No, that isn't how I explained the rationale behind the protests. My very initial comment included more than that, my later long explanation included much more than that, but you focused in on the secondary (or should I say tertiary) security argument alone - and that with a lot of twists worthy of wchurchill (medal for spills etc.). Those seemed to stem from a false image of the entire affair having been informed by lack of information, but you don't seem willing to sit back and evaluate the entirety of the new information I have given. Your one-liner reply to my long explanation is a good illustration.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}