In message richgr@panix.com (Rich
Greenberg) wrote:
>In article <11moov24o07dve8@corp.supernews.com>,
>Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>"I'd like to know why [knives] are no longer a threat when they were a
>>>>threat over the last four years," fumed Rep. Joseph Crowley
>>>>(D-Queens)
>>>
>>>Easy, they were never a threat. This is just a continuation of the
>>>nonsense that the planes were hijacked with box cutters. As if waving
>>>knives or box cutters or whatever would deter passengers from swamping
>>>the hijackers in a post-9/11 world. The 9/11 hijackings worked
>>>because of surprise - passengers who think they're merely gonna be
>>>inconvenienced with a sidetrip to Cuba or wherever are not likely to
>>>risk injury. But if the passengers are convinced they're likely to
>>>die anyway, you think a little knife is gonna stop them? And you
>>>think a future hijacker is gonna try it with a little knife?
>>
>>Imagine you are on a plane that is being hijacked. You and your
>>fellow passengers thwart the attempt by stabbing the hijacker in
>>the eyes and into the brain with the knives and forks that came
>>with your meal (this took 4 hours after you knocked the guy out).
>>A lawyer among the passengers points out that what you have just
>>done is illegal.
>>
>>Do you attempt to cover up what you have done by eating the evidence?
>
>No, you kill the lawyer.
And blame the terrorist... Of course then there are questions of ethics,
since you raised the terrorist from common garden variety terrorist, to
"yeah he's a terrorist, but at least he killed a lawyer, did you have to
kill him?"
--
If a job is worth doing, then get someone in to do it properly. |