I hope I don't sound insensitive, and I know this is a really touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always wondered how passive the victims of the 9/11 hijackings have been to have been take over by three guys with box cutters.
I realize that they probably threatened them with things they didn't have. I guess when you have more to lose you take less risks in such situations. I imagine I'd react differently than a someone on the poverty level in Pakistan in such a situation.
I'd completely agree with Cools there. If I was in a highjacking situation (and thinking logically), I'd assume that the best move would be to keep my head down, not cause any trouble, the plane would eventually land in Geneva or something and I'd get a crazy story out of it. Like, I'd still assume that - in a post September 11th terrorist attack world. The thought of some motherfuckers actually crashing the planes into buildings as they did would seem so alien at the time that I imagine most people just wanted to stay the course. Wasn't that the inspiration behind the actions of those aboard the plane that went down without hitting a target? They had somehow found out about the other planes first and sprung to action?
All in all, it's a really interesting question. I'm sure Game Theory comes into play here - if acting independently, you have a far higher chance of reaching the worst outcome (death) by taking action than you do if you do nothing. Crowd dynamics also probably come into play. The planes were probably full of (for the most part) independent agents, making it far less likely for someone willing to take that far higher chance of bodily harm for those around them (especially factoring in that most highjackings previously ended up with no one hurt). Very small alterations in the situation - like the presence of a professional sports team, military squadron, or even large destination wedding party on the plane could make all the difference in the world. If you were to care enough for those around you to take the hit for them and be confident that they cared enough about you in order to put themselves on the line to back you up, your thought process would probably be very different than if you're one individual in a crowd of strangers.
But the most interesting part of your post, as far as I'm concerned is the disclaimer at the start. Are Americans really that sensitive about the subject, or do we, the rest of the world, assume they are?
