But terrorists clearly haven't been thinking like that. Generally speaking, planes have been targeted by the more serious plots. Because when a plane falls from the sky, the public is terrorised and there are mass casualties. A bomb in a mall generally kills far fewer, wouldn't have the same effect on the public psychologically, and doesn't attract the attention of the world's media as easily. So yes, there is more likely to be an attack in a mall, but only because security is incredibly tight on air travel.[QUOTE="cjek"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
*Shrugs*
I don't worry about that stuff in the first place. If someone wanted to kill the **** out of a whole lot of people, there's no reason for them to even go to the airport in the first place. They could just as easily go to places with NO security, like the city bus, a crowded movie theater, or a packed college lecture hall. By all sound reasoning, I should be more concerned about terrorism in the mall or at the supermarket than on an airplane.
MrGeezer
I disagree. Terrorist attacks on airplanes are confined to airplanes. People think it's a flight-related thing, and therefore feel safe as long as they aren't flying. Movie terrorist attacks away from the airport and into malls and schools would mean that in the mind of the public, they aren't safe ANYWHERE.
But they simply aren't doing that. I appreciate your understanding that malls and schools *would* be better targets if they start hitting them in large numbers, and I agree with that point. That's a fact. But they aren't doing it. For some unknown reason they continue to target the most secure form of transport; planes. And plane attacks certainly aren't confined to planes. More people died on the ground in 9/11 than on the planes. Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 caused extensive damage and casualties on the ground. The recent printer cartridge plot was supposed to blow up planes over American cities.
Log in to comment