Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sending the Wrong Signals to Terrorists
Self | Sep 13, 2001 | The Duke

Posted on 09/13/2001 3:11:10 PM PDT by The Duke

The host of our local radio station (as well as a number of his callers) is today ridiculing the opinions of those who are critical of the tightening of security measures and "loss of freedoms" at America's airports in response to Tuesday's terrorist attacks.

Maybe it's just me, but by focusing our attention on increasing these security measures aren't we sending exactly the wrong signal to terrorists around the world? Aren't we signalling them that our response to their terror is to, as a society, basically go cower in some corner?

Any impediment to air travel will ultimately manifest itself in increased costs. Are these costs not simply a tax we pay to terrorists? If, for example, the use of "carry-on luggage" is ruled out then doesn't that suggest that a significant amount of space and carrying capacity onboard our aircraft will no longer be utilized?

It seems to me that a much more persuasive signal would be sent to terrorists worldwide if we focused our resources into projecting fource against terrorism. I think a different America, the America that could overcome the Nazi's and put people on the moon, would adopt much less of a cowering posture in response to Tuesday. I don't think that American would be cowering at the sight of a mere plastic knife.

While we're more clearly defining who we are as a people why don't we go ahead and replace our national emblem, the eagle, with the soft and cushy teddy bear?

On a tangential topic, how many of the planes on Tuesday would have missed their intended targets, and in fact landed safely, if every passenger was issued a gun before boarding? I'm guessing they would all have landed safely, and a few more buildings would be standing today.


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Thoughts? Flames? (lots of those these days)
1 posted on 09/13/2001 3:11:10 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Duke
On a tangential topic, how many of the planes on Tuesday would have missed their intended targets, and in fact landed safely, if every passenger was issued a gun before boarding? I'm guessing they would all have landed safely, and a few more buildings would be standing today.

Good god no! If only because I can image a couple of nuts with air rage getting irresponsible with them.

Plain-clothes Sky Marshals armed with guns loaded with glazer rounds is, however, a most excellent idea. As I understand it, El Al's use of them has helped keep it hijack-free.
2 posted on 09/13/2001 3:35:03 PM PDT by WyldKard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
The same thing is happening on our station WRVA in Richmond, VA. He is not "ridiculing" per se, but the message is loud and clear...beef up security.

My reaction to that drumbeat is that the terrorists accomplished their mission to strike fear in the hearts of the sheeple and make them give up the liberties that our forefathers fought for.

When the rats come up out of the sewers, you don't nail shut the basement door and concede that part of the house. You go down in the sewer and exterminate the rats, and then use your house like you always did.

It ain't rocket science, folks.

FReegards,

3 posted on 09/13/2001 3:40:46 PM PDT by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
Yeah, like making plastic knives illegal at airport restaurants will deprive would be terrorists of weapons. Or, eliminating check in luggage and forcing passengers to arrive THREEE hours early.

All that is needed is sky marshals (two per plane) more secure flight decks. Instead of the government (us) having to pay for them, wouldn't the insurance premium savings pay for them? How about alarms tied to the flight deck perimeter and autopilot? How about a pilot activated gas that would incapicitate all in passenger compartment?

4 posted on 09/13/2001 3:47:32 PM PDT by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
The problem with leaving security measures in the hands of politicians is that they will tend to end up being inefficient and bureaucratic. Can you possibly imagining any terrorists gaining control of an aircraft if the airlines were to be held strictly liable for any damage done by their planes? If airline security were privatized, the carriers would best balance security with other travel considerations (i.e convenience, cost, etc.), because those that did not would soon go out of business.
5 posted on 09/13/2001 3:54:43 PM PDT by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: ravinson
I still say that they are doing it the hard way, we do not need anyone to do our security for us. We license CWP holders with a special training course in the use of firearms in aircraft, and allow those same CWP holders to carry thier own firearms onto aircraft. The only people that would know who was a CWP holder and who isn't, would be the airport security. A national database with retinal prints, picture and finger prints of holders of CWP's would be available to all airport security, and ALL security personnel would have to go through a thorough FBI and CIA background check. They would HAVE to be US citizens, and would be allowed to carry arms as well, and be trained in thier use.

Then, it would be announced that any and all CWP with this training would be allowed to carry on aircraft. Terrorists would think twice before hijacking another aircraft, because they like to KNOW that there are unarmed defenseless people on aircraft. They will not chance it, if there is the remotest possibility that there would be an armed passenger on the plane!!

Not only is it cheap, it allows American citizens to have some control over thier own security and self defense.
7 posted on 09/13/2001 4:11:52 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
Oh yeah, another important change that I would support is taking airport security away from the FAA and turning it over to DoD.
8 posted on 09/13/2001 4:48:36 PM PDT by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
--all we really need is to go back to being a nation of fighters, fighters for peace and justice and freedom, ya know, regular old fashioned values that mean more than filthy stinking "money". Those terrorists should have been overwhelmed. everything from old ladies whapping them with purses to little kids gnawing on their legs. That one plane were they fought back-good for them! Real patriots, real heros! They tried! The ones who stood there trembling as those stewardesses were killed, shame! Carry a ten pound dictionary with you on the plane, makes a great cudgel. Sacrafice that laptop, brain those bozos. Get some blood on your wingtips or high heels. Kick,gouge, punch, trip, stomp. Is this such an alien concept to the US people now? And we're gonna continue to think we are the topdogs on the planet? This wussying out by official societal decree is part of the problem. The idiot crooked government's institutionalized monopoly on violence and self defense and getting everyone into the mindset that you "mustn't fight, only the badguys and the cops and military fight" is a big part of this.

I was watching the scrolling screen with the names and ages of all the plane passengers. That's when I got really mad. Excuse me, more than enough middle aged or younger people to put up a decent scrap against a small handful of numbskulls with tiny knives, enough to stomp them flat, completely. We don't need more sky marshalls, we need EVERY patriotic american to not be a WUSS when push comes to shove. The government and society has gotten everyone so brow beat that we can't fight in an emergency. I honor those few who DID fight back, at least they tried! And we don't need to throw more organized federal government at it, we need to go back to what is called "rugged indivdualism". We've taken it from weird foreigners and weird domestic goons for too long. We've been wussed down and dumbed down and browbeat into subservience. An america of 100 years ago would not have a klamath happening, and would not have a skyjacking like this happening.

Think those hijackers would have gotten away with it if the planes had a buncha redneck bubbas on board and some bruthas from the 'hood? People who aren't "successful" in our white collar society, but still can do things with their hands, and who can at least figure out right/wrong, fight/no fight once in awhile? At least there were a small number orf people left who still have the spark within them. And I don't mean "file a lawsuit' as fighting, or 'write a stern letter to the editor", either. No way this skyjacking could have gotten anywhere with 3 or 4 lamer jihader's against a plane load of people who weren't cowed by officialdom in advance. We have "zero tolerance" of righteous indignation and anger and whompping the badguys.. Yes, those terrorists used ultra violence immediately against the crew and passengers. That should have been clue one to go on the offensive, and not stop until they were piles of rags.

Anyone's mileage may vary, that's my true feelings.

9 posted on 09/13/2001 6:03:26 PM PDT by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson