I thought this would be an interesting topic.

Many nations throughout history have had to battle it out between saftey of their citizens and freedom of their citizens, I just thought it would be an interesting question to ask, would you rather have security or freedom?

Personally, id take a dangerous free life, over a safe contolled life any day, just my thoughts on it

I want to be able to drive my car. Driving cars are the human activity that costs more lifes per year than anything else.

I chose security if it comes to choosing one over the other. I believe it is possible to achieve reasonable security without violation of people's rights though, including their freedom. Security is a must however, unsecure people are not 'free from fear and terror' therefore it's also a matter of freedom imho. Maybe this is me speaking as such because I have witnessed terror first hand when I was a kid and believe me you would rather give up some freedom not to face such a scene.

understandable, but from what I understand, much of the time, the "threat" is kind of made up, and used as an excuse to take freedoms away, just the way I see it anyway

You wouldn't have to make this distinction if all countries were concerned only about freedom, because then no country would have arms, and thus no country could arm/piss off certain terrorists.

Sure, terror doesn't only come from the actions of the terrorist groups but also from the governments in the form of hyped up fear through propaganda and so called counter-terror measures that hurt civilians more than it does terrorists. I'm sure nowadays many americans are avoiding getting a tan and growing a beard together...

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

Benjamin Franklin (also cited to Thomas Jefferson)

I couldnt agree more!

Freedom without Security is Ludicrous. Just how free would we be if there was nothing to protect us, if anyone could stop and kill us, and there was nothing we could do about it.

At the same time, one could say how free would we be if the Government could stop us and kill us and there was nothing we could do about it.

The key is a balance of the two. Benjamin Franklin's famous words sound like truth, but his theory works on paper and no further. In times of war and military threats, certain measures must be taken to ensure security. If our government was destroyed because of a lack of security how free would we be?

And if we died because of a lack of security, how much would we care about our freedom?

I think the answer to your question is...too much freedom heheh

I'm sure a lot of people are.

A: "Let's call the FBI."
B: "Why?"

A: "That guy looks dodgy."
B: "What do you mean?"

A: "Think he's a terrorist trying to plot something."
B: "What? What gives you that idea?"

A: "Daaaaaaa... the long beard and then dark skin."
B: "Dude. They just found him lost on an Island for 9 months. And he's American."

A: "Bullshit. That's what they wants us to think"
B: "He's American!!!"

A: "Shut up..... Ring Ring 'FBI. I got a terrorist for you...'"

should be a balance, with a little more weight in freedom than security...

Agreed, but that line is going to be hard to find. What some people call too much security, some find to be not enough. Personally, I find the level of security now is okay, if not a little overbearing at times. But if that means preventing something like another 9/11, then I'm all for it. I think the recent prevention of a really close call to that should wake America up and realize that we need a lot of the security that some people are saying we need to remove.

I'm against unwarranted wiretapping, but if its warranted and there's an actual reasonable thought that this person could truly be a terrorist, then by all means wire tap the hell out of him.

despite what people may think...9/11 wasnt very significant, it didnt change the world, if anything, it showed us how much the world hasnt changed...(the aftermath I mean)

Try telling that to the people who lost their husbands, children, wives, etc...



The world already knew terrorists didn't like us yeah, but it changed our perception of safety and what we needed to be safe. Up to that point America had avoided a serious security problem. We felt pretty safe, but 9/11 taught us that we weren't, and that more often than not, higher security measures were necessary to prevent any further attacks.



Very true, I found it disconcerting in the least that so few Nations actually wanted to do something about 9/11. At first I tried to understand their point of view, but when some of the Nations started blaming the attacks on America, and stuff we did, I just got pissed off.

Well, what i meant was that nothing changed after 9/11. Not that I really care, I guess its easy for me not to care though, I live in seattle, I know nobody east of the missisippi, it really is like a different country to me, so I dont mean to sound coarse, but it just didnt really affect me, it didnt feel like I was being hurt on 9/11, it felt like "oh that really sucks for those new yorkers". For some reason I see myself as more of a washingtonian than an american, I know thats a little strange, but thats how I honestly feel about it...

I feel exactly the same way Killbot. I was over it after about a week. It drives me crazy how people harp on it constantly.

I like living in a place where for the most part, no one wants to blow up. (Seattle)

I love how the Ben Franklin quotation is brought up in EVERY discussion on this topic. It cracks me up.

Frankly, I think he was totally wrong when he said that - it sounds nice and makes for good rhetoric, but in practical application it has to occur.

Its a good city to live in (well I live in bellingham now, but used to live in seattle)

Yeah, same as you, after about a week, it wasnt really on my mind anymore, I think us fixating on it is what the terrorists want, I just dont give them the satisfaction of changing my life, freedom over security in its most effective form!

I disagree with people who say that security should be chosen over freedom, because if you think about it, freedom will lead to security, think about it, terrorists...if they attack us and we arent really phased by it, if we dont really react, if we kind of put on the face of "we dont really care" even if we do, there will be no point in attacking us, because "we wont care". atleast thats the way I see it, I mean, I do care, to an extent, but its not like I can change anything, so I live my life as I always have, and I dont see a problem with that at all.

Mash. Please indicate how you think he's wrong. I think the historical evidence of peoples who are cajoled into giving up their freedom in order to create greater harmony have come to regret that decision.

Nazism and Italian Fascism are two good examples of how giving up individuality and freedom to gain a common purpose has led to the downfall of those social orders, with much tearing of hair in both.

(working on other examples)

One of the things about freedom is that it's hard to recognize what it is until it's gone. Then it's too late to get it back.

http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/pena-010917.html

Good Article from a decidedly "neo-conservative" bent, so no "Liberal Bias" nonsense ;-p

ben franklin was a really cool guy

Not reacting to it won't stop them. Their goal isn't to change the way we live, their goal is to destroy America and the ideals it is founded upon. Ignoring them will just make their job a hell of a lot easier. Terrorists aren't the kind of people who'll stop just because it has no immediate effect.



I'm no Mash, but I'll do what I can. Obviously people giving up all of their freedoms for security never works, but how many times has having no security worked? Benjamin Franklin's quote may sound nice, but it will only lead to more problems. The examples you mentioned were 100% tradeoff's, lose virtually all freedoms for virtually infallible security. Obviously that would never work, there is a balance that we need to achieve.

In another time, in another place, I believe freedom without security could work. But in today's world with today's ideals, security is an absolute necessity if we are to keep the freedom that we so fought for over two centuries ago.

And yes, Ben Franklin is a really cool guy.

Terrorists do have the goal of changing the way we live... and they're doing exactly that. Everyone living in fear, giving up their freedom, being suspicious of everyone else, etc.

Terrorists in general do have a goal of changing the way we live. But if you look at Bin Laden tapes, and if you look at the terrorists who are trying to attack America, they have a different goal entirely. They want to destroy America. Whether or not we change the way we live, the Terrorists will continue to attack, not because of our reaction to their attack, but because they hate us. Nothing we do will be able to change that, short of subduing to their will.

In my opinion, we should be prepared for their attack, not pretending it never happened.

So Franklin was an anarchist? I mean security comes in many forms. I mean, if we go with Franklin here, we'd be legally committing mass murder and there isn't a thing we can do about it (I mean, it's pure freedom, man!!!)

I dont think he meant it in that way, I think he meant giving up freedom FOR security

You are quite ignorant on a subject that you keep posting about. People, I mean people of all kind, lawyers, teachers, nurses, terrorists etc... all act because of an incentive. Do you have any proof or whatsoever that these people have an incentive to destroy america, I am pretty sure you do not. All you have is some propaganda fed to you before you went to work this morning and just before you watched a stupid game of baseball in the evening. Have you ever thought why anyone would want to destroy america, what would anyone gain by destroying america ???

This, is another example of how americans can be so self centered. All you can think about is how everybody hates your nation where infact you should know that nobody gives a damn about destroying your country. Destroy it for what ? So that they can invade your country, occupy your homes, get fat and watch oprah ? So they can eat, {censored} and live right from their couches ?

Let me give you a heads up : Nobody would give a {censored} if tomorrow a nuclear plant melted and turned all you people into human jelly. Not a single terrorist would do the happy dance then, you can count on my word for it. Let me put it in a simpler form for you to understand : Terrorism is an act people consult to for having their voices heard. It is a form of propaganda that these groups use to get the support of people and give messages to their enemies. When Bin Laden attacked the United States, he did it not to kill 5000 people but to give a message that said : I am strong and I can hurt you. I can make you feel weak and afraid if you keep clashing with me.

If you seriously believe there are people out there to destroy america, you are more paranoid than I can imagine... You and millions of people perhaps... Don't think I am trying to show americans as paranoid, this is common of all nations that have had their share of problems with terrorist acts. It makes people feel vulnerable and they react with their instinct and not their heads. More so, it becomes an epidemic as people spread their fears to others around them and vice versa... Anyway, in twenty years americans will realize that their actions were foolish back then such as the case with communist witch hunts and hollywood will shoot a couple movies showing how people reacted stupidly and you will watch in amazement thinking 'how can anybody be that stupid'...

it's a mix people. i want freedom AND security, i don't want to be forced by legislation, to live in a bubble of fear.

just sick of the whole fear and victim monkeys with air time paradigm. yikes! abort! abort! abort!

more of a rant perhaps, and possibly in the wrong area of the forum, but i am SO sick of monkeys.

You call me ignorant and yet you can't see what people would gain if America was destroyed? Think about it for just one second before you make another ill-informed post, how many wars has America started with or without provocation? How many times has America intervened in other Country's affairs, leaving that country in most circumstances worse off than they started with. How many nations out there accuse the United States as Imperialistic, and how many more are openly hostile against the United States. How many Nations wouldn't get excited, and wouldn't be happy if more US people died?



First off, I can tell you're a bit angry at America to say the least. Any intelligent human being could discern that there is a hell of a lot of hatred directed toward America and Americans. Unless of course YOU'VE never left the comfort of your couch, like I have, and ventured out in the world and found quite a bit. And do you know how many enemies the US has accumulated over its history, even more. That's the reason men and women are dying in Iraq, not because nobody gives a damn about America, but because they do so much that they are willing to sacrifice their lives to destroy it.



Yeah, I'm sure nobody would care if one of the world's largest nations just blew up. Bullshit! And oh yeah, I'm sure you have a lot of experience dealing with terrorists and how they feel about America. Of course they'd be happy! Do you think they risk their lives fighting American Troops, and working on terrorist plots just for fun? They want to see America Gone! Terrorism isn't simply a form of propaganda, it isn't simply a message relay system, they want to hurt people and they want to destroy things. If they wanted propaganda, there is Al Jazeera for that, if they want to send a message to the world, call in as a terrorist to CNN, they'll have you on in 5 minutes. They want to hurt people! Get it into your thick skull!



Listen, if they were just out there to get a message through to us, then they've sent us the message. But since they just tried to attack us again, I think it's a little more than a message. If terrorists had the power, had the ability, they'd destroy America in a heartbeat. You can't ignore the fact that they simply dislike us, this isn't a political message they're sending us, this is hate. In 20 years people will still hate America, dislike for America around the world is growing, and that isn't propaganda talking there.

Don't start calling me ignorant until you start to look at the world around you.

I think a bright guy like Franklin wouldn't make such an ambiguous statement. I mean security comes in many forms. I feel secure in walking down the road in that I won't get killed. That's security that I exchanged freedom for (as we have police probing these free areas to ensure public safety). According to Franklin I don't deserve either security or freedom because I allow the police to freely roam.

Thats total BS!!! Germany started two world wars in the last century, do you see people running around screaming death to the Germans ? About US foreign policy and its effects : Since not everybody is a caveman like you, people try to negotiate about these issues, that is why you don't see wars popping every next day. Countries have diplomats, foreign policy strategists and these people are there to make sure that a conflict is preventable. So countries do not see 'destroy US' as the viable solution to all the discontent that has been caused by US foreign policy including economic affairs. There is a huge difference between being hostile and planning for the destruction of a state and if you can't see that there is nothing that I can do to help you with it. There is also a huge difference between dislike of a state and enjoying the death of it's citizens. When you grow up, you'll know this too...



There is a lot of anger and hatred towards many countries and once again your egocentric approach only lets you see people who hate america. I am Turkish and we have ill relations with almost all of our neighboring states. Does that mean that all Turkish people want destruction of those countries and the deaths of their citizens ? absolutely no !!! Only neanderthals think that what one hates must be destroyed, that is the thought capacity of a 5 year old kid, not grown up people and unfortunately I see people who are capable of posting on these forums yet incapable of understanding such basic facts (Hint Hint). It's a known fact that people think of others alike themselves and I can only explain your thought logic by using this fact : you think everybody who dislikes america wants it destroyed because it's the kind of action you would revert to in a similar situation as well...

Men and Women are dying in Iraq because US troops entered the country, killed hundreds of civilians, destroyed valuable infrastructure, raped underage girls and tortured innocent iraqis and people are defending their country, defending their right for true freedom, defending their right to elect their own governments without US interference : It's known for a fact that US wouldn't go through all this trouble for economic reasons and leave a government that will not work in their favour.



I am quite sure you have a troubled time understanding that your country isn't the center of the universe so of course you will keep going imagining people are going to bed praying for the death of americans but that's your problem really, your's and your shrinks... The people you mention are fighting american troops outside of US (iraq, afghanistan, ethiopia) which means that american troops are there to eradicate them not vice versa, maybe you should get this in your thick skull first before suggesting that every person who fights for their own country/belief wishes for destruction of all life on american soil.

You didn't know about al jazeera before 9/11 you ignorant ... It's because of 9/11 that you have ever heard of the name al jazeera!!! do you still think 9/11 is not good propaganda for Al Qaeda ? After 9/11 all the western press and regular ignorant people like you started watching Bin Laden give speeches on that TV channel even though he had probably sent lots of tapes before and many of them were aired.



Perhaps they think you haven't got the message first time around by looking at how you invaded afghanistan and iraq. Well if they hated you so much all this time without reason how come no such strike of this magnitude happened during Clinton's presidency. You think about that and then ask yourself how american foreign policy is directly effecting how people view the US and react to its actions. The answer you'll find will include the fact that the vast majority of the people who you think hate america are just people who have different opinions on matters that are influenced by american foreign policy. None of these people long for the death of american citizens, they are fighting for what they believe is right and if as a consequence american troops have to be fought, they fight them too. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to hate all american people to be fighting us troops, simple as that.

As you can see (perhaps not), I have clear view of the world around me and so feel like I have every right to call you IGNORANT!!! if it gives me the right to do so. Until you learn to look at events from other people's viewpoints you will also remain as one in my book.

BTW : I will be going off for military duty in a couple months and because of my foreign language skills there is a high chance that I will be shipped off to Turkish UN forces in Afghanistan and perhaps Lebanon if UN peace corps are accepted so it's just your lazy fat ass that won't leave the couch to do something about world issues.

Well said U1M2!


Edit: except the bit about germany starting two world wars, it was actually austria-hungary who started the first world war, not germany, as is widely believed

Edit 2: I didnt read his post close enough, I thought U1M2 was from america because i didnt read it closely enough, heheh so, I took the whole thing out of context, forget I said "well said", I change my stance to "medium said"

I dont much care for U1M2's anti-america rant.

But on at least one thing, I agree with him. Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda has no capability of killing every american, or even half. He has no capability or hope of literally destroying America.

And why should they want to? As Anton Levay used to say "The best thing that ever happened to Christianity was the Devil".

Totally correct, I believe that if america is destroyed, we'll do it to ourselves, just my thought on it anyway.

I really don't care much for you caring about my 'rant', I just write what I believe is the truth. If that offends you in anyway, it's your problem not mine.

...and if you read my post carefully, you would know it's not anti american, it's anti american foreign policy as it stands. Well, too bad I don't have more time to waste on trying to explain my views, so you are free to stick to your opinion, just know that I don't care much for that either.

Youre views seemed ok to me, I wouldnt call it anti-american, but I would call it anti american policy, which Im right there on the same page as you (I am an American as well, not all of us are "ugly americans" heheh), I think the problem a lot of americans have is they cant put themselves in another persons shoes, their parents never taught them empathy, except for other americans...it sucks, we would be alot better off if we could have some empathy...

People try, and then fail to negotiate on these issues. And if you haven't noticed, heck what am I saying, since you haven't noticed, the United States does not exactly negotiate with terrorists. You see, we don't see the point of negotiating with people who's goals are to "cause terror and send a powerful message by killing your citizens" as you put it. There is a huge difference between dislike of a state and the enjoyment of their citizens deaths, that's why when you here stories about people "dancing in the streets", or handing out candy to their children when 9/11 happened, you can fairly interpret that they are happy that the Americans have died. Unless you're an idiot living in Turkey (hint hint).



You talk about my egocentric views, but the first thing you mention when talking about countries hating others is countries hating your own? Nobody in the United States wants destruction of everybody that doesn't like them. That's just more propaganda spewed by idiots like yourself. That's why we indeed try diplomacy, like with North Korea, and Iran I don't think everybody who dislikes America wants it destroyed, only the people who make serious action based upon that thought, and kills innocent lives. There are a lot of countries who don't like others, but not everyone of them fly planes into buildings because of it.



Uhm, Men and Women are dying in Iraq because terrorists believe in blowing themselves up on buses and at security checkpoints. If you haven't noticed, most people in Iraq have said that it's actually safer there, well if you've been there at least. Most are friendly towards U.S Soldiers. And where did you get the crap about U.S. soldiers raping underaged girls? Even liberal news media programs haven't run stories like that, and you can always count on them to run the negative stuff the second it hits the wire. Don't start slandering our troops unless you know them.

Oh, and yeah Iraqis are defending their country and their true freedom by participating in openly democratic elections, where they get to choose their leader for once. We're really intruding on their freedom by not allowing an insane dictator to control their population. And exactly how would they have elected this new government WITHOUT US interference? The answer is they wouldn't!



Again, like ever mental incapacitate out there, you're mis-representing my words. I don't think that every person who fights for their own country/belief wishes for destruction of all life on American Soil. The US is there to eradicate Saddam Hussein, which they did succesfully, and install a new Government in its place. While there, the terrorists have all come together to eradicate the US soldiers! Our original goal there was to take Saddam Hussein out of power, find WMD's (admittedly, not the best idea there), and install a new government. In the process, hopefully eliminating whatever funding ties to terrorism Iraq had. Now terrorists are continually entering Iraq to kill more American soldiers!



Don't tell me what I knew and didn't know before 9/11. I knew of Al Jazeera, and yes it did skyrocket in popularity post 9/11, but there were so many other ways that effectively could have broadcast their message, but they instead decided to do it in the most violent way possible.



Why? Because Clinton was a mother dumbass who bent over backwards for the terrorists. This is the same guy that signed a deal with North Korea to GIVE them the technology they are using now to build their nuclear missiles. This is the same guy that had an opportunity to eliminate Osama Bin Laden far before the 9/11 attacks but didn't. This guy had absolutely no backbone, so of course they didn't see the need to send a message. But when Bush actually started getting serious with Foreign Policy, and the US stopped taking bullshit from a bunch of mentally retarded terrorists, they had to do something about it.

Fighting for a difference of beliefs over foreign policy is one thing, but since when did that involve flying planes into freaking buildings? You mentioned it earlier, it's a magical thing called Diplomacy! Do they try it? No, of course not! They take the route that you incorrectly accuse the US for and unprovokedly attack us! Before you start criticizing the US, take a look at the people you are so incorrectly admiring. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in here! The U.S. believes in Democracy, and a world without Terrorism. Terrorists believe in a world without the United States. I guarantee you if it was Turkey and not the United States, you'd be talking from my point of view exactly.



You criticize me for not looking at others viewpoints, yet you act as if you're representing the world's viewpoint? The only viewpoint you're representing is your own twisted one. Unfortunately it is this sick and narrow perspective on the world that causes so much of the problems. I'm looking at many different viewpoints, I've looked from yours, and I can sort of understand what you're saying. But I disagree. Being ignorant doesn't simply mean disagreeing with you, as many on this forum have surely done.



Oh yeah, it's my lazy fat ass that won't do anything. I just got back from Iraq myself! I've fought there, and until you know anything about it, you can shove your ignorant narrow perspective right back up your ass! Maybe once you've gone down there yourself, you'll begin to understand a few things. I know I certainly have.

If anyone is a fan of George R R Martin, he has a little bit to say on this subject.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/

Some fascists actually said security was more important? Obviously there has to be some balance between the two, but I'd certainly not want to live in a society that valued 'security' over freedom. It's not like America is any more secure than it was prior to 9/11 anyway (due to laws). You cant show any real proof that it is.

What User2 said.

Uhm, how about the fact that we've stopped terrorists that were trying to do a 9/11 repeat? Obviously were safer because we missed 9/11, but stopped the recent one (due to help from British and Pakastani intelligence.)

And you can't tell me it's just as easy to smuggle anything onto an airline. Obviously security has beefed up.

Post back after you have read The 9/11 Commission Report. In any case, here's what the current administration's security gives you.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/

The problem before 9/11 was:

1. lack of communication between departments
2. ignorance in some level

I've read the 9/11 Commision Report, but to tell you the truth I'm not exactly impressed with it. To me, it just appears to be another politically charged way of accusing the Government of causing the whole thing. Come on, whenever you allow two political parties to nominate the members of a commitee, you know the outcome is going to be a politically charged, agenda minded response.

Even still, you can't look me in the face and tell me that 9/11 wasn't in part caused by the serious lack in Airport Security. If we had the Security Level in Airports that we have now, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We would have caught them in the act, or we would have intimidated them from ever attempted it.

And I like what the current Administration is giving me. If you haven't noticed, the Current Administration has just stopped another terrorist act from ever happening, due to the wiretapping that you so graciously linked to. The Administration has set a clear message, and that message is that we're prepared. If the terrorists want to try and strike again, we're not going to wait for that to happen. We're going to try and stop you.

Face it, if that wiretapping wasn't in place, and the US intelligence didn't tap that phonecall that (along with British and Pakastani) intelligence capture the terrorsts, we'd have another 9/11 on our hands, and you'd all be criticizing the Bush Administration for not providing enough security.

If that's your perception, then what's the point in electing officials that we count on to represent us inside our borders and overseas? I don't see a Democrat and Republic, a right and left wing ploy in this, The 9/11 "joke" Report.

I agree that not only the US Government is more aware, as also most of all the world's leading countries are conscious to an idea that anything can happen. I'm not going to trade ideas on how to get around security no matter how tough they are. So yea, I can look you in the face, just as I can look Bush in his face and say; "yea, you f***ed up and you might as well stop importing goods and people if you think you'll solve it this way". Now don't get me wrong, I'm for tougher policies. Hell, my whole family lives in Houston. But your administration has it's head up it's ass, the way it is now. Do you even know what America's allies are saying about the administration? Or do you even care?

It's obvious that you either didn't read that entire article, or you just didn't let it soak long enough to comprehend. The article was in fact the current administration's way of abusing it's privileges that was already granted to them since the mid 1990's. You in fact gave a good argument that wiretapping evaded a catastrophe. Has it prevented anything by allowing them back doors to broadband carriers? I'm still waiting for the government to try and find people that post terror articles or the aftermath on websites. Up to now, not one has been reported.

My point is, security through deprivation is no way to win any fight and a great way to loose votes.

I'd like to point out that the "We're more secure now becase there hasnt been a repeat of 9/11" is an example of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, and is therefore a logical falacy.

It is amusing how americans regards the 11.9.01 attacks as the only terrorist attack worth mentioning.

And it is fascinating to see that you actually don't need to do any real attack to scare the hell out of americans.

Ok, for the common of you as obviously most of you consider counterterrorism and security the same (?). Here is an update from US State Department of the status of terrorism around the globe. Of course it is somewhat biased as it is coming from an US agency, but it is well worth to read for anyone interested in the subject.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/

(click on the map to read about the different regions)

I used to know how they feel at one point. I mean Americans have lived and continue to live a comfortable life style that most people outside of the border would never even dream of having. When they experience something that they aren't used to, they panic.

I've lived in the US for 27yrs and decided to work abroad. I've been overseas for over 7yrs now. I've gotten acclimated to watching the local news about the national army getting ambushed by guerilla groups, people getting shot over a 4yr old cell phone, and little quakes ranging from 1 to 3. When my friends from the States come to visit me, they also experience the same thing and think it's the end of the world.

I was over in Spain July 2004, 4 months after the Madrid train bombings. A friend and I were on a train from Barcelona to Pamplona for San Fermin. Every stop along the way to Pamplona had no security, police, army personnel, or video cameras. And to think they should be paranoid. Later that week, we decided to go to Madrid. You'd think they'd have armies in that train station. Nope, we saw a few security guards and that's all.

Sorry I got a bit off topic here. But yea, fear of death and fear of the uncertain takes a while to get used to. So folk will need to get used to it and sometimes get out of that comfort zone and experience something very few Americans experience.

Im from america and I couldnt agree with you more, however, not all americans are scared little people. It really does depend on where you live, america is such a huge country, there are enlightened parts of the country and bottom of the barrel parts of the country, it all depends on where you go (go to the northwest, its the best part ) hehehe.

Of course Americans regard 9/11 as the main terrorist attack, because it is the one that's still on everyone's mind. It's the one that actually succeeded as planned. Previous terror attacks failed, because of one mistake or another, but one that works would obviously instill fear.

Plus, you have to take into account the fact that this wasn't your standard terrorist attack. They didn't use guns, or weapons, they used planes. Almost all Americans have ridden a plane to their destination before, and many use planes every day. When terrorists find ways to use common means of transportation as weapons, it changes the response of it all. It hit really close to home. You end up seeing a lot of people thinking, I could have been riding that plane that day, it could have been me.

I'm not trying to say that America is the only place that receives terrorism around the globe, or that the terrorism here isn't as worse elsewhere. I'm just saying that 9/11 wasn't just your average attack, it was well planned, well coordinated, worked to perfection (almost perfection that is). That's one hell of an attack, considering that they were a plane away from hitting the White House. Killing people is one thing, nearly hitting the center of a Nation's Government is another.



I wouldn't call unafraid people enlightened, more or less I'd call them the opposite. Just because an attack hasn't happened to you, or within a few states of you, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. You may all be laughing and yawning and not giving a damn now about terrorism in New York, or terror threats on the East Coast, but just wait. The West Coast isn't immune from all of this, and there have been reports and warnings for cities like San Francisco and LA to watch out for potential attacks.

I'm not saying that you should all hide in your houses and wait for an iminent attack, but I wouldn't start calling all the people concerned with terrorism unenlightened just because you haven't experienced it. In fact, that almost sounds ignorant... (something I'm apparently experienced at due to my frequent labeling in other threads, lol ) jk

We need a balance. Right now, the U.S. is lacking freedom, and is going overboard with "security" IMO. After visiting several countries in Europe this summer, the lack of freedom in the U.S. became a lot more apparent and obvious to me. I honestly didn't notice it much before leaving the country. Some people may not see it, but we are slowly using our freedoms. Hopefully this trend will change in the near future.

We need enough security where the majority of people feel happy and safe, but not to the point where they feel that they are being harrassed and spied on. Without any security, there would be anarchy and danger, and we don't want to be on this end either.