Very Hard Truth -- If You Want To Live In A Free Society Some People Will Die From Terrorist Attacks

[Blackhatjack]

To live in a country that is free, with open borders for its citizens to traverse, the price cannot be avoided --those who intend to harm us will take advantage of those circumstances. US citizens will be attacked, injured and some will die. It has been that way since the inception of a constitutional democracy in this country.

The alternative is to give up the freedoms that we have and trade them for imagined security wrapped in all manner of suppression of our constitutional rights that undergird our free society.
Unless we convert to an authoritarian/totalitarian form of government that promise of 'security' will not be fulfilled, and even in countries with those forms of government there still are attacks on their citizens.

If you go back to the 1960 when this country faced domestic bombings and terrorist acts(like the Symbionese Liberation Army), it was proven that we cannot stop them. We did not enact onerous laws that stripped the people of their constitutional rights. However, law enforcement did operate under the law and eventually tracked down most if not all of the members of the SLA.

The question is which way you would rather live? Is the quality of life more important than merely existing without freedom?

There is a price to be paid either way.

As for me, I prefer to live free. I still believe in the truth of 'Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.' How about you?

[Blackhatjack]

1. Caller on CSPAN WJ just said '(Dems) don't want to keep us safe'....

Typical of callers who do not appreciate what it means to live in a free society with democratic constitutional government.

Life without freedom is not worth living.

[spanone]

20. give me liberty or give me..............

[ixion]

2. further, Life is not a theme park...

no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot remove all the "nasties" from life. It's better to educate people, and to leave people with cultures different than ours alone, rather than constantly trying to "liberate" them.

[hobbit709]

4. People die occasionally in theme parks too.

There is no safety this side of the grave. This is like people that are terrified to fly, when the trip to the airport is a 1000 times more likely to kill you.

[ixion]

8. very true... I use "theme park" as a metaphor because

it's a place where they (at least in appearance) try to create a vacuum with no nasties. Of course, as you say, even at that degree of control, some people still see the dark underbelly of the carnival ride, as it were.

[Wednesdays]

41. Theme park accidents in the last 5 years

have killed more people in this country than terrorists. Wonder why they don't have a federal department devoted to that?

Not to mention the number of people killed by firearms, auto accidents...

Man, the priorities of this country are so unbelievably screwed up.

[hfojvt]

54. excellent point and one I was gonna make

but even if you INCLUDE 9-11 terrorists are not sh*t. 3,000 deaths oooh I am so scared. Granted, even one death is too many if it is one of MY loved ones. But there are 20,000 homicides every year; 30,000 suicides; 40,000 fatal car accidents; 64,000 dying from the flu; 14,000 from AIDS 600,000 from heart disease, etc., etc., etc.

I don't like that sig line though. Although I am of the 8%, I think we need to welcome all of the 92% (or 51%) who defect instead of bragging about our superiority.

[bigwillq]

6. Educate

and prepare.



And unfortunately we are still not prepared enough for an attack, or from a natural disaster. Our borders, ports, rails and underground transportation is far from being as safe as it should be and we all know full well about how bad our infrastructure is.


All that money that went overseas could've been used to fix some of these problems. :mad:

[Mark Twain Girl]

30. Eek! That's good... America as a theme park rather than a constitutional republic -- well put.

Too many people seem to be in it for the theme park.

[ixion]

58. exactly... and thanks...

incidentally, Mark Twain is one of my top ten favorite authors. :hi:

[USA_1]

3. "Terrorism"

... there wouldn't be any if the USA and the Western European powers hadn't invaded the Middle East and North African states. Hundreds of thousands have died and billions have been plundered from their lands.

Now, that's what I call terrorism.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

11. The President's oath of office...

...seems to be clear enough--that the Constitution, its principles and ideals are at least equal to any other duty and consideration of that office, and I don't see a whole lot of fear-mongering in that document;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

-- I haven't checked on those other governmental oaths yet (legislative, judicial, etc.) but I'm pretty sure that they are very similar--heavily biased toward "preserving, protecting and defending" the Constitution itself, not toward ANY conflicting interest or agenda (foreign or domestic), no matter how well-oiled and slick the scare-tactics may be.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

5. Me too, Jack!

Unfortunately, fear seems to be the greater motivator of the masses. Can't the people see that the fear-based undermining of our way of life--of our highest ideals and priorities--is exactly what the terrorists want? Are there none in government who will proclaim from the rooftops that it's this quiet, internal erosion of our free society that "they" seek most of all--far more than a victory of blood and bullets?

[KittyWampus]

7. If you want to live with cars, even MORE people will die every year in car accidents

[trof]

9. And if you want to drive, some people will die in accidents.

You're absolutely right.
There's some element of risk in almost every activity.

[porphyrian]

10. Considering we're more likely to be killed by an avalanche than by terrorists...

...I'll take freedom.

[unpossibles]

12. ironic that so many of them have no problem understanding this principle when it comes to

guns.

Same idea. We are free to own guns. Guns kill. To remove guns in the name of safety does not mean that no one will die any more.

(sorry - not trying to start a flamefest)

[Cassandra]

13. Yes, they are all for everyone packing an Uzi...

even the terrorists, apparently.

[unpossibles]

14. and don't forget the Free market ability to sell arms overseas

to "allies" who will someday come back to attack us, just like what is happening now.

Oy, the world is crazy.

[benEzra]

48. Possession of an actual Uzi is a 10-year felony under current law...

Yes, they are all for everyone packing an Uzi...even the terrorists, apparently.

Possession of an actual Uzi outside of police/military duty is a 10-year felony under current law, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). Even civilian Uzi lookalikes (ordinary civilian 9mm pistols dressed up to look like Uzi's) haven't been imported for many years.

Gonzales wants the power to deny gun ownership to any U.S. citizen without trial or due process, though.

[treestar]

52. Right wingers understand this principle when it comes to economics, too

They don't want the social safety net; they are willing to take their chances.

Yet the hypocrites aren't willing to take even the slight and miniscule chance that terrorists might kill them?

[darnelljohnson]

15. Terrorism is a useful device to scare us...

The reason why terrorism is such a useful device for the government to steal our freedoms is because of media coverage and fear mongering. Anyone with a working brain in their head can see that a group of extremists cannot "destroy our way of life" and that this is just a device that Bush and company have deployed to gather more power unto themselves.

The sad reality friends is it is effective when you have enough people afraid, I love this country but I fear I'll end up leaving it. I would never want to raise children in this sort of fear-laden, super-policed environment.

[bemildred]

16. Some people seem to think "security" is living in a walled compound.

I think security is not needing to live in a walled compound.

On the other question, we're all going to die, sooner of later. Losing your hard won rights in hopes of staving it off a few years is a bad deal. Further, on the evidence, like the bridge collapse, the fools who are pretending to "protect" us and keep us "secure" don't care a fig about our longevity.

[KoKo]

17. K&R...Good Point...

[L. Coyote]

18. Very Hard Truth -- There are no "Terrorists" and there never were any.

And there will never be any. "Terrorist" and "terrorism" are rhetorical categories used to politically manipulate people. They are just words, and generalities at best. People with names and faces commit crimes that result in terror (often with a lot of rhetorical help about how this will happen again unless...).

In the 1980s, the Sandinistas were "terrorists" according to Reagan. The terror was either a complete, knowing fabrication or they were just terrorists in his deluded mind. More: Are the Sandinista terrorists on the Texas border yet? Rhetoric to haunt Freeepers. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x503712

Terror is only real if you are terrorized. It is a subjective state. Fear is a particularly useful political tool.

If you can terrorize a population, you can alter their political behavior, making them far more conservative in the actions and voting.

Terror is becoming a belief system, a new political religion, used to control the masses and foment war. It is part of the same package of lies that gave us Saddam's yellow cake and mushrooms clouds. And, it is irrational.

[malaise]

21. Bingo n/t

[KittyWampus]

25. There are people who commit crimes specifically to instill terror. Saying there are no terrorists

is absurd.

[L. Coyote]

26. There are no "Terrorists" and there are "terrorist acts"

You believe, "There are people who commit crimes specifically to instill terror." How is that not subjective?

Name one.

McVey? Or was he attacking the USG?
9/11? Or were they attacking the USA?

I would argue that those attacking the USA have more specific goals.

There is a danger in the "Terrorist" simplification. We do not deal with the truth of the motivations of the criminals/combatants.

If we start a war, we must expect that people will fight back, and for long after we wished the war ended.

Saying that those who fight against us are "Terrorists" and do it because they hate freedom, or some such political nonsense, fails to recognize the complexity of the actuality and is counter-productive in the realm of finding a solution to being attacked and bringing about an end to the problem. It also obfuscates how US actions abroad influence actions directed back at us.

[Cetacea]

19. Do neglected hurricane victims count?

Katrina probably cost more lives when all is said and done. Where is the war
on Climate Change?

[dkofos]

22. Live free or DIE

[Sadie4629]

23. Are you saying terrorism isn't so bad?

I guess I'd disagree with you. When people think twice about where to go on vacation, or whether or not to take a job based on the location of the workplace, or whether to ride a bus, or eat in a public restaurant, then I think there's a problem.

In light of Chertoff's "gut feeling" and a couple of articles I've read lately, I would be very concerned about an impending act of terrorism, and would seriously consider altering or postponing vacation plans. (If I had any!)

[Beelzebud]

27. No, the OP is saying Freedom is worth a little terror.

And it is...

I'd rather be a free individual, that has to live with a slim risk of terrorism, than a citizen of a country where everything is locked down in order to keep everyone "safe".

[Sadie4629]

31. Well, much as I hate all the airport security--

--I don't feel that everything is "locked down." The small common sense sacrifices that we make are more than worth it to me to be able to travel wherever I want to go.

(And without those sacrifices, I'm willing to bet that the risk of terrorism would probably be greater than "slim.")

[Beelzebud]

32. I don't thnk airport security is the issue at all.. Habeus Corpus, and warrantless wiretapping are.

We have abandoned a few principles that this country was founded on.

I don't think the threat of terrorism is worth turning our backs on the magna carta, and our own constitution...

[Sadie4629]

34. And I agree with you

Airport security is just one example. Way back when, people would have considered x-ray machines, metal detectors, and taking off their shoes to be ridiculous invasions of their privacy. Now we accept it.

The "wiretapping" thing, you are still free to call internationally, and if "Agent Mike" is really interested in what most of us have to say to each other, then, well--he needs to get a life. I have a friend who has a SO in Pakistan. She is sure that her calls to him are being monitored, but not afraid to continue to make those calls. Maybe that is the attitude we will all have to take someday.

We do still have much more freedom than a lot of other countries could possibly dream of. We can go wherever we want, we can type million-word screeds against the government into the Internet, and a whole lot of other things.

While I am concerned about creeping totalitarianism, we are by no means there yet.

[Beelzebud]

36. Not there yet, and won't ever be, as long as some of us resist.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. What common sense sacrifices are those?

The ridiculous security I go through at the airport has little to do with common sense and seems mostly an effort to condition us into accepting being herded like sheep.

[dalaigh lllama]

62. The last "common sense" sacrifice I made at an airport

was finding a plastic baggie to put my lip gloss in, or else throw it away before boarding. Evidently the plastic bag would prevent the lip gloss from becoming a lethal weapon. :crazy:

Same flight -- the folks across the aisle had a baby with them, and had had to throw away their water bottle before boarding. When they asked the flight attendant for water on board the plane to mix formula for their baby, they were told that they only had enough water bottles to give to first class passengers, no extra for babies. The hungry baby whimpered for the entire three hour flight. I hope those folks raised some hell with the airline.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Gee, nice straw man. -nt

[guitar man]

24. terra terra!!!

what I don't get is why we are supposed to piss down both legs, scrap the constitution and run to our 'fraidy holes at the prospect of terror, but leead paint and poison food from China don't seem to warrant anywhere near the reaction that terra is supposed to. Seems to me a big enough amount of tainted food slipping through the cracks could kill far more people than a terrorist attack ever could. :shrug:

[gkhouston]

28. And in an unfree society, people will still die from terrorist attacks.

But no one will be allowed to publicly discuss it. :hide:

[Beelzebud]

29. Exactly.

[LanternWaste]

33. There is a very noticeable sliding scale of security v. freedom...

I believe there is a very noticeable sliding scale of security v. freedom. As far as I know, there has never been a strong culture which did not grapple with the concept of precisely where they were/are located on the scale, nor has there been a strong culture which was located at the absolute extreme of either end of the scale.

We (in the west, at least) move in small degrees one way or the other, but never in a dramatic fashion. The fundamental arguments are never "we want freedom", but more "we want particular freedoms". The arguments merely nudge us in one direction or another. There is no such thing as a government that can afford and engender absolute freedom, or absolute security.

[Sadie4629]

39. What about Israel

I've never been there, but from what I've heard, they have a lot of security everywhere. I also believe that they have pretty much the same freedoms we have.

[LanternWaste]

45. I absolutely believe it

I absolutely believe it (about Israel, that is)-- however I think many cultures/nations are very satisfied with where they are located on the freedom v. security scale.

Once a particular point of satisfaction is reached/achieved, then it is no longer called Security with a big "S", it becomes, "our way of life". Using that as a foundation of justification, even the most totalitarian state can convince a populace that they are indeed "free".

For example-- we (for the most part) consider ourselves pretty free on the our highway system. Stay in a particular lane (or use blinkers), stay within a particular factor of speed, and everyone's happy. But by contrast, the German autobahn has no upper speed limit (as far as I know). Does this mean they are more free on the roads, or that we are more secure on the highways?

I could easily imagine a German tourist railing against the restrictions on his personal freedoms on a U.S. Highway; or even more easily imagine my mother concerned for her safety on a German highway. yet all in all, I think the German's are quite happy with their autobahn system as we are, far the most part, happy with the U.S. highway system.

[Virginia Dare]

37. Even if you don't live in a free society..

just ask the Israelis. No amount of security will keep you safe, if others are extemely motivated to do you harm.

[mikelgb]

38. And I am ok with that

Give me Liberty or Give me Death

[rubberducky]

40. Your post is right on!!

It should be the headlines of every newspaper in the country.

[Lilith Velkor]

42. If you don't, you can always die from bridge collapses, levee failures, and lack of healthcare

...to say nothing of the problem of who polices the police.

[rateyes]

43. K & R

:applause: :kick:

[Lugnut]

44. I'm with you, Jack

I also agree with Ben Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

[Blackhatjack]

46. Every Constitutional Right given up, no matter how small, is very difficult to reacquire...

The framers of the Constitution knew the power of the government in England, and intentionally provided for the reservation of rights that government should not infringe upon. They knew that once government manages to deny a right it is very difficult to reestablish that right as belonging to the people.

Our representatives in D.C. are giving up Constitutional rights too carelessly that patriots have fought and died for in defending our Constitution. And rolling back those government intrusions on our rights is going to be a struggle.

It is beyond me how people can not notice the actions of our government which is depriving us of our Constitutional rights --using the guise of providing 'security.'

We need to stop the trend and reclaim our birthright. It is going to take a concerted effort by people who normally don't pay attention to be successful. Hopefully we can start the process by electing a President this time who will say 'No More.'

My personal preference would be John Edwards. I believe he would do the heavy lifting as our President to turn the tide, and return the government to the people.

[MiniMe]

47. Shit happens. If you live in fear of terrorist attacks, you aren't living

I work 4 blocks from the white house. I give it an official 1 finger salute every day, as I do to his helicopter and his motorcade when he drives to Andrews. I have a fatalistic view of things, if something happens, I am probably not making it out of DC. But I absolutely refuse to change my life just because of the threat of terrorism. Living scared is not the answer. Heck, the way people around here drive, I could stop off the curb and be hit by a bus or a cab when I cross the street. Does that mean I don't cross the street? No, it means that I look around and use common sense.

The freedom we have in this country unfortunatel includes the freedom to attempt an attack, be it terrorist or otherwise.

[bobbolink]

49. A LOT of people are dying of POVERTY and lack of HEALTH CARE.

Yet, we don't seem to be bothered by that at all.

[benEzra]

50. I agree 100%.

The question is which way you would rather live? Is the quality of life more important than merely existing without freedom?

There is a price to be paid either way.

As for me, I prefer to live free. I still believe in the truth of 'Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.' How about you?

I agree 100%.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

--An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

--H. L. Mencken

[treestar]

51. What I've been saying even since 911

It's life. We have to take our chances. The chances of being killed by terrorists is still slim. It's worth taking, rather than giving up our liberties.

Plus, giving up our liberties does not work. It does not give the supposed payoff. Now you have not only the terrorists to fear, but the government to fear. So even the alleged to solution to the alleged problem is a lie.

[Hydra]

53. It's a false choice anyway

* and Cadre aren't offering better protect for the liberties we're giving up. That's as much an illusion as the "War on Terror." He's not hindering terror- he's doing it himself.

I'm tired of these idiots saying that airport security, random "show me you papers" searches, reading our mail, tapping our phones and freezing our assets is in some way making us safer.

The Shoe bomber was supposedly trying to light a fuse to detonate C4. Ya right.

That 3 ounce rule? The chemicals those "terrorists" were supposedly trying to make on the plane TAKE 3 HOURS IN STABLE LAB CONDITIONS TO FORM!!!

Meanwhile, drug dealers are selling in the house across from me. The money and manpower are being used to shut people like us up rather than enforce the laws.

In the end, I have to agree to give my rights up. I refuse.

[Lorien]

55. If you live in a free society that doesn't abuse other societies

the probability of being attacked by a terrorist drops very dramatically.

Read "confessions of an economic hit man" for starters. What any individual or group projects into the world, they usually receive in kind. Compassion begets compassion, abuse begets abuse.

[mudesi]

56. That is so completely untrue

There are many free countries that terrorists will not hit. They tend to be countries that do not bomb places that just happen to have much oil.

[kcass1954]

57. I'm willing to accept that I might die in a terrorist attack.

I'm more likely to die in a car accident, or by choking on a bone or falling off my roof.

I refuse to live my life in fear. I'll either die in an attack - or I won't. Either way, there's nothing I can do about it, so I'm not going to worry about it.

I only worry about the things that I can control to some degree. I wear a seatbelt, I just quit smoking after 30+ years, I'm eating healthier. These things are proven to help me live longer.

This crew is NOT interested in protecting me. (I saw what happened in New Orleans.) This is a control issue. And I'm not always controllable - just ask Mr. kcass.

[Jack Sprat]

60. There is much truth in this.

We have to rely on our law enforcement at all levels and our own vigilance as citizens looking out for another in watching for signs of possible threats and to alert our law enforcement if we notice something threatening. Bush has turned his sheep into a flock of cowards who are ready to surrender their rights for safety.

[Laelth]

61. This truth is not very hard.

Over 40,000 people a year die in automobile accidents. You don't see us waging a war on cars. In the grand scheme of things, potential deaths from terrorism pale in comparison to the serious problems facing this country (lack of health care, under-regulated pollution, etc.).

... just my 2 cents.

-Laelth

[BlooInBloo]

63. Potentially. But steps can be taken to minimize that threat...

... Like not being assholes to the world, helping to alleviate world poverty, and the like.