4 ms·
You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deter
by greedo 13y ago
You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. It might be the NSA, CIA, or other organizations (US and other) that would be disrupting their plans. Otherwise it's back to the magic rock that keeps tigers away.
- laureny 13y ago> You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you are making a claim without backing it up.
- girvo 13y agoBecause while intuitively it makes "sense", there is no evidence to show that the possible correlation is instead direct causation.