On Saturday 18 Oct 2008 2:44:36 pm Charles Haynes wrote: > > The US has never really faced concerted serious terrorist attacks within > > its own heartland like India, or for that matter Britain, Germany and > > Spain. Or Russia. > > I guess that depends on what you consider "serious" or "concerted." > I'd think everyone would agree that the Oklahoma City bombing, the > first World Trade Center bombing, and the anthrax attacks were > "serious." Whether there have been "concerted" attacks or not is, as > you say, a matter of opinion.
Looked at from one particular perspective, what you have written and what I wrote are not mutually incompatible. Let me tell the story this way: "The US had a brief period when terrorist attacks seemed to become frequent. But the US security agencies clamped down so effectively on the weak spots that were open to misuse by terrorists that the US made itself relatively immune to terrorist attacks. This is in contrast to the weak, corrupt and ineficient response of the Indian government and security agencies who have not been able to prevent terror attacks in India." In short - checking shampoo bottles and profiling random designated "others" works well. It's just that people don't like those methods much because the "index of suspicion" of who might be a terrorist is increased. Freedom to "be free" and the freedom to terrorise are one and the same. Allowing one allows the other. shiv
