In article <gBdf9.69864$Ic7.5237352 at news2.west.cox.net>,
John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>>You were bragging about how all this extra security is going to prevent
>hijackings, and I pointed out to you that all this extra affirmative-action
>"security" is *precisely* what enabled 70% of the weapons that federal
>inspectors carried with them to be smuggled past "security" onto aircraft.
Actually, I was pointing out how it doesn't matter that 70% of the
weapons that federal inspectors carried with them got past the
security checkpoints. Even if would-be hijackers get guns onto
airplanes, hijackings will fail for the same reason that Flight 93
went into the ground like a dart instead of into the White House.
Of course, you haven't made the case that affirmative action is the
reason for the 70% failure rate, but that's besides the point.
>"especially not if an F-16 is going to blow a plane out of the sky if the
>passengers and crew do surrender it" is the OLD, obsolete paradigm.
John's wrong, again, which is to say he's typing. I suppose he
"missed the news" when they lowered the rank required for an officer to order a
fighter to fire on a civilian aircraft. No doubt he also slept
through incidents since 11 September in which fighters have
intercepted passenger jets on which there seemed to be a problem, and
then escorted them to the ground.
>It didn't work, did it? That was SUPPOSED to happen, but jew Bush ORDERED the
>USAF to s-t-a-n-d d-o-w-n, right?
And here I thought Bush was an Episcopal.
Q: How many Fathers Manifesto losers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One to explain that a Jew made the bulb go out. One to theorize
that a Black put in a faulty light bulb. One to insist that in the good
old days, light bulbs lasted ten thousand yearsapiece. One to explain
that candles are really lightbulbs, and lightbulbs fuses. The bulb
doesn't actually get changed, though, they just stay in the dark.