I thought everyone had learned the lesson from 9/11: passengers have nothing, nada, to lose by attacking the a**hole. Apparently this guy didn't learn.
bb
I thought everyone had learned the lesson from 9/11: passengers have nothing, nada, to lose by attacking the a**hole. Apparently this guy didn't learn.
bb
1. He is lucky the passengers didn't kill him in subduing him.
2. If I thought there might have been a bomb on board the plane, I wouldn't have sat in the plane for 90 minutes. As soon as it stopped, even before the cops arrived, I would have used the emergency exit to get out, just in case.
As soon as it stopped, even before the cops arrived, I would have used the emergency exit to get out, just in case.
A nickel says the cops were already there (radio ahead and all that), and to judge by the automatic weapons they carried they were probably primed to take out anyone who appeared to be escaping. That said, it'd be hard to resist the overwhelming "get out" feeling.
bb
they were probably primed to take out anyone who appeared to be escaping
That would make for some epic "spin control" after innocent passengers are gunned down.
Although maybe it will take a 'plane going bang after a 90 minute wait following landing before popping the emergency chutes or simply getting the air stairs positioned promptly becomes a cheaper alternative to the lawsuits ??
Putting in place endless security measures to search/scan every passenger prior to boarding is easy and makes a lot of companies a great deal of money, but taking prompt action when an incident occurs, that's another thing altogether.
The police want the passengers contained until they are ready to act, the airline doesn't want the expense incurred by using the emergency chutes, so essentially the passengers are caught in the middle, and no doubt risk prosecution should they act to save themselves from the threat.
The police want the passengers contained until they are ready to act
The police are used to dealing with these sorts of things as hostage situations, where time is on their side.
The police are used to dealing with these sorts of things as hostage situations, where time is on their side.
Indeed. Unfortunately that will be of little consolation to the grieving relatives.
these sorts of things as hostage situations, where time is on their side.
That makes sense when the perp is in control of the hostages, but in this case the passengers and crew were in control of the attacker. They would have to go in eventually, so why wait?
radio ahead and all that
You are undoubtedly right. They would have been told the attacker was restrained so why did they wait 90 minutes before they got the passengers off the flight. They should have had a stairway ready before the plane landed and had the attacker off the plane in 5 minutes or less.
They would have been told the attacker was restrained so why did they wait 90 minutes before they got the passengers off the flight.
Because the only one on the plane that they could have talked to was the pilot and/or copilot neither of whom would have had first hand knowledge of what happened in the passenger compartment.
Then there is the possibility that the plane was hijacked successfully and the hijacker is trying to set a trap for the cops.
They don't care how many bystanders die, as long as no cops die.
And if Australian law is anything like US law, the cops can't/won't be held liable for money damages for civilian deaths no matter what the circumstances.
the pilot and/or copilot neither of whom would have had first hand knowledge of what happened in the passenger compartment.
Sadly, this episode is an indictment of Victorian (State of Australia) Police. The pilot told the tower the man was restrained when he requested the emergency return. The police initially claimed nobody told them. They waited 30 mins to get the Critical Incident Response team there, and they were delayed because they couldn't find some of their armour and weapons. The police and the Victorian Premier (head of Victorian parliament) are now in flat out spin control. Really embarrassing. This comes just days after our (yes I live in Victoria, Australia) coroner found fault with these same police for the way they handled a fatal hostage situation. Did I mention this is really embarrassing? I think it might be time we selected operational experts to lead the police, rather than career politicians, who really know bugger all about policing at the grass roots. Sigh.
time we selected operational experts
That seems logical. Now, all you have to do is convince the career politicians to make the change. Good luck with that.
all you have to do
Yep. Catch 22. The pollies change too often to be worried about long-term stuff-ups. It is depressing to see how many of them become wise after the event.
It is depressing to see how many of them become wise after the event.
No, they don't, they just become a different kind of foolish.
after the event.
Sort of like the fallout from our World Trade Center destruction, but in reverse. Our politicians and courts created an impossible situation for the police after the event.
It is generally accepted that most, but not all, terrorist acts of interest to the US are committed by people who have middle eastern features. If our airport police are on the look out for terrorists, it would make sense to focus 80+ % of your attention on people with middle east features. But our politicians and courts say that is racial profiling which is illegal.
It is generally accepted that most, but not all, terrorist acts of interest to the US are committed by people who have middle eastern features.
Is that true though? I see lots of stuff making the exact opposite case.
The report at http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 is typical. It shows that 90+% of terrorist attacks on US soil are by non-muslims.
It is true that the World Trade Center atrocity focussed the spotlight clearly on muslims, but the majority of those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and were funded by sources out of Saudi Arabia (i.e. Bin Laden) and yet Saudi Arabia is not on President Trump's ban list.
And as a percentage of perpetrators, those maniacs are a only a blip.
I would be keen to see data that supported the 'It is generally accepted that most, but not all, terrorist acts of interest to the US are committed by people who have middle eastern features' point of view.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Is that true though? I see lots of stuff making the exact opposite case.
It's half true.
Many countries, the US included, have problems with internal domestic terrorism. US domestic terrorism is largely not by Muslims.
Then there is international terrorism. International terrorism is almost exclusively committed by Islamic extremists.
International terrorism is almost exclusively committed by Islamic extremists.
I think that is probably true about middle eastern and perhaps some asian areas, perhaps because there are a LOT more Muslims there, but I know places like Canada, Northern Europe, Russia and Australia have more domestic and non-muslim terrorists. I must go look up damn lies about that too sometime.
I think that is probably true about middle eastern and perhaps some asian areas, perhaps because there are a LOT more Muslims there, but I know places like Canada,
When I say international terrorism, I am talking about terrorist acts for which the recruiting, planning and/or execution have crossed national boundaries.
Lots of countries have domestic terrorists. Out side of the middle east and Asia, these are not likely to be Muslims.
not likely to be Muslims
Most countries have a significant number of Muslims living in their borders some of whom are radicalized to some extent. There are also people who converted to the Muslim religion. I don't understand all of the why, but it seems these converts are more susceptible to radicalization.
True, but a sizeable fraction of those converts who become terrorists at least go to the middle east for training. That puts them in the international terrorism category.
When I say international terrorism
My personal thoughts are that terrorism is a tool currently used by religious extremists who want control.
This problem goes way back to before the middle ages. For instance, the Crusades involved both Christian and Muslim extremists who wanted control of the area.
I think of the problem as "tribalism". Something happened between Tribe A and Tribe B a thousand years ago, and they are still fighting over their ancestors' argument. They probably don't remember the original problem and the reason now is mutual hatred.
My personal thoughts are that terrorism is a tool currently used by religious extremists who want control.
There is also eco-terrorism.
My personal thoughts are that terrorism is a tool currently used by religious extremists who want control.
I think it could also be someone who is using religion as an excuse. Its just easier to gain followers who share the same basic religions.
Its why I try not to judge anyone based on their religion, skin color or origins. Of course I am only human and sometimes fail to do this properly.
sometimes fail to do this properly
I think we all do on occasion, especially when we are upset.
I think it could also be someone who is using religion as an excuse.
True. The Crusades was promoted as a religious war. If you look into the underlying reasons for the Crusades, you will find the two sides wanted control of the trade routes in that region.
When I say international terrorism
OK, understood. International used in the cross-national sense.
Zom be careful and leery of statistics about "terrorism" in the US. In my opinion the US authorities have a strong propensity to not label incidents as "terrorism" no matter the ethnicity of the person causing the incident.
Normal cautions about statistics also apply.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
I was thinking of 2 things when I wrote the passage:
1. The world-wide terrorist activities of ISIS, Al Quaeda, and similar organizations who are headquartered in the middle east.
2. The difficulties involved in identifying terrorists traveling to the US.
In your comment on the airline incident you seemed to indicate politicians should step out of their role of controlling the details of law enforcement efforts that they don't understand.
Since our 911 attack the opposite seems to be happening (i.e. politicians are involving themselves in the details of law enforcement activities). The main intent of my post addressed politicians and judicial jumping into a terrorist situation they apparently don't understand and implementing and enforcing policies and laws that make the law enforcement job of protecting the public more difficult.
I recognized that the US has homegrown terrorists who do not have non-middle eastern features, and that there are foreign born terrorists who have non-middle eastern features; thus my "not all" qualifier.
Some people just have to learn the hard way.
I only wish they'd learn on their own time instead of getting the rest of us mixed up in it.
bb
I suspect that Ernest Bywater and Peter Salus are sitting down with a cold pint and a big grin.
I suspect that Ernest Bywater and Peter Salus are sitting down with a cold pint and a big grin.
Well, here in Australia we have schooners of beer, not pints, and I don't drink beer. But I am enjoying a cold can of Coca-Cola at the moment.
BTW Peter H Salus who writes the Gordy and Weena stories is the same one in this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_H._Salus
There's a YouTube video by his G&W book publisher which connects the dots for you.
I don't know when he may have been in Australia, but some of his stories show he does mostly good research while also using some very localised terms in a much wider setting, and references many roads in a way we just don't do. All of which shows he knows some Australian culture, but replaces some of it with European culture and North American culture. It's also probable he prefers warm beer.
Holy crap:
As just a dumb ass Texas reader I had no idea. Wow,my hat is off to both of you two. By the way your research on your stories set in the U.S. is outstanding (especially about the Southwest) . If I had not read your early stories and blogs I would have thought you a native. I thank you and ALL authors on S.O.L. for the enjoyment you give us.
If correct, it makes his use of the descriptor "true story" for many of his submissions dishonest, though it had already crossed credibility grounds with his latest containing so much quoted conversation when the third party writer wasn't present.
However it does help explain his use a couple of times of the term poisonous when venomous would appear more accurate, particularly from a character who is supposed to be an expert.
If correct, it makes his use of the descriptor "true story" for many of his submissions dishonest,
Correct, the real giveaway is in the latest story. The main character, Gordie, is supposed to be from outback Queensland and also have spent a lot of time living in Sydney. In the latest story Gordie is my age and Peter has him calling roads by their A number e.g. A1 and A31 etc. No one of my generation would ever do that. The use of the A designation in road numbers is very recent and was picked up from Europe by government planners. National Highway 1 would be called that or Highway One, or more commonly The Princess Highway, the same with the Hume Highway and the Great Western Highway. Another giveaway is he has Gordie slowing down to 30 kph on dirt and gravel roads, while anyone with any experience in outback and rural driving would be doing 80 to 120 kph on the roads. One remote highway he mentions he has Gordie doing about 50 kph because it's only a single lane graded dirt road with a cleared area of another lane on each side of the main strip. I've driven over that road a lot, in the past, and the only times anyone does under 100 kph on it is after weeks of heavy rain and it's a mud slide (then they slow to 80 kph) or they're about to turn off into a farm road and drop to about 75 kph for the turn.
The ease with which he has Gordie carrying a pistol is another aspect - pistol licences in Australia are almost impossible to get, and that's been the case since the mid 1990s. Heck, it's difficult to get a licence for a bolt action rifle in many states, now - unless you're a farmer.
In the latest story Gordie is my age and Peter has him calling roads by their A number e.g. A1 and A31 etc. No one of my generation would ever do that.
I can confirm that. I'm about your age and have lived outside Australia for about 10 years. This is the first I've ever heard of highways having A-numbers.
As for 30 kph on dirt roads - unthinkable.
And people carrying pistols??? - Not in Australia, they don't! Except for licensed security guards while on the job, or similar.
In case neither of you read his blog entries, on 5th May he stated he would be 80 next year.
I have no idea how ancient you two are, but in my mind I had you as a decade (or should that be decayed?) less than that ;)
(I am past 65, so I am not being rude by referring to you as ancients, I am as well!)
I have no idea how ancient you two are,
I was born in 1954 - so I'm younger than Peter. However, it's only in the last five years or so the planners have been assigning a letter to major highways other than the M for Motorway for the Toll Road Highway bypassing Motorways. Even so, the great majority of people still refer to the highways by their names or their number without a letter at all. This is especially true of anyone who's been driving more than a decade.
In case neither of you read his blog entries
No I hadn't.
I knew I close to EB's age. I'm 60 ... but decaying fast. :(
I knew I close to EB's age. I'm 60
You guys are making me feel like a young whippersnapper, I'm only 47. :)
You guys are making me feel like a young whippersnapper, I'm only 47. :)
Well years is relative. I am 68 but at times I don't feel like it.
I don't feel like it.
In my 70 year old mind, I'm still in my 30's, but my body is claiming 85.
anyone with any experience in outback and rural driving
As I mentioned before, I spent some time in Perth, WA back in the 60's. I recall doing about 60-70 down one of those narrow outback roads that went up and down over the hills. I was driving on the left side of the road as I reached the top of one hill. There was no warning when I was suddenly presented with an oncoming truck taking his half of the road out of the middle.
I had about 1 second to react and as an American, and new driver in Australia, my instincts told me to swerve to the right to avoid a collision. I still don't know why I went off the road on the left side. We missed each other and I didn't see what the other driver did, and I found it a little upsetting that the other driver didn't stop to make sure I was okay.
I found it a little upsetting
If you had had contact, or had hit something else, or rolled, I'm sure he would have, if he had been awake enough to see you at all.
If it was a road train( which would explain the middle half), in the '60s it would have taken him 15 minutes to stop and walk back to where you were. Brakes weren't the best in the '60s and those guys didn't like to walk :-)
What I recall is the front of a pickup truck equipped with a Roo catcher. We almost collided at the crest of the hill. When you are on a narrow road and partially in the other persons lane, you have an obligation to at least verify the other guy is okay. More likely an inconsiderate or drunk driver.
pickup truck
I did it again! I still haven't learned that what you folk call a truck we call a ute or a flatbed. When I read 'truck' I immediately thought of something much larger.
You could well be right about the drunk bit…
You didn't really make a mistake. Americans themselves haven't even sorted out what a 'truck' actually is.
I have a pick-up. Registered as a truck and stated as such on my number plate.. In my locality those used for work state 'farm truck' or similar.
We have traffic signs stating 'no through trucks', but they don't apply to utes or pickups, only lorries / heavy goods vehicles / articulated, etc., etc.
The word as used is far from clear in the states, and doesn't clarify size nearly as much as it does in the UK or Oz.
We have traffic signs stating 'no through trucks', but they don't apply to utes or pickups, only lorries / heavy goods vehicles / articulated, etc., etc.
In my part of the US, such signs generally come with weight limits. (10, 20, 30 tons). Even the largest pickup trucks don't have that kind of haul capacity.
In my part of the US, such signs generally come with weight limits. (10, 20, 30 tons). Even the largest pickup trucks don't have that kind of haul capacity.
Another example of this, the law in my state (Wisconsin) defines who must stop at weigh stations not by purpose, commercial cargo vs personal transportation, but by GCVW (gross combined vehicle weight) The Cut off being 10,000 pounds. This means that some light commercial trucks don't have to stop, but a personal vehicle towing a large trailer might have to stop for a weigh station.
haven't even sorted out what a 'truck' actually is.
Yes, we have. A truck is any vehicle designed for use to carry cargo outside of the passenger compartment. Then we add an adjective (e.g. pickup, flatbed, dump, etc) to define the type of truck.
A truck is any vehicle designed for use to carry cargo outside of the passenger compartment.
Yep, SUVs, what the Aussies would call a ute, is not generally considered a truck (they don't get truck licenses for example), even in the few cases where they are built on a truck frame.
SUVs, what the Aussies would call a ute
REP's right about what Aussies would call a ute. The front half looks like an ordinary sedan. The back half has an uncovered, flat tray for cargo, etc.
REP's right about what Aussies would call a ute. The front half looks like an ordinary sedan. The back half has an uncovered, flat tray for cargo, etc.
Interesting, that I am aware of, there isn't anything remotely like that currently available in the US as a stock vehicle. Even the EL Camino was never that popular.
Even the EL Camino was never that popular.
In Australia they are exclusively work vehicles, and popular with tradesmen, farmers, etc.
In Australia they are exclusively work vehicles, and popular with tradesmen, farmers, etc.
they are mostly work vehicles for tradesmen and shopkeepers. However, they're also big with the late teens for carting things around in, like sports gear and coolers of beer etc.
they are mostly work vehicles for tradesmen and shopkeepers. However, they're also big with the late teens for carting things around in, like sports gear and coolers of beer etc.
Most dealers offer an optional dog to ride on the platform, if the buyer does not already have one.
bb
In Australia they are exclusively work vehicles, and popular with tradesmen, farmers, etc.
In the US, tradesman and farmers prefer real pick-up trucks. :)
In the US, tradesman and farmers prefer real pick-up trucks. :)
A major part of the Ute - truck issue in Australia is the laws on the vehicles.
A small ute like a Holden Commodore ute based on a sedan, along the lines of the old Chevy Camino, is under a tonne kerb weight, while the bigger ones along the lines of the Toyota Hi-lux and Holden Colorado are over 1 tonne kerb weight. A couple of decades ago the ALP Commonwealth government passed a law that all vehicles of over a certain kerb weight. I think it was one tonne, had to be diesel engines, and only diesel engines. Not much was said about the law at the time because it wasn't to have an effect for a decade to allow the car companies time to retool. However, that time has passed and the law has been in place for some years now.
The result is a large ute based on a truck body is a diesel due to being over the barrier weight, while the sedan based utes like the Commodore ute similar to the El Camino are under that weight and can be petrol (what you call gasoline in the US) engines. A lot of people don't like driving diesel engine vehicles.
Related to the design style is the insurance fees with the larger trucks have a higher loading than the sedan style.
Thus many people don't buy the bigger vehicles if the smaller ones will do.
I have not heard that term in 40 years,but you are right. In Texas in the 70's it was very popular among the high school crowd.
the EL Camino was never that popular.
The El Camino was discontinued in 1987. I think it was reintroduced around 2010-2011, and the new version seems to have a sportier look and interior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_El_Camino#The_mythical_1988_model_year
I think it was reintroduced around 2010-2011, and the new version seems to have a sportier look and interior.
According to your link they had concept cars based on the El Camino at car shows, but, not production vehicles from 2008 through 2011. There have been persistent rumers that GM would reintroduce an El Camino under the Chevrolet brand based on the Holdren Ute* since 2011, but it never happened and Holdren production is ending.
They had something sort of similar to the El Camino in 2003-2006 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR ) but it was canceled due to poor sales.
SUVs, what the Aussies would call a ute,
an SUV and a ute are very different. an SUV has a single large body like a station wagon with an overgrown rear cabin area, while a ute has a small cabin area with a tray back to carry things in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)
many are now built on a 1 tonne frame like a Toyota Hi-lux or a Holden Rodeo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Rodeo