Car crashes kill 400 times more people than international terrorism

[Jara sang]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34352

Car crashes kill 400 times more people than international terrorism does in developed countries

The death toll from car crashes in developed countries is almost 400 times greater than the number of deaths caused by international terrorism, reports a study in the latest issue of Injury Prevention.

In 2001 as many people died every 26 days on US roads as died in the terrorist bombings of 9/11, the study shows.

The authors compared the number of deaths from international terrorism and car crashes in the 29 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) between 1994 and 2003.

They used the US State Department Counterterrorism Office database for deaths caused by international terrorist activity, and the OECD International Road Transport Accident Database for 2000 and 2001 for those caused by car crashes.

continued...

[mom cat]

1. Then we should start bombing cars.

[Roland99]

2. Most of them look like tanks already

[mom cat]

12. In my neighborhood, they look like they already got bombed!

[helderheid]

15. I laughed out loud!

[The Straight Story]

3. Ummm....so??? What is the point/desire of the authors of this???

Should we ignore terrorism until it equals car crashes? Or smoking related deaths?

I am all for saving lifes - but driving and deaths related are to be expceted. Murdering someone (and that IS what terrorism is) is a whole seperate issue.

Maybe we should ignore murders here (and blame each other and not the killer for said actions) until car deaths are less.....


Sheesh.

[porphyrian]

4. You're missing the point.

Most people have a seriously skewed view of how much we should fear terrorists. The average corporate media consumer has been programmed to believe that the threat of terrorist attack lurks around every corner. It's good for authorities to put things in perspective, given how many people require authorities to believe something before they can.

[The Straight Story]

5. We accept risks, like driving - such things are neutral. Terrorism is not

We accept risks, like driving - And that it can kill us.

Terrorism is an out of the blue thing that is outside the norm.

I expect, and have experienced, losing somone near to me to a car accident. It sucked. But it is a fact of daily life here.

Terrorist WANT to cause us harm, to kill us. Driving is neutral.

This is like saying we should ignore serial killers and not worry much about them because we will be more likely to die in a car accident.

One WANTS to kill, the other is a byproduct of accidents.

[valerief]

8. The asswipes who ride my bumper at 70 mph or who cut me off

at 90 mph are not *neutral* in my book. They are as reckless and delusional as terrorists.

[The Straight Story]

16. So have them charged and thrown in jail if you believe

they want to harm you.

Or are there already laws against such things??

[valerief]

17. Uh, I can't see their license plates, because they're too close

behind me or they've flown off in front of me. Duh!

[The Straight Story]

19. Should we try to stop them?

Or just blow em off? If you COULD see their info, would you report them to the authorities?

[valerief]

21. Yes. I tried once. I saw a state trooper car on the side of the

highway and I pulled over and told her but I couldn't see the plate. She called to someone ahead, but I don't know what became of it.

The problem is that too many drivers are reckless and public awareness of the danger is practically nil. Hell, I remember when I was younger, I thought driving fast was cool. I should have been pulled over.

I know these people aren't thinking. I've been there. But that doesn't mean they're not dangerous.

But it seems like you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. I should mount a videocamera on my car or something and spend weekends at the local police stations of the towns I pass through every day reporting reckless driving?

Reckless driving is now built into the system as a means of population control.

[The Straight Story]

24. I can understand what you are saying

As an X cop myself have seen such wackos and what they can do. And I have reported them myself.

As to point I am trying to make:

I see terrorists, serial killers, etc and so on, as bad. And I can see reporting them equally well as others which pose a risk to your well being.

This boils down to something we consider ugly - profiling.

Cops see some guy in a hot rod on the interstate as more dangerous than a dad driving his family in a mini-van and will pay more attention to the hot rod.

More people die from car crashes a year than from terrorism. When it comes to cars/drivers we use statistical analysis to help us formulate a plan of attack. If we applied the same to terrorism what would we have?

[valerief]

27. I know, the answer would be profiling, but I don't see

terrorism in my daily life. I suspect 911 was a Bush Laden job. I don't know what kinds of other terrorism occur, and the broad fearmongering by the M$M doesn't offer much insight.

I do see reckless highway driving on a daily basis, and I can only conclude this is my immediate threat. The cellphone-yapping, tailgating, lane-slaloming, minivan driver scares me more than a shoe-bomber.

I'm not being insulated here. I know my world could turn upside down in a heartbeat from global labor market shifting or global violence. But I'm tired of fretting over the things I can't control.

I see a mad raccoon and I fear getting rabies. I don't worry about getting mauled by a polar bear, although it could happen.

[The Straight Story]

31. But then the focus is on you, and not the broader spectrum

Like I mentioned briefly in an earlier post on the thread - a meterorite hitting the earth can do much more damage to us all than a car wreck can (global vs personal) and from a science standpoint I would rather see more money spent on one than the other.

Terrorist can impact a larger segment of population in a more abrupt way than a car crash can. And terrorist have desire whereas a car crash is an impersonal thing.

As a society we want to protect ourselves from those who wish us harm (and punish those who cause us harm by non-desired means, ala drunk driving, poor driving, and so on) as well as those who cause us harm via accidents.

We have spent trillions of dollars trying to prevent things - from enforcing seat belt laws to ticketing people who speed. And those are just the things that are not intentional acts. It is harder to stop someone who wishes harm than to stop the masses from accidentally inflicting harm.

[porphyrian]

26. That has nothing to do with frequency of occurrance.

The report does. Focusing on the statistical relevance allows us the perspective we need to get over our artificially-inflated fear of terrorists, which is simply a political tool of the current republicans to manipulate public discussion. Your points may or may not be true, but they don't diminish or solve the problem of irrational fear of terrorists, maybe because this is a problem you are dealing with yourself.

Get some perspective. You are more likely to die of a virus than a terrorist attack. That's the message of the article, packaged in just the right linkable document to help counter the fear-inducing propaganda. It's about time someone spoke out against the hysteria and put things into perspective.

I would also like to point out the irony of using anti-terrorist propaganda to frighten and control the public, as that is exactly the goal of employing the tactic of terrorism in the first place.

[The Straight Story]

34. The two are not related, as the determining factor is different

One is accidental, the other on purpose.

A better choice might be - more people die in the US from murders locally than from terrorism (and even that is poor). The one thing these two DO share though is motivation.

Cancer, car wrecks, heart disease, et al are major killers here - but those things are not motivated to kill us.

Murderers are motivated to kill - but usually within a frame of local reference (ie, a spouse, bad drug deal, et al).

Terrorists are something different. They want to kill based on nationality, and are willing to do so (see 9/11). Theirs is an unknown quantity with a potential far greater than the reality of driving and dying.

A nuke here, a deadly virus there, and they can wipe out whole cities at once and inflict tremendous harm on all US citizens.

Which is more likely - probably that we will die from something else. Which has more potential? The terrorist.

[porphyrian]

68. You don't get it, and you think I'm the one who doesn't get it.

I understood what you said the first time. You feel justification in fearing extremely rare yet intentional killers over common and mindless ones. Whatever, I'm glad the article came out.

[Jara sang]

6. And were you concerned with terrorism before 9/11/01?

Doubtful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_U._S.

1950 November 1- Members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party fail to assassinate President Truman At Blair House in Washington, DC.
1954 March 1- U.S. Capitol shooting incident. Four Puerto Rican nationalists shoot and wound 5 members of Congress during an immigration debate.
1958 October 12 - Atlanta synagogue bombing
1970 - Sterling Hall bombing, Univ. of Wisc., Aug. 24, Madison, Wisconsin
1971 March 1- The Weathermen explode a bomb in the U.S. Capitol to protest the U.S. invasion of Laos.
1973 June 1: The Israeli Air Force attache in Washington, D.C., Yosef Allon, was shot and killed outside his home in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Black September is possibly the culprit, though the case remains unsolved.
1975 January 24- The Puerto Rican nationalist group the FALN , bombs Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four and injuring more than 50.
1975 December 29 – A bomb at New York's LaGuardia Airport kills 11 and injures 75. The bombing remains unsolved.
1976 September 21- Orlando Letelier, a former member of the Chilean government, was killed by a car bomb in Washington, D.C. along with his assistant Ronni Moffitt. The killing was carried out by members of the Chilean DINA.
1977 March 9- About a dozen Hanafi Muslims, led by Hamas Abdul Khaalis, took over the District Building (the city hall), the B'nai B'rith building, and the Islamic Center, in Washington, D.C. They were apparently seeking revenge for the murder of some of Khaalis' family. They held more than 130 hostages until the next day, killing a radio reporter and shooting and wounding then-councilman Marion Barry. The hostages were freed after negotiations, and the attackers were sent to prison.<2><3><4>
1980 July 22- Ali Akbar Tabatabai, an Iranian exile and critic of Ayatollah Khomeni, was shot in his Bethesda, Maryland home. Dawud Salahuddin, an American Muslim convert, was apparently paid by Iranians to kill Tabatabai. <5>
1982 January 28- Kemal Arikan, the Turkish Consul-General in Los Angeles, is killed by members of the Justice Commandos against Armenian Genocide.
1982 May 4- Turkish Honorary Consul Orhan Gunduz was assassinated in his car in Somerville, Massachusetts by the JCAG.
1983 November 7- U.S. Senate bombing. The Armed Resistance Unit, a militant leftist group, bombs the U.S. Capitol in response to the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
1985 October 11- Alex Odeh, a prominent Arab-American, was killed by a bomb in his office in Santa Ana, California. The case is unsolved, but it is thought the Jewish Defense League was responsible.
1993 February 26- First World Trade Center bombing killed six and injured 1,000.
1995 April 19- Oklahoma City bombing: A truck bomb shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, killing 168 people-including children playing in the building's day care center. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols launched the attack in protest of the US government.
1996 July 27- Centennial Olympic Park bombing occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, during the Atlanta Olympics. One person was killed and 111 injured.

[The Straight Story]

11. Ummm, yes I was actually.

Ever read 'The Stand'? Hear of Okie city bombing? Seen the hell in Israel?

I was concerned with terrorist attacks here since I was young. And I am 40 now.

From russians (who were THE enemy when I was a teen, but I loved them a lot as a chess player and interacted with russians weekly) to the chinese to middle easterners. I was less afraid of a nuclear attack than I was something more local (nuclear meant MAD and no one wins, targeted attacks in urban areas were not as traceable).

Are YOU worried about a terrorist attack here (again)? If not than what does that say about middle america and how safe they feel? And who will they say helped them feel so safe???

[Jara sang]

23. Not really, I used to live right outside DC too.

No, I wasn't afraid of a terrorist attack. But the study clearly shows peoples misplaced anxiety over something that is very unlikely going to cause them bodily harm.

[The Straight Story]

25. Unlikely is not, to me, the key term:

I live in 'the hood' out here on the east side. While I am more likely to die of a lot of things I am more concerned with the things I am not in control of - ie, the crack dealers and killers (most of which I know personally here, so not as bad for me).

The key term is: Desire.

My car and myself as a driver (and other drivers) do not desire an accident. We do not desire death.

Terrorists (killers) DO desire death. And desire can drive actions which will meet such desires.

I am not worried that I may die via BAU (business as usual), I accept that as a fact of life.

My worry is that there are some people who would like to see me dead because of where I live (ie US) and such people I don't want roaming about freely.

[Union Thug]

9. Or maybe we should be databasing everyone who ever bought

a bottle of beer or whiskey, because drunk driving deaths are caused only by those who purchase alcohol. The fear mongering about terror in this country amounts to the same paranoid thinking.

The point is that the war on terra and the totalitarian measures taken by the Bush admin and accepted by many americans is a ruse. It's a great way for the empire to justify moving further towards a police state, but it is certainly not proportional to the actual danger.

[The Straight Story]

10. The fact is

Some people want to kill you. Some people might kill you by accident (ie, driving) but there are people out there who see you as a heathen and want you to die.

Those people are not the type we want hanging around here with free reign.

Chances are you will die of something else other than terrorism - which one could say means bush is ahead of the game and saving your ass because he is thwrating them from doing so.

Terrorist want to kill you. They are not as able to do so as they would like (ie, you are more likely to die in a car wreck), hence bush has shown his war on terror is working and you are safer....

It is all about perspective.

As I have said - driving is a neutral thing, and in a nation of millions of drivers you are expected to die of an accident more so than a terrorist attack. But that does mean we should not take it lightly. One is a statistic devoid of desire - the other is a desire to murder you. Which one are you most worried about? The driving which you can control by not driving as much, or the killer who desires to erase you?

[treestar]

13. Who cares? If you're dead, you're dead. The car accident is more

likely. That's the point. Who cares if the activity is neutral or the killing intentional? The point is that the fear of terror is out of perspective. It is still an exotic way to go. So why should "the world change?" (In only negative, freedom destroying ways).

[The Straight Story]

14. Why is the car accident more likely?

And I do care. I would rather go by accident than by murder. Or by old age.

I can control how much I drive and when. I cannot control terrorism, war, and so on. That is the government's job (and part of what we pay them for).

I EXPECT my police/govt to protect me when someone says they want to kill me. Do you think they should just ignore such threats??

[treestar]

32. It was never the police and the government's job to protect you

personally. That would mean no one ever grows up. You just go from childhood one with your parents to childhood two with the government. The government's powers are limited, see the Constitution. You are an adult and free but also responsible to protect yourself. The government is only going to protect the nation as a whole, that's all we wanted it to do, or all the founders wanted it to do.

You can't control how you go. Up to fate, God, whatever, but the steps you take to prevent it any given way are likely to be consistent with their liklihood. You quit smoking. Makes sense, given the odds. Put your seat belt on. But to take actual life-affecting steps over such an exotic way as terrorism? Not cost-beneficial.

[Union Thug]

18. They want to kill ME? Really, I'm not that important.

Chances are, not one of the 'terraists' even know that I'm alive. Killing me isn't the objective. These people aren't garden variety psychopaths, there is an objective that transcends the 'me' and the 'you' --- and it all has to do with the behavior of the motherfuckers who make up the ruling elite, their corporations and their interactions with similar motherfuckers who make up the foreign elite, such as the Saudis and their brethren.

In large part, US foreign policy has contributed to this disastrous situation as much as or more than any other factor - foreign policy that I oppose and have opposed for many years. Combine that with brain-dead dependency on religion (from both the Bushbot medievalism fantasy-worlder crowd and the equiv. muslim nonsense), and there you have the problem. The ruling elite in the western world and those that fund and foment 'terrorists' are flip sides of the same twisted coin, and frankly, I am not giving either side the satisfaction of making me fearful or changing my life or allowing them to fool me into thinking that giving up my civil liberties is good thing. Bullshit.

Since when did the people of this country become diaper-shitting pansies? Since when do we cower so desperately that we rattle the foundation of our civil liberties with our sweaty palpitations? If this is what America has become, it's a sad, sad, sad day.

One last thing: Because of I haven't been killed by a terrorist proves bush is right? What the hell kind of logic is that? I hope you were trying to illustrate a point and you don't actually believe this.

[The Straight Story]

22. YOU is a euphemism

They want to kill Americans. They hate us - and some may say they understand it, etc. But that does not change the fact that you are a target.

They don't care about your name. They could care less who was one the planes during the 9/11 attacks - kids, old people, innocent civilians who may never have voted and some who were on their side of the greater causes. They were americans and thus guilty by association.

You might love them. You might think islam is great, americans suck, and we all deserve to die the death of an infidel. But those carrying out attacks don't care about your beliefs - your nationality is the key (kind of reminds me of the immigration debate...).

I totally agree with you about the civil liberties stuff, pansies, et al. We don't need to cower - but at the same time we do need to educate ourselves about the realistic threats (compounded by the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons since break up of Soviet Union).

There are people who would party hard at the thought of wiping out a huge chunk of our population. I don't want such people wandering around here. Do you? If not, what should we do about it? Make them like us (doubt that will happen) or ferret them out and get rid of them?

[treestar]

33. But you are more likely to be killed in a car accident

THAT is the point.

Your third paragraph is the height of emotionalism. Totally unreasonable. I should hate cars more than I hate Muslims, by your reasoning.

[The Straight Story]

36. More likely is not the same as potential

I am more likely to die from cancer than car accidents I am guessing.

But terrorists have more potential to kill greater numbers of people than cars - and they are not controlled and regulated.

Driving too fast, drunk, et al is against the law for a reason. And we track/punish people who are a risk.

Terrorists are a much larger risk to us all. ONE terrorist with a bio weapon can destroy our country (and others). We have laws dealing with the potential of people doing us harm in cars (wreckless driving, drunk, speeding, et al) and we enforce such as best we can. I don't see the big difference in doing the same for terrorists.

[Union Thug]

73. Bogeyman syndrome

Sorry, I don't buy it. Even with the inflated numbers of 'evil-doers who hate us cuz we own houses' that Bush and his war-pigs have created, I'm still much more likely to be shot by one of the local ice-heads than some rogue terrorist - and yet I do not advocate police state policies to round them up.

I do agree with you on something you said. You said that aspects of this remind you of the immigration debate - namely,the asinine focus on nationality. But this is where I part ways with the implications of your statement. Nationality is only an issue if you are looking at it through a myopic lens, and ignore the underlying causes of the immigration issue. It really doesn't matter if you are talking about Mexicans or the Nepalese. Nationality is a ruse. Similar in some ways to the terrorist situation, the immigration situation has at its roots the desire of a large portion of the business class to accumulate greater wealth. Going after the immigrants is not very useful (they just keep coming over the border). To stop the issue, you put the brakes on those whose interests it is serving and jail anyone who knowingly hires an illegal immigrant.

The same is true of the 'terrorist' issue. If you want to put the brakes on it, target those who whose interests have created the problem. Killing or jailing a suspected terrorist here and there does nothing but leave a vacuum to be filled by another one.

As a friend of mine used to say, 'if you have a problem, deal with the source.'

[FormerOstrich]

20. I'm not sure what the author's point

is but here is how I interpret such comparisons.

Look at the amount of money we have spent on the "war against terror". I've read estimates of a trillion dollars. It's the overreaction. It's the disproportionate amount of resource invested toward the "solution".

[The Straight Story]

29. But then there is potential to consider

Dying in a car wreck affects a few folks overall.

If a terrorist gets a good chemcical/biological/nuclear weapon to use it will have a major effect here (as an example: if one person gets a bio weapon that can wipe out 80% of the population that risk is much greater than protecting you from an idiot driver).

The ability to disrupt and destroy our lives here is greater on the terrorist end than the driver end. From a science view I would like more money spent on stopping potential impacts with earth from large objects in space than drivers' ed - because one affects us ALL while the other affects only the few.

[me b zola]

37. Here's another interpetation to compliment yours

We (some) are willingly trading their civil liberties--everything that is what it means to be American--for the sense of protection. Of course, never mind that dumbya refuses to secure nuclear & chemical plants, and he is more than willing to turn over national security assets to those who have assisted terrorists in the very recent past--including those who are said to have been the ones to have comitted the atrocity of 911.

We are willing to trade the very essence of what it means to be American because we think that it will make us safer. On the other hand, auto accidents cause far more death & distruction, but no one is calling for a prohibition on driving.

[The Straight Story]

47. Not saying we should trade anything

We can address both if needed at the same time.

This has nothing to do with bush for me. Clinton, et al, saw the same threats. Gore even said that saddam had to go (even though I did not agree with him on that).

I am not one of those folks who wants govt to make us safer all the time - hell I think we should be allowed to smoke in bars, but tell people here that and you will get slammed. I am all for people not being safe by their own choice.

I do think we have an issue though - and that is that someone wants to kill us, en mass, and trying to stop that is a worthwhile goal. HOW we do it is another matter.

[Mr_Spock]

35. We are WAY over emphasizing the threat of terrorism in this country

and you know it!!

Should we have the fake president scaring us weekly about a threat that is less likely to kill us than lightning?

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!! You're living in a dream world.

[The Straight Story]

38. No I don't know it

I don't care about bush and his bullshit. This is not about him and his dumb ass cronies. If you think it is I urge you to go to google.com/unclesam and look up clinton and other dems and the 90's and see that they saw the same things.

Potential impact. One freak with a hatred of us could wreak havoc on the entire US. And some people want us to suffer, to die. And if they could get a hold of one Bio agent that could do it they would. Should we ignore it?

I don't think anyone thinks we should ignore it, I hope you don't. Should we freak out and give total control to our leaders? Hell no. I won't be controlled by fear. Screw that! They want us to fear too deeply imho. I want us to be aware and work that into our plans.

I can see where they want to use fear to control - and I disagree with that. But not seeing potential issues and dealing with them is not the answer either.

[Mr_Spock]

40. We agree then. Clinton had me aware, but didn't try to scare me weekly

as a method on retaining power indefinitely. It is possible to keep the populace aware of the possible threat and even train us for the eventuality without using it as a method to exercise complete, almost fascist, control over the people.

Bush couldn't possibly be handling the threat of terrorism any worse than he is. :puke:

[The Straight Story]

43. I would agree

I see how they handle things as different - but then I can see where people nowadays see it as different post 9/11.

Before it was potential - that day it became real.

There are people who hate us, want us to die, to suffer. They showed how far they were willing to go that day (ie, killing people who had nothing to do with decisions they disagreed with just because of their nationality) and now that we see such we are wary of what they might do.

The threat posed is greater than the reality of day to day life (ie car accidents) and can have a much bigger influence. What happened after 9/11 affected hundreds of millions of people all at once (ie flights, gas prices, et al) whereas the typical car accident affects only a small group.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Whoa, everybody, back down. The point is...

that there are many, many ways to die suddenly.

It makes no sense for the population at large to worry about just one of them or for us to lose our civil liberties over something that will probably happen to less than 1% of us.

Did you know that you're far likelier to die in a car crash than at the hands of a criminal?

Another bit of perspective that our "law and order at all costs, build more prisons" society needs.

[Union Thug]

7. Which is why I am not at all afraid of "TERRRA"

The chances of me dying in the act of driving to work every day is far greater than a terrorist incident.

For me, other than my sadness for those whose families were impacted by it and the shit forced on us by the Bush fascists, 9/11 changed nothing.

[Telly Savalas]

28. Which is all the more reason we need NSA phone record data-mining

They study the patterns, find instances of drunk-dialling, and nab DUI offenders.

[Union Thug]

74. But they DO NOT track everyone who ever bought a beer...

Which is what nsa datamining is all about.

[Telly Savalas]

75. Jesus. It was a fucking joke.

[peacebaby3]

30. Sorry, but this argument reminds me of the one that the "morans" on the

right try to use when they talk about soldiers killed during the "war." If I hear one more time how many more people die in the US from car accidents, etc. I'm going to :puke: !!! You can't compare the two in either situation.

[Mr_Spock]

39. Sure you can, unless you think we should give up our freedoms

for fake threat that is less likely to kill you than getting hit by lightning.

[The Straight Story]

41. They are based on two totally different things

One is Business as usual, and one is desire.

One is what happens day to day by interaction, one is what happens when someone has the desire to do harm.

One is an outcome of daily life, one is an outcome of a threat carried out by a killer.

Is murder less likely than a car accident? Probably - but we still work hard to stop killers. And when someone kills someone else we work hard to get them in jail.

If I call you at home and threaten to kill you which would you be most worried about - your next trip in your car to the gas station or me?

[Mr_Spock]

42. I'm not afraid of them, sorry. I never will allow that again.

I will not let Republicans destroy this country by making us a paranoid fascist nation just because people like you & Bush keep on telling me I should be scared.

I'm scared of my government, I'm NOT afraid of a bunch of two-bit box-cutter carrying thugs, sorry.

[The Straight Story]

44. Why not afraid of both :)

I don't like either. And I think both are a threat to my life and well being.

Both have proven to be a detriment to my life.

And what is wrong with being 'scared'?? Someone out there is wanting to kill you - whether it be bush or others. Scared means you recognize a threat and protect against it on a basic level. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge a threat and move on?

I don't care why as it relates to the reasons (ie - america has been mean to X group and now they want to kill us all) but I don't see any reason not to address such things and try and stop them.

We DON'T need to be a facist nation to address such threats. We don't need to be paranoid.

I am with you in that I am not scared of some dumb ass with a box cutter. It is the dumb ass with a nuke or bio weapon I am most afraid of. And of course - like all good people (mostly libertarians) I am afraid of a big government which wants to control my life and dictate the beliefs of others into laws. Did I mention smoking bans in bars???

[Mr_Spock]

45. "The only thing we have to fear is - fear itself" - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Fear means that Bush wins.

Fear means that the terrorists win.


Yes, I believe in dilligence.

Yes, I believe in education.


I think it is wrong to be scared - I can't agree with your thinking that it's OK to be scared.

[The Straight Story]

46. So you're not scared of bush and crew at all?

And see them as less a threat than car crashes? Should we just ignore them too??

[Mr_Spock]

48. I do fear the potential outcome of Bush-fascism

But it is my duty to question my government and do something about it when it is out of control.

It's not the same kind of fear as the blind fear that controls a mans actions - it's a fear that if we are not careful, we will no longer have a free nation. It's more a fear that if I don't do my duty as a citizen in my democracy, that we may lose our nation. The terrorist fear makes us lose our nation BASED on our fear. It's a completely different sort of fear - more of a "fear of the boogieman" fear versus a "fear of the outcome of bad government" type of fear. People don't run around with their head cut off when they fear their government is out of control, people do act irrationally when they think there is a boogieman behind every tree.

[The Straight Story]

50. Ah, but is it seen as the same kind of fear

You fear bush, and act in a way to control that fear. You see him as a threat (and others perhaps as not a threat - ie, who is the biggest threat - terrorist or bush). But more have died from cancer, heart disease, car accidents, et al than from bush's wrongs.

And that goes back (to me) to the OP. More people die from car accident's than bush's crap....so should we ignore bush and crew??

[Mr_Spock]

51. I never said ignore Bush, I said don't let terrorism control us -

it's what the terrorists want.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please don't equate the fear of Bushco's destruction of our freedoms with blind fear of the boogieman (terrorism).

I made the differences clear in my previous post but you seem unable to separate your fears.

Your problem, not mine - I'm with FDR on this one.

[The Straight Story]

52. I am with you on that - but not sure how it relfects on the OP

Which kills more - bush or car wrecks?

I don't see how the two are related (anymore than I see how terrorism and car wrecks are related).

[Mr_Spock]

54. Terrorism is like a car wreck in that we shouldn't obsess over either

since we cannot change what we cannot predict.

How could anyone live their life if they let their fears control their actions?

We'd all be agoraphobic.

"The only thing we have to fear is - fear itself" - FDR

Please understand what FDR was trying to say if you can.

[The Straight Story]

56. I don't think we should obsess

I just don't see the two as related in any way.

Car wrecks have no desire. They are a consequence and to be expected based on our high rate of driving.

Terrorism is a whole different animal and not related at all.

[Mr_Spock]

58. Irrational fear is irrational fear,

You have almost no chance of being killed by a terrorist. I'd bet $100,000 right now that you will not be killed by terrorists. I would never take that bet if you are indeed a regular driver on our highways. See the difference? It's a matter of scale. It's a matter of how realistically we view the world around us. The terrorists win if everyone is like you.

[The Straight Story]

67. Statiscally you are almost right

The difference is that terrorists want to do me harm - whereas drivers don't.

Which one will get to me first? I have no idea.

Which one can greater impact us all? That is the question. What is the answer?

[Mr_Spock]

53. Also, read the following post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1180031

[The Straight Story]

55. Fear, Fear, Fear - from bush it is terrorists, from us it is him

We are selling as much fear as he is....

[Mr_Spock]

57. But he is the original promoter of fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you secretly trying to promote Bush by promoting fear?

He started your fear of terrorism, if he didn't promote the fear - you likely would feel less threatened!!!

I just cannot see what you are trying to accomplish with your arguments?

[The Straight Story]

59. He did not start my fear

I felt the same way under Clinton as I do now.

I don't need some dumbass in power to tell me the threats - I can see em well enough on my own.

I fear a govt out of control as much as I do a terrorist with a bio weapon. I don't trust either. Which is why I question the bush admin - as do all here - as much as I question the ability of terrorists thesedays to wreak havoc.

bush is a threat, terrorists are a threat - I welcome looking at both and bitching about them here on DU. bush goes bye bye in 2008. Terrorists don't. One is a long term threat, one is short term.

Can't I be worried about both more than I am car wrecks??

[Mr_Spock]

61. Sure - you can worry about it.

It is supposed to be best if you keep your fears to yourself though - fear is like a virus.

Listen to FDR; Listen to the inspirational posters.

Fear is like a virus.

[The Straight Story]

63. Fear enables us to protect ourselves

Fear car wrecks? Drive defensively. Be aware.

Fear terrorist attacks? Be proactive - recognize the threats and try to minimize them. Be aware.

FDR - fear the Japenese, make internment camps.

Fear is based on understanding threats and then doing something to minimize said threats. HOW we minimize them says a lot about us as a people.

[Mr_Spock]

64. Well, I will let you wallow in your fear arguments - you win

I can't deal with this any more - you've taken a weak position and you are going to stick with it until I can't take it any more.

Enjoy your fear dwelling - please keep it to yourself - don't drag the rest of us down please.

[The Straight Story]

65. I am not promoting fear - dems are (with regards to bush)

fear, fear, fear is all I hear.

We try to get others to vote for us out of fear of bush, instead of what we offer.

we have thread after thread here over our fear of bush.

Fear is not a bad thing. We promote it here and project it out all the time.

[Guaranteed]

49. Bingo. Same argument.

Doesn't work.

[fujiyama]

60. So what?

One doesn't have to do with the other... More people also are killed in car crashes than in Iraq. Does that make the war something we shouldn't be concerned about?

The problem here isn't that the Bush admin is too concerned about terrorism. The problem is that they are exploiting fear to usurp and intrude on our civil liberties. They are also breaking the law in the name of fighting terrorism (and very likely broad domestic surveillance is not very effective for anti terrorism, so for them it is a matter of power and control over society).

Granted, many people may have an exagerrated sense of the threat (especially those in the 'heartland' (after all an attack is much likelier to happen in a big city), but the threat is real and shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.

Also, car crashes are rarely on purpose (even most drunken driving accidents are done because of incredibly poor judgement, not premeditated malice). It would have been a bit more accurate to compare terrorism to random murders on a daily basis, but even there the comparison is somewhat flawed. Terrorist attacks are often is purpotrated because of idealogical and religious fanaticism, which is why they are usually done on a larger scale. Daily murders occur on a smaller scale (drugs, family problems etc).

[The Straight Story]

62. A voice of reason here....

I don't feel so lonely :)

[nolabels]

66. Just like war, most car crashes are caused by ignorance

The other stupid emotions come after. Having a due-diligence of both ignorant drivers and a ignorant bush would seem logical even in a mathematical sense

[opihimoimoi]

69. Ban Cars Ban Cars...horse and buggy here we come....

[ComerPerro]

70. Be careful. You heading into FReeper territory

this is the same logic they use to defend the Iraq war.

They argue that its safer to be a soldier in Iraq than it is to drive a car in the US.

(of course, if that were the case, I would imagne that more of those lazy cowards would be in Iraq where its safe)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Not at all

Apples and oranges.

It's just a way of pointing out that getting killed by a terrorist is such a rare occurrence that it's hardly worth fussing about for the average person.

Now being sent into a war zone--that IS statistically dangerous. Your likelihood of getting killed or permanently disabled is extremely high.

[newspeak]

76. I believe it is not how many die in car crashes compared to terrorism or

how many soldiers have died compared to murders in the US-it is the mindset and the environment in which death occurs. When people fear, normally rational people, become very irrational. A government who shoves terrorism down one's throat 24/7 creates a mindset of fear that may cause irrational actions. Remember the man who covered his house with duck tape and plastic after 9/11? A government who feeds you terror and fear daily can influence a majority of the population to do horrendous things. Maybe we need to discover who promotes terrorism, who funds terrorism, who creates terrorism. Remember the article about subversive NATO maneuvers to discredit some groups like the Basque Separatists? Actually initiating terrorist activities to blame certain political groups, to further discredit them in the eyes of the public. This administration and many people see or attempt to promote the appearance that everything is black and white; good and evil--that is not the case. And, maybe some who do terroristic acts believe that they'll have paradise in heaven or will be seen in history as a true patriot, like Nathan Hale (McVeigh)--for they have also been duped.