47 ms·

>The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sw

>The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights... There is another issue that hasn't been discussed enough, and this quote from the article simultaneously refers to the need to discuss "balance" between security and freedom, while also unquestioningly keeping alive the idea that there is a grave threat and hence need for outsized security. So, the question is also, what is the true scale and number of these so-called "terrorism threats"? And, how do you measure the required balance without a true assessment of the actual threat (vs. assuming it)? After 9/11 we went into this permanent "War on Terror" war-footing, wherein this notion of an overwhelming threat of terrorism was simply assumed (ex. by this article). But, when, if ever, do we question whether that posture still makes sense (or ever did, for that matter)?

comefrom10 13y ago
There's a very interesting video about 9/11 that every American really, really, really should watch put out by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
- tokenadult 13y ago
  I recommend that you read better sources: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/
  - comefrom10 13y ago
    Have you watched the video?
  - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
    Actually, that AEA911Truth video is very good with some very high calibre scientists and engineers discussing the event. I especially liked Lynn Margulis's description of what science actually is and how the follow up "investigation" cannot be called scientific by any stretch of the immagination. You should watch it before you just dismiss it.
Udo 13y ago
On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror". Less people die by terror than by any remotely significant event category. I imagine the last few years will go down in the history books as a good example why the primary product of terror is fear and hysteria, and direct damage caused is purely incidental. Of course the indirect damage terrorized societies do to themselves is stupendously expansive.
- mpyne 13y ago
  If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    And care more about the water crisis than energy.
  - peterpathname 13y ago
    nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much slower to roll out.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Slower to roll out, yes, but the change would have happened long ago so we'd be talking about incremental upgrades anyways, not new construction everywhere. As far as cost, nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy generated (yes, even including renewables) and is only more expensive than fossil-fueled solutions which would be disfavored due to carbon emissions concerns. Renewable can be less expensive (which is why I mentioned it). The current nuclear cost estimates include some rather insane design margins, containments, redundant system after redundant system which could all probably be reduced a bit without appreciably affecting deaths/TW-hr, which would make it cheaper. Also, a major portion of the expense is from very restrictive contamination handling requirements to keep radiation exposure to the workers themselves at extremely low levels. These levels could probably also be increased without detectable increase in cancer rate (in fact, it may even reduce cancer incidence; see radiation hormesis). Would we really say that nuclear workers absolutely much be safer than coal plant workers, coal miners, etc.? We do now, and this also makes nuclear more expensive. Besides, if it's true that there is an undeniable nexus between all civilian nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs then it is probably imperative to take much stronger action against Iran than we are currently taking, since we can't trust their assurances that their program is strictly for civilian power generation. Unless of course, we're willing to allow them to further destabilize the whole Middle East region.

comefrom10 13y ago

There's a very interesting video about 9/11 that every American really, really, really should watch put out by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

tokenadult 13y ago
I recommend that you read better sources: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/
- comefrom10 13y ago
  Have you watched the video?
- retrogradeorbit 13y ago
  Actually, that AEA911Truth video is very good with some very high calibre scientists and engineers discussing the event. I especially liked Lynn Margulis's description of what science actually is and how the follow up "investigation" cannot be called scientific by any stretch of the immagination. You should watch it before you just dismiss it.

Udo 13y ago

On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror". Less people die by terror than by any remotely significant event category. I imagine the last few years will go down in the history books as a good example why the primary product of terror is fear and hysteria, and direct damage caused is purely incidental. Of course the indirect damage terrorized societies do to themselves is stupendously expansive.

mpyne 13y ago
If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  And care more about the water crisis than energy.
- peterpathname 13y ago
  nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much slower to roll out.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Slower to roll out, yes, but the change would have happened long ago so we'd be talking about incremental upgrades anyways, not new construction everywhere. As far as cost, nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy generated (yes, even including renewables) and is only more expensive than fossil-fueled solutions which would be disfavored due to carbon emissions concerns. Renewable can be less expensive (which is why I mentioned it). The current nuclear cost estimates include some rather insane design margins, containments, redundant system after redundant system which could all probably be reduced a bit without appreciably affecting deaths/TW-hr, which would make it cheaper. Also, a major portion of the expense is from very restrictive contamination handling requirements to keep radiation exposure to the workers themselves at extremely low levels. These levels could probably also be increased without detectable increase in cancer rate (in fact, it may even reduce cancer incidence; see radiation hormesis). Would we really say that nuclear workers absolutely much be safer than coal plant workers, coal miners, etc.? We do now, and this also makes nuclear more expensive. Besides, if it's true that there is an undeniable nexus between all civilian nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs then it is probably imperative to take much stronger action against Iran than we are currently taking, since we can't trust their assurances that their program is strictly for civilian power generation. Unless of course, we're willing to allow them to further destabilize the whole Middle East region.