Terrorism isn't that important.

[DireStrike]

Am I the only one who feels this way? Despite the unbridled success of the media as portraying a massive shift into a new, terror-filled world, the fact remains that terrorism, in purely quantifiable terms, is not much of a problem.

3,000 deaths? 50,000 car crash deaths every year.
Lost money? Does that justify spending billions of dollars on warfare? Does it even justify a new paradigm?

Never mind the fact that we're certainly not addressing the causes of the problem... the problem isn't even that big!

[Jesus H. Christ]

1. second hand smoke is a more serious threat.

nt

[dolo amber]

45. Who asked you?

Sheesh, you act like you're God's gift or something...:eyes:


:evilgrin:

[CrispyQ]

2. The terrorists in the White House are the serious problem.

[radwriter0555]

36. When our own nation attacks us, is it considered terrorism, I have to

wonder....

Is that the right name for it?

[mark414]

3. 9/11 SHOULD'VE changed everything

it should've woken up americans to just how fucked up a lot of our foreign policy is and make us more world minded and humble citizens

instead it made us more arrogant jingoistic and gave us more of a "let's just bomb the fuck of em" mindset then ever

ugh it makes me sick how these fuckers use that horrible day, that took place in a BLUE city in a BLUE state to carry out their imperialism and their greed filled agenda

and on edit: i voted for small problem, because those crazy fundamentalists (islamic and christian) can cause us some headaches, but the "war on terror" is bullshit and it should not be our number one priority...it should be up there, but not number one

[radwriter0555]

34. 911 wasn't a true terrorist attack, it was more of an attack by US owned

interests.... since the bush regime planned, bought and paid for it.

911 wasn't bin laden. 911 was PNAC.

[amazona]

40. that is still a true terror attack

Terror is an illegal act designed to cause political change. There is nothing in the legal definition of terror that says it is not terror if rich white guys from Texas do it. Whoever planned, bought, and paid for it, it is still terror, and the criminals in question should be hunted to the ends of the earth, put on public trial, and brought face to face with the consequences of their actions.

[annabanana]

4. B*shCo. is working very ha-a-ard

to make it a MUCH bigger problem.

[JHB]

5. Agreed n/t

[latteromden]

6. I don't think that there's a "post-9/11 world," but living near

the Mall of America, I DO see terrorism as a problem, especially considering what a prime target my county would be for terrorists.

That's not to say, however, that Bush is somehow leading our country in the right direction with regards to protecting us from terrorism. Ramsey County, Minnesota, the county next to Hennepin (which holds Bloomington, where the Mall of America is, etc.), got its homeland security money zeroed out for 2005. Hennepin itself, which includes Minneapolis, will have to split about 5 million. That's 5 million for the biggest city in the state, and arguably, one of the biggest terrorist targets in the nation.

However, a possible terror attack on the MoA has always been a problem. There's no super-post-9/11-ultra-enhanced-terror threat to America, but it is still of importance to me.

[anti-fundie]

17. I'd agree with that.

However, I think a 100+ women at a shoe store having a 50% of sale after Christmas is more of a threat to me than terrorism. I mean, I'm just saying what everyone's thinking.

[Nadienne]

7. Terrorism is no more or less of a problem

than before 9/11.

One might say that one successful attack might encourage other attempts.

However, a factor that would do more than 9/11 to encourage attempts is the war in Iraq, or more generally, the US's tendency to dominate other countries.

[lutherj]

8. Totally agree. I've been thinking this since 9/11, and everyone

started saying this "changes everything." Why? Inadequate healthcare, a poor economy, environmental concerns -- these all affect far more people than terrorism. Bush has just pumped the hysteria for his own cynical purposes.

[anti-fundie]

18. Agreed. The "changes everything" is merely an excuse

to (a) hypocritically change your "foreign policy" to provide better security not to the American people but to repub politicians, and (b) to cover up your own admin's incompetence.

[UdoKier]

9. It's a problem comparable to crime.

It's serious, but not a threat to our way of life, but it is a threat that will always be there, and like drugs and crime, will never be completely eliminated.

[bunkerbuster1]

41. If you're running for President, you best not say that.

remember how Kerry got trashed for allowing as how he wanted terrorism reduced to a "nuisance" crime like prostitution.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. It's a small problem.

One attack every 10 years should be taken seriously.

Of course, it shouldn't change our lives as much as it has. Let's face it - everyone has this problem and it will NEVER go away. SOMEONE will always hate us. And, worse, we're never going to change our policies such that the OBL's of the world like us.

[DireStrike]

11. What do you think we should do?

Just curious.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. A few things:

1) End our policy of unquestionable support for Israel. Yeah, they have a right to exist. Yeah, they are our allies. But they DO a lot of horrible things and by not acknowledging them, we only piss people off. This is the #1 thorn in their side and given that our relationship with Israel is extremely one-sided, we'd have a lot to gain by not being so irrationally pro-Israel.

2) Acknowledge that terrorism CANNOT BE ENDED. You can kill people, but you can never kill ideas. We have no hope of winning the war on terror through arms alone. We have to be more pro-active in giving aid and assistance (NOT through force) to Arab nations.

3) STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS (genocide excepted.)

[DireStrike]

13. Sounds reasonable

But it seems to contradict your point of "there will always be those that hate us."

Why give up all the campaign donations of bigoted jews who want unconditional support for Israel? After all, if there's always gonna be someone who hates us we might as well make a profit(cash and votes) from it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It's not a contradiction, it's slowing the bleeding.

Just because you can never end the risk, that doesn't mean you don't try to minimize it.

[DireStrike]

15. And the coffin is nailed shut.

Thank you. Argument solved.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

26. Those "bigoted Jews"

How dare they want their homeland to survive and not be overwhelmed by enemies?

[leftynyc]

35. Yeah - how dare they

While we should be taking the side of the countries that wont let women educate themselves, drive, love and marry who they want, get beaten for laughing....yeah, those should be our bosom buddies. And I don't recall any Jewish leader saying the support for Israel should be unconditional. Perhaps you can share a link.

[DireStrike]

43. My mistake. guess I'm bigoted too.

Seems like our officials (and would-be officials) are not representing their constituents. As usual.

Plenty of politicians, including John Kerry, have pledged what amounts to unconditional support for Israel. I assumed there was some powerful lobbying behind this, but I find - when I actually look - that it is not the case.

Sorry.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Terrorism is a small problem, and best handled

as the Europeans handle it -- a crime problem. With international cooperation between the major crime-fighting units, Interpol, FBI, Scotland Yard, whatever, the terrorists can be apprehended without invading anybody. If the umpteen billions that were spent in Iraq had been focused on securing our borders and going after OBL, we'd be safe and he'd be in prison.

[imenja]

19. I assume the no voters don't live in NY

I wonder if people are saying they don't think it's a serious problem because you don't like how Bush has handled it and how he has used it as an excuse to increase the surveillance power of the state? If you listen to many national security experts--like Michael Scheuer and other CIA defectors, it is a more serious problem than this administration can handle. The fact that it is a threat to our national security doesn't justify the Bush administration's policies. In fact we need leadership that deals head on with the issue of terrorism, protecting us at home and apprehending terrorists abroad through strong alliances, rather than fighting invented battles in Iraq.

[DireStrike]

44. I live in NYC, went to school 5 blocks from the WTC

Saw the people falling. Engaged in speculation about whether the towers could reach the building I was in, if they were to fall in that direction.

My justification for classifying something as a problem is that there must be a solution. There will always be murderers and terrorists. The only question is whether the current levels are normal or not. In more than a decade after the cold war, the effects of terrorism have really been minimal.

The only way to say that it is a problem would be if we could do something to further reduce it. Clearly I hold that our actions do not. But is there anything we can do to reduce it? I don't know, and that is what sends me back and forth between these two points.

[imenja]

55. better funding and preparing first responders, securing nuclear facilities.

There is a great deal we can do that is not being addressed. Kerry actually spoke about many of them during the campaign: port security, border patrols, requiring the nuclear industry to secure their facilities, better funding for first responders, and making Al Quaeda and similar organizations a priority over Iraq. Negotiating a fair peace in Israel-Palestine would also do a great deal to lessen anger of us around the world. And we could stop waging a foreign policy that results in massive increases of terrorist recruits.

[nascarblue]

20. "terrism" is the new communism myth NT

[magellan]

21. Terrorism is a small problem

...compared to the dark road this country is going down in response to it.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Anything that doesnt threaten human civilliaztion isnt really a problem...

There are plenty of people in this world a few thousand dying here and there isnt really going to change much.

The fact that we are going to one day run out of the fuel that our civillization needs to survive however is a real problem.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

27. You sound like someone who doesn't live in a major city

I live just outside of Washington. For everyone here, terrorism is a major problem every single day.

[arwalden]

30. I'm Just Outside Of Washington Too... No Terrorism Here

>> I live just outside of Washington. <<

Howdy Neighbor! :hi:

>> For everyone here, terrorism is a major problem every single day. <<

Where is all this terrorism you speak of? Is it going unreported?

[Jack_DeLeon]

56. If its such a big concern to you...

perhaps you should find somewhere else to live and work.

[RBHam]

23. Which terrorism?

Localized, nationalist terrorism as practiced by the IRA, the Tamil Tigers or the Basques?

Or state terrorism perpetrated by the New World Orderists like 9-11 or that school hostage crisis in southern Russia?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. It's a significant problem, but no problem is worth turning the country

into a police state over.

[Guaranteed]

25. That sounds remarkably similar to the neocon arguments

about how it's not a big deal how many of our soldiers have died in Iraq.

In any case, Rush will probably have ahold of this poll this morning and berate us with it.

[Disturbed]

28. How many people have terrorists killed in ...

comparison this year to how many the U.S. govt, the poluters and the pharma corps have killed this year?

[Guaranteed]

37. Same thing.

That argument is the same thing as saying "It doesn't matter when people die."

I guess drunk driving doesn't matter, or, hell, even murder.

Let's all just go out and start killing innocent people. No biggee.

[DireStrike]

46. From a moral viewpoint, that's true.

From a nation's/society's viewpoint, the idea is to minimize deaths period. If reducing deaths from terror means diverting attention from problems that cause more deaths, how can it be considered a serious problem? It's more like a simple fact, then - what can be done about it?

[Guaranteed]

49. You know, believe it or not, things could have been a WHOLE lot

worse on 9/11.

That plane could have hit the Capitol.

Or, hell, it could have been a nuke.

Is that something worth defending against, a nuclear weapon getting into the hands of a terrorist?

[DireStrike]

50. Yes, it is.

And does our new paradigm of "terror is everywhere" serve that purpose?

I guess I'm changing course here, but I seem to have made John Kerry's error of talking about something badly, and then looking like I'm flip flopping. I won't run for office. ;)

[Guaranteed]

52. No. You're equating what I'm saying with the neocons' bullshit national

defense.

[DireStrike]

53. Part of the flaw in their "bullshit" defense is blowing the problem out of

proportion.

[Guaranteed]

54. Well, if you mean that they're acting as if all Muslims are terrorists,

yeah, you're right. They're certainly doing that when they go around invading countries that don't threaten us.

[Bridget Burke]

29. It's certainly serious, but....

In the short run, we need defenses. How about listening to our intelligence services rather than gutting them? There was plenty of warning before 9/11, but all that happened was Bush's August vacation. How about checking more of the containers coming into our port cities?

In the long run, we need to consider the sources of terrorism. There is some "radicalism" in the world, but injustice recruits more terrorists than "causes".

An illegal war (or two) is absolutely the wrong way to fight terrorism.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

31. Terrorism becomes a huge problem when.....

it is used as an excuse for the erosion of civil liberties. It becomes an even larger problem when it becomes a vehicle to justify foreign wars of adventure that deplete our national treasure and reduces domestic spending on social programs like education and health care. When it increases the national debt and imperils programs like Social Security the terrorism threat become debilitating to our nation. The problem becomes a crime when it generates the loss of life in deluded acts of patriotism and divides our country into deep adversarial fractions and allows the Idiot to exploit it to become the CIC for four more years of a continuing catastrophe. I for one will stick with “Live Free or Die” and take my chances with the terrorism threat and be more concerned about the threat of death when I climb behind a steering wheel.

[bicentennial_baby]

32. It's weakening the international system

Creating cracks and divisions in the already weakened international system, re-popularizing terror as a viable means of political expression, endangering the ummah of global Islam politically and culturally, hastening the dissolution of the Middle Eastern system...

imho....

[Razorback_Democrat]

33. Terrorism is a big problem

being largely ignored by our current administration

the roots of terrorism should be addressed as well as better homeland security.

we should actually be trying to take out REAL terrorists in the world, and not overthrowing sovereign governments that have nothing to do with terror.

This poll would look different after a major terror attack on the US

after 9/11 people would have answered it differently

don't let your hate for * obscure the reality that there are terrorists who want to do us harm (including some in our own * administration no doubt) both domestically and internationally.

[Guaranteed]

38. Great post. nt

[DireStrike]

47. I agree totally - see my post #44 -nt-

[amazona]

39. terror is a huge problem

And the fact that the U.S. is unwilling to hunt down and prosecute terrorists definitely sends the wrong message. When terrorists see that they can attack New York with impunity or send anthrax to Senators without consequence, then I think we can only expect bigger and "better" terror attacks in future.

As far as I can tell, very little is being spent on fighting terror and a great deal is being spent on hand-outs to Halliburton. The war in Iraq is not about fighting terror. It is creating more terror. By definition, to invade a country that has not attacked you and that is mostly disarmed is a war crime. To claim the billions spent in Iraq is spent fighting terror is just plain wrong. It would be more accurate to say that those billions have been diverted from the war on terror.

What will it take for the U.S. to get serious about fighting terror? Do we have to lose an entire city?

What would the nation, or the world, have said if Nixon had just shrugged and gone, "Oh well, no use finding and trying Charles Manson, he didn't actually do it with his own little hands anyway, he just provided funding and inspiration, and the trail has gone cold...and besides a lot more people are killed in car accidents than are killed in political murders anyway, so why should we bother to do anything about it?" He would have been crucified. And rightly so.

But somehow it is OK to let Osama walk. And simply because to arrest a bin Laden would embarrass the Bushes if the story came in a public trial...

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, this dog don't hunt. If your family member was murdered, you would not want to hear the D.A. say, "I have a lot more car accidents to investigate, and maybe someday I'll bother to get around to finding the killer if I have some spare time and a few leftover pennies in the budget."

[DireStrike]

42. That's not my argument.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get UBL. I'm saying we SHOULD be getting him instead of wasting billions of dollars on a "war on terror".

I'm saying that a measured response would be better than what we're doing, which is out of all proportion to the threat (never mind the fact that our response doesn't even address the threat.)

There is no justification for our actions based on the whole "war on terror". There is no such thing, IMO.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Gigmeister]

51. Terrorism is a huge problem for one simple reason...

Muslim terrorists believe Alah condones their actions, so they're not afraid to die while taking millions of innocents with them.

Technology has advanced to the point that nukes may replace simple bombs...Instead of killing a busload of people, one person can now kill hundreds of thousands and send the world into a depression of epic proportions.

Hit New York with a nuke and we can all forget about our governmental safety net (What's left of it after the moron is done raiding it). Society would revert back to 1800 levels...Survival of the fittest.

Yes...Terrorism is a problem.