How would the average American respond to another major terrorist attack?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. We're at a stalemate because I have objective facts and figures on my side while you have a mind tightly closed by partisan zeal on yours. One can simply and objectively show that the risk posed by terrorism is a small fraction of the risk posed by countless other things in our world: disease, accidents, etc.

Woah! That's really cool that you have the objective facts and figures. Since you DO have those figures I'd like you to answer some questions. When facing religious extremists, on a global average, which are most likely to kill people? Which ones comprise the most attacks? Which radical extremists are the biggest concern in the world right now?

No doubt I'll be surprised by your answer. :roll:

I don't believe the mods would find my answer acceptable. Let me know should you ever become interested in civil, adult discussion.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. We're at a stalemate because I have objective facts and figures on my side while you have a mind tightly closed by partisan zeal on yours. One can simply and objectively show that the risk posed by terrorism is a small fraction of the risk posed by countless other things in our world: disease, accidents, etc.

Woah! That's really cool that you have the objective facts and figures. Since you DO have those figures I'd like you to answer some questions. When facing religious extremists, on a global average, which are most likely to kill people? Which ones comprise the most attacks? Which radical extremists are the biggest concern in the world right now?

No doubt I'll be surprised by your answer. :roll:

I don't believe the mods would find my answer acceptable. Let me know should you ever become interested in civil, adult discussion.

I guess when you become an adult we can do that. Let me know when that happens.

Thanks.

 

[Abraxas]

The funny thing about religious extremists is there are plenty on all sides killing people. You want to focus on Islamic terrorists but at the same time, you ignore all those who have committed terrorist acts for Christianity? What about that IRA and the atrocities that took place on both sides of that conflict? In part at least the murder of countless was based on the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism with each side killing the other. What about the KKK, founded in the name of Christianity if not in principle, who killed and injured countless in their quest to promote their values? Or how about the fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and drag gay people to death from the backs of trucks? It could be argued that our current president and those who died in the war in Iraq were sent to their deaths by an "extremist Christian".

Personally, I find the extremist religious people who are the most dangerous are the ones to be the ones with power in the US. They are the ones who can send my family off to die in a God forsaken desert. They are the ones who can impose their views about what I can and cannot do on my life. They are the ones who routinely impact my life and play a far bigger role in shaping my future and the future of the people in my country than any of the religious extremists you are want to oppose. While their actions are not always done in the name of Christianity, they will always claim they were guided by their Christian principles.

Now, before you start the "Christian bashing" bandwagon, as I'm sure by now you already have it in gear, I am not. It is utterly incidental which religion is in power right now, the fact it happens to be Christians is beside the point. The point is any extremist with power is dangerous, some more so than others, perhaps, but dangerous all the same. I contend what is at question is not which extremists we should be worried about, as you think we should be, but rather what can be done about extremism in general and those who consider their beliefs more important than the lives and freedom of others.

 

[BoberFett]

Country music songs. Lots of shitty country music songs.

That's all I've come up with so far.

"Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't chip in our buck oh five who will

Mmmm buck oh five

Freedom costs a buck oh fiiiiiiiiiiive."

 

[tomywishbone]

We'd piss in our greasy pants.

Score:

Evil-doers 24
Skanky Americans 3



Pardon me while I hide under my bed.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

Was it because you truly were safer or because you were ignorant of the risks?

Answer honestly?

I don?t think any of us could have imagined the events of 9-11.
Just as I am sure a lot of sailors at Pearl Harbor woke up feeling nice and safe on December 7, 1941.

ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

 

[shira]

We haven't had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, so the Administration and its minions tell us that what we're doing is working.

But if we suffer another terrorist attack, will they then state that what we're doing is NOT working?

Of course not. What they'll say is that we need is fewer of those pesky civil liberties and more big brother.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

Was it because you truly were safer or because you were ignorant of the risks?

Answer honestly?

I don?t think any of us could have imagined the events of 9-11.
Just as I am sure a lot of sailors at Pearl Harbor woke up feeling nice and safe on December 7, 1941.

ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Enjoy that placebo effect. :laugh:

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: shira
We haven't had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, so the Administration and its minions tell us that what we're doing is working.

But if we suffer another terrorist attack, will they then state that what we're doing is NOT working?

Of course not. What they'll say is that we need is fewer of those pesky civil liberties and more big brother.

Yes, and how many years before 9/11 was there a "terrorist attack" by their own definition?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming I'm not among the dead I'm going out in the streets to shout, "Bring it on!"

LOL, don't worry it won't come to that. today Bush said "We're kicking ass" in Iraq. It will all be over soon, "Mission Accomplished".

I can't wait to hear what Cheney has to say??

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.


The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.


That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte
the world is the same...both before and after 9.11

It doesn't "hurt"... rather, I'm simply embarrassed for you.

That statement shows ignorance in its purest form.

No it doesn't, nothings changed for most people, for you and me, definently, for most people, no.

Take a step back and review what you just said from a civilian POV, what's changed? Nothing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So OrByte?.. the world is the same

But you felt safer with Clinton in office

Does that mean you feel more at risk from the policies of Bush than from the terrorists who are still trying to attack and kill Americans?

Clinton at least had a plan, GW doesn't, he has no idea how he's going to fix what he broke so bad that it's affecting most of the world by now.

I would say that instead of fighting terrorism the actions of this US admin and Blair amongst others have created a very real threat that wasn't even nearly as problematic before.

The worst part is that we know where the terrorists are, we know how to get there, we know how to kill them and yet.... we do nothing.

Sinsear asked me earlier if i need a US soldier to hold my hand, i don't need that but i do need an order and such an order can only come if the US takes the REAL threat of terrorism seriously and stop playing house in Iraq.

I should probably put this as a disclaimer in my signature, i don't mean any disrespect to the men of both my country, the US and the other countries who have men serving in Iraq, i hope you are safe and i hope you are successful in your endeavors.

 

[ProfJohn]

What was Clinton's plan and when was he intending to carry it out?

 

[Colt45]

Main St. NYC/LA, or Main St. middle-of-nowhere, USA?

 

[eits]

personally, i'd like to see the american people rise up and storm the white house.

 

[StageLeft]

It would be polarizing, I think. You'd have people who rightfully know the current path isn't working, and they'd be proven right, and others who think the current path works, but isn't being applied enough, so they'd be literally begging for Bush to attack anybody he possibly can including nukes or whatever else, like the imbeciles they are. And their president is.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It would be polarizing, I think. You'd have people who rightfully know the current path isn't working, and they'd be proven right, and others who think the current path works, but isn't being applied enough, so they'd be literally begging for Bush to attack anybody he possibly can including nukes or whatever else, like the imbeciles they are. And their president is.

yup

 

[ProfJohn]

Skoorb please explain to me what the correct policy to fight terrorism is.

Let me remind you that in tape after tape our enemy has told us that the war will not end until we convert to Islam. So when you provide your solution make sure you don?t ignore that fact.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Skoorb please explain to me what the correct policy to fight terrorism is.

Let me remind you that in tape after tape our enemy has told us that the war will not end until we convert to Islam.

So when you provide your solution make sure you don?t ignore that fact.

False wars in Iraq is NOT the correct policy to fight terrer.

A strong and vigilant military at home is the best policy.

Since you feel otherwise why don't you go to Iraq and take up your fight personally.

 

[rpanic]

Too my wife and I all I can say is that it was very surreal after 9-11. Every corner it seamed like it had people with candles, cars honking, and flags all over. I remember us looking at each other and being very sad because we knew that everyone wanted blood and we were not looking forward to any war in the Middle East. Now to me its even sadder for one moment the whole world seemed to be behind us, and our leadership squandered that moment and took the worst possible path for personal gain.

Its so hard to explain feelings of when you see so many people around you become so fanatical, for a few days I was looking at the face of fascism in this country on a scale I have never seen. I don?t even think people would have cared at that moment if we nuked someone.

When the next one happens, I hope people are a lot more rational, and it is not as exploited to create more fear mongering. But I figure we will just go after another Middle Eastern country and waste more treasure and blood, and loose more rights.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte
the world is the same...both before and after 9.11

It doesn't "hurt"... rather, I'm simply embarrassed for you.

That statement shows ignorance in its purest form.

No it doesn't, nothings changed for most people, for you and me, definently, for most people, no.

Take a step back and review what you just said from a civilian POV, what's changed? Nothing.

Sorry, maybe you're right.. for a minute there I zoned out and forgot that less than 1% of Americans have contributed anything substantial to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

woops, my bad! I won't forget again!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.


The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.


That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Palehorse?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A strong and vigilant military at home is the best policy.

I agree, except that military needs to be wherever the threats exists. Simply stationing them on the homeland isn't sufficient.

It's also ironic that your position is the exact opposite of your party, Dave.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.


The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.


That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Palehorse?

trust me, dude. palehorse is pretty dumb. i'm sure it's probably taking him a long time to reply because he needs to look up the hard words, like "intrusion" and "stringent" and "the".