Michael Moore is being sued!

[1stdeadeye]

*EDIT* Not needed. Army

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The worst case scenario if we get rid of our nuclear weapons is for a nuclear winter to happen for MAD would not be in existence, if others do not. If one happened to go off here in the states, the deaths of the 1,000,000 or so that is killed from it is better then the deaths of the billions on this earth.

Jesus man, you are one Pacifist mofo, aren't you? I'm not even going to dignify the absolute idiocy and moronity (new word? ) with more of a response.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by spazzed
Personally, I'm still waiting for CB, in all his infinite wisdom, to explain why the tactics of defense employed by El Al are so sucessful, considering that an armed "marshall" aboard *SARCASM & MOCKERY* is obviously not the best option*/SARCASM & MOCKERY*

Maybe I missed something, but I don't believe he's addressed this yet.

[hitech]

Another way to neutralize terrorists is to have everyone but the terrorists in their seats and roll the plane. Before commenting let me add that this is what at least one pilot plans to do. Unless he has changed his mind since the flight right after 9/11.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by hitech
Another way to neutralize terrorists is to have everyone but the terrorists in their seats and roll the plane. Before commenting let me add that this is what at least one pilot plans to do. Unless he has changed his mind since the flight right after 9/11.

Has potential, but is it feasible/possible to have/keep all the pasengers/crew strapped in if&when the need arises to roll that sucker?

[ShooterJM]

Hmmm I think that pilot is former military and just wants to try to barrel roll a 747.....



EDIT: yeah, I can't spell gud.....

[hitech]

Originally posted by spazzed
Has potential, but is it feasible/possible to have/keep all the passengers/crew strapped in if & when the need arises to roll that sucker?

Maybe. However, if it comes down to loosing control of the airplane to terrorists or injuring (or even killing) someone who refuses to put their seat belt on, I'm all for it. If you can keep people alive and avoid another plane missile it's worth it in my opinion.

I don't want to give the wrong impression. Well-trained marshals are the best opinion. Rolling the plane would be an option if no marshals are aboard or to assist the marshal.

[hitech]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
Hmmm I think that pilot is formar military and just wants to try to barrel roll a 747.....

Aren't they all?

[Collegeboy]

First off got to respond to the stupidest one. I have shown that an AK 74 in the version of a short can be made down to 10 inches (between ten and 11), so I have proven that debate.

Second, the 100 is not my number it is Army's, the time I used it was in mention to his previous mentioned notion that one guy can take out 100's of guys. Something other people here laughed at him, yet if I would have made it, I would have been made fun of, oh well. The shear fact that you are pushing this on me, despite proof, speak wonders for your view point.

No Shartly you are wrong, that is your belief, and that is fine. You believe you are right, I believe I am right. You do not have experience with the situation we are talking about and do not have experience with the minds of terrorist, though you say you have talked to one, so have many people in this world, depending on how you stretch the definition. And you look at best case and worst case scenarios in the way I said. You exam the best case and see if that is the result you want, you examine the worst case and see if you can live with it, you then make your decision off of that. Anything in-between is irrelevant for too many variables are involved to be of any real use.

No you have not provided me with an example of an air marshal handling a situation like 911. If you can count on the passengers rising up then you do not need an air marshal with a gun. (last statement goes to davidb too).

How do you know the air marshal acts as a deterrent. Do you think that 6 guys will be scared of one guy with a gun on a plane with one aisle. I think not. I posted what I said and what I did not, if you refuse to believe that, that is your problem, but do not say that I am sticking my head in the sand. See what I mean about not reading someone's post, no where did I say we should nuke ourselves to stop terrorism.

Spazzed I have answer that now three times.

The El AL group stops terrorist before they even get on board, they practically disallow any Muslim from ridding their plane hence stopping the terrorist that will affect Israel.


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

[spazzed]

Originally posted by hitech


Maybe. However, if it comes down to loosing control of the airplane to terrorists or injuring (or even killing) someone who refuses to put their seat belt on, I'm all for it. If you can keep people alive and avoid another plane missile it's worth it in my opinion.

I don't want to give the wrong impression. Well-trained marshals are the best opinion. Rolling the plane would be an option if no marshals are aboard or to assist the marshal.

Works for me :)

[hitech]

Just to add fuel to the fire. I suspect that the reason some do not think a well-trained marshal is capable of neutralizing a group of terrorists is because they have no idea what a well-trained marshal is capable of. They know they couldn't. They have no idea how a well-trained marshal would handle the situation. And it's unlikely anyone is going to provide the information to them, much less post it on the internet!

[Konigballer]

How in gods name did you WIN the AK debate?!?!?! You didn't PROVE anything.

All you did, just like you always do, was refine and add to your original statement until YOU thought, and only you, that your original statement could still hold up. Your mini AK theory quickly crumbled in front of others who could actually back their posts up with facts from books, not their own guesstimations like the kind you provided.

You almost certainly did'nt know that disassembling the AK-47, 74, or whatever variant you want to fall back on, would leave the weapon completely useless no matter how small the package. You then did not make any mention about how terrorists would be able to reassemble the weapon on a crouded airliner WITH the presesne of an armed air marshall why........Because you never knew they would have to in the first place when you first "revamped" your original moronic statement. Your wrong, and its so abundently evident to everyone here that you have no one to take your side in the matter. Your hopeless, no one can carry on a debate with people like you. Its like proving to someone that the world is round and having them just shut their eyes and shake their head saying "no its not, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, blah blah blah".

If after several pages of debate you are still convinced that you have won any points in this debate durring this whole thread, and ESPECIALLY your magical mini AK theory, then I feel so bad for your parents who have probably dropped god knows how much money on your "college education" Collegeboy.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
First off got to respond to the stupidest one. I have shown that an AK 74 in the version of a short can be made down to 10 inches (between ten and 11), so I have proven that debate.

No you did not. IT will not work disassembled! Army also stated that it was 12 inches!

How would they reassemble it in flight without being attacked?

You are a fool!

Second, the 100 is not my number it is Army's, the time I used it was in mention to his previous mentioned notion that one guy can take out 100's of guys. Something other people here laughed at him, yet if I would have made it, I would have been made fun of, oh well. The shear fact that you are pushing this on me, despite proof, speak wonders for your view point.

Army stated this as an exaggeration that you seized upon and propagated.

No you have not provided me with an example of an air marshal handling a situation like 911. If you can count on the passengers rising up then you do not need an air marshal with a gun. (last statement goes to davidb too).

9/11 was an anamoly. It will never happen again. Historically all hijackings have been just that hijackings. You have provided no proof that they don't work! You have provided no better solution!

How do you know the air marshal acts as a deterrent. Do you think that 6 guys will be scared of one guy with a gun on a plane with one aisle. I think not. I posted what I said and what I did not, if you refuse to believe that, that is your problem, but do not say that I am sticking my head in the sand.

You be first in line then. The airmarshal with a 16 round clip will neutralize all 6!

The El AL group stops terrorist before they even get on board, they practically disallow any Muslim from ridding their plane hence stopping the terrorist that will affect Israel.


Except for those hijackings Army cited where the Israeli air marshalls slaughtered the would be terrorist hijackers!

[

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

Is that directed to me? I count 27 Islam/Arab organizations and 24 Everything else. That's overall too, now how many non-arab terrorist organizations have hijacked major planes?

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
First off got to respond to the stupidest one. I have shown that an AK 74 in the version of a short can be made down to 10 inches (between ten and 11), so I have proven that debate.

So you have 5 or 6 terrorists w/ disassembled AK's, each one getting through the security checks without a problem. Now you ahve the problem of assembling them. Where? The pisser? I'll grant you one, maybe 2. But you now have the problem of them carrying said parts, & whatever tools required to reassemble them. Can someone give me the average time it takes to reassemble one? Next, comes the problem of keeping the now assembled AK's hidden while the remainder of hte terrorists assemble there's. Sure, you can leave 'em in the pisser, but we all know how small those things are, and I would suspect even a Marshall (or any other crew member, probably even passengers) would beging to get suspicious when multiple passengers who are most likely showing signs of suspicion (nevousness, etc) are leaving rather sizeable carry-on luggage in the bathroom.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Second, the 100 is not my number it is Army's, the time I used it was in mention to his previous mentioned notion that one guy can take out 100's of guys. Something other people here laughed at him, yet if I would have made it, I would have been made fun of, oh well. The shear fact that you are pushing this on me, despite proof, speak wonders for your view point.

Semantics. Rather or not you intentionally admitted to said number as being your own, you did. Quit trying to negate that fact.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

No Shartly you are wrong, that is your belief, and that is fine. You believe you are right, I believe I am right. You do not have experience with the situation we are talking about and do not have experience with the minds of terrorist, though you say you have talked to one, so have many people in this world, depending on how you stretch the definition. And you look at best case and worst case scenarios in the way I said. You exam the best case and see if that is the result you want, you examine the worst case and see if you can live with it, you then make your decision off of that. Anything in-between is irrelevant for too many variables are involved to be of any real use.

Ok, who the hell are you to say what kind of experience Sam has, and how relevant it is to the situation at hand? Didn't you learn your lesson w/ Army?...The word Lemming comes to mind.

You can't just analyze the best & worst case scenario's. That's leaving to much to chance. Asinine. Don't start playing semantics w/ the definition of terrorist, you'll just dig a deeper hole for your already rotting corpse of an argument.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

No you have not provided me with an example of an air marshal handling a situation like 911. If you can count on the passengers rising up then you do not need an air marshal with a gun. (last statement goes to davidb too).

It's a simple extension of a fact. Guns as a whole are a deterrent to crime. Look at the link someone posted earlier about Britian. Since the bannishment of basically all weapons of self-defense, their crime rate has been through the roof. Here in the states, it's been steadily declining as more Carry laws are passed. Regardless of wether or not El Al disallows certain people on the flights, the mere presence of armed marshalls/guards on them is a very effective deterrant to hijackers. Why? Because they know if they try, they'll get a double-tap between the eyes.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

How do you know the air marshal acts as a deterrent. Do you think that 6 guys will be scared of one guy with a gun on a plane with one aisle. I think not. I posted what I said and what I did not, if you refuse to believe that, that is your problem, but do not say that I am sticking my head in the sand. See what I mean about not reading someone's post, no where did I say we should nuke ourselves to stop terrorism.

Hey genious, lemme ask you something. Would you get six of your friends & charge an armed Marshall down a single aisle no wider than your shoulders? Hell, even a 2aisle plane, w/ atleast one Marshall, probably 2 or more? You continue to ignore the fact that when your first "friend" has his brains splattered all over the 15th row, his body is gonna go somewhere, and I can assure you, it won't be standing up. That's gonna slow down the rest of you goons, and the process repeats itself until you're all dead.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Spazzed I have answer that now three times.

The El AL group stops terrorist before they even get on board, they practically disallow any Muslim from ridding their plane hence stopping the terrorist that will affect Israel.


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

See above.