pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

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?


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.

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.

Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.

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

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."


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?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, AH#49
"Asshole™#49"@ your.net two-fingered to all:

|Bogart wrote:
|
| On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
| wrote:
|
| 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?
|
|Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
|gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
|Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
|
|
| 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?
|
| He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
|to get inside.
|After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
|enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?
|
|And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
|passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
|"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

14 psi will barely give 'em a hickey if they stick their neck on it.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


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?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself. Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!
Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.



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?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.



And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:45:03 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!

You and every other able bodied passenger are going to handle the
situation as the passengers on three planes have done since 9/11.

Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.

I have no objections, as long as they're trained to handle the gun
they're issued.

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?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Again, prior to learning about the other three planes, why would those
on the Pennsylvania flight doubt they had a bomb on board? Why would
think they were not returning to the airport? Remember, prior to 9/11
domestic hijackings ended up in Cuba, passengers and plain unharmed.
No one knew they were on a suicide mission on 9/11.

Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.

Well, I'd like to make sure those armed are qualified to carry, but I
really don't think we need everyone armed to the teeth on airliners.

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

I think one way or another there will never be another domestic
hijacking where the passengers will just sit there like sheep,
regardless of what the hijackers are armed with for weapons. If you
know you're probably going to die if you don't act, then you take the
necessary steps to either prevent the hijackers from executing their
plan where you'll die anyway, or you all die trying.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "AssholeT#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "AssholeT#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
different in the air as opposed to on the ground. I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time. You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature. You're
in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
subdued. I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.
I don't intend to argue it further with you.

" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "AssholeT#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free
fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change
in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
different in the air as opposed to on the ground.

Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.

I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time.

No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.

And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
having a SM on board?

Interesting how given this human nature you prefer the victims to have NO
defense.

You're
in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
subdued.

So, since we have had SM on board planes since 9/11 you can show me of at
least one case of a SM being jumped like this. Seems like it doesn't happen
in reality, now does it?

I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

Yep, and they did so at extreme risk, and in every case they managed NOT to
jump the SM by mistake.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.

Really?

Please present your creditials that you have any experience and personal
knowledge about airline security, self defense, and terrorists response to
have your opinion matter in the least.


I don't intend to argue it further with you.

Then go away.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I don't intend to argue it further with you.

Then go away.

From where?