force_redo
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 146
(Sorry to open another thread on this, but the other one derailed into the creation of Denmark or something like that... 
)
Thing is: I fully agree that this air marshall (or these air marshalls?) has done his job pretty much like I would have done it, if I was in his shoes. Whether he had good reason to think there was an immanent threat or not I don't know, but time and moreso the investigation will tell.
However, as far as I think the security means are somehow well meant, I start doubting if they aren't a bit overdone. As somebody else pointed out in the other thread: With the killing of the guy in the London underground and this guy now, we have two innocent people dead and no terrorists.
Now, if I start to imagine that this sad track record would carry on, at what point would you start doubting this security system? With 10 innocent people dead? Or 100? Or 3000?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, therefore this is a hypothetical question, but it makes me worry. Obviously, as soon as more people would get killed by security than the worst terrorist attack could, there must be something wrong. However, the question is: Should one sit back and wait how it turns out and put up with such tragic deaths or should this system be somehow changed so that we might put up with another terrorist attack. I find this quite difficult to decide...
And sorry, I cannot agree with people who say that if you have this or that disorder you shouldn't fly. This is no excuse. I think a security system should be made to serve the people, not the other way around.
FR
)Thing is: I fully agree that this air marshall (or these air marshalls?) has done his job pretty much like I would have done it, if I was in his shoes. Whether he had good reason to think there was an immanent threat or not I don't know, but time and moreso the investigation will tell.
However, as far as I think the security means are somehow well meant, I start doubting if they aren't a bit overdone. As somebody else pointed out in the other thread: With the killing of the guy in the London underground and this guy now, we have two innocent people dead and no terrorists.
Now, if I start to imagine that this sad track record would carry on, at what point would you start doubting this security system? With 10 innocent people dead? Or 100? Or 3000?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, therefore this is a hypothetical question, but it makes me worry. Obviously, as soon as more people would get killed by security than the worst terrorist attack could, there must be something wrong. However, the question is: Should one sit back and wait how it turns out and put up with such tragic deaths or should this system be somehow changed so that we might put up with another terrorist attack. I find this quite difficult to decide...
And sorry, I cannot agree with people who say that if you have this or that disorder you shouldn't fly. This is no excuse. I think a security system should be made to serve the people, not the other way around.
FR
