tifosi77 wrote:If you are going to posit hyperbole ("acceptable number of attacks" and "acceptable number of lives lost") then just suck it up and realize the only way you can mollify your paranoia is to not fly.
Hyperbole: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean it isn't supposed to be taken literally. What is acceptable to you Tif? It's an honest question. Peter King and Rand Paul have completely different answers, but it's still a valid question.
tifosi77 wrote:There is risk when flying, unquestionably. However, the risks posed by terrorism are so far down the order of things that can go wrong on an airplane that it simply doesn't bear thinking about.
Most of those 2,752 who died on 9/11 weren't even on an airplane that day. 9/11 was a significant event in many ways, one of those ways is that changed the way we think about hijacking. It's not a DB Cooper type event anymore. It's not some wacko with a gun demanding a free ride to Havana. There were a over two thousand people that day who died doing their daily routine. Waking up and reporting to work. The same office, the same desk, or the same broom they'd been pushing for years, only this time...
tifosi77 wrote: It's like getting on a riverboat in New Orleans and going "Gee, I sure hope we aren't attacked by hippos.... perhaps we should spend severalty billion dollars on anti-hippo defenses, like Pogo sticks and fly swatters. If our passengers see the Pogo sticks and fly swatters, they'll be reassured that we're on top of the hippo threat."
Now *that's* a great example of Hyperboyle.
tifosi77 wrote:We are admonished to remember Abdulmutallab and Reid......
You said "Two occasions. Let's count them...... one, two. Out of over 300,000,000 flights since 9/11.". I was just pointing out that was an incorrect statement. That there were more than two attempts. One could argue that because those two made it onto airplanes, that security isn't tight enough.
(I'm not making that argument, just pointing out the flaw in that debating point)
tifosi77 wrote:What allowed 9/11 to happen was a wild confluence of eff ups and oversights by the intelligence and law enforcement communities in ways that have not really been rectified since, nor are the addressed by making people take off their shoes.
Should there be security at airports? Of course. Does it need to be as obtrusive and inconvenience making as it has been the past decade? Not by a long shot.
There is a much better cross-agency communications protocol today than there was before 9-11. Is it perfect? No. In fact I think it's very intrusive and infringes on our right to privacy. But it has changed.
This whole TSA discussion is rather humorous. I probably have to deal with TSA as much as anyone on this board. I don't enjoy it. Sometimes it makes me extremely frustrated. (Especially when procedure very not only airport to airport, but agent to agent.)
However, I'm OK with the current screening process as long as it prevents even one more 9/11 type act.
You may not feel that way, and that's your right. Let's take it easy characterizing others comments as "hyperboyle" or "admonishing"
(Now *that* was an admonishment)