Perhaps you don't realize that I, as a white guy, lived last year in a gang-infested neighborhood. I was robbed once, and there was a shooting across the street once during our two year stay. I've moved up a little bit. Now I just have a neighbor with nunchucks and an infrequent smell of pot in the hallways. So I really don't have the patience for someone who seems to think I'm a classist. If you live in a bad neighborhood, you expect violence. If you live in a bad neighborhood and don't expect violence, you're stupid. That's why it's a bad neighborhood.

I never said it couldn't happen in a good nieghborhood either. There are plenty of stories of people who run meth labs out of their town houses, and sometimes they'll get shot at for being stupid. Usually they blow themselves up first, but hey, that's how it goes. Just because someone is poor or rich doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. However, whether someone is poor or rich DOES have a correlation of the chances of being the victim of violent crime. Any sociology text book should tell you that.

The DC sniper was in both rich and poor areas. I think #6 was in Bowie, which is upper middle class. #3 was in Wheaton, which is definitely not. Nothing made #6 terrorism and #3 not. Similarly, if a gang went on up to Bowie and shot up some houses, they wouldn't be terrorism. It'd be gang violence (but they'd be pretty dumb, since they'd lkely be tracked down pretty quick.)

So you can't stop a single group of people, but you can stop negligence?

As I said though, this may be a better question for professional studies than for you or I. It's hard to say 'which scares you more' honestly when you have a point to prove.

Err... Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in the world. Sorry.

That's true, but see the point I made "unless it's just as likely to be picked out as anyone else's suborbital."

Really? We'd better tell the people suing the cigarette companies for the death of their parents. Or people who sue gun companies (and win). Or the people who *SUE THE AIRLINES*

Some 9/11 families reject federal fund and sue

Remember, the airlines *ARE* responsible for the safety of their passengers, as well as where their aircraft go. The aircraft manufacturers perhaps not, but the airlines are. The airport is responsible for making sure no weapons go onto the aircraft. That's why we pay them money. So yes, Renraku COULD sue the airporat and the suborbital company.

Well, there was Amsterdam:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...mer/bijlmer.htm
(Ignore the rest after the picture, just look at the picture, that was a 747/Cargo shortly after take-off, pure accident)

Luckily it was a "living" area and mostly empty so "only" 30 dead. A few hours later and the workers and children would have been at home


The Concord that crashed barely avoided it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/852407.stm


The Empire state building was rammed by a B25 Mitchel once.


The Bayou Bridge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Con..._train_disaster

Enschede: (Fireworks fabrication in the middle of the city)

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/explosions.html


Just some major disasters with large structures. Can happen even without a bunch of terrorists.



Birdy (Who thinks the US takes 11/September far to serious)

I never said that you were classist. I was thinking more along the lines of duped by the classist mass media, really. One couldn't deny the fact that, had the sniper only struck in Wheaton and similar areas, the media coverage would have been much different if it even made the news at all.

You can't stop every one single person on the face of the earth, certainly. On the other hand, you can have quality control precedures in place to weed out negligence most of the time.

It is called sarcasm.

Cigarette lawsuites are based on the fact that various tobacco manufacturers comissioned studies that they then covered up. The results of these studies, had they been made public, may have discouraged many people from smoking. These studies suggested that there is some correlation between smoking and cancer and that nicotine may, in fact, be addictive. These are facts that tobacco manufactures have publicly denied, despite the fact that they knew them to be true.

I know of no one suing a gun manufacturer sucessfully. I know of several people failing miserably. If you know of any specific cases that were won and that were upheld on appeal, please present them.

As for the people suing the airlines, they won't get any money. They know they won't get any money. It isnt about the money to them. It is, instead, about a vain search for some truth, reason, or meaning that they wil never find. Nevertheless, the lawsuit gives them access to records and evidence that most persons will never have an opportunity to see.

Renraku, I preseme, would want to get money instead of finding answers or proving a point.