A 15 year old comes home with his hair dyed purple and a a shiny new piercing in his ear. His dad is furious "Son," he says, "I said you could dye your hair and pierce your ear when pigs fly!" The son replies, "But dad, It's all over the news...the swine flu."
(this joke comes courtesy of Mrs. 8th Pillar)
Turn on the TV and chances are high that you'll end up hearing some warnings about the danger of the swine flu, or H1N1 for you pig farmers out there. The news is flush with comparisons to previous flu pandemics and warnings to stay away from anyone who happens to sneeze. Even Vice-President Biden is getting in on the fun, saying that he would not allow his family to travel on an airplane for fear of being infected. But is all this hullabaloo warranted? Should I really be stocking up on NyQuil, Kleenex, and ammo for my handgun? Is this the beginning of the end; a flupocalypse if you will?
NO!
Let's look at the facts and crunch the numbers. The Spanish Influenza of 1918-1919 (oddly named as it began at an army base in Haskell County, Kansas) killed 50-100 million people, or 2.5-5% of the world population, in a mere 6 months. Of these deaths, 675,000 were Americans, which, considering the pandemic started in the U.S., is not too shabby. A rapid U.S. Army expansion and poor sanitation helped spread the virus . When these troops went abroad they brought the virus with them, spreading it to other armies. Weakened and malnourished as a result of World War One, populations the world over were especially susceptible to the pandemic.
Since the Spanish Influenza, there have been two other major outbreaks. One in 1957, killing two million globally and 70,000 in America, and another in 1968 which claimed one million victims worldwide and 30,000 Americans. On any given year, roughly 250,000 people die from the flu.
The number of Americans as a percentage of total worldwide victims breaks down as follows for each of the three pandemics:
1918-19: .8%
1957: .035%
1968: .03%
Given that during each of these time periods, Americans made up more than 5% of the total global population, it is clear that the U.S. experiences very low amounts of comparative influenza deaths. This is mostly the result of the strong public health system in the U.S.
The conclusion is that even if the swine flu suddenly became deadly and widespread, Americans don't have too much to worry about. The U.S. is comparatively in the clear. However, because this is a blog (mostly) about international conflict, let us take the lessons learned from this influenza discussion and apply them to biological weapon terrorist attacks.
A lot of people make a fuss about how easy it would be for a terrorist to attack using biological agents. This is misleading at best. First of all, it is no cake walk to develop biological agents, let alone weaponize them. Like any good businessmen, the terrorists want the most bang for their buck. This is why they usually stick to tried and true methods like suicide vests and car bombs. In order for a biological attack to be worth their time, it would have to be highly infectious; otherwise, might as well use conventional explosives. But a highly infectious agent would spread globally and be impossible for the terrorists to control. Those most likely to be hurt the greatest are underdeveloped countries of the sort where terrorists tend to come from. It's quite a catch-22. Either use a controllable, non infectious agent and take great risks for no more payoff than a much less risky conventional attack; or try and develop something highly infectious which would likely hurt their own supporters far more than it would hurt Americans.
Showing posts with label silly people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silly people. Show all posts
04 March 2009
Top 5 on my radar
1. The biggest news of the day involves the International Criminal Court. For the first time in its history, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state. That warrant was issued today for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. The warrant cites two counts of war crimes and several counts of crimes against humanity, mostly in regards to the on-going violence in Darfur.
Al-Bashir responded by kicking several aid agencies out Sudan, including Medicins sans Frontieres and OXFAM. The move does not have global approval. A number of Africans outside of Sudan fear the impact the warrant will have on peace negotiations.
For my part there are a few other consequences I worry about. First would be a coup. The people of Sudan are aware of the pariah state al-Bashir has created out of their nation. This could be a last straw. Watch for increased acts of violent resistance to the government in Khartoum over the next few weeks or months.
Even without a coup though, I'm curious to see how this warrant will be served. Likely it won't be, and will instead become just a symbolic gesture. None of the options for serving it are too appealing. An invasion by Western forces, perhaps a French contingent- doubtful. An incursion by the Sudan People's Liberation Army with Western air and logistical support- doubtful and messy. Perhaps a coalition from the African Union moves in to take care of business- doubtful, but the best option of the three. It would be a good move for the African Union to step in and police up their own. Could have good long term consequences for the AU.
2. The Afghanistan election commission has rejected the dates for the upcoming national election set by President Hamid Karzai. In fairness to Karzai, these weren't the dates he actually wanted. He had originally wanted elections to be in August. This was viewed as the earliest there would be enough security to hold successful elections. Unfortunately, Karzai's term ends in May and the Afghan constitution doesn't address the issue of who would step in for the intervening months. Karzai's opposition wasn't too keen on him having the extra unconstitutional time in power and, after raising a stink, got Karzai to name May as the time elections would be held (side note- This was not wise of them. Elections in May don't give them enough time to campaign and the victory would likely go to Karzai. Elections in August would give them months to harp on the fact that Karzai is in office unconstitutionally).
These elections are awfully important. Political stability is a must in order for Americans to see any success in the upcoming troop surge into Afghanistan. These elections will have long term effects on Afghan stability.
3. Hugo Chavez, hot off the referendum win allowing him unlimited terms in office, has nationalized the American corporation Cargill. Chavez accused the company of trying to evade price controls. We'll be seeing more of this from Chavez in the near future. These actions allow him to show Venezuelans that he is doing something, and sticking it to the gringos while he's at it. Plus, as the economy tanks and oil prices stay in the doldrums, Chavez needs the resources so he can keep funding his 21st century socialism. Unfortunately for him, there are only so many companies out there to nationalize; his house of cards will collapse eventually.
4. Newly friendly China (People's Republic of China for you Communists out there) offered to negotiate with Taiwan (Republic of China for you Nationalists out there) to end hostilities. Relations have grown significantly cheerier between the two as of late. Flights no longer have to be routed through Hong Kong; instead, direct routes fly from China to Taiwan. Economic activity is flourishing across the straits. And to think, it was only a couple of years ago when China seriously considered invading Taiwan, conducting military exercises and staging hundreds of missiles on the coast, all while the U.S. was tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is promising.
5. A South Carolina psychiatrist believes ecstasy can be used to treat soldiers with PTSD. Apparently, while high on ecstasy, soldiers are better able to dig deep into their emotions. One soldier who participated in trials had this to say: "It’s basically like years of therapy in two or three hours."
I won't get into the science of it, or if I think it could be effective. Let me just say that I'm not so certain it's a good idea to prescribe ecstasy to soldiers for a condition that can be easily faked. There may be a knucklehead or two who will try and take advantage of it. These are the same guys who miss alcohol so much in basic training that they pretend to be sick so they are prescribed a bottle of NyQuil- and then proceed to drink the whole bottle in one sitting. Free ecstasy is not a good idea.
Al-Bashir responded by kicking several aid agencies out Sudan, including Medicins sans Frontieres and OXFAM. The move does not have global approval. A number of Africans outside of Sudan fear the impact the warrant will have on peace negotiations.
For my part there are a few other consequences I worry about. First would be a coup. The people of Sudan are aware of the pariah state al-Bashir has created out of their nation. This could be a last straw. Watch for increased acts of violent resistance to the government in Khartoum over the next few weeks or months.
Even without a coup though, I'm curious to see how this warrant will be served. Likely it won't be, and will instead become just a symbolic gesture. None of the options for serving it are too appealing. An invasion by Western forces, perhaps a French contingent- doubtful. An incursion by the Sudan People's Liberation Army with Western air and logistical support- doubtful and messy. Perhaps a coalition from the African Union moves in to take care of business- doubtful, but the best option of the three. It would be a good move for the African Union to step in and police up their own. Could have good long term consequences for the AU.
2. The Afghanistan election commission has rejected the dates for the upcoming national election set by President Hamid Karzai. In fairness to Karzai, these weren't the dates he actually wanted. He had originally wanted elections to be in August. This was viewed as the earliest there would be enough security to hold successful elections. Unfortunately, Karzai's term ends in May and the Afghan constitution doesn't address the issue of who would step in for the intervening months. Karzai's opposition wasn't too keen on him having the extra unconstitutional time in power and, after raising a stink, got Karzai to name May as the time elections would be held (side note- This was not wise of them. Elections in May don't give them enough time to campaign and the victory would likely go to Karzai. Elections in August would give them months to harp on the fact that Karzai is in office unconstitutionally).
These elections are awfully important. Political stability is a must in order for Americans to see any success in the upcoming troop surge into Afghanistan. These elections will have long term effects on Afghan stability.
3. Hugo Chavez, hot off the referendum win allowing him unlimited terms in office, has nationalized the American corporation Cargill. Chavez accused the company of trying to evade price controls. We'll be seeing more of this from Chavez in the near future. These actions allow him to show Venezuelans that he is doing something, and sticking it to the gringos while he's at it. Plus, as the economy tanks and oil prices stay in the doldrums, Chavez needs the resources so he can keep funding his 21st century socialism. Unfortunately for him, there are only so many companies out there to nationalize; his house of cards will collapse eventually.
4. Newly friendly China (People's Republic of China for you Communists out there) offered to negotiate with Taiwan (Republic of China for you Nationalists out there) to end hostilities. Relations have grown significantly cheerier between the two as of late. Flights no longer have to be routed through Hong Kong; instead, direct routes fly from China to Taiwan. Economic activity is flourishing across the straits. And to think, it was only a couple of years ago when China seriously considered invading Taiwan, conducting military exercises and staging hundreds of missiles on the coast, all while the U.S. was tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is promising.
5. A South Carolina psychiatrist believes ecstasy can be used to treat soldiers with PTSD. Apparently, while high on ecstasy, soldiers are better able to dig deep into their emotions. One soldier who participated in trials had this to say: "It’s basically like years of therapy in two or three hours."
I won't get into the science of it, or if I think it could be effective. Let me just say that I'm not so certain it's a good idea to prescribe ecstasy to soldiers for a condition that can be easily faked. There may be a knucklehead or two who will try and take advantage of it. These are the same guys who miss alcohol so much in basic training that they pretend to be sick so they are prescribed a bottle of NyQuil- and then proceed to drink the whole bottle in one sitting. Free ecstasy is not a good idea.
26 February 2009
Who's on first?
The state department recently named Dennis Ross as a special adviser for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. Those are fairly broad and non-standard regional descriptions, so you might be saying to yourself "Self, I wonder what specific countries that means Dennis Ross will be advising SecState Clinton on?" Fair question. Apparently some inquisitive reporter was wondering the same thing and decided to ask at a state department press briefing on Tuesday. Makes sense- if the state department just named Mr. Ross as a special adviser, then they must know which countries he will be advising on. Right? And surely the briefer will have more than some stock answer about strategic regional advice considering this is a fairly important foreign policy decision. Right?
True to his word, State Department spokesperson Robert Wood was a little more prepared the following day.
QUESTION: What is he in charge exactly of?
MR. WOOD: Well, Dennis is –
QUESTION: Is it Iran? And if it’s not Iran – if it’s Iran, why is it not written in the statement?
MR. WOOD: Well, let me just start off by saying, the Secretary is very happy that Dennis Ross agreed to serve as her special advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. What Dennis is going to be charged with doing is trying to integrate policy development and implementation across a number of offices and officials in the State Department. And, you know, he is going to be providing the Secretary with strategic advice. He will be also trying to ensure that there’s a coherence in our policies and strategies across the region.
Let me be clear, he’s not an envoy. He will not be negotiating. He’ll be working on regional issues. He will not be – in terms of negotiating, will not be involved in the peace process. But again, he is going to be advising the Secretary on long-term strategic issues across the region.
QUESTION: Can you give us – well, what is the State Department’s definition geographically of Southwest Asia? What countries does that include?
MR. WOOD: Matt, I didn’t --
QUESTION: No, you guys named an envoy for Southwest Asia. I presume that you know what countries that includes.
MR. WOOD: Yes. Of course, we know. I just – I don’t have the list to run off – you know, right off the top of my head here. But obviously, that’s going to encompass – that region encompasses Iran. It will – you know, it’ll deal with --
QUESTION: Does it include Iraq?
MR. WOOD: Indeed, it does. He is going to be, again, as I said, providing her with advice – strategic advice, looking at the long term, the bigger picture and how we can make sure that our policies are coherent across the board in the region. And as I said, the Secretary is very pleased that Dennis has agreed to do this. He’s got years of experience in the region. And, you know, it’s a daunting task, but it’s one that she felt was necessary.
QUESTION: And so, does it include parts of the Middle East?
MR. WOOD: Yes.
QUESTION: It does? Does it include Syria, and it includes Israel and it includes Jordan?
MR. WOOD: Well, he’ll be looking at the entire region that will include, you know –
QUESTION: Where does that stop? I mean, you know, you have NEA which, you know, runs all the way to Morocco. So does it include –
MR. WOOD: Well, he’s going to be in touch with a number of officials who work on issues throughout this region.
QUESTION: Does it include Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, countries that are within the – within the Middle East or within the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, but are not necessarily technically part of Southwest Asia?
MR. WOOD: He will be providing advice to the Secretary on a – across that entire region, where appropriate, where she needs it, and that’s the position he will serve.
QUESTION: So he’s going to meet with the leaders in the region as well, so you said he is going to offer an assessment --
MR. WOOD: That’s right. At some point, he will.
QUESTION: -- including the Iranians?
MR. WOOD: Well, I’m not sure at this point. But again, our policy with regard to Iran is under review, so once that review is completed, we’ll be able to go forward vis-à-vis Iran. But until that time --
QUESTION: Well, was there a consideration at some point that you would have a special envoy for Iran? And why didn’t you now go in that direction?
MR. WOOD: Well, a decision was made by the Secretary that she needed broad strategic advice to look at a range of issues across the entire region that we just talked about. And it was felt that his skills could be better used to do that type of work, given the years of experience that he’s had dealing with the Middle East, other parts of the world. And so, again, as I said, Iran will be one of those countries that he will be, you know, looking at in his portfolio. But --
QUESTION: The military sometimes refer to parts of the -stans, Central Asia, as Southwest Asia. Are those included in your --
MR. WOOD: Well, look --
QUESTION: Can you find out? Because, I mean, this is --
MR. WOOD: We can get you that. Yeah, we can get you a breakdown of --
QUESTION: I mean, does this – is there a geographic limit to his portfolio, or is it really an issues-based thing so that he could be dealing with Morocco and Algeria --
MR. WOOD: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and Tunisia --
MR. WOOD: I would look at it, Matt, as more of a regional --
QUESTION: -- and Kyrgyzstan, and the -stans that are not covered by Ambassador Holbrooke? And does it include Turkey? Does it – you know, there are a lot of unanswered questions from – from the statement last night as to exactly what he’s going to be doing. I mean, I presume it’s all of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, that makes sense. But does it include Somalia, which is – you know, that there is – does it include – I don’t know --
QUESTION: Or is it (inaudible) Iran?
MR. WOOD: Your question is – you know, let me answer your --
QUESTION: It could be anything. Or is he limited by the geographic --
QUESTION: Or did you just not want to put Iran in the name, and so this is your clever way of doing that?
MR. WOOD: Can I speak now?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. WOOD: Thank you, and thank you. Look, it’s more – he’s going to be providing advice to the Secretary on a number of regional issues, and I would not try to limit Dennis’s advice to, you know, just those regions. He may have other – you know, he may have advice that he wants to give the Secretary on other issues. I don’t think we’re trying to narrow it here. If you’re looking for a geographical breakdown of those countries that he will be looking --
QUESTION: It would be nice to find out what the State Department considers to be Southwest Asia.
MR. WOOD: We can certainly do that for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
True to his word, State Department spokesperson Robert Wood was a little more prepared the following day.
QUESTION: Have your ace geographers been able to determine what Southwest Asia is and thereby figure out what exactly Dennis Ross’s mandate is?
MR. WOOD: I’m so shocked that you asked that question. Let me give you my best – our best read of this. From our standpoint, the countries that make up areas of the Gulf and Southwest Asia include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, and those are the countries.
23 February 2009
The 8th Pillar- Entertainment Edition!
It's awards season, and I wanted to join in the fun. Though they walked away without any Oscars, I want to highlight two foreign films that received nominations.
The first is "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex." This film tells the story of the Red Army Faction's beginnings. The RAF was a leftist terrorist organization operating in West Germany primarily during the 1970's. This group provides a how-to guide for running a terrorist organization in a western nation.
The second movie is titled "Waltz with Bashir." It's an animated documentary following an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon War as he confronts his inner demons and hazy memories of war.
The final addition to the Entertainment Edition!, involves a lovely singing group out of my favorite former Soviet republic in the Caucasus- Georgia. As we're all aware, Georgia was pummeled this summer by the Russians. Depending on who you believe, Russia was either defending Russian citizens in South Ossetia or trying to show the Americans they're still the big man in the region. Either way, to use the technical military term, Georgia got spanked. Bad. But fear not lovers of freedom, Georgia has finally decided to launch a counter-attack. This year's Eurovision song contest is being held in Moscow. The Georgian entry features a song entitled "We Don't Wanna Put In." This is a not-so-subtle dig at Former Russian President and current Russian Prime Minister Putin. It has not yet been decided whether the official Kremlin response will be to drop the band out of a window , accidentally shoot them in the head, or poison them with Polonium- but with Putin involved, who knows...they may do all three.
The first is "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex." This film tells the story of the Red Army Faction's beginnings. The RAF was a leftist terrorist organization operating in West Germany primarily during the 1970's. This group provides a how-to guide for running a terrorist organization in a western nation.
The second movie is titled "Waltz with Bashir." It's an animated documentary following an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon War as he confronts his inner demons and hazy memories of war.
The final addition to the Entertainment Edition!, involves a lovely singing group out of my favorite former Soviet republic in the Caucasus- Georgia. As we're all aware, Georgia was pummeled this summer by the Russians. Depending on who you believe, Russia was either defending Russian citizens in South Ossetia or trying to show the Americans they're still the big man in the region. Either way, to use the technical military term, Georgia got spanked. Bad. But fear not lovers of freedom, Georgia has finally decided to launch a counter-attack. This year's Eurovision song contest is being held in Moscow. The Georgian entry features a song entitled "We Don't Wanna Put In." This is a not-so-subtle dig at Former Russian President and current Russian Prime Minister Putin. It has not yet been decided whether the official Kremlin response will be to drop the band out of a window , accidentally shoot them in the head, or poison them with Polonium- but with Putin involved, who knows...they may do all three.
10 February 2009
Will Joseph Ratzinger be to the Vatican what George W Bush was to the White House?
Apparently enraging the entire Islamic world wasn't enough for this Pope. He has now moved on to the Jews. First, Pope Benedict XVI reinstated the Tridentine Mass, which calls for the conversion of Jews from darkness to Catholicism. Now, the BMOC at the Vatican has un-excommunicated four Bishops, one of whom is a holocaust denier.
If I may, Mr. Pope, allow me to give you some flippant advice. As the head of a church the leader of which (at best) turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities during WWII, and who is yourself from Germany, and who was a member of the Hitler Youth (even if unenthusiastic about it), perhaps you should have given it a little more thought before rehabilitating a holocaust denier.
On a slightly more serious note, there is more to the title of this post than both Bush and Benedict XVI knowing how to stick in the collective craw of millions of Muslims. They both also followed an immensely popular predecessor (Clinton and John Paul II). And from what I understand Benedict XVI shares W's love of yes men. Recent reports indicate that the Pope has surrounded himself only with men of similar opinion and inclination. This has increased criticisms from many sources, surprisingly enough even from within the Catholic church. Several European Cardinals have publicly criticized the Pope, going so far as to call his decision "disastrous" and saying they have lost faith in Benedict XVI.
I know at least one Catholic reads these ramblings of mine. I would be curious to hear some lay Catholic responses to this situation. If I were one, I would be questioning whether Benedict XVI is the right man to have the power of making "infallible" decisions for the church.
If I may, Mr. Pope, allow me to give you some flippant advice. As the head of a church the leader of which (at best) turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities during WWII, and who is yourself from Germany, and who was a member of the Hitler Youth (even if unenthusiastic about it), perhaps you should have given it a little more thought before rehabilitating a holocaust denier.
On a slightly more serious note, there is more to the title of this post than both Bush and Benedict XVI knowing how to stick in the collective craw of millions of Muslims. They both also followed an immensely popular predecessor (Clinton and John Paul II). And from what I understand Benedict XVI shares W's love of yes men. Recent reports indicate that the Pope has surrounded himself only with men of similar opinion and inclination. This has increased criticisms from many sources, surprisingly enough even from within the Catholic church. Several European Cardinals have publicly criticized the Pope, going so far as to call his decision "disastrous" and saying they have lost faith in Benedict XVI.
I know at least one Catholic reads these ramblings of mine. I would be curious to hear some lay Catholic responses to this situation. If I were one, I would be questioning whether Benedict XVI is the right man to have the power of making "infallible" decisions for the church.
08 February 2009
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck…it may not be a duck
There is a tendency for people to want to overuse the terrorist label when describing criminal acts. Case in point is the recent bombing of a doctor in Arkansas. The good doctor was leaving his home when a bomb exploded, severely injuring him. The local police chief was quick to call the event a terrorist attack. While horrible, it is almost certainly not an act of terrorism.
Here's the definition of terrorism I learned many moons ago:
"Terrorism is an organized strategy for bringing about political, social, economic, or religious change, characterized by the use or threat of violence to coerce or otherwise influence an enemy. It is usually carried out by non-state or clandestine agents lacking in political power and material resources and is difficult to retaliate against. By striking sporadically and without warning, terrorists deliberately seek to create a climate of fear, which gives their attacks an impact disproportionate to the resources invested in them. Terrorism is ultimately a form of communication targeted at multiple audiences."
I keep shaking it, but my magic 8-ball tells me the chances are slim that this doctor in Arkansas was targeted by terrorists. More likely, he is the victim of some horrendous criminal act.
This only warrants attention because throwing around the terrorist label does nothing but help terrorists. The whole point of terrorist acts are to- wait for it- spread terror. They seek to instill fear in the population. Terrorists are naturally weaker than their enemies; if they were stronger, they could employ conventional military tactics and not have to resort to small-scale, sporadic attacks. The effects of fear are much more powerful than any single attack could be. Flying is a safer form of travel than driving; however, following 9/11, huge numbers of citizens elected to drive where they previously would have flown. This resulted in an extra number of deaths on the nation's roadways many times more than that of the 9/11 attacks. Fear of additional terrorist attacks provided an excuse to invade Iraq; an excursion which served as a huge recruitment boost to a number of terrorist groups.
Labeling criminal acts as terrorist only makes people needlessly afraid of terrorist attacks. So please, all you Barney Fife's out there, resist the temptation to label crime as terrorism. We don't need to do the terrorist's work for them. All the security measures in the world don't matter if we elect to hand terrorists free wins.
Here's the definition of terrorism I learned many moons ago:
"Terrorism is an organized strategy for bringing about political, social, economic, or religious change, characterized by the use or threat of violence to coerce or otherwise influence an enemy. It is usually carried out by non-state or clandestine agents lacking in political power and material resources and is difficult to retaliate against. By striking sporadically and without warning, terrorists deliberately seek to create a climate of fear, which gives their attacks an impact disproportionate to the resources invested in them. Terrorism is ultimately a form of communication targeted at multiple audiences."
I keep shaking it, but my magic 8-ball tells me the chances are slim that this doctor in Arkansas was targeted by terrorists. More likely, he is the victim of some horrendous criminal act.
This only warrants attention because throwing around the terrorist label does nothing but help terrorists. The whole point of terrorist acts are to- wait for it- spread terror. They seek to instill fear in the population. Terrorists are naturally weaker than their enemies; if they were stronger, they could employ conventional military tactics and not have to resort to small-scale, sporadic attacks. The effects of fear are much more powerful than any single attack could be. Flying is a safer form of travel than driving; however, following 9/11, huge numbers of citizens elected to drive where they previously would have flown. This resulted in an extra number of deaths on the nation's roadways many times more than that of the 9/11 attacks. Fear of additional terrorist attacks provided an excuse to invade Iraq; an excursion which served as a huge recruitment boost to a number of terrorist groups.
Labeling criminal acts as terrorist only makes people needlessly afraid of terrorist attacks. So please, all you Barney Fife's out there, resist the temptation to label crime as terrorism. We don't need to do the terrorist's work for them. All the security measures in the world don't matter if we elect to hand terrorists free wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
