On this topic, here's Teresa Nielsen Hayden, cogent and no-nonsense
as usual. I recommend that folks following this thread take the time
go read this post, and its associated links, carefully.
Udhay
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007871.html
August 17, 2006
Nothing to hope
On 8/17/06, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The IRA was never in the airport blowing up biz .. they've done a whole
lot of other things though (bombs in pubs, a car bomb in the parking lot
of the house of commons even)
The Indian-targeting terrorist also does not have an affin
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The IRA was never in the airport blowing up biz .. they've done a whole
lot of other things though (bombs in pubs, a car bomb in the parking lot
of the house of commons even)
Distinctly remember the IRA having fired mortar rounds into Heathrow(which led
to the ai
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
>
> I don't notice any historical mentions of such "defences" when the
> IRA was blowing up stuff.
>
The IRA was never in the airport blowing up biz .. they've done a whole
lot of other things though (bombs in pubs, a car bomb in the parking lot
of the house of commons even)
On 17/08/06 07:35 +0530, sastry wrote:
> On Thu August 17 2006 6:46 am, gabin kattukaran wrote:
>
> > In this aspect, how are we different from the Americans or the British?
> > Don't their politicians get more security cover than Joe Average?
>
All animals are equal, but some animals are more eq
On Thu August 17 2006 10:29 am, gabin kattukaran wrote:
> If old Joe is getting _enough_ security, why would the politicians require
> more?
> One could also argue that all the nail clippers and swiss army knives
> routinely
> confiscated by our security guys are routinely averting terror attacks.
Sorry for being anal about this. I promise to shut up after this.On 8/17/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes but Joe Average gets enough security to thwart terror attacks. Thedisruption in UK airports recently was part of the security measures for Joe
Average - and no Joe Average got killed,
On Thu August 17 2006 6:46 am, gabin kattukaran wrote:
> In this aspect, how are we different from the Americans or the British?
> Don't their politicians get more security cover than Joe Average?
Yes but Joe Average gets enough security to thwart terror attacks. The
disruption in UK airports re
On 8/17/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Indian politician uses public money for z category security because heconsiders his life more valuable. People who travel in public transport arenot entitled ro such security because their lives are less valuable.
In this aspect, how are we differen
On Wed August 16 2006 10:53 pm, Badri Natarajan wrote:
> I think that's the point (and the strength) of the Indian mentality, really
> - we just treat terrorist attacks as a fact of life (and recognize how rare
> they are in terms of actual odds).
Unfortunately I strongly believe that if we take t
>saved) by "anti-terror" measures? yes, probably. but everyone takes traffic
deaths as a fact of life and air terror as >something much more scary, so
it's more socially acceptable to go to ridiculous extremes to prevent the
latter rather than >the former. it also makes people feel patriotic ta
it's not just an issue of valuing human life less; it's a question of
cost-benefit analysis, where it seems natural (but is irrational) to value
one type of loss of life higher than another.
for instance, in 2004, 42636 people died in traffic accidents in the US.
this probably far more than di
>It is because the West takes the slightest risk of terror seriously that we
see events like the recent "Liquid bomb >threat" to aircraft. As someone
pointed out - India is taking a "chalta hai"/"adjusht maadi" attitude to
terror and the
I think that is the strength of the Indian approach to te
On Wed August 16 2006 1:13 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
> and you seriously think this is _because_ of the US's actions
Yes I do believe the US has scared the crap out of terrorists more than it
gets credit for.
The UK is a slightly different ballgame (for reasons I will not go into now) -
but
At 18:25 16/08/2006, sastry wrote:
India is taking a "chalta hai"/"adjusht maadi" attitude to
terror and the public pays for that.
the public has paid quite a high price for the "liquid bomb" threat. the
actual risks of a liquid bomb on a plane have not increased; the chemistry
has been known
On Wed August 16 2006 10:10 pm, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
> In India, the cost of human life is less as we have more people. Obviously
> the more of something you have the less you value it.
He he he - that statement should really be the subject of a totally new
thread. I have theories.
shiv
At 18:25 16/08/2006, you wrote:
Funnily enough the US too violated lots of rights as part of increased
security and went and overran two nations in response to the (real or
perceived) threat. The US has not seen any further homeland terror after
that.
and you seriously think this is _because_ o
On 8/16/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
perceived) threat. The US has not seen any further homeland terror after
that. For India it's business as usual. I just wonder how much terror India
would face if it had the capability (and will) to respond as robustly as the
US did. Compared to the U
At 17:39 16/08/2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
And if you think indian security (especially at an airport like srinagar
or delhi) is bad, then I invite you to fly El Al to Tel Aviv some day.
israel faces, on a per capita basis, a much bigger threat than india, so i
would hesitate to call e
On Wed August 16 2006 12:04 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
> i am not sure how you argue that india underreacts to terror, while the
> west overreacts.
The name of this thread suggests that there was an overreaction. The link that
the first post led to alleged that there may have been no threat at
On 8/16/06, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i am not sure how you argue that india underreacts to terror, while the
west overreacts.
There might be some truth ito Shiv's argument. South Africa decided to
return home after the blasts in ri Lanka while India decide to stay back.
The
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
> indian airports have had universal pat-down screening, no
> batteries-on-board, identify-your-bag and other "overreacting" rules for
> air passengers for decades, while the west had barely any security at all.
>
> india has had laws on the books that invade privacy and
i am not sure how you argue that india underreacts to terror, while the
west overreacts.
indian airports have had universal pat-down screening, no
batteries-on-board, identify-your-bag and other "overreacting" rules for
air passengers for decades, while the west had barely any security at all.
On Wed August 16 2006 7:26 pm, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> I am not sure exactly why you're trolling, but I look forward to your
> further explanation, in order to perform my own cost-benefit analysis
> on further participation in this thread.
Fair enough.
I believe that in this particular issue it
Shiv,
sastry wrote: [ on 06:13 PM 8/16/2006 ]
> Did you intend to imply that the events above were connected? If yes,
> citations? If not, why are you bunching them together?
I am making the connection. I am asking people who read my message
to make the
connection and test the connection the
On Wed August 16 2006 5:12 pm, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Did you intend to imply that the events above were connected? If yes,
> citations? If not, why are you bunching them together?
I am making the connection. I am asking people who read my message to make the
connection and test the connection
sastry wrote: [ on 04:51 PM 8/16/2006 ]
Did you know that Infosys donated Rs 1 crore (10 Million rupees) or some such
humongous figure as aid for the earthquake victims of Pakistan. Jamaat ud
Dawa, a Pakistani Islamic charity - has used earthquake relief funds to
fund terror training. Infosys
On 8/16/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Infosys was one of the companies that argued against
military action after the Indian parliament was attacked in 2002.
It is obvious why Infosys would do that. It affects their business.
There are hard $$$ behind that move and no pacifist motive as
On Wed August 16 2006 2:37 pm, ashok wrote:
> but, what is a pro-active reaction starting more wars and more
> bloodshed...?
Unfortunately "pro-active war" is a Bush-Blair reaction. Wars cannot be
started lightly - especially in the light of what you have yourself said -
and I quote below:
Agree that the terrorism in india has
largely been ignored by the west, probably becuase it never came
home to thembut this is true for
every terrorism problem in every country in the world.
but, what is a pro-active reaction
starting more wars and more bloodshed...?
recently on occass
At 2006-08-16 11:01:53 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That is exactly why I said (I repeat): "We the public have a duty to
> choose which side we want to be on"
I refuse to be forced into "choosing" either side.
I certainly don't sympathise with any terrorist agenda, but nor will I
meekly ac
On Wed August 16 2006 1:32 pm, Dave Long wrote:
>>
> Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?
Yes - now that she is behaving herself and wears a modest dress :)
> I do not see too great a difference in views between "leaders" who
> claim their holy ends justify their violent means and "lea
there is an interesting parallel in
joseph conrad's 'the secret agent' (written almost a 100 years back
in 1907).
the book is about the aftermath of a
suicide-bombing plot on greenwich observatory. the bombing
fails,
(or 'it was destined to fail' as one
of the characters implies) and one
That is exactly why I said (I repeat): "We the public have a duty to
choose
which side we want to be on"
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?
We blow on foods hot from the oven to cool them down, yet we blow on
hands cold from exposure to warm them up, and neither act is
inconsist
Yes, that was my first thought too.
All the news coverage from the days leading up to the
supposed threats was about what an idiot
blair was ...and that he was merely tangoing to
Gwb's tunes.
But, some people will never believe
itI got a stream of text messages from a couple of
a
On Wed August 16 2006 10:51 am, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> > We the public have a duty to choose which side we want to be on.
>
> Sure, except the bunch running the terrizm hunt have shown a surprising
> proclivity to cry wolf every time it suits them.
That is exactly why I said (I repeat): "We t
sastry wrote:
On Tue August 15 2006 11:25 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
’some did not even have passports…’
[...]
We the public have a duty to choose which side we want to be on.
Sure, except the bunch running the terrizm hunt have shown a surprising
proclivity to cry wolf every time it su
On Tue August 15 2006 11:25 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
> ’some did not even have passports…’
But what do these guys want? Do they want a couple of airliners blown up
before accepting that there was a threat?
Reminds me of an asshole on my med college alumni website who asked, after
serial mu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote:
> Interesting, and not surprising...
>
> http://www.voyantes.net/blog/?p=160
>
> ’some did not even have passports…’
Wag the Dog ehh ? Always works...
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?';
But I dream things that neve
Interesting, and not surprising...
http://www.voyantes.net/blog/?p=160
’some did not even have passports…’
thats right. it looks like those ‘terrorists’ who were arrested last
week in london were not even close to blowing up anything, let alone
boarding an international flight. according to
40 matches
Mail list logo
