>>Which proves my point
You keep saying this but you never demonstrate how <lol>
>>You're operating in hindsight.
Nope.
>>You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the >>flight schools.
Errrrmmmmmm..................yeah. You look for any body who may be associated
with him. Are those people in training schools? Where have THEY been?
How the fuck is this hindsight if the WTC hasn't been attacked yet?
Oh wait I see....its hindsight because it happened in the past......right?
>>Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.
That is correct......you monitor those things which you think look like the most promising leads. This, is incidentally a well-established approach to catching people that you want to find. It works for spies, criminals and lost kittens. You don't actually look EVERYWHERE because the world is actually quite a large place. Almost as big as a planet in fact. I put it to you that a pilot school who calls the FBI detailing how someone wants to only learn how to fly big jets excluding landing and taking off...is providing a promising lead. "We were busy doing other stuff"
is not an acceptable explanation. Not least because they actually arrested him.
If you want a far more plausible explanation......they thought he was one of the smaller fish and were going to let him loose and have him lead them to the leaders. Might not be correct but its a fuck of a lot better than "Well we can't be expected to watch evryone you know".
Also: >>You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING.
You have at no time demonstrated why it is necessary to monitor everything
before you have ANY impact on security. My argument is that it IS possible to have an impact.
Look...........you ask for WHAT possible things I could have monitored because
you didn't think there were any. I pointed out some things that *could* have been used and therefore how they *could* have been apprehended.
>>And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security.
Course yer not! LMAO. I refute it thus.
From: [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065]
>>No matter how hard you try. There is no 100% guarantee of safety.
(Your inability to keep track of your own ideas makes this just too easy
ya know)
>>I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from >>killing himself and victims.
But....errrrrrrrrrm...well............errrrmmmmmmmm...........this happens
all the time. Don't know what to tell you......
[link|http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/08/06/LatestNews/LatestNews.31959.html|http://www.jpost.co...s.31959.html]
>>But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely >>to die from a family member than from a terrorist.
I can't find the numbers for 2001, but I have them for 1985.
They will help to serve a point.
[link|http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm|http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm]
The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597, a total 7 percent lower than 1994 and 13 percent lower than 1991. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000 inhabitants.
---Based on supplemental data received, 77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49 percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white.
---Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that 91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older. Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white.
---Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or girlfriends.
Crunch these numbers and you get
499 males killed by wives/girlfriends
1291 females killed husbands/boyfriends
1790 Total people killed
Of these, how many of them had been the victims of threats/aggression/violent behavior prior to their murder. Hint: Its the vast majority.
Very few are killed "out of the blue". Hence......you may ask yourself the following question "Do I feel threatened by aggression from my partner/spouse?" If the answer is yes........you statistically have a higher likelihood
of being killed by them. If the answer is no..............as it is for most of us.....you have a statistically very LOW probability that you will be killed by a family member. You may effectively remove yourself from concern that you are going to be killed in this way. This perhaps explains WHY it is that people don't go through the world worrying about being killed by family members.
It is statistically (and in reality) not likely to happen.
Now......how many of the 1790 should we attribute to the "out of the blue" kinds of homicides which we SHOULD be concerned about because they come without
warning or prior intimidation? Well....I don't know......but just for the sake
of illustration, if we say it is 100 people...its gonna take 30 years for homicide by spouse to catch up with the WTC disaster (and that assumes there
is never another attack).
Also, when you make your quote about likelihoods.....
"But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist". What period of time did you have in mind.....a year? Clearly if you pick the year 2001......your numbers
look a little shaky to say the least...3000 vs. ummmmmm something smaller. If you want to choose a longer window your statistics may start to "catch up".
But one problem is that the larger you make your window the less meaningful is the observation. In 20 years time, the insight that its more likely to be killed
by a family member than a terrorist might be met with "ya we know...they're all dead" or............it might be met with ....."does that include the 15,000 who
died from smallpox in 2012?"
So it seems that the insight is just plain wrong if you take the short-term view or it is not very valuable or useful in the long-term view.
Either way its crap.
What it all boils down to is how afraid you want to let yourself be.
>>So I'm not willing to give the government any more authority to spy on me >>than it had before.
You haven't demonstrated that they have gained more authority. The things
they do now they could do before. They have less administrative work than they
did before.