I found this interesting

[paramuscle]

For those of you who do not know, I am currently working on my BA in Psychology and then hopefully my MA in the same. Some of the coursework I do is very interesting and this particular piece intrigued me. This is from one of my classes in critical thinking and it basically tries to get you to realize the different angles for everything.

This is an article written to explain the possible differences in why we felt so much fear after 9/11 and our responses to that fear. It may not be your cup of tea but I know a couple of my people here will enjoy the read. (Spook, Rat)

Anyway, just thought I would share...



The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since it is the very nature of terrorism not
only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the
population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily
successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence
of the American reaction. In this essay, I shall argue that this reaction was irrational to a great extent and that to that extent Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorists in achieving a major goal: spreading fear and thus disrupting lives. In other words, we could have reacted more rationally and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens.
There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the
9/11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives that
were lost. In the absence of a shooting war, that 2,800 Americans should die
from the same cause strikes us as extraordinary indeed. But does the sheer
size of the loss of life warrant the reaction we saw? Clearly sheer numbers do
not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans
remember that, earlier in 2001, an earthquake in Gujarat, India, killed approximately 20,000 people. One might explain the difference in reaction by saying that we naturally respond more strongly to the deaths of Americans closer to home than to those of others halfway around the world. But then consider the fact that, every month during 2001 more Americans were killed in automobile crashes than were killed on 9/11 (and it has continued every month since as well). Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. It may be harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than
with a 9/11 victim, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal automobile
accidents.
One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in
the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. And while we
have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the
huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks.
It seems clear, at least, that sheer numbers cannot explain the response
to 9/11. If more reasons were needed, we might consider that the actual total
of the number of 9/11 deaths seemed of little consequence in post-attack reports.
Immediately after the attacks, the estimated death toll was about 6,500.
Several weeks later it was clear that fewer than half that many had actually
died, but was there a great sigh of relief when it was learned that over 3,000
people who were believed to have died were still alive? Not at all. In fact, well
after it was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still talked about “over 5,000” deaths on 9/11.
So the actual number seems to be of less consequence than one might have
believed.
We should remember that fear and outrage at the attacks are only the beginning
of the country’s response to 9/11. We now have a new cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security; billions have been spent on beefing up security
and in tracking terrorists and potential terrorists; billions more have
been spent supporting airlines whose revenues took a nosedive after the attacks;
the Congress was pulled away from other important business; the National
Guard was called out to patrol the nation’s airports; air travelers have
been subjected to time-consuming and expensive security measures; you can
probably think of a half-dozen other items to add to this list.
It is probable that a great lot of this trouble and expense is unwarranted.
We think that random searches of luggage of elderly ladies getting on airplanes
in Laramie, Wyoming, for example, is more effective as a way of annoying elderly
ladies than of stopping terrorism.
We might have accomplished something if we had been able to treat the
terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the carnage on the
nation’s highways—by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limits, safety belts, and the
like, which took decades to accomplish in the cause of auto safety)— rather
than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to
justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.
But we focused on 9/11 because of its terrorist nature and because of the
spectacular film that was shown over and over on television, imprinting forever the horrific images of the airliner’s collision with the World Trade Center and the subsequent collapse of the two towers. The media’s instant obsession with the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage, as awful as it was, when we compare the actual loss to the loss from automobile accidents.
Finally, our point is that marginal or even completely ineffective expenditures
and disruptive practices have taken our time, attention, and national
treasure away from other matters with more promise of making the country a
better place. We seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets, but, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.





~PM

[access]

Interesting perspective Para.

I point a lot of the blame to the Bush government in regards to the response to 9/11 as outlined above and also their actual perpetuation of the terrorist fear in an effort to push through their own agenda's.

[paramuscle]

I completely agree bro.........It was just refreshing to me to read this perspective as well.




~PM

[Spook]

There are a few faults I see with the article.

1. Where do those homicides occur?
a. Either in high crime areas, or among stranger circumstances such as family matters.
2. Do domestic murderers seek to destroy an entire nation or just their estranged family members or rival gangs?
3. Does domestic murder inspire terror among a large number of citizens? No, not really.
4. Do domestic murderers or thugs have a purpose to subvert national economies?

All in all, anything we look at that discusses national domestic crime rates really has nothing to do with subversion from foreign entitities or even national entities that are hellbent upon overthrowing a nation or bringing a nation and it's peoples to their knees. It isn't even comparing apples to oranges....it is comparing apples to liverwurst. Some of these stories and articles might make people think a bit, but have absolutely nothing to do but subvert innocent people from the real plight(s).

[Spook]

Buy some guns, make friends and not enemies, stay away from bad neighborhoods, don't become involved in bad habits or practices that could easily lead to death, keep both eyes on the road, side, and rearview mirrors, be mindful of your surroundings, and why should any of us be worried about being murdered or killed? Stonewall Jackson answered a man who asked him one time how that he could sit on his horse and not flinch from gunfire all around his head like he was a wall made of stone and he replied, "God has appointed my time of death, not man. I'm as safe on the battlefield as I am in my own bed." The only argument that I would have for that is that he placed himself in a position of grave danger, and yet, it wasn't the enemy that caused him to die...it was jealousy among a couple of rival peers that despised him and had sentries set up to shoot him while he was doing inspections of defenses and possible attack routes (that is one very plausible theory).

[johnanthonyhome]

Originally Posted by paramuscle

For those of you who do not know, I am currently working on my BA in Psychology and then hopefully my MA in the same. Some of the coursework I do is very interesting and this particular piece intrigued me. This is from one of my classes in critical thinking and it basically tries to get you to realize the different angles for everything.

This is an article written to explain the possible differences in why we felt so much fear after 9/11 and our responses to that fear. It may not be your cup of tea but I know a couple of my people here will enjoy the read. (Spook, Rat)

Anyway, just thought I would share...



The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since it is the very nature of terrorism not
only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the
population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily
successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence
of the American reaction. In this essay, I shall argue that this reaction was irrational to a great extent and that to that extent Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorists in achieving a major goal: spreading fear and thus disrupting lives. In other words, we could have reacted more rationally and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens.
There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the
9/11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives that
were lost. In the absence of a shooting war, that 2,800 Americans should die
from the same cause strikes us as extraordinary indeed. But does the sheer
size of the loss of life warrant the reaction we saw? Clearly sheer numbers do
not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans
remember that, earlier in 2001, an earthquake in Gujarat, India, killed approximately 20,000 people. One might explain the difference in reaction by saying that we naturally respond more strongly to the deaths of Americans closer to home than to those of others halfway around the world. But then consider the fact that, every month during 2001 more Americans were killed in automobile crashes than were killed on 9/11 (and it has continued every month since as well). Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. It may be harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than
with a 9/11 victim, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal automobile
accidents.
One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in
the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. And while we
have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the
huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks.
It seems clear, at least, that sheer numbers cannot explain the response
to 9/11. If more reasons were needed, we might consider that the actual total
of the number of 9/11 deaths seemed of little consequence in post-attack reports.
Immediately after the attacks, the estimated death toll was about 6,500.
Several weeks later it was clear that fewer than half that many had actually
died, but was there a great sigh of relief when it was learned that over 3,000
people who were believed to have died were still alive? Not at all. In fact, well
after it was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still talked about “over 5,000” deaths on 9/11.
So the actual number seems to be of less consequence than one might have
believed.
We should remember that fear and outrage at the attacks are only the beginning
of the country’s response to 9/11. We now have a new cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security; billions have been spent on beefing up security
and in tracking terrorists and potential terrorists; billions more have
been spent supporting airlines whose revenues took a nosedive after the attacks;
the Congress was pulled away from other important business; the National
Guard was called out to patrol the nation’s airports; air travelers have
been subjected to time-consuming and expensive security measures; you can
probably think of a half-dozen other items to add to this list.
It is probable that a great lot of this trouble and expense is unwarranted.
We think that random searches of luggage of elderly ladies getting on airplanes
in Laramie, Wyoming, for example, is more effective as a way of annoying elderly
ladies than of stopping terrorism.
We might have accomplished something if we had been able to treat the
terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the carnage on the
nation’s highways—by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limits, safety belts, and the
like, which took decades to accomplish in the cause of auto safety)— rather
than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to
justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.
But we focused on 9/11 because of its terrorist nature and because of the
spectacular film that was shown over and over on television, imprinting forever the horrific images of the airliner’s collision with the World Trade Center and the subsequent collapse of the two towers. The media’s instant obsession with the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage, as awful as it was, when we compare the actual loss to the loss from automobile accidents.
Finally, our point is that marginal or even completely ineffective expenditures
and disruptive practices have taken our time, attention, and national
treasure away from other matters with more promise of making the country a
better place. We seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets, but, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.





~PM

I have two words for you......."Glass Parkinglot"

[dagar]

You quoted the entire thing to give that response.??????? I agree with Access that Bush used the attacks to push his own agendas but I think the real fear Americans have is that we are up against an enemy that has no problem taking it's own life to take ours. In our past wars our enemies, like us, hoped to come out of it alive. We got our first real taste of suicide bombers when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. They succeeded because they had the element of surprise but also because the kamikzes dive bombed our ships, crippling the Navy's ability to respond. When faced for the first time with an enemy that was prepared to take it's own life, we responded with the alternative everyone knows about. Our fear here in NY is not a terrorist with a tank or a gun, it's the middle eatern man in a three piece suit carring luggage or the middle eastern jogger with a backpack or the middle eastern man driving a U-Haul truck. We are fighting an enemy we can't see and for that, we should be afraid.

[Rat]

Thats the reaction these people want, Johnanthony.

As it is, it got us involved in two wars that we really didn't need.

Now the US is even weaker than before, expending its energy in the ME.

Unlless you believe we wanted to be there... per the Neocons....

[babybull34]

Interesting read Para. Makes one ask questions and think, which are the most important actions individuals in a free society can have. We most always continue to do it, its our right and our responsibility to keep "our" government in check.

[johnanthonyhome]

Originally Posted by Rat

Thats the reaction these people want, Johnanthony.

As it is, it got us involved in two wars that we really didn't need.

Now the US is even weaker than before, expending its energy in the ME.

Unlless you believe we wanted to be there... per the Neocons....

Allow me to rephrase that to one word----"Carthage"