Nebraska Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack!
I was reading through Nebraska’s Fremont Tribune this morning, and was relieved, at first, to read the following headline:
State Ready for Bioterrorism
It seems that Nebraska is in the top ten states in all of America in terms of readiness for a terrrorist attack with biological weapons. The only thing that kept Nebraska from getting a perfect bioterrorism-readiness score was the fact that the state has an “insufficient number of level-three bioterrorism laboratories.”
Well, it’s a good thing that Nebraska had the number of level-three bioterrorism laboratories that it does, because, after all, if it weren’t for those bioterrorism laboratories in Nebraska… well… um… Nebraksa wouldn’t have scored in the top ten states for bioterrorism preparedness!
Don’t get me wrong. I like Nebraska. Omaha has a really great zoo, and there’s nothing like seeing the sandhill cranes gather on the Platte River during their annual migration. Still, I seriously doubt that any foreign terrorists have their sights set on destroying Nebraska with a biological weapons attack.
First of all, there’s the little detail that Homeland Security hype artists love to forget: That there never has been a foreign bioterrorist attack anywhere in the United States of America, much less Nebraska. Secondly, Nebraska, as nice as it is, just isn’t an indispensible part of the nation’s infrastructure. If Nebraska were attacked, we would all be very sad, but in practical terms, the American nation would still be on very solid footing. (Of course, if we lost Mutual of Omaha, America would be completely bereft of people you can count on when the going’s rough. That would be a great loss.)
Homeland security zealots will, at this point screech that September 11 changed everything, and that you never know where the terrorists are going to strike next. It could just be that Nebraska is their next target, and using an attack of the bubonic plague to boot!
In truth, the attacks of September 11, 2001 changed very little - except for those things that Americans themselves changed in the panicked rush to the Homeland way of life. It is true, however, that we do never know where “the terrorists” will strike next, or indeed, if they ever will strike at again at all. The more important consideration is what the reasonable possibilities are, and a bioterrorist attack against Nebraska is just not a reasonable possibility. It’s a part of the new Homeland Security cult to believe that we are all constantly on the verge of being attacked by terrorists, but it just isn’t true.
You never know when the next mile-wide asteroid will hit Nebraska, but that doesn’t mean that it makes sense to build a special “level-three” anti-asteroid missile defense system across Nebraska. The fact is that for a state like Nebraska, a bioterrorism lab in Iowa or Colorado is a perfectly fine resource.
The real threat in Nebraska is not terrorism, but a struggling economy, and that seems to be what’s behind the push there to become prepared for every possible kind of terrorist attack. Bioterrorism preparedness has become just the latest kind of pork barrel spending, an excuse for each and every state to demand huge amounts of federal money.
I’m not against the states receiving huge amounts of federal money, so long as it’s for something that’s actually useful. Imagine if the preparedness funds that are placing “level-three” bioterrorism labs all across Nebraska were used to bring the state’s libraries and schools up to date. It wouldn’t be glamorous, but every Nebraskan would feel the effect, and the benefits would last for generations.
As it is, a certain breed of Nebraska politician is clamoring for more “level-three” bioterrorism labs, which will sit, unused, for generations to come, waiting, waiting, waiting… and demanding funds all the while.
I’m in agreement with this author about being overzealous.
I do feel some concern, however, when he makes a statement like,
“It is true, however, that we do never know where “the terrorists†will strike next, or indeed, if they ever will strike at again at all.”
Being prepared and reasonablly concerned is an important thing. If we read his statement above after the 1993 WTC bombing attempt, it would like a rather foolish statement after what DID ‘happen again’ on 9/11/01. It cannot be denied that there are citizens aligned with groups that certainly would like to do harm upon us. The Buffalo,NY area “Lackawana” group of six or seven persons were certainly leaning towards these types of activities. To deny that, or to use the author’s other argument, that they’re not very important anyway, so who cares if we lose a lot of folks in Buffalo, is rather insensitive. I wonder why he puts “the terrorists” in quotes, as if this was some bogus title that they did not earn when they attacked Americans on 9/11.
I agree that Nebraska doesn’t sound like a Type-I target, especially in the “bang for the buck” sense. I wonder who the author would consider an “indespensible” part of American life. Whose lives does he value? We already know he doesn’t mind if we lose lives in Neb.
I’m not a security zealot either, and I believe we should spend our money wisely. When your guidance are statements like: “That there never has been a foreign bioterrorist attack anywhere in the United States of America, …” that may sound just as stupid as making this statement on 9/10/01: “there has never been an attack with four large commercial airliners being hijacked and crashed into important buildings”.
I agree that smart decisions need to be made. I am afraid to fully embrace the suggestions of someone like the author, who sounds like he has developed such a strong aversion to increased national security that he would let pretty much anything go. Hindsight will always be 20/20.
To hear someone say “In truth, the attacks of September 11, 2001 changed very little ” is to deny what is the truth. It SHOULD make you change your thinking. I agree with the author that overzealous should be avoided, but to state that you believe that nothing has changed really concerns me.
Rudiger,
Why haven’t you mentioned the 3,704 people who died in 2001 from nutritional deficiencies? Why aren’t you agitating for something to be done about these? After all, that’s 700 more than died in 2001, and unlike the terror deaths, we can expect this many to die year after year after year. What makes terror deaths so much more important than deaths from nutritional deficiencies?
What has changed, besides people’s hearts?
What “terrorists”? Oh, wait; you mean the freedom fighters? Yeah; they were a little over-the-top… Still, there probably isn’t much over there telling them that most Americans are okay, and so they went and killed a few thousand Americans with a few blows.
Must make up about, what? 0.001% if added in with how many Americans have been killed by Americans?
What about the fundamentalist Christians who kill people? They’re already IN America; or do they have to be non-American before dehumanising them is an option?
Speaking of death statistics, what about all the people who died from diseases that we could cure with stem-cell research if it wasn’t so taboo?
What about the numbers who’ve died from crappy car designs?
From the amount of pollution being thrown into the environment?
The amount of people who’ve starved to death in third world countries? How about the thousands who died in that hurricane that killed one person in America? Oh, wait; non-Americans. Sorry, they’re not really people as such, are they. At least; not people for whom the world should have EVERYTHING change for.
Aids. Homicide. Suicide. Cancer. Anorexia nervosa. And so on…
Guess we can’t make a fuss about these though, and, what’s more, we couldn’t go declaring WAR on those, oh no!!!
What’s the point of protecting life if we can’t kill innocents whilst we do it?
So I guess you’re all saying that you are IN FAVOR of the terrorist who kill Americans, because you don’t share any concern over it.
“freedom fighters”???? You are referring to the 9/11 Terrorists as “freedom fighters”??? What kind of a NUT JOB are you???
If you want to verbally trash the US Military, I don’t care.
If you want to trash talk the government, I don’t care.
What do these idiotic statements by Hare-brained Trinity have to do with protecting Americans? Are you anti-American?
Are you PRO-TERRORIST??? We can only hope that if you are, they at least happen to include you in the next batch. That would be at least a smaller loss than someone with sensitivity and feeling.
What does nutritional deficiencies have to do with terrorist attacks?
How do YOU know I’m not doing anything about it??? Well?
The post was about the author’s lack of belief that further terrorism was likely or in some cases, even a problem. “If Nebraska were attacked, we would all be very sad, but in practical terms, the American nation would still be on very solid footing.”
I’ll agree with him only if he is the first to stand in line to get to Nebraska when it happens.
Er. Um. Are the phrase “NUT JOB” and the statement “We can only hope that if you are, they at least happen to include you in the next batch” supposed to be examples of this “sensitivity and feeling” you’re talking about?
If this: “Oh, wait; you mean the freedom fighters? Yeah; they were a little over-the-top… ” is what you mean, then yes, they are nut-jobs, if they are referring to the 9/11 terrorists.
Let me ask you so sensitively Matt, are you pro-terrorist, or not? Do you also care so little about people in Nebraska that you think their loss would not create much practical loss to America?
Do you ever bother to read the first post I wrote and comment on that?
Or do you just want to make some noise and start pointing fingers at me? I posted something with some thought and discussion merit, and I was flamed with nonsense. So I’m mad. I’m disgusted with people who are so narrow-minded like Haretrinity that they call the 9/11 terrorists “freedom fighters”, and ridicule those who were lost. The author clearly had no respect for them either, but I answered him politely. The other response didn’t deserve much more than the “nutjob” comment. I’ll stand by that.
You brought up sensitivity, not me.
If you are so hungry for my comment on your original post, here it is. I agree with parts of it, and disagree with other parts of it.
I hesitate to say more, because you apparently think anyone who disagrees with you must agree with the terrorists (naturally, since there is no other alternative opinion), and therefore might as well die, and won’t be missed by all the right-thinking people. Which is, incidentally, exactly the kind of callous attitude you objected to in the first place.
Not that I owe you any explanation, but I think the hijackers were cowards whose actions can only be described as evil. “Freedom fighter” is not a term I would use. I lost friends on 9/11, so I am hardly inclined to minimize their deaths in any way.
But I am also aware of the fact that to us George Washington is the father of our country, but to the British in 1776 he was a traitor.
As you can see if you choose to read what I actually wrote, rather than all the random baggage you assign to it, my objection was not to your first post at all. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. My objection was to the tactic, seen/heard so often that it’s almost a cliche, of lumping disagreement with treason, and adding a healthy dose of insult and belligerence for good measure. You’re entitled to be belligerent and insulting if you like, too, of course. But if you really expect people to listen to your opinion, wishing openly for their death is, I think you’ll agree, not the best way of going about it.
Oh, cheer up.
I’m not that concerned over what you think, but you sound fairly logical. I’ll admit that HareTrinity’s comment too easily baited me into getting pissed, with his crap about “freedom fighters”. I should have just ignored his opinion as either ignorant or just a rant. J. Matthew’s isn’t much more on topic. Millions of people die from every cause. People die from smoking too much, eating too much, not eating enough (some voluntarily) and more. I’m not going to seriously compare them because even though some of them are tragic deaths like murder or starvation, they weren’t the indication of a concerted attempt to disrupt the lives of everyone in this country.
If J. Matthew can’t grasp that, that’s his problem. I didn’t suggest we stop all efforts to eradicate hunger or poverty in this country.
The author merely applies the faulty logic that since Nebraska doesn’t seem to be either a top target, nor a particularly important place to defend, that monies spent there for protection are both wasted and probably useless.
I certainly don’t disagree with questioning the amounts. I merely question how laissez faire in practice you should be with this. He implies that security measures will sit waiting and waiting, unused.
That would be good. Prophylactic measures can show you success by the fact that you appear to be well. You can’t put them on after the fact and have effectiveness. That’s the point. Just because terrorists used one type of attack once, does the author think they’ll use the same one again and again? Does he think bioterrorism is not an accessible option for them? I agree with his point that they should spend money wisely and combine state’s labs where possible. That makes sense. His lack of legitimate concern is what doesn’t.
You’ve got to love how paranoid Republicans like Rutiger are so eager to embrace fear that they get upset when someone suggests that Nebraska is not a terrorist target. Republicans all love to feel all vulnerable, don’t they? I mean, to believe that even the people in Lincoln Nebraska could be attacked by biological weapons, when no foreign bioterrorism (2001 Anthrax mail sent to New York City and Washington D.C. was from a domestic source - US Army Anthrax and an American with an axe to grind) has ever ever taken place in the US, is kinda weird.
So go on getting outraged that people refuse to be afraid, if that’s what really brings you a psychological kick, Rutiger, but don’t expect non-Republicans to go along for your neurotic helter-skelter psychotrip.
“Nutjob”, hm? For calling the people who killed thousands “liberators”; oh, sorry; “freedom fighters”?
They thought that they WERE freedom fighters. They knew no better. They didn’t attack the WTC out of spite in a “those Americans really piss me off, I’m going to go die in a way that’ll upset them, yeah!” way; they BELIEVED that what they were doing would be for the best.
Of course I disagree. I’m pretty sure everyone felt very sorry for the Americans who died on 9/11. I had a friend who lost friends there, so don’t think I just don’t care.
Fact remains that the intentions were good. Horrible event, but intentions that were good, although not including good towards Americans.
The suicide bombers’ families get a lot out of letting their children die like that. The kids were probably brought up being told that Americans are evil and killing them would be doing the world a favour.
I’m not pro-terrorism, I just don’t like people to be labelled terrorists as if EVERY person who took part had the intention of using terror to gain control.
Somewhere out there someone PLANNED it. Someone decided terror was the best option and that it was worth sacrificing the lives of the hijackers for. Someone decided indoctrinating them into a state of mind where they believe a cause that would kill thousands was more important than their own lives.
Blame those who did the manipulating, not the people who didn’t know any better than to believe them.
blah blah umber. Keep repeating that stupid mantra.
“… when no foreign bioterrorism…” blah blah
How smart would you be sounding sitting in the top lounge at the WTC center having your coffee and saying ” no foreign people have ever hijacked planes and crashed them into this building”
What makes you so sure that a city of 250,000 isn’t a target to have their water supply contaminated etc?
Your answer: because it’s never happened before? OK, I’m NOT outraged at you, but your argument that it won’t happen because it hasn’t happened is one that might have played on 9/10, but not now.
Rudiger writes: “J. Matthew’s isn’t much more on topic. Millions of people die from every cause. People die from smoking too much, eating too much, not eating enough (some voluntarily) and more. I’m not going to seriously compare them because even though some of them are tragic deaths like murder or starvation, they weren’t the indication of a concerted attempt to disrupt the lives of everyone in this country.”
Come on, Rudiger, get serious here.
Murder IS the concerted attempt to disrupt a life. And there were 17,045 murders in 2002 — that’s nearly SIX September 11 attacks that occur each year in a concerted attempt to disrupt a life! Why do you minimize not only this source of death, but EVERY source of death save one?
While you don’t suggest stopping efforts to eradicate hunger or poverty in this country, you don’t suggest devoting the same level of resources or mangling the constitution in the same manner or restricting civil liberties to the same degree to do so, EVEN THOUGH MORE PEOPLE DIE from hunger and poverty in this country EVERY YEAR than died from a terrorist attack ONE YEAR. Even if there were a 9/11 every single year like clockwork, many more of us would still be offed by deaths resulting from hunger and poverty — yet you want to turn this country upside down in order to get the terrorists? You’ve got warped priorities, Rudiger.
You describe the attacks of 9/11/01 as the “attempt to disrupt the lives of everyone in this country.”
No, it was the attempt to fly airplanes into buildings and kill people. The success of that attempt was the terrorists’ fault.
The disruption of the lives (and the constitution, and the reputation) of everybody in this country was A CHOICE. Not the terrorists’ choice. Bush’s choice. And, with Bush’s re-election to put a stamp of public approval on it, our collective choice.
Osama bin Laden is laughing, because we are causing more economic, diplomatic, military, psychological and constitutional damage to ourselves than he ever could have by himself.
Thanks to fear-mongers like you.
HareTrinity: misguided but sympathetic souls don’t end up somehow just tagging along for the ride on an attack that is specifically designed to kill thousands. Sorry, I don’t buy your line. The people who engaged in that attack knew what they were doing. They don’t have my sympathy, and they weren’t fighting for freedom. They were attacking us to elicit a terrorized response of fear that would serve their own aims.
Rudiger,
What makes you so sure they aren’t trying to attack us by poisoning everyone’s chewing gum? Because it hasn’t happened before? That’s what they WANT you to think, those sneaky terrorists!
What makes you so sure that they haven’t put bioagents into your Wheaties? To quote you, “your argument that it won’t happen because it hasn’t happened is one that might have played on 9/10, but not now!”
What makes you so sure that they haven’t snuck around in the night putting plastic explosives under the midtown bus?
What makes you so sure that they aren’t going to put carbon monoxide in through tubes stuck slyly into the windows of office buildings?
What makes you so sure that they haven’t infiltrated Honda factories, installing remote-controlled ejector seats that THEY have the remote controls to?
What makes you so sure that THEY (who is THEY, by the way?) haven’t put time-released acid into the soles of your sneakers?
What makes you so sure that THEY haven’t built an underground cave beneath Ashtabula, Ohio?
Your life must be very difficult, to be ridden by fears based on what could happen, regardless of evidence that it is happening. Try letting go of your fears. You might feel a bit better.
In the meantime, don’t expect me to play along with your neurosis.
Or is paranoia a psychosis?
Yeah, Rudiger,
You’d be the last one laughing eating your Wheaties in the morning before EVERY GODDAMNED AMERICAN EATING WHEATES DIED THAT MORNING because of your lack of vigilance!!!!!!
How do you know that there isn’t a Canadian plot to invade Detroit?
How do you know that the terrorists are not planning on killing American children by converting Tickle-Me-Elmo dolls into ticking time bombs?
YOU DON’T KNOW! Omigod! Go call the police right now, and demand that the US government spends billions of dollars right now, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
Really read the posts. I didn’t support Nebraska not sharing labs with some other state, and sensible limits on security spending.
Don’t waste my time by twisting this into an argument that I’m paranoid. I was for sensible security measures, and I suggested that by the tone of the author’s, he was for far less or none, “because it just won’t happen”.
It doesn’t mean you’re paranoid if you learn from an historical event and change some of your methods. I didn’t say that I thought terrorists were under every rock, so get off that, it’s foolish.
Keep spouting BS, it seems to be all you can do, instead of talking about sensible plans and compromise.
Well, Rudiger, you actually JUST DID get all paranoid, with your “How do you know” argument. How do you know that Nebraska won’t be attacked, you suggested. Then you went off on your weird idea that because new kinds of attacks happen every now and then, that we need to be secure everywhere. “You would have sounded very smart…”
Your logic, Rudiger, leads in a straight path to the kind of ridiculous overreactions that characterize the Department of Homeland Security goofballs. Don’t blame me for making fun of you. You laid the foundation for me.
How do you know that fairies are not planning to sprinkle you with their dust and make you fly away? Better get Homeland Security on that one too.
Umber: Maybe someone needs to sprinkle you with “common sense” dust. You are just tooooo quick to jump on the “let’s bash the paranoid Republican” bandwagon, even if it’s warranted. Be a man/woman (whatever you are. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. I simply have no idea what your gender is)- just because someone baits you doesn’t mean you have to bite. In a weird way, YOUR reaction shows paranoia. You seem to lack the two legs to stand on in a logical arguemtent so you resort to “nanny nanny boo boo” types of accusations. I’m not saying my crap don’t stink- hey, I’ve been baited before and I’ll be baited again at some point- but it takes more guts to reason with someone than call them silly names.
Anyway… I don’t think it’s likely that Nebraska will get attacked. I don’t even think it’s likely that another MAJOR terrorist attack will occur on our soil. (And I hope all of you join me in hoping that is the case.) However…
Does it not make sense to at least PREPARE somewhat for the possibility? Do we need to inspect every grain of Wheaties for poison? Of course not! But do we need to take better measures to ensure every batch is SAFE. Unger, et al.: Wanting something to be more safe DOES NOT equate paranoia.
I’m not going to say Homeland Security hasn’t preyed on our fears at times. I think the “terror level” color scheme is flat-out silly. But what government entity HASN’T at one time or another put a little melodrama into their mix of disseminated information? As an educated adult, I pride myself on telling the difference between what is real and what is imagined. Unfortunately, not everyone does.
“How do you know” is a question. What is your reasoning behind believing that a terrorist will or won’t do something? Do you have anything else to argue other than “it hasn’t happened before”?I didn’t say terrorists were “everywhere”, I just suggested prudence.
Sorry if that disappoints you so much that you have to make up false stuff that I said.
Fact: WTC attack and the other planes “didn’t happen before”.
Fact: they did happen
Fact: person or persons who planned these attacks still exist
Fact: person or persons responsible continue to carry negative
feelings against U.S.
Your Conclusions: Don’t show any reasonable concern or suggest any compromise (a word I used) safety measures. Attack all suggestions that we think logically and act prudently as “paranoia”.
Compare real terrorist events to fairy dust. (and caves in Ohio)
Please show where I have acted with paranoia by suggesting exaggerated methods or costs. I said SEVERAL times that we need to make effective, cost-concious decisions. You have repeatedly ignored the true words I have said and made outrageous statements.
Trying to have a serious discussion with some of you is like listening to a jack-in-the-box keep popping up with the silly music.
J. Matthew; well educated souls wouldn’t want to give their lives unless they thought there was a lot to gain from it. What people seem to forget about the suicide bombers is that they gave up their whole existence for whatever it was they were told they were doing. People don’t have to cause terror to be terrorists; they need to use terror.
I don’t like to blame the people who died as “statements”. Not the suicide bombers whose families got more food for the sacrifice of their lives, and not the people who died in 9/11 whose deaths were used as an excuse to start a war.
I’ll blame the people doing the planning. They MEANT for this to happen, and, chances are, this isn’t all too far from what they expected (except possibly the war in Iraq, that’s a little out of the way).
And Rudiger; maybe you should withdraw that comment implying that things that didn’t happen before are not much more likely to happen. They’re not.
And kindly stop ignoring the deaths caused by something other than terrorists. They may not have all come as such a shock, but very few were unavoidable, and their death toll being higher; maybe the events that already HAVE happened are very likely to happen AGAIN are more important than the things which have never happened.
Rudiger, you HAVE said many times that we need to make effective cost-conscious decisions, etc. It is undeniable that we never know what’s going to happen and hindsight is 20/20, as you say.
I think we all agree we need to protect ourselves, just (apparently) not how to go about it. Please correct me if I’m misreading you, Rudiger, but I gather you think we may not have done quite enough yet, or at least should be more open to new security proposals, rather than less open. Others posting here seem to think we’ve gone overboard already. Personally I think we’ve poured lots of money into some areas and left others underfunded, so that we’ve spent a lot of money without making ourselves any safer than we were on 9/10/01.
But in fact, we weren’t actually safe on 9/10/01. We only thought we were. The main thing that has changed is that we now know we will never be safe. In other words, the reality has not changed, but our perception of it has.
We know that there hasn’t been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. We cannot know if or when a terrorist strike will occur. Almost by definition, the next terrorist strike, if it occurs, will be something we don’t expect. (If we expect it, after all, wouldn’t we stop it?) On the other hand, we do know that, worldwide, a child dies of hunger every five seconds, and that has not changed since 1996.
I see it as a question of priorities (which I think was the original point of the post, not that we shouldn’t care about Nebraska). If it’s impossible to protect ourselves from everything that might happen, or even predict if/when it might happen, and yet there is a predictable and observable problem that also results in death, which could be solved in whole or in part, why not pour a little less money into the black hole that is our fear, and spend it instead on the thing that can be wholly or partly solved?
“But in fact, we weren’t actually safe on 9/10/01. We only thought we were. The main thing that has changed is that we now know we will never be safe. In other words, the reality has not changed, but our perception of it has.”
My goodness Matt D.! I agree with you… yet again! I wonder what the temperature in Hades is right now… ; )
You know Matt, sometimes you are the only breath of sensible air around here. I agree we should spend money on resolving world hunger. Of course we do, and it seems to never be enough, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do more than we do. The pork barrel money that is wasted in this country is unbelievably huge. And I think you’ll agree that this isn’t a new phenomenom under Bush; perhaps there is some truth that the concern over terrorism has addeded to that.
I do want to point out that public fear is a real economic issue. I don’t think shortly after 9/11 that anyone can doubt that a fear reaction was not unexpected; this was a terrible occurence, and largely unprecedented. The effect that this fear had on many industries is unquestionable. The travel and airline business especially felt the brunt of this. Discretionary travel is picking up; this is partly due to the overall feeling of increased security, even though people hate to personally deal with the day-to-day effects of it. So not all security is bad for either the economy or individuals. I had several friends whose kids worked for the airline industry and were laid off not long after 9/11. Some of them have been now hired back, so not all of the economic results are negative.
Pork barrel spending certainly isn’t a new phenomenon. I’d prefer it be spent on schools or libraries or parks…Or I’d at least like to have a clearer sense that money spent on security is spent wisely, which is not the sense I have now. Quite the contrary.
Temperature in Hades…a cool and comfortable 52 degrees. Not quite frozen over yet.
J. Matthew, I’m a bit confused.
HareTrinity said this:
“Blame those who did the manipulating, not the people who didn’t know any better than to believe them.
Somewhere out there someone PLANNED it. Someone decided terror was the best option and that it was worth sacrificing the lives of the hijackers for. Someone decided indoctrinating them into a state of mind where they believe a cause that would kill thousands was more important than their own lives.”
and you then replied to him with this:
“HareTrinity: misguided but sympathetic souls don’t end up somehow just tagging along for the ride on an attack that is specifically designed to kill thousands. Sorry, I don’t buy your line. The people who engaged in that attack knew what they were doing. They don’t have my sympathy, and they weren’t fighting for freedom. They were attacking us to elicit a terrorized response of fear that would serve their own aims. ”
But to someone else earlier, you said this:
“Wrong Target. Maybe this is just my knee-jerk cable-knit-sweater liberalism writing itself out, but I don’t like arguments that result in the central blaming of individuals who are not part of the authorities in control of the whole ball of wax in the first place. There’s an old saying out there that in social criticism, you ought to spend your time “afflicting the comfortable.†In other words, give the people who are in charge of things a hard time. Why waste energy insulting individual American soldiers ”
He said blame the people who planned it, and earlier (above) you said give the people in charge of things a hard time. And you disagreed with him now.
I’m having a hard time seeing where what he said and what you said earlier were really much different. Have you changed your mind?
The other side of “afflict the comfortable” in the classic phrase is “comfort the afflicted.” I do not see the people who climbed aboard the plane and smashed it into a pair of skyscrapers as primarily afflicted. Until that day, they may have been primarily afflicted. But when they climbed aboard the plane and smashed it into skyscrapers, they moved into the afflicter rather than the afflictee column in my book. I’m not going to waste my time generating sympathy for the people who carried out that attack on 9/11. I think it’s silly to call these people “freedom fighters,” since the goal of the attacks was not to give anybody freedom, but to spread terror, the result of which is oppressive security-mindedness and militancy that feeds the interest of the lovers of violence on all sides of a multi-ethnic conflict.
I still have a great deal of sympathy for people coming from a situation like theirs (and yet who didn’t manage to kill 3,000 people), however, and want to understand their motivations.
J. Matthew,
Shouldn’t the same be said of the American soldiers who are marching around in Iraq, shooting civilians and torturing petty criminals?
“hank,”
Yes. But the same shouldn’t be said of all American soldiers, which is, “hank,” what I think you’re getting at.
I don’t see how structure/agency arguments about the pawns is really that important here. They’re dead now anyway (the suicide bombers, at least); there’s not anything more you can do to them.
Maybe people should focus on the people who planned it instead of continuing to insult people who died for a stupid cause. Y’know; try to stop more people from dying for stupid causes.
About Nebraska-biochemical sites?
biological weapons
Well what do you know…
Nebraska is in the top now for getting a terrorist attack.
People think Nebraska is just some flat land with hillbillys everywhere.
Think again.
Nebraska is much more then that, so why would you say that if Nebraska got hit by an attack that the United States wouldnt be affected?
When the NYC attacks happend, EVERYONE IN NEBRASKA was also affected. Were people too.
So stop dissing on Nebraska. Atleast were making an effort incase anything happens.
I mean seriously, did the world see the NYC attacks coming?
Not really. They were to busy with California breaking off and the hurricanes in Florida.
Nebraska is only on the top because the president comes here when America is under attack.
Yes, people think “Oh, if Nebraska got hit, not a whole bunch of people would get killed.” Not true, with Omaha having more then 900,000 people and growing, I think that Omaha and Nebraska, would affect everyone else in the U.S.
Dont get me wrong, NYC and other bigger cities have more people, I’m just saying that if Nebraska got hit, it would impact America just as much as the attacks in NYC did.
Just think of all the stuff Nebraska gives to America..
It would be horrible.
Like Mutual of Omaha Insurance?
I thought they were people we could count on when the going’s rough - but now they’re looking for a bailout.
Sad.