Uncharged phones, laptops to be banned on US-bound flights

A big rolling suitcase full of powerful explosives and shrapnel set off in a security line at peak time in a large airport would be way worse.

I gave you an example of a car bomb that killed only 30 people even though it was set off in a crowded market. Have you ever seen a car bomb go off? I have, it's huge. What's your basis for assuming that a suitcase bomb is going to be so much more devastating?

Certainly there is plenty of opportunity, but you're making a chicken-and-egg argument by saying there's very little terrorism, therefore security is a waste of time. I'm saying that that the payoff for the risk involved is not enough for most people.

And if that's not enough, do it again, and again. One security line bombing a month until the end of time would be fairly easy and would cause complete chaos.

I mentioned the northern Irish terrorist problem because I'm from Ireland and later lived in London. One bombing a month does not cause complete chaos, it just pisses people off and creates more public support for stiffer security measures, more intrusive surveillance and so on.

I suggest you step back from your assumptions of what would happen and look at available documentation of what actually does happen in countries with long-running insurgencies or terrorist problems, from the UK to Sri Lanka to Colombia, cases of actual disasters (whether engineered or accidental) at airports and public transit hubs.

I don't understand why you think I "forget" anything or that my example is "imaginary". I am proposing a response and using a well known phrase to illustrate it.

Maybe that's shaping my views when I think that the number of deaths isn't the only goal of terrorism. Rather, it's to scare and inconvenience people and the authorities.

Let's say "only" 20 people died. I think that would result in yet more security checks. I'd love to be wrong on this, and maybe that's why an attack like this hasn't happened to date - to paraphrase you, it'd be pointless.

I guess looking at it coldly, we should just be thankful that the on-the-ground expertise dies in every attack.

I disagree that 'it's going to happen whether or not we want it.' In the abstract yes, but again you're back to saying counterterrorism is pointless. I also disagree that 99.9 of the damage is self-inflicted although a high percentage is. US reaction to terrorism is actually mild by comparison to most countries. The UK is festooned with video cameras and terrorist suspects are subject to different detention conditions from regular criminals. In Spain you can expect to undergo security checks when taking a train. Perhaps you could furnish some examples of countries that have a more laissez-faire approach to terrorism for comparison.

As for 'keep calm and carry on' I urge you to look into the historical provenance of the phrase. For one thing it was dreamt up as a campaign to reassure a population facing total war, and for another it was shelved at the time (despite some 2 million posters have been printed) because officials realized it was patronizing and unresponsive to public concerns.

As you are surely aware, we don't have a reliable method for distinguishing terrorists from everyone else, notwithstanding the best efforts of intelligence agencies engaged in various sorts of spying. Targeting particular attack vectors is of course less than ideal, but if one receives a credible tip along the lines of 'agent X will attempt to transport a 'battery bomb' onto a US bound flight this month' then you can't blame security services for trying to leverage that information. There may even be a second-order purpose for announcing it publicly, eg to instill paranoia among potential terrorists about the leakiness of their OpSec or suchlike. So no, I don't think that such specific directives are necessarily pointless.

How many countries have carried out something as catastrophically stupid as the 2003 invasion of Iraq in response to a terrorist attack? If you want a country that took a milder approach to terrorism, given that, I'd say "all of them".

I might point out that the UK, and a lot of other countries joined in the invasion of Iraq. As for Guantanamo bay, I don't think that's an appropriate comparison. Most people held there were either captured in Afghanistan and a few kidnapped and subjected to 'extraordinary rendition', of them in the context of a hot war. I'm talking about people arrested on suspicion of terrorism, ie neither the Tsarnev guy in Boston nor any of the various would-be terrorists nabbed by the FBI over recent years have been sent to Guantanamo (despite calls for that some ultraconservatives). In terms of judicial process, they're subject to the same regime as any other person detained on suspicion of criminal activity.

In fact, the UK government did imprison a group of men indefinitely and without charge post 9-11 (although the law in question was overturned a few years later because it was in conflict with EU human rights law): http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/counteri... Britain is about make some legal history with its first secret trial (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/06/12/core_of_uk_terr...). Looking farther back, for several decades Britain dealt with its terrorism problem in Northern Ireland by removing the right to a jury trial for many offenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts) and for a number of years by internment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius - note that almost 2000 people were held prisoner without trial, quite a few more than Guantanamo Bay ever held).

Now, I wouldn't expect you to know all this - I grew up over there so it's easy for me to cite examples. But instead of rudely asking me if I've ever heard of Guantanamo Bay, perhaps you might acknowledge the possibility that I know what I'm talking about. I could dredge up a variety of examples from other countries in various stages of socioeconomic development, but since the UK shares a language and a common legal heritage with the US it seemed like the most obvious point of comparison. I stand by my argument that the US response to terrorism, while of questionable effectiveness, is not nearly as unusual as you seem to think. Indeed, in comparison with prior actions of the US it's fairly mild, sad to say; consider the Japanese internment of WW2, or historical punitive campaigns that would be regarded as genocidal war crimes today, such as the Phillipine-American war of 1899-1902, or for that matter the Vietnam war. Historical awfulness is no justification for bad governance today, but nor are today's problems as bad as you suggest.