Is anyone actually scared about a terrorist attack?

jlew24asu · September 2006

I guess you werent aware of that fact

enharmonic · September 2006

When you live in Baltimore, a terrorist attack is the least of your worries.

3000 people killed in the WTC disaster on 9/11

More than half of that number killed on the streets of Baltimore by our fellow American's since 9/11

Seems to me, terrorists aren't the problem :(

Gary Carter · September 2006

OneLove wrote:

I think Americans have developed a warped sense of reality post 9/11.

That said, for most of us, the actual threat of a terrorist attack is quite small. Not much chance they'd hit some small town in the midwest, you know?

For those who live in the areas which would be desireable targets, I can sort of understand being a bit apprehensive (living in the DC area, you do think about it on occasion).

living in any big city u are gonna be scared and im scared everytime i take a train into penn or when im in nyc,u bet ya.but that doesnt stop me.if i die in then city or on a train,well then its my time to die.i fear nothing

ledvedderman · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

I have on idea if the trade center was on a list to be demolished. I find that hard to believe. but since you say it, it must be true.

so what that he took out a policy against terrorism. its no secret those buildings were targets. happened in 93 remember. he filed the claims becuase he paid for the policy. and guess what he plans to use the money for? ready for this shocker.... please read the last line carefully.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

September 11, 2001 attacks
When the attacks occurred at 9:30AM, Silverstein was at home debating with his wife about plans to move his headquarters to the 88th floor of the North Tower (One World Trade Center). His son Roger was at 7 World Trade Center but was not hurt. [citation needed]

Dispute with Insurers
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild. [10]

what did you thing he was going to do with the claim? split it up between him and George W and all the other conspirtors?

I am sure he will rebuild the towers and lease out the offices for free then?

RockinInCanada · September 2006

acutejam wrote:

I don't buy into the "give them more ammo, give them more reasons" meme -- they're going do what they wanna. We responded to African Embassy Attacks, the U.S.S. Cole got hit -- we didn't respond to the Cole incident AT ALL, and we got Sept 11. Now it can certainly be argued our overall methodology and policies worldwide are creating reasons for them to attack us, but I would still argue they just rationalize actions they wanna do anyways. It's their major recruitment tactic and has little to do with us, IMHO.

One day it's our policy in the mideast, next it's Palestine specifically, then lebabon, then troops on "holy ground," then treatment of muslims in Russia -- Why they even slammed us for going into Kosovo and HELPING the muslims there! We got no credit for that! There's always something their gonna wanna complain about and rather than (or as well as) work it out in discussion, they resort to violence. Talk about old men sending the young off to die....

I am not scared personally about getting taken out in a terrorist attack, but yes, I do fear them striking Western Civilization again. I live near a major port and some major American icons that could probably be on a target list. I fear what one nuke on a container ship could do. I fear that a nuke will go off within the next five to ten years near a major city in the world.

I do not duct tape my windows, avoid ballgames or theme parks, but I keep my family emergency supplies up-to-date (heck I live in earthquake country, no-brainer) and have an emergency kit in my car trunk at all times. I keep my gas tank nearly full at all times (again, earthquake country).

The only change in my life personally is that I am a lot more vocal like thus.

And yes, I think the Islamic Fascists are winning right now. But not because I fear them, but because too many folks do not.... We have absolutely nothing in place to deal with their 10-20-50-500 year plans. We are concerned with quarterly profits, seasonal tv series, yearly taxes, and electing officials every few years.

We'll pass on huge debts to our grandchildren with out blinking an eye, why would this issue be any different?

Do you honestly believe that taking the fighting to the soil's of other countries is the best course of action....hardly seems justifable in the eyes of those civilians...its like trying to justify the killing (which is not purposely done) of innocents in Iraq has a defence for your freedom...that to me is shelfish to believe that...I am not one who buys the deaths of a few innocents will lead to a greater good....I am a staunch believer that these deaths will play into the hands of the Fundanutalists....which is giving them more ammo. for recrutiement and to further their crazy idealogy that America wants to destroy Islam....

My whole point is that this current strategy to combat terror is not useful. Problem being is why cannot another plan be brought to light....if the fighting continues I would expect something bad to happen...no way in a 1000 years will your military strike down every terrorist that wished to harm your countries citizens....its a pipe dream...right now in Iraq the only people being punished is the innocent civilians...at the price of your freedom????

You cannot combat a force that is a minority through open warfare and expect to win especially with the amount of innocent causalties that are occurring....the current arguement to keep the course in Iraq to defend American freedom is absurd and fear tactic to keep the Republicans in power.....there was no threat from Iraq...however now there is and why...well that is simple enough I do not need to ask....so maybe the Republicans actually are right they did create a bigger problem than what existed.....

Going into Afganistan to dismantle a regime bent on supporting Fundanutalism was a good cause....why America did not stay the course (meaning the troops in Iraq all being there instead) is a very concerning question. Going to Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place because Bush was simply incompontent to look at other factors that may arise...he saw Iraq through the eyes of my military vs. theirs'....which is cake walk on paper...he failed to see what distress would be caused by occuping the country for an extended period of time...he overlooked the strife between different sects of Islam and all that fun stuff....simply put I think he believed it would be easy...however it is the opposite and now anti-Americanism is at an all time high because of it....

To go into another persons country to bomb a small minority of people, while the majority of the populace has nothing to do with anything, on the guise of defending YOUR freedom is concerning to me....not only that but shelfish....

merlyn · September 2006

fuck em thats what i say

jlew24asu · September 2006

merlyn wrote:

fuck em thats what i say

now that I can uderstand. well said

SweetHarmonics · September 2006

the media seems hellbent on trying to put scare into people

fear and consumption

merlyn · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

now that I can uderstand. well said

you still replying??? sorry is that cos the sentence is short enough for you???

jlew24asu · September 2006

merlyn wrote:

you still replying??? sorry is that cos the sentence is short enough for you???

well with short sentences, you have a better chance of making sense. even this sentence is borderline jiberish.

acutejam · September 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Do you honestly believe that taking the fighting to the soil's of other countries is the best course of action........

In general, in war? Yes.

Specifically to fight terrorism, going into Iraq -- nope. Do I think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, remove Saddam, destabilize both countries on Iran's border, and try and spread some democracy in the region? Yap. It was a good idea, but the execution has left quite a bit to be desired.

Afghanistan is about Al Qaeda (and the Taliban), Iraq is about Iran and the Mullahs who've been at war with us since '79 (and sure, removing Saddam was a nice bonus).

I would much rather we be at "war with Islamic Fascists" or "war with shiite theocracy" or even Iran, rather than this "war on terror" -- and let me say I wish we weren't at war at all, but I don't think this is a fight we consiously picked.

ledvedderman · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

well with short sentences, you have a better chance of making sense. even this sentence is borderline jiberish.

You still haven't replied to my question if Larry Silverstein, who is investing his returns into the building of the new World Trade Center, is going to give away the spaces to lease for free or is he going to make a boat load of money off of his investment of the new towers?

jlew24asu · September 2006

ledvedderman wrote:

You still haven't replied to my question if Larry Silverstein, who is investing his returns into the building of the new World Trade Center, is going to give away the spaces to lease for free or is he going to make a boat load of money off of his investment of the new towers?

well as a smart business man, I would assume he will make money. But he doesnt have to use the money he received in the claim to rebuild. why not retire with 7 billion and move to Fiji? you seem to think he had something to do with blowing up the WTC and god forbid the sears tower. I don't

RockinInCanada · September 2006

acutejam wrote:

In general, in war? Yes.

Specifically to fight terrorism, going into Iraq -- nope. Do I think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, remove Saddam, destabilize both countries on Iran's border, and try and spread some democracy in the region? Yap. It was a good idea, but the execution has left quite a bit to be desired.

Afghanistan is about Al Qaeda (and the Taliban), Iraq is about Iran and the Mullahs who've been at war with us since '79 (and sure, removing Saddam was a nice bonus).

I would much rather we be at "war with Islamic Fascists" or "war with shiite theocracy" or even Iran, rather than this "war on terror" -- and let me say I wish we weren't at war at all, but I don't think this is a fight we consiously picked.

I dont think if you continue this idiotic approach (not you the Bush method) to it you will win either.....

The way I see it if you cannot stabilize Iraq you will never do anything about Iran....simple as that...diplomacy could be used with Iran if done properly (both sides need to make conscious efforts to discuss....and that includes giving Iran nuclear energy...under some stingy conditions that would eliminate the possibility of them developing weapons which would need Iran to agree to include American personal in their country to supervise activities...like I said both sides can come to terms if they are willing to move towards the middle instead of distancing themselves).

I also do not believe a country should act militarily to spread their defintion of freedom.....because there is more than Made in America freedom.....

ledvedderman · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

well as a smart business man, I would assume he will make money. But he doesnt have to use the money he received in the claim to rebuild. why not retire with 7 billion and move to Fiji? you seem to think he had something to do with blowing up the WTC and god forbid the sears tower. I don't

Look man, I spend a decent amount of time up in Chicago at the Thompson Building and some at the Sears, let's get it straight that I don't want anything to happen to those buildings.

The fact is that this man had a lot more to gain from those buildings going down than if they were still standing in their original form.

merlyn · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

well with short sentences, you have a better chance of making sense. even this sentence is borderline jiberish.

hi news at ten, what do cnn write to you or what ya just seem to talk crap. so hey reply all ya like suckass. sorry that's what ya name stands for isn't it??!!!!

jlew24asu · September 2006

merlyn wrote:

hi news at ten, what do cnn write to you or what ya just seem to talk crap. so hey reply all ya like suckass. sorry that's what ya name stands for isn't it??!!!!

you do realize you are making yourself look worse and worse with every response.

ledvedderman · September 2006

merlyn wrote:

hi news at ten, what do cnn write to you or what ya just seem to talk crap. so hey reply all ya like suckass. sorry that's what ya name stands for isn't it??!!!!

dude I'm on your side and I don't know what you just said,

jlew24asu · September 2006

ledvedderman wrote:

dude I'm on your side and I don't know what you just said,

thats interesting. makes perfect sense to me.

ledvedderman · September 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

thats interesting. makes perfect sense to me.

that also made no sense...

BEARS!!!!

Is anyone actually scared about a terrorist attack?

Comments

Categories