>I didn't make the comparison. I did state that those who dismiss the risk of a terrorist action using light aircraft as nothing, who suggest that it's not a threat because of the lack of potential collateral damage, are naive and are certainly missing the big picture. It was others here who defensively missed the point and suggested that instead the UK has great lessons to teach the world on the subject.
As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).
For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.
Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.<
SNS3Guppy
Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)
My arguement is that both the USA and UK seem to think that terrorism = aviation and aviation = terrorism so focus on aviation and the problem vanishes.
I used the example of the London Tube system which I use a lot. Hundreds of packed commuters swarming in masses into a packed tube train equal in numbers to any commercial airliner, but NO security! cases towed into the trains nobody checks what they contain.
No Body says sorry you cannot take more than 100 ml of fluid onto that tube train. No body scans your cases.
Why because the powers that be know that any security would cause chaos and would be unworkable so they direct their attention at poor old aviation and its our beloved aviation which suffers. A scapegoat which seems the target of security and green issues and I thought you for one would want to defend aviation not stick your boot into it too?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jun 2008 at 21:53.