As I recall, it was still a minority of the folks on board that fought back. And on 3 of the other 4 flights, either no one, or very few, fought back.
As for "winning", the passengers had a 10:1 numerical advantage and wound up dying anyway. If you want to call that "winning", be my guest.
I'm not interested in playing "feel-good emotional" games on this issue. The truth is that 19 thugs overpowered 300 Americans and killed 3000 people on 9/11.
So it's important to examine why this occurred. I don't think 19 foreigners could have taken 300 Americans 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. So what changed?
My point is simply that the "warrior mentality" has nearly been eradicated by the gov't in this country. People are taught from the time they are in gov't schools that you "shouldn't fight back" and "do what the bad guys say", and "weapons are bad". Well, the results of this corrupt ideology were seen on 9/11.
Had the cockpit been secured, they would have landed safely
Up until 20 years ago, the cockpits were quite secure since pilots could carry guns. And 40 years ago, planes were even more secure since passengers could bring guns on board.
I am more than a bit unhappy with the insinuation that American reaction on 9/11 was characterized by cowardice.
What happened on those planes wasn't "cowardice". It was the result of 40 years of programming by the gov't, law enforcement, the media, and the education establishment, that "average citizens" should not resist tyranny. In many areas, it is even a criminal offense to "fight back". (This mentality still persists today in many areas-- a retired NYC cop was recently arrested in New Joisey for "fighting back" against a carjacker)
Fortunately, a few brave passengers on Flight 93 overrode this conditioning, fought back, and saved hundreds of lives.
In the aftermath, *some* Americans have snapped out of this submissive mentality and acquired the tools and skills to successfully fight back (although their government still bans them from being armed on planes). And other Americans have become even more servile.
I am loath to question to valor of those who are dead & unable to defend themselves. But hey, that is just me
As for "winning", the passengers had a 10:1 numerical advantage and wound up dying anyway. If you want to call that "winning", be my guest.
Had the cockpit been secured, their victory would not have been a Pyhrric. As I recall, Americans lost at the Alamo. Only a silly goose would question the honor of those who gave their lives there.
So it's important to examine why this occurred. I don't think 19 foreigners could have taken 300 Americans 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. So what changed?
Well, I might be a literal minded moron, but there were not planes 100 years ago. Per hijacking, the ground rules changed. Before the optimal rule to ensure survival was to cooperate. Now it is to resist. Americans, being pragmatic, game the odds & behave accordingly. Were there another hijackings, they would resist. We are not a nation of cowards, all this nonsense about 'statism' notwithstanding.
In many areas, it is even a criminal offense to "fight back". (This mentality still persists today in many areas-- a retired NYC cop was recently arrested in New Joisey for "fighting back" against a carjacker)
The former officer was issued a summons for illegally possessing a handgun in New Jersey. Do I think it is a stupid law? Yes. But it does not mark the downfall of American civilization. Nope
And other Americans have become even more servile.
Evidently Bin Laden thought Americans were servile. That we would topple like the Soviet Union, once he declared a jihad on us.
Bin Laden was mistaken
100 years ago, if there had been such airplanes, the outcome would have been the same.
You should REALLY check out Discovery Channel's DVD "Navy SEALS" before you start making such accusations. Better still, go to Fort Bragg and see what the Rangers or Green Berets think of such insane statements. You better be a very good runner after you state it to such people.