Yes it is. Some people die due to speeding and fewer die due to the presence of cameras.

I wasn't using the analogy as being similar but as you seem to be out for an argument.

Just as an aside. More people have died in the good ol' US of A due to murder by gun than terrorism in the USA.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Yes it is.

Unbelievable - you really think terrorism is like speeding. I'm disgusted.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Terrorism continues. QED

I do wish you would read the full statement before you shoot from the lip in your inimitable style. The statement was:

"Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring."

Can you please explain how the known fact that terrorism continues then proves that monitoring has no capacity to stop terrorism?

We have no way of knowing whether monitoring has stopped any incidents of terrorism which would otherwise have taken place. The statement is not whether monitoring could stop all terrorism; it is whether it has any capacity to stop terrorism. When you can produce an answer that proves that no incident of possible terrorism has ever been stopped by monitoring will it be fair to claim that you have proved the proposition. Until then you are not advancing any tenable arguments, you are just trolling.

What nonsense. If monitoring is meant to stop terrorism but terrorism continues it is obvious that monitoring has failed to stop terrorism.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

What nonsense. If monitoring is meant to stop terrorism but terrorism continues it is obvious that monitoring has failed to stop terrorism.

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. You are quite correct that monitoring has not shown it has the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. However, if there is just one incident where monitoring has stopped an incident of terrorism the statement is proven in contradiction to your QED. Until such time as anyone can advance any definitive proof that monitoring has never stopped any incident of terrorism then your QED is just waffle. Quod Erat Demonstrandum (that which was to be demonstrated) has clearly not been demonstrated as we have no way of knowing.

If you would prefer to debate the statement "Only if it had the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring." instead, then we can all see that your QED is quite correct.

So the question comes back to whether society as a whole is safer with some sort of monitoring and if so, what should be the boundaries? If we could have a sensible debate about that rather than scoring cheap points backwards and forwards, we all (myself included) might have a better understanding and a view about the best way to go forward.

I shouldn't reply as we have already been over this but...

Let's use a comparison to a flu vaccine. Every year the scientists create a vaccine for the public. This vaccine is capable of stopping some flu infections and therefore reduces the number of flu cases in the population. It is impossible to say how many it stops as you never actually see those that would have had the flu without it.

On your statement because some people still get the flu you would consider that proof that the vaccine doesn't work.

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

Here is the original statement not as you describe

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

I see you know less about the flu vaccine than terrorism.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I see you know less about the flu vaccine than terrorism.

Fancy pointing out what I got wrong then?

I have a better idea. Read this https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm and try again.