Has the 16 year "War On Terror" made you feel safer?

brianlux

No

tbergs said:

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but the Manchester bombing is a perfect example of how US citizens are easily swayed to believe we need a stronger response to terror and thus justifies the bombing in Afghanistan or missile launches in Syria. We know that children were targeted and killed in Manchester, but to this day I have yet to hear, see or read anything on the demographics of those ISIS "fighters" who were killed by the MOAB. Doesn't anyone find that a bit odd? I have no way of knowing this, but I would estimate that there were women and children who died in that bombing. I don't know what their contributions to the cause were or what level of involvement they had, but the US needs to quit hiding behind our military actions.

The US citizens may have no clue who was killed, but you better believe the locals and those supporting ISIS know and it furthers their agenda when we aren't publicly open about what the full story is. That bombing has disappeared from US media and attention even though we still don't know exactly what was destroyed or who was killed.

Well said, tbergs.

jeffbr

No

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

PJ_Soul

No

jeffbr said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

Do you really think that going through airport security or a metal detector at a stadium compromises your personal liberty? How so?

Cliffy6745

Same

Why is it that most people who are so concerned with terrorism are also the ones who are least likely to be directly impacted by it?

PJ_Soul

No

Cliffy6745 said:

Why is it that most people who are so concerned with terrorism are also the ones who are least likely to be directly impacted by it?

Hmm. Your question makes me ask "who is most concerned about terrorism but least likely to be directly impacted by it?.... is the answer Americans?

Cliffy6745

Same

PJ_Soul said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Why is it that most people who are so concerned with terrorism are also the ones who are least likely to be directly impacted by it?

Hmm. Your question makes me ask "who is most concerned about terrorism but least likely to be directly impacted by it?.... is the answer Americans?

To me, rural Americans who typically vote Republican, while liberal centers that will actually be attacked are significantly less concerned.  Like the vast majority of New York City does not want to keep Muslims out, but the vast majority of Alabama probably does.  If a terrorist slips through, I wonder where he's headed

jeffbr

No

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

Do you really think that going through airport security or a metal detector at a stadium compromises your personal liberty? How so?

Partially undressing at the airport is simply a reminder that measures have been put in place in all facets of our lives to limit our ability to go about our daily lives. I'm older, so I remember everyone meeting friends and family at the gate of an airport. I remember walking into the airport, up to the gate, and onto a plane. No hours long lines to be screened to enter a terminal after removing articles of clothing, and unpacking half your carry-on. But that is in no way my biggest concern in terms of encroachment on my liberties. The Patriot Act is what concerns me the most. The examples I gave are simply reminders that we lost the war on terror. The Patriot Act is the nefarious result of that. Those other things are simply trivial and inconvenient reminders.

PJ_Soul

No

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

Do you really think that going through airport security or a metal detector at a stadium compromises your personal liberty? How so?

Partially undressing at the airport is simply a reminder that measures have been put in place in all facets of our lives to limit our ability to go about our daily lives. I'm older, so I remember everyone meeting friends and family at the gate of an airport. I remember walking into the airport, up to the gate, and onto a plane. No hours long lines to be screened to enter a terminal after removing articles of clothing, and unpacking half your carry-on. But that is in no way my biggest concern in terms of encroachment on my liberties. The Patriot Act is what concerns me the most. The examples I gave are simply reminders that we lost the war on terror. The Patriot Act is the nefarious result of that. Those other things are simply trivial and inconvenient reminders.

I also remember almost total freedom at the airport (I'm not "older" goddammit, lol). But I don't at all feel like my personal liberty is compromised by enhanced security at airports, and I have been randomly selected for an enhanced security check before. I actually fully appreciated increased security measures at airports and at stadiums for the most part (although I recently found out about US stadiums only allowing a women to bring in a 4.5" x 6" bag, which is absolutely ridiculous, so sometimes these measures are a little overboard). But yes, if we're talking about Patriot Act shit, like detaining people without cause, etc etc, I agree, liberty has been lost unnecessarily. I think the US government (and some other governments) tend to fail miserably when it comes to addressing subtleties that could be incorporated into laws and measures. They tend to go with the sledgehammer method instead, and IMO that always ends up violating liberty one way or another.

jeffbr

No

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

Do you really think that going through airport security or a metal detector at a stadium compromises your personal liberty? How so?

Partially undressing at the airport is simply a reminder that measures have been put in place in all facets of our lives to limit our ability to go about our daily lives. I'm older, so I remember everyone meeting friends and family at the gate of an airport. I remember walking into the airport, up to the gate, and onto a plane. No hours long lines to be screened to enter a terminal after removing articles of clothing, and unpacking half your carry-on. But that is in no way my biggest concern in terms of encroachment on my liberties. The Patriot Act is what concerns me the most. The examples I gave are simply reminders that we lost the war on terror. The Patriot Act is the nefarious result of that. Those other things are simply trivial and inconvenient reminders.

I also remember almost total freedom at the airport (I'm not "older" goddammit, lol). But I don't at all feel like my personal liberty is compromised by enhanced security at airports, and I have been randomly selected for an enhanced security check before. I actually fully appreciated increased security measures at airports and at stadiums for the most part (although I recently found out about US stadiums only allowing a women to bring in a 4.5" x 6" bag, which is absolutely ridiculous, so sometimes these measures are a little overboard). But yes, if we're talking about Patriot Act shit, like detaining people without cause, etc etc, I agree, liberty has been lost unnecessarily. I think the US government (and some other governments) tend to fail miserably when it comes to addressing subtleties that could be incorporated into laws and measures. They tend to go with the sledgehammer method instead, and IMO that always ends up violating liberty one way or another.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I understand those couple of things I listed are simply inconveniences, but for me they are reminders of the bigger things we've lost. And yes, the small, clear bag policy drove my wife a little crazy for sure! It felt like they were trying to create policies to address issues that were so unlikely that it would be like having mandated precautions against lightening strikes for anyone walking around outside. Sure, it is possible that I'll be struck by lightening, but I can't live my life as if it were going to suddenly happen at any moment.

Domestic spying, loss of privacy, search and seizure, detention of travelers, photographers (especially those with pigmented skin) being hassled for taking pictures in public, are all things that have become more commonplace since 9/11, and are the issues I am truly concerned with. Good point about subtlety vs the sledgehammer approach.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I'm happy for airport security.

Can anyone seriously say they would rather go back to the less stringent methodology of screening passengers and luggage employed two decades ago?

HesCalledDyer

No

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm happy for airport security.

Can anyone seriously say they would rather go back to the less stringent methodology of screening passengers and luggage employed two decades ago?

No one is saying that.

jeffbr

No

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm happy for airport security.

Can anyone seriously say they would rather go back to the less stringent methodology of screening passengers and luggage employed two decades ago?

I grant you it would be impossible to go back to, now that the cat is out of the bag. But I never felt fear travelling 2 decades ago. And I wouldn't be particularly concerned now if I didn't have to go through all of the obstacles to get on a flight. If someone wants to get a bomb on a plane, they'll get a bomb on the plane. I'm sure the heightened security has helped thwart attacks. I'm also sure that it has created a false sense of security. There are plenty of reports of things getting past security. I think those security checks create the illusion of security for the benefit of those who live in fear.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HesCalledDyer said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm happy for airport security.

Can anyone seriously say they would rather go back to the less stringent methodology of screening passengers and luggage employed two decades ago?

No one is saying that.

People are kind of saying it. You can't bemoan it... and not appreciate it at the same time.

cincybearcat

What would it be like without the War on Terror?  Tough to know the answer to this.  Has the war on terror lead to more attacks?  Less attacks? No effects?  How do you answer that question?

cincybearcat

jeffbr said:

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

+1
Every time I go through metal detectors at stadiums, or full body scanners at airports after removing my shoes and belt, I'm reminded that we have already lost the war on terror, and the biggest loss was personal liberty. The war on terror was a wonderful tool for the feds to increase control over their citizenry. Just call it a safety measure, wrap a bow on it, and people are happy to bend over.

I don't know, if you think having to go through an Xray to go into a crowded stadium of 60-100k people is an affront to your personal liberty....I'm not sure what to say.  After attending many games of all kinds, I'm generally glad they are there....especially when I'm rooting for the visiting team.  People are crazy and America is gun crazy....I want them going through x-rays! 

HughFreakingDillon

it might as well be called the War on Poltergeists as far as I'm concerned. it means nothing. it's a way to try to put the minds of americans at ease over terror attacks. 

mcgruff10

Yes

If the us did leave the middle east do you think isis would stabilize or implode?

my2hands

No

mcgruff10 said:

If the us did leave the middle east do you think isis would stabilize or implode?

You break it, you own it

Colin Powell


My question is what if we never went in, and handled it completely differently

I don't think people still realize the damage that was done to the world by W, Cheney, and crew after 9/11.... 

HughFreakingDillon

I don't think it would have an effect on it one way or the other. the damage is done, they will continue to be able to recruit based on what has happened already and what they view as the continuted corruption of their people to evil western ways. 

PJ_Soul

No

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think it would have an effect on it one way or the other. the damage is done, they will continue to be able to recruit based on what has happened already and what they view as the continuted corruption of their people to evil western ways. 

I think you're right. At this point, it doesn't seem to me like the US's involvement is doing any good at all, that's for sure. It's not like things are much better than they would have been if the US wasn't all up in their business now, lol. The US has not halted the Taliban or anybody in Syria or anyone who terrorizes and rapes and kills people. Hell, the US hasn't even managed to help anything in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. The US isn't helping shit! And now Trump won't even help out any refugees who are suffering partly because of what the US has done in the past. So what the fuck good are they in the Middle East?? Obviously the US only cares about oil/money. The is the ONLY reason they are still there. The US government clearly doesn't give a flying fuck about humanitarian issues there and it obviously isn't doing a thing to stop tyrannical governments from causing more suffering or instability in the region, and Middle Eastern terrorism hasn't even slowed down. So yeah, since the US is doing squat in the Middle East as far as humanitarianism or peace goes, I do think the US and all allies should pull out 100%. Yes, the whole damn place could implode.... but isn't it already doing that?? The MIddle East is blowing up one way or another with or without the US's help IMO, for better or worse in the long run, so I would prefer that it implode without the US and allies spending trillions of dollars and killing hoards of people to make it happen.