Re: OT: Terrorism

["Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>]

[snip]
> As far as I can see, a jet laden with fuel is the most potent
weapon that
> terrorists could sensibly get hold of and after yesterday I don't
want to
> see them ever get hold of one again. If that means that I never see
another
> pilot or flight deck then so be it.

To reduce the number of rapes on women, they will now all be
accompanied at all times by a bodyguard. Although this means they
lose the right to privacy, so be it. An odd analogy maybe, but would
this rather extreme and costly (both on a monetary and personal
level) action actually be worth the result? Where would you draw the
line where you stop trying to "cure" a "minority"
problem?

Rather than worry about what someone may or may not do at 30,000
feet, stop them getting there. The terrorists defeated air*port*
security not air*plane* security.

By securing the aircraft, you merely move the problem somewhere else.
Now you just need to infiltrate the crew of an aircraft to take over
it from behind a sealed door. A company will then actually pay you a
salary to fly their plane out and take out a sky scraper rather than
the "group leader" footing the bill out of his inheritance.

A comparison with money is not particularly appropriate. Money is a
high risk item since without protection there are a huge number of
people who would take advantage of it's availability. From small time
pick pockets up to the master[sic] criminals. The security is against
a very likely threat from a large number of potential sources.

Terrorism, is a very tiny majority and as such to install these
similar levels of protection to money to an aircraft flight deck over
one event is IMO a ludricous proposal particularly when there are
much better ways to try and prevent a future occurence.

As you said yourself, it took a *lot* of planning, a lot of money and
a lot of time. It should have been picked up by Intelligence. It
wasn't.

Besides, there are many other "low tech" general service items
which
could become a weapon in the right/wrong hands. Stopping someone
using a plane will only make them look elsewhere. The problem remains
and it will happen again.

Maybe a fleet of fuel tankers will drive into the foyer of buildings
throughout a city and create far more widespread and devasating
destruction and loss of life. Or maybe private aircraft rather than
commercial ones will be utilised. I am sure there are thousands of
equally potent "weapons" but not being a terrorist nor having any
desires to reduce finacial and defence centres to rubble, I cannot
think of many :)

Look how the UK was almost brought to a halt by a few farmers and
tractors outside fuel distribution points. Not really terrorist
action, but very "low tech" and *very* effective.

Should we think to apply this monetary security to everything which
could be a potential weapon?

Or more simply, should we allow terrorists to dictate our lives
through the effort we go to attempt to cure something we would be far
better placed preventing?

Mark.