Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaxon
You refer in one of your posts to "cowardly terrorists". I can understand why 99.999999% of us might abhor terrorism and describe people who terrorise the innocent in their different ways in unflattering terms. But why do you describe people who are prepared to kill themselves for the sake of their beliefs as "cowardly"?
It puzzled me when George Bush described the 9/11 killers as cowards. Ghastly and murderous, yes. But cowardly?
Regards
Stoic
You refer in one of your posts to "cowardly terrorists". I can understand why 99.999999% of us might abhor terrorism and describe people who terrorise the innocent in their different ways in unflattering terms. But why do you describe people who are prepared to kill themselves for the sake of their beliefs as "cowardly"?
It puzzled me when George Bush described the 9/11 killers as cowards. Ghastly and murderous, yes. But cowardly?
Regards
Stoic
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoic,
A surprise attack upon unarmed and unsuspecting civilians is always a cowardly act. Is there another rational way to see it?
Do you really suggest "a heroic self sacrifice of courageous conviction" describes a suicidal terrorist attack?
You assume that religious beliefs are the motivation of each cowardly terrorist act and that facing a painless and instantaneous death requires strength or courage.
While religious belief may drive a few of these people, it is more accurately described as delusional fanatacism.
For the others, I suggest misguided anger and hate, the manipulation of weak minds and spirits, and the disillusioned, lost and ready to die make up the rest. (As well as some who do it to buy money for family and obviously don't hold much value for their own life or those nameless and faceless innocents they target.)
It took a certain level of "guts" for the terrorist animals who did 9/11, but don't confuse that with the fact that attacking an unarmed, unsuspecting, and innocent plane load of passengers and crew was anything less than cowardly. Don't even suggest that the orchestration of their own painless deaths while trying to kill as many innocent people as they could was anything less than cowardly.
A surprise attack upon unarmed and unsuspecting civilians is always a cowardly act. Is there another rational way to see it?
Do you really suggest "a heroic self sacrifice of courageous conviction" describes a suicidal terrorist attack?
You assume that religious beliefs are the motivation of each cowardly terrorist act and that facing a painless and instantaneous death requires strength or courage.
While religious belief may drive a few of these people, it is more accurately described as delusional fanatacism.
For the others, I suggest misguided anger and hate, the manipulation of weak minds and spirits, and the disillusioned, lost and ready to die make up the rest. (As well as some who do it to buy money for family and obviously don't hold much value for their own life or those nameless and faceless innocents they target.)
It took a certain level of "guts" for the terrorist animals who did 9/11, but don't confuse that with the fact that attacking an unarmed, unsuspecting, and innocent plane load of passengers and crew was anything less than cowardly. Don't even suggest that the orchestration of their own painless deaths while trying to kill as many innocent people as they could was anything less than cowardly.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sally,
Besides knowing that an armed pilot is ready and waiting for them behind a hardened door, I can't think of anything else I want to share with them.
I do feel that the uninformed here who give false ideas and impressions out of sheer ignorance can actually encourage the terrorists and that this should be neutralized as much as possible, obviously without divulging what secrets there are.
Besides knowing that an armed pilot is ready and waiting for them behind a hardened door, I can't think of anything else I want to share with them.
I do feel that the uninformed here who give false ideas and impressions out of sheer ignorance can actually encourage the terrorists and that this should be neutralized as much as possible, obviously without divulging what secrets there are.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaxon
But military bomber pilots seem to do that all the time (all-be-it the unsuspecting civilians are third world civilians), so by your definition are therefore cowardly. Discuss.
Regards
S
A surprise attack upon unarmed and unsuspecting civilians is always a cowardly act.
Regards
S
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Jaxon
"Tordan, your conclusions are grossly misguided. Are you a pilot? You seem to not understand that only one person at a time could possibly enter the cockpit, that putting holes in anything that comes through that doorway is a quite doable feat, that even a handful of bleeding out terrorists will have a difficult time completing their goal even if they manage to overcome the pilots. Of course, you also fail to recognise the potent deterent offered by a hardened door with an armed pilot waiting behind it. It seems that the aviator's comfort with exactness and certitude doesn't mix well with the uncertainties and inexactness of preparing a defense against certain unknown elements."
Dear Jaxon, Iīll send you a PM instead of open discussions here, cheers mate!
"Tordan, your conclusions are grossly misguided. Are you a pilot? You seem to not understand that only one person at a time could possibly enter the cockpit, that putting holes in anything that comes through that doorway is a quite doable feat, that even a handful of bleeding out terrorists will have a difficult time completing their goal even if they manage to overcome the pilots. Of course, you also fail to recognise the potent deterent offered by a hardened door with an armed pilot waiting behind it. It seems that the aviator's comfort with exactness and certitude doesn't mix well with the uncertainties and inexactness of preparing a defense against certain unknown elements."
Dear Jaxon, Iīll send you a PM instead of open discussions here, cheers mate!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my friend,
If your arguement is we need to be more philanthropic around the world, I disagree. We give billions in cash and food to the rest of the world, to what effect?
If we are lucky it actually gets to the folks who need it. On the other extreme, it can fund those who wish us harm. All I ever see is bags of grain going to those in need, who never know where it came from.
I'm sure I missed your point, but you can't blame me. Its hard to even see my computer screen past the stacks of guns, grenades and bazookas stacked in my living room. Hardly my fault. Can you make it plain?
If your arguement is we need to be more philanthropic around the world, I disagree. We give billions in cash and food to the rest of the world, to what effect?
If we are lucky it actually gets to the folks who need it. On the other extreme, it can fund those who wish us harm. All I ever see is bags of grain going to those in need, who never know where it came from.
I'm sure I missed your point, but you can't blame me. Its hard to even see my computer screen past the stacks of guns, grenades and bazookas stacked in my living room. Hardly my fault. Can you make it plain?
Correct, Stoic,
Socialism was not invented until long after our Revolution--we soundly rejected it during the post-WWI era. FDR couldn't revive it during the Depression, his more extreme ideas (WPA, NRA) were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Any number of socialists have stated that the US Constitution precludes socialism, but it has and will be tried again, I'm sure. Americans are people who believe the "rich" should have tax cuts because they all believe they will, one day, be one of them. And our social mobility proves it.
As to George Kennan's quote: he was speaking in the immediate post-WWII period when America had 50% of the world's product. Those Asian countries did envy us, so much so they took after us. Japan became the world's second largest economy (a status they still hold despite the lost '90s and shrinking population, might not last though). Korea, after a devastating war, rebuilt into a rich, educated society (11th largest). Singapore became, well, Singapore, as did Hong Kong. We buy clothes here from Laos, Vietnam, Phillipines, enriching those people the old-fashioned way-creating work. China and India are regaining their historic position in the world's economy. But it will take decades for either to reach anything like parity with the US. After all, we have grown at 3.5% for decades and it will continue. We currently have the third largest population and about 28% of the world's product, a percentage that has actually grown over the last 25 years, despite Asian growth. In other words, the pie keeps getting bigger.
Guns are merely an American symbol, like the car and the Wild West, of American individualism and liberty. Your posts show envy and short-sightedness It is Europe that is doomed, the rising population of ill-integrated Muslims, representing the future, aging native populations living in retirement or as expats. In fact, something like 10% of British are expat now; whole businesses in Europe are devoted to aiding expats find new lives overseas.
Sixty years later, we have certainly declined--we are down to 28% and everyone on this planet are wonderfully better off than in 1948. You have misread that quote, Americans have been very pragmatic about our own interests and the world's We guarantee the freedom of the seas, a role lost by the British in two conflicts. We are the one's called during any emergency or conflict, think the Balkans. It costs us dearly, in blood and treasure, but we do it out of self-interest and by doing so enrich the world. Adam Smith as a diplomat.
Doomed, I think not. GF
Socialism was not invented until long after our Revolution--we soundly rejected it during the post-WWI era. FDR couldn't revive it during the Depression, his more extreme ideas (WPA, NRA) were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Any number of socialists have stated that the US Constitution precludes socialism, but it has and will be tried again, I'm sure. Americans are people who believe the "rich" should have tax cuts because they all believe they will, one day, be one of them. And our social mobility proves it.
As to George Kennan's quote: he was speaking in the immediate post-WWII period when America had 50% of the world's product. Those Asian countries did envy us, so much so they took after us. Japan became the world's second largest economy (a status they still hold despite the lost '90s and shrinking population, might not last though). Korea, after a devastating war, rebuilt into a rich, educated society (11th largest). Singapore became, well, Singapore, as did Hong Kong. We buy clothes here from Laos, Vietnam, Phillipines, enriching those people the old-fashioned way-creating work. China and India are regaining their historic position in the world's economy. But it will take decades for either to reach anything like parity with the US. After all, we have grown at 3.5% for decades and it will continue. We currently have the third largest population and about 28% of the world's product, a percentage that has actually grown over the last 25 years, despite Asian growth. In other words, the pie keeps getting bigger.
Guns are merely an American symbol, like the car and the Wild West, of American individualism and liberty. Your posts show envy and short-sightedness It is Europe that is doomed, the rising population of ill-integrated Muslims, representing the future, aging native populations living in retirement or as expats. In fact, something like 10% of British are expat now; whole businesses in Europe are devoted to aiding expats find new lives overseas.
Sixty years later, we have certainly declined--we are down to 28% and everyone on this planet are wonderfully better off than in 1948. You have misread that quote, Americans have been very pragmatic about our own interests and the world's We guarantee the freedom of the seas, a role lost by the British in two conflicts. We are the one's called during any emergency or conflict, think the Balkans. It costs us dearly, in blood and treasure, but we do it out of self-interest and by doing so enrich the world. Adam Smith as a diplomat.
Doomed, I think not. GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 31st Mar 2008 at 23:39.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Well then, lets run with your thought and see what makes sense:
If your cockpit door gets attacked from the cabin and gives way to reveal a terrorist wearing a bullet proof vest, are you going to prefer (at THAT moment) to be armed or unarmed?
Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Well then, lets run with your thought and see what makes sense:
If your cockpit door gets attacked from the cabin and gives way to reveal a terrorist wearing a bullet proof vest, are you going to prefer (at THAT moment) to be armed or unarmed?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GlueBall
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,645
Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are several reasons why they are unarmed -
1. armed guards on all flights(?).
2. excellent counter-intelligence.
3. legal right to 'profile'.
4. double door system to the cockpit so no one can enter without permission.
If the U.S. operated the way this carrier does, with just a fraction of the daily flights that the U.S. operates, I think the FFDO program might have been stillborn. The reality is their system isn't feasible in the U.S. We'd require over 100,000 armed guards.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,645
Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are several reasons why they are unarmed -
1. armed guards on all flights(?).
2. excellent counter-intelligence.
3. legal right to 'profile'.
4. double door system to the cockpit so no one can enter without permission.
If the U.S. operated the way this carrier does, with just a fraction of the daily flights that the U.S. operates, I think the FFDO program might have been stillborn. The reality is their system isn't feasible in the U.S. We'd require over 100,000 armed guards.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of shi.........
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that this thread was a discussion regarding the carriage of guns on the flight deck, not a discussion about different nations cultural, political and ethical differences?
I find some of the comments made on here a f
g disgrace. America doomed? Europe Doomed? In my opinion judging by the rubbish I have read in the latter half of this thread, I would say we are all doomed.
The basics of the thread were pretty simple, guns on the flight deck... good idea?.. Bad idea?... Simple... really isn't it?
I find some of the comments made on here a f
g disgrace. America doomed? Europe Doomed? In my opinion judging by the rubbish I have read in the latter half of this thread, I would say we are all doomed.The basics of the thread were pretty simple, guns on the flight deck... good idea?.. Bad idea?... Simple... really isn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As lots of posts imlply, it really seem to be a cultural thing.
Lots of Europeans (myself included) believe its a bad idea and contributes more to endangering aviation than making it safer.
Lots of US-Americans believe its a good idea and feel comfortable with it.
I personally find the idea absurd, but I have to accept that people in the US grow up in another mindset towards guns in general.
To share a flightdeck with an armed pilot would make me feel uncomfortable.
So what? The chances that I will ever fly on a N-registered airliner arenīt very high, so I donīt really worry about it.
I still donīt get the concept. A group of terrorists try to pull off the 911-thing again. They are well trained, prepared to die and have the moment of surprise on their side. They could use one of the cabin crew members as a human shield upon entering the FD. If you kill the first to enter, there may be five of them left.
I believe that the downsides of bringing a hazardous equipment onto the FD outweigh by far the small advantage you might or might not have in another terrorist attack.
Lots of Europeans (myself included) believe its a bad idea and contributes more to endangering aviation than making it safer.
Lots of US-Americans believe its a good idea and feel comfortable with it.
I personally find the idea absurd, but I have to accept that people in the US grow up in another mindset towards guns in general.
To share a flightdeck with an armed pilot would make me feel uncomfortable.
So what? The chances that I will ever fly on a N-registered airliner arenīt very high, so I donīt really worry about it.
I still donīt get the concept. A group of terrorists try to pull off the 911-thing again. They are well trained, prepared to die and have the moment of surprise on their side. They could use one of the cabin crew members as a human shield upon entering the FD. If you kill the first to enter, there may be five of them left.
I believe that the downsides of bringing a hazardous equipment onto the FD outweigh by far the small advantage you might or might not have in another terrorist attack.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still donīt get the concept. A group of terrorists try to pull off the 911-thing again. They are well trained, prepared to die and have the moment of surprise on their side. They could use one of the cabin crew members as a human shield upon entering the FD. If you kill the first to enter, there may be five of them left.
I look at the above-quoted scenario and think - why on EARTH would you not want a pistol in such a predicament?
P.J. O'Rourke had a great quote about this - something to this effect: a person who is against gun ownership has never held one in his hand when he is afraid for his life.....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See... right there ... that's the difference culturally.
I look at the above-quoted scenario and think - why on EARTH would you not want a pistol in such a predicament?
P.J. O'Rourke had a great quote about this - something to this effect: a person who is against gun ownership has never held one in his hand when he is afraid for his life.....
I look at the above-quoted scenario and think - why on EARTH would you not want a pistol in such a predicament?
P.J. O'Rourke had a great quote about this - something to this effect: a person who is against gun ownership has never held one in his hand when he is afraid for his life.....
I have been in the 'him or me' situation... and more than once I hasten to add. BUT I still would not under any circumstance feel it appropriate to have any type of firearm onboard a civil flight, it is just asking for it really. The sheer thought that people feel it is even necessary disturbs me severely.
If the 'considered terror threat' in the US is really as bad as it is being made out to be by many posters on here... and with US having the manpower and resources it has... why in the hell isn't more being done to prevent aircraft from being subjected to these expected terror attacks? Completeley self contained Flight Decks... BETTER on ground security...? Why hasn't this or similar been done... money, sorry but its been a while now since 9/11? Or is the general feeling "Sod all that, too expensive, we'll just arm pilots, they're a skillful bunch, we can get them to shoot the terrorists instead, job done"?
Hey as a last line of defense why not just put a big red self destruct button right in the middle of the panel for when the sh*t really does it the fan!? Talk about letting the terrorist win...
You tell me what would be better?
1> Waiting with your single pistol... on the FD as a bunch of terrorists are throwing themselves at the door... trying to bust there way in?
2> Having no internal door to the FD for the terrorists to throw themselves at?
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than 10% of pilots allowed to fly armed
In today's Newspaper:
WASHINGTON More than one in 10 of the nation's airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection.
The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crewmembers were authorized to carry guns.
The Federal Air Marshal Service, a TSA agency that runs the armed-pilots program, reports that 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crewmembers flying domestic passenger and cargo planes are eligible to carry a gun. That puts the number of armed pilots at about 9,500 a figure Air Marshal spokesman Nelson Minerly did not dispute. The marshal service keeps the exact number confidential.
The TSA projects the program to grow to 16.5% of eligible pilots by the year 2011.
Aviation experts were surprised and alarmed that so many pilots are toting guns in the sky.
"That's a big number compared to what I thought it would be," said aviation-security consultant Rich Roth, who said he had predicted there would be fewer than 1,000 armed pilots. The 5-year-old program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.
"That's a scary number," said Joseph Gutheinz, a former Transportation Department special agent and aviation attorney in Houston. "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."
Capt. Bob Hesselbein, head of security for the Air Line Pilots Association, said the number of armed pilots is "a tremendous deterrent" to hijackings. "An organized terrorist team, their challenge is to take control of the cabin, then the flight deck."
Armed pilots have come under scrutiny since March 22 when the gun of a US Airways pilot fired in the cockpit of Flight 1536 as it approached Charlotte from Denver. No one was hurt, and the plane landed safely after the bullet pierced the fuselage.
A report by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said the gun fired while the pilot was stowing it.
The marshal service is investigating. The firing was the first such incident, which indicates that "this isn't a problem with the program," Air Marshal spokesman Greg Alter said.
Hesselbein, whose union lobbied Congress for the program, said armed pilots are on about 15% of domestic flights.
Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.
Pilots train at a federal center in New Mexico. Classes hold 48 people and have been filled or nearly filled for five years, Minerly said.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...terstitialskip
WASHINGTON More than one in 10 of the nation's airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection.
The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crewmembers were authorized to carry guns.
The Federal Air Marshal Service, a TSA agency that runs the armed-pilots program, reports that 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crewmembers flying domestic passenger and cargo planes are eligible to carry a gun. That puts the number of armed pilots at about 9,500 a figure Air Marshal spokesman Nelson Minerly did not dispute. The marshal service keeps the exact number confidential.
The TSA projects the program to grow to 16.5% of eligible pilots by the year 2011.
Aviation experts were surprised and alarmed that so many pilots are toting guns in the sky.
"That's a big number compared to what I thought it would be," said aviation-security consultant Rich Roth, who said he had predicted there would be fewer than 1,000 armed pilots. The 5-year-old program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.
"That's a scary number," said Joseph Gutheinz, a former Transportation Department special agent and aviation attorney in Houston. "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."
Capt. Bob Hesselbein, head of security for the Air Line Pilots Association, said the number of armed pilots is "a tremendous deterrent" to hijackings. "An organized terrorist team, their challenge is to take control of the cabin, then the flight deck."
Armed pilots have come under scrutiny since March 22 when the gun of a US Airways pilot fired in the cockpit of Flight 1536 as it approached Charlotte from Denver. No one was hurt, and the plane landed safely after the bullet pierced the fuselage.
A report by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said the gun fired while the pilot was stowing it.
The marshal service is investigating. The firing was the first such incident, which indicates that "this isn't a problem with the program," Air Marshal spokesman Greg Alter said.
Hesselbein, whose union lobbied Congress for the program, said armed pilots are on about 15% of domestic flights.
Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.
Pilots train at a federal center in New Mexico. Classes hold 48 people and have been filled or nearly filled for five years, Minerly said.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...terstitialskip
Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.
Bud Flagg and his wife Dee were murdered on 9/11 when their American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thought...
Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???
If not, then a determined terrorist has an obvious way to get onto the flight-deck, and get his hands on a weapon.
OK Lets say it does.
Then a member of the aircrew would make a pretty good shield.
For me its clear.
Keep the guns out of the cockpit. Whilst they are known to be there, they just become one of the 'considerations' for the would be terrorists. Do any of us think these extremists might be afraid of an armed and semi-trained adversary. Not for one second.
If you need guns on the flight, keep them with the Marshalls. If you need 10,000 Marshalls in the USA (not my figure, its in a prior post), then thats the cost of flying more safely which the Airlines (and therfore the passengers) might have to pay.
Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???
If not, then a determined terrorist has an obvious way to get onto the flight-deck, and get his hands on a weapon.
OK Lets say it does.
Then a member of the aircrew would make a pretty good shield.
For me its clear.
Keep the guns out of the cockpit. Whilst they are known to be there, they just become one of the 'considerations' for the would be terrorists. Do any of us think these extremists might be afraid of an armed and semi-trained adversary. Not for one second.
If you need guns on the flight, keep them with the Marshalls. If you need 10,000 Marshalls in the USA (not my figure, its in a prior post), then thats the cost of flying more safely which the Airlines (and therfore the passengers) might have to pay.
Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???
I guess the question could also be, if suspects are caught at screening with defensive protective items, then arms onboard are increasing the hurdles for a successful attack?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reach,
I think its a fair assumption that a well resourced and determined terrorist group will have far more wit than most of us on this forum.
Although.....
I have always wondered about the impact that Tom Clancy's 'Executive Orders' might have had.
If anyone didnt yet read it, it starts with a terrorists crashing a 747 into the Capitol building, killing the President.....
I think its a fair assumption that a well resourced and determined terrorist group will have far more wit than most of us on this forum.
Although.....
I have always wondered about the impact that Tom Clancy's 'Executive Orders' might have had.
If anyone didnt yet read it, it starts with a terrorists crashing a 747 into the Capitol building, killing the President.....