Fear itself

We have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, so yesterday's fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was regarded as a bigger deal than last year's fourth or next year's sixth.

The occasion was marked by ceremonies in towns and cities across America, and by a media blitz from newspapers, TV networks and, of course, from al-Qaida itself, which despicably marked the occasion with yet another video release.

This last was predictable because our remembering 9/11 -- and staying scared -- is one of al-Qaida's major goals. This is what terrorists do: they terror-ize. Here, again, is the legal definition of "terrorism":

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were intended to kill a lot of innocent people, and they did, but all that hideous death was meant to serve a larger intention -- "to influence an audience." Specifically, they were meant to scare us and to keep us scared.

This was a gamble on al-Qaida's part. They were gambling that the America of the early 21st century, George W. Bush's America, was populated by a much weaker breed than was the America of the 20th century, FDR's America. Bin Laden surely remembered that Imperial Japan had tried this same gambit -- the devastating sneak attack meant to demoralize -- back in 1941, and that it hadn't worked out very well. But he was gambling that Americans nowadays were made of flimsier stuff.

And for the past five years, our so-called leaders have been tripping over themselves to prove bin Laden was right. From color-coded "terror alerts," to duct-tape panics, to the fetishizing of "security," to the idea that the Constitution, due process, legal warrants and the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" relics unsuited to these insecure times, our leaders have been working hand in hand with al-Qaida to make us scared and keep us scared.

John Rogers summed this up nicely:

I cast my eyes back on the last century ...

FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?

CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

... and I'm just a little tired of being on the wrong side of that historical arc.

One place where FDR's spirit -- "nothing to fear but fear itself" -- seems to live on is in New York City, home to ground zero itself. New Yorkers -- those actually, personally, physically affected by the Sept. 11 attacks -- haven't confused vigilance with fear, they've simply gotten back to the business of being New Yorkers. ("There are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade ...") They've had to endure the president's reluctance to fulfill his promise of financial aid. They've had to endure the lies from their government about the safety of the poisoned air they breathe. And they've had to endure five years of lectures from red-staters thousands of miles removed from ground zero about how their refusal to vote for George W. Bush demonstrates that they don't "get" the "meaning" of 9/11 as deeply as do the terrified masses in middle America.

Al-Qaida hit New York City with its very best shot and New York is still standing. For those keeping score at home that's NY, 1; AQ, 0. Game over.

But the score reads differently in the rest of the country, in places far from the destruction of ground zero al-Qaida scored big and continues to score. Credit the Bush administration with the assist.

Both intend to influence an audience. Both want to keep us so scared we can't think straight. But neither has the power to take that which we refuse to willingly surrender. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Comments

[marciamarcia]

My husband has a good World War II analogy he likes to drag out whenever Bush supporters start making WWII analogies and talking about how people who disagree with the war in Iraq are like Hitler appeasers.

"Sure, 9/11 is exactly like Pearl Harbor and Bush is just like FDR. Except that, instead of retaliating against Japan, he diverted all our resources away from both fronts in order to boldly and decisively bomb the hell out of Taiwan."

[Jeff]

We have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, so yesterday's fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was regarded as a bigger deal than last year's fourth or next year's sixth.

What would our math be like if we had 6 fingers on one hand and 6.5 on the other? [Boggles at base 12.5...]

As for substantial comments, I have nothing except: WORD!

[bulbul]

Hm. A Churchill reference that includes flipping off but omits cigars. Hm.

[Rasselas]

I don't disagree, but I have come to hate that "certain sections ... that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade..." nonsense, whether applied to New York, Tennessee, Texas or Glasgow. Modern weapons and modern soldiers harm without discriminating Bowery Boys-esque pugnacity or redneck self-reliance from the mincing, rootless cosmopolitanism that everyone in such quotes despises. Thackeray had something to say about something like this.

[bulbul]

Modern weapons and modern soldiers harm without discriminating Bowery Boys-esque pugnacity or redneck self-reliance from the mincing, rootless cosmopolitanism that everyone in such quotes despises.
... and that is why Iraq is under full control of US and British troops, right?

[Hershele Ostropoler]

One place where FDR's spirit -- "nothing to fear but fear itself" -- seems to live on is in New York City, home to ground zero itself. New Yorkers -- those actually, personally, physically affected by the Sept. 11 attacks -- haven't confused vigilance with fear, they've simply gotten back to the business of being New Yorkers.

I live in a largely Bengali neighborhood in Brooklyn. I was expecting to see a lot of cops yesterday, although whom they'd be protecting from whom is unclear. As it happened, nothing. If anything, I saw fewer cops yesterday than usual.

I should add I work in the Empire State Building. Nonetheless, fewer cops.

It makes sense, really. Terrorist attacks tend not to be predictable, so there's no point spending extra money and going to extra effort on a day that's no more likely to see another attack than any other.

[pharoute]

"But the score reads differently in the rest of the country"
Indeed, a family friend cancelled a visit after getting the usual evening news dose of "gel toothpaste is bad and who knows what is still in everyone's shoes and Ned Lamont is just gonna give Osama the keys to Hartford..."

City of origin: Boise.

[Rasselas]

"Harm" and "control" are not the same thing, and I recall rather high numbers of civilian casualties being bandied about, but thanks for playing.

[L]

No one said anything about whether or not civilian populations would be "harmed"; only that due to the character of the civilian population there are certain places where an invasion would be unwise.

If the current situation in Iraq doesn't show that Rick was correct in principle, I can't imagine what would.

[Scorpio]

Yah. A summary of a al-Qaida tape is "Booga Booga Booga!". Jeez. You wish the stupid facists in the Bush regine would give it a rest and just get to work instead of running in circles squesling.

[bulbul]

"Harm" and "control" are not the same thing
Thank you for the semantics lesson. Now how does that pertain to the current debate?

[John Robinson]

Fred, I think this is my favorite post from you, ever. Thank you.

[Bugmaster]

What would our math be like if we had 6 fingers on one hand and 6.5 on the other? [Boggles at base 12.5...]

Actually, the most efficient base is e, or approximately 2.718281828 . Base 2 doesn't have enough digits, and base 3 has too many.

[Axiomatic]

Actually, we have nothing to fear but the Homeland Security Advisory System itself.

[Axiomatic]

Bugmaster, how would one go about having e fingers?
I mean, would we be required to have one finger on one hand, 1/x fingers on the other, and a total of x appendages, where x approaces infinity?

[Noah Brand]

I've been saying for a while that Bush's response to 9/11 was abject, unconditional surrender. Look, Al-Qaeda and all their ugly, hateful little ilk basically want two things: The Arab world united against a bloodthirsty and imperialistic America in an unending, self-perpetuating war, and an autocratic fundamentalist theocracy devoted to dogma over facts, that rejects science, modernity, and basically everything since the Enlightenment.

If anyone can point to a way in which Bush has NOT been slavishly serving this agenda for five years, I'd love to see it.

[Jesurgislac]

If anyone can point to a way in which Bush has NOT been slavishly serving this agenda for five years, I'd love to see it.

The global gag rule. That's Bush slavishly serving the agenda of the US's homegrown religious extremists.

[cjmr]

Yeah, but the global gag rule was in place before 9/11. As was the 'global warming is a myth' thing. 'No Child Left Behind' is post 9/11.

[the opoponax]

i don't recall the "global warming is a myth" thing getting much currency before september 11. in fact, i remember all that stuff really ramping up in 2002-2003. of course, were there people proposing such a thing before that? yeah. was anybody doing anything about stopping global warming? not really. but it wasn't the dominant discourse in the media until Bush made it so.

i would say exactly the same thing for the Intelligent Design bullshit, too.

[todd]

Fred and others:

I hope you can help me understand where you are coming from. Do you believe that we have an enemy who wants to, has been planning to, and will continue to plot to kill us?

[mds]

I mean, would we be required to have one finger on one hand, 1/x fingers on the other, and a total of x appendages, where x approaces infinity?

Well, I for one welcome our new Moravec overlords.

[Jesurgislac]

todd: Do you believe that we have an enemy who wants to, has been planning to, and will continue to plot to kill us?

I was going to respond with just Yes, but then I decided that was too flip, even for a probable troll.

Fred's point is (if he'll forgive me summarising so crudely his excellent point): Sure there are people out there who "want to, has been planning to, and will continue to plot to kill us". But are you going to be a big fraidy-cat like George W. Bush is, and wants you to be? Or are you going to be brave?

[bulbul]

The Arab world united
Now that's what I call fiction :o)

[bulbul]

Do you believe that we have an enemy who wants to, has been planning to, and will continue to plot to kill us?
Got a counter question: if there are indeed people who want to, actually have, have been planning to and will continue to plot to kill you, why aren't your leaders doing everything possible to get them?
In case that was too many words, lemme rephrase: why hasn't Bush caught Usama yet?

[bulbul]

Noah,

please PLEASE remember one thing: there is no such thing as al-Qaida.

[SurvivalAcres]

You mean another "fake" video release. The equisite timing of the Bush Administration and it's release of videos cannot be overlooked.

And it wasn't a gamble on Al-Qaeda's part either, they were not even involved. You should know this by now. This is part of the media lies and spin being spouted off by this Adminstration and endlessly repeated with zero evidence. Just like the justifcations for invading Iraq.

The myth of Al-Qaeda is readily available for reading, just do a google search, you'll figure it out.

You'd do your readers a great service and get up to speed by stop spreading these stories.

I suppose I am a troll. Pardon me for interupting the circle-jerk.

"But are you going to be a big fraidy-cat like George W. Bush is, and wants you to be? Or are you going to be brave?"

What exactly does that mean? What does "being brave" mean? It seems you are suggesting that we should acknolwedge that we have mortal enemies, but just, you know,dont think about them too much because that would make you a fraidy cat.

You'll make fun of the color codes and duct tape and stuff and scream: "ha-ha, you wussy!" but will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs? I see an administration that has prevented another attack despite known repeated efforts that have been foiled, and countless others that we will never know about. Seems effective, no? Does the President get any credit for that? Or is he just a big, lucky wussy?

I take issue with Fred's focus on 9/11 being meant to serve some larger purpose to "scare us." It wasnt. They wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. They still do. Period. How does favoring efforts to kill and capture these people make me a fraidy cat?

[J]

Fred, you are as artful as you are correct when you speak of the variant reactions of New Yorkers versus the rest of the country to terrorism. As a sometime New Yorker myself (rather hauntingly, I left New York on May 28, 2001, capping off my time living there with a visit to a place I'd never gone before: The World Trade Center), I totally get it and I totally get why the boonies don't get it.

It works like this: New Yorkers are better people than most Americans. They aren't obssessed with diets and exercise and yet they aren't fat because they walk everywhere. They read a lot of books and go to a lot of parks, libraries, and see live music and don't watch a lot of television or play a lot of video games (which they generally recognize as the feeble substitutes for real happiness that they are).

They go to church or synagogue a lot more than you might expect. They tend to form stable, happy, two-parent families. They have a superlatively close and warm connection to the people around them in their neighborhoods and both value and rely on such acts of social connectedness as giving spare housekeys to their neighbors or local shopkeepers or watching each others' children. The streets of modern New York are safe for anyone, at all hours of the day or night. Women walk confidently alone. Children are allowed to navigate the city on their own once they're thirteen or fourteen (New Yorkers recognizing that adolescents react very poorly to demands that they sacrifice freedom for "safety").

Few of them who live in the city itself (except maybe deepest Bronx or far-eastern Queens) own cars. Instead, they ride the subways and buses, which, particularly in the mornings, forces them into a Hong Kong-level of physical closeness with their fellow human beings. This makes them a superlatively tolerant and patient bunch. To say that they're "comfortable with diversity" doesn't even come close to describing it.

New Yorkers are not "rich people": Lots of them are middle- or even lower-middle class folk. Others in the country often fool themselves into thinking they're all wealthy cosmopolitans because New Yorkers' money is appropriated differently. Most of it goes into housing and education, as opposed to car maintenance and lawn care.

All of this being the case, New Yorkers' first reaction to 9/11 was to mourn--and this they did creatively, vibrantly, resiliently: giving a real sense of the lives lost and not merely of the horror of their death. Hundreds of independent artistic, poetic, literary, musical, and theatrical efforts were made to express their grief. And when lists of the dead were read, every name was read: Even all those illegal immigrant kitchen workers and janitors. New Yorkers recognized instantly that what had happened was terrible but not at all unique. As a city full of Jews and Third World emigres, New Yorkers knew that people have been killed in terrible ways and in great numbers by terrible men for millennia.

There was rage too, but it was a rage directly first at the perpetrators--who were almost to a man, dead--and then at--no, not Muslims--but at all worldviews that seperated everyone into two camps of Totally Good and Implacably Evil: A view that the close-living New Yorkers recognized instantly as being both wrong and inimical to civilized life.

Meanwhile, in East Kdingus, U.S.A., it was "BOMBS AWAY, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!"

[A Texan in Bavaria]

May 2004, in Central Texas at my best childhood friend's wedding:

"You work in DC?!? And ride the subway?!? We'd feel much better if you'd drive to work, instead. Much safer." - some of my mom's friends. They obviously never saw a nasty rush-hour accident on the Beltway or 95.

Every time I went home for Christmas, I noted that my parents' friends and even some of my old school friends were far more worried about terrorist attacks than my friends and (some) co-workers in DC. The closer one lived to the District, in general, the less afraid they were of terrorist attacks - my co-workers who lived out in formerly rural VA tended to be more afraid of terrorists than the ones who lived near or in DC itself. We understood that we were at much higher risk than just about anywhere else in the country, but we just didn't seem to be as scared on a daily basis.

Maybe people in NYC and DC just don't have the luxury of indulging their fears like people in places terrorists are demonstrably less interested in. We'd go crazy if we spent as much time being afraid of terrorists as our cousins in the middle of the country seem to be. Instead, we continued riding the subway/Metro to work and staggering off it at 2am after a night out with our friends.

[ScottDaly]

Thank you for a most insightful post. Over the years since 9-11 I have come to realize that the government is more interested in keeping the American public scared than they are in actually fighting the "War on Terrorism". It's a boon to them when it comes to doing things that would otherwise be prevented, or in keeping things secret. Don't want the public knowing what Bush the first was doing during his presidency? Say that the documents contain secrets related to the War on Terrorism. Want to put oil wells in the ANWR? Say we have to have them to fight the War on Terrorism. Don't like what someone is saying about your God in the White House? Say they are helping the terrorists with their attitude. Want to torture people or lock them up without trial for the rest of their lives? Say that they are terrorists and you need the information that they have.

And can anybody come up with a more amorphous concept for a war that will NEVER be won? I mean exactly what is a war on terrorism? Is it a war against specific terrorists, or a war against the concept itself? Who defines who a terrorist is? Do they actually have to do something, or can you qualify just by thinking about it? As it is currently defined and prosecuted our great-great-great grandchildren will still be fighting this "war". And the really sad thing is that there is still a sizeable chunk of the American population that buys into this pig in a poke without question.

[Jesurgislac]

It seems you are suggesting that we should acknolwedge that we have mortal enemies, but just, you know,dont think about them too much because that would make you a fraidy cat.

If you think that's what Fred (or I) was suggesting, you, anon, are a donkey.

[wintermute]

> We understood that we were at much higher risk than just about anywhere else in the country, but we just didn't seem to be as scared on a daily basis.

Growing up in London in the 80's, I saw exactly the same thing there - every month or so, the IRA would plant a bomb on a commuter train, and not all of them would get to be disarmed by the police. And yet people continued to commute into London, knowing that they were risking their lives, but not letting it factor into the decision. Every time there was an explosion, we'd have relatives from across the country calling to make sure everyone was alright, and yet Londoners themselves were basically pretty blasé about the whole thing. I was always aware that there was a chance that my father might not come home from work that day, but it never seemed like something worth worrying about.

On 9/11, I was working as a contractor for Her Majesty's Government. Everyone "knew" that London may be the next big target, and all air traffic was immediately diverted away from the city, but no-one really seemed to be too concerned; the only person I worked with who seemed actually frightened was a recent arrival in the city.

The buildings I was working in all had signs at the door telling you how likely you were to die in a terrorist attack that day. I never did figure out the exact scale, but they suddenly jumped from "black" and "blue" to "orange" and "yellow". I think brighter colours -> higher probability, but I'm just guessing (you'd have thought that I'd have looked into that, wouldn't you?). Anyway, no-one stopped coming into work, though lots of my out-of-town friends seemed to think that was insane.

I think that if you live under a very real threat of attack, you learn to deal with it, whereas if the idea of being exploded is a novel one, it tends to paralyse you...

[J]

...I noted that my parents' friends and even some of my old school friends were far more worried about terrorist attacks than my friends and (some) co-workers in DC. The closer one lived to the District, in general, the less afraid they were of terrorist attacks - my co-workers who lived out in formerly rural VA tended to be more afraid of terrorists than the ones who lived near or in DC itself.

Verily. That fits in with the foundation of suburban life: The obsession with "safety." Its the same sort of thing that leads schools to dismantle playgrounds due to a fear of lawsuits, local news broadcasts to show nothing but crime stories, and drives teenagers absolutely ape shit from the suffocating stir-craziness induced by having nowhere to really exist except home and school.

[wintermute]

> How does favoring efforts to kill and capture these people make me a fraidy cat?

Lashing out at any target you can find, even though it has nothing to do with the people you claim want to capture and kill (Iraq, Iran, The New York Times), while simultaniously capitulating to the terrorists demands (withdrawl of US troops from Saudi Arabia) makes you a fraidy cat.

More than that, being prepared to put up with stupid fearmongering ("No toothpaste on airplanes! It might be C4 in disguise! And no more prescription medicine than you need for the flight itself, so you better hope your luggage doesn't get lost, but don't worry because I totally pinky-swear that this'll keep you safe from terrorists who don't have any more imagination than we do!") and allowing the government to take away your rights in order to make you safer makes you a fraidy cat.

Your forefathers would have been disgusted with that kind of atitude, and rightly so. If George Washignton had had the same priorities as George Bush, you'd still be speaking English...

[Duane]

You'll make fun of the color codes

Posted by: | Sep 13, 2006 at 12:30 PM

I did this just the other day! And I bravely signed my own name.

[Angelika]

I'm pretty much with Scott Daly, here.
The problem is not Bush and his administration being too frightened to deal properly with terrorist threats (which are much more a real danger for Iraqi citizen than for US citizen anyways). The problem is Bush and his administration using the attacks to get through with their own corrupt agendas- and keep the opposition quiet. The 9/11 attacks were the best gift to that purpose the present administration could possibly dream of. And they would be darn stupid not to use it.

The real question is, why was it (and still is) so easy to get so many US citizen to believe almost blindly in every lie out of their president's mouth?

[Duane]

Conservative fearmongering has been going on since forever. There was a commie under every bed when were fighting the Cold War. For the last 30 years, religious conservatives have been wetting themselves for fear of we evil secular humanists. And then there's those gay folks just marrying each other willy-nilly. And now we've got illegal Mexicans under every bed.

Can you even be a conservative if you aren't afraid of your own shadow? Look at how many of the conservatives running our country and controlling our national discourse lied and malingered to get out of serving in the Armed Forces.

And let's be honest, a lot of the religious opposition to abortion and stem-cell research is driven by a fear of God's judgment. And fear of chimeras walking the planet.

Though what is particular noxious with the latest round of "terra" fearmongering is how cynically politically manipulative it is. Conservatives don't mind being lied to and cynically manipulated as long as it serves the movement. The rest of the country is way way over playing political football with human lives and that is why Bush will NEVER get back over 40% approval.

[pharoute]

"but will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs?"
No. We have been hit after 9/11, anthrax anyone? That homegrow perp is still walking out there somewhere.

[NonyNony]

I don't see any reference to this link in this discussion, so check this out:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/hyping_terror_t.html

Halfway down is a color-coded "threat chart" like the department of Homeland Security uses, color coded to the real threats in our daily lives. Upshot - I'm more likely to get killed by driving off the road or falling off my roof doing repairs than I am to get killed by a terrorist. That doesn't stop me from driving into work every morning, or cleaning the leaves out of my gutters each fall, so why the hell should terrorists scare me at all in this country? I've told people this stuff for years, but having that nice little chart to just put it into stark contrast how overblown this threat really is is quite useful.

When I was young, we were scared of Nuclear War - all-out, total Nuclear Annihilation. At any moment, we were told, the Soviets could be raining nuclear missiles on us and destroy life as we know it. Now we're afraid of a bunch of men who hide in caves and plot ways to crash airplanes one and two at a time. I mean, we need to do what we can to stop these clowns from getting away with their plots, but this is not pee-your-pants scary stuff here. We really need to keep some perspective about these things.

[BrooklynRaider]

Maybe people in NYC and DC just don't have the luxury of indulging their fears like people in places terrorists are demonstrably less interested in. We'd go crazy if we spent as much time being afraid of terrorists as our cousins in the middle of the country seem to be.

Fred's post and many of the comments are dead on, but this quote from A Texan in Bavaria is what it all boils down to. You can't spend your time being afraid, because otherwise you can't function. People forget the anthrax scare, but that was as real in the autumn of 2001 as the 9/11 attacks. The attacks on the Twin Towers had indeed shown that there were people willing and ready to kill as many of us as possible; the anthrax attacks showed that there were people in possession of weapons-grade anthrax. It was fairly simple to put two and two together, and it did take some amount of courage for any of us to ride the subways (the ultimate anthrax delivery mechanism) for a few weeks during that time. But we did, because we had to, and ultimately we left the fear and paranoia behind, because it's silly and just not realistic.

I had been living in New York for four years when 9/11 happened. I won't bore you all with a long story about my experience of the city and my fellow New Yorkers that day and in the days after. All I will say is that after that experience, I will never be able to imagine living amongst any better people.

And the results from our city on election day 2004 simply confirmed that.

[BrooklynRaider]

Oh, and as to the troll who claims to support efforts to "kill or capture" those responsible for 9/11 (and who implies that Bush is just the man to lead that effort): Tora Bora.

Now go away, you're making a fool of yourself.

[Mark]

I think it should be noted that terrorists requre that everyone be scared because that way a few of them can have profound effects on a much larger population.

Also, Roosevelt's fear itself speech was made during the depression. There was no need to tell people not to be afraid after Pearl Harbor (except for conservative crazies on the West Coast who demanded that Japanese people be sent to concentration camps.)

[darryl pearce]

...so, um, er, uh... Fred? When can we post little "no fear" JPEGs on our own sites? I mean: I could mock one up but I am a lazy guy.

Favoring efforts to kill or capture people trying to kill you makes you a coward IF you rate your own safety so highly that you're willing to see innocent people hurt and killed just to protect yourself.

Hunt down the bad guys by all means, but don't tell me that any and every attack on someone who might, sort of, maybe, possibly have been affiliated with them at one point is justified because otherwise I'll get murdered by terrorists.

I'd rather live in a free country, not send others to fight proxy wars where innocent civilians will get killed, and sometimes senselessly murdered (the U. S. Military doesn't have some special ability to ensure that every single person they recruit and hand a weapon will uphold their morals, even under the most extreme pressure), and restrict our efforts, as much as possible to hunting down those directly responsible. I'd say the same thing, even if I knew I'd be the next one killed.

Give me liberty, or give me death.

[the opoponax]

"We'd go crazy if we spent as much time being afraid of terrorists as our cousins in the middle of the country seem to be."

others have applauded this, but i'd like to chime in as well. I remember, as a New Yorker during 9/11, my entire family back in Louisiana begging me to come home. my response was, in a nutshell, the quote above. i have no control of whether a terrorist chooses to attack where i am. furthermore, neither can i control getting into a car accident, or being diagnosed with cancer, or any other tragic fate that could easily befall me anywhere in the country. i'd rather enjoy the time i have than live in fear.

[pharoute]

"but will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs?"
No. Another one... http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/NEWS/60912022/1001/NEWS

[Kristy]

What exactly does that mean? What does "being brave" mean? It seems you are suggesting that we should acknowledge that we have mortal enemies, but just, you know, don't think about them too much because that would make you a fraidy cat.

Not precisely. It's just that - yes, there are people out there who want to kill Americans, and as I am an American, by extension they want to kill me. I'm aware of that fact, truly I am. But I also live in hurricane central and the lightning capitol of the world, I drive to work every day through bad traffic in a car whose brakes are holding on by a thread, and my family has a history of breast cancer. If I allowed myself to live in fear of all the things that could kill me, I would be unable to function. Fear does have a purpose; it's to alert us to danger. In that sense, it's an asset. But once the message has been received and we're aware of the danger, it's time to rein in the fear. It has no further purpose, and if left unchecked it can cloud our judgment. And I think there's some pretty strong evidence that our judgement as a nation has been clouded lately. (I mean, come on: holding people indefinitely without a trial or lawyer? Wiretapping phones and monitoring library book checkouts? Outsourcing prisoners to be tortured in other countries? When did that get cool? But I digress...)

I take issue with Fred's focus on 9/11 being meant to serve some larger purpose to "scare us." It wasn't. They wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. They still do. Period. How does favoring efforts to kill and capture these people make me a fraidy cat?

But it was! Look, Anon, or Todd (if you're the same person) - the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. It's killing people, yes, but it's also psychological warfare. It's a time-honored technique. (We spent quite a bit of time on it in my Peace, War and Defense classes back in college; I'm going to refrain from going into full lecture mode about the motivations of terrorism - you can thank me later - but read up on it sometime. It's interesting stuff.) The people who attacked us wanted to demoralize us, they wanted us to feel unsafe, and they wanted to make themselves look powerful. And they're succeeding admirably on all three counts.

Mass murder only happens once, but terror is the gift that keeps on giving.

As for the last part, if it were true you'd have a point. But we're not capturing or killing them! We made a half-hearted swipe at them, said "ehh, that's good enough" and turned around and attacked Iraq! Now, ok, no shed tears over Saddam Hussein, the man was a jackass and was on my better-dead list for some time, but the point is - he wasn't the enemy! He wasn't even friends with the enemy. In fact, if we didn't mind getting our hands a little dirty in the name of realpolitik (and let's face it, we never have before), he might have even been an ally. But we'll never know now, will we? No, instead of actually acting to neutralize the threat against us, we've instead gone out of our way to make new enemies out of people who previously were friendly or at least neutral towards us (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/07/robertson.sept11/index.html) and the ringleader of our original enemies (if you believe it was Al Quaeda; I didn't hear anything to the contrary until today) is still at large. And the government's gotten away with bungling this badly because they've manipulated our fear.

(One last thing: I don't often write anything here, but I did want to let you know, Mr. Clark - I love this site. It's so reassuring to have a reliable source of rational thought.)

[Kristin]

Has anyone seen this little gem of a fear appeal yet?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/911_themed_ad_to_tell_Americans_0911.html

[Kristin]

Sorry, the link doesn't work - I'm no good at HTML, can anyone tell me how to post a link?

[bellatrys]

"Global Warming is a myth" books were being published by Regnery et al and sold in the B.Daltons in the mall where I worked for *years* before 9/11.