Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Terrorist? Do we really need to worry THAT much?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26798points) May 4th, 2010

Did we dodge another bullet from those who would commit mayhem because they are sending their AA minor league operatives here? These bunglers can’t seem to blow up a firecracker with a blow torch much less a jet or train. We have not seen anything like Italy, India, and Russia with the attacks there. Do we really need to worry all that much?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Sometimes I think people want to be afraid.

Rarebear's avatar

You’re far FAR FAAAAARRR more likely to get killed by crossing the street than you are a terrorist attack.

Storybooklover's avatar

If they slack off the homeland security we will have another 911. Yeah it’s a pain but it’s worth it in sthe long run.

lilikoi's avatar

Terrorism. What a load.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Storybooklover I guess we still need Homeland Security and the rest, but half their jib is done for them because they are not going up against the terrorist all starts they are going up agains the AA minor leagers who really couldn’t carry out setting a barb fire if the barn was full of hay and they had a can full of gas and a lighter.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Terrorism doesn’t worry me half as much as the attack on our civil rights in order to “protect” us from terrorism.

ETpro's avatar

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. But at least we have that, and it can win elections for us. So let’s get out there and terrorize ourselves so it isn’t so much work and embarrassment for inept terrorists. What better way to defeat them than to do their dirty work for them?

Plone3000's avatar

Honestly, I don’t mind going through airport security if it is protecting me, regardless of how many stages or how rediculius it is.

People always complane of violation on there Civil Rights with security. I would rather have my Civil Rights violated then the chance of thousands of people dieing. Look at 911 for instance, something that could have easily been avoided.

R.I.P 911 victums.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Yes lets all act only with emotion and totally disregard logic.

Seaofclouds's avatar

There is more to terrorism than just the casualty count. Terrorists like the feeling of power they get knowing that someone is afraid of them. So, though some of their attacks may have failed to kill people, if they instilled fear and caused people to make changes because of their fear, then the attack was successful to the terrorists.

Plone3000's avatar

@Captain Fantasy, this is not purely emotional, this is statistics. Do you have any idea how may LIVES where taken on 911?
Don’t even try and tell me thats not logic

@Seaofclouds, Right, so how bout we just get rid of security all together, humm?
Not a very good idea.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Plone3000 I wasn’t suggesting getting rid of security at all, merely commenting that the attacks here weren’t exactly “failures” just because they didn’t kill someone in response to @Hypocrisy_Central mentioning that the terrorists can’t seem to “blow up a firecracker with a blow torch much less a jet or train”.

I think giving up our security would be a huge mistake. And as far as the number of lives lost on 9/11, I still have the newspaper from 9/11/2002 with all the names listed, with one of them being a close friend of mine.

john65pennington's avatar

Lets not be to laxed with it comes to terrorists in the United States. they work and walk amongst us and the New York Times Square incident is a prime example. if you have not read this terroists background and education, you should do so. these people are not stupid. they hate America and everything it stand for. never take a suspected terrorist for granted. he will be your neighbor, your friend and he will strike when you least expect it.

TexasDude's avatar

The terrorists are sucking at what they are supposed to be doing because I’m not scared at all. I haven’t changed one habit or behavior because of their actions. I’m not going to live my life in fear. That’s bullshit.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds & @john65pennington I don’t imagine any rational person would suggest we ignore the threat of terrorism. But rational thought does suggest we also not act like Chicken Little. Let’s dial back to 2000 so we take in the 9/11 attack and a whole decade of terror directed at the USA. The total death toll from 2000 to 2010 is 2989 including the estimated 2974 who dies on 9/11. So the average deaths per year from terrorism in the USA are about 299 people.

Compare that to other common causes of death::
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer’s disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234

In other words, even the last-place septicemia, which is so non-scary you probably don’t even know what it is, is 114 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist is. About 40,000 Americans die in US auto accidents each year. Riding in an automobile is 134 times more likely to do you in than a terror attack is. Do you cower in fear of automobiles or septicemia?

Do what we can to minimize the risk, and to destroy the causes of terrorism. Blowing up innocent people is a totally lousy way to make a political point. But keep the level of threat it poses in perspective. If we begin attacking one another over not doing enough, we do the terrorist’s work for them

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro I never said we need to do more, just that we shouldn’t stop what we are already doing. As far as the septicemia that you say is so “non scary”, have you ever experienced it or seen a loved one with it? I have (both) and will tell you that it is scary. I have more fear of developing septicemia again than of any of the other things you mentioned and terrorism. I do everything in my power to make sure I don’t get it again (I got it due to an abnormality in my kidney). We are all responsible for our own health care and preventative practices. Doctors can only do so much.

Just because we are more likely to die from these other things doesn’t mean we should cut back what we are doing to protect ourselves from terrorism. There is a lot of things in regards to terrorism that aren’t made public (like thwarted attacks and terrorist caught before they could perform an attack). We have people doing a job and if we cut them back, we will see an increase in attacks.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

There is value in keeping your eyes open for things that look wrong or feel wrong but there is not cause to live in fear. At a citizen, support candidates who will promote reason and foresight in domestic and international policies. Resist the foolish, extremists notions that further undermine human rights and civil rights at home and wrong-headed hate-promoting actions outside your borders.

American has become a target of so much anger by applying too many self-serving policies and not showing respect and consideration for the rights of others. America must lead by example not by throwing their weight around anywhere it will promote its short-sighted goals.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, nor do I wish to let you needlessly pick one with me. That’s exactly my point. there are a group of political opportunists trying to divide and conquer and finding terrorism a convenient tool to use for that purpose.

I was careful to say we should remain vigilant. I did not accuse you of anything that I know of, but if I did, point it out to me and I will print a retraction, because such was not my intention. As to septicemia I know what it is as well, and am not trivializing it. But I stand by the statement that most people who use the “war on terror” as a political weapon or a tool for fear mongering probably couldn’t tell you what it is. And when heart disease is 2112 times more likely to end your life than a terror attack is, using terror to stoke terror is illogical and damaging to the USA.

@Dr_Lawrence Exactly what I was getting at in a roundabout way. Thanks for saying it point blank.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro I was not trying to pick a fight with you, just stating something in response to your comment. I was merely trying to point out that just because we are least likely to die from a terrorist attack according to the number of people that have actually died already, that shouldn’t mean we should cut back our current effort against terrorism. The fact that there have not been a lot of deaths due to terrorism proves that what he are doing now is currently working.

I don’t think anyone should live in fear, but we also can’t allow ourselves to get into a falst sense of security. Just because we don’t see it happening, doesn’t mean that there aren’t attempts that have been unsuccessful due to prompt action on the part of those responsible for protecting us from terrorist.

I don’t think we need to increase our efforts, just maintain them and be vigilant.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds Then we agree. And the fatality numbers could fly off the chart of someone like bin Laden got access to a nuclear weapon. We definitely want to maintain our vigilance and keep pursuing intelligence and police action against their networks.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro Definitely agree!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Seaofclouds “I don’t think anyone should live in fear, but we also can’t allow ourselves to get into a falst sense of security. Just because we don’t see it happening, doesn’t mean that there aren’t attempts that have been unsuccessful due to prompt action on the part of those responsible for protecting us from terrorist.”
That is partly the point, each one that actually makes the news probably has 5 more that never made the news. The constant in all of them is that they failed. When I think “Oh, that is a soft target they could hit this or that” I brush it from my mind because they of late seem to be too ignorant, inept, or under funded to carry out anything. And terrorist being able to make a nuke I would bet $5,000 real dollars to anyone’s 5,000 donuts that it will not happen in 75 years and then stealing one an actually knowing how to set it off won’t happen in 50 years.

wonderingwhy's avatar

I’m much more concerned about what people seem so willing to give up and accept in order to maintain their illusion of security than any realistic threat posed by terrorists.

lloydbird's avatar

Er…., isn’t it the Commies that we are supposed to be worried about? Or are they OK now?

ETpro's avatar

@wonderingwhy I wrote a blog post over on Sodahead about that very thought. It’s a copy of a letter I sent to Senator Scott Brown regarding his co-sponsorship of Joe Lieberman’s plan to empower the State Department to strip US Citizens of their citizenship and thereby their rights to due process if, in the opinion of the State Department, the person has given “Material Support” to a terrorist organization.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@lloydbird The Commies went with the fall of the Soviet Union, but since Russia still is the closes one to being able to go toe to toe with Uncle Sam sp they still aren’t trusted.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther