9/11 Well, tomorrow will be 5 years since the WTC catastrophy and, despite all the dollars put into our safety, many say that we are no safer than we were before the event. I don't doubt we could be hit again should someone with financial backing desire to do so and according to GW, many have just such a desire. Even the most conservative thinkers would have to admit that something doesn't add up here. So what gives? Discuss.
you know, i am a creepy kid i think, every now and again i think, uhhh wth i could easily like destroy this thing, like if i were to put a bomb in my suitcase and checked it, do they do screenings on that stuff as well? i think the president could easily be killed and i dont think he has enough protection, there will always be ways to get around somthing just a certain genius has to get arounhd it
Of course we're still vulnerable, there's just so many ways to get us as far as terrorism is concerned. But I would say that we're safer than we were before, not just the U.S., but worldwide. From catching the shoe bomber to catching that liquid stuff in the UK, we've advanced by leaps and bounds.
We're on top of things. Now if people would be chill about it as well the terrorists would get bored and go home :tongue:
Until Pres. Wacky Macky Amajinglejangle and his government are blownt o hamburger, the war cannot hope to ever come to an end. Let's get our troops out of Iraq and into Iran and finish the damned job.
It is easy to say that our safety is no better when you have suggested no way to measure it. Our perceived safety is obviously lower, since that is what happens when something like this happens, it makes us realize that we are vulnerable.
Before 9-11 we failed to stop every act of terrorism against us. Since then, we'll admit to having stopped quite a few. We're safer now becasue we're taking it more seriously than we did before. And yet, still not seriously enough.
You can't say we are safer, either, unless you have something better than "we have stopped some attacks and haven't been attacked again" but yes, we certainly need to realize that we are vulnerable and act accordingly and appropriately (the meaning of appropriately perhaps the big problem between dems and reps right now).
I say we're safer because we're now looking for the enemy and for the most part taking action when it's warrented. The improvements we need to make is get rid of the PC bull**** and politics and concentrate of prosecuting the war to it's fullest and get it over as fast and violently as possible. The enemy will not quit until we make it impossible for them to wage war. Impossible by not only killling their forces but by destroying their warmaking ability and smashing their will to fight. The origional invasion of Iraq and the fight for Fallujah is how this war must be prosecuted. Not the pissant garrison act we're engaged in now.
The only criteria of safety is the number of incidents over the amount of time. So, since it's been five years since 9/11, how about we just examine the ratio? How many terrorist incidents happened in the last five years? How many happened in the five years before 9/11? And the five years before that?
Reading and counting aren't your thing, are they? You've got mindless parrotting nailed though, which is nice. Give thought a chance. If one is to believe the U.S. State Department, terrorist events increased to 1111 in 2005. Up from 650 in 2004 and 174 in 2003. These are all incidents.
We'll always be vulnerable, complete security is impossible. Are we more or less safe? That's not quantifiable. Maybe if we were deep inside the NSA or something we might be able to make some educated guesses about it, but even then that's all it would be. But as for the precautions at airports - well, a few things; 1. Putting guns on planes. Wow, what a wonderful plan. Al Qaeda, despite all that planning, was unable to get a gun onboard an airplane. But now EVERY airplane has a gun onboard. Pure genius. I suppose in this respect we're less safe now. 2. If you really want to raise the security level, it's going to cost a fortune. Most of the staff responsible for our safety on a plane are low-income earners, and I can't speak for non-Australian airports but over here many of them are on the take. So I'd say that's one big priority - but then again it may cripple the airlines to have to pay for better staff, so what are you going to do? Better than having a birthday on Christmas Day though. Or on February 29. And on the up side, no-one forgets it. Stop saying Wacky Macky. Macky is not a word. You can't find anything either derogatory or appropriate that rhymes with "wacky", accept it. Check out my tiger-rock store on eBay. Well, his show was an act of terrorism so it doesn't bother me.
That affected white people? In America? Are you rejecting those numbers based on some rules you have in mind?
Why? Perhaps the number of lives lost to terrorist incidents would be better? No. Why do you assume I did? And what numbers have I rejected? What's with these defensive reactions to a simple question? Which numbers to use depends entirely on the question at hand. Are we talking about the world, or just about the US?
