Ot Synagogue in Turkey blown up

On 11/30/03 7:47 "
posted:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:07:57 -0500, Ellice wrote:

On 11/29/03 6:00 "
posted:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:18:23 -0500, Ellice wrote:

Snipping trying to be brief


Do you mean dormant - as in asleep, in hibernation? Or in some state of
observation and preparedness. Because, if you really mean dormancy, I beg to

I mean, what Pat said originally, that one prepares oneself, knows
what to do should an emergency arise, and then get's on with life.

Totally agreed.

If you are going to urge your government on to restricting your
freedoms (let's face it, without any guarantee that they will actually
apprehend terrorists) then you are a fool and deserve to lose your
freedoms, in which case, the terrorists once more have won.

Yup, I'm really, truly upset about not being able to carry my scissors on an
airplane.

That is not the type of thing I am talking about.

Then I think that you should elaborate if you're going to want discussion.
Or provoke discussion with comments like this. We're not suddenly under
curfews, being restricted to stay in country, etc.

Who said I'm, or anyone here, is urging our government to restrict
our freedoms to any extreme? The government has an obligation to safeguard
its citizenry. Unfortunately, someone will always suffer in these quests for


A little harsh there, aren't you? Or is this the Sheena of "If you don't
agree with me then damn the torpedos, you're a fool and deserve what you
get?"

Pardon ?
I was reacting to your statement about being fools who deserved to lose
their freedoms.
And of course there is no guarantee that paths of action will end with the
desired result (catching terrorists). But, people can try to do what they
think is appropriate - you may not agree. There just aren't any guarantees.


So, let's see, while I think being more careful on entry visa
inspections, and transit security is a good thing, that does restrict some
people's freedom, therefore I'm a fool, and the terrorists have won? Is that
how it works in your view of the world? Sorry to burst your bubble, but
around here, no one I know has been hiding in their households, quivering -
since either the WTC disasters, or the sniper events.

What about the business of duct taping ones windows ? This was not
causing people to panic ? Totally stupid and useless information too.

Isn't that just tiresome, old, news? Of course it wasn't a great idea on the
grand scheme of things. It was darn stupid as a number one thing in the way
it was publicized. If you're going to be blown up, sealed windows don't
help. If you're in a dust cloud of hazardous stuff - they will. Darn. No one
has been talking about duct taping windows for a couple of years.

Sure, during the
sniper events -

Clearly if you lived there, caution was necessary. There was no need
to be running in fear in California though, or even for me here, much
closer to the area.

No. And no one is saying run in fear. But being more aware in general of
surroundings, unusual events is appropriate. Terrorists don't just fly in on
Tuesday and do their thing on Wednesday. It takes time, they assimilate -
sometimes quickly - sometimes over lengthier time periods. So, waiting until
something happens to have some heightened awareness of threats existing is
IMO pretty useless.

Who the heck is dwelling on it? Seems that conversations periodically creep
up. And, in my memory, dear Sheena, you are frequently in the mix of those
conversations - telling us foolish Americans what's wrong with us, and what
we deserve. Or even poor Jim who had the misfortune to say something which
you took to an extreme (personally, I think you enjoy chain-yanking) and
turned into a heated discussion of bigotry evolving from the security and
fear issues. And Dianne telling us that the government is persecuting her
and everything else is just fine. And so on.

You think it is reasonable to suggest that anyone of Muslim faith in
Canada who is perceived to be a fundamentalist Muslim, should have to
prove their innocence to the police ?? So in the interests of
protecting ourselves from a perceived threat we should drop the
innocent until proven guilty legal system? It is alarming to see
today how our government tries to come out with a new act to cover
these security ideas, which always have some restrictions in them that
they could never hope to get passed, until they say "We need to do
this to you because of Terrorism"


No, I don't. And IIRC what Jim wrote was merely pointing out this likely
backlash, that fundamentalists would have to be as "Cesar's wife - above
reproach" . So as to avoid this kind of horror. You were the one who took
his cautionary words, which I saw as just thoughts, to this extreme. I do
think that innocent first is proper. But, unfortunately, there will be
people questioned - some total innocents will be inconvenienced, and
hopefully nothing worse. But, keeping a more vigilant eye may help prevent
additional terror cells from developing or implanting.

Unfortunately, the largist, vocal, published threat to the US (North
American) way of life comes from a distinct group which believes our
existence and way of existence to be wrong, and sinful to be allowed space
on earth. It's a sad extremist belief. Unfortunately there will be less
educated or worldly people that equate all Moslems with the fanatics.

Well, hopefully the government isn't just run by a bunch of bigoted
fascists, and they're trying to find ways to protect your rights and country
without becoming isolationists.


My response was to Diane's blithe statement:
"However, with the exception of the sniper out in the Eastern U.S., and
an occasional "personal" story (murder, pedophilia, robbery, abduction,
etc. etc.), there has been absolutely no reason for any fear of
terrorists here in the U.S. of any sort - healthy or otherwise."

Well it is true! Since the WTC what terrible atrocities have the
Terrorists committed in the USA ? Those other crimes were prevalent

Geez, Sheena. Do you honestly believe that there were just those 11
terrorists here, and all the rest went away? That the organization that
sponsored them is happy with the results, and not planning any further
disruptions? Are we supposed to wait for another huge disaster such as the
WTC and the Pentagon before doing anything? Or is prevention just anathema
to you? Or you just think it's all a myth until somebody dies in front of
you?

long before the WTC. A bigger risk to most people would be dying of
a bullet in the USA. I wish I had kept the stats that someone put on
another ng, that was indeed something to think about as it was so very
random and a high proportion of the victims were children, playing
with a parents gun. Far more dangerous to the average child as one has
no way of knowing whether their friend has a parent with a gun in the
night table.

Well, actually you could know. You could ask. Most states have gun control
laws. There are federal gun control laws The other problems - the right to
choice wars, the fundamentalist-fanatic anythings, drug problems, will still
exist. But, they're being addressed.

The thing with large terror strikes isn't the sheer number of people
affected immediately. It is the concentraion of those people. And how the
effects reach out into the community and society. Hitting the WTC was meant
to strike not just thousands of people, even more thousands affected by the
loss of loved ones, but the heart of the US financial district. When you
think about 5000 (number pulled from air) people being killed in separate
incidents throughout a year - different places, times, families, businesses
- the effect is significantly different than 5000 all at once - whooosh,
gone.

The foible of human nature, jealousy, envy, mental illness, drug addiction,
will continue to plague us and show up in terrible incidents. But, those are
not the same as orchestrated, lengthily thought out acts of terror.

ellice

Well, I guess I'll have to go run around the yard, flapping, like the fool I
must be ;^) :^) :^) :^) :^P

ellice

You take it to the extreme.

Sheena

THANK YOU PAULA ,
You understand it .
mirjam
ght) wrote:

Tell me this doesn't mean that you guys think that all of the terrorist cells
in North America packed up and went home after 9/11? And that there are no
terrorists other than Al Queda?

You're right in the fact that terrorism as most people define it isn't as
prevalent here as it is in other countries.. BUT what would you call Timothy
McVeigh? The people who chose to place bombs outside abortion clinics? The
people who planted the sarin in a food court in a shopping mall? The list goes
on.. and the fact is that there are more domestic terrorist acts in the US than
the few spectacular ones like the Pentagon and WTC attacks.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question: "What does a terrorist look like?"

Before anyone takes this in a way that I don't mean it.. I don't advocate
hiding in our homes and not living our lives. I mean that we all need to be
alert to what's going on around us and take notice when something out of the
ordinary is happening.

Paula H

snip (in the nature of keeping the length of this down)
"However, with the exception of the sniper out in the Eastern U.S., and
an occasional "personal" story (murder, pedophilia, robbery, abduction,
etc. etc.), there has been absolutely no reason for any fear of
terrorists here in the U.S. of any sort - healthy or otherwise."

Well it is true! Since the WTC what terrible atrocities have the
Terrorists committed in the USA ?

snip

Ellice wrote:

Check this out for further definitions of Fear:
http://dict.die.net/fear/

I did, but none of the other "definitions" have anything to do with
"reaction to events of 9/11 and subsequent abnormal anxiety bordering on
paranoia". My Websters included those definitions as well.

As Sheena pointed out, this discussion has to do with "some" people
wanting to use extreme measures to ensure their own personal well being.

I think that "healthy fear" as a colloquial expression means to reapect the
possibility of what might happen. Not panicking. But, using colloquial
expressions leaves us open to semantic misunderstandings.

We need another word. I see and read about "fear", not normal anxiety.
(I don't think "anxiety" is normal, by the way). And our government is
playing on it.

It seems that there is work being done to find a reasonable approach - to
better emergency management, better preparedness. And sure, there was panick
for a while - as many more people suddenly realized the scale of what was
possible - in the negative.

You call John Ashcroft's push for Patriot II a "reasonable" approach?

But I also know that a lot of information wasn't well
shared between agencies battling for power and funds prior to 9/11, and now
some of that has been taken up into Homeland Security.

Isn't that a comforting title for an organization?
The information was shared. It wasn't acted upon. At least by accounts
I have read and heard. Initially, that was the hype used to wrest
control. My own Senator said Homeland Security was needed because
Immigration wasn't doing its job. I responded to him [paraphrasing],
"Oh, so let's not fix it. Let's throw it out and make it a new
bureaucratic mess with more money?"

I'm willing to admit that we might have needed a totally new
organization. I don't have all the facts. But couldn't we call it
something else? And couldn't we put someone in charge with some
experience?

By the way: as long as they can keep the bulk of the citizens with
their minds on Iraq and possible terrorist attacks on the U.S., the more
they can get away with behind the scenes. Nobody notices. They're too
busy worrying about the next Al Queda blitz. I hear it on the radio all
the time, and I read it in editorials.

There is better
information sharing, and coordination. Some local areas are doing more to
work with their states, regions in preparedness. Being prepared doesn't mean
panick. But, people suddenly realized that the US was way behind the curve
on that front, and so the result is running so fast to just catch up. And
that involves stumbling along the way. There are people who feel that the
cost of stumbling a bit is far less than the cost of hesitating. It's a
thought.

Tom Ridge doesn't have a clue, and he was put in control. Cities are
screaming. Zurich, Ohio gets $85,000 worth of emergency equipment
(nothing of terrorist value in Zurich) while Los Angeles goes without.
Yep. Things are just buzzing right along.

It just seems to me that anything that someone in this administration says -
you will assume to be hype. Maybe I'm wrong. It's my perception. We can all
do something to help with emergency preparedness - most of us don't, but...

Well, we can build bomb shelters like some did in the 1950's. We can
stock a month's worth of food. Water has to be constantly replenished
in storage. But none of that will help us with a biological or chemical
weapon.

Should I purchase a gas mask?

I don't call lies "hype". A lie is a lie. I fully support the notion
of fighting against terrorists. I fully support every single soldier
fighting "over there". They didn't ask for this mess. They have my
love and concern, and I hope they succeed and that their children and
grandchildren won't be there. We can't just "leave". That's
reprehensible. But we DO have to find a different solution. We've just
about ticked everybody off that we could count on. And those we thought
we could are waffling. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we
set out to deceive.

Imagine what we could have done with the $87,000,000,000 we're spending
in Iraq next year. Lots of new "operatives", plenty of equipment,
vaccines, research, scientists, civil defense teams, language
specialists, citizen awareness programs in higher education . . . it's
an endless list.

A pity, cutting Veterans benefits. Not giving raises to soldiers.
Making a mockery of Medicare. Giving deals to "certain" corporations.
Appointing extreme right-wing judges. Trying to dismantle social
security. Raising balloons about going back to a "draft". Giving tax
cuts to the richest Americans. Another endless list. Going back 30 years.

Dianne

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:40:25 -0400, wrote:

there was the other one
whose name escapes me, ...give me liberty or give me death.
Patrick Henry.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

And it might be a surprise to you Dianne
but opposite to what you think and Sheena pointed out
As Sheena pointed out, this discussion has to do with "some" people
wanting to use extreme measures to ensure their own personal well being.
There are also people who really THINK , weighting amny more facts
[global] than you and who do the measures to ensure that YOU and yours
will survive ,,,, the whole discussion about Fear and it`s
deffinitions, has no relevance here at all ,.
I advice to take your car, not check the air in the tyres, drive
wherever you want on the road , don`t pay attention to those red
annoying lights, Travel As HARD and quick as you want ,,,, This is
what you propose in regard to the NEW circumstances of life .
Yes as Sheena pointed out , not all measures are safe , and some
terrorists inflitrate through the safety filters , still we mangar to
minimalize ,the dammage !!!
maybe you should use Watchfulness , alertness as terminology .
mirjam

On 11/30/03 6:40 "
posted:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:41:32 -0500, Ellice wrote:

Then I think that you should elaborate if you're going to want discussion.
Or provoke discussion with comments like this. We're not suddenly under
curfews, being restricted to stay in country, etc.

That would not exactly be true for some people. I imagine that there
are ex Syrians who are now Canadian or American nationals who are
staying right where they are, I would too in their circumstances. It
has become perilous to travel.

But their choosing not to travel, if they are now US or Canadian citizens is
their own - based on fear of retribution, or problems with their original
country of citizenship. As someone else pointed out, many countries do not
actually allow you to denounce citizenship - hence if you return, you can be
put into military service, taxed, detained, etc. In the US, the Dept of
State issues warnings to travellers, to be aware of potentially dangerous
places for US citizens to travel. It is only in extreme cases when travel is
forbidden to that place (e.g. US to Cuba).


Who said I'm, or anyone here, is urging our government to restrict
our freedoms to any extreme? The government has an obligation to safeguard
its citizenry. Unfortunately, someone will always suffer in these quests
for

But it is being done. Certainly there is Bill C 120 (I think that is
the right number but can't swear to it) that would have Canadians
having to carry an Identity Card at all times. I have heard similar
ideas put forth in the States for security reasons. The security
reasons, being preventing another WTC.

Carrying an ID card, ok - well, since we're melting pot societies, you don't
want to be able to judge someone's citizenship based on looks, so having an
ID isn't that outlandish. It is kind of a throwback to 100 years ago when
people needed their papers to move about. OTOH, I believe a lot of other
countries do have national Ids of some sort - as opposed to just a Driver's
License. It hardly seems a major burden. People here with permanent
residence are required to carry their "green card" . We don't have to carry
passports here, as the only contiquous borders are Canada and Mexico, and
passports aren't necessary for border crossings (though a good idea).

Pardon ?
I was reacting to your statement about being fools who deserved to lose
their freedoms.

Your own man Benjamin Franklin had a sage comment on those not
prepared to stand up for their liberties and there was the other one
whose name escapes me, ...give me liberty or give me death.

Sure, but neither of us are Benjamin Franklin, or Patrick Henry. And I
personally believe that not everyone thinks so well for themselves, or is
able to stand up for themselves. Many people are easily swayed by who yells
the loudest - be they liberal or conservative. Or easily frightened. Or
watch TV and read tabloids, or think (if you call it that) that everything
published must be true. Those people, in my mind, are deserving of some
protection as well. Unless you're trying to purposefully harm innocents -
just being foolish, foolhardy - well, in my mind doesn't put you in the
"deserve what you get". It's not easy to foretell the results of actions.
Many actions meant for the greater good may not turn out that way, and some
will.

We're no longer a little country in which every person is needed to actively
help in establishing our independence and system of governance. What you
said, essentially sounded like "if you don't agree with me, then you're a
fool and you deserve to loose your rights"

And of course there is no guarantee that paths of action will end with the
desired result (catching terrorists). But, people can try to do what they
think is appropriate - you may not agree. There just aren't any guarantees.

Well sorry, but I see both governments running around, after the fact,
trying to institute systems that will never catch terrorists but will
severely hamper the freedoms of blameless people. Can you tell me
that clever terrorists will not have their paperwork etc. in perfect
order when and if they come to do their deeds ? They will you know,
in the interim who will be the people who get snowed under by it all ?

Well, let's see - can you tell me that you know all the inner workings of
all the programs underway designed to gather, assess and address information
about terrorist organizations? I am sure that there are programs being
spoken about in public that will never happen, that won't work for their
desired effect, or that may seem stupid to you. I am equally sure that there
are programs being run that are indeed addressed at the terrorism problem -
in viable ways. It's an amazing thing - sometimes the more splashy (not
necessarily effective) programs will help in getting resources allocated to
the less splashy, more effective programs. I can tell you that there are
indeed people working to be able to intercept, recognize the clever
terrorist paperwork.

So, let's see, while I think being more careful on entry visa
inspections, and transit security is a good thing, that does restrict some
people's freedom, therefore I'm a fool, and the terrorists have won? Is
that
how it works in your view of the world?

I thought better of you than that Ellice - that was not at all what I
said.

Sorry, hey, I told you I've been ill for a few days - no wine, just
antibiotics ;^) But that is what came across to me. Perhaps put in extreme
language - but, then again, you use that extreme reaction, as well.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but
around here, no one I know has been hiding in their households, quivering -
since either the WTC disasters, or the sniper events.

What about the business of duct taping ones windows ? This was not
causing people to panic ? Totally stupid and useless information too.

Isn't that just tiresome, old, news?

It was a sample that jumps to mind of over reaction. There have been
others. In actual fact things like not taking ones scissors on a
flight are fairly rational but then are weighed off against my
daughter who had to (with four other women) remove their underwired
bras at Newark before proceeding to Dallas and place them in bags!

I understand it was a sample. But, you represent this as if there has been
no learning curve or progress from the extreme reactions of immediate
post-9/11 to today. And that's not exactly the case - so... BTW, when did
this ludicrous bra incident occur? To be fair would be to recognize that
the security measures at this time seem more rational, and reasonably
applied than 2 years ago. To not recognize any development in the process
detracts from the validity of your own arguments, and makes discussion
appear emotional and fanatic, out of perspective rather than reasoned.

*snip*

Seems to me Dianne mentioned a specific instance where she must have
felt persecuted but I suppose she is not entitled to do so.

Of course she is entitled to her feelings. But it seems a shame to feel
persecuted when you're not. And I believe in the needle in an opened package
instance, several people pointed that out. Dianne has her reasons. She's
entitled.

No, I don't. And IIRC what Jim wrote was merely pointing out this likely
backlash, that fundamentalists would have to be as "Cesar's wife - above
reproach" .

Why should they be?
I can't decide if you're being purposely argumentative about this, or you
honestly don't see the possibility that the idea is essentially "due to
human nature, people will be suspicious of these fundamentalists because
they're of the religious group (minority in Canada) which most associate
with the middle Eastern Terrorist" . I thought he was pointing out a
fall-out of the situation. Not a personal bigotry. It seems to me that
you've just had the extreme reaction to what he said, as a direct "those
people better behave or they're out of here" kind of bigoted threat.

Are you above reproach ? Are you quite sure you
have done nothing that would call attention to yourself if put under
some FBI light ? I know I could not pass muster, I was already
turned down for a US Visa back in the 50s. That sounds bad until you
know the reason was that at boarding school in the UK we ran mock
elections and I stood as the Communist - And furthermore, I will
tell you this because even then it shows how stupid security can be,
my father remarked at dinner to the US Ambassador that the minions had
turned me down for a visa and it was granted to me the very next day.

A - not above reproach. Don't know too many up for sainthood in my personal
acquaintanceship. Absolutely sure that I have been thru the FBI (and others)
light more ways, more times than you will ever know - short of some highly
unlikely personal bonding and lots of wine. And even then some things about
ones life, work, etc - just stay where they are. LOL- I worked for years in
very specialized areas, with very specialized accesses. I quaked for 6
months waiting for my first permanent security clearance. I had some truly
wild * political times in high school & undergraduate school. In this day
and age, at least the security people could put some perspective on it,
expecting that people in my age group had some experience with drugs, etc.

I know some truly hard to talk with, cannot think outside the box at all
security folks. And I know some who can think for themselves. What happened
to you in the 50s, well - jeez - it was the 50s - McCarthy, Hoover and
paranoia. Nice that your family was connected enough to get personal
attention - rather than going thru a formal process to revisit.

You are naive if that is what you think. Perhaps you did not read
his post of some days earlier, drawing attention to Muslim women
wearing the veil and that it should not be allowed. I nearly asked
him at the time how he would feel if tomorrow we said that Christian
women must not be allowed to kneel in church as an expression of their
faith.

No, obviously I didn't. I think you'd have to ask him more if Christians
should be stopped from wearing crosses or crucifix, devout Jews from wearing
head-coverings, etc.

So as to avoid this kind of horror. You were the one who took
his cautionary words, which I saw as just thoughts, to this extreme. I do
think that innocent first is proper. But, unfortunately, there will be
people questioned - some total innocents will be inconvenienced, and
hopefully nothing worse. But, keeping a more vigilant eye may help prevnt
additional terror cells from developing or implanting.

You might like to see it that way. However, I happen to see it
another way, which I am entitled to do and I definitely see a danger
in allowing governments to rush in acts, bills, whatever, that curtail
freedoms previously taken for granted.

Of course there is a danger. And fortunately, there seems to be some slowing
down of silly legislation. There is more review and debate happening as
these bills are addressed for consideration.

Unfortunately, the largist, vocal, published threat to the US (North
American) way of life comes from a distinct group which believes our
existence and way of existence to be wrong, and sinful to be allowed space
on earth. It's a sad extremist belief. Unfortunately there will be less
educated or worldly people that equate all Moslems with the fanatics.

And that would make it right ?
Where did I say that it's right? I just said that unfortuanately it will
happen. The same as there are people who deny the Holocaust, or still think
Jews have horns. Heck, in the mid-70s when I was in undergraduate school, a
girlfriend of one of my frat brothers saw me wearing a star of David on a
chain. She asked what it was, thought it was pretty. I told her. She'd never
heard of a Star of David. I then said it was a Jewish symbol. She literally
stopped, dropped the star, took a deep breath, and then shouted - "You're a
JEW - OH MY - YOU'RE A JEW???" Which continued into her babbling about "You
don't look like a Jew - I never met a Jew before...." I couldn't resist -
"Are you looking for my horns?" as I reached up into my hair. FWIW, I had at
the time light auburn/dark blonde hair & very light green eyes, & freckles.
Well, still have all but the hair is more red now. That poor girl from
South Georgia couldn't get over it.
I accept that people aren't all warm, open, worldly, fair-thinking. It just
is. Humans aren't all that nice on the whole. As individuals, sure.

Well, hopefully the government isn't just run by a bunch of bigoted
fascists, and they're trying to find ways to protect your rights and country
without becoming isolationists.

Canada has never pursued an isolationist policy thank heavens. Our
problem lies mostly with the US telling us that we must do A, B and C.

Well, Canada as part of the British Commonwealth did follow along with
British politics - historically. And you don't think of the issues in Quebec
as Canadian problems - or is it just the crazy French Canadians who want
their separation and isolation?

terrorists here, and all the rest went away? That the organization
that
sponsored them is happy with the results, and not planning any further
disruptions? Are we supposed to wait for another huge disaster such as the
WTC and the Pentagon before doing anything? Or is prevention just anathema
to you? Or you just think it's all a myth until somebody dies in front of
you?

If you could be rational about it you would understand that there are
some things that really cannot be prepared for in advance. You can
prepare all you want for another WTC but that is not what the next
thing will be. The next thing might be an attack on the public water
supply, (no I am not paranoid about water, just trying to pick an
example at random) and with the best will in the world, you can never
be totally prepared. If it's going to happen, it will. How one

Ah, the crux of the issue. First, I am rational about it. What you and I
believe are evidently different approaches. I'm not in a panic, not in the
least. Don't actually know anyone personally who is.

Evidently you are not a believer in preventative strategies. What I get from
this is your belief that no one will actually be able to prevent a terrorist
attack - that whatever is being done won't work, the terrorists organizatons
are smart enough to sidestep being prevented from executing their mission.
You believe that the best course is prepared reaction. I think that you may
not be rational in your thinking if you believe that is enough. For some
things, there just doesn't exist a good, less than disastrous, reaction
scenario.

reacts to the event is crucial. So some good training of emergency
forces and systems, with plenty of bucks poured in, would make a lot
of sense. I would be willing to bet though, that all the running
around in Washington (as in Ottawa) concentrates on Think Tanks, and
civil servant bureaucracy which does nothing to train people for the
moment when it happens.

Absolutely, good training of emergency responders, etc makes sense. I am
indeed LOL at what you must think goes on in Think Tanks. Evidently your
picture of the civil service bureaucracy is based on "Yes, Minister" . Of
course there are people in government service who don't do much -
fortunately those holdovers that came in the 60s are fewer and fewer as time
goes on. Heck, I worked with "Think Tank" guys on the 1st WTC bombing. I its
aftermath. Yup, there are think tanks that just work on policies, and make
recommendations to politicians. But there are many people, in many
organizations working on programs designed to have better emergency
preparedness. Virginia itself has already had some amazing improvement in
training of Emergency Services personnel, and development of response
systems, etc.

So if one is not working out good emergency response efforts, there is
little that will be effective next time round. I am sure there will
be a next time, the situation in Iraq ensures there will be. All
that being so - live life - be glad you have it, so many in the WTC
are without it now and quit seeing a terrorist under every bed.

I'm not sure if you're lecturing me to quit seeing terrorists under every
bed - if so, it's completely inappropriate and unnecessary. But, I share
this sentiment in general.

Well, actually you could know. You could ask. Most states have gun control
laws. There are federal gun control laws

Now come on Ellice ! Are you trying to say guns are under control in
the States ? No Saturday Night Specials etc.?

No. But, if you want to know if your kids' friends' parents have guns, you
can ask. Are guns under control in Canada? In Toronto? At least there is
legislation, and places doing things to address the gun problems.

The thing with large terror strikes isn't the sheer number of people
affected immediately. It is the concentraion of those people. And how the
effects reach out into the community and society. Hitting the WTC was meant
to strike not just thousands of people, even more thousands affected by the
loss of loved ones, but the heart of the US financial district.

aaah! The dollar enters the picture!

Of course. If you want to destroy a way of life, you strike at the economy
of that way. So?

When you
think about 5000 (number pulled from air) people being killed in separate
incidents throughout a year - different places, times, families, businesses
- the effect is significantly different than 5000 all at once - whooosh,
gone.

I somehow think though that each of the individuals thought they were
equally important.

Sure, each of the individuals directly affected did. But, in the case of a
mass event, the affect upon those not directly affected is much greater.
When you read a newspaper and see that there were 2 car accidents and 1
shooting, in your town, then maybe on the news something in the state
capital, and so on - people think - oh, how sad, too bad - and go on. If
they're not directly affected. If they see instead - 2 school buses hit a
train, and 49 kids and 85 commuters were injured - their reaction is much
stronger. And if 5000 people are hurt - either the WTC, or an earthquake -
the effect now on those not directly involved is much stronger. Somehow
that mass of people hurt, killed, devastated in some way will strike chords
in those away from direct involvement. That's all I'm saying. It's not
something which can easily just be put in the back with all the other news
and reckonings of the day. That is what happens with the normal, daily, good
news, bad news - bad things happen, you think how sad for them - and go on.
But, when it is a massive concentration of a "bad thing" - it seems to
motivate people into a more palpable, emotional response. Something about
the all at once quality, the scale of it.


The foible of human nature, jealousy, envy, mental illness, drug addiction,
will continue to plague us and show up in terrible incidents. But, those are
not the same as orchestrated, lengthily thought out acts of terror.

But the fact remains that most of us here are far more likely to die
as a result of one of those than an act of terror. Like anything
else, a sense of proportion is required. Allowing governments to
restrict our freedoms, virtually handing them over on a plate without
a fight for fear of a remote chance is foolhardy. When did you ever
trust yourself to the government ??

The dilemma of democracy. Is anarchy better? I have no problem speaking up,
and doing what I can. I could do more. I don't have the energy for it, any
more. Don't get me started on people are sheep, and need to be cared for.
It's a conundrum - if people wish to live shallow lives concerned about
nothing more than the size of their TV, and time off to drink beer and watch
footbal - then who am I to say they're wrong? We just don't live in a nice
world where everyone wants to contribute to the greater good - and do what
they're good at - make art, grow food, spin wool, invent gadgets - all for
trade and equality. Some places have nice roads, lots of schools, and big
shopping malls - some don't - and some people just don't like others' way of
life.

I don't think restricting all our freedoms is the way to go. Vigilance of
government decisions is important, necessary. OTOH, I just cannot take the
position that everyone in the government is there for the simple purpose of
ego gratification and to restrict every one else. I think that you look at
government actions starting from the negative, worst case assumption, and I
try to look from the positive, benefit of the doubt assumption. It's easier
to be negative, and certainly popular. I personally just can't do it. But
that doesn't mean I'm a fool unable to discern when governmental agencies,
or representatives are doing stupid, short-sighted things. Believe me, I've
had to sit thru educating some not too bright staffers. OTOH, I've know some
really intelligent, seemingly well-balanced, thinking people who do work in
the governemnt.

Hopefully, we'll all just live long happy lives and that's that. Time for a
pill.
ellice

Sheena !
While Ellice wrote a very clear letter, which shows that she is well
read on the subject of preventing terror/aggression, you seem to talk
from your feelings , and natural unwilling to acknowledge that life is
less nice than you hoped for.
It is very natural to want to have "freedom" 'right to be and Do what
YOU want etc... yet you willingly allow your country to make laws , to
restrict weapons, to make Tv companies put a symbol on films to
indicate if kids can see it or not, To tell tobacco companies print a
warning on the cigaret packs to say it migh harm the health of the
smoker.
For the sake of this argument, try to see Terror as a sort of illness,
that alas can`t be stopped tottaly , but taking preventitive measures
, help to minimalize dammages, and maybe some people will
not infected at all.
That is my point too - freedom is being thrown out with the bath water
to no avail. I see Mirjam carolling that Israel knows better - but
how come after all their restrictions it is so bad there?
Your Freedom has already been taken away from you, not by your
government , but by the powers that terrorize the world , and who
declared war on the `Free` world.
I never carolled that Israel knows better , i say that experience
helps , to understand a lot about the issue, about how it happens and
how it affects people , and Yes also about Preventive measures, The
last year many security people prevented the terrorists from entering
Shopping malls , train stations , busses etc,,,, sometimes giving
their lives for it , But Many others were saved . I never said it was
bad here , i said it wasn`t easy.
Ps in all the debate about 'Fear" nobody spoke about calculated risks
which is also a factor one has to adjust to , in this day and age.
mirjam

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:40:04 -0400, wrote:

No. But, if you want to know if your kids' friends' parents have guns, you
can ask. Are guns under control in Canada? In Toronto? At least there is
legislation, and places doing things to address the gun problems.

Guns are pretty much under control. Most guns in Canada are owned by
people like my son-in-law who hunts. His guns have trigger guards,
are locked in a metal container which is bolted to the wall. As
required by law. He has had to pass a test to show he understands
exactly how the gun works, how far bullets might travel etc.

Unfortunately we have more trouble controlling the illegal guns which
are purchased across the border at those huge gun fairs.
The illegally gained and used guns are always the issue. Gun control
"laws" don't work, because they don't control the outlaws.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

So are laws against breaking anf entering , so maybe you suggest
governments should make it lawful ?
mirjam
....On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:12:26 GMT, Darla

Oh of course there`s a "healthy fear" - fear with knowledge - fear at of
the might of the law if you do wrong, fear of death if you`re careless
stepping out into the street, or of sickness if you don`t take precautions
to stay healthy. It`s what often keeps us alive. Fear of the wrath of God
if you sin (if you happen to be a believer, which I`m not) - fear of "What
goes around comes around" if you`re superstitious. Those are healthy,
common-sense fears - not the kind that keep you permanently paralised and
morbidly looking for death or disaster around every corner!

Pat P.

"Ellice" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/03 9:52 AM,"Dianne Lewandowski"
posted:

Ellice wrote:

And who here is saying run around being fearful? Either you and Dianne
are
purposefully taking the colloquial phrase "healthy fear" to an
extreme - or
you honestly misunderstand that usage.

Fear: The instinctive emotion aroused by impending or seeming danger,
pain or evil. Websters.

Check this out for further definitions of Fear:
http://dict.die.net/fear/

There is no such thing as a "healthy dose" of fear. What we need is
awareness and preparedness to the extent possible. That puts us more in
control of our lives. What we're often doing in the U.S. is knee-jerking
- an instinctive reaction, rather than a reasoned approach. Our
leadership is "surviving" on this fearful reaction, and using it in many
ways.

Fear is the wrong word for what we in the U.S. need. We need learned
education, not hype. I don't care what side of the central fence you
live on. I don't want hype from either the left or the right.

I think that "healthy fear" as a colloquial expression means to reapect
the
possibility of what might happen. Not panicking. But, using colloquial
expressions leaves us open to semantic misunderstandings.

It seems that there is work being done to find a reasonable approach - to
better emergency management, better preparedness. And sure, there was
panick
for a while - as many more people suddenly realized the scale of what was
possible - in the negative. There will always be people that are
panicking
about life, and some who just ignore it all, in the Que sera', sera' mode.

You don't like some of the political manuvering that has come along with
this. I don't either. But I also know that a lot of information wasn't
well
shared between agencies battling for power and funds prior to 9/11, and
now
some of that has been taken up into Homeland Security. There is better
information sharing, and coordination. Some local areas are doing more to
work with their states, regions in preparedness. Being prepared doesn't
mean
panick. But, people suddenly realized that the US was way behind the curve
on that front, and so the result is running so fast to just catch up. And
that involves stumbling along the way. There are people who feel that the
cost of stumbling a bit is far less than the cost of hesitating. It's a
thought.

It just seems to me that anything that someone in this administration
says -
you will assume to be hype. Maybe I'm wrong. It's my perception. We can
all
do something to help with emergency preparedness - most of us don't,
but...

Anyhow, I haven't seen anyone panicking around here in quite some time -
so,
I hope that's good.

ellice