2 ms·

that's not really the cost of the terrorism, though. that's the cost of the cowardly, panicked response. other countries have responded to terrorism with more d

that's not really the cost of the terrorism, though. that's the cost of the cowardly, panicked response. other countries have responded to terrorism with more dignity and poise, and it's cost them less money.

LLWM 12y ago
Preventing the cowardly, panicked response isn't the NSA's department. All they can do is try to prevent the attack.
- tessierashpool 12y ago
  They could also comply with the law, especially important laws like the Fourth Amendment. That's another option they have. edit: it's occurred to me there's a huge flaw in this claim: Preventing the cowardly, panicked response isn't the NSA's department. The NSA has lied about the effectiveness of its mass data collection, claiming that it foiled terrorist plots. The claims don't actually hold up under investigation. But in the process of exaggerating the effectiveness of this particular alleged solution to terrorist danger, they also exaggerated the pervasiveness of that danger, which probably did make the panicked, cowardly response in question both more panicked and more cowardly.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Come on, even comedians know better than to think they are actually breaking any laws. Why take that risk when you can just legalize whatever you want to do without telling anyone?
anigbrowl 12y ago
Other developed country have arguably not suffered a proportional injury from terrorism (in terms of deaths per capita per incident). The nearest example I can think of is Norway's massacre carried out y Anders Brievik, and it's questionable as to whether an atrocity by an individual actor meets the operational definition of terrorism, since the threat of future attacks could be neutralized by the capture of a single individual; 'terror' surely implies a non-zero risk of future attack, as opposed to the 'horror' of a previous one that has a zero probability of being repeated.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Ah, the 'no true terrorist' fallacy. Joking aside, there are many more idiots like Breivik, so there is a risk of future attacks. But they're unlikely because the Norwegians kept their heads cool, didn't turn him into a martyr but showed him for what he is, a deranged sociopath.

LLWM 12y ago

Preventing the cowardly, panicked response isn't the NSA's department. All they can do is try to prevent the attack.

tessierashpool 12y ago
They could also comply with the law, especially important laws like the Fourth Amendment. That's another option they have. edit: it's occurred to me there's a huge flaw in this claim: Preventing the cowardly, panicked response isn't the NSA's department. The NSA has lied about the effectiveness of its mass data collection, claiming that it foiled terrorist plots. The claims don't actually hold up under investigation. But in the process of exaggerating the effectiveness of this particular alleged solution to terrorist danger, they also exaggerated the pervasiveness of that danger, which probably did make the panicked, cowardly response in question both more panicked and more cowardly.
- LLWM 12y ago
  Come on, even comedians know better than to think they are actually breaking any laws. Why take that risk when you can just legalize whatever you want to do without telling anyone?

anigbrowl 12y ago

Other developed country have arguably not suffered a proportional injury from terrorism (in terms of deaths per capita per incident). The nearest example I can think of is Norway's massacre carried out y Anders Brievik, and it's questionable as to whether an atrocity by an individual actor meets the operational definition of terrorism, since the threat of future attacks could be neutralized by the capture of a single individual; 'terror' surely implies a non-zero risk of future attack, as opposed to the 'horror' of a previous one that has a zero probability of being repeated.

jacquesm 12y ago
Ah, the 'no true terrorist' fallacy. Joking aside, there are many more idiots like Breivik, so there is a risk of future attacks. But they're unlikely because the Norwegians kept their heads cool, didn't turn him into a martyr but showed him for what he is, a deranged sociopath.