Even though it is unlikely that air passengers will ever again regard a hijacking as a mere inconvenience, and even though air passengers can be expected to resist a hijack attempt, and even though pilots may be armed and cockpits armored, it seems pretty irresponsible for the Defense of the Homeland guys to simply announce that airlines passengers are in future going to have to look out for them selves. WASHINGTON, July 29 — Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don’t have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels. (Full text here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/945774.asp?vts=072920032005)) Simultaneously issuing warnings of the probability of more suicide airline hijackings and pulling armed guards off coast to coast flights might make a person wonder if the warnings are just so much cover-your-butt hysteria out of the Administration?
the air marshals are all that effective?It can’t imagine that having an armed policeman on a flight would not be the best possible way to stop an attempted hijacking, short of driving the aircraft into the ground. I can’t imagine that having potential hijackers think that there are armed police officers on board would not effectively deter hijackers. That being so, I tend to regard the warning as so much hype. If not, it ill behooves the Administration to let down their guard just as the threat increases. If an unguarded flight is hijacked, or if there is an attempt to hijack an unguarded flight, I would think that there would be hell to pay at the next election.

Apparently, stopping terrorist attacks is not a priority for this administration. Perhaps someone from the Heritage Institute or the US Chamber of Commerce has done a cost analysis on the air marshals and concluded that it is cheaper to drive a multi-million dollar aircraft and a quarter thousand souls into the ground than to pay air marshals?

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by goofyfish
Even though it is unlikely that air passengers will ever again regard a hijacking as a mere incontinence
Trust me Goofy, there's no such thing as "mere" incontinence :)

Who controls the timing of these "warnings"? Who is under political heat? Whose actions do not jibe with the scares?

The Enemy is within our government, and is busily pissing off millions of people in a fluid and fragile world. The present government is attempting smokescreens while botching every aspect of leadership and stewardship.

We need Scare Marshalls to identify the true boogeyman. Get involved. Learn. Contact your representatives often (http://www.eff.org/congress/). Vote (https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/nvra/). Keep hope alive.

"Air Marshals"... Sorry but I think that it's useless!
How many terrorists would go in a plane? Between 4 and 6... So lets say that 2 of them stand up and show their knives, the marshal will have to react. Thus the other terrorists will be able to kill him. Oh, and even if that marshal was a "cowboy", he could kill one or both terrorists but who cares? I mean that the terrorists are here to destroy the plane and kill as much people as possible, so they already know that they will die... and they will make this sacrifice to show who is the marshal.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Trust me Goofy, there's no such thing as "mere" incontinence :) :o Now there is a nice typo!

:m: Peace.

P.S. Edited original post to correct spelling

Originally posted by SG-N
"Air Marshals"... Sorry but I think that it's useless!
How many terrorists would go in a plane? Between 4 and 6... So lets say that 2 of them stand up and show their knives, the marshal will have to react. Thus the other terrorists will be able to kill him...
Unless the passengers aren't stupid and help the air marshal as one.

Originally posted by Zero
Unless the passengers aren't stupid and help the air marshal as one.
You'll allow them to have a weapon? No! So a marshal is not needed as he would be the only one to have a weapon and that he would be killed first.
The passengers will react the same if there's a marshal or not : some of them will try something and the others will pray and cry! Anyway, a well trained terrorist group will always be able to crash a plane (but I don't know how).

How would the airport security ensure 100% that no hijackers would get in without weapons?

think, think, THINK!

Originally posted by Zero
How would the airport security ensure 100% that no hijackers would get in without weapons?

think, think, THINK!

that's easy:
mandatory nudity + body cavity search,
takes some time, but "better safe than sorry"

.... some people are sick

If that became the norm (to turn everyone into nudists for a while and search your ass, pussy, mouth, ears etc) I will actively search out and bomb all airports.

preferably with a nice, toasty atomic bomb smuggled out of somewhere.

Originally posted by Zero
.... some people are sick

If that became the norm (to turn everyone into nudists for a while and search your ass, pussy, mouth, ears etc) I will actively search out and bomb all airports.

sick ? ...perhaps.
But my point is that there is no problem without a solution, there are simply solutions we realy don't like. You can't say "it is impossible", it is possible but not worth it.

You just posted the two magic words that will have sci-forums haunted forever by the Feds.

esd:
But my point is that there is no problem without a solution, there are simply solutions we realy don't like. You can't say "it is impossible", it is possible but not worth it.


You're right esd, but it is possible to have "solutions" without the problem. Our leaders have the solutions ready to be put into effect; ie. Homeland Defense, etc. But before the public will accept a total Police State, they must see the problem-- like more major terrorist attacks.

And now the Air Marshals are being pulled, go figure! :bugeye:

Airline hijacking is not a problem worth a moment's fretting. Irresponsible government reactions, and crisis-cultivation are considerably more real threats.

In the sky, any aspiring post-9-11 hijacker knows s/he will be in mortal combat with nearly everyone on board from the moment intentions are revealed.

In the Oval Office, the deceptive handlers of a leader know that miniscule threats when sufficiently sensationalized can be used to decisively leverage unpopular and undisclosed agendi, with easy deniability and political firewalls.

Among the self-absorbed majority of citizenry, the truth is uninteresting, and it is incomprehensible that they and their entire nation have been hijacked in every sense of the word, with destination unknown.