Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:31:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
665 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
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 being crashed in NYC and D.C. They knew this.
As for your first point. How do you get control of a plane from violent
attackers without violence? You aren't thinking this through.
It is a known fact that one of the passangers, and one of the "militia" was a
judo master. He probably didn't need a weapon other than his hands and his
feet. I would bet this passanger alone could probably have taken out 2
hijackers by himself (the first by supprise and another in face to face
combat).
>
> > 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?
These passengers were heroes. I admit the women and children probably didn't
get physically involved but they knew what the result would probably be.
I have also heard that one passanger had at least some piloting experiance,
whether that qualified him to fly a jumbo jet I don't know. It is probably
reasonable to think they were going to try and take control of the plane
through violence and if possible fly the plane to safty. They had to have
known the chances of doing this were probably slim. They knew they were
probably going to die one way or the other (something the passangers on the
other planes did not know). I feel that if the passangers on the other planes
knew thier options were to crash the plane in a field and die or crash the
plane into a building and kill 7,000 people and die that they would have more
than likely chosen to crash the plane in a field. I think I would have (it is
impossible for me to know without being put in that possition but I think I
would have taken action if I had the knowledge those on the Pennsylvania flight
had).
>
> > 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.
How can you say they did not intend violence if you agree that they took
action.
The only possibility your pacifist argument has of being true is if an F-16
actually did shoot down that jet and their has been an incredible cover-up to
hide that fact and make the passangers into heroes. I feel I can safely say
that most, if not all, Americans would have agreed with the decision to shoot
down that plane given the knowledge of what the other 3 planes did, so there
would be no need to cover it up.
These people are heroes, why can't you at least give them that.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| "Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message news:GK0IsA.GL2@lugnet.com... (...) Even if the F-16 did shoot them out the sky, the passengers on board did not know that was going to happen. I can't believe it was a cover up, as the reports (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
