Terrorists would never attack subways or trains. Who ever heard of such a thing?

I am too old and too broken down. And I already have enlisted and served, when I was much younger and healthier.

Unless it's like "orange alert" and GWB is baiting the airwaves, and you're too upset to think.

I might get killed in a car wreck on the way to the station. The train might derail in a pure bit of bad luck. I may have a heart attack or stroke in the lavatory. I could trip over my own feet and hit my head. Maybe I'll get food poisoning or Ebola. Who knows, a meteor or chunk of blue ice might fall from the sky and take me out. Something sometime is gonna kill me. Hopefully much later than sooner. I'm still going to Chicago on Amtrak for a couple days when I can afford it.

It's not about personal fear. I've been blessed to already have lived a pretty full, pretty cool life. Very little cash in my pocket for most of it, and some severe heartbreaks and disappointments. But I still found friends. I found smiles and adventure. I still found pride and purpose even when I was homeless in Houston and walked around picking up garbage because it was the right thing to do. So I'm good with my own life.

My fear is for civilization. Not only here in America, but in London and Paris and Baghdad and Raqqa. Alas, some people who want to deliberately cause death and destruction will have to die in a horribly brutal way to protect the largest number of innocents in this world. Yes, innocents too close to the enemy will also die in the process. But I believe, with a heavy heart and not some oooh rahhh bloodlust, that certain people and resources have to be disabled to stop the very real threat of terrorism.

I'm sorry I feel that way. I wish I didn't. It sucks a lot more than anyone here will ever believe.

GO man. Protect us fro mthe things you want us to shit our pants in terror over.

Seems to me he explained why he couldn't re-enlist.
What's your excuse and when did you serve?

If you people are really so worried, I'm sure your local recruiter would love to hear from you.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!

For a detailed explanation of what I am really scared of:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025586609#post12

The thought of terrorism, is nothing as far as I am concerned, in fact it doesn't even rank on my list of frightening things, the last one one of which is haunted houses on Halloween.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024576897

Would agree with Bush when he dismissed the PDB that said Bin Laden was determined to attack the US.

I see:

No doubt you will be enlisting to protect us, yes FrodosPet?

You're still more likely to have a car accident on the way to or from the station.

and

No Scaremongering please



and then there's you, making shit up and defending ShrubCo.

I'm a midwestern White/Native American guy with degenerative disc disease and probably diabetes who would be a combat liability, not an asset. So I don't think the FSA or Shia or Kurds are in any hurry for me to join up.

And I am well aware the list of shit that is more likely to kill me is a pretty long one. I'm not going to quit living. But I am not going to take unnecessary risks, either.

As for scaremongering: I don't want people shitting their pants. I want them opening their eyes to a legitimate problem that must be dealt with.

So pointing out accurately that subways have been terrorist targets is a valid point.

How serious this purported threat is to the U.S. is debatable, but dismissing subways as a realistic target is not. It doesn't help the case when someone begins by mocking something that is a proven fact. That's not a good starting point.

And no, I didn't save links to those posts, but they shouldn't be hard to find.

Which was my point, in case you didn't notice.

"Please point to previous replies that are laughing it off."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025585337

can be and has been targeted.

And people here do have weird senses of humor.

I'm not really a big fan of the man, but I think he had it right when he said, "America needs to stop shitting in its pants."

when someone voices a threat to us it is not necessary for us to shit our pants, dig a foxhole, climb into it and demand that the president bomb the shit out of everybody who doesn't look like us.

dream of.

With ISIS reporting numbers of 30,000 on the high side, it's amazing to me the amount of supposed destruction they are going wreck upon us. Lindsay Graham said "If the President doesn't do something they will come here and kill us all". Sorry, not gonna get all worked up over it, and I'll be on public transportation tomorrow.

Oh and BTW this "threat" was debunked not an hour after it was made:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/iraqi-report-isis-subway-threat-knocked-down-n211496

Like I said, I hope it turns out that the Iraqi PM is full of dung. Maybe the danger was diffused by the attack against Khorasan. If so, fantastic. I need an affordable vacation. I want to go nerd out at the Museum of Science and Industry, and catch some blues and beer and deep dish in peace and safety.

The fact remains. Terrorists have attacked trains and subways in the past. They are cheap and easy targets for a small splinter cell, or even an ambitious lone wolf. We shouldn't live in paranoia, but we need to stop people who want to do it again.

Invasions, drone strikes, Black Ops, air strikes. All we've done is create more terrorists.

The fact remains. We are doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And the fact remains that when it suits us, terrorists are our allies.

The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

I am more fared of those hire with my tax dollars to protect and serve me then I am muslin men halfway around the planet. Our police, Deputy’s and State Patrol have killed more of us then terrorist has since 9/11.
It is time to demand a change.

I may be wrong - I have been many times in my life - but I suspect they are far more interested in degrading the capabilities of the Daesh and other armed extremists than they are of scaring you.

Hmmm, wild thought, but perhaps the fact that we have been watching them and sometimes bombing them might be a big part of the reason that they have not been successful attacking us? It definitely was not from a lack of desire on their part.

As for power hungry trigger happy racist cops? Yes, that's fuqqed up and needs to be fixed as well. I am not about to argue against that. But it is not an either or thing.

Yes, more attempted terrorist attacks on the West at some point in the next 10 years seems like a near certainty.

Yes, some of those attacks may succeed.

Yes, some of those attacks may be on trains.

But the number of people likely to be killed by terrorism in the West in the next 10 years, barring use of WMD (which is not a completely safe assumption, but seems unlikely) is tiny compared to the likely death toll from, say, traffic, or guns, or cancer, or even horses.

Like I said in another reply, it's not an either/or thing.

We need intelligent, well trained, committed people to advance medical science so we can find effective cures and treatments for the various types of cancers (it's not one singular disease with one singular cure, folks).

We need well designed roads, safe cars, and well trained attentive drivers who are not intoxicated to reduce the daily massacre on the streets of Earth.

We need a culture that is not angry and not greedy and not hostile and dismissive of the socially awkward so that perhaps people will quit shooting each other.

And when someone, be they Hassan in Tikrit or Joey in Des Moine, decides they want to shoot, bomb, behead, etc innocents, we need well trained people with a commitment to serving the common good to stop them ASAP.

we are spending obscene amounts of money on war and security related stuff, and comparatively little on all kinds of urgent problems.

"Need to" is meaningless in this context. We can't reduce any of these risks to zero; what we can do is choose to use or not use various
measures to reduce or mitigate risk.

These measures are a long-way from cost-free.

And many measures to mitigate terrorism will cost more than the likely benefit.

So yes, basically it is "either/or": either we can spend money on mitigating the risk of terrorism, or we can spend it on other things; either we can impose onerous restrictions on people to reduce the risk of terrorism, or we can have those freedoms at the cost of increased risk of being murdered.

And in the USA, measures to mitigate the risk of terrorism have already gone far further, and cost more, than is sensible.

That's *not* to say that there might not be other, more cost-efficient, steps worth taking. But it *is* to say that the total amount of money and "imposition" spent on reducing the risk of terrorism should probably be reduced, not increased.

All the intel in the world didnt stop the Boston Bombing, The Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre, The LAX Shooting, The Chris Dorner Rampage so yeah bad shit happens in an open and free society but no amount of curtailing freedoms, checkpoints, patdowns or fear mongering is going to prevent someone from doing something bad.

Accept it and move on.

more gasoline commuting by car instead of train.

Oil is the primary reason we are so concerned with the ME so if the terrorists really want us out of the ME, why promote more use of gasoline?

Many parts of the story we are being given about ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh don't add up.

Do what now? I was giving your paranoia a bit of my time and consideration until you uttered that phrase. No such animal.

Terrorists come from ALL extremes, regardless.

That is an undeniable fact.

He sounds like a luddite as opposed to a liberal.