[ponyfleisch]

> Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?

This depends on what kind of crime you talk about. And is "the vast majority of crimes" actually prevented from occurring? How do you get numbers for this?

Calling people who don't agree with you stupid is not going to advance your cause. At all.

> I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat (merely the occasional zealot who acts out due to his/her own mental health issues).

Two points:

1. The occasional zealot is all it takes to make people feel unsafe, affect their behaviour towards other people and just generally ruin a lot of peoples days.

2. Blaming all terrorist attacks on mental issues alone without taking into account viral ideologies is dishonest.

edit: i forgot this:

> And in spite of a historically unprecedented global surveillance system there have been no attacks thwarted.

Provably wrong.

[ionised]

> Provably wrong.

So prove it.