xul

Machines don't kill people....people kill people.

 

 

Those machines defend people. 

 

Unfortunately, the cost-effectiveness of these machines' ability of killing / defending "people" is no longer as positive as it used to be.

 

F-35 for example. This killing machine is a great achievement of political-scientific-engineering-technical-....-correctness but a catastrophe of cost-effective control. How on earth a machine would kill / defend people even if people couldn't afford to buy it?

No, as the term "terrorism" applied retro-actively would find many such "attacks" going back to at least Civil War times (Harpers Ferry).   More recent aircraft hijackings were a huge problem in the 1970's for the U.S.   The private Pinkerton security services company was founded in the U.S.  over 150 years ago to address such threats to government and private concerns.

I totally agree with your history lecture.

But you still haven't answered my question----Why has US applied more security measures since 911 terrorist attacks?

I think it is because the level of the terrorism threat rises. 200 years ago, British needed an army and a war for burning the White House, but today only a few terrorists with a hijacked airplane can do this.

Someone with a gun may have shortended the killing spree.

The someone also needs a bullet proof vest like the gunman's for having an even chance...

Yep.  And gun access was easier 20, 30, 50 years ago.  But nobody was shooting up schools.  Anyone who focuses on guns doesn't get the bug picture.

I bet there were less anti-terrorism security messures in American ariports and there were less terroristic attacks in America many decades ago, so the new security measures US applied today are totally useless.

It seems like that Americans has got their reward for supporting those "theocratic democracy" in Middle East.

The "universal value" of democracy is a lie which is created by all sorts of political-correct books's writers and ammunition makers.

Let's review how (or the sequence of) the modern democracy was established in Europe:

Phase 1. At first, during known as the Mediaeval period, Europeans were no better than those head-hooding theocratics today---all of them had the tendency to burn anyone desecrating their holy books at the stake;

Phase 2. then, the mundane autarchy rised and weakened the power of theocracy, and forced the theocrats to reform their holy stuff into moderate modern religions and away from politics for survival;

Phase 3. and then the democrats kicked their kings's asses and established the modern democratic systems.

The phase 2 is a vital premise to phase 3. Without weakening theocracy first, what would come out if those mediaeval Europeans went in polling boothes?