Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-08-15, BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Personally I would be happy in a world with no terrorist or criminals,
>> that isn't going to happen, so instead I would be happy for those who's
>> job it is to protect us get access to what ever information their require
>> to do the job safely (for them).
>>
>> If we deny them then we can't really grumble the next time aircraft are
>> flown into buildings.
>
> I'm okay with that. Seriously.
>
> Terrorist attacks aren't that big a deal, relatively speaking. We'd
> save a lot more lives (and money, BTW) by, e.g., increasing auto safety
> standards, offering incentives to quit smoking, or spent the
> anti-terrorism money on encouraging better diet and exercise.
>
Is how you die of no value to you then? You are grouping voluntary risk of
smoking with the unexpected death from a suicide bomber together.
Where does the money come into this? Would you like to pay a penny less tax
because the people who are being killed are of no value to you personally.
Well news stories are a bit like film stories aren't there, we're all
hardened to it. In fact the film makers do a better job, more blood, bigger
explosions, close ups of dismembered bodies. Loads better than the real
thing which only involves a feeble popping sound from a real gun and some
stranger laying under a blanket on the road.
But can you really not attach the person under the blanket to real people?
Are you so hardened to the evening news and the films you watch that all of
it is merged into pure fantasy?
Statistics of death by numbers only have value if the statistics are
counting someone other than yourself. So if you are not involved enough to
care then cutting the terrorist budget is viable. However, if your town was
for some reason a major target, weekly bombs in town center shops, bars,
clubs even the band stand down the local park where kids are playing on
swings, then you would no doubt expect a big local terrorist defence
system. You can only stay shut in your room for so long before you have to
get out there and take the risk of buying a pint of milk. People around the
world live like this, it has even been like this here in Europe and is
likely to eventually reach America.
> Aircraft won't be flown into buildings again. Not because terrorists
> wouldn't *like* to do it, but because they just can't. Screw air
> marshals, regular *passengers* won't stand for a hijacking. Richard Reid
> learned that. Smuggling *bombs* onto planes is still a viable strategy,
> but there are ways to deal with that. Look at El Al's security measures,
> for example. Nobody's gotten a bomb onto one of their planes in a *long*
> time.
>
People rarely do anything. They will sit there waiting for someone else to
be first to taggle the hijacker. The first man will likely be stabbed or
shot, the second one stands the greater chance of over powering him. Only
one of the planes is known to have had to be ditched because some of the
passengers were getting too close to taking the plane back.
You don't need a bomb on a plane, the plane is a bomb. All you need is
someone to get through that door at the front or able to disable the plane
from in the cabin. There are so many trying that eventually one will get
through. It doesn't have to be an American airline either, any plane will
do, also the target doesn't have to be any more than the airport terminal.
Who could stop the plane in those last few minutes after an otherwise
normal flight.
America is a target, these people want to bring America down and enough of
them honestly believe in that so much that they will from time to time find
a way in. All of this business in the middle east is doing nothing to
reduce that. They may knock out a few of the known zealots, but they are
many many more that are not known.
Do you really not care about your fellow citizens, just spetacular
explosions on the News program, better than ten minutes of a presidential
speach. Maybe you don't care. Thank goodness some do.
> I'm *much* more worried about law enforcement officials invading my
> privacy and starting witch hunts. We have kind of a history of that in
> the US, none of it good.
>
It is a very sad situation to see a nation reguarding it's security forces
as The Enemy. Police out on the streets at night, risking a bullet or two,
why? for the wages is it? Probably involves a decent wage, much needed when
so many of the average jobs in the US are contractless so that companies
can get rid of people easier or cut wages on a whim in order to make a
higher profit. Employees with no rights, even getting them to sign away
legal rights or they don't get the job.
Then of cause you get too many close to the bread line, of those some will
look for another way to make a living. Some of those will end up shooting a
Cop. Another one will burgle your apartment, he will have to carry a gun or
a knife of cause, because you might have one, he isn't doing this because
he is brave, but because he is desperate, if he sees a shadow at the door
he will fire his gun, because he is frightened you will shoot him.
Some of them will feel very let down by the system, blaming the government
or their neighbour for their lack of money. Of those some will join
religious cults, have meetings, disgruntled moans will turn to hatred and
some will plan ways to get their own back.
Your security forces can't do anything at all for these people except
protect the ones that haven't yet been hit by the poverty stick.
The tricky part for you is that the poverty trap is growing fast whilst
America's growth period is now gone. There isn't anything to grow into.
Russia is growing, but that is ruled by mafia. Imagine that, the head of
the mafia has his finger on the big red button. The middle east has lost
much of its growth, they are relying on holliday villages at the moment to
make up the difference. We had that for a time in the UK, we called it
Butlins. China is growing and is very defensive at the moment, all it has
to do is sit there and wait, eventually it will be the most powerfull
nation of all. But first it has to worry about those rusian mafia on it's
borders.
So in time the numbers of disgruntled men and women joining the underground
cults in the US are going to grow. At the same time, in order to keep a
reasonable growth, America itself has to become the terrorist. It has to
call in the markers from the third world which it still holds heavily in
debt just for this very purpose, a means to continue growth. That will take
a lot of bullying and they have to start that before the landslide decline.
Forget this idea that terrorism doesn't involve you, your stuck right in the
middle of it all, you are the target and the source.
|
|
