Security vs. Liberty

@xris,

xris;119604 wrote:

The British are coming and they are Islamic communist, terrorists. Now thats going to scare the ship out of you. A coward dies a thousand deaths a hero just the one.

"...a hero dies but once". Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;119616 wrote:

"...a hero dies but once". Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

The valiant never taste of death but once...but its all Greek to me.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;119498 wrote:

Let's suppose for a moment your (a) is correct. Let us also suppose I fear the terrorists. Now what? I mean, what happens now that I'm playing into their hands?

What I'm seeking is what you feel I lose, or what you feel the terrorists gain, once I fear them? I mean, for any real, significant effect to be seen, there would have to be mass hysteria -- and probably for a lengthy amount of time, too. A few paranoid Americans aren't going to push America into compliance with any terrorist agenda.

You alone affect nothing, that's certainly true. But fear of terrorism among the American people in general has allowed the government to invade two countries and pass the PATRIOT ACT, among other things. Similiar irrational fear led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, as another example. Governments have always used fear to manipulate the public. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Quote:

This doesn't seem to be a full course meal to me. We need more food, don't you think? In other words, there's not much detail provided in this statistic. Does this statistic take into account those who rarely drive or fly, or don't at all? Are some cars more susceptible to accidents than others? Are some planes? I don't know, but this seems to be one of those useless, poorly thought-out statistics flashed to support an agenda. Maybe not, though!

Do you know what the chances of being killed by a terrorist attack are in the U.S., if you're a suicide bomber about to crash into a building in the U.S.? I'm thinking a little higher than 1 in 100,000. And this statistic may prove to be useful to terrorists across the world.

Alright, let's throw out the numbers and just think for a moment. Do you really believe that you in this new year are more likely to die in a terrorist atttack than in any number of other ways: accident, murder, food poisoning, etc.? Considering how few Americans have died in terrorist attacks and how many die every year from the above-mentioned and other causes....I don't see how you could. But of course you are free to do as you please. Be afraid if you must.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

kennethamy;119508 wrote:

That there is some vast conspiracy going on (to do what?).

Who said anything about a conspiracy? It's called foreign policy. Do you not believe that the government has a foreign policy, with certain objectives? Do you think the government just reacts to what's happening at any given moment and that all of our activities abroad are unrelated? That is insane. Every nation has strategic objectives which it's foreigjn policy is intended to achieve. What planet do you think you're on?

Quote:

No. I am not going to research that, any more than I intend to research whether people really did walk on the Moon, or whether 9/11 was an inside job.

I do not understand how you can compare research into some basic aspects of current American foreign policy to 'whether people really did walk on the moon.' Is it equally strange and conspiratorial to read a book about American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union during the cold war? If so, I guess every American history class in the world is taught by some conspiracy theorist, huh?

Quote:

Maybe if there were "world enough and time", but there isn't, and we have to worry about the probable, not the very improbable. (You said "whack-job, I didn't).

What exactly is 'very improbable?' The fact that we are involved in regime change, war and subterfuge in various countries around the world? Or it is that you find it improbable that these activities are related in any way to one another or to a general geo-political strategy?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

BrightNoon wrote:

Governments have always used fear to manipulate the public. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Governments use all sorts of things to manipulate the public. As I noted, the artificial urgency and pride officials instigated after 9/11 has recruited thousands of fanatics determined to shoot any Middle-Eastern man wearing a turban. This, I think, is just as much a manipulation of the public. They call it the "War on Terrorism".

Quote:

Do you really believe that you in this new year are more likely to die in a terrorist atttack than in any number of other ways: accident, murder, food poisoning, etc.? Considering how few Americans have died in terrorist attacks and how many die every year from the above-mentioned and other causes....I don't see how you could. But of course you are free to do as you please. Be afraid if you must.

I think we would need a good reason to fear another terrorist attack. If we did have a good reason, it would be reasonable to be scared (as opposed to being paranioa, or worse). But, I also don't think comparing how many people die from each sort of event really tells us much. It depends on context and the person, don't you think? Some people, I would imagine, have a higher chance of dying from certain things than others, for any number of reasons. To say everyone has X chance of dying from Y, seems to induce a blanketed statement. But, I think, some of these statistics could be useful at times. We just have to make sure not to take them out of context in an attempt to prove something unintended in the first place.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;119755 wrote:

What exactly is 'very improbable?' The fact that we are involved in regime change, war and subterfuge in various countries around the world? Or it is that you find it improbable that these activities are related in any way to one another or to a general geo-political strategy?

I see no evidence of some grand plan being executed. Most foreign policy, so far as I can tell, is responsive to what happens in the world. N. Korea and Iran are building (or trying to build) nuclear weapons. We are responding to that. Venezuela is trying to upset the status quo in the Western hemisphere. We are responding to that, too. We have our hands full trying to keep things on an even keel. You may, of course, not be happy with the way things have been up to this time. Most Americans are, and the American government, and the industrial nations of the world are trying to maintain it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Firstly, Zetherin:

I don't think we have any essential disagreement. I'm not trying to tell anyone individually whether or not to be afraid of terrorism. Personally, I think it's needless and useless, but that's just me.

kennethamy;119781 wrote:

I see no evidence of some grand plan being executed. Most foreign policy, so far as I can tell, is responsive to what happens in the world. N. Korea and Iran are building (or trying to build) nuclear weapons. We are responding to that. Venezuela is trying to upset the status quo in the Western hemisphere. We are responding to that, too. We have our hands full trying to keep things on an even keel. You may, of course, not be happy with the way things have been up to this time. Most Americans are, and the American government, and the industrial nations of the world are trying to maintain it.

Maintaining the status quo (i.e. American global hegemony) IS the grand plan. The encirclement of Russia by NATO, e.g., is one aspect of that very plan - as is control of middle eastern oil. The 'evidence' is the very actions our government and its allies take around the world, along with the reports issued by governments, prominent ThinkTanks, and individual people within the establishment.

An example of the latter would be Zbigniew Brezinski, whose book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, lays out in some detail a plan for maintaining and expanding American hegemony in the post-cold-war world. The basic aims of the strategy are twofold: maintain or gain control of remaining energy reserves (esp. in the Middle East) and prevent the rise of any power or combination of powers that could potentially threaten American supremacy. He advocates the expansion of NATO and/or the EU into what he calls disingenuously 'Central Europe,' by which he means eastern europe and the former soviet republics.

An example of the work of a thinktank would be the Project For The New American Century's regular reports, which advocate a similiar geopolitical strategy: gaining control of world energy reserves and preventing the rise of any new potential rival - read: Russia and China.

The government's actual actions mirror the strategy laid out by these establishment people and institutions, among others.

Such are the sorts of evidence.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

BrightNoon wrote:

Firstly, Zetherin:

I don't think we have any essential disagreement. I'm not trying to tell anyone individually whether or not to be afraid of terrorism. Personally, I think it's needless and useless, but that's just me.

I don't think we do either. I was just discussing, not arguing. Sorry if it appeared I was doing the latter.

0 Replies

Security vs. Liberty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know