Governments have always used highly emotional issues to control their citizens. Religion works quite well, as does nationalism.

Probably the most effective "Hot Button" issue to control subjugates is fear. This particular method has been cranked quite effectively by the current administration. They would have you believe that without their continued barrage of (in my opinion unconstitutional) edicts, policies, and "[Presidential Directives]", the Big Bad Terrorist will eat your babies.

Pay special attention to that link on "Presidential Directive". Read it before you go any further. It'll chill you to the bone.

This was all brought into crystal-clear focus by the actions of the Man Himself in a 2006 interview with Matt Lauer that I covered [earlier], in which the Leader of the Free World asks Matt if he wants terrorists to get his children.

Of course we don't want to be killed by cowards with nailbombs. There's no glory in that. There's not even much glory in shooting a sorry bastard like that, as the mess in Iraq has demonstrated quite clearly.

But is it possible that all of this scary rhetoric not only exaggerates the "Terror Threat", but is actually nearly all fabricated to begin with?

As the perpetrators of several busted "terror cells" are being brought to court over their actions, the flimsiness of the charges are being brought to light. One wonders if one of the reasons Bush fought so strongly to have domestic terrorists classified as "enemy combatants" to be tried in military courts was to potentially hide the sham.

From the excellent article ("Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot") on Bruce Schneier's schneier.com:







I can't agree more with Bruce's analysis.

One would assume that the news agencies would call the adminstration to task on such scaremongering...wait, what am I saying?

This is borne out in the hundreds (if not thousands) of stories about suspicious characters, or "possible" terror plans drummed up by the media. Stories like the positively laughable scheme dreamt up by The Guardian
that involved stitching together thousands of bits of DNA to recreate smallpox. (I savaged the article back in 2006 [here]).

If you need a more recent example, how about a [story] just run by the BBC?

It covers the sentencing of seven men caught in "Operation Rhyme" before they had the chance to carry out their dastardly deeds.
Dastardly deeds that supposedly included blowing up a subway, making a dirty bomb, and building a limo car bomb.

To prove the dastardlyness of the plans to the public, the government-controlled BBC released photographs of the terrorists lair that included "The Hazardous Chemicals Handbook" (hey, I have a copy!), a computer covered with CDs (he was probably a pirate too...burn him!), a list of radioactive isotopes (all of the relevant information of which the BBC helpfully blacked out), and horror of horrors, a counterfeit library card.

Gee, with all that, they could have built a 500megaton nuclear bomb and the ICBM on which to blast us with it.

Also included in the "terrorists" (a label with which I am reluctant to apply, given the fact that they didn't get around to doing much "terror") chicken scratches was notes on isolating radiological material from smoke detectors.

The problem with this, as so clearly pointed out by the antiscaremonger [Dick Destiny] is that one would need about 10 million smoke detectors to approach what would be generally accepted as a dangerous device. That's a lot of smoke detectors, and more money than even a very wealthy terrorist would have access to.

Of course, telling people that the vast majority of terrorists are nothing more than uneducated, poorly-trained religious zealots won't sell a lot of papers. It is in the media's best interest (as well as our power-hungry government) to keep you frightened and ignorant of the truth.

9-11, in the broad scheme of things, was only brilliant in how simple it was. It highlighted several flaws in our security system, but forcibly brought us to an awareance that many people throughout the world already knew: terrorism is real, and yet can be dealt with.

Terrorists aren't some godlike masterminds of chemistry, biology, or physics. The "educational" materials of their trade are actually translated version of western texts like the "[Anarchists Cookbook]". Texts like these have been known for years to be more often wrong than right, and even when right, are almost always ineffective or more dangerous to the mixer than the target. (Dick Destiny covers the history of these textbooks quite well on his blog.)

The fact that we haven't had a 9-11 since, well, 9-11 isn't because we have such amazingly capable DHS (hah hah, it's funny to even put "capable" and "DHS" in the same sentence). As a matter of fact, in a recent [study] it was shown that:

• Investigators carried knives past screeners in more than 70% of tests.


• Screeners failed to spot guns in 30% of tests.


• Screeners failed to detect simulated explosive devices in 60% of tests.


• Overall, screeners failed to stop prohibited items in 48% of tests.


• Investigators either secretly boarded an aircraft or gained access to the airport tarmac in 48% of tests.

One might argue that the reason they're so incompetent is because they're [too busy] taking away infant's sippy cups and yelling at moms.

It's absolutely impossible to have a perfectly secure nation. But just like people want drugs without side effects, they want to be secure without being confined.
The most disappointing thing to me is how willing Americans are to trade away freedom for a little safety. I say it should be the other way round.