" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,
nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as
a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?

Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?

No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

I know it's been a long time.
"In 15 minutes on Tuesday, the US suffered more hijackings than it had in
the previous 10 years combined."
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/hijacking.asp

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?

If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?

It never payed off?

-*MORT*-