This is true-- for Americans. In which case, yes, I do think that terrorism has been used as a buzz word in order to "terrify" people into supporting actions of the Bush administration like the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq.

The ironic thing is that it is in these ways that Americans are REALLY letting terrorists win. The purpose of terrorism is to inspire fear in folks so much that they'll change their daily lives because of it. And if you ask me, the Bush administration is doing a damn good job of that.

"Terrorism: What the bigger army calls the actions of the smaller army."

I think that terrorism, or my definition of it at least, is much more prominent in other countries than the US.

I guess, as far as the US goes, peanuts are more armed and ready to take lives.

exactly, Terrorism isn't a problem in the United States-but definately is in the Middle East.

This is another thing that backs up the Bush and 9-11 conspiracy :O

how so, greek? i'm not sure i'm following your logic... although it might be because i've been studying for two different exams with very few breaks for the last 48 hours straight.. or so. *whimpers*

I believe Greek means it is one more piece of the puzzle placing the blame for 9-11 on bush & Chaney's doorstep rather than terrorists... let me rephrase, it was terrorists, and their names are Bush & Chaney.

oh i thought she meant that they have Americans so scared from just one attack by repeatedly saying terrorism, normally they would try and defuse a situation like that and try and make the nation feel safer

I would anticipate that "normal" causes of death (accidents, food reactions) effect a larger portion of the population than terrorist action in every country, not just the US. I realize that that is not precisely what you said - I believe you were speaking more about freak accidents than accidents in general - but I thought I'd point it out: I'm convinced that more people are killed in unremarkable (though sad) ways in any country than are killed in terrorist actions. The ratio is just closer to parity (though still a long way off) in some countries than others.

After two weeks, it doesn't seem like you're going to get much debate here. A more general, though not analogous, question which might generate some debate might be "Assuming you could do only one or the other, would it be better to employ military force to prevent international violence, or spend money on consumer safety to prevent injuries within your nation?" (gee, that sounds almost like a link question...)

Edited to fix link.