Michael Moore is being sued!

[Thordic]

CB, you don't seem to realize that the reason 20 people are argueing with you and no one is coming to your defense is because you are an idiot.

[1stdeadeye]

CB,
You have still not answered my question. I have shown how the air marshall program works with El Al. Show me JUST 1 instance where it made things worse.


You cannot. Therefore relent!

But I still agree an armored air marshall cold be spotted. The helmet or plate mail would be too obvious!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Try responding to 20 different people, and see if you don't leave out something or forget to post it.

It's not my fault your the lone voice of insanity

The Air Marshal aboard the one plane that was diverted to Lebonon, and the Marshal took over, and took it to London. The terrorist only numbered 2. Which I said that an Air Marshall can take out two.

Then don't you think we should air marshals just on the off chance that the hijackers only use a few guys?

No my argument is not that they will take out the Air Marshal with the AK, that is just stupid, who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid.

Wait a minute, somewhere in this insanity of a thread you were talking about the AK being used to fire a lot of rounds at a plane (you consistanly said the gun would likely be an AK) and puncture it. If, as in your new example, the AK doesn't get on board then how would it be a danger?

I said in the beginning that an AK can be made down to around 8 inches, I was off by 3 inches.

Well frankly, since you've already started disassembling it why not just take it apart all the way to it's companents. I'm sure if you work hard enough and have the right tools you can fit it in a shoe box.

I have seen Aks, have shot AKs, I know how big they are. And just to add a funny story, I have even drunk straight from a full scaled replica of a Ak that was a vodka bottle, designed by Kalashnikov himself.

Wow, was he impressed with how little you know?

No Army, you are calling me a name. I thought I would expect something more coming from a mod. But mods here can do the same thing they accuse and issue strikes to members for doing and get away with it.

Oh man, you're on that trip AGAIN?

Please stop, I'm tired of that victim speech

[Collegeboy]

Albinonewt, read exactly what I said and what I was responding to. I said that the caliber the terrorist would more likely have over an 50 caliber is an 5.__ or a 7.2 caliber in the state of being fried from an AK 47 for its ready availableness all over the world (24 dollars in sub-Saharan Africa) That was to the remark that the terrorist would shoot 50 caliber bullets (something which I missed read and turned out to be the marshal shooting 50 caliber). I never said that it would be easy for a terrorist to board a plane with an Ak 47 or that would be his weapon of choice. There are like 10 different arguments here that are of separate origins and really have no link between them.

My argument that an armed air marshal is not an effective way to deal with terrorist is not loony or insane. It is very much a realization.

The reason that the Israeli thing worked was because it was only two, the reason they haven't had anymore is because people of Muslim decent are practically forbidden to ride on any of their planes. If they would let these Muslims fly and just have an air marshal on board the terrorist would have over taken him. For this is there life, they are going to die for this, there will not leave any stone unturned, or any detail not looked out. If they fail, they fail in life. They will send decoys to make the armed air marshal stand out, they will then concentrate on the air marshal using themselves or passengers as shields for the marshal shots. They will overtake the marshal take his gun, then with a free weapon they will take over the plane.

To deal with this you have to answer yourself what is the best way to deal with 5 or more terrorist on a plane while posing the least amount of harm to anyone.

You all are practically (not everyone) taking this idea of the air marshal and approving it on its best case scenario, that is not how you make these types of decisions, you approve something over its worst case scenario.

[Konigballer]

He's doing exactly what I knew he would! His whole AK assumption of terrorists using them aboard an airliner against an air marshall was completely retarded.

He also obviously displayed that he had NO IDEA of their size, operation, etc and I dont believe for a second that he has ever shot one in his life. He's just trying to throw up a complete lie about having first hand experience with them so he can try and validate his already defunct arguement about their possible use by terrorists against lesser armed air marshalls.

"No my argument is not that they will take out the Air Marshal with the AK, that is just stupid, who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid."--Collegeboy----Here he has seen that his entire arguement was retarded and only highlighted his complete ingnorance about the variable being debated in these situation theories: firearms. Now he is attempting to backtrack and say he never hypothesized that terrorist would ever try a takeover equiped with AKs. However, earlier he stated he thought they would. The quote below is from pg.7

"There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)."--Collegeboy-----
Well you thought your magical scenario would include assualt rifle armed terrorists here, why the backtracking later on CB....

"I said to the response of someone getting a 50 Caliber on the plane. I said that more then likely the gun would be an ak47 or 76 which can be made down to 10 inches or so."-Collegeboy
Seeing that his original arguement of terrorists getting assault weapons on a plane was complete bs he has now revamped his arguement to claim they can be made down to a more compact "10 inches or so". That quaote was from pg. 11.

"Like I said the Ak-74 Shorty is 10 to 11 inches with its barrel removed. I said to begin with an Ak-47 or 76(meant 74) can be made to be around 8 inches (CAN BE MADE). I was 3 inches off."--
Collegeboy-------------------
Now he back tracks some more, still unable to admit all his theories are wrong, and becoming even more entangled in his own web of BS by claiming that a AK reciever can be made to be "around 8 inches" with "its barrel removed". So to cover his own previously hilarious AK comments he is now saying that his size estimates were based on the AK having its barrel removed. What he almost certainly didnt know when he said that was that to remove the barrel on the AK-74,'47, AKM, and AKSU-74, you first have to disassemble several other parts. Doing so will leave the weapon unable to fire, because the gas tube that connects to the barrel will not be able to use gases from the fired round to help cycle the bolt back and chamber the next round. Still, no admition of being wrong from CB is heard, just more backtracking.

Now his latest comments....."who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid."--CB.........well obviously on pg.7 YOU believed and defended that possibility Collegeboy and just as you said, you are indeed "rather stupid".

I know you will never admit your own ignorance in this debate, and the complete bs of your theories. So how bout you just stop posting...All the evidence of your own stupidity is laid out over the previous pages and nobody has taken your side. Why dont you just throw in tha' towell. You chose the wrong thread to come swaggering in with your pretentious "I know but you tell me first" crap, and your well documented "I never said what I clearly wrote, you just are'nt able to understand it". Go lecture the underclassmen at the local starbucks CB, they might be impressed.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
To deal with this you have to answer yourself what is the best way to deal with 5 or more terrorist on a plane while posing the least amount of harm to anyone.
You all are practically (not everyone) taking this idea of the air marshal and approving it on its best case scenario, that is not how you make these types of decisions, you approve something over its worst case scenario.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB,
You have still not answered my question. I have shown how the air marshall program works with El Al. Show me JUST 1 instance where it made things worse.

We have shown you where it worked. Show us where it did not!!!!

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Albinonewt, read exactly what I said and what I was responding to. I said that the caliber the terrorist would more likely have over an 50 caliber is an 5.__ or a 7.2 caliber in the state of being fried from an AK 47 for its ready availableness all over the world (24 dollars in sub-Saharan Africa) That was to the remark that the terrorist would shoot 50 caliber bullets (something which I missed read and turned out to be the marshal shooting 50 caliber). I never said that it would be easy for a terrorist to board a plane with an Ak 47 or that would be his weapon of choice. There are like 10 different arguments here that are of separate origins and really have no link between them.

My argument that an armed air marshal is not an effective way to deal with terrorist is not loony or insane. It is very much a realization.

The reason that the Israeli thing worked was because it was only two, the reason they haven't had anymore is because people of Muslim decent are practically forbidden to ride on any of their planes. If they would let these Muslims fly and just have an air marshal on board the terrorist would have over taken him. For this is there life, they are going to die for this, there will not leave any stone unturned, or any detail not looked out. If they fail, they fail in life. They will send decoys to make the armed air marshal stand out, they will then concentrate on the air marshal using themselves or passengers as shields for the marshal shots. They will overtake the marshal take his gun, then with a free weapon they will take over the plane.

To deal with this you have to answer yourself what is the best way to deal with 5 or more terrorist on a plane while posing the least amount of harm to anyone.

You all are practically (not everyone) taking this idea of the air marshal and approving it on its best case scenario, that is not how you make these types of decisions, you approve something over its worst case scenario.

He's like the friggin' Energizer Bunny..... He keeps going and going and going.... on and on and on about the same old tired, disproven many times over, scenarios. And there's that line again... "Read exactly what I said....."

Army... can't we come up with a stupidity ban? Or maybe one for being a complete horse's backside?

And......... Wait for it......... I can see it now..... CB's response will be, "I know you are, but what am I??? "

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Konigballer
He's doing exactly what I knew he would! His whole AK assumption of terrorists using them aboard an airliner against an air marshall was completely retarded.

He also obviously displayed that he had NO IDEA of their size, operation, etc and I dont believe for a second that he has ever shot one in his life. He's just trying to throw up a complete lie about having first hand experience with them so he can try and validate his already defunct arguement about their possible use by terrorists against lesser armed air marshalls.

"No my argument is not that they will take out the Air Marshal with the AK, that is just stupid, who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid."--Collegeboy----Here he has seen that his entire arguement was retarded and only highlighted his complete ingnorance about the variable being debated in these situation theories: firearms. Now he is attempting to backtrack and say he never hypothesized that terrorist would ever try a takeover equiped with AKs. However, earlier he stated he thought they would. The quote below is from pg.7

"There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)."--Collegeboy-----
Well you thought your magical scenario would include assualt rifle armed terrorists here, why the backtracking later on CB....

"I said to the response of someone getting a 50 Caliber on the plane. I said that more then likely the gun would be an ak47 or 76 which can be made down to 10 inches or so."-Collegeboy
Seeing that his original arguement of terrorists getting assault weapons on a plane was complete bs he has now revamped his arguement to claim they can be made down to a more compact "10 inches or so". That quaote was from pg. 11.

"Like I said the Ak-74 Shorty is 10 to 11 inches with its barrel removed. I said to begin with an Ak-47 or 76(meant 74) can be made to be around 8 inches (CAN BE MADE). I was 3 inches off."--
Collegeboy-------------------
Now he back tracks some more, still unable to admit all his theories are wrong, and becoming even more entangled in his own web of BS by claiming that a AK reciever can be made to be "around 8 inches" with "its barrel removed". So to cover his own previously hilarious AK comments he is now saying that his size estimates were based on the AK having its barrel removed. What he almost certainly didnt know when he said that was that to remove the barrel on the AK-74,'47, AKM, and AKSU-74, you first have to disassemble several other parts. Doing so will leave the weapon unable to fire, because the gas tube that connects to the barrel will not be able to use gases from the fired round to help cycle the bolt back and chamber the next round. Still, no admition of being wrong from CB is heard, just more backtracking.

Now his latest comments....."who ever would believe that they can get an Ak with all its metal parts through any security is rather stupid."--CB.........well obviously on pg.7 YOU believed and defended that possibility Collegeboy and just as you said, you are indeed "rather stupid".

I know you will never admit your own ignorance in this debate, and the complete bs of your theories. So how bout you just stop posting...All the evidence of your own stupidity is laid out over the previous pages and nobody has taken your side. Why dont you just throw in tha' towell. You chose the wrong thread to come swaggering in with your pretentious "I know but you tell me first" crap, and your well documented "I never said what I clearly wrote, you just are'nt able to understand it". Go lecture the underclassmen at the local starbucks CB, they might be impressed.

Again reading into more of my comments then is there. My comments was to the idea that if the terrorist got any gun on board it would most likely be an Ak 47 or 74 that can be made down to around 10 inches, (like I have proven an Ak74 shortly can be made down to 10 inches, add the barrel and it is like 18 inches I think.) If you read what I responded to, I took his argument to say that the terrorist would have a 50 caliber on board the plane to shoot at people. He said the Air marshal would, for which I miss read, but I still made my comment about what I miss read. Now take what I responded with and what I was responding to, and you should clearly see what I have been trying to say.

When I am wrong I admit it, I have admitted I was wrong in my understanding of the post on the 50 caliber, I was wrong when I said that Army was a mechanic or a supply guy, though a guess, I was still wrong. But on this I will not admit it, for I am not wrong in what I typed.

Shartly you have all the right in the world to believe in what you want to, I will not say you are stupid, or ignorant, or any other name thrown at me by members and mods, I will respect your right to believe in what you want. I understand not everyone thinks like me, and not everyone places the values on things that I do. I understand that I do not think like you, and that I do not place the values on things that you do. This is a discussion (or was until the name calling began).

IMO one should always approve something over its worst cause scenario. Can you live with what would happen if things go totally wrong. IF you can, then it is a great plan to you. For if you approve something on its best case scenario then things can get much worse, and cause more damage in the one time out of a 1000 it happens, then in the 999 that is goes right.

No 1stdeadeye you did not show me were it works, you showed me where my statement that an armed air marshal can take out 2 guys works, but not the idea that an air marshal can take out 5 to 100.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


IMO one should always approve something over its worst cause scenario.

The worst case scenario is that the terrorists take control of the plane, use it as a weapon... kill everyone in the plane as well as those in the attack.

This is the worst case scenario.

The proposed solutions are intended to STOP this worst case scenario.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Miscue


The worst case scenario is that the terrorists take control of the plane, use it as a weapon... kill everyone in the plane as well as those in the attack.

This is the worst case scenario.

The proposed solutions are intended to STOP this worst case scenario.

Ok CB, if we should plan *everything* by the worst case scenario, then tell me what to do with the nukes we currently have? Keep them, dispose of them. I want details. The how's & why's.

If you can pull your head outta your rectal cavity long enough to get some fresh air, you might get my point.

/me sits and waits for an answer and points out that if CB can use "CB Logic", so can I

[beam]

Everyone who has posted in this thread needs to go watch the movie Demolition Man and think of CB while doing so.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

"Be well."

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Albinonewt, read exactly what I said and what I was responding to. I said that the caliber the terrorist would more likely have over an 50 caliber is an 5.__ or a 7.2 caliber in the state of being fried from an AK 47 for its ready availableness all over the world (24 dollars in sub-Saharan Africa) That was to the remark that the terrorist would shoot 50 caliber bullets (something which I missed read and turned out to be the marshal shooting 50 caliber). I never said that it would be easy for a terrorist to board a plane with an Ak 47 or that would be his weapon of choice. There are like 10 different arguments here that are of separate origins and really have no link between them.

But you did say that there would likely be more then one terrorist and he (they) would be armed with AK-47's

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I said to the response of someone getting a 50 Caliber on the plane. I said that more then likely the gun would be an ak47 or 76 which can be made down to 10 inches or so.

Don't you hate it when I check your posts to discover your lies?

Originally posted by Collegeboy
My argument that an armed air marshal is not an effective way to deal with terrorist is not loony or insane. It is very much a realization.

And your arguement is based on nothing. It's not based on studies, on historic occurences, or any kind of fact. It's based solely on that's what you want to believe.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The reason that the Israeli thing worked was because it was only two, the reason they haven't had anymore is because people of Muslim decent are practically forbidden to ride on any of their planes. If they would let these Muslims fly and just have an air marshal on board the terrorist would have over taken him. For this is there life, they are going to die for this, there will not leave any stone unturned, or any detail not looked out. If they fail, they fail in life. They will send decoys to make the armed air marshal stand out, they will then concentrate on the air marshal using themselves or passengers as shields for the marshal shots. They will overtake the marshal take his gun, then with a free weapon they will take over the plane.

Well, at least CB just admitted that all terrorists are Muslims :)

CB keeps thinking that the terrorists are special forces ninja Cyborgs, that even though unarmed and probably more then ten feet away with obstacles in the way cannot be defeated by a man with a gun.

ANd for the millionth time, what are you basing your conclusions on? You never have anything to back up what yu say, just you're insane rattling about what you think would happen

Originally posted by Collegeboy
To deal with this you have to answer yourself what is the best way to deal with 5 or more terrorist on a plane while posing the least amount of harm to anyone.

I'd do what you claim the Israelis do, not allow Muslims on planes. But, that'll never happen. My next plan would be to have a tam of special forces commandoes in the hull of every domestic flight, but that might get expensive. Failing that I would use my magic wand to make sure that nobody who had the intention of getting on a plane to hijack was allowed on. But, since the wand requires a lot of magic Pixie dust and we don't make it domestically I'd have to rule that out. I'd finally settle on armed sky marshals, reinforced cockpit doors, traing for flight attendents on what to do, and armed pilots. Is it 100% effective? Probably not, there's always things that can go wrong, but it's what we've got.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You all are practically (not everyone) taking this idea of the air marshal and approving it on its best case scenario, that is not how you make these types of decisions, you approve something over its worst case scenario.

In other words, you only choose to deter terrorism when you're 100% certain that nothing will ever go wrong ever.

That's just stupid. I hope you realize that.

In reality, what we are advocating, is our current best line of defense. When there is a better line of defense, either instead of or in addition to, the Marshal that will be what we advocate. You seem to advocate doing nothing and waiting until something is figured out. And for millions of American that travel via air your "idea" is an invitation for disaster.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No 1stdeadeye you did not show me were it works, you showed me where my statement that an armed air marshal can take out 2 guys works, but not the idea that an air marshal can take out 5 to 100.

First off if there is 100 terrorists on the plane, then the best case scenario is to crash it into the sea killing all of the bad guys!

Again, El Al uses Air Marshalls and has never been successfully hijacked.

Tell me when a plane with an air marshall on board was ever successfully hijacked.

So since it worked in the past, it doesn't matter because they didn't fight the proper number of terrorists?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Shartly you have all the right in the world to believe in what you want to, I will not say you are stupid, or ignorant, or any other name thrown at me by members and mods, I will respect your right to believe in what you want. I understand not everyone thinks like me, and not everyone places the values on things that I do. I understand that I do not think like you, and that I do not place the values on things that you do. This is a discussion (or was until the name calling began).

IMO one should always approve something over its worst cause scenario. Can you live with what would happen if things go totally wrong. IF you can, then it is a great plan to you. For if you approve something on its best case scenario then things can get much worse, and cause more damage in the one time out of a 1000 it happens, then in the 999 that is goes right.