What is Digg?88 Comments
- Detritus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31Edit: Bleh, I can't type anything here without getting so ***** angry and going off on a diatribe so I'll leave this with -
Exactly. - ogmak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Great read. Uncontrollable events play a great part in fueling our fears, that even if people implement the most useless laws that might diminish that uncontrollable aspect, they find it OK, even if its not. I guess ignorance is bliss for those people; however it doesn't change the reality that we are not improving anything.
- inajeep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm amazed that people are missing a big point of this article. He is not saying we do nothing. Stop and reread that last sentence. He wants the money to be spent increasing real security not perceived security. Our reaction borders on hysterics every time a terrorist act even is mentioned in the news. This is the goal of the terrorism and it is amplified by the media and the knee-jerk reaction of the politicians to ineffectively through money at every perceived security risk. The most telling statement the author makes is that the money being spent by Homeland Security is governed more by politics than true security.
- picaman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If you are interested in this general subject, a great place to start is Bruce Schneier's blog:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
He's one of those people who takes a subject about which you know little to nothing, and makes it fascinating. - helipilot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This kind of logic is always funny to me.
me: The chances of dying in a fire is 1 in 81,524
you: Tell that to the firemen caught in a burning building.
That being said, God bless all of our soldiers overseas. May the return to their families unharmed. - krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Terrorism has an impact on economy mainly because of ill considered response to it, not because of the activity itself.
- Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's a matter of odds. A few people are killed or injured on a yearly basis by small meteorite impacts. Much larger ones are much less common, but could kill millions or billions.
Many orders of magnitude more people die each year from automobile traffic accidents than from terrorism, yet you don't see people uptight about driving to work. - richardtallent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 were killed because OBL had a beef with us for our permanent bases and other interventionist activities in the Middle East. Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have only created more enemies. And, with all due respect to the families of 9/11 victims, 3,000 is a tiny compared to deaths every year from stroke, cancer, and heart attack, but I don't see us fighting a War on Nasty Diseases. Tell the families of *those* dead Americans that our trillion-dollar wars are more important than cancer research.
- Jaiotu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8What make terrorism so effective is how it play on peoples fears. It doesn't matter how likely a terrorist strike is, just so long as the possibility of a terrorist strike can breed fear in the masses. Unfortunately, the American government has also discovered how powerful a motivator this fear can be and has turned it around on it's own populace to institute laws and take actions that curb freedoms, with the average Joe on the street believing that the loss of civil rights is an equitable trade in exchange for a perceived higher degree of freedom.
- algorhythmix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I always wonder as to how do we decide when we have won the war on terror, it cannot continue forever, at least not at this pace . What is the criterion for declaring a win ..is it when we have rooted out Al- qaeda but then whats to stop another organization from growing up.
Its not as if they have a headquarter or something, you destroy it and you are done. - GoGoChinchilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Stop making sense, Thuktun. Don't you know that rational thought is a pre-9/11 mindset?
- richardtallent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And what is the economic impact of a trillion dollars of tax dollars being spent fighting unnecessary wars? The economic impact of having so many able-bodied citizens overseas rather than being productive? The economic impact of taking over countries while allowing our borders to be a sieve for immigrants who are a burden to social services while paying no taxes?
- americajones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Usurpers always bring about or choose disjointed times, in order to pass, under the cover of public terror, destructive laws which the people would never adopt when calm." -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Of the Social Contract," published 1762.
40,000 highway deaths annually makes effective mass transit a national security priority in my book. I live in a city with a metropolitan area of about 1.5 million people and the busses stop running right at bar time. What gives?
16,000 gun homicides annually and we don't call the United States a war zone? We need peace at home before we can talk about peace in Iraq. Do you know the cost of emergency care for a gunshot wound? If you care about institutional racism, gun violence should be a national security priority. And I don't just mean better enforcement: "the frequency of physical punishment is always a sign of weakness or indolence in the Government" (Rousseau).
Why do terrorists want to attack us? If you ask Middle-Easterners, many will tell you it has to do with our attitude towards Israel, specifically in connection with the Palestinian refugee population. You can see how helpful it is that we went into Iraq to overthrow a secular government, wherein women could go to college and didn't have to cover up, and which was furthermore viewed by Al Qaeda as an enemy, in order to create the world's third largest refugee population after the Palestinians and Sudanese. 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq, 2 million fleeing to bordering countries (like Syria). We're spreading freedom around the globe.
Terminologically speaking, it might be worthwhile to review what aristocrats educated in Enlightnment thought (i.e., the people who wrote the Constitution) understood "freedom" to mean, and how it was seen as different from "liberty."
The word "freedom" appears in neither the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence (although the word does appear in reference to Speech in the Bill of Rights).
Freedom is what exists in the absence of government: it is a lack of political constraint.
To J.J. Rousseau, freedom represented the utopian environment of the noble savage. Think small tribes of hunter-gatherers. To Thomas Hobbes, freedom was so nasty, brutish, and short-lived as to be nearly worthless. In either case, one might be subject at any time - and without guarantee of repurcussion - to another person or group's arbitrary exercise of power or authority.
Although the founding documents of the United States make relatively little mention of "freedom," what they do discuss at length are "the Blessings of Liberty."
Liberty is protection from the arbitrary exercise of authority. It is what citizens receive from laws and government, through the Social Contact, in exchange for giving up absolute individual freedom.
Whether or not you believe the Social Contract to be a valid description of civilization, this is the terminology upon which our system of laws is founded. This terminology constitutes the assumptions that underlie the behavior of our lawful organizations.
When your government, claiming heritage of the US Constitution, starts chipping away at your civil liberties in order to spread freedom around the globe, you are getting government on the credit system. Your income tax is paying for more than you're getting, and every year, inflation makes sure you get the short end of the stick. When your President tells you about how great your freedoms are, he is screwing you in the rear with a gun to your head, telling you how much you're loving it.
Your vote represents the ability to send a message. If the best candidate in the world is running as a Democrat or a Republican, and you vote for that candidate, you send an implicit message that the two-party system is a reasonable way to go about running American politics.
Don't support the two-party system. It's not working for individual US citizens. It's only working for corporations, and the statistical constructs we all like to call "consumers." Don't give up on voting: that helps nobody. But whatever else needs to change, I don't see how anything will get any better while America keeps giving the Two-Party Circus reason to believe they're doing legitimate business. - CitadelKnob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I am an Army contract cadet, with close friends serving over seas.
A great book to look at if you wish to examine this topic further is John Mueller's "Overblown". It was part of a National Security class that I took and it helps to put things into a more proper perspective.
Whatever the danger is realistically, Americans usually do not take kindly to being forced into a state of fear... - o0joshua0o, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's only one part of flying that's dangerous: the part where the plane comes back down to the ground.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What pisses me off is the millions of tax dollars paid out to 9/11 "victims." What f'ing sense does that make? Die in 9/11; family collects millions. Die next day in auto accident or next year serving in Iraq; tough *****.
- rockets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I call for a stop on hostilities towards Al-Qaida. We all know they will respond in kind...
- Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That is not the point of the article. The point of the article is that our government and media are not helping prevent this, they're actively feeding it.
- Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If some place calculates the odds of a bee attack, would it include someone deliberately jamming their hand in a beehive and stirring it around?
- 6502programmer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3In the security world, you have THE FORMULA. If the cost of a measure is more than its ALE, or Annual Loss Expectancy, it doesn't make sense to do it. ALE = SLE (Single Loss Expectancy [what each loss, on average, will cost]) * ARO (Annual Rate of Occurrence [how many times in a year the loss will happen]). Put another way, "A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
- Piggycow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So thats now, the point is that if left unchecked it will grow worse in the future. If we did absolutely nothing think they might eventually get their hands on dirty bombs and everyone will scream why didn't you try to stop them before hand?
- richardtallent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The "brave soldiers in Iraq" (including some of my friends and family) wouldn't be dying over there if they weren't forced to be over there fighting an unconstitutional, undeclared war.
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, dumbass, that's exactly what it's saying even though you are trying to be sarcastic. Your big clogged American heart is much more of a clear an present danger to you than any pissed of extremist in Pakistan.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The continued concentration of vital assets in NYC in the information age is just plain stupid.
I would never consider it for any base of operations or IT assets due to 10 reasons with greater priority than terrorism. - SilverRocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, and too bad that the people who died via lightning strikes didn't read articles about the rarity of those, either.
- musters, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You're overlooking the economic impacts of terrorism.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is idiotic. What about the economic and psychological impact of terrorism...that's why it's called "terrorism." To call people worried about terrorism "alarmists" is totally assinine.
- Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We should perhaps pay the same kind of attention to terrorist attack prevention that we pay to avoiding motor vehicle or airline accidents. We take precautions, but (generally) don't get paralyzed by fear by the idea of it occurring.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Sky is Falling... The Sky is Falling.... Ahhhhhhggggggrrrr
- mdask99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If by "we" you mean al-Qaeda, then you're absolutely correct. Pretty sure it wasn't the US that bombed the world trade center twice, the Cole once, Koby towers, the disco in Berlin, marine barracks, London tunnel, Spanish rail, etc etc - you want to let the problem get worse? Move to northern Pakistan if you want.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Right. We definitely should stay out of Darfur.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Iraqis are NOT terrorists, they are people fighting an illegal foreign occupation.
You and those that think like you are terrorists of reason and now as all through history are the engines of oppression, death and destruction. - synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah but war is a trillion dollar business and bee stings are not. the machine needs new enemies or all that money will be used for other things... you know, like healthcare and education..
- MadScientist68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1By the way, do you not realize that there were some 50,000 people in those towers? Not to mention the surrounding buildings which collapsed. We were very fortunate to have only lost 2800. Also, remember how many of them died? By jumping from the tops of the buildings so as to avoid being burned alive? Remember the documentary which started out about the dutch firefighters who came over to see the NYFD in action, and wound up filming the comments of the firefighters that day which referred the counstant sound of the bodies slamming into the rooftop of the Marriot World Trade?
Please, lets not be so knee-jerk (insert your political faction here). Let's all be more critically thinking about everything. Maybe we could be more united as a country if that was the case. I think we don't realize that both partys play to their bases, but behind the scenes they play golf togetther, have dinner, and party together. They are only saying what they say often because it gets them elected. So, don't just believe everything they tell you. Any of them! - Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1End? Begining? We've always been at war with Drugs^H^H^H^HEastasia^H^H^H^H^HTerrorism.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If 4000 hobos where killed on 9/11no one would have cared.
But, just Bush put it himself; "They killed OUR people" so they continue to be avenged with extreme overkill. - Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Terrorists want you to be terrorized for some ulterior motive. You don't want to "let the terrorists win", yet you allow yourself to be terrorized?
Fight the terrorists properly: get real security not feel-good security theater and stop letting yourself be terrorized. - kwick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Over a lifetime, the chance of being killed by a terrorist is about the same as being struck by a meteor."
Only if you live anywhere other then NY. NY has been, and will continue to be, the city most desired to be destroyed by those who oppose our way of living. The capitalism and prosperity exhibited in NY and the potential financial impact of a target like this is what they are after.
There is a better chance that NY will be hit again, then the MTA getting their act together and improving the rail lines.... - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Translation:
Woman stung by bees, the world will NEVER be the same...... - fishbert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's why they call it 'terrorism' rather than 'certain-deathism'. Its primary purpose is to scare the masses, not to harm the masses -- in fact, it's often done by organizations/individuals who don't have the will or the means to harm great masses of people. Terrorism is all about getting the most bang for your buck.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2People however, confuse fear with reasons prevention, or annoyance. If you have someone slide cars down an icy hill into your house every year, and you build a wall to stop them - is that being done out of fear or out of a reasonable feeling you'd not like to have cars flying into your house?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1learn how to spell pseudo.
- MadScientist68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This article is ridiculous. Sure, we dont want another 9/11. However, the real threat is the chance that they could use a WMD against us thereby killing 100k or possibly much more. If they had a communicable form of the bird flu, or chicken pox, etc they could kill millions. Remember that many of the Islamic Extremists are actually highly educated.
It only takes one nuke to totally screw up the whole point of this article. - Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1However, your argument works the other way even better. Out of 50,000 people targeted, the terrorists of 9/11 (at least those involved in the trade center portion) managed to kill only 6%. It's been 6 years since 9/11. The population of the US is roughly 300 million. How many lives have been lost to terrorism on US soil? 3000 out of 300 million * 6.
Meanwhile, I've been struck by lightening *twice* in my life. (Not a lie either.) Which is statistically more likely? Should we be declaring war on thunderstorms? Does the existance of lightning justify listening to the countries phone calls to find out if people are talking about going golfing?? - jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think future targets will be energy plants, oil refineries and shipping centers.
Houston seems a lot more dangerous than NYC to me. - UlicBelouve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pelosi's approval ratings have suffered amid signs voters don't think Democrats are getting enough done. A July 15-18 Lake Research Partners/Tarrance Group poll found her rating at 37 percent--a tie with Vice President Dick Cheney
Pulled from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZzAy1REQ6ik&refer=home
Not very many people are doing well in the polls. Both sides are better off not bringing up how someone is doing in the polls, because no one is doing that well. - SilverRocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A War On Terror is as effective as a War On Sadness.... let's not get stats/facts in the way of drama!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Look, either they will or they won't, and we can't really have an impact one way or the other. Now, we're facing something far greater than just a mere threat to our lives - we're facing a threat to our basic, fundamental freedoms at the hand of a totalitarian regime. And if you don't think those freedoms are worth dying for, then I want you to ask yourself what you truly think of our founding fathers, who risked their lives to fight to earn those freedoms.
Besides, by showing fear, we have demonstrated to the terrorists that they do have the ability to shape our policies through their terrorist acts. Thus they have, in fact, succeeded. People forget that death and destruction is not the goal of terrorism - that is merely a means to an end. The true goal is to cause fear, and to that end, they have been incredibly successful. We need to remember the words of a great leader, who said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." - jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um, that's called "the atmosphere"
- superfusion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree, but let's nuke the f'ing bumblebees, just to be on the safe side.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is