"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
fight that it will crash.

I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
are extremely remote?

He's addresing "worst case scenario"...at which time HOW he got in aboard
doesn't matter. (Inside job, magic...)


What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)


In security work, the best you can hope for is to stop the easiest and more
direct attacks. This point is something the media consistently misses
(whether through sheer ignorance or willful deliberation is not clear).