3 ms·
> That's not borne out by actual attacks. Are you sure? The majority of largest terrorist attacks, casualty wise, didn't even involve a plane except for Septem
by BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> That's not borne out by actual attacks.
Are you sure? The majority of largest terrorist attacks, casualty wise, didn't even involve a plane except for September 11th attacks (obviously several did but not the majority) [1].
> The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts.
That airport bombing was very different than the suggested TSA security line hypothetical as the airports in Istanbul work fundamentally different (I addressed in the other comment).
What facts am I denying? I always try to base my opinion around only facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_viol...
- MichaelGG 10y agoSorry not accusing you of denying facts. I was referring to my suggestion that bombings at security lines were less fatal due to incompetence. As in, I agree that security lines should be high-fatality, but in reality it seems attackers have problems carrying it out. Airplanes might not be targeted as much, but that wiki link shows they are the most deadly per bomb. The other high-fatality bombings were multiple bombs. In the end, my point is that despite the concern for security lines, they don't seem to end up being the massive disaster they could be. Certainly they are not worse than the airplane attacks they seek to prevent, which is the main point.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoFair enough
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]