Fear-Mongering

[Ziggurat]

The thing that gets me are statements like "9/11 changed everything", or "terrorism is the greatest threat to our society".

I maintain that even one 9/11 like event per year would not significantly change our society EXCEPT for the effects of irrational fear. Each year we suffer much more property damage due to natural catastrophes, and many times the early deaths due to automobile accidents. Why should terrorism be any different? Why are hurricanes or automobiles not a threat to our society?

IXP

Terrorism is different precisely because we do NOT know the threat profile. The day before 9/11, I would have considered a successful terrorist attack of that magnitude on US soil to be exceptionally unlikely. I would have been wrong, as is apparent in retrospect. And that's the whole point: we do not KNOW how grave the actual threat is. The only thing we know for sure is how grave the terrorists would like it to be (and that's essentially unlimited). That makes handling this threat, and dealing with the risk, FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from automobile accidents or natural disasters. That's why air traffic was grounded across the entire nation: because we did not know, and COULD not know, if more terrorists were preparing to hijack more planes that day. This is not irrational fear. It is VERY rational, it is merely dealing with unknown and largely unknowable risks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Which means you replied just to say anything?
Relax and step back if you have no own opinion or comprehension about the Topic other then just to disagree.

I am not required to respond to you, Oliver, but I did respond to marksman.

If you have a problem with that, take it to the EU, don't come crying to me.

DR

 

[furrod]

No, I say there is no way to pull it off the same way as on 9/11 and I also say that America is pretty safe because all the water between the middle-east and there. The Gov plugged all the holes, there is absolutely no reason to panic.

Okay, so what does your common sense tell you since you don't relay your Opinion on the classic media? I suspect that 9/11 was a unique event to you, are you scared anyway because a unique event that can't happen this way again?

I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. Nothing you’re saying makes any sense.

I think the potential security holes are endless, limited only by the imagination of the terrorist. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to think that there were a finite number of holes and that the government had them all covered. If it was the government who was announcing that they had all the holes plugged and there was no reason to worry, I’d probably have to be admitted to the emergency room after I bust a gut laughing.

Unless the terrorists are swimming, the amount of water separating them from us is immaterial. I have little doubt that there are would-be terrorists on US soil right now.

I am glad that 9/11 is unique. I think a lot of people are working hard to keep it that way.

My common sense tells me that once we become lulled into a sense of false security and let down our guard, the bad guys will exploit one of those endless holes and I’ll find myself listening to someone argue that I shouldn’t worry, it’s only happened twice.

 

[furrod]

The thing that gets me are statements like "9/11 changed everything", or "terrorism is the greatest threat to our society".

I maintain that even one 9/11 like event per year would not significantly change our society EXCEPT for the effects of irrational fear. Each year we suffer much more property damage due to natural catastrophes, and many times the early deaths due to automobile accidents. Why should terrorism be any different? Why are hurricanes or automobiles not a threat to our society?

IXP

We can’t do much to stop natural catastrophes so we must live with them and we accept the risk/reward of the automobile. But what kind of people would we be if we just stood by and let some homicidal malcontents intentionally and indiscriminately kill thousands of our citizens each year because the cost of protecting ourselves was considered prohibitive? 9/11 changed everything because they got our attention and we are not yet so apathetic that we let that sort of thing go unanswered.

 

[slingblade]

Well, that's the same way how propaganda works - if you hear something often enough, it's automatically/unconscientiously accepted as truth.

I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood. I thought you had suggested that our media never points out to us how common bombings and terrorist acts have become in other parts of the world. But they do point it out; that's all I meant to say.

It isn't the primary job of the Media itself to educate - but it's the "News" job to present the News independently, also addressing negative news about the own Favorite as neutral as reporting about the opposing party. Fox has a history to air biased news, for example.

All news is biased. My opinions are biased, as are yours, and everyone else's. That fact, taken alone, doesn't necessarily render them invalid or unsound. We got plenty of reportage about Clinton, and we get plenty about Bush.

Fox exists to fill a niche. That they do exist is actually evidence that our news media wasn't biased enough to suit a particular market.

But I'm also talking about patriotism, meaning that the Media is much more pro-american in the US than our media in germany is pro-german when they're reporting about local scandals.

Americans may be (or at least think of themselves as) much more patriotic in general than Germans, too. I don't know. I do know the media panders to what they think the largest number of us want to hear. But let us not conflate our terms. "Media" is inclusive of newscasts, but The Media as a single entity is much more than that. If you want to talk about our news reportage, we need to be using that term only. Otherwise, we're also talking about movies and commercials and music and all of it.

I feel pretty much the same when a terrorist-attack happens. Do you think that you would feel otherwise if you would live in a big city like NY, for example?

That's easy. I wouldn't live there to start with. I don't care for big cities. But if for some reason I had lived there before 9/11, I'd have moved by now. If I lived in a major city, yes; I would be aware that terrorism is more likely to happen in high-population areas, for maximum fear-effect and maximum immediate coverage by television.

And do you recognize "Fearmongering" in the Media and in political speeches?

Absolutely. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Fear is good for business, just like war. I recognize appeals to emotion, and have gotten better at recognizing the more subtle attempts. My husband, too; we spend a lot of time talking to our TV in a sneering "who are you trying to kid?" tone of voice.

 

[IXP]

We can’t do much to stop natural catastrophes so we must live with them and we accept the risk/reward of the automobile. But what kind of people would we be if we just stood by and let some homicidal malcontents intentionally and indiscriminately kill thousands of our citizens each year because the cost of protecting ourselves was considered prohibitive? 9/11 changed everything because they got our attention and we are not yet so apathetic that we let that sort of thing go unanswered.

No one said anything about allowing terrorists to kill us. I simply stated that the response was out of proportion. Some of the measures we have taken, such as hardened and locked cockpit doors and better security at airports, have almost certainly reduced the threat of another 9/11 occurrence. This was a rational response. Spending hundreds of billions on measures unlikely to make us safer is not.

It is irrational to fear dying in a terrorist attack more than you fear dying in an auto accident unless you think it is more likely. Nearly seven years without a re-occurrence should be a clue.

IXP

 

[marksman]

Oliver, do you have me on ignore? You responded ot the posts before mine and the ones after it, but not to mine. I'm just curious, because if you have me on ignore, I'll justs top responding to your posts.

(Obviously, if he doesn't respond, i'll have to assume he has me on ignore, although I can't figure out why. I thought we were having a civil conversation.)

 

[IXP]

That's why air traffic was grounded across the entire nation: because we did not know, and COULD not know, if more terrorists were preparing to hijack more planes that day. This is not irrational fear. It is VERY rational, it is merely dealing with unknown and largely unknowable risks.

Nor do we know that there are not terrorists preparing to hijack a plane today, but flights are not grounded any more. Of course grounding the flights that day was rational. But now we know that it has not happened again in nearly seven years, so why the risk profile still unknown?

You and furrorod are reacting exacly the way terrorists want you to, with disproportionate fear. Why are you enabling terrorists?

IXP

 

[marksman]

It is irrational to fear dying in a terrorist attack more than you fear dying in an auto accident unless you think it is more likely.

On what basis do you think we fear dying in a terrorist attack more than dying in an auto accident. America spends a lot more money and effort, private and public, trying to prevent auto accidents (through road maintenance, traffic signals, law enforcement patrols, alcohol taxes, criminal prosecutions, education campaigns, treatment facilities, licensing programs, multiple federal, state and municipal departments dedicated to traffic safety, as well as numerous regulations, etc.) than we do fighting terrorism.

People keep raising the canard of auto accidents, but the evidence is that America spends an awful lot of money and legislative time trying to prevent auto accidents.

Nearly seven years without a re-occurrence should be a clue.

A clue that either our efforts have been successful or that our efforts were unnecessary. Which of those two choices you select will say more about one's biases than about reality.

 

[IXP]

On what basis do you think we fear dying in a terrorist attack more than dying in an auto accident.

1. I don't see anyone starting threads here about auto safety.
2. I don't see politicians calling each other traitors in arguments over auto-safety regulations.
3. I have never heard anyone say they would stop driving their car due to the chance of an accident as so did about flying after 9/11.
4. Auto safety has never been a presidential debate question.

IXP

 

[Ziggurat]

Nor do we know that there are not terrorists preparing to hijack a plane today, but flights are not grounded any more. Of course grounding the flights that day was rational. But now we know that it has not happened again in nearly seven years, so why the risk profile still unknown?

Because our enemy is adaptive, obviously, and we don't know what they'll try to do next. But chances are it won't be the same kind of attack as 9/11.

You and furrorod are reacting exacly the way terrorists want you to, with disproportionate fear.

I am not advocating "disproportionate fear". I am, however, advocating that we take active steps to hunt terrorists down. Are you honestly going to try to claim that that is exactly what they want us to do? Of course it isn't. The way terrorists want us to react is to give in to their demands, or at least not make it harder for them to attack us. I am opposed to doing either.

Why are you enabling terrorists?

 

[marksman]

1. I don't see anyone starting threads here about auto safety.
2. I don't see politicians calling each other traitors in arguments over auto-safety regulations.
3. I have never heard anyone say they would stop driving their car due to the chance of an accident as so did about flying after 9/11.
4. Auto safety has never been a presidential debate question.

Because people are relatively satisfied with the efforts the government is making with respect to auto safety. We've been at it for about a century, after all.

Of course, your response is quite disingenuous. Your original reference to "pending hundreds of billions on measures..." indiactes you originally thought an appropriate metric would be monies spent. On that measure, America takes auto safety as a much more serious threat than terrorism.

If you think importance should be measured solely by the number of press pages on a subject, you need to reclaibrate your metrics.

Politicans talk about what they think the government should be doing better. That's different from talking about what the government should be doing.

 

[IXP]

I am not advocating "disproportionate fear". I am, however, advocating that we take active steps to hunt terrorists down. Are you honestly going to try to claim that that is exactly what they want us to do? Of course it isn't. The way terrorists want us to react is to give in to their demands, or at least not make it harder for them to attack us. I am opposed to doing either.

Then in reality we agree. I do not object to hunting down terrorists or attempting to stop them. What I object to are:
1. Attacking Iraq, which must have made Osama smile even more than seeing the towers fall.
2. Politicians that attempt to use this issue for forward their own carreers or attack their oppoents patriotism.
3. Illegal spying on American citizens.
4. Legalizing spying on American citizens without probable cause.

Oh, and about auto safety: Since, in the last 7 years cars have killed at least 70 times as many citizens as terrorists have, I would expect us to spend more on making them safer.

IXP

 

[parrotslave]

Drunk drivers kill more people each year than were killed in the 911 attacks. Can you imagine spending 500 billion on a war on drunk drivers?

To me it looks more and more like the entire Iraq war was engineered to funnel money to the war profiteers.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To me it looks more and more like the entire Iraq war was engineered to funnel money to the war profiteers.

Thanks, Noam, anything original to add? Please, don't link me to Smedley Butler, heard that song before also.

(It is a good read, if you haven't read it yet.)

DR

 

[marksman]

Drunk drivers kill more people each year than were killed in the 911 attacks. Can you imagine spending 500 billion on a war on drunk drivers?

We spend more than that, when you facotr in the cost of every municipality who runs drunk driving checkpoints, the cost of prosecuting people for DUI, the cost of parole programs and education rpograms, not to mention all the PSAs and education done in this country. 500 billion? I'd be surprised if we didn't spend many times that amount as a society.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then in reality we agree. I do not object to hunting down terrorists or attempting to stop them. What I object to are:
1. Attacking Iraq, which must have made Osama smile even more than seeing the towers fall.

You know, I keep hearing this. And yet, Al Qaeda is fighting desperately and unsuccessfully to get us out of Iraq (and killing lots of fellow muslims in the process, thereby demonstrating to the muslim world the cost of supporting terrorism and dropping Al Qaeda's popularity). Maybe he did want us to invade. But he also thought we were a paper tiger, which would be a pushover compared to the Soviets.

2. Politicians that attempt to use this issue for forward their own carreers or attack their oppoents patriotism.

What, you think that's confined to the pro-war side? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

3. Illegal spying on American citizens.
4. Legalizing spying on American citizens without probable cause.

If it's without probable cause, it's not legal, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about on that last one.

Oh, and about auto safety: Since, in the last 7 years cars have killed at least 70 times as many citizens as terrorists have, I would expect us to spend more on making them safer.

I've already demolished this argument: the threats simply are not equivalent, and cannot and should not be treated as if they are. Your repetition of it does not make it any less absurd.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hell, someone even sent me one of those mindless, patriotic emails with a group of Marines in Iraq spelling out: WE REMEMBER 9/11!

Everytime someone reminds you or others that the reason we're in Iraq is because of 9/11, a little Rove-like demon gets his horns ....

Charlie (way too many Rove-like demons) Monoxide

 

[Azure]

Everytime someone reminds you or others that the reason we're in Iraq is because of 9/11, a little Rove-like demon gets his horns ....

Charlie (way too many Rove-like demons) Monoxide

Why do you fear Karl Rove?

 

[The Painter]

Am I the only one getting very tired of the Oliver BS? It's the same thing, over and over and over again. It's like a broken record. Don't feed him anymore.