On 26/11/2006, at 3:19 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ 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.
So, using this logic, because death from a bombing on an air craft
is a
statistically super-unlikely event, you would no doubt recommend
removing *all* metal detectors and screeenings from airports, because
the costs of these measures do not outweight the costs of the deaths
prevented.....
Bag screening is in place for a number of reasons, as are metal
detectors. An overall deterrent to people (not just terrorists)
bringing dangerous items on planes is a good thing for everyone, and
it gives the *impression* that we're totally safe. But you know that.
The security on planes is still a joke, really. Ceramic razors. Glass
bottles in the cabin. And you know that too. (Or maybe you don't.
Maybe you have no idea how easy it is to make weapons.)
What I was referring to, as you well know, is that the invasion of
Iraq was a disproportionate response (and a complete fuck-up) to the
attacks of 11th September 2001.
The world was with you on Afghanistan. You should have finished the
job properly.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
