The irrational fear of terrorism has distorted the actual threat it poses - GoFuckYourself.com

Ludedude · 03-03-2004, 02:55 AM

A friend of mine wrote:

"Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.

Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:

In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.

Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.

Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.

Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.

I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future."

So, by this measure, have the terrorists won?

Doctor Dre · 03-03-2004, 03:00 AM

Terrorist didn't win . Bush just took the opportunity to take control of the population by keeping them in fair .

Ludedude · 03-03-2004, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Terrorist didn't win . Bush just took the opportunity to take control of the population by keeping them in fair .

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It certainly has become a different place and at a very high cost.

theking · 03-03-2004, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludedude
A friend of mine wrote:

"Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.

Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:

In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.

Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.

Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.

Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.

I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future."

So, by this measure, have the terrorists won?

No.

eroswebmaster · 03-03-2004, 03:16 AM

Ludedude, Sykkboy and I practiced Civil Disobedience outside the V-Bar last night.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!

Ludedude · 03-03-2004, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster
Ludedude, Sykkboy and I practiced Civil Disobedience outside the V-Bar last night.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!

Haha...yeah we did

BRISK · 03-03-2004, 04:45 AM

Fear is control

hova · 03-03-2004, 04:47 AM

I dont think they have won, because there goal is impossible to achieve. But they have achieved one thinig, and that is fear.

eroswebmaster · 03-03-2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludedude

Haha...yeah we did

We're Urban Geurillas!

Rorschach · 03-03-2004, 05:01 AM

I remember reading an alleged quote from Osama saying that one of his aims was to force the US govt to put the American people on lockdown... and by that measure he's certainly been successful.

But I agree, Bush has taken the whole terrorist thing and run with it to get the people under control.

Ludedude · 03-03-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rorschach
I remember reading an alleged quote from Osama saying that one of his aims was to force the US govt to put the American people on lockdown... and by that measure he's certainly been successful.

But I agree, Bush has taken the whole terrorist thing and run with it to get the people under control.

I don't remember seeing that quote but whether it was said or not, it's certainly one of the goals of terrorists to restrict the freedom of their targets. In that sense they have certainly excelled. We sure as hell didn't used to get our shoes sniffed and asses prodded before getting on a plane

DrThorsen · 03-03-2004, 11:48 AM

The net effect has also been a polarization of US allies and a marginalization of the United Nations in US foreign policy.

Ludedude · 03-03-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrThorsen
The net effect has also been a polarization of US allies and a marginalization of the United Nations in US foreign policy.

Well, I don't necessarily think the marginalization of the UN is a bad thing but yeah, we've dug a big ass hole as far as relations with some our allies go. However, when they need something from us all will be good again.

slackologist · 03-03-2004, 04:31 PM

yay for fear.. i feel much safer now i'm scared to fucking death of some crazy fucker flying a plane into my house. but thanks for stirring the ants nest with your needle pin dick bushy boy you dimwit slug fucker.

CamChicks · 03-03-2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludedude

Well, I don't necessarily think the marginalization of the UN is a bad thing but yeah, we've dug a big ass hole as far as relations with some our allies go. However, when they need something from us all will be good again.

and what if we need something from them?
(see: The Boy Who Cried Wolf)

and who here is actually afraid of terrorism?;
you're far more likely to be murdered by someone you know.

Ludedude · 03-04-2004, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamChicks

and what if we need something from them?
(see: The Boy Who Cried Wolf)

and who here is actually afraid of terrorism?;
you're far more likely to be murdered by someone you know.

If we need something from them we'll just take it ;)

The point of the original post was exactly that: You have a better chance of being hit by a city bus than you do of perishing in a terrorist act but yet look at all the time, money and energy that is being wasted on this "war on terror" bs. It's very reminiscent of another government military action. Remember the "war on drugs?"

I don't for one minute think that I'm any safer for all the "sky is falling" propaganda spewing from the mouthpieces in charge.
Be afraid, consume.

03-03-2004, 02:55 AM	#1
Ludedude Suck it! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Who wants to know? Posts: 4,432	The irrational fear of terrorism has distorted the actual threat it poses A friend of mine wrote: "Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced. Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself: In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors. Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see. Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created. Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved. I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future." So, by this measure, have the terrorists won? __________________

03-03-2004, 03:16 AM	#5
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	Ludedude, Sykkboy and I practiced Civil Disobedience outside the V-Bar last night. LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!! __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

03-03-2004, 04:45 AM	#7
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	Fear is control __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

03-03-2004, 04:47 AM	#8
hova Traffillionaire Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ:209371571 Posts: 22,430	I dont think they have won, because there goal is impossible to achieve. But they have achieved one thinig, and that is fear. __________________ http://traffillions.com/ Sign up and get lifetime revshare on your traffic

03-03-2004, 11:48 AM	#12
DrThorsen Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 75	The net effect has also been a polarization of US allies and a marginalization of the United Nations in US foreign policy. __________________

03-03-2004, 05:01 AM	#10
Rorschach So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,579	I remember reading an alleged quote from Osama saying that one of his aims was to force the US govt to put the American people on lockdown... and by that measure he's certainly been successful. But I agree, Bush has taken the whole terrorist thing and run with it to get the people under control.

03-03-2004, 04:31 PM	#14
slackologist Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 2,379	yay for fear.. i feel much safer now i'm scared to fucking death of some crazy fucker flying a plane into my house. but thanks for stirring the ants nest with your needle pin dick bushy boy you dimwit slug fucker.