i just find the magnitude of the response to be a little absurd, 
unless they really were making a huge gamble with our lives prior to 
the announcement.  This also awakens my inner cynic with senate 
elections coming so soon.

irregardless isn't a word.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote:

>
> I think the reasoning there is to not tip off this organization they were 
> monitoring, for better or worse.  The more general question there is why not 
> use all reasonable restrictions all the time (like no carry-on) if these 
> measures are deemed effective (irregardless of whether or not they actually 
> are, per Dan's points).
>
> B-
>
> Kevin Lochner wrote:
>> Here's my question:
>> 
>> seeing as the british intelligence knew about this plot well in advance and 
>> saw no reason to ban liquids on planes leading up to the publicity stunt 
>> regarding the bust, why was it suddenly soooooo important to make sure that 
>> no liquids came through after they announced it?
>> 
>> And what about the US?  banning liquids on US domestic flights wouldn't 
>> have jeopardized the british bust, so why all of a sudden do we have to get 
>> worked up about liquids on flights?
>> 
>> - kevin
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why stop with explosives.  If you really want to being the Western world 
>>> to a halt, do the following:
>>> - obtain the plague or some other nasty virus
>>> - infect yourself with said virus
>>> - buy yourself a few international flights going through Ohare, Heathrow, 
>>> and wherever else
>>> - cough a lot
>>> 
>>> If you wanted to target a single country, just use domestic flights.  THAT 
>>> is the kind of attack that is scary as hell.  But again, what security 
>>> measures will we go through to prevent it?	Surveillance...I hope they 
>>> surveil the hell out of terrorist cells to see what they're up to, sure. 
>>> In terms of dealing with the general public though, we can either start 
>>> buying gas masks or try to improve the world (tm) and make people consider 
>>> NOT destroying us.
>>> 
>>> B-
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Robert Felty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> James,
>>>> 
>>>> You are right to point out this inconsistency. However, consider the fact 
>>>> that there is very little security on passenger train travel in the U.S. 
>>>> and in most of Europe. In the U.S., not many people actually ride trains, 
>>>> so blowing up a few would not be that big a setback, but in Europe it 
>>>> could be. Blowing up a bunch of railroad tracks in the U.S. could really 
>>>> cripple shipping though (or major highways). I am not trying to give the 
>>>> terrorists ideas here, but let's say that they start targeting some of 
>>>> these outlets as well. We will have to build up more and more security 
>>>> measures. Where does it stop? We will never get one step ahead of the 
>>>> terrorists. That is the advantage of the attacker.
>>>> 
>>>> I still don't know all the details of the latest attempted attack, but it 
>>>> sounds like these attackers never even set foot in an airport. Their plan 
>>>> was foiled long before that. Evidence recovered after the 9/11 attacks 
>>>> shows that it also probably could have been avoided by similar means, 
>>>> i.e. by using intelligence agencies, without inconveniencing travelers.
>>>> 
>>>> Rob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:53 PM, James W Mickens wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Back to Nate and Danny's ideas. I for one would rather not
>>>>>> have security in airports whatsoever. I would be plenty happy
>>>>>> to take my chances. I don't think that every plane would
>>>>>> suddenly start blowing up.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I strongly disagree. By your own analysis, "there are lots of people who 
>>>>> hate the U.S." and will do organizations like Hamas "a favor by harming 
>>>>> the evil U.S." If this is true, it couldn't possibly be the case that 
>>>>> our airplanes would be reasonably safe with no security at our airports. 
>>>>> In fact, we can almost be certain that there would be a huge upswing in 
>>>>> terrorists attacks, if only because Bin Laden is on the record as saying 
>>>>> that he *wants* to hit us again. Every one of the Bin Laden tapes 
>>>>> contains ominous warnings about future attacks. He is not being 
>>>>> sarcastic. In conjunction with addressing the root causes of terrorism, 
>>>>> we have to protect ourselves against the people who already hate us now. 
>>>>> We must be realistic about the dangers that face us. The British, 
>>>>> American, and Pakistani intelligence agencies just broke up a major 
>>>>> terrorist plot against airliners. This is the context for the entire 
>>>>> conversation that we're having now. The threat is real.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ~j
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>