<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AS Flyer:
yes, I suppose I would rather just let the trouble makers fly that plane into a crowded city and aim it for a big building. Or they could just let them fly around out there and see what they would like to do.
Quite frankly, if I were on a plane being hijacked (which I don't see happening again) with the 9/11 intentions, I would prefer that they do what is in the interest of the thousands below. That might not be what I would be thinking about at the time but in my current (somewhat)rational state of mind I think that sparing those below would be slightly more important. </font>
Whether you realize it or not you have just made precisely the same argument that you criticized another FTer for making in the thread about the absurdity of the current "[a false sense of] security at any cost" mentality.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../006380-2.html
The point being made by the FTer in the previous thread and yours here (whether intentional on your part or not) is that as a society we are constantly making choices that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Sometimes those sacrifices involve convenience, sometimes money, sometimes even human life (e.g., if we want to lower highway deaths why not lower the speed limit to 25 mph), and sometimes a combination of all of these.
I again find it curious at best that you feel shooting down a jetliner full of people to be a
more reasonable response to a potential terrorist threat than doing away with all of the current security non-sense in exchange for a few reasonable procedures that might actually be effective.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-14-2002).]