What is Digg?263 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -28/+168Actually more people in the US died of accidental drowning in 2001 than terrorist attacks. But point that out to certain Americans and you might get your ass kicked... that's what the cartoon doesn't depict.
- bruin7089, on 10/12/2007, -21/+116Isn't there a difference between "accidental" drownings and terrorist attacks that warrants different responses for each?
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -19/+92more americans have died in the last 10 years from kiddy pools than americans have died from terrorism in the last 231 years.
we'll suspend habeas corpus for all american citizens despite the few bad apples, but kiddy pools are free to sit in trailer parks lying in wait for unsuspecting children.
there was an article about the whole number system in Time a while back. the conclusion: people are ***** stupid and don't like to feel out of control. they'll grossly fear the things that can kill them when they're not in control, despite the actual statistics. - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+63I can't believe Mike is getting dugg down... he simply believes that the way to fight terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized, which is exactly right. Terrorism's main goal is to make people afraid and thus change their way of life... and in the end give in to whatever demands the terrorists have. But if you never allow yourselves to become afraid then terrorism can never win.
If no one ever gave into the demands of hostage takers, no one would ever take hostages because it would be pointless. If no one allowed terrorism to scare them, terrorism would go away because the tactic would not work. Instead terrorism here in the US has helped terrorists around the world more than they could have imagined. They now have a rallying cry, a place to gather an army of extremists (Iraq), and they have proven they could hit the most powerful country in the world and their leader could escape from the best surveillance in the world. On top of that, we've started giving away all our freedoms because we're so scared because they killed less than 1/10th of the number of us that die just from cars. We're a bunch of pansies who need to fight for our freedom by having a backbone... not give our freedom away for a little more security. - MikeSobe, on 10/12/2007, -17/+73Dugg because it was ***** stupid I had to throw out my $3 airport bottle water when I went through security.
(I hate paying for water btw pissed me off) - dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+61300 Million people in the US (give or take). 3000 died in a terrorist attack in 2001. Get some perspective. Sucks these people died, but does the entire country have to slowly lose their freedoms and liberty? Sure I don't want to die in a terrorist attack, but I don't worry about it because there is more of a chance that I die of car crashes, cancer, heart disease, second hand smoking related diseases, snake bites, shark attacks, etc. (the last two are mostly like not right, but there's still a chance.. better kill all the sharks and snakes to be safe).
And to the guy who said that you are most likely in control when you die in a car accident so its WAY different then dying in a terrorist at attack is a moron. Almost half of the people who die in an automobile accident are the result of THE OTHER DRIVER. - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53A bottle of water.
Honestly, I can't stand this *****. We'll all be going on naked some ***** time in the future. Oh no, the terrorists have a new synthetic material that can be woven in to clothing and could blow a hole inside of plane that'll make it crash! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+59Look at the countries the US has gone to war with to protect themselves.... Vietnam (big threat), Japan (blew up some ships, we'll nuke your entire city, women children, all of 'em), Afghanistan (looking for one dude), Iraq (no WMD's), and now they're talking Iran (hardly any military). North Korea is a no-no because they would actually fight back.
The US is the most defensible country on earth, with Canada to the north (can throw snowballs), Mexico to the south (can throw burrito's), and two massive oceans on either side full of nuclear submarines.
Yet the average American thinks this is normal, because that's what their country does. Most scary country on earth? USA. Watch CNN, it's a constant barrage of "we're under attack" warnings, under attack at the borders, by immigrants, by terrorists, by islamics.. I even saw a whole community fighting against muslims building a MOSQUE because they MIGHT have a terrorist, eventually, at this mosque.. WHAT?! But all the crazy christians are okay. They don't even arrest the polygamist cults. - mazdagirluk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40I am not afraid of terrorism. I am afraid of the people who promote it to scare others... and the success they have had.
- bkraft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Wait, so are you saying you CAN'T defeat terror with violence and fear? wtf?
- Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+56"Isn't there a difference between "accidental" drownings and terrorist attacks that warrants different responses for each?"
Why don't car crashes warrant responses from the federal government in order to stop them? Or at least stop them from being so deadly? It is fully within the governments power to stop tens or hundreds of thousands of people a year from dying if they would only force corporations to clean up their acts and care just a little about safety and the public well-being.
Forcing all companies to stop using Trans fats would save more lives than any anti-terrorism measures we have/will take, even though those measures have cost us billions upon billions and stopping trans fats would take 1 congressional bill and 1 presidential signature or perhaps even less if the FDA simply cracked down on companies that used them. - Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34clearly cars are terrorists
- kiwifish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34please... the whole "put your liquids in tiny containers in a ziplock back and then place it on your head while singing la cucaraca backwards... or the terrorists will kill us all" is pure fearmongering and that's all.
The official word is that the restrictions were put it in place to stop someone making triacetone triperoxide explosive. That would require messing about with a pirahna bath in the plane toilets. Sheesh, just ask anyone with a chemistry degree how incredibly retarded that is. Firstly because it would be pretty damn obvious if someone was carrying concentrated H202/H2S04. No, you couldn't put it in a shampoo bottle. Yes, you could tell pretty damn quickly that it wasn't water by just opening the lid. And even if they got it past incredibly inept security guards somehow, the logistics of actually making the stuff on planes are just... ludicrous.
Ack. I'm sick of this stuff. - Misogyny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Remember, terrorists can't take our freedoms away, only the government can do that...
- atomicfireball, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26It's not a false dichotomy... nothing in the cartoon implies that there are only two options, which is a sine qua non for this logical fallacy.
The argument for a Red Herring is more feasible, but I don't see it that way. It looks to me more like the artist is just trying to put things in perspective. We have this idea in our heads that the number of Americans killed by terrorists on American soil (3,700) justifies the billions of dollars, loss of constitutional rights, and incredible inconvenience that we have experienced in this country since 9/11 (not to mention the deaths of and continuing risk faced by American soliders).
9/11 was a terrible thing, yes, and some action was warranted. But we have overreacted because we are a scared, comfortable people. That's not a red herring, that's the truth. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25"Common sense ensues shortly afterward."
???? I'm still waiting. - McLumpy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31@Parasocks
"Japan (blew up some ships, we'll nuke your entire city, women children, all of 'em)"
Japan destroyed a very large portion of the US Navy fleet and killed or wounded over 3,000 people. What would you have done if you were President? Waggled your finger at those Japanese and given them a stern talking-to about blowing our ***** up? Or would you have gone to war?
As for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki: by that time, America wasn't just retaliating for Pearl Harbor. Those cities didn't get demolished just because some ships got sunk. By that point in the war, America was prepping for an invasion of Japan. The Japanese, however, wouldn't have surrendered at any point; most would have fought to the very last man. Women and children were being trained with bamboo spears to fight the invaders. US casualties were estimated to be over a million. And Japanese casualties? Don't even bother trying to guess. America would have had to level half the ***** country or more before Japan surrendered. Knowing that, then, destroying two cities with then-new nuclear technology should seem the preferable choice, since Japan would have had no chance to go down gallantly fighting and would have seen the need to surrender (they did). The nuclear bombings were absolutely horrible, but the option was the lesser of two evils.
If you don't like America, fine. But stop being so ***** uninformed.
/offtopic rant - an7agonist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30The site is getting slow ;)
http://i14.tinypic.com/33lyvf4.gif
http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=idt2004040243000america5wi.gif - Blackmane, on 10/12/2007, -21/+44Thats quite funny, cool.
- pockyrevolution, on 10/12/2007, -17/+40er http://duggmirror.com
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27why wont someone just say the obvious? Terrorism is almost all hype for a reason: we need an excuse to use our military and control the world.
- jooaakim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23you're kidding right?! of course you can!!
It's way better than showing respect, having patience and being able to understand different cultures, mentalities and priorities in life. - keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37When Bush says that his job is to protect the american people, and that's why we're in the situation we're in, what he really means is he has to protect the pride of his office. Nowhere was this more apparent than in his New Orleans/Katrina response. It's not about safety, it's about pride. And this pride is the reason we're not successful.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24"Actually more people in the US died of accidental drowning"
Oh, yes, but these "anti terror" actions are about stopping the *possible* threat that could kill.. like, hundreds of thousands!
Starting wars for imaginary reasons and paranoia ftw. :-p
I honestly didn't believe Osama would be *this* successful. A few attacks (I'm truly sorry for the innocent lives lost of course), and he digs a gaping hole in the American economy. - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17kiwifish, you are exactly right. However people are happy to be terrorized by their media into believing that water is evil, that the sky is falling and that if they don't behave they are traitors.
Misbehaving is the best thing you can do for your country - otherwise like cattle you'll be led to a place you can't escape from where all your freedom and liberty has vanished. - arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15-Parasocks-
"Look at the countries the US has gone to war with to protect themselves.... Vietnam (big threat), Japan (blew up some ships, we'll nuke your entire city, women children, all of 'em), Afghanistan (looking for one dude), Iraq (no WMD's), and now they're talking Iran (hardly any military). North Korea is a no-no because they would actually fight back."
Vietnam, I'll give ya that one.
Iraq, Ditto, frankly an embarrassment
Afghanistan, No, more than one 'dude', a state that actively sponsored the training of terrorists and provided a safe haven for the same. And really, anyone here sad that the Taliban is gone?
Iran is a saber rattler, the jury's still out on that one. Could Get messy, ...and a cluster.
North Korea, Oh yea, they'd fight back, for about an hour. N. Korea's not the issue, it's the big dragon that sits on top of them.
Japan. Now here's My bitch. Would everyone PLEASE shut up about nuking Japan. Yes, many innocent people lost their lives there. I will not begrudge any one that, nor do I take their deaths lightly. BUT Take away the word NUKE and what do you have? A destroyed city. Chummie, do some reading about the fire bombing of Germany or Japan for that matter using conventional munitions. I'm not hearing the weeping for those poor people who were incinerated there. Look up the Dresden fire storm.
And while I'm here, please do some research into the 'Rape of Nanking' or the 'Bataan death march' while you're at it.
"The Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations [meaning Nazi Germany] looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis"
wikipedia, the quick and dirty method. Feel free to check other sources.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ] Rape of Nanking
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes ] Japanese atrocities
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-bombing_of_Dresden ] Dresden fire bombing
Am I RA-RA GO AMERICA!!? No. But I do know just a few points of history. We're [USA] not the nicest kids on the planet by far, But do your research before you start spouting "B-B-B-BUT WE NUKED JAPAN!" as an axiom for
every anti-american war argument. - Managore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23Based off of the title, I was expecting this to be an attempt at showing the average Iraqi soldier's point of view, since to them the US are the "terrorists" and the current body count of civilians in Iraq is in the mid tens-of-thousands. Oh well...
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Actually, more innocent people have died due to police messups than have died by terrorists since 1995:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/17/flu_hernia_or_police.html - fefynedd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"More people die from car accidents than homicides. Doesn't make murder any less egregious."
I don't disagree with you on that, however, I'll argue that if the numerical instance of of car accidents is substantially greater than that of murder, then traffic enforcement should be the priority.
Does any one remember the now infamous Police Chief Daryl Gates (Los Angeles chief from 1978 - 1992)? Under him, LAPD was considered a world class police department, the first department creating SWAT, DARE, and an intelligence unit against crime. In his autobiography, he mentioned how police officers who pulled someone over for a traffic incident were ridiculed by the offender with remarks like "why aren't you out solving a murder?" Gates points out that the death rate for motor vehicle accidents was substantially higher than for murder, and that his department saved more lifes by enforcing traffic laws.
That doesn't mean you ignore murders or terrorism, but we need realistic priorities. If one person is murdered, a small number of friends and family are affected. If a car crash on the 405 freeway results in a death, a small number of friends and family are affected, as well as 100,000 people who now sit in traffic while the accident is investigated...businesses lose productivity, people get angry, lose work pay or leisure time, etc etc.
Go after the egregious stuff, but don't lose sight of the much larger mundane stuff. - LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12JoeCool1986: 'Driving is a necessity'
Me, I think freedom is a necessity.
JoeCool1986: 'and something we're always trying to make safer and safer'
The vast majority of Americans drive over the speed limit. Around where I live, many (probably most) tailgate regularly and very few use their turn signals as much as they should. Driving may be a necessity, but speeding and tailgating are not. Speeding perhaps in emergencies. I've never been in a situation where it was appropriate for me to drive over the speed limit.
JoeCool1986: 'terrorist attacks that annually kill 43,000 people would be something completely unnecessary. I'm just saying.... you can't make a direct comparison like that.'
It's your comparison that makes no sense, not that of the comic strip. You're making it out as the comparison of 'Should I stop crashing planes into buildings or should I drive more safely', which is obviously as ridiculous a comparison as you take it to be. What makes sense is 'Should I drive more safely or should I suspend various civil liberties in order to stop other people from crashing planes into buildings'. That's what the comic strip is asking, with the assumption that a rational person will say 'Drive more safely'. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10That's EXACTLY what we should be doing. The way you win a war against terrorism is by refusing to be terrorized. I do believe you're the *****.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Now *that* is a false dichotomy, injected into popular debate by conservative apologists for the tobacco industry in an attempt to portray this as a matter or personal responsibility vs. government intrusion.
In fact, the real questions raised by actual proponents of government regulation have to do with tobacco companies deliberately withholding information from consumers that would allow them to make informed choices, and, even quite recently, the deliberate and covert increase in the quantity and potency of addictive substances in tobacco products, intended to increase physical addiction and thus overcome the ability of consumers to make rational decisions. Not to mention the deliberate cover-up and lying to Congress about same.
The real issue is as old as capitalism - it is fraud propelled by greed and enabled by the ability of the powerful to control the flow of information. The proper role of government, and the one promoted by those who seek to right this wrong, is to regulate an industry proven incapable and unwilling to regulate itself, when the public interest outweighs corporate rights - in this case, the cost of health care for those duped into addiction by corporate pushers far outweighs the benefits to society from tobacco industry profits. It isn't even a marginal argument, and the tobacco industry has only its irresponsible self to blame. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The last time I mentioned that the flu kills more Americans yearly than 9-11, I got my ass kicked. But do we create new departments of flu security and routinely screen people at airports to prevent its spread?
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I agree that much more needs to be done about auto accidents and bad drivers. We should have a very difficult license test and only give licenses to the top 75% of drivers. Automobile deaths are a major problem.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@atomic
It is a red herring because it focuses on the wrong variable, and measures it for an arbitrary period. Deaths per annum is not instructive in this case, for a variety of reasons. If the 43,000 hypothetical deaths from terrorism were to be evenly spread throughout the year, and be the result of hundreds of thousands of separate individual events where a single terrorist spontaneously attacked a single person, with on forethought - and their victim were randomly and accidentally selected - and many of those attacks resulted in death, then society's attitude, and government remedies, would be similar in nature to the reaction and policy toward automobile deaths.
Of course, that is not how terrorism works, hence it's name. Terrorism is the focused, deliberate attempt to maximize harm to a society by instilling terror. Death, incidentally, is, um, incidental to terrorism, a not uncommon but not universal means to an end; where terror can more effectively be created by other means, other means are exercised.
Automobile carnage, by contrast, is neither planned nor focused nor targeted. It is a terrible social problem, but of a completely different nature than terrorism - and the death and injury it causes are its primary cost to society.
@jerbaker,
you are right, of course, about the 'affects' v. 'effects' error.
However, I disagree with the emphasis of your concern. Charlatans and demagogues will always be with us, but a populace educated to think critically is less likely to be fooled by them. - jsc07302, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12More people die from car accidents than homicides. Doesn't make murder any less egregious.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Reminds me of all that ***** in the UK because of the ***** terrorist attack they *stopped*.
Oh no, we've caught the terrorists, we must raise security and make it even more inconvinient for travelers! (I was flying out the same ***** week it happened.) - ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Terrorist attacks are political and purposeful - the aim of them is to kill people and undermine the government's ability to protect its citizens, hence it requires a political response. Car accidents are accidental (99.999 percent of the time). Car's aren't developed to kill people, in fact they have standards to make them safer than a simple box of metal that they could be.
It's clear to see the difference.
It's funny to see the who comes out in favor of a nanny-state when it's put like this, and it shows the true character of those looking for any excuse to legislate everyday stupid things by making poor analogies.
edit: I'll be dugg down because I don't agree with often-irrational Digg group-think. - kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10 Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. The price of smoking, both in human lives and health care costs, is staggering. And it raises a host of thorny legal and ethical questions: Are tobacco companies responsible because they make a dangerous product? Or are individual smokers responsible for the health consequences of their own choices?
- kkevlar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Look at the countries the US has gone to war with to protect themselves.... Vietnam (big threat), Japan (blew up some ships, we'll nuke your entire city, women children, all of 'em), Afghanistan (looking for one dude), Iraq (no WMD's), and now they're talking Iran (hardly any military). North Korea is a no-no because they would actually fight back."
- Parasocks
@Parasocks
You're mostly right, but so very wrong about Japan. First of all, they (a nation, not an ambigous group i.e. al qaeda) surprise attacked Pearl Harbor killing thousands of Americans when we had really done nothing to promote such an attack. If that doesn't warrant a military response, then I don't know what does. We were almost an entirely isolationist country up to Pearl Harbor, choosing not to deal with Hitler and Co.
Also, you imply that nuking Japan was a tragedy. Sure, I am sorry that 100,000 people died, but who is to blame? The United States? Or Japan, Germany, Italy etc for deciding to try to take over the world? Keep in mind that Japan had attacked us on our soil without warning, and had already conquered many of it's neighbors. Oh yeah, keep in mind that the nuke saved the lives of millions (literally) of American and Japaneese lives that would have been lost if we were forced to go into Japan with soldiers. And stop acting like we went out of our way to injure civillians. We picked places with military targets and warned citizens to leave the cities in advance. It's not like we nuked Tokyo.
You're a dumbass for belittling Pearl Harbor. It prompted the US to enter the war. Our doing so turned the tides of the war which would have resulted in you speaking german. so stfu - jpb0104, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Your more likely to get murdered by a family member than a serial killer.
- stanleyf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9those accidental deaths would have still happened in 2001 regardless of the terrorist attack.
But the 3000 people who died in the world trade center attack would still be alive if we weren't attacked by, and I will quote south park here, "a bunch of pissed off muslims". They were killed in cold blood, nothing accidental here. It is murder. - Wolfrider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The US is the most defensible country on earth, with Canada to the north (can throw snowballs)"
I'll have you know we have Timbits and rabid beavers too. And if you don't think beavers are tough, YOU try taking down an entire tree with just your teeth. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Go after the egregious stuff, but don't lose sight of the much larger mundane stuff."
This is a concept in politics that the public AND the politicians don't seem to understand very well. The things we all spend years arguing over have no real effect on my life. What difference does it make to my life if gay marriage is allowed or prohibited? How about whether evolution is accompanied by a disclaimer in school? Now, what really does affect my life is the idiot who sets the traffic signals on my commute so that they turn red in sequence, making me wait at each one. Mundane, but a much larger effect on my life every day. We have no priorities and it reminds me of the quote, "Every country has the government it deserves." - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Talking of which, they quietly scrapped the terrorism charges against the person they called 'the ringleader' of those thwarted attacks. I guess they were pissed off, so they charged him with various other little charges that were nothing to do with terrorism or 'the plot'. Strange how the whole story disappeared pretty quickly, isn't it?
Yeah, you probably wouldn't know because virtually nowhere bothered covering it. I only found out because there was a story 2 paragraphs long on the BBC News site. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@rationalist: I'm more concerned about people who know how to "sound" like they know what they are talking about than I am about those who cannot even do that much. As Samuel Clemens once said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
It's "separate effects" by the way, not "affects". - Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think it's about a sense of justice. If someone dies in a car accident or from a flood or hurricane, nobody feels like a great injustice has been inflicted upon them; there's no logical next step that needs to be taken to fix the wrong, there's no symbolic criminal getting away with murder. Put in those terms it seems a little more rational. The point is well taken tho. Suspending liberties and waging multiple wars because 3,000 people died is not very logical but then I don't think very many people were intending to argue on the basis of logic, doing that would feel callous.
- 1021, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5ok, take shortly out of that sentence... :-)
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@1021: If a new pothole opens up on a street you drive on every day, with warning signs miles before it, and you still drive into it and wreck your car is that anyone's fault but yours? How about this: If you're walking a long and see some scaffolding above the sidewalk that is swaying in the wind with beams hanging off of it and parts falling off, but decide to walk under it anyway, whose fault will it be if it collapses on top of you? Now, say you're British Airways and you know a strike is coming for weeks ahead of time that might affect the reliability of your baggage handling procedures, but you do nothing to address it, whose fault is it when someone's baggage gets lost? Sure, you could argue that if they hadn't gone on strike the baggage wouldn't have been lost. Using that same logic you could argue that if Boeing hadn't built the planes used in the 9/11 attacks it wouldn't have happened. Boeing must be an evil corporation that didn't care about the consequences of its actions. Just because you have a personal/political thing against unions doesn't make everything their fault.
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"However people are happy to be terrorized by their media into believing that water is evil, that the sky is falling and that if they don't behave they are traitors."
Don't forget about how your eyes will melt and you will grow hair all over your hands if you touch yourself(hehe, I watched that episode of American Dad last night). -
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
