Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

He Can’t and Will not be Caught for Years…

Reason being if he is the world will think: The War on Terror is over…

Stupid World for thinking that…

Let’s see his head. LET’S SEE IT!

does it really matter?

Well I have to say that that’s not necessarily true Matt.

If the guy isn’t dead he could do more damage being presumed dead than alive. I know most my family in the military are still on guard until they know for a fact that Bin Laden is dead.

To the rest of the world it might seem like a victory. But to those who are fighting against terrorism it’s still a threat.

A quote not written by myself, but I think the author does have a valid point:
“The truth is terrorism will always exist and there is no way to defeat it by declaring war on it. It is ludicrous to think that you can defeat an ideology. This so called War on Terror has done nothing but create more enemies and hate for this country. Maybe we should take a look at changing our foreign policy and attempt to find out the real reasoning behind 9/11. Taking away our civil liberties isn’t going to make us any safer.”
I don’t mean to get all political in a blog such as this, but claiming the “war on terror” is successful based on one man being killed is an overstatement. Ten years down the road, if the Middle East region as a whole is able to forgive North America and Britian for the tens of thousands dead as a result of invading, then I will call it a success, but for the time being, I personally see no “success” in sight.

I completely understand what you are getting at, and that there is a need to stop people like Osama Bin Laden, but the methods we have used to date may only perpetuate the hatred towards western civilizations in the end. Personally, if my house was destroyed and/or friends and family were killed I’d be rather infuriated. Couple this with poverty and instability from invasion and most people will not be ‘happy campers’. There is a need to distinguish between Muslims and terrorists, and not penalize both which is what I fear is currently occuring (43,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war last time I heard - of course this is an estimate).
- http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/21/iraqi-civilians.html
My feelings can further be applied to Palestine where the state (or whatever you wish to call it) has been occipied with ~65% unemployment rates and a terrible standard of living. With Canada potentially aiding this:
- http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/26/canada-palestinians.html
I would expect resitence to my country of birth if I went there wearing a Canadian flag wrapped around my body. Its a well-known fact that poverty and opporession leads to violence, and perhaps we are breeding and perpetuating hate rather than working towards stopping it.

My feelings very well may be sculpted around my background and atmosphere though, and while I was raised as Protestant I don’t deny the fact that Jesus may have well been a typical prophet and Muhammad may have well been what they Qur’an (which I did purchase but have yet to read) states. The program at my university has a large Muslim population (Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afganistan - which is dwarfed by the Cantonese) and not once have I head them preach violence. Of course, these are people in general are well-educated and brought up but from personal experience most Muslims I’ve got to know (some coming right from the Middle East) are good, moral people. I’m also attempting to get Hezbollah legalized in Canada (so are the NDP although I wouldn’t vote for them) so it appears as my views are quite different than yours.
Essentally all races & religions are capable of violence. One of my Ukrainian cousins was murdered by Baptists for attempting to leave them, and another was imprisoned in China for practicing Falun Gong/Dafa (my cousins appear not to be very lucky!) although he luckly got out unscathed. Hitler was a Roman Catholic I believe and the Crusades against Muslims and Jews don’t shine to me as humanities greatest deeds.
Glad to hear your thoughts!

None of the 19 terrorists who killed 2,996 innocent people on 9/11 were poverty stricken. They all came from upper middle class families. I don’t buy that ‘well-known fact’ of poverty leading to violence at all.

“I appreciate your view but tend to disagree with some of it.”
I appreciate your view as well, and while I disagree with some of it, it is nonetheless logical and understandable. I’ve been told to rot in a ditch before, and later when I was able to fully explain my position the person apologized profusely. I still have the conversation logged.
“1) We wouldn’t have to use those methods if they weren’t being terrorists and randomly killing people.
2) Quite honestly, I don’t care if they hate me, as long as they aren’t trying to kill me.”
I completely agree with your second point. People have the right to their opinions so long as they don’t infringe on my life in a negative way. I respect the fact that many Muslims regard their religion before their lives, but they need to keep in mind that not everyone else does.
As for the first point, its only a very small percentage of people who are extreme enough to kill themselves for their religion, and invading a country on false pretences with massive civilian deaths I feel will not aid in this cause. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk&NR (I’m a fan of George Galloway)
“Couple this with poverty and instability from invasion” I don’t want to interpret this incorrectly, am assuming you are saying poverty is one thing and instability from invasion is another and not “poverty and instability” caused by invasion. I hope it isn’t the later because that is just silly. AND places that have been “invaded” like Iraq are better of now than they were before.”
I don’t have the information up in front of me, but Iraq was not known as a terrorist haven before America invaded. Saddam opposed terrorists and while he wasn’t a great man himself, there was a functioning economy and not 100+ getting bombed by extremists each day. Are these extremists the fault of America? No, not directly at least but such attacks were not as common before the invasion. As for clarifying, the economy is weaker than it was before the invasion, oil has “disappeared” and as a whole I can’t see the GDP rising. Even if I take your comments at face value as the invaded regions being better than the pre-invasion times, as a whole the country is not a better place to be. Of course there are many other reasons why the Middle East is in a terrible state, but many are not solely the fault of terrorists or Muslims, but developed nations: http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm , http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+and+propaganda , and my personal favourite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS2ESHKhBQY (I wonder what these “other reasons” are!). In the last case, “collective punishment” is what I feel the invasion of Iraq has done, regardless of intentions.
“That is unfortunate. While I think people should have the freedoms to believe what they want, but I would never help out a terrorist organization like Hezbollah.”
One man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Essentially I feel that Hezbollah is more on the freedom fighter side than a terrorist organization, and while I don’t agree with the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, I feel Israel has the chance to amend the situation by leaving the Shebaa farms to the international community to give back to Syria/Lebanon as they see fit. Hezbollah would have no further reason to pursue Israel, aside from regaining captured civilians during the Israeli occupation which I can’t justify or condemn as I don’t know the terms of them.
“You attack our cities, our villages, our civilians, our capital, we will react,” he said. “At any time you decide to stop your aggressions on our villages and towns and cities and our civilians, we will not hit any settlement or any Israeli city.”
“Our policy is clear, we are fighting in an area that is still under occupation in Lebanon. And beyond that area, we are on the defensive.”
“Well, of course, the method of Osama bin Laden, and the fashion of bin Laden, we do not endorse them. And many of the operations that they have carried out, we condemned them very clearly.”
-Hasan Nasrallah

“Hitler was a Roman Catholic” I think most Catholics would disagree with that statement. I can call myself a giraffe, but doesn’t mean I actually am.
100% correct. This is essentially how I feel about Hezbollah, calling them terrorists is a broad classification that essentially makes the uneducated assume they exert a similar position to Al-Qaeda which is ridiculous. Perhaps we should have some terrorist ranking system!
“the Crusades against Muslims and Jews don’t shine to me as humanities greatest deeds.” Ok, true, but what is your point? The Crusaders, while often misguided, still weren’t terrorists.
So because they don’t fit your classification of terrorists, that makes what they did any more justifiable? A man walking up to me and shooting me dead, or a suicide bomber blowing me up in the name of Allah. To me it’s the same thing. Both acts are wrong, I’m dead either way. Killing tens of thousands of civilians to disarm a small population of terrorists is simply not effective. Yes these terrorists hide among civilians and yes, these terrorists (my definition of a terrorist seems more strict than yours) must be stopped (I wish peacefully but both sides clearly show no sign in doing so).

To tell you the truth, I found your site when looking for why Pluto was classified as a dwarf planet!

“I don’t have the information up in front of me, but Iraq was not known as a terrorist haven before America invaded.”

Ummm… it may not have been quite known to everyone BUT…. YES IT WAS.

Before America “invaded” where do you think the terrorists were stationed when they planned the 9/11 attacks. I’m sorry but that information is not correct.

US Intelligence KNEW where Al Queda was stationed right before the attacks happened. And they knew that Al Queda was planning something. Iraq was a terrorist haven long before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 happened.

Sadam “may have” openly opposed terrorism but he was a ruthless dictator. So I wouldn’t take his word at face value.

As to “one man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom fighter” tell that to all the victims of 9/11. Besides… that’s like an excuse a Bolshevik (sp?) or a Nazi would give.

As to the Crusades, yeah what they did may not have been right.

But if my history serves, I’m pretty sure that Muslims were attacking Europeans for being Infidels and the crusades were ORIGINALLY meant to be a way to protect people and to protect people on the travels to and from Europe.

Besides… while I’m not condoning what the Crusaders did, they were men in a battle with other men who were waging battles against them.

The terrorist attacks done by Al Queda were not in act of war or battle of any sort BUT done against innocent and unsuspecting people. Hence the definition of terrorist.

” “Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,” the report said.

The report also contended that Hussein tried at various times to locate and capture al-Zarqawi.”
-http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/08/senate-cia-report.html?ref=rss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdlEcFfYZ2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA
OK Carmel, now back from “lala land”. I’d take the time to respond to the rest of your post but as you clearly can’t take the time to evaulate and insightfully respond to my commpents, I feel my time is better suited to my Economics midterm tomorrow. Perhaps tomorrow.

La la land eh? It’s not that bad a place to be. I’d prefer that to Iraq anyday.

“I’d take the time to respond to the rest of your post but as you clearly can’t take the time to evaulate and insightfully respond to my commpents”

Stefan, you don’t have to respond. It’s all free will here to me. But while you may disagree I did read your comments thoroughly and while you may not think my response was all that insightful, my comment is just as valid. I was also respectful and honest in my reply.

Sadam may have “openly”, by that I mean publicly, mentioned his dislike for terrorism, but he killed many people on his own. Once again, I wouldn’t take his word for anything.

There are men who will say they hate terrorism and they do. But there are also men like Sadam, who say one thing and then do another.

Good luck on your econ midterm. I agree that your time is better suited to studying for that.

We will see that Osama headline at about the same time we see this one:

BUSH IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS BEGIN

“Here is the thing; in war civilians die (of course), fortunately the US is pretty good at keeping those deaths to a minimum. The problem is that the insurgency that still exists in Iraq doesn’t care about the civilians so more die. If the moderate Muslims, even those that would but their faith before life, need to start standing up to terrorists that don’t supposedly represent their values.”
Many Iraqi’s don’t like the United States much better than Saddam, with justification. Other forces aiding in the removal of Saddam don’t view US soldiers in the way you do (and I’d rather take their word for it as they are there):
“My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans’ use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don’t see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it’s awful.
“The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn’t in Iraq. It’s easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them.”
The phrase untermenschen - literally “under-people” - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slaves and gipsies.
Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders’ “concerns and fears”.
If America was taken over by lets say China, would you expect resistance? I would assume so. I’m sure China could spin a web of propaganda like the Bush administration did, and continues to do, making the Chinese feel it is justified, just like what is going on now.
Getting back to Iraq, the people oppose the forces who started the mess. Its plainly obvious:
97% of those polled say that terrorism should be rejected. A far higher proportion than among the population of most Arab nations. Surprisingly 98% of the Sunnis polled rejected terrorism, higher than any other group. But as far as attacks on US forces results were less positive, with only a small 53% majority opposing them.[Iraq]

Maybe not a haven, but while Saddam supposedly didn’t approve of terrorist organizations in his country (because he always wanted to know that he was #1), there were still plenty of terrorists and people with similar mindset there, even if they weren’t “organized”. … True, Saddam took care of all the killings and oppression by himself.
43,000 innocent civilians didn’t die under his “oppression” in a matter of years. When you invade a country you must think of the consequences. Apparently the United States and Britain aren’t strong in this category. They initiated the attacks on Iraq, Iraq did not invade America.
Unorganized people aren’t going to bomb the United States, or be a large threat to me or my cousins living there. You stated before you didn’t mind if people hated you, as long as they would not go to physical means to harm you, or other direct methods (which I completely understand.) If they were organized Saddam would likely slaughter them. Regime changes and restructuring of countries could be put to better use. Look at Africa, a continent largely neglected for decades. While Saddam was a bad person, there is worse, and there are more practical places to help, that wouldn’t require lies and deceit to do so.

“As for clarifying, the economy is weaker than it was before the invasion, oil has “disappeared” and as a whole I can’t see the GDP rising.” Firstly, I don’t really know how reliable pre-war economy can be trusted because of all the corruption within the Iraqi government and also between the Iraqis and others (UN Oil for food scandal…). And while this is over a year old, I think it still exemplifies how many good things have gone on in Iraq. I still maintain that things are better there now than they were then.
Since neither of us are there I don’t think either of us have a very credible opinion on this. Either way, many people are dead, soldier on both sides, and more fighting is going on in the region. Will this be a positive end result? Perhaps – the 43,000 dead civilians, thousands of other dead soldiers may be outweighed by the happiness a democratic government brings, although it may be brought down and only more misery brought upon the Iraqi people. We simply don’t know.

“One man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Essentially I feel that Hezbollah is more on the freedom fighter side than a terrorist organization…” I think this is WAY wrong. Everything Hezbollah has done is terrorist like (ok, that is a generalization). Being a freedom fighter can be a good thing… if you act in an appropriate manner and not like terrorists.
You’re right, it is a generalization. They are a democratic group (terrorist) who attempted to seek a ceasefire (terrorist) and condemns attacks against even the nation supporting Israel’s existence (terrorist once again). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0yvwnN6EAc I’d be pleased to send you the document I sent out, of course this blog isn’t appropriate for that, or lengthy debates like this either.

“Well of course they will say that! They were trying to be taken seriously and pretending to be reighteous, if you are trying to look righteous, you want to distance yourself from bin Laden.”
I’d look into the reasons why Canada considers Hezbollah a terrorist entity, you’ll find out they’re not quite sure themselves. The truth is there is no evidence to support them helping Osama bin Laden, and you have no proof that they are lying about having some strong two-way bond with bin Laden. The fact that Hezbollah has condemned these attacks must also clearly indicate that they want everyone aside from Muslim extremists who feel it is necessary to attack for no reason whatsoever, like themselves to die. Hezbollah was created as a result of Israel invading Lebanon, and they seek to regain their land and the children and women taken under Israel’s illegal occupation. If these conditions are reached and Hezbollah attacks, of course I wouldn’t support them but they are not. Hezbollah has legitimate reasons, its as simple as that. Whether you support them or not is your personal decision, but don’t go saying they are “pretending” to be righteous when you don’t know what they stand for, and who they truly support.

“So because they don’t fit your classification of terrorists, that makes what they did any more justifiable?” No, because they weren’t terrorists.
Clarify please? Sorry.
“Killing tens of thousands of civilians to disarm a small population of terrorists is simply not effective.” I agree, who is doing that?
Civilian dead due directly to war (includes only deaths officialy reported[2]).: 43,387 to 48,174 [7]
I guess Saddam and the “terrorists in Iraq that supposedly exist” are to blame entirely on a war they didn’t start?
Heh, well I hope you found my Pluto post more informative and less opinionated!
I enjoyed the article, and as I am ignorant regarding astronomy, I couldn’t argue about it if I wanted to (not that I find joy in spending my time explaining to people why I feel the way I do). Anyways, the midterm went well, hoping for 100%
“hard to impeach someone who hasn’t done anything worthy of being impeached for.”
I though lying, killing, and wrecking havoc on economy were impeachable items (although feel free to prove me wrong, I’m not sure of this). I don’t hate Bush, I think hes a good man based on the documantaries I’ve seen of him. I just don’t think he is fit to be President at this point in time.

Man… a girl is gone for three days and look what she misses out on…

“Heh, well Stefan I think it is pretty clear that this could keep going on and on. It seems that we both have different views of what is going on in Iraq. While, as you pointed out, there are people that think things aren’t going well and those that think the US military is using excessive force, there are just as many reports (I would say more actually) that would suggest otherwise. I still contend that Iraq is much better off and that many Iraqis would agree.”
“How do you figure he has lied? This seems to be a favorite thing to throw around, but Bush hasn’t lied about anything that has gone on. (I truly hope you don’t think the government had anything to do with 9/11…) Killing? This is wartime, people die, not an impeachable offense. Wercking havoc on the economy? I would still say that Iraq is not doing as bad as you think it is..”

Sorry for the long response, its getting to be midterm time, and I’m apply to co-op jobs for this Winter so I’ve been running around. I did do well on my economics midterm so that’s a plus at least =]
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=908754&ch=334515&src=uwaterloo.facebook.com
- 800-900 attacks a week (often 4 attacks an hour) please show me evidence of this happening under Saddam’s dictatorship. I cannot understand how this country is better off when upwards of a hundred or more are being killed! And: “not telling the truth” is getting pretty close to lying as well.
Not just this, but torture is out of hand:
UNITED NATIONS — Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Reports from Iraq indicate that torture “is totally out of hand,” he said. “The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein.”
“It’s not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you’ll find by private militias,” he said.
A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq’s Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in “honor killings” of women.
Iraq’s government, set up in 2006, is “currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq” such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.
According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/civilian_deathtoll_060921/20060921?hub=World
So we have more frequent attacks and worse/more frequent torture, yet its better? Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people are masochists?
Oh but the country is “democratic”!
As much as I think democracy is overall a good thing (still has faults, but so does every other form of government) forcing it upon people through attacking them does has consequences. They are becoming quite evident.
As for liar, hes either that or incapable of doing a proper job.
Bush maintained that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda(shown to be false by USA senate report)
At what point did Saddam Hussein obtain WMD’s like Bush claimed? Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel stated in 2001 that he was unable to obtain WMD’s or even rebuild much of Iraq’s military for that matter. Hmmm?

“The Crusaders were not terrorists and did not act as such.”

While I’d like to drag this on about how people rebelling from oppression from what many consider a “terrorist state” I’ll answer you question more directly: “On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of “schismatic” Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the Crusading armies took part.”
Does it matter if people are killed based on their religion from a sword or from a bomb? The fact that these attacks were large scale and organized makes it more frightening. To put it simply, the term “terrorist” to me, merely seems a way to justify attacking other. I’m not saying America and Israel are the only ones doing this. The Palestinians claim Israeli’s are terrorists. If your up for some good beats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSVxzKbCGks&mode=related&search=

Nice talking to you! Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree!

Sounds fair to me
But please don’t call Bush not a liar, he’s not many things (I’d argue intelligent is one of them) but a liar he is.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/58169/Olbermann_s_Special_Comment.html
The man’s entertaining, but he speaks the truth. I do agree that the Taliban should be stopped and understand Canada, USA’s, and the international communities attempt to rid the Taliban off Afgan soil. I have a friend who lived there until several years ago and he said it wasn’t the nicest place to be. And we both agree that Osama Bin Laden isn’t a swell guy either, and probably would be better of dead, as sad as that may be. I merely don’t think it is reasonable to attack a country, which although may not be the nicest place to live theres worse out there, and bigger threats to the United States (North Korea has a nuke now apparently, while Rice and Powell claimed Saddam was unsuccessful in even reconstucting his fractured military.) The people in Africa are being butchered and dying from aids while we bomb a country that used to be peaceful and not terrorist ridden. I also ask you to look up on Hezbollah, they aren’t crazed terrrorists, or havn’t acted any more irrationally than the government they oppose.
Bye for now!

You are perfectly welcome to not continue discussing this, if you are offended by what I am saying - two are required to have a discussion (unless you’re crazy)! I have tried to conduct this discussion in a civil manner, and besides my impolite rant to Carmel, which I do apologize for (although I maintain the information she used was bogus) I thought all was going well.
As comment on misinformation, I always though deliberately telling false information was considered a lie, and so does dictionary.com:
1)a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2) something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
Well the statement was false, as no one said what Bush stated, and it clearly had the intent to skew opinion in this way. Also, a president which is wrong about both major reasons for going to is something done wrong. This is something worthy to be impeached for, as he has done something wrong, contrary to your statement. He’s clearly not done a great job with a massive deficit, dead soldiers, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi’s. (I don’t say he’s intolerable to discuss about though – he seems to be a fine man, just not working in the right job in my opinion)
As for your intolerance of Hezbollah, I find it hard to believe that you cannot tolerate this group formed after Israel invaded Lebanon, and merely requests what has been taken from them be given back, when you support a country which kills innocent Palestinians, cuts off the power to millions of people (communal punishment), and forces them into their homes. How can you support a military using chemical weapons on restricted by the Geneva Convention which the rest of the world condemns - even the “terrorists” don’t stoop so low. This viewpoint to me is insulting, but I tolerate it. I find it peculiar that you don’t mind this, but simply cannot continue on a discussion regarding the legitimacy of Hezbollah.

Dear Matt,

Pretty interesting website raising a host of interesting issues.

The big question I was left with was: after Osama is dead…what’s next? Terrorism is like the many-headed hydra. I am quite certain that there is a similarly insane individual waiting in the wings, prepping for flight as we watch reruns of The Price is Right.

There’s a book, a novel, that just came out that incredibly deals with what you’re talking about on this website: viral fear and real threats.

It’s called THE NEXT OSAMA (another amazing coincidence) by J. Acosta (www.jodere.com) and you can read the whole galley online for free. (A very radical idea, indeed.)
And while it’s fiction, the ideas in the book unfortunately aren’t.

The investigative journalism I was raised with is sadly for your generation a thing of the past and the current demand is for quicker and quicker bites (midget nibbles), less and less real information, and more and more emotional/sexual/physical scandal. Those translate into fear, porn, and violence.

I took a poll of what was on cable the other night-nothing fancy, just a remote and a pen and paper. I counted 20+ under the rubric of violence/gruesome crime. I counted at least 20+ under fear/horror/terror. And then there were about 15 under the general category of apocalypse/natural disaster. Those were my choices if I wasn’t in the mood for reruns of The Price is Right. We could have an entire symposium on categorizing game shows, but that’s another e-mail.

The point in this slightly longer than I had imagined commentary is the impact of fear when deliberately used by mass media. As it is currently dispersed it is numbing. It is mind-altering. And as a result, it is addictive.

Fear is supposed to stop us and THEN…this is the important part…propel us into useful, self-protective, well-chosen action. That is the point of it-to save our lives.

When we are flooded, battered by fear on an ongoing basis and cortisol is never released, the “all clear” never sounded, instead of taking appropriate action, we go numb. We freeze. We distort. We confuse.

There are real threats, but viral fear does nothing to help us deal with them.

Good luck with your website.

D