![]() |
| 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 |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rosspilot" wrote in message ... Ross goes on to proclaim the law abiding responsibleness of airmen, but that wasn't questioned in the article and seems irrelevant; for it would be amoral criminal terrorists perpetrating terrorist acts not regular law abiding airmen. Well that's the whole point now, isn't it? Does any critically-thinking person believe that a suicidal zealot, hell-bent on wreaking havoc, is going to pay any attention to "no fly zones" and TFRs? NEWS FLASH!! The planes that flew into the WTC both busted the NY Class B. Yet it is we careful, law-abiding, rule-obeying pilots who are the recipients of all the punitive and restrictive "security precautions" perpetrated on us. I hope to God I am preachin' to the choir here. Well I agree with Larry. Regardless of what you and I may think about what small airplanes may or may not be able to accomplish in terms of a terrorist attack, it is certainly not anti-GA hysteria to discuss the possibility and to imagine scenarios by which a terrorist could employ a Cessna to wreak destruction. In fact it would be irresponsible not to consider them. There are a lot of advantages to using a small aircraft to transport a bomb or poison, they can go just about anywhere, and no road or other security measure is of much use in stopping something that flies through the air. We may dismiss possible terrorist scenarios as the work of pin-headed bureacrats in washington (to use everyone's favorite cliche) but I would think that a small flying machine would offer a lot of enticing possibilities. Maybe this is why all the interest by AlQaeda in crop dusters a few years back. The responses in this group are far more "knee-jerk" than anything that appeared in the Globe article. They sound like the typical response of a special interest group --- lets fight terrorism, but god forbid it might impinge on my hobby. Of course we should not let increased anti-terrorist measures erode our personal liberties and freedoms we enjoy, including being able to fly our own machines. Same can be said for right to privacy, freedom of speech etc. But simply to demonize anyone who discusses the possibilities of using GA in a terrorist attack, seems to me to be very close-minded. -Marc |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Anti collision lights mods for Arrow 1968?? | Frode Berg | Piloting | 3 | May 20th 04 06:42 AM |
| Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? | Frode Berg | Owning | 4 | May 20th 04 06:16 AM |
| Non Chromate Anti Corrosion and Paint Prep X-it Prekote? | All Thumbs | Home Built | 7 | May 5th 04 05:21 PM |
| At least some Saudi papers aren't patently anti US & pro "badguys" | John Keeney | Military Aviation | 2 | December 20th 03 06:50 PM |
| Anti Aviation | Roger Halstead | Piloting | 31 | August 17th 03 04:21 AM |