Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
But the Security Services (remember them? Those wonderful people...) allegedly had *plenty* of warnings that an attack like September 11th was going to happen, yet they were unable to stop those attacks.
|
OK, so in future should they react to warnings? And then be criticised if there is no subsequent attack? Or should they ignore warnings and hope nothing happens? It can't be both ways. |
That comment was in response to your statement "And it's a pity we had to experience September 11th, before we worked to prevent "another" September 11th."
As I pointed out below, people *do not* respond rationally or logically to dangers. If we had spent millions on trying to prevent September 11th *before* it happened and caused huge inconvenience to many air travellers without (seemingly) good reason, there *would* be those who would have criticised this (NB please note that I did *not* say I would be amongst them).
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The number of people killed on September 11th is approximately the same number killed on the USA's roads in *one month* and resulted in a massive downturn in people using air travel, even though there were huge increases in security.
The number of people who died in rail accidents such as Paddington or Hatfield are the equivalent of a couple of *days* deaths on the roads in the UK, but they caused a lot of people to decide to stop using trains and, instead, go back to road travel *even though* they would actually be less safe.
|
There is a difference: 9/11 deaths were caused deliberately.
|
<rhetorical>So thousands dying on the roads *by accident* makes those deaths better somehow? </rhetorical>
However the fact remains that people *DO NOT* respond to threats and risks in a rational manner, but this is what is happening with the current laws being proposed.