Quote:
Originally Posted by mstyanda
Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps my analogy was a bit far fetched with the insurance premiums being compared to the cost of the TSA.
I still think that the "substitute" terrorist attacks thus far have been way less catastrophic than the almost 3000 lives lost on 09/11. What percentage of terrorist attacks have actually been prohibited due to the TSA being in place?... who knows.
That is just like trying to measure how many speeders didn't speed because a speedtrap is in place where it used to not be. How many took alternate routes so they could keep speeding and how many just slowed their asses down and accepted they couldn't speed via that route? All we have to go by is what happened before it was in place, and what has NOT happened since it has been in place. Too much to factor in to really measure its value IMHO.
|
fair enough
but to clarify, there is plenty of evidence what was about to transpire pre-911, and with it, plenty of controversy.
In the end, we're left with following the money, and 3k people died, and the VC in charge, with his company, managed to turn around and make trillions from the act.
So, if you want to talk about terrorism, what is worse? 3k people dying, or the theft of trillions of dollars from your economy, and in extension your infrastructure/government economy? that's a lot of kids not going to be getting educational perks.
If you were spending all this time, money, and lives on keeping your country safe, and it didn't work, why throw good money after bad?
Speed traps in comparison to war isn't fair either