3 ms·

I don't mind because it at the very least acts as a deterrent. What evidence do you have for that belief? Here's my evidence to the contrary -- if the TSA rea

by Amadou 13y ago

I don't mind because it at the very least acts as a deterrent. What evidence do you have for that belief? Here's my evidence to the contrary -- if the TSA really were deterring terrorist attacks, the result would be a shift to other targets. It isn't like a terrorist is going to just give up, go home and forget about causing terror. They are going to pick another easier target. So where are all the other attacks? Since 9/11 the number of civilian attacks has been less than the fingers on one hand, and the only one that wasn't just a bunch of mental midgets too incompetent to even ignite a bomb were the Boston Bombers. No, there is no deterrent here because there is nobody to deter. If there were actual, serious terrorists looking at getting onto planes, the TSA wouldn't make a bit of difference. We've got TSA agents using their privileged access to smuggle drugs - it wouldn't take much to swap a couple of keys of cocaine with a couple of bricks of C4 and those dummies would end up helping the terrorists. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/news/la-trb-tsa-drugs-20120426 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/news/la-trb-tsa-drug...

riffraff 13y ago
I like your reasoning, but couldn't you also say: in the ten years before 9/11 the number of civilian attacks on US airplanes has been less than the fingers on one hand. After TSA 100% of these happened on non-flight targets. Mind you, I still think the TSA is dumb.
- Amadou 13y ago
  You could say that, but it would be an intellectually dishonest framing of the facts. I feel confident that the line of reasoning I've used does not try to obscure anything. I believe it is as straightforward and honest an evaluation as anyone could make.
mikeash 13y ago
When you look at how easy it is to commit acts of terrorism, and how few acts of terrorism actually happen in this country, it becomes clear that the only reason for that is that there are very few motivated people. Automatic weapons are extremely easy to come by in this country. Think of the havoc you could create just walking up to an airport security checkpoint at rush hour and opening fire. If you know a few like-minded individuals, then you could synchronize the attacks to happen simultaneously at, say, JFK, Dulles, Reagan, and LAX. The casualties would be immense, and the subsequent panic would be enormous. There are about a million other possible scenarios you can cook up that take no more than a few semi-intelligent nutcases and a few thousand dollars. Of those million, the current system defends against perhaps ten. Although, when you look at it objectively, those attacks do happen fairly frequently. Navy Yard, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and many more. But we don't call them "terrorism"... why? Only because it doesn't fit the overly-specific mold that "terrorism" consists of. If they were brown middle-easterners shooting up schools, we'd call it terrorism no problem, but since it's a white dude, we call it something else. And because of that, there is basically no anti-terrorism effort directed at these things, furthering the argument that such efforts are completely useless.

by Amadou 13y ago

riffraff 13y ago

I like your reasoning, but couldn't you also say: in the ten years before 9/11 the number of civilian attacks on US airplanes has been less than the fingers on one hand. After TSA 100% of these happened on non-flight targets. Mind you, I still think the TSA is dumb.

Amadou 13y ago
You could say that, but it would be an intellectually dishonest framing of the facts. I feel confident that the line of reasoning I've used does not try to obscure anything. I believe it is as straightforward and honest an evaluation as anyone could make.

mikeash 13y ago

When you look at how easy it is to commit acts of terrorism, and how few acts of terrorism actually happen in this country, it becomes clear that the only reason for that is that there are very few motivated people. Automatic weapons are extremely easy to come by in this country. Think of the havoc you could create just walking up to an airport security checkpoint at rush hour and opening fire. If you know a few like-minded individuals, then you could synchronize the attacks to happen simultaneously at, say, JFK, Dulles, Reagan, and LAX. The casualties would be immense, and the subsequent panic would be enormous. There are about a million other possible scenarios you can cook up that take no more than a few semi-intelligent nutcases and a few thousand dollars. Of those million, the current system defends against perhaps ten. Although, when you look at it objectively, those attacks do happen fairly frequently. Navy Yard, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and many more. But we don't call them "terrorism"... why? Only because it doesn't fit the overly-specific mold that "terrorism" consists of. If they were brown middle-easterners shooting up schools, we'd call it terrorism no problem, but since it's a white dude, we call it something else. And because of that, there is basically no anti-terrorism effort directed at these things, furthering the argument that such efforts are completely useless.