![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " Bogart " wrote in message s.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"? Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that security was inadequate? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? 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? 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " 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*- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " 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? "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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Oh look, the inmates are attacking each other. -- The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis: On American children rummaging through rubbish for food: "True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it" His neo-con solution for world peace: "When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no human life remains." Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the contents of his killfile: "Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old killfile, ****TARD." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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. The plane which went down in PA was a perfect example of the mindset passengers have once they know they are cannon fodder. Everyone knows, no hijacker will ever again get into the cockpit from the passenger cabin. Al Queda knows it too. That's why they are attempting to bring airline employed licensed pilots onto the cockpit prior to the flight ever taking off. That is my opinion. I know yours as misguided as it is. ![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shaun" wrote in message ... 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 Yea, I remember all those hijacking you claim didn't take place. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |