ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 21 Oct 2008 1:09:18 am Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> > "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. >> >> They clamped down? Really? Not that anyone I know has noticed. > > Ah. So you don't really think checking shampoo bottles and random > watch lists has anything to do with clamping down on the possiblity > of terrorism then?
No, it doesn't. Both are utterly worthless acts. The activities have to do with providing the public with the belief that politicians are "doing something" -- neither has any effect on terrorism. Your claim, reproduced above, is that somehow the US has patched its weak spots in its security and that we are therefore now more secure. Neither activity you cite has any actual value in increasing security, so I can't see how they can possibly be causally linked to the claimed effect. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
