
Thread beginning with comment 450312
by fran on Wed 17th Nov 2010 13:50 UTC
Member since:

I'm going to be the odd one out here. Thom’s article and all the quotes make pretty good points and I agree with many but the truth is always never that easy and the answer lies between two extremes.

Yes it is an inconvenience. But can you really measure even millions of peoples inconvenience against making it harder for terrorists to exceed and people die?

Research has shown that criminals and extremist have generally low IQ's. Although there is a lot of Dr. Evil genius exceptions. That means you would have a lot of half baked plans that seem perfect to the plotter.

If you prevent even a few attacks that might have happened if security where laxer, wouldn’t it be worth the trouble?

Also after 9/11 benzodiazepine tranquilisers like valium shot up to a level never seen before. People stopped flying and confidence needed to be restored. Security "improved" and people felt it was safer to fly again and the industry recovered. You can say that the perception of safety is liberating in itself.

So yes, it might not be perfect, it might inconvenience a lot of people but others feel safer from the increased security while some feel violated.

If plain clothes air marshals was aboard the 9/11 plane's wouldn’t you say there might have been a chance the terrorists plan might have not succeed?
Might there have been a chance that those plastic knives might have detected through the scanners?

Reply Score: 1