Freedom isn't free. It's just that simple. We do what we can. We fail,
on occasion. But so does everyone. Being fallible doesn't mean being
evil. And sometimes the other side doesn't play nice. Peaceful
coexistence only works when both sides want it. Why they want it can
vary dramatically. In some cases, it's because they're rational,
civilized people. In other cases, it's because our guns are bigger than
theirs- and the prospect of guarenteed death makes them shy away.


Men with guns rob banks. No one's ever tried to rob Fort Knox. Despite
the fact that it has (had, actually- I'm pretty sure it's been moved
since) the largest known storehouse of pure gold in the world. That's
quite a catch. Why go after a few thousand bucks that can be traced when
you can go after hundreds upon hundreds of untraceable gold that can be
sold on the international market without question or difficulty. Answer-
because the guys there are better trained and have better weapons. It'd
take a small army to get to the reward.

Some people love peace because of what it means. Some love peace for
what it brings. Some don't so much love peace as hate war. And some
accept peace because they know they'd lose.

And of course we can't get the millions. Because even if we proved it,
they wouldn't believe us. Or if they did- they'd lie and say they didn't
just so they could keep their money.

And you still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Weren't you
paying attention? Iraq was about over 20 years of Saddam's blatant
abuses. It was a tactically ineffectual war, of that there's no doubt.
But it wasn't about 9/11.

Now AFGHANISTAN- there's a war that was about 9/11.

That. Is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. Kudos to you.

Well, they'll never believe the truth. At least until someone puts them
on an anti-schizo programs. But we've had a fun exercise. And I feel
we've achieved the secondary goal in any debate (or primary, if you're
in politics/big buisiness). Which is not to convince the opponent(s),
but to convince the audience.


Although it's quite possible the audience got tired of muddling through
all the mindless copy/paste material and left long ago.

Actually, he got a quick death. Which was more than he deserved. But no
less than mercy would allow.

How about Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, and about half of Africa and South
America?

Anyways. It's time for me to go. I got stuff to do in the morning that
trumps this forum. However fun it is.


Ironically, the starter of this thread- her account is now innactive.
Some things just outlive their creators.

It had always worked before. Up until 9/11- every case of passengers
and/or flight crew resisting hijackers ended up in many passengers
dying- with the occasional lawsuit against the airline.


Every case of the crew cooperating resulted in a nice, safe landing of
the plane with no deaths. And the airline occasionally losing a mil or
two (peanuts compared to the suits) to some Swiss bank account
somewhere.


9/11 was the FIRST exception to decades of autonomic history.

Bush? He's probably never even read an entire book. I don't think he
could write one. But he might slip someone a mil to do it for him and
make it look good.

In order to avoid killing innocent hostages? I'd certainly hope they
would. They were pilots, they weren't in their combat ready status
anymore. And even if they were- they could be absolutely sure of
passengers dying. Either by the terrorists, or by the panic.


They did the best they could. Exactly what every civilian airline says
to do in that situation. Or, at least, said. After 9/11- the game is
completely different.

Wait. Aren't you the one who keeps telling me not to talk to you?
Doesn't that mean you should leave me alone as well. Aka- cut out the
mud slinging. I just wanna post my opinions on a subject at hand. It's
not my concern whether or not you're involved in it.



And I still say that, although these events are unfortunate, they're
the worst of the worst examples of an overtasked system that's bowing
under the pressure. Even under the best of conditions, no one can get
everything right. And I think they've done a pretty good job considering
how many thousands they have to deal with.


And the fact that, statistically, many of these are problems that occur
with similar (if not greater) frequency in families not tampered with by
social workers.

I said I couldn't pull the trigger. I could help someone to the finish
line, I couldn't help them cross. And I did say "if that's the way he
wished to go". Frankly, he's got enough perscription pain relievers to
supply the next Heaven's Gate cult. So I don't think a firearm would be
necessary. But if that's the choice, that's the choice.


Personally, I'd wanna do a freefall jump from an airplane, then slip
out of the parachute on the way down. I'd aim for my own car.

Name a victim. Except maybe you. If I made you cry, then I apologize.
Not for speaking the truth, but that I made the truth to harsh for you
to handle.

And yet everyone here who has any understanding of how hijackings used
to work (aka- before 9/11)- have already explained that boxcutters were
not an unheard of hijacking method. It's happened before. It's WORKED
before. Just never was it immediately followed by a suicide crash into a
skyscraper.

Depends? Do you mean World Wrestling Federation? You'd lose that bet.
Unless "don't know, don't care" counts as an opinion.


I don't care about winning. My favorite debates are the ones I lose.
That's where I learn the most. At least as far as debating goes. But my
sence of honor won't let me play with anything less than full ability.

A more or less defenceless one, at that. Kuwait was about as peaceful
as the middle-east ever got.

And I've shown respect. And honor. And dignity. I LIVE by those
concepts. You're the one flinging insults and getting upset whenever
someone disagrees with you and provides effective arguments to the
points that hurt yours.

Thank you. But in this case, I was acting more like a lawyer. If you
want me to leave you alone, why do you keep addressing me about
decisively non-thread-related issues? Which, of course, require a reply,
just out of basic politeness (or, on occasion, my right to defend myself
from slander). I can't do both.

Oh, and that includes any and/or all posts in said threads I take an
interest in.