Undressing the Terror Threat

[Marcus Bryant]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644651587677752.html?m od=wsj_share_facebook

JANUARY 9, 2010

Undressing the Terror Threat
Running the numbers on the conflict with terrorists suggests that the rules of the game should change

By PAUL CAMPOS
The Wall Street Journal

I'm not much of a basketball player. Middle-age, with a shaky set shot and a bad knee, I can't hold my own in a YMCA pickup game, let alone against more organized competition. But I could definitely beat LeBron James in a game of one-on-one. The game just needs to feature two special rules: It lasts until I score, and when I score, I win.

We might have to play for a few days, and Mr. James's point total could well be creeping toward five figures before the contest ended, but eventually the gritty gutty competitor with a lunch-bucket work ethic (me) would subject the world's greatest basketball player to a humiliating defeat.

The world's greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and

(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PT-AN445_W3Feat_DV_20100108190412.jpg
Photo illustration by John Kuczala

These rules help explain the otherwise inexplicable wave of hysteria that has swept over our government in the wake of the failed attempt by a rather pathetic aspiring terrorist to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. For two weeks now, this mildly troubling but essentially minor incident has dominated headlines and airwaves, and sent politicians from the president on down scurrying to outdo each other with statements that such incidents are "unacceptable," and that all sorts of new and better procedures will be implemented to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Meanwhile, millions of travelers are being subjected to increasingly pointless and invasive searches and the resultant delays, such as the one that practically shut down Newark Liberty International Airport last week, after a man accidentally walked through the wrong gate, or Tuesday's incident at a California airport, which closed for hours after a "potentially explosive substance" was found in a traveler's luggage. (It turned out to be honey.)

As to the question of what the government should do rather than keep playing Terrorball, the answer is simple: stop treating Americans like idiots and cowards.

It might be unrealistic to expect the average citizen to have a nuanced grasp of statistically based risk analysis, but there is nothing nuanced about two basic facts:

(1) America is a country of 310 million people, in which thousands of horrible things happen every single day; and

(2) The chances that one of those horrible things will be that you're subjected to a terrorist attack can, for all practical purposes, be calculated as zero.

Consider that on this very day about 6,700 Americans will die. When confronted with this statistic almost everyone reverts to the mindset of the title character's acquaintances in Tolstoy's great novella "The Death of Ivan Ilyich," and indulges in the complacent thought that "it is he who is dead and not I."

Consider then that around 1,900 of the Americans who die today will be less than 65, and that indeed about 140 will be children. Approximately 50 Americans will be murdered today, including several women killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and several children who will die from abuse and neglect. Around 85 of us will commit suicide, and another 120 will die in traffic accidents.

No amount of statistical evidence, however, will make any difference to those who give themselves over to almost completely irrational fears. Such people, and there are apparently a lot of them in America right now, are in fact real victims of terrorism. They also make possible the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain.

Unfortunately, the politics of cowardice can also make it rational to spend otherwise irrational amounts of resources on further minimizing already minimal risks. Given the current climate of fear, any terrorist incident involving Islamic radicals generates huge social costs, so it may make more economic sense, in the short term, to spend X dollars to avoid 10 deaths caused by terrorism than it does to spend X dollars to avoid 1,000 ordinary homicides. Any long-term acceptance of such trade-offs hands terrorists the only real victory they can ever achieve.

It's a remarkable fact that a nation founded, fought for, built by, and transformed through the extraordinary courage of figures such as George Washington, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. now often seems reduced to a pitiful whimpering giant by a handful of mostly incompetent criminals, whose main weapons consist of scary-sounding Web sites and shoe- and underwear-concealed bombs that fail to detonate.

Terrorball, in short, is made possible by a loss of the sense that cowardice is among the most disgusting and shameful of vices. I shudder to think what Washington, who as commander in chief of the Continental Army intentionally exposed himself to enemy fire to rally his poorly armed and badly outnumbered troops, would think of the spectacle of millions of Americans not merely tolerating but actually demanding that their government subject them to various indignities, in the false hope that the rituals of what has been called "security theater" will reduce the already infinitesimal risks we face from terrorism.

Indeed, if one does not utter the magic word "terrorism," the notion that it is actually in the best interests of the country for the government to do everything possible to keep its citizens safe becomes self-evident nonsense. Consider again some of the things that will kill 6,700 Americans today. The country's homicide rate is approximately six times higher than that of most other developed nations; we have 15,000 more murders per year than we would if the rate were comparable to that of otherwise similar countries. Americans own around 200 million firearms, which is to say there are nearly as many privately owned guns as there are adults in the country. In addition, there are about 200,000 convicted murderers walking free in America today (there have been more than 600,000 murders in America over the past 30 years, and the average time served for the crime is about 12 years).

Given these statistics, there is little doubt that banning private gun ownership and making life without parole mandatory for anyone convicted of murder would reduce the homicide rate in America significantly. It would almost surely make a major dent in the suicide rate as well: Half of the nation's 31,000 suicides involve a handgun. How many people would support taking both these steps, which together would save exponentially more lives than even a—obviously hypothetical—perfect terrorist-prevention system? Fortunately, very few. (Although I admit a depressingly large number might support automatic life without parole.)

Or consider traffic accidents. All sorts of measures could be taken to reduce the current rate of automotive carnage from 120 fatalities a day—from lowering speed limits, to requiring mechanisms that make it impossible to start a car while drunk, to even more restrictive measures. Some of these measures may well be worth taking. But the point is that at present we seem to consider 43,000 traffic deaths per year an acceptable cost to pay for driving big fast cars.

For obvious reasons, politicians and other policy makers generally avoid discussing what ought to be considered an "acceptable" number of traffic deaths, or murders, or suicides, let alone what constitutes an acceptable level of terrorism. Even alluding to such concepts would require treating voters as adults—something which at present seems to be considered little short of political suicide.

Yet not treating Americans as adults has costs. For instance, it became the official policy of our federal government to try to make America "a drug-free nation" 25 years ago.

After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and imprisoning millions of people, it's slowly beginning to become possible for some politicians to admit that fighting a necessarily endless drug war in pursuit of an impossible goal might be a bad idea. How long will it take to admit that an endless war on terror, dedicated to making America a terror-free nation, is equally nonsensical?

What then is to be done? A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic criminals need not grant them the attention they crave. Continuing to play Terrorball, on the other hand, guarantees that the terrorists will always win, since it places the bar for what counts as success for them practically on the ground.

—Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.

[Marcus Bryant]

As to the question of what the government should do rather than keep playing Terrorball, the answer is simple: stop treating Americans like idiots and cowards.

That is not possible.

[balli]

Inforgraphic:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/30/odds-of-being-a-terr.html

[Marcus Bryant]

Terrorball, in short, is made possible by a loss of the sense that cowardice is among the most disgusting and shameful of vices. I shudder to think what Washington, who as commander in chief of the Continental Army intentionally exposed himself to enemy fire to rally his poorly armed and badly outnumbered troops, would think of the spectacle of millions of Americans not merely tolerating but actually demanding that their government subject them to various indignities, in the false hope that the rituals of what has been called "security theater" will reduce the already infinitesimal risks we face from terrorism.

Good point given how often the "Founding Fathers" are evoked in American politics. Life is messy, life is unfair (hell, even Jimmy C admitted that). Be an American, not a pussy, as it were.

[EVAY]

Excellent article. Perhaps the most timely and cogent I have ever seen posted in this forum. Thanks, Marcus

[Phenomanul]

It's a remarkable fact that a nation founded, fought for, built by, and transformed through the extraordinary courage of figures such as George Washington, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. now often seems reduced to a pitiful whimpering giant by a handful of mostly incompetent criminals, whose main weapons consist of scary-sounding Web sites and shoe- and underwear-concealed bombs that fail to detonate.


While the article does reveal certain unwanted truths about the nature of the war against terrorism (in particular by drawing an interesting parrallelism to the war against drugs and the futility thereof) the professor shouldn't be that naive about this one tidbit.

Americans aren't necessarily sleepless over the acts of certain 'incompetent criminals' - because largely, they feel 'safe' in their respective American cities/towns. Most Americans, however, fear that some of the more competent brand could eventually unleash another devastating act (like 9/11). Furthermore, the potential use of "nooculer" weapons by such groups certainly merits our nation's concern for vigilance.

[symple19]

While the article does reveal certain unwanted truths about the nature of the war against terrorism (in particular by drawing an interesting parrallelism to the war against drugs and the futility thereof) the professor shouldn't be that naive about this one tidbit.

Americans aren't necessarily sleepless over the acts of certain 'incompetent criminals' - because largely, they feel 'safe' in their respective American cities/towns. Most Americans, however, fear that some of the more competent brand could eventually unleash another devastating act (like 9/11). Furthermore, the potential use of "nooculer" weapons by such groups certainly merits our nations' concern for vigilance.

nice post.

[ElNono]

Most Americans, however, fear that some of the more competent brand could eventually unleash another devastating act (like 9/11).

It's interesting that you deem 9/11 'devastating'. How would you describe Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


Furthermore, the potential use of "nooculer" weapons by such groups certainly merits our nation's concern for vigilance.

That's inevitable at this point, vigilance or not. The only factor is portability, something that technology will eventually overcome. I actually wonder if you're going to be demanding the government to build fallout shelters when that happens?

[Winehole23]

Any government possessing the actual power to prevent terrorism would be little distinguishable from the society under attack. The level of routine government intrusion necessary to succeed in the mission would be unbearably onerous (one would hope) to fans of traditional American liberty.

Apparently, this is not the case. Not only are Americans content to cede some of their privacy to a government that cannot prevent all future attacks, some of them are practically begging for the opportunity to give away even more.

[Winehole23]

It's interesting that you deem 9/11 'devastating'. How would you describe Hiroshima and Nagasaki?Remember that for Americans, *pain and suffering* has a calculable economic value. The effect 9/11 had on us was *devastating*.

Just like the effect our response to it had on ourselves and everybody else.


That's inevitable at this point, vigilance or not. The only factor is portability, something that technology will eventually overcome. I actually wonder if you're going to be demanding the government to build fallout shelters when that happens?:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Put jobs or the flag on it and Americans will fellate and swallow it.

[Phenomanul]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that the professor is naive for believing that most terrorists are but mere 'incompetent criminals'... One competent and dastardly one is all it takes... But hey, I know you just love arguing for argument's sake...


It's interesting that you deem 9/11 'devastating'. How would you describe Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

As an unfortunate wartime event in US/Japanese history... but one that ultimately prevented the War in the Pacific from dragging on for longer than it had to... those bombs, while powerful and devastating to those two cities, effectively ended a war; promptly so I would add. And yes, innocent lives were lost... but Japan ultimately placed herself in that position when she decided to attack Pearl Harbor; a place where non-military casualties were also suffered... Japan knowingly brought war upon herself, without regard for her own citizens. And it's not like the Japanese were pious warriors either... remember they sent balloon bombs over to our west coast... civilians be damned. Fortunately they weren't designed too well...

Here's a hypothetical question for you... Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor and formally waged war against this nation if ato_mic bom_bs had been developed say... 7 years sooner?



That's inevitable at this point, vigilance or not. The only factor is portability, something that technology will eventually overcome. I actually wonder if you're going to be demanding the government to build fallout shelters when that happens?

What have I demanded from the government now? at this point?

I'm merely explaining why certain Americans have qualms about terrorists... You don't need to be drawing tangential arguments that have nothing to do with what I just explained.

[ElNono]

As an unfortunate wartime event in US/Japanese history... but one that ultimately prevented the War in the Pacific from dragging on for longer than it had to... those bombs, while powerful and devastating to those two cities, effectively ended a war; promptly so I would add. And yes, innocent lives were lost... but Japan ultimately placed herself in that position when she decided to attack Pearl Harbor; a place where non-military casualties were also suffered... Japan knowingly brought war upon herself, without regard for her own citizens. And it's not like the Japanese were pious warriors either... remember they sent balloon bombs over to our west coast... civilians be damned. Fortunately they weren't designed too well...

Thanks. So you're basically telling me that in your opinion, the end justifies the means. IE: We blew nearly a quarter million people (most of them civilian) in order to 'send a message'.
It's also justified, because since they killed our civilians, then we can feel free to reduce ourselves to the same scum they are and pay them with the same coin...


Here's a hypothetical question for you... Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor and formally waged war against this nation if ato_mic bom_bs had been developed say... 7 years sooner?


Well, I'm not sure. They might have waged a non-conventional war instead.
Obviously, Vietnam didn't happen yet, so I don't know if they had the blueprint then. It certainly hasn't stopped attacks against the US.



What have I demanded from the government now? at this point?

A false sense of security at the expense of personal liberties?


I'm merely explaining why certain Americans have qualms about terrorists... You don't need to be drawing tangential arguments that have nothing to do with what I just explained.

You're not part of those 'certain Americans' you allude to?

[Phenomanul]

Thanks. So you're basically telling me that in your opinion, the end justifies the means. IE: We blew nearly a quarter million people (most of them civilian) in order to 'send a message'.
It's also justified, because since they killed our civilians, then we can feel free to reduce ourselves to the same scum they are and pay them with the same coin...

It was WAR, not a pre-emptive strike... but, I believe you answered your own question with the following comment:



Well, I'm not sure. They might have waged a non-conventional war instead.
Obviously, Vietnam didn't happen yet, so I don't know if they had the blueprint then. It certainly hasn't stopped attacks against the US.

Which would be that the US has never actually used their atomic arsenal... other than to put and end to WWII... they could have used it in Vietnam, Korea or against the Soviets etc... we never have because Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught the world about the responsibility that comes attached to the use of such weapons. Even the U.S. was surprised at the extent of the destruction...

I don't know what else you want me to say?...

That the Japanese should have been faced as gentlemen... when they certainly weren't extending that courtesy? They waged WAR on the U.S.? They "awoke a sleeping giant" and suffered for that decision. Ironically, Japan is one of this Nation's strongest allies today.

Likewise, do you feel that we should be engaging terrorists as gentlemen? They won't even show their cowardly faces, and bid their dirty work to young, impressionably naive people... they can't even do their own work!

BTW, one of Japan's largest torpedo manufacturers happened to be in Nagasaki. The original target (a military one) was spared due to excessive cloudiness...



A false sense of security at the expense of personal liberties?

I certainly haven't lost much... more than say actual money I will be losing on account of stupid Carbon Credit legislation... today's 'eco-faschism'...


You're not part of those 'certain Americans' you allude to?

What demanding shelters? yeah right... :rolleyes

[ElNono]

It was WAR, not a pre-emptive strike... but, I believe you answered your own question with the following comment:

There are rules to war. Rules we agreed to follow. Tell me, in your opinion, what is the difference between War, preemptive-strike, and a terrorist act for that matter?. I mean, how do you get to justify one but not the other.


Which would be that the US has never actually used their atomic arsenal... other than to put and end to WWII... they could have used it in Vietnam, Korea or against the Soviets etc... we never have because Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught the world about the responsibility that comes attached to the use of such weapons. Even the U.S. was surprised at the extent of the destruction...I don't know what else you want me to say?...

I was merely responding to the insinuation that atomic bombs have been a successful deterrent to prevent attacks against America. They obviously have not been.


That the Japanese should have been faced as gentlemen... when they certainly weren't extending that courtesy? They waged WAR on the U.S.? They "awoke a sleeping giant" and suffered for that decision. Ironically, Japan is one of this Nation's strongest allies today.

Likewise, do you feel that we should be engaging terrorists as gentlemen? They won't even show their cowardly faces, and bid their dirty work to young, impressionably naive people... they can't even do their own work!

They should be faced as war enemies. What kind of moral ground could you possibly have to say that they're the bad guys and you're the good guy when you reduce yourself to the same scum they are?
It's a coward act to attack civilians when they do it, but its OK when we do it because, well, they've done it first. We're just getting even.
Hypocritical much?


I certainly haven't lost much... more than say actual money I will be losing on account of stupid Carbon Credit legislation... today's 'eco-faschism'...

Hey, I don't believe in global warming one bit, so i can agree with you on that. But the fact that the Patriot Act didn't affect you directly doesn't make it right either. And at stake is much more than mere economics.

[Marcus Bryant]

There's too much "we" when Americans talk about the state. I'm guilty of it on occasion myself. It's rather difficult for Americans to separate their government from their country. The government is the country to most Americans. So naturally it's easier for Americans to accept more wars or an increasing nationalization of a particular industry.

[MannyIsGod]

The Odds of Airborne Terror (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html)

from FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right (https://www.google.com/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fivethirtyeight.com%2Ffeeds%2Fpos ts%2Fdefault%3Falt%3Drss) by [email protected] (Nate Silver)100+ people liked this


Not going to do any editorializing here; just going to do some non-fancy math. James Joyner asks (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tsa_making_flying_more_miserable/):

There have been precisely three attempts over the last eight years to commit acts of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft. All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers. How many tens of thousands of flights have been incident free? Let's expand Joyner's scope out to the past decade. Over the past decade, there have been, by my count, six attempted terrorist incidents on board a commercial airliner than landed in or departed from the United States: the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11, the shoe bomber incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomber) in December 2001, and the NWA flight 253 incident on Christmas.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml#CustomizeTable) provides a wealth of statistical information on air traffic. For this exercise, I will look at both domestic flights within the US, and international flights whose origin or destination was within the United States. I will not look at flights that transported cargo and crew only. I will look at flights spanning the decade from October 1999 through September 2009 inclusive (the BTS does not yet have data available for the past couple of months).

Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.

These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.

Assuming an average airborne speed of 425 miles per hour, these airplanes were aloft for a total of 163,331,261 hours. Therefore, there has been one terrorist incident per 27,221,877 hours airborne. This can also be expressed as one incident per 1,134,245 days airborne, or one incident per 3,105 years airborne.

There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

Again, no editorializing (for now). These are just the numbers.

[Phenomanul]

There are rules to war. Rules we agreed to follow. Tell me, in your opinion, what is the difference between War, preemptive-strike, and a terrorist act for that matter?. I mean, how do you get to justify one but not the other.

I was merely responding to the insinuation that atomic bombs have been a successful deterrent to prevent attacks against America. They obviously have not been.

They should be faced as war enemies. What kind of moral ground could you possibly have to say that they're the bad guys and you're the good guy when you reduce yourself to the same scum they are?
It's a coward act to attack civilians when they do it, but its OK when we do it because, well, they've done it first. We're just getting even.
Hypocritical much?

Look, I certainly don't condone devastating acts, nor am I war-mongering fellow... but Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided lessons to the whole world, including our own military, about the destructive nature of these weapons. The demise, destruction and subsequent misery in those two cities has much to do with why atomic weapons have not been unleashed since... a fact that has little to do with whether or not our arsenal is a successful deterrent to terrorism... (although the former U.S.S.R. might disagree with the premise that it wasn't - there's no way to know for sure).

Anyways, if such weapons are not an effective deterrent against our current enemy it's because they know that we don't plan to use such bombs on them... Don't think for a second however, that radical muslims would show any modicum of restraint if they had this type of weapon in their possesion. That is the contextual difference between our approach. Furthermore, the latter is the scenario that the U.S. is trying to prevent.

As for our 'enemy,' they're the ones shooting down, and bombing their own countrymen... For you to claim that our military has an open policy on civilians would be for you to ignore the obvious... It's our Military's self-restraint, and consideration for them that has kept this war against terror going. Otherwise our nuclear armament might actually serve as a deterrent option against their will to attack us. As I said, though - it is our own responsibility that keeps our military leaders from ever having to reach those crossroads - and the enemy certainly takes advantage of it... That's why their tactics are extreme... That's why they behave cowardly and hide among the civilians... civilians that they then turn their back on when placing all sorts of land mines in their midst, or by directly bombing them down with suicide bombers at public gatherings (mosques, plazas, roads, markets).

The enemy knows that if they were to face our forces directly that the 'war' would be over quickly. But combating our forces isn't necessarily their number one objective; no, their objective is to destroy western society altogether... and they won't stop until they do. They've stated this much on numerous occasions. Our objective hence is to eliminate all such radical threats, and to provide a front for their jihadist belligerence. To divert their targets away from our shores... and keep them busy in their own 'backyard' so-to-speak... [that's why I lauded the article's original parallelism between the war on terror and the war on drugs, because frankly, neither have an end in sight and our tactics for engaging them haven't been very effective: the war on terror, however, does serve a secondary purpose - read above]...

U.S. Military strategy aims to minimize the loss of civilian life... and to avoid such losses whenever possible. This is radically different than not caring for them at all (ahem... our enemy's defacto approach)... When you equate both, you're conveniently missing the point for the sake of justifying your own opposition to their presence there. You said I was being hypocritical? The flaw in your premise is that your comparison is rather disingenuous? Otherwise you would show the same type of compassion when defending the life of those unborn. You really don't care for the life of those civilians any more than you care for the life of unborn children. Those without a voice... The difference between you and me, is that I actually care about both and firmly hold my position to do so.

We've nothing to gain at the loss of their civilians, it's quite lamentable in fact... our enemy however, gains a whole lot more at the loss of ours. You just can't seem to see the difference.


Hey, I don't believe in global warming one bit, so i can agree with you on that. But the fact that the Patriot Act didn't affect you directly doesn't make it right either. And at stake is much more than mere economics.

Well, we were bound to agree on something...:tu You pretty much oppose my entire world view. :wakeup

[ElNono]

Look, I certainly don't condone devastating acts, nor am I war-mongering fellow... but Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided lessons to the whole world, including our own military, about the destructive nature of these weapons. The demise, destruction and subsequent misery in those two cities has much to do with why atomic weapons have not been unleashed since... a fact that has little to do with whether or not our arsenal is a successful deterrent to terrorism... (although the former U.S.S.R. might disagree with the premise that it wasn't - there's no way to know for sure).

Anyways, if such weapons are not an effective deterrent against our current enemy it's because they know that we don't plan to use such bombs on them... Don't think for a second however, that radical muslims would show any modicum of restraint if they had this type of weapon in their possesion. That is the contextual difference between our approach. Furthermore, the latter is the scenario that the U.S. is trying to prevent.


Actually, it has very little to do with that. They're not afraid to die for their cause. So death, either in the hand of a nuke or anything else, is really irrelevant to them. It's wether the death was in vain or as part of furthering their cause what matters to them.
And until you're willing to stop being scared and willing to die for what this country stands for, freedom and liberty, then you're going to be at a disadvantage. And as long as you're scared, they'll be winning.

I agree with you that Japan taught us a few lessons. However, the problem is with the mistakes that we keep on repeating. For example, Gitmo looks a whole lot like the Japanese American internment camps. We also learned a lot in the Nixon era about warrantless government wiretapping and it's abuses, yet we go and make the same mistakes. This is in part what I'm singling out.


As for our 'enemy,' they're the ones shooting down, and bombing their own countrymen... For you to claim that our military has an open policy on civilians would be for you to ignore the obvious... It's our Military's self-restraint, and consideration for them that has kept this war against terror going. Otherwise our nuclear armament might actually serve as a deterrent option against their will to attack us. As I said, though - it is our own responsibility that keeps our military leaders from ever having to reach those crossroads - and the enemy certainly takes advantage of it... That's why their tactics are extreme... That's why they behave cowardly and hide among the civilians... civilians that they then turn their back on when placing all sorts of land mines in their midst, or by directly bombing them down with suicide bombers at public gatherings (mosques, plazas, roads, markets).

I actually have very little beef with the Military in general. Perhaps I think their contractor system is fairly corrupt. Maybe one or two other things, but in general they do follow international law and they're careful to do their job properly.


The enemy knows that if they were to face our forces directly that the 'war' would be over quickly. But combating our forces isn't necessarily their number one objective; no, their objective is to destroy western society altogether... and they won't stop until they do. They've stated this much on numerous occasions. Our objective hence is to eliminate all such radical threats, and to provide a front for their jihadist belligerence. To divert their targets away from our shores... and keep them busy in their own 'backyard' so-to-speak... [that's why I lauded the article's original parallelism between the war on terror and the war on drugs, because frankly, neither have an end in sight and our tactics for engaging them haven't been very effective: the war on terror, however, does serve a secondary purpose - read above]...

U.S. Military strategy aims to minimize the loss of civilian life... and to avoid such losses whenever possible. This is radically different than not caring for them at all (ahem... our enemy's defacto approach)... When you equate both, you're conveniently missing the point for the sake of justifying your own opposition to their presence there. You said I was being hypocritical? The flaw in your premise is that your comparison is rather disingenuous? Otherwise you would show the same type of compassion when defending the life of those unborn. You really don't care for the life of those civilians any more than you care for the life of unborn children. Those without a voice... The difference between you and me, is that I actually care about both and firmly hold my position to do so.

The problem has nothing to do with the Military. The problem is strictly political. Monstrous creations such as 'preemptive attack' doctrine, 'enemy combatant', etc. The fact that the population is scared shitless doesn't help either, but that's exactly how the government wants it.


We've nothing to gain at the loss of their civilians, it's quite lamentable in fact... our enemy however, gains a whole lot more at the loss of ours. You just can't seem to see the difference.

So what's your solution? If our civilians (you and me) are willing to die for our freedom and liberty, then the motive for killing them would gain terrorists nothing. It would actually hurt them. Do you see a different end to this? How long is going to take us to figure this one out, and how much freedom will we lose in the process?

Let me ask you this: If you were offered an airplane ticket at 1/4 the price, that had a disclaimer you had to sign where you don't make the airline responsible for a terror attack on the flight but basically involved no security scans, would you buy that ticket or go with the full fare and the entire security theater stuff?

[Phenomanul]

Actually, it has very little to do with that. They're not afraid to die for their cause. So death, either in the hand of a nuke or anything else, is really irrelevant to them. It's wether the death was in vain or as part of furthering their cause what matters to them.

That's part of the problem, for radical muslims their 'cause' is the complete and total anihilation of the western world. They don't want to share it with anyone.



And until you're willing to stop being scared and willing to die for what this country stands for, freedom and liberty, then you're going to be at a disadvantage. And as long as you're scared, they'll be winning.


I'm not really scared of them... or of dying, for that matter. I was taught never take a day for granted because we never know if it's our last.

What they do is highly disruptive to every facet of our society. Our financial infrastructure, the energy sector, which governs the markets, the cost of gas, the cost of food, etc... their attacks are an infringement on our very way of life.



I agree with you that Japan taught us a few lessons. However, the problem is with the mistakes that we keep on repeating. For example, Gitmo looks a whole lot like the Japanese American internment camps. We also learned a lot in the Nixon era about warrantless government wiretapping and it's abuses, yet we go and make the same mistakes. This is in part what I'm singling out.

I actually have very little beef with the Military in general. Perhaps I think their contractor system is fairly corrupt. Maybe one or two other things, but in general they do follow international law and they're careful to do their job properly.

I can agree with most of this. It's not a perfect system, I know....



The problem has nothing to do with the Military. The problem is strictly political. Monstrous creations such as 'preemptive attack' doctrine, 'enemy combatant', etc. The fact that the population is scared shitless doesn't help either, but that's exactly how the government wants it.

The political machine is a monster I won't delve into nearly as much... why do you think I oppose the ridiculous 'green' legislation coming out lately... Ultimately, I believe they will end up undermining true conservation efforts by pushing false agendas and alienating those that truly want to positively impact their world.



So what's your solution? If our civilians (you and me) are willing to die for our freedom and liberty, then the motive for killing them would gain terrorists nothing. It would actually hurt them. Do you see a different end to this? How long is going to take us to figure this one out, and how much freedom will we lose in the process?

I don't know what the solution is. Particularly because the muslim world (the non-radicals) don't entirely trust the U.S, if at all. If they did, they would make a push towards reducing the high incursion rate of radical adherents from within their countries... i.e. they would eliminate the beligerent factions from within... they would try and instill a more tolerant approach towards the west by pushing a worldview paradigm shift, "we don't have to be like them... but we can live among them..." Programs and doctrines that could actually gain some ground on eliminating the radical doctrines... If change is to come, it has to come from within. But their leaders at least have to recognize that letting radicalism fester in their schools, and mosques is not conducive towards that goal.

At one point in history the Islamic world was the center of renaissance... there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to revert to that worldview... with regards to foreigners...

I believe programs from within would likely be more effective... than us trying to force them to accept us. At what point do we target those actively targeting us without alienating future generations of muslims??? When do we stop without compromising our security... That is the problematic dynamic that keeps this war going and going and going... etc....


Let me ask you this: If you were offered an airplane ticket at 1/4 the price, that had a disclaimer you had to sign where you don't make the airline responsible for a terror attack on the flight but basically involved no security scans, would you buy that ticket or go with the full fare and the entire security theater stuff?

Most of the price comes from fuel costs... but the airlines would never do this. Their planes are worth way too much. Insurance companies would never play for a downed plane knowing the airline company did nothing to prevent the loss.

[ElNono]

I don't know what the solution is.
Particularly because the muslim world (the non-radicals) don't entirely trust the U.S, if at all. If they did, they would make a push towards reducing the high incursion rate of radical adherents from within their countries... i.e. they would eliminate the beligerent factions from within... they would try and instill a more tolerant approach towards the west by pushing a worldview paradigm shift, "we don't have to be like them... but we can live among them..." Programs and doctrines that could actually gain some ground on eliminating the radical doctrines... If change is to come, it has to come from within. But their leaders at least have to recognize that letting radicalism fester in their schools, and mosques is not conducive towards that goal.

But the mistrust and anti-american sentiment happens even in non-muslim countries. The difference obviously is that some of those other countries mostly don't get to the point of radicalization that part of the islamic movement has.


At one point in history the Islamic world was the center of renaissance... there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to revert to that worldview... with regards to foreigners...
I believe programs from within would likely be more effective... than us trying to force them to accept us. At what point do we target those actively targeting us without alienating future generations of muslims??? When do we stop without compromising our security... That is the problematic dynamic that keeps this war going and going and going... etc....

You can't. Palestinian and Israelis have been going through the same shit forever.


Most of the price comes from fuel costs... but the airlines would never do this. Their planes are worth way too much. Insurance companies would never play for a downed plane knowing the airline company did nothing to prevent the loss.

Actually, TSA charges airlines to the tune of $450 million a year in Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee. This is on top of the $2.50 collected per enplanement on the September 11 Security Fee. Obviously airlines passes the buck to the consumer. Like when the price of gas was through the roof, and they started to charge for bag fees. Now that the price of gas went down, they still charge you.

Now, as far as insurance companies, they will asses the risk and value accordingly. If we go back to the security measures we had before Sept 11, and you look at the numbers, the amount of incidents is negligible.

[Marcus Bryant]

But their leaders at least have to recognize that letting radicalism fester in their schools, and mosques is not conducive towards that goal.

How about schools which promote uncritical loyalty to a movement, and teach a generally glowing account of that movement's history? Not to mention said movement has been known to engage in wanton violence.


http://shanelyang.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/american-classroom.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

It's not at all possible that the Pentagon and friends would ever find a neverending war good for business.

Of course we, the broad mass of individuals regarded as a monolithic people, cannot dare question the expertise of the war planners and grand military men who make these decisions, nor of the politicians who ceremonially give them authorization (if they bother to do that sometimes).

Not that the people truly have a say in the government which rules them anymore. Or any restrictions on that government which truly guarantee their rights. Pure democracy is rather shitty. A plutocracy that does as it pleases without constitutional restraints is just as worse.

[Marcus Bryant]

This "War on Terror" is the death knell for whatever life the Constitution had in it. All an enterprising politician has to do to get around it is wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 or spout "terrorist" or "Moslem" around and the people gladly surrender their remaining liberties.

We're past eight years of shooting up the mountains of Afghanistan, with no end in sight. This is madness. Some might say an evil which we now perpetuate on ourselves, or which we allow to be perpetuated on us.

We've blown trillions of dollars on this, with what to show for it, exactly? Before us lies the prospect of spending many trillions more chasing ghosts around the world. This is no way for a free people to live or behave.

[Marcus Bryant]

There's always some great danger, some great evil used as a foil by politicians to chip away at that old piece of paper which, for better or worse, as served this country of individuals fairly well since its inception. Yes, it has not been perfect, just as life is not perfect or humanity is not perfect. We're offered greater security for a bit of that paper every year, and like the stupid fucking dogs we are, we wag our tails and accept the bowl full of horse meat we're served.

We're easily scared, unabashedly obedient, steadfastly loyal, and pretty fucking stupid. Actually, we're better at being dogs than dogs are themselves.

[ElNono]

What's really aggravating is that when the resolve of the average american got tested, they turned in their wallets and rights for a precarious sense of security.
Obviously, ever since the politicians took notice of the result, they have been trying to extend this bullshit for as long as they can ride it. When are we going to snap out of it?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's the problem. That the notion of an "average American" is accepted today without dissent. We are programmed to respond...correctly.

One of IBM's latest commercials drives that home inadvertently. The Chinese classroom, with all students in one uniform, devoid of individuality, is hailed as the end of the path to the future to which IBM will connect us. We're closer than we've ever been...or perhaps we're already there. Conformity within the veneer of individuality.

[boutons_deux]

Muslims kill more Muslims than Americans do.

Americans kill more Americans, 10s of 1000s more PER YEAR, than Muslims have EVER killed, over all years.