Comments
Bernie • September 11, 2009 1:59 PM
I pledge that I Refuse to be Terrorized.
David • September 11, 2009 2:39 PM
I can be unafraid of al-Qaida, as I am unafraid of man-eating tigers (both can be quite dangerous, but both are very rare here in Minnesota). I consider it my duty to be unfazed by wildly unlikely threats. The problem is not being terrorized by the War on Terror.
Doug Coulter • September 11, 2009 3:38 PM
@David — right on!
This thing has been used as an excuse by those with some power to get more, to our loss. I don’t like that one little bit.
Here, we’d call a terrorist “good target practice”.
Guess that’s why they’re quite rare, along with all other types of crime here in the boonies where just about everyone is armed and/or “ready”. You sort of have to be around here as there’s a lot of not always friendly wildlife (four legged mostly)
But some people have an interest in yet more sinecure jobs, more power to look over everyone’s shoulder and so on, and a very big interest in people being sheeple.
As they say in other fields, “follow the money” and look who benefited most from 9/11 — in both money and legal power over others — was it Al Qaida? Nope. Was it us? Nope.
All this security theater isn’t even as entertaining as what would happen if someone tried again to snatch a plane — there’s enough trouble with “air rage” as is…now THAT would be entertaining.
Nate • September 11, 2009 4:04 PM
I see at least some progress on this front, in that I’ve read the Obama administration isn’t trumpeting its counter-terrorism successes the way the previous administration did.
Jason • September 11, 2009 5:14 PM
@Nate
Neither is the Obama administration given up any of the extra- power that the Bush administration gave itself to spy on and terrorize its own citizens and thwart those who would patronize our country via tourism.
Vincent • September 11, 2009 7:03 PM
Unfortunately, everyone I know is terrifying.
Brian • September 11, 2009 11:34 PM
@Jason
That’s incredibly untrue. The very first day in office, Obama signed a policy limiting interrogations to pre-Bush techniques. He’s also pledged to close Gitmo.
Now it’s true that he hasn’t reversed ALL of Bush’s policies, but he has done something. And he’d be able to do more if the voters listened to Bruce’s advice and did a better job refusing to be terrorized.
Part of the reason Gitmo is still open, and may remain so, is that whenever the topic of closing it comes up, Congressmen get on TV and talk in scary voices about how closing Gitmo means terrorists will be living under your bed. Instead of getting laughed out of office, people making those ridiculous of pronouncements are treated seriously.
zzaa • September 12, 2009 12:21 AM
Indeed, I’ve always been a lot more scared of the American government than foreign terrorists. Sucessful large-scale terrorist attacks are few and far between. Hijacking four planes and crashing three of them into buildings was impressive, but its hardly going to happen every month (or even every few years). More people probably die of heart disease every single day than were killed on 2001/9/11. The real threat are the politicians and the government goons who want to chip away at everyone’s civil liberties for their own gain.
RavinWind • September 12, 2009 3:01 PM
David Said,” I can be unafraid of al-Qaida, as I am unafraid of man-eating tigers (both can be quite dangerous, but both are very rare here in Minnesota).”
Ironic, David.
When George Tenet was told of the attacks, he said,”I hope. . . this has nothing to do with those guys in Minnesota learning how to fly planes.”
dusher • September 12, 2009 3:32 PM
Jason and Brian,
Jason is not incredibly wrong, Brian. Obama is just not as incompetent as Bush. For instance, Obama will say (and I believe) he wants to close Gitmo. Yet, as Brian correctly says, Gitmo will not be closed anytime soon – because that is smart IMO. Jason is correct in that, I too, was very disappointed when Obama announced expanded NSA’s snooping compared with Bush. But A=A, look at it.
Chuvakin • September 13, 2009 2:25 PM
@Doug: “Guess that’s why they’re quite rare…in the boonies”
More likely it’s because the low population density of the boonies make them poor terrorism targets. Blowing up a diesel-fertilizer bomb in a cow pasture or flying jets into a grain elevator isn’t likely to kill enough people to be worth the trouble.
Moderator • September 14, 2009 11:08 PM
Doug, in re your deleted comment, please focus on security. This isn’t the place to discuss politics in general, especially not at such length. (Your comment was longer than all the other comments on this thread combined.)
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Leave a comment
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Rob Hooft • September 11, 2009 1:07 PM
Thanks for the reminder.
As I understand, terror caused many additional traffic accidents in the USA after 9/11. This has killed 2x more people than the actual attacks.
Rob