> The probability of you being struck by lightning this year is 1/960,000.
And most people take precautions to avoid being hit by lightning.
A one in a million risk of death is easily enough to inspire action to reduce the risk.
And most people take precautions to avoid being hit by lightning.
A one in a million risk of death is easily enough to inspire action to reduce the risk.
If you do not take a balanced approach at protection, you risk losing out the mind war. The result? The US becomes a closed country, no longer the land of the free much less the brave. The ultimate goal of terrorism is achieved.
My reference for correct behavior towards terrorism is the UK during the IRA campaign. Security was handled as a serious affair, but as silently as possible. Some fatalities were deemed innevitable, and reported as such by the media.
While these groups are less sympathetic than the IRA, early ANC, or ETA(to an extent), it's a mistake, I think, to view them as wholly different, or less human.
*Edit to clarify, these guys are definitely assholes and we need to have strategies to counter their goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_I...
But if we actually followed their advice, terrorists would be an enormous threat because we'd take no steps to protect ourselves.
I feel as if you might be making my point for me.
If terrorists know you don't search children, they'll place bombs on children.
It's little use locking the front door while leaving the back door wide open.
Additionally I think you are vastly overestimating the number of terrorists out there trying to carry out these attacks. We didn't do much at all in the 1970's and 1980's beyond signals and human intelligence and attacks were very rare then. And this was when we were engaged in several proxy wars with Russia. There just aren't that many people out there that are both willing, interested, and capable of attacking US civilians in spectacularly deadly ways.
You are fear mongering. You are part of the problem, and people making you arguments are destroying our freedom of movement and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
To quote Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I thought pat-downs were only used on people who refused to go through the back scatter machines.
And I haven't seen sniffer dogs or explosive detection swabs routinely used on all passengers.
Insult me if you wish, but at least try to be honest about reality.
And my main point was the even before the security theatre, at the height of post WWII global violence, terrorist attacks in the US were exceedingly rare and they still are. This suggests that we likely didn't buy anything for the sale of individual liberty.
Do they have the operational capacity to carry out thousands of attacks like this a year? You might as well say: "if we only lock cockpit doors, but don't weld them shut, well then they'll cut through them."
We make exceptions all of the time based on feasibility and cost/benefit.
Do terrorists have bombs? They seem to know how to make them with extremely limited resources.
What do you think they're missing?
They don't have operational capacity to carry out thousands of attacks per year outside their primary area of strength by any means, and this isn't really all that relevant to attacks in that area.
So the question is: how much of an impact on their operational capacity to strike into, say, the US would it be to do this. Doesn't seem like it would be much.