Bruce Schneier Blasts Politicians, Media

An anonymous reader writes, "In his latest newsletter, security author Bruce Schneier delivered a scathing critique of politicians and the media for promoting fear and ultimately doing exactly what the terrorists want. Citing several cases of false alarms, Schneier writes: 'Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat... Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show's viewership.' Are the terrorists laughing at us?"

Comments

Machiavelli

[Itchy Rich]

Dissent gets stifled using anti-terror legislation... government fuck-ups get buried beneath terror headlines... people are given an enemy, and a reason to be obedient. Terrorism makes it easy for politicians to get their own way. Considering the mind-bogglingly small impact of terrorism, why wouldn't they want to encourage it?

Re:Machiavelli

[$1uck]

That's down right sinister. I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) that this is happening. However I believe a sort of Social/Group Darwinism happens in significantly large complex organizations (like governments). Unthinking beauracracies evolve into whats best for the "beast" and not whats best for doing its job. Someone wrote a blog recently about whether the government agencies are grossly incomptent or "divinely comptent conspiracies" (not sure the quote is precise but its close enough). I prefer to think of it as both.

Where's the frontier where one can escape the thumb of large business and large government?

Re:Machiavelli

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I'm 100% with Bruce on this one, well said that man. For an appropriate response to terror tactics, see London during the blitz.

Re:Machiavelli

[cp.tar]

Are you saying politicians and terrorists are somehow... cooperating?

Surely you jest.

Re:Machiavelli

[Dobeln]

I really think you would want to check out what kinds of measures the British government took during the Blitz before making those kinds of statements.

Re:Machiavelli

[IAmTheDave]

Where's the frontier where one can escape the thumb of large business and large government?

Buy an island. Or maybe move to SeaLand.

As long as there is money, there will be greed and corruption. As long as there are humans, there will be a desire for power and control. Since the human race currently reigns the planet, and international cooperation is almost entirely based on money, all four (greed, corruption, power, and control) exist.

They also all feed off of eachother. Greed breeds a desire for power and money. Greedy desire for money breeds corruption. Corrupt people with reems of money can buy control and power.

What's interesting is that despite greed, and the desire for ultimate control, said corrupt greedy controling individuals DO ban together - if pushing forward the collective enhances the individual. So as corruption grows inside of a large group, it's bound to effect (often in a positive money sense) the individual seeking said money and power. As a group becomes more powerful, the individual gains more power inside the group, which gives the group and individual more control.

It's vicious, rampant, and all-too-difficult to keep in check.

So the idealism held by a few true blue men (the founding fathers) was bound to fail, as is any new government set up today. (Although, I should point out, or at least not pretend to deny, that almost all the important founding fathers were all men who held positions of power and control in said new government, and were all pretty well off financially too. Best way to gain control of a country? Make one up.)

It's the crux of why all governments fail - and the crux of why, despite how perfect it looks on paper, communism is a dismal failure as well.

The democracy... sorry... republic... in which we live (US) is, to many, the best that we have come up with as a species thus far. To which side it leans can be debated forever, and whether or not more socialism is a good thing is also debatable. But we're far from a perfect society, and I dare say that we won't see one... ever.

Or, at least not as long as greed, power, corruption, and money are in the equation.

Re:Machiavelli

[russ1337]

Its 'mutualism symbiosis' at its best. It is much like the Movie stars and the Paparazzi - the movie stars loath the Paparazzi, but need the publicity they give them; and the paparazzi need the movie stars to stay employed.

Politicians NEED the terrorist threats to push through legislation giving themselves more power. (If there was no threat, there would be no Patriot Act). They politicians may not like them, but it is the terrorists that enable the politicians. (Here is the redundant bit, but it proves the point:) When the politicians use the terrorist threats to gain said power, they are spreading the word of the terrorist, giving them more power..... thus fueling the terrorists ability to enable fear, and so on....

Re:Machiavelli

[Hijacked Public]

You'd have to buy an island that no one wants. And I think SeaLand burned half to the ground and isn't going to be able to resurrect itself without help, which means some government or corporation somewhere is going to earn themselves some leverage by providing it.

The important thing to remember is that things aren't the way there are simply because humanity willed it so. Our true blue, slave owning, whore fucking founding fathers didn't just get to draw up a consitution and the country birthed out of that and everybody went around respecting everyone. They ordered thousands and thousands of common people to march face first into the outstretched bayonets of our enemies. When all the boides were finally piled up and counted, more of their guys were killed than our guys, so we could call this place our own and go back to being eaten alive by bears and half starving to death until we recuperated enough strength to go on a murderous genocidal rampage against the people who were here when we arrived.

So no, buying an island won't do. You'll need a massive economy to produce airplanes and rifles and metal hats to ward off all your bloodthirsty neighbors. You'll then need to develop a culture that resists encroachment, otherwise you'll wake up one day and there will be shops on every corner selling shitty hamburgers and piping your money back across your borders, so that the hamburger vendor's homeland can pay for more machine guns to open up more markets to peddle hamburgers in so they can pay for more machine guns.

And if you discover gold or copper or oil or anything else of any conceivable value on your island, even sand, shoot yourself in the face in preemptive capitulation because someone will have already developed a cleverly named campaign, "Operation Friendly Help" or the like, that involves a boat the size of Rhode Island parking 15 miles off your shore and hurling bombs at you continuously for months on end.

Thing are looking pretty bleak for sovereignity in general.

Re:Machiavelli

[gfxguy]

I like the Paparazzi analogy... the problem is that 50 years ago celebrities loved it, but then the paparazzi grew more and more intrusive and most of them simply became parasites feeding off the celebrity...

The thing about terrorism is we didn't like it, but based on our reactions from the early eighties up until the Bush administration, we simply ignored it.

Everybody complains about the government taking too much power; but if it wasn't taking power one way, it'd be taking power another way (universal health care, for example, and social security and so forth - these government programs are ALL used as tools for politicians, they were created to get votes, and they are used to keep votes). The only party that would actually REDUCE the size and power of government (the Libertarians) are genereally laughed out of the elections, even though it seems to be what most people want. And no, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian... and believe me, the left wants to take away your freedoms as much as the right does.

Re:Machiavelli

[Silverstrike]

This is probably a little offtopic, but I've heard that bastardization of a concept, "Social Darwinism", one too many times lately.

Let's set the record straight.

Social Darwinism is a concept popularized in the late 19th century after Darwin published the Origin of Species.

It has no basis in Darwin's writing or theories, although it remained popular until after the Second World War.

Why is that? Because it was used as a scientific basis for racism.

So please, think of a better phrase for what you mean, or better yet, do some research in sociology before spouting about what was essentially science twisted for evil.

Refernece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Re:Machiavelli

[radtea]

Politicians NEED the terrorist threats to push through legislation giving themselves more power.

Nothing illustrates this better than George W. Bush's citing Osama bin Laden's belief that "we are engaged in a third world war" to bolster his (Bush's) claims that the U.S. government needs to be able to ride roughshod over the fundamental liberties Americans have fought and died for over centuries.

When I heard Bush say that it suddenly made perfect sense: two sides, both of whom have an interest in a war that is by definition practically unwinnable. And the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth claiming the blitherings of a man hiding in a cave constitute a creditable attack on our world-spanning civilization. Neither is interested in victory. Both are interested in pervasive warfare and fear. That is what secures their own power-base.

It is time for the rest of us to say we are tired of this make-believe war that is only in the interests of the nutters who want to lead it. Ordinary police work has been and continues to be an effective tool for fighting the minor threat that terrorism presents. We know terrorism is a minor threat because major threats actually kill people, whereas death by terrorism was negligable in 2001, much less 2006.

Ordinary police work, within the strong framework of rights and liberties that is fundamental to Anglo-American law, and not "security theatre", is what has kept us safe for decades. And even depending on ordinary police work did mean we were a little less safe, I personally am willing to trade a little bit of security in favour of liberty for myself, my compatriots, and my children.

Re:Machiavelli

[generalphilips]

I've never heard a more idiotic comment that was hoping so badly to sound intelligent. You obviously don't live in New York. I do. The impact of 9/11 was decidedly not small. Have you even read Machiavelli? Have you even read Bruce Schneier's blog?

Re:Machiavelli

[inonit]

even though it seems to be what most people want

Your profile says that you're in the United States.

<obligatory-slashdot-snark>You really need to get out more ...</obligatory-slashdot-snark>

Non-snark version:

The truth is, it's not what people want. In 2002 (sorry, I don't have more recent data for the moment), ABC News/Washington Post polled the U.S. and asked whether people thought "providing needed services" or "holding down the size of government" were more important to them, and small government lost 63%-33%. Phrased differently, there does seem to be some support for smaller government -- in 2004, a "smaller government with fewer services" is preferred to a "larger government with many services", but narrowly (50%-46%), and without specifying the services that would be lost -- note that "needed services" slaughtered government-size in 2002, and everyone thinks their services are needed. People often prefer lower taxes and the idea of smaller government, but their pet program must continue -- hence budget deficits, among other consequences.

And the truly depressing part (for you, as a libertarian) is that probably most of the people who answered they desired smaller government were Republicans, and nowadays many Republicans are hardly batting an eye at the gargantuan expansion of government that the current Administration (and Congress) have shepherded through. So I'm not even sure that support for smaller government hasn't declined since 2002 and 2004.

Politicians wouldn't be able to "keep votes" (as you say) using these programs if they weren't popular.

Re:Machiavelli

[$1uck]

It has no basis in Darwin's writing or theories ... Why is that? Because it was used as a scientific basis for racism.
Ok, Sounds to me like the term was misused back then...
some research in sociology before spouting about what was essentially science twisted for evil. I'm clearly not using it in that fashion (nor have I ever heard it that way). So let me be clear... you're saying I'm bastardizing the use of a term that was bastardized when it was first created? To mean something (that AFAIK) would be somewhat correct according to the etymology (I'm trying to use it explaining the sense that social groups/organizations evolve into the manner that is most fit through random mutations), and often others mis-used the term in this manner? Why can't we just drop the older misnomer that doesn't seem to be in use and apply the term the way I have? I'm clearly not discussing any issues regarding race. I think the context I used the term gives a pretty clear Idea of my intent. Talking about how an organization or society has evolved how that equates to racism, I have nota fucking clue.

Re:Machiavelli

[tbannist]

Unthinking nationalism is another way in which the U.S. controls it's citizens. Americans need to really think about by what measures the U.S. is "the best we have come up with as a species thus far". For most of those measures you'll find other countries ahead of you. The Japanese are healthier, the French get more action, the Venezualans are prettier, Denmark is happier, Luxembourg is richer, Finland is clearner, Canada is more libertarian, more educated and has a higher quality of life, China has more people, Russia is bigger, and Kuwait is safer.

The U.S. does have the largest christian population, one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates, one of the highest divorce rates, one of the highest prison population rates, but that's nothing to be proud of.

Re:Machiavelli

[cold fjord]

Dissent gets stifled using anti-terror legislation

BS. Where exactly is this happening? The web, TV, and radio are dripping with dissent and nonsense. There are regular demonstrations.

government fuck-ups get buried beneath terror headlines...

Instead of other headlines? Whoop.

people are given an enemy,and a reason to be obedient.

Obedient? HOW! Did all crime stop? Did everybody start paying their taxes? Is the government handing out careers? More vague generalities and nonsense.

Considering the mind-bogglingly small impact of terrorism, why wouldn't they want to encourage it?

9/11 did $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy and killed 3,000 people. Chump change? If it happened every year? Every month? Al Qaeda has a goal of killing 4,000,000 Americans. Do you think it is better to prevent that, or to clean up the mess?

The impact in the US is only small because we are protecting ourselves, or have been lucky. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are killing people by the hundreds in other places.

Re:Machiavelli

[V Radcliffe]

"Unthinking bureaucracies evolve into whats best for the "beast" and not whats best for doing its job."

Welcome to one of the key reasons why some of the founding fathers thought political parties would erode democracy. And in a way it has. It's inevitable that people will organize for varied causes, and eventually band together to consolidate power, however what we have here in the US is sort of cycling monopoly, or a shifting duopoly, that has grown to stifle variety in political leaders and ideas. With out that variety, a Democracy's greatest strength is taken away, the ability to adapt to any situationally to any environment. And anyone who has studied how selfish evolution works knows what happens when any entity it is unable to adapt.

The ability for the government to adapt is the key asset that's seen us through every major obstacle in our nation's history. I'll refrain myself from going into detail here, but the most telling era where this advantage was tested was the Cold War. It was the Soviet Union's inability to change policies and adapt that was it's undoing. What's most frightening isn't terrorism from abroad, but political awareness from within, because we are currently headed down that very same path.

Long story short, Jefferson's and Hamilton's feud lead to the current Democratic and Republican parties via the current of our nation's history. Over the course of that history, those parties essentially invented their current stances of "left and right" to consolidate their constituencies and keep power. This is where the problem comes in, over the course of the 20th century, all other possible competition is weeded out, and after a relative period of peace after the Vietnam conflict, the meme of "left" or "right" views entrenched themselves into the American Psyche. That means that there's essentially only two answers to any given problem, the "left" one, or the "right" one.

We ether pull out of Iraq, or stay the course, you're pro-life, or pro-choice, for state run health care, or corporate run health care. This is the core problem with politics and policy today. The middle east crisis is an issue born out of policies that shaped both of these political memes, and there's no way to solve it by applying the same meme. But ballot laws designed to shut independent parties out, coupled with the successful proliferation of the left/right meme, have made it difficult to push any other view forward into policy.

I'm currently working on a thesis studying this phenomenon and possible alternative policies that can really fix issues with this. A good start is decentralizing political power in Washington. Anyone who has studied politics, social science, or selfish evolution's effect on social evolution should contact me to further discuss the issue.

It's a bit late for the current mid-term elections, however I hope to have this finished by the time of the next Presidential race and effect its outcome.

Re:Machiavelli

[TheRaven64]

After reading about the latest plot, I wish they had let the terrorists go ahead with it. It sounds like the most likely outcome would have been a few people would have blown themselves up in a toilet trying to mix an unstable explosive. Imagine how effective Al Quaeda would be if every article about them began 'Al Quada, whose operatives blew themselves up in a plane toilet last year...'

The only down side is that being stuck on a plane for 7 hours with the lavatory out of operation would have been quite far away from fun; particularly if there were small children on board.

Re:Machiavelli

[KlomDark]

Like his father, who said "Know new taxes", but convinced everyone that he said "No new taxes", W has said "We are engaged in a Third World war", but convincing people that he said "We are engaged in a third World War"

Re:Machiavelli

[cold fjord]

That's down right sinister.

No, it was BS.

Re:Machiavelli

[demigod]

Where's the frontier where one can escape the thumb of large business and large government?

Space, the final frontier.

Seriously though, how long before some space geeks and Internet billionaires make it possible?

10 years? 25 years?

Affordable and safe are other issues.

Re:Machiavelli

[speculatrix]

Considering the mind-bogglingly small impact of terrorism

true, but it's all about the way risk is perceived. Yes, more people die in car crashes every month in London than in the bombings, but rather than spend money on improving roads or fixing public transport to reduce car traffic, huge amounts will be spent on "pork" with the gov'ts favourite contractors to create huge IT systems (ID cards, monitoring systems etc).

and so, again, the people we voted in (or got in by default, since voter apathy is rampant, more people vote on Big Brother TV than in Big Brother gov't elections) get to shaft us at our own tax-paid expense!

Re:Machiavelli

[Hijacked Public]

Sure, but the Japanese whack themselves out at a higher rate. The French have some serious unemployment issues to deal with. Venezuelans have the same problem, coupled with polluting every natural resource they have as a byproduct of their relentless drive to cut down every tree in the country.

And it goes one and on.

There are balances to be stuck everywhere, and the US does as well as anyone else, better in most cases. And although arguing over who is best is obviously pointless, nationalism is just part of the human condition. Is is natural for humans to want their particular group to be the best, whether the group is a nation or a skin color or a religion or a sports team.

Re:Machiavelli

[drew]

OK, so you live in New York City. So do 8 million other people (including several close friends of mine when the attacks happened). 288 million Americans do not live in New York city. I'm going to repeat what I said yesterday in response do a different conversation.

How many Americans have died in terrorist attacks in the last 5 years (plus three^Wfour days)?
How many Americans die every month in automobile accidents?

I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings or those of anyone else who was directly affected by the September 11th attacks, and I am not trying to claim that it wasn't a terrible moment in our nation's history. But it has been blown terribly out of proportion by our government and the media for their own benefit, whether intentionally or not.

Regarding the question in the orignal post ("Are the terrorists laughing at us?") I couldn't help but be just a little bit amused at Bin Laden's tape that he released before the last election, making fun of how easy it was to goad President Bush in particular and Americans in general into fighting Al Qaeda on their terms. Of course his criticism of George Bush had the predictable effect of a last minute increase in support for the incumbent president. The irony is almost unbelievable- by telling us exactly what he thought, he was able to talk his sworn enemies into playing right into his hands. If I found it amusing (if sad), I can only imagine how it looks from the other side.

Re:Machiavelli

[Moofie]

"It is a statistical certainty (p 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay."

State your assumptions. I agree that there are very likely innocents at Gitmo, but statistical analysis requires stated parameters. Otherwise, it's just making stuff up with math.

Re:Machiavelli

[gfxguy]

I agree with you, except, as you mention, phrased differently you will get different answers. What is the defination of "needed services"?

Let me use a few examples: the vast majority of tax dollars collected come from a tiny minority of the population. Nearly half the people don't pay any federal income tax at all. Now, when Bush proposed his first tax cut, a CNN poll showed that half the respondants said they don't pay too much in taxes. This was used for editorializing that the American people didn't want nor need a tax cut. Do you see the problem with this?

So it's not necessarily targetting a majority with any one thing...

It's telling seniors that republicans will take away their social security.

It's telling minorities that republicans will somehow revoke the equal rights amendment.

It's really no different than the complaint of this article: the Bush wing of the republican party is pandering to what another poster called "pussies" when talking about the war on terror...

I guess my problem with this article is that the democratic party does the same thing.

My solution (which will never be implemented, nor would it ever work anyway) is that instead of having MORE political parties, we should NONE. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to declare a political affiliation. That way we'd have to look at each candidate for their own merits, and you wouldn't be able to have blanket statements like "republicans would take away social security" or "democrats will make the country unsafe".

Re:Machiavelli

[LunaticTippy]

Wow, interesting site, thanks!

One surprise, USA is not #1 in TV watching. I was floored to discover we need 3.5 more hours a week to catch up with Thailand. Come on people, step up! USA #1! We're behind Egypt, damnit!

Re:Machiavelli

[BVis]

BS. Where exactly is this happening? The web, TV, and radio are dripping with dissent and nonsense. There are regular demonstrations.

First, you say "dripping with dissent and nonsense", which trivializes the conversation. Second, the "regular demonstrations" you speak of are "regularly" removed (occasionally forcibly) so as to negate their impact. The right to free speech and redress of grievances apparently isn't as important as protecting your agenda.

government fuck-ups get buried beneath terror headlines...

Instead of other headlines? Whoop.

I'd agree with you there, all things being equal. However, things are not equal. How many times has the "terror alert" been raised without any specifics whatsoever regarding the "threat"?

Obedient? HOW! Did all crime stop? Did everybody start paying their taxes? Is the government handing out careers? More vague generalities and nonsense.

You're missing the point of the GP. This administration has a lot invested in keeping people afraid. Scared people are easier to manipulate. The best example of this "obedience" is the fact that when the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program was revealed, there weren't riots in the streets. Another example might be the pervasiveness of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about" attitude of the average citizen. Also, nobody's marched on Washington demanding immediate presidential impeachment hearings for what could be interpreted as treasonous acts by this administration. (I'm thinking specifically of the Plame scandal.)

9/11 did $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy and killed 3,000 people. Chump change? If it happened every year? Every month? Al Qaeda has a goal of killing 4,000,000 Americans. Do you think it is better to prevent that, or to clean up the mess?

I think it's better to remember what makes us Americans. If we give up the basic rights that are set forth in the Constitution, we're no longer Americans. Al Qaeda would have succeeded in destroying 300,000,000 Americans in that case. You can't put a price tag on a national identity. If I personally were faced with the choice between giving up my rights as an American and death.. I'd die. Can you say the same? Al Qaeda's operatives are willing to die for their cause, why aren't we? (Oh, that's right, we have poor people to do it for us. Silly me.)

The impact in the US is only small because we are protecting ourselves, or have been lucky.

Please. Have you seen any of the so-called "protective measures" that have been implemented since 9/11? All they've done is restrict the rights of innocents by the millions in order to catch a handfull of "detainees" who may or may not be guilty of acts of terrorism. Security at our borders is still a joke, and we also came very close to allowing control of our busiest container ship ports to an Arab state-based country! I would say the more likely options there are "we've been lucky" or "they haven't done anything."

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are killing people by the hundreds in other places.

As are we.

Re:Machiavelli

[LunaticTippy]

There's a possibility that after an explosion on board the plane would land prematurely to check for damage.

I'd sure sweat if I'd used the wc just before the terrorists did!

Re:Machiavelli

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

There are balances to be stuck everywhere, and the US does as well as anyone else, better in most cases.

What is the criteria for success here? Happiness of the people is about as close as I can come to providing a real criteria, and the US is mediocre in that regard. There are certainly countries where the people are happier, maybe we should look at the balances they chose?

Re:Machiavelli

[zxking]

On a very interesting note, apparently 10 out of the top 20 countries with the lowest death rate are in the Middle East and North Africa. No Western country appears in the top 20. All this according to the links above based on the CIA Factbook. Time to throw out all those preconcieved notions.

Re:Machiavelli

[Itchy Rich]

You obviously don't live in New York.

The USA can never kill all the terrorists without creating more, the terrorists can never seriously damage the USA, and neither side is likely to back down any time soon.

You can shove your little NYC victim mentality right up your arse. It's exactly that mentality that has allowed Bush and his cronies to drag the world into a "war" that's unwinnable by either side and results in wars, hatred, and an authoritarian wet dream.

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

The important thing to remember is that things aren't the way there are simply because humanity willed it so. Our true blue, slave owning, whore fucking founding fathers didn't just get to draw up a consitution and the country birthed out of that and everybody went around respecting everyone. They ordered thousands and thousands of common people to march face first into the outstretched bayonets of our enemies. When all the boides were finally piled up and counted, more of their guys were killed than our guys, so we could call this place our own and go back to being eaten alive by bears and half starving to death until we recuperated enough strength to go on a murderous genocidal rampage against the people who were here when we arrived.

I'm glad to see that the kind of US history taught in middle school is adequate to get some people through their entire lives.

Did you pause to consider that the citizens of the US at the time had a higher standard of living than anyone else in the world (source: The Victory of Reason, by Rodney Stark)? Oh no, of course they didn't. They were "being eaten alive by bears and half starving to death".

It's comforting to live in a world where you have all the answers, but you can also probably rest assured that if you live in a world where you have all the answers, you're not living in the real world.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[BalanceOfJudgement]

You may find this post interesting

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

I'm glad you got a +5 Insightful. We'd hate for people to have to actually read an article before responding to it. Most Slashdot posters operate by a pretty simple switch statement;

if (gotfirstpost == true)
          makestupidfristpostjoke()
else
    Case (topic = terrorism)
          Bush is evil! America is evil! Terrorism is just an excuse to take our rights!
    Case (topic = MS)
          Down with the evil empire! M$ is the great, white Satan!
    Case (topic = linux) ...
end else

Having actually read the article, I thought I'd talk about that. And I find that the contention that terrorist attacks are simply a means to an end, and that the end is terrorism, is outright stupid. You'd think someone concentrating on separating means from ends would be smart enough to follow the chain all the way. Terrorism itself is a means to an end. Let's keep this discussion in perspective. The ultimate goal is not to make airline passengers wet themselves, it's to bring down the American/Western Empire and instate a medieval religious empire founded on some perverse version of Islam.

If you focus on the corruption of US politics to the exclusion of that real threat, you're ignoring the rock. If you focus on so-called "islamo-fascism" and ignore the very real blights in US/Western politics and culture, you're ignoring the hard place. You have to keep your eye on both (a skill radicals from either side are notoriously deficient with.)

In addition, if you treat "terror" as the ultimate measure of the success of terrorism, then why not simply instate severe censorship? If the ultimate goal is to prevent terror - then just ban any reporting about terrorism. That's pretty simple isn't? Saying that the main objective of this fight is to not get scared is like saying that if you have to fight a grizzly bear, the only thing to worry about is not getting eaten. Not panicking is a great idea, but you might want to also figure out how to avoid getting eaten.

Obviously terror isn't the ultimate measure of this conflict. I don't want to be a US citizen living in safety without any fear if that means I've lost the liberties that made America America. And that's exactly what this article - implicitly - advocates.

The reason radicals like to fixate on one end of the spectrum or the other is simple: it makes the problem easy. Trying to figure out how to balance safety concerns and civil liberties, idealism and realism, is difficult. It doesn't lend itself to grand rhetoric, dramatic action, and so on. It's easy to die for a cause if you really believe in that cause, it's harder to actually find a cause that you can rationally support and continue to muddle through your life supporting that cause without the convenience of a world view that bestows black-and-white contours to your environment.

If you ask me, the real danger isn't terror. It's not civil liberties either. It's becoming what we face. And I don't mean we're all in danger of becoming radical Islamic fundamentalists. I mean there is a very real danger that the stressfulness and ambiguity of the present conflict will lead increasingly large numbers of Americans to radicilize. To seek emotional and mental respite from complexity by turning a blind eye to either the rock, or to the hard place.

That is the danger that we face. Because in reality we are between a rock and a hard place, and the only way to see this true is to keep one eye on both.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[nine-times]

Unthinking beauracracies evolve into whats best for the "beast" and not whats best for doing its job.

If you look at it evolutionarily, then at least get it right: the bureaucracies will evolve not into what does any particular thing well, or even what is best for itself, but what is most apt at perpetuating its own existence.

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

That's kind of silly. Happiness is a good general criteria (if somewhat difficult to quantify) but it leaves out a lot of important evaluation. For example, if you live in a country that is newly freed from some external oppression, has no infrastructure, disease is rampant, etc. and you compare with a fully industrialized nation that hasn't been in war or natural disaster for a few decades, then do you think "happiness" will really reflect anything about the governments of those two countries?

I doubt it. Not that this is a case for the US being great or anything - I'm just pointing out that not all countries start out equally, so judging based on the results (e.g. happiness of the populace) may be reflecting the starting positions of the countries, and NOT anything inherent to the nations themselves.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

This is only informative as an example of the extent to which science has been subverted by culture. Saying something is racist is NOT a rational basis for saying it is wrong. Issues of morality don't dictate laws of the universe. You have to separate questions of what is true/false from questions of what is right/wrong. You can't say that a scientific theory is wrong because it is evil: period. That's like saying 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong because it's red. You might be right (2+2=5 is, indeed, wrong) but your reasoning is utterly flawed.

So first of all, Social Darwinism is a direct application of Darwin's theories to society. The fact that it's an incorrect application has to do with the fact that there's no factual evidence to support racism and nothing to do with the fact that racism is evil.

I agree that social darwinism is science twisted for evil, but so - according to some - was atomic energy in at least some cases. That doesn't explain why atomic bombs work and social darwinism doesn't seem to.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[arminw]

....Or, at least not as long as greed, power, corruption, and money are in the equation......

Behind these however, is the almost universal fear of death, or more correctly what lies beyond. The terrorists are persuaded that they will get a great reward if they take as many 'infidels' with them to the grave. In our western culture there are many, if not most these days, who believe that death is the end of existence. Therefore, in view of that belief, and it is only belief, not sure knowledge, many strive to grab as much of this world in goods and pleasure they can, before the inevitable grave ends it all. How that striving affects those around them does no matter very much if at all to many.

Someone who has faith that an eternal good future awaits them after they leave this mortal state, will not fear death, but will endeavor to work to "gather up treasures in Heaven" as Jesus exhorts to do, rather than strive for that which will remain behind after death. Someone who takes Jesus seriously, and has trust in Him, will not fear terrorism or anything else. It is the combination of the disregarding of death by the terrorists and the general fear of death that pervades our secular society, which makes terrorists successful. Atheists bravely may assert that they are not afraid of death, but the reality is that they too don't KNOW what lies beyond death and therefore fear that uncertainty.

Re:Machiavelli

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm just pointing out that not all countries start out equally, so judging based on the results (e.g. happiness of the populace) may be reflecting the starting positions of the countries, and NOT anything inherent to the nations themselves.

True enough. Also, it fails to take into account the effects of other governments upon a nation, like foreign aid or invasion. The difficulty of normalizing for those factors is considerable. Perhaps an evaluation within a given country of the happiness of the people is somewhat better, but still not even close to perfect.

Re:Machiavelli

[CodeBuster]

Ordinary police work, within the strong framework of rights and liberties that is fundamental to Anglo-American law

Perhaps you can explain how ordinary police work will be effective against large groups of insurgents roaming the back roads of Afghanistan and the back alleys of Baghdad armed to teeth with automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and suicide truck bombers. These people are not interested in laws or reason, the only laws they understand are the laws of combat where all that matters is who is left alive and standing and who is left dead or dying. These insurgents will fight to the death if caught or cornered with more firepower than just about any regular police force operating anywhere in the world. The terrorists represent a strategic international military threat and they must be addressed with an international military response. Police work is most effective in an organized, law abiding, and stable society, but what you have over there in the Middle East is bordering on pure anarchy where the only law is the law of the gun. The situation must first be stabilized militarily; before any serious work can begin on rebuilding the type of society where good police work has a chance at maintaining order.

BTW: If you think that the war is "make-believe" then why not sign up for a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and see for yourself just how "make-believe" the war really is when the hot metal starts flying. Say what you want about the war, but don't deny that we are at war and that real people are being killed every day.

Re:Machiavelli

[giorgiofr]

He's basically saying that you're a racist for arguing that a certain society can show different traits than another one.

Re:Machiavelli

[SeattleGameboy]

Perhaps you can explain how ordinary police work will be effective against large groups of insurgents roaming the back roads of Afghanistan and the back alleys of Baghdad armed to teeth with automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and suicide truck bombers.

That is why we send an ARMY over there and not police.

When we have Afghanistant insurgents roaming on the Broadway - NY, then, at that point, we should declare a war. Until then, this is merely an annoyance that comes with a complex society and should be dealt such with a police force.

There have been less than 3000 people killed by terrorist since 2001. Thousand times more people have been killed on the highways since then. Should we be declaring war on cars and deploy National Guard on the highways? The chances of ANY ONE of us getting attacked by terrorist is minute. The response should be in proportion to that.

Re:Machiavelli

[dpilot]

The State of Vermont has been playing on and off with the idea of Instant Runoff for elections, and I believe it may have been used in the City of Burlington in a recent election. Of course they're only toying with the idea, but at least they're doing that much. Maybe things will change.

And I know Instant Runoff is nowhere as geeky as Condorcet or other styles of voting, but at least it's a start away from simple ballot.

Re:Machiavelli

[TheWizardOfCheese]

As long as there is money, there will be greed and corruption. As long as there are humans, there will be a desire for power and control.

So what? As long as there are humans, there will be love, gratitude, kindness, and self-sacrifice. You don't even need the humans; you can observe all of these behaviours in animals too. Any philosophy that tries to pretend that humans have no "good" attributes is just as nutty as a philosophy such as communism that tries to pretend they have no bad ones.

But we're far from a perfect society, and I dare say that we won't see one... ever.

Well, of course not! But that's hardly the point. Making things worse is easy, making them perfect is impossible. But just making them better is not impossible, even if it's hard work. At this point, it would be progress just to stop making things worse.

Re:Machiavelli

[aminorex]

> When I heard Bush say that it suddenly made perfect sense: two sides, both of whom have an interest in a war that is by
> definition practically unwinnable. And the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth claiming the blitherings of a man
> hiding in a cave constitute a creditable attack on our world-spanning civilization. Neither is interested in victory.
> Both are interested in pervasive warfare and fear. That is what secures their own power-base.

This is well-described in the book 1984, by George Orwell. But I object to some details of your description.
Osama bin Laden died in Balochistan in 2001, according to President Mussharaf of Pakistan, at the time. After
a discussion with the U.S. ambassador, he changed his mind, but Osama remained dead. Moreover, at that time, Osama
had already won the war, although he did not know it: The U.S. left Saudi Arabia, as he had demanded all along, in 2003.
The war is thus over. bin Laden won the war. Now the global campaign to stamp out Islam and secure global petroleum
supplies will continue for a while, but the original two-sided conflict is over.

Re:Machiavelli

[dpilot]

Over there, it's war.
Over here, we don't have large groups of insurgents, so it's police work.

Even if you believe it was necessary to get into War in Iraq, and that containment wouldn't have worked, it has been managed from above with such utter and complete incompetence and stupidity that it boggles the imagination, including the fact that pretty much the complete cast of characters who launched this debacle is still in place.

Re:Machiavelli

[OldSoldier]

While I think you may be closer to the truth than other posts, I hope it's not as bad as the Movie Star - Paparazzi relationship... at least there the public seems to always want to see the stuff the Paparazzi produce. But I'm putting some hope on the belief that the public will generally tire of the terrorist threat because the chance of being harmed by a terrorist still appears to be quite small.

Taking a broader view this may well be proceding as it should. On 9/11 we were stunned by how relatively easy it was for terrorists to bring down the world trade towers and harm the pentagon. But that was one incident, what we didn't know was can the terrorists do this every month? Every year? or merely once a decade? It was right for politicians to hypothesize that such attacks could be a common occurrence unless we better secured our sea ports and air ports, increased "domestic" spying and all that... but now 5 years later we should all be developing a sense that ... at the most... the current activities are good enough. We don't need more, we surely don't need to spend more, we may need to spend less.

Taking a page from history... how long did our fear mentality survive during the cold war? 10 years, 15 years? While the cold war can be said to have lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall (35 years?), there was certainly no active fear of a soviet nuclear attack during the 1970s (25 years?) and beyond. The peak of the cold war fear mongering may have been during the McCarthy era (10 years?) and it was all down hill since then. Today we have that lesson from history to draw from and much broader news coverage (I'm including the internet and discussions like this).

I expect that we're near the peak now and our perspective will be much better and our willingness to vote in politicians on the "terror card" will be lessened come 2008 if not this year.

Re:Machiavelli

[rawtatoor]

You stumbled on what the terrorists really want right there. And its what the article misses. Money Money Money. Fear is not an end in itself, the real point is economic. Does any fool really think they give a fuck if Joe Blow is terrified? And I'm afraid to say that its been working splendidly. I've been saying this since 9/11 and watching it happen all too predictably. Look at the billions (trillions?) spent (wasted) on the "war" on terror, and look at what's been accomplished. Sure some attacks have been stopped but what is the actual cost/effect ratio there? The *trained economist* bin Laden is surely laughing in his proverbial cave but not for the reasons everyone thinks. My sad opinion is that you don't have to move to an island, you just have to wait until this out of control monstrosity puts itself out of business, just like the "terrorists" want, and have very tranparently wanted since the beginning of this bullshit. How long are we expected to keep supporting this ridiculousness? Most people ~realize~ that it's ridiculous, but still it goes on. Anyway, I'm hoping for a short wait.

Re:Machiavelli

[n00854180t]

About time someone said this. Seconded. The victim attitude is pathetic and ridiculous. More people died in car accidents in two weeks following the "terrorist" attack than in the actual attack. The impact of terrorists on citizens is so absolutely minor when compared with the millions of other ways you could conceivably die NOT involving terrorists. It's far more likely to trip and break your neck/back or get run over by a car than it is to be attacked by something as nebulous and insubstantial as "terrorists". People that allow themselves to be frightened and herded like sheep over something this riduclously minor do not deserve to live in a country called "the home of the brave". And for all the trolls that undoubtedly will call me a "liberal" (since they apparently don't know how to make any logical arguments), I am not, was a former military servicemember and indeed hold very dear the TRUE ideals of the country (personal liberty and freedom, not the oppressive fear mongering garbage that so many cowardly people want).

Re:Machiavelli

[aminorex]

Were crime to stop, it would be very disruptive, and a manifestation not of obedience
to the demands of society, but of disobedience. For some value of "crime".

Re:Machiavelli

[$1uck]

Then how the hell did it get modded up?

Re:Machiavelli

[beringreenbear]

Perhaps you can explain how ordinary police work will be effective against large groups of insurgents roaming the back roads of Afghanistan and the back alleys of Baghdad armed to teeth with automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and suicide truck bombers.

I'll conceed your point if you'll condeed my point: Those people are not here. And that was the point of the Schneier opinion. It would be very difficult to find large groups of insurgents in the US, Canada, or the rest of the Western world.

I will go one step further. What would happen if the US, in bits and pieces, withdrew to the borders of Iraq? Have the US keep enough troops in place to ensure that Iran doesn't invade and let the Iraqi government know that the training wheels are off, but we'll be back to help if needed.

Yes, the war is real, but it is not a war on terrorism. It is a war created by unbalancing a region of the world and failing in the attempt to re-create the balance of power to suit US interests. It is an now open question as to whether or not said war is really in the national interest of the United States. Stability in the region is, but quite possibly not "winning the war".

It is too late to ask whether Iraq was a mistake. Mistake or not is of no consequence. What matters is what We (as in the Western World, not just the United States) do about creating a balance of power in the created vacuum.

Re:Machiavelli

[mrball_cb]

When I heard Bush say that it suddenly made perfect sense: two sides, both of whom have an interest in a war that is by definition practically unwinnable. And the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth claiming the blitherings of a man hiding in a cave constitute a creditable attack on our world-spanning civilization. Neither is interested in victory. Both are interested in pervasive warfare and fear. That is what secures their own power-base.

Having just read 1984, it's eery how closely your analysis compares with the writings of Goldstein. All sides want a war that is continuous and unwinnable, but spinning the results with propoganda espousing that we are winning a glorious victory.

I frequently wonder if the Dixie Chicks will one day be held in high esteem for having had the courage to stand against the lawbreaker Bush (the younger one, the older one actually seems to have been a good old fellow). I'm reading more and more about impeachment of Bush Jr. It could happen, but I honestly don't see it moving forward fast enough to actually come to a resolution during his Kingship^W Papacy^W Presidency.

Re:Machiavelli

[Skye16]

I'm quite intrigued by the abolition of political parties. As I mentioned in another reply to one of your comments, I, as a "liberal", "leftist", "libertarian" (i know, it's a crazy weird combination, but it's what politicalcompass gave me - way to the left on business, way to the libertarian side on personal rights (as an aside, i think that, in practice, I'm more central than left when it comes to business, I just take issue with the "personal rights being sacrificed in the interest of business" or "corporations having similar rights to people without many of the punishments". It's kind of a libertarian stance anyway, but i digress.)), have a serious problem with the Republican party (with regard to their "mission statement" or whatever it's called). It is, essentially, diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. Democrats, however, aren't a whole lot better, but then again, neither are any of the other parties.

In essence, I have no choice, though, because your choices are generally only a shitty democrat and an even shittier republican. If they had no party affiliation, would they even get 5% of the vote? Highly unlikely.

I'm not sure how one could implement your suggestion, short of putting limit on a politician's right to free speech, but in all honesty, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth it.

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

I believe the point he was making is that unless you are on the top then you are usually under someone's heel.

I guess my point would be: is he assuming that such a state of affairs is evitable? Would it have been realistically possible for the US to not have expanded territorially beyond its 1776 boundaries? George Washington explicitly sought to restrain territorial growth b banning pan-Appalachian settlement. So it seems ridiculous, at the outset, to portray US oppression of the Native Americans as being 100% a result of elite white leaders. The President was opposed (clearly matters had changed by the time Andrew Jackson was around).

So we have to ask the question: was there a way for this conflict to have been avoided? Is it possible for two nations to exist in overlapping or adjoining territories where one has an overwhelming military/social/economic advantage over the other, but refuses to expand?

To lay the blame for that expansion at the feet of individual US leaders seems to miss the point. To lay the blame for specific actions (e.g. the Trail of Tears, US-Mexican War, etc.) makes sense, but to act as though it was somebody's fault that the US expanded at all, I'm not sure if we can do that. If there's no possibility of something not happening, does it make sense to blame people when it does? I'm not sure.

In order for history to be enlightening, you have to do more than just merely catalog the conflicts, or lay blame for individual conflicts. I want to see an approach to history that is at least cognizant of the fundamental question: why conflict? Can it ever be avoided? Is it a result of environmental factors? Human nature? Should we bring in game theory? What about sociological factors, or cultural factors? When, how and why - if ever - do stronger nations exhibit altruistic restraint? (By the way, this is just one of the annoying failures of Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs, and Steel" in my opinion.)

Short of awareness of these complexities, rants like the one I responded to are worthless, vacuous polemics of no intellectual merit whatsoever.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[Syrrh]

That's an excellent match for how I view the current political climate. I don't really dig in to the historical adaptability because there are plenty of problems right on the surface. Bullshit partisan bickering and feuds and finger pointing and blaming that OTHER SIDE for problems rather than realizing they aren't an enemy or a radically different ideology, it's just a differing of opinion. But because politics are so polarized it's becoming harder for individual viewpoints to reach beyond the party-generated noise.

I would *love* to see independent candidates take a bigger chunk out of registered voting. It pisses me off to no end that someone might just register and vote along party lines and never even pay attention to how well that candidate matches their expectations. I keep voting for independents hoping for them to gain enough of a percentage to make the bipartisan candidates panic, but it's hard to exert any change when political parties are, above all, highly focused business with a *lot* of money.

Re:Machiavelli

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I really think you would want to check out what kinds of measures the British government took during the Blitz before making those kinds of statements.

And I really think you want to check out the attitude of the British people during the blitz. "Business as usual", comes to mind.

Re:Machiavelli

[Syrrh]

Please. Have you seen any of the so-called "protective measures" that have been implemented since 9/11? All they've done is restrict the rights of innocents by the millions in order to catch a handfull of "detainees" who may or may not be guilty of acts of terrorism. Security at our borders is still a joke, and we also came very close to allowing control of our busiest container ship ports to an Arab state-based country! I would say the more likely options there are "we've been lucky" or "they haven't done anything."
Oh yeah? Well, next time terrorists kill 50 million people by squirting shampoo in their eyes and clipping their toenails, don't come crying here!
I think calling ANY of this crap 'protective measures' is being excessively generous. It's just the same fearmongering in a different flavor so it doesn't get too bland. The intelligence that stopped last month's impending attacks is what really counts, cautionary measures at the airports don't make a difference at all. Who'd be dumb enough to attack a target that's already aware and waiting for it anyway?

Re:Machiavelli

[DavidTC]

That was either astonishing satire, or amazing silliness. Congrats.

Re:Machiavelli

[treeves]

...The ultimate goal is not to make airline passengers wet themselves, it's to. . . Obviously. I mean it's much harder to wet one's self now, with the ban on liquids and all. . .

Re:Machiavelli

[Pictish Prince]

"On 9/11 we were stunned by how relatively easy it was for terrorists to bring down the world trade towers and harm the pentagon." Yeah, all they had to do was wait for was a drill to be held simulating their actual attacks to strike and -- hey Presto! NORAD sits scratching its ass while you complete your attacks. It's so obviously set up. Anybody remember Payne Stewart?

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the kind of extremism that I'm criticizing. You see the people place too much effort on survival (quantity of life) and not enough on quality of life and your reaction is to exclude quantity from consideration. This is exactly the myopic extremism that makes all of life's answers seem so simple, but in fact is just as bad as the extremism you're opposing.

The truth of the matter is that we should be concerned about both quality AND quantity. The false dichotomy you espouse is just that: false.

So again, thanks for popping up as a textbook radical. You've got the rock: over-emphasis on quantity, and the hard-place: over-emphasis on quality, and extremists can't seem to keep their eye on both at the same time.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

Did you ever think about how its only humans that do INhuman things to each other.

Other than being a semantic trick, I don't see the point you're making here. Monkeys can be pretty savage too - killing each other and eating each other's eyeballs and stuff. I can't tell if you're just playing with words, or if you actually think animals are less violent than humans.

I say agriculture is the culprit, it allows human populations to grow beyong the prehistoric levels and then large groups inevitably conflict with each others

So now that you've made the observation you have two options. Do you want to go back to Eden (no agriculture) or do you want to work with what we've got? I find that people tend to be a lot better at pointing out the negative than the positive. Shouldn't you consider all that is good that has resulted from agriculture and advancing human society? And if so, then doesn't it make more sense to minimize the negative impacts while accentuating the positives, as opposed to simply complaining about the negatives?

Those in charge have regularly throughout history played one group against another in order to benifit themselves.

Have "those in charge" not also done good things throughout history?

I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with anything you've said head-on. But I think that it's really important to have a sense of context and balance. If war is really inevitable (and I'm not sure that I believe that) then we should drop the bitterness associated with it. It seems to me that people tend to not have their cake nor eat it. They complain about war being inevitable AND about how guilty leaders are. You can't have both!

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[SanityInAnarchy]

Hmm, I can't quite place the language, but in any language I know, your program has a severe bug -- the first case will always be true, and we'll always post "Bush is evil!" posts. That's because you're using an assignment operator, not a comparison operator.

For what it's worth, if I don't read the article, I don't post a new topic. If anything, I reply to someone else. The reason I appear to follow the first two points of your switch statement is that Bush and MS both have horrible track records. Also, different Slashdotters post different things, which is probably why you couldn't finish that "topic = linux" bit -- I would post that Linux is the best we've got for most things, but that I still keep a Windows partition for games. Someone else would post that there's no point to Linux, since Windows does everything they actually want to do, and Linux doesn't quite do everything yet. And you'd get people much more extreme on both sides.

But let me put it this way -- the Bush admin wants to complain about the liberal bias in the media? Guess what: Honest media now has a liberal bias. This is because reality now has a liberal bias.

Re:Machiavelli

[Money for Nothin']

Happiness as a measure of a nation? Oh please.

Nobody has yet even come *close* to defining an objective standard by which "happiness" can be measured. You can find some back-and-forth occasionally on the subject between a couple of generally (though not specifically) like-minded economists on Econlog.

Anybody who goes around quoting statistics as meaningless as measures of "happiness" -- especially on such an amorphous, wide-variation-within-the-set scale as an entire freaking nation -- is not somebody who can be taken seriously. It is a laughable statistic, at best.

"Happiness" is an entirely (and almost by definition) subjective thing, and as such, the only serious objective measures cannot come from the rankings of those people measuring it from outside the body, but rather from inside the brain, where the chemical and physical processes that -- physically -- define "happiness" in our brains can be measured.

Of course, saying this is the most-objective way of measuring happiness, and *doing* it are two very different things... But until such measurements can be taken, easily and repeatably, with high degrees of accuracy and precision, the idea that happiness can be measured to any level better than a few broad, vague, subjective classifications (e.g. "very unhappy", "unhappy", "neutral", "happy", "very happy"), will remain completely laughable.

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

I work with a mish-mash of .NET, VBA, vanilla java, etc. And I've aslo used C, C++, and even a bit of assembly in the past. So it's not really a language - just pseudo-code (not even formal pseudo-code) that most nerds will be able to follow.

My problem isn't with people, such as yourself, that are opposed to Bush or MS because they screw up so often. It's with people who respond to the topic, and not TFA.

We can argue politics, philosophy, etc., (I don't agree that "reality has a liberal bias") and that's one thing, but people who are using the articles as just another excuse to vent their opinions without regard to if those opinions are actually relevant to the article, are what I think we can all agree are annoying.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

Wow. That was a convincing argument.

Oh wait, never mind, it wasn't an argument. It was another AC calling me names. Boo hoo.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[cold fjord]

It's exactly that mentality that has allowed Bush and his cronies to drag the world into a "war" that's unwinnable by either side and results in wars, hatred, and an authoritarian wet dream.

It was Al Qaeda that dragged the world into war, not the Bush administration.

Al Qaeda became powerful enough to become a state within a state in Afghanistan, and are trying to gain similar influence in several other countries. They trained tens of thousands of Jihadis in their camps in Afghanistan. Those same Jihadis are wrecking havoc around the world. Theirs is an ideology of hatred, conquest, and holy war. They have sought and received a religious ruling that they can use WMDs, and have a goal of killing 4,000,000 Americans.

If they are not contested, they will only grow stronger and bring more of Islam under their power, and kill more people around the world. That includes, but is not limited to: Australia, Philippines, Thailand, India, Spain, Italy, Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, China, Afghanistan, and more.

Al Qaeda has been badly damaged in the war: they lost their training camps and control of Afghanistan, much of their senior leadership has been captured or killed, thousands of their fighters have been captured or killed, their finances have been greatly reduced, massive amounts of intelligence have been gathered. More of their attacks are failing or are foiled in planning.

The more frequently the terrorists lose, the more inclined people will be to turn against them. Attacking them while they are losing and weakened only reinforces their downward spiral.

You should be clear on this point: they won't go away if left alone, they will eventually come for you and what you hold dear. Their war is against everything that isn't Islamic, and is aimed at forming a Muslim super state unifying religion and government that controls the entire world. They accept the fact that it might take more than a hundred years.

You can take your pick, support the fight against them while they are weak and losing, or wait until they are strong and become a victim.

In the US, products that kill a dozen people are routinely pulled from the shelf. If you think that the US is going to stand by while its citizens are attacked and killed by the hundreds, or thousands, or even millions if they get a WMD, you are more than mistaken.

Re:Machiavelli

[gfxguy]

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. As I mentioned, it cannot be implemented because even if you somehow abolished political parties, new ones would form again, because there's power in numbers... even if they didn't publicly declare any kind of allegience.

But I'd like to think that instead of getting together simply to block vote, they'd get together on various issues that they agreed with. No one would get "Liebermaned."

So they might only get 5% or less of the popular vote, so we'd have to change the way in which most offices are elected. Pretty much anything would suffice... eliminate the bottom half of the list of candidates and have a new election, repeat until there's only 1 who must have gotten the majority of the vote.

But like I said, it's pretty much impossible, because if you somoehow disbanded all political parties, within a three or four years you'd already have new ones.

But imagine the possibilities: people getting elected to committees by other representatives instead of appointed, speaker of the house elected in a non-partisan fashion, no more house majority/minority leaders... Supreme Court justices would actually be voted on for their qualifications!

Pipe dream, though.

Re:Machiavelli

[theStorminMormon]

Why do you think that we should drop the bitterness associated with war?

Because I think it's immature and unhelpful to be bitter about things you can't change. Note that I said if war is inevitable, then we should not be bitter. And personally I don't think anti-war bitterness is what stops us from launching into war at every disagreement. You can really dislike, detest, and want to avoid war without getting bitter about.

You can't deny that the leaders of the fledgling United States sent 'thousands and thousand of common people' off to die for their country. You can't deny they owned slaves.

No, I can't. And I don't want to. But I do want to make two points that I think are relative - even on Slashdot.

1. Is there anything about the fact that they were white or Christian that had anything to do with their negative actions? I don't mind people pointing out that white Christians did awful things, but I get frustrated when those things are then associated with either being white or Christian. Did black Africans not own or sell slaves? Did Muslims not have religious wars? The fact that the early American leaders were white Christians doesn't have anything to do with the things that happened.

2. Was there really another option? To the slavery issue I would "yes, of course there was". Thanks to Christian opposition European slavery was ended by the 10th century. In the 15th century the Spanish restarted the practice. Despite instant condemnation from the Pope (who threatened to excommunicate anybody who didn't immediately return the people of the Canary islands to their freedom and their lands) the practice grew and spread. Despite continual opposition from the Catholic church (the Jesuits were expelled from S. American colonies as a result of their opposition to the practice) the economics of slavery made sense. This didn't make it inevitable, however. Slavery had made sense in Medieval times as well, but religious opposition ended it. There's a current myth that the slave-based agriculture of the US South was already on its way out in the 1860s, but in fact the practice was still quite profitable, and yet (at the cost of a hideous war) the practice was ended there too. So clearly slavery was not inevitable.

As far as warfare goes, however, I'm not sure why you characterize the American Revolution as "leaders of the fledgling United States send[ing] thousand and thousands of common people off to die for their country". First of all, the idea that the intent of fielding an army is to let people die is absurd. You know people will die in war, but the point is to get as few of your own guys killed as possible. Washington's tactics were highlighted by his reluctance to commit his troops to pitched battle, and his efforts to keep the troops alive. Furthermore, the idea that there was no danger to the leaders of the movement is similarly absurd. There was no draft. People who served in the army wanted to serve. If they had decided not to - they would not have had to risk their lives.

Furthermore, the US leaders were the first to risk their lives. By signing the Declaration of Independence every single one of them effectively signed their death sentence if the US didn't managed to secure it's independence. And that was very much in doubt at the time. So yes, George Washington didn't serve in the front ranks, he served in the back. But can you really run an army if you're in the front ranks? Even aside from the chance of getting killed, how do you get messages to the rest of the troops when you're in hand-to-hand combat? That's just the nature of organized combat - some lead and some follow and the risk to those who follow is often greater. I just don't think there's anyway to get around that reality.

So my points are

1 - Lay off white Christians. People are guilty. Races and religions are (usually) not. I apply the same rule to Muslims and Arabs - just to forestall that response.
2 - Don't blame people for things that can't be avoided. Especially don't blame people for risking others lives when a) those people were volunteers and b) the one's giving orders risked their lives first.

-stormin

Re:Machiavelli

[Itchy Rich]

You should be clear on this point: they won't go away if left alone, they will eventually come for you and what you hold dear.

Yes, let's be absolutely clear on this point. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has made the situation worse, not better. Perhaps the terrorists are militarily weaker, but they have far greater popular support and will now last for much longer (thanks to high civilian casualties, prisoner abuse, use of chemical weapons, divide and conquer tactics, etc.) For example the bombings in London, which were perpetrated by british citizens, could not possibly have been prevented by invading another country or any publically acceptable act of legislation. They could however have been prevented (as indicated by the bombers' own statements) by a more fair and consistent foriegn policy. I suspect you've bought into the gung-ho rhetoric of the UK/US administrations who have much to gain from the distraction from domestic problems provided by an enemy.

Possibly.

[FatSean]

I mean, remember the ban on LIQUIDS and GELS on US aircraft? Despite all the improvised explosives experts stating how freakin' hard it would be to succssfully hide and then deploy explosives packaged in a tube of hair gel or other consumer packing?

Yeah, they're probably laughing. As we slowly give up our freedoms and rights bit by bit for some safety that nobody can prove we actually have.

I can quantify the infringements on my rights and freedom...can you quantify how much safer we are?

Re:Possibly.

[ResidntGeek]

can you quantify how much safer we are?

Yes. Every infringement you can quantify is another warm fuzzy feeling among the masses. Since fear is about the only thing they're in danger of from terrorism, they're safer.

Re:Possibly.

[kfg]

As we slowly give up our freedoms and rights bit by bit for some safety that nobody can prove we actually have.

And here is the irony of Franklin's dictum; it cannot be proved that we actually have some more saftey as a result of giving up rights, since giving up rights merely transfers the source of the threat from one party to another.

I have many friends and acquaintences who were blacklisted during the McCarthy era, a few of them even cited for contempt of Congress. I have lived through the hottest phase of the cold war and the social termoil of the 60s; and for the first time in my life I find myself actually afraid on a day to day basis , not of the external terrorists, who are no more a real threat to me than they ever have been (and I'm a native New Yorker) , but from the internal terrorists.

KFG

Re:Possibly.

[gEvil (beta)]

remember the ban on LIQUIDS and GELS on US aircraft?

Remember? Why, yes, I had to deal with it just last weekend. I went on a one-day trip for a meeting and decided to only take my one carryon bag. I didn't take any toothpaste or deodorant with me since it would be confiscated anyways (I relied on the hotel for soap/shampoo). After getting to my hotel I spent an hour wandering around trying to find a place that even had any toothpaste or deodorant left. I sure am glad the TSA is keeping me "safe."

Re:Possibly.

[tomjen]

a few of them even cited for contempt of Congress
Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker irregardles of the belives. You may count yourself lucky, that you have such friends.

As for being afraid I agree with you - though much younger, I thank god that I do not live in America.

Re:Possibly.

[kfg]

Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker . . .

Pete's the one who had the guts to stand on the First Amendment, not the Fifth; and declare that Congress did not have the authority to even question him on his beliefs.

You may count yourself lucky, that you have such friends.

I am psychologically constrained to do so on a daily basis at this point. It is more and more becoming my role to be one of those who remembers them. I am of the next generation and they are passing on at an alarming rate.

KFG

Re:Possibly.

[bdonalds]

If we can't continue to use non-words like "irregardless", the terrorists have already won! :)

Re:Possibly.

[kfg]

I can only hope you're on the next train to get bombed.

Q.E.F.D.

KFG

Re:Possibly.

[Lesson No. 25]

Q.E.F.D.

I'm not familiar with that acronym. Could you spell it out for me?

(For the record, I did STFW.)

Re:Possibly.

[An. (Coward)]

Yeah, things are beyond ridiculous when entire states of matter are excluded from airplanes. I actually saw a newspaper article a month ago that used the phrase "explosive water".

I keep expecting to open up a newspaper (other than the Onion) and see a headline that reads "To prevent future terror attacks, DHS bans the future."

Re:Possibly.

[kfg]

Oh come oooooooooooooooon, yer not going to let my throwing a little Saxon into the Latin throw you, are you?

KFG

Re:Possibly.

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Quod Erat "fucking" Demonstrandum.

Re:Possibly.

[mikeinthemoment]

Yah, "your"right you know. what a shame to have to "loose" to those psychos....:)

Re:Possibly.

[WilliamSChips]

Quod Erat Fornicanter Demonstrandum. (By the way, fuck doesn't stand for "Fornication under the Consent of the King".)

Re:Possibly.

[Lesson No. 25]

okay...

So I guess I'm not quite following your train of thought. Who do you mean by "internal terrorists"?

Re:Possibly.

[kfg]

Who do you mean by "internal terrorists"?

The ones spreading terror and "security" at the expense of our rights; and the fact that such brings them absolute power is, I'm sure, only an unintended consequence.

The man with the $7.50/hr pay rate, a plastic badge, an overdeveloped ego and an IQ of 90 may "protect" us from knitting needles and violin strings, but who protects us from him?

"Take off your shoes, pants, bend over and spread 'em. This won't hurt me a bit."

KFG

Re:Possibly.

[swillden]

And here is the irony of Franklin's dictum; it cannot be proved that we actually have some more saftey as a result of giving up rights, since giving up rights merely transfers the source of the threat from one party to another.

And even that's only true if the giving up of rights actually does reduce the external threat, which is far from clear.

for the first time in my life I find myself actually afraid on a day to day basis , not of the external terrorists ... but from the internal terrorists.

Oh, come on, you can't be frightened by little things like warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons and the occasional complete suspension of due process, can you?

Re:Possibly.

[Lesson No. 25]

The ones spreading terror and "security" at the expense of our rights;

That's what I thought you meant. (By the way, it was this post of yours that finally got me to add you to my friends list--before I started the 'What is QEFD?' thread.)

and the fact that such brings them absolute power is, I'm sure, only an unintended consequence.

I'm not so sure. In fact I'm pretty sure the opposite is the case. (Perhaps I missed some sarcasm of yours?)

Anyway, now that I know the meaning of QED....I fail to see how AC's comment ("I can only hope you're on the next train to get bombed") proves your point (in the post I linked above). Not that I disagree with said point; I just don't get the connection.

...And just as I was about to post this with only what I said above...it occurs to me that the connection is that AC's comment shows that people are afraid of "the terrorists," which is just what TPTB want...and thus TPTB have power via the people's fear--and it is the power that they hold you rightly fear.

Am I close?

I'm sure they're laughing.

[tivoKlr]

I'm sure every time a plane is diverted because a kid drops his iPod in the toilet or somebody forgets their Blackberry (if its an 8700g, I just lost mine, so if you could send me the terrorist one, I could use it as I HATE this 7105t) the terrorists are pleased, and in fact, they win.

If we can't live in peace and harmony, and that harmony is disturbed or destroyed by fear of things that MIGHT happen, then the people that created that fear have done their job.

I'm sure things will get better though when we redefine Common Article 3 to fit our needs though, that'll help to placate the masses and make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy for a while anyway.

refused to be terrorized

[farker haiku]

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.

I'm more afraid of the politicians than I am of the terrorists. I can't refuse to be terrorized by them, however.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[dido]

"We must remember that we have more power than our enemies to worsen our fate." From "It's Not Another World War" by Ted Galen Carpenter.

You can refuse to be terrorized by them. Get them out of power. Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. If you care about your country you'll use them.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[sparkane]

On the off-chance that you mean you can't refuse to be terrorized by the terrorists (not how the other response to your comment takes it); well, you can. It depends on what you mean.

Do you mean you can't stop being afraid of the terrorists? If so, that's beside the point. "Terror" is not "fear". If the terrorists mug you for your wallet in the alley, or worse, then you are going to feel fear. "Terror" is institutionalized fear (or perhaps a particular degree of institutionalized fear). You CAN refuse to be terrorized if you refuse to support institutionalized fear. Obviously, enough people might support institutionalizing their fear, and your lack of support might not only be a failure, but get you in trouble with the supporters. But at least you can try to refuse it.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[farker haiku]

I couldn't care less about the terrorists. It's the politicians I'm terrified of.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[Cemu]

Just wondering... Do you think that it is possible for a State to sue the Federal Government for infringing on their citizens' rights (warrentless wiretaps - 4th Amendment) because the 14th Amendment says that States shall not enforce any law that infringes on the rights of a citizen?

Re:refused to be terrorized

[Richthofen80]

I'm more afraid of the politicians than I am of the terrorists
Your attitude would change if you were flying 500 mph towards the world trade center and certain death.

terrorism is just one of the risks we face
Also, you seem to equate terrorism, a crime, with natural 'risks we face'. Mugging is a 'risk we face', yet we absolutely fight against it. Just because something is common and confronts humans doesn't mean we should be complacent about it happening. Cancer, traffic accidents and muggings are all things that fit that criteria, and no one complains when we enact legislation to fund cancer research or harsher punishment for drunk drivers or muggers.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[sparkane]

But I guess you could still refuse to be terrorized, given how I defined what it means. :p

Re:refused to be terrorized

[sparkane]

If he's facing certain death, what's the point of being more afraid of one or the other? Are you saying that if by some miracle (seeing as the death is certain and all) he got off the plane alive, he'd be a permanent convert to a permanently panicked way of thinking?

What you're really saying is "if you were in a state of panic, wow, your tune would change". But panic is precisely the point. If we can afford not to panic, if the threat is something we can face without panic, then we should. The whole point is not to go overboard.

And contrary to what you say, terrorism is just such a threat. "Just because something is common" you say. Come again? Terrorism common? Are you speaking statistically? Cancer, traffic accidents, and muggings are common; no one complains because they are, statistically speaking, quite common. Furthermore, we don't complain because, in fact, the measures taken against these problems can be verified as effective or not effective, at least somewhat. Cancer has therapies; cars can be made safer; there are clear and easy things you can do to reduce your chances of being assaulted. Your response ASSUMES that preventative measures against terrorists are equally effective.

Re:refused to be terrorized

[aminorex]

Then the politicians have already won.

Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the terrorists laughing at us? Yes they are. 9/11 was a tragedy but it killed only few thousands, what happened after (and its not over yet) killed freedoms of entire nation. By far the most damaging was what 'happened after'.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Dobeln]

So, what freedoms have you personally lost? Apart from the "gels-on-airplanes" thing.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[capt.Hij]

Have they bothered attacking us in the last 5 years or so?

The answer is yes. Everyday western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are attacked. Whether or not you think that western troops should leave is up for debate. The one thing that should not be up for debate is whether or not those people matter or count. The troops have been put directly in harms way and the attacks that are happening to them are very real and matter a great deal. The fate of the troops should be figured in to the grim calculus of what constitutes terrorism against the west.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Bob_Villa]

I'd say we are losing the freedom of speech (try speaking out against Bush and you are labelled pro-terrorist and possibly monitored)
We are losing the 4th amendment (they can see who you are calling, record calls to foreign countries, and if you are suspected of being a terrorist can haul you off even if you are an American to undisclosed locations and torture you)
And our president acts like an emperor or king instead of our elected prsident, ordering congess to pass his legislation so the cia can continue to torture people.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Dobeln]

"I'd say we are losing the freedom of speech (try speaking out against Bush and you are labelled pro-terrorist and possibly monitored)"

Last time I looked, you had to join a queue to "speak out against Bush", and that was just the line for Hollywooders.

"We are losing the 4th amendment (they can see who you are calling, record calls to foreign countries, and if you are suspected of being a terrorist can haul you off even if you are an American to undisclosed locations and torture you)"

Probably the strongest claim, but a claim with extremely marginal impact, unless you happen to be that poor guy who went off to Afghanistan to partake in peaceful Islamic study in Kabul, only to be sold to the Americans by the local warlord for no reason apart from Greed. Or something.

"And our president acts like an emperor or king instead of our elected prsident, ordering congess to pass his legislation so the cia can continue to torture people."

If he was a king he obviously wouldn't need congress to authorize it.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[everett]

You know, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit. I've not yet heard one single case of someone being "monitored" just because they spoke out against bush. On the other hand I just read (a few months back) an article in Rolling Stone that described bush as the worst president in the history of the united states, more recently than that I read an article in the same magazine about how Bush stole the election in Ohio, both HIGHLY controversial claims, both met with the same response from the public. It's not the government that's labelling people "pro-terrist" and making things difficult for them, it's Billy Bob and Sue.

I've also read nothing about Bush "ordering" congress to do anything, just accept that we have a very conservative government in power right now, and take steps in November to correct it.

As for the "errosion" of rights on foreign calls, they've been doing that for years with warrants. And can you point to one publicised case of a United States citizen being "hauled off" and "locked away for years"

If you can provide a shred of proof, I may believe you.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[deanj]

Well, if you listen to the government, there have been at least 8 plots that have been broken up.

That's if you listen to the government.

If you don't, then when one finally gets through, you'll have your evidence.

Of course, if that happens, people will be blaming the government for not doing enough.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Faylone]

So are we supposed to wait until it does affect us personally?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Aladrin]

Okay, first off, I have nothing against our troups, and their putting their lives on the line for their country, so I have quite a bit of respect for that.

As for whether we should be over there... I have strong views on that and they are actually irrelevant to the conversation.

They have not attacked our country for 5 years. If Country X sent soldiers over here to 'help control the terrorists' or whatever, you can bet your ass we'd fight them. It just wouldn't matter what they were here FOR. And maybe the military would leave them alone, due to some crazy pact or treaty or whatever. But you can bet militant groups would quickly form and harrass them. We would not be attacking Country X, we would simply be attacking the foreign presence on our soil.

According to our military, they have the means to hurt us, but they haven't done it for 5 years. No matter what we do to them over there, they just take it and sit tight on their bombs. That can only mean they have no bombs, or they love the position we've placed ourselves in. The popularity of the President is amazingly low. Many of us are angry about the way the government is stepping on our freedom. We turn more and more like a dictatorship with every passing year. All because of what they say and do.

I'm all for finding those bastards and blowing them out of existance. But I'm not for losing my freedom in order to do it. The US is still the 'free'est country on the planet. But once we aren't, expect to see a lot of clear-headed individuals haul ass for the new best country. And I don't even see that as unpatriotic. This country was founded on being free, and if it can't hold up the basic premise, those that like what it has become can stay. It would be interesting to see what would happen if there was a new land mass for a new country to use.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Hijacked Public]

How does the First Amendment protect you from being labelled or monitored? I also think you mash together the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

While I agree with you that some of our most basic rights are being eroded, being hysterical and pointing it all directions at once doesn't help anything. I also hope that you people who are complaining now have the same vigor when the Democrats are voted in and begin their assault on the 2nd, and their own particular angle on the 1st, and the 5th and 10th. I know you won't though, because you didn't last time.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Bob_Villa]

Considering we don't know what programs are out there, since they are all 'classified' and done outside of the FISA courts we don't really know for sure who is being monitored. All we know is Bush says it is only for terrorists. But Bush claimed up to a few days ago there were no secret prisons in Europe. Then he admitted they had them and must have them to prevent terror attacks.

The dirty bomb suspect Padilla is an example of an American citizen who has been held in solitary confinement since his arrest for suspected 'terrorist' activities. He has not gone to trial, has not been formally charged, and this was years ago. Remember him?

He may not be able to order them currently, but only because they want to keep their seats come November. Up until now, Bush got just about everything Bush wanted. He may have had to go through Congress, but they rubber-stamp whatever he said until this. Since they won't give him his version he has turned Cheney and Rice on them as well as paid several personal visits to Capitol Hill. When he can't get his way he bullies them behind closed doors. Why on earth do we need to abandon the Geneva conventions?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[stubear]

Iraqis are not attacking US troops, foreign insurgents are. Your Country X analogy would be more like if Iraq sent troops to the US to help topple the current administration we would sit idly by while South/Central Americans and Canadians crossed the border and started attacking the Iraqi troops because they wanted the old administration back.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Bob_Villa]

I may sound hysterical and point in all directions because our freedoms are being attacked from all angles constantly right now by both parties. I'm not claiming to be Democrat or Republican. I am very, very worried about our country. I love that McCain and Warner and Graham are standing up to Bush finally on something. I would gladly vote for McCain for President if he won the Primary. But my senator Frist does whatever Bush wants almost every time. I really hate rubber stamps or following party lines on votes. Just fix our country!

Tell me something I can do other than just email my senator or other senators. Because I do that on a regular basis and all I get are blanket responses. How on earth can I help change this mess? How can I make a difference?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Dobeln]

"Why on earth do we need to abandon the Geneva conventions?"

Obvious reason: It gives more leeway in dealing with suspected terrorists, while costing only PR points. (It's not as if any enemy of the US has actually complied with Geneva since the Wehrmacht went out of business. Well, the Serbs might have occationally, but hey...)

Padilla is indeed the best example of Bush judicial overreach, although he has now been charged:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/ind ex.html

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Stooshie]

" They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Inscription on New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts.

You can change any of the groups of people for any other group of people. It doesn't matter. It will always be relevant.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[everett]

But did it never occur to you that maybe the majority of Americans, and by proxy their representatives, want what Bush wants too and that's why everything he asks for goes through with little resistance?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Bob_Villa]

But doesn't that come back around to fear-mongering by politicians and the media being used to control the population and tell them what they want? How do you get out of that cycle, especially with a war that could never be won? No country has ever stopped terrorism, especially not world-wide terrorism. I doubt we will be the first.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Golthur]

Do Canadians count?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[PantsWearer]

I always love the "foreign insurgent" argument. If the Iraqis love our presence on their soil so much, why aren't they turning these obviously-dangerous foreign insurgents over to us? I'd also love to see some proof that every person that has attacked US troops in "insurgent" attacks was not Iraqi.

Frankly, in their position, I'd be pissed too. This huge, overwhelming army came into my country, gutted my military and police forces (knocking out my basic services in the process), and overthrew my government. Now, I don't mind that government bit because the last guy in charge was a really bad guy, but then they've basically taken over the whole process of creating a new government. And these troops won't leave. They've been here for years!

Even if the Iraqi people weren't pissed enough to actually attack the troops, I can't imagine that they're happy overall.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Builder]

They attacked some airplanes in other countries that were headed here, but that's about it.

Can you please point me to some articles about this? I can't find anything about multiple aircraft destined for the US being used in an attack.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Bob_Villa]

The saddest part to me is that regular Americans can't change much on their own.
Unless you are part of a corporation with big $$$ campaign contributions you can't sway them much.
And until we go back to paper trail voting things are only going to get worse.
I wonder what happens if polls show a Republican losing by 15% margin, exit polls show them losing by 25% margin, and then
the results end up being 51-49 for that Republican. Since there are no recounts with Diebold machines,
I wonder what they would do, just say it must be fine and live with it?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[o'reor]

Where are my mod points when I need them ? I can't agree more with everything you said, including the footnote.

This is true for every country where terrorism is being used as an excuse to cut down on the individual freedoms. I live in Europe, and although we don't have the PATRIOT Act here, with the new anti-terrorist measures, things are far from being fun and relaxed.

Cheers.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[david.given]

Have they bothered attacking us in the last 5 years or so? Not really. They attacked some airplanes in other countries that were headed here, but that's about it.

I think that in itself tells us something. Either they are Running Scared, or Pleased As Punch.

How to be a successful terrorist in four easy steps:

1. Decide on a target, such as the US.

2. Set up a bunch of stooges to mount a half-assed attack that's never going to succeed.

3. When the attack get thwarted, watch the rampant paranoia in your target country make your own victim do your job for you.

4. Profit!

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Aladrin]

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/087409738544 07940442/BDQqFIwoQ_Iv2w88h

I'm sure there's plenty more out there. It was big news and people are still bitching about not being allowed to carry water onto a plane.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[everett]

Intersting case, but if I (american born, european descent) had Osmama or one of his cronies co-sign my lease on an apartment, I'd be pretty damn sure that I'd get black bagged off to somewhere too. Perhaps this is more of a case of beware of what your friends do, rather than a "Oh look at the big bad government"

In the same vein Terry Nichols and his wife got blackbagged off for questioning after Oklahoma City.

Also I must point out, that if you're trying to prove a point, a link to wikipedia is useless.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Builder]

I think you may be confused. There was NO attack on any London airport. A plot was uncovered and some people were arrested, but there was no attack.

The people arrested had no plane tickets let alone a fixed timetable. To be clear, none of these people was anywhere near an airport.

Furthermore, their entire 'plan of attack' is thought to be unfeasible by most people in the know. Most of the people involved have been charged with 'failing to disclose information to the police'. One has been charged with this because he didn't disclose information about his brother to the police. Sadly, his brother has not yet been charged with anything, so no-one is clear what this person failed to disclose so his case doesn't exactly look airtight.

When you said that people had attacked some planes, I thought, you know... that someone had actually attacked something. My bad.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[kchrist]

Attacks on occupying troops are, by definition, not terrorism. Military personal are a legitimate target.

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[sheldon]

Iraqis are not attacking US troops, foreign insurgents are.

You're absolutely certain of this?

No attacks on US troops have been carried out by Iraqis?

Re:Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Aladrin]

Unsurprisingly, most of that news didn't make the headlines here in the US. We only get the 'Terrorist found!' crap shoved down our throats. The retractions, you have to sit up until 1am to get those. I had heard something vague about 'nothing found' but it was still my impression they were thought to be guilty. Apparently not, and the whole 'no liquids' scare is even dumber in this light.

So my original statement stands: They haven't attacked us in 5 years.

But the problem is:

[Anonymous Coward]

When the bad guys pull off an attack and kill a lot of people, we demand that the government "share more information with us." When the bad guys don't pull off such an attack for a few years and all we have is warnings, we demand that the government "stop trying to scare us." We can't have it both ways.

Frankly, hearing about plots and arrests and suspects every week doesn't scare me. Just the opposite. It makes me feel like at least somebody's still doing their goddamned job. Maybe that's false security, but I'll take it. It's better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no bad guys, as Schneier evidently suggests.

Re:But the problem is:

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking false security IS burying your head in the sand.

Re:But the problem is:

[gfxguy]

It's not "false" when they capture 20 people with weapons, plane tickets, and plans.

Are you saying you'd rather not hear about that story?

Are we safer? It's impossible to say, but while I have problems with the Bush administration pushing it's limits, we haven't lost anything I'd consider an "essential" liberty (funny how a lot of people ignore that word from the quote).

On the other hand, I also have problems with the left wing appeasers and the media who show terrorist propoganda (like the "Pallywood" type videos) over and over again, and talk about daily body counts without talking about the daily progress). You may say the terrorists like that they have created a state of fear, but they also like the left wing and the media blaming their own government for creating it instead of merely propogating it.

Re:But the problem is:

[tclark]

It's not "false" when they capture 20 people with weapons, plane tickets, and plans.

Umm, didn't we just recognize the fifth anniversary of not catching those guys?

Re:But the problem is:

[gfxguy]

Yes, we did... shortly after capturing another group BEFORE they did it.

Re:But the problem is:

[tclark]

You mean those British guys with no plane tickets, no passports, and no workable plan? Thank God we got those bastards!

Then again, even though those guys did not have a way to make a workable bomb, they did manage to get my three year old daughter frisked and her lip gloss confiscated when we flew recently.

Did we win this one?

Re:But the problem is:

[RAMMS EIN]

``When the bad guys pull off an attack and kill a lot of people, we demand that the government "share more information with us."''

Who did?

``When the bad guys don't pull off such an attack for a few years and all we have is warnings, we demand that the government "stop trying to scare us."''

Who demands that?

I think you will find that these are different groups of people. I, Bruce Schneier, and others have been warning against blowing the threat out of proportions since the get go. We've also been warning against restricting civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism (but without actually accomplishing that) from the beginning. It's mostly people who don't see things the way we do that clamor for more stories about terrorism, more power to the government and the police to fight it, etc. etc.

``We can't have it both ways.''

and we don't _want_ to have it both ways. Just some people want it one way, and other people want it the other way.

``Maybe that's false security, but I'll take it. It's better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no bad guys, as Schneier evidently suggests.''

First of all, "burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no bad guys" is not the only alternative to security theater. For example, we _could_ invest all the money and effort than now goes into theater into things that actually do work. Secondly, if you seriously read Schneier, you will find that's exactly what he's advocating: stop wasting resources on things that don't work or are even counterproductive, and start doing the things that do help. He's not advocating burying our heads in the sand at all.

Re:But the problem is:

[orielbean]

We wanted the internal groups to share info between them, CIA to FBI to NSA to the military. We also want our government to be transparent and accountable. The government still has not delivered on either of these things, but uses the vague information specifically to scare us. We aren't trying to have it both ways!

They lie to us and keep up the appearance that everything is being worked on, and the vague warnings are a way to placate us with sleight-of-hand. Don't be silly.

I want to hear about plots and arrests and suspects. I don't want to hear about "there might be something happening sometime next week" without any details. THAT is a scare tactic. That is the government saying "Watch your back or else" instead of saying "be on guard for suspicious people travelling from Boston to Detroit with Ipods that look modified." Schneier is again correct in identifying terrorism as law enforcement, while the warmongers just want the total war against Oceania, Eastasia, or Eurasia. It is not burying your head in the sand. Imagining terrorists where none hide is worse than burying your head in the sand. A paranoid world is a world with shaky fingers on monstrous triggers.

Re:But the problem is:

[cmckosaurous]

The real question is, why is your three year old wearing lip gloss?

Re:But the problem is:

[tclark]

Because it keeps her happy on a 14-hour flight across the Pacific.

Re:But the problem is:

[cold fjord]

Thank goodness there are people like you to save us from "nonsense" of those "quacks" at Scotland Yard, MI5, FBI, NSA, and the rest.

Officials told NBC News that the alleged mastermind of the plot is still in Pakistan and has yet to be captured.

Some plotters had already purchased tickets on a flight to stage a test run planned for this weekend. The test run would have determined how easily the plotters could have gotten their materials past security and on board the planes.

The actual attack would have followed within days, officials told NBC News.

I guess it is "well known" that explosive could in no way be made from a wide range of readily available materials like peroxide as was used last year in the London subway attacks.

The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets (sometimes used by the military for cooking).

Yep, no evidence at all.

(CBS News) LONDON Police found martyrdom videos and bomb-making components during the investigation of the alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners, prosecutors said Monday in announcing 11 people had been charged with terrorism offenses.
   

Re:But the problem is:

[tclark]

Thank goodness there are people like you to save us from "nonsense" of those "quacks" at Scotland Yard, MI5, FBI, NSA, and the rest.

Good point, but then again, maybe you're looking for quacks in the wrong places. Also, here is some perspective published 19 days after the MSNBC article.

I guess it is "well known" that explosive could in no way be made from a wide range of readily available materials like peroxide as was used last year in the London subway attacks.

Yes, it looks like it would be pretty easy to make HTMD, especially on a plane.

The question here isn't whether or not there are bad guys out there. The question is about how to respond to them. It seems to me like we might be getting it wrong.

Re:But the problem is:

[cmckosaurous]

Fair enough ;)

Naive

[October_30th]

He's naive if he thinks that the politicians don't realize that. Fear mongering serves politicians' interests as well -- especially if you'd like to exert more control over the public.

Re:Naive

[jackb_guppy]

One of the best examples of that fearing serving a political end is Germany pre-WWII. This is where a group sent out thugs to get laws passed that would stop the thugs. More the power was condensed to stop the thugs more the power grew until the one very small group was running it all.

Just other we had Bill Frist, TN helping getting the wire tap laws to mean nothing.

Re:Naive

[RAMMS EIN]

He probably does realize that, but he's not saying it, because it would detract from his message. People would criticize him for attacking politicians, rather than pointing out bad policies. Worse, people might even write him off as another Michael Moore or conspiracy theorist. After all, it's a small step from realizing that this FUD benefits the current administration to theorizing that they might have orchestrated 9/11. (And just to make it perfectly clear: I'm not saying that they did or that Bruce Schneier thinks they did.)

Re:Naive

[October_30th]

He wouldn't have to talk specifically about the current US administration. The principle applies the same everywhere else.

Media..

[HatchedEggs]

I would say that it isn't just politicians that are using terrorism... look at the news and see just how much they are using it these days. If a plane is diverted to land somewhere because somebody got too drunk or whatever else the case, you can expect 50 news stations spouting about the latest "possible terrorist" on the plane.

The article has alot of good information and seems to use alot of fact to back up what it is saying. I've only read the first porton of it, off to read the rest, hopefully it won't fall apart into partisan trash talking.

The terrorists don't care about that

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Here's what the terrorists care about:

1) they don't want the US to have such economic and political power over their countries
2) they are pretty miffed that the US supports Israel
3) some of them want Islam to be the dominant religion all over the world
4) they don't like the US propping up regimes that suppress their brand of religion
5) they don't like the US propping up regimes that treat their citizens inhumanely
6) they want to be taken seriously
7) they want to act on equal terms with the West

They don't care whether or not we are squandering our freedoms. That is a cop-out and jingoism that makes it seem like there are all these external forces that are causing us to give up our freedoms. It's a way of appealing to our nationalist nature instead of our patriotic nature.

We are losing our freedoms because we are letting it happen. Period. This has nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist wishes except that politicians on both sides use appeals to our emotions to take those freedoms away on the one hand and to lamely protest their usurpation on the other.

I have no analogy for this. It doesn't need one. So why do all these pundits keep spouting these hackneyed bad analogies? Because they don't think you're any smarter than that.

I think you're smart enough to see through it. It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Dobeln]

"I think you're smart enough to see through it. It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism..."

Good luck - without nationalism, you don't have a country to move forward anymore.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

without nationalism, you don't have a country to move forward anymore.

Instead, you have a world to move forward.

Then again, who cares about the filthy foreigners, right?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, I would add that one has to keep in mind that terrorism is usually an act of desperation. Terrorists are induced into thinking that there is a supreme good (stop Israel, stop US, independence from UK or Spain, etc.) and that it is unrealisable by any other means.

One thing confuses me, though. You claim we have a "nationalist" nature and a "patriotic" nature. And that the first is bad, while the second is good. Can you explain what is the diference, please?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Dobeln]

Problem is, you don't have a lever to move anything with anymore. Nationalism is the (so far) by far most successful attempt at binding people together for large-scale collective action ever concieved.

I really don't see that changing anytime soon. Destroying nationalism is most likely just going to shift the loyalty hierarchy downwards, back to clan and family - entities that are notoriously difficult to "move forward". Why? Well, loyalty to everyone is loyalty to no-one. And that tends to be kind of a hard sell.

"filthy foreigners"

Well, Swedes are kind of well-showered and all, but I find standards of hygiene to be perfectly ok in most of the industrialized world.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[ResidntGeek]

A world government terrifies me. All large-scale governments inevitably become police states, and France 217 years ago is the only time I know of where a police state was brought down from within. They're always taken down by another government, and with a world government there is no other government.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[QCompson]

4) they don't like the US propping up regimes that suppress their brand of religion
5) they don't like the US propping up regimes that treat their citizens inhumanely

Bit off topic here, but I think in the short term at least, the terrorists (not that we can ever ascribe any sort of group mindthink to that term) may not be wholly opposed to #4 and #5 because it justifies and confirms their beliefs.

Of course, no one wants a bomb dropped in their backyard or their mother shot, but on a global scale, when the U.S. invades and occupies other nations, it creates a groundswell of support for the current popular trend of "terrorists", radical islamic groups. By the US continuing to pursue #4 and #5, the terrorists arguably are closer to achieving #6 and #7.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Oligonicella]

Frankly, if you cannot see that a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward, then you're purposely blind. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone back to 900AD. Not me, not my kids, and not my grandkids. You go ahead.

By the way, your last line is straw, as you well know. Too bad you were unable to engage in debate rather than that. Perhaps it displays your lack instead, eh?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

Ah... you think I was proposing a world government?
Gods, no! It would be even slower and more corrupt than any of the governments we can imagine.

But I've found that nationalism can severely limit your perspective... even here, on /.

Couldn't we do without either?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

Nationalism is the (so far) by far most successful attempt at binding people together for large-scale collective action ever concieved. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. Destroying nationalism is most likely just going to shift the loyalty hierarchy downwards, back to clan and family - entities that are notoriously difficult to "move forward".

Well, sorry, I may be a moron, but I see no substantial difference between a clan and a nation.
Or a football[1] club, for that matter.

Nationalism cannot be "destroyed" - but it can be grown out of. Just as soon as people realise that many conflicts would be resolved more quickly if people weren't bickering like kindergarten kids about who started it.
Given the history of religions... no, nationalism will almost certainly never be destroyed. Or grown out of.
Except by the enlightened few.

</idealistic rambling>

[1] Soccer for you Americans.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

Frankly, if you cannot see that a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward, then you're purposely blind.

Of course I see that. I just don't like what I see... and I'm certainly not going to ask that part of the world population for some kind of permission anyway.

Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone back to 900AD. Not me, not my kids, and not my grandkids. You go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry... don't you have something called the Bible Belt in the USA?
Idiot fanatics are not restricted to Islam in their choice of religion. Or nationality.

By the way, your last line is straw, as you well know.

Get another sarcasm detector; yours is broken.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[ResidntGeek]

I wish, but I doubt it. Understanding between all peoples is the last barrier to world government - communication, travel, currency, and others have all been taken care of. That's the worst thing I see in the War on the Middle East - even more than the tens of thousands of dead civilians, I fear the complete subjugation or destruction of the entire third world, after which cultural cooperation among the Western world will be a very small step. If all governments are the same, who's going to object to combining them? Tell people it'll be more efficient and save them 5 cents on their annual taxes, and who's going to object?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

Tell people it'll be more efficient and save them 5 cents on their annual taxes, and who's going to object?

The ones intelligent, educated and reasonable enough to think on their own.

Not very many, in any case... which is why I proclaimed all this "idealistic rambling".

More like utopistic, really.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Opportunist]

In this case I'm scared. What country could possibly bring the US down?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[RAMMS EIN]

You may have listed what the terrorist leaders use as propaganda to get people to follow them, but I think the big brains are after much less laudable things: power and wealth.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[OriginalArlen]

I think you're smart enough to see through it. It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance.

Dream on, kid. (I'm assuming you're a kid, because after 10 or 20 years' experience of adult life and keeping up with current affairs and politics, if you're not suicidally depressed, you don't really know what's going on.)

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

China?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[jahudabudy]

Frankly, if you cannot see that a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward, then you're purposely blind. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone back to 900AD.

Nope. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone into their version of Islam. I bet they want flying cars just as much as the rest of us. And even if they don't, the other 99.99% of the world does. Well, right after they get clean water, health care, etc. Where do you get the idea that "a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward"? Or did you simply mean that a goodly portion of the world doesn't want to move in the direction you perceive as forward?

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[utnapistim]

In this case I'm scared. What country could possibly bring the US down?

I'm scared about this too.

I've seen (on slashdot and in other places) lots of talk about "democrats versus republicans" (for example) and they seem like just another flamewar to me, except for half-a-continent-sized population (and that is kind of scary).

I belive it's no coincidence that there is such an emphasis on being "politically correct" in the States (like not calling groups of people by derrogatory names for example), and that this (assigning people to groups then deeming them below you) is because this practice is a big problem in the american culture at the moment.

What looks worying to me is this atitude of "us versus them" (actually make that "U.S. versus them", "them" being sometimes the rest of the world), and I think it keeps growing and if it will continue to do so, the world will start pushing back.

If the US is to go down, I for one hope it will go down from within. As I see it, it is moving fast from democracy to "my group" against "your group" (which automatically makes members of "your group" evil that must be stopped at all cost by the way), and I'd rather not be included in neither of the groups in this scenario.

I also think this behaviour is being pushed forward by politicians and media for short term gains (power and audience ratings respectively), with no regards to long-term changes brought by their actions.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Opportunist]

If someone's looking for me, I'm under my desk curled up in a fetal position.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[lixee]

Here's what the terrorists care about:

1) they don't want the US to have such economic and political power over their countries
2) they are pretty miffed that the US supports Israel
3) some of them want Islam to be the dominant religion all over the world
4) they don't like the US propping up regimes that suppress their brand of religion
5) they don't like the US propping up regimes that treat their citizens inhumanely
6) they want to be taken seriously
7) they want to act on equal terms with the West

Here's what the Americans care about:

1) they want the US to have huge economic and political power over the world
2) they blatantly support Israel
3) some of them want capitalism to be dominant all over the world
4) they like the US propping up regimes that suppress their brand of religion
5) they like the US propping up regimes that treat their citizens inhumanely
6) they want to be taken seriously
7) they don't want anyone to act on equal terms with them

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[cp.tar]

If someone's looking for me, I'm under my desk curled up in a fetal position.

Now you told them where to find you.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[Moofie]

"Couldn't we do without either?"

Until somebody, somewhere, decides that they don't want to play nice anymore and tries to conquer Europe (for instance).

So, that'd be a "no".

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[johnny6vasquez]

I think the reasons for fighting are nicely summed up here in Bin Laden's declaration of war against the Americans.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[dave562]

It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance.

Yet for the minority to lead the majority, they need to embrace and work with the very things like nationalism, racism and religious intolerance that bind the comman man together. Unfortunately things like racism are deeply ingrained, and the people who tell others that it is okay to be racist are going to get a lot further with those people than those who tell them that racism is bad.

Re:The terrorists don't care about that

[SanityInAnarchy]

I think that when Bush says "The terrorists HATE FREEDOM!!!" I'm perfectly justified in saying "You also appear to hate freedom, you arrogant fuckwad." It's just that to avoid calling Bush an arrogant fuckwad, we've got a more politically correct slogan: "You're letting the terrorists win, you fucktards!"

Oh, did I say "fucktards" out loud? Oh well, so much for PC...

obviously

[spikexyz]

Hasn't this been well known for a while? The US always has their scapegoats that politicians use to get elected. Witches, Communists, Terrorists, and I'm sure there's many others. A quick peek at US history would have revealed to anyone that this was merely the most recent scapegoat.

Re:Obviously

[Bob_Villa]

What I find fascinating is how I've read posts from people in other stories that live in England or other countries that have endured regular and frequent terrorism before 9/11. They didn't give up all of their freedoms and stop going to pubs and other places that were being bombed. They would rather keep doing the things they want, rather than let the terrorists win.

Here in America we just seem to roll over now and give up every bit of freedom we have. I mean, the airport screening officials even tried to get J.K. Rowling to put her only copy of the manuscript to the final Harry Potter book in checked luggage. Imagine if they 'lost' that or it ended up getting leaked out early? At least she stood up to the security people in the US at the airport, but she is not American and a celebrity, so she isn't the best example. Why doesn't anyone stand up to these things today in our country? What on earth is happening to this country?

Re:Obviously

[drooling-dog]

What surprises me is that more people aren't speaking up like Schneier.

There's quite a groundswell right here. Now if we can only spread it to the mainstream media, the "general population", and at least one major political party, maybe we'll really have something...

Re:Obviously

[DerekLyons]

What surprises me is that more people aren't speaking up like Schneier. It seems to me that the role of the press and politicians in promoting terror is very much like that of oxygen and fuel in promoting fire.

Let's not delude ourselves here. If it weren't for the 'fear and hype' generated by the Goverment - Schneier would have to go the Dvorak route and generate some, lest he have to go and find a real job. Schneier isn't 'speaking out', he's fanning the flames so that people see him as a heroic fireman - and the speaking fees etc... keep a' flowing into his pocket.

Re:Obviously

[gclef]

Oh, please. Schneier is a well-known expert on cryptography, he wrote the "bible" for introductory cryptography, he founded an MSSP...he doesn't need the speaking gigs to have a comfortable income. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to weaken the strength of his arguments.

Re:Obviously

[cthrall]

lest he have to go and find a real job.

Dude, I think he's got a real job.

Re:Obviously

[RAMMS EIN]

You're right, but it's worth pointing out that Europeans don't always have a lot of freedoms to give up. For example, in the US, tapping phone calls is a big deal that gets people upset, leads to political debate, and court rulings.

In the Netherlands, ISPs are required to make it easy for the government to tap their networks. There are (I think) data retention laws, that require network logs to be kept for years. Cameras automagically photograph and fine people who speed or run red lights. Every person over a certain age (I think 12) is required to carry an ID, and the police can and do ask for it and fine you if you're not carrying one, even if you're not being suspected of anything. The list goes on. Research done a few years ago indicated that the Netherlands was the country whose government spied on its people the most, leaving the US far, far behind (this was reported on /. as well).

Re:Obviously

[Bob_Villa]

I agree they don't have many to give up, but it is just amazing to me that in just five short years Americans have become trained to give up all freedoms in exchange for so-called 'security' from terrorists. As others have pointed out, we are far more likely to die from car crashes, alcohol, cigarettes and obesity than we are from these attacks. I have a wife and 2 small toddlers, and I worry more and more every day that they won't have many freedoms left by the time they get through high school. We seem to be moving towads the Netherlands style.

I know in Virginia they have plenty of red-light cameras, and the National ID program was passed by Congress and signed by the President. We have even had rental car companies automatically give people speeding tickets using the magic of GPS, and plenty of demonstrations on how people can be tracked via their cell phone signals. It is coming, sadly. :(

Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Aladrin]

"Are the terrorists laughing at us?"

Have they bothered attacking us in the last 5 years or so? Not really. They attacked some airplanes in other countries that were headed here, but that's about it.

I think that in itself tells us something. Either they are Running Scared, or Pleased As Punch.

They believe it is their duty to terrorize us, so I seriously doubt they are scared at all.

No, I think they are probably tremendously happy at how they've made us all cower in fear and totally redirected the majority of our President's efforts towards a completely unfruitful campaign against them and a huge backlash on us denying us the very freedoms we are supposed to be fighting for.

Go us! Whoo! -sigh-

parcel post

[SimonInOz]

Bruce has hit the nail on the head.

Just the other day I went to Ausatralia Post to send a small packet. The postal folk wanted me to show them some photo id before they couold sent it. No, they didn't copy it or anything, just looked at it.

How absurd is this? Do they seriouosly beleiove any self respecting terrorist would not have some sort of photo id - even, just possibly, fake? And what in heck was mildly annoying millions of people sending parcels going to achieve?

The mind boggles.

I'm flying to London next week. Let me see ... no eye drops, no hair gel, slip-on shoes .. it's going to be great. If the terrorist want to drag us back to the middle ages, I guess this is a small step in the right direction.

Re:parcel post

[freedom_india]

In Singapore, i had to let them take a copy of my passport, my P-2 Card AND had to pay them by credit card, before they agreed to let a shipment of DVDs to my sister who was working in Nigeria.

Yeah they refused cash, because credit card allows them to legitimize me.

In 2000, in Australia all i needed to show to the Post office to collect a parcel from Amazon was the pink letter left by postman and some other mail addressed to me.

Prepare for Dental Scans and cavity searches if you want to board public transport.

Re:parcel post

[Hast]

I'm going to fly out from Heathrow today (to Copenhagen). I'm kind of worried that I may not be able to get my laptop and camera on the plane. They have eased up on restrictions a bit but it's still quite silly.

They had a bit about it last night on "Mock the News":
Q: What does "lipstick, vaseline and jam" in common?
A: "Things a wizard could use to blow up a plane."

So I guess a more sensible thing to do would to bad people with magical training (and McGuyver) from flying. It would be about as effective as the current method.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[kfg]

. . .when did slashdot start covering terrorism issues? This isn't even close to news for nerds, or my rights online.

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

KFG

Just Remember ......

[darkonc]

The tobacco industry kills more people in a week than Terrorism did in all of 2001 (including 9/11).

But you don't see George Bush launching cruise missile attacks at the headquarters of RJ Reynolds.

Ah, right... They make massive political donations, and buy gobs of advertising.

Re:Just Remember ......

[freedom_india]

So to twist your analogy, if Laden were to have made a $50 million donation to campaign, would Bush have "declared" the plane crashes as pilot errors?

Come on seriously????

Your analogy is flawed and not only wrong, but abhorrent.

You smoke cigars by Choice. No one is holding a box cutter to your throat and forcing you to buy a pack of Camels...

You chose death over life... then you DO deserve it.

I hate all this millions of settlements against tobacco companies now.

When the surgeons and doctors were shouting hoarse in 1970s, people ignored them as fools and continued smoking.. and now they sue the companies for supplying them in first place.

Re:Just Remember ......

[Americano]

This analogy is so mind-numbingly retarded that the mind boggles.

Do you REALLY mean to say that if Osama Bin Laden had donated money to George Bush's campaign, the US wouldn't have bothered responding to 9/11?

Are you REALLY so brain-dead that you can't see the essential difference between selling tobacco (a legal enterprise, which people purchase voluntarily, not at the point of a gun) and hijacking planes with hundreds of people on board, and flying them into buildings? I'd like to think not, but you leave very little room for optimism.

Re:Just Remember ......

[Waffle Iron]

When the surgeons and doctors were shouting hoarse in 1970s, people ignored them as fools and continued smoking.. and now they sue the companies for supplying them in first place.

You're forgetting the part about where the companies fraudulently and systematically denied that there were severe health risks with their products even though they know otherwise.

Also, when someone dies of a heroin overdose, they often track down the dealer who sold the drugs and charge him with a homicide. Why should the tobacco companies be held to a different standard?

Re:Just Remember ......

[adavies42]

Those are suicides.

Re:Just Remember ......

[Dhalka226]

Why should the tobacco companies be held to a different standard?

Well, first of all, I think charging heroin dealers with homicide if a druggie dies from it (unless, for example, they laced it with something else--then it does sound like a case of negligent homicide) is pretty stupid to begin with it.

That said, it is not a different standard. One is selling a legal product and one is not, regardless of whether the law should have any such distinction. The latter should, according to law, be arrested REGARDLESS of whether their "clients" die from the use or just get really high.

Re:Just Remember ......

[mcmonkey]

Do you REALLY mean to say that if Osama Bin Laden had donated money to George Bush's campaign, the US wouldn't have bothered responding to 9/11?

As crazy as it sounds, isn't that exactly what has happened? I mean, I know it sounds really, really crazy, but let's look at the facts.

Terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with money from people from Saudi Arabia, inspired by the abuses of the Saudi government, attack the US, kill thousands of people.

The US responds by invading...Iraq?? While the president frolics and holds hands (literally) with the oppressive leaders of Saudi Arabia?

Saddam is on trial, Osama is a free man. I think anyone who says the US government took part in the 9/11 attacks, or at least allowed them to happen, to get public support for expanded executive powers is crazy.

But you're equally nuts if you think money had no effect on the US response to 9/11.

Re:Just Remember ......

[mcmonkey]

Come on seriously????

You want abhorrent? The US is attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with support from with in Saudi Arabia, inspired to action, in part, by an oppresive Saudi government. The response is a US invasion of...Iraq.

Can you seriously say money had no effect on the US response to 9/11?

Re:Just Remember ......

[jav1231]

Nice dime-store political degree? Yeah, the left did little more than extort money from "big tobacco" via law suits. The tobacco industry isn't killing anyone at all. I'd agree that they went out of their way to further addictions but ultimately, people smoke by choice. This idea that the Devil made me do it doesn't fly. There's no reason to launch missile attacks at the tobacco industry. OTOH, attacking Iraq was completely justified as far back as the first time Saddam broke the first U.N. resolution. 'Nuff said. Personally, we should attack the U.N. next, in my opinion, but I digress.

Re:Just Remember ......

[Lord Kano]

As terrible as tobacco may be, people choose to smoke it.

I doubt that anyone in the WTC was hoping that an airplane would fly into the building.

LK

Re:Just Remember ......

[darkonc]

So to twist your analogy, if Laden were to have made a $50 million donation to campaign, would Bush have "declared" the plane crashes as pilot errors?

Well, as someone else pointed out, Bin Laden used mostly Saudi operatives, and Saudi money -- but the Saudis also gave Bush family billions in business -- so Bush attacked Iraq instead (despite the fact that Saddamn Insane seems to shown Al Quaida the door), but still claims that the Iraq war is in response to 9/11. The US government even flew Saudis out of the country during the airspace lockdown immediately following 9/11.

Re:Just Remember ......

[tbannist]

When the surgeons and doctors were shouting hoarse in 1970s, people ignored them as fools and continued smoking.. and now they sue the companies for supplying them in first place.

Yes, in the 1970s smokers trusted the tobacco companies who told them explicitly that their product was safe and fun. It's the lies they told to promote their product that really got them into trouble. It's not "I got cancer from smoking" that makes them liable it's "I got cancer from smoking cigarattes you told me weren't dangerous when you damn well knew they were, and here are the documents to prove you deliberately lied about your research".

Ironically the laws that forced tobacco companies to label cigarette cartons with health warnings will someday be their biggest defense against future litigation. Started smoking in the 90s? Sorry, the was a warning on the package telling you would likely get lung cancer.

Re:Just Remember ......

[Pictish Prince]

Do you know what "al qaeda" means? It is Arabic for "the base" or "the database". It is the database of Muslim CIA assets that were used to kick the USSR out of Afghanistan. Yes, the terrorists are really laughing at you -- and I am, too, when I'm not crying.

Re:Just Remember ......

[darkonc]

If you do something that's quite possibly going to kill someone, and it results in their death, that's a homicide -- as long as there's a relatively short span between the action and the death (in Canada, there's a one year limit for criminal homicide). The fact that you make money off of the act that killed someone isn't a justification -- In most cases, it's an aggrivating circumstance.

Since bothe Nicotine and Heroin are addictive, the process usually includes attempts to get the victim 'hooked'. This can be taken as premeditation.

Under the time-limit rule, because tobacco is a relatively slow killer, very few tobacco deaths would classify as criminal homicide, but there still would be culpability and liability if it can be shown that there is intent to entrap victims, or mislead and confuse them about the nature of the threat (for which there is ample evidence). Tobacco companies (despite claims to the contrary) target kids then profit from that targeting until they die as adults.

Wha...whaaaaat?

[Lumpy]

From the article... "Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show's viewership.'"

what rock has this guy been under? I have never EVER met a journalist that was not out to further themselves at the expense of others. Every interview I have given or was with a friend or co-worker that was interviewed had their words rearranged and mis-quoted to "crank up" the drama.

Journalism has been pretty scummy for a long time, I guess that comes from the fact that if it's not sensational it does not get published.

Re:Wha...whaaaaat?

[Dr Reducto]

Honestly, that is the reason that I always laugh when some leftist/righty tells me that the government controls the media. They are close, but what really controls the media is profit.

The media isn't supposed to inform you. They are there to make a profit. Period. Journalistic standards are mainly just there so that you take them seriously enough to keep reading

Re:Wha...whaaaaat?

[zifferent]

Journalism has been pretty scummy for a long time, I guess that comes from the fact that if it's not sensational it does not get published.

Having worked at a newspaper with journalists for a while, I can verify that that's simply not true. If you were misquoted, generally it means that you were the victim of poor journalism and/or poor note-taking/bad memory. Many journalists will go out of their way to NOT report sensational stories that ACTUALLY matter in order to protect their sources. Journalists need to keep their sources friendly or they don't get any gossip, and aren't effective journalists.

Journalists, as a rule, know lots more information than they print and if they slant an article it may be due to something they know "off the record." and can't quote directly.

On the other hand, good journalism looks for an angle or a story and will slant towards that if possible, but don't assume that they are misquoting you because they are slime.

Re:obviously [AFTERTHOUGHT]

[spikexyz]

The irony is that for the most part these groups pose no real threat; therefore, politicans never really need to solve the problem as they can spin what is happening as an improvment or worsening of the problem to suit their needs.

The irony of it is...

[aztecmonkey]

The irony of it is that the best way to combat terror, apparently, is to stay afraid. Very afraid.

And thank God, because we're all safer now than before 9/11 when we weren't afraid.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
- Ben Franklin

Re:The irony of it is...

[ArcherB]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
- Ben Franklin

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

Bruce is our canary

[Anonymous Coward]

People like Bruce are the canary. As long as people like him can say things like this, there's hope that no matter how bad it is at that moment, it can still be fixed. When he's shut down, however, we're in far deeper than we can get back out of.

Communists and the Red Scare

[Bob_Villa]

It really seems like we are going through a new version of the McCarthy era:
"You're a communist or you support the communist party "
has changed to:
"You're a terrorist or you support the terrorists"

The worst part to me is how can this one ever go away while the media and politicians play their games?
I think the media will have to stand up to the game again and say no more, but will they do so now?

I really hate seeing our freedoms getting thrown away that our founding fathers and our fellow countrymen fought so hard to earn.

Obviously

[retrosteve]

What surprises me is that more people aren't speaking up like Schneier. It seems to me that the role of the press and politicians in promoting terror is very much like that of oxygen and fuel in promoting fire.

If you don't feed the spark, it goes out.

If you doubt this, look at other, more important issues (affecting much more than a few thousand people) that routinely die out in the press because they're ignored.

Not to hijack the thread, I'll give a tiny sample, and ask politely that you don't reply to the examples, just to the general principle

* Voting machine irregularities and bad faith at Diebold
* Retraction of whistleblower protections in the US Federal Government
* Increasing exemptions to the US FOIA
* FCC regulation changes making it possible for 2 media giants to completely control any given local market.

The impact of these little stories is far more interesting than which 10 or 100 people will be killed by a terrorist attack someday. As someone just recently put it, more people are killed every year by peanut allergies than by global terrorism.

The War on Peanuts awaits.

Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[haeger]

Hell yes.
As a liberal (no, not the redefined american meaning*) I cry a little every day. People call for harsher punishment, more control and less freedom for the individual. So yes, the terrorists and the gorvernment are laughing at us, in unison. They use and need each other to control us, and they are succeeding at it.

.haeger

(*) Redefined as americans redefined football to mean a game where you use your hands to play with a ball.

Up next

[d_54321]

Bush bashes security authors and media, and Ted Turner lambastes politicians and security authors.

Hear Hear!

[cyberbian]

Lucid commentary as usual. Security is a myth... always has been, always will be.

There are only acceptable risk vectors that need constant monitoring.

How much wag the dog do we need before we all write our representatives and say,'Enough is enough!'? It's not difficult to see the current administration's MO which has been to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. With its propaganda arm it has lied, cheated, and bilked the US taxpayer out of billions of dollars. The deficit is at an all time high propping up bungling new federal departments (DHS(?)) and despite all the money spent, they continue to say 'We're safe, but not completely safe.' Then they turn around and say, and I paraphrase 'In order to be safe, you must have no rights. War is peace, freedom is slavery ING SOC...' and further 'We will break ALL of the laws that are in place to make sure that you're safe to make sure that you're safe.' 'We will condone the torture of uncertain individuals, we will bomb their homes, we will sponsor the killing of innocents that may come to harm us in the future because they're angry about our foreign policies.' 'We will do this all in the name of democracy, which we really don't want, because if they (Chile, Venezuela, Palestine, Lebanon)vote for parties that we don't like, we'll just have to sponsor more violence against that fledgling democracy.' 'We have the right to intervene in other foreign sovereign states, if they don't give us what we want, at the prices we want it at.' 'We will claim to be the protector of the world's human rights, yet ignore those crises that we don't believe will be profitable (Sudan).' 'War is peace, freedom is slavery.' 'We really don't like China's record on human rights, but they make stuff for really cheap!' 'Time for your two minute hate.'

Your whole country is being taken for a ride.

He has a point...perhaps everyone is missing it.

[JasonBee]

It's not that we're aiding and abetting the terrorist's fear mongering agenda by spreading fear. Perhaps he's saying that the spread of fear is totally intended, and that the effect has been welcomed...although not by most of society. Fear is control. It's also a great method of cover in case we start questioning things.

The reason the fear tactic keeps getting brought up is because there is something to be gained by keeping everyone fearful. The trick is to follow that intent and then maybe we can clearly see where we're being taken.

Security grandstanding

[MECC]

"Much of our counterterrorist efforts are nothing more than security theater: ineffectual measures that look good"

No kidding. 6 months after 9/11, I accidentally left a box cutter in my jacket pocket on a flight to LA. Jacket went through the airport X-Ray scanners - it had nothing else at all in it. I left the airport, reached in think I had may wallet in that pocket, and found my box cutter. But, then again, I'm white.

The more you panic, the less effective you are. Thanks to fear-mongering politicians, our society is in a state of constant muted panic.

That whole "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is actually right.

Re:Security grandstanding

[tclark]

Actually, you were very safe, since the odds of two people getting boxcutters on the plain was practically nil.

Re:Security grandstanding

[edinho]

Looking into 1000 bags a day and finding nothing except annoyed passengers will numb even the most hardcore TSA agents. It puts one into a trance. My friend just flew from Honolulu to Modesto, California, with a transit in San Francisco, and her bag was searched TWICE. They found the joke dildo (with witty remarks in permanent markers) we gave her as a going away present, but they missed the three inch pocket knife that was accidentally left at the bottom of the bag. She found the knife after she arrived at her destination.

Re:Security grandstanding

[treeves]

I unintentionally brought a small boxcutter (the kind with breakoff little blades) in my backpack , which went through the x-ray, through Portland and San Francisco airports on July 31st of this year. They found it and confiscated it in Hong Kong however. OOOOPS.

Metrics

[Dobeln]

Blasting the hell out of Manhattan is much more disruptive to society than snuffing out pensioners a tad early with their own consent is ever likely to be.

Also, using military force against RJ Reynolds is unnecessary as the US already have military control of that area, and they only need to dispatch lightly armed police to shut them down. The army is for violence outside of the country, and the police for violence inside the country. Of course, if RJ Reynolds attempts an armed rebellion, that is likely to change.

Re:Repeat often

[Sqwubbsy]

Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither.

Spoken like someone who doesn't fly internationally for a living.

Don't feed the troll

[vrtladept]

We have followed this advice in USENET for quite some time. Don't feed the troll, it's what they want. (Terrorists are just real world trolls if you think about it)

Re:Don't feed the troll

[Opportunist]

To ride the analogy (to absurd lengths), politicians want the traffic generated, so they feed them gladly. The more noise, the more the outcry for more rigid moderation to get rid of the trolls, and the more you can mod stuff around with impunity because, hey, YOU wanted us to, people!

Ain't it sweet how the 'net is an analogy for pretty much everything in life?

Re:Don't feed the troll

[WilliamSChips]

Unfortunately it's not as easy to move to a new country as it is to move to a new 'Net board.

Why does Schneier Hate America?

[sheldon]

Doesn't he know, that we are fighting for our very freedoms here? Doesn't he know that if we refuse to fight the islamofascist killer robots, our great way of life will be destroyed? We cannot ignore this threat, for they will just follow us home and kill us in our sleep. We must fight them over there, so they can't fight them over here.

Praise the Lord! If not for our great wise President, we'd all be speaking Islamofascist German!

Re:Why does Schneier Hate America?

[Poohsticks]

I call Troll!

Re:Why does Schneier Hate America?

[sheldon]

Nobody appreciates snark any more.

Re:Repeat often

[Mixel]

Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security, deserve neither.

Though I don't fly for a living, I do fly around quite a lot.

The rest of the quote:

[tygerstripes]

"...and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Terrorism no longer needs to be physical...

[Bones3D_mac]

Instead, those involved have simply left us so messed up in the head that we end up terrorizing ourselves. We've become obsessed with finding an enemy we can't see, turning over every rock on the ground, just in case. We see monsters in our closets and under our beds, when they're really nothing more than shadows that make us feel a little uneasy in the dark.

The best way the terrorists can win, is to simply not show up ever again. As long as there is no closure... no justification for our own irrational behavior, we'll continue to degrade ourselves until there is nothing left to defend.

People just need to get over it and accept that they can be wrong. The terrorists got the best of us, and our instinct is to take on a "never again" attitude. Until we lose this mindset, we'll just continue to scare ourselves into submission.

Re:Terrorism no longer needs to be physical...

[Bones3D_mac]

Oh and furthermore... the parallels between Vietnam and now are blindingly obvious. The only difference, is that our shell shock has left us thinking Charlie is hiding in the trees of our own back yard. Our trigger fingers are so itchy now, that we'll slaughter our rights like innocent women and children, only to regard them as necessary casulty of a war we will never win.

Re:Repeat often

[Jack Sombra]

I fly internationally about 4 times a year (US-UK routes) and i still agree with that statement. Some security is common sence, like locked cockpit doors and no obvious wep's (inconceivable for anyone in Europe that these were not enforced in the US before 9/11) but there is a huge difference between common sence security and what pass's for "security" these days, especially as all these extra measures don't really add any extra security, just a load of aggrovation for 10's of millions of people

Re:Repeat often

[Waffle Iron]

Spoken like someone who doesn't fly internationally for a living.

Since a person's lifetime risk of dying from some pandemic spread by international fliers is orders of magnitude higher than dying from a terrorist attack, I kind of wish that most people like you would find other lines of work anyway.

I'm laughing

[smooth wombat]

Are the terrorists laughing at us?"

If they're not, I am. As others have said, every time we go apoplectic whenever someone leaves their briefcase lying around an airport or someone gets antsy because because the guy next to them doesn't have white skin and looks funny, I just shake my head.

It's one thing to be vigilant and try to prevent attacks. But when you force herds of people into lines waiting to pass through the metal detectors, you're just giving anyone whow wants to cause havoc a juicy target to hit. Forget the planes. I'd be worried about someone around Thanksgiving strapping themselves with explosives and standing in line with me.

Re:I'm laughing

[Nick Gisburne]

And while the people/sheep are herded around, looking anxiously over their shoulders, fearful of anything which appears to be out of the ordinary, all it takes is the tiniest of incidents, which would normally be seen for what it is (a non-event), for the entire mass to panic. The current climate of fear is like watching a scary movie - we all know we're not going to get hurt and that the threat isn't real, but we still jump and scream when the director wants us to.

Re:Really?

[jc42]

Quote: Our job is to think critically and rationally... Isn't this an oxymoron for the media and government?

Perhaps for the politicians. But not for security analysts like Bruce, or for the many people with security-related jobs inside the government.

And it shouldn't be for a gang of high-tech "nerds" like us. Instead of the usual political flameage, we should be behaving like the geeks we claim to be. We should be discussing how we can use our high tech to expose and interfere with both the terrorists and the politicians who are trying to take advantage of it and push us back into authoritarian societies with them in charge.

With the Internet, we have the best tool yet for tracking and exposing the people like bin Laden, Bush and Blair (and Cheney and Rumsfeld and ...). It's a tool that can't be controlled from the top nearly as easily as the centrally-managed mass media. We should be using our expertise with this tool to get the details of their shenanigans into the minds of the general population.

The growing importance of the political blogs is a good sign. But they're mostly journalist types; they really could use the help of us techie nerd types to develop tools for exposing the political and religious types, and for blocking their attempts to control our communications.

So get to work out there. For a few fun reads on the topic, google for "sousveillance".

Bruce Schneier Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Just found this:

http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/

Enjoy, if you're not too jaded by roundhouse kicks aleady. ;)

Godwinned.

[everett]

The Islamofascists have declared that they want Western Civilization wiped from the face of the earth. I take them at their word.

It may just be me, but never in any news report have I ever heard presented the rough size of these groups. For all I know Hezbollah is 50 crazies that want to launch rockets at Israel because 3000 years ago someone stole a goat. I think the biggest tactic our government employs is overstating the number of people that wish us harm. It's very easy to just assume that everyone hates you, and then you get the nice American response of "kill 'em all, let G-d sort them out."

But there have always been crazy people, they have always sought eachother out, and they have always caused harm. Why are we fighting this war with guns, when clearly it could be won with education. Cultural intolerance is a very familiar and very old beast, and genocide isn't the answer to what amounts to overblown racism. I imagine these "Islamofacist" groups really aren't any different than the "Hitler Youth" or "Shultzstaffel" of 60 years ago, and they are motivated by the same thing, they feel they're making a positive change in their condition. It can be argued differently I'm sure, but people that have success and are happy generally don't go around killing other people. Maybe if we fixed the problems of poverty and extreme wealth disparity (for example compare the Saudi royal family to the average working person in Saudi Arabia) then maybe we can all get along.

There are muslims that live and work and have families in America, so America can't possibly be so counter-Islam that having a society similar to ours (or even to the one that has developed in India in areas where America is outsourced) would be impossible because of their faith. A few radicals listening to a misinterpreted book, being told to do things by a misguided leader because they're poor and feel we're trying to destroy them and their way of life, because we support a nation that took the land they lived on.

I guess the point is don't just assume that they're doing all this because they hate you, they hate how they're living.

Pussies

[drooling-dog]

Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither.

Yet it's amazing how often those of us who think this way get called "pussies" or worse by conservatives who themselves are hiding under their beds trembling in fear, begging Daddy Government to please take all of our rights and liberties if that's what it takes to keep the Boogie Man at bay for one more night.

Makes you wonder who the real "pussies" are...

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

That's a load of crap. I'm mostly conservative and come from a family of conservatives and have a lot of conservative friends, and we all agree with that quote and more.

Once again, most people agree on the problem, but merely have different ways to approach it. Can you tell me what essential liberties YOU have lost since 9/11?

Now, I have actually heard with my own ears some conservative pundit say something like "isn't it worth it to just give up a little bit of one of your constitutional rights if it ensures your safety?" And I, and everyone within earshot, said "NO!".

The "real pussies" are those who want to roll over and pretend nothing happened, pretend it's a law enforcement problem, complain that people fighting for our enemies are not getting the rights guaranteed by the constitution for U.S. citizens.

This guy is right: politicians and terrorists ARE working together, but if he's got a valid complaint against conservatives, there's a MUCH more valid complaint against liberals and the media.

Re:Pussies

[tomjen]

That is one of the reasons I no longer care what the public wants. Because the media frames the public mind to decide it wants something (less rights) and anyone who critize is called a pussie. Since I have better things to do I dont discuss with such people, and I hate the fact that politicians listen to them.

Re:Pussies

[Skye16]

There's rolling over and pretending nothing happened, and there's running around like a fucking moron screaming the sky is falling every other day.

Honestly, in the giant scheme of things, I don't fucking care about 9/11, I don't fucking care about the two towers, and I don't fucking care about the pentagon. A few thousand people died in a country of about three hundred million. Whoopdifuckingdoo. About 460 thousand people died of heart attacks in 1998 - where the fuck is our War on Candy Bars and Whoppers, huh?

It was a rhetorical question; don't bother answering it. Obviously you try to stop terrorists, just as you try to stop anything that kills people. But we're more worried about a bomb on a subway than we are of dying in a car crash because some jackass is drunk driving. As if that bomb is going to kill you any more dead than an idiot in a pickup truck. It's fucking retarded.

We've lost any and all sense of context with this whole "War on Terror" bullshit. I'm not saying Democrats have the answer, but I know for sure that Republicans don't. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure anyone in a government position does. All-in-all, I find them uniquely suited to be completely incapable of figuring out how best to deal with this. But when given a choice between an asshole dropping bombs and an asshole banging an intern and not doing much of anything else, I'd rather have the latter.

The real sad thing is all I really want is a viable choice. You know, someone who isn't a complete tool. (Note: Don't even bother babbling about the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. I've scoped both of them out. They're just as bad - just in different ways. Think of the differences between giant logs of poop and green mushy piles of poop. No matter how you look at it, you're still shit.)

Re:Pussies

[Winlin]

This is not meant as a smartass, flame type question, but just what do you consider an unessential liberty? I think that the danger isn't the government just suddenly taking away all our freedoms...it's the slow, incremental loss of all those little ones that add up to losing it all. I don't thonk that we are near the lose it all stage, but I see the slide and it does worry me.

Re:Pussies

[drooling-dog]

I'm mostly conservative and come from a family of conservatives

So it's genetic, then?

Can you tell me what essential liberties YOU have lost since 9/11?

That's something that no one can know for sure until they're hauled off to prison (or lose their jobs, perhaps) for reasons that don't have to be explained to them. If anyone in government has the "legal" power to take your freedom without due process, on any pretext whatsoever, then you have already lost your freedom whether or not they choose to use that power at a particular time.

Now, I have actually heard with my own ears some conservative pundit say something like "isn't it worth it to just give up a little bit of one of your constitutional rights if it ensures your safety?" And I, and everyone within earshot, said "NO!".

I would like to hear more people - conservatives in particular - question the whole notion that safety can be secured by surrendering liberty. Would you have felt "safe" in Stalin's USSR? It's a false bargain. When you give up liberty, you inevitably turn your own government against you and thereby become less safe.

The "real pussies" are those who want to roll over and pretend nothing happened, pretend it's a law enforcement problem, complain that people fighting for our enemies are not getting the rights guaranteed by the constitution for U.S. citizens.

But that's just a straw-man argument put forth by conservatives to justify whatever our current government wants to do. I don't know anybody who would advance the argument you suggest, and neither do you.

By the way (while we're on the subject of the Geneva Convention and such), have you ever considered that the powers demanded by the Bush admin will be far more useful toward hiding its own misfeasance and malfeasance than in the "war on terror"? Why go to the trouble of finding real terrorists at all when you can pluck anyone at random off the streets of Kabul and claim the same political victory? Do conservatives have that much faith in their leaders? Even their current ones?

This guy is right: politicians and terrorists ARE working together, but if he's got a valid complaint against conservatives, there's a MUCH more valid complaint against liberals and the media.

I can't argue with you about the media; they're always leading one national hysteria campaign or another, just because it sells. But regarding liberals, they seem to be the only ones who have kept their wits about them even as conservative politicians cynically cash in on the politics of fear and the vast opportunities for corruption and villainy that it opens for them.

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

Having an iPod on an airplane is not an essential liberty.

The right to free speech is an essential liberty. The right to freedom to choose (or not) your religion is an essential liberty. Your right to vote in elections is an essential liberty. Your right to private correspondance is an essential liberty (however, people fail to understand that once you put your communications in someone elses hands - the postal service or the telephone company, then you've already lost some anonymity).

People misconstrue these things all the time... a lot of people argue their right to free speech has been infringed when it's actually more alive and well than ever before. If someone calls you a terrorist appeaser because of what you've said, that hasn't restricted your right to free speech at all, and in fact both the initials statements (that someone might construe as appeasing terrorists) and that persons response are both proof free speech is alive and well.

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

So it's genetic, then?

Intelligence often is.

That's something that no one can know for sure until they're hauled off to prison (or lose their jobs, perhaps) for reasons that don't have to be explained to them. If anyone in government has the "legal" power to take your freedom without due process, on any pretext whatsoever, then you have already lost your freedom whether or not they choose to use that power at a particular time.

But you see, here's the problem: this simply hasn't happened. Even in the cases where you say this may have happened, it was a U.S. citizen who took up arms against his own country - and those people, those U.S. citizens, have been given their rights. Granted that it was despite objections from the current administration, however this just proves our system of government IS working to protect our freedoms - when one branch oversteps its bounds, the others step in to correct the problem. It's working.

Now, if you want to blame the administration for trying to overstep it's bounds, go ahead - but the Bush administration is NOT popular among conservatives. The size and scope of the government has gone up more under Bush than ANYONE else.

And the fact of the matter is that the Geneva Convention simply DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists, I don't know how it can be any more clear. It's not a "strawman" argument, liberals are complaining that terrorists who have no affiliation with, or wear the uniform of, any organized military, are not getting treated fairly under the Geneva convention. You know what? If a U.S. spy is captured in Russia, for example, the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them, either, and we don't whine and complain about it.

But regarding liberals, they seem to be the only ones who have kept their wits about them even as conservative politicians cynically cash in on the politics of fear and the vast opportunities for corruption and villainy that it opens for them.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe anyone can be so blind as to not see both sides taking advantage of this.

Re:Pussies

[teamhasnoi]

So, how does it feel to have lost control of your party and the ideals that it used to stand for?

You have the biggest government in the world, that is the most in debt, and violating more of the constitution than ever before.

How's that 'conservative', or Republican?

It sounds like you're hiding your head in the sand, blaming the problems of your party on anything that disagrees with what's actually happening in your effort to deny that Republicans in office have completly lost their ideals.

In regards to the liberties I've lost personally? None. My life is exactly the way it was before. I don't fly, protest, haven't been subject to 4th amendment violating nonsense (that I know of -ha! ;), haven't been tortured etc.

It's not the fact that none of *my* liberties have been infringed. It's the fact that many others have - free speech zones are not free, airport security unlawfully detains people, phones are being tapped with no warrants, the Patriot act is being abused to go after anyone. I'd link to sources but you won't read them - it's all the liberal media who's reporting it.

As you're conservative, any liberties lost by any American should be paining you greatly. Have you examined your beliefs to see where they've changed?

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

The republicans are not "my party", and the Bush administration is disliked by the vast majority of conservatives (although not enough to vote for someone like Kerry, apparently).

We can go around in circles about your (you, as a representative of the American people) have lost essential liberties... but the fact is that I don't think you can cite a single case, let alone a pattern, of anybody losing their essential liberties.

I agree "free speech" zones are a farce, but it's not exactly something limited to liberals. You also have to reconcile when freedoms clash... you might have the right to free speech, but not standing on my property you don't. You can say whatever you want to say somewhere else, there's no right to a venue, and I think that's a fundamental problem with liberals; they talk about rights and liberties except when they disagree...

Re:Pussies

[Ender_Stonebender]

Yes.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Violated, in spirit if not in letter, by warantless wiretaps by the US government.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are violated by the holding of uncharged "terrorist" suspects at Guantamo Bay.

Do not attempt to justify any of these actions by the government as something that "will only be used against foreign terrorist." At any time, the government can brand YOU as a terrorist, and do these things to you. And you had better like it, comrade.

Re:Pussies

[crush]

Amen. I'd vote for you, except that I believe that this whole "voting for other people to do things for me" is what got us into this mess. You're never going to get a party that's as good at determining your interests and implementing them as you are. They all fucking suck and voting for them just perpetuates it all. Give me MANDATED, RECALLABLE functionaries to do my bidding, not some fuck that pretends to do what's in my interests.

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

Man, what a load. I've already responded to the warrantless wiretaps, it's highly questionable that it's a violation of anything.

However, as for your last two, those ammendments ONLY apply to U.S. citizens, and when you can point me to U.S. Citizens who have been branded as Terrorists and swept off to Guantanamo and NOT given their rights (because the U.S. citizens who were captured even overseas have been granted their rights as U.S. citizens, in case you haven't been paying attention), then you can make this claim.

Until then it's vapor. It's a ghost, a figment. I could use the same argument and say your rights have been violated because at any time the military can descend on your house and blow it up for no reason. Sure, they could, but they haven't and they won't. And no policemen have strip searched you because you were wearing a Che t-shirt. Neither has there been any sort of pattern where any U.S. citizen's rights have been violated.

Re:Pussies

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I agree 100%.

Re:Pussies

[drooling-dog]

But you see, here's the problem: this simply hasn't happened.

You miss the point: The legal framework for it is in the process of being erected by the current Congress and administration. You may trust completely your current leaders not to abuse their new powers - as incredible as that is to some of us - but these are powers that will be equally available to future governments as well. And since they can - and surely will - be abused in complete secrecy, you're not going to be getting an offical memo about it when it happens. The President decides who are "the terrorists", at home or abroad. The President is, through his minions, the judge, the jury, and the executioner.

I'm listening to our current one on the radio right now. He's ranting about how he needs these powers to fight his ideological war against the "extremists". He's also being completely disingenuous about why the existing legal framework isn't adequate to the job. You do the math.

but the Bush administration is NOT popular among conservatives.

He used to be the conservative demigod. What's changed, other than his approval ratings in the polls? Did he betray conservative principles, or maybe by adhering to them too closely he merely revealed their consequences? A lot of well-meaning but misguided leftists climbed aboard the Lenin and Mao bandwagons decades ago, ignoring the fact that absolute power will corrupt absolutely despite even the best of intentions. The authoritarian bent of many (most? (all?)) conservatives is leading them down the same path now.

And the fact of the matter is that the Geneva Convention simply DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists, I don't know how it can be any more clear.

And the new official definition of a "terrorist" is: Anyone so designated at the whim of the President, for any reason that need not be disclosed and is beyond review (and hence for no legal reason whatsoever).

I'm sorry, but I can't believe anyone can be so blind as to not see both sides taking advantage of this.

You're resorting to the "everybody does it" escape clause, under which nobody can be held accountable for anything other than a blowjob. Of course you're right that no political party has a monopoly on "corruption and villainy" or the use of fear and deceit to manipulate the public, but I put to you that what we're seeing today is as close as it has ever - and, I hope, will ever - come.

Re:Pussies

[BalanceOfJudgement]

complain that people fighting for our enemies are not getting the rights guaranteed by the constitution for U.S. citizens.

Open up the Bill of Rights.

Point to a line number that contains the word 'citizen'. Go ahead. I'll wait.

The reason you won't find it is because our founders held those rights to be self-evident and unalienable. They belong to all humans, not just the citizens of this country.

And the founders knew all too well why this must be so: one of the favorite tactics of British officers prior to the American Revolution was to strip someone of their citizenship in order to deny them the protection of the law.

Re:Pussies

[Skye16]

If you're on public property, that's good enough. Going inside the Republican National Convention? A bit silly. Standing outside the door on the public sidewalk, however, isn't.

Re:Pussies

[peterpressure]

I could not agree more...

Re:Pussies

[ajenteks]

where the fuck is our War on Candy Bars and Whoppers, huh?

It's already here.

Re:Pussies

[Skye16]

That's not a war, that's barely economic sanctions.

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

And the new official definition of a "terrorist" is: Anyone so designated at the whim of the President, for any reason that need not be disclosed and is beyond review (and hence for no legal reason whatsoever).

Actually, there is a very good defination of "unlawful combatant" detailed by the supreme court all the way back in the forties (see wikipedia), and part of what these tribunals will do is set the status of these prisoners.

You're resorting to the "everybody does it" escape clause,

No, I'm not... I'm pointing out how hipocritical it is to point fingers at one side without pointing them at the other. They are both wrong, and I don't think I've said anything to the contrary.

Re:Pussies

[TubeSteak]

The "real pussies" are those who ... complain that people fighting for our enemies are not getting the rights guaranteed by the constitution for U.S. citizens.

Are all men created equal?
Or are U.S. citizens more equal than others?

That was just my initial thought. Now that I've taken a second to go over your words again, you've presented a straw man argument.

Not very many people are demanding that 'bad' guys caught in Iraq or Afghanistan be treated the same as U.S. citizens. Last time I checked, a large number of people were complaining that the 'bad' guys be given the same rights any human would be given.

As for U.S citizens "fighting for our enemies", unless they've renounced their citizenship, I don't understand why they wouldn't receive the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

The rest of your post... a collection of talking points.
"what essential liberties YOU have lost since 9/11"
" MUCH more valid complaint against liberals and the media."
"roll over and pretend nothing happened, pretend it's a law enforcement problem"

About the only thing you said that isn't a GOP generated talking point was that mortgaging Constitutional rights is teh badness.

Re:Pussies

[BalanceOfJudgement]

However, as for your last two, those ammendments ONLY apply to U.S. citizens,

Seriously, where do you get this from?

And even if the Constitution DID explicitly say "citizens", would that still make it right? How many rights violations, what sort of torture, what sort of dehumanization would be too much even for you to accept simply because someone is not a 'citizen'?

The question is not one of whether it is legal, the question is one of whether it is RIGHT.

Re:Pussies

[WillDraven]

This comment just got you added to my friends list.

Re:Pussies

[gfxguy]

So do we get to apply all of our laws to everyone across the globe, or just the ones you like?

Re:Pussies

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Can you tell me what essential liberties YOU have lost since 9/11?

Habeas corpus.

Since the blinking Magna Carta we've known that due process in whatever form was an essential liberty. US citizens Hamdi, Padilla, and who knows how many others were arrested and held for years without charges or access to a lawyer.

The quote "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive" comes from Justice Scalia, not from some "liberal".

The Constitution sets forth in black and white "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Which border did the invading army cross, how many states have risen in rebellion, to justify holding Americans indefinitely without charge?

This would be an essential liberty even if the people imprisoned were working for our enemies (in which case they should be tried and convicted for treason). But the man allegedly too dangerous to be allowed to talk to a lawyer, Hamdi, was cut loose without charge as soon as a court said put up or shut up.

>I'm mostly conservative

Then you are outraged by what the administration is doing.

Re:Pussies

[BalanceOfJudgement]

So do we get to apply all of our laws to everyone across the globe, or just the ones you like?

How about the ones relating to human rights. The rest are just fluff and should appropriately vary from place to place (and can we please avoid the argument about "well XYZ country says it's ok to kill female children...")

And before you say "well anything can be construed to be a right," that is true only for the intellectually lazy, as would lazily attempting to apply all our laws to others. Wisdom, and considered opinion, is valued for a reason.

Re:Pussies

[SanityInAnarchy]

Try this, then: The guy who was kicked off an airplane for praying.

RTFA.

Re:Pussies

[SanityInAnarchy]

However, as for your last two, those ammendments ONLY apply to U.S. citizens, and when you can point me to U.S. Citizens who have been branded as Terrorists and swept off to Guantanamo and NOT given their rights

I don't remember, actually. I do know that unreasonable searches and seizures do happen -- otherwise, why is it built into the Patriot Act?

Stating the obvious

[Dragonslicer]

promoting fear and ultimately doing exactly what the terrorists want

You mean terrorists want to frighten people?

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[ktappe]

This isn't even close to news for nerds, or my rights online.

Directly as a result of the very issues covered in the parent article, you are not permitted to use a laptop or iPod when flying into or out of the UK. This directly affects me and many other /. readers and our rights to use technology. Therefore, it very much is news for nerds and our rights. This topid affects us a helluva lot more than the latest /. rumor about a vaporware game coming sometime next year, yet I don't hear you critiquing those types of articles.

-Kurt

Occupying troops being attacked?! OMGWTF!!!!

[FatSean]

Well, if we weren't occupying their countries, I suppose the Afghans and Iraqis wouldn't really be attacking the US soldiers.

So you justify our loss of freedom because the terrorists are attacking our troops because our troops are occupying their homelands.

Yeah, that's some logic of almost religious proportions...supremely circular.

Re:Repeat often

[smidget2k4]

Secret military tribunals make it safer for you to fly?

Abandonment of due process for American citizens makes it safer for you to fly?

Airports that lack bomb detecting machines or only have one for the entire airport, lax security checks help you fly safer? It has been shown time and time again that airports, sea ports, trains and homeland security in general are only marginally safer or not safer at all. Tests have been done testing security, and many have failed, allowing weapons or shoe bombs or whatnot onto planes.

The administration is really good at passing hard hitting, rights reducing legislation and then not backing it up with nearly enough money to make it effective. However, because they don't let the Democrats table ANY of their terror security bills, they can call themselves tough on security and the Democrats weak, because they didn't pass any terror legislation!

Does partisan hackery really make it safer for you to fly? I think not.

Not necessarily

[Opportunist]

At least not directly (i.e. politicians and terrorists plotting together for the next big stunt), but terrorist attacks further the goals of both groups. Terrorists want to spread terror (hence the name) and get "revenge" on those who they deem as the enemy, spread fear and force us to invest into security, thus weaken our economy because we can't spend on other things that we'd need.

Politicians get the agreement on otherwise unpopular restrictions on civil liberties and freedom, in other words, control.

It's a win-win situation. With us as the loosers.

Re:Not necessarily

[cp.tar]

Yeah, I know... I was being sarcastic...

Terrorists and politicians are just symbiotes... feeding on people and their fear.

P.S. it's losers, not loosers.

Re:Not necessarily

[Opportunist]

Some people are enough losers to deserve a second o, 'cause they invariably lose the first.

Re:Not necessarily

[cp.tar]

Nice comeback.

Re:Not necessarily

[Pictish Prince]

I said this on 9/11/2001. All you have to do is ask yourself cui bono - who benefit?

Re:Not necessarily

[Opportunist]

I asked the same question at the same day: Who benefits from it?

Seriously, when I'd do a terrorist stunt, I'd do something small. And, for crying out loud, I would NOT attack military sites, and certainly not the Pentagon! The towers on the other hand were too big for a terrorist target. Hell, that thing is a landmark! Not some embassy. But let's imagine I want to hit a landmark, a symbol of America's freedom. Why the towers? Know what I'd blow up? The Statue of Liberty. THE key symbol that almost everyone who immigrated into the US from Europe saw as the first token of the "new world", their symbol of a new hope and freedom. That would've been a MUCH more serious blow to the hearts of many US citizens.

But the towers? Nah. They'll eventually become an albatross for the US anyway. How do you get rid of them when they become too old to be inhabited? Can't blow them up, can't crack them down, they would have been two very expensive pieces of scrap that you simply can't get rid of.

Re:Not necessarily

[n00854180t]

Yeah, definitely. The easiest way to figure out roughly what *really* happened is to properly follow up both the "official" story of who funded whom. The chain of funding is much longer than the media et al want the public to think. That combined with other indicators of who benefitted from the attack, and the picture becomes quite a bit more clear. It's just a pity that so many people can't think for themselves or properly research the subject, and that the COINTELPRO against such people is massive and widespread (OMG U R A CONSPIRACY NUT!!!11!! is the typical response to *any* questioning, even that backed by reliable sources).

Re:Not necessarily

[WilliamSChips]

Symbiotes? I thought it was the Wraith that fed on people and not the Goa'uld!

Re:9/12

[shani]

But I'm not fearless. I just don't let my fear stop me.

That is the essence of bravery.

Re:Repeat often

[Opportunist]

Be reasonable.

Consider how many flights take off daily. Now compare that to the flights that get blown up by terrorists (include those that were allegedly foiled, to at least get more than THREE in the last 5 years).

And now answer me why you still cross the road without first making your will. Your chances to die are so incredibly higher that you should be afraid to even dare thinking of crossing roads. And we even allow our children to do that! Would someone PLEASE think of the children?

Terrorism victims are not 'collateral damage'....

[otis wildflower]

... As the term is generally understood, 'collateral damage' is unintended harm. There is no such thing as unintended harm in a terrorist attack, though the harm inflicted may have a lower strategic value than the terror created by that infliction.

BTW, it's all just Slashdot flamewars and MSM bloviating until the nuke comes. _THEN_ you'll pay the government to know what you _really_ think. Me? I prescribe fire. And lots of it!!

No, they're still losing.

[Peganthyrus]

Are we doing anything like what their aims are? Are we pulling out of the Middle East? Nope. They're not winning. We sure as hell haven't won either.

Re:Really?

[Opportunist]

No, they think critically and rationally. Panic stories sell, panic press conferences give you agreement for laws that give you more control over the masses.

Pretty rational if you ask me.

We are the enablers, no question about it.

[ysaric]

It is not burying your head int he sand and pretending there are no bad guys by treating damage done to lives and property as a result of terrorism as no different than damage done and lives lost to other sources. Nice straw man, though.

I don't think it is so much that terrorists are laughing at us as they are pleased that the United States makes them relevant. We are the enabler.

Terrorist groups want to affect foreign policy, but that's not always about "do what we want or I'll blow myself up in a crowd of people." Much of it seems to be long-term thinking, which is to say that terrorist attacks even if they don't result in a change of policy at least result in the issue terrorists consider to be important staying in the news. In order to stay relevant, it is absolutely critical to terrorists that we treat damage and death caused by terrorism as disproportionaly mroe important than other types of tragedy.

If (a) the United States curtailed its neo-colonial economic protectionist foreign policy (which actually cares little or nothing about citizens of the world as long as its economic interests are protected) and (b) we treated death or damage from terrorism proportionate to its actual risk, we would be much better off as a country. We could free up tax money to return to people, or at least stem the damage we're doing to the future economy when the bill for all our current actions comes due.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What happened to those days?

September 11th.

To give a more complete answer to your rant, terrorism related, or rather "anti"-terrorism related news has become news for nerds. As technicially competant educated people, with not a small sprinkling of intellectual, Slashdotters are more likely to be aware of and engaged in the civil liberties debate, especially when it concerns technology being used to "save us".

1984 crops up in discussions a lot. That's because a lot of people on these boards have actually read the book. There's not a lot of internet forums you can say that about. Slashdotters are interested in what is happening to free society in the wake of the twin towers' collapse, even if you are not. To cap it all off, Bruce Schneier is a computer security super geek. His words carry weight.

As an aside, I'm willing to bet that a big factor in Slashdotters interest and in general opposition to anti-terrorism legislation, is the fact that many here had a hard time in secondary education and would rather not be stamped on again in the emerging neo-facist society. Once you've tasted the lash, you won't be so eager for flogging as others.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[gfxguy]

... and our rights to use technology.

That's hillarious.

Ok, here's how you can use your iPod and laptop whenever you want: don't fly.

Now, do I agree it's a stupid rule? Of course. But I also have to laugh when someone thinks they are giving up an "essential" liberty (or a "right") by not being able to use an iPod.

Remember you can't use walkmans, either, because it interfered with the electronics!! People complained because it was annoying, but nobody complained they were giving up some "right" they had.

Nationalism, etc.

[Dobeln]

"Well, sorry, I may be a moron, but I see no substantial difference between a clan and a nation."

Clan usually implies tighter kinship and closer relationships between members. Nationalism leverages feelings of clannishness and family to a broader group of people.

"Nationalism cannot be "destroyed""

I digress - nations can, and have been smashed into pieces, especially when the foundations was shaky from the start. (There was an attempt to form a Yugoslav nation, for instance, but that didn't work out too well after holding for a while. Belgium is another attempt to forge a nation that looks mighty shaky. Let's not even start on Africa. And so on.)

"But it can be grown out of. Just as soon as people realise that many conflicts would be resolved more quickly if people weren't bickering like kindergarten kids about who started it."

It can be "grown out of" indeed - but that is not a straightforward process, and one that is perilous, especially if the original state was stable and working out. At the heart of the attraction of nationhood is the simple fact that people with a great deal of cohesion and co-operation tend to steamroller groups that are divided.

Of course, if conflicts of interest, etc. dissipate, then broadening the national circle can be attractive, but that is far from certain.

"Except by the enlightened few."

I dunno - I take a rather instrumental view of these things, and thus do not consider holding pie-in-the-sky hopes for mankind "Enlightened". But to each his own.

Re:Nationalism, etc.

[cp.tar]

Clan usually implies tighter kinship and closer relationships between members. Nationalism leverages feelings of clannishness and family to a broader group of people.

As I said, I see no substantial difference.

There was an attempt to form a Yugoslav nation, for instance, but that didn't work out too well after holding for a while.

Tell me about that... I'm Croatian by citizenship, Slovenian by nationality...
Here it failed because of too many nationalists... nothing more, nothing less.

At the heart of the attraction of nationhood is the simple fact that people with a great deal of cohesion and co-operation tend to steamroller groups that are divided.

Yes... I just don't see the attraction of steamrolling other groups. Then again, I've never been into team sports.

Re:Nationalism, etc.

[Dobeln]

"As I said, I see no substantial difference."

Well, sometimes quantity is a quality in itself. ;)

"Tell me about that... I'm Croatian by citizenship, Slovenian by nationality..."

Well, that's a pretty first-hand experience.

Here it failed because of too many nationalists... nothing more, nothing less."

Oh yes - that's the usual reason nations fall apart. Or too many clans, tribes, or whatever. But my point is merely that if you have a stable, working nation in place, you should be very careful when disrupting it - even if that disruption takes the shape of "one-world" idealism.

"Yes... I just don't see the attraction of steamrolling other groups. Then again, I've never been into team sports."

You don't have to be into steamrolling - you just have to enjoy not being steamrolled yourself. And most people do.

Three questions for you

[benhocking]

1. How many Americans died from terrorist attacks in 2001?
2. How many Americans died from natural disasters in 2001?
3. Where did the government spend more money keeping us safe?

If you want some help answering these questions, see this article.

I'm not trying to lessen the seriousness of 9/11. It was a very serious attack that demanded our attention. However, there are lots of other serious issues that also demand our attention.

Re:Three questions for you

[Chacham]

However, there are lots of other serious issues that also demand our attention.

The source of a disaster, and the choices of the victims come into play as well.

Are the terrorists laughing at us?

[Dobeln]

I will happily accept likely scenarios where these infringements on freedom come to impact you in the future as well. My point being: arguing against the-world-is-falling-we-must-nuke-Iran-now-ism using your own semi-realistic (at best) hyperbole about the coming fascist night of oppression is a bit silly. Really.

Soccer vs. Football

[Dobeln]

Also, I am a Swede, not a Yank, so it's "football" all the way.

Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[Secrity]

US politicians lost their boogey man when the Iron Curtain crumbled. They have found that terrorists make a dandy substitute.

Re:Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[Trailer Trash]

US politicians lost their boogey man when the Iron Curtain crumbled. They have found that terrorists make a dandy substitute.

Right. Even though communism brought the deaths of 60M-100M people, the threat was really just made up by US politicians.

And you wonder why we call you the looney left...

Re:Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[Secrity]

It's early yet; the Iron Curtain lasted what, 45 years? We are already up to about 50,000 killed in Iraq.

Re:Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[JudeanPeople'sFront]

Communism could have crashed a long time ago, if the American political elite did not support it. For example, after Kruschev's idiotic farming experiments failed, the USA sold grain to the USSR. Otherwise, there would have been a rebellion. The Allies could have destroyed Communism in 1945, too. In fact that was what general Patton was demanding before his accidental (?) death.

It's a public secret that the "transition to democracy" of the Communist block was initiated and conducted by the Communist elite (they transformed themselves into the new "democratic" political and business elite).

The point is: It wasn't because of the Cold War, that Communism crumbled - on the contrary, the "Threat from the West" was keeping it alive. Nothing unites the people around the leadership, however idiotic, as a foreign threat. Godless commies, terr'ists, Axis of Evil ... Eastasia is just as good as Eurasia for an enemy. If the media is doing its job properly.

Re:Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[treeves]

Seriously? Living in the 70s and 80s, also serving in the Navy during the late 80 and early 90s, I always rooted for the downfall of Communism, but I really didn't see Communism affecting the daily lives of Americans, or it being a constant topic of discussion, the way terrorism is today. Maybe my memory is faulty. I am turning forty today. :-\

A different sound...

[cayenne8]

"Are the terrorists laughing at us?"

No..they're making that LALALALALLALALALALALALA....sound....

(Or whatever that shrieking sound the women over there are always making under their hoods...)

Re:A different sound...

[Pictish Prince]

It's called a zagrit.

terrorism is irrelevant

[ecbpro]

Really this terrorism stuff is totally overrated. It is more propable that you win at the lotery then that you are a victim of a terrorist attack. I mean come on, it is time to put all of this into a proper relation. So many people die from car accidents, cigarettes, getting out of bed in the morining (I once heard that 2 person die every day in GB when getting out of bed). Just imagine all the great stuff one could have done with the money the US spent for this "war": - Fusion would become reality in the next 5 years! (so no need for pertol anymore and therefore no dependence on "terrorist supporting countries" anymore) - Food for everyone - Drugs for everyone Doing such cool things would really shut up some terrorist mouth, since they would completely loose support.

I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

I point the responsibility towards the people who are succumbing to these notions of fear and submitting their rights to the government in exchange for peace of mind. I was having dinner with my parents the other night, and my mother, who had MSNBC on in the background, was preaching GWB and how the war on terrorism was going to work and bring democracy to Iraq.

I suggested to my mother that Iraq might very well be the victim of a strong power vaccuum once (or if) the US ever removes its presence completely from the region. My mother countered by saying that wont happen if we set up their democracy correctly. I asked her why we're setting up their democracy for them. She said it was because they deserved it. I said that may be well and true, but you can not lead someone who lacks their own motivation into a battle and then leave. The will and effort to change the government has to come from the people oppressed by that government, not someone else egging them on for change. That is not a true foundation for that people's government.

Also its my mothers belief that democracy will eradicate all terrorist activity. She said once all countries have a democracy that everything would be harmonic and peaceful. I countered by asking about countries with democracies that chose not to go to Iraq with the US and she countered by saying those countries didn't know any better. I then suggested that a government such as ours and a democratic but Muslim-faith-based government may never see eye-to-eye. She retracted to her previous point of democracy being able to eliminate all internal terrorism. I then name-dropped Tim McVeigh as proof of that theory.

My mom is one of many people who believe warrantless wire-tapping is fine. She says she has nothing to hide. I asked her to tell me her current checking account balance. She got angry and told me no. I asked why she would give me that information and she replied it was none of my business. Then I asked her to tell me about all the phone calls she made last month to anyone who wasn't in our family. She told me again it was none of my business. I asked her why it was none of my business yet she had no problem letting the government know all of that information?

She got this nasty look on her face and told me GWB is going to save this country.

Yay.

1 ticket to Canada, please.

Apologies for spelling and grammar.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[pjkundert]

1 ticket to Canada, please.

For the first time in my 40 year life, I am proud to be a Canadian. We have a leader who doesn't spout mealy-mouthed political double-speak, and is willing to go in person to collect his citizens from danger.

However, there are still issues that you from the U.S.A. may find surprising. Such as a maniac marching up a Montreal street and into a school, shooting innocents as he goes, while the entire free public runs squealing before him.

I daresay that there are some areas of the U.S. where he would have been dropped in his tracks by some free citizen who cares enough about his freedom, and the freedom of other innocent citizens, to legally carry a weapon.

But in Canada, the government has succeeded in stripping virtually every free citizen of the capability to exercise what I believe is their responsibility to protect the innocent, even if they are able (it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked).

So, if you don't believe that attempting to protect the innocent is worth dying for, you might just fit right in. After all, who cares if Afghani girls ever get to have an education? And if they have the temerity to admin that they were raped, why not just let the males in their family slaughter them in an "Honour Killing"? After all, its their culture -- who are we to judge? Just give the country back to the Taliban! After all, they were there first, and they did choose their own government...

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

So, if you don't believe that attempting to protect the innocent is worth dying for, you might just fit right in. After all, who cares if Afghani girls ever get to have an education? And if they have the temerity to admin that they were raped, why not just let the males in their family slaughter them in an "Honour Killing"? After all, its their culture -- who are we to judge? Just give the country back to the Taliban! After all, they were there first, and they did choose their own government...

I never said they didn't deserve freedom, just that sparking a rebellion on someone's behalf may very well have some negative effects for that someone once the party responsible for the spark is no where to be found.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[RAMMS EIN]

``I suggested to my mother that Iraq might very well be the victim of a strong power vaccuum once (or if) the US ever removes its presence completely from the region.''

Not to mention that the power vacuum is already there with the US present. See the massive looting just after the invasion, the bombings that wrack the country pretty much on a daily basis, and the fundamental difficulty of centrally governing a country with three large and powerful groups that all have conflicting interests.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Electric Eye]

Wow. What's frightening is that your mother and millions like her so ignorant that the GOP has a field day with them. I'm dumbfounded that any intelligent human being in this country can still believe the propoganda, but I guess after years of beating this bullshit into our heads, people have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. It will be interesting to see what she has to say ten years from now. GWB is going to save this country? Wow.....

I hereby revoke your mother's right to vote.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Electric Eye]

I can assure you there has not been one episode her in the US where a rampage like that has been stopped by a regular citizen carrying a gun. So, you can forget about that fantasy.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[RAMMS EIN]

``My mom is one of many people who believe warrantless wire-tapping is fine. She says she has nothing to hide. I asked her to tell me her current checking account balance. She got angry and told me no. I asked why she would give me that information and she replied it was none of my business. Then I asked her to tell me about all the phone calls she made last month to anyone who wasn't in our family. She told me again it was none of my business. I asked her why it was none of my business yet she had no problem letting the government know all of that information?''

Exactly.

My favorite response to "If you're not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide?" is: "If you've got nothing to hide, kindly take off all your clothes."

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

I hereby revoke your mother's right to vote.

We're in Florida, so that bill may have passed already. :)

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

My favorite response to "If you're not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide?" is: "If you've got nothing to hide, kindly take off all your clothes."

I'm not saying that to my mom... next time Jenna Haze and I are having a political discussion I'll keep that in mind. :)

Re:I point the responsibility...

[RAMMS EIN]

``I asked her to tell me her current checking account balance. She got angry and told me no. I asked why she would give me that information and she replied it was none of my business. Then I asked her to tell me about all the phone calls she made last month to anyone who wasn't in our family. She told me again it was none of my business. I asked her why it was none of my business yet she had no problem letting the government know all of that information?''

I must admit that I still have difficulty seeing why it would be a problem if the government knew this about everyone, or even if everyone knew this about everyone. Sure, everybody breaks the law or does things that they are ashamed of once in a while...but if everybody does it, what's the big deal?

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

From my perspective, this indicates that the government has no trust in the people. Plenty of high profile operations resulting in arrests have been accomplished without warrantless wire-tapping (and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FISA issue retro-active warrants) and the judicial system transforms from "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" to "Hold On, We're Still Looking..."

Re:I point the responsibility...

[RAMMS EIN]

``From my perspective, this indicates that the government has no trust in the people.''

Hmm. Trusting people is bad security.

``Plenty of high profile operations resulting in arrests have been accomplished without warrantless wire-tapping''

Yes. The question is if we would win by allowing warrantless wire tapping. I think the answer is "no". And if it is "yes", we should probably be doing something about the way warrants are issued, rather than allow warrantless fishing expeditions.

``correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FISA issue retro-active warrants''

They do issue retroactive warrants.

``the judicial system transforms from "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" to "Hold On, We're Still Looking..."''

There is absolutely no reason terrorism suspects shouldn't have the same rights other suspects do. If there's a good reason for holding them because "we're still looking", the police should be allowed to hold them longer - after that's ok-ed by a court. If there's no reason to be holding them longer, the police shouldn't be allowed to hold them longer, no matter what they are suspected of.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Japie_H]

Bush(at least the one making the plans) probably never read Il Principe(The Prince) by Niccolò Machiavelli... If he/she did he/she would not have thought of going to war with Iraq...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli#Bibliogra phy/

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

I'm not being sarcastic here, but I have heard so many definitions: What, by declaration of our government as it is reflected in recent acts brought about by anti-terrorism legislature, is a terrorist?

Re:I point the responsibility...

[camryl]

Sure, everybody breaks the law or does things that they are ashamed of once in a while...but if everybody does it, what's the big deal? If it's true that warrantless wiretapping were to reveal that everyone breaks the law once in a while, wouldn't this become the justification for stripping the citizenry of even more rights?

Re:I point the responsibility...

[camryl]

(it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked). It's my understanding that it's illegal in the US, too, unless you're protecting your home against invasion by a burglar. (IANAL, just a USian.)

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Kpau]

Omigod, we must be brothers!!! Your mother is my mother! Actually, I think your mother is most of my relatives to whom I rarely speak to anymore because of such a profound lack of critical thinking skills. Purely a guess but it doesn't appear to be age related because I'll bet your mother is near my age (~49), so the insanity cuts across generations.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[camryl]

My guess is that your mother can't directly compare what she discloses to you with what she discloses to GWB because the relationship is radically different. She *knows* you. If, for example, she's very bad at managing her money and has a negative balance on her checking account, she might be embarassed to tell you. But if GWB found out the same info, she'd still be just one out of millions of citizens to him.

I'd suggest pointing out that every prerogative GWB successfully claims ("I can violate FISA whenever I want because I'm the preznit!!1!") will be inherited by his successor. Is she comfortable with the idea that, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to eavesdrop on her phone calls?

Re:I point the responsibility...

[dave562]

People like you are what this country needs, by the hundred thousands. It's easy to get emotional and irrate and to berate people who have been duped by the media, and whose mental processes have succumbed to incessent bombardment by a well oiled psyops machine. It takes a much stronger kind of character to calmly and rationally question in a Socratic manner the beliefs of those around you so that they can see, whether or not they accept, the gaping holes in the version of reality they've temporarily adopted.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[oahazmatt]

Thank you, that is an excellent point to make. I will try to remember it.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[vonsneerderhooten]

I found a funny parallel in you post.
Behold:

My mother countered by saying that wont happen if we set up their democracy correctly.

Your democracy has crashed. Please have another country reinstall your government.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Insightfill]

Sure, everybody breaks the law or does things that they are ashamed of once in a while...but if everybody does it, what's the big deal?

There's an Ann Raynd quote that shows up here on a regular basis, that effectively boils down to this: if enough stuff is illegal and everyone's a criminal, the power comes from the enforcement, and not the law itself. ANYONE can be arrested on convenience - and convicted - as needed, and nothing even needs to be "trumped up." The threat of arrest is a serious enough deterrent, but actual conviction is worse. If you have a problem with your neighbor, make an anonymous call and turn them in for anything and they're in trouble. Driving laws are often given as examples; in the course of driving for a mile, you're probably breaking SOME law, such as following too closely, or driving too slowly.

And when it comes down to things we're ashamed of, it even gets worse. No arrest of conviction is needed. Simple publication of said news can bring anyone down. Example: follow the case of Jack Ryan, an Illinois political candidate with an otherwise bright future. He and his wife (Jeri Ryan - Seven of Nine) divorce and allow the divorce records to be public - but not the child custody records. A Chicago newspaper and television station sue in California and obtain sealed records against the wishes of the parents, and suddenly Jack Ryan's political career is in a shambles because of what he likes to do in private. Actually, much more petty examples are common.

Watch for things to get extra ugly in the fall US elections. The GOP is planning on getting "personal" - see the Google cache of the missing MSNBC story.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Is she comfortable with the idea that, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to eavesdrop on her phone calls?

The government has already looked into protecting us from that. Officials discuss how to delay Election Day. A decade ago everyone would have thought that story was a hoax.

Here's another argument. Sometimes I discuss confidential information over the phone with my clients. Sometimes it's really sensitive. Do we want the government knowing everyone's confidential information, trade secrets and their conversations with their doctors?

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Agripa]

It's my understanding that it's illegal in the US, too, unless you're protecting your home against invasion by a burglar.

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and unfortunately uncertainties like overzealous police and prosecutors can make it risky to rely on even clearly written law. A lot of states have "Stand Your Ground" laws clarifying that lethal self defense may be used even outside of the home and that retreat is not required.

The lesson I learned from CCW class and further study are that defending a third party from immediate harm is permitted. This would include using lethal force to prevent something as indirect as arson to an inhabited building.

Re:I point the responsibility...

[Nitro in FL]

As the definition is currently expanding at a speed I would say is at least a fraction of the speed of light, I would have to say anyone they point at and say, "terrorist! You're it!"

Re:I point the responsibility...

[camryl]

I have long thought that GWB's administration behave as if they expect that they or those sympathetic to them will be in power forever. I try not to speculate on whether they are stupid enough to believe it and/or malicious enough to try to make it happen.

The view from outside

[davecb]

From Canada, and certainly from publiations from Britain and Europe, it certainly appears that the terrorists have terrified the "United States".

That doesn't necessarily mean my american cousins, but it certainly does mean the government and press...

I fear more than the terrorist are laughing: friends and enemies both have lost respect for the US. Not a good thing.

--dave

Re:The view from outside

[cold fjord]

I fear more than the terrorist are laughing: friends and enemies both have lost respect for the US. Not a good thing.

No worries there, friend. Your time is coming and then we'll get to see how Canada does, and what Canadians are made of. It used to be they were stout of heart.... we'll see if you still have it in you.

Best regards....

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[einar2]

Actually, I think it is our duty as nerds to stand up and dispell the governemental FUD!

So, if a security expert points out that we are doing the wrong think in the area of security then we should probably listen. And it is not always about technology. Believing that the world is a scientific system where you can clearly prove an idea to be right or wrong is rather naive. If you work long enough in organizations which are big enough then you learn that everything is always political.

Of course we are

[metamatic]

We played right into their hands. Al Qaeda even endorsed Bush for the 2004 elections.

Re:Of course we are

[cold fjord]

We played right into their hands. Al Qaeda even endorsed Bush for the 2004 elections.

I guess you've never heard of reverse psychology. Whatever you do, don't think of a pickle.

What Al Qaeda said:

Please vote for Bush! He is stupid! He is the one we want!

What they were thinking:

Anyone but Bush! Clinton just lobbed missiles, Bush sent fighters, bombers, gunships, soldiers, marines, aircraft carriers, special forces, missiles, advisors, supplies to the Northern Alliance, and cut off our funding! Even Pakistan, one of three countries in the world to recognize the taliban is backing away! We miss our training camps in Afghanistan! We miss running the country with the Taliban! That bugger had the top 75% or our leaders captured or killed and thousands of our jihadis with them! This is working... not! Osama misses driving around the country in a SUV instead of riding a donkey cart in a burqa. That Kerry called American soldiers war criminals... maybe he will bring them all home, put them in jail, and leave us alone!

I'm sure that four more years of the Bush administration is exactly what they wanted.

Re:Of course we are

[metamatic]

Yes, the Bush administration has been so successful at bringing peace and democracy to Iraq, and tracking down Bin Laden. Obviously they feared the competence and insight of that administration.

Re:Of course we are

[cold fjord]

Yes, the Bush administration has been so successful at bringing peace and democracy to Iraq,

Fleeing Afghanistan for Iraq? I can understand.

and tracking down Bin Laden.

The war against the Islamist extremists is much bigger than just Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been significantly disrupted and large parts of it destroyed. That has to be done either way, and is arguably more important.

Proof of how the media tries to scare us

[Karlt1]

For proof look no further.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjvpX3pt9Q

Eliminate both politicians and terrorists?

[Quietti]

Is that what you suggest as the solution for the whole World to return to more peaceful and productive times?

Re:Eliminate both politicians and terrorists?

[Moofie]

"peaceful and productive times?"

Ah, yes! The good old days! When were those again?

Re:Eliminate both politicians and terrorists?

[mikeinthemoment]

Some of the older proles talk about a time before the Revolution, but I mean c'mon, they're PROLES, the dregs of society. *eyes you suspiciously* Weren't you missing for the last 2 minutes of Hate meeting?

Re:Repeat often

[Vexorian]

Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security WILL LOSE BOTH.

We're Well On Our Way

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

Oh, don't worry. They are well on their way to making free speech illegal. It's a good thing that Bruce didn't express his ideas right before the mid-term elections. It's a good thing that he wasn't speaking officially for a national organization that wasn't "educational".

Because speaking out against a candidate before the election is illegal now if you are paid to do so by those who work 9 to 5.

I'm just waiting for the first candidate to take advantage of this particular law. The one that the incumbents created to protect themselves from voters.

Can you imagine that the following ad will be illegal when elections are heating up:

"Republicans A,B,C,D ... and Democrat X sold you down the river. Favoring the 'donations' they received from Military Contractors over the safety and security of the people themselves; in fact, the very people that are sworn to protect the defend the Constitution - John McCain and Hillary Clinton - have voted repeatedly for the same police state laws that are destroying the very concept of participatory democracy in this country."

Now all I need is someone to agree with me and pay me to enter that little diatribe onto any form of mass communication (Internet too) and I spend 5 years in jail.

The name of this wonderful election law is "McCain-Feingold". Do you really want John McCain as President? Do you really want Hillary as President when she could have led the Democrats to stop the same type of war that she campaigned against during Vietnam? Were McCain or Feingold funded by commercial interests who would like to see less competition for powerful incumbent house seats? Has blatantly "Commercial Speech" been banned from the floor of the House or Senate? Why have the voters been banned from using the same techniques as lobbyists? Lobbyists, like Jack Abramhoff and his purchased representatives David Vitter and Jack Dela....

Ooops. Can I say that? Slashdot might be funded by a known group of pro-freedom types, bought and paid for by evil Dell advertising.

No. Free speech is in fine shape.

No problem here.

Move along.

Or read this...

http://www.reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml

Laughing Terrorists

[Pictish Prince]

Of course the terrorist are laughing at you. Just watch Rumsfeld or any number of Neocon Nazgul on TV. Of course, with W it's more of a smirk.

Re:Occupying troops being attacked?! OMGWTF!!!!

[capt.Hij]

I made no statement as to whether or not this should justify any loss of civil liberties. You made that up out of whole cloth.

What I said is that our troops matter. For me, the implication is that when politicians get up and say that we are safer and terror attacks have been reduced they are absolutely wrong. The number of terror attacks has sky rocketed and our troops have born the brunt of it.

This is the worst of all possibilities. We are not safer and we face politicians who wish to reduce our civil liberties.

Re:Repeat often

[Hijacked Public]

I fly a lot, mostly inside the US but often internationally.

Despite flying a lot I am not at all afraid. Not in flight and not on the ground. Not of terrorism anyway, what I'm actually most afraid of is that I'll slip up when packing, which I sometimes have to do in a hurry, and a screener will find a prohibited item in my bag. My face would be plastered all over the news alongside stories of my other transgressions and depravities. I read hacker websites under an assumed named that mentions hijacking. I eat at asian restaurants a lot. An interview of some guy who once met me at a party will reveal that I offered him an illegal cigar imported from a communist dictatorship.

Or even worse, a fellow passenger will get the idea that I'm going to do something bad and I'll end up with a fat guy sitting on me for the duration of our F16 escorted rerouting. I'll be fired the next day because my company doesn't support terrorism and wants to issue a swift response. A few weeks later it will be revealed that I was just trying to stifle a yawn rather than upchuck a previously ingested explosive device, which was proposed as one possible way terrorists would try to kill us. But they don't hold press conferences for yawn stifling.

Patriotism

[Loundry]

Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker irregardles of the belives.

Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but what is so patriotic about voicing an opinion? I thought that patriotism was definined by a love and support of one's country/culture. If an opinion could conceivably be a contempt and disdain for one's country/culture (which many people certainly display), then how can that still be considered "patriotic"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the same sacred value is "voiceing his or her believes" that you do.

What if someone voiced the opinion that blacks were "mud people"? Would that person be a bigger patriot than the one who drives around with a "support our troops" sticker?

As for being afraid I agree with you - though much younger, I thank god that I do not live in America.

I don't believe in gods, but I am glad that I, a gay man, live in America opposed to living in Europe. The editor of the gay newspaper where I live (in the ultra-conservative, racist, gay-bashing South) was recently gay-bashed. No, he was NOT gay-bashed by Christian Republicans in Cobb County, Georgia. He was gay bashed by muslims in tolerant, progressive Amsterdam.

Bruce Bawer was a gay man who lived in the United States and decided to move to more tolerant, progressive Europe to escape from Christian Fundamentalists. What he found was that Europe has its own Fundamentalists, yet they are Muslims and they are worse in every way than America's Fundamentalists. He wrote a book about it called While Europe Slept. You can find out about it at http://www.brucebawer.com/. Is it safe to be gay in Europe? In many places, the answer has become not "no", but "hell no", and that is due largely to the influence of muslims who resoundingly believe that gay people are worthy of death.

While I do not support anything Bush has done (except for the tax cuts -- he's even waging the "war on terror" with a deliberately militant blind eye to the reality of jihad and Islam), I fear that the Europe that I know and love is going to be turned into an utter craphole by the regressive, anti-liberal, and fundamentliast muslim colonists who live there and are tolerated under the hideous canard of "multiculturalism". And I feel this is happening because far too many Europeans feel disdain and contempt for their own country/culture. "If Shari'a rules Europe, then who cares? Europe doesn't have a culture worth preserving anyway." I soundly disagree with that assessment, and I hope that more Europeans may find their sense of patriotism before muslims do to the beloved Mont Saint Michel what they did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Re:Patriotism

[peterpressure]

I could not agree more, here here...

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The reasons for free speech are complex but my understanding is that when you have people trying to make (possibly shared) decisions then better decisions are made when all points of view are considered.

It's more than that. When applied to the functioning of a Liberal Republic (liberal with an upper-case L, meaning the political theory applied to individual rights-based governance), free speech is absolutely imperative - true liberty and freedom are impossible without it.

Without open discourse, intelligent, considered decisions are impossible. Without open discourse, oppressed minorities have no voice because the majority can say "your opinions are not held widely enough to be important." Open discourse is the very basis of a free culture.

This is why, in reply to the GPP, voicing a political opinion is patriotic. I'm not talking about screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater - in the specific example in the Grand-GPP, the people he knew stood up to Congress and said "You have no right to question me on this matter."

THAT is political speech at its most powerful, and most important, and that is political speech that defends the values and rights that this nation was founded on.

If that isn't patriotic, I don't know what is.

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but what is so patriotic about voicing an opinion? I thought that patriotism was definined by a love and support of one's country/culture. If an opinion could conceivably be a contempt and disdain for one's country/culture (which many people certainly display), then how can that still be considered "patriotic"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the same sacred value is "voiceing his or her believes" that you do.

This is my reply-to-a-reply on this question:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196644&cid= 16115170

I hope it makes sense.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

I hope it makes sense.

It does not make sense to me. Allow me to quote you and explain. In the post you referenced, you wrote:

THAT is political speech at its most powerful, and most important, and that is political speech that defends the values and rights that this nation was founded on.

Political speech can conceivably be speech that contains the notions that:

1. Individual rights to free speech, free association, and free press should be abolished
2. The state should own all property
3. That human beings are property of the state

That (above) is, of course, a type of political speech, but it is NOT in any way defending the values and rights that this country was founded on. Certainly one has a right to say it (since we have the right to free speech, ironically one can speak of their hatred for free speech), but it shows nothing but contempt and disdain for the country/culture. Hence, I can't buy the notion that political speech is, by definition, patriotic since political speech can conceivably contain contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture.

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

That (above) is, of course, a type of political speech, but it is NOT in any way defending the values and rights that this country was founded on. Certainly one has a right to say it (since we have the right to free speech, ironically one can speak of their hatred for free speech), but it shows nothing but contempt and disdain for the country/culture. Hence, I can't buy the notion that political speech is, by definition, patriotic since political speech can conceivably contain contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture.

I don't disagree, but you're taking an example completely dissimilar to the grand parent poster's and using it as an example of why political speech is not patriotic.

His point was very simple: the people he knew who stood up for their rights in front of Congress were patriotic. It need be no more complicated than that. What THEY did was patriotic. I can sit here and come up with 1000 examples of unpatriotic speech too, and while that speech should be no less free, it is not what the grand parent was talking about when he called them patriotic.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

His point was very simple: the people he knew who stood up for their rights in front of Congress were patriotic. It need be no more complicated than that. What THEY did was patriotic. I can sit here and come up with 1000 examples of unpatriotic speech too, and while that speech should be no less free, it is not what the grand parent was talking about when he called them patriotic.

The people who stood up for their rights in front of Congress where those who were opposing those who were targeted by anti-Communist inquiries. Those people who were targets were people who were excusing, defending, and promoting the communist regime in the Soviet Union which, through ComIntern, had an organized, and openly stated, and aptly demonstrated violent, imperial desire. The Soviet Union, both in theory and especially in practice, are openly and directly contemptuous of the values that this country was founded on. Go read _The Gulag Archipeligo_ if you need gross details about the numerous abuses committed by the Soviet Union, most notably its mass exploitation of slave labor to effect the "production gains" that were lauded by Leftist apologists living in the United States. The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, whose goals were to destroy the United States. There were many, many people in the US government who were spies for the Soviet Union, as the Venona transcripts show.

The poster's comment was that the people who gave their "political opinion" which was motivated by either empathy or open support for the Soviet Union were more patriotic than someone with a "support our troops" bumper sticker. It is NOT patriotic to express a political opinion that expresses contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Any and all political opinion that excuses, defends, or supports the Soviet Union or its supporters is, by definition, unpatriotic.

I feel the same way about political speech that excuses, defends, or supports jihad.

Please correct me if you think my assessment is incorrect.

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Please correct me if you think my assessment is incorrect.

I think you misunderstood the poster. HIS friends were the ones unfairly targeted by McCarthyism. That pretty much addresses your entire post, I should think.

But let me be clear: I am unprepared to call American Communists unpatriotic. While those values are not the same ones this nation was founded on, this nation WAS founded on the idea that they be allowed to speak. If they tried to FORCE those ideas on people however (politically or otherwise), that would be another story.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

I think you misunderstood the poster. HIS friends were the ones unfairly targeted by McCarthyism. That pretty much addresses your entire post, I should think.

It does not address my post, because:

But let me be clear: I am unprepared to call American Communists unpatriotic.

I think you are unwilling, not unprepared, call American Communists unpatriotic. America allows people the right to think and say whatever they wish (provided that such speech does not deprive people of life, liberty, or property -- at least, in theory). This allows people the right to think and say things that are unpatriotic. There is no way that an American Communist could be patriotic since Communism, both in theory and in practice, supports the mass deprivation of the right to speech, the right to life and liberty (you belong to the state to be used as slave labor to the point of your death), and the right of property (all property belongs to the state). Hence, I can't buy your argument that the ones who were speaking against the rightful persection of American Communists were unfairly targeted since I imagine that you would think that it is unfair to call an American Communist unpatriotic. Meaning, we have a disagreement over what would be an "unfair" targeting by anti-Communist forces.

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I think you are unwilling, not unprepared, call American Communists unpatriotic.

Don't put words in my mouth. I know exceedingly little about American Communists and am unprepared to pass judgement on them. I, unlike most, do not pass that kind of half-cocked judgement. I cannot judge something I know next to nothing about. While I am very familiar with Communism, I am very much unaware of any of the actions or beliefs of the Communists in America.

Hence, I can't buy your argument that the ones who were speaking against the rightful persection of American Communists were unfairly targeted

Riiiiiiiight, because every single person McCarthy hauled before the Senate committee was OBVIOUSLY a Commie out to destroy the world. No, self-righteous Senators who need a way to prop up their career have NEVER done ANYTHING that was immoral, unethical, or straight out wrong or made scapegoats of pretty much anything or anyONE in an attempt to further their agenda.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

Don't put words in my mouth. I know exceedingly little about American Communists and am unprepared to pass judgement on them. I, unlike most, do not pass that kind of half-cocked judgement. I cannot judge something I know next to nothing about. While I am very familiar with Communism, I am very much unaware of any of the actions or beliefs of the Communists in America.

The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, a nation that was not only the antithesis of American values both in theory and in practice, but had a stated and proven (by massive military buildup and a well-document spy ring inside the USA) to destroy the United States. They were, quite literally, an arm of the Soviet Union in the USA. I don't understand how much more preparation you require to pass judgment.

Riiiiiiiight, because every single person McCarthy hauled before the Senate committee was OBVIO--

1. It is unfair of you to accuse me of "putting words in your mouth" and then for you to turn around and do the exact same thing to me.

2. Your sarcasm adds heat and no light to this discussion.

3. My point stands: you claim that the people standing up were "unfairly targeted" yet you admit can't pass judgment on those people. By what means are you so sure that they were "unfairly targeted" when you admittedly can't judge what "fair" is in this instance?

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Ok, let's back up. We could sit here discussing minutae until we're blue in the face, and it does appear that's the road down which we are headed. I would prefer to back up and look at the bigger picture.

And I'm done equivocating.

The original post that began this stated:

I have many friends and acquaintences who were blacklisted during the McCarthy era, a few of them even cited for contempt of Congress

To which someone replied,

Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker irregardles of the belives.

To which kfg, the original poster, replied:

Pete's the one who had the guts to stand on the First Amendment, not the Fifth; and declare that Congress did not have the authority to even question him on his beliefs.

There is no information in there as to whether the participant was even a part of the American Communist party. All we know is that someone told Congress that they have no right to question his beliefs - and that much is true. One of the most powerful fundamental principles that this nation was founded upon was the right to freedom of speech and accordingly, the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe.

A free nation consists of MANY different sets of beliefs; their only necessarily common thread in each set of beliefs is that each respect the others and does not attempt to forcefully silence the others.

Someone telling Congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is absolutely patriotic, regardless of the beliefs. That is the very BASIS of the 1st Amendment.

It was Voltaire who said, "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

That tenet is echoed many times throughout the writings of our founders and is demonstrated quite eloquently in their actions.

Patriotism in the USA means being proud that you're able to speak your mind and have the liberty and the power to affect change in your nation's affairs. Patriotism means telling Congress that they have no right to question you on your political affiliations; it means telling President Bush that he can take is "Let's Allow Torture" act and shove it, and it means that even if someone spouts off at the mouth a political philosophy that makes you want to hurl from the pit of your stomach, you accept that even they are allowed the freedom to their own ideals.

I believe wholeheartedly that the 'friends' referred to by the original poster were patriotic. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

Someone telling Congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is absolutely patriotic, regardless of the beliefs. That is the very BASIS of the 1st Amendment.

So, in other words, someone telling congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is "patriotic", even if it is done to hide sentiments that show contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Yet you have not contested my claim that patriotism is defined for a love of one's own country/culture. How can speech which shows contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture simultaneously be an expression of love for one's own country/culture? You are claiming "A is not A".

I believe wholeheartedly that the 'friends' referred to by the original poster were patriotic. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

Since I've gotten you to the point of proclaiming your beliefs "wholeheartedly" (as if that "punches up" your argument), I think we have come down to a matter of faith on your behalf. I understand faith as "believing something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence". Here, it is contradictory, as you are claiming "A is not A".

Is it American to allow people freedom of speech and conscience? Yes. Is it patriotic to show disdain and contempt for America? No. One can easily be an unpatriotic American, and numerous examples abound. Perhaps you arrive at your contradiction because you fallaciously conflate "American" with "patriotic".

Re:Patriotism

[BalanceOfJudgement]

So, in other words, someone telling congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is "patriotic"

Yes

even if it is done to hide sentiments that show contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture.

Where did you get the idea that's what the original poster's friend were doing? Go ahead. Show me the text. I'll wait.

At the very least, it would be unAmerican of *you* to attempt to silence someone simply because you disagree with what they are saying, yet that is precisely what you seem to be advocating.

Perhaps you arrive at your contradiction because you fallaciously conflate "American" with "patriotic".

And you still seem to find it acceptable for Congress to ever have had anything to do with attempting to squash Communism in America.

Re:Patriotism

[Loundry]

Where did you get the idea that's what the original poster's friend were doing?

I don't see how that is relevant. The notion that it is patriotic to stand up or excuse speech that is unpatriotic is contradictory, and that seems to be a case that you advocate. It does not make sense.

Do you agree that one can be an unpatriotic American?

Do you agree that the two notions ("patriotic" and "American") are distinct?

At the very least, it would be unAmerican of *you* to attempt to silence someone simply because you disagree with what they are saying, yet that is precisely what you seem to be advocating.

I have never advocated depriving someone of their right to speech based on their opinions.

And you still seem to find it acceptable for Congress to ever have had anything to do with attempting to squash Communism in America.

Of course it is acceptable. Communism represented and perpetrated slavery, murder, and theft on a scale unimaginable I consider it the government's duty to protect its citizens from slavery, murder, and theft, particularly when such things are conducted by a foreign government whose stated goal is to destroy the United States of America.

Mind you, individuals have the right to discuss and promote slavery, murder, and theft. However, people who do that warrant greater surveillance by the government because those people are much higher risks to the life, liberty, and property of others. Should the CPUSA have been allowed to exist and say whatever they want? Of course. Should they have been tracked, bugged, and observed by the FBI as a dangerous group with a high risk of harming others? Of course.

Ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property are dangerous and the people who follow those ideologies are much more likely to commit violent crimes. The KKK, the Nazis, the Communists, anarchists, greenpeace, PeTA, the Mafia, Aryan Nations, MS-13, and the World Church of the Creator (to name a few) are all groups that should be watched by the government. The wicked acts perpetrated by those groups are directly linked to and supported by the ideologies which those groups follow. While every individual has the right to speech and assembly, I do not believe that groups which follow ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property have the right to privacy.

Now are you going to call me "un-American" because I don't support the privacy rights of the KKK or of the Mafia?

Uninformed opininion on your part

[PontifexPrimus]

As to the effectivity of this administration and its terror-fighting prowess I'd like to point you to this analyis by an expert. You'll have to agree after reading up on the facts that it is the right wing that misrepresents them.
And as for that:

On the other hand, I also have problems with the left wing appeasers and the media who show terrorist propoganda (like the "Pallywood" type videos) over and over again, and talk about daily body counts without talking about the daily progress).

I'm German: My grandparents do remember the time when the news would daily report on the great progress we made in the war on all fronts; how we went from victory to victory with no setback at all. Is that the kind of reporting you wish or even expect from your government? Mindless propaganda without even a hint of the real situation (which, at least as far as Iraq is concerned, is deteriorating - again, those are facts, this is reality)?

Re:Uninformed opininion on your part

[gfxguy]

Is that the kind of reporting you wish or even expect from your government?

No, I don't want the government to report news at all, I want news agencies to responsibly report what's going on without any bias.

It's not that I don't want the "daily body count" to be reported, it's that there IS progress happening in Iraq and on other fronts in "the war on terror." And it's simply not possible to for the "tail to wag the dog" these days with embedded reporters and the transparency of our military operations. The bias I see coming out of the MSM is willfull, not coerced.

Re:Uninformed opininion on your part

[peterpressure]

I'm German: My grandparents do remember the time when the news would daily report on the great progress we made in the war on all fronts; how we went from victory to victory with no setback at all. What war are you talking about here?

More than just aircraft

[DG]

A few years ago, the US Dept of Homeland Security was advising people to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal their houses against chemical weapons.

I'm a Canadian who works in the US. I'm also a former Regular Force soldier who is now a Reservist. Part of my baliwick at one point was unit Chemical Warfare Officer.

So I come to work the day after that particular announcement was made, and I find a group of my co-workers discussing a plan for the one guy who owns a pickup truck to stop off at Home Depot and stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape. The plan was to buy in bulk, and they were working out the details for how much to buy, how to deliver it, etc etc.

I wound up delivering a little ad-hoc class on the properties of chemical weapons to about 30 people, the high points of which were:

1) Yes, modern chemical weapons are ludicrously lethal. Exposure to as little as a pinhead-sized drop of certain nerve agents can kill you, which means that a litre of agent has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

2) The *reason* that these agents are so stupidly toxic is that **DELIVERY** of agent is really serious problem. It is so difficult to arrange exposure of soldiers to agent AT ALL that you need tiny exposures to be incapacitiating or the stuff just doesn't work. If you have (say) 300,000 lethal doses in a litre of agent, try getting a lethal dose of that agent to 300,000 people - it's a nontrivial problem.

3) The people who invested most heavily in this equipment (the USSR and the USA) had access to MONSTER delivery systems, and the targets were expected to be densely packed. We're talking hundreds of tubes of artillery, and aircraft-based delivery systems that for all intents and purposes were giant crop dusters. We're not talking a couple of litres of agent here; we're talking about tanker-truck quantities.

4) The primary military objective of chemical weapons isn't to kill the enemy; they are a nucience and area denial weapon. As soon as you deliver a chemical strike, you force everybody in the area to get into their protective gear - bunny suit, gas mask, "Boots, Rubber, Clumsy" which is a serious pain in the ass and interferes with combat effectiveness. A chemical strike can channel the enemy, slow him down, induce fatigue and stress, forces him to take time to decomtaminate - but it rarely inflicts serious casulties.

5) The golden example of this is the Sarin attack on the Japanese subway a few years ago. Of all the places in the world to do a chemical strike, that's the best - stupid high population density maximizes the exposure pur unit volume of agent, limited ventallation reduces the amount of agent burned off, few exits maximizes the time the target is spent exposed to agent, and the agent itself was reasonably modern.

It SHOULD have been a slaughterhouse, according to conventional wisdom. But in reality, the amount of casulties due to agent was tiny; they inflicted more casulties through panic and stampeding than due to agent exposure.

Chemical weapons JUST DON'T WORK unless delivered in huge volumes - and the ability to deliver in huge volumes is limited to large, well-equipped state armies. A chemical strike is well down the list of potential threats to the civillian populace.

A skilled and motivated sniper is far, far more dangerous than a dozen nutballs with a litre of VX.

The fact that the Department of Homeland Security was advising people to buy plastic sheeting to protect themselves against chemical attack is completely ludicrous... and while I have a hard time buying into anybodies' tinfoil-hat conspriracy theories (never assume malevolance where stupidity will serve) that sure looks like fear-mongering to me.

DG

Re:More than just aircraft

[cold fjord]

It SHOULD have been a slaughterhouse, according to conventional wisdom. But in reality, the amount of casulties due to agent was tiny; they inflicted more casulties through panic and stampeding than due to agent exposure.

The AUM Shinrikyo cult attack wasn't effective because they had very low grade agent and poor delivery systems for their intended target. It was hardly ideal and yet they still managed to kill people and sicken about a thousand.

Chemical weapons JUST DON'T WORK unless delivered in huge volumes - and the ability to deliver in huge volumes is limited to large, well-equipped state armies. A chemical strike is well down the list of potential threats to the civillian populace.

That is entirely dependet upon the target. The reason you typically need large amounts of chemical agents to have a significant effect on soldiers is that they are typically trained, alert, warned by sensors, dispersed and have protective gear. Civilians are typically unprotected and tend to be more concentrated. Terrorist use of chemical weapons is a genuine threat and Al Qaeda is pursuing it. US forces have found records of their experiemnts in Afghanistan.

A skilled and motivated sniper is far, far more dangerous than a dozen nutballs with a litre of VX.

That depends a great deal on what the nutballs (suicide terrorists?) do with the VX.

The fact that the Department of Homeland Security was advising people to buy plastic sheeting to protect themselves against chemical attack is completely ludicrous... and while I have a hard time buying into anybodies' tinfoil-hat conspriracy theories (never assume malevolance where stupidity will serve) that sure looks like fear-mongering to me.

Instead of guessing, try reading.

Re:More than just aircraft

[DG]

You've completely missed the point here.

Getting agents in contact with targets in sufficient volume to cause target effects - even given the insane levels of lethality that agents have i this day and age - is a nontrivial problem, the solution to which is the distribution of very large volumes of agent.

A litre of VX, although technically capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people, based on the volume of the minimum lethal dose, is FUNCTIONALLY only good for a very small number of people, given the difficulty of exposing people to the volume of agent on hand.

And that's not even counting other technical matters, such as the rate of absorbsion vs the rate of evaporation (many agents degrade faster than they are absorbed, so short of encountering a direct path into the bloodstream, it takes a larger volume of exposure than the theoretical minimum lethal volume in order to ensure a lethal dose before the agent is rendered inert.)

Now don't get me wrong, this shit is seriously lethal. Dump a litre of VX on somebody, and he's dead. Even the antidotes (like atropine) are so dangerous that there's a nonzero probability that the antidote - assuming you can get to it in time - might kill you instead. If you have access to large volumes of agent, and you have a delivery system capable of distributing it, you most certainly can kill large numbers of people - Saddam and the Kurds is a prime example.

But note that Saddam had access to the required tanker-truck volumes of agent, and he had access to the artillery units needed to deliver it. That's because he had the resources of A STATE ARMY, and it was his territory so he had freedom of manouvre; specifically freedom of logistical manouvre so he could stockpile his agent in preparation of the strike.

But here's the rub - he could have just as easily used plain old high explosive shells in his artillery and achieved the same effect. Once you allow an opponent the opportunity to field a large, properly-supplied artillery unit, does it really matter what the shells contain?

No terrorist is ever going to get his hands on the volume of agent it takes to make a successful strike. No terrorist, even if he somehow managed to locate the agent, is going to have access to the delivery system needed to get that volume of agent on target. The amount of damage that a terrorist can do with any reasonable volume of even the nastiest agent is roughly equivelant to the damage he could do with plain old, easily accessable, high explosives.

The two worst terrorist attacks in American history were carried out with 1) a couple of hijacked airliners (full of jet fuel) that were forced to crash into buildings and 2) a truck load of fertilizer.

As far as the various bad guys planning chemical attacks.. well, they ain't the sharpest sticks in the pile. And the experiments found in Afghanistan were FAILED experiments. Hell, if you were my enemy I'd be ENCOURAGING you to chase the chemical red herring, 'cause you'd be wasting time, energy, and money following up a dead-end course of action.

DG

Re:More than just aircraft

[aminorex]

> A skilled and motivated sniper is far, far more dangerous than a dozen nutballs with a litre of VX.

But they had that too. Remember John Malvo? Oh, and Anthrax. And snakes...um...muslims on planes.
All at the same time. Sort of a...trifecta...no...new Pearl Harbor.

Re:More than just aircraft

[nido]

The two worst terrorist attacks in American history were carried out with 1) a couple of hijacked airliners (full of jet fuel) that were forced to crash into buildings and 2) a truck load of fertilizer.

What about the building that imploded without the assistance of an airliner? I think it's clear that pre-planted explosives brought down WTC7, and if that's the case, it's likely that explosives brought down the twin towers too. Especially considering that a 767 isn't much bigger than a 707, and the towers were designed to take a strike from a fully loaded 707.

There's also a good case that there were multiple bombs in Oklahoma City too...

Conclusion

The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building.

The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the "pit" area behind columns B4 and By. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3.

It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage assessment was not made during the cleanup__before the building was demolished on May 23 and hundreds of truck loads of debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence.

When the picture at Tab 4 was made, all evidence of demolition charges had been removed from the building site (i.e., the stubs of columns B3, A3, A5, A7 and the demolished junctures at the header with columns A3, A5 and A7.

All ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementing demolition charges and the type of truck used could be quickly resolved in the FBI were required to release the surveillance camera coverage of this terribly tragic event.

(from General Partin's conclusion at second link above, emphasis added)

There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.

I'm starting to hear that approx 75% of the police and firefighters who were on scene that day now believe in a government coverup. Or maybe they're just bitter about being lied to by the EPA (toxic dust)...

p.s. liked your post about why chemical weapon warnings are fearmongering. thanks for sharing.

Re:More than just aircraft

[Mr. Flibble]

There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.

You might want to take another view on the 9/11 theories. The arguments you put forward are specious at best, mind you they are not uncommon arguments, but that does not make them correct.

A good primer can be found here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220 921158523

Keep in mind that Penn and Teller use Ad Hominim attacks for 2 reasons. First, its funny, and the show has to be entertaining to some degree. Second, they can be sued for using words like: "Hoax" "Fraud" etc, but they cannot be sued for: "Bullshit" "Asshole" and "Motherfucker". So, keep that in mind.

Also, if you have had the misfortune to watch the movie "Loose Change" first or second edition, you might want to check out this link:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

It is "Loose Change 2nd ed." With added commentary pointing out the errors made in the movie. Keep in mind Popular Mechanics and a host of other publications have already soundly debunked these theories, and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/i ntroduction.html

Remember, if you ever wonder about an issue, check out both sides and then decide for yourself. If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:

The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer
Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park

A collection of excellent debunking links follows:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/

Re:More than just aircraft

[cold fjord]

I suggest some supplemental reading. A little fresh air never hurts.

Re:More than just aircraft

[nido]

and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/i ntroduction.html

If you actually read the site you've linked to, you'll find that while they do examine Loose Change "blow by blow", it can hardly be considered a "debunking". The authors of this page examine each of the points made in the movie, and categorize them with "lead slugs", "nickels" and "gold coins". Lead slugs are distractions from the truth (and the film gets a lot of them), nickels are points that are valid but could've been made better, and points given a gold coins are the ones that get to the heart of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Now you may prefer to believe the government's story. I don't trust "the government" (mainly because I resent being locked up in their school for 13 years, but that's another comment,here, for example), and therefore take anything a "government official" says with healthy grain of skepticism.

Let's look at some of the points from the film that are given gold coins:

00:03:12
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

00:03:20
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.

If the government had been planning for jets being flown into the towers and pentagon for years, how could the response when "the real thing" happened have been so... tardy?

July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center 7, signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11. Included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.

That's quite a turnaround in your investment... Put out two months of lease payments, and get $3.5 billion back.

Believe what you want. I think a conspiracy makes subsequent events make a lot more sense.

Re:More than just aircraft

[Agripa]

If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:

The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer
Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park

This is a great list. I particularly liked Carl Sagan's book. While it is more relevant to economics, I have to add "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay. While originally copyrighted in 1841, it is very readable today.

Re:More than just aircraft

[Mr. Flibble]

If you actually read the site you've linked to, you'll find that while they do examine Loose Change "blow by blow", it can hardly be considered a "debunking". The authors of this page examine each of the points made in the movie, and categorize them with "lead slugs", "nickels" and "gold coins". Lead slugs are distractions from the truth (and the film gets a lot of them), nickels are points that are valid but could've been made better, and points given a gold coins are the ones that get to the heart of the 9/11 conspiracy.

I have read the site that I linked to. I have read the entire thing, that is why I linked to it. I am not saying that Loose Change has NO points of value, but that many of the points that it does make are devoid of value. I can say that "the sky is blue because aliens make it blue", and I can be wrong, but the sky will still be blue.

Now you may prefer to believe the government's story. I don't trust "the government" (mainly because I resent being locked up in their school for 13 years, but that's another comment,here, for example), and therefore take anything a "government official" says with healthy grain of skepticism.

Believe the governments story? I don't know if I would say I just believe the governments story. I also believe Skeptic magazienes perspective, and I believe popular mechanics perspective, I believe Penn and Tellers perspective. Those perspectives have nothing to do with the government.

Let's look at some of the points from the film that are given gold coins:

00:03:12
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

00:03:20
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.

If the government had been planning for jets being flown into the towers and pentagon for years, how could the response when "the real thing" happened have been so... tardy?

Correlation does not imply causation. See Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, specifically the chapter on baloney detection. Just because they had those exercises planned does not make it a causal relationship. "I hear that some of the terrorists ate pizza. I also hear that members of the government eat pizza. Therefore, the government is a bunch of terrorist because they eat pizza." Logically unsound.

The department of justice released the world trade centers in the crosshairs, quite true. But again, that is a causal error. Remember there was a world trade center bombing in 1993 that INTENDED to take the towers down, but it failed to do so. Ergo, what is more likely. That the government KNEW that the attacks were going to happen, and that they KNEW that 3000 or so ppl would die? And since they KNEW this would happen, they decided to publish an easially availible publication with the center in the crossairs.... Or, that the department of justice knew that the towers were a target in the past, and that they were a potential target in the future, and thus published a cover highlighting this?

And as for response time, you should look into how the US handled air defense of the continental US. Loose Change mentions how many jets were on "combat ready" status. Loose Change neglects to mention that "combat ready" means the plane can be in the air fully armed and ready to go in about 12-24 HOURS. It does not mean that the jets are on standby for being scrambled.

When you go for conspiracy stuff like that, it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not. This is why in science anecdotal evidence is considered unworthy. Loose Change is a collection of disparate "hits" and ignores the "misses". Again, see the baloney detection kit for this, sections are available for free on the internet, and I highly reccomend the book, it is without exception the best book I have ever read.

Re:More than just aircraft

[Mr. Flibble]

I have heard good things about it, but I have not seen a copy around. I think I will grab one off of Amazon.

I like skeptical books in any form, and ones related to economics are rare indeed! Thanks for the recommendation!

Re:More than just aircraft

[Cerebus]

There's also a good case that there were multiple bombs in Oklahoma City too...

No there isn't. The building collapsed as it did because the reinforced joints of the support columns and the structural support beams at each floor was intended to resist shearing forces of high winds (Oklahoma? Tornados? Heard of them? Hello?), not the overpressure of a blast wave coming up from below. When the wavefront hit, the floors simply lifted up on the pressure wave and pulled the reinforcing rods out of the columns. When the floors came back down, the rods obviously didn't go back where they came from, and the rest is simply gravity.

Re:More than just aircraft

[nido]

I believe what can be proven to me. Loose Change is easially disproven. Much of the "facts" put forward are done in a manner inconsistent with the real data. The author cherry picks the points that support his position, and neglects to tell you the stuff that counters it.

You brought up loose change, not I. Elements of Loose Change may have been discredited, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the proposition (9/11 was a conspiracy involving rogue elements of the U.S. government, among others) because of the presentation (a "swiss cheese documentary").

Science works by proving falsehoods, not by "proving facts". Correlations and anecdotal evidence alert us to the need to investigate. Because the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well, the physical evidence which would definitively prove WTC 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by explosives has largely been destroyed (WTC steel -> india for recycling before analysis could be performed, etc). Careful analysis of video and photographic evidence, such as that undertaken in 9/11 Eyewitness and at wtc7.net, show that the official story is bogus, no matter whether you get it from Bullshitters, a magazine, or George Bush himself.

[note: I've only just discovered 9/11 eyewitness, because of your link to wtc7.net, and as of this writing, I've only watched the first 55 minutes or so. Thus far it has no conjecture, just analysis of video of the collapses taken from the New Jersey shore. Thanks for pointing it out for me. :]

and I come down on the same side as Popular Mechanics.

Like you said, "it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not."

The phenomenon is known as a Reality Tunnel, or the set of beliefs we filter our experience of objective reality through. I have believed the Federal Government had gone feral long before 9/11, and the actions thereof following that day have only served to confirm my belief. It is true that this belief predisposes me to the conspiracy proposition. From my perspective, the conspiracy is larger than the 9/11 attacks... Most of the major historical events of the 20th century fit into the conspiracy somehow, or so my readings seem to indicate... But that's another post. :)

The link above says this about PM: "The people at Popular Mechanics know how to manipulate media; they are Hearst Publications the creator of 'Yellow Journalism'." Recall that William Randolph Hearst used his newspaper to inflame the Spanish-American war. Now I'm not saying that the current editors of PM are tools, just that it seems like a possibility, to me.

"you know I don't go for the official story because it's got so many holes. And I can't really go to much for those radical stories because they got, they're so shocking it drives me nuts. So... but I know there's grains of truth in everything there, and..."

-Rick Siegel, 9/11 Eyewitness, 48:11

I spend my time looking for grains of truth, because tiny grains hold the keys to the puzzle.

Re:More than just aircraft

[Mr. Flibble]

I believe what can be proven to me. Loose Change is easially disproven. Much of the "facts" put forward are done in a manner inconsistent with the real data. The author cherry picks the points that support his position, and neglects to tell you the stuff that counters it.

You brought up loose change, not I. Elements of Loose Change may have been discredited, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the proposition (9/11 was a conspiracy involving rogue elements of the U.S. government, among others) because of the presentation (a "swiss cheese documentary").

I brought it up because so many people whom believe in the 9/11 conspiracy turn to that movie. It is dissapointing.

Science works by proving falsehoods, not by "proving facts". Correlations and anecdotal evidence alert us to the need to investigate. Because the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well, the physical evidence which would definitively prove WTC 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by explosives has largely been destroyed (WTC steel -> india for recycling before analysis could be performed, etc). Careful analysis of video and photographic evidence, such as that undertaken in 9/11 Eyewitness and at wtc7.net, show that the official story is bogus, no matter whether you get it from Bullshitters, a magazine, or George Bush himself.

Yes, science works by proving falsehoods, and those things that cannot be falsified must be left as true. This is why the theory of evolution is so well founded, it has a massive body of evidence, but you cannot actually "prove" it in the strictest sense, but you can disprove all other theories.

The problem with "the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well" is that it falls to Ochams Razor. This is a form of logic in science that states "whenever there are 2 explanations for the data, choose the simpler". The simple explanation is that 19 terrorists carried out a malicious attack on the world trade center towers and pentagon, but failed on a fourth plane. It was well thought out and well executed.

Your explanation seems to be that hundreds, or probably thousands of people in government got together to fake these attacks to scare the populace. The sad thing is that governments are terribly inefficent, and could not keep something like this under wraps. Occhams razor picks the 19 terrorists. Again, I dont KNOW what your full explanation would be, but if it was not the terrorists, then it would require the actions and knowledge of a very large number of people.

[note: I've only just discovered 9/11 eyewitness, because of your link to wtc7.net, and as of this writing, I've only watched the first 55 minutes or so. Thus far it has no conjecture, just analysis of video of the collapses taken from the New Jersey shore. Thanks for pointing it out for me. :]

No problem. I have only read the site, I have not as of yet seen the video.

and I come down on the same side as Popular Mechanics.

Like you said, "it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not."

Yes. The difference is that I examined both sides of the argument prior to picking a side. I have seen loose change (although my baloney detection kit was SCREAMING full bore during the viewing) and read much of the other conspiracy literature. I have also read the claims that are skeptical, and of those skeptical claims they are backed up mainly by the scientific method, physics, detailed photos and the like. Whereas all the conspiracy theories have gaping holes in their theories that do not stand up to the baloney detection kit.

Here is a link to the short version, it does not do it justice without the whole book: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.htm l

The phenomenon is

Re:More than just aircraft

[nido]

Your explanation seems to be that hundreds, or probably thousands of people in government got together to fake these attacks to scare the populace.

Only a handful in positions of control were needed in the U.S. government. Most all the military would not have been in on the attack, as even though soldiers are trained to obey the chain of command, the perpetrators could not count on widespread treason amongst soldiers sworn to protect and defend the nited states. The dirty work of seeting explosives was likely caried out by foreigners - perhaps the Mossad set the explosives. But I am getting into conjecture here. There are only a few people who really know what happened on 9/11 - the ones who planned and executed the attacks. The rest of us base our speculations on the reports we've read, or the information personally uncovered in their investigations. And even the investigators are working with an incomplete understanding of what went on that day.

I am well aware of the failings of objective reality

Objective reality has no failings, it just is. :).

Do you seriously believe that a few thousand of your own citizens got together to kill their own people with a bizzare method?

I believe it was a handful of traitors (GWB & his puppeteers) with foreigners to do the dirty work - setting the explosives, hijacking the planes, setting decoys/patsies, etc. You believe the entirety of the day in question was planned and perpetrated by "al Qaeda terrorists". Neither of us (I'm assuming something here...) has any personal evidence or direct experience one way or the other. Again, what do you want to believe? (The rest of this paragraph [unquoted] is speculation on the question quoted above... perhaps it is an example of the strawman rhetorical fallacy?)

At the very least I hope you watch the Penn and Teller episode. In fact, I hope you watch that show on a regular basis.

Penn and Teller have no credibility with me, because someone I respect was slandered by their show.

Famous Magician Makes the Truth Disapear!

OK, Here's the deal. Penn Jillette says I can cure cancer. It sure didn't come from me, and when I was filmed for their show last year they didn't even interview me about health issues. To take it a sleazy step further, he claims that I tell people to STOP seeing their doctor when they have cancer and I take all their money as they lay on their death bed.

Quite a claim to make on my behalf. Especially for someone who is winning Emmys for a show that is supposed to expose the truth. If you make stuff up, that does NOT make it true, but people do believe what they see on TV.

Most magicians are skeptics because they make a living deciving people. And if you have an open enough mind, check out those books I listed too.

I will agree that James Randi makes a living deceiving people. That story has several comments from people who've met or have had other interactions with the man (I have not - my comment in that story was simply an amalgamation of several different reports I've heard & read from "people who can", to give voice to a minority view amongst slashdot readers). They report that Mr. Randi's game is rigged, and that the prize money is a publicity stunt.

Skepticism is not easy, and it can be really hard to have some of your most well founded beliefs turned on their head. It is not for everyone.

My personal experience makes "skepticism" (as a belief system rooted in materialism) an intellectually dishonest proposition. I've personally had several experiences which are inexplicable from a materialistic framework. On the other hand, they are quite logical when viewed with a vitalistic overview. Suffice it to say that Occam's Razor supports my vita

Yes, they are laughing!

[boyfaceddog]

All of the Evil Terrorists (tm) are sitting in their Evil Lair (tm) in an undiscolsed location and laughing at us. Mostly because we believe the terrorists are somehow unified.

BTW, only nations (like the USA) are capable of Unified Terrorism (R). It's called war.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[Pictish Prince]

You got it! Cui bono?

Stop watching it..

[Solo-Malee]

Maybe it's time then that we all stopped watching shows that have terrorism as a focus of their story:

  - 24
  - Sleeper Cell
  - Spooks
  - Ultimate Force
  - The Grid

Those are just the ones I can think of on TV without starting on Films!

I'm not saying though that Desperate Housewives is really a suitable alternative.

I'm glad you hate the US so much

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only you could expand your narrow view of what the world was like everywhere else you might realize that Europe and Asia have reigned more terror on this globe for far longer than any 'whore fucking founding father' can dream of.

Re:I'm glad you hate the US so much

[Hijacked Public]

Mostly by virtue of their having existed longer.

You of course realize that that was general commentary on how humanity tends to settle differences of opinion. The 'founding fathers' part just fit the 'true blue' of the original I replied to.

For the thick: Change a few of the nouns around and you'll describe nearly every nation on earth, matters of scale aside.

Re:Repeat often

[laketrout]

Yes. Especially against combatants who do not adhere to the Geneva accords. Excuse me? So it's alright for the US Government to ignore human rights entitled to prisoners of war through the Geneva Convention? Not according to the US Supreme Court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm

You are talking about 20% of the terrorist

[aepervius]

I am not saying your post is false, but you forget a lot of terrorist : the intern one like mc veigh, IRA, separatist corse, separatist bask, tchecheyn (some of them at least have used arguably terrorist way, remmember the russian school), red army faction for the older one of us, etc...etc...

All those could not care less shit about "islam", "US support to Israel" and a few of your other points.

What I want to say is that because in the last 5 years the US was only attacked once by some ismlamist, you forget that terrorism is a world wide problem and people using islam as a pretext for terrorism is only a part of it. By ignoring this fact you weaken a rethoric which would otherwise stand of its own.

Re:You are talking about 20% of the terrorist

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You are right about there being more than a single reason for terrorism, but with the exceptions of McVeigh and the Red Army faction, the same points I made regarding the current crop of Islamic terrorists can be molded to fit your list of terrorists as well. They all want something. They are disenfranchised groups who have exhausted all other means to reach their ends.

Take the IRA, Basque, and Chechen examples. These are all secessionist groups. They wish to separate from their ruling countries who they see as invaders and interlopers. With no realistic means of achieving their goals, they must either choose to fight a guerrilla war or give up completely. At some level they can probably be reasoned and negotiated with (see the example of the IRA laying down their arms and gaining clout via political means), though changing their minds would no doubt be a very difficult task.

I left out McVeigh and the Communist movements because these are examples of terrorists that cannot be negotiated with. McVeigh was a hardcore anti-government fanatic who believed that the US needed to be held responsible for the atrocities he witnessed during his military service in Iraq I. The Communist movement, and especially personified by the Red Army Faction, is also uninterested in negotiating a coexistence with the countries it seeks to destroy. Rather, it seeks the ultimate overthrow of the current government and institutions and the implementation of their concept of an ideal government. In this vein, the Communist movement is more like an invading country in that the wish to replace the government with their own, and fighting a war against an invading country is something that anyone would support.

In short, I suppose that leaving out the entire spectrum of terrorists and focusing solely on the current group of terrorists that America is concerned with is shortsighted. However, that is the issue here. We aren't getting our lattes taken away at the airport because of Shining Path rebels or Montanan militia men. It's the Islamic terrorist threat that is being leveraged to pry our freedoms away from us. However, to say that the terrorists are rejoicing that we can't take drinks on airplanes is just silly. They have not achieved any of their goals, and their pleasure in our pain is a wry one as they see their chances for ultimate success draining away in parallel with our freedoms.

It's called fear mongering

[Electric Eye]

And I hope the voters teach these low-life scumbags a lesson in November. It disgusts me every time I hear some liar like Dick Cheney saying if we pull out of Iraq, we're going to find terrorists in our supermarkets.

Re:It's called fear mongering

[Electric Eye]

I also forgot to mention that, while the press finally woke up from its post-9/11 ass-kissing of the current administration, it still is feeding into the propganda machine, like this author said. I usually watch CNN every morning, and all I hear (and both parties are guilty) is talking point after talking point. And that's how stupid people fall for this crap. Can anyone here point to an instance where a news anchor told one of these political talking heads to answer a question *directly* instead of repeating the party line ad nauseum? I sure can't. These news dolts sit there and do nothing.

Re:It's called fear mongering

[Agripa]

I agree. We need to replace them with the other group of low life scumbags.

Re:It's called fear mongering

[tsobo]

It disgusts me every time I hear some liar like Dick Cheney saying if we pull out of Iraq, we're going to find terrorists in our supermarkets.

Terrorists? Aisle 2, between the pomegranates and baby-democracies. Frankly though, the terrorists are always pretty rotten, and sometimes they spoil the baby-democracies. At least the pomegranates aren't usually affected.

Re:It's called fear mongering

[oddaddresstrap]

Haven't you heard the news today? The terrorists are aleady in our supermarkets! They're in the bagged spinach department.

Its all the media

[GrayCalx]

A lot of posts on here seem to be poking fun at people who are afraid of the terrorists. Or now afraid of doing things they used to normally do. Are you sure this is the case or are you just regurgitating what the press is telling you? More likely than not, its the latter.

Are any of you really afraid of being killed in some sort of terrorist attack? I think you have to be really paranoid to actually feel that fear. Do you know anyone who is? I don't... and I'm in DC constantly, we were attacked, and no one really seems to worry much.

You want to be angry at the politicians, both sides, fine, please be so. BUT pay attention to who's actually hyping up the fear. The goddammn media. Left or right, this isn't about Fox News or Air America, this is about all of them wanting more ratings and more advertising dollars, by telling you that you should be afraid because everyone else is afraid, so you must watch this channel so you'll know what to be afraid of next and how to avoid it!

"Terrorists have poisoned something YOU may have in your house right now... we'll tell you what in just a bit." Do you know ANYONE who doesn't laugh at the absurdity of that? If you do, then please tell your retarded friend I'm sorry. The rest of this "widespread fear" you hear about is nothing more than the media trying to tell us what we should all feel.

Its too bad really... freedom of the press is a great ideal to stand behind, but right now... its just a bastardized concept like government by the people. You want to talk about political corruption, lets talk about the media...

Time to be frank and candid

[ajs318]

I've never understood the point of the liquids ban. The idea of terrorists mixing two or more liquids to create an explosive substance sounds plausible the first time you hear it, but the longer you think about it, the more you realise, it just won't fly.

For one thing, it seems to me that making up an explosive mixture demands rather better facilities than are available in the average aeroplane. I'm no expert {I only got a B in my chemistry A-level in 1999}, but it's hardly likely to be sufficient just to flush the two ingredients down the toilet and hope they mix in the holding tank. Things that look as though they work in films, don't necessarily have to work in real life.

For another thing, the ban doesn't make any sense {unless you are a vendor of overpriced bottled water, in which it makes every sense}. Baby milk is fine; well, what's to stop a would-be terrorist from taking a swig of some liquid disguised as baby milk? If they really believe in their Cause, they'll be able to train themself not to grimace. For that matter, what's to stop a would-be terrorist from swallowing some liquid and puking it up; or injecting some liquid into his bladder and then peeing it out?

Instead let me propose a more radical solution. Establish a secular state {this, of course, will mean that the Church that was founded on the principle of easy access to divorce, will have one final divorce to attend to}. Withdraw all state support to religious organisations of any flavour overseas and remove charitable status from any religious group in Britain. Refuse to recognise the sovereignty of theocracies.

It sounds harsh; but at the end of the day, the "nice" and "nasty" sides of religion are utterly inseparable, and the loss of one is an acceptable price to be free of the other. Besides which, there are thousands of gods that the so-called "moderate" christians, jews and muslims don't believe in -- what difference will one more make?

Re:Time to be frank and candid

[mikey59]

The secular state was tried--in the USSR, Nazi Germany, PRC and Cambodia. The 100 million people that died would seem to indicate that this isn't a good idea, either. At least the prevalent religions have a built-in governor that will eventually turn them around.

Exploit often

[Loundry]

Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither.

This phrase is now Bumper-Sticker-Ready(TM). There's nothing like short, trite statements to fill the gap when a more nuanced discourse is taxing on the mind! Let's repeat that phrase often to avoid thinking about something that is both complicated and scary.

And that "something" is jihad. Specifically, the lesser jiahd. Even more specifically, the offensive version of lesser jihad. What are we kaffir going to do about it?

Since we're making it "conservatives vs. liberals"

[carpeweb]

Well, I agree that it's a load of crap, even though I'm a liberal.

In short, I haven't seen a credible liberal post-9/11 position. However, I don't think I've seen a credible conservative one, either. I'm probably 95% sympathetic to your point of view; however, I'll address some of your specific points:

Once again, most people agree on the problem

Well, most people support, in some sense, the "war on terror". I seem to be in a majority of one in thinking that this is a huge source of our current problems. We need to declare war on specific enemies. I realize that we live in a world very different from WWII, where it was relatively easy to identify our enemies. Just because it's harder doesn't mean it isn't important. We (you and I, and I'm sure the majority of conservatives and liberals) could pretty easily agree on a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda, don't you think? And we could probably almost as easily agree with formal declarations against the Taliban and other states that have supported groups that have committed acts of war against us. (OK, I'm playing fast and loose with words like "us", but let me slide for a bit, ok?) We might still be left with different ways to approach the war, but I think it would be easier to resolve some of our "tactical" differences.

Can you tell me what essential liberties YOU have lost since 9/11?

Well, I hope you don't mean that I should complain only if I personally have lost essential liberties. By that logic, it was ok for Germans not to complain in the early thirties when only Jews and other specific groups lost some essential liberties. I think that warrantless eavesdropping is a violation of liberty. Note that I emphasize warrantless. In truth, I think this issue is mostly about laziness, since we already have the infrastructure in place (FISA and secret warrants) to do what the Bush administration has said is so essential. It's laziness because they didn't even try to get FISA warrants. Saying that it's too time-consuming would be a legitimate argument if they could show that they tried to get warrants and lost track of a suspect because of the delay. Absent that specific evidence, I'll stick with the laziness critique. Even with that critique, I'm willing to consider the need to update FISA, simply because it was developed in pre-9/11 times. But, so was the Constitution, and you don't seem like the kind of guy who wants to throw that out ...

The "real pussies" are those who want to roll over and pretend nothing happened

Agreed; except that I think there are plenty of "real pussies" on both sides (assuming there are only two) of the political divide.

pretend it's a law enforcement problem

I might agree if you added the word "only". I don't think Schneier is pretending that it's just a law enforcement problem. But I think he makes a reasonable argument that law enforcement tactics are one of our best tools in this "war". Why can't we agree that this is a very, very different kind of war than anything we've fought previously, and jointly try to find the best ways to win it. I do agree that traditional law enforcement alone isn't enough. But neither is traditional military action. There's nothing traditional about this.

complain that people fighting for our enemies are not getting the rights guaranteed by the constitution for U.S. citizens

I think I understand your point about non-citizens, but again we're into very new territory with regards to rights, etc. I agree that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant rights to non-citizens. But, surely you don't propose that non-citizens should have no rights, do you? I'm not arguing that non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens; and I admit that I just haven't come up with a good position on what rights they should have. However, I do think that things like t

Two points of contention

[lostboy2]

I agree with most of Schneier's statements, and certainly with his intent and motives. But, there were two cases he sited that I think are legitimate areas of concern:

Meanwhile, a man who tampered with a bathroom smoke detector on a flight to San Antonio was cleared of terrorism, but only after having his house searched.

It's been awhile since I've flown, but if I remember correctly there are signs in the lavatories in airplanes (US flights, anyway) saying that it's a federal crime to tamper with the smoke detectors. Tampering with ANY electrical equipment on an airplane while in flight just seems foolish to me, so I think it's appropriate for that slap guy to get slapped around a little for doing so.

And on August 18, a plane flying from London to Egypt made an emergency landing in Italy when someone found a bomb threat scrawled on an air sickness bag. Nothing was found on the plane, and no one knows how long the note was on board.

This reminds me of an incidence I witnessed in a bank, back in the day when there weren't ATM machines and you had to go inside to make deposits and withdrawals.

I was standing in line and the guy in front of me started snickering and beckoning to his friends. When he got to the teller, she got a real serious look on her face and asked the guy if he was serious. It turns out that someone had written a note on the back of the withdrawal/deposit slip he was using saying something like "This is a bank robbery". The guy said that he wasn't serious and that he hadn't written the note, and then got a bit of a scolding from the bank teller who told him that, to a bank employee, these jokes are not funny.

While it seems like a harmless prank, the fact is that the bank employee (and, in case sited in Bruce's newsletter, the airline) cannot afford NOT to take these threats seriously. In these cases, it's not just that someone did something that looked suspicious. In these cases, someone deliberately went to the trouble to write down the threat.

Even though it's highly unlikely that a terrorist would bother putting a bomb threat on a plane, imagine if someone did and the airline ignored it and then it turned out to be real? The public would crucify the airline for not taking appropriate security measures. So, while it's unfortunate that the action of some moron caused the flight to be diverted and a lot of people to be inconvenienced, I think that was the prudent choice, in this case.

Re:Would someone please quantify them?

[ResidntGeek]

When I fly home in 3 weeks for fall break, I'm probably not going to be allowed to take a water bottle on the plane. I'll have to stand, in the line for the security booth for up to half an hour, and I'll have to get to the airport 2 or 3 hours early just so stupid people can get the impression of safety.

In a high school class a few months ago, my friends and I were talking about a teacher that had pissed 7 of the 10 smart people in the school, and how we couldn't do anything about it. The conversation ENDED, and we moved on, talking about an Alfred Hitchcock murder story. The teacher connected the two conversations, because she doesn't have room in her brain for two different conversations, and reported me to the dean of students for threatening a teacher. He said (approximately) "what if you said 'bomb' in an airport??? huh??? not so smart now, are you???" The culture of fear had directly caused the dean of students at a private Catholic to feel he was in the right terrorizing students (that's not the only occasion).

The next time Bush comes around to give a speech (mispronouncing words so people criticize that instead of the speech's content), I won't be allowed to hold up a sign that disagrees with him. I will be forced, at gunpoint if I try to assert my basic rights, to a free speech zone, out of sight and hearing range of the cretins up front.

If I fly to Washington DC, and I have to crap in the last half-hour of the flight, I will almost definitely have to crap my pants.

So, we live in a country where convenience of the stupid takes precedence over the right to drink water, discuss literature in school, protest, and crap in a toilet. And you're right, I can't even read a newspaper anymore without people talking about 9/11 because they already forgot about the 3200 people who died on 9/11/01 of heart disease or cancer. In fact, I think I'll make that my sig.

Re:Repeat often

[Grym]

Excuse me? So it's alright for the US Government to ignore human rights entitled to prisoners of war through the Geneva Convention? Not according to the US Supreme Court.

First of all, all prisoners are entitled humane treatment (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.). The application of Geneva protections for regular, honorable soldiers (the right to associate, organize, access to musical/exercise equipment, etc.) is the pertinent question at hand.

Secondly, re-read the court decision--or at least the article that you referenced. The court ruled that the administration alone could not interpret application of Geneva protections for terrorists. This does not mean what you think it means--that terrorists are inherently entitled Geneva protections. It only means that the administration over-stepped its bounds by making that decision.

If Congress decided to remove Geneva protections for terrorists, the court would be unable to object. If you wonder why this is the case, understand that the Geneva accords are a treaty and nothing more.

-Grym

Absolutely

[benhocking]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or neither. However, I'll assume that this was meant as a mild form of disagreement. I.e., that you think that terrorism deserves more resources because of its source and the choices of its victims.

Are natural disasters harder to deal with than the Hydra that is terrorism? Or, to put it another way, would $1 spent to mitigate the effects of natural disasters prevent more or fewer deaths/casualties than $1 spent to mitigate the effects of terrorism? I can't say I honestly know (assuming the $1 was spent wisely in both cases - which is probably not the true in either case), but I do believe that it's not clear that focusing so heavily on terrorism is the better bang for the buck.

Additionally, do you (or anyone else) think that the victims of natural disasters wouldn't want steps taken to mitigate those natural disasters? I suspect you'd find a more unified front from those victims than from the victims of, say, 9/11.

Also, I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not advocating turning a blind eye to terrorism or any other such foolishness. In fact, I wish we were doing more to look at the source of terrorism than constantly acting retroactively.

Re:Absolutely

[Chacham]

However, I'll assume that this was meant as a mild form of disagreement. I.e., that you think that terrorism deserves more resources because of its source and the choices of its victims.

Yes.

Additionally, do you (or anyone else) think that the victims of natural disasters wouldn't want steps taken to mitigate those natural disasters? I suspect you'd find a more unified front from those victims than from the victims of, say, 9/11.

True. But the people who are affected by preventable natural disasters, which are generally confined to specific places, (usually) have a choice to be there, and (usually) have a choice to leave there Terrorism, however will follow the people, and thus gives victims much less of a choice. So, where choice is removed, the government steps in. And that, IMHO, is as it should be.

Remember, *my* government is spending *my* money, to protect *me*. I want to help others as well, but not when they have the ability to make a choice and avoid the natural disasters in the first place.

Re:Absolutely

[SanityInAnarchy]

Hmm, but it seems like just about anywhere you pick is going to have some sort of disaster that could happen. Coastline: Hurricane. Mountains: Volcano, avalanches. Fault lines: Volcano, earthquakes. Midwest: Tornados. New York: Terrorism. LA: Hurricane, volcano, earthquakes, AND terrorism.

So where's a safe place to live? Canada? Oh wait: Polar bears.

Re:Since we're making it "conservatives vs. libera

[gfxguy]

I appreciate your response, it was well written and well thought out.

As far as "essential liberties" are concerned, I did not mean to imply "you" as individual, but "you" as a U.S. citizen. The wiretapping program is really debateable... I'd prefer that they get warrants, but even if they did it wouldn't change the end result of what's happening - the vast majority of the requests are approved; but then that's just more reason why they should go ahead and do it.

I'd also like to point out that the substance of what was called by the media "domestic wiretapping" was nothing of the sort. The government was tapping international calls to and from numbers they'd obtained from terrorists. They weren't just tapping a call to grandma in Europe to wish her a happy birthday, or business calls, or anything of the like (well, in this case, that was the substance of the argument... frankly we don't really know what they are doing, do we?).

The analogy I use is that when the government gets a warrant to tap a mafia boss' phone, they don't have to get one to tap YOUR phone... if you call that mafia boss, or he calls you, you're being recorded. So what they're saying is it's a similar situation, only because the numbers they were tapping were NOT U.S. citizens, they didn't need a warrant.

I think they have a point, even though they should get warrants, if for no other reason than to stop people complaining. I think this administration's biggest failing is that they don't realize they can accomplish much the same thing as they are by doing things in ways that leave little to complain about. I believe the hardcore left is much more divisive than the right, but their claims of divisiveness have some merrit - the administration seems to do things almost antagonisticly.

But, surely you don't propose that non-citizens should have no rights, do you?

Absolutely not, but by and large they ARE being treated well. They ARE enemy combatants who rightfully should be held until the end of the "war." It only makes sense. I do not believe these people being held at Guantanamo are being abused or tortured - the stories I've heard of so-called "torture" are ridiculous, like someone touching their Koran... they wouldn't be given a Koran to begin with if the U.S. felt like abusing them!

I just don't see it. We do give them rights that they are not "entitled" to... and that's the big difference between us (the U.S., by and large), and them (the terrorists and fascist regimes), only there's so little complaining about what they do to us, and so much complaining about what we do to them, that you can only think that some people care more about the "rights" and well being of terrorists than they do of our own citizens and soldiers.

War on Cars, Nature, Whatever!

[splutty]

This is meant partially serious, and for the most part sarcastic. Let's look at a couple of numbers:

I'm unable to find a reliable source on terrorist-attack related deaths, but I think guestimating it at a couple thousand a year is (2001 excepted) more than high enough.

Each year 1.2M people get killed in automobile accidents, generally because either party isn't paying enough attention. A fair number of these deaths are caused by driving under influence. What do we need to wage war on? Alcohol? Carmanufacturers? Causes for sleep deprevation? (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident)

Why aren't we waging war against certain factions in Sudan? And estimated 70K+ people have been killed there in the 'recent' (read 3 years) past of genocidal behaviour. Nothing gets done about that, either. (Source: http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/fs/2005/45105.htm)

In 2005 due to natural disasters, more than 70,000 people lost their lives, so where is our War on Nature! (Oh hang on... We've already been doing that for centuries haven't we?) (Source: http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/introduc tion.htm)

The War on Terror doesn't exist. What does exist is random reactions to events that seem to shock people. What does exist is the ability to find excuses to spend more money. What does exist is the instillment of fear amongst a population (what you should really be scared of is crossing the road).

The War on Terror is played out in the media, not on a battlefield, and so far, as far as I'm concerned, the terrorists are winning. Even if it were just for the fact they've managed to seriously disturb people's lives (gotten into a plane recently?), managed to give politicians a way to curtail even more of 'our' freedom and cause considerable economic damages. Compare this to the actual amount of people directly impacted by terrorist attacks, and they've managed to score great result with fairly minimal use of force.

Splut.

Re:War on Cars, Nature, Whatever!

[retrosteve]

Yes, that was my point too. But here's a meta-issue:

Slashdot seems to be just about unanimous about the thing to fear being power-hungry politicians, terrified sheeple, and the media that enables them both.

I realize Slashdot isn't a very representative cross-section of the population, but consider the possibility that, with the exception of a few people like the Bush-fan mom above, most people in the US actually do agree with this assessment. Say it's 60%. Or could be.

Can 60% of the population that refuses to be scared or manipulated by fear, actually calm down the remaining 40% plus the politicians who need fear to create their power base?

Or are we all just chatting with each other, lemming to lemming, as we march off the cliff, saying how much better off we'd be if we stopped marching?

Re:Repeat often

[Builder]

Excuse me? I fly internationally at least once a month and I FULLY believe in that saying.

what are y'all complaining about?

[oohshiny]

A majority of Americans elected Bush and the current Congress. If you elect a politician like Bush, this is the predictable result. Bush was already using FUD extensively during his campaign with pushbutton issues like crime, defense, safety, religion, and morality. Furthermore, because he obviously didn't have much of a political agenda besides funnelling as much public money as possible to his buddies in industry, so when the terrorism issue landed in his lap, it was ideal for spreading further FUD.

American voters evidently like to be scared, and Bush is delivering. Boring politicians that merely want to take sensible defense measures, fix budget deficits, deliver health care, fit into the international community, and do not too much damage to the environment don't stand a chance in comparison.

A little off topic...

[Temujin_12]

This may be a little off topic but, in light of the recent political situation, I've decided that in future electinos I am going to gague how I vote based on how canidates treat me (read: the general population), THEN on the issues they stand for. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being treated like an idiot by many current politicians who seem to be interested only in telling me to shut up, stop thinking, and keep fearing for my life. If I ever meet another politician that I see using those tatics, they will immediately lose my vote. From now on, politicians must EARN my respect and vote not by what policies they have but by how they treat ME as an everyday average citizen.

Re:NEED vs Want

[mpapet]

I think you should consider your opinion more carefully.

I think there's a big difference between need and want in the context of your idea.

I would agree that some politicians WANT a terrorist threat to engender an environment of fear. And then use that fear as a controlling mechnanism. It controls just like Joseph McCarthy's grip on the nation way back in the day. Powerful social control of individuals that compels the individuals to trust no one but The Leader on a national scale.

I think no politician NEEDS this kind of psychological abuse. Rather, when the other tools they have don't work, they go with this one. Either that or it's too tempting not to abuse it.

Consumerism

[epitaphic]

We'll be under the thumb of big business til the day we stop being a consumerist society. It's funny that many people think that that's the way we've been living since the industrial revolution but that couldn't be further from the truth. Consumerism began with the "invention" of PR in the 1920's. If you want to see how it got started, I suggest a read up on Edward Bernays. (PR changed the balance of gov vs biz to gov+biz)

Consumerism isn't here to stay forever (nothing lasts forever). As soon as oil starts getting prohibitively expensive, we'll see a major global shift in societies around the world. You'll be glad to know the US is already on top of it, trying to hoard all it can in the middle east. It's a good short term plan, enough to see most of our generation through. We're probably good. No worries.

Dropping bombs

[DeadCatX2]

But when given a choice between an asshole dropping bombs and an asshole banging an intern and not doing much of anything else, I'd rather have the latter.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Shoot pool, not people. Drop pants, not bombs. Make love, not war.

Offtopic, but I think it has to be said

[wurp]

Another issue that dies out routinely in the press, although it recurs every year:
The *million people* who die of malaria each year in Africa.

Hmmm...

[killmenow]

BadAnalogyGuy wrote: I have no analogy for this.

Imagine that.

Now I understand what you mean by "choices"

[benhocking]

You were referring to choices made that might have led to them being victims. I was thinking more of hypothetical "post" choices. (As in "how would they want us to respond to this disaster"?)

I suspect that you're thinking of the victims of disasters who choose to rebuild in places that have an increased chance of being hit by those same disasters again. I don't remember (if I ever knew) what the breakdown of deaths by natural disasters is, but IIRC, hurricanes actually come in fairly low relative to other disasters. I remember someone else on /. trying to figure out just where they should live where they'd be safe from natural disasters. Where would you live that you'd be safe?

Re:Now I understand what you mean by "choices"

[Chacham]

That's why i added the word "preventable" in the last reply. :)

If it is preventable, we must know about it, most likely *where* it hits.

And to answer your point, assuming there are no choices, responding to one over the other is merely the emotional response saying "stick it to 'em!", but perhaps not shared by people affected only by the other disaster.

Fear is the mind-killer

[happyfrogcow]

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Want to read some fantasy, then?

[drew_kime]

I can assure you there has not been one episode her in the US where a rampage like that has been stopped by a regular citizen carrying a gun. So, you can forget about that fantasy.

Someone should tell that to the people of El Cajon and Pearl Mississippi.

Granite Hills grads honor hero:

On March 22, a young man opened fire on the campus with a 12-gauge shotgun. Three students and two teachers were injured. Agundez, the school's resource officer, chased the man and wounded him in the buttock and jaw.

Wikipedia: Luke Woodham:

Woodham drove his mother's car to his high school, wearing a long coat to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he began firing rampantly, killing his ex-girlfriend Christina Menefee and her friend Lydia Dew, and wounding 7 others before Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a pistol from his car parked off school grounds and subdued Woodham.

And that's just the first two I found in three minutes of googling. Note that I didn't take a position here. I just thought we should have the facts straight before drawing conclusions.

Re:Repeat often

[eraserewind]

Per crossing the road instance, the odds of dying are about the same as per commercial airline trip that an individual takes as far as I can make out. And that's giving a generous number to the average daily crossing figure. If it's lower, then the safety is worse for road crossing than I calculate, but anyway....

It's the number of times that you cross the road relative to taking a flight that make it more likely to die that way. The chance of specifically dying because of air terrorists is much lower than for air travel in general of course.

The difference in fear factor is because crossing the road is for the most part within our control, or we like to think so, though obviously many people are wrong about that each year. Travelling by plane is known to be completely outside of your control. You can do nothing to influence events if something goes wrong. That's what's terrifying. Statistically it's irrational, but man is not a statistical animal.

Well speaking of the government spending our money

[benhocking]

IIRC, the government is actually spending our money to make us less safe WRT natural disasters. I.e., they're spending money actively encouraging people to move back to NO. Along the lines of "an ounce of prevention", I think money well spent would be on how *to* prevent (or at least mitigate) these disasters. Things like educating people as to where building a house is *not* a wise choice to make - whether due to earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.

Re:Since we're making it "conservatives vs. libera

[carpeweb]

98%?

I'll confess ignorance on the matter of whose numbers we were "tapping". I think your analogy is on point, in either case, but it raises what might become an important question: does it matter where we put the "tap"? (I know that in some cases we're not actually tapping but just looking for patterns in call records.) In terms of your analogy, would it be ok to "tap" the Don's calls by somehow tracing to the other end of the call and then tapping it there? I think it would be legitimate if you could show somehow that you weren't somehow tapping other calls from the "other end" (unless you first got a warrant for the party on that other end). I know it sounds only hypothetical, but it might matter someday, especially when considering email, IM, etc.

Personally, I think it would be not only ok but also no trouble (again the laziness criterion) to go ahead and get warrants to tap anyone receiving or sending communications to/from anyone already under warrant. Association with murderers seems like sufficient probable cause, even if many of those caught in such a net might be innocent. Innocent doesn't mean you never get investigated. But that's why I care about due process, even for scumbags.

Re:Politicians = Terrorists mod parent UP!!

[Bassman59]

why has this insightful political statement been modded as a troll?

Because he can't spell.

Terrorism = DOS Attack

[Hard_Code]

Basically, terrorism is just a big Denial Of Service attack. "Terror" isn't what is denying us the freedoms granted by our constitution and a democratic society, it is the political over-reaction that is cravenly exploited by opportunistic politicians that is denying us those freedoms. It's a perfect packet storm of bullshit.

BLAST!!! should have previewed...

[theStorminMormon]

Replace my grizzly-bear fight analogy with this:

"Saying that the main objective of this fight is to not get scared is like saying that if you have to fight a grizzly bear, the only thing to worry about is not getting scare. Not panicking is a great idea, but you might want to also figure out how to avoid getting eaten. In fact, the point of not panicking is to achieve the greater goal of not being eaten."

Re:Repeat often

[Jeremi]

Democrats had effective control of the government for some 60 years from the New Deal through '94, with a few breaks. How'd they do with terrorism? How did they treat the first WTC attack? Kobar towers? The Cole attack?

They didn't use any of those as an excuse to launch a $500 billion "pet project" against an unrelated country, you've got to give them that. Nor did they use any of those as an excuse to engage in torture or other civil rights abuses. As any terrorist will tell you, most of the harm inflicted in a successful terrorist attack comes not from the attack itself, but from the resulting panic and subsequent (over)reaction of the attacked government. A competent government sizes up the terrorist threat with a sober mind, and neither minimizes the threat nor exaggerates it.

Secret military tribunals make it safer for you to fly?

Yes. Especially against combatants who do not adhere to the Geneva accords.

You're not looking at the larger picture. In the short term, it's likely that secret tribunals (and other un-democratic techniques, such as kidnappings, assassinations, torture, etc) do make us safer -- they remove known and suspected terrorists from the picture. In the long term, however, they hurt more than they help, because word gets out and we lose the war of ideas. After September 11th, we had the support of the entire world in the fight against terror. Now most of the world thinks that the USA is a bigger threat to world peace than Al-Quaeda. That translates directly into a weakening of US power, because we now must fight the 'bad guys' alone, rather than as part of a team. Furthermore, when the US bases its moral arguments on the virtues of democracy, and then fails to live up to its own standards, it looks hypocritical in the eyes of everyone. This makes it very easy for terrorists to recruit more allies: because the US no longer occupies the moral high ground, the terrorists can claim it for themselves. (i.e. "we're not terrorists, we're freedom fighters against an unjust empire") That is a valuable and very real marketing tool that the Bush administration hands to Al Quaeda for free every time it acts as if the traditional ideals of American government are mere platitudes to be mouthed but not followed.

Please cite an example of this. Seriously. And realize that with the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, there is precedent for this. But I would like a current example.

Suspending habeas corpus was wrong during the Civil War, and it's even more wrong now, when our situation is nowhere near as dire. You might as well argue that there is precedent for slavery, therefore slavery is acceptable now.

Re:Well speaking of the government spending our mo

[Chacham]

Things like educating people as to where building a house is *not* a wise choice to make - whether due to earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.

Education. Advertisement. I'm all for that.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[crabpeople]

"I'm willing to bet that a big factor in Slashdotters interest and in general opposition to anti-terrorism legislation, is the fact that many here had a hard time in secondary education and would rather not be stamped on again"

Your saying that we are all "nerds" and got beat up by "jocks" in university? and *THATS* the reason why we are anti athoritarian?

Thats ridiculous. A ridiculous assumption. You belittle everyone here by making it. It IS possible to be anti athoritarian because you're intelligent and not because of some past trauma. You are making people here seem weak and petty and enforcing stereotypes. Besides, everyone I know HAD to read 1984 in high school. Maybe they stop making people read it now, but back in the day that and animal farm i can clearly remember reading in grade 10.

Re:Since we're making it "conservatives vs. libera

[BalanceOfJudgement]

They ARE enemy combatants who rightfully should be held until the end of the "war."

Right! We could even make things called 'prison ships' and hold prisoners in them indefinitely, until someone smacks us upside the head with the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Point to the word 'citizen'. Go ahead. I'll wait, just like in my other post. Can't do it?

Then don't go on about how we give rights to non-citizens that they shouldn't have. Looks pretty much to me like the founders intended them to have those rights anyway.

No. Either charge them with something or release them. If there's enough evidence against them to hold them at Guantanemo, there's enough evidence to give them a trial. If there isn't, continuing to hold them makes a mockery of our values and our Constitution and I for one am very disappointed in a leadership that has essentially condoned this behavior.

only there's so little complaining about what they do to us, and so much complaining about what we do to them, that you can only think that some people care more about the "rights" and well being of terrorists than they do of our own citizens and soldiers.

No. The ends do not justify the means. If we sacrifice every value this country has ever held dear in order to prosecute [err, sorry, hold without trial] a few hundred people, we've no more right to exist than a terrorist does. THAT is why people actually care to argue over this - they care about defending the values and rights we have fought so hard for.

This whole Buttle/Tuttle confusion was planned

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Brazil and Bush's War on Terror

by Robert Blumen

We are living in Brazil. The future as foretold by Terry Gilliam's 1985 rich and multi-layered film masterpiece Brazil is upon us. First released fifteen years ago, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was astonishingly accurate in forecasting political trends. In a previous essay, I examined the film as a critique of socialist central planning. In this piece, I will discuss how Brazil portends Bush's War on Terror.

The world of Brazil shows a totalitarian society in which freedom has been forfeited for a false promise of protection from terrorist attacks. Gilliam shows how the threat of terrorism is manipulated by the state as a means of political control over the population. The threat of terror is created by the internal security police in order to generate public acceptance of totalitarian police powers.

Gilliam's exposition raises some important questions: Is the terror created by the power of the state in the alleged pursuit of terrorism worse than the terrorism itself? And are they really any different?

The ministers of state in Brazil have succeeded in creating a society organized around a continuous response to the threat of terrorism. Random bombings occur regularly. The protagonist Sam and his mother must go through a security check in order to enter a restaurant. And then during their meal a large explosion blows out the back of the dining room; they continue eating while bodies are dragged away.

As in modern America, there is some doubt about whether Brazil's "War on Terrorism" is really working. At the opening of the film Minister Helpmann, the Deputy Minister of information (the internal security agency), appears on TV immediately after a bombing takes place:

• INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?

  HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.

  INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.

  HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.

Now in the US, we are told by the Bush administration that the war on terrorism will become a more or less permanent state of affairs.

• U.S. war may last decades
  Military pushed to think broadly
  By KAREN MASTERSON

  WASHINGTON - The U.S. war on terrorism may rage for decades and has forced Pentagon strategists to think more broadly than they've had to since World War II, a top military official said Sunday.

  "The fact that it could last several years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday on ABC's This Week.

The film has been reissued on DVD with commentary by the director in which he states that it was his intention to convey that there were so many government plants, double agents, agents provocateurs, moles, infiltrators, etc. that at some point even the government did not know for sure whether there were any real terrorists or whether all of the terror was fabricated by the police as part of their anti-terror campaign.

In a conversation between Sam and Ministry of Information office Jack Lint, Lint reveals how he - as a key member of the internal security department - understands the events that are taking place:

• SAM: You don't really think Tuttle and the g

Re:This whole Buttle/Tuttle confusion was planned

[MythoBeast]

I can't moderate this comment up any more than it already is, so I'm foregoing the opportunity to moderate any of this forum in order to suggest that the readers take a good gander at this post and take it seriously.

Fear mongering works!

[Ocho]

It's been proven one of the most effective ways to manage large groups of people, Christianity has been using it for years with it's threat of flaming damnation for getting out of line.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[blofeld42]

"Emerging neo-fascist society?" Sheesh. Get a grip.

Re:Repeat often

[Opportunist]

The times I fly? Certainly. How often do I fly? About 10-14 times a year.

Now take someone "important". Who pretty much spends his life in the air.

Maybe that's why we have ridiculous laws concerning flight "safety" and none concerning road crossing. We're not important.

Re:Repeat often

[dave562]

Here is the statistic that I like to use when people talk about how bad terrorists are. More people died automobile accidents in the United States last year than have died in terrorist attacks around the world in the last five years (if you acknowledge that the "terrorist" attacks in Iraq are really asymmetrical warfare). Despite that, we don't have a huge campaign to save America from the dangers of maniac drivers and their life stealing automobiles.

live free or die!

[TheGratefulNet]

again, I have to state the NH state motto (its a whole lot more serious and relevant than, say, idaho who has 'famous potatos!' as their license plate motto) ;)

we americans have lost the VALUE of freedom. freedom USED to be worth dying for. that's the heart of the NH motto and also to the heart of what made america the SYMBOL of freedom across the world.

now, we are cowards who are afraid of our own shadows. and liquid substances.

we are also afraid of cameras! I am a photographer and I follow all the new 'restrictions' that the figures of authority have (decided on their own) to place on us. no more taking pictures of bridges or trains or buildings. "you could give info to the terrorists" is their reply. tell me - what can my photo give that google-earth doesn't already give?

I just don't accept the fact that taking pictures on public property (which is STILL technically legal) is 'helping the other side'.

anyway, it has to be said - a life lived in fear is no life at all. its NOT what america used to stand for.

there have always been risks in everything you do. you could get hit by a car if you cross the road. if the republicans had their way, they'd have road.nannies at every intersection "to keep us all super-safe". how much invasion in our lives do we need for the government to be a life.nanny for us all? can't we just assume the world is a very dangerous place (always has been!) and just deal with that as a fact of the modern world?

Re:live free or die!

[crabpeople]

WOW. The states just gained one point on my fucking amazing scale. You have a state whoes state motto is "live free or die" ? Thats so badass and hardcore. Thank you for enlightening me. Maybe there is something to your country after all. Beats the fuck out of je mais souviens.

Re:live free or die!

[SanityInAnarchy]

I just don't accept the fact that taking pictures on public property (which is STILL technically legal) is 'helping the other side'.

So do it anyway. If you're feeling bold, label them "terrorist targets" or something.

Schneier Wrong

[blofeld42]

And in patently obvious ways.

"Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up ten planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now."

Well, aside from the several thousand dead people that would have resulted if the planes blew up.

Schneier is conflating the annoying side effects of security with the intended result of the terrorists. I'm not terrorized by waiting in line at the airport. I'm mildly annoyed and face it with bored resignation. _It isn't terrorism_.

Schneier is out of his depth here. Why should we accept his pronouncement that "not focusing on specific plots" is a correct approach to anti-terror policy? He's trading on his deserved repuation in crypto to comment on areas on which his expertise has no bearing.

Politicians

[BCW2]

Why would anyone believe what any politician has to say? Anyone that is over the age of 20 and has paid any attention to the election process and what follows, knows without a doubt that a politician will say anything that will get a few more votes. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it, they all lie through their teeth. The proof? How many undelivered promises are there left from 2 years ago? Most were never brought up for debate in either house of Congress, just forgotten after the election.

Winning Strategy

[Shihar]

People were really pissed off about the twin towers because of the symbolism, not the loss of life. I am not saying that Americans don't care about loss of life, just that the fact that 5000 people died isn't enough to really send them into a rage. If you were to chart American deaths per year, the year of 9/11 wouldn't even blip. 5000 deaths is a drop in the bucket next to more mundane things like heart attacks and cancer. So, the issue wasn't loss of life. It wasn't even financial. Sure, the twin towers held a lot of financial 'stuff', but most of it had backups and in the grand scheme of things it was just a financial pinprick against the titan that is the US economy.

What it really boiled down to was symbolism. The symbolism of 9/11 for most Americans was that they knocked down two ugly yet famous buildings. It wasn't really the buildings, it was more that the attack was very visible and successful that really sent Americans into a rage. As the world saw, once poke the bear enough to wake it up, it tends to go on a tearing rampage looking for a head to rip off.

Now, if the knocking over the twin towers can provoke the toppling of two nations, I would REALLY hate to see what knocking over t he Statue of Liberty would do. You need to remember that what sends Americans into a rage is the symbolism, not the real loss of life. Knocking over the Statue of Liberty would be the absolute most potent target you could possibly hit. If you flew a plane into the White House and killed the president, you would have an enraged America on your hands, but a sizable minority wouldn't really be all that pissed because they either dislike government (far right) or dislike the man in the house (far left). Knocking over Statue of Liberty on the other hand is attacking a symbol that has its own special positive meaning to everyone. You could effectively unite the Americans into a collective rage that would make 9/11 look like pocket change. Nations would fall.

Now you need to ask yourself why you might want to do this. This is the heart of terrorists' question. What is the point of terrorism? If the point is vengeance or pseudo-religious ritualistic suicide (i.e. it has no rational goal), then the consequences of such an attack probably are not a big deal. If on the other hand your attack is trying to achieve a political goal, then the next question is "what goal".

If the goal is to make the Americans surrender and leave the Islamic world alone, knocking out the Statue of Liberty or any other non-military target is a complete waste of time and utterly counterproductive. The American response will almost assuredly be the exact opposite of what you want. The Spanish might have seen the terrorist attack against them as punishment and seek to change their behavior by pulling out of Iraq to avoid future pain, but the Americans will almost assuredly do the opposite regardless of the party controlling the government. The more devastating the symbolism of the attack, the more violent the response. If you want to make the Americans leave some place, you are far better off to achieve a steady attrition of their soldiers stationed in a foreign land. The loss of American soldiers can make the Americans want to leave a place, but attacks upon their homeland are far more likely to achieve the exact opposite response.

So why attack such symbolic targets instead of military targets that might actually break the American will to continue fighting? Why reinvigorate and intensify the American will to lash out and fight? The reason is simple. If you get the Americans to lash out, they might very well lash out in a way that benefits you. The Americans can easily destroy any non-nuclear government that they please, but as they have shown with Iraq and Afghanistan, they are far less effective at setting up a stable replacement government. If your goal is to make more radical Islamist, provoking the Americans might be the exactly right thing to do. The Americans can stomp out existing Islamist hosti

Re:Repeat often

[plantman-the-womb-st]

The government's job is to pass laws - not pay for things. They pass laws saying I have to register my car - they're not expected to pay for it, too."

But they do have to pay for the installation of the infrastructure used by the people to do the registration, the employees to handle the registration, the database of the registered information, the upkeep of the system, replacement equipment, rent on registration offices, the equipment to retrieve registry information, the clean up of out dated records, so on, and so on.

It'd be pretty stupid to require registration and then supply no means to register, don't ya' think?

Poor reasoning

[SiliconEntity]

I thought this was a relatively poor article and was not well thought out.

First of all, it starts off listing various events where planes were diverted or passengers forced to disembark. This means to imply that it is an overreaction to the bombing threat. However what it ignores is the media tendency to report on stories that have a news hook. Remember a few years back all we heard about was shark attacks, when in fact shark attacks were not any worse than at other times. In the same way, airline disruptions due to security threats are routine and happen all the time. It was just that they were being reported that week when otherwise they tend to get ignored. So right off the bat we are exposed to a false premise in this article.

Then we have his claim that by adding scrutiny at airports we are helping terrorists to win. Others here have debunked that well. The idea that a terrorist would think he is pleasing Allah by making Westerners take off their shoes unnecessarily is not only ludicrous, but actually insulting to terrorists.

This leads to this utterly bizarre claim:

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up ten planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

To compare what is happening now to what would be happening if ten planes had been blown up is beyond comprehension. If that attack had happened we would see a reaction commensurate with what happened after 9/11. The disruption and effects would be 10 or 100 times worse than what we see today. People would be rounded up and arrested all over the world. New legislation would be passed that would make the Patriot act look like it was sponsored by the ACLU. President Bush would get his secret prisons, his torture laws, his secret police, his NSA surveillance. The world would be unrecognizably different from what it is today, just as much as things changed after 9/11. Suggesting that basically the same thing is happening now shows a total lack of appreciation of the magnitude of such an attack.

I'll mention one other issue. He says it's "doubtful their plan would have succeeded." But in the very next essay, he writes, "However, the threat was real. And it seems pretty clear that it would have bypassed all existing airport security systems." So which is it? Was it a real threat that would have bypassed airport security? Or is it doubtful that the plan would have succeeded? It seems that he shifts his position as needed to make his political points.

Re:Poor reasoning

[SanityInAnarchy]

He says it's "doubtful their plan would have succeeded." But in the very next essay, he writes, "However, the threat was real. And it seems pretty clear that it would have bypassed all existing airport security systems."

It's not really a flip-flop, the point is that while the threat was real, it should've been handled quietly, not more of this PANIC PANIC PANIC fear addiction we seem to have.

The point is, increasing airport security, after a certain point, is kind of like escalating DRM. The real terrorists will get around it, you'll only inconvenience ordinary people and waste resources better spent elsewhere.

Democracy NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who is happy to see discussions like this one should really listen to Democracy Now! It's a radio news show, started in the SF Bay Area on KPFA, and which, since 9/11, has grown to be on several hundred radio stations, both satellite TV networks, and public access TV all over the country and world. It's really an excellent and groundbreaking program, and nearly the only news outlet worth paying attention to.

It's phenomenal growth can really only be explained by one thing: there are a LOT of people out there thinking exactly as Schneier is. We're sick of the mainstream media's obvious complicity, outright lies, and inherent idiocy. There is an alternative press that has been covering the real stories since before 9/11, and even moreso since. The alternative press, the "exception to the rulers", is doing what the media *should* be doing: pushing back, resisting, and showing the people what is really happening to their country.

I saw the host, Amy Goodman, speak last night, and she is really something. She brought up an interesting point: everyone remembers the terrible images of Katrina, everyone saw that disaster from the People's perspective. Why? Because the federal government wasn't even there. They were so negligent that they didn't even bother to send troops, and the side effect was that there were no embedded reporters! Goodman's point last night: imagine what would happen if we the People were to see the same level of uncensored images and raw, real new stories coming from Baghdad. Imagine if it were even for a week.

The mainstream media is not just failing us, it is a complete failure. It is a branch of the government now. The alternatives are out there. Let's defend our alternative news sources, whether it be fighting for Net Neutrality, or supporting local radio.

Yes. Let's talk Pearl Harbor

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>new Pearl Harbor.

In 1941 our national leader was someone who had already declared that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. His message was not to be afraid and turn over our lives to him, his message was to enlist, to build Liberty ships, and to conserve gasoline.

We won that war, fighting suicide bombers (kamikazes) who had an entire nation behind them, in three years and eight months. We turned military victories into stable, free, and friendly societies. That's what Americans can do when you appeal to their courage and resolve instead of preying on their fears.

/scream...

[m15cr3ant]

I'm starting to hate reading /. on the fact that almost everytime that there is an story, some dumbass throws a remark about how it's so-and-so's fault that we have the problems that we do. It dosen't matter what you belive, but what can we do as a group to solve the problem.

I recently read an article that goes to show a little of what I'm talking about, along with the article that spawned these posts. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-060 9150272sep15,1,4651731.story?coll=chi-opinionfront -hed
FTA:

So the tape is also a chilling reminder that in this war evidence means nothing--superstition, bias and delusion everything.

In short, most of our enemies who appear in this latest film are dead, scattered or in captivity--and by the very policies of military retaliation and incarceration so criticized around the world.

Posts above have complained that our freedoms are in jeopardy or that fear is starting to rule this country, and I smell bullshit. If you really think about it what would happen if those 23 people in Britan succeded in using liquid explosives. I have never once seen someone state that it was "impossible", but rather improbable for one reason or another. As someone posted above, there would be an outcry about how they should have banned those items in flights, but because it didn't happen they are bitching about how it's a loss in freedom or some useless bullshit. What would happen if one of the supposed attacks on the golden gate birdge occured. The government decided not to scare the people and didn't release any information about it. The american people would crucify the responsible person that should have warned the people. Or the attack happened and the government said that they could have prevented it by monitoring the phone calls or bank records. Again the people would have a shit fit, and bitch why they didn't do everything to stop it regardless of how they did it.

I read the news and see how the Democrats are complaining about the "Quagmire in Iraq", or the fact that we haven't caught Bin Laden yet as if catching him will suddenly cause Islamic extremists to say "Oh shit, we better not fuck with the USA". I believe that Iraq is better than what it was a few years ago, but yet again the media spouts that everything is wrong there and the US isn't helping. It's very hard to settle the masses when you have a group of people that are willing to do whatever it takes to get their point across. Take Iran for example. During the Iran-Iraq war they used unarmed human waves of people, called the Basiji to fight the the Iraq army. (These people daily rally and chant "death to america") It's very hard to stop a suicide bomber intent on dying and taking as many innocent people with him/her. Honestly how do you fight that? You can't, but you can try to keep it from spreading to your homeland.

I would rather lose a little bit of freedom to ensure that my life, the lives of my children, my family, or any other human being is spared.

A war on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

In George Bush's first speech following the 9/11 attacks, he explained the attacks not as a war against democracy, a war against the US, or a war against The American Way, but as a war on freedom.

The September 11 attacks spread fear. But they did nothing to restrict our freedom. Who has worked more effectively to restrict or remove freedom within the US, Bin Laden, or our Politicians acting in reaction to Bin Laden? If the intent of those attacks was to remove our freedom, then our own politicians are inadvertently allied to Osama Bin Laden in their goals. What no terrorist could ever accomplish alone, removing the freedom central to our way of life, they have effectively made the politicians do for them by attacking us.

You could add life or death examples too

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Just within health care, medical errors are killing one 9/11 worth of Americans every two weeks, uninsured people have lower survival rates, and we don't have the community clinics we used to have for monitoring and halting infectious diseases. Ineffective response to natural disasters can kill on the scale of several Oklahoma Cities or several Lockerbies.

Meanwhile the media ignore a story as basic as reporting who is running the country. Who is making all the Republicans in Congress vote the same way? Who is picking and choosing among the "information" the President gets?

Sauce for the gander, and Richelieu

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

"Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre."

        * Translation: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

Cardinal Richelieu.

If eavesdropping is so harmless, can the citizens wiretap government officials? Knowledge is power and the people in power know that.

Quibble

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Ordinary police work has been and continues to be an effective tool for fighting the minor threat that terrorism presents.

More is needed as technology puts more and power power into the hands of individuals and small groups. But again, we already knew what to do and were already doing it. Bipartisan legislation in the US sent money to secure the loose Bombs and weapons-grade material in the wreckage of the Soviet Union. That was smart national security that addressed a genuine threat and hoovered up some horrors that might otherwise have landed in the wrong hands.

Police work is needed even in the face of nuclear threats, though. Sting operations keep catching people who try to buy weapons parts. That's another smart national security tactic that doesn't involve terrorizing the entire population.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>1984 crops up in discussions a lot. That's because a lot of people on these boards have actually read the book.

"Animal Farm" sometimes seems more apropos. The real villains weren't the pigs, the ones who brought that society down were the sheep. What's the difference between "Four legs good, two legs baaad" and "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists"?

Older always == More to Lose

[beer_maker]

Perhaps your fears have changed due to the normal aging process? I know I give things a second & third thought these days that I would have jumped into back-in-the-day.

I have many friends and acquaintences who were blacklisted during the McCarthy era, a few of them even cited for contempt of Congress.

FWIW, do any of those folks appear in the Mitrokhin Archives? Just curious - I'd still respect them for standing up for their (and our) rights, even if they really were fellow travelers. Actually standing up to the government in court is a pretty gutsy move, regardless of motivation.

Lastly, people on /. who wish you to fall under the wheels of a bus are not terrorists, they are asshats. And people in the current government who seem to want to restrict our rights are usually authoritarian and sometimes fascist and always scared of the bigger world, but they are NOT terrorists. The asshats will always be with us, but I hope to live long enough for the politicians to leave office & get out of my life (your post does not inspire confidence in that outcome, though.) Till then, perhaps we could leave the T-word for people who commit actual acts of terror, hmmmm?

Re:Older always == More to Lose

[kfg]

Perhaps your fears have changed due to the normal aging process?

If you mean I have become considerably more mature, self assured and generally more fearless, yes, they have changed.

. . .do any of those folks appear in the Mitrokhin Archives [wikipedia.org]?

No, although some were Stalin sympathisers (and even Hitler sympathisers) in their day. We're talkin' home grown socialists, union organizers, civil rights activists, folk singers and such like disrupters of the social order. Some actually carried red cards for a time, but most never actually did.

. . . perhaps we could leave the T-word for people who commit actual acts of terror. . .

What's today's color and why are those cameras watching me? I hope I'm not acting "suspicious" (I'm certainly wearing a black trench coat and carrying a fiddle case).

KFG

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>"Emerging neo-fascist society?" Sheesh. Get a grip.

Judge for yourself.

LARGE QUOTE BEGINS
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Oth

The Iraq War isn't about terrorism or corporations

[Linux_ho]

It's about energy security. The US economy is heavily dependent on oil. It's about ensuring that in the coming decade, in which the production of light sweet crude oil will fall far behind world demand for it, the US will have another rich source to, hopefully, keep our economy from tanking completely.

It would be nice if people would quit buying Hummers for their half-hour-each-way commute. It would be nice if people would start telecommuting more. But that's not going to really start happening until either the government starts providing more incentives for these things, or oil prices reach crisis level, by which time it will really be too late for the US economy. Britian and France haven't significantly increased their crude oil consumption since the 70's oil crisis. Countries who actually use oil efficiently minimize the economic impact of the extreme oil price volatility that will start hitting us in the next few years as China continues to ramp up its industry. Those countries will be able to economically dominate the US while we're struggling to make our infrastructure less oil-dependent. If you think oil prices are bad now, wait 'till 2009.

We've always been at war with Eurasia

[jonathan_95060]

Bruce is plus un-sane. We have always been at war with Eurasia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Terrorist.

By the way did you hear that choco rations are up? Double plus good eh?

Neo-con =! conservative

[Shihar]

He used to be the conservative demigod. What's changed, other than his approval ratings in the polls? Did he betray conservative principles, or maybe by adhering to them too closely he merely revealed their consequences?

Pass me some of what you are smoking. If you think that Bush has been adhering to conservative principles you must be smoking some the good stuff.

Bush in no way, shape, or form follows conservative ideals. The most you can say is that he is not a democrat. Conservative American ideals basically revolve around two things. They have a weak quasi-libertarian view of the economy and government size, and they have a Christian moral authoritarian view on social issues (i.e. sex, drugs, and rock and roll). Bush pretty much fails in all regards.

A libertarian would likely kill you in, um, self defense, if you told him that Bush's handling of the government size and power was even vaguely libertarian. Bush has spent enough to make the liberals step back and wonder if we REALLY need to spend that much.

Bush's economic policy has been pretty much a straight continuation of Clinton's, which is to say that it he is a center of the road globalizationist and certainly not a right wing radical of any sort. As far as his social policy has gone, he has done absolutely NOTHING in action other then to pay lip service to the right and support a few bills that were clearly not going to pass. Clinton, yes Clinton, had a far more social regressive policy with his "defense of marriage act". Bush is no crusading social conservative. Hell, his VP flatly rejects Bush's position on gay marriage and has a lesbian daughter who runs his campaigns.

The only thing that Bush has ever had going for him as far as conservatives are concerned is that 1) he isn't a liberal (this is the equivalent to democrats liking Kerry because he isn't Bush) and 2) he got a patriotic boost because of 9/11. As far as his policies go, he has done the polar opposite of what an isolationist, morally Christian, economically quasi-libertarian, "traditional" conservative would do.

Now, you could perhaps call Bush a neo-con which is very different from a traditional conservative. Funny enough, most of the founding neo-cons were actually at one point in their lives democrats. Neo-cons are not conservatives in any way. They are an entirely different beast. Neo-con beliefs revolve around foreign policy, not domestic policy. There are democrats that easily could be tossed into the neo-con camp, with Lieberman and Clinton (when he was the president) both easily fitting all neo-con ideals. Neo-cons are really a sub-faction that crosses party lines that should not be confused for conservatives. The only reason why neo-cons got any power at all was because they were the first to stand up and say "I told you so!" after 9/11 and already had a "solution" before anyone else.

Re:Would someone please quantify them?

[Acer500]

Interesting, I don't live in the US and mine HAS...

because of 9/11, I can no longer visit your country without a Visa (nevermind it was some guys from another freaking continent), not even in transit in an airport to visit my brother in Canada

I'm actually looking for a direct flight that doesn't stop in the US, and if I don't feel like paying USD 100 for the right of stopping at your airports and maybe going sightseeing, you'll lose some dollars in tourism too.

You're also losing some other opportunities, several very bright graduates in my university chose European universities to do their postgraduate studies over US ones, and if I choose to work abroad (some countries even come hiring the best students here) I probably won't choose the US which was my #1 choice before (I'm not that good, but if enough bright people stop going there, it will be a problem).

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[swillden]

"Emerging neo-fascist society?" Sheesh. Get a grip.

Damn straight. Nothing "emerging" about it.

there is no rock

[DarrylKegger]

"If you focus on the corruption of US politics to the exclusion of that real threat, you're ignoring the rock "

what threat from the actions of terrorists?? there is no real threat.

I dont have the exact statistics at hand but the chances of you or anyone else suffering from the actions of 'terrorists' are vanishingly small. You know this and I know this, ie more chance of dying driving to work in the morning,etc.

Al qaeda is nothing in the scheme of real threats that you face in your day to day life. People only believe that there is a threat becos there has been systemic mass media fear-mongering.

"Saying that the main objective of this fight is to not get scared is like saying that if you have to fight a grizzly bear, the only thing to worry about is not getting eaten. Not panicking is a great idea, but you might want to also figure out how to avoid getting eaten."

Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.

So in conclusion: your dichotomy is false and the problem really does lie with Bush/Cheney et al and the corporate media.

Re:there is no rock

[theStorminMormon]

I dont have the exact statistics at hand but the chances of you or anyone else suffering from the actions of 'terrorists' are vanishingly small. You know this and I know this, ie more chance of dying driving to work in the morning,etc.

This is a strange measure of danger. In 1938 what was the chance of being killed by a Nazi? Or a Japanese soldier? For that matter, what was the chance of being killed by either in 1942 - assuming you stayed in America? Practically 0. So what exactly are you trying to prove with this? That because the terrorists aren't here yet, there's no danger? And you know what - they never have to get here. Thanks to American policies (see "hard place") we have a genuine vulnerability to economic forces. If a successful Islamic revolution took hold in the Middle East - one willing to cut off their own oil revenue to spite us - then we lose 20% of our oil. What effect will that have on our day-to-day life? Plus that's leaving aside the fact that, within a few decades, India and China will likely be able to take up the slack if OPEC nations decided to cut off the tap to the US. And I haven't even bothered to get started on weapons of mass destruction.

You have to be incredibly naive and short-sighted to say that because, so far the number of attacks has directly influenced only a handful of Americans (proportionally), therefore in the future the risk will be the same as it has been so far. That's just not how statistics work.

Al qaeda is nothing in the scheme of real threats that you face in your day to day life. People only believe that there is a threat becos there has been systemic mass media fear-mongering.

Again, I disagree. In 1938, you could use the same logic and you would have been wrong. In the Cold War, you could have used the same logic and (apparently) you'd have been right. Clearly your analytic methodology is sporadic at best.

So in conclusion: your dichotomy is false and the problem really does lie with Bush/Cheney et al and the corporate media.

No, I'm not wrong. I have my eyes open. There's a reason people snicker about conspiracy theorists. Because you choose to focus somuch on the one danger (US corruption) that you can't hear the rhetoric and growing threat of the other danter. Anyone who thinks radical Islam is not a rising global threat clearly has at least one eye closed.

-stormin

Re:there is no rock

[DarrylKegger]

You are comparing the lead-up to World War Two with the current situation.

World War two was initially between nation states of roughly equal size and power.

Global Terrorism is the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power. Clearly this is absurd.

Ok you say, at the moment the threat is small but it is growing (you have evidence of this??) and that if we dont stomp it out it'll rise up and destroy us just when our backs are turned.

Again, absurd. You think for a second the US government would actually allow a real threat to endanger it?? Iran is a nation state run by religious fundamentalists and even the smallest attempt by them to build even the pre-cursors to serious weapons has been smacked down. (Ignore the fact that perhaps they may actually be pursuing nuclear generated electricity for their economy)

You can't seriously think for a second that if Iran actually developed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that this would be tolerated by the U.S?

And this is precisely the sort of centralised capabilities that Al Qaeda etc would need to become an actual real threat to the United States. That Al Qaeda is decentralised is the only thing in its favour. Once it gives that up it becomes a nice, easily picked off, centralised target.

You seem to be forgetting the slew of lies fed to the public about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in order to invade the 'great threat' of Iraq.

That is direct evidence of G.W/Cheney/Rove creating a completely fabricated threat (Saddam) in order to pursue their illegitimate goals and you dont even have a plausible argument as to how your belief in the 'potential' threat of radical islam could get to the point where it could pose a legitimate threat let-alone evidence that it currently is a threat. Oh and as for your 'they can just cut off the oil' argument....um what do you think one of the benefits (or potentially the main purpose) of invading Iraq was???

I note also that you failed to counter my argument that...

"Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.

and you can't counter it because it is fact. The kind of threat that groups like Al Qaeda pose has not changed significantly since the 1980's and there is no evidence that the measures that were in place and used by the intelligence agencies in the 20 years preceding 9/11 were inadequate then or now. The extent to which the PATRIOT act erodes rights would have been completely unjustifiable except in a climate of manufactured fear.

Speaking of the 'patriot' act, I can't help but feel that you in some deep way buy into the jingoism of the Hawks; a feeling that is to some extent justified considering the way in which you bandy about the term 'extremist' in response to my own and other slashdotter's questioning of your logic.

Re:there is no rock

[theStorminMormon]

The only thing that's absurd is your belief in the supremacy of the USA. All the greatest empires in the world look to far outweigh their eventual successors at one time. Consider the disregard the Romans had for their barbarian neighbors. And yet with sufficient internal weakness leading to the decline of Roman military power, those pathetic barbarians sacked Rome.

Iran is a nation state run by religious fundamentalists and even the smallest attempt by them to build even the pre-cursors to serious weapons has been smacked down.

Iran's nuclear program - peaceful or otherwise - has not been smacked down. It is in progress unchecked.

That is direct evidence of G.W/Cheney/Rove creating a completely fabricated threat (Saddam) in order to pursue their illegitimate goals and you dont even have a plausible argument as to how your belief in the 'potential' threat of radical islam could get to the point where it could pose a legitimate threat let-alone evidence that it currently is a threat.

Don't tell me "there is evidence". Show it to me. Cite it. Otherwise you're likely going to be 'mistaken' for a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Are you honestly saying there was no possibility of a threat from Saddam? A man who routinely shot at US fighters, who developed and used chemical weapons on his own people, and who tried to assassinate a US president? Again, your faith in the eternal supremacy of the US is cute, but historically naive. No one thought a 9/11-like attack was possible until it happened. If Saddam has managed to re-develop his WMD program, what would have stopped a WMD-based attack on LA? Our vaunted intelligence agencies? Clearly Saddam was not a threat, but that's not the same thing as saying he could not have been a threat. Clearly the intelligence against him was, on purpose or not, flawed. But just because Saddam was not the danger he was portrayed to be doesn't mean he couldn't have been. Remember, no nation seriously opposed the US intelligence leading up to the war, just the US policy. The intelligence was clearly plausible, even if false.

Oh and as for your 'they can just cut off the oil' argument....um what do you think one of the benefits (or potentially the main purpose) of invading Iraq was???

That explains the crude flowing directly from Iraq to the US. And it explains the way we completely ignore sectarian violence in Baghdad and station troops all along the oil pipelines. You know, to protect the oil flowing to the US from Iraq.

Was oil a consideration for the invasion of Iraq? Of course it was. Was it the reason for the invasion? Again, only wide-eyed conspiracy theorists who ignore current events think that. Besides which, even if we did control Iraqi oil (which we don't now and never will), that would not prevent Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or some combination thereof of wrecking our economy. You don't have to cut off 50% of our oil to do that. 10 or 20% would probably do it.

I note also that you failed to counter my argument that...

"Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.

and you can't counter it because it is fact.

I didn't counter it because I think most people would have a hard time taking it seriously. Most people would say 9/11 was good evidence that our measures were insufficient. Maybe you consider 9/11 "acceptable losses", but I don't. That's like saying our military readiness in 1941 was fine before Pearl Harbor. Guess what - the Japanese forces were just as tough before Dec 7 as after. Their power and tactics didn't change. So what did? Oh yeah - they were at war with us after Dec 7.

Same thing applies here. Sure, terroris

But less than nukes...

[abb3w]

The fact that the Department of Homeland Security was advising people to buy plastic sheeting to protect themselves against chemical attack is completely ludicrous...

No, not completely ludicrous. Those like you, me, and most of Slashdot assess the risks rationally, and decide that such an attack is unlikely to be attempted, if attempted is unlikely to be done with any degree of success, and if it does get pulled off successfully then there is essentially no prior preparation we can do that will materially impact our overall chances.

However, not all of the monkeys wandering about on two legs turning food into shit are quite so reasonable. Furthermore, if the wackier ones start to panic, the panic may spread to the only marginally wacky ones... and sane and reasonable people like me and thee (although I'm none too sure about thee) might get hurt.

Therefore, The Authorities(TM) direct the monkeys to do something that at least won't do any serious harm, and (if in monkey fashion one doesn't consider the idea too hard) looks like it might do some good. This keeps them calm enough to begin going about their day without too much disruption for the rest of us... unless you needed a plastic drop sheet for painting that week.

So, it's as dumb as "duck and cover". Big Fat Hairy Deal. It tricked people into going about their daily lives, rather than wasting all their time and effort into worrying about a possibility that they couldn't do much about. If it's more likely to help keep society running than to cause it to fall apart, it might be a good thing overall. Admittedly, educating all of the monkeys to think might be more productive in the long haul. On the other hand, I'm living in a country where more than half don't even believe in evolution... so let me know how your education project turns out.

OT:Terrorists are just a replacement for the USSR

[Secrity]

I served in the Air Force Strategic Air Command in the mid to late 70's working on B-52's that had one purpose -- to nuke Russia (Vietnam was over). I worked on a B-52 that had a patch in a wing where a Russian Surface to Air Missle had punched through it. I can't say that I rooted for the downfall of communism although I believed that the Russians and their allies were the enemy and that the Russian government was a terrible evil. I grew up knowing people who had nuclear bomb shelters. We did "duck and cover" excercises and watched movies of building being destroyed by nuclear blasts in school. There were Public Service Announcements on TV about the danger of nations falling like dominoes to the communists. The Vietnam war was a war against Communism and it was as much or more of a topic of discussion as Iraq is now. Six American college students at Kent State University were killed (two were bayonetted and 4 were shot) by National Guard troops because some of the students were protesting the bombing of Cambodia. In my first job after getting out of the Air Force, I worked in an underground telephone building that housed a military Autovon switch -- and one of my duties was to make sure that the batteries in the radiological defense kits were fresh. Yeah, I was affected every day by politicians who wanted us to worry about the Russians.

The Iron Curtain has crumbled and the Russian boogy man has been replaced by the Muslim terrorist boogy man.

"Are the terrorists laughing at us?"

[FishinDave]

See, that's exactly what Schneier is ranting about - you're spreading fear!

Re:Politicians = Terrorists mod parent UP!!

[Quietti]

Because he can't spell.

Now, that is what I call trolling.

Excuse me for being snippy, but...

[benhocking]

And if you think that fighting terrorism shouldn't be a number one priority, than what should it be?

Educating people like you (yes, I'm being facetious). Did you even look at the link I provided, or do you believe that IEEE is too biased of a source? No where did I even begin to give you any "blame America" lines, mainly because I don't blame America. Read the article I linked to and try to understand that the federal government does have a role to play in mitigating the effects of natural disasters. The good news is that this task can simultaneously mitigate the effects of terrorist attacks.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself on the "threat from within". Take you blood pressure medicine and then try to be constructively critical instead of merely critical. You say we need to act unified. Do you think someone knows the right way to act to solve this problem, or do you just maybe believe that there's some room for debate? Somehow, I suspect that you think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Yes, I'm putting words in your mouth - just like you seem to enjoy putting false words into mine.

Not polar bears

[benhocking]

Grolars or pizzlies - that's what you'd need to watch out for!

Are you wall-eyed?

[DarrylKegger]

ok 1st things 1st.

Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero' threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased since before Sept 11 2001.

Just thought i'd clarify that so, ya know, ya wouldnt think i was one of those 'extremists' that 'can't watch two things at once' (what a trick that would be!!)

Pearl Harbour!! Again with the World War 2 analogies! NOT APPLICABLE!!!

I hate to keep conceptually spelling this out for you but I can see it is necessary

Japan = powerful nation state

Al Qaeda = ragtag handful of violent nutters.

you accuse me of historical naivety but you seem to forget little footnotes in history like the U.S being the only nation to use atomic weapons in combat. A nation capable of this will have no qualms in taking control of foreign national resources like oil or by dropping another nuke on any country that is getting a bit too big for its boots. It is you that is naive.

The only thing that's absurd is your belief in the supremacy of the USA

ok, so the U.S doesn't command the most powerful military force in the world??

Don't tell me "there is evidence". Show it to me. Cite it. Otherwise you're likely going to be 'mistaken' for a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

Sorry i thought that maybe you hadn't been living under a rock for the last 5 years. You really should utilise the benefits of the wonderful youtube.com and take in a few episodes of 'the daily show' where they often play old footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld confirming that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion.

You 'do' know they never found any W.M.D, right?? You do realise this means they were lying, right?? You understand footage like this does constitute evidence of an extreme fabrication on their behalf, right??

So we have a historical precendent for their fear-mongering about a largely insignificant threat in order to achieve their goals. And you think it's a conspiracy theory to think they might be trying to pull the same trick with the 'global' war on terror?

Of course you do, and what's your argument? 'World War Two happened!!'

We've established that the current threat to Americans from acts of terrorism is less than the chance of being run over when you cross the road. You believe that by regarding the current situation in this way neglects the possibility that terrorism may constitute a much larger threat in the future. The trouble is you have no rational explanation for how the world could get from our current situation to your hypothetical future scenario.

So i ask you now directly: Explain to me how we get from here to there?

surely the burden of proof is on you to establish to me that this is a realistic possibility? Otherwise you're just an extremist dealing in wild-eyed conspiracy theories, right??

Regardless of any explanation is the fact that your arguments so far have been peppered with 'ifs' and 'coulds', a litany of paranoid possibilities. I find it suprising that you demand evidence of my arguments when all you have provided me is conjecture and poor analogies. You clearly lack the ability to distinguish between possibility and probability, which is a defining characteristic of a conspiracy nut.

I didn't counter it because I think most people would have a hard time taking it seriously. Most people would say 9/11 was good evidence that our measures were insufficient.

As I said, the possible 'measures' as supplied to 'the decider'(tht's Bush b.t.w) and Cheney etc by intelligence agencies were ignored. You think intelligence agencies weren't on to Al Qaeda b4 9/11 even tho they had attacked the very same building in 1993??? You mu

Re:Are you wall-eyed?

[theStorminMormon]

you accuse me of historical naivety but you seem to forget little footnotes in history like the U.S being the only nation to use atomic weapons in combat. A nation capable of this will have no qualms in taking control of foreign national resources like oil or by dropping another nuke on any country that is getting a bit too big for its boots. It is you that is naive

And yet, strangely enough, we have not nuked anyone for 50 years. Your argument that the us would have "no qualms" in dropping another nuke is ridiculous. If that were true, we would have nuked N. Korea long ago - certainly before they have nukes and the capability to deliver them to us or a strategic ally.

You 'do' know they never found any W.M.D, right?? You do realise this means they were lying, right??

Thanks for another example of zealot-logic. The bad guys are never mistaken, misled, or misinformed. They either tell the truth, or they lie.

We've established that the current threat to Americans from acts of terrorism is less than the chance of being run over when you cross the road.

You missed the WW2 analogy completely. Because something is not dangerous now doesn't mean we shouldn't react to it based on potential for future harm.

surely the burden of proof is on you to establish to me that this is a realistic possibility?

You are quite right to point this out. The burden does indeed rest on those who wish to insist that radical Islam presents a dangerous threat - either now or in the future - to the US or it's strategic interests. I would have thought that having the potential for radical islam to cut off oil supplies to the US would be just such an example. Or, in addition, the potential for radical islam to ally with America's other enemies (Chavez, for one) to even more powerfully leverage oil against us. We also know that N. Korea is developing nukes and that Iran may be developing nukes. I've stated all these before. Do you find these very real possibilities lacking in either realism (chance of them happening) or severity?

Regardless of any explanation is the fact that your arguments so far have been peppered with 'ifs' and 'coulds', a litany of paranoid possibilities.

All discussions of future events will be based on "if" and "could". That is a result of the nature of probabilistic uncertainty, not paranoia. Can you not tell the difference? Anyone who discusses future events in terms of "will" is far more suspicious to me in terms of grasp on reality.

I find it suprising that you demand evidence of my arguments when all you have provided me is conjecture and poor analogies.

This demonstrates your own inability to argue cogently. Your arguments are based on present or past events/facts. Therefore you should be able to address them with proof. My arguments are generally based on future possibilities extrapolated from current knowledge. As you have not challenged my statements regarding what is true now, it seems strange that you would instead attack my possible disaster scenarios not based on chance of happening or on severity, but on the fact that I speak of future events as possibilities. That's what, by definition, future events are.

I use analogies to make points, not to make arguments. If you have a problem with the analogy, you need to specify why it does not hold. Merely saying "your argument uses analogies" doesn't get us very far.

You think intelligence agencies weren't on to Al Qaeda b4 9/11 even tho they had attacked the very same building in 1993???

Of course some people in those intelligence agencies were, but I do not feel that we, as a nation, were paying attention to it. You seem to think that the entire CIA and FBI was braced and vigilant for an attack, and that only Bush and Cheney were clueless. I'll read your documents, but from my own research this is not supported. In hindsight, surprise attacks always seem obvious. Again with Pearl Harbor.

Re:OT:Terrorists are just a replacement for the US

[treeves]

OK. You are obviously older than I am and obviously Communism and the US government's reaction to it had a bigger impact on you in the sixties and seventies than it did on me in the seventies and eighties. I don't think though that politicians invented the terrorists though some of them may seem to take advantage of their existence. Even that I don't really believe, but I do wish many politicians would prioritize differently than they do.

Which poses the following question

[Quietti]

As posted elsewhere in this thread: What is average Joe supposed to to do against this war mongering governmental and megacorporative beast that unilateraly takes away the average citizen's freedom?

Re:Which poses the following question

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I dunno. What was an Italian supposed to do, in 1922?

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!!!!

[cold fjord]

That list just goes to show that the US isn't even close to being a fascist society, neo or otherwise.

By the way... if you want to get a better idea of what a real fascist society looks like, try watching this. I recommend the higher definition versions. Much of the more interesting content came from the media in the countries themselves.

Tobacco Companies Are Like Pediophiles

[darkonc]

They both target kids and then claim that it should be legal, then their victims pay the price far into adulthood.

Despite their claims that they don't target children, both heroin pushers and tobacco pushers have to (and do) target children because they know that by the time a mark reaches adulthood, they're unlikely to get addicted. Cigarette companies do target children. One survey done by a company found that children (10-17) who recognized Joe Camel were 95% likely to associate him with cigarettes. You don't get that sort of recognition if you're not targeting a group.

Once you have someone addicted, you're not dealing with adult decision-making. You're dealing with addict decision makeing -- decisions shaped by addictions normally formed in childhood.

If cigarettes weren't addictive, then I'd accept your claim that cigarette companies are killing adults. They're not. They're killing children --it just takes a long time for them to drop dead (during which time, they're milked for as much money as the company can get).

Re:OT:Terrorists are just a replacement for the US

[Secrity]

I don't think that politicians invented the Russian Communists or the Islamic terrorists, I believe that they exagerate their threat and use the threat to further their own agendas. If one wants to put on a foil hat, it could be possible that the Iron Curtain came down because it was no longer useful to US politicians.

Re:Repeat often

[Jeremi]

WWII.

Ah yes, WWII, the Republican Model For How Everything Should Be. The only problem is, our current situation is nothing like WWII. We are not fighting two or three nation-states with clearly defined territories and governments, where all you have to do is march into their capital city and declare victory. And the sooner our government realizes that the "war on terror" isn't a war that can be won militarily (any more than the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" could be won militarily), the sooner they'll stop shooting themselves in the foot with inappropriate and counter-productive strategies.

And contrary to your belief, the only way to stop bad guys from trying to kill you, is to kill enough of them that they stop.

If the terrorists would just line up in nice orderly rows and engage us in proper open battle, I'd agree with you. But they won't, for obvious reasons -- their tactic is to turn our own military force against us by trying to lure us into causing as much 'collateral damage' as possible, thereby turning people against us, which results in them getting more volunteers and support. It's important not to fall into their trap and reduce ourselves to their level. The only way to win is cut off their support, and the only way to do that is convince everyone that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. And the only way to do that is to take the high ground, and hold ourselves to the highest moral standard. Abu Ghraib isn't going to cut it.

Those who attack innocents and use them for shields have no moral high ground and have forfeited their rights under international treaty.

Care to point out where in "international treaty" (I assume you mean the Geneva convention, let me know if I am mistaken) it lays out the conditions under which people forfeit their rights? Or are you just telling me what you think the treaty should say?

Number one priority

[benhocking]

Still you haven't answered my question. What should be our number one priority? It's a fair question when the report you're touting proposes that terrorism is not as grave a threat as a natural disaster. So, Educate me! :)

Our number one priority should be knowledge. I know it's trite, but knowledge is power. That's true for dealing with terrorists (one needs to understand the terrorists and not just label them evil), and that's true for dealing with natural disasters.

Furthermore, it's not just a matter of what our number one priority should be, but how we should decide on what our priorities should be in general. When we overreact (e.g., by imagining scenarios where we'll all be forced to convert to Islam), we make bad decisions. We should do our best to think rationally (even though that means not assuming our adversaries are acting rationally) and not emotionally.

Environmentalists so often put saving the planet before protecting the human life which inhabits it.

Some environmentalists have gotten to the point where they're willing to let the planet protect itself. To that end, they're practically joing forces with ExxonMobil and friends. However, most environmentalists talk about sustainable development. The idea is that we need to "save" the planet in order to protect the human life which inhabits it.

Why can't we tap our own natural resources to break our dependence from the middle east?

Our own natural resources would not break our dependence from the Middle East without both (a) using coal in dangerous amounts, and even then, (b) serious R&D. I'm assuming by natural resources you're refering to the fossil-fuel variety. However, if by our own natural resources you mean our brain power, wind, sun, and - yes - nuclear power, then I'm all for it.

Why does the U.N. ban the use of spray that would stop the spread of malaria, saving millions of lives? Is the IEEE making the same mistakes?

By "spray", I'm guessing you mean DDT. The first reasons that a DDT ban was called for was due to its cancer link. The link to bald eagles' eggs, etc., came later. However, I'm all for research into related sprays, etc. It all boils down to thinking rationally and fully analyzing our consequences. We should consider the impact on the 7th generation from now.

How is IEEE making the "same mistakes"? IEEE is arguing about taking steps to reduce the danger from both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Did you even read the article?

Down-winder

[DarrylKegger]

I'm really very sorry that I tried to provide evidence to support my arguments, judging by your handle I can only guess that you're used to believing many ridiculous propostions based on blind faith. (how 'is' the search for those gold plates going??)

Anyway, enough with the personal insults.

You don't like evidence. Ok, one last appeal and then I'm done.

An Analogy!! (I know you love these ;-) (except this one's valid(hope you'll still enjoy it)))

The response of the U.S government to an act of terror is analogous to the immune response of someone who is allergic to peanuts. The response is not only irrational but dangerous to the organism/nation/globe as a whole. Except the U.S's response is worse than that of the immune systems because at least the immune system's response doesn't have the potential to create more peanuts!

If you think that the U.S's response to 9/11 was rational and justified then you obviously can't see that this is a vicious circle and you are beyond help. My personal feeling is that you have a fear of Islam based on religious beliefs and are consciously or otherwise using this to justify your rabid stance.

Re:Down-winder

[theStorminMormon]

It's not like I've been on the internet with this handle and not had all the ridiculous anti-mormon tripe you can get your hands on thrown at me multiple times already. For what it's worth Mormons, like a lot of Christians, dismiss the idea of "blind faith". If you're curious to actually learn something about Christian theology, I present the following differing views:

In favor of blind faith:
Benjamin Franklin - "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Martin Luther - "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."
Bertrand Russell - "We may define 'faith' as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
Mark Twain - "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Opposed to blind faith:
William James - "Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is theoretically possible."
Blaise Pascal - "Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them."
Rodney Stark - "Faith in reason is the most significant feature of Western Civilization. In that simple statement lies the key to understanding the evolution of medieval business practices..."
Clement of Alexandria - "Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to commit these things to blind faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason"

If you think that the U.S's response to 9/11 was rational and justified

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. I don't claim that the US response was rational justified - and I never have. This thread was started as a discussion of radicalism and it's dangers. I felt that you represented a good example of radicalism. If you'll remember, you didn't start out with the rational and defensible position you're now taking (merely that the US response was out of proportion). You started out with a much more outlandish statement:

what threat from the actions of terrorists?? there is no real threat.

You've gone from dismissing out of hand the threat of terrorism as the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power to a much more moderate viewpoint: do you not see the difference between the two? It's disingenuous to start an argument from one viewpoint, then revise your viewpoint in midstream and act as though that's what it has been the entire time. My responses have been to your actual stated position (there's no threat) and not to your freshly concocted response (US response was disproportionate). When I highlight the potential for very real disaster as a result of these "poorly equipped Islamists" my intent is not to prove that these events justify US actions (which had nothing to do with your original statement) but to prove that there is a real danger (which was your originally rejected proposition). My point of view has never been to support or apologize (technical use of the word) for American foreign policy subsequent to 9/11. If you think that's what I'm arguing, it's no wonder you are frustrated. But read your own words! I'm responding to what you wrote, not what you apparently were thinking.

I'm arguing for what I said I was arguing for: the fact that (regardless of your conclusion regarding justifiability of US response) your dismissal of radical Islam as a non-threat is reckless and not substantiated by good research (at least, none that you've provided). Since you're the one ultimately making a positive claim "there is no real threat", you need to supply sufficient evidence for that claim. And you haven't. I'm not making any positive claims (e.g. I'm not saying "the us response is rational and justified"), I'm simp

Re:Down-winder

[DarrylKegger]

You've gone from dismissing out of hand the threat of terrorism as the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power to a much more moderate viewpoint

I have not changed my viewpoint.

The analogy in my previous post which you consider rational and defensible has been the one underlying my thought processes throughout this entire discussion.

Let's see how it applies to what i have already said:

the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power

Apart from the word 'Islamists'(which is not general enough), i stand by this statement. It fits in perfectly with my "rational and defensible" analogy; The poorly equipped terrorists(the largely harmless peanuts) and the world's super power(the paranoid and dangerous allergic immune system).

Here is another example from two posts back:

ok 1st things 1st. Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero' threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased since before Sept 11 2001.

This is basically a paraphrasing of my peanut analogy. Everything else I have said has basically been to try and provide evidence for this.

You, on the otherhand, have changed your viewpoint..

I'm not making any positive claims (e.g. I'm not saying "the us response is rational and justified"), I'm simply pointing out that radicalism in your own argument.

This is simply not true; you do make some positive claims...

Anyone who thinks radical Islam is not a rising global threat clearly has at least one eye closed.

Unless here you are implying that you yourself have 'one eye closed', then you are making the positive claim that radical Islam is a rising global threat.

Now when you put statements like that together with your blether about Saddam being a possible threat, about W.M.D, that Saddam gased his own people etc you give the impression that you think these are valid justifications for the invasion etc. Of course you don't 'actually' say that so you can later deny having said that. Well done, how clever.

I had other points to make but judging by this discussion, your blog and many of your other slashdot posts, you have devoted a significant portion of your life to making a sport of this and I do not wish to be a further part of it. What's depressing is to think of how many other people in the future you will trick into participating in this sad little game of yours.

From now on I'll hopefully be able to recognise your sort (psychic vampire) before I get dragged in again.

Re:Down-winder

[theStorminMormon]

I have not changed my viewpoint.

I didn't say you had changed your viewpoint. But you are certainly disavowing your initial comment. Perhaps it was said in haste, perhaps you didn't really mean it. I don't know. But it's telling that while you boldly embark on an effort to defend "what I have previously said", you completely neglect to respond to the very line that is the source of apparent confusion. This would seem to indicate that for you the priority is to save face, or "win" and not to stand behind your own arguments.

It's all well and good to defend what you have said, but to defend a part of it and pretend that you are defending all of it is a waste of time. A waste of your time and mine.

me -> I'm not making any positive claims (e.g. I'm not saying "the us response is rational and justified"), I'm simply pointing out that radicalism in your own argument.

you -> This is simply not true; you do make some positive claims...

me -> Anyone who thinks radical Islam is not a rising global threat clearly has at least one eye closed.

Fair enough. I should have better distinguished between my central thesis (your radicalism) and a tangential claim (the real danger of radical Islam). I can prove the first without the second, and for this reason I stated that I had made no positive claims. What I meant was that no positive claims were required to prove my central thesis. But I did in fact embark on a tangential argument that involved positive claims and thus my statement, unqualified as it is, is incorrect. You see - this is a productive way to respond when you are caught making a logical error or a false statement in an argument. Don't just selectively quote around the issue to save face; own up to your mistakes and see it as an opportunity to clarify a position.

Unless here you are implying that you yourself have 'one eye closed', then you are making the positive claim that radical Islam is a rising global threat.

Yay. You're "winning" the argument. If I'd known this was a game to you, I could have saved myself the trouble of taking you seriously. You can't simultaneously argue with integrity and be willing to engage in cover-up tactics to win. You're doing a great job of scoring points, but in the process you're refusing to own up to your own logical errors and thus merrily marching off the beaten path of reasonable discourse and into the morass of adolescent bickering.

you have devoted a significant portion of your life to making a sport of this and I do not wish to be a further part of it

Clearly you did not actually read the contents of my blog. If you had, you would know how seriously I take internet debate, and how much I am irked by those who see it as a power struggle, a game, etc. This is unmistakable from my first entry where I draw a a distinction between "argument" and "debate". The point of arguing is to win. Something I'm not at all interested in. The point of debating is a kind of evolution of ideas: you refine your good ideas by subjecting them to good-faith criticism while engaging in the same good-faith criticism of others. (It should go without saying that any effort to dodge criticism of your argument while launching spurious attacks on your opponent are not examples of "good faith criticism").

I think it's very telling that in the same post in which you accuse me of playing games that are "so clever" you have utterly refused to own up to your own statements. In addition, you accuse me of playing games only after you've sufficiently exhausted your portrayal of me as dishonest, and you withdraw from the debate (such as it is) only after you've had your little say. Furthermore, and most telling of all, you condemn me on the basis of blog articles which you have manifestly never read.

The fact is that I did make a false statement in my argument. I have no trouble admitting this,

Re:Down-winder

[theStorminMormon]

I will be here yesterday with the same intention I had the day before

Ahahahahahaha. Got a little carried away there didn't I? Should be:

I will be here tomorrow with the same intention I had the day before.

Oh well. Funny posting mistakes FTW!!!

-stormin

Guess I mis-read you then.

[FatSean]

I agree completely. Thought you were going to use the old "the troops are in danger" excuse to further reduce liberties.