Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:50:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> So you concede that it is likely that one or more passengers did in fact
> attack, then?
As I said, it was more likely a charge - remember they were probably weaponless
- whether they were intending to hurt the hijackers is anyone's guess. My aim
in their position would be (if I had time to think about it):
1. Try and get control of the plane from them, or
2. Try to distract the "pilot" enough so he can't get them to their intended
destination.
Both of these can be acheived without violence. Whether they were or not is
unknown.
> I grant that we may never know for certain, but submit that
> the evidence is very strongly pointing in that direction.
>
> Therefore the passenger or passengers who did in fact attack (the "heroes",
> as I put it)are not pacifists.
By all reports there were several passengers involved. Some may have been
intent on hurting the hijackers, others may have had similar aims to those
above. Are those who didn't intend violence (if any) any less heroes?
> There is no way to "attack" and be a
> "pacifist". The terms are incompatible.
If you assume they intended violence, of course you can prove they're not
pacifists.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) weaponless (...) You have to be kidding!!! These hijackers more than likely had killed some crew, possibly some passangers, and almost certainly the pilots. The passangers knew this. They also knew, via phone conversations, that planes were (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) Which is a kind of attack. (...) Unarmed attacks are nevertheless attacks. You've been caught in a logical contradiction and unless you can get away with redefining pacifism to mean something it does not, you're stuck. Admit it and move on. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on this whole topic. Without violence? How ludicrous! "Please Mr. Terrorist, can I have control of the plane?" "Why sure you can, good man, here you go" Passive resistance taking a plane (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) So you concede that it is likely that one or more passengers did in fact attack, then? I grant that we may never know for certain, but submit that the evidence is very strongly pointing in that direction. Therefore the passenger or passengers (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
