Sky Marshals Shoot Passenger

[Ophiolite]

The natural consequence of a flawed, misdirected and unnecessary 'war on terror'.

[H W Copeland]

The natural consequence of a flawed, misdirected and unnecessary 'war on terror'.

 

 

:D

 

You know, I wondered how long it would take for someone to point out that it was Bush's fault.

[Ophiolite]

Not at all. The fault lies plainly at the door of the American electorate, especially the large proportion who chose not to vote. Reflect on the wisdom of the expression "A nation gets the government it deserves."

A sobering thought.

[Pangloss]

Am I like the only person on these boards who's ever heard of the Shoe Bomber?

 

Mind-boggling.

[Tetrahedrite]

Not at all. The fault lies plainly at the door of the American electorate' date=' especially the large proportion who chose not to vote. Reflect on the wisdom of the expression "A nation gets the government it deserves."

A sobering thought.[/quote']

I agree totally. At least some people (even in the USA) are starting to gain some common sense and are realising that a majority of the talk surrounding the "war on terror" (it makes me want to spew just saying it) is just political hype used to scare the populace.

[ecoli]

Am I like the only person on these boards who's ever heard of the Shoe Bomber?

 

Mind-boggling.

 

Not at all. It's funny how easily people forget real terrorist attacks after the happen... Just because they caught the Shoe bomber, and the 9/11 attacks were 4 years ago, doesn't mean it can't happen again.

[Ophiolite]

Am I like the only person on these boards who's ever heard of the Shoe Bomber?

Mind-boggling.

I think we may have a lot in common' date=' PanGloss [apart from both being [i']homo sapiens[/i]]. We both attempt to use logic and reason to arrive at our conclusions. So, whilst our conclusions must largely remain opinions, we feel they are well founded opinions.

Naturally, I think my opinion, at least in this matter, has a stronger foundation. Let me illustrate (note I do not say prove) why?

 

At the outset I shall ignore any motiviation for 'the war on terror'. I have my thoughts on that, but they are irrelevant to my main thesis.

 

The stated purpose of the 'war on terror' is (as I understand it) to protect the lives of US citizens, US residents, and secondarily peaceful persons globally, from terrorist attacks.

 

I am not going on a google hunt to impress you with my acquired knowledge. You are a smart individual: you have a rough idea of the numbers associated with each of these.

 

Persons killed in road traffic 'accidents' in the US each year

Persons killed in the US as a result of driving while intoxicated by drugs or alcohol

Persons killed in the US as a result of illegal drug taking

Persons murdered in the US

Persons dying in hospital as the result of errors (to the unitiated, this is a scary one)

 

You may be able to think of similar categories. It seems plain to me that on a cold blooded, hard headed, actuarial basis, the 'war on terror' is a waste of money. The cost of this 'war on terror', applied to one or more of the real killers of innocent (or just ill informed)citizens could make a real difference to the number of dead.

Statistically it is just not valid. It is a waste of money.

[Pangloss]

Well that's a perfectly reasonable argument, not mind-boggling at all, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. I also agree with it to a large extent in terms of how it applies to many areas of the "war on terror". I just would not apply that specific reasoning to the specific case of armed sky marshals. I think there are other areas that are much more wasteful and pointless than spending money in an area where we factually know that a specific threat is possible.

 

But I admit that you've given me a new angle to consider on the subject.