I saw the item on the news the other day. I couldn’t believe my ears when the newsreader finished “Authorities say this is nothing to do with terrorism” (or something along those lines)
I couldn’t find the words. No shit it’s not terrorism. Why even mention terrorism???
“Today, a girl scout broke local records for the number of cookies sold in one week. This was not a terrorist attack”
Is there any truth or agreement here in the theory that America likes to keep it’s citizens scared, because it makes them easier to control?
I think you’ve nailed it right there, at least partially. I wouldn’t be surprised if the news agencies and television media try to keep us scared so they can hit huge ratings numbers, never mind trying to make us easier to control. I’ve seen many times where they spout false or speculative information as the truth, only to later retract or clarify, but by that time they’ve already sent folks into a panic. :rolleyes:
Or, it could be a preemptive attempt to stifle the stupidity that often comes from less educated citizens. I am completely confident I have relatives in the back woods who would totally blame mad cow disease on terrorism.
IMHO, a perfectly valid thing to do. It’s feasible that there are a lot of people whose concerns that addresses, and I don’t see how that would scare people rather than allay their fears, since people are already scared what with the Orange thang and all.
There is a UPI story that they have tried for six months to obtain mad cow testing information from the USDA, including FOIA requests (which carry 30-day time limits).
Perhaps bureaucratic ineptitude is more accurate, or fear that a government agency is not doing their job. However, with the corportate media’s apparent inability to do its job, they merely pander to fears and power games.
However, it doesn’t help that the general public is too stupid to think for themselves anymore.
I keep hearing the news reports saying that the chances of infection from muscle cuts of meat is extremely small, and that Americans shouldn’t worry about the beef products they’re eating, especially since this is just ONE case.
But then why freak out and close the border to Canadian beef when ONE case is found in Alberta?
And as for the terrorism, I’m just picturing the terrorists dropping parachute-wearing mad cows out of airplanes in the middle of the night into unsuspecting herds…
No argument from me, there, Lobstang, but I was serious. I can recall having conversation with my grandmother and her sister wherein ‘people get AIDS if a man cuts their hair’ , ‘the reason the power was out for three weeks after that ice storm was because the local repair man was scorned by Marge’s cousin Lurlene’, ‘you shouldn’t go to the Mall in Little Rock because someone will shot you in the city’, and ‘Did you know they dumped cyanide in the River over in Iraq so it would kill all the troops crossing it?’
Remote chance, or reason (or truth for that matter), doesn’t enter into their concerns. They make astoundingly bizarre leaps of logic on a daily basis, and I know they are not alone.
Some people being most people outside the USA. Even here in the UK, probably the second most important target for terrorists (and much much smaller, so in effect the average Brit is probably more likely to suffer terrorism at home than the average American) people couldn’t care less.
IMO people should forget about terrorism, and get on with living their lives. Afterall, the Average person is extremely unlikely to be a victim of it. If they apply the same fear to the other things that are a risk to their lives as they do to terrorism then they’d never ever cross a road, never open a letter, never go near an electrical device, never leave their friggin homes!
Sure I can. They don’t tell you why the code changes really matter to the average person, other than “(don’t) panic more” and “keep a lookout for terrorist happenings more.” It doesn’t affect how I lead my life at all.
And Lobsang, the “media fear” theory was actually the main point of the recent film by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine.
Exactly. While “forget” may not be possible, “ignore” most certainly is. Well, there are one or two actions that are sensible, such as allowing an extra 20 minutes or so to get through the extra security at the airport.
I am old enough to have experienced the tiny, but finite, possibility that going into London to do my Christmas shopping could get me blown up. You just have to ignore it or the effect on your life is far greater than the actual threat warrants.
I’m a little puzzled by the reactions posted in this thread. The concept of agri-terrorism was something that a lot of people were worried about well before 9/11. Here’s a pre-9/11 article from Jane’s that describes the threat.
Think about it: a relatively unsophisticated cell of agri-terrorists could do billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy and have virtually no chance of getting caught. Sure, it’s not as “sexy” as skyscrapers tumbling down, but it’s far from unthinkable that a group of militant animal rights activists might think it’s a good idea to devastate the beef industry by, say, unleashing a hoof and mouth outbreak.
Admittedly, what I’ve read makes it sound as if Mad Cow wouldn’t be the pathogen of choice, but I don’t expect anyone not in the beef business to know that.
Terrorists are more interested in the political than the economic affects of their activity. The people who are the objects of their activities have to know that they are being punished for the “crimes” of their governments. It is meant to apply domestic political pressure to force governments to change their policies. I am thinking here of the terrorism of non governmental organizations which are too weak to directly attack powerful governments.
An economic catastrophe which seemed to have natural causes would be pointless unless it so weakened a given society that it collapsed or was so weakened that it would have to divert resources away from certain activites which the terrorists disapprove of. Mad cow will does fit the bill.
Death squads which the US government helps to organize against the left in certain countries are a completely different phenomena.
Probably true, but I doubt the news editors actualy gave a second thought that it could be a possible form of terrorism. They came out with the “No terrorist connection” simply because it has become a habit of theirs. The thread was a response to my frustration about it - mentioning the word ‘terrorism’ as often as is annoyingly possible.