If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Those of you who have read "Dude Where's My Country" will recognise this next passage, but when we are discussing the US approach to the War on Terrorism, the rise of searches for Muslims and the apparent anti everyone feelings that some on these boards appear to have, I figured that it should be raised here...
In 2000, 2002 & 2003, US citizens had a zero probability of dying in a terrorist act on home soil.
In 2001, the year of the WTC attacks, the probability was 1 in 100,000. This prompted the "War on Terrorism" which has seen two nations invaded, countless armed personnel and innocent civilians killed and has increased the climate of fear in the US. It has seen the passing of two of the most oppressive, invasive acts ever seen in a "democratic" state.
1 in 100,000.
Consider that figure and the implications when you look at these probability rates from the same year:
Death from flu/pneumonia - 1 in 45,000
Victim of homicide - 1 in 14,000
Death from Car accident - 1 in 6,500
Suicide - 1 in 9,200
The last one is especially telling. US citizens were ten times as likely to harm themselves than be a victim of terror.
Now, look at the implication of Bush's approach to that 1 in 100,000. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, Patriot Act (1 & 2) which undermined personal freedom to an unprecedented level.
We have also taken a similar approach (or at least Labour have tried to). What seems to have happened is that the attack on WTC has been used to create a culture of fear in the UK and US. Luckesh is a prime example of how that culture leads to people not recognising his real enemies - it's similar (in my mind) to McCarthyism, or the witchunts of our past.
My question is, are all of these actions justified. Should we give up our personal freedoms - or rather should be allow them to be taken away?
I once said that I would fight for my country if I thought that it would preserve democracy, that if my nation called then I would answer. Hence I am watching these laws closely and starting to wonder if it is a separate state I should be concerned about or my own Government...
In 2000, 2002 & 2003, US citizens had a zero probability of dying in a terrorist act on home soil.
In 2001, the year of the WTC attacks, the probability was 1 in 100,000. This prompted the "War on Terrorism" which has seen two nations invaded, countless armed personnel and innocent civilians killed and has increased the climate of fear in the US. It has seen the passing of two of the most oppressive, invasive acts ever seen in a "democratic" state.
1 in 100,000.
Consider that figure and the implications when you look at these probability rates from the same year:
Death from flu/pneumonia - 1 in 45,000
Victim of homicide - 1 in 14,000
Death from Car accident - 1 in 6,500
Suicide - 1 in 9,200
The last one is especially telling. US citizens were ten times as likely to harm themselves than be a victim of terror.
Now, look at the implication of Bush's approach to that 1 in 100,000. War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, Patriot Act (1 & 2) which undermined personal freedom to an unprecedented level.
We have also taken a similar approach (or at least Labour have tried to). What seems to have happened is that the attack on WTC has been used to create a culture of fear in the UK and US. Luckesh is a prime example of how that culture leads to people not recognising his real enemies - it's similar (in my mind) to McCarthyism, or the witchunts of our past.
My question is, are all of these actions justified. Should we give up our personal freedoms - or rather should be allow them to be taken away?
I once said that I would fight for my country if I thought that it would preserve democracy, that if my nation called then I would answer. Hence I am watching these laws closely and starting to wonder if it is a separate state I should be concerned about or my own Government...
0
Comments
perhaps its because something like terroism can kill more people in one go.
so while flu kills so many thousands over a peroid of months, a bomb can kill thousands in seconds
perhaps also there are some interesting stats on while your chance of being a victim of terroism is 1 in 100 000, if, you are caught in an act then what % is the likelihood of being killed?
And then smoking kills many thousands a year but it gets no press attention.
flu - can't do much about
smoking - can't stop it happening
terroist - can bomb them
so fighting terrorists is somthing that can be done that gets results
(not that I advocate such methods)
I guess it just has to do with news stories, there is more excitement in a terrorist bombing than someone dying slowly and painfully from cancer.
enough for the media anymore.
there are probably more analogies between somoking and terror eg
the more the goverment try to stop it the more resolute some will become in continuing
More like it is easier to take a simplistic approach to terrorism. That is - bomb people.
Problem with that approach is that it never really addresses the underlying issues. Whilst these continue, so will terrorism.
Or at least some terrorism.
You will always get people who disagree with you (as a nation state) and there will always be some who who resort to voilence to achieve their aims. But the resorting to voilence is precisely what the US has done. Hwo GWB managed to argue that Saddam and the WTC attacks were linked - and get the US public to believe him - is beyond me. But he did, and he used "fear" to get there.
With the other problems you need to take a more measure approach. None of them - as you say - have kneejerk reponses, so I guess the politicians aren't interested.
Plus its always good to have a scape goat to whip on now and then to take the blame away from your own failings.
the fact there has been no major incidents in the u.s. or u.k. since 9/11 is surely proof that its not a major threat at all, rather a convenient reason to bomb anyone who doesnt fall into line with the western way of thinking.
saddam was a cnut ...but he was our cnut ...if we had lifted all sanctions and let him trade with the world again ...he would have been our best weapon against terrorism in the middle east.
he hated extreme islamic stuff ...they in turn hated him ...simple realy. we could have continued to employ him as our cutn ...against the mad mullahs ...just like we did with iran.
the iraqi people would still be living in a mostly terrorist free and prosperous country ...like they have for years.
now they live in danger and missery.
which is pretty much the same thing as the US are doing
If you are going to bring up old shit, then so will I.
We are still trading with the US even after what Rumsfeld (sp) ordered/allowed/covered up Abu Gharb (once again sp) and Guantanemo Bay.
No, at Abu Ghraib prison.
luke ...most arab countrys are ruled by cunst ...we trade with them.
the vast majority of iraqi people ...taxi drivers ...business men ...night club owners etc ...had little to fear from saddam.
the yanks have moved in and been exposed as being just as big a bunch of ****s as saddams lot ...and yes ...the orders apperently came from the very top!
Our friend but have terrible human rights record?
The argument about going to free the Iraqis from Saddam loses some credibility when we have "friends" which have the same record when it comes to Human Right Abuses.
(edited to add sorry Mr Roll but have just repeated what you said! :rolleyes: )