War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[golf_prez]

I am surprised that the word "Armageddon" hasn't been referenced in the media (yet). But I did read this in the paper today next to a picture of the skeleton of the WTC.

"And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas alas, that great city where (we) were made rich ... for in one hour is she made desolate" - Revelation 18:19

Probably just media sensasionalism... but if you believe in God and the Bible, you can't help but wonder if we are living in the times as described in Revelation.

[Puke]

Geo is right. its not that we didnt see this coming, its that you cant do things to prevent this. what, eliminate airspace over cities? right. institute extremeist security policies at airports? thats giving into terrorism. my biggest complaint is 'why the heck dont we have an armed skycop on every single plane?' oooh, it costs money, and theres some sort of money shortage in America? give me a break! tightwads.

and you want SAM sites around the capitol? you dont think we have them? you dont think we have them in New York City? what exactly do you want them to do? shoot down every airliner not on a preapproved flight plan? thats really brilliant. It like the bombing of the USS Cole, its not that our port security sucks. we have guys patroling the deck with sidearms when the boat is at port. BUT, when its at a FRIENDLY port, those guns are UNLOADED because the risk of causing a political incident outweighs the risk to the boat. sam sites.. sheesh. that would make it safer to travel

[golf_prez]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
Geo is right. its not that we didnt see this coming, its that you cant do things to prevent this.

---

Democracy's greatest strength is our individual rights, which turns out to be our biggest weakness against those who wish to harm us.

[Argh]

<lol> Alpha, I think that a Palestinian would point at the thousands of their dead and maimed who were shot with American bullets during any argument about moral culpability, but I digress. . .

We have been hounding Bin Ladin, but he's like Batman. . . he's rich, extraordinarily intelligent, and well-connected politically. The guy has a finger in a lotta people's plots, and he was given sanctuary by the Taliban precisely because he's a dangerous man. I'm sure one or several of the factions there thought that having him around would discourage other nations from butting into their private civil war

Anyhow, I feel sorry for the Afgani people, because they're likely to get bombed again, and this time by their former allies. They have had the worst luck in the world, set as they are between the grumbling giant of Russia, the plots and terror of Iran, and the squabbles between India and Pakistan. The land is some of the most barren on Earth, and the people are extremely poor. . . the only things they own that are generally worth much are weapons and goats- see map at
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ok/af/map.html

To sum up. . . the Taliban continue to deny his culpability in this horrific crime, and no one has had the balls to step forward and claim it.

Whenever I think seriously about the worst-case scenarios that could come out of this. . . I think about a terrorist cell whose members have been briefed to perform this one task. . . and then the other cells disappear into thin air. If we cannot establish a real tie to a real group, we'll probably make one up :P

So. . . we have long wait ahead of us, folks. I think that whatever's coming next, whether it's a declaration of war on a sovereign state, diplomacy or sanctions. . . it will not occur for at least 2 months, and probably longer.

[Solar]

I do agree that those responsible, and terrorists everywhere, need to be punished and prevented from ever hurting us again.

As far as preventing goes...

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, how possible is it for there to be some sort of remote control system that could take over the controls of an airliner if it deviated too far from it's flight plan and didn't respond to radio communication? I'm envisioning something much like a flight simulator that they use to train pilots. In the event of an emergency, the remote control module at the nearest airport would over-ride the plane's controls, and pilots on the ground would land the jet safely.

As far as I am aware, the technology is there. Of course, I'm just an average joe, there may be reasons why this isn't possible.
Maybe I live too much in a fantasy world, but I'm a firm believer in technology as a deterrent to crime.

I agree with Puke that money should be no object. What is money compared to human lives? I'd like to see armed skycops on every flight too.

Sorry if I have offended anyone, or wind up offending anyone now. That's not my heart.
Like everyone else in the nation, I'm still in shock right now.

Solar

[dmm]

Maybe airliner pilots should be locked in their (bullet-proof) cabin at the airport, and not allowed out until they land. Terrorists would need explosives to gain access to the controls. (As part of our continuing efforts to "establish dialogue" with disaffected Groups, run-of-the-mill hijackers could still communicate demands via the intercom.)

[Hotfoot]

Solar: It sounds like a nice idea, but it's impractical and downright dangerous. The second you take control away from the pilot in an emergency situation and hand it over to a computer, you've more than likely doomed them all. And it would make terrorism even easier. Terrorists wouldn't need suicide squads to hijack a plane a slam it into a target, they could just take control from a distance and do the same thing while sipping an mocha latte. Set up an alarm system, perhaps, if pilots don't enter a specific code every so often, or fail some other check-in requirement. And without the code, the plane sends out a distress call and locks itself at a specific altitude until the disarm code is entered (essentially giving it the all clear). That way control remains in the hands of the pilot, not the terrorists or a computer. And so long as the controls are locked, the terrorists wouldn't be able to pull off anything like they did yesterday.

Also, sealing the cockpit from the rest of the plane might help, but what about putting canisters of knockout gas into the ventilation systems? Something colorless and odorless, that would knock out the terrorists (and the passengers) while the pilots make an emergency landing at the nearest airport where police would be waiting to pick up the KO'd terrorists. No fuss, no muss, so long as the cockpit is seperated by an airtight seal, that is.

[geoschmo]

Aircops aren't a viable deterant to what happened yesterday.

Put aside for the moment that bullets and pressurized aircraft cabins don't exactly mix. There is a reason they call it "explosive decompression" afterall.

Why do you think the terroists used knives instead of guns? I can tell you it wasn't because guns are harder to get past airport security, because they aren't. They couldn't risk having a firefight bring down a plane without accomplishing their mission first.

Now you could have aircops armed with mace and tazers I suppose. But one aircop isn't going to stop a team of hijackers except in the movies. So unless you wan't to have a dozen aircops on every airplane, forget that idea.

Sleeping gas is an intriguing idea. But the risk of an accident where the crew is incapacitated along with the passengers is kind of overwhelming no?

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmm:
I can't help but rebut some comments posted here. Here goes:
... <snip> ...
5) To say that Islam is really a nice, sweet religion is pure BS. Maybe this is true of most Muslims in the West, but it certainly isn't true worldwide. Fact: there is not one Muslim country in the whole world that has real freedom of religion. Even in relatively progressive Muslim countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Muslims who convert to other religions are routinely murdered and the government does nothing. Maybe the majority of Muslims in those countries don't condone that behavior, but they don't stop it either. Their reaction is never more than "tsk tsk" and a slap on the wrist. The Islamics worldwide who hate America don't hate us because of our wealth or our power -- they hate us for the same reason that they hate the Israelis: because we are not Muslims, plain and simple!

---

Yeah, and how is this different from assorted Christians in the not-very-distant past hating everyone who wasn't a Christian? And specifically the exact same narrow denomination of Christian as themselves... Until the 18th Century there was not one 'Christian' country that allowed freedom of religion. You were either a member of the state denomination of Christianity or you were murdered in a public ceremony to scare everyone else into submission. It took a long time for any degree of tolerance to emerge. Meanwhile there were authorized conquerers chanting about 'Christianizing the heathens' while slaughtering, raping, and pillaging the people of the 'new' world. Hardly any less horrible than the Muslim "Jihads"...

Both of the "Monotheist" religions claiming to derive from Judaism are responsible for an incredible catalog of crimes, too many to even begin to list, many of which would qualify for the labels 'crimes against humanity' and/or 'genocide' today. Yet, there have also been both 'Christians' and 'Muslims' through history who actually read their scriptures and recognized that their religion said things like 'do not kill'. Islam may not be a "nice, sweet" religion but it's no more responsible for lunatics who use it to justify their lunacy than Christianity is to blame for the brutal conquest of the Americas or thousands of other crimes committed by criminals trying to use it as justification. Cultures have phases of development, much like people. Just think of Muslims today as Medieval Christians and you'll see there's no real difference between the religions.

[Puke]

knockout gas? why not happy gas? let us all get high on our flights, and i bet people would not hate flying as much. locking the cockpit aint a bad idea, but where would they pee? airlines ARE cheap, and another bathroom is probably a bit much to ask.

as for explosive decompression, its only explosive when you have gaping holes ripped into the plane. and low calibur sidearms, especially with frangible or hollowpoint rounds, would probably be stopped by the fusealage. tazers, shock batons, KO gas (even in a canister delivered by the skycop) or gel rounds would be perfectly effective. I would stand by bullets tho, they have a long track record for getting the job done, and sometimes the risks are sufficient to mandate their use.

hell, i dont care if he only has an expandable ASP baton, just having the guy on the plane would be an effective measure. its called a deturant force, it does not matter if he is passenger 47 or not, as long as he is one more obsticle that potential hijackers would have to deal with.