1/4 Why the fascination with blowing up airplanes? Airports have tight
security. It doesn't seem worth it. It's far easier to derail a
train or set off explosives in a crowded place like a theater or
sporting event. As many or more people will be killed and it will
still make the news. I don't get why all of our security, and
apprently much of the terrorist's resources, is focused on airplanes.
\_ how about ... a really really tall building??!?!?!?
Or Disneyland? Or luxury cruise ships?
\_ Like maybe a federal building or the World Trade Center.
\_ Someone on NPR claimed that it was due to two things:
1) Al Qaeda hates globalization and airplanes are a very visible
symbol of globalization
2) They like to be on the evening news. An airplane blowing up,
especially over a crowded city, is a spectacular event.
They have also attacked the London subway and blown up trains in
India and Spain, so mass transit gets attacked, too.
\_ Understood, but the screening process is very tight at airports.
I can much more easily plant explosives elsewhere and there's not
even any need to be suicidal about it. It will make just as
big of a splash as blowing up a plane. This moron on his way
to Detroit could have used those explosives in a much more
effective manner, IMO. Why bother trying to smuggle them
onto a plane?
\_ again, news coverage. Thats why its 'terrorism' and not just
'mass murder'
\_ 1. I don't think blowing up a plane will get more news
coverage than blowing up anything else that kills
250 people.
\_ it's easier to kill 250 people on a plane than
on a train.
\_ I dispute that.
\_ OK, could you provide one example of 250
people dying in a train explosion?
\- there have been several +250 death
train accidents in countries with
heavy use of crowded trains [like
india]. usually not killed in a
flash as in an explosion, but
after a crash of some kind. i'm
sure a significant contributer to
the eventual casualty count in
a number of these cases was the
accident was in a hard to access
area and the quality of medicine
was so-so ... i.e. no helicopter
evac to truama center but people
dying of shock after hours of
lying on the ground. i dunno if
a train accident since say ww2
has killed as many in one shot as
the 747 vs 747 in Tenerife. anyway,
location of a disaster has a
significant bearing on eventual
casualties ... whether it is
train, ferry, weather, earthquake
etc. e.g. compare the numbers
killed in diff countries in level
crossing accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_level_crossing_accidents
\_ 9 rail disasters since 1980 to kill 200+
people. One of the worst was in Russia
when a natural gas explosion killed
575 in 1989. Look up "Ufa train disaster".
It is far easier to derail a train than it
is to smuggle explosives through airport
security and onto a plane at this point.
\_ 200 is not 250, for one thing. And
most of the ones with significant
loss of life required multiple bombs
on different cars or entirely
different trains. And surely the Ufa
disaster, which was an accident,
involved two trains, and had an
explosion equivalent to 10 kilotons of
TNT, is not a reasonable analogy for
typical terrorist activity.
I don't believe there's been a single
terrorist event which has claimed
250 lives on a train. -tom
\_ Not because trains are safer or
harder to attack as much as no
one has really tried. Hence my
question: what's the fascination
with planes? Seems like a difficult
way to go in these times. BTW, I
wouldn't make the argument that
blowing up a train is necessarily the
best alternative. Someone else
brought that up.
2. Terrorism is pretty much mass murder 'for a cause'.
\_ maybe one point of suicidal attack is to leave no loose ends.
otoh, wrapping one's testicle with explosive is truly weird
he would have difficulty to enjoy 72 raisins. |