Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Afraid of Terrorist Attacks?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 10:38:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What I am doing as a result of the new US government terrorist attack alert? Absolutely nothing.

The chance of a terrorist striking me is less than .000,000,001%. However, there are things I am really concerned about:

1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

2. Obamacare"which will do nothing but introduce socialism to the medical sector and ultimately result in declining life expectancy in the U.S.

3. The growing surveillance state. Edward Snowden was very correct when he pointed out that what we have is a turnkey tyranny/spying state. The switch hasn"t been turned on in a fashion that impacts most of us, yet. But, it is a switch that can be turned on at any time.

4. Crony capitalist/government deals that suffocate the free market system and put more power in the hands of crony capitalists, who feed more and more off the state.

5. Active operations by government to silence whistleblowers, and other exposers of government activities (See: Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange), so that it becomes more difficult to understand what the government is up to.

6. Federal Reserve money printing that can explode into very strong inflation at anytime.

7. Federal Reserve money printing which results in a manipulated economy that causes the economy to go into cyclical manic-depressive states.

These are all very real dangers created by the state. When the state warns us of a potential terrorist attack, keep in mind what the state is doing to us on a daily basis"things that have a very real impact on our daily lives. The state is much more threatening to us than the less than .000,000,0001% chance that we will be directly impacted by a terrorist attack.

Here"s my alert: FEAR THE STATE, IT IS ATTACKING US NOW.

Source: Robert Wenzel's Economic Policy Journal
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 1:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

This is a hypothetical scenario, which cannot be properly analyzed without including too many missing variables. I am glad that we agree that these criminals are not a significant danger.

It must be remembered: terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they begin using weapons as weapons, then they are no longer terrorists. An axe-wielding Viking is an "Axe Man," even if he is also terrifying. A skillful sword fighter is a "swordsman," even if he is also a Muslim extremist who is swinging his sword for Allah.

The difference is that the weapon will do its work regardless of how fearful the target is. The terror will not. The use of fear as a weapon depends on a terrorist A) finding an audience, B) Frightening that audience and C) having that audience react with so much irrational fear that it will agree to the terrorists political demands.

Break any link in this chain, and terrorism cannot work; it requires the entire sequence. The terrorist may kill his hostages, but if the media does not inform the terrorists targeted audience, the killings will not work. Even if the audience discovers that these killings (out of the many that occur each day) happened, if they are still not afraid, or are not irrational, then the terrorism will not work. This is the case presently in Iraq; many terror attacks happen, but Americans do not really know about them, and we do not submit to the terror demands therefore.

If we want to combat terrorism, we will do as you suggest: demand that our friends and acquaintances stop being (as you word it) "pvssies." Call them out for their cowardice, and demand that we stop pretending that "terrorists" are any thing other than militant criminals.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 1:47:13 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

This is a hypothetical scenario, which cannot be properly analyzed without including too many missing variables. I am glad that we agree that these criminals are not a significant danger.

I dont see how the question was unanswerable but I got your reasoning for the x amount of missing variables. Lets just keep it simple and say that the 50 or so plots were all successful and x amount of Americans were killed by them. How would you feel about the subject then? If you still think that isn't answerable by all means please tell us what other variables you need narrowed down.


It must be remembered: terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they begin using weapons as weapons, then they are no longer terrorists. An axe-wielding Viking is an "Axe Man," even if he is also terrifying. A skillful sword fighter is a "swordsman," even if he is also a Muslim extremist who is swinging his sword for Allah.
Agreed.


The difference is that the weapon will do its work regardless of how fearful the target is. The terror will not. The use of fear as a weapon depends on a terrorist A) finding an audience, B) Frightening that audience and C) having that audience react with so much irrational fear that it will agree to the terrorists political demands.
Also agreed.


Break any link in this chain, and terrorism cannot work; it requires the entire sequence. The terrorist may kill his hostages, but if the media does not inform the terrorists targeted audience, the killings will not work. Even if the audience discovers that these killings (out of the many that occur each day) happened, if they are still not afraid, or are not irrational, then the terrorism will not work. This is the case presently in Iraq; many terror attacks happen, but Americans do not really know about them, and we do not submit to the terror demands therefore.
However at the end of the day that hostage is still dead. We can pretend it didn't happen and after x amount if hostages are killed maybe the enemy will give up but they enemy is also pretty determined and in most cases practically insane, and as stated those hostages are still dead. I find this unacceptable. You bring up Iraq and how the enemy can't make Americans submit since we aren't paying attention. Your right. However for those who have bothered to look you find that in the last couple of years thousands have been killed by these jihadist. But I agree that stupid and irrational fear that the American people have in reaction to these things, thanks lame stream media, are highly over exaggerated and only empower the enemy.

If we want to combat terrorism, we will do as you suggest: demand that our friends and acquaintances stop being (as you word it) "pvssies." Call them out for their cowardice, and demand that we stop pretending that "terrorists" are any thing other than militant criminals.
Definitely agreed however we need to push away from calling them all terrorist (like i said earlier I hate referring to them as that) and call it what they are. Radical Islamic jihadist.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:42:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas.

lol, that will never happen!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:44:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 4:42:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas.

lol, that will never happen!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

(Laughing) no, it will not. Not in Kansas, which is busy implementing religious laws throughout the state. Because that isn't what Sharia Law is.

Please note the sarcasm.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

My main retort to this is an issue of cost-effectiveness. If it isn't a big deal, don't we have better things to do?

1) Non-muslims carried out more than 90% of all terrorist attacks in America. Apparently Jewish extremists harbor more terrorist sentiments than Muslims in America. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

2) IMHO the real aspect of cost effectiveness comes in co-opting the Middle East. War in Iraq SHOULD have been for this reason, but we fvcked it up big time, because we went in with too few troops, and didn't properly secure the country. We were our own worst enemy in that conflict, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:49:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 4:44:53 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/7/2013 4:42:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas.

lol, that will never happen!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

(Laughing) no, it will not. Not in Kansas, which is busy implementing religious laws throughout the state. Because that isn't what Sharia Law is.

Please note the sarcasm.

MARK MY WORDS, IT WILL NEVAR HAPPEN! I LOVE KANSAS AND SO DO YOU!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The primary effects of terrorism are drastically unlikely to effect you.

But consider what happened after 9/11. A few thousand americans died, but the entire nation underwent fundamental changes from the PATRIOT Doctrine, destruction of the Powell Doctrine, an extreme dip in the financial markets, and a war in Afghanistan.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:56:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If instead of "Sharia" they called it "Morals from the Good Ol' Days" and said "God" instead of "Allah" then I bet you Kansas would love women having to stay in the homes, people being forced to pray and adhere to scriptural diets, no sex before marriage, Creationism, religion and government mixed, etc.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 5:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Lets say that the 50 or so plots were all successful and x amount of Americans were killed by them. How would you feel about the subject then? If you still think that isn't answerable by all means please tell us what other variables you need narrowed down."

I am feeling a bit cornered, and am eager to avoid appearing to avoid this question. When criminal/political/military fear attacks are as successful as some of the hypothetical scenarios, they are no longer simply terror attacks - they are actual, lethal acts of destruction.

Inevitably, 9/11:

This was a terror attack, because religious conservatives wanted to change American policy towards US military elements staged in Saudi Arabia. The attacks themselves could not have forced acquiescence, since they were a "one-off" attack with limited follow up. The 9/11 attacks were successful, not because thousands of Americans died, but because we obeyed the Qaeda demands to remove the offending military elements from Saudi Arabia.

Rather than a hypothetical, I will discuss the Benghazi attacks, which many claim to have been "terror attacks." I am not sure that I agree that they were. It has been asked, "we had crowds firing RPGs and machine guns into our embassy. How can this not be a terrorist attack?"

I agree that it was an RPG attack. However, the political decision that the attack seemed to want to force was well within the martial ability of the attackers to accomplish: the paramilitary attack could conceivably have driven the embassy staff out into the street. If this was the only true objective, then this cannot qualify as a "terrorist attack," but a paramilitary attack.

On the other hand, there is surprisingly little information given as to why these groups attacked our embassy. This information suppression seems to be predicted by my "terror effectiveness chain" that I described earlier: If Americans do not know why the embassy was attacked, we cannot mindlessly surrender in fear. We also cannot channel that fear into rage, and be provoked into the slaughter of thousands in retribution.
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 5:44:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 10:38:06 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What I am doing as a result of the new US government terrorist attack alert? Absolutely nothing.

The chance of a terrorist striking me is less than .000,000,001%. However, there are things I am really concerned about:

1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws are what cause inflation and makes America want to outsource.

2. Obamacare"which will do nothing but introduce socialism to the medical sector and ultimately result in declining life expectancy in the U.S.

True

3. The growing surveillance state. Edward Snowden was very correct when he pointed out that what we have is a turnkey tyranny/spying state. The switch hasn"t been turned on in a fashion that impacts most of us, yet. But, it is a switch that can be turned on at any time.

I don't, I agree what they're doing is fully correct.

4. Crony capitalist/government deals that suffocate the free market system and put more power in the hands of crony capitalists, who feed more and more off the state.

5. Active operations by government to silence whistleblowers, and other exposers of government activities (See: Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange), so that it becomes more difficult to understand what the government is up to.

6. Federal Reserve money printing that can explode into very strong inflation at anytime.

So I'm not insane?

7. Federal Reserve money printing which results in a manipulated economy that causes the economy to go into cyclical manic-depressive states.

These are all very real dangers created by the state. When the state warns us of a potential terrorist attack, keep in mind what the state is doing to us on a daily basis"things that have a very real impact on our daily lives. The state is much more threatening to us than the less than .000,000,0001% chance that we will be directly impacted by a terrorist attack.

Here"s my alert: FEAR THE STATE, IT IS ATTACKING US NOW.

Source: Robert Wenzel's Economic Policy Journal
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 5:57:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 5:44:50 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/5/2013 10:38:06 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What I am doing as a result of the new US government terrorist attack alert? Absolutely nothing.

The chance of a terrorist striking me is less than .000,000,001%. However, there are things I am really concerned about:

1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws are what cause inflation and makes America want to outsource.

Oh, I thought it was chiefly the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars since 1913, but you're probably right. http://www.economics-charts.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 5:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 5:57:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/7/2013 5:44:50 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/5/2013 10:38:06 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What I am doing as a result of the new US government terrorist attack alert? Absolutely nothing.

The chance of a terrorist striking me is less than .000,000,001%. However, there are things I am really concerned about:

1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws are what cause inflation and makes America want to outsource.

Oh, I thought it was chiefly the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars since 1913, but you're probably right. http://www.economics-charts.com...

I know that, you see I agreed with you on points seven and six if you remember correctly.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:03:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 5:34:45 PM, DeFool wrote:
"Lets say that the 50 or so plots were all successful and x amount of Americans were killed by them. How would you feel about the subject then? If you still think that isn't answerable by all means please tell us what other variables you need narrowed down."

I am feeling a bit cornered, and am eager to avoid appearing to avoid this question. When criminal/political/military fear attacks are as successful as some of the hypothetical scenarios, they are no longer simply terror attacks - they are actual, lethal acts of destruction.

Its cool if you don't want to answer, I'm not trying to force it. Just curious you know.

Inevitably, 9/11:

This was a terror attack, because religious conservatives wanted to change American policy towards US military elements staged in Saudi Arabia. The attacks themselves could not have forced acquiescence, since they were a "one-off" attack with limited follow up. The 9/11 attacks were successful, not because thousands of Americans died, but because we obeyed the Qaeda demands to remove the offending military elements from Saudi Arabia.

Rather than a hypothetical, I will discuss the Benghazi attacks, which many claim to have been "terror attacks." I am not sure that I agree that they were. It has been asked, "we had crowds firing RPGs and machine guns into our embassy. How can this not be a terrorist attack?"

I agree that it was an RPG attack. However, the political decision that the attack seemed to want to force was well within the martial ability of the attackers to accomplish: the paramilitary attack could conceivably have driven the embassy staff out into the street. If this was the only true objective, then this cannot qualify as a "terrorist attack," but a paramilitary attack.

Agreed. And this follows under what I said about how we need to stop referring to these people and these acts as terrorist and terrorism and refer to them as what they actually are. Radical Islamist jihadist. Your right. They are a paramilitary group and by the definitions of terrorism they do not fall under that category, although there tactics can be argued to be close enough. Especially the suicide bombings. The word terrorism and terrorist are far far to overused and its ridicules.

On the other hand, there is surprisingly little information given as to why these groups attacked our embassy. This information suppression seems to be predicted by my "terror effectiveness chain" that I described earlier: If Americans do not know why the embassy was attacked, we cannot mindlessly surrender in fear. We also cannot channel that fear into rage, and be provoked into the slaughter of thousands in retribution.

Yes but action must be taken. What happens afterword depends on the people leading that action making the right decisions. But of course crap does go wrong. However we cant just sit back and take it. For instance we got attacked at Benghazi. Thanks to our awesome administration we didn't do CRAP. Now the enemy dosent fear us or the repercussions and now have the audacity and balls to attack our bases and embassys. and now we've had to shut down 22 embassy across the region in fear of a "terrorist threat" and are retreating from Yemen completely. Our inaction has encouraged our enemy to step up their game.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:06:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws are what cause inflation and makes America want to outsource.


Somalia does not have minimum wage laws, and so - no outsourcing. Because of the high minimum wage. Other nations also have forgone minimum wage requirements. Let us find one that we all agree our own nation should more closely resemble. I do not vote that America should be more like Somalia, or East Timor, or The Republic of Congo.

ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:11:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 4:48:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
Although I will never agree with most of your commentary, the overall premise is sound. Terrorism kills fewer Americans than chickens do. Even dead chickens kill more Americans than the combined efforts of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon. If they use weapons as weapons, then they stop being terrorists and simply become more terrifying. Will Americans begin shredding our Bill of Rights, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-terrorist, small business owners and job creators... in order to kill one or two criminals that might try and scare us one day?

The answer is yes. Absolutely yes. As long as they are not American Nazis, Neo-Confederates, militia groups, black separatists, violent anti-gay groups or abortion clinic bombers. We will let law enforcement handle them, because they must be investigated.

But the Muslim, Islamofascists who live far away and kill statistically nobody? Yes, kill them by the thousand so that they do not have the opportunity to frighten the home of the brave. They might "nuke up," after all, and spread Sharia Law into Kansas. In any case, they hate us because we have not given them enough good reasons to hate us yet. Bomb them so that they wont think to startle our timid souls.

Question: If we were not butchering school girls, would "the terrorists" be able to come here and kill us?

My Answer: I doubt it. Remember, "the terrorists" are also in the Muslim world, also butchering the same schoolgirls that we are. They use acid, we use bombs. They are more efficient and cost effective, but.

When we explode our missiles into their weddings, they militarize. I do not see how this prevents "the terrorists" from hating us, or buying plane tickets. Or using the Second Amendment right for those on the terrorism watch list to buy weapons. Or buying a pressure cooker.

It is time that we admit: our response to having a criminal scare us is entirely irrational and disproportionate. It is also unsustainable and counter-productive.

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

My main retort to this is an issue of cost-effectiveness. If it isn't a big deal, don't we have better things to do?

1) Non-muslims carried out more than 90% of all terrorist attacks in America. Apparently Jewish extremists harbor more terrorist sentiments than Muslims in America. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Yeah I dont agree with this completely. The study looks like it included all violent deaths in the US and I think thats an over-generalization. And I never said it wasnt a big deal. It is a deal and it is something we need to do something about. We cant just sit back and ignore it. It just isnt as bad as the media plays it out and the people dont need to react as freak out like they do.


2) IMHO the real aspect of cost effectiveness comes in co-opting the Middle East. War in Iraq SHOULD have been for this reason, but we fvcked it up big time, because we went in with too few troops, and didn't properly secure the country. We were our own worst enemy in that conflict, IMHO.

Also disagree since I believe that the Iraq war had hardly anything to do with terrorism. The occupation afterword was definitely fighting that but not the invasion. What we should have done was gone in there, fd up their sh!t, killed saddam and then left. Instead we tried to play the nice guy and say "oh you poor sods we broke all your toys. Dont worry will fix it for you and then youll like us." Right.........
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:12:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And so abolish the state, but give no thought to afterwards!! It will all just sort itself out!!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:12:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 6:06:08 PM, DeFool wrote:
1. Walking the streets late at night, for fear of being mugged by desperate, poorly educated public school youth, who are prevented from getting First Step jobs because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws are what cause inflation and makes America want to outsource.


Somalia does not have minimum wage laws, and so - no outsourcing. Because of the high minimum wage. Other nations also have forgone minimum wage requirements. Let us find one that we all agree our own nation should more closely resemble. I do not vote that America should be more like Somalia, or East Timor, or The Republic of Congo.

Please watch.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:15:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Yes but action must be taken. What happens afterword depends on the people leading that action making the right decisions. But of course crap does go wrong. However we cant just sit back and take it. For instance we got attacked at Benghazi. Thanks to our awesome administration we didn't do CRAP. Now the enemy dosent fear us or the repercussions and now have the audacity and balls to attack our bases and embassys. and now we've had to shut down 22 embassy across the region in fear of a "terrorist threat" and are retreating from Yemen completely. Our inaction has encouraged our enemy to step up their game.

We agree everywhere but here.

I cannot agree that the US "took no action," and simultaneously is closing 22 embassies. If these closings were a coincidence, then it is a remarkable one, that nevertheless demonstrates that this administration takes strong action in this arena.

As far as what action we 'should' take, I will advise strongly against overaction. Reversibility is important as options are being assessed. Logically, we do not want to carelessly preclude some currently invisible course of action that might benefit us a great deal.

This thinking does not allow military responses until a military target is acquired. It also does not allow a painful diplomatic response against another nation until we can be certain that the targeted state was actually responsible.

The failure of Obama is conciliatory pusillanimity, but it may be justified in this case. Situational awareness is always a key indicator of which side will win out in conflict.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:24:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 6:15:24 PM, DeFool wrote:

Yes but action must be taken. What happens afterword depends on the people leading that action making the right decisions. But of course crap does go wrong. However we cant just sit back and take it. For instance we got attacked at Benghazi. Thanks to our awesome administration we didn't do CRAP. Now the enemy dosent fear us or the repercussions and now have the audacity and balls to attack our bases and embassys. and now we've had to shut down 22 embassy across the region in fear of a "terrorist threat" and are retreating from Yemen completely. Our inaction has encouraged our enemy to step up their game.

We agree everywhere but here.

I cannot agree that the US "took no action," and simultaneously is closing 22 embassies. If these closings were a coincidence, then it is a remarkable one, that nevertheless demonstrates that this administration takes strong action in this arena.

As far as what action we 'should' take, I will advise strongly against overaction. Reversibility is important as options are being assessed. Logically, we do not want to carelessly preclude some currently invisible course of action that might benefit us a great deal.

This thinking does not allow military responses until a military target is acquired. It also does not allow a painful diplomatic response against another nation until we can be certain that the targeted state was actually responsible.

The failure of Obama is conciliatory pusillanimity, but it may be justified in this case. Situational awareness is always a key indicator of which side will win out in conflict.

Im not suggesting a full out invasion of a nation, I'll use Libya as the example, however giving our forces a stand down order and then sitting back and watching whilst doing nothing is inexcusable. Precision stikes, counterterror teams, the 35 CIA agents that were in the area. These are all things we could have used. I have several buddies that were on a MEU currently in waters near Crete when the attack happened. They were fully prepared to go and they had 5 counter terrorism teams on station and yet they were ordered to stand down. And because of this Americans died. If we are directly under attack action MUST be taken. And here's another blow back from not acting. Its about the 22 embassy closings. If you could refer to this thread and look at what I said there, although I did get kinda heated during, it shows my feelings towards this administrations decision.

http://www.debate.org...
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:26:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 6:24:04 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/7/2013 6:15:24 PM, DeFool wrote:

Yes but action must be taken. What happens afterword depends on the people leading that action making the right decisions. But of course crap does go wrong. However we cant just sit back and take it. For instance we got attacked at Benghazi. Thanks to our awesome administration we didn't do CRAP. Now the enemy dosent fear us or the repercussions and now have the audacity and balls to attack our bases and embassys. and now we've had to shut down 22 embassy across the region in fear of a "terrorist threat" and are retreating from Yemen completely. Our inaction has encouraged our enemy to step up their game.

We agree everywhere but here.

I cannot agree that the US "took no action," and simultaneously is closing 22 embassies. If these closings were a coincidence, then it is a remarkable one, that nevertheless demonstrates that this administration takes strong action in this arena.

As far as what action we 'should' take, I will advise strongly against overaction. Reversibility is important as options are being assessed. Logically, we do not want to carelessly preclude some currently invisible course of action that might benefit us a great deal.

This thinking does not allow military responses until a military target is acquired. It also does not allow a painful diplomatic response against another nation until we can be certain that the targeted state was actually responsible.

The failure of Obama is conciliatory pusillanimity, but it may be justified in this case. Situational awareness is always a key indicator of which side will win out in conflict.

Im not suggesting a full out invasion of a nation, I'll use Libya as the example, however giving our forces a stand down order and then sitting back and watching whilst doing nothing is inexcusable. Precision stikes, counterterror teams, the 35 CIA agents that were in the area. These are all things we could have used. I have several buddies that were on a MEU currently in waters near Crete when the attack happened. They were fully prepared to go and they had 5 counter terrorism teams on station and yet they were ordered to stand down. And because of this Americans died. If we are directly under attack action MUST be taken. And here's another blow back from not acting. Its about the 22 embassy closings. If you could refer to this thread and look at what I said there, although I did get kinda heated during, it shows my feelings towards this administrations decision.

http://www.debate.org...

I understand the occasional heat in debate; passion is important. However, you have been lied to by authorities that you have trusted to tell you the truth about what happened in that incident. It is not rare; I was lied to as well.

You were told things that were intended to make the current administration look clumsy and incompetent. You were outraged, as it was intended that you be.

However, the Beghazi attack was not likely a terrorist operation, but a full paramilitary assault, conducted by the militia group called "Ansar al-Sharia." Partisan politics in the US have hopelessly corrupted the conversation, and many people here believe fabricated myths about the incident.

Here is a timeline of events. http://www.cnn.com...

The political logic behind labelling this assault an act of "terrorism" is counter-productive; it places too many facts into dispute simply because of party affiliation.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:52:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 6:11:20 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/7/2013 4:48:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

My main retort to this is an issue of cost-effectiveness. If it isn't a big deal, don't we have better things to do?

1) Non-muslims carried out more than 90% of all terrorist attacks in America. Apparently Jewish extremists harbor more terrorist sentiments than Muslims in America. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Yeah I dont agree with this completely. The study looks like it included all violent deaths in the US and I think thats an over-generalization. And I never said it wasnt a big deal. It is a deal and it is something we need to do something about. We cant just sit back and ignore it. It just isnt as bad as the media plays it out and the people dont need to react as freak out like they do.

Right. The idea is that if we wanted to feel safer, our time and money would be far better spent in preventing non-terrorist-related murders within our borders, instead of exaggerating and highlighting a nearly non-existent threat state-side.

The exaggeration was a key factor that led public opinion to support the Iraq War. Given the handful of deaths state-side from Islamic extremism (not including 9/11), it becomes difficult to justify a full-blown, multi-trillion-dollar war as some sort of retaliatory response.

This all assumes that the main reason we waged war in Iraq was due to terrorism, which IMHO is simply not true. More than likely the war was fought for hegemonic reasons, many of which are intricately tied in with oil.

2) IMHO the real aspect of cost effectiveness comes in co-opting the Middle East. War in Iraq SHOULD have been for this reason, but we fvcked it up big time, because we went in with too few troops, and didn't properly secure the country. We were our own worst enemy in that conflict, IMHO.

Also disagree since I believe that the Iraq war had hardly anything to do with terrorism. The occupation afterword was definitely fighting that but not the invasion. What we should have done was gone in there, fd up their sh!t, killed saddam and then left. Instead we tried to play the nice guy and say "oh you poor sods we broke all your toys. Dont worry will fix it for you and then youll like us." Right.........

I think we agree here that Iraq had very little to do with terrorism, and that the occupation had a high correlation with increased terrorist activity at least in Iraq proper.

Personally, I think instead of just leaving (because IMHO "you break it you buy it", and we broke Iraq), I would rather we went in as we should have, via the Powell Doctrine with overwhelming force. This was what the Army Chief of Staff recommended to Congress via his "several hundred thousand troops" comment, and the Bush administration threw him under a bus for it.

Had we gone in strong, we would have secured the country with far fewer civilian and military casualties. A secure Iraq would have been a springboard for dealing with Iran, which is also a stated US interest. It would have been the best case scenario for justifying a pre-emptive strike, and it would have caused a minimal amount of damage to Iraq due to outright capitulation of our enemies.

There would still be a quagmire element, but with enough troops, with enough seized oil revenues paying for them, and with enough control of the country, I think it may have worked.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 12:17:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to delve into how fvcked up the Iraq War has become, China is now buying half of Iraqi oil exports.

http://www.nytimes.com...

So, we went in, bombed the sh!t out of the country, turned it into a political basket-case with hundreds of thousands of local casualties while nearly losing total control, just so that CHINA could benefit?

"We lost out," said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. "The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply."

This article was written two months ago. This is a direct result of inane, dishonest, incohesive, and totally and utterly incompetent execution of a war the justifiably of which was questionable from the beginning.

HAD WE BEEN HONEST WITH OURSELVES AND SAID THAT THIS GODDAM WAR WAS FOR OIL, then maybe, just maybe, we would be seeing a trickle of the benefits of our actions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 12:24:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before anyone attempts to retort that this was an Obama failure:

Think about it. Do you think we built up rapport with Iraq by invading and destroying the country? How the fvck can you possibly pin this on Obama, and not Bush?

This is coming from a moderate Republican who thinks that Bush very nearly destroyed the party and the nation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 12:31:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh great, it gets even better, from the same piece:

"At the same time, China"s interest in Iraq could also help stabilize the country as it faces a growing sectarian conflict."

"Geopolitically it develops close links between China and Iraq, although China did not get into it for the politics. Now that they are there, they have a great stake in assuring the continuity of the regime that facilitates their investment."

Ok. So we go in, fvck the country up, and CHINA TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUTTING THE COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER AGAIN?

Every time I see commentary about this war...[expletive deleted]
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:57:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 11:52:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 6:11:20 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/7/2013 4:48:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:54:50 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:16:03 AM, DeFool wrote:

While I certainly agree with your assertion that the US is far far FAR to afraid of terror attacks and that there is far more important things to be worried about and that they really need to reach down, grab there balls, and quit being p&ssy's, I have to say that you can't just completely shrug off the threat all together. Yes the chances if it happening to you specifically are practicing nothing, however it doesn't change the fact it's still happening. And claiming that the jihadist, I hate calling them terrorist since its mostly a lie, are all far away and kill hardly anyone is pushing it. In the last 10 years the US has had at least 50 recorded terrorist attacks/attempts. With who knows how many more that the US government has not told us and probably never will. Now the reason most people don't care or notice them? Cause almost all of them were foiled. So the attempt to attack us is still very real but yes you probably won't be dying anytime soon from one of these radical nutjobs. However let me ask you a ? If those 50 someodd recorded terror plots in the US had been successful and killed who knows how many people, thousands at least. Would you still feel the same way toward the subject?

My main retort to this is an issue of cost-effectiveness. If it isn't a big deal, don't we have better things to do?

1) Non-muslims carried out more than 90% of all terrorist attacks in America. Apparently Jewish extremists harbor more terrorist sentiments than Muslims in America. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Yeah I dont agree with this completely. The study looks like it included all violent deaths in the US and I think thats an over-generalization. And I never said it wasnt a big deal. It is a deal and it is something we need to do something about. We cant just sit back and ignore it. It just isnt as bad as the media plays it out and the people dont need to react as freak out like they do.

Right. The idea is that if we wanted to feel safer, our time and money would be far better spent in preventing non-terrorist-related murders within our borders, instead of exaggerating and highlighting a nearly non-existent threat state-side.

The exaggeration was a key factor that led public opinion to support the Iraq War. Given the handful of deaths state-side from Islamic extremism (not including 9/11), it becomes difficult to justify a full-blown, multi-trillion-dollar war as some sort of retaliatory response.

This all assumes that the main reason we waged war in Iraq was due to terrorism, which IMHO is simply not true. More than likely the war was fought for hegemonic reasons, many of which are intricately tied in with oil.

2) IMHO the real aspect of cost effectiveness comes in co-opting the Middle East. War in Iraq SHOULD have been for this reason, but we fvcked it up big time, because we went in with too few troops, and didn't properly secure the country. We were our own worst enemy in that conflict, IMHO.


Statments such as this make me wish that wrichcirw would state his views much less humbly. IMHO.

This argument requires the admission that overspending to combat fear-crime is counterproductive. The money could be spent much more effectively.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 12:00:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:57:50 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/7/2013 11:52:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Statments such as this make me wish that wrichcirw would state his views much less humbly. IMHO.

This argument requires the admission that overspending to combat fear-crime is counterproductive. The money could be spent much more effectively.

This guy does non-humble just fine. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 12:02:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By allowing some cowards within our nation to fan-girl themselves into a hysteria, we contributed greatly to the invasion of (for some reason) Iraq.

This invasion cost more American lives, and dollars than the 9/11 attacks.

Much more importantly, perhaps a hundred thousand Iraqi persons were killed, and made to feel afraid, along with their families.

Combine only these two statements, and we agree that cowardice and stupidity have killed more Americans as a result of 9/11 then any fear-crime. Roosevelt: what we should fear most is fear itself.