Posted by:
rodmalm
at Sun Nov 23 15:07:58 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by rodmalm ]
Logically, I have to disagree again.
I only see 2 ways to look at this.
1)Bush always has a certain level of security. The country he goes to will also provide a certain level of security. If that level of security is significantly raised because of a terrorism possibility, then the threat of terrorism must be extremely heightened all of the sudden. While that's possible, there is no evidence to support it, that I am aware. They have been running extra security on the president since 9/11 (so that heightened level would be considered a normal level of security at this point in time), but nothing near this magnitude.
or:
2)Bush always has a certain level of security. The country he goes to will also provide a certain level of security. If that level of security is raised because of an extraordinary event, like a large organized protest, then the extraordinary event caused that rise in security.
We absolutely know that the one thing different about this trip is an unusually large protest. We don't know of a huge increase in a terrorist threat. So, to claim that all the extra security is because of a change we don't know about, while ignoring an event that we do know about, isn't very logical. (And it reminds me of some of your other arguments!) 
While I do agree that the security is looking for terrorists, these high numbers or security personnel are needed because one of the places they are looking is in the large group of protesters-besides everyone else in the presidents vicinity. Eliminate the protesters from the equation, and there are a lot less people for the security to scrutinize as potential terrorists. Do you really think there would be 700 secret service guarding the president if the protest wasn't being held? Do you think 700 men (just our security, the British are supplying a lot too) are needed whenever Bush visits another country because of terrorist threats? Do you really think that adding an extra 100,000 protesters to the equation doesn't mean that a lot of extra security is needed? Do you have some evidence that the terrorism threat has increased so much that many extra security personnel are needed all of the sudden, solely because of that increased threat?
Sorry, but you argument just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I guess maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Rodney
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: World Trade Conference...The Media in action - rodmalm, Sun Nov 23 15:07:58 2003