[FoRK] Re: Re: Katrina - National Guard??

Stephen D. Williams sdw
Fri Sep 2 08:10:39 PDT 2005

I wouldn't say that automobiles are a "more immanent threat".  They are 
a tool that has an associated risk of "failure".  Terrorism, like crime 
at least to some extend, falls into a category of "unnecessary risk" 
that should be avoidable.  You could argue that the cost of civilization 
is some degree, or at least pressure for, crime, but we feel that it is 
something that is broken and fixable.

Only weapons and acts of mass destruction worry me.  Individual car 
bombs or whatever are less likely to affect me than a random accident.  
When we had the snipers in DC, although it was a new and interesting 
threat, it was not really a concern, and I was driving on the beltway 
and getting gas nearby the whole time.

You're right, it's the irrational boost that is the real problem.  The 
threat of fear itself you might say.

It is interesting how 600 people were trampled to death because of the 
rumor of a nearby car/person bomb.
Would all people have reacted the same way?  What would a rowdy crowd of 
stereotypical "Texas redneck shit kickers" have done?  I imagine that 
the more protective / macho among us would have been more likely to run 
toward the supposed danger to do something about it.

Is it so hard to A) avoid gathering in groups in areas of known fanatics 
and B) work out grouping rules that avoid anyone secretly joining a 
group without being searched in sparse areas?  Wearing all those 
"moddest" robes doesn't work out so well when you are trying to find 
those with a belt of explosives.

At least we know we're safe on beaches and many night clubs: you have to 
show skin to be in.


Sebastian Hassinger wrote:

>That's exactly the point though - from a rational basis *automobiles*
>are a more imanent threat to the American public than terrorism, let
>alone natural disasters, but which one is wielding more influence over
>domestic and foreign policy, and the general rhetoric employed by the
>current administration? Terrorism is successful when it allows
>irrationality to establish dominance over the governance of its enemy.
>On 9/1/05, Robert Harley <robert.harley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>You know, after the OK bombing and then 9/11 I got to thinking that it's
>>>really, really easy to cause lots and lots of destruction.  Kind of makes
>>>you wonder just how severe the "imminent danger from terrorists" really
>>Eh... you got me mightily confused.  How can "terrorism" even register
>>as a concern?
>>Sure 9/11 was spectacular and horrible, but something like 20000 times
>>as many people
>>have died of other causes in the interim.
>>FoRK mailing list

swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw

More information about the FoRK mailing list