I do like the major bumps the working dogs are getting on this thread, though. This one will be ready in a year or two! =^)
A side-effect of this terrorist attack might well-be that the Airlines go bankrupt, and that's OK! It's just business! They did it to themselves!
Until the Airlines and the Government admit that the best security on Airlines is armed Pilots and passengers, we'll forfeit our frequent-flyer miles, and drive!
I'll be damned if I'll climb on a plane, after they've taken MY penknife, and then tell me: "There might be an armed Air-Marshall on this flight!"
Here's a better scenario: " Welcome to Delta Flight number 2012, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Pilot speaking, Captain Buck Weatherall, with non-stop service to Orlando, Florida, International Airport!
I just want you to all know, that the entire flight-crew is armned with weapons to kill hi-jackers, and that many of our passengers are armed also.
Have a nice day, and don't eat the fish - it's never good....FRegards
Ya know, that is becoming so evident! I thought that ALL luggage was scanned for weapons & bombs. And a couple of days ago it was revealed that many safety precautions which were to be implemented (1996) were not. The airlines gave huge contributions to Gore/Clinton instead. Not good.
I do like the major bumps the working dogs are getting on this thread, though. This one will be ready in a year or two! =^)
Of course! This is the way government regulations work!
When the governmet issued regulations on how many rodent hairs could legally be in a hot dog, the average rodent hair per hot dog WENT UP!
Why?
Everybody had a common standard which they could meet.
Some companies had to clean up.
Others felt they were authorized to be dirtier!
The same si true here.
If it were competitive, then UAL could advertise they had a marshall for every 40 passengers, AAL wants to have one for every 20! Or maybe Southwest advertises dogs on every flight!
If the public wants safety, they'll get it, if the market is allowed to work.
This is the problem I have with some of these proposals for taxpayer bailouts of the airlines.
The airlines were responsible for security. They failed.
The airlines KNEW stronger security measures were needed - but they didn't implement them because they didn't want to spend the money.
Now the airlines should have taken their responsibility seriously, and they should have had insurance to cover any damages or losses, but apparently they didn't - is that MY problem, as a taxpayer?
I'm getting really tired of people behaving irresponsibly, and then expecting to be bailed out by the taxpayer. What's really horrible is that thousands of people died, in part because the airlines didn't do what they should have done.
Defenses are almost always invented AFTER the offense has worked at least once.
There is no preventive action that will be certain to work in all cases at a price we are willing to pay.
If we ban all weapons on planes, then we must amputate the hands and feet of all passengers. The reason is many people can kill with their bare hands and feet. Five or Six people with trained hands and feet could take over a plane by killing some passengers to establish authority.
Can you imagine the reaction to five unarmed men taking over a plane and claiming they were going to Cuba from New York? They certainly would not say they planned to take out the White House. What would passengers do if they said they were going to land at DC and let the passengers off and only take the Crew to Cuba? How many would take the risk of attacking the highjackers? How many passengers would help the highjackers restrain any one who tried to attack the highjackers? People would want to believe the highjackers. If the High Jackers looked more European than middle Eastern and spoke with French accents, would htat effect your judgement? If our President ordered the plane shot down, what would our conspiracy guys say about our KILLER president?
The point is highjackers don't need anything but hands and feet of several trained killers as long as the only defense against them is defensive in nature. If we get a gadget to sniff explosives, they will find a way to pack an explosive that can not be sniffed or seen by xray or other means. They have lots of oil money. They send their "good" young people to the best universities in the world. Check out the graduate students at MIT for a clue.
Safety can only come from making attacks counter productive. If people are willing to die for a cause,we must destory the cause. People who will die for a cause will not do anything that will result in the total destruction of their cause.
Finally we say you can't do that, because there are "Good" people in the nations we would have to destroy. Of course there are "Good" people in the lands that harbor the terrorists. We killed a million of "good" Japanese and "good" Germans in world war II. You see the WWII generation had this strange desire to do what ever it took to live in safety and peace. In WWII the focus was on our lives and safety. Others lives and safetey were not as important to the WWII generaton as our own lives and safety.
Consider this If the "Bad" people in those nations killed the "Good" people in those nations, the "Good" people in those nations would kill the "Bad" people in those nations. The "Good" people in those nations are not all that bothered if the "bad" people only kill us. Some of those "Good" people cheer our deaths.
If the "Good" people were certain we would kill them as well as the "Bad" people for the actions of "Bad" people in their nation, they would not allow "Bad" people to exist in their country. They would prevent the "bad" people from being "bad" and we would be safe and secure. Have you ever heard the phrase "You ain't gettin' me killed!"? "Good" people do not harbor "bad" people if the consequences are bad for both "Good" and "Bad" people.
Finally consider this. With out external force no nation can have a government its people do not want. When a nation's army refuses to shoot the people the government says to shoot, and that nations cops refuse to arrest the people its government says to arrest, that government is no longer in charge of that nation. The government falls.
Whoever the army and cops then choose to obey becomes the new govenment. It is always true. When the privates turn their weapons on the generals the generals call the privates "SIR".
We have a current example of a people opposed to a government and the King Dictator of that nation bending to the peoples will. King Fayd of Saudi Arabia says he would like to support us more, but he would be overthrown if he went after the Taliban or its local supporters. That means Militant Muslims who desire the death of Amercians are a more powerful force in Saudi Arabi than the King. I'm sure that is true. Dictators and kings that want to stay dictators and Kings do the will of the people. What we have trouble understanding is that the "peoples" will can be very bad. But it is in most of the Muslim world.
Do you think that destroying Afghanistan will surpress the hatred and desire to take action against us of a majority of Saudi Arabian citizens? Do you think no action will just encourage them?
They say Saudi Arabia is our best Arab friend. We know what the Iraqis, Syrians, Palistinians, and Iranians want to do to us. What part of Death to th infidel don't you understand? There will be terrorists trying to kill us as long as the "Good" Muslims tolerate them.
The choice may very well be between YOU dying or a "good" Arab dying. Where do you come down? The first reaction is to say that is not the choice. Or as one Jew said to the other,"This is Germany we Jews have been here for well over a thousand years and the Germans have not killed us. There are many "good" Germans. They are not going to kill us. We Jews have to understand this is just German frustration over losing WWI. They are just taking it out on us, and this will pass. Be patient." That attitude cost 6 million Jews their lives.
There was a CBS story filed by Teddy White in early 1934. Teddy later wrote "The Making of a President" series of books. In a 1934 broadcast story Teddy reported that Hitler had said in a speech that he intended to kill all the Jews. The story said, "Observers here are certain that Hitler is just appealing to his more radical Jew hating supporters. The question of the hour here in Berlin is, what does Hitler really intend to do with the Jews."
The question as Teddy so aptly put it on CBS some 77 years ago, is what do the militant Arabs really intend to do. Observers are still uncertain. Media observers always are.
The millions and millions of militant Arab Muslims are not.
Are lives more valuable in Planes than they are in cars?