<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CountinPlaces:
They had to approach their attack externally to find success.</font>
If there are holes they will find them. I'm sure they won't limit themselves to surface to air missles just to maintain the parallel with the WTV attacks. If we assume that they can't adapt and succeed again then we will be leaving holes that they can exploit as they have done in the past.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Remember, you can be harmed anywhere (geographically speaking) a terrorist makes an attack.</font>
So since they could attack anywhere we should just let them have easy access for attacks on airline flights? I don't follow that logic.
The goal of airport security is to get them to move their attempts away from airlines to targets that are less leathal and where they have a greater chance of being caught.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Pocketknives, tweezers, and the like are rudimentary and should be accurately viewed as ineffective in a terrorist attack.</font>
You couldn't be more wrong. The terrorists will train with whatever weapons are available and will be quite effective with them. We made it easy for the 9/11 hijackers by allowing them to have box cutters. A person well trained with a pocket knife can be very dangerous. Put eight or ten of them on a lightly loaded flight and they'll have a real chance of success.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the end, once pilots are armed and the cockpit door better fortified, a repeat of 9/11 will be virtually impossible much like it already is.</font>
If only it were that simple.