Comments on: Why the War on Terror is a Dumb Idea http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/1863 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Tracy http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/1863/comment-page-1#comment-53693 Tracy Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:37:53 +0000 http://www.steveersinghaus.com/?p=1863#comment-53693 The Random House Dict. claims war to be mainly a conflict but usually including weapons. Our weapon of choice these days seems to be intimidation = terrorism. So, it is war, but modernized and stylized to fit society. The Random House Dict. claims war to be mainly a conflict but usually including weapons. Our weapon of choice these days seems to be intimidation = terrorism. So, it is war, but modernized and stylized to fit society.

]]> By: Scott http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/1863/comment-page-1#comment-53689 Scott Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:33:28 +0000 http://www.steveersinghaus.com/?p=1863#comment-53689 If this incident (prolonged time spent in a bathroom and verbal abuse) happened in a less tense environment, like a restaurant, or a mall, perhaps the idea of terrorism would never have surfaced. It seems like the airplane (the idea of flight alone gets many people on edge) environment is incredibly rigid, and even the slightest aberration is treated as potential catastrophe. It is certainly ridiculous though, that every individual's luggage was checked on the airport runway because one man behaved strangely. This action forces me to agree that the war on terror is a "dumb idea". How are security scans going to stop ideology? They won't! The 9/11 hijackers were armed only with box cutters, according to the official story, and executed one of the most precise military attacks in history. (Piloting a 747 as a missile is no easy task, from what I've been told by a friend who is a commercial airline pilot) Imho, the new regulations put in place by the FAA will only discourage travel for Americans and those flying to America. No bathroom, reclining, or movment in the aisle 1 hour before landing?! It seems that the definition of war has been changed to encompass natural states of mind, and with it the definition of "traveler" has been changed to "potential national security threat". If this incident (prolonged time spent in a bathroom and verbal abuse) happened in a less tense environment, like a restaurant, or a mall, perhaps the idea of terrorism would never have surfaced. It seems like the airplane (the idea of flight alone gets many people on edge) environment is incredibly rigid, and even the slightest aberration is treated as potential catastrophe. It is certainly ridiculous though, that every individual’s luggage was checked on the airport runway because one man behaved strangely. This action forces me to agree that the war on terror is a “dumb idea”. How are security scans going to stop ideology? They won’t! The 9/11 hijackers were armed only with box cutters, according to the official story, and executed one of the most precise military attacks in history. (Piloting a 747 as a missile is no easy task, from what I’ve been told by a friend who is a commercial airline pilot)

Imho, the new regulations put in place by the FAA will only discourage travel for Americans and those flying to America. No bathroom, reclining, or movment in the aisle 1 hour before landing?! It seems that the definition of war has been changed to encompass natural states of mind, and with it the definition of “traveler” has been changed to “potential national security threat”.

]]> By: gibb http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/1863/comment-page-1#comment-53450 gibb Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:32:14 +0000 http://www.steveersinghaus.com/?p=1863#comment-53450 But are you saying that because things cannot be foreseen but are always simmering beneath the surface that we not take precautions when we're reminded of a vulnerability? It would seem to me that very often copycat acts follow the random (but planned) legitimate threat. In a case like this, where the real Christmas Day Danger was passed along without being caught, isn't it human nature (and smart?) to follow the once burned, twice burned concept? Strange how once again LeGuin's Omelas comes to mind; the unsettling of many versus the suffering of the individual. But are you saying that because things cannot be foreseen but are always simmering beneath the surface that we not take precautions when we’re reminded of a vulnerability? It would seem to me that very often copycat acts follow the random (but planned) legitimate threat. In a case like this, where the real Christmas Day Danger was passed along without being caught, isn’t it human nature (and smart?) to follow the once burned, twice burned concept?

Strange how once again LeGuin’s Omelas comes to mind; the unsettling of many versus the suffering of the individual.

]]>