In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
More "Arming Pilots" articles;
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Guns in the cockpit: A boon to security
Suppose you're flying on a commercial airliner when a group of Arab men wielding weapons suddenly jump out of their seats, bound down the aisles, knock over the flight attendants and passengers trying to block their way, and then break through the cockpit door.
Which of the following two thoughts would be going through your head? 1) "Oh, no, we're all going to die!" or 2) "I'm so grateful those pilots don't have guns."
John Magaw, head of the federal Transportation Security Administration, falls in the second category. Last week, he announced that after careful review, his agency would not allow pilots to carry firearms. If a terrorist manages to invade the flight deck, however, the pilots have Magaw's permission to resist with all 10 fingers of their bare hands.
It would be nice to live in a world in which pilots never have to use guns. But in the post-Sept. 11 environment, it's obvious that in some situations, an armed pilot could come in very handy.
Critics insist that we should rely on tighter passenger screening, reinforced cockpit doors and federal air marshals. Those are all needed improvements. But they may not be enough to keep Islamic extremists from commandeering another aircraft and killing hundreds of people.
Consider: In March, we learned that an undercover test of security at 32 airports showed plenty of holes. A report by the Transportation Department's inspector general noted that baggage screeners missed 70 percent of knives, 30 percent of guns and 60 percent of simulated explosives. That was before the federal government began taking over security, but the problem is not easily solved. Current screening technology can't detect many sharp instruments or explosives.
So terrorists may be able to get knives, guns or bombs on planes. Thus armed, they may have no trouble breaching those reinforced cockpit doors. Or they might just wait until a pilot goes to the lavatory.
But won't the new air marshals be able to stop an attack? Only if they're present. The federal government currently has no more than 1,000 marshals, who never work solo, while the airlines conduct 35,000 flights per day. At best, marshals could cover 500 flights on any given day -- or one out of every 70.
Magaw, however, sees no need for another line of defense. He doesn't want pilots distracted by trying to shoot terrorists; he wants them focused on maintaining "positive control of that aircraft . . . get it on the ground as quickly as you can, regardless of what's happening back there."
That approach is sound as long as the terrorists are confined to the cabin. But if an attacker gets through the cockpit door, a gun may be the only way for the flight crew to maintain "positive control" of the aircraft. The pilots who died on Sept. 11, you may recall, didn't lose control of their planes because they were too busy loading their pistols.
Other critics say there is no place for guns on airliners, where flying bullets could hit passengers or blow holes in the fuselage, causing a crash. Then why are we putting armed marshals on board? Because it's better to take a chance on one or two passengers being accidentally shot than all of them being deliberately murdered. And given modern airplane design, Stephen Luckey of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) testified recently on Capitol Hill, "virtually no danger exists that multiple gunshots could cause rapid decompression of a transport-category aircraft."
United Airlines has bought stun guns, though Magaw hasn't decided whether to allow those in the cockpit. Nonlethal means of defense sound appealing, but stun guns may not penetrate thick clothing, and they may require several hits to stop an attacker. Those could be fatal shortcomings in a hijacking.
One far-fetched fear is that experienced aviators will suddenly turn into trigger-happy cowboys. ALPA says pilots should be allowed to have guns only if they pass psychological evaluations, get 48 hours of specialized training and demonstrate great proficiency in the use of the weapon. Then, it says, they should be authorized to fire only to prevent a terrorist from interfering with the pilots or seizing control of the plane.
The great advantage of arming pilots, though, is not that they could shoot a hijacker. It's that they would deter terrorists from trying to hijack a plane at all. If all their trouble is going to lead them to the business end of a .45, Al Qaeda operatives will have a strong incentive to look for softer targets.
An armed pilot is not a perfectly risk-free option. But compare it to the dangers of unarmed pilots. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20020527.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 05/28/2002 05:56:52
Suppose you're flying on a commercial airliner when a group of Arab men wielding weapons suddenly jump out of their seats, bound down the aisles, knock over the flight attendants and passengers trying to block their way, and then break through the cockpit door.
Which of the following two thoughts would be going through your head? 1) "Oh, no, we're all going to die!" or 2) "I'm so grateful those pilots don't have guns."
John Magaw, head of the federal Transportation Security Administration, falls in the second category. Last week, he announced that after careful review, his agency would not allow pilots to carry firearms. If a terrorist manages to invade the flight deck, however, the pilots have Magaw's permission to resist with all 10 fingers of their bare hands.
It would be nice to live in a world in which pilots never have to use guns. But in the post-Sept. 11 environment, it's obvious that in some situations, an armed pilot could come in very handy.
Critics insist that we should rely on tighter passenger screening, reinforced cockpit doors and federal air marshals. Those are all needed improvements. But they may not be enough to keep Islamic extremists from commandeering another aircraft and killing hundreds of people.
Consider: In March, we learned that an undercover test of security at 32 airports showed plenty of holes. A report by the Transportation Department's inspector general noted that baggage screeners missed 70 percent of knives, 30 percent of guns and 60 percent of simulated explosives. That was before the federal government began taking over security, but the problem is not easily solved. Current screening technology can't detect many sharp instruments or explosives.
So terrorists may be able to get knives, guns or bombs on planes. Thus armed, they may have no trouble breaching those reinforced cockpit doors. Or they might just wait until a pilot goes to the lavatory.
But won't the new air marshals be able to stop an attack? Only if they're present. The federal government currently has no more than 1,000 marshals, who never work solo, while the airlines conduct 35,000 flights per day. At best, marshals could cover 500 flights on any given day -- or one out of every 70.
Magaw, however, sees no need for another line of defense. He doesn't want pilots distracted by trying to shoot terrorists; he wants them focused on maintaining "positive control of that aircraft . . . get it on the ground as quickly as you can, regardless of what's happening back there."
That approach is sound as long as the terrorists are confined to the cabin. But if an attacker gets through the cockpit door, a gun may be the only way for the flight crew to maintain "positive control" of the aircraft. The pilots who died on Sept. 11, you may recall, didn't lose control of their planes because they were too busy loading their pistols.
Other critics say there is no place for guns on airliners, where flying bullets could hit passengers or blow holes in the fuselage, causing a crash. Then why are we putting armed marshals on board? Because it's better to take a chance on one or two passengers being accidentally shot than all of them being deliberately murdered. And given modern airplane design, Stephen Luckey of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) testified recently on Capitol Hill, "virtually no danger exists that multiple gunshots could cause rapid decompression of a transport-category aircraft."
United Airlines has bought stun guns, though Magaw hasn't decided whether to allow those in the cockpit. Nonlethal means of defense sound appealing, but stun guns may not penetrate thick clothing, and they may require several hits to stop an attacker. Those could be fatal shortcomings in a hijacking.
One far-fetched fear is that experienced aviators will suddenly turn into trigger-happy cowboys. ALPA says pilots should be allowed to have guns only if they pass psychological evaluations, get 48 hours of specialized training and demonstrate great proficiency in the use of the weapon. Then, it says, they should be authorized to fire only to prevent a terrorist from interfering with the pilots or seizing control of the plane.
The great advantage of arming pilots, though, is not that they could shoot a hijacker. It's that they would deter terrorists from trying to hijack a plane at all. If all their trouble is going to lead them to the business end of a .45, Al Qaeda operatives will have a strong incentive to look for softer targets.
An armed pilot is not a perfectly risk-free option. But compare it to the dangers of unarmed pilots. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20020527.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 05/28/2002 05:56:52
Comments
Posted: May 27, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.
I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.
Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.
I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.
Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!
Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.
I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.
And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.
They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.
The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.
OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?
How safe are we?
Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.
Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.
Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.
They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?
Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?
If you listen to the administration ? Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."
So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?
You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.
If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.
What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people ? "just fly the plane."
Are those pilots ? educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families ? able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?
No. Because John Magaw has decided ? no guns.
It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.
It's not about stopping terrorism ? it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27756
Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By REUTERS
Filed at 1:24 p.m. ET
GENEVA (Reuters) - The global airlines body IATA said on Thursday it welcomed a U.S. decision not to let commercial pilots carry firearms in the cockpit and called for ``sky marshals'' to be in charge of in-flight security.
The International Air Transport Association said effective screening of passengers, baggage and crew was the best way to deny potential attackers access to airports and aircraft.
Advertisement
Despite a call from American pilots for guns in the cockpit after the September 11 hijack attacks, the U.S. administration on Tuesday ruled out firearms. But it is considering letting pilots carry non-lethal weapons such as electrical stun guns.
``The job of pilots is to fly airplanes without any interruption or distraction,'' IATA director-general Pierre Jeanniot said in a statement. IATA, to which 276 airlines belong, has long opposed arming pilots with lethal weapons.
Since September 11, IATA has worked with airlines and manufacturers to step up security -- deploying guards known as air or sky marshals, reinforcing cockpit doors, installing cameras so pilots can monitor the cabin and better screening.
``Now virtually every single airline has an air marshal program,'' said IATA spokesman William Gaillard.
But IATA says advance intelligence on passengers and thorough screening of all people with access to airport security areas is the best way to thwart in-flight trouble.
For the past few years, it has been working on biometric techniques -- using body measures such as the palm, iris or retina, or shape of the face -- to identify passengers. Travelers would carry smart cards to speed procedures.
Some U.S. airlines are already using biometrics to screen employees and the trend is gaining support in Europe, IATA says.
But for biometrics to be effective for international air travel, global standards are needed and these can only be drawn up, at governments' request, by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), IATA says.
``It could be done quickly,'' Gaillard said.
``We need political leadership.''
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-airlines-iata-safety.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Posted: May 28, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Forgive me. For a little while, after Sept. 11, I actually believed our government might respond to the terrorist attacks with some common-sense, self-defense measures and policies.
Boy, was I a dope.
Despite the fact that polls of even gun-control advocates show 77 percent favor arming airline pilots to avoid hijackings, the Bush administration refuses to heed the call.
As WorldNetDaily has reported, the Federal Aviation Administration put the final nail in the coffin of firearms in the cockpit just two months before Sept. 11. In other words, even while reports were circulating about the imminent threat posed by al-Qaida to the safety of airliners nationwide, the government was doing everything in its power to make the air safe for terrorists.
Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has been unequivocal in his objection to armed pilots ever since. Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta has openly opposed the idea. And, last week, John "No-Draw" Magaw, the former director of President Clinton's scandal-plagued Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and now Transportation Security Administration director, told the U.S. Senate the concept was out of the question.
Imagine that. These high government officials ? people who wouldn't think of flying on an airplane themselves that was not protected by armed guards ? are deciding that airline pilots, most of them military trained, can be trusted to fly a $20 million airplane, but not with a loaded gun on board.
But I've got good news for you.
This is one battle we can win. And, if we win this battle with the ruling elite, who knows where it might lead. It might result in the biggest outbreak of common sense since 1776.
Here's why we can win.
The pilots are with us. This is our ace in the hole. Ultimately, if the government continues to flout the will of the people and the will of the pilots, air travel could be crippled.
There are rumblings ? if ever so slight at this point ? that some pilots just might decide some day they won't fly without the ability to protect themselves, their crew and their passengers, not to mention innocent civilians on the ground.
I'm not advocating a strike. But just the hint of such an action might be enough to get Congress off the dime. Legislation has been introduced in both houses not only to permit guns in the cockpits of America's airliners, but to mandate them.
What will George Bush do if such a bill lands on his desk?
My bet is he will sign it in a heartbeat. So far, Bush has listened to his top advisers on the issue. But his mother did not raise any stupid politicians. Bush knows where the votes are. If that bill makes it to the White House, it becomes law.
It's too bad we even have to fight over such a basic, fundamental principle. It should be a non-issue. Ordinary Americans should not be left defenseless while Ridge, Mineta, Magaw and Bush are surrounded by armed guards at all times ? on land, sea and in the air.
But maybe it's better if we view this as an opportunity to slap these arrogant politicians down, hand them a stunning political defeat and let them know we're entering a new age of accountability.
Viewed that way, this might not be a waste of time, energy and resources. Instead, it could be the next shot heard 'round the world.
Maybe once we convince the political class we're not going to be left defenseless in the skies, we let them know we won't be left defenseless on the ground, either. Maybe it will be time to roll back all those unconstitutional federal restrictions on possession of firearms that have been passed in recent years.
Maybe, after that, we let them know we won't be left defenseless by their open-borders policies.
Maybe, after that, we let them know it's time to start rebuilding a civil-defense infrastructure in this country again.
And, maybe ? just maybe ? after that the political momentum will have shifted toward the common-sense will of the American people that we can take back our country from these fools once and for all.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27758
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Reckless endangerment
Once again, the Bush administration displayed a warped sense of priorities with their recent decision not to allow airline pilots to arm themselves. Every reason (read: excuse) they gave against this most logical step was ridiculous at best and deceitful at worst.
Could it be that the Bush administration does not trust guns in the hands of individuals other than those who report to some government entity? If so, is such contempt worth risking a repeat of "planes into buildings?"
Were I to exercise a comparable sense of priorities, the FAA would cite me for violating their regulation number 91.13 that states, in pertinent part, "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
Larry Scerba
commercial airline pilot
Let the bureaucrats fly the planes
If I were an airline pilot - or one of the pilots involved in the pilot's association fighting to allow our pilots to be armed - this is what I would do.
Since the government in its wonderfully competent wisdom (ha, ha) has decided that pilots cannot be armed, I would call for both a boycott of all the American people against the airlines and a pilot's strike - both at the same time.
If our wonderfully adept federal bureaucrats are so smart, let them fly the (hopefully) empty planes!
Jay Peterson
Criminals, or just confused?
The U.S. Department of Education may have firearms, but pilots may not?
The U.S. Postal Service may have firearms, but pilots may not?
Railroads may have firearms, but pilots may not?
Federal bureaucrats are horrified to think that a pilot may defend the cockpit (and therefore the aircraft and everyone inside and outside the aircraft) with a firearm - but they have no qualms about ordering a military jet to shoot down a passenger airliner?
I think they are very confused and illogical.
Brian Whited
Fire John Magaw - now!
Are you surprised that an official named John Magaw testified that pilots should not carry guns in their cockpits?
This is, after all, the same John Magaw who, as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, made it abundantly clear that no civilian, except a law-enforcement officer, ought to be allowed to carry a gun.
Bush should fire him, and right now.
Terry A. Hurlbut
MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002
Remember our war dead
I'd like to thank Jerry Falwell for his comments regarding veterans on Memorial Day.
However, I'd like to point out that Memorial Day is a day to remember our war dead. The survivors have Veterans' Day and, I think, would agree that Memorial Day should keep the memories of our dead comrades alive.
Kurt Hines
Senator squeezing small farmers
I farm. My father farmed. Both my grandfathers farmed. My father-in-law farmed and his father before him.
I agree with Joseph Farah concerning the farm bill. It is first unconstitutional, second it doles big money to big business, and third it will probably squeeze small operators like me out of farming - to say nothing of all the garbage in the details we've heard nothing about.
How disgusting, my senator - Harkin - sponsors a bill to put me out of business and Bush says he's proud to sign it. I'm glad I voted for Phillips.
By the way, there is a young ex-marine farmer in a primary race against Ganske who also believes the new farm bill is wrong - as in unconstitutional. He has promised to beat Harkin like a drum. He'll get my vote.
Phil Cline
Band-Aid on a bullet wound
Can you please explain to me why it serves me to have labels placed on two sides of the same political issue and then have the participants argue what to do with my money? Liberal or conservative - neither side is interested in my safety or my best interest. All they are concerned about is my productive capacity so they can tax me into oblivion while telling me how I should feel about it.
I want results, not discussion. I want the government out of my life and out of my pocket. If you feel compelled to give them all your income so some poor * on the street in San Francisco can be pampered by the government, I feel it's your right to do so. I don't care what happens to that person. It's a local issue. You know him, you see him, you help him. I will do likewise in my own city.
The argument regarding the legitimacy of the current occupant of the White House should have started a long time ago back when LBJ was in on capping John Kennedy. No, wait a minute. It should go back to when John Kennedy and his father's Mafia buddies were stuffing ballot boxes in Chicago.
The bottom line is there is no legitimate government in the United States of America and has not been since prior to the War of Northern Aggression 1861 to 1865. The race has been fixed from that time onward. You want to correct what's wrong with this country? Let each person start by unplugging the television, stop listening to the TV media and begin thinking for themselves. It's a frightening concept but that's what it would take. It won't happen short of another civil war but that's the bottom line. To argue over lessor details is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Useless.
Bobby Williams
The truth about fortuitous cosmic accidents
I read in the newspaper that noted Harvard evolutionist Professor Stephen Jay Gould had died of cancer at the age of 60. I remember the day 21 years ago when we shared the lectern at a conference on eugenics (race betterment) in Washington, D.C. It seems just like yesterday.
He had just published his new book, "The Mismeasure of Man," which I still have, and I was presenting a paper that I had just published on the surprising eugenic beliefs of Lester Frank Ward, the father of American sociology.
Both of our presentations were critical of man's attempt to classify certain races or ethnic groups as inferior. Stephen J. and I, Stephen M., thought very much alike in those days. We were both young (I was 34 and he was 39) overachieving Jewish professors. He was at Harvard and I was at the University of Arizona.
Stephen J. wrote that humans were a result of the "fortuitous cosmic accident" of evolution. Another Jewish professor, Carl Sagan, was saying much the same thing also to an international audience. I liked Sagan as well.
When Dr. Gould came to Flagstaff, Ariz., several years ago to address the Centennial Anniversary of Lowell Observatory, I was there. The minute he began to speak, however, I realized that we really had nothing in common anymore. He talked of "reincarnating the spirit of Percival Lowell," and I immediately tuned him out. How sad. I really liked Prof. Gould. He had an infectious smile and laugh, as did Dr. Sagan. They both had giant intellects. They both will surely be missed.
But, when they both stood before the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after their deaths, they found out as I did 14 years ago, that they were not a result of a fortuitous cosmic accident. That we are all children of a loving - but righteous - God who demands our obedience. That all their intellect and education were for naught. They instantly became creationists ... but it was too late. How very sad.
Stephen Yulish, Ph.D.
SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2002
Threat to shut WND down
Looks like Joseph Farah's site WorldNetDaily wants desperately to be shut down. After Farah's disgraceful and awful attack on Islam's most revered figure, Muhammad, the website publishes a letter by a Jew, if I may add, calling for the destruction of the holy city of Mecca. That's the Mecca that Muhammad was born in and where over 1.2 billion Muslims turn to when they offer their daily prayers.
I am extremely angry that Farah has advocated such filthy lies attacking Muhammad as a treaty breaker without backing what he claims with any credible sources. But I know, Farah doesn't need "sources" - he has plenty of antagonistic sources against Muslims right up there in his head!
Ehsan Poonawalla
Death threat
By attacking the personality of the prophet Muhammad, Mr. Farah has earned eternal damnation. He now belongs to the cursed elite - the likes of Salman Rushdie.
His insidious commentary can only provoke more hatred and is not in the interest of maintaining harmony among Muslims, Christians and Jews.
Lotfi El-Bayoumy
Arab defends Farah
I read what the CAIR organization (Council on American-Islamic Relations) sent me about what you three (Mr. Joseph Farah, Mr. Paul Harvey and Dr. Laura Schlessinger) said about Islam. I would say that everything you said is completely right, and there is more.
Actually, Islam is just a terrorism religion. It is just about killing and shedding blood everywhere. Muhammad is a prophet of killing. I am an Arab and I know what I am talking about. The priests in the Middle East call Islam the religion of the Satan on earth. Muhammad lived a life of killing people and stealing goods from traders and raping women, and above all that, he says he is a prophet of God.
Firstly, he never made a miracle, and secondly, he never said things that will happen in the future. These two things are very important, because otherwise he will not be a prophet.
What is so bad in the West is that a lot of people are converting to Islam, and Western countries are dealing with the Christian Arabs like the Muslims. But you have to know that there is no Christian that supports what Islam is doing.
We believe that we must fight for our freedom in the Middle East, but we are against the suiciders who blow themselves up to kill the innocents. We are with fighting the military, but not the people. If Israel is using bad ways and killing innocents, that doesn't mean that we have the right to do the same.
The world must get rid of one thing: the Islamic religion.
Iyad Jabbour
Remember al-Hudaybiyah!
Maybe the reason that Muslims in the U.S. are so angry at Mr. Farah for letting the cat out of the bag is the fact that although he refers to Arafat's use of this strategy of a pretense to peace, its utility is not limited to Mr. Arafat.
Maybe the reason that Muslims in the U.S. are so angry is because Mr. Farah only confirms the suspicions that many of the rest of us have: We see the same attempted deception in the Muslim population in America.
Mr. Farah, you have given me a new battle cry. My family hails in part from the proud state of Texas. Our family history includes the cry "Remember the Alamo!" in honor of those who died there.
In honor of those martyrs that fought for their people against the Muhammadan horde, from now on our history will also include "Remember al-Hudaybiyah!"
Dale Howell
The truth is out there
Hmmm . I find it not at all strange that the majority of crybabies complaining about Joseph Farah's stand on Muslims, are Muslim.
Of course you people are going to think you are so misrepresented and maligned. The evidence speaks for itself - and please don't continue to beat that tired drum of "you don't know the history" ad nauseum. No, you believe the fabricated lies your esteemed mullahs have force-fed you.
That's the problem with governments and states such as yours - you only hear what they want you to hear. You have to go to outside sources for the truth - something in short supply in Islamic countries. The truth is out there.
Jeni Dimon
Truth is an absolute defense
As for those carping Arabs who dare accuse Joseph Farah of slander against themselves and against Muhammad: I've read the Koran. Truth is an absolute defense against a slander charge, and he has truth on his side.
Terry A. Hurlbut
FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2002
Spread the word!
God bless you, Mr. Farah, for your piece on al-Hudaybiyah. This type of information has to become more widely known. Why, oh why, isn't this featured on the front page of the New York Times and on all of the major newscasts?
This piece provides information that is essential for every educated person in the United States and the entire Western world to know.
Gazer
Disconcerted
It is disconcerting to read over and over Joseph Farah's vicious attacks on Prophet Mohammed and Muslims.
His statements are pure fabrication with no historical validity. I wish he would study a little more Islamic history. But I doubt he is interested in truth.
It is really shameful on his part.
Amadou Wane
Outraged
I am outraged at the fact that Joseph Farah would abuse his right to free speech by inciting and spreading hatred towards Muslim people.
When reading intelligent literature, I expect respectful, unbiased and factual topics to be discussed, or I simply don't read. I suggest he change his hateful content if he expects a lot of readers.
Hassan Wharton-Ali
Joseph Farah, a racist?
Joseph Farah is a racist. Please refrain from anti-Muslim statements.
Aamir Syed
Ouch
Joseph Farah's name means happiness in Arabic - may Allah never show him it for the rest of his life.
I would like to make a supplication to Allah, that he will never guide Joseph Farah to the right path ever so he may stay astray for the remainder of his worthless life.
Haytham
Braying of a *
Although Joseph Farah's articles are best described as the braying of a *, maybe he can enlighten the public and the world with the latest Catholic Church and its priests abusing and molesting of kids for all these years.
It seems like from the looks of him and his name that he belongs to the phalange and Lebanese forces that, under the name of Christianity, massacred more than 800 unarmed civilians in saber and chattel camps in Beirut, Lebanon.
Farah and the likes of him are nothing, and the more of these articles he writes, the more proud we are as Muslims all over the world.
Ahmad R. Kabalan
We asked for 9-11 attack?
Are you beating the drum for further persecution of Iraq? Because I think you are beating. That country has suffered enough. They never hurt anyone I give a damn about. The New York attack was largely a justified reaction to American war crimes committed in Iraq.
Let's pull back and clean the Arabs out of Israel. Then if the Muslims want war, they can have it. If not, the world may settle back into something like normalcy.
Note: I do not believe Saddam is a zealous Muslim. He will probably be happy settle into a soft goodnight. Stop trying to compound America's bloody behavior in Iraq. You asked for the attack on New York. It seems you learned nothing from it.
David Mende
Mecca meltdown
Regarding the threat of terrorists attacks on the U.S. (and the rest of the free world), I think the U.S. should announce that if Islamic terrorists hit the U.S. again they can kiss Mecca goodbye.
We could give them one day to clear the city, then level it completely - including completely melting the "black stone." That would eliminate their salvation - that a true Islamic must make at least one visit to Mecca in their lifetime.
Let's make this announcement, then let's see what happens. We're not killing their innocent civilians, just wiping out one of their holy sites - like they did to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan.
David Hartman
THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2002
Breath of fresh air
I am a Jewish American now living in Israel. The West Bank settlement in which I live sits on land purchased by Jews from Arabs during the British Mandate years.
I have read many of Joseph Farah's recent columns, mostly on WorldNetDaily, and I want to thank him on behalf of all of us here for his heroic efforts in dispelling the myths about the current conflict. His work is a tribute to journalistic truth and a breath of fresh air in this world of propaganda and falsehood.
David Silverberg
Tell it like it is!
Please don't fall into the trap of every other news service. They are not suicide bombers - they are homicide bombers. Let's tell it like it is.
Sandra E. Stolov
Standing up for truth
Thank you, thank you, thank you for Joseph Farah's article on the Palestinians claims in the land of the Israelis. I have been waiting to hear and see one of our Arab-American friends who would stand up and tell the truth about the justification of the claims of the Palestinians.
Joseph Farah is a friend not only of the truth, but a man who is not afraid to stand up against tremendous odds. I salute him and hope that some of the people who read his article will find the truth of his words.
June Goodman
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Go potty, go to jail
Posted: February 15, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
After I called for a boycott of the airlines last month, I was inundated with hundreds of e-mails advising me that you readers were already doing exactly that.
Recent reports suggest the airlines are starting to feel the pinch financially despite the optimistic pronouncements of the same Wall Street types that gave Enron a glowing bill of health. Yet, amazingly, other reports indicate the abusive nature of airline and airport employees toward passengers is increasing.
Take, for example, the case of Richard Bizarro. (No, I am not making up his name.) This hapless guy needed to relieve himself last Saturday after his flight was within 30 minutes of landing. Because he had the audacity to break Uncle Sam's bathroom curfew, he now faces up to 20 years in prison.
Yep, that's right, folks ? no joke ? take a dump, go to jail.
Aren't you inspired by how well the federal nanny state is protecting us from these toilet terrorists? I can only wonder what would happen if about 10 strategically seated protesters, er, passengers ? who had consumed massive amounts of beans, beer and other helpful materials the day before ? wanted to use the bathroom during the first 30 minutes of a flight and were denied access to the bathroom under threat of jail time. If they then decided to let nature take its course in their seats, I wonder how long the airlines would continue to support the FAA's 30-minute rule.
It's really only a matter of time before some flatulent soul finds he or she cannot retain yesterday's meal. Maybe this has already happened. I'll bet the leather seats in First Class clean up easier than the cloth seats in Coach. Either way, I'd rather not fly any more, thank you.
And I'm not alone. Other people are fighting back with their wallets. Why? Because it's getting worse out there. The FAA seems determined to herd people like sheep, threaten them with prison time if they don't kowtow, and continue their outrageous assault on our constitutional rights. Makes me wonder who the real terrorists really are.
If you decide to fly anyway, Paul Sperry has put together a handy guide to what the airport security personnel theoretically can and cannot do to you ? not that such information has slowed the abuses by airport screeners. Want to know why? Look at what else Paul found out:
Interfering with or assaulting a screener is a federal crime. Assault is broadly defined as any harmful or offensive contact, or an apprehension by the other person that such contact is imminent. Under the new Aviation and Transportation Security Act, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, a fine, or both.
Doesn't that endear you to your government masters? Look at a screener the wrong way and you may be spending 10 years in a cell with some bruiser named Bif who wants you to be his girlfriend. Upset because the screener is cleverly molesting your wife and daughters with his surrogate wand? 10 years! Protest her stealing the "dangerous" diamond pendant your husband gave you? 10 years!
The point is, these people have real power over our lives, and ? even worse ? they know there's not a single thing we can do about it without it costing us big-time. So, at this juncture, you've just got to ask yourself: Is it really worth all of the hassle and risk to endure this sort of abuse just so you can fly?
Moving on, a couple of readers were appalled to learn I was advocating passengers be allowed to carry guns on airplanes. They failed to consider that up until the '70s ? when passengers still retained their Second Amendment rights ? hijackings were unheard of.
I was also lectured about explosive decompression. I have it on the advice of an airline flight engineer that bullet holes will likely not cause explosive decompression. He was worried, however, that a bullet might rupture a hydraulic control line but, even there, it was pointed out that most commercial aircraft have redundant systems for backup in the event of an emergency.
So, I put the question to you: Would you rather risk the possible damage of a bullet, or just allow some terrorist an unhindered opportunity to blow up your airplane? This is not a difficult choice, people.
Finally, a few of you indicated you were concerned about the impact such a boycott would have on our economy. Not to worry. While the airlines continue to bleed red ink, Mr. and Mrs. America will be contributing to the automobile industry, the oil industry, the hotel industry, etc. In other words, your travel dollars will help other sectors of the economy while giving the airline industry something important to think about.
Go see America this summer, folks. Take the kids and have a grand time. But do it with your car, not an airplane.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26447
Tom Ambrose is the commentary editor of WorldNetDaily.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
It is OK to shoot a passanger plane down with a sidewinder from an F-16 but god forbid arming the pilots and giving them a last chance of saving their and their passangers lives.Something stinks in Washington and it smells like an anti-gun agenda.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Capitol Hill -- An airline pilots' group says it was pressure from the airlines' political lobbying group - not fear of potential mishaps - that led the government to forbid commercial airline pilots from carrying guns.
The Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA) accused the Air Transport Association (ATA) of influencing the government's decision.
"The ATA's problem is not liability or distraction or loss of cabin pressure or any other safety concern. In fact, all of the above problems are red herrings," APSA wrote in a press release Friday. "No, the reality is that the airlines are willing to trade safety for victory in the power struggle they have initiated with their own pilots."
APSA Chairman Capt. Tracy W. Price says the decision not to allow pilots to carry firearms is "great news for the terrorists and the ATA.
"For many years, airline managements have been on a campaign to minimize the authority and stature of pilots," Price said. "We are stunned that they are willing to compromise the safety of air travelers to further their interests in this power struggle they have initiated with their pilots."
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw announced earlier this week that the administration would forbid pilots to be armed.
"After a lot of consultation and realizing my experience in law enforcement, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit," Magaw told the Senate Commerce Committee. He gave no reason for the decision.
The ATA did not return calls requesting comment on the APSA allegations prior to publication of this story. An Internet search conducted Friday found published statements by ATA representatives opposing armed pilots.
No Reference
However, a statement issued by ATA President and CEO Carol Hallett after the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act contained no reference to the armed pilots provision in its praise of the legislation.
"We are pleased that Congress and the administration have reached consensus on comprehensive legislation that will place the federal government in control of aviation security," Hallett said. "ATA airlines have strongly supported, since 1973, a federally controlled and managed aviation security system."
The statement noted that ATA has consistently called for:
more effective automated passenger profiling;
a program to certify companies conducting airport security screening;
more federal air marshals;
an aviation anti-terrorism desk at the FBI;
the increased use of sophisticated bomb-sniffing dogs; and
a strong emphasis on, and increased funding for, all elements of the intelligence community connected with anti-terrorism.
While the Air Line Pilots Association supports pilots having firearms to defend their cockpits, spokesman John Mazor disputes the APSA theory that the airlines' reluctance is evidence of a power play.
"We don't see this playing any significant role in the airlines' opposition to firearms," he said. "We think it still has to do with issues of liability and marketing concerns, and probably a healthy dose of misunderstanding of the risks."
ALPA has prepared a detailed response to the many objections made to arming pilots. APSA has a similar statement on its website.
Any objections to arming pilots that the airlines or Bush administration officials have, may be irrelevant if some members of Congress have their way.
Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., introduced a bill Friday to take discretion away from the administration and mandate the creation of an armed pilots program. S. 2554 is a companion bill to H.R. 4635 introduced by House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla.
Smith, who introduced the original armed pilots amendment to the transportation security law says he has no choice but to act to remove the discretion provided in the original proposal.
'Pilots Want This Program'
"The pilots want this program, the flight attendants support the legislation, and the American people want additional means to be protected against future acts of terrorism," he said at a press conference Thursday.
"Our legislation is the best way to allow the voluntary implementation of programs, so that pilots can provide the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense," Smith added.
Patricia Friend, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), particularly likes the Smith bill, because it includes a training program in non-lethal self-defense techniques for flight attendants.
"Flight attendants and passengers in the cabins of the four hijacked aircraft were the first people to lose their lives on September 11," she said at the Thursday introduction of the proposal. "In any future hijacking attempt, the attackers will again start in the cabin, before they ever reach the cockpit."
Smith's bill is co-sponsored by Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller and Republicans Jim Bunning (Ky.), Conrad Burns (Mont.), Frank Murkowski (Alaska) and Strom Thurmond (S.C.). http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/28/53949.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
Happiness is a warm gun
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878