Comment Re:Real terrorist threat level (Score 1) 91
Truck bomb. It's been done before. Examples include the suicide bomb attack against the US Marines in Beirut, and the attack against the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Truck bomb. It's been done before. Examples include the suicide bomb attack against the US Marines in Beirut, and the attack against the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
There seems to be an option that you missed: seeing if there are indicators that terrorists have an interest in striking.
Major terrorist attack is ‘inevitable’ as Isis fighters return, say EU officials
EU’s 28 governments are said to be struggling to respond to threat of Islamist fighters coming back from Iraq and Syria
Europe faces 'greatest terror threat ever' from jihadists in Iraq and Syria
ETA, IRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, all were small potatoes compared to the potential of the Islamists.
But how much damage can one person do? If he's successful he'll maybe kill ten people.
An individual terrorist could easily kill hundreds of people, and wound thousands.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the "evidence-based medicine" movement which calls blinded RCTs the "gold-standard" of evidence when testing a treatment.
Again, absence of a blind RCT study doesn't mean the observation is wrong.
A more than three orders of magnitude change doesn't require blinded RCTs to be observed. The "gold standard" is sufficient, but it is not necessary, to confirm observations that are orders of magnitude in strength. Finally, a blind RCT requires that some people get exposed to measles without the protection of the vaccine (the "controls"). That creates significant suffering and risk of death or major injury in order to confirm a strong signal. What is there to gain scientifically that justifies that price in suffering? I see no justification for it.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't pass through airport security, they had someone on the inside who let them through a door.
That isn't true. Now go away, troll.
It tells us that any level of airport security is enough to make an attack using an aeroplane not the most attractive option for terrorists.
That obviously is not true since the 9/11 hijackers had to pass through airport security.
Given the fact that security at airports is not very good and nothing really bad has happened in the last decade, what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?
That much of Europe has probably been almost lulled into the level of complacency that will make a truly horrifying attack possible?
In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of. Absence of an attack isn't the same as absence of a threat. And you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't terrorists in Germany, or flying through it, that wouldn't attack the airport, planes, or other places in Germany specifically or Europe in general.
Attacks on Frankfurt Airport, Ramstein Planned: Three Islamist Terror Suspects Arrested in Germany - September 05, 2007
Germany Sends 240 Cops to Arrest Nine ISIS Suspects in Cologne - November 12th 2014
What is the form of the bias that you think exists, and how do you think that it alters things? Does that mean Iraq didn't invade Iran or Kuwait? Or did anything else not happen?
Because I'm not getting the connection between driving safely and taxing the poor via red light cameras.
Because you're being willfully obtuse.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.