War On Terror In Perspective

P

Prakosh

Senior Member
There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat. Bigger than polio, bigger than drunk driving, bigger than gun deaths, bigger than the number of deaths suffered every year from medical malpractice. In fact, its a bigger threat than all those deaths combined. So be afraid, be very afraid, be very, very afraid. Give up every damn right you have, hell invite a damn FBI agent or a Blackwater guard to live with you. We must be safe from this terrible, terrible threat at any cost. Tap my phone, question my kids, bug my car and office, collect all my internet data, please make me safe from this huge threat. In fact just get it over with and put me in protective custody to make sure nothing happens to me Please...

Please.....
 
You sound like a good little Bushie Prakosh ;)
This is what the current administration wants us to believe. I wonder why.....
Do the real Bush reasons go beyond the war on terror ?
 
There have been more than 3000 deaths as the result of terrorism in the past 225 years.

Such an assertion is wholly unsubstantiated.
 
IHateGovernment said:
There have been more than 3000 deaths as the result of terrorism in the past 225 years.

Such an assertion is wholly unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...

Instead of whining about the inaccuracy of my numbers, why don't you put up the exact number of those who have been killed by Muslim terrorists in America since 1789, when the Constitutional government of the United States, the one that dispensed with Dixie's much preferred, Articles of Confederation, was duly established. Let's see your SUPERIOR numbers, I'm betting I'm not off by more than a couple or three hundred if that.
 
Prakosh said:
Instead of whining about the inaccuracy of my numbers, why don't you put up the exact number of those who have been killed by Muslim terrorists in America since 1789, when the Constitutional government of the United States, the one that dispensed with Dixie's much preferred, Articles of Confederation, was duly established. Let's see your SUPERIOR numbers, I'm betting I'm not off by more than a couple or three hundred if that.
Click to expand...
It would depend entirely on what you meant... In your first post it stated "There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat" where is the qualifier of "In the US"? And if somebody starts giving numbers of deaths in the Embassies are you going to attempt to relimit it?

Also, not all terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims, why this stereotyping? You didn't mention Muslim Terrorists in your first post, but we are supposed to assume that it was Muslims? What about Jewish Terrorists, the IRA, those in the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan? What about Khurdish Terrorists in Turkey? Are they not "terrorist" enough for you and your original blanket statement?
Shoot. Why stop there? What about people killed by ELF traps in trees that kill and maim lumber workers? What about McVeigh?
 
Damocles said:
It would depend entirely on what you meant... In your first post it stated "There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat" where is the qualifier of "In the US"? And if somebody starts giving numbers of deaths in the Embassies are you going to attempt to relimit it?

Also, not all terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims, why this stereotyping? You didn't mention Muslim Terrorists in your first post, but we are supposed to assume that it was Muslims? What about Jewish Terrorists, the IRA, those in the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan? What about Khurdish Terrorists in Turkey? Are they not "terrorist" enough for you and your original blanket statement?
Shoot. Why stop there? What about people killed by ELF traps in trees that kill and maim lumber workers? What about McVeigh?
Click to expand...

Does Bush ever mention any of these people when he talks about the war on terror, and the Muslim Terrorists, the Islamofascists, etc. I don't think so, but get as obtuse as you want. Try and make the whole notion about me, that's a great way to refute my argument. Show how stupid I am, hell I don't know history, politics, or even who we are fighting in the war on terror. Or who we are fighting in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. I didn't know Bush was referring to the guys who are killing loggers, are they in Iraq, I didn't know there were loggers in Iraq, which shows just how stupid I am, and of course, I guess if we are going to go after ELF we will have to start bombing American cities as well and sending in troops; does Bush know about this? Is this something he is going to start soon. See, I thought the war on terror was all about the people who were killed on 9-11 since the people killed in the embassies were killed before 9-11, and Bush not only did nothing about them or seemed to care, but he even was eliminating the terror fighters when 9-11 happened. So that doesn't seem to be connnected to 9-11 and I know that BUsh doesn't care a damn bit about Chechnya or most of these other places that you mention since he didn't send American troops in or anything. And in fact, once he is no longer president he probably will never leave Texas again except to go to Kennebunkport. But go ahead, I'm stupid, you and Dixie keep saying that.
 
Damocles said:
It would depend entirely on what you meant... In your first post it stated "There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat" where is the qualifier of "In the US"? And if somebody starts giving numbers of deaths in the Embassies are you going to attempt to relimit it?

Also, not all terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims, why this stereotyping? You didn't mention Muslim Terrorists in your first post, but we are supposed to assume that it was Muslims? What about Jewish Terrorists, the IRA, those in the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan? What about Khurdish Terrorists in Turkey? Are they not "terrorist" enough for you and your original blanket statement?
Shoot. Why stop there? What about people killed by ELF traps in trees that kill and maim lumber workers? What about McVeigh?
Click to expand...


The title does refer to the War on Terror doesn't it, exactly what country
do you think declared the War on Terror and has FBI agents and Blackwater guards, hummmmm? Would that be Ireland, Israel, the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, or the USA?

Do you think that even one in ten people would say, waht country is he talking about given that; probably not. The other responder seems to know what country I am talking about, but the willfully ignorant couldn't figure it out...
 
*sigh*

I simply showed what you actually stated in your post. The Obtuse is all supplied by you. IH8, simply pointed out that more people than 3000 had died from terrorism in the past 225 years as well.

You then started applying limitations that were not present in the original post.

I'm not trying to refute your assertion, I am just trying to find where the limitations are.

Personally I think that Terrorism is ineffective. At least for me it is. Far more people die per year from vehicles than from all the terrorist attacks in the past 225 years combined. I am not afraid of cars, why should I fear terrorism?

I do like people to be accurate in their assertions though. If you want to limit it to Muslim Terrorists on the contiguous 48 states then state so, not the more general "Terrorist" without even the qualifier of "within the US"...

One would be an accurate statement impossible to refute, the other is simply an inaccurate statement.

So far, I have simply tried to find the boundaries of what you actually want to discuss in this thread...

Personally, I disagree with the whole, "Terrorists are going to get you so give me your freedoms!" and I'll bet you can find all sorts of supporting statements from myself if you wanted to look rather than assume that somebody asking for clarification is "arguing against you" and attempting to attack them by saying they are "obtuse" while providing a whole slew of obtuse attacks on an opinion you attempt to giving to me.
 
Prakosh said:
The title does refer to the War on Terror doesn't it, exactly what country
do you think declared the War on Terror and has FBI agents and Blackwater guards, hummmmm? Would that be Ireland, Israel, the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, or the USA?

Do you think that even one in ten people would say, waht country is he talking about given that; probably not. The other responder seems to know what country I am talking about, but the willfully ignorant couldn't figure it out...
Click to expand...
Yes, but your statement of 225 years does not, this is deliberately being disingenuous. The WOT has not taken place for the past 225 years and there have been more terrorists in the past 225 years than just Muslim Terrorists. This is simply attempting to redefine the statement after the fact.
 
Damocles said:
It would depend entirely on what you meant... In your first post it stated "There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat" where is the qualifier of "In the US"? And if somebody starts giving numbers of deaths in the Embassies are you going to attempt to relimit it?

Also, not all terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims, why this stereotyping? You didn't mention Muslim Terrorists in your first post, but we are supposed to assume that it was Muslims? What about Jewish Terrorists, the IRA, those in the Phillipines, Japan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan? What about Khurdish Terrorists in Turkey? Are they not "terrorist" enough for you and your original blanket statement?
Shoot. Why stop there? What about people killed by ELF traps in trees that kill and maim lumber workers? What about McVeigh?
Click to expand...

Here re-read this post:

"There have been 3,000 deaths in 225 years, so yeah, it's a big threat. Bigger than polio, bigger than drunk driving, bigger than gun deaths, bigger than the number of deaths suffered every year from medical malpractice. In fact, its a bigger threat than all those deaths combined. So be afraid, be very afraid, be very, very afraid. Give up every damn right you have, hell invite a damn FBI agent or a Blackwater guard to live with you. We must be safe from this terrible, terrible threat at any cost. Tap my phone, question my kids, bug my car and office, collect all my internet data, please make me safe from this huge threat. In fact just get it over with and put me in protective custody to make sure nothing happens to me Please...

Please....."

Want to know something really funny, the original post doesn't mention the word terrorists at all, not once, so if you couldn't figure out that I was talking about the USA, how did you figure out that I was referring to terrorists of any kind at all, since the word terrorists doesn't appear in the original post. Hummmm??? I guess that is what I mean by willfully ignorant. Just sort of understanding what you want to understand huh??? Good job!!!! Didn't know I was talking about America but knew I was referring to Muslim Terrorists and not any other kind...
 
Prakosh said:
Want to know something really funny, the original post doesn't mention the word terrorists at all, not once, so if you couldn't figure out that I was talking about the USA, how did you figure out that I was referring to terrorists of any kind at all, since the word terrorists doesn't appear in the original post. Hummmm??? I guess that is what I mean by willfully ignorant. Just sort of understanding what you want to understand huh??? Good job!!!! Didn't know I was talking about America but knew I was referring to Muslim Terrorists and not any other kind...
Click to expand...

LOL. Yes it does. Unless "War on Terror" doesn't refer to Terrorists...

However, 225 years expands the statement beyond the WOT, this then begins to include a more broad view of terrorism, unless you are being deliberately inaccurate in your statements in order to limit them after the fact....

Look, just simply state, "Oh, I meant Muslim Terrorists on US soil!" and we'd have already moved past this. Instead, like Bush, you attempt to backtrack and cover inaccuracies.
 
The most amazing part of this whole thing is I largely agree with the main premise.
 
You're post qualifying your number with the idea they had to be Muslim and Americans.

Does concern over terrorism only affect American killed at the hands of Muslims.

Those who died in Oklahoma matter not in consideration of the threat of terrorism? Kenyans and Tanzanians who were killed in an embassy attack are of no consequence?

I agree with the premise of your post but to only use the number of Americans killed by muslim terrorists is not appropriate when addressing the concerns of terrorism in general.
 
whatever, i said by "Muslim terrorists in America since 1789" in my second post and you both jumped all over it. even calling it racists, as far as i know, they are the on;y terrorists we have gone to war over or with...If you have another example please give it to me.
 
That's right, pursue them like you would any other criminal element. Did we go to war with Tim McVeigh? Did we go to war with the anarchists in the mid 1800s? Did we go to war with Randolph, the abortion and Olympic bomber. Did we go to war with the first people to attack the world trade center?

This war is nothing but bullshit, used by Bush and Rove for political positioning and power aggrandisement. There was no reason for the response that emerged after 9-11. All we had to do was work quickly and quietly to take care of business. If we had we would have killed Osama and many of his top people before they could get any strongert. Now they are capable of all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be handled in the same way. Bush has combined the war on terror with a war on American values, he is much more of a threat to our way of life, then the terrorists are. If the cockpits had been locked on 9-11 we would never have had this war on terror at all. Think about that. Once ounce of prevention would have confounded the whole plot.
 
I believe that the threat is overhyped and it is not as dire as depicted. However I would also say that dealing with an organization like Al-Queda is different and significantly more difficult than a Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.

Dealing with Al Queda still requires military operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top