PDA

View Full Version : Split discussion: Media Published Fake Passenger lists



SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 02:32 AM
Why suspicious? Is this the old "People would be willing to be sliced to ribbons and likely crash the plane just to stop a diverted flight" argument? That is, after all, what most people thought a hijacking would be.

A military man once gave me an interesting demonstration of why it was so effective. He put his finger up to the throat of someone nearby, and said, "OKay. Now get to me and stop me before I slide my finger across her throat."

Here's my question (Edit: The question was to Huevos Grandes): Would YOU be willing to rush in and attack a terrorist while he was holding a knife up to the throat of that person?

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:09 AM
Here's my question (Edit: The question was to Huevos Grandes): Would YOU be willing to rush in and attack a terrorist while he was holding a knife up to the throat of that person?
And the answer to you and him, my friend(s), is YES! :mad:

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:12 AM
And the answer to you and him, my friend(s), is YES! :mad:

So you would willingly kill another person, by rushing someone on a packed passenger plane.

Good to know. You would now be resonsible for a death. Remind me to never travel with you.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 03:17 AM
And the answer to you and him, my friend(s), is YES! :mad:

And I would too - today. But I wouldn't have before 9/11, unless I knew they were dead already. Would you have?

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-06, 03:26 AM
I'd be more inclined to attempt to sneak up behind him with a wine bottle while the passangers in front of him held his attention.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:29 AM
In close quarters, YES! When you threaten the life of many, then I have a responsibility to stop you. I'm not sure what it is called, but the answer is YES. I don't consider one life compared to many that big of a sacrifice.

I do it in real life situations all the time (even before 9/11). I'm that girl that voices my opinion when I see "you" verbally abuse "your" girlfriend. She may get the consequence later, but I feel I'm ridding "you" of existence, eventually. If not wake "her" up!

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:34 AM
In close quarters, YES! When you threaten the life of many, then I have a responsibility to stop you. I'm not sure what it is called, but the answer is YES. I don't consider one life compared to many that big of a sacrifice.

I do it in real life situations all the time (even before 9/11). I'm that girl that voices my opinion when I see "you" verbally abuse "your" girlfriend. She may get the consequence later, but I feel I'm ridding "you" of existence, eventually. If not wake "her" up!

So you're saying that on that plane, you would have gained before-hand knowledge of where that plane was going, and you would have KNOWN that everyone on the plane was going to die?

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:35 AM
I just realized, I'll probably die this way - saving another person. Cool!

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:36 AM
So you're saying that on that plane, you would have gained before-hand knowledge of where that plane was going, and you would have KNOWN that everyone on the plane was going to die?
I would have done exactly that! I know planes, so I may have a better advantage than others. The answer again is YES.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:39 AM
I just realized, I'll probably die this way - saving another person. Cool!

I really don't think you understand what I'm getting at. The people on the planes in 9/11 had no before-hand knowledge of what was going to happen. Also, I highly doubt any of them were "close enough" to the terrorists to get to the terrorist in time, anyways. Plus, there's the minor fact that there were more than one.

Then factor in the fact that there were probably people more knowledgable about what terrorists really want, telling the more inexperienced people that plane hijackers just reroute planes; they don't crash them.

Saying what you will do with after-hand knowledge is easy. Saying what you would do when injected into that situation, with those circumstances, etc., is something completely different.

I personally would not put another life at risk if I think that NO life will be at risk as long as I cooperate. Thus, I would hand over my wallet if a mugger held a gun at my girlfriend. That may be somewhat pussy-esque, but the alternative is rushing a man who would probably shoot my girlfriend in the time it takes to get to him.

I would only tackle him if I was A) CLose enough, B) Had enough combat training (hint: I don't yet) so I could trust myself to not get my girlfriend and myself shot, and C) If I was sure he didn't have a bunch of buddies hiding behind the next corner.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:39 AM
I would have done exactly that! I know planes, so I may have a better advantage than others. The answer again is YES.

Done exactly what? Gain psychic powers? My question was if you'd know exactly what the terrorists had in mind to do with the plane.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:43 AM
I responded before you did, so reread my post. I understand that the folks didn't realize what they were up against on the planes (until they heard it via phone). I understand this. I do understand bad people, through many years of dealing with them, so please don't assume I will not attack you if you attack me first (pre or post 9/11).

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:46 AM
I responded before you did, so reread my post.

Oh, I wasn't confused as to what you meant. I was responding to how you make it sound heroic and useful to charge someone that's threatening another life. Hollywood movies aside, I think that it can be heroic in some situations, and merely life-threatening in others.


I understand that the folks didn't realize what they were up against on the planes (until they heard it via phone).

It didn't seem like it, but okay.


I understand this. I do understand bad people, through many years of dealing with them, so please don't assume I will not attack you if you attack me first (pre or post 9/11).

The issue isn't whether or not you'd fight back if attacked, the issue is whether or not you'd put the lives of innocent people at risk in the name of charging some terrorist. That doesn't seem like a heroic act to me, if you are doing it because he's a "bad person". If you're doing it to stop the plane from crashing into a building, then yes, that's heroic; but they did not have that knowledge.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:50 AM
I've done things to protect my self and property that the police deem as stupid. I really don't care that I mess with a predator's life. It may be careless, but I don't like people messing with my freedom.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:52 AM
I've done things to protect my self and property that the police deem as stupid. I really don't care that I mess with a predator's life. It may be careless, but I don't like people messing with my freedom.

But who are you protecting by attacking hijackers on an airplane? You certainly aren't protecting the person with a boxcutter knife to her throat. I'm really confused now.

Forget it. I'm going to bed, I'm tired of this "debate".

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:54 AM
The issue isn't whether or not you'd fight back if attacked, the issue is whether or not you'd put the lives of innocent people at risk in the name of charging some terrorist. That doesn't seem like a heroic act to me, if you are doing it because he's a "bad person". If you're doing it to stop the plane from crashing into a building, then yes, that's heroic; but they did not have that knowledge.
Again, yes, I would. If I "save" many people, yet sacrifice a "few", then yes. I don't really know how to debate this. I have personal examples only.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 03:56 AM
But who are you protecting by attacking hijackers on an airplane? You certainly aren't protecting the person with a boxcutter knife to her throat. I'm really confused now.

Forget it. I'm going to bed, I'm tired of this "debate".
That's just it, I wouldn't have considered them hijackers (but attackers). I see what you are saying. Apparently, you don't see what I am saying.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 03:59 AM
That's just it, I wouldn't have considered them hijackers (but attackers). I see what you are saying. Apparently, you don't see what I am saying.

Apparently, I don't, because I just don't see the logic in rushing someone who has a knife up to someone's throat.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:11 AM
Apparently, I don't, because I just don't see the logic in rushing someone who has a knife up to someone's throat.
You don't do it, and that's okay. I wish more people would protect others around them, though. It may just stop stupid attackers from harming so many others. Just don't ignore suspicious behavior, report it or do something about it. :mad:

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:13 AM
You don't do it, and that's okay. I wish more people would protect others around them, though. It may just stop stupid attackers from harming so many around them. Just don't ignore suspicious behavior, report it or do something about it. :mad:

I wish more people wouldn't talk about how they'd rush into a situation, putting the lives of innocent people directly at risk, and being responsible for the subsequent DEATHS of others.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:17 AM
I wish more people wouldn't talk about how they'd rush into a situation, putting the lives of innocent people directly at risk, and being responsible for the subsequent DEATHS of others.
Welcome to a person that take's responsibility for her actions and others then!

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:18 AM
And it's not rush but react to situations!

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:19 AM
Welcome to a person that take's responsibility for her actions and others then!

I take responsibility for my actions. If someone points a gun at my head and I'm sure they're alone, that gun will be down and out, and I'll be laying into them with my Krav Maga experience.

If someone breaks into my house, you can be sure that whatever weapon is nearest at hand, will be in my hand.

If someone is threatened, and I'm SURE that they will die if I do not at least try to help them, then I try to help them.

But if someone's life is threatened, and I have two options: Stand around and wait for a plane to be rerouted, or for $100 to be passed along, or whatever, or rush in and watch someone DIE, then I'm going to go for the former. I do not put a price on life.

By the way, I don't particularly like being suggested that I am the type to not protect those around me, as you claim. I am willing to protect them; and if that means handing over my wallet, then so be it!

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 04:19 AM
You don't do it, and that's okay. I wish more people would protect others around them, though. It may just stop stupid attackers from harming so many around them. Just don't ignore suspicious behavior, report it or do something about it. :mad:

The issue here is that most people (myself included) thought, before 9/11, that the best way to survive a hijacking for crew and passengers was to let the hijackers take the plane where they wanted, make their demands, etc. Just as if you are held at gunpoint or knifepoint with a demand for your valuables, it is usually best just to turn over the valuables.

Also, in 9/11, chances are the cockpit was the prime target and taken over early and and as quietly as possible. After that, any attempt to take out the hijackers had a good chance of killing everyone.

After 9/11, stopping a hijacker at all cost is a given. Before 9/11 it was not.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:27 AM
The issue here is that most people (myself included) thought, before 9/11, that the best way to survive a hijacking for crew and passengers was to let the hijackers take the plane where they wanted, make their demands, etc. Just as if you are held at gunpoint or knifepoint with a demand for your valuables, it is usually best just to turn over the valuables.

Also, in 9/11, chances are the cockpit was the prime target and taken over early and and as quietly as possible. After that, any attempt to take out the hijackers had a good chance of killing everyone.

After 9/11, stopping a hijacker at all cost is a given. Before 9/11 it was not.
Is that really the issue or lack of response to the issue?

I was held up by gunpoint well before 9/11. I survived, even though, I fought with the attacker. I fought with words, because he was not near me (on the other side of a counter).

I'd do it again. I hate when attackers win!

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:30 AM
He got $40 bucks and my self pride for many years. :mad:

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:34 AM
Don't they win if they end up killing someone because of what you did?

There was a case where a man came into a store, holding up a gun. The immediate responce of all involved was trying to wrestle the gun away. One civilian was SHOT IN THE HEAD, and DIED. Another was injured.

Glad to hear that you'd PROUDLY be responsible for that murder.
What if?

What if that same person came in and just merely robbed the store. In the meantime taking out all those in the store. No one fights back. I don't wait for what if's anymore. Been there, done that. I prefer to take control. My actions, without what if's, will ultimately guide my soul.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:35 AM
What if?

What if that same person came in and just merely robbed the store. In the meantime taking out all those in the store. No one fights back. I don't wait for what if's anymore. Been there, done that. I prefer to take control. My actions, without what if's, will ultimately guide my soul.

<Hostile message removed>

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 04:40 AM
Is that really the issue or lack of response to the issue?


Yes, that's really the issue: Before it was known that the hijackers were suicidal, not fighting was the most reasonable response.



I was held up by gunpoint well before 9/11. I survived, even though, I fought with the attacker. I fought with words, because he was not near me (on the other side of a counter).

I'd do it again. I hate when attackers win!

You were very lucky. I'm glad you are still alive. There are times when the best choice is to fight, even if the odds are against you: For instance, if someone tells you to get into a car at gunpoint. There are other times when it is not.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:42 AM
I pity those that will die because of you, then.
Then pity me, if you must! I believe I am saving more people than not by my actions. I bet the guy that robbed me never robbed again. I so freaked him out.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 04:44 AM
Errr ... let's cool off folks. Back away slowly from the conversation ...

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:44 AM
Then pity me, if you must! I believe I am saving more people than not by my actions. I bet the guy that robbed me never robbed again. I so freaked him out.

Edit: I'm breaking the rules by my anger. I'm deleting my posts now. I regret I let this get this far.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:45 AM
You were very lucky. I'm glad you are still alive. There are times when the best choice is to fight, even if the odds are against you: For instance, if someone tells you to get into a car at gunpoint. There are other times when it is not.
I don't consider it luck. I consider it my duty. It may be stupid, but it's how I feel. Seriously, with my life, I should have been dead along time ago. I've had many encounters with "attackers". I'm sorry, I just can't sit back and watch.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:48 AM
I don't consider it luck. I consider it my duty. It may be stupid, but it's how I feel. Seriously, with my life, I should have been dead along time ago. I've have many encounters with "attackers". I'm sorry, I just can't sit back and watch.

And I'm sorry, but I can't allow myself to be responsible for another person's death. I don't mean my own. I would risk my life to help another person if need be. But I will not needlessly risk THEIR life. I would be making the decision for THEM, not for myself; that's quite different than risking your own life.

It's saying "I don't care if you die -- I'm doing my DUTY!"

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 04:50 AM
So you would willingly kill another person, by rushing someone on a packed passenger plane.

Good to know. You would now be resonsible for a death. Remind me to never travel with you.

This is a horrible thing to say- please take a moment and re-think your answer. The TERRORIST is responsible for the death, not the person trying to prevent it !

I would rush the guy 10 times out of 10, if I thought I could prevent him from killing me. If the guy has a knife the odds aren't too bad that he'll kill me with a single quick arm motion. If it's a gun, then no, I would probably cower like a sheep for a least a long while.

Remember that the people onboard the planes probably thought they weren't part of some massive suicide-bomber plot, but that they were just being hijacked to another destination. The second they take a life, if they're only armed with knives and harsh language, I would perceive my own life (and my family's too maybe) to be in jeopardy. You'd better believe I'd try to defend myself, if there was any chance.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:52 AM
You have your way of dealing with "attackers" and I have mine. Can we agree on this part, Lonewulf?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:53 AM
This is a horrible thing to say- please take a moment and re-think your answer. The TERRORIST is responsible for the death, not the person trying to prevent it !

It wouldn't be preventing it if the only reason the terrorist killed the person was beacuse you rushe din.


I would rush the guy 10 times out of 10, if I thought I could prevent him from killing me. If the guy has a knife the odds aren't too bad that he'll kill me with a single quick arm motion.

Would you rush someone 10 times out of 10 if he would kill someone in the time it took for you to rush him? I don't understand your logic. He has someone, his knife is at their throat; he will not kill that person if you do not rush in. What's so hard for you all to understand?


If it's a gun, then no, I would probably cower like a sheep for a least a long while.

So it takes a long time to slit someone's throat while you're holding them?


Remember that the people onboard the planes probably thought they weren't part of some massive suicide-bomber plot, but that they were just being hijacked to another destination.

Yes, that's my point!


The second they take a life, if they're only armed with knives and harsh language, I would perceive my own life (and my family's too maybe) to be in jeopardy. You'd better believe I'd try to defend myself, if there was any chance.

And what if they DID NOT take ANY lives whatsoever? We're talking about someone holding a boxcutter up to someone else's neck, saying, "Don't come closer, or I kill her!"

Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. *Sighs*

We're not all willing to be frikkin' rambo here!

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:54 AM
You have your way of dealing with "attackers" and I have mine. Can we agree on this part, Lonewulf?

Yes, I can agree on this. And I hope that my life will never be put in jeapordy because of your decisions.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 04:56 AM
Yes, I can agree on this. And I hope that my life will never be put in jeapordy because of your decisions.
Funny, I would hope you'd want me to be there when an attacker is near you. ;)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 04:58 AM
Funny, I would hope you'd want me to be there when an attacker is near you. ;)

This is what you don't seem to understand.

You're 7 feet away.

The attacker has a knife to my throat.

You rush in, acting rambo.

Attacker slits my throat.

I am dead.

You come in, and save the day.

But.

I am dead.

you seem to think that in ANY situation, no matter WHAT, there will be some way for you to be able to act rambo, be the hero, beat the bad guy, and save the hostage. But rushing in and attacking is NOT an "end-all, be-all"!

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 04:59 AM
Remember that the people onboard the planes probably thought they weren't part of some massive suicide-bomber plot, but that they were just being hijacked to another destination. The second they take a life, if they're only armed with knives and harsh language, I would perceive my own life (and my family's too maybe) to be in jeopardy. You'd better believe I'd try to defend myself, if there was any chance.

Are they in control of the cockpit? If so, any attempt to take them out could easily result in the deaths of all aboard the plane.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 05:05 AM
I give up. Lonewulf wins. Let the young man die if he wants. I don't think that would happen if I am around, though.

I'd still help. I'd protect you from harm. You're young and you deserve to live before me. I'd give my life for you, sweetie.

Plus, I will know how to fly a plane soon. ;)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 05:07 AM
I give up. Lonewulf wins. Let the young man die if he wants. I don't think that would happen if I am around, though.

I'd still help. I'd protect you from harm. You're young and you deserve to live before me. I'd give my life for you, sweetie.

Plus, I will know how to fly a plane soon. ;)

Why would I die? I would die if you run in after the terrorist says that he would kill me if you don't come any closer. Then you rush in, acting to "save the day!", and he kills me. I really don't see where the confusion you seem to have in translating what I'm saying, since you still do not seem to get my point.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 05:14 AM
Like I said, "I give up".

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 05:16 AM
Like I said, "I give up".

Looks like I'll have to give up too, if I want any sleep. Still, I think you should try to understand what I'm trying to say before you make any decisions about how to counter my argument... or ignore it entirely. Someday, hostages' lives may well be in your hands. It's up to you to decide if being rambo and trying to save the day is always going to work or not.

Good luck if that happens. Just remember that it's not just your life on the line. It's the lives of other innocents that will be hinging upon your decision.

Candy
2005-Dec-06, 05:22 AM
Like I said, "I give up".
Bump :)

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 06:01 AM
It wouldn't be preventing it if the only reason the terrorist killed the person was beacuse you rushe din.
Again- the terrorist is the one who made the first aggressive move- not me. It doesn't matter if I only had a 9% chance to save the hostage's life. If he was willing to take and threaten one hostage, he WILL do so again.

Would you rush someone 10 times out of 10 if he would kill someone in the time it took for you to rush him? I don't understand your logic. He has someone, his knife is at their throat; he will not kill that person if you do not rush in. What's so hard for you all to understand?
Again- see above. There was no real police presence on board airplanes in the United States back then, and arguably very little now. It is up to the passengers to prevent the original and subsequent violent acts that the terrorists promote.

So it takes a long time to slit someone's throat while you're holding them?
Read it again. I said, "With a gun". Yes, there's a chance not only of protecting the hostage, but also of saving the life of the hostage after the throat has been cut. This is also to prevent additional hostages being taken/killed. With a gun to a hostage's head, it is much more difficult.

Yes, that's my point!
Doesn't matter. The flight that went down in Pennsylvania had one of the hostages said via telephone to an AT&T operator that the terrorists had already killed someone. In that instance, they felt they had to fight back before more people died.

And what if they DID NOT take ANY lives whatsoever? We're talking about someone holding a boxcutter up to someone else's neck, saying, "Don't come closer, or I kill her!"
Your hypothetical doesn't stand up. The PA flight I've referenced above not only had dead hostages on it, but there were indications that they (the passengers) knew about the suicide destination. They knew they had to fight back, and did so with mixed results (hey- at least the terrorists' mission wasn't a complete success on that one).


Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. *Sighs*

We're not all willing to be frikkin' rambo here!

So, you would cower until your wife, or maybe your kid had his/her throat slashed as an example to the other passengers ? And then maybe sacrafice yourself so that no one else got hurt ??!

We're not all willing to be frikkin' gandhi here!

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-06, 06:18 AM
Okay, again, I think everyone could use a little calming down.

Enzp
2005-Dec-06, 06:25 AM
I don't think this is an argument that can be "won," so perhaps leaving it to fade is the wise choice. We all have out own ideas of valor.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-06, 06:33 AM
Well said.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-06, 06:40 AM
A
Doesn't matter. The flight that went down in Pennsylvania had one of the hostages said via telephone to an AT&T operator that the terrorists had already killed someone. In that instance, they felt they had to fight back before more people died.

Your hypothetical doesn't stand up. The PA flight I've referenced above not only had dead hostages on it, but there were indications that they (the passengers) knew about the suicide destination. They knew they had to fight back, and did so with mixed results (hey- at least the terrorists' mission wasn't a complete success on that one).


Perhaps I misunderstood Lonewolf, so I'll ask this question of him: Given the situation on flight 93, after they knew that the hijackers were planning on killing everyone on the plane, would you still not want to attack?

The initial issue I was commenting on, and the issue I thought we were discussing is that until 9/11 people did not expect hijackers to destroy a plane and kill everyone onboard. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable not to attack. If it is a known "do or die" situation, the only reasonable choice is to attack. Unfortunately, on flight 93, the hijackers had already been in control of the plane before this became obvious.

Tolls
2005-Dec-06, 01:25 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood Lonewolf, so I'll ask this question of him: Given the situation on flight 93, after they knew that the hijackers were planning on killing everyone on the plane, would you still not want to attack?

The initial issue I was commenting on, and the issue I thought we were discussing is that until 9/11 people did not expect hijackers to destroy a plane and kill everyone onboard. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable not to attack. If it is a known "do or die" situation, the only reasonable choice is to attack. Unfortunately, on flight 93, the hijackers had already been in control of the plane before this became obvious.

Having just trawled through this thread, that's exactly the issue I thought was being put forward, that up until the point people starte dying it was a hijacking and to fight back would be more dangerous for all than to sit back and see where you were going. Unless I was misreading Lonewulf.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-06, 02:01 PM
Having just trawled through this thread, that's exactly the issue I thought was being put forward, that up until the point people starte dying it was a hijacking and to fight back would be more dangerous for all than to sit back and see where you were going. Unless I was misreading Lonewulf.No, you read him correctly.

The problem is he's bringing a pre-9/11 mindset to what is now a post-9/11 situation. Or, even with a post-9/11 mindset, taking a particular situation out of context.

One reason there have been close to zero hijackings after 9-11 is passengers and crew now no longer view such an action as a passive situation. It will now always be viewed as potentially life-threatening to all the people on board. The "potential" part will be quickly eliminated by any violence or threats of violence by the hijackers.

If one hijacker decides to try to stop the actions of the crew and passengers by holding one person in jeopardy, then the goal of saving most or almost all of of the crew and passengers will mean that they will do what they can to help that one person, but that one person's well-being will not take priority over saving the remaining crew and passengers.

The days of sitting back and enjoying the ride to Cuba are over.

LTC8K6
2005-Dec-06, 02:35 PM
The subject was pre-9/11 and how a plane could be hijacked with only box cutters.

Pre 9/11 even the crew was trained to lie there and take it. The FA's were trained not to resist at all. The planes were easily taken by folks with box cutters. It was airline and FAA policy. You could have taken the planes with nothing at all by merely claiming you had bombs or grenades or whatever. The crew would have given control of the plane over to you.

In any event, there is no way Candy is going to make it to the terrorist before he kills his hostage. No way. Pre or post 9/11.

Remember we are talking about the confines of an airliner, not out in the open. You won't be able to sneak up on the guy, because he and his pals are standing and they have ordered all to sit down. You can't rush him because you'd have to stand up, which immediately reveals you before you have taken a step.

Of course today it is different, and it became different in the middle of the 9/11 incident when those folks over Shanksville figured out the intent of their highjackers and decided they might as well go down swinging.

Today, Candy is just going to get shot by an Air Marshal for not staying down.

On the other hand, the highjackers realize things are different today as well and will likely adapt with different methods.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-06, 02:44 PM
The subject was pre-9/11 and how a plane could be hijacked with only box cutters.Perhaps the conspiracy part was, but the Lonewulf part (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=617857&postcount=9) (which I was addressing) wasn't.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 02:54 PM
I think the only person misunderstanding me is Candy. My point, from the beginning of this, is that playing the hero and Rambo is not beneficial in all situations. If you're all going to die anyways, and you KNOW you're going to die anyways, then by all means, be the hero. But if it's useless to rush in and attack a person (like someone mentioned, standing up in an airplane, then watching as someone gets their throat slitted because you decided to be the hero), if your only intent is to "save that person", then it's a useless action; you just watch the person die, while trying to save them. They're still dead, but I guess you can beat the crap out of the terrorist (unless another one comes up to you, at least) -- which is precisely why I would refuse to travel with someone like Candy. For that matter, I'd refuse to travel with any person who thinks that any situation can be solved with heroics, period. Life ain't Hollywood. I really don't see why it's so hard to accept this, really; it's pure and simple logic.

Post-9/11, however, every hijacking has been, and SHOULD be, considered far more dangerous and deadly; because, quite frankly, if someone decided that crashing a plane into a building was a good idea, boom, you'd have all sorts of other terrorists saying, "Hey, that's a good idea! Let's try that!" -- or they would, if people didn't react differently to those situations.

There are situations where fighting back is smart. If a person comes up to you (and it's not a hostage situation), is a foot away, pulls out a knife to attack you, and you have sufficient training, then yes, fighting back in that situation is the logical conclusion. If he draws a gun, and is close enough for you to use any combat training you have, then yes, good idea. If the person intends to kill you, and you have no training, then you might as well fight back anyways. I am not the type to say "Do what they want, no matter what". However, I am far more willing to give up my wallet than to allow someone I love to be shot. I, like Candy claims, am responsible for my actions, and am willing to be responsible for those very actions. $100 is not worth the life of someone I care about.

But anyways, this thread has been incredibly derailed. The original topic of this whole thing was the passenger lists.

Tolls
2005-Dec-06, 04:28 PM
Perhaps the conspiracy part was, but the Lonewulf part (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=617857&postcount=9) (which I was addressing) wasn't.

I think I can see where you were coming from, but I was taking that argument of Lonewulf's as part of the whole, ie in a pre-911 hijacking, where you have a situation where the person with the knife to the throat is threatened only if you as a bystander interfere. In other words, pointing out that post without taking into account the conversation to that point is akin to quoting out of context.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 05:56 PM
I think I can see where you were coming from, but I was taking that argument of Lonewulf's as part of the whole, ie in a pre-911 hijacking, where you have a situation where the person with the knife to the throat is threatened only if you as a bystander interfere. In other words, pointing out that post without taking into account the conversation to that point is akin to quoting out of context.

Right, exactly. I was trying to keep "in context" everything involved. I have in mind that people aboard that flight would've had the "pre-9/11" mindset. That's the whole point of this whole debate, isn't it?

But it extends to more than just that. Even outside of airplanes, one has to admit that there are situations where rushing in and being the hero is NOT the end-all and be-all responce.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 06:27 PM
Where I think you're not understanding Candy and I, is that you keep misinterpreting it as "heroics". In any hostage situation, anytime, on or off an airplane, even if the knife isn't to your neck, you have an overt challenge to your own life. Do you struggle and try to break free and/or disable the threat, or do you sit back and hope ?

Now, forget for a moment that this was in America, which had been largely hijacker-free and had been lulled into a sense of security. That it took the 9/11 attacks to remind Americans of such a persistant threat. Now let's pretend that the Flight 93 passengers didn't know that terrorists planned to crash the plane and kill everyone anyway (they did). How do you think the terrorists proved that they meant business ? They killed some people, that's how ! They did on that flight, anyway.

You're content to sit back, and hope that placating the mugger/rapist/hijacker will save lives, but that is your choice. But everyone else has the right to defend himself/herself against an overt threat, particularly one that has proved he has killed before, and is willing to kill again. That's not being a "hero", or "helping the bad guy kill people", or any other charge you levy against the self-realized victim, that's self-preservation. It would be like shooting at Katrina looters in New Orleans post-flood, so that your baby sister would have something to eat.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 06:36 PM
Where I think you're not understanding Candy and I, is that you keep misinterpreting it as "heroics". In any hostage situation, anytime, on or off an airplane, even if the knife isn't to your neck, you have an overt challenge to your own life. Do you struggle and try to break free and/or disable the threat, or do you sit back and hope ?

Or do you try to break free and/or disable the threat, and then watch as someone's throat is slit as you rush in, not in time to stop the terrorist before he kills the person you're supposedly trying to save? I hate having to repeat myself, but it seems that you just can't get it.


Now, forget for a moment that this was in America, which had been largely hijacker-free and had been lulled into a sense of security. That it took the 9/11 attacks to remind Americans of such a persistant threat. Now let's pretend that the Flight 93 passengers didn't know that terrorists planned to crash the plane and kill everyone anyway (they did). How do you think the terrorists proved that they meant business ? They killed some people, that's how ! They did on that flight, anyway.

I was under the impression that they were THREATENING to KILL some PEOPLE, by using, y'know, a knife, up to these said people, and saying "If you don't do as we say, then we will kill them". But rushing in is perfectly fine for you.


You're content to sit back, and hope that placating the mugger/rapist/hijacker will save lives, but that is your choice.

I'm for attacking the mugger/rapist/hijacker, but only if it's LOGICAL.

You and candy seem to both assume that it's ALWAYS logical to attack the mugger/rapist/hijacker, in ALL situations, PERIOD, END OF QUESTION, EXCLAMATION POINT.

I do NOT agree with that in ANY way, shape, or form!


But everyone else has the right to defend himself/herself against an overt threat, particularly one that has proved he has killed before, and is willing to kill again. That's not being a "hero", or "helping the bad guy kill people", or any other charge you levy against the self-realized victim, that's self-preservation. It would be like shooting at Katrina looters in New Orleans post-flood, so that your baby sister would have something to eat.

What? How the heck does this apply?

If someone has a bomb strapped to their chest and threatens to blow himself (and everyone else) up, do you reply by running towards him (while you're 21 feet away)?

If someone is holding a knife or a gun up to someone's head and threatens to blow their brains out if you don't cooperate, do you call them names and charge in with a knife?

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-06, 07:09 PM
I think the thread is sufficiently derailed. If a moderator sees this, they may want to just lock it. But, while we're "here"...


In any hostage situation, anytime, on or off an airplane, even if the knife isn't to your neck, you have an overt challenge to your own life. Do you struggle and try to break free and/or disable the threat, or do you sit back and hope ?
The threat to another person's life is exactly why you shouldn't act in certain situations (e.g. pre-9/11 hijackings). If you jumping to save a person's life instead results in their death in a situation where they would have lived otherwise, along with everyone else; that's... not cool, not heroic, not "the right thing to do".


How do you think the terrorists proved that they meant business ? They killed some people, that's how ! They did on that flight, anyway.
And this is not the situation for which, I believe, Lonewulf is arguing passiveness. It's obviously gone beyond the point of passiveness saving lives.

This may sound like a "wait until they kill someone to act" argument, but in the situation where an attacker has a knife to a person's throat and is making demands, acting against those demands guarantees that person's death, and possibly others. Going along with their demands may ensure survival. Do you not see which stance has the greater possiblity of survival for the person held at knife-point?

If you know that inaction would result in the death of many more people than the one held at knife-point, as was the case with Flight 93, then jumping the attacker, even if it results in the death of the person held at knife-point is the logical course of action.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

That being said, it's not easy to judge the situation properly, so it's not easy to know which choice would be correct, but... there it is.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 07:13 PM
Thanks, Cl1mh4224rd. You put down what I've been trying to say.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 07:17 PM
Or do you try to break free and/or disable the threat, and then watch as someone's throat is slit as you rush in, not in time to stop the terrorist before he kills the person you're supposedly trying to save? I hate having to repeat myself, but it seems that you just can't get it.
Read what I've written. This person (or group of) has already killed, and also stands a good chance of turning the knife on YOU next, or perhaps someone you love. You're not acting in a capacity as a law enforcement officer, so there's no threat of being sued by the victim's family. A person with a slit throat will still likely die, but CAN be saved by advanced medical care. Taking a hostage or threatening violence is a clear challenge to preservation of life. Why begrudge someone else fighting back ?

I was under the impression that they were THREATENING to KILL some PEOPLE, by using, y'know, a knife, up to these said people, and saying "If you don't do as we say, then we will kill them". But rushing in is perfectly fine for you.
Fine. Here's the proof (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL). The pertinent quote:

"I'm on the airplane. They've already knifed a guy. Call the authorities," Tom told his wife over his cell phone.
...but go ahead. Dispute it some more...

I'm for attacking the mugger/rapist/hijacker, but only if it's LOGICAL.

You and candy seem to both assume that it's ALWAYS logical to attack the mugger/rapist/hijacker, in ALL situations, PERIOD, END OF QUESTION, EXCLAMATION POINT.

I do NOT agree with that in ANY way, shape, or form!

If there is a challenge to your life, I don't find it illogical to fight back. If the terrorist slashes someone's throat, and then grabs your little brother, you have to believe your brother's life doesn't mean anything to him. It's the same for a woman defending herself against an attacker with a weapon- why don't they all just give in ? There WAS a challenge to the hostages' lives, so why begrudge someone fighting back ?

What? How the heck does this apply?
Men with guns were robbing and shooting stranded home-owners, unchecked. Stranded by flood waters is roughly the same as being imprisoned in flight inside a "steel cigar". The cops were busy themselves, either having deserted, or were looting themselves. This actually happened- it's not a hypothetical. If fact it's an argument the NRA will probably successfully use to gain increased gun rights in New Orleans. Your tact would have left you robbed and shot. If you fired back, you'd likely be alive and have your food/possessions. It's the same challenge, essentially.

If someone has a bomb strapped to their chest and threatens to blow himself (and everyone else) up, do you reply by running towards him (while you're 21 feet away)?
You're changing the situation. The bomber hasn't killed anyone yet. It's insanely more difficult to defend against an attacker with a gun or a dead-man switch. It would be better to sit back in that instance and listen to the terrorist's demands, all the while looking for an opportunity to disarm him.

If someone is holding a knife or a gun up to someone's head and threatens to blow their brains out if you don't cooperate, do you call them names and charge in with a knife?
You've changed it again. Now it's a knife "or a gun". As I said before (and was my original point in my first reply), the gun is a more serious threat to deal with. I wouldn't call them names, no. But if I saw an opening (ex. they look away for a split-second, or change grip), yes, I might jump in to save what lives were left (selfishly, including my own).

Suggest that I'm a coward that's trying to "placate" anyone who threatens me if you must. I'll just go on thinking that I actually have sensible thinking.
I never called you a coward. I said "cower", and compared you to Gandhi (after you compared me to Rambo).

It's hardly sensible to always placate bad guys. It's an active response to challenge the threat, and fight back as fiercely as possible. It's a passive response, to hope that the bad guy will be placated and then go far away. Some times it works, other times not- but giving in certainly causes more muggings/rapes/hijackings in the future. History is littered with examples of people who didn't challenge a direct threat to life, with disastrous consequences.


If you know that inaction would result in the death of many more people than the one held at knife-point, as was the case with Flight 93, then jumping the attacker, even if it results in the death of the person held at knife-point is the logical course of action.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
It doesn't have to be "many more people". One life taken is enough. People will do whatever they think necessary to preserve their own lives, be that cooperation or reprisal. And forgive me for not thinking "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is the final source for all things philosophical.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 07:39 PM
Man. I wrote up a whole list of responces... didn't go through.

Look, my main point was that Candy was saying, "Be the hero, get the bad guy, no matter what, period, no matter what the cost". It seemed to me that she was also saying, "No matter who gets hurt or ends up killed because of your decision". She had this "one size fits all" category: You fight, period. PERIOD. End of discussion. That's what angered me most of all!

But the Katrina situation does NOT apply at all! That's a case of taking up a gun and defending yourself; it is NOT tantamount to a HOSTAGE situation!

<EDIT> I calmed down a bit, and I'm still subscribed to this thread. Figures.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 08:04 PM
Man. I wrote up a whole list of responces... didn't go through.

Look, my main point was that Candy was saying, "Be the hero, get the bad guy, no matter what, period, no matter what the cost". It seemed to me that she was also saying, "No matter who gets hurt or ends up killed because of your decision". She had this "one size fits all" category: You fight, period. PERIOD. End of discussion. That's what angered me most of all!
Of course, I don't agree with that point-of-view entirely either. You pick your chances, and have to assess the perceived threat against your own/others' lives. There's no one-size fits all, but I doubt that's an accurate quote of yours though.

But the Katrina situation does NOT apply at all! That's a case of taking up a gun and defending yourself; it is NOT tantamount to a HOSTAGE situation!
What's the difference ? Armed intruders threatening lives in an isolated setting with no chance of law enforcement rescue. Advantage was still to the bad guys, and the stranded homeowners recognized they had no choice but to fight back. They could have given in, sure, but there was a high liklihood (though not 100% assured) of them being killed or worse, in passivity.

I'm unsubscribing to this thread, and I'm never talking about this again. I'm sick and tired of it.
Well it was fun, and you defended your pacifist standpoint well.

Now back to the OP...

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-06, 08:40 PM
It doesn't have to be "many more people". One life taken is enough. People will do whatever they think necessary to preserve their own lives, be that cooperation or reprisal.
Of course. You're free to throw yourself, weaponless, at anyone with a weapon. That's your perogative. But don't delude yourself into thinking that "sacrificing" someone else, just because you think "they might kill me," is "the right thing to do", especially when you are in no immediate danger. Remember: the person at knife-point is the one whose life is in immediate danger. If you really want to save lives, you need to be thinking about theirs first.

The "fight no matter what" stance gets even more ridiculous when something like a gun is involved. Why? Well, when you charge, who's the first person the attacker is going to shoot? That's right; you. You're certainly not helping your own survival by making yourself a target. Heck, if you've angered the attacker enough, s/he may even kill others.


And forgive me for not thinking "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is the final source for all things philosophical.
Forgiven, but I don't think you'd find too many people who would disagree that line, regardless of its source. Would it be somehow more profound if it was spoken by a great philosopher rather than Spock?

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 09:01 PM
Of course. You're free to throw yourself, weaponless, at anyone with a weapon. That's your perogative. But don't delude yourself into thinking that "sacrificing" someone else, just because you think "they might kill me," is "the right thing to do", especially when you are in no immediate danger. Remember: the person at knife-point is the one whose life is in immediate danger. If you really want to save lives, you need to be thinking about theirs first.
I agree with this. Prerogative to fight back. But just because you're not at knife-point, doesn't mean you're not in immediate danger- it could just mean you're next in line (if the hostage-taker has demonstrated a willingness to kill). And as I've pointed out, doing nothing (inaction), is not a course-of-action. It is just a hope that the bad man will go away without hurting anyone.

The "fight no matter what" stance gets even more ridiculous when something like a gun is involved. Why? Well, when you charge, who's the first person the attacker is going to shoot? That's right; you. You're certainly not helping your own survival by making yourself a target. Heck, if you've angered the attacker enough, s/he may even kill others.
I agree it gets more difficult with a threatening gun or bomb, yes. Each threat needs to be assessed on its own criteria- #1 Has the gunman shot anyone else already ? #2 Is he shooting other hostages now ? #3 Are you the last person left alive ? When is it okay to start thinking of an active defense ?
------------------
You can't know what's in the bad guy's mind. You have to do whatever is necessary to save yourself or others. Sometimes that will be to do nothing and placate. But if deadly force has been unleashed upon the innocent, it is no longer as sensible to do nothing.

Forgiven, but I don't think you'd find too many people who would disagree that line, regardless of its source. Would it be somehow more profound if it was spoken by a great philosopher rather than Spock?
Yes.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-06, 09:17 PM
You can't know what's in the bad guy's mind. You have to do whatever is necessary to save yourself or others. Sometimes that will be to do nothing and placate. But if deadly force has been unleashed upon the innocent, it is no longer as sensible to do nothing.
Then what the hell are we doing here? We agree... :p


Yes.
Booo.

Back in college I was attracted to this one girl. Turns out she wasn't interested (she also had a boyfriend I wasn't aware of, but I could tell she wasn't), although she did want to remain friends. It was tough. While talking about the situation with another female friend of mine, she said, "Sometimes, when you care about someone, you just have to bite your tongue and be the person that they need you to be."

Now, maybe she got that from somewhere, I don't know, but that was the last thing I expected to hear out of her mouth.

Non-philosophers can be just as profound, just, typically, not as often. ;)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 09:31 PM
Well it was fun, and you defended your pacifist standpoint well.

Please explain how I am being pacifistic, or in how I am a pacifist.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 09:57 PM
Please explain how I am being pacifistic, or in how I am a pacifist.

My apologies- I didn't intend that as any kind of an insult. Pacifism is legitimate philosophy for how to combat aggression. The only flaw I find in it is that it functions best in a utopian society (can't find one on the map), and it assumes that somebody learns something (they don't).

Your arguments suggest that there is never a situation in which you would advocate defending yourself against an armed miscreant. If you are being threatened, it seems you advocate giving over the wallet, submitting to the rape, who knows- maybe even getting locked into a small iron box with Marky Mark's "Good Vibrations" blasting repeatedly at you. If you AND others are being threatened, it seems you advocate not defending yourself against an attacker (whether you are armed or not), even if that attacker has already killed someone.

This is how I explain that you are pacifistic, or are being a pacifist.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 10:08 PM
My apologies- I didn't intend that as any kind of an insult. [QUOTE]

I did not take it as an insult. I just do not see how you assume that I am a pacifist or that I have pacifistic tendencies.

[QUOTE] Pacifism is legitimate philosophy for how to combat aggression.

It depends on what you mean by pacifism. Do you mean total non-violence, or only the belief in self-defence? I, personally, am not totally non-violent; I believe that if violence is the best alternative, then so be it. However, I also believe that violence is not the only solution.


The only flaw I find in it is that it functions best in a utopian society (can't find one on the map), and it assumes that somebody learns something (they don't).

It also assumes that you're talking about an extremist view of pacifism. I have no extremist views when it comes to pacifism. If someone points a gun at me, and I feel I can adequately handle it (and he's close enough to me), then I will be on him like stink on a rotted fish.


Your arguments suggest that there is never a situation in which you would advocate defending yourself against an armed miscreant.

On the contrary, I would actively attack anyone -- as long as logic dictates that it is a good idea to do so.


If you are being threatened, it seems you advocate giving over the wallet,

If the gun is held 20 feet away from me, and I am weaponless, what choice would I have? If the mugger comes closer, is alone, and points the gun close to me, then I would know what to do.


submitting to the rape,

Rape I can handle, unless more than one opponent is getting involved; I would have to know my limitations, and most likely, they wouldn't get in that close unless they outnumbered and outgunned me.


who knows- maybe even getting locked into a small iron box with Marky Mark's "Good Vibrations" blasting repeatedly at you.

Hey, if they're going to lock me in the box, and I know they are, then I might as well fight back; I wouldn't know if I would ever get out of it.


If you AND others are being threatened, it seems you advocate not defending yourself against an attacker (whether you are armed or not), even if that attacker has already killed someone.

On the contrary, I would defend myself. I would also defend the others there. However, "defending" is not always tantamount to "attacking". Even if someone's already been killed, there is the potential to limit the casualties even further by simply giving into the demands. However, if they expose themselves for a moment, then yes, I would jump in; as long as my personal training gives me assurance that I know what I'm doing.

If I do not know what I am doing, however, then I will most likely botch up the operation. However, if it falls solely and primarily upon me to handle it, then I would have little choice.

Contrarily, there is not always a situation in which I could jump in and save the day. That is my primary point.


This is how I explain that you are pacifistic, or are being a pacifist.

Then, like Candy, you seem to have not gotten a thing I've been saying.


I'll admit something. I have been speaking more through emotion than logic throughout this conversation. As a final note, I apologize to both Candy and Huevos for throwing myself at you two like a rabid dog. However, I was responding to Candy's responces (which seemed the extremist "fight no matter what"), with an altering view ("You can't always fight"), which came out to seem extremist itself ("Never fight, period").

As such, confusion seems to have run rampant.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-06, 10:39 PM
It depends on what you mean by pacifism. Do you mean total non-violence, or only the belief in self-defence? I, personally, am not totally non-violent; I believe that if violence is the best alternative, then so be it. However, I also believe that violence is not the only solution.
All of it in a general sense. Generally, a pacifist will argue that reasoning with a hostile force, or at worst- walking away, is preferable that causing harm, even in the name of self-defense. It sounds as though you advocate some kind of self-defense, just one that doesn't involve you risking <further> injury to yourself and others.

It also assumes that you're talking about an extremist view of pacifism. I have no extremist views when it comes to pacifism. If someone points a gun at me, and I feel I can adequately handle it (and he's close enough to me), then I will be on him like stink on a rotted fish.
When ? In the past dozen posts you've not only said it was foolish to ever take on an armed attacker, but that to do it save yourself and others who are implicitly threatened is wrong as well. Does an axe-wielding Hitler, after eating 100 babies, after submitting to you in writing and pictograph that he will kill other people, pose a threat worth confronting head-on ?

On the contrary, I would actively attack anyone -- as long as logic dictates that it is a good idea to do so.
See above (when ?). See my post two above this one- when do the rules dictate you can take force ? #1 ? #2 ? ...#7 ?

If the gun is held 20 feet away from me, and I am weaponless, what choice would I have? If the mugger comes closer, is alone, and points the gun close to me, then I would know what to do.
If he's twenty feet away you can always run (assuming we're no longer talking about the plane-hostage scenario). Running is actually the smartest course-of-action generally. If the mugger is closer, he has the advantage, being that he's more likely to be able to shoot you dead.

Rape I can handle, unless more than one opponent is getting involved; I would have to know my limitations, and most likely, they wouldn't get in that close unless they outnumbered and outgunned me.
Huh ? So you might fight the armed mugger, rather than give over your cash, but you would definitely submit to an armed rapist ? Why would you think you're safer ?

Hey, if they're going to lock me in the box, and I know they are, then I might as well fight back; I wouldn't know if I would ever get out of it.
Okay, so you wouldn't knowingly kill yourself, or possibly put yourself in a very dangerous state, if threatened with injury/death. This is logical then, but I'm curious how you assess that an inanimate steel box (albeit with extremely bad music being piped in) is more dangerous than a thug with a knife.

On the contrary, I would defend myself. I would also defend the others there. However, "defending" is not always tantamount to "attacking". Even if someone's already been killed, there is the potential to limit the casualties even further by simply giving into the demands. However, if they expose themselves for a moment, then yes, I would jump in; as long as my personal training gives me assurance that I know what I'm doing.
If you are talking about removing a threat that is an armed attacker, than it is either to disarm said attacker, and/or incapacitating him/her. This will most likely involve the use of force in either case. And if someone's been killed, you are STILL just hoping for the bad man to go away. Does he have to be an insane raving loony who submits in writing that he'll shoot you in eleven minutes' time ?!? Training is immaterial; sure if someone a kung fu master / law enforcement expert / SEAL, he/she might feel more capable of an attack, but when someone's life is imperiled, you can't begrudge them fighting to stay alive.

If I do not know what I am doing, however, then I will most likely botch up the operation. However, if it falls solely and primarily upon me to handle it, then I would have little choice.
Good. But if your threshhold is always so high that a majority of hostages have to have been killed, and the terrorist is closeby, and the knife is at his side and not at someone's neck... then it's a choice that would likely not present itself for you.

Contrarily, there is not always a situation in which I could jump in and save the day. That is my primary point.
I agree- Of course not.

Then, like Candy, you seem to have not gotten a thing I've been saying.
I can't speak for Candy, but I do "get" what you've been saying. I just don't agree with it.

I'll admit something. I have been speaking more through emotion than logic throughout this conversation. As a final note, I apologize to both Candy and Huevos for throwing myself at you two like a rabid dog. However, I was responding to Candy's responces (which seemed the extremist "fight no matter what"), with an altering view ("You can't always fight"), which came out to seem extremist itself ("Never fight, period").

As such, confusion seems to have run rampant.

No apology needed. I commend you for having a strong opinion, and the desire to debate on its behalf, even if if I don't fully agree with it. :)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 10:57 PM
All of it in a general sense. Generally, a pacifist will argue that reasoning with a hostile force, or at worst- walking away, is preferable that causing harm, even in the name of self-defense. It sounds as though you advocate some kind of self-defense, just one that doesn't involve you risking <further> injury to yourself and others.

Once more, it depends on what you mean by pacifism. Pacifism means "preference towards only being violent in self-defence", but has come to mean "total non-violence" amongst extremists and opponents.

As for involving risking <further> injury to myself and others, once more, it depends on the situation. I would not want to risk further injury if I have reason to believe that taking a non-violent approach is more likely to avoid injury altogether. Note the term "more likely".


When ? In the past dozen posts you've not only said it was foolish to ever take on an armed attacker, but that to do it save yourself and others who are implicitly threatened is wrong as well.

Oh, really? I'm too tired to pour through my posts and quote piece by piece, but I've mentioned several times that there are times when jumping into a conflict is not the best way to resolve it; and that, for the average layman, to run in (when there are more experienced personnel that are TRAINED for these tasks), especially when it's obvious that running in would immediately result in the harm, injury, or death of someone involved, would be foolish.

That's been my point from the beginning. I don't understand where the confusion came in.


Does an axe-wielding Hitler, after eating 100 babies, after submitting to you in writing and pictograph that he will kill other people, pose a threat worth confronting head-on ?

Uh. Yes. Next question, please?


See above (when ?). See my post two above this one- when do the rules dictate you can take force ?

Should I go over every situation possible and imaginable, or only go for extremes?

If someone with a knife charges at me, I defend myself. If someone with a knife attacks me, I defend myself. If someone with a knife runs at someone that I care about, and I have time to intercept him, I do so.

If someone points a knife at someone I care about, I do not have the time to run in and disarm him of said knife; so the person that I'd care about would die or come into grievous injury if I run in. The passengers on the plane did not know that the plane was going to be used to crash into a building... so I don't understand, really, what the issue is with that.


If he's twenty feet away you can always run (assuming we're no longer talking about the plane-hostage scenario).

In open terrain, running from someone with a gun is generally a bad idea. It doesn't take much effort to point and shoot at someone in open terrain. In side-winding alleyways, it's often harder to shoot someone when they run. So once more; depends on the situation, the terrain, and your opponent. Also, what weapon does he have? If he has a long-ranged rifle, running won't do well. If he has a .22 pistol... heck with it, I wouldn't be afraid of anyone with a .22 pistol. You have to work hard to be deadly with those things.


Running is actually the smartest course-of-action generally.

Yes, true, it is.


If the mugger is closer, he has the advantage, being that he's more likely to be able to shoot you dead.

Yes, that is the case. Of course, even if he has a gun, if you have the combat training to deal with disarming someone with a gun, then by all means, if you have the distance and the capabilities, use it.


Huh ? So you might fight the armed mugger, rather than give over your cash, but you would definitely submit to an armed rapist ? Why would you think you're safer ?

When did I say I would submit to an armed rapist? I merely said that there's more a likelihood that a group of people would be attacking me, so I would have less a likelihood of defending myself. I AM male, after all. If one person came at me intending to rape me, I'd beat him up; or run for it, but I doubt I'd have the opportunity in that situation.


Okay, so you wouldn't knowingly kill yourself, or possibly put yourself in a very dangerous state, if threatened with injury/death. This is logical then, but I'm curious how you assess that an inanimate steel box (albeit with extremely bad music being piped in) is more dangerous than a thug with a knife.

Now you're just confusing me. If I was going to be thrown into any prison, and knew I was going to be thrown in there, I would defend myself. If a man with a knife attacked me, I would defend myself or run away. If a man with a gun threatened me, I'd be more likely to surrender my goods only if I had no (or lost any) advantage I could've possibly had (including running or fighting). I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.


If you are talking about removing a threat that is an armed attacker, than it is either to disarm said attacker, and/or incapacitating him/her. This will most likely involve the use of force in either case.

How many muggers go away when given your wallet? How many hijackers have taken airplanes to an area, then get off? If you compare the statistics, then you can have a more objective outlook on any situation.

Nonetheless, removing a threat that is an armed attacker may involve force. Just not 100% all the time.


And if someone's been killed, you are STILL just hoping for the bad man to go away.

And, according to the article you linked, the people involved did decide to attack the terrorists after they killed the pilot. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seemed that the pilot was not killed at the start of the whole situation, but towards the end.


Does he have to be an insane raving loony who submits in writing that he'll shoot you in eleven minutes' time ?!? Training is immaterial; sure if someone a kung fu master / law enforcement expert / SEAL, he/she might feel more capable of an attack, but when someone's life is imperiled, you can't begrudge them fighting to stay alive.

And if someone more experienced than you TELLS you not to go in and attack? Someone who actually HAS training?


Good. But if your threshhold is always so high that a majority of hostages have to have been killed, and the terrorist is closeby, and the knife is at his side and not at someone's neck... then it's a choice that would likely not present itself for you.

And... that's my point?


I agree- Of course not.

Okay.


I can't speak for Candy, but I do "get" what you've been saying. I just don't agree with it.

You do "get" what I've been saying, yet you've so far made the assumption that I'm a total pacifist, and that I would be more willing to be raped than to fight back a mugger. Riiiight... you've been getting exactly what I've been saying from the get-go!


No apology needed. I commend you for having a strong opinion, and the desire to debate on its behalf, even if if I don't fully agree with it.

I'd appreciate you actually knowing what you're debating with before you do so.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-07, 12:05 AM
Once more, it depends on what you mean by pacifism. Pacifism means "preference towards only being violent in self-defence", but has come to mean "total non-violence" amongst extremists and opponents.

As for involving risking <further> injury to myself and others, once more, it depends on the situation. I would not want to risk further injury if I have reason to believe that taking a non-violent approach is more likely to avoid injury altogether. Note the term "more likely".
Yes. Situation-dependent.

Oh, really? I'm too tired to pour through my posts and quote piece by piece, but I've mentioned several times that there are times when jumping into a conflict is not the best way to resolve it; and that, for the average layman, to run in (when there are more experienced personnel that are TRAINED for these tasks), especially when it's obvious that running in would immediately result in the harm, injury, or death of someone involved, would be foolish.
There were no "more experienced personnel" available on Flight 93. I think Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer was a baseball player in college- does that qualify ? So now you are saying that if there are no "laymen" skilled in unarmed combat, and people have already been killed as an example, it is "obvious" that an active defense (disarming/disabling) is "foolish" ?

If someone with a knife charges at me, I defend myself. If someone with a knife attacks me, I defend myself. If someone with a knife runs at someone that I care about, and I have time to intercept him, I do so.

If someone points a knife at someone I care about, I do not have the time to run in and disarm him of said knife; so the person that I'd care about would die or come into grievous injury if I run in. The passengers on the plane did not know that the plane was going to be used to crash into a building... so I don't understand, really, what the issue is with that.
For the last time- the terrorists on board Flight 93 HAD KNIFED SOMEONE ALREADY !!. And yes- they DID know about the WTC suicide plane attacks ! Is it the facts you don't like ?

In open terrain, running from someone with a gun is generally a bad idea. It doesn't take much effort to point and shoot at someone in open terrain. In side-winding alleyways, it's often harder to shoot someone when they run. So once more; depends on the situation, the terrain, and your opponent. Also, what weapon does he have? If he has a long-ranged rifle, running won't do well. If he has a .22 pistol... heck with it, I wouldn't be afraid of anyone with a .22 pistol. You have to work hard to be deadly with those things.
Harder to hit a moving target, than one standing still. It is insanely difficult to hit a moving target with a long-ranged rifle, even with a great scope. And I won't get into a discussion with you about .22 pistols, except to say that the bullets are real, and don't "bounce off", despite what you may believe. Perhaps death by a single shot would be a near-impossible feat, but who said an incensed mugger/rapist/al Qaida is going to only peel off a single shot?

Yes, that is the case. Of course, even if he has a gun, if you have the combat training to deal with disarming someone with a gun, then by all means, if you have the distance and the capabilities, use it.
Again, there were no law enforcement training in the manner you are referring to. I think your standard dummy civilian knows which end of the knife/gun is the bad one, and knows the concept of disarming an attacker at least.

When did I say I would submit to an armed rapist? I merely said that there's more a likelihood that a group of people would be attacking me, so I would have less a likelihood of defending myself. I AM male, after all. If one person came at me intending to rape me, I'd beat him up; or run for it, but I doubt I'd have the opportunity in that situation.
You said it right here:

Rape I can handle, unless more than one opponent is getting involved
The original question involved an armed mugger, or an armed rapist. So though I doubt you meant it this way, it comes across as that you would be more likely to fight an armed mugger, but submit to an armed rapist (but not gang-rape). Of course if an unarmed man makes his intention known that he wants to rape you, you have many more options to prevent him!!

Now you're just confusing me. If I was going to be thrown into any prison, and knew I was going to be thrown in there, I would defend myself. If a man with a knife attacked me, I would defend myself or run away. If a man with a gun threatened me, I'd be more likely to surrender my goods only if I had no (or lost any) advantage I could've possibly had (including running or fighting). I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.
Sorry- I don't mean to cloud the issue. We're talking about what you would do if an armed assailant threatens your death or the death of others UNLESS you submit. To stick to the Flight 93 example that you took exception to, you can't run, and it has been demonstrated that they have killed at least once already (fellow passenger). You can either A) Do nothing and follow their demands hoping that they go away soon, B) Watch person after person get killed and then defend yourself when it becomes your turn to die, or C) Say at some point, "enough is enough", and lunge at your opponent to try and save lives.

How many muggers go away when given your wallet? How many hijackers have taken airplanes to an area, then get off? If you compare the statistics, then you can have a more objective outlook on any situation.
How many muggers run away first without collecting ? How many robbers kill their victims to conceal their identities ? You'd be surprised- the muggers/hijackers do not enjoy a high level of success.

Nonetheless, removing a threat that is an armed attacker may involve force. Just not 100% all the time.
How would you do it then, if there's not a trained negotiator, secret handy weapon, or a platoon of SWAT guys hiding in the bathroom then ? You are referring to waiting out the threat, aren't you ?

And, according to the article you linked, the people involved did decide to attack the terrorists after they killed the pilot. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seemed that the pilot was not killed at the start of the whole situation, but towards the end.
Hard to say. It's speculated that that either the struggle caused the plane to lose control and crash, or that the terrorists, losing position caused the plane to crash to "cut their losses". Yes, the unarmed people attacked the terrorists armed with knives, and who knows what else. So you propose that what they did was foolish ?

And if someone more experienced than you TELLS you not to go in and attack? Someone who actually HAS training?
The Flight 93 passengers had no such person. If I were there, of course I would defer to their expertise. And when did I ever state that I didn't have any such training ? :rolleyes:

And... that's my point?
Great- so that's your threshhold ! In a room of 100 hostages, yourself being one, the bad-guys would have to kill 51 hostages before you tried to stop them. Also, at least on of the badguys has to be closeby and sleeping, or otherwise not paying attention. Correct me if that's NOT your point.

You do "get" what I've been saying, yet you've so far made the assumption that I'm a total pacifist, and that I would be more willing to be raped than to fight back a mugger. Riiiight... you've been getting exactly what I've been saying from the get-go!
I never said you were a "total pacifist". That's your term that YOU explained. I only said that it was a pacifist standpoint you were defending. You wish not to escalate and/or propagate additional violence by inaction. Read the mugger/rapist scenario again- Maybe you misunderstood, and mean to fight off both the mugger (assuming he has a .22 pistol or knife and can be easily disarmed), and the rapist (assuming it's only one guy).

I'd appreciate you actually knowing what you're debating with before you do so.
Okay- I'll restate the issue, and also try to get this thread back on track:
As relates to the side-link, I said that it was more plausible that the terrorists had guns and not only knives- or else a good portion of the passengers might've fought back. You then said "what if he had the knife at someone's neck" or something. Then you said it was foolish to charge someone who is holding a weapon, EVEN if he has already killed someone and seems likely to do it again.

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 12:56 AM
hmmmm title of thread talk of "fake passenger lists", but I come back after people calm down and disarm... :eek:

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 01:29 AM
I'm sorry, Monique, I don't think of this conversation as something to be dismissed.

I'm very sensitive to 9/11 due to the fact I work for United Airlines - closely with Operational Base ("gods over the entire airline"). One of my offices received a call from a passenger on UA93, which was transfered to my direct line (co-worker took the call). I experienced in real-time a lot of scary stuff not privy to the public, and I still do on a daily basis. I'm very sensitive to dealing with "terrorist" pre and post 9/11. I know I shouldn't even read a thread with 9/11 references, but occasionally, I click on that forbidden thread. :rolleyes:

I'll unsubscribe now. Good luck, gentlemen!

[Edit to add - PM me if I miss something good.] ;)

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 01:41 AM
I'm sorry, Monique, I don't think of this conversation as something to be dismissed.

I'm very sensitive to 9/11 due to the fact I work for United Airlines - closely with Operational Base ("gods over the entire airline"). One of my offices received a call from a passenger on UA93, which was transfered to my direct line (co-worker took the call). I experienced in real-time a lot of scary stuff not privy to the public, and I still do on a daily basis. I'm very sensitive to dealing with "terrorist" pre and post 9/11. I know I shouldn't even read a thread with 9/11 references, but occasionally, I click on that forbidden thread. :rolleyes:

I'll unsubscribe now. Good luck, gentlemen!

[Edit to add - PM me if I miss something good.] ;)

I do not dismiss thread. I think discussion drift far from topic advertised. I also think discussion become too heated.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 02:05 AM
That is, given the situation on flight 93, after you knew that the hijackers were planning on killing everyone on the plane, would you attack or not?

Yes.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-07, 02:32 AM
Knowing what I knew before, as in before 11 September, 2001, I would not have fought the terrorists. Then, I knew that hijackers don't kill passengers who don't fight them. Then, I knew that they were just going to take the plane somewhere and hold everyone on it hostage until their demands were met, and that once they were off the plane, someone with actual training (a thing I do not have) will handle the situation. I saw it happen on the news at least once during my childhood.

Knowing what I know now, I would fight back, however badly. Even at the risk of my life and that of everyone else on the plane, it's better than, say, the life of everyone in a large building in downtown Seattle (the most likely target from the airport closest to my home).

This is what Lonewulf has been saying, for those who still don't get it. Not every situation has the same solution.

And there were, at least according to the Discovery Channel, trained law enforcement personnel who just happened to be on Flight 93.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 02:36 AM
This is what Lonewulf has been saying, for those who still don't get it. Not every situation has the same solution.

And there were, at least according to the Discovery Channel, trained law enforcement personnel who just happened to be on Flight 93.

THANK you.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-07, 03:58 AM
Yes.

Thanks for your answer. I thought you would answer this way, but given the discussion, I wanted to be sure.

I don't see this as a pacifistic position. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds pretty similar to my position. And if anyone tries to call me a pacifist, they should expect a swift kick in the backside.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-07, 04:02 AM
This is what Lonewulf has been saying, for those who still don't get it. Not every situation has the same solution.
A sensible statement, but this is not what Lonewulf said. He said it was stupid to charge an armed terrorist, because such action would endanger the hostages. When pressed on the fact that they had already been harmed, and had a reasonable expectation that they would be further harmed. He then grudgingly proposed "self-defense" in a non-passive manner was only possible after a large number of criteria had been satisfied (among them that a majority of hostages had been harmed/killed).


And there were, at least according to the Discovery Channel, trained law enforcement personnel who just happened to be on Flight 93.

From one of the USAToday's lists (so who knows how accurate it is):

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757 en route from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco. The plane was carrying 37 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants. It crashed southeast of Pittsburgh around 10 a.m ET Tuesday.

Crew:

Lorraine Bay, Hightstown, N.J., flight attendant
Sandra Bradshaw, 38, Greensboro, N.C., flight attendant
Jason Dahl, 43, Denver, captain
Wanda Green, 49, Linden, N.J., flight attendant
LeRoy Homer, 36, Marlton, N.J., first officer
CeeCee Lyles, Fort Myers, Fla., flight attendant
Deborah Welsh, 49, New York, N.Y., flight attendant
Passengers:

Christian Adams, 37, Biebelsheim, Germany, foreign sales manager, German Wine Fund
Todd Beamer, 32, of Cranbury, N.J., account manager, Oracle Corp.
Alan Beaven, 48, Oakland, Calif., environmental lawyer
Mark Bingham, 31, San Francisco, public relations firm owner
Deora Bodley, 20, Santa Clara, Calif., university student
Marion Britton, 53, assistant regional director, U.S. Census Bureau
Thomas E. Burnett Jr., 38, San Ramon, Calif., senior executive of medical research company
William Cashman, 60, W.NY, ironworker
Georgine Rose Corrigan, 55, Honolulu, Hawaii, antiques and collectibles dealer
Joseph Deluca, 52, Succasunna, N.J., Computer program designer, Pfizer Consumer Healthcare
Patrick Driscoll, 70, Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., Retired director of software development for regional Bell
Edward Felt, 41, Matawan, N.J., Computer engineer, BEA Systems
Colleen Fraser, 51, Elizabeth, N.J., chairwoman, New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council
Andrew Garcia, 62, Portola Valley, Calif., President and founder, Cinco Group Inc.
Jeremy Glick, 31, West Milford, N.J.,Sales manager, Vividence, Inc.
Kristin Gould White, 62, NYC, Freelance medical writer
Lauren Grandcolas, 38, San Rafael, Calif., sales worker, Good Housekeeping magazine
Donald F. Greene, 52, Greenwich, Conn.,Executive vice president and chief financial officer, Safe Flight Instrument Corp.
Linda Gronlund, 46, Warwick, N. Y., environmental compliance, BMW
Richard Guadagno, 38, Eureka, Calif., Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Toshiya Kuge, 20, Tokyo, Japan, student
Hilda Marcin, 79, Budd Lake, N.J., retired teacher's aide
Waleska Martinez, 37, automation specialist, U.S. Census Bureau
Nicole Miller, 21, San Jose, student, West Valley College
Louis J. Nacke, 42, New Hope, Pa., distribution center director, Key-Bee Toys
Donald A. Peterson, 66, Spring Lake, N.J., retired president, Continental Electric Co.
Jean Hoadley Peterson, 55, Spring Lake, N.J.,retired president, Continental Electric Co. Church and community volunteer
Mark Rothenberg, Scotch Plains, N.J., owner, MDR Global Resources
Christine Snyder, 32, Kailua, Hawaii, arborist, Outdoor Circle
John Talignani, 72, Staten Island, N.Y., retired restaurant worker
Honor Elizabeth Wainio, 27, Watchung, N.J., district manager, Discovery Channel stores

Red denotes supplemental information added from Bruderhof Peace Barn memorial site (http://www.peacebarn.org/pb/Memorial/Christian-Adams.htm). Glick was proficient in Judo, and Cashman (70 yrs old) was once a self-styled karate afficionado.

No one on board had any background in law enforcement, okay ?!?. The closest would be the pilots, from some Air Force service.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 04:03 AM
Thanks for your answer. I thought you would answer this way, but given the discussion, I wanted to be sure.

I don't see this as a pacifistic position. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds pretty similar to my position. And if anyone tries to call me a pacifist, they should expect a swift kick in the backside.

Thing is, I think that the word "pacifist" would be a misnomer anyways. I'm not sure, but from what a knowledgable friend of mine's said, "pacifism" does not mean complete non-violence.

Anyhow, yeah, I think that we agree on the situation.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-07, 04:11 AM
A sensible statement, but this is not what Lonewulf said. He said it was stupid to charge an armed terrorist, because such action would endanger the hostages.

You really haven't read and understood what Lonewulf has been saying have you?

He said that it was stupid to attack a terrorist who has a knife to someone's throat when the stated purpose of attacking is to save that person's life. That while there is a possibility of getting yourself and the person being held out alive by cooperating that this is the more logical and sensible method to persue because attacking means that, that person dies whereas obeying might mean they live. If you know that they are going to kill them anyways, then attacking is fair enough, but if not then all you are doing is precipertating theirs, and possibly other peoples deaths.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-07, 04:13 AM
A sensible statement, but this is not what Lonewulf said. He said it was stupid to charge an armed terrorist, because such action would endanger the hostages.

You really haven't read and understood what Lonewulf has been saying have you?

He said that it was stupid to attack a terrorist who has a knife to someone's throat when the stated purpose of attacking is to save that person's life. That while there is a possibility of getting yourself and the person being held out alive by cooperating that this is the more logical and sensible method to persue because attacking means that, that person dies whereas obeying might mean they live. If you know that they are going to kill them anyways, then attacking is fair enough, but if not then all you are doing is precipertating theirs, and possibly other peoples deaths.


Great. Now go read what I said in response. I'm not rehashing Lonewulf's or my earlier posts.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-07, 04:20 AM
I have, and personally, if I had a knife to my throat, I'd rather have Lonewulf, Gillian or Van Rijn with me than you or Candy.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-07, 04:22 AM
Thing is, I think that the word "pacifist" would be a misnomer anyways. I'm not sure, but from what a knowledgable friend of mine's said, "pacifism" does not mean complete non-violence.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pacifist):

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

From Wikipedia:

An advocate of Pacifism:
Pacifism is opposition to war. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from a preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes through to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, in any circumstance.
Some pacifists, while opposing war, are not opposed to all use of coercion, physical force against people or destruction of property. Other pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that only non-violent action is acceptable.

So, "nonresistance" in most cases. This is pretty much what you advocated in the examples. Most of the sources out there have it to do with anti-war, or pro-Jesus stuff, but see what legitimate else you can find. Again- it's nothing insulting. Buddha and Gandhi were pacifists, and were both two of the greatest leaders in history.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 04:27 AM
So, "nonresistance" in most cases. This is pretty much what you advocated in the examples. Most of the sources out there have it to do with anti-war, or pro-Jesus stuff, but see what legitimate else you can find. Again- it's nothing insulting. Buddha and Gandhi were pacifists, and were both two of the greatest leaders in history.

That's good for them. That was their choice, just as it was Martin Luther King's choice. Great men, but I do not follow their example. I have a different viewpoint in the world, and I do NOT think that the world's problems can be solved through hugs and kisses. I am not a pacifist. I will not be labelled as something I am not. I would not mind owning a gun, and I am learning Krav Maga, and learning how to defend myself from an experienced brawler (who's kinda given up on the nightlife now that he's got a family).

Unlike how you keep trying to twist my words around, I would advocate self-defence, and even aggression, if the situation would warrant it. For instance, you cannot seem to understand that when I talked about someone trying to rape me, then I would defend myself from them, and beat the crap out of them.

Stop trying to twist my words. It's impolite, and it's getting very tiring. If you want to see me as a pacifist, fine, whatever. Just don't expect to call me that without me disagreeing heartily. I am not a pacifist.

Huevos Grandes
2005-Dec-07, 04:39 AM
Unlike how you keep trying to twist my words around, I would advocate self-defence, and even aggression, if the situation would warrant it. For instance, you cannot seem to understand that when I talked about someone trying to rape me, then I would defend myself from them, and beat the crap out of them.
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood- this isn't what I read in your posts. Regardless of the mugger/rapist situation, your threshhold for resorting to violence seems very high. In all the posts and all the examples you and I have bandied about, you prefer conflict resolution through placation, nonresistance, and verbal solutions (if we omit "retreat", which we only briefly touched on). You only satisfy your own criteria for resorting to violence, if a great injury/loss-of-life has occurred, and preferably if it's easy. Please show me where in your older posts where I'm wrong.

Stop trying to twist my words. It's impolite, and it's getting very tiring. If you want to see me as a pacifist, fine, whatever. Just don't expect to call me that without me disagreeing heartily. I am not a pacifist.
My apologies- I wasn't twisting your words, merely using them for ammunition in my own argument. If I overstepped, I am wrong, and it was not intended. Please learn unarmed combat, exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear a firearm, and hope you never have to use it. But know that there are bad people in the world who kill without moral inclination or remorse. If a threat from such a person presents itself, nonresistance won't get you too far.

Let's agree to disagree now, and let the fake-passenger-list stuff take center stage in the thread. We'll debate again soon, I'm sure. :)

EDIT: PM sent to you, Lonewulf.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 04:49 AM
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood- this isn't what I read in your posts. Regardless of the mugger/rapist situation, your threshhold for resorting to violence seems very high.

AKA, I'm not quick on the trigger.


In all the posts and all the examples you and I have bandied about, you prefer conflict resolution through placation, nonresistance, and verbal solutions (if we omit "retreat", which we only briefly touched on). You only satisfy your own criteria for resorting to violence, if a great injury/loss-of-life has occurred, and preferably if it's easy.

AKA, if it's reasonable, and necessary.


Please show me where in your older posts where I'm wrong.

No. I have no interest in this anymore.


My apologies- I wasn't twisting your words, merely using them for ammunition in my own argument.

AKA, you were quoting me out of context and using that to make your own position look better.


If I overstepped, I am wrong, and it was not intended.


Please learn unarmed combat, exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear a firearm, and hope you never have to use it. But know that there are bad people in the world who kill without moral inclination or remorse. If a threat from such a person presents itself, nonresistance won't get you too far.

AKA, you condescending to me, thinking I'm this person that lives in an ivory tower and does not know the "real world".


Let's agree to disagree now, and let the fake-passenger-list stuff take center stage in the thread. We'll debate again soon, I'm sure. :)

First of all: You want me to...


Please show me where in your older posts where I'm wrong.

But you also want to agree to disagree now... getting in the last word as well, of course.

Second of all, involving us debating again: We probably will. But I shouldn't allow myself to. You get me too angry, and my blood pressure gets too high. Further, my exasperation as you seem to willingly twist my words and ignore my meaning and context, bandying about and dancing about them without seeming to understand the core of my meaning. I have no interest in wasting time with such.

Duane
2005-Dec-07, 05:51 AM
Okay, again, I think everyone could use a little calming down.

I agree.:naughty: I am locking this thread for a time. If someone has a real desire to reopen the debate, PM me and I'll consider it.

There will be action taken against a couple of offending parties.

Duane
2005-Dec-12, 05:00 PM
I have been requested to reopen this thread, so I have done so. Please stay on topic and polite or I will be forced to close it permanantly.

Cheers!

ranb
2005-Dec-12, 09:23 PM
So you would willingly kill another person, by rushing someone on a packed passenger plane.

Good to know. You would now be resonsible for a death. Remind me to never travel with you.

Just so I have it right here. A terrorist has a knife to the throat of a person. The terrorist has made the decision to attack this person and hold a knife to the throat of a passenger. Another passenger decides to take a chance and come to the rescue of the terroristís victim by attacking the terrorist. Did it get it right so far?

When someone comes the rescue, the terrorist has a decision to make. Options include release the victim, kill the victim, attack the rescuer. Remember, the rescuer is attacking the terrorist, not the victim. The terrorist is the one who decides whether or not to kill his victim. The terrorist is the only person who is responsible for the death of the victim.

[Unnecessarily personal comments deleted by moderator.]

Ranb

ranb
2005-Dec-12, 09:25 PM
I did not read down to the last few posts about staying on topic and being polite. I'll be more careful next time.

Ranb

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-12, 09:27 PM
Well, it looks like it's time to close this thread, again.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-12, 09:35 PM
Just so I have it right here. A terrorist has a knife to the throat of a person. The terrorist has made the decision to attack this person and hold a knife to the throat of a passenger. Another passenger decides to take a chance and come to the rescue of the terrorist’s victim by attacking the terrorist. Did it get it right so far?

When someone comes the rescue, the terrorist has a decision to make. Options include release the victim, kill the victim, attack the rescuer. Remember, the rescuer is attacking the terrorist, not the victim. The terrorist is the one who decides whether or not to kill his victim. The terrorist is the only person who is responsible for the death of the victim.

<Personal Insult removed>

Ranb

Opinion noted.

Responce not forthcoming, since I have already spoken my viewpoint, and it likely won't affect a thing.

Also, just for clarification. The knife to the throat of the passenger was not the terrorist "about" to kill the passenger. It was the terrorist threatening to kill the passenger if anyone approached. Big difference.

Note added: Rereading your post, looks like I'm "evil", Ranb. I'll keep note of that. Looks like I'm on the dark side. Whee, they get the cool abilities anyways.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-12, 09:58 PM
I did not read down to the last few posts about staying on topic and being polite. I'll be more careful next time.

Ranb

I certainly hope so. Your tone and comments in the last paragraph of your above post were entirely unnecessary, and have been removed.

Consider yourself warned.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-12, 10:06 PM
Well, it looks like it's time to close this thread, again.

I've addressed the situation, and we'll give this another chance. All participants are strongly advised to proceed with caution, or this thread will be permanently locked.

ranb
2005-Dec-12, 10:31 PM
Also, just for clarification. The knife to the throat of the passenger was not the terrorist "about" to kill the passenger. It was the terrorist threatening to kill the passenger if anyone approached. Big difference.



It still does not change the fact that you would blame a rescuer for the death of a victim at the hand of a terrorist.

I should have refrained from making personal comments like the ones I made earlier on a public forum. I do believe the statement you made on page one of this thread was provocative. But I screwed up by making personal comments.

Ranb

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-12, 10:35 PM
It still does not change the fact that you would blame a rescuer for the death of a victim at the hand of a terrorist.

How is it a "rescuer" if the person held at knifepoint ends up seriously injured to killed solely because the "rescuer" ran in? If he didn't "run in", then there wouldn't be any injury.


I should have refrained from making personal comments like the ones I made earlier on a public forum. I do believe the statement you made on page one of this thread was provocative. But I screwed up by making personal comments.

I really can't bring myself to care one way or another. You think what you can think of me. Heck, go ahead and PM me and tell me how I am. You can say anything you want through that, as long as it does not equal harrasment or death threats.

ranb
2005-Dec-13, 01:13 AM
How is it a "rescuer" if the person held at knifepoint ends up seriously injured to killed solely because the "rescuer" ran in? If he didn't "run in", then there wouldn't be any injury.

So it seems you are saying that a terrorist would not kill someone unless his hand was forced by a rescuer. That is a big stretch. It is possible that a person could stop a terrorist from killing someone who is helpless. Just sitting back and trusting animals such as those who flew the aircraft into the WTC is low. Refusing to take action because you are scared is nothing to be ashamed of, trusting a terrorist not to kill is foolhardy.

Terrorists actually kill people without notice to further their own agenda, not because someone tries to stop them from killing a person. It is hardly prudent to trust a terrorist not to kill someone, especially when they have a knife to the victims throat.

Ranb

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-13, 01:22 AM
So it seems you are saying that a terrorist would not kill someone unless his hand was forced by a rescuer. That is a big stretch.

Depends on the situation. Post-9/11, if anyone held up an airplane with a knife, I'd be on them like stink on rice. Pre-9/11, I would have listened to what the authorities on-hand had to say, since I wouldn't have been as well-versed in airplane hijackings.


It is possible that a person could stop a terrorist from killing someone who is helpless.

It is possible, yes. As I have said repeatedly, different scenarios call for different reactions.


Just sitting back and trusting animals...

I love it when people use "animals" to describe someone. Aren't all humans supposed to be animals?


... such as those who flew the aircraft into the WTC is low.

I repeat: Would you have known that they would have flown aircraft into the WTC BEFORE IT HAPPENED?


Refusing to take action because you are scared is nothing to be ashamed of, trusting a terrorist not to kill is foolhardy.

At the time, the majority of hijackings that took place were able to be curtailed by negotiation, not by charging in blindly and attacking them.

How is running in to tackle a terrorist going to save the person who has the knife to their throat? Especially in cramped quarters in the airplane. The hostage-taker would have seen your motions, and would have responded far before you could get there in time. Where's the potential for saving the person who has the knife at their throat?

ranb
2005-Dec-13, 03:22 AM
I claim that you are blaming someone else besides the killer for the victimís death. Only the person wielding the weapon is to blame, period.

You said "So you would willingly kill another person, by rushing someone on a packed passenger plane. Good to know. You would now be responsible for a death. Remind me to never travel with you."

Most rational people would actually place the blame for the victimís death on the person who actually did the killing.

One of the things that separates humans from lower animals is that weaker humans are able to band together to keep certain violent and stronger elements of our tribe from injuring us.

I only used the WTC events as an example of victims who, when fighting back, may have saved lives.

Unless the terrorist has eyes in the back of his head, then it may be possible to bushwhack him from behind.

I still find it hard to believe that you could actually think a terrorist would not be responsible for the murders he commits.

Ranb

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-13, 08:02 AM
I give up on discussing the issue. I guess I'll go on with my evil ways ;)

Ranb, I have no interest to repeat myself over and over. Fine, you'll attack terrorists/hostage takers/whatever no matter what, period, end of discussion, no matter who's life is in danger, no matter what the situation. I don't care. Russia has a very similar policy, so you do have allies out there.

Fram
2005-Dec-13, 10:37 AM
I still find it hard to believe that you could actually think a terrorist would not be responsible for the murders he commits.

Ranb

Where did LoneWulf say that? Saying that the one trying to rescue the threatened person (or trying to attack the terrorist) is responsible for the death of that threatened person does not mean that the bigger responsibility doesn't lie with the terrorist. Hey, if his knife had been found at a security check and they still let him board with it, then I would say that the security guard(s) are responsible as well. That does not make the terrorist any less responsible or guilty.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-13, 02:40 PM
Where did LoneWulf say that? Saying that the one trying to rescue the threatened person (or trying to attack the terrorist) is responsible for the death of that threatened person does not mean that the bigger responsibility doesn't lie with the terrorist. Hey, if his knife had been found at a security check and they still let him board with it, then I would say that the security guard(s) are responsible as well. That does not make the terrorist any less responsible or guilty.

Right, exactly. When everyone in a situation's action has an impact upon the situation, then everyone becomes partially responsible. If sitting back and not doing anything ends up killing someone, then they're responsible for the death; if they rush in and attack, and innocents die, then they're still responsible for the death. There's no "end-all, be-all" method of life you can really take in the long run.

In today's world, rushing the terrorists is the smartest idea on a plane; not because of the subsequent injuries and deaths to hostages, but because of the larger catastrophe of a situation like 9/11. You have to weigh the consequences of your actions; if you save thousands of lives at the risk of hostages, then you are responsible for saving those lives. If, however, you are responsible for needlessly putting hostages at risk when there were better alternatives available, and (especially) if there was no "larger issue" like 9/11 (so, let's say, a convenience store robbing), then you would be responsible for your actions.

I'm not claiming that the terrorists are the "victims"; I think that they're responsible for A) Threatening to kill hostages, B) killing the hostages if they actually do so, and C) Started the whole thing in the first place to further their goals. That makes them even more responsible for the situation in the first place. But that doesn't make anyone else exempt from responsibility in negating or making worse the situation.

However, your comment about terrorists being "the victims" made me think, Ranb. In many cases, they are. They started as young boys, and were indoctrinated into the fanatical belief of what was "right" and what was "wrong". They were spoon-fed their convictions through a Total Institution, and had no to little contact with altering viewpoints. It is a sad thing that people could become subject to such things, and I hope that in the future, we can get rid of situations like this entirely from the start.

Monique
2005-Dec-13, 06:36 PM
I give up on discussing the issue. I guess I'll go on with my evil ways ;)

Is how we like you best. ;)

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 08:20 PM
After further review, I have moved the tangental discussion originating in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35503) via separating the included comments here from the original topic, which was intended to address a conspiracy claim about the September 11th flights' passenger lists.

Given the contentious nature of this discussion and the emotive replies that have accumulated, I think it best to lock this one down. Interested parties may resume the discussion elsewhere or privately.