As far as the Katrina analogy you are missing something. While the risk of any individual storm becoming a Cat 5 and hitting New Orleans was small is was also nearly certain that at some point in time this was nearly inevitable.
[WS:] This is true, however, if we extend the time frame to evaluate the probability of a particular risk, we should do likewise for evaluating the cost of different responses to that risk. This simply means that if the risk is high within the next 30 or so years, the response to that risk should be proportionate to that risk, but also spread out over 30 or so years. However, it is disingenuous to blame people who happened to be in charge when the disaster occurred for not taking the response that should have been spread out over a similar time period.
Bush administration's response to Katrina might have been arrogant and incompetent (as most of their public statements are), but blaming them for failing to take preventive measures that should have taken years to develop is simply absurd. It makes good politics, but it is logically absurd. It represents the same kind of thinking that attributes all observable effects (either positive or negative) to a single most salient factor selected for political expediency. In the same way, "communism" was blamed for every single death and disaster that struck Russia since 1917.
John:
I spoke with my old chemistry professor about the liquid explosive idea and he was unconvinced. He said the chemical reaction he read was being discussed would certainly burn people onboard the plane but not cause an explosion sufficient to damage the plane in any way he could think of. While he's not a structural engineer
[WS:] I do not have technical knowledge to engage in a discussion on this subject. It could be true, but it also could be that new more efficient ways of making these kinds of explosives have been recently developed. This is true about every single technology, no? What was clumsy and difficult ten or twenty years ago can be quite efficient today.
However, I never tried second guessing technical capacity of making the said explosives. The point that I argued was that I consider it unlikely that the British authorities simply staged the whole incident for some political gain. It would be a bit more likely that the Bush administration did this, especially when they have a clear motive (upcoming elections) - but this time they were on the receiving end of the events.
Dwayne: I note - in all of your responses on this topic - a curious resistance to listening to critiques of counter-terrorism as presently practiced and heavy dependence upon caricatures of leftist positions as knee jerk anti-government rantings (despite the fact
[WS:] I take exception to this. Self-criticism was an integral element of the Communist Party practice, especially in Russia and China. OTOH, what you (accurately) dubbed a caricature of leftist positions in the US engaged in "blaming-the-outsiders criticism" which is quite typical of the US political discourse in general.
I have been on this list for several years now, and I have rarely seen any self-criticism here. The only people, beside myself, who consistently do this are Doug, Chris D. and Michael P.
Wojtek