Attempted Terrorist Attack on Detroit bound Airplane tied to AQ

[Fear No Evil]

No, it is fear. Fear is caving in to emotion and ignoring the law. Probably too complicated for you to understand though. There is a reason lawyers and judges don't try cases that they are personally involved with. We are supposed to use logic, not emotion. You obviously are not using logic.

You will gladly let everyone be wiretapped, everyone be searched, let the gov lockup any terrorist forever, without proof. You don't mind lots of innocent people get killed, regardless of the ramifications. So yes, you are scared.

Accepting reasonable measures to prevent terrorism, not giving up our hard-fought for liberties, and going about our lives is what we should be doing. I'm sorry you can't see that, but you are blinded by fear.

You have no problem fighting them, and spending trillions of dollars, to prevent, what? A few thousand deaths over a ten year period. But as I point out, and you can't refute, you don't support preventing any number of other causes that would save a lot more lives then that.

Imagine those trillions of dollars being used on healthcare. That would probably save 100 times more American lives, yet you won't don't care about that. Gee, that's logical. With a trillion dollars, I can either prevent 1000 deaths by terrorist attack, or I can save 1 million people by preventing cancers, or stopping MI's or CVA's. Yet you will gladly "fight terrorism".

Yup, you are afraid.

You avoid the same question you accuse others of avoiding. Why do you give up your freedoms when you fly currently? Don't act like a pompus jackass if you aren't going to answer the questions you yourself ask. I guess there is only one answer, you are afraid.

 

[seemingly random]

I see no one will still comment on why terrorism, despite being orders of magnitude less dangerous then many other things, still scares so many people to the point they will break the law and/or give up their freedom.

I wonder why?

I wonder why also. In general, I believe there is a submissive side in most people and a huge one in some. I'm guessing that this emanates from the same place that causes people to willingly go to fundie churches and let themselves be subjected to the fire and brimstone crap. There have been several books written on the current culture of fear we live in and the fact that some apparently like it. It may be a part of the human condition that is quite scary when fully revealed.

 

[Fear No Evil]

You have no problem fighting them, and spending trillions of dollars, to prevent, what? A few thousand deaths over a ten year period. But as I point out, and you can't refute, you don't support preventing any number of other causes that would save a lot more lives then that.

Imagine those trillions of dollars being used on healthcare. That would probably save 100 times more American lives, yet you won't don't care about that. Gee, that's logical. With a trillion dollars, I can either prevent 1000 deaths by terrorist attack, or I can save 1 million people by preventing cancers, or stopping MI's or CVA's. Yet you will gladly "fight terrorism".

We could also probably save a ton more lives than pumping trillions into healthcare by mandating no unhealthy food, outlawing smoking, forced P.T. every day, complete prohibition on all drugs and alcohol, etc. And it would cost next to nothing. Why don't we do that? Then we wouldn't even need to spend trillions on health care.

This game is fun. Since Healthcare is so expensive, would it not make sense to forcibly abort any unhealthy child? I mean, whats the benefit in spending 10 million dollars over the lifetime of a downs symdrome child when that could be used to save the lives of 100 cancer patients? Should parents of downs syndrome children be forced to abort their children for the benefit of society?

There's a difference to me between healthcare and being killed by a terrorist. I don't believe healthcare is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I do believe that protecting innocent people from being murdered IS a basic human right. I'm talking CORE human rights here. Stuff that applies from when we were cavemen to when we are populating distant galaxies in the year 20,000. One of the most instinctual rights we have as human beings is to not to allow innocent people to be killed.

So yes, I do believe its more important that we defend our nation from those who want to kill us and our way of life. Whatever the cost. Because all the liberty, justice, and morality in the world does us no good if we're dead. All things considered, given finite resources, I think its more important we prevent an innocent child from dying at the hands of a terrorist than it is to prevent a child from dying of cancer.

I'd even go so far to say that saving one child from a roadside bomber is more important than saving 100 children from cancer. Why? Is it because I am a blood thirsty, sub-human, scared, (insert liberal attack label here)? No, its the same reason we spend 10 million dollars to raise a child with Down's Syndrome.. its the RIGHT THING TO DO. If dollar cost analysis determined everything we did as a society - We'd abort these children, ban bad food and risky behavior, etc.

Believe me.. I understand where you are coming from. In an ideal world we would not have to spend this money fighting terrorism. We could spend it all on healthcare, education, science, and porn. But this world is not ideal and we have limited resources. I don't think deciding how to use those resources can be made solely on a cost/benefit determination, I think its more important we decide how to use them on a more fundamental level without regard to # of people benefited per $ spent.

Thats just my opinion, thats the way I live my life. If I was on my death bed and I had 2 buttons in front of me. One would save an innocent child from being murdered and raped by a child molester, and the other would save 10 people from cancer, I would hit the button to save the child from being raped and murdered and go to meet my maker confident that I made the right decision.

 

[Patranus]

We could also probably save a ton more lives than pumping trillions into healthcare by mandating no unhealthy food, outlawing smoking, forced P.T. every day, complete prohibition on all drugs and alcohol, etc. And it would cost next to nothing. Why don't we do that? Then we wouldn't even need to spend trillions on health care.

This game is fun. Since Healthcare is so expensive, would it not make sense to forcibly abort any unhealthy child? I mean, whats the benefit in spending 10 million dollars over the lifetime of a downs symdrome child when that could be used to save the lives of 100 cancer patients? Should parents of downs syndrome children be forced to abort their children for the benefit of society?

There's a difference to me between healthcare and being killed by a terrorist. I don't believe healthcare is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I do believe that protecting innocent people from being murdered IS a basic human right. I'm talking CORE human rights here. Stuff that applies from when we were cavemen to when we are populating distant galaxies in the year 20,000. One of the most instinctual rights we have as human beings is to not to allow innocent people to be killed.

So yes, I do believe its more important that we defend our nation from those who want to kill us and our way of life. Whatever the cost. Because all the liberty, justice, and morality in the world does us no good if we're dead. All things considered, given finite resources, I think its more important we prevent an innocent child from dying at the hands of a terrorist than it is to prevent a child from dying of cancer.

I'd even go so far to say that saving one child from a roadside bomber is more important than saving 100 children from cancer. Why? Is it because I am a blood thirsty, sub-human, scared, (insert liberal attack label here)? No, its the same reason we spend 10 million dollars to raise a child with Down's Syndrome.. its the RIGHT THING TO DO. If dollar cost analysis determined everything we did as a society - We'd abort these children, ban bad food and risky behavior, etc.

Believe me.. I understand where you are coming from. In an ideal world we would not have to spend this money fighting terrorism. We could spend it all on healthcare, education, science, and porn. But this world is not ideal and we have limited resources. I don't think deciding how to use those resources can be made solely on a cost/benefit determination, I think its more important we decide how to use them on a more fundamental level without regard to # of people benefited per $ spent.

Thats just my opinion, thats the way I live my life. If I was on my death bed and I had 2 buttons in front of me. One would save an innocent child from being murdered and raped by a child molester, and the other would save 10 people from cancer, I would hit the button to save the child from being raped and murdered and go to meet my maker confident that I made the right decision.

You should read up on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (rahm rahmbo dead fish brother)

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You avoid the same question you accuse others of avoiding. Why do you give up your freedoms when you fly currently? Don't act like a pompus jackass if you aren't going to answer the questions you yourself ask. I guess there is only one answer, you are afraid.

No, I fly. If I want to get across the country quickly, I don't have a choice. Just like I can't drive 100mph on the highways, or any other stupid law.

But that doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about. More security in airports isn't illegal, even if I disagree with it. Even if we can make airplanes 100% safe (which in itself, is impossible anyway), terrorists would move on to blowing themselves up in the security line. Or blow up a car just outside the airport. Or the airport parking deck. Or a local shopping mall. Etc, etc,etc.....

Terrorism is a tactic of hitting a weak spot for maximum psychological effect. If you harden airports, they will pick something else that is a soft target. It is totally impossible to harden every target in the US. Could you imagine stopping a gunman or suicide bomber from getting into every shopping mall in the US?

There is a finite amount of money the US can spend on everything, and terrorism is just one problem. You can shut down the rest of all gov programs to throw all money at terrorism, or you can reduce terrorism spending to zero, or anything in-between.

My point is that from a "people saved per $$ spent" viewpoint, terrorism is way down the list. Also, from a total "people killed per year" basis, terrorism is also way down the list. All sort of medical problems (which can be treated), murders, DUI, etc.....all kill lots more people then terrorism, year in and year out.

So why do so many people get so scared, and demand such an out of proportion response? They aren't thinking rationally, they are scared and being emotional. We kill more people in one year with DUI (which is a crime, just like terrorism), then in the last ten years with terrorist attacks. Where is the "War on DUI"? We still have a much bigger risk of getting killed by a DUI then by a terrorist, by about 100-times.

Why aren't those people arguing for locking up DUI people forever, like terrorists? Why aren't they demanding harder laws? Or anything else to reduce DUI deaths?

Why aren't those people arguing for locking up murder suspects forever, just in case they are guilty? Why aren't people demanding that murder suspects be tortured for information, so we can stop future murders? What about gang violence? Why aren't these people arguing that they are terrorists, and just locking all gang members up, since they commit a lot of crimes? Why aren't they arguing for torturing gangs, to get intel to prevent crimes? What a total double-standard.

Terrorism is a scare tactic, and everyone can fall for it or not. Our government has fallen for it (or more accurately, both parties took advantage of it to exploit the emotional response) to do whatever they want. And our country, being mostly idiots apparently, fall for it. Just look at all the people that just say "nuke them all", and other ridiculous comments. Fear is a powerful emotion, and is being exploited to the fullest.

So fear is the problem.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So why do so many people get so scared, and demand such an out of proportion response? They aren't thinking rationally, they are scared and being emotional. We kill more people in one year with DUI (which is a crime, just like terrorism), then in the last ten years with terrorist attacks. Where is the "War on DUI"? We still have a much bigger risk of getting killed by a DUI then by a terrorist, by about 100-times.

There is a war on DUI's. We have things like random checkpoints setup to check for them.. Which is ABSOLUTELY an attack on our freedoms and rights. And I bet the profile the potential drunks a lot more than we profile terrorists.

Why aren't those people arguing for locking up DUI people forever, like terrorists? Why aren't they demanding harder laws? Or anything else to reduce DUI deaths?

Umm. A lot of people ARE. Lowering of DUI limits to very low rates, 3 strikes and you are out laws, random checkpoints, etc. Drunk driving is a bad example because I think a LOT of people are demanding action be taken. And the amount of action people want goes up when there is a high profile accident. Sound familiar? The problem is judges let these people go after 4..5..6..7+ offenses. Which is ALSO why some of us don't want civilian courts handling terrorists.

Why aren't those people arguing for locking up murder suspects forever, just in case they are guilty? Why aren't people demanding that murder suspects be tortured for information, so we can stop future murders? What about gang violence? Why aren't these people arguing that they are terrorists, and just locking all gang members up, since they commit a lot of crimes? Why aren't they arguing for torturing gangs, to get intel to prevent crimes? What a total double-standard.

It doesn't surprise me you don't understand the difference between an American citizen and a group who has declared war on us. I'm guessing that if we brought some gang unit cops in here the tactics they use to get information out of gang members DOES include smacking them around a bit, threatening them, etc. I think you are living in a fantasy world if you don't think that doesn't happen. I think you COULD make the argument gangs are terrorists, however they have not declared war on the United States, they have declared war on eachother. Sometimes there is spillover of their violence, but for the most part gangs are not set up to kill Americans and blow up buildings/planes/etc.

Terrorism is a scare tactic, and everyone can fall for it or not. Our government has fallen for it (or more accurately, both parties took advantage of it to exploit the emotional response) to do whatever they want. And our country, being mostly idiots apparently, fall for it. Just look at all the people that just say "nuke them all", and other ridiculous comments. Fear is a powerful emotion, and is being exploited to the fullest.

So fear is the problem.

Ok, because you SAY so.. I guess everyone who doesn't think like you is just an idiot. Of course terrorism is a scare tactic, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be acted upon with an extremely strong response. You have to remember that terrorism has a cost a lot higher than just # of people killed.

Since you seem so convinced we do nothing concerning drunk driving.. lets think about the #'s. The # I could find for 2008 was ~12000 drunk driving deaths. Lets divide that # by an average of 300 people per plane and we get about 40 planes that would hold that many people. Are you telling me that you would be OK with 40 airplanes blowing up EVERY YEAR and that it would have the same impact on our social and economic health as drunk drivers?

Of course it wouldn't. It would be DEVASTATING to allow that many planes and people to be killed each year by terrorism. It would destroy the travel industry, tourism, hotels, etc.. So while you just point to fear and ignorance for anyone who wants to fight terrorism with an iron fist, you are ignoring the massive economic and social impact it could have if it even gets SLIGHTLY out of control. Imagine 5 planes being blown up each year, it would STILL be a massive impact.

So yeah, I think we do overeact a bit to terrorism, but I think its for good reason. It would take significantly less deaths to seriously impact our economy and society than drunk driving, cancer deaths, etc.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There is a war on DUI's. We have things like random checkpoints setup to check for them.. Which is ABSOLUTELY an attack on our freedoms and rights. And I bet the profile the potential drunks a lot more than we profile terrorists.

You don't get it. We don't have a "war on DUI" if 10,000+ people are dying every year. And DUI still kills ~100-times more people every year on terrorism. You will spend billions/trillions on "terror", but not DUI (or any other regular domestic problem, I'm using DUI as an example)

It doesn't surprise me you don't understand the difference between an American citizen and a group who has declared war on us. I'm guessing that if we brought some gang unit cops in here the tactics they use to get information out of gang members DOES include smacking them around a bit, threatening them, etc. I think you are living in a fantasy world if you don't think that doesn't happen. I think you COULD make the argument gangs are terrorists, however they have not declared war on the United States, they have declared war on eachother. Sometimes there is spillover of their violence, but for the most part gangs are not set up to kill Americans and blow up buildings/planes/etc.

I must of missed it, when did AQ become a nation and declare war on us? Please let us know. Are you seriously saying AQ, which has what, maybe 1000 people worldwide, is a nation capable of destroying us? If so, you are really scared. 1,000 vs 300 million. Hmm. We probably have more murderers in the US then AQ worldwide. I'm certainly not saying that we should not do anything to kill terrorists, but we have over-reacted as a nation. And done a lot of wrong things as well. AQ has managed to get lucky with one attack (9/11) by exploiting a weakness (compliance with terrorists, and unlocked cockpit doors). Since then, they have only TWO failed attacks in the US. But since then we have had the anthrax attacks (still unsolved, and no one cares) and other domestic attacks (DC sniper, a couple of abortion attacks, etc..). So AQ is not some all-powerful entity, it doesn't mean that we ignore them, but we do not need to over-react.

Gang members do kill each other, but they also kill innocent people, just like terrorists. Is one type of murder better then the other somehow? It's OK for American's to kill Americans, but we won't let Muslims do it? Really?

Since you seem so convinced we do nothing concerning drunk driving.. lets think about the #'s. The # I could find for 2008 was ~12000 drunk driving deaths. Lets divide that # by an average of 300 people per plane and we get about 40 planes that would hold that many people. Are you telling me that you would be OK with 40 airplanes blowing up EVERY YEAR and that it would have the same impact on our social and economic health as drunk drivers?

You make my point. The thing is, we have had 2 (both failed) airplane attacks since 9/11. In 9 years, two failed attacks. First off, it shows that AQ isn't all-powerful, if that is all they can do, not even carry off successful attacks. OF course, again, that doesn't mean we do nothing. But we sit by and let 10's of thousands die by DUI (and murders, rapes, and all sort of medical problems) without the out roar from 2 failed attacks. Again, scared.

Of course, if 40 planes started getting blown up every year, that would be different. But I bet there have been more planes that crashed because of weather or mechanical failure then terrorism in the past 10 years. So two failed attacks are a blip on the radar. And of course, no matter what anyone does, you can't prevent all attacks anyway.

How many people have died in the last 10 years of terrorism in the US? Under 10,000 easy, even including 9/11. How many have died by DUI? 100,000+. How many by regular murder? 100,000+

Again, you will spend billions/trillions to try and save on average 1,000 people/year. But you won't spend that money to save the 10,000/year for any number of causes of death. That's not rational.

So yeah, I think we do overeact a bit to terrorism, but I think its for good reason. It would take significantly less deaths to seriously impact our economy and society than drunk driving, cancer deaths, etc.

No, we over-reacted *a lot*. Death is death, I don't understand that death by terrorist is somehow more important then death by anything else. You are still dead.

The end result is again, terrorism is just one more thing that can kill us (and it has been and always will be there, all we can do is mitigate it, not eliminate it). It is not statistically likely that it will, in fact, it is well down the list. So why are we treating it like we will all die of terrorism? Or, why aren't we treating the things in the list above terrorism the same way?

 

[her209]

Interesting... especially in light of the TSA thread about screeners touching balls and whatnot.