raidermatt
Be water, my friend.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Messages
- 6,848
No, I would not happily do anything, but no lines have been crossed as of yet.
A few comments on some of the other points brought up:
Does airport security make us safer? Of course it does. If airport security had no real impact against terrorists, they most certainly would have repeated what happened on 9/11 several times by now.
Does airport security provide absolute safety? Of course not. But its simply not true that the terrorists know all the ways around that security. Again, if they did, they would have struck here in the US multiple times since 9/11.
Also, its important to remember that a security system does not have to be absolute to be effective. If a terrorist knows there is a 50% chance he will be caught/stopped before carrying out his mission, he's likely to not try it in the first place. Its not about being willing to die for their cause. We know that's the case. But from a practical pov, they can't afford to just send 100's of suicide bombers on planes in the hopes some will get through. They don't have those kinds of resources.
Why is there more focus on airline security than on other transportation systems and infrastructure? Simply because air travel is the target of choice for terrorists. All this talk about the practical impact and cost of a subway being blown up, or a bridge, or whatever, is largely irrelevant. Until the terrorists figure out how to commit their acts using weapons of mass destruction, they simply don't have the resources to inflict serious practical damage on these types of systems.
The cost to repair the subway, or several subway systems for that matter, would be a drop in the bucket.
Striking air travel is preferred by the terrorists for several reasons. First, as we saw on 9/11, hijacking an airplane gives them a far more powerful explosive device than they could ever put in their ice chest. This allows them to inflict more practical damage. Second, and far more important, is that striking air travel has a far greater psychological impact on people. It causes people to cancel vacations, reduce business travel, and shakes their confidence in our country's security far more than a strike on a subway, or a bus, or at WDW would.
THAT'S why there's so much focus on airline security. Its the target of choice and for good reason.
Think about the recently foiled plot. 10 planes, for example, being brought down on the same day, some over highly populated areas, would have a far greater practical and psychological impact than 10 suicide bombers striking at shopping malls, or subways, or theme parks around the country.
That's not to say terrorists won't turn to these "lesser" targets if they are convinced they can't count on a successful airline attack. But if they do, it won't be because they duped us into looking in the wrong place. It will be because we took their first choice away.
As I mentioned before, all of this is based on the terrorists not having weapons of mass destruction at their disposal. If/when they get to that point, all bets are off.
Finally, I also can't agree with the idea that if we submit to greater security checks, or "worry" about terrorism, then the terrorists have won. They couldn't care less about what we are scared about, or how we spend our free time. What they do care about is our foreign policy. The extremists want us completely out of their business, including with Israel. They believe that if they fight hard enough and long enough, we will eventually quit and give in. Bin Laden has talked about this before. He points to the way we bailed out of Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, and other tough situations and believes we will do so again if they can scare us enough. When we let the fear of terrorism dictate our actions in the way the terrorists wish, THEN they will have won.
That's not to say that every action we commit is right. Only that if we are going to make changes, it needs to be done for the right reasons, not out of fear.
A few comments on some of the other points brought up:
Does airport security make us safer? Of course it does. If airport security had no real impact against terrorists, they most certainly would have repeated what happened on 9/11 several times by now.
Does airport security provide absolute safety? Of course not. But its simply not true that the terrorists know all the ways around that security. Again, if they did, they would have struck here in the US multiple times since 9/11.
Also, its important to remember that a security system does not have to be absolute to be effective. If a terrorist knows there is a 50% chance he will be caught/stopped before carrying out his mission, he's likely to not try it in the first place. Its not about being willing to die for their cause. We know that's the case. But from a practical pov, they can't afford to just send 100's of suicide bombers on planes in the hopes some will get through. They don't have those kinds of resources.
Why is there more focus on airline security than on other transportation systems and infrastructure? Simply because air travel is the target of choice for terrorists. All this talk about the practical impact and cost of a subway being blown up, or a bridge, or whatever, is largely irrelevant. Until the terrorists figure out how to commit their acts using weapons of mass destruction, they simply don't have the resources to inflict serious practical damage on these types of systems.
The cost to repair the subway, or several subway systems for that matter, would be a drop in the bucket.
Striking air travel is preferred by the terrorists for several reasons. First, as we saw on 9/11, hijacking an airplane gives them a far more powerful explosive device than they could ever put in their ice chest. This allows them to inflict more practical damage. Second, and far more important, is that striking air travel has a far greater psychological impact on people. It causes people to cancel vacations, reduce business travel, and shakes their confidence in our country's security far more than a strike on a subway, or a bus, or at WDW would.
THAT'S why there's so much focus on airline security. Its the target of choice and for good reason.
Think about the recently foiled plot. 10 planes, for example, being brought down on the same day, some over highly populated areas, would have a far greater practical and psychological impact than 10 suicide bombers striking at shopping malls, or subways, or theme parks around the country.
That's not to say terrorists won't turn to these "lesser" targets if they are convinced they can't count on a successful airline attack. But if they do, it won't be because they duped us into looking in the wrong place. It will be because we took their first choice away.
As I mentioned before, all of this is based on the terrorists not having weapons of mass destruction at their disposal. If/when they get to that point, all bets are off.
Finally, I also can't agree with the idea that if we submit to greater security checks, or "worry" about terrorism, then the terrorists have won. They couldn't care less about what we are scared about, or how we spend our free time. What they do care about is our foreign policy. The extremists want us completely out of their business, including with Israel. They believe that if they fight hard enough and long enough, we will eventually quit and give in. Bin Laden has talked about this before. He points to the way we bailed out of Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, and other tough situations and believes we will do so again if they can scare us enough. When we let the fear of terrorism dictate our actions in the way the terrorists wish, THEN they will have won.
That's not to say that every action we commit is right. Only that if we are going to make changes, it needs to be done for the right reasons, not out of fear.
