Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand the relative risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack and being in a car accident. And I would not describe my position as "whacked up". My position is clear when it comes to risk and I know this seems odd but - I place more value on my freedom than on my life. Terrorists are interested in controlling people through the threat of terrorist acts. I can not accept being controlled by terrorists. Like I said I am a control freak. Perhaps people who are not control freaks don't care, but I do.
|
Um, what if you pretty much ignored them? Terrorists can only control you if you let them.
Their goal isn't "increase the security around the door to an airplane", there goal is to impact US foriegn policy (which, I might note, they have done). When a terrorist nutjob hijacks a plane and rams it into a building:
1> Increase airplane pilot's door security.
2> Teach hostages to not go along with terrorist demands on a plane.
3> Maybe fund a real air-marshal program.
And now the entire avenue of attack used on 9/11 has been blocked.
Terrorism only generates policy changes if you let it. Currently, Terrorism has caused massive policy changes on the part of the US government.
My point is, using the Terrorism to justify the enroachment upon civil liberties, invasions of states, nuclear bunker buster bombs, or massive increases in military spending is disingenious. Terrorism really isn't dangerous enough to justify such large changes.
The reaction is overblown. It would be like firing a nuclear weapon because someone killed a single citizen -- the killing of a citizen is a problem that should be delt with, but responding in an overkill manner just makes more problems.