You response has absolutely nothing to do with his post. He didn't say "lets all get along." He said the chances of being killed by a terrorist are extremely small and really no point in worrying about it. Which is 100% true. Historically, I probably have a better chance of being killed by a vending machine than by a terrorist.

That is exactly what I was saying. The chances are much greater that a truck will go left of center and kill me on the way to work tomorrow morning than my being killed via terrorist attack.

Also if Believer would have read my intiial post a little closer he would have found the following:

Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible.

A far cry from "Kumbaya". I am not saying in any way that we should ignore terrorists or potential terrorist attacks. I realize it's just much easier (intellectually dishonest, but easier) to brand me a liberal terrorist sympathizer than to actually read what I read and comprehend the meaning behind it.

We have a highly skilled military and intelligence system in place to protect our nation. Even with this in place, it is still likely that a terrorist group will succeed in executing an attack against our interests again in my lifetime. Yes, it is possible that I could be killed in a terrorist attack. But it's much more likely that the average American would be killed in a house fire, or a tornado, or by drowning, or by car accident, or via stroke or heart attack, etc. Terrorism is way down my list of things to worry about in life.

Tell you what, Believer...if I die in a terrorist attack, I'll make sure I look you up in the afterlife and tell you that you were right...

Glory Days wrote: So would you rather the government not talk about terrorism? you know for a fact if the goverenment came out and said "well the odds of being attacked here is about the same as getting killed falling down stairs in a one story house, so dont worry about it" and then an attack happens, people would be calling for the administration's head on a stick.

No they can talk about it. They shouldn't use it as a fear mongering tool to pass unconstitutional policies.

They can put it more like "we spend more money on our intelligence agencies than any other country in the world. The chances of a terrorist attack taking place in the US are extremely minimal because of this."

An attack could and probably will happen. Just simple odds, but that doesn't change the overall probability.

One of the major reasons why we revolted against England was the writ of assistance act which allowed British soldiers to write their own search warrants to inspect houses of colonists to make sure they were paying their stamp taxes. We've come full circle as the unPatriot Act allows federal officials to write their own search warrants with no overcite to inspect and seize property. And when one of these are served, the person it is served to isn't allowed to tell anyone, even while testifying before a judge or will break federal law.

The unPatriot Act has been used for far more than terrorism, which was its justification.

And a nation that doesn't respect natural law, that doesn't respect the rule of law and a nation that tortures is dangerous to our citizens because if we face a large crisis and order needs to be maintained or just an evil person gets into the White House, these things can be turned against us.

On Al-Qaeda, it is still a threat and when they come after us, we should go after them and kill them. But we shouldn't give away our freedoms which we have and continue to do or they've already won. Fear is the greatest enemy of a free republic.

Terrorists win when you acknowledge them. There has been terrorism since the dawn of civilization, in some form or another, and their always will be.

I still maintain that the best defense against them is to not chase after them around the world and bankrupt your economy but stregthen your borders and defense. The chances of being hit by a terrorist attack is so small that no one should ever give up their personal liberties though.

bigmanbt wrote: I still maintain that the best defense against them is to not chase after them around the world and bankrupt your economy but stregthen your borders and defense. The chances of being hit by a terrorist attack is so small that no one should ever give up their personal liberties though.

that is kind of what happend before, we didnt go after them, they organized and came up with a pretty good plan. now we are out there on the offensive disrupting them and they really cant mount a major attack. in this situation, the best defense is a good offense.

Glory Days wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I still maintain that the best defense against them is to not chase after them around the world and bankrupt your economy but stregthen your borders and defense. The chances of being hit by a terrorist attack is so small that no one should ever give up their personal liberties though.

that is kind of what happend before, we didnt go after them, they organized and came up with a pretty good plan. now we are out there on the offensive disrupting them and they really cant mount a major attack. in this situation, the best defense is a good offense.

That is faulty logic I believe. 9/11 took nearly a decade to plan so saying we are disrupting efforts may be true, but doesn't mean a plan isn't still in the works.

And 9/11 didn't happen because we weren't out there disrupting them on the world stage. It happened because the intelligence agencies didn't do their jobs and analyze and disseminate the high quality information that could have stopped 9/11.

Like usual, we can't blame it on a failure of the government. We must go attack someone and occupy for a decade.

eersandbeers wrote: Like usual, we can't blame it on a failure of the government. We must go attack someone and occupy for a decade.

completely unrelated. most people blame the government. but it will always take boots on the ground somewhere to get the job done. that is the mentality that led to the failure of the intelligence community to begin with, they thought they could just solve the problem by sitting behind computers and launching a few cruise missiles every now and then. if the CIA had boots on the ground in afghanistan etc investigating the intelligence they had, they might have taken it more seriously and did a better job of disseminating that information.

Benjamin Franklin said it best.... "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

I understand everyone wants to feel safe, but we are bankrupting our country chasing after these terrorists, doing just what the terrorists wanted. If the people in charge of this war don't realize that you'll never stamp out terrorism 100%, this war will bankrupt us and the terrorists will have won.

Glory Days wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Like usual, we can't blame it on a failure of the government. We must go attack someone and occupy for a decade.

completely unrelated. most people blame the government. but it will always take boots on the ground somewhere to get the job done. that is the mentality that led to the failure of the intelligence community to begin with, they thought they could just solve the problem by sitting behind computers and launching a few cruise missiles every now and then. if the CIA had boots on the ground in afghanistan etc investigating the intelligence they had, they might have taken it more seriously and did a better job of disseminating that information.

No it wasn't. We had plenty of information. Collection wasn't the problem. Analyzing and disseminating was the problem .There was plenty of intel that would have told the FBI analysts that 9/11 was coming.

Glory Days wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Like usual, we can't blame it on a failure of the government. We must go attack someone and occupy for a decade.

completely unrelated. most people blame the government. but it will always take boots on the ground somewhere to get the job done. that is the mentality that led to the failure of the intelligence community to begin with, they thought they could just solve the problem by sitting behind computers and launching a few cruise missiles every now and then. if the CIA had boots on the ground in afghanistan etc investigating the intelligence they had, they might have taken it more seriously and did a better job of disseminating that information.

Richard Clarke was screaming loud and clear to both Clinton and Bush...he was the anti terrorist chief. The administrations thought he was a wolf crier....and paid little heed.