quote:Originally posted by HIFLYER:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by HIFLYER:
Did he not just try to kill all of them? All I am saying is I thought after 9-11 anyone trying to take over a aircraft or ignite off a bomb would be dealt with with extreme prejudice.
Your argument for death on the spot is purely DUMB and is full of problems. Had the guy been killed by the other passengers, there would have been no way to interrogate him and perhaps find out more about what lay behind his bomb scheme, who else was involved, etc. That, in turn, could have led to prevention of future bombings. Also, if the passengers had killed him, some nutcake conspiracy theorists would probably proclaim that there was someone on board specifically to kill the varmint if saomething went wrong, so that he could not be arrested and questioned.
However, you are entitled to your zany opinion. The redneck cowboy mentality often seems to seize upon wrongheaded and counterproductive "solutions" to real problems.
You sir are truly a IDIOT!!! I never said he should of been killed. I wrote I was surprised he was not, especially after 9-11 and considering he had just tried to kill the passengers.
If that is your perspective, then you have a rather low opinion of the intelligence of those heroic passengers. I commend them for acting to restrain the man, not kill him. Perhaps THEY were astute enough to understand that (1) killing him was not necessary in order to stop his actions, (2)the man could be mentally incompetent, in which case killing him would certainly have been questionable, and (3) (as I pointed out before)the offender could be a source of important information if he could be restrained and taken alive.
Not everyone reading about the incident would jump to the conclusion that these passengers would automatically morph into indignant killers. Many--probably most--folks have more sense than that. Most folks do not have that ole redneck cowboy outlook, thank heaven!