and you'll receive our popular
newsletter with latest news,
videos, commentary & more.
Help Us Spread The Word!
HELP US GO VIRAL!!!!
We no longer have the
luxury of time.
Guest Users: 8
Please Support Us With A Purchase
We have no control over
what ads google displays
Please Support Us With A Purchase
Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism
May 19, 2014
McClatchy reported in 2010:
There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.
The March, 2011, Harper‘s Index noted:
Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.
Indeed, the leading cause of deaths for Americans traveling abroad is not terrorism, or murder … or even crime of any type.
It’s car crashes.
“If You Are Scared, [the Terrorists] Win. If You Refuse To Be Scared, They Lose”
January 21, 2014
Northwestern professor Peter Ludlow writes in the New York Times:
Philosophers have long noted the utility of fear to the state. Machiavelli notoriously argued that a good leader should induce fear in the populace in order to control the rabble.
Hobbes in “The Leviathan” argued that fear effectively motivates the creation of a social contract in which citizens cede their freedoms to the sovereign. The people understandably want to be safe from harm. The ruler imposes security and order in exchange for the surrender of certain public freedoms. As Hobbes saw it, there was no other way: Humans, left without a strong sovereign leader controlling their actions, would degenerate into mob rule. It is the fear of this state of nature — not of the sovereign per se, but of a world without the order the sovereign can impose — that leads us to form the social contract and surrender at least part of our freedom.
In addition to Machiavelli and Hobbes, University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss and German philosopher Carl Schmitt espoused the same views:
Leo Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of recent American administrations. Indeed, many of the main neocon players – including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky – were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years.
What did Strauss teach?
Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers such as Carl Schmitt and of Machiavelli (more on Schmitt later).
Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:
A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.
(the quote is by one of Strauss’ main biographers).
Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver’s Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:
“When Lilliput [the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.” (this quote also from the same biographer)
Moreover, Strauss said:
Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns.
So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one’s own soil to one’s own people — of “pissing” on one’s own people, to use his Gulliver’s travel analogy. And he advocated that government’s should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally “not know” that Rome is burning. He advocated messing with one’s own people in order to save them from some artificial “catastrophe”. In other words, he proposed using deceit in order to demonize an adversary and artificially turn him into a dangerous enemy.
April 28, 2013
We’ve previously noted – based upon older figures – that:
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
But we wanted to look at more recent statistics.
The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.
By Saman Mohammadi
Aug 12, 2012
“The failure to investigate 9/11 has bankrupted America financially and morally, and has allowed us to stand idly by while our liberty has been destroyed.” – Washington’s Blog, “The Failure to Investigate 9/11 Has Bankrupted America.”
“Freedom from fear” could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights.” - Dag Hammarskjöld, a Swedish diplomat, the second United Nations Secretary-General, and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
“Terror closes the ears of the mind.” – Roman historian and statesman Sallust.
Can an entire culture, country, and civilization go mad? The answer is hell yes.
The madness of Israel and Western civilization in the 21st century is a fact.
The CIA/Mossad-orchestrated 9/11 false flag events and the illegal wars against the innocent countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Iran are proof that USrael is not a rational state actor in international relations. USrael’s Middle East policy is driven by paranoid delusions, exaggerated threats, fallacies, and illogical goals.
But this article is not about the intellectual, political, and moral failures of government leaders in Israel and the United States. It is about the mass brain disease called, “Terrorism Anxiety Disorder.”
II. What is Terrorism Anxiety Disorder?
Terrorism Anxiety Disorder is the fear of being killed by non-existent terrorists. It plagues populations that live under state terror regimes, like those in the Untied States, England, and Israel. These totalitarian regimes make up the fear of terrorism to justify massive war budgets, maintain absolute control over the people, and shape the direction of society.
The fear of terrorism is an irrational fear because the greatest threat to the individual’s security, liberty, and livelihood does not come from terrorism, but from an out of control governing class.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
New York Times
September 27, 2011
WASHINGTON — The newly released documents.
is permitted to include people on the government’s terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped, according to
The files, released by the F.B.I. under the Freedom of Information Act, disclose how the police are instructed to react if they encounter a person on the list. They lay out, for the first time in public view, the legal standard that national security officials must meet in order to add a name to the list. And they shed new light on how names are vetted for possible removal from the list.
Inclusion on the watch list can keep terrorism suspects off planes, block noncitizens from entering the country and subject people to delays and greater scrutiny at airports, border crossings and traffic stops.
The database now has about 420,000 names, including about 8,000 Americans, according to the statistics released in connection with the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. About 16,000 people, including about 500 Americans, are barred from flying.
Timothy J. Healy, the director of the F.B.I.’s Terrorist Screening Center, which vets requests to add or remove names from the list, said the documents showed that the government was balancing civil liberties with a careful, multilayered process for vetting who goes on it — and for making sure that names that no longer need to be on it came off.
“There has been a lot of criticism about the watch list,” claiming that it is “haphazard,” he said. “But what this illustrates is that there is a very detailed process that the F.B.I. follows in terms of nominations of watch-listed people.”
During the most recent Republican presidential debate on Monday, September 12th, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas drew boos and jeers from the crowd and his fellow debaters for his views on the roots of 9/11 attacks. Dr. Paul criticized U.S. foreign policy as the catalyst stating, "we're under great threat because we occupy so many countries... We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?" For more, Democracy Now! spoke with Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Noam Chomsky. Dr. Chomsky responded to Dr. Paul's comments by reciting the history of antagonism to US policy, concluding: "I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents."
By Alex Newman
Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Osama bin Laden unit, told the U.K. Daily Telegraph in a recent interview he was prevented from capturing or killing the terrorist by his superiors on at least 10 separate occasions.
The 22-year CIA veteran-turned-whistle=blower resigned from the agency in 2004, disgusted by the government’s lies surrounding the terror war. And he’s been embarrassing the U.S. establishment ever since.
In 1995, Scheuer was selected to lead the spy agency’s bin Laden efforts. By then the militant Islamist was exiled in Sudan after angering Saudi authorities. Bin Laden was running several businesses in the African nation that Scheuer suggested disrupting. “We formulated operations and submitted them for approval but they would not approve any of them,” the ex-CIA official told the Daily Telegraph. “If we had been able to deal a serious economic blow it could have been a show-stopper.”
The next year, bin Laden declared war on the American government. And in 1997, when bin Laden was again living in Afghanistan, Scheuer said his team groomed a band of Afghans to capture the suspected terror boss. There were at least two “clear opportunities” to bring down bin Laden by the middle of 1998, according to Scheuer. But in both cases, he said, CIA bosses refused to proceed.
Here we go! The replacement Boogie-Man for Bin Laden. The Multi-TRILLION Dollar Miliraty Industrial Complex Money Machine Wouldn't Lie To You!
Top Pentagon lawyer booked known extremist as featured guest speaker
By Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
New details have emerged in the case of the Al Qaeda front man who was invited to a Pentagon lunch just months after the 9/11 attacks.
As we previously reported, official government documents obtained by Fox News last year revealed that Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Anwar Al-Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day underwear bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged September 11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002.
For more than a decade, the government has said that Bin Laden is the world’s worst terrorist, a terrorist kingpin, the head of the worst terrorist group in the world.
But if we captured and interrogated him, he could have spilled a lot of beans which would help prevent future terrorist attacks.
But as the Atlantic reports today:
There’s one option the administration appears to have never seriously considered: taking bin Laden alive.
The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.
The White House now admits that Bin Laden wasn’t armed, so why wasn’t he captured? The government says that the Seals who entered the compound thought he was reaching for a weapon.
That might be true, although Bin Laden wasn’t exactly a healthy spring chicken. Indeed, Bin Laden was already pretty sickly by late 2001. (Don’t worry: This post won’t go down any rabbit holes regarding claims that Bin Laden died years ago.)
First | Previous | 1 2 3 4