4 ms·

A lot of the comments on that article burn me up. People in the U.S. really think there's a terrorism problem here. The only problem is that government spending

A lot of the comments on that article burn me up. People in the U.S. really think there's a terrorism problem here. The only problem is that government spending so much money on a non-issue! Politicians love to "debate" it because they know it is one of those things that looks good to the naive citizens but they really don't have to do anything because there's nothing to be done.

weaksauce 11y ago
it's an appeal to emotion and it's actually a bit disgusting to me. I wish my government would stop creating the terrorists that it wants to then fight.
ewzimm 11y ago
What really burns me is that this strategy is so well known. 1984 was written almost 70 years ago, and yet we have millions of people begging for persistent, unavoidable surveillance by authorities as part of a never-ending war with an ambiguous enemy that our own policies are strengthening.
- VladKovac 11y ago
  Referencing 1984 is childish in this context, we're talking about obtaining a warrant for known suspects or already convicted persons. The enemy isn't ambiguous, you're purposely muddying their image.
  - jzelinskie 11y ago
    I believe the GP was making a generality and not talking about just this specific scenario. "Terrorism" is an ambiguous enemy and while the number of deaths to terrorism is disheartening, it pales in comparison to many other problems (e.g. car accidents or heart disease).
    - goldenkey 11y ago
      Let's not forget that because terrorism is ambiguous, our own government can create mock attacks and blame them on 3rd parties. Furthering their own agendas. Invoking fear and loathing in the citizens.
javajosh 11y ago
Indeed. Even Bernie doesn't make this point (or at least, I haven't heard him make it). To stand up and say, "Actually, terrorism isn't a big threat to the US, especially compared to ..." would be political suicide. Why? Because terrorism isn't about any real threat, it's about hurt pride, outrage at being vulnerable, outrage at being hated, and underlying it all a cultural animosity that ranges from dispassionate concern to visceral hatred. American's are very much doers and they want to "win the war on terror". Which of course is stupid since terrorism has always been around, and will always be around. (And in another twist of irony I am positive that the American Revolutionaries were called terrorists by the British.) Anyway, a rational politician would have a tremendous uphill battle against both Pride and Ignorance. He or she would have to have tremendous skill as a teacher and a leader, not to mention the emotional fortitude of a Buddha to endure the onslaught of hatred.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Even Bernie doesn't make this point (or at least, I haven't heard him make it). To stand up and say, "Actually, terrorism isn't a big threat to the US, especially compared to ..." would be political suicide. Sanders has expressly argued that climate change is a bigger national security threat than terrorism (or anything else) -- and did so in one the Democratic debates, in response to a question on national security threats. While that may not be directly minimizing terrorism, it certainly is explicitly placing it behind other problems in terms of need for focus. > (And in another twist of irony I am positive that the American Revolutionaries were called terrorists by the British.) They absolutely were not; the term "terrorists" was first applied to the leaders of the regime of the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution (shortly after the American Revolution), and it was quite a long time after that before the term was applied to actors other than state leaders applying terror as a weapon to control their subject population.
hnbroseph 11y ago
> People in the U.S. really think there's a terrorism problem here out of curiosity, what evidence is there that there isn't? perhaps i should ask what you mean by "a terrorism problem" as well.

weaksauce 11y ago

it's an appeal to emotion and it's actually a bit disgusting to me. I wish my government would stop creating the terrorists that it wants to then fight.

ewzimm 11y ago

What really burns me is that this strategy is so well known. 1984 was written almost 70 years ago, and yet we have millions of people begging for persistent, unavoidable surveillance by authorities as part of a never-ending war with an ambiguous enemy that our own policies are strengthening.

VladKovac 11y ago
Referencing 1984 is childish in this context, we're talking about obtaining a warrant for known suspects or already convicted persons. The enemy isn't ambiguous, you're purposely muddying their image.
- jzelinskie 11y ago
  I believe the GP was making a generality and not talking about just this specific scenario. "Terrorism" is an ambiguous enemy and while the number of deaths to terrorism is disheartening, it pales in comparison to many other problems (e.g. car accidents or heart disease).
  - goldenkey 11y ago
    Let's not forget that because terrorism is ambiguous, our own government can create mock attacks and blame them on 3rd parties. Furthering their own agendas. Invoking fear and loathing in the citizens.

javajosh 11y ago

Indeed. Even Bernie doesn't make this point (or at least, I haven't heard him make it). To stand up and say, "Actually, terrorism isn't a big threat to the US, especially compared to ..." would be political suicide. Why? Because terrorism isn't about any real threat, it's about hurt pride, outrage at being vulnerable, outrage at being hated, and underlying it all a cultural animosity that ranges from dispassionate concern to visceral hatred. American's are very much doers and they want to "win the war on terror". Which of course is stupid since terrorism has always been around, and will always be around. (And in another twist of irony I am positive that the American Revolutionaries were called terrorists by the British.) Anyway, a rational politician would have a tremendous uphill battle against both Pride and Ignorance. He or she would have to have tremendous skill as a teacher and a leader, not to mention the emotional fortitude of a Buddha to endure the onslaught of hatred.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Even Bernie doesn't make this point (or at least, I haven't heard him make it). To stand up and say, "Actually, terrorism isn't a big threat to the US, especially compared to ..." would be political suicide. Sanders has expressly argued that climate change is a bigger national security threat than terrorism (or anything else) -- and did so in one the Democratic debates, in response to a question on national security threats. While that may not be directly minimizing terrorism, it certainly is explicitly placing it behind other problems in terms of need for focus. > (And in another twist of irony I am positive that the American Revolutionaries were called terrorists by the British.) They absolutely were not; the term "terrorists" was first applied to the leaders of the regime of the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution (shortly after the American Revolution), and it was quite a long time after that before the term was applied to actors other than state leaders applying terror as a weapon to control their subject population.

hnbroseph 11y ago

> People in the U.S. really think there's a terrorism problem here out of curiosity, what evidence is there that there isn't? perhaps i should ask what you mean by "a terrorism problem" as well.