Hmm,

of interesting points as well as somewhat logical fallacies were brought up in this thread, but I feel that I should reply to the article, as that was the subject:
The author first compares the 9/11 attack to a natural disaster that killed far more people. As if somehow arguing that deaths resulting from either natural disaster, or a country's own, chosen (by religon/culture, and/or lifestyle) infrastructural lack, is worse than a group of militant human beings ASSASINATING a large group of NONCOMBATIVE CIVILIANS.
I feel very bad for all those lives lost, in 9/11, in India, in Iran, in Iraq, in Africa, North Korea... every life is precious. It is one thing for a life to be lost in a mistake or bad choice or natural disaster, one can try and fix mistakes or better prepare for next time. It is something else entirely to have your fellow citizens and guests MURDERED by a group of people whose only goal is violence. These people would choose to kill over and over again if we gave them the opportunity... make no mistake. It was a clear danger that needed dealing with.
I won't spout on about the Taliban. I payed more attention to them before 9/11 than anyone else I knew... They did

of horrible things, but they didn't do it outside of Afghan, so we let them. You can read over their history etc (though I suggest multiple sources as many people have written about them since 9/11 with their own spin) online... but it leads to a big question: Would the US have been justified in an attack on the Taliban (who wasn't directly responsible, but would have fought us) or even their Al Queda allies before 9/11? I can think of thousands of people off the top of my head who would say yes, but the world at the time would have said "no."
"While few of September's auto deaths resulted from malice, neither were they "natural" deaths: most also resulted from individual, corporate, and societal choices about road safety engineering, enforcement of driving-while-drunk laws, safe car design, and so on."
I agree that there are people lost to car accidents that we may have been able to save. But that is a problem we have to deal with, and that we deal with every day. I hate unnecissarily large vehicles (many SUVs), as well as those who take drugs and/or alcohol and drive. Here in America, we have thousands upon thousands of laws concerning roadways, driving, traffic patterns, and preventing accidents. This article makes it seem that we do nothing to stop it. There are thousands of people in the US who spend most of their lives making the roadways safer, and enforcing driving laws. This is something we here in America take seriously and work at a constant vigilance against. The writer makes it seem as if we choose to put people in an unsafe driving environment. Most people strive for the opposite (though many unsafe drivers are out there, with little we can do about it until we find them). Power corrupts, and there are traffic cops and government officials who feel thay should be above these laws. These are the exceptions, not the rule. And in many cases there are checks that catch these crooks, and measures being implemented to prevent them.
Next, he brings up crimes of malace which he claims is all homicide. Murders are a much better comparison. So, what must we be doing in America? I mean, why do we allow so many murders to go unpunished? The answer is, we don't. Again, we spend billions of dollars, and mountains of man hours trying to prevent and solve murders. This is a HUGE area for debate, and I don't believe anyone has shifted their priorities. Lowering murder rates in America is a huge issue. Economic problems are linked to murder rates. Education, wealth, employment... as these decline, murder rates go up along with drug trade/use, crime, and finacial stress. There are also social issues, which education falls into, to be addressed. But this is not an ignored problem. Our Police are not our Military. Sending out our military did not drain our Police force (perhaps a few here and there who may have also been Ntl.Grd. members). But I agree there are certain social programs that need more attention. Not that we should be less concerned with groups that are aggressive towards our country.
What you may see in your media, is not what all Americans think about and do on a daily basis. When it comes down to it, some of the same things matter to us: safety, food, health, family, education... I will do my best to protect my family from a home invader/crazy driver/murderer. But when it comes to someone flying a freaking airplane into my child's preschool, my place of work, my loved ones' homes... I personally can't take care of that. I need help, so I look to the military/FBI/CIA/NSA/Federal Government to do their job. I don't care if they made a mistake, I care that they do better next time.
But up into now, the writer has yet to actually put forth a valid argument, or even address the issue propused int he title: "How we can defeat terrorism by reacting to it more rationally." So, 1/3 of the way in, we get to something meaningful:
How do we defeat terrorism? The writer suggests that we do little to nothing in response here at home, as citizens. To an extent I agree. The writer is correct in saying that how we acted as a society following 9/11, had large finacial implications (although many of them were short term). He/She is also correct in saying that the is the goal of terrorism: To kill many, and impact the lives of even more via fear, with the actions of a few.
However, something had to be done. People have to freak out a little. An act was undertaken by a few horrible people, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents. We cannot let something like this go unpunished.
I agree that an emotional response may not be the best, but that will be the first response, whether the victims be Australian, American, Israeli, Iraqi, Russian... It is human nature, we are animals. Biology plays a far larger role in our lives than many "modern" people give credit. The media makes a living out of sensationalizing things. They did much to sew feelings of fear and desperation into the American people even though many of us were completely unconnected to the event.
There are many precautions we have since put into place that are likely ineffectual and inefficient. That's OK. That is the way to fix a problem, we try something, and if we find it doesn't work, we try something else, or figure a way to lessen the cost. The writer tends to think that many of the precaustions were put into place with little to no thought. This is simply untrue. We're new at this terrorist prevention thing, give it a few more years. But airport and stadium security are not what some of the non-Americans in these forums are likely to feel strongly about. It's the measures taken outside our borders... which this article is not concerned with.
Back to the article: It is critical of the sheer scope of the freak out that Americans went through with the antrax and other terorist-like fears of that time. It claims this is caused by a "misconception of risk." I agree, and believe that the media made this somewhat worse, and that there was a lack of strong leadership. But it would be hard to confirm a lack of strong leadership, as most the news we got at the time had nothing to do with speeches from our leaders. Bad news is good news for reporters... So maybe our leaders were trying to say all the right things... it just didn't get aired... But I'm all for free speech... so what do we do?
I believe we should analyze what we have done carefully, and how it needs to be changed to better fulfill the intended goals. The thing is, this is being done. Large amounts of taxpayer money are being spent on such research (I know this first hand). That's what the whole "Department of Homeland Security" is about.
It's true that we spend more money on things like cancer research... But

of that money is private money. Old people in America have an IMMENSE amount of disposable income or saved monies. Much of this money is spent helping them to live longer. Medical research is a big buisiness, but that's another debate. What I'd like to point out, is that there is private/personal/corporate money and then there is government/tax money. The writer doesn't differentiate between these in order to make his point better. Call it a lie by omission or incompetency... whatever. But it's a prime example of these "misconceptions" that writers should have a stronger obligation to avoid. But they are in a buisiness ot make money, not some altruistic endeavor to provied the world with the one truth (we'll leave that to those damned priests/shamans/prophets/whatevers).
When it comes down to it, Congress has the most power over anti-terrorist organizations. They are responsible to their constituency... But I'll be damned if I pick up a newspaper, and it has ANYTHING to say about how my congressman voted last week... But I'll be sure to see how Bush, Dick, John or John like their coffee, and that they feel that morality is important in America... The whole world seems to think that the President has way more influence than he does... If you're looking for a change in America, it has to happen with those corrupt or lazy (you DO have a choice!) lawyers that we elect into congress.
Ovarall, a good article. 1/3 longer than it neded to be. A few misleading "facts" included... but far fewer than you'll find in the average NY Times article.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...
There are far fewer sinister conspiracies than you may believe.
Just becasue your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
An honest politician is one that STAYS bought.
Oh, and for the most part they hate us becasue they are not us, and we are not them...