A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More Anti GA hysteria



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old August 28th 04, 08:40 AM
Mr. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2026 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.