Guns in Cockpit (Various)
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you watched the video from the APA, the weapons that simulated terrorists used were all parts of the aircraft. Not Flash bangs, grenades etc. It was assumed that security on the ground worked as advertised.
If the pilot's are cut down with machine guns that the terrorist brings on board, the pilots gun's haven't made the situation worse have they? But they certainly improve the odds against a knife weilding terrorist, which is something far more difficult to prevent from an airport security point of view.
What's your point?
So we should just give up?
Fly the plane into the building ourself?
Cheers
Wino
If the pilot's are cut down with machine guns that the terrorist brings on board, the pilots gun's haven't made the situation worse have they? But they certainly improve the odds against a knife weilding terrorist, which is something far more difficult to prevent from an airport security point of view.
What's your point?
So we should just give up?
Fly the plane into the building ourself?
Cheers
Wino
Last edited by Wino; 14th Sep 2002 at 16:58.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one fail swoop the US knows more about the consequences of terrorism than any other nation.You think of terrorism in terms of a pub bombing that kills ten or twenty.We dont have that luxury.These terrorists are dedicated,resourceful and out to get us.This is the justification for such a controversial move.
The arming of pilots in the US is workable,contrary to what you might think.This is why:
i)Guns are,for better or worse,part of our daily lives.There is no familiarity problem here.Most of us own at least one personal firearm.The training required for such a program,although rigorous,will really only have to be supplementary,an add-on if you will.The arming of European pilots would pose a far greater problem.Training would,for the most part,have to be from scratch.And thats just the technical side of the training.The mental block to firearms,borne of ignorance and fear,would have to be addressed.No such address is required in the States.
ii)A strong sense of responsibility and sobriety are de facto attributes of the experienced airline pilot.Recent alcohol-related incidents have detracted from this but the assumption is still a valid one.This mental approach lends itself well to the responsibility of carrying a firearm in the workplace.The childish comments made by some about some sort of John Wayne shoot-em-up scenario just would not materialize.Bear in mind that US commercial pilots were authorized to carry firearms until relatively recently.
iii)The purpose of arming pilots is one of deterrence,which is a proven principle in crime prevention.Pilots are not being asked to fight the front line.Air Marshalls and airport security will do that.This fourth line of defence(airport security-air marshalls-flight deck door being the first three)is important in light of the evidence that some lines of defence have been and continue to be breached.However,terrorists are not unintelligent:they dont like overwhelming odds.They will consider an attempt to breach one or two lines of defence.But four?
The arming of pilots in the US is workable,contrary to what you might think.This is why:
i)Guns are,for better or worse,part of our daily lives.There is no familiarity problem here.Most of us own at least one personal firearm.The training required for such a program,although rigorous,will really only have to be supplementary,an add-on if you will.The arming of European pilots would pose a far greater problem.Training would,for the most part,have to be from scratch.And thats just the technical side of the training.The mental block to firearms,borne of ignorance and fear,would have to be addressed.No such address is required in the States.
ii)A strong sense of responsibility and sobriety are de facto attributes of the experienced airline pilot.Recent alcohol-related incidents have detracted from this but the assumption is still a valid one.This mental approach lends itself well to the responsibility of carrying a firearm in the workplace.The childish comments made by some about some sort of John Wayne shoot-em-up scenario just would not materialize.Bear in mind that US commercial pilots were authorized to carry firearms until relatively recently.
iii)The purpose of arming pilots is one of deterrence,which is a proven principle in crime prevention.Pilots are not being asked to fight the front line.Air Marshalls and airport security will do that.This fourth line of defence(airport security-air marshalls-flight deck door being the first three)is important in light of the evidence that some lines of defence have been and continue to be breached.However,terrorists are not unintelligent:they dont like overwhelming odds.They will consider an attempt to breach one or two lines of defence.But four?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And background to what we are facing:
The US has become extremely zenophobic, and maybe is about to plunge the world into a major conflict (but then again maybe it will be a cake walk).
The Air Marshal service is losing personnel fast, due to the tough rosters, and they have reduced the qualification training, so the standard is dropping, and very few flights have air marshals on board.
25 to 40% of all 'weapons' are missed at the security checkpoints.
The FBI, police forces and even the Secret Service are losing qualified persons who are going to join the new TSA. So now, instead of hunting murderers, robbers, kidnappers and the like, the country's finest will be hassling grandmothers and confiscating nail files at the airport.
But the traveling public believes that things are safer than before 9/11.
Am I the crazy one, or is it everyone else?
The US has become extremely zenophobic, and maybe is about to plunge the world into a major conflict (but then again maybe it will be a cake walk).
The Air Marshal service is losing personnel fast, due to the tough rosters, and they have reduced the qualification training, so the standard is dropping, and very few flights have air marshals on board.
25 to 40% of all 'weapons' are missed at the security checkpoints.
The FBI, police forces and even the Secret Service are losing qualified persons who are going to join the new TSA. So now, instead of hunting murderers, robbers, kidnappers and the like, the country's finest will be hassling grandmothers and confiscating nail files at the airport.
But the traveling public believes that things are safer than before 9/11.
Am I the crazy one, or is it everyone else?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue and White - Do you think that the US is the only country that has had orphans and widows due to terrorist attacks? I think that it is you who needs to take your head out of the sand. Maybe you could even talk with some other nations about their experiences with terrorism and how they have delt with it?
Max_cont - I think you might like to ask the families of the people killed by friendly fire. If you need to research it, a lot of incidents seem to involve the US - see Afghanistan, The Gulf 90/91, etc. I understand wha you're saying, but i believe that outside the states, guns in the cockpit pake things more dangerous rather than safer. Inside the States, it's probably the same, but I'm not going to tell them what to do just as I expect the US to respect the opinion of others.
Rananim - At first I though you were being sarcastic. It seems that you think that because Sept 11 had a lot of deaths at once, the US is suddenly "the Guru" on terrorism and and anti-terrorism. In the words of John McEnroe "You cannot be serious!". The US has been exposed to what the rest of the world has been dealing with for the last 50 years and suddenly it's the expert?
This sort of arrogant attitude is exactly why people get pi$$ed of with the US and it's foreign policies. Maybe if the US listened a little more to others rather than bathe in the sunshine streaming out of it's rear-end, it'd get a little more respect!
I'm d@mned if 'll have someone in another country tell me that I have to comply with their standards, that I disagree with, because it makes them feel better. I'm sure that you'll agree.
Cheers, LP
Max_cont - I think you might like to ask the families of the people killed by friendly fire. If you need to research it, a lot of incidents seem to involve the US - see Afghanistan, The Gulf 90/91, etc. I understand wha you're saying, but i believe that outside the states, guns in the cockpit pake things more dangerous rather than safer. Inside the States, it's probably the same, but I'm not going to tell them what to do just as I expect the US to respect the opinion of others.
Rananim - At first I though you were being sarcastic. It seems that you think that because Sept 11 had a lot of deaths at once, the US is suddenly "the Guru" on terrorism and and anti-terrorism. In the words of John McEnroe "You cannot be serious!". The US has been exposed to what the rest of the world has been dealing with for the last 50 years and suddenly it's the expert?
This sort of arrogant attitude is exactly why people get pi$$ed of with the US and it's foreign policies. Maybe if the US listened a little more to others rather than bathe in the sunshine streaming out of it's rear-end, it'd get a little more respect!I'm d@mned if 'll have someone in another country tell me that I have to comply with their standards, that I disagree with, because it makes them feel better. I'm sure that you'll agree.
Cheers, LP
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't read through the whole thread. So, I hope I'm not repeating what others might have said. If I am, I apologize. Here's my 2 cents:
Obviously, this is to prevent another 9/11. By having firarms, those pilots who flew the four hijacked planes on 9/11 might have had a chance to change the outcome. However, 9/11 does not happen all the time. It took those terroists few years of planning and training to pull it off. Better intelligence would have averted the disaster. By allowing the cockpit crew to have firearms, I'm afraid it would increase the possibility of some lunatic, suisidal pilots to do something drastic. In the past five years, we had at least two, namely, Egyptair and Silkair. I honestly think this is a very dangerous policy.
Obviously, this is to prevent another 9/11. By having firarms, those pilots who flew the four hijacked planes on 9/11 might have had a chance to change the outcome. However, 9/11 does not happen all the time. It took those terroists few years of planning and training to pull it off. Better intelligence would have averted the disaster. By allowing the cockpit crew to have firearms, I'm afraid it would increase the possibility of some lunatic, suisidal pilots to do something drastic. In the past five years, we had at least two, namely, Egyptair and Silkair. I honestly think this is a very dangerous policy.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Pass,
Did I mention the word "expert"?I dont think so.Knowing more about the consequences of terrorism doesnt necessarily mean you know more about dealing with terrorism and I never implied otherwise.Read.Think.Then write.
Reservations and concerns about the when and where factors still exist.Do we want armed pilots in the terminal environment and at the security gates?Or do they have the firearms delivered direct to the flt deck by Air Marshalls at the pre-flight stage?
Did I mention the word "expert"?I dont think so.Knowing more about the consequences of terrorism doesnt necessarily mean you know more about dealing with terrorism and I never implied otherwise.Read.Think.Then write.
Reservations and concerns about the when and where factors still exist.Do we want armed pilots in the terminal environment and at the security gates?Or do they have the firearms delivered direct to the flt deck by Air Marshalls at the pre-flight stage?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim - Apologies for misunderstanding you. I still disagree with you.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you this time. You seem to be saying that because there was a huge loss of life on 11/09/01 (greater than any other singular terrorist attack to memory), that America knows more about the concequences of terrorism. This seems pretty bizarre to me as England and Northern Ireland have been dealing with it's threat and incidents for over 30 years! Israel too has had similar experience, if not more so. You also discount the Basque sepratist movement in northern Spain and terrorist attacks have also been happening in the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan for years. This is by no means a comprihensive list.
I'll agree with you if you say that the US has had the biggest shock from a single terrorist event but then it shocked the world. Your reaction is understandable. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it happened here. Never the less, I still believe that guns in the cockpit represent a reduction rather than and increase in the level of safety. But you get to choose over there - just not over here.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you this time. You seem to be saying that because there was a huge loss of life on 11/09/01 (greater than any other singular terrorist attack to memory), that America knows more about the concequences of terrorism. This seems pretty bizarre to me as England and Northern Ireland have been dealing with it's threat and incidents for over 30 years! Israel too has had similar experience, if not more so. You also discount the Basque sepratist movement in northern Spain and terrorist attacks have also been happening in the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan for years. This is by no means a comprihensive list.
I'll agree with you if you say that the US has had the biggest shock from a single terrorist event but then it shocked the world. Your reaction is understandable. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it happened here. Never the less, I still believe that guns in the cockpit represent a reduction rather than and increase in the level of safety. But you get to choose over there - just not over here.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ny, NY, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Pass: Ever thought about taking guns and blowing the holy**** out the guys (their families and all the support) that are attacking you...............there might not be a problem. Diplomacy can only go so far.
Obiviously, if your country has been dealing with terrorists for that many years and you haven't solved the problem. May I suggest you try another method..............because the one you're using ain't working for sh*t.
Obiviously, if your country has been dealing with terrorists for that many years and you haven't solved the problem. May I suggest you try another method..............because the one you're using ain't working for sh*t.
Last edited by Blue & White; 16th Sep 2002 at 01:12.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles,CA,USA
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny Gun Story
When I was a brand-new F/E on the B-727 , I had this old, senior Captain who told me stories of carrying a 9mm pistol in his flight bag in the early 1960s, when no metal-detectors were in use. He carried it for 2 reasons: to kill hijackers who wanted to go to Cuba and to shoot wildlife out his sliding cockpit window! He even told me he killed a deer at the end of runway 19L at KMCI one night, after shining the taxi light on it!
Last edited by B767300ER; 16th Sep 2002 at 04:33.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Earth (unfortunately)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we should all remeber what is that we are trying to prevent the terrorists from doing... our primary concern is not to protect the lives of the people on board, but those on the ground. If the terrorists are determined to kill the 300 people on board (either by executing them one-by-one or by damaging the aircraft to the point it will crash) nobody can stop them, not even armed pilots. But then again, if what terrorist want to do is kill 300 innocent lives they can do that VERY easily by simply driving to a stadium, club, movie theater or any densly-populated area and blow up everybody. Lets say each terrorist can kill 200 people (many movie theaters on saturday night contain even more people), then the 19 terrorists can easily kill 3800 without the need of years of planning, flight instruction and all they had to do to execute the 9-11 attack. In other words, its relatively easy to kill a large number of people, especially if you are very determined and are willing to give your life. Just look at what's happening in Israel. And considering how easy it is to buy guns and build bombs in the US, the terrorist could probably achieve even "better results".
My point is that the 911 attacks were targeting certain american symbols, and were not done to kill the maximum number of people. However, should the terrorist's objectives change, we need to stop them from flying an aircraft into a nuclear power station which could potentially kill millions. This is why our only main concern is to protect the people on the GROUND, not in the air. We can't do more to protect the people in the air in the same way we can't protect the people going to a movie theater... if they want to kill them, and are appropriately trained, they will succeed. period.
The only and only way to protect the people on the ground is prevent the terrorist from acquiring control of the aircraft.
I was thinking about installing a button with close reach of both pilots which can be activated in a matter of split seconds. Once this button is pressed, a previously programmed "hyjack mode" of the FMS takes over the control of the aircraft and at the same time informs ATC. This computer program will first of all take the aircaft away from densely populated areas as well as certain predetermined targets (such as nuclear stations). The aircraft must cruise along a route where, should the hijackers damage the aircaft to the point it will crash, only the people on board would be killed. The second priority for the computer would be to land the aircaft at the closest airport that meets certain criteria such as runway length and the presence of a precision approach that would always keep the aircraft away from densly populated areas. The autopilot would then land the airplane and the good guys would be waiting on the ground.
I know this might sound like a weird idea, but if you think about it, the FMS flies the aircraft most of the time anyways, and it has the capability of performing all of the task I listed above. All we need is a software, thats it. A computer program that will totally exclude every control device in the cockpit and fly the airplane following a previously pre-programmed procedure. At every single stage of the flight this program would always have a "Hijack produre" ready to implement, depending on the location of the aircaft. We all know both Boeing and Airbus have all the computer geeks they need to devise such program.
Of course, an identical copy of the program would be installed in the ATC stations. This way ATC would already know exactly what the entire procedure the aircraft will follow up to the new destination airport including the approach procedure. (without the need of communicating with the aircraft) This means they can easily clear the skies below you with very little consequences on other traffic.
This is very important because it would reduce the problems associated with a false alarm. For example, assuming we have the autistic passenger who starts kicking the door... the pilots can immediately activate the "hijack procedure" knowing that the consequences of a false alarm would only be a couple hours of delay, nothing more. They would not have to shoot and kill a disabled passenger. The same would apply to many other situations where armed pilots might kill someone by mistake.
We all know autopilots can fly the plane (in many cases even better than pilots). So in the event of a hijacking why not let it fly the plane if that could save the lives of thousands, if not millions on the ground? The technology is there, all we need is a bunch of computer geeks to develop a very complex application which takes into considerations all the hundreds of different variables. It can be done, and should terrorists ever think about hijackacking another aircraft, they will know it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to take control of the aircraft. They might still crash it, but as we said before if a group of determined terrorists wants to kill 300 civilians they will always be able to do so in a society with still has a few civil liberties left. What we want to avoid is having an aircraft blow up a nuclear or chemical plant, and guns in the cockpit cannot prevent that with 100% certainty. However, an effective computer program connected to the FMS would be able to stop them.
palgia
My point is that the 911 attacks were targeting certain american symbols, and were not done to kill the maximum number of people. However, should the terrorist's objectives change, we need to stop them from flying an aircraft into a nuclear power station which could potentially kill millions. This is why our only main concern is to protect the people on the GROUND, not in the air. We can't do more to protect the people in the air in the same way we can't protect the people going to a movie theater... if they want to kill them, and are appropriately trained, they will succeed. period.
The only and only way to protect the people on the ground is prevent the terrorist from acquiring control of the aircraft.
I was thinking about installing a button with close reach of both pilots which can be activated in a matter of split seconds. Once this button is pressed, a previously programmed "hyjack mode" of the FMS takes over the control of the aircraft and at the same time informs ATC. This computer program will first of all take the aircaft away from densely populated areas as well as certain predetermined targets (such as nuclear stations). The aircraft must cruise along a route where, should the hijackers damage the aircaft to the point it will crash, only the people on board would be killed. The second priority for the computer would be to land the aircaft at the closest airport that meets certain criteria such as runway length and the presence of a precision approach that would always keep the aircraft away from densly populated areas. The autopilot would then land the airplane and the good guys would be waiting on the ground.
I know this might sound like a weird idea, but if you think about it, the FMS flies the aircraft most of the time anyways, and it has the capability of performing all of the task I listed above. All we need is a software, thats it. A computer program that will totally exclude every control device in the cockpit and fly the airplane following a previously pre-programmed procedure. At every single stage of the flight this program would always have a "Hijack produre" ready to implement, depending on the location of the aircaft. We all know both Boeing and Airbus have all the computer geeks they need to devise such program.
Of course, an identical copy of the program would be installed in the ATC stations. This way ATC would already know exactly what the entire procedure the aircraft will follow up to the new destination airport including the approach procedure. (without the need of communicating with the aircraft) This means they can easily clear the skies below you with very little consequences on other traffic.
This is very important because it would reduce the problems associated with a false alarm. For example, assuming we have the autistic passenger who starts kicking the door... the pilots can immediately activate the "hijack procedure" knowing that the consequences of a false alarm would only be a couple hours of delay, nothing more. They would not have to shoot and kill a disabled passenger. The same would apply to many other situations where armed pilots might kill someone by mistake.
We all know autopilots can fly the plane (in many cases even better than pilots). So in the event of a hijacking why not let it fly the plane if that could save the lives of thousands, if not millions on the ground? The technology is there, all we need is a bunch of computer geeks to develop a very complex application which takes into considerations all the hundreds of different variables. It can be done, and should terrorists ever think about hijackacking another aircraft, they will know it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to take control of the aircraft. They might still crash it, but as we said before if a group of determined terrorists wants to kill 300 civilians they will always be able to do so in a society with still has a few civil liberties left. What we want to avoid is having an aircraft blow up a nuclear or chemical plant, and guns in the cockpit cannot prevent that with 100% certainty. However, an effective computer program connected to the FMS would be able to stop them.
palgia
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the Americans out there who think that the only terroorist attack in the world ever happened in New York last year. I have seen first hand the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the UK and N Ireland. I lived in Manchester at the time of the bombing there and actually heard it go off. I was in my house 9 miles away at the time. Good luck and a bit of hard work on behalf of the local police and fire services meant no one was killed, although many were seriously injured. Later I moved to Ealing. The IRA promptly blew up the town centre there. And the railway line. I have comforted and Irish friend after he has seen the devastation and death on the TV of people from his home town bombed, and have worked in Portadown and had to stop work because I was prevented by burning cars from driving down the street. (I feel angry enough to make the comment here that a great deal of the IRA's funding came and is STILL being provided by Christian Americans who seemingly think the death of UK citizens is somehow different to the death of US citizens.) We have learnt over the years that terrorism is the result of a bunch of breakaway fanatics. That going to their country of origin and shooting all of their families will not work. After trying to deal with a difficult situation for decades we then get Bill Clinton striding round telling us how terrorism should be deal with. And when it isn't happening to his own country you can bet your bottom dollar he didn't advocate violence and war.
The world has changed for the worse since last year. There is no doubt about that. Americans thinks so, Europeans thinks so, certainly your average Afghan in the street thinks so. And yet still the US has not looked inside itself to think about why the Arab world hates it so much. I can tell you one thing for nothing. US gunships strafing weddings doesn't help.
So in the end the US will arm its pilots to prevent a hijack happening again. The terrorists are intelligent. They have probably already moved on. We know in Britain that even without killing people the entire destruction of the centre of a major city can have a devastating effect on the economy. And these people just want to hurt America. They could attack so many things that are not even aviation linked and still kill thousands of people in one go. America was so convinced of its own invulnerability at the time that it did not even check hand luggage. Be aware they have probably already identified other weaknesses.
I, for one, will never support the introduction of guns onto the flight deck. However being an oiky European not used to handling guns I probably wouldn't be allowed one anyway. As I mentioned before - it is ludicrous to arm one group of pilots with guns when another lot isn't even allowed a proper metal spoon to eat breakfast with. If the flight deck and guns are going to be so secure why can't I even have a firkin spoon?
One last thing for the US pilots out there - where is the 't' in Bovingdon?
The world has changed for the worse since last year. There is no doubt about that. Americans thinks so, Europeans thinks so, certainly your average Afghan in the street thinks so. And yet still the US has not looked inside itself to think about why the Arab world hates it so much. I can tell you one thing for nothing. US gunships strafing weddings doesn't help.
So in the end the US will arm its pilots to prevent a hijack happening again. The terrorists are intelligent. They have probably already moved on. We know in Britain that even without killing people the entire destruction of the centre of a major city can have a devastating effect on the economy. And these people just want to hurt America. They could attack so many things that are not even aviation linked and still kill thousands of people in one go. America was so convinced of its own invulnerability at the time that it did not even check hand luggage. Be aware they have probably already identified other weaknesses.
I, for one, will never support the introduction of guns onto the flight deck. However being an oiky European not used to handling guns I probably wouldn't be allowed one anyway. As I mentioned before - it is ludicrous to arm one group of pilots with guns when another lot isn't even allowed a proper metal spoon to eat breakfast with. If the flight deck and guns are going to be so secure why can't I even have a firkin spoon?
One last thing for the US pilots out there - where is the 't' in Bovingdon?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue and White - Hmmmm, do you mean like in Israel at the moment? Your solution doesn't seem to be working as there are still many Israelis and Palistineans dying on a weekly basis.
Do you mean like the years of a "zero tolerance" type policy attitude from the British Government towards the IRA? That didn't work to well either.
Terrorism is much less of a problem in the UK now than it used to be. Yes, we still have bomb scares, but nothing like it used to be. In fact, it's only since there has been communication between the various parties that some sort of peace has come about. The gun-totting "blowing the holy****" out of 'em approach didn't work - doesn't work in the long-term.
Looks like the US has a lot to learn and insists on doing it the hard way rather than learn from others who have been through it. Fair enough, but please don't expect everyone else to do exactly the same things as the US government as many have made those mistakes before and are loath to make them again.
Do you mean like the years of a "zero tolerance" type policy attitude from the British Government towards the IRA? That didn't work to well either.
Terrorism is much less of a problem in the UK now than it used to be. Yes, we still have bomb scares, but nothing like it used to be. In fact, it's only since there has been communication between the various parties that some sort of peace has come about. The gun-totting "blowing the holy****" out of 'em approach didn't work - doesn't work in the long-term.
Looks like the US has a lot to learn and insists on doing it the hard way rather than learn from others who have been through it. Fair enough, but please don't expect everyone else to do exactly the same things as the US government as many have made those mistakes before and are loath to make them again.
Pandora,
I would like you or anyone else knowledgable about the Middle East situation to clarify a few things before you throw out the tired statement that the US has slighted the Arab world and Muslims in general.
How many of the Palestinian refugees since 1948 have become full citizens, with voting rights and mobility equal to native born citizens, of the countries they fled to such as Kuwait ,SA, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon ect? If you could, also compare that to those who fled to the US and other groups such as the Cubans who became US citizens. Does the Arab world really "care" about the Palestinians, or is it just a" red herring" to avoid looking at their own problems?
As an American, I have gotten a little tired of the terrorist equivilation game. Continual whining that "our terrorists are the same" and "look inside yourselves Americans" is pathetic. The Isrealis started this chant right after 9/11. The little point overlooked is that the Isreali and Northern Ireland conflicts are based on outsiders moving onto land alleged to be owned by others. The U.S. wasn't forcibly building houses in Mecca or Kabul, got it? As much as I can't stand the Isreali method of assasination in a crowded apartment with a 2000 lb bomb, the Arabs seem to make them look good not long afterwards.
Pandora, after reading the opinions of the Arab world regarding 9/11, I do not care for much of it at all. In Egypt, the majority of educated citizens say the Mossad and others are responsible, and that we "deserved" 9/11. My humble response is that I do not "care" to send another dollar of money to the Egyptians (rivaling Isreal on aid), nor do I "care" for the structural integrity of the Aswan dam.
I would like you or anyone else knowledgable about the Middle East situation to clarify a few things before you throw out the tired statement that the US has slighted the Arab world and Muslims in general.
How many of the Palestinian refugees since 1948 have become full citizens, with voting rights and mobility equal to native born citizens, of the countries they fled to such as Kuwait ,SA, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon ect? If you could, also compare that to those who fled to the US and other groups such as the Cubans who became US citizens. Does the Arab world really "care" about the Palestinians, or is it just a" red herring" to avoid looking at their own problems?
As an American, I have gotten a little tired of the terrorist equivilation game. Continual whining that "our terrorists are the same" and "look inside yourselves Americans" is pathetic. The Isrealis started this chant right after 9/11. The little point overlooked is that the Isreali and Northern Ireland conflicts are based on outsiders moving onto land alleged to be owned by others. The U.S. wasn't forcibly building houses in Mecca or Kabul, got it? As much as I can't stand the Isreali method of assasination in a crowded apartment with a 2000 lb bomb, the Arabs seem to make them look good not long afterwards.
Pandora, after reading the opinions of the Arab world regarding 9/11, I do not care for much of it at all. In Egypt, the majority of educated citizens say the Mossad and others are responsible, and that we "deserved" 9/11. My humble response is that I do not "care" to send another dollar of money to the Egyptians (rivaling Isreal on aid), nor do I "care" for the structural integrity of the Aswan dam.
