On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Ken Ambrose wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> > According to reports, there were typically 4 men involved in each
> > plane hijacking. These men were armed with knives with smaller than
> > 4" blades. With roughly 100 or more other people on board each of
> > these planes, I'm almost embarrased for our country that these people
> > were successful in taking control of the plane. Almost, but I'm
> > fairly certain that if I were there, I would have sat in my seat, much
> > like all the rest of the passengers.
>
> I have to come to their defense, here. The vast majority of them probably
> thought that it would end the way most hijackings would: the plane, on a
> tarmac, ridiculous demands, and finally being stormed, with relatively
> little loss of life.
I had of course considered this, and thought to address it in the
previous message, but decided not to, as I'm not sure what point it
proves. I'm reasonably certain that the terrorists calculated this
kind of response from the passengers, and ultimately exactly that
enabled them to succeed in their mission.
If we, the citizens of this country, are not stronger, terrorists will
continue to be able to get away with this kind of crime, because they
will KNOW that no one will stop them. If 4 or 10 or 50 people on each
plane died as a result of a struggle with terrorists, it still would
have been better than the thousands that did in this tragedy. It will
also send the message to terrorists that we are not sheep, and we will
fight back. That might make them think twice about doing it again.
> The one plane that did seem to know its fate in advance crashed in a
> field -- probably a crash induced by one of the hijackers when he
> realized that they were being overpowered (a guess, but, I believe,
> a valid one, at least based on reports I've read).
That's a possibility, but there are others. Especially that the plane
crashed in a field leads me to think that the terrorists were
overpowered, and the plane was intentionally brought down in the field
by whoever had gained some semblance of control so that it would not
kill thousands of innocent people when it did come down. I also don't
rule out the possibility that it was shot down by F16s. I would not
expect the government to tell you that they did that though, because
it would be a pretty unpopular decision. But it would probably be the
right one, given the circumstances.
> I think it *very* unfair to criticize them without having more data
> upon which to base such criticism.
I am not criticising the people on the plane, per se. Who among us
would have done differently? I am pointing out that, now that we know
what these terrorists are willing to do, it is preferable that we take
action to defeat them, rather than sit idle waiting to be rescued by
agents of law enforcement, who will never get the chance to do so.
If you find yourself on a plane being hijacked, is it better to assume
that you will land safely and be rescued by law enforcement, or that
your attackers will kill you and everyone else on the plane if you
don't stop them?
The best that law enforcement can do in cases like this, is clean up
the mess that is left behind. The only alternative is a police state,
and personally I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.
> Sorry if I'm coming down a little strong, here, but these people are dead,
> and can't really hold their own in an argument.
And I also appologize if I seemed too harsh. But it is our own
weakness that allowed this terrible tragedy to happen.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
