I think (Christian) you might still be looking at it from a standpoint of "9/11 was bad to the USA ... so the rest of the world has to view it as bad also" etc.
I don't think that's the point we are trying to make, although I can't speak for others obviously.
No, that's certainly not my point of view. Using planes as weapons is just sick, no matter where it happens. It _is_ bad, no doubt about that.
I understand why you keep mentioning auto accidents ... but I don't think you're understanding why a plane is POTENTIALLY more harmful.
If 9/11 had happened anywhere (doesn't matter whether it's the US or not), and a similar impact on that country was the result, I would be willing to bet the ripple effects would be similar. Why?
* the massive loss of life from a single incident
* the crippling damage to a specific area
* the unpredictable strain/damage to the economy
* the effect on public fears/infrastructure
When you measure the mortality and financial impact and long-term effects something like 9/11 had ---- compared to the overall amount of auto accidents and their impact ---- I would be willing to guess that measuring one automobile accident to one plane crashing into a major metropoliton building is pennies to a vault full of gold. In other words, it would take hundred if not thousands of automobile accidents over a specific amount of time to equal the amount of damage a single plane can cause.
Yes, it is pretty obvious that a single plane crash, even if the plane just crashes over some empty land, costs a lot of lives. That's the risk that is involved in putting a lot of people onto a single vehicle.
That crashing a plane into a building has a big impact, is also pretty clear. But, and here is the problem that i see in your logic when you say that "measuring one automobile accident to one plane crashing into a major metropoliton building is pennies to a vault full of gold".
If we are to argue about the overall impact, you can not compare a single car accident to a single incident of a plane crashing into a building. If anything, you have to look at the total of one year, for example. And then it becomes pretty clear that other things cause a lot of bad stuff as well. Car's are just an example i have chosen because they are so common and there are solid statistics about the deaths caused by them (or their drivers).
The point regarding fear is indeed a valid one. But that goes into psychology as well, and i have little knowledge of that when it comes to many people at once. But i think that there is the effect of a single incident causing a lot of harm, which the people will notice much easier because of the dimension of it. On the contrary, people care little about things like car accidents. If they see one, they only see a few people involved, usually.
As a result ---- it would be nice to DETER and try to PREVENT a repeat of that incident. It doesn't matter that it happened in the USA. It's true obviously that hijacking isn't new, and neither is crashing planes ... but seeing the "success" that an organization had with their efforts in the new method that was used (9/11) sheds light to new ideas on how to use planes as weapons in ways that weren't thought of before, or were unsuccessful when attempted. If just two more planes were hijacked and used in a similar manner ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD .... the resultant security measures would be immense and the comparisons to auto accidents would start to pale.
Of course it should be tried to prevent that from happening again. I simply think that this should not be done at any price. Airlines do not check every single component and screw and stuff before a plane takes off. While they do extensive checking and service (well, most do), they also consider what is an useful amount of checking, and at what point it would be "overdoing" it.
In some ways, it's like trying to prevent copycats. And also ... keep in mind ... it is also about financial pressure from a public that would react in fear. That's counted as part of the overall impact/damage. Feeling safe makes some people want to fly who would otherwise be reluctant .... thus keeping airlines in business .... thus keeping ticket prices lower. Make people more afraid to fly, and companies go out of business, and your ticket price skyrockets. Is that what you would prefer as well?
Well, i think that there is a major impact by all these excessive security. It puts the people in constant fear. People will start to suspect that some harmless bloke is a potential terrorist just because he looks different. They are always reminded about the supposed threat at any moment.
Again, it is not only security checks at airports. It is sniffing in phone and internet connections, storing who connected whom or what. It is about recording each and any financial transaction. It is about spying on each and everyone just in the name of anti-terror laws. IMHO they abuse the whole anti-terror stuff to push things through that otherwise would have no chance.
Airport security scan's are simply the most obvious and visible things related to that. But they are also only a rather small part of the overall things done.
That's what i mean when i say that the things implemented in the name of anti-terror are not justified compared to the results.
It's not just about loss of life alone ... it's overall damage --- in which public opinion/fear/behavior is a factor as well. In this sense, I believe comparing it to auto accidents is apples to oranges.
As i said above, i have little knowledge about the psychological reactions of "masses" to such things. It is my point of view that such thing get easily exaggerated because they are simply more "impressive" than all the little things. If people would be made more aware of the risks of participating in traffic, for example, they would start to think differently about that. And by "made more aware" i mean the same level of reporting, news coverage, etc. that is done with terrorism. Imagine each and every accident would result in a 1 hour programme about it. Followed by another two hours about the now increased overall number of people killed, the impact on economy, etc.
I'm simply not willing to give up my privacy, and having me suspected as a terrorist by default, just because of some religious fanatics. Doing so would simply mean that they have won. I do not want to live in constant fear of an terror attack because there simply is no reason to do so.
Greetings,
Chris
