brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Mon Sep 9 22:23:56 EST 2002


"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
news:aljjhf$d24$1 at panix2.panix.com...
> >All of which ignores that 70% of attempts by federal agents acting as
> >passengers to smuggle such weapons onto passenger jets, AFTER these
> >"security measures" were implemented, were successful.
> >
> >You jews and "liberals" just can never understand the basic problems, can
> >you?
>
> I understand the problem fine.  It's you who doesn't grasp that it
> doesn't matter if a hijacker can smuggle a knife or even handgun on board
> if the passengers and crew aren't going to be sufficiently impressed by it
to
> surrender the plane, and especially not if an F-16 is going to blow a
> plane out of the sky if the passengers and crew do surrender it.
>


This is like talking to a child.

No, that's an insult to children--this is like talking to a jew.

Not only did you not "understand the problem fine", you didn't even
understand the point.

You were bragging about how all this extra security is going to prevent
hijackings, and I pointed out to you that all this extra affirmative-action
"security" is *precisely* what enabled 70% of the weapons that federal
inspectors carried with them to be smuggled past "security" onto aircraft.
duh, if this is the result AFTER "security" is "enhanced", then what was the
state of "airport security" before?

To answer that question, we spent more than $12 trillion for "national
defense" in the last half a century, and STILL lost the WTC, a putative $50
billion loss.

How much would we have lost if we had spent NOTHING for "national defense"?
$100 billion?  $200 billion?  $400 billion?  If we had spent NOTHING for
"national defense", and lost $11 trillion to "terrorists", we'd still be one
TRILLION dollars ahead of the game, right?

"especially not if an F-16 is going to blow a plane out of the sky if the
passengers and crew do surrender it" is the OLD, obsolete paradigm.  It
didn't work, did it?  That was SUPPOSED to happen, but jew Bush ORDERED the
USAF to s-t-a-n-d d-o-w-n, right?

Nobody else could have ordered the Air Force NOT to intercept, other than
jew Bush, right?

If hijackers are on a suicide mission to crash into the Pentagon, not one
single one of the disarmed passengers, pilots, or crew on the airplane needs
to be "sufficiently impressed by" anything the hijackers do, say, or
possess.  Preventing passengers from carrying weapons on an aircraft is even
better than drawing a huge target on our backs with 'SHOOT ME' written in
great big block letters right in the bull's eye.

If just ONE passenger on each of these four planes had had just ONE gun, we
wouldn't be wallowing around today trying to justify the STUPIDITY of
throwing out the Second Amendment. If they had ALL had guns, there would
have been an instantly dead 19 JEWISH hijackers and we wouldn't be spending
billions of dollars chasing our tails in Afghanistan.

John Knight















More information about the Neur-sci mailing list