" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:02:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.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?

"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking
aren't
limited to US airliners alone.

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?

Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking
was
NEVER
stopped.

Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct
answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it
relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.

Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether
we
need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.

We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11
the
mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with
this
situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft
otherwise
you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might
as
well take the hijackers with you.


Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
those
passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped? The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

Well, see unlike the passengers who are basically taught not to interfer,
the sky marshals have a slightly different objective, and probably would
have taken action prior to their complete takeover.

That's an assumption on your part.

True, but since that was pretty much SOP for SM even prior to 9/11. I think
it's a fairly safe assumption to make.

However, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a SM onboard would have
made things worse.

I thought you understood by my counterpoint that I feel they would
have made no difference in that 4th plane.

In short, they wouldn't have done any harm. So why NOT have SM's then? I
mean on one hand they could save everyone, on the other they couldn't make
things any worse. So what's your beef?


One hijacker claimed he
had a bomb. Until the passengers were allowed to use their cell
phones, the other hijackers being already in the cockpit with the
pilots dead, they thought the plane was returning back to the
Washington DC area. The SM now kills the hijacker with the bomb, or
supposed bomb and they all rush the cockpit. Hijackers in cockpit
crash the plane intentionally or they fly around until the plane runs
out of fuel and they crash then. The SM didn't makes things worse,
no was he of any assistance.

True, or he could have taken action to prevent the cockpit from being taken
over, and thus saved everyone.

I'm still looking for the problem you claim exists.


Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were
either
subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he
could
be mistaken for a hijacker himself.

Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening
manner
without cause then, wouldn't it.

Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover
officers
on
the ground because they might be criminals.

Faulty attempt at comparisons. Draw a gun in the middle of Times
Square New Years Eve and start pointing it at everyone and see how
many people jump you. You won't have anyone asking you to show your
police badge or credentials. Only after you're beaten to a pulp will
they'll look in your pockets.

Speaking of faulty comparisons.....are you really suggesting that a SM is
going to suddenly jump up in the plane and start waving his gun around
and
pointing it at everyone?

Is that what you really got from what I wrote? At some point if the
SM is to take action he has to use some sort of force. How do you
suggest he draw out a gun or other weapon and not be jumped by
passengers in the post 9/11 era without announcing he's the SM. At
that point he loses the advantage of surprise.

Well, let's see, a bunch of terrorists have/are taking over the plane, a
well dressed man is attempting to quitely draw a gun without attracting the
attention of the terrorists.....why exactly should anyone assume that he is
a terrorist himself?

I mean according to you an undercover officer shouldn't take action during
an armed robbery, after all, someone might mistake him for a criminal,
except that I don't think you can come up with any cases of this happening.

Seems people are pretty clear on who the real threats are.


Seems like the only faulty comparison is yours.

You're not reading it correctly.

Right, I should wrongfully assume that people are so stupid that they can't
differentiate between criminals and law enforcement.


In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was
attacked
because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or
otherwise
a
threat to the craft?

There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
before he ever gets a chance to do anything.

Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
are long before the SM takes action.

Really? You honestly think that now with SM's on board it hasn't
occurred to the hijackers to bring an extra man on for the purpose of
taking out the SM?

I will note your inability to show a single case where the SM was jumped by
passengers who thought he was a threat.

Further I still fail to see how the presence of the SM can make things any
worse.


So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to
stop a
mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real
threat,
and who is protecting everyone else.

You seem less than adept at figuring it out.

On the contrary, you are the one that seems to feel that anyone with a gun
is automatically a criminal and a threat.


Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.

Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.

Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat
than
as an aid.

Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else.

So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be seen
as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part of
the problem?

Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
they hold.