How was that guy who flew his plane into the Austin IRS building not a wing-nut terrorist? That's what I want to know...
How many occurred with IEDs like you just mentioned above prior to the invasion?
Why do you put invasion in quotes? The invasion of Iraq wasn't a real invasion?
If you discount attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at the military how does your terrorism database stack up still?
You know why the majority of those casualties come from Sunni Muslims, Darrin? Hint, go to the public library and do some research on "invasions".
How did this conversation shifted from 40+ years to the last year?
Just so you know, 911 nutters like you aren't allowed to use the term wing-nut.
How did this conversation shifted from 40+ years to the last year?
Hey, I just was pointing out that people that are quick to say the Tuscon shooting was motivated by political rhetoric can't being themselves to say a shooting of US airmen by a guy yelling "Allahu Akbar" was motivated by radical Islam.
Right. So, how did this conversation shifted from 40+ years to the last year?
Those figures were for the entire database, not just 2010.
------------Attacks----Dead-----Wounded--Hostage ----Victims---victims % of total
Afghanistan---8,594---11,435--- 16,569--- 2,505---30,509 7.6%
Iraq ------- 24,821---48,805--- 107,248--- 4,459--160,512 39.9%
Nepal ------ 3,789 --- 1,256--- 3,652--- 48,779-- 53,687 --13.3%
Pakistan --- 6,634--- 8,918--- 18,872--- 5,286--- 33,076--8.2%
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough most of those deaths are the indirect result of US actions, other than Nepal and India (not shown, approx 25,000 victims).
Our actions in Iraq, essentially precipitated a low level conflict style civil war.
I would also note that the database is fairly recent, so comparisons with past periods is not possible.
I stand by my earlier statement. I doubt that Saddam's butchers killed nearly as many Iraqis, as our actions directly or indirectly did.
Given this list is, in all likelihood, vastly understated, that is a lot of dead muslims that died so we could be secure.
By the way, your snarky comment at the end:
"At least the secular anarchists are a close second"
Missed the important "political" distinction that was lumped into the " Secular/Political/Anarchist" category.
One would assume your average civil war in Africa, or outright criminal undertaking would fall in this category.
Not sure what you point was, but I can guess.
Honestly, I think "terrorist" is something of a failed term/idea.
They are criminals, pure and simple, and should be treated as such. This whole affair could be much better handled by law enforcement, with military action as a VERY last resort.
I have no doubt that the world is a violent place.
BUT
If you can't compare that list to other groups and causes, like say the IRA, or FARC, then you haven't really said all that much, other than the fact that your confirmation bias didn't allow you to see the logical faults in such a line of reasoning.
mannyisgod's steps to looking stupid about terrorism:
1) you must believe the American founding fathers were considered terrorists, not rebels and revolutionaries.
2)Then you imply the USA initially invaded a Muslim country (Afghanistan) without cause.
3) Then imply no one, definitely not to the tune of ~85% of the public, considered said country a harbor for terrorism nor supported invasion.
4) Now act like the USA government uses terrorism now solely for propaganda uses in furhtering the War and has convinced the population, after the fact, that such a war is necessary because of terrorism.
There you have it. Any of you can appear as hopelessly out of touch as manny.
If you're still feeling too clued in, you can always call the nuclear bombs used against Japan a unique brand of American-sponsored terrorism; of course, the clued in are keeping in mind that Japan is a nation that attacked us first without provocation and also, a nation we waged war against for over three and a half years and lost tens of thousands of lives against, and we warned and demanded a surrender. Also keep in mind the nuclear bombs saved an estimated 1 million American and Japanese lives (most of the Japanese being civilians, of course). It's not War, it's Terrorism.
Last edited by z0sa; 03-09-2011 at 02:18 PM.
The pre-9/11/01 approach to terrorism is preferable in almost every way, but its failure to bow to perceived expediency and pander to a hysterical public is probably fatal to it politically.
Pretty much. The emotional arguments in politics sadly trump best practices more often than I would like.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post, so I will try to keep it simple.
Everybody, including the administration official in question, can probably guess it was an act of terrorism.
What someone in an offical capacity can't really do, is comment with a solid assertion without even preliminary results of any real investigation. That is irresponsible.
What is edly partisan by your dumb ass, is to suggest that an official of the US government should publically and officiall state something as fact, even if it is readily fairly obvious, without any more formal investigation being upheld.
It veers into the realm of unbelievably edly partisan, because you would probably not imply that our government should be that irresponsible if the administration had been a Republican one, especially when that administration, being constrained by the same things offically and diplomatically would have said pretty much the exact same thing.
Are you implying that our government should be irresponsible to suit your emotional needs Darrin?
Didn't work very well ON 9/11, did it?
There was a man who repeatedly tried to warn people of an impending attack by Al Qaeda. If he hadn't died in the WTC on 9/11, I'm sure he would be called a islamophobe today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
deja vu
If you don't like the implication, don't make the statement.
Answer the question.
You forgot to ask how many Muslims WEREN'T committing attacks, but decided to because of our presence. That's a big point too.
How many?
Do you think that America is able to prevent all terrorist attacks of this size? Is that a reasonable assumption? (Not rhetorical, it's an honest question.)
Obviously a rhetorical question, but the answer is certainly more than zero.
Of this size, yes. It's all the homegrown solo artists that are becoming the problem. It is probably more difficult to stop the smaller attacks. Funny thing is, it's not the TSA groping grandmothers that's thwarting attacks -- just ALERT individuals and incompetent jihadists.
I think I agree, that we should expect our intelligence services to prevent us from such a widespread, long planned out attack. (Especially given that there was likely some forewarning.)
I also agree that the TSA is pretty stupid.
What do you think of other actions? For instance, email sniffing, warrantless wiretapping, etc etc? Justified for the time/money/resources spent on them? Or would we be better off relying on agents to do their work, and following the (assumed) best leads?
Prevention isn't a reasonable standard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
