From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:30:16 MDT
On Thursday 31 July 2003 15:37, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> According to a NY Times report today, hundreds of millions
> of dollars may have been raised for terrorist activities
> (either in Palestine or the U.S.) [1].
>
> To my best recollection the 911 bombing financing was in
> the neighborhood of $100-200K.
>
> So one has a potential financing ratio of ~1000:1 (i.e.
> there are 1000 times as much funding out there as what
> may have been spent on attacks thus far) -- i.e. about
> 1000 potential 911s could be currently being financed.
> Assuming a comparable loss of life in such attacks --
> 3000 people * 1000 attacks = 3 million people, one has
> to wonder *just* exactly where must we draw the line?
>
I think you know full well this isn't a very good argument. That a small
amount of money was required for an act of terrorism resulting in N deaths
does not say that M times that amount will result in M*N deaths. In the
first place we do not know how much of this amount actually does or would go
to actual terrorist attacks. In the second place the world is a bit more
vigilant than pre-9/11.
> And terrorists seem to be showing little discrimination
> as to precisely *where* they may act. So the question
> becomes for anyone "are you safe anywhere?".
As long as you belief you can solve the problems largely by force alone, then
no, you are not safe anywhere. But it is not only the terrorists that make
that so.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 23:36:14 MDT