Terrorist 1 - Western Sheep 0
Aug. 11th, 2006 07:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Well done. The terrorist win again.
The purpose of terrorists is to strike terror not to kill people. That is just a way of doing the former. This time they won without killing people. They have the sheep like people of the US and UK running around waving their hands in the air in a panic.
Passengers now can only carry in a tiny number of things in a clear plastic bag. Everything else must go through the hold. When I fly to the US I inevitably take two laptops, my cell phone and my ipod. One laptop travels with me. The other in the hold in my hardened suitcase. The trip to LA is 18 hours so I also take lots of water. What the fuck am I going to do now? There's no fucking way I'm putting my stuff through the hold. They say don't lock your suitcase. So there's a suitcase, unlocked, full of expensive gear, being thrown around by baggage guys. And that's not accounting for me passing 18 hours of time twiddling my thumbs on an Airbus.
They were talking about ten planes being blown up and 'massive loss of life'. That would be say 5000 people max. About half of the number that die on US roads every year. About the number of people who get killed in Iraq in a few months. How many flights are there a day in the world? Have security yes, scan our belongings yes, but this is stupidity. It's trying to reduce the chances to zero which is impossible. What's next, we fly naked?
The terrorists have won because people are afraid and people are inconvenienced and worse than that, most people (see 'Have your say' on the BBC news web site) seem to agree with the decisions that have been made 'because it will make them safer'. 65 years ago life continued despite many of us being killed every day as bombs rained from the skies. I don't believe that would be the case now. We have become too soft.
Well if you are not willing to die for your liberty you are not entitled to be free!
The purpose of terrorists is to strike terror not to kill people. That is just a way of doing the former. This time they won without killing people. They have the sheep like people of the US and UK running around waving their hands in the air in a panic.
Passengers now can only carry in a tiny number of things in a clear plastic bag. Everything else must go through the hold. When I fly to the US I inevitably take two laptops, my cell phone and my ipod. One laptop travels with me. The other in the hold in my hardened suitcase. The trip to LA is 18 hours so I also take lots of water. What the fuck am I going to do now? There's no fucking way I'm putting my stuff through the hold. They say don't lock your suitcase. So there's a suitcase, unlocked, full of expensive gear, being thrown around by baggage guys. And that's not accounting for me passing 18 hours of time twiddling my thumbs on an Airbus.
They were talking about ten planes being blown up and 'massive loss of life'. That would be say 5000 people max. About half of the number that die on US roads every year. About the number of people who get killed in Iraq in a few months. How many flights are there a day in the world? Have security yes, scan our belongings yes, but this is stupidity. It's trying to reduce the chances to zero which is impossible. What's next, we fly naked?
The terrorists have won because people are afraid and people are inconvenienced and worse than that, most people (see 'Have your say' on the BBC news web site) seem to agree with the decisions that have been made 'because it will make them safer'. 65 years ago life continued despite many of us being killed every day as bombs rained from the skies. I don't believe that would be the case now. We have become too soft.
Well if you are not willing to die for your liberty you are not entitled to be free!
no subject
on 2006-08-11 07:37 am (UTC)Most of the comments I've seen have been along these lines to be honest. It just seems a huge amount of fuss. The kind of thing that gets politicians and journalists worked up.
no subject
on 2006-08-11 09:34 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-08-11 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-08-11 07:58 am (UTC)1) Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Hitler.
2) You stupid boy pike.
3) Don't panic Captain Mainwaring.
4) We're doomed, all doomed!
no subject
on 2006-08-11 08:12 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-08-11 09:29 am (UTC)Moreover, the al Qaeda fiends wantedd to make planes explodes on several cities. Multiply your 5000 for five or six.
no subject
on 2006-08-11 09:32 am (UTC)and frankly, since even if the terrorists blew up a plane every day, i'd still be more likely to die on the road, i'd rather not be so severely inconvenienced.
but then, after my last few flights, i'd already decided to try for a berth on a cargo ship next time...
no subject
on 2006-08-11 10:57 am (UTC)If you are worried about the likely hood of being killed in a terrorist attack you should never leave your house. You are *far* more likely to die on the roads as a motorist or pedestrian. In fact don't even leave your room. More people die on toilets or falling down stairs than on the roads.
I ride a motorbike. I know I could be killed. I reduce the risk to an acceptable level for me. I wear leathers and a good helmet and boots. Yes not riding the bike would be safer but where's the fun in that?
My parents lived through the war. I lived in the seventies when there was the IRA. I think planes are safe enough even considering the current global situation. Anything more will may stop that one in a million chance but is it worth it?
So to answer your question do I prefer being inconvenienced or dead. I prefer a level of inconvenience that reduces the chances of being dead to a tolerable level. If there is a chance of 1 in a million of me being dead, then that's fine for me.
no subject
on 2006-08-11 11:07 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-08-12 10:41 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-08-11 12:17 pm (UTC)My first reaction was suspicion - what are the top-pols up to that they need smokescreens? I hadn't realised how much I've come to distrust them.