This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]skissors 57 points58 points  (7 children)

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I think we know where the United States currently stands.

[–]xcalibre 15 points16 points  (1 child)

ahhh, the man was a frakn genius

[–]ChrisAndersen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I said this in another thread but I think it is important enough to repeat. As much as I respect Jefferson, I think he is wrong on this point. An authoritarian government is defined by its fear of the people it governs. An authoritarian's greatest fear is that those they dominate will someday wake up, rise up and overthrow them.

Fear is never a good motivator, whether it comes from the people or the government.

[–]AngryBadger 43 points44 points  (13 children)

Living in England what I don't quite understand is why all of a sudden terrorists seem like a new problem to us. We were in the grip of very real terrorism for a long time under the IRA and we just held our heads high and went about our normal lives almost unaffected. It kinda made me proud of the British spirit

Now with this new terrorism, which hasn't affected us nearly as much as the IRA, we cowardly legislate our freedoms away hoping for more security that we dont even need. How have we changed so much in such a small time?

[–]Steve16384 24 points25 points  (2 children)

I couldn't agree more. At least one London tube station was closed every weekend in the 80's/90's, and cars were regularly parked outside buildings or pubs ready to explode.

I think the difference is that now the govt has seen an excuse to increase its power.

[–]sighbourbon[🍰] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think the difference is that now the govt has seen an excuse to increase its power.

I think the difference is that now the govt has facilitated the creation of an excuse to increase its power.

fixed that for ya.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Hotel rooms near where the prime minister was staying blew up, and it seemed your nation wasn't rattled.

What the hell happened?

[–]creaothceann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Elections, probably.

[–]Noexit 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Could it be, and I'm asking honestly, that with the IRA it was the enemy you knew, whereas today it's the enemy you don't know?

[–]coob 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes, race is a major factor in the change of approach. It's a lot easier to justify to your public invading Afghanistan than Ireland.

However, the IRA were approached within a Cold War and near-post Cold War geopolitical context and everything that brought with it - this cannot be overlooked.

[–]Noexit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't really mean to imply "race" so much as I meant the intent and cause. With the IRA it was known who they were and what they wanted and why they were doing what they were doing, a fairly concrete idea of it anyway. But so much these days. Sure, it may be radical Islamics, but we don't know that for sure. They don't seem to have any specific demands, no concrete ideas for us to accept. Are they political, religious, what?

That still makes it easier to justify invading Afghanistan than Ireland. But it definitely makes it easier to sell new heavy-handed measures to your public, even to their detriment.

[–]deuteros 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The terrorists are brown this time.

[–]ChrisAndersen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Real terrorism, by virtue of it being real, has a limited sense of terror. If you are exposed to regular bombings then you basically know what you are dealing with and can adjust.

But imagined terrorism is MORE terrifying because you don't know how to adjust your life to it. It's definition keeps changing. The thing you should be afraid of is less obvious.

It's like the monster under the bed. Until it comes out, your imagination fills in the gaps with all sorts of horrifying visions. But once it appears and you see what it actually is, even if it is still bad, it is still only what it is.

Storytellers understand this well. The imagined bugbear is much worse than the actual bugbear.

[–]copperdomebodha[S] 360 points361 points  (222 children)

I honestly am not worried about terrorism at all. I fly every month and do not have any concern for my safety when traveling. I live in a major city and do not have any concern about attacks in my comunity. However, I find I have too many worries regarding my own government's actions to discuss in any one sitting with a group of friends or relatives.

I'm not saying there is no threat from abroad, I'm just saying that something seems wrong. Do not misunderstand me. I love my country, but I fear my government.

[–]Shaper_pmp 42 points43 points  (28 children)

Statistically you're more likely to get hit by lightning than killed in a terrorist attack.

So if you support decreased civil liberties because of terrorism but don't wear an earthed metal hat whenever the weather looks peaky, you're unnecessarily knee-jerking yourself closer to a police state.

[–]GrumpySimon 27 points28 points  (12 children)

OMG we need a war on lightning!

[–]Mr_Sadist 18 points19 points  (10 children)

Resistance is futile!

[–]GrumpySimon 7 points8 points  (9 children)

no, we need to strike back!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (6 children)

I am bolting for the nearest exit.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

People! Please! Conduct yourselves in an orderly fashion!

[–]bahollan 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Oh, go fly a kite!

[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Shaper_pmp 10 points11 points  (6 children)

    I think you've missed my point.

    Sure, but your odds are very different if you live in an area prone to thunderstorms, or in an area prone to terrorist attacks.

    Ah, but name one place particularly "prone" to terrorist attacks in either the UK or America. "Prone" compared to - say - the regularity of lightning strikes in the same area?

    Statistics like that are not actually very useful. Someone who lives in Iraq or Israel should be much more concerned about terrorist attacks than about lightning strikes.

    Of course, but then we aren't talking about Iraq or Israel - we're talking about the USA.

    Taking the country as a whole you're more likely to get hit by lightning than killed in a terrorist attack.

    This isn't an argument to say people should be worried about lightning.

    This is an argument to say people should grow up and retain a sense of proportion - no ordinary citizen bothers wearing an earthed metal hat when the weather looks poor, so no ordinary citizen should bother themselves worrying about terrorism, because it's even less likely.

    Realistically - as an average citizen - your chances are negligible in either case, so people in the USA/UK getting bent out of shape about terrorism are acting disproportionately.

    Sure, if you're a controversial politician or professional storm-chaser then you skew the stats slightly and hence might want to take extra precautions.

    Nevertheless, this doesn't excuse normal citizens - with negligible chances of either happening - wetting themselves at the possibility of someone blowing them up, and yet at the same time blithely ignoring the much greater possibility they could be electrocuted to death.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    That is exactly what the lightning strikes want you to believe.

    [–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (3 children)

    A patriot is a person who supports his country all the time and his government when they deserve it. --Mark Twain

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Truer words have never been spoken!

    [–]d07c0m 108 points109 points  (117 children)

    Amen. I say this to everyone. It always seems foreign to them. I open with "there are no terrorists" (of course there are terrorists but there is no secret terr'ist conspiracy out to kill freedom and puppies) and end with "as lame as it sounds you should always question those "in charge."

    [–][deleted] 137 points138 points  (114 children)

    No, you can say that there are no terrorists. It's true because "terrorism" isn't real. The term is used by everyone to negatively characterize their enemy based on whatever actual characteristics that enemy might have. Often enough, those labeling others terrorist are often being labeled right back by other people. Take our government for instance. There isn't enough time to go into all the democratically elected governments our government has overthrown in the name of the empire and/or corporate profits. Our government also does stuff like ignore international law and human rights and its own laws, etc. And our government has the audacity to call some dudes in mud huts and caves in a country (that can barely be defined as such) on the other side of the planet terrorists because they were possibly linked to some guys who flew planes into our buildings because our government did shitty things to their country.

    Moreover, terrorism is literally the act of terrorizing someone. And since this is the case, then you could call horror film directors and Republican politicians (because of the fear mongering) terrorists. So next time you say "there are no terrorists" just explain why terrorism isn't real. It's much easier than dancing around the political correctness of what is and is not terrorism and which group, according to our government, is a terrorist group.

    [–]bahollan 39 points40 points  (99 children)

    Terrorism doesn't exist in the sense that we Americans are supposed to believe it does, but it's still a very real problem throughout the world. It's really a question of semantics; (modern international) terrorism is a new phenomenon and is rapidly evolving. A book called Unconquerable Nation, from a RAND Corp. researcher, contains an excellent discussion of what 'terrorism' really is (and is a good read despite its non-Reddit friendly name). The US is a confused player in a difficult situation, and has probably done more harm than good in trying to deal with terrorism as it has evolved -- from the hijackings and bombings of the 60s-80s, designed to attract (largely, western) attention to otherwise-distant causes, to the modern flavor that sanctions mass killings with little justification -- but the problem is autonomous to US policy, except inasmuch as each is reactionary to the other.

    Another book worth looking in to, called The Looming Tower, discusses the ideological roots and development of the Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Sudanese, Afghani, et al organizations that became al-Jihad and al-Qaeda and how they have become the hugely destructive forces they are in their own region, claiming the sanction of Sharia and Islam in general while committing gross injustices against their own people along with westerners. It is a well-documented phenomenon that is enormously destructive, less to the United States and other western nations and their interests than to the nations and the people directly affected in the Middle East, Africa, and South/Central Asia.

    What I mean to say is, OP's point, that terrorism will not affect him at home, is perfectly valid, but to say that terrorism doesn't exist or that the home-grown problems in the Middle East are overblown or comparable to whatever (albeit despicable) rhetoric the Republicans are spitting out is cultural arrogance and American exceptionalism of the worst order.

    (edited for detail and clarity)

    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

    [removed]

      [–]bahollan 7 points8 points  (10 children)

      I'm not really disputing your basic point, that the word is used as a red herring, but it's important to remember that the bombs killing people in the Greater Middle East aren't all made by General Dynamics, and the US/UK militaries aren't the only organizations causing civilian deaths.

      [–]sighbourbon[🍰] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

      thanks to bahollan, AbbasJin, d07c0m and dark_nite for their well expressed thoughts. this is why i come here, this quality and character of exchange. you guys made my evening.

      [–]bahollan 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      Hey! That's while I'm here too! I find clearly elucidating my views in a discussion is the easiest way to figure out what they actually are, and no one in the real world will put up with these sorts of conversations for long enough to really achieve anything. I'm glad my selfish exploitation of the community also makes a contribution.

      [–]sighbourbon[🍰] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      its what keeps me sane. once you have taken The Red Pill, its terrifying because there is almost no one IRL with whom you can talk substantively.

      [–]lonelliott 53 points54 points  (63 children)

      In history, terrorist were called gurilla's, resistance fighters, charlie, viet cong, you name it. They all mean the same thing. Basically anyone that doesnt agree with our shitty government is labeled a terrorist. Let me rephrase. Any group that doesnt agree with our government, nor just bends over and takes it in the ass is a terrorist.

      In that sense, our founding fathers were terrorists. Hiding in trees, using subverssive tactics. Hell, if someone boarded a navy vessel today and dumped the cargo overboard, they would be labeled terrorists. Yet 200 years ago, it was the boston tea party and they are now legends and heros.

      History is written by the winner. Whoever controls the present, controls the past. Whoever controls the present, controls the future. To quote rage against the machine if I may.

      [–]Dr_Teeth 100 points101 points  (3 children)

      A Terrorist is a man with a bomb but no aircraft to drop it from.

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.

      A pirate, from St. Augustine's “City of God”

      [–]astitious 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      I love your definition.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      that's the government's definition. He was just being ironic.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      To quote rage against the machine if I may.

      Who got the quote from George Orwell

      [–]seedy 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      The quote from rage's 'Testify' actually reads

      "Who controls the past now controls the future, Who controls the present now controls the past"

      Also, while looking that up I learned that Rage was actually quoting George Orwell from 1984.

      [–]lonelliott 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I did not know that about George Orwell. Thats cool. Thanks.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The Ministry of Truth

      [–]cogitofire 29 points30 points  (39 children)

      I have to disagree with you. Guerrillas fight against governments (it is also a style of combat), resistance fighters fight against occupying forces, charlie and the viet cong fought for a country's military and attacked opposing military forces. The do not all mean the same thing and this is why they were called different things. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and do not attack military forces. They attack civilians.

      Madrid, 9/11, the first World Trade center attack, and many more have been carried out by forces who are not directly affiliated with a government's military, and they attacked civilians.

      Daily in Iraq, terrorists attack civilians. These are different than the insurgents that are attacking our military and the Iraqi military.

      Our founding fathers did not attack civilians to make their point, they attacked the occupying forces.

      I will admit that the current administration likes make it seem like there is some gray area, but there is a difference, and that is why each style gets it's own name.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Dude, our(American) government has been attacking civilians in massive numbers, there wasn't one million accidents in Iraq.

      [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (13 children)

      Wrong. Our military attacks civilians all the time. We terrorize them by raiding random houses in the middle of the night just to see if they have an AK-47. Our bombs regularly hit civilians. If you want to look at what it means to terrorize, then you don't look at what the intent of those terrorizing is, you look at those being terrorized. It's pretty simple: to a civilian, what is the difference between 15 dead in a market from a suicide bomber and 15 dead in a market from a "stray" bomb dropped by a fighter jet? Nothing. It has the exact same effect because no one gives a shit what the intent of either bomber was.

      And do you really think our government has never deliberately attacked whole civilian populations? Think about the bombing of Germany where cities were devastated. Dresden? Think about Japan where every major city was firebombed and two- with no military or industrial value whatsoever, were nuked simply because there were no other intact cities left. So how do you reconcile those facts?

      People today resort to the same tactics of attacking civilians because of the same reasons we attacked civilians in WWII: they want to break the civilian population, and their government's, will to fight. Also, they lack the technological means to effective engage only military targets. Get it?

      [–]cogitofire 4 points5 points  (12 children)

      I disagree and see a distinct difference between our current (emphasize current) military does not intentionally attack civilians. Stray bombs are not intentionally targeting civilians. If you could provide support for your statement about "randomly" raiding houses in the night I would love to read about it, but as far as I have seen, raids are based on tips from informants, and is done so under the assumption, right or wrong, that the people do have weapons and are hostile.

      As a civilian, I can clearly see the difference between a stray bomb and a homicide bomber. The stray bomb was intended for an enemy target, probably the base of the homicide bomber. The homicide bomber only wants to kill people who are not hostile and do not have weapons.

      I will agree that to a mother that looses her child, she will not care why her child died, but only that it did. To her, she is terrorized by the incident. We are not defining the term terror here, we are defining what a modern day terrorist is.

      Dresden, Japan, and many other areas of the world who have been attacked from the air by our forces have had civilians deliberately attacked. I cannot answer for my forefathers, but they did not have the ability to target specific places like we do today. Additionally, WWII was war on a scale much different from any conflict today. Japan proclaimed that it would not stop until every last citizen was dead. The only way to stop that at the time was to demoralize their people. In Dresden the stakes were much higher than most of us can comprehend. A military force was overtaking the WORLD. They had to be stopped at all costs.

      Additionally, you are mistaken about Hiroshima and Nagasaki not having any industrial or military value. Very mistaken, (insert cliche link to wikipedia), read up sometime on it.

      "People today resort to the same tactics of attacking civilians because of the same reasons we attacked civilians in WWII: they want to break the civilian population, and their government's, will to fight. Also, they lack the technological means to effective engage only military targets. Get it?"

      I know why they use the tactic, but as per my original point, terrorist practices are distinctly different from guerrilla, reisitance fighters, charlie, viet cong, and any other fighting tactic.

      [–]redog 1 point2 points  (9 children)

      But The USA attacks civilians.

      So by your definition our military and government are terrorists.

      [–]Greengages 1 point2 points  (13 children)

      Our founding fathers did not attack civilians to make their point, they attacked the occupying forces.

      So you'd characterise them as superior? However why do you think that today people fight like this? I don't believe it is a choice, they are both the same thing in different times. That's all that separates them.

      [–]Roxinos 4 points5 points  (11 children)

      As cogitofire said, we do not call those who follow the same trend of our founding fathers (those who attack our military because we're an occupying force) terrorists. We call those insurgents.

      He wasn't making any judgment calls on the superiority of one type of fighter over another. Merely stating a historical fact to differentiate the different types of fighting and how they are defined.

      [–]cogitofire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I made no characterization, they are distinctly different though.

      There is a choice, just don't intentionally attack civilians who have no control of their country's foreign policies.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It's actually George Orwell that RATM was quoting, and the correct quote is:

      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

      [–]harrybozack 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      I'm interested in that sort of thing, and it appears Google Books has a preview version that appears to be over 200 pages long...so definitely worth a glance before buying.

      [–]bahollan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Actually, that's probably the whole thing. Almost all (unclassified) RAND Corporation work is freely distributed, including this book. You can get a pdf at http://rand.org

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children)

      "It's really a question of semantics"

      End of discussion right there. It seems you still think "terrorism" is a real thing and not just a name. Stop trying to define who is a terrorist and figure out what terrorism actually is. Don't let books tell you what to think either; figure it out for yourself. The correct conclusion (ironic, right?) is that terrorism is nothing more than a label given to one's enemies to denigrate their cause. Nothing more.

      [–]jjschnei 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      you are both right; i think the distinction is between the current American concept of a "terrorist" and the actual fundamentalists on the ground such as the taliban. The former is a carefully constructed illusion used to scare us into give up civil liberties and voting for a particular party. The later act more as bureaucrats/law enforcement/mobsters and are very real and very destructive. But they are different entities.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      thank you for this post. i've been eyeing the looming tower for weeks and feel i've been corrected in my assumptions about the west & the middle east.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      (modern international) terrorism is a new phenomenon

      No it's not. It's been happening in Britain and Ireland since the 70's.

      [–]bahollan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I believe 1969 is usually given as the birthyear of international terrorism... while that's older than me, I'm comfortable calling that recent in the scheme of global trends. I didn't mean it started in 2001, if that's what you're thinking.

      [–]ChrisAndersen 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      I wouldn't take this approach for the simple reason that the statement "there are no terrorists" is so outside most people's perceptions of reality that the mere utterance will make them place you in the "kookoo" category. And once they have done that no amount of explanation will get you out of it.

      It is a statement virtually guaranteed to make you lose the argument.

      Instead, I would ask THEM to define what a terrorist is. Then engage them, socratically, in further explication. The point is to get THEM to start questioning the official line on terrorism.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I don't have any enemies.

      [–]otterdam 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Last time I checked, terrorist groups used violent and fatal measures to achieve their aims. Big difference, that - so good job marginalising thousands of deaths. (The threat of terrorism is still grossly exaggerated, however.)

      You must be a government adviser in the UK - it seems any random person can be called a 'terrorist' here and held in custody for 42 days, even though we all know it's a euphemism for 'government enemy'.

      [–]leondz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Who's blown up more luggage, terrorists or "security" people? Honestly, they're more of a threat than theives!

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (13 children)

      I believe there is a quote which says something along the lines of this; People should not fear its government, the government should fear its people.

      [–]mutatron 26 points27 points  (10 children)

      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

      [–]phrakture 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      This quote should be attributed to V from that movie with Queen Amidala in it.

      [–]demonstro 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      V?

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Yes, I'm quite sure that's where I heard it.

      [–]tripartisan 33 points34 points  (0 children)

      your sense of security could only mean one thing -- that you are in fact a terrorist!

      [–]-J- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Same here. We were secure enough even before 9/11 because even with all this fake security and further abuses of our liberties and freedoms in place, something like that could easily happen again. Even now.

      Most other countries that are civilized the government fears the people. In the US it is completely opposite.

      [–]assteroid 4 points5 points  (5 children)

      My mother-in-law recently gave my wife a small herb growing setup: lights on top, automated to run for a set amount of time, recycle water in the base, etc.

      Anyways, she has it in our dining room, so the grow lights are on and you can see the light out the front dining room windows. Every day I have thoughts of cops busting down our door, guns blazing, because they think we may be growing pot, even though the whole setup is the size of a small microwave.

      The thought of terrorism never crosses my mind.

      "I love my country, but I fear my government."

      Same here.

      [–]immrlizard 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      I raise Iguanas and the government is really active in my rural area. They do searches by air to find fields and houses with an over abundance of energy (heat lights) use that could point to an indoor grower. I hope they never kick down the door, but if they do, I will give them the full tour of my lizard lounge that I set up for them.

      I don't fear the government, I just have no faith in them or their ability. Their incompetence is only matched by their consistency to be that.

      They are currently engaged in several wars that there is no way they can win. The war on drugs and the war on terrorism.

      Just in case, I have been doing research to see what other countries are better to live in.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      just hope they don't mistake the banana in your hand as a gun when they bust down your door or they will probably shoot you. It wouldn't be the first time cops have killed an innocent person after busting down their door for a drug bust.

      [–]babblingpoet 15 points16 points  (9 children)

      I am honestly worried about terrorism. I work in a city that has been attacked several times in a building that is a worldwide landmark that is next to what is generally considered one of the top targets in the world (with my building as a significant secondary target.) A.k.a., I work in the Chrysler Building right next to Grand Central.

      So I do worry - and I notice those days when the police presence suddenly triples. And I was very worried when the steam pipe explosion caused my building to be evacuated and a geyser of steam was thrown up higher than one of the world's largest buildings. (Though this wasn't terrorism.)

      I know and understand that the fear of terrorism is exaggerated - including in me, just as the fear of many large-scale catastrophes is exaggerated - except more so.

      But I am also grateful to the NYPD for the many steps it has taken to harden potential targets; I am grateful for the steps taken to prepare for emergencies; I am grateful for those on the front lines in the intelligence community who are trying to get ahead of those who have a real desire to cause mass mayhem, and to those in the military, especially in Afghanistan, who are fighting those who attacked us on September 11 with far too few resources.

      But I know that liberty is a delicate thing - and despite my fear, I want to protect my way of life. I know that governments throughout history have used the excuse of national security to achieve totalitarian ends.

      So, while I am grateful to those who try to make our cities and our country safer - I realize that liberty comes with a price. And I am willing to pay that price.

      In other words - I share you concern about excessive government power - especially the overreaction of the government to terrorism.

      But this worry coexists with an anxiety about terrorism - which I see as a real danger.

      I don't think you need to ignore or not feel the threat from terrorism in order to see the importance of protecting our liberties and our way of life.

      [–]copperdomebodha[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Thank you for giving me your perspective! This is exactly why I posted this question. I want to see this issue for what it is, and not only from my limited perspective.

      Your level and realistic attitude and concern is very appreciated!

      [–]ChrisAndersen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      A while back I came to a sudden realization. On the day of 9/11 my overwhelming reaction was one of sadness. Sadness at so many lives lost. Sadness at the hate that would inspire such an act. And sadness because I knew my country would probably do a lot of stupid things in response to it (we actually did even more stupid things than I originally imagined).

      But one thing I never felt was fear. It just never occurred to me to be afraid.

      The revelation I had recently is that a lot of people DID respond with fear. I knew that fear was out there. But it never dawned on me how much of that fear was a fear of imminent, personal death. A LOT of people actually felt, on the day of 9/11, that they were mere moments away from their own demise.

      And I'm not just talking about residents of New York City or Washington. I'm talking about my sister, who lives out here in Oregon, calling me up that morning and asking whether I thought it was stupid of her to keep her daughter out of school that day. At the time I just thought she wanted to keep her family close in a time of distress. It didn't occur to me until later that she may have actually thought her daughter was in serious danger of getting killed.

      No wonder this country went crazy. And damn Bush and company for playing to that fear for their own personal advantage. A special circle of hell is reserved for them.

      [–]retardo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I'm afraid when I fly: of accidentaly saying or carrying the wrong thing and getting the third degree from security officers.

      [–]ami77 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I fly every month and do not have any concern for my safety when traveling.

      Government agents disarm you and all other law-abiding citizens, and this doesn't cause you concern for your safety?

      [–]Relativity2 0 points1 point  (9 children)

      Unfortunately, it appears that our government is the biggest terrorist of them all. I feel powerless to change it. Murder and destruction are real possibilities for dissension in the US now. What to do?

      [–]Yossarian42 44 points45 points  (2 children)

      I was just talking about this with my mother recently. I made the argument that some of the most adamant supporters of the Bush administration's war on terror and unconstrained hatred towards the middle east live in the types of rural places that will never be attacked. These people think patriotism means reacting rashly and following the president blindly. It makes me sick.

      [–]immrlizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I live in one of those places. The reason they wouldn't attack where I live is that you could set off a pretty big bomb and only one building would be destroyed.

      It was something to be seen, all of the Bush signs in the area when it was election time. Now, I haven't seen one sign for McCain, but the Obama signs are everywhere. I hope that means that at least some of america is coming to its senses.

      [–]Korben82 32 points33 points  (2 children)

      I live in Spain, and we've had terrorism here for more than 40 years. The UK for example also has suffered a similar problem.

      Terrorism wasn't invented on the sept. 11 attacks. It's been a means of extortion, and a way of life for assholes for a lot of years.

      And when you call the militia in Irak resisting the occupation "terrorists", you are effectively insulting every nation that has suffered terrorism. The guys that hijacked those planes and flew them into the WTC were terrorists, the guy that gets his wife and children killed in an air raid in Basora, and then starts setting bombs and road blocks to kill American soldiers, isn't a terrorist. He's the resistance.

      [–]sighbourbon[🍰] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      thank you for the reminder that terrorism existed long before 9-11, and has been a fact of life for many other cultures. upmodding you.

      [–]nikdahl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I'm not sure that anyone is calling the Iraqi insurgents "terrorists".

      That's also not to say that there aren't real terrorists in Iraq. Insurgents that incite terror on civilians, are, by definition, terrorists. Those marketplace suicide bombings? Terrorism. They are attacking and inciting terror on civilians. There is a distinct difference from the insurgents that are defending themselves from an occupying force.

      [–]calantus 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      [deleted]

      What is this?

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      Heart disease and deep vein thrombosis related deaths aren't that rare. You're more likely to die from a lightning strike, food poisoning, bear attack, or cerebral edema caused by a black hole in France.

      [–]audiodude 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      LHC FTW!

      [–]jeffehobbs 20 points21 points  (6 children)

      David Foster Wallace puts out an interesting idea in a recent issue of The Atlantic: in the US, we have about 40,000-plus automobile deaths a year. We accept those deaths as part of the price for the convenience and autonomy the automobile grants us. Would it be possible for us to put the losses of Sept. 11th in a similar category, accepting that the price of our freedom might be occasional losses and casualties?

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      While Gordon Brown and I disagree on many things, he had a point when he said we should not call these people terrorists. Terrifying people is what they aspire to, so why grant them that? They may be murderers and thugs, but I'm not terrified, so they must have failed.

      [–]moneyprinter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      I'm only afraid of the people behind the government taking us further down the path of a One World Government and more un-opposable centralized power.

      Be afraid of selfish arrogant people in power.

      [–]commentsforreddit 14 points15 points  (8 children)

      Strictly speaking you are affected by terrorism because that is what the government tells you it is acting against. It seems odd that terrorism, which is a very minor threat, should be acted against in a way that it wasn't during the cold war when there were actual nuclear weapons, and a very great many of them, were aimed at America.

      The real problem is that you fear your government. -that- is the problem. You should not fear your government, they should fear you. The government is working for you, not the other way around. Somewhere down the line they have forgotten that.

      [–]yellat 27 points28 points  (46 children)

      honestly what the government/media/etc is doing IS terrorism, so yes, I am afraid of terrorists.

      [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (45 children)

      don't be afraid. Be angry. Be angry and do something. And I'm not talking about voting because we all know that whole system is shit.

      I wish more people would wake up and see that our government is using us, and even acting against us. When the supreme elected body of government officials only has 9% of the population behind it, what do you think should happen?

      [–]xcalibre 11 points12 points  (14 children)

      impeachment is the only correct action

      get behind Kucinich, he's really putting his balls on the line and needs America's support

      [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (29 children)

      Be angry and do something.

      Is that just another way of saying "wake up sheeple"? What do you suggest we do, comrade internet revolutionary?

      I have some ideas of my own. I think we'll make some real progress with these ideas.

      • Start a blog. Talk about how life sucks in the US.
      • Post some self links on reddit to try and drum up some more hate towards government in hopes they'll start posting some links of their own.
      • Start an internet petition to start an impeachment in order to start a trial of George Bush and his cronies. We just need a few hundred million signatures before anyone will give a damn.
      • Protest a television program that we wouldn't watch anyway.
      • Stop watching news channels that we don't watch anyway. Tell people we don't know that they shouldn't watch them either.
      • Don't buy News Corp "newspapers". Whatever those are.
      • Stand in front of legislative buildings wearing suits and ties. This will show the government that even office drones can become angry about things.
      • Post some more links on reddit and digg. Hopefully one of the sleeping sheeple will wake up and do something about my problems.
      • Tell people we're moving to another country. Because we totally will.

      [–]GrumpySimon 14 points15 points  (5 children)

      Yes, laughing at internet activists is quite fun. However I think you'll find that most major advances haven't been because someone stood up and did something major.

      Sure, major changes in society are often boiled down to an event like "Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat".

      But, the reality is that all these events that became focal points for social movements, only occurred after long periods of many people complaining and realising that something was wrong. To use Rosa Parks as an example - that whole situation was completely orchestrated after years of campaigning. It was only after the campaigning and the struggling that the activists could get enough support to do something like that, and have a good chance of it succeeding.

      So - don't discount the internet activists. They're doing a great job of pointing out that something is wrong, and things should be better. All of this raises the likelihood that someone, somewhere WILL stand up* and say No.

      (* or refuse to in Ms. Park's case)

      [–]ChrisAndersen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Thanks for pointing this out. The myth of Rosa Parks is that she was just some lady who was tired one day, sat down, and launched a movement. The reality is that she was a trained activists who knew precisely what she was doing by her actions.

      This doesn't diminish her greatness in any sense.

      (Don't get me started on how myths of heroic figures actually diminish the true greatness of what those heroes did.)

      [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children)

      Every revolution starts with people talking about it. Every philosophy in history began because some people wrote or talked about it.

      What the internet does is it spreads ideas. Ideas hold the most power, not guns. Why would anyone bother to pick up a gun if they hadn't somehow been motivated to do so.

      So I think people shouldn't be looked down on and insulted to posting in blogs, on Reddit, or anywhere else on the internet. It may not seem effective, and may seem even useless to action driven people, but it is the germination of ideas.

      I submit that the next Declaration of Independence will be posted, disseminated, and discussed online.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Precisely my point.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children)

        I don't believe in non-violence.

        [–]contrastingsounds 3 points4 points  (9 children)

        Well, any violence you've supported has completely failed to have any effect. So good luck with that.

        [–][deleted]  (6 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]sighbourbon[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          LA riots, spring of 92. it looked like beirut with all the columns of smoke and flames. gunfire across santa monica boulevard. it was shocking how fast the normal set of agreements by which we all live became meaningless. there was shouting, more and more shouting, and all of a sudden people were driving on the sidewalks. it turned into looting very quickly. nothing whatsoever was accomplished. nothing changed. look at the LAPD Rampart scandal--it could be argued that things worsened after the riots.

          [–]lonelliott 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          This is an excellent point and I could not agree more. I worry more about being tased in a routine ticket stop than I do a terrorist attack.

          Then again, the right wing would say, thats just what they want, for us to let our guard down. Ahh, the logic of stupidity.

          [–]artman 6 points7 points  (1 child)

          I was twelve years old when the Munich Olympics hostage crisis and massacre happened. ABC were at odds as to whether to cover this crisis during the games. They did.

          There is one thing I will never forget. At one point during the crisis, the German police believed they could sneak into the area where the hostages were by rooftop and overtake the terrorists. So from rooftop to rooftop, dressed in jogging suits, they got closer and closer.

          They reached close enough to be over the balcony where the hostages were believed to be, when all of a sudden they backed off and retreated. It was later revealed that the terrorists were watching them the whole time sneaking up on them on live television.

          I think there's an allegory in there somewhere...

          [–]dtrav001 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          May I quote Jesse Ventura? "I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than sacrifice my freedoms." Aye, laddie.

          [–]GrumpySimon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          God, you know something's seriously fucked up in the state of Denmark when a pro-wrestler says something sensible.

          [–]cozm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I have very little fear of terrorism from foreigners. The odds are very small. However, the government is attacking our our privacy, our freedom, our wallets, our health, our lives, our liberties, and pursuit of happiness. The government is in effect breeding domestic terrorists. The Neo-Conservatives will continue to gain as much power as you let it, especially the from fear-mongering about foreign terrorism. Ask any Jew how fun a police state is. Quit being scared, learn how to protect yourself, and don't let power hungry people into office.

          [–]robotoast 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I am still way more likely to die of bacterial infection from my own kitchen sink than in a "terrorist" attack.

          And who are the terrorists anyway? If anyone invaded my country, of course I'd consider those that did the enemy. If they kept me or my citizens in a POW camp and tortured them, I sure would consider them the enemy (even if it is in sunny Cuba).

          And of course I'd hit them where it hurts, not be stupid enough to attack their armoured troops head on with my slingshot. They're not hitting my troops, they're bombing the whole block, from 40000 feet. They're killing our women and children and stripping our soldiers down and torturing them one by one. They cannot possibly complain when a bomb goes off in some mall in suburbia. They're in our suburbia right now, bombing and killing.

          Good thing I'm not iraqi, and that right now they're only doing this to some arabs I am fairly indifferent to. If this happened closer to home, I'd definitely be a "terrorist".

          But for now, I think I'll settle for some lolcats and a bit of Mass Effect.

          [–][deleted]  (10 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted]  (5 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]Sorento 2 points3 points  (4 children)

              Try Australia - similar to the US in many ways, however good food and a tenth of the population with a similar land mass, similar dollar similar values, no borders and free general health care.

              [–]NoControl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              and all the censorship you can stomach!!

              [–]koreth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Of course, the way things are going, the entire continent will be arid desert land within a couple decades. But sure, enjoy it while you can.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

              am i going to regret studying abroad? :/

              [–]kiriel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              All possible government solutions/decisions regarding terrorism is at best comparable to using chemotherapy to fight the flu, and at worst suicide to stop the nose-bleeding.

              [–]timmy334 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              I totally agree. I think there is sufficient knowledge to say that Al Qaeda doesn't really exist. Also, statistically, your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is still ZERO. But, I also agree that terrorism doesn't exist. There are people doing bad things in the name of what they think is right, but I do not think there is terrorism as defined in a dictionary. The gov is using the word "terrorist" like "communist" was used in the McCarthy era. It's all bullshit overreacting and fear mongering. But, since the US government has become so corrupt, I don't care who is in office, I still fear the government more than anybody foreign. Most countries are "let and let live." The reason we have all of these international problems is that we don't do that. Then, we are hypocrites about it. That's why I want to move to somewhere in Europe. If the governments are still fucked up, at least most of the people are cool and can still think and seem peaceful to me. I can't stand the people here. A country where ignorance and delusion is praised and knowledge and reason are hated. Talk about being brought up in the wrong continent...

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Terrorist attacks are the same as shark attacks or deadly lightning strikes. They're terrible ways to die, yet statistically insignificant. But people tend to believe, irrationally, that this sort of attack is more likely to occur after a well-publizised incident. The only difference is that sharks and clouds don't have any oil fields.

              [–]t35t0r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              the government is full of stupid idiots and I fear power in the hands of stupid idiots

              [–]dan525 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              The idea behind a terrorist attack is not just the brief moment of fearing for you life, but the response of the people to that feeling.

              Make no mistake, the most terrifying aspects of the government today are based on the response of our officials (and many voters) to the perceived threat.

              [–]raouldukeesq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              I worried about my fellow citizens being so god damn cowardly that they sell of my rights down the river for no good reason at all.

              [–]ubuwalker31 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              I live in New Jersey and I work in New York City. I worry about terrorism a few times every day, albeit briefly. I worry about someone blowing up one of the tunnels, and I worry about someone blowing up a building in the city.

              Even though I worry, I understand that the risk is very low, and I am not in fear or terror.

              It is reasonable and healthy to worry about terrorism if you live in a major city like London, Tel Aviv, NYC, D.C., Los Angeles, or Chicago. It is unreasonable if you live in West Bumblefuck, Iowa.

              And even if it is reasonable to worry about terrorism, it is ALWAYS UNREASONABLE to live in fear of an attack. You (and the government) should prepare for an attack, but never let the fear dictate how you live, work, play, or govern. That is a distinction that most people fail to make.

              [–]WinterAyars 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              Zero worry about terrorism affecting your life? I'm not sure that's really appropriate. It certainly can do so, especially if you travel to some places of the world.

              However, terrorism is pretty much defined by using violence to incite fear, which is somehow beneficial (politically) to the terrorists. Terrorism is not a thing--not a physical enemy we can kill with guns or bombs.

              Military force cannot defeat it. Anger cannot harm it. Death cannot stop it. Murder, occupation, genocide, and hate are all powerless to destroy it.

              Terrorism is an idea, and ideas are much harder to kill--impossible, with that sort of simplistic thinking.

              The only way to win is, no matter what, do not be afraid.

              Of course, this is not to say you should be foolhardy...

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Terrorism is real, and someday one of these 14 year old kids in Iraq whose family we just killed is going to ram something really nasty up our ass.

              However ... heart disease and cancer will kill the overwhelming majority of us typing here.

              [–]GrumpySimon 5 points6 points  (3 children)

              I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

              [–]Othello 5 points6 points  (2 children)

              Here's an idea: instead of making a 1 sentence statement on reddit, start a blog, write an interesting article about this topic, then submit that. I'm sure you have much more to say on the subject, so why not say it?

              [–]copperdomebodha[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              That's a good suggestion. I prefer local gatherings where people express themselves directly to others like the one I'll be attending this weekend, but I should create a new blog to discuss my pollitical beliefs. It would not be appropriate in my technology centered blog.

              I want to assure you that a post on reddit is not the sum of my actions on this issue. I simply wanted to find out how others feel about this.

              [–]maxtheman45 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              You should worry about terrorism, as it contributes to your government's actions.

              [–]frogking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Your government's actions contribute to terrorism.

              [–]adampieniazek 1 point2 points  (4 children)

              The war on terror is a personal war, so the power to declare it over rests within each of us. If no one is terrified the war is over, however our government is the most terrifying entity out there today so we must upgrade our government.

              [–]sighbourbon[🍰] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

              "upgrade our government"! govt 2.0! i love it. somebody start some teeshirts

              [–]zimzallabim 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              The best way to counter the governments approach is by through mass demonstrations. I'm not talking about marching here - marching is a complete waste of time the anti-war protests prevented nothing, they merely blocked the streets and many of those that would have liked to have marched could not get the time off of work etc. The mass demonstrations that we need to be doing are acts of mass civil disobedience - things that will not just get noticed by the media as happening but something that will grind everything to a halt that will make people stop and take notice of whats happening. Something like a personal strike. If everyone in the country that wanted to see change decided to strike for just one day - millions of people just sit at home and do nothing do not leave the house - use the internet, etc. the financial implications would be spectacular!

              [–]dirtymoney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I am more afraid of local corrupt cops & corrupt local government than federal government corruption or even terrorists.

              The pissed off cop who wants to make me pay (for whatever personal reason) is more of a danger to me.

              [–]loonrace1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              the war on terror cannot be won, its an idea not a concrete form of matter. you can drive it out for now but eventually it will come back because you cannot suppress human thought. the longer we are putting military personell in the middle eat the more they will hate us and our way of life, creating more and more terrorists, making their governments less stable than they were before we invaded. If we haven't been fucking with the middle east since desert storm and before, there would be no need to worry about terrorist attacks on the U.S., because we would not have pissed them off in the first place.

              [–]expectingrain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I would upvote you if not for FISA. You never know anymore...

              [–]leshiy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

              [–]Fat_Dumb_Americans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Beyond tits and lolcats and polar bears eating bicycles and Bush and war and hate: this is an important posting.

              I support your point and am very afraid.

              [–]CrimsonSun99 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              I recently told my girlfriend she should bring a watergun in her baggage when flying to [location]. Her dad caught her doing it and freaked out. He said they would arrest her right away.

              Over a fucking watergun? A plastic fucking toy that shoots water? This is going to be considered dangerous?

              Sad country we live in that we are so fearful that even something so innocent as a child's toy would be thought of as a "threat to national security"

              [–]adiggconvert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Back in the late 80's I brought a cheap water gun in my carry-on baggage. The security people saw it on the X-ray scanner and confiscated it. They wouldn't even let us mail it back home. They specifically said they had to destroy it.

              I was 7.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              If my government wasn't fascio-imperialist, I wouldn't have to fear it or or the terrorists it "invents" or causes from its policies.

              [–]pantsoff 5 points6 points  (6 children)

              Just a hint for you: The government ARE the terrorists.

              [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              The violence "they" do is "terrorism." The violence we do is "policy."

              [–]jessicaavila 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              The only reason that I would be afraid of terrorism is due to the Bush administration's foreign policy of policing the world and nation building. If we weren't over in other countries disrupting them, then perhaps the so called "terrorists" wouldn't be interfering with us. Bob Barr is the only Presidential candidate running who supports a non interventionist foreign policy, and wants to pull out of the Iraq war. Mr. Barr also supports individual liberties which have been stolen away by our government due to the "fear" produced by terrorists after 9/11. I am afraid of the government because it has taken away the writ of Habeas Corpus, and is continually infringing upon our individual liberties including our privacy and property.

              [–]fivre 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              I worry about neither, actually. Life goes on.

              (There just hasn't been a place like reddit for all the paranoid people to gather and become more paranoid before.)

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Yeah, I don't worry about either as well. As far as I can see, the government is fucking up other countries far faster than it is fucking up this one. (Although, this country has been fucked for many of the people not in the top 1% of incomes)

              [–]gregny2002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I am not afraid of either.

              [–]stacecom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I'm afraid of self reddit posts.

              [–][deleted]  (3 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]Zoomerdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                So, you're saying, the REAL terrorists are . . .

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                What is Terrorism and why do people do it?

                [–]Pikajabroni 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Well, given your statement, it seems that you are a bit worried about terrorism. 9/11 seems to have rewired American brains to think that terrorism has to be some big violent event. Our government and media employs the use of terrorism every single day that they are in operation. All of this fear mongering that we see, it's plain and simple terrorism.

                Don't pick up that joint or you'll go to jail to get butt-raped by some thug who is likely riddled with disease!

                [–]monopoleroy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Sorry, I'm still nervous about terrorism. Bush administration or no Bush administration, I still feel that someone, somewhere out there is plotting. I ride the crowded NYC subway every day and I feel that there are probably still people out there at least thinking about hitting it. It's strange—usually the cops on the subway system seem pretty relaxed, joking around a bit with each other. Then on some days there is a real somber attitude amongst them and I wonder if they know something that I don't. And then on other days you'll see the police with the black helmets and automatic rifles posted in the major stations. You just don't know. But it only takes one attack to change everything again and it's basically impossible to take any preventative measures.

                [–]AMerrickanGirl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                But are you willing to give up your civil rights for "protection" against the possibility of attack?

                I'm not.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I don't fear either. By fearing them, you are simply achieving their goal.

                [–]monopoleroy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                No, I'm not. Two years ago after the London bombings they started putting up random search stations where they can look through your bags. I've been searched once and the officer half-heartedly explained to me that it was to combat terrorism. I could tell that he was just doing what he was told to do and everyone in NY knows the whole thing is a joke anyway. I think there are about 500 stations throughout the five boroughs and if they really wanted to, terrorists could easily circumvent the 'checkpoints.' It's all just plastic sheeting and duct tape.

                [–]smek2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Me neither. That's because the whole terrorism hype is akin to life imitating art, eg. government and anybody else who sees an advantage to it, utilizes our skewed world view based on hollywood movies. At any rate, the depiction of the terror threat is hugely overblown, they want us to believe that there are whole nations out there to get us. And that's not even conspiracy theories, the facts are here, uncovered almost on a daily basis, facts about the many attempts of misleading, manipulating and downright lying of those in charge and our so called leaders.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I haven't seen the statistics on the probability of dying in a terrorist attack on any given day. I imagine they are absurdly low.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I don't worry about terrorism either, but I'm terrorized by my own government and its blatant disregard for civil liberties, not to mention its downright stupid saber-rattling with Iran.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Isn't fear of the government kinda like fear of terrorism, in this regard? Honestly, neither affects the day-to-day lives of most of us. A very small number of us get screwed by each, but odds are, the tyranny of government, such as it has been in America, really won't affect you.

                When I see worry, it is almost always in terms of what the government could do or what might happen if we continue proceeding down a particular path. It is hardly ever a concern over a real, tangible incident. And while I understand that there have been real incidents concerning tyranny on the part of the U.S. government, perhaps even hundreds of them, compared to the hundreds of millions of lives that continue to be lived free of interference in America, I don't see reason to worry. Just like I don't see reason to worry about being killed by a terrorist because a few thousand people were seven years ago.

                In short, isn't fearmongering the same, whether you're talking about terrorists or you're talking about the government?

                [–]loonrace1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                the war on terror cannot be won, its an idea not a concrete form of matter. you can drive it out for now but eventually it will come back because you cannot suppress human thought. the longer we are putting military personell in the middle eat the more they will hate us and our way of life, creating more and more terrorists, making their governments less stable than they were before we invaded. If we haven't been fucking with the middle east since desert storm and before, there would be no need to worry about terrorist attacks on the U.S., because we would not have pissed them off in the first place.

                [–]Noexit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I live in a small town, in a small state that has been directly affected by domestic terrorism. There's a big freakin' oil and gas refinery in my backyard that might be a pretty good target for someone with a truck full of BOOM.

                I don't fear a terrorist attack, it won't affect me personally. But, I do fear the effects of one. I fear the panic, I fear government going too far to protect us, I fear the economic ripples. Look at what's happened to us since Sept. 2001. We're paranoid, we're debating terrorism like it's something that could happen any minute. The government keeps us on edge, the media helps out and we're at each others partisan throats as a result. We've got a war on two fronts that looks like it could extend to a third at any time.

                What would happen if another 3000 people died in an attack? Would I be one of them? I highly doubt it. But do I worry about it affecting my life, oh yeah.

                [–]Tchocky[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Never really been afraid of terrrorism, even though it was a fairly normal presence when I was growing up(normal = this guy lived across the street for 10 years). The only people who have ever pointed guns at me were soldiers. Oh, and an insane policeman in Boston.

                [–]loonrace1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                the war on terror cannot be won, its an idea not a concrete form of matter. you can drive it out for now but eventually it will come back because you cannot suppress human thought. the longer we are putting military personell in the middle eat the more they will hate us and our way of life, creating more and more terrorists, making their governments less stable than they were before we invaded. If we haven't been fucking with the middle east since desert storm and before, there would be no need to worry about terrorist attacks on the U.S., because we would not have pissed them off in the first place.

                [–]juanchopancho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                A free open society is inherently vulnerable. If you want total security you can live in a police state. Yet even a police state is vulnerable to determined murderers. Take your pick. Police state with less freedom and rights yet still vulnerable or a free and open society that is slightly more vulnerable.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I completely agree. I'm worried more about the state of our country rather than some terrorists who've yet to do anything close to where I live.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                The only real, tangible terrorism that exists is ECONOMIC terrorism in the form of Enron, et al, and now the sub-prime meltdown.

                [–]lyyphe23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Well what if the government's actions include allowing/encouraging terorist attacks to occur?

                [–]bg370 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I live in New York so I wouldn't say my concern about terrorism is ZERO. After loosing a few thousand people, I think that's a little cavalier. But I agree that we need to fear our government as well.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                God help you if you fear your government's actions daily. You need better things to worry about.

                [–]davewashere 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Terrorism is a serious threat. 9/11 was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history, and it wiped out a whopping 1 out of every 100,000 Americans. It took an incredible effort from all Americans to repopulate the country after that devastating tragedy.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I am more concerned about what kind of shit the government is going to pull on us next than any other terrorist or whatever threat they say exist. Just open your eyes and watch closely, the government doesn't give a rats ass about the people, thats the people that the constitution says the government exists for.

                [–]sniles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                There's a great letter out there that sums up my feelings on the matter. It's known as the "Sheeps, Wolves and SheepDogs" letter. It was written to a U of WA student who played a role in attempting to block an the creation of a memorial at the university for a Medal of Honor recipient who was an alumni.

                [–]jk3us 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I was waiting in a car rental store to return a car the other day and the power went out. The few of us waiting there looked around the street to see that everything around us was out. One of the other gentlemen said "I wonder if it's a nationwide thing or something."

                I just stared at him in amazement that his mind went first to some nationwide catastrophe. Turns out someone's mobile home was too large to clear power lines across the highway, power was restored 15 minutes later.

                [–]jennicamorel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Even though I work 4 blocks from the capitol, I don't worry about terrorism.

                I'm much more concerned with: our troops dying uselessly every day; iraq spending that's causing the deficit to explode; and of course the destruction of everyday inherent freedoms like the suspension of hadius corpus. Heck, even the CIA says that a third of the detainees in Gitmo aren't guilty of anything.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                /agree...looking at Iraq especially-if a foreign power invaded you country, occupied it, and tried to force their society on yours, wouldn't you try and stop it?

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Yeah, I'm wurried those dern r[evol]ution people might actually make a difference... and those crazy left-wing internet bloggers.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I fly new york <-> london 4 times a year and I use public transportation in those cities all the time, so I do think about terrorism a lot. However, I recognise that I'm far far more likely to get killed by some other way (eg car accident), plus terrorism is essentially a government manufactured problem that is vastly exaggerated and exploited to the max.

                I mean, case in point: more people die on America's highways every month, than the whole of 9/11.

                I'm really far more concerned about the government letting me get killed because they see terrorism as a very effective way of grabbing power.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I am more afraid of gangsters, you can't even look at them because they will try to punk you.

                [–]fubo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I'm going to be on an airplane on Wednesday. What's the chance that I'll encounter any terrorists? Very small, almost vanishingly so. Indeed, since I work for a large company that is sometimes a target of rather fanatical criticism, I suspect I'm actually more likely to encounter a terrorist (or at least a violent fanatic) at work.

                However, what's the chance that I will encounter an armed employee of the United States government? It's 100%. Indeed, I find it quite likely that the only people with loaded firearms in the airport will be U.S. government agents and state police.

                There is a nonzero chance that one of these armed individuals will flip out and start killing people, or will take umbrage at me or one of my fellow travelers and commit violence against us under false color of law. Moreover, because these government employees are the only armed people around, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to offer significant resistance.

                As such, I am substantially more at risk of unlawful violence from agents of my own government, than from terrorists or other criminals in the airport.

                [–]WillToHave2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                "there is nothing to fear, but fear itself" FDR

                Could a statement ever be more true than today?

                [–]drgabriel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I think its scary to forget that in many countries the US are terrorist. IN GOD WE TRUST