Jonny

... well... need to clean my youtube history again.  thx dude

great job, they look awesome!

I think back to those brave americans on 9/11 that decided it would be better to crash into a field, than allow the terrorists to hit Washington DC. There are times when sacrifice is needed by a few, to prevent the deaths of many. It's not fair, but freedom, as they say, requires blood sacrifice to be maintained. That is not just limited to those in uniform. There are many brave souls standing watch today, and I thank God for them, but I for one would rather die at the hands of American fighter pilots, then in the hands of terrorists, accomplishing their twisted goals. Shoot the plane down, then honor the sacrifice of those who die by eliminating those responsible.
 
Soldier on the battle field,
Sailor on the sea;
Pilot in the bright blue sky,
All willing to die to keep us free.
 
Be Pono!
 
Landshark

The needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one.

that's exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to start, thank you for sharing your oppinion

im any of my family or friends were on that plane... they were going to die anyway. Shot them down to save the other lives. Hijackers dont hijack to keep the plane anymore.. they want to use it as a bomb.

very well said...

i agree with hxtr, save the people on the ground and blow that fucker out of the sky. maybe by doing that the terrorist will leave the damn airplanes alone.

To make it more difficult, what if the plane was filled with the various woman's beach volley ball teams.
 
Actually Johnny, for your class, you might want to read the short story "The Cold Equations."

This is the Wiki summary for the Cold Equations:
 
Summary
The story takes place entirely aboard an Emergency Dispatch Ship (EDS) headed for the frontier planet Woden with a load of desperately needed medical supplies. The pilot, Barton, discovers a stowaway: an eighteen-year-old girl. By law, all EDS stowaways are to be jettisoned because EDS vessels carry no more fuel than is absolutely necessary to land safely at their destination. The girl, Marilyn, merely wants to see her brother, Gerry, and is not aware of the law. When boarding the EDS, Marilyn sees the "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT!" sign, but thinks she will simply have to pay a fine if she is caught. Barton explains that her presence dooms the mission by exceeding the weight limit, and will result in the deaths of the colonists. No cargo can be jettisoned, and the presence of the captain is required on ship, so Barton cannot sacrifice himself. After contacting her brother, Marilyn willingly walks out of the airlock and is ejected into space.
The story, first published in the August 1954 issue of Astounding, has been widely anthologized and even dramatized.

 
really so your daughter and grandchild are on that flight and you would for the sake of everyone else shoot that plane down? nahh I dont think so.

it would not be my choice.... that is my point. It will happen one way or the other if it happened. 
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if it did happen...... dont expect me to let it go. I will get my revenge some how.

any fighting sport like boxing or kick-boxing? or only team sports?

Well, this is all the point. So then, why do mothers let their sons go to war? One has to know that liberty has no price, even a mother's tears.

i guess it's the same dilemna when US govt has to decide to use nuclear weapon on Japan. Killing thousands to ensure that millions wouldn't... and they choosed to use it, so if this airplane thread was at a big major city range, i think i'd shoot it down.

im sure the people that would be in charge would shoot it down because they probably would not have there own kids or family members on that flight..otherwise they would negotiate like they always do then eventually take out the hi jackers like they have in the past.
 
if your child or grandchild was on that flight would you be so quick to take there life to save many other lives??

NO

1. Society Moral's... The terrorist's have weapon's .... passenger's will die...... if terrorist's survive, year's of appeal's and we feed the bastard's
 
2.Animal Moral's ..... ever see what happen's when ya fuck with a lion's cub ................. swift justice, death to the intruder ... no appeal's , no cost to the people...............
 
3.Answer to question: No, as head of state, I do not have the right to end live's .................. I would not order it ...." The passenger's have the right to fight to live" ................ Question : why isnt the cockpit protected by airmarshel's ........ and why isnt there at least 3 more throughout the plane............ cause one marshel just don't cut it ............

Rarely is there an easier question to answer on these boards, shoot it down.

Jonny when it comes to the only variables being morals and ethics you are fucked either way you go. Everyone has different morals and ethical standards as you have seen in the post itself. What you have to think of is what it will take for people to go against their morals or ethical views to save others. No one would want to take out a plane full of people. (Sorry no matter what any of you say it would bring tears to your eyes if you had to make a choice of taking down a plane with your family or children on it.) A lot of people would tell you to take out the plane, but when if comes to that person actually making that decision things become more complicated mentally. Take out a hundred to save a thousand, yes this seems to be the better of your choices given. It makes more sense, but as stated there are so many more routes to take now that we have had the 9/11 attacks.

Depends on the terrorists intentions,
if they are just wanting to be allowed to land somwhere, then you would let the game run, because once on the ground the state has options.
1,(Negotiate)
2,(do something to incapacitate the terrorists, drugs in food drink etc)
3,(Finally, if all else fails, storm the plane - at least some of the innocents will survive)
 
However if it's a situation like 9/11, where the intention is to crash the plane, then the only option is to bring it down first.
(Because the innocents are going to die whichever course of action you follow)
Having said all that it wouldn't be a decision I would wish for anybody to have to make - and I hope it never comes to that.

Have to let it ride out,you cant kill innocent people on the assumption something worse will happen,unless you have intel on the terrorists actual plan of an actual place where they plan on attacking.

I think location is important on this one. If it's over Washington DC, NYC, LA, or within range of a nuclear power plant, etc you gotta put 'er down. It would be nice if you could just freeze the bastard.

Unfortunately, there's not enough information to make a good decision. With just that info, I'd sit and wait it out. But, at the end of the day, if it's a choice between shooting down an airline, or letting it crash into a building, it's going to get shot down.
 
Plus, I highly doubt an terrorist could get away with hijacking an airline today. We learned our lessons from 9/11. The only way to hijack an airline would be to kill everyone on board. Otherwise, you're going to have a swift and violent insurrection on your hands.

 
I think he asked for sensible responses. So only Chuck Norris would do