Could the complete tragedy of 9/11 been lessened if the passengers of the flights had not been already predisposed to just "wait it out".
Since the phenomenon of plane hijacking began the response to the hijackers has generally been almost a standard proceedure.
Wait quietly during negotiations and all will be well. In all fairness up until the 9/11 events it has for the most part been a successful response.
Yet had passengers in such events responded by attacking their hijackers enmass perhaps the use of hijacking of planes may have never gotten off the ground to begin with. While the passengers of the one flight who fought back did indeed perish regardless, given the fate of all the planes they at least had a chance to prevent their fate where as the others did nothing.

Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to acheive their ends?

Considering that the fate of the planes during 9/11 is known to all--Will future plane hijackings be possible. or will the effort be met with physical resistance,
and so be considered a poor gamble by terrorists?

Since the response and the ablilty of our government to respond was shown to be clearly incompetent and impotent can you think of any better alternative than to fight back in such a situation?

Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to acheive their ends?

Yes, and insanely, the authorities continue to encourage such pacifism among the public. The police still tell people not to fight back if someone tries to rob or mug them. Talk about rolling out the red carpet for criminals. Just imagine what it would do to crime rates if instead, people were told that it's their dutry to their country to fight back against criminal thugs, and that it doesn't matter if you're young or old, male or female - kick him where it hurts, whack him with your cane, gouge his eyeballs out, but do not surrender to him. I think it would wind up noticeably improving the safety of our society.

Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to acheive their ends?

I don't think so, no. I think you are looking at this through hindsight 20/20 vision. No one knew that they were on a suicide ride (except the last ill-fated flight, whose passengers, not coincidentally, chose to fight). These passengers were sitting on the plane with family members. What would you do if you were shopping in the disney store with the kiddos and an armed gang entered, killing some and telling others not to resist, just sit tight and be quiet or you'll be next. No one knew what the hijackers were going to do, no one knew that they were armed only with box cutters, and it was pretty standard up until that time for airplane hijackers to have demands after which they would often let everyone go.

Considering that the fate of the planes during 9/11 is known to all--Will future plane hijackings be possible. or will the effort be met with physical resistance,
and so be considered a poor gamble by terrorists?

Yes. The paradigm has shifted. Now plane hijackings are viewed as potential suicide runs, so passengers will consider that they have less to lose if they act. This happened with the shoe bomber, who was wrestled to the ground by passengers before he could ignite his explosives.

Since the response and the ablilty of our government to respond was shown to be clearly incompetent and impotent can you think of any better alternative than to fight back in such a situation?

I don't follow this question. If you are asking what the government should have done while the planes were in the process of being hijacked, I'm not sure what they could have done at that point.

I don't believe this to be the case-how ha pacifism been a part of any of this? Not only that, how has pacifism hurt say-switzerland or Norway?

QUOTE

Considering that the fate of the planes during 9/11 is known to all--Will future plane hijackings be possible. or will the effort be met with physical resistance,
and so be considered a poor gamble by terrorists?

Most people who were on airplanes in the '80s knew that hijackers did what they did to get political prisoners released or some other demands met. The hijackers(unlike the ones we have now) did not want to meet their end on the plane. Obviously things have changed and I believe that we will continue to see people fighting it out with hijackers and throwing hot coffee on them until the last seconds of their lives.

QUOTE

You cant predict or be ready 100% of the time. Yes, errors were made, but when it comes to events such as 911, there is absolutely no way you could've adequately prepared for a vague threat, on a vague timetable, with only a vague hint that people want to do bad things.

Yes.

There should be no compromise on defence. If somebody threatens you then the best course of action is immediete retaliation with all the force you can muster. A lot of the worlds misery would not happen if people were more prepared to stand up for themselves.


It all depends on the character and identity of the people being hijacked. As things went on 11 Sept, the passengers of one of the planes were responsible for bringing the suicide attack to an end before the terrorists could complete it. Those people did not survive but they showed the terrorists how small their window of opportunity was.

I fear however that Bin Laden and his Muslim fanatics will not attempt to repeat the tactic twice. The next attack will not require hostages who might suddenly turn upon the terrorists.


No.

When the moment comes you can't wait for some one else to intervene. You have to be prepared to strike, fast with a cool head and with determination.


Well, in the case of Norway (and Denmark) it lead to being occupied by Germany.

Switzerland and Sweden only survived in neutrality only because they were both militarily strong and more useful to the nazi's as neutral.

Pacifism is a joke. It can only succeed if your opponent respects it. Can you imagine confronting some one like Josef Stalin with a stoic display of pacifism?

Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to acheive their ends?

I'd hardly say that we as a people have become pacifists, not by a long shot. In every scenario I can think of your best bet at self preservation is not to try and be a hero. I don't see anything wrong with that and it is generally a smart strategy.

As far as our national response we've started two wars in the past 4 years - one justified and the other not, how are we being pacifist?

The people being taken hostage have no idea what the intentions of the criminals are up front. Historically it hasn't been a suicide mission so trying to stay alive is your best bet. If you know up front it is a suicide mission then you lose nothing by fighting back.

Considering that the fate of the planes during 9/11 is known to all--Will future plane hijackings be possible. or will the effort be met with physical resistance,
and so be considered a poor gamble by terrorists?

If you are wiilling to die for an objective then anything is possible. However, you are probably safer on a plane these days than anywhere else from terrorists. Terrorists are interested in soft targets, not hard targets. Airlines have had their security beefed up an incredible amount and if you can't even get on a plane with fingernail clippers then your chances of getting on with something dangerous are very low. Why go to all of that trouble when there are literally thousands of other targets which are just as public but completely unsecured?

Right now a terrorist could walk into any subway in the country and set off a backpack bomb. They could walk into Times square and do the same thing. They could attack ports, public sporting events, concerts, you name it. None of these things have anything more than basic security.

If I have no problem sneaking a flask in my sock into a baseball game after being subjected to a "search" then I doubt a terrorist would have any problems with a weapon or bomb.

We won't see another attack on airlines. But if there is one I think people will fight back, the paradigm has changed.

Since the response and the ablilty of our government to respond was shown to be clearly incompetent and impotent can you think of any better alternative than to fight back in such a situation?

I highly doubt people will be in a situation to fight back again because as I said before I doubt we'll see any more airline attacks. The fact that oour government response has proven to be completely inadequate - both on 9/11 and during the aftermath of Katrina - is indeed very troubling.

This was IMO the case before 9/11. Numerous attacks and we respond by considering them “criminal acts” and putting Bin Laden on the FBI list????



Yes. The reason hijackers were able to take the planes was simple. No one told the FAA to change the procedure regarding hijacking. The procedure in place at the time required the pilot to turn the plane over to hijackers rather than risk the death of passengers and crew. The terrorists knew this. Also box cutters were not prohibited objects that copuld be carried by passengers.



The day after 9/11 (needless to say) the rules changed. Pilots will not open a door and now the doors are armored. Also pilots can use “maneuvers” to defeat hijackers. They can dive an aircraft and smash anyone standing against the ceiling and floor.. We also have air Marshals trained to shoot hijackers. The major threat to airliners today are shoulder fired missiles like our “stinger”. The terrorists have been caught trying to acquire them in the US. ( a total of 8 so far I believe). A airliner missile defense systems is in the works. Could take years to complete the installation on all aircraft.

http://membres.lycos.fr/tthreat/article31.htm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/0...gress/index.php

Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to acheive their ends?
Yes. I support pacifism, just not to the point where the guard dog becomes a door mat. We are so reliant on Big Brother to protect us that we let them strip us of our defenses, so that we are gathered together like infants in a nursery. Then, some thugs come along and take over the nursery because - surprise - Big Brother wasn't there to stop them. We'd all now be saying, "Long live the Queen," if, 230 years ago, we didn't say, "Over my dead body." The right to bear arms is a matter of national security.

Considering that the fate of the planes during 9/11 is known to all--Will future plane hijackings be possible. or will the effort be met with physical resistance, and so be considered a poor gamble by terrorists?
There are holes in every security system. If they find it feasible, they will do it. I would not bet on it, though. They would likely do best to try something different.

Since the response and the ablilty of our government to respond was shown to be clearly incompetent and impotent can you think of any better alternative than to fight back in such a situation?
Never give up on self-defense. We should always be able to neutralize an imminent threat.

This kind of question, to me, seems fairly naive. Consider the US military response after 911. There's nothing pacifying about that. But then, I'm not one to make distinctions. The US invasion, the illegal invasion of Iraq to rid them of their fabled WMD, was an example of using violence to achieve an end, and countless Iraqi innocents died as a result. One thing to note is that it's not called pacification when you resort to violence, no matter the root.

Of course future hijackings will be possible. Resilience and determination in a 'terrorist' can be a lethal characteristic. Poor gamble? I don't think 'terrorists' gamble their lives away. I think they're highly determined and resolute.

1.) Not as a people. There certainly are groups that would take a more pacifistic outlook. It is like saying that all Americans are pro-birth; it simply is false. It is false to classify American citizens as being pacifistic if we still support the War on Terror or any military at all.

2.) Sure, there will always be possible risks. By physical resistance, I assume you mean people trying to hijack the plane from the hijackers. This would be dependent on many things. Poor gamble? Doing most anything to Americans is.

3.) I disagree, but since you are questioning a different motive: an alternative would simply be to buck Congressional lobbying and partisan pandering in order to safely secure and prevent an attack within a short period of time. While the president may have been slow to act, his response was hardly impotent, at the time it was hailed as being the most provocative thing a president had ever done-- with liberals and conservatives alike hailing him for being so decisive. All in all, I am not sure much could be done short of breaking every Congressional bylaw.

"Have we as a people become too pacifistic in how we respond to those who use violence to achieve their ends?"
At the risk of interpreting far too loosely. I will venture to say Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at our lack of concern over our freedoms. Some things are worth the price of personal suffering, injury, even death.

"But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

So I'll ask, what's it worth to you?