WOW! That is not nearly it and it is not rare at all. Perhaps you are not including the early '70s, when Nation of Islam followers terrorized and murdered people all through California. In one incident, a family of seven was shot including four children. Two were killed.
Originally Posted by BAC
Or how about in the arly '90s, when two CIA agents were murdered by Muslims in VA. Or the Empire State Building hen seven people were shop by a Muslim fanatic.
Let's not leave out the Beltway sniper, who went throughout the country killing people including a guy in Tucson at a golf course I frequent.
Oh! I forgot. In 2002, the Muslim killed two people at LA International until El AL security killed him. How about the Muslim that ran down seven people in NC?
Not to mention (OK I'm going to mention) the Muslim that shot up a Jewish center in Seattle or the Utah mall attack.
If those aren't significant terrorist attacks then we can certainly include the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania, Syria, and Kenya, all sovereign American soil.
I assume you now realize that terrorists attacks are commonplace, even in America. It looks to me that it is done often. And now that the enemy has become more organized the threats are far more severe than a lone gunman. The terrorist group in Buffalo was thwarted because of superior intelligence gathering (Yes, the Patriot Act.)
Not diminishing the tragedies, but let's be objective and treat the concerns we're addressing realistically. A terrorism incident hasn't occurred in the little more than 6 years since the last incident. Look at the above dates; does it look like this is done often? Do you think, perhaps, security was beefed up after each of these events, too?
Only the results.
I don't buy that argument. There is nothing, not one thing, to suggest that the increased airport measures have made us safer.
Not necessarily. Part of preventing terrorist attacks is infiltrating their groups and learning their plans. Clearly, we do not have the resources to harden every potential target. What we can do is keep the enemy on edge, on guard, and not knowing when they will be caught or whether their targets are weakly or strongly protected.
The air marshals have an advantage in that there is very little known about them, which I think is part of the mistake. Do we want to react to danger or prevent danger in our own borders? The security philosophy is to "harden the target", right? Make it visibly tougher.
I agree we should arm all the pilots. And it has been mandated that all cockpit doors are secured. But we certainly don't want to provide false evidence of air marshals. That is simply a bad idea.
Don't give exact numbers, but make it known that somewhere on each plane at least a couple air marshals are on board. Make it known that the pilots are armed, and that the hatch to the cockpit is bulletproof and is only opening if they want it to open.
It is the responsibility of the Federal government to secure the nation and our people. That is the form of government we agreed to by means of the Constitution. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security. There is no evidence that any liberty has been infringed bynot allowing guns by ordinary citizens of aircraft.
Deterrence through subtlety is only deterring the mildly-interested. But this isn't even the problem: the problem is the federal government, who has taken the liberty to restrict the ability of those it governs to defend themselves, have not adequately provided for the defense of the people it governs.
No difference for the purposes deterrence. If 99% of the flights have air marshals it is not credible to believe the one percent would be picked, same for 98%, 97% and so forth. You have no idea how many flights have air marshals. Maybe it is all of them. You don't know.
That can be made into a goal to work towards, and in the meanwhile adding a couple (or more) people to every flight to look like you and I but are armed and well-trained, and making the fact that these people are on board, not that they might be on board, will go a long ways to providing real deterrence.
Well, yes it does according to the Constitution. And air travel, more than the others is a severe national security issue. Missiles traveling at greater than 500 mph, filled with American citizens absolutely poses a national security issue. Notwithstanding the lives lost and the act of war but, as we saw after 9/11, is severely affects the economy.
And no, air-travel is not a national security issue any more than road travel, the internet, or any number of other areas are. Just because a means can be a national security issue (which almost anything in existence can be, I should add), doesn't necessarily make it a federal issue by default.
Also, the Interstate system, built by the Federal government, was proposed and carried out by Eisenhower precisely because it was a national security issue.
Vaccinations are not a security issue, obviously. I have already opined about the roads, which is why the NAFTA law, enabling Mexicans to use our roads is so high profile these days.
Are you supportive of federally-mandated vaccinations, roads subject entirely to federal jurisdiction, a federally-regulated internet, among other such regulations and restrictions, too?
And yes, the internet should be monitored for terrorist threats as that is a means of international communication for the enemy. Should it be regulated? Parts of it, yes. I absolutely abhor the pornography that is unavoidable to viewing by our children. People spending their government welfare checks on casino gambling sites? We have laws prohibiting gambling. We have laws that prevent children of accessing pornography. The internet is simply a way to bypass laws. That is a bad thing, not a good thing.