Charlie Bell wrote:
On 22/11/2006, at 3:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And so there are some f*ckers out there who have been responsible for
acts of terror causing the deaths of a few hundred people worldwide
on top of the WTC attacks.
I was going to write a long, impassioned response here, and then I
realized - you guys really don't believe that one can measure a threat
based upon the number of people that that threat succeeds in killing.
Actually, I do. And compared to just about any other cause of death you
can think of, terrorism is way way down the list. Like I've said, the
response is disproportionate to the risk.
Charlie
Charlie--
I agree, that's as good a way to measure things as any other.
I guess one could include economic damage somehow, but that
could get pretty nebulous.
On the other hand, maybe JDG means that just because things
turned out "well" in the past and relatively few people were
killed, it doesn't mean that the THREAT is minor. It could
just mean that we've been lucky so far. Got me. JDG?
---David
Which also might lead to a nebulous discussion. Maru.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
