not only that I'm just amazed people seem surprised this was happening pre-9/11. Our security was lax then, and it seems lax now. We should all be thankful there are people actually working security. The pay is lousy, the hours are long, and there's no real benefit or hope for advancing up the pay ladder. It's like working in McDonald's.
Is not this really,......really,....the 'INS'.....ongoing problem?
Hush-hush?
Why do you think another American is morally obliged to provide for security for you?
The gov't has no legal responsibility to protect you (see Warren V. DC), nor are they competent to do so. The exception to this is the military and external threats.
Never said they had to oblige for my well-being, what makes you think otherwise?
The gov't has no legal responsibility to protect you (see Warren V. DC), nor are they competent to do so. The exception to this is the military and external threats.
I am aware of that fact. I give a damn about myself. I won't throw the dice and gamble on the chance that my life might not be protected by someone who doesn't give a damn about me, the person sitting next to me, or their own job.
That's the immediate thing I thought of - on this same video must be the last moments of each passenger on that flight - wonder if next of kin have been allowed to view this? Very emotional stuff.
Okay.. we really don't disagree them.
There's just been an influx of leftists and statists here recently, so I apologize for sending some 'friendly fire' your way.
The only video that has been shown has been stuff from Maine. You'll see no video from Logan. Why? Don't know. It does exist.
See post#73....
IMO that 'is' the question re: Clinton's 'INS'.....
:-(
If anyone is curious as to the real reason the 9/11 Commission let this out now: This video is now the top story on the BBC World Service, and they only angle being presented is how angry and anguished "the 9/11 widows" (you get one guess which ones) are to have to see it and how much it reminds them of Bush's failure to singlehandedly stop the attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.