 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) passengers (...) No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before Sep 11. (...) But that's what's being proposed! (...) I disagree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
