News Is Air Cargo Safety a Concern for CNN in 2005?

[Pengwuino]

LOL ...

What the HELL are you talking about?

Sorry to burst your bubble and bring you back to that place we call reality but it was a man called Bin Laden who started this... Tall guy dragging a dialysis machine from cave to cave!? Surely you remember?

Did you start looking in Iraq because you thought the light was better or something?

Where is he?

Well ill try to help you come to sorts with reality instead of what various blogs tell you to think. You seem to think that as long as a word is different, then the whole situation is different. You seem to miss the really big point that its not at all intelligent to just ignore things. Hell I don't know how many liberals have cried that bush isn't doing enough to combat terrorism but when he does, they cry "fear mongering!". Such hypocricy. These people want a war and it is not at all going to stop them by simply ignoring them.

I suppose that means you're looking at it from the redneck on the porch point of view then?

You took your eye off the ball and you just can't admit it can you.

You've got a guy in Jail in Iraq that can bury you if it gets to the world court. Even the Iranians have prepared a brief that they are presenting to the Iraqi Government naming the USA as accomplices.

Don't you SEE what is happening?

Don't you see that Iraq has opened up negotiations with Iran and has admitted fault in the starting of the war between Saddam and Iran? Who was holding Saddam's hand at the time ... Figuratively and literally?

hmm let's see, ill disect this. 1 insult, 1 attempt to show how you want to change the subject because you know you have nothing, and well.. one change in subject. what exactly does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with terrorism. Besides that, what does this other guy know that's going to be oh so scary if the corrupt officials at the UN see it? Wheres the evidence? I'm sure you arent bringing up speculation and opinion into an argument are you?

 

[Archon]

They put in traffic lights, traffic police, speed limits, maintained highways and put in barriers... I mean i just got stopped a few months ago for speeding ina 40mph zone in an 8 lane road.

These are necessary and reasonable precautions if order is to be maintained. The dangers associated with terrorism have encouraged similarly reasonable precautions, but have also created an atmosphere of fear which has allowed the government to take advantage of Americans by removing civil liberties and bringing the nation into a war without a foreseeable end. Hardly the same thing...

And like I said, we already do it in many cases. We have always gone through security in airports... everything i said about traffic laws... anything that may remotely possibly cause cancer gets a label on its product packaging...

These are reasonable precautions, but just like warning people that something may cause cancer will not prevent cancer from killing people, these precautions will not prevent terrorists from killing people. Again as Manchot said, we must balance precautions and liberties. We must accept that terrorism will happen regardless of precautions, and that our liberties are more important than some perceived safety from something that will effect very few Americans regardless.

Edit: fixed quote.

 

[Pengwuino]

Granted this piece was written a year ago, and though the media quit reporting on the alert levels (I don't think the general population knew what these meant, probably because these were meaningless) the article in the OP shows the ongoing reporting of flaws in our homeland security.

In the meantime, are you really afraid you'll be blown to bits? I'm not. I'm afraid we are heading toward invasions of more countries. I'm afraid Bush will try to put the 2008 election on indefinite hold. I'm afraid of living in a one-party police state and losing all my civil liberties.

Well, since you don't actually read what other people say, ill refer you to simple google searches to find hte physical actions of each alert level.

You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears. I truly hope you never said terrorism was an irrational fear in the past...

 

[Pengwuino]

These are necessary and reasonable precautions if order is to be maintained. The dangers associated with terrorism have encouraged similarly reasonable precautions, but have also created an atmosphere of fear which has allowed the government to take advantage of Americans by removing civil liberties and bringing the nation into a war without a foreseeable end. Hardly the same thing...

Well exaactly what liberties were taken away? I certaintly don't expect the usual 'patriot act' rhetoric without legitimate sourcing...

These are reasonable precautions, but just like warning people that something may cause cancer will not prevent cancer from killing people, these precautions will not prevent terrorists from killing people. Again as Manchot said, we must balance precautions and liberties. We must accept that terrorism will happen regardless of precautions, and that our liberties are more important than some perceived safety from something that will effect very few Americans regardless.

The precuations may very well may have prevented some deaths. Like I already pointed out, terrorists have been caught crossing hte border in California while also attempting to buy some rather nasty stuff (thank god it was a sting).

 

[Archon]

Well, since you don't actually read what other people say, ill refer you to simple google searches to find hte physical actions of each alert level.

You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears. I truly hope you never said terrorism was an irrational fear in the past...

It IS an irrational fear in comparison to the countless other things that could kill you. Why does the way in which you die matter to you so much? No matter how it happens, you end up dead. Obviously, you're more likely to be killed by a car crash than a terrorist attack. Given this, why aren't you campaigning for car safety?

As for the first part: her contention is that, even though they officially have a purpose, the terror alerts don't actually mean anything. The terror alerts have no real effect on our daily lives, and they don't keep the country safe.

 

[Archon]

Well exaactly what liberties were taken away? I certaintly don't expect the usual 'patriot act' rhetoric without legitimate sourcing...

I'll point out something really obvious: the government has the authority to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them the rights usually afforded to people who are arrested. And guess who decides whether someone is a suspected terrorist?
Now tell me: how would you feel if the government decided to arrest you, and you weren't allowed to see your family or an attorney, and you were held for weeks or months without being charged? Wouldn't you call this an infringement of your Constitutional rights?

The precuations may very well may have prevented some deaths. Like I already pointed out, terrorists have been caught crossing hte border in California while also attempting to buy some rather nasty stuff (thank god it was a sting).

If the proportion of terrorists caught crossing the border is anything like the proportion of Mexicans caught crossing the border (and we have no reason to think otherwise), then we really haven't done anything significant to protect Americans.

 

[Pengwuino]

It IS an irrational fear in comparison to the countless other things that could kill you. Why does the way in which you die matter to you so much? No matter how it happens, you end up dead. Obviously, you're more likely to be killed by a car crash than a terrorist attack. Given this, why aren't you campaigning for car safety?

Because, like you said, we have taken precuations to prevent traffic related deaths. It does not matter how we die, it only matters how can we prevent a larger # of people from dieing. We know we can prevent people from dieing in cars but we can surely do something to curb that toll. Same with terrorist/acts of war.

As for the first part: her contention is that, even though they officially have a purpose, the terror alerts don't actually mean anything. The terror alerts have no real effect on our daily lives, and they don't keep the country safe.

Thats a useless assumption. If ANYTHING, the country is safer. There has not been a single attack since 9/11. I have heard many people that say its unreasonable to say that the country is safer simply because there hasnt been an attack since 9/11 but its far more unreasonable to say we are in more danger in light of that fact!

 

[Pengwuino]

I'll point out something really obvious: the government has the authority to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them the rights usually afforded to people who are arrested. And guess who decides whether someone is a suspected terrorist?
Now tell me: how would you feel if the government decided to arrest you, and you weren't allowed to see your family or an attorney, and you were held for weeks or months without being charged? Wouldn't you call this an infringement of your Constitutional rights?

Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.

If the proportion of terrorists caught crossing the border is anything like the proportion of Mexicans caught crossing the border (and we have no reason to think otherwise), then we really haven't done anything significant to protect Americans.

Well hell that's because the liberals say we must allow everyone to come in. Hell, people are out there trying to defend the border with civilian militia groups but a bunch of idiots come out and call everyone racist and disrupt their actions. They get airtime instead of jail time.

 

[SOS2008]

You also seem to have incredibly irrational fears...

Assuming there might be another terrorist attack, what are the chances you or I will be in a building, bus, train, etc. that's bombed?

In comparison to:

The chances that Bush will take us into another war (or more)? Then perhaps declare a state of emergency and suspend elections in 2008 (as he tried to do in 2004)? After which he could forge ahead with a one-party government (which we almost are already) that could strip away our civil liberties one after another until we live in a police state.

I'm not saying the later will happen. I'm saying I believe it to be more likely, and I fear what is more likely.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well ill try to help you come to sorts with reality instead of what various blogs tell you to think. You seem to think that as long as a word is different, then the whole situation is different. You seem to miss the really big point that its not at all intelligent to just ignore things. Hell I don't know how many liberals have cried that bush isn't doing enough to combat terrorism but when he does, they cry "fear mongering!". Such hypocricy. These people want a war and it is not at all going to stop them by simply ignoring them.

Blogs?!

I asked a simple question.

Where is bin laden?

hmm let's see, ill disect this. 1 insult, 1 attempt to show how you want to change the subject because you know you have nothing, and well.. one change in subject. what exactly does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with terrorism. Besides that, what does this other guy know that's going to be oh so scary if the corrupt officials at the UN see it? Wheres the evidence? I'm sure you arent bringing up speculation and opinion into an argument are you?

Well, the Iran Iraq war was done with banned substances the technology of which was supplied by the USA and the satellite intel to release it.

It is currently applicable because the government that is starting to emerge from the smoke in Iraq seems to be increasingly more and more Islamic in nature and is currently rubbing elbows with the sworn enemy of the USA.

"Corrupt officials in the USA" ... that wouldn't be a lame attempt at a subject change would it, P.?

Where's the evidence?

Why that would be all the companies given permission to trade in goods for military applications, dual use and biologicals prior to his activities.

There is a list.


It's the same old joke about how they knew there were WMD in Iraq ... They still have the invoices.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.

Er? ... Ya wouldn't be trying to be an 'armchair lawyer' now would ya' chief?

 

[Archon]

Because, like you said, we have taken precuations to prevent traffic related deaths. It does not matter how we die, it only matters how can we prevent a larger # of people from dieing. We know we can prevent people from dieing in cars but we can surely do something to curb that toll. Same with terrorist/acts of war.

You're missing the point. The precautions we take to prevent car-related deaths are reasonable and effective, while the precautions we take to prevent terrorist attacks are (at least to some extent) unreasonable, excessive, and ineffectual.
My point about the way one dies being irrelevant is that to the people who die, there is no difference between being killed by a terrorist and being killed by a car. In this sense, fear of terrorism is irrational, especially consider the miniscule number of terror-related compared to car-related deaths in America each year. To concentrate on terrorism over car safety, especially at the cost to America that has developed, is illogical.

Thats a useless assumption. If ANYTHING, the country is safer. There has not been a single attack since 9/11. I have heard many people that say its unreasonable to say that the country is safer simply because there hasnt been an attack since 9/11 but its far more unreasonable to say we are in more danger in light of that fact!

Demonstrate how America is concretely safer because of the terror alerts. Until you do so, you haven't contested my point.

Incidentally, what you're saying is very much like saying that America was safe from terrorist attacks before 9-11, just because there hadn't been one for a long time. Obviously, this wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

 

[Pengwuino]

Blogs?!

I asked a simple question.

Where is bin laden?

We're having a little problem finding one man in a few million square miles of mountain ranges... along with a suspected terrorist nation. I suppose that's not the least bit excusable?

Well, the Iran Iraq war was done with banned substances the technology of which was supplied by the USA and the satellite intel to release it.

It is currently applicable because the government that is starting to emerge from the smoke in Iraq seems to be increasingly more and more Islamic in nature and is currently rubbing elbows with the sworn enemy of the USA.

"Corrupt officials in the USA" ... that wouldn't be a lame attempt at a subject change would it, P.?

Where's the evidence?

Why that would be all the companies given permission to trade in goods for military applications, dual use and biologicals prior to his activities.

There is a list.


It's the same old joke about how they knew there were WMD in Iraq ... They still have the invoices.

I think your post jumped between 5 different subjects without making note of it. And oddly enough, have you "read the news today"? Any UN officials admitting of bribes lately?

And let's see, surely you did not just say the US gave Iraq illegal weapons after saying Iraq didn't have the WMD's that the US said they had to go to war! Surely you want to get your story straight before posting next time right?

 

[Pengwuino]

Er? ... Ya wouldn't be trying to be an 'armchair lawyer' now would ya' chief?

Well when it comes to actually wanting facts from a legal document... yes , yes i would

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*

Like Sushi?

The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program

>>> Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere.

Now, that part of the report has been leaked. The leftist German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung received portions of the original, uncensored 12,000-page dossier. (The names of the corporations have been blacked out of the version of the report given to the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council.) The paper has printed the list, presented below.


[read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)]

Key

A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and building of military plants



USA

1. Honeywell (R, K)

2. Spectra Physics (K)

3. Semetex (R)

4. TI Coating (A, K)

5. Unisys (A, K)

6. Sperry Corp. (R, K)

7. Tektronix (R, A)

8. Rockwell (K)

9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)

12. Dupont (A)

13. Eastman Kodak (R)

14. American Type Culture Collection (B)

15. Alcolac International (C)

16. Consarc (A)

17. Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)

18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19. Electronic Associates (R)

20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

21. Bechtel (K)

22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)

23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

"In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."

 

[Pengwuino]

You're missing the point. The precautions we take to prevent car-related deaths are reasonable and effective, while the precautions we take to prevent terrorist attacks are (at least to some extent) unreasonable, excessive, and ineffectual.
My point about the way one dies being irrelevant is that to the people who die, there is no difference between being killed by a terrorist and being killed by a car. In this sense, fear of terrorism is irrational, especially consider the miniscule number of terror-related compared to car-related deaths in America each year. To concentrate on terrorism over car safety, especially at the cost to America that has developed, is illogical.

Well since you have not demonstrated any basis to the idea that Americans have given up any important liberties, I believe your stastement is completely false.

Demonstrate how America is concretely safer because of the terror alerts. Until you do so, you haven't contested my point.

Incidentally, what you're saying is very much like saying that America was safe from terrorist attacks before 9-11, just because there hadn't been one for a long time. Obviously, this wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.

 

[Manchot]

Well the thing about car accidents is that cars arent capable of whiping out many square blocks of people if htey ever decided to. The very fact that many terrorist activities are... dreamed up in nations that either have nuclear weapons or are near nations that have a really bad time accounting for their own nuclear materials is a very good reason to worry and take precautions. We really ahve no reason to think car deaths are going to skyrocket anytime soon aside from the remote possibility of GMC marketing a rocket powered car for $5000 but we do have a reason to think terrorist related deaths can skyrocket at any moment. At any moment, one or even ten terrorists can walk in with radiological bombs and de-humanize a few square blocks in a city.

You didn't address my point. (Yes, a dirty bomb exploding in a city would be a terrible occurrence. No one disagrees with that.) My point is that some amount of terrorism is bound to occur, no matter what you do, just as with car accidents. Are you suggesting that terrorist attacks are somehow worse than car accidents, simply because terrorist attack deaths occur all at once and car accident deaths occur at a relatively constant rate? Obviously, since the number of deaths is greater for car accidents, from a purely mathematical standpoint, this makes no sense. Clearly, then, you are saying that the psychological impact of a terrorist attack is greater (a fact which can be gleaned from the word "terrorist").

Nevertheless, the point you attempted to make is irrelevant, and the car accident analogy was just that: an analogy. Whether a dirty bomb is worse than a thousand car accident fatalities is partially a matter of opinion, and has no effect on what I'm saying whatsoever. (Since the difference is purely psychological, the analogy still stands). If some terrorists did get their hands on some radioactive material and wanted to explode a dirty bomb in a city, they would be able to. No one would be able to stop them, unless they were caught at the border with the material. Face it, even if one were to employ a group of people with Geiger counters running around every city all day, they could easily avoid detection by shielding their bomb with lead. The only tried and true way to stop terrorist activity is to become a police state, and even that doesn't always work.

And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I don't see anyone calling it fear mongering...

Reporting on car accidents is not fear-mongering because it is reporting events that actually happened, and is not trying to illicit a response of any kind (except possibly empathy for the victims). Reporting on minor insecurities in our nation is fear-mongering, because it is reporting on events that probably won't happen, and attempt to illicit a fearful response.

And the actual point to be made is that terrorism, contrary to SOS's belief, comes from people trying to kill other innocent civilians on rather large scales... not news articles. I personally am more fearful of towers collapsing then i am of sensationalized CNN articles or MSNBC news reports

Personally, I'm more fearful of sensationalized articles, because they are indications that terror is in fact being instilled in people. I have no fear whatsoever about being killed in a terrorist attack, because death is death, and I'm more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by a terrorist attack.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmmm Germany eh? Might want to get a more realistic source then that since they are one of the #1 suspects in the oil-for-food program having many german officials and companies accused of financing the Iraq regime.

 

[Archon]

Wheres the written law. Opinion doesn't count.

a) Do you not know about this? Seriously?
b) Opinion does matter, since as I recall, America is still (nominally) run on Democratic principles. This is precisely because opinion does matter.

Well hell that's because the liberals say we must allow everyone to come in. Hell, people are out there trying to defend the border with civilian militia groups but a bunch of idiots come out and call everyone racist and disrupt their actions. They get airtime instead of jail time.

Really. Don't resort to some varient of the "Liberals are traitors to America. Terrorist attacks are their fault" routine. If I remember correctly, the President (i.e. the one with the real power to stop this) is a Republican, as are the House and the Senate.
Civilian Militia Groups=Not Government Officials=No Business Keeping People Out of Our Country.
You shouldn't get jail time for thinking this way in, accordance with freedom of speech, as set out in Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791. Remember that one?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*

If you love sushi like I love sushi Oh Oh Oh what a gal!

About 209,000 Gulf War veterans have filed claims with the Veterans Administration, and 161,000 of them are receiving disability payments.

Neither American company listed -- Alcolac International, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Al-Haddad Trading, based in Nashville, Tennessee -- are still in business.

No one from Al-Haddad could be reached.

Alcolac paid a fine in 1989 under U.S. law for one charge of exporting thiodiglycol, a chemical that could be used to make mustard gas, but that shipment was destined for another country.

"I am unaware of any direct sale from Alcolac to Iraq," says attorney Ron Welsh, who represents Rhodia, which owns the defunct Alcolac's assets.

 

[Archon]

Well since you have not demonstrated any basis to the idea that Americans have given up any important liberties, I believe your stastement is completely false.

What I said there was completely independent of the loss of civil liberties. Re-read it and then respond to what is really there, so I can make an actual counter-argument.

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.

Nothing happened before 9-11. Yet America was "less safe" at that time. How about this: you believe that America is safer, so the burden of proof lies on you. Now prove it.

Note: No terrorist attacks does not equate to a safer America. Again, remember the time before 9-11.

 

[Pengwuino]

a) Do you not know about this? Seriously?
b) Opinion does matter, since as I recall, America is still (nominally) run on Democratic principles. This is precisely because opinion does matter.

So opinion trumps facts in debates, right.

Really. Don't resort to some varient of the "Liberals are traitors to America. Terrorist attacks are their fault" routine. If I remember correctly, the President (i.e. the one with the real power to stop this) is a Republican, as are the House and the Senate.
Civilian Militia Groups=Not Government Officials=No Business Keeping People Out of Our Country.
You shouldn't get jail time for thinking this way in, accordance with freedom of speech, as set out in Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791. Remember that one?

Might wanan take a look at teh US Constitutions allowance for militias when the US Government cannot do its job. Hell the 2nd amendment makes a small note of them. Of course... the 2nd amendment doesn't exist right?

 

[Pengwuino]

What I said there was completely independent of the loss of civil liberties. Re-read it and then respond to what is really there, so I can make an actual counter-argument.

You basically refuse to provide proof that there is any serious civil liberty losses going on right now. I am sorry if I require proof... maybe you'll be more suited to argue with TSM.

Nothing happened before 9-11. Yet America was "less safe" at that time. How about this: you believe that America is safer, so the burden of proof lies on you. Now prove it.

Note: No terrorist attacks does not equate to a safer America. Again, remember the time before 9-11.

Incorrect, burden of proof is on the idea that we are in more danger then before. The very fact that security has been beefed up (even if its in the slightest way) provides the proof that America is safer. There is however, no proof whatsoever that America is in anymore danger then it was at 9/11 as argued by you and SOS. Please provide proof that it is.

 

[SOS2008]

We're having a little problem finding one man in a few million square miles of mountain ranges... along with a suspected terrorist nation. I suppose that's not the least bit excusable?

In an attempt to return to the topic...somewhat... If we catch OBL, will we be safe from terrorism? If we invade more countries as we did Iraq, will that make Americans safer from terrorism?

 

[Archon]

Hmmm Germany eh? Might want to get a more realistic source then that since they are one of the #1 suspects in the oil-for-food program having many german officials and companies accused of financing the Iraq regime.

Wait. Are you saying that a leftist German newspaper was funding the Iraq regime (I assume you mean Hussein, since the U.S. and many other countries are funding an Iraq regime right now)? Because this seems unlikely, and unless they were, we have no reason the believe that their data is wrong.

Don't forget this sentance:

Read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)

Not German, but still in countries associated with the funding of Hussein. Does that make them unreliable as well?

 

[Archon]

So opinion trumps facts in debates, right.

Part (a) is relevant to what you were saying. I'll restate the question: do you or do you not know about the government's power to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them their Constitutional rights?
Part (b) is a comment on the nature of Democracy. The facts were contained in my previous post.

Might wanan take a look at teh US Constitutions allowance for militias when the US Government cannot do its job. Hell the 2nd amendment makes a small note of them. Of course... the 2nd amendment doesn't exist right?

First: do you mean "The Congress shall have power...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," or do you mean the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms (irrelevant to the current discussion)? If the former, have the militias been "called forth" by the Congress?
In any case, the important point in what I said was that Bush (Not a liberal) isn't doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering the country. You seem to have ignored this point entirely. Another important point is my contention that one shouldn't be jailed for exercising one's freedom of speech. You seem to think the opposite, at least on this point. This shows a blatant disregard for civil liberties in the face of opposition to your views.

 

[Archon]

You basically refuse to provide proof that there is any serious civil liberty losses going on right now. I am sorry if I require proof... maybe you'll be more suited to argue with TSM.




Incorrect, burden of proof is on the idea that we are in more danger then before. The very fact that security has been beefed up (even if its in the slightest way) provides the proof that America is safer. There is however, no proof whatsoever that America is in anymore danger then it was at 9/11 as argued by you and SOS. Please provide proof that it is.

ARGH! Look, security has been "beefed up," at least nominally, but any safety gained from this has been more than counteracted by American actions in the Middle East. There are more terrorists now than there were before, and world opinion of America, particularly in countries known for terrorism, is now lower than before. Tell me that this makes you feel safe.

Second, and I've said this already like three times, so pay attention and respond to this point: we have as much reason to think that America is safe now as we did before 9-11. Your only evidence in this direction is that there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9-11. The same was true 10 minutes before 9-11 itself happened. I doubt you'd argue that America was safe from terrorists before 9-11. Your outlook on our current status should be no different, because it really isn't appreciably harder for terrorists to kill Americans.

Anyway, as has already been said in this thread, the terrorists are better served by fighting America in Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.

And after I worked so hard to dumb it down you still didn't understand what I've said.

Reporting on car accidents is not fear-mongering because it is reporting events that actually happened, and is not trying to illicit a response of any kind (except possibly empathy for the victims). Reporting on minor insecurities in our nation is fear-mongering, because it is reporting on events that probably won't happen, and attempt to illicit a fearful response.

Personally, I'm more fearful of sensationalized articles, because they are indications that terror is in fact being instilled in people. I have no fear whatsoever about being killed in a terrorist attack, because death is death, and I'm more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by a terrorist attack.

Exactly, and this analogy was given in the piece quoted earlier, as follows:

It's one thing to issue a hurricane warning, and advise people to board up their windows and remain in the basement. Hurricanes are short-term events, and it's obvious when the danger is imminent and when it's over. People respond to the warning, and there is a discrete period when their lives are markedly different. They feel there was a usefulness to the higher alert mode, even if nothing came of it.

 

[Smurf]

And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I don't see anyone calling it fear mongering... .

Funny enough, there is a lot of what you could call "fear-mongering" going on about this, and it's coming from independant organizations like MADD (mothers against drunk driving) trying to reduce the threat.

Well, at least in Canada. I don't know how much of this goes on in the states.