Political Crossfire Forums

The dane · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 4257

This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc.

Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan.

Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs.

Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too.

15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong.

45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.

Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood.

How great the price for your rampant spending and pollution will be noone yet knows, yet apparently the future for your own kids is just another thing on the list of things less important than momentary luxuries.

Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

The dane wrote:
Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc.

What will it take for you to believe that there are people in the world that want you dead and want your way of life..which boils down to choice...to be squashed? Another 9-11? More beheadings in Denmark? More bombings in London?

Quote: Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

Something tells me that your original statement was false and this is directed to someone. :lol:

Quote: If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan.

So are we or aren't we in Iraq to combat terrorism? If your answer is "no" then your statement above is moot.

Quote: Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs.

:lol: For example?

Quote: Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too.

Again...for example? Please be specific so I can see where you're coming from.

Quote: 15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong.

Are you suggesting we don't lock up murderers?

Quote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.

Are you suggesting we don't drive cars?

Quote: Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood.

Are you suggesting that we don't eat?

Quote: How great the price for your rampant spending and pollution will be noone yet knows, yet apparently the future for your own kids is just another thing on the list of things less important than momentary luxuries.

Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

:lol: So after the last few statements of your post...again I find this one:

Quote: This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

To be the funniest...

Not to mention the title. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

There is a generation programmed to hate America, the great Satan. It is our duty to help them achieve their goals of attaining Paradise because we love the freedom of religion; just as it is your duty to make pastries and insulting Islamic cartoons. Whaddaya gonnado? :lol:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

The dane wrote: If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong
No, this is precisely what the government desires: more terrorism..

The War on Drugs creates more drugs problems..

The War on Poverty creates more poverty..

The War on Education creates more dumb people..

Wait.. no... they haven't declared war on education yet, have they? :!oops:

Sorry for the Bushism..

At any rate, the government desires more terrorism. What do you expect from a terrorist government?

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

The dane wrote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.
Americans do not "own" their own cars..

In this nation, all our automobiles are owned courtesy of the State.

This is why Americans require a license to operate a motor vehicle in this nation. It's basically permission from the State to operate the motor vehicle that it (the State) happens to own, on roads that the State also happens to own.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1599 Location: London

Ameriman wrote: What will it take for you to believe that there are people in the world that want you dead and want your way of life..which boils down to choice...to be squashed? Another 9-11? More beheadings in Denmark? More bombings in London?

No, honestly we get it. We get that there are hardline militant clerics who want us and our parents and offspring dead. Do I really give a f***? Yes. But compare it to a world where Aids has reduced life expectancy in Africa to a full stop. Where cancer and heart disease are thousands of more times likely to kill me. Where over half the population of the world live below the poverty line and die of preventable diseases every second of every day.

It's the difference between a rational fear and a disproportionate one. Work it out, what are the odds of males developing prostate cancer? Over in the UK it's 1 in 3. Now, prostate cancer is not always fatal, but I'll bet the figures work out to show the odds are stacked in favour of me dying of prostate cancer rather than dying of a terrorist attack. So why should I care more about terrorism than prostate cancer?

The entire approach has been wrong, as Dane rightly pointed out. By allowing these a**holes to instill fear in people, by getting people to give up ideas that were supposed to be the bedrock of our societies. Worst of all though, is that it has turned a stupid little Saudi git into an international bogeyman and broadcast his ideas to a world, where some will be receptive.

The dane · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 4257

Ameriman wrote: The dane wrote:
Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc.

What will it take for you to believe that there are people in the world that want you dead and want your way of life..which boils down to choice...to be squashed? Another 9-11? More beheadings in Denmark? More bombings in London?

Quote: Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

Something tells me that your original statement was false and this is directed to someone. :lol:

Quote: If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan.

So are we or aren't we in Iraq to combat terrorism? If your answer is "no" then your statement above is moot.

Quote: Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs.

:lol: For example?

Quote: Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too.

Again...for example? Please be specific so I can see where you're coming from.

Quote: 15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong.

Are you suggesting we don't lock up murderers?

Quote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.

Are you suggesting we don't drive cars?

Quote: Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood.

Are you suggesting that we don't eat?

Quote: How great the price for your rampant spending and pollution will be noone yet knows, yet apparently the future for your own kids is just another thing on the list of things less important than momentary luxuries.

Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

:lol: So after the last few statements of your post...again I find this one:

Quote: This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

To be the funniest...

Not to mention the title. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that really the best reply you can come up with ? Making obviously false arguments on my part ? :lol:

I'm not suggesting you don't lock up murders, I'm suggesting you try to prevent them.
I'm not suggesting you don't drive I'm suggesting you do it more safely.
I'm not suggesting you don't eat I'm suggesting you eat healthy etc.

Can't believe youre not smart enough to figure that out so I guess you just couldn't come up with anything that actually made sence.

And yes you are in Iraq to fight terrorists, you were just wrong about them actually being there, before you came that is.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

The dane wrote:

Is that really the best reply you can come up with ? Making obviously false arguments on my part ? :lol:

Just trying to clarify your statements since you didn't...

Quote: I'm not suggesting you don't lock up murders, I'm suggesting you try to prevent them.

What do you think the War on Terrorism is trying to do?

Quote: I'm not suggesting you don't drive I'm suggesting you do it more safely.

Speed limits and seatbelts are already mandatory here. What is your suggestion?

Quote: I'm not suggesting you don't eat I'm suggesting you eat healthy etc.

So just to make sure I'm clear...

Because Americans don't eat healthy...what again?

Quote: Can't believe youre not smart enough to figure that out so I guess you just couldn't come up with anything that actually made sence.

And yes you are in Iraq to fight terrorists, you were just wrong about them actually being there, before you came that is.

I see. But they are there now?

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

slitedeviance wrote: Ameriman wrote: What will it take for you to believe that there are people in the world that want you dead and want your way of life..which boils down to choice...to be squashed? Another 9-11? More beheadings in Denmark? More bombings in London?

No, honestly we get it. We get that there are hardline militant clerics who want us and our parents and offspring dead. Do I really give a f***? Yes. But compare it to a world where Aids has reduced life expectancy in Africa to a full stop. Where cancer and heart disease are thousands of more times likely to kill me. Where over half the population of the world live below the poverty line and die of preventable diseases every second of every day.

It's the difference between a rational fear and a disproportionate one. Work it out, what are the odds of males developing prostate cancer? Over in the UK it's 1 in 3. Now, prostate cancer is not always fatal, but I'll bet the figures work out to show the odds are stacked in favour of me dying of prostate cancer rather than dying of a terrorist attack. So why should I care more about terrorism than prostate cancer?

The entire approach has been wrong, as Dane rightly pointed out. By allowing these a**holes to instill fear in people, by getting people to give up ideas that were supposed to be the bedrock of our societies. Worst of all though, is that it has turned a stupid little Saudi git into an international bogeyman and broadcast his ideas to a world, where some will be receptive.

Medical research and science hasn't ended because of terrorism. Can you please point to where the budgets for such programs have been affected at all?

Gdawg007 · Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 15292 Location: Albuquerque, NM

The dane wrote: This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

Quite the contrary, this post is directed at Americans.

Quote: Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc.

I'll agree that all of these are problems. In fact, poverty is part of the problem that feeds terrorism. Reducing poverty in the ME would go along way towards reducing terrorism. But to say that terror isn't a major problem for some people, such as the Israelis, the Lebonese, the people of Iraq and Indonesia, is a lie. Terrorism kills people all over the globe.

Quote: Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

We don't have conclusive proof that we've created more terrorists. And there's going to be times when you have to fight them, there's no way around it.

Quote: What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan.

I agree that one must avoid the trappings of being lured into a fight the terrorists want us in. I also agree that sadly, we've been lured into Iraq and are finding that giving the terrorists what they want, a fight, isn't enough to break them or gain the desired outcome we want in Iraq. There are many reasons for this, and it's not because we are butchers who callously kill civilians.

Quote: Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs.

The reality is, however, that there are people in the ME who want to hurt you and me. They want to for political reasons no different than why America and Britain led the war in Iraq. You're being one sided about this, it's not OUR fault that they have their own political ambitions and are willing to kill for them. That's THEIR fault. We have reacted to an attack, we did not initiate this conflict unjustly, by which I mean the war on terror such as in Afghanistan. Now, I think it was wrong to invade Iraq, but only from a strategic viewpoint. But that's just my opinion, there's plenty of opinion to say that I'm wrong.

Quote: Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too.

True, terrorism is a bogey man, but there are legitimate concerns about it as well.

Quote: 15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong.

Is this by murder? Or by accident? What should we do with criminals? Do the Danes NOT have prisons...? I didn't think so.

Quote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.

This are accidents. What would you have us do? Require the massive liscensing fees you guys pay Europe to drive? We don't have the luxuary of living in a country that's smaller than Texas and having under 20 million people such that trains and other mass transit would be cost effective. We have to drive. And because we will soon have 300 million people doing so, we are going to have traffic accidents and people are going to be killed.

Quote: Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood.

People know fast food is bad for them. What should we do, force them to eat healthy? Is that what YOUR country does...? Should we force change on society or let people choose of their own free will how to live? We believe in the latter, just so you know...:roll:

Quote: How great the price for your rampant spending and pollution will be noone yet knows, yet apparently the future for your own kids is just another thing on the list of things less important than momentary luxuries.

Again, does Denmark not pollute? Do you have no luxuries in Denmark? Do live off only what your isolated ecosystem provides? I don't think so.

Quote: Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

I won't call you any names, but your points are naive and judgemental. I suggest you consider the other side of the argument before you get on your high horse and talk down on America. I suggest you take a look at the problems your country has that ours doesn't and ask yourself if perhaps your way of thinking isn't better, just a trade-off. You can't criticize what you don't understand.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

Gdawg007 wrote: The dane wrote: This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

Quite the contrary, this post is directed at Americans.

Quote: Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc.

I'll agree that all of these are problems. In fact, poverty is part of the problem that feeds terrorism. Reducing poverty in the ME would go along way towards reducing terrorism. But to say that terror isn't a major problem for some people, such as the Israelis, the Lebonese, the people of Iraq and Indonesia, is a lie. Terrorism kills people all over the globe.

Quote: Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

We don't have conclusive proof that we've created more terrorists. And there's going to be times when you have to fight them, there's no way around it.

Quote: What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan.

I agree that one must avoid the trappings of being lured into a fight the terrorists want us in. I also agree that sadly, we've been lured into Iraq and are finding that giving the terrorists what they want, a fight, isn't enough to break them or gain the desired outcome we want in Iraq. There are many reasons for this, and it's not because we are butchers who callously kill civilians.

Quote: Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs.

The reality is, however, that there are people in the ME who want to hurt you and me. They want to for political reasons no different than why America and Britain led the war in Iraq. You're being one sided about this, it's not OUR fault that they have their own political ambitions and are willing to kill for them. That's THEIR fault. We have reacted to an attack, we did not initiate this conflict unjustly, by which I mean the war on terror such as in Afghanistan. Now, I think it was wrong to invade Iraq, but only from a strategic viewpoint. But that's just my opinion, there's plenty of opinion to say that I'm wrong.

Quote: Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too.

True, terrorism is a bogey man, but there are legitimate concerns about it as well.

Quote: 15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong.

Is this by murder? Or by accident? What should we do with criminals? Do the Danes NOT have prisons...? I didn't think so.

Quote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car.

This are accidents. What would you have us do? Require the massive liscensing fees you guys pay Europe to drive? We don't have the luxuary of living in a country that's smaller than Texas and having under 20 million people such that trains and other mass transit would be cost effective. We have to drive. And because we will soon have 300 million people doing so, we are going to have traffic accidents and people are going to be killed.

Quote: Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood.

People know fast food is bad for them. What should we do, force them to eat healthy? Is that what YOUR country does...? Should we force change on society or let people choose of their own free will how to live? We believe in the latter, just so you know...:roll:

Quote: How great the price for your rampant spending and pollution will be noone yet knows, yet apparently the future for your own kids is just another thing on the list of things less important than momentary luxuries.

Again, does Denmark not pollute? Do you have no luxuries in Denmark? Do live off only what your isolated ecosystem provides? I don't think so.

Quote: Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

I won't call you any names, but your points are naive and judgemental. I suggest you consider the other side of the argument before you get on your high horse and talk down on America. I suggest you take a look at the problems your country has that ours doesn't and ask yourself if perhaps your way of thinking isn't better, just a trade-off. You can't criticize what you don't understand.

Now is when he accuses you of mischaracterization...

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1599 Location: London

Ameriman wrote: Medical research and science hasn't ended because of terrorism. Can you please point to where the budgets for such programs have been affected at all?

Whats the current cost of the war in Iraq up to today?

Since the start of the Iraq war, how much money has been allocated to Unicef?

My point isn't that terrorists don't kill people. My point is they kill very very very very very very very very very few, and the response of the western powers has done nothing but exasapate the situation. Having experience of aid agencies and the work they do, I can tell you that whilst 9/11 was horrific, the suffering is nothing compared to what people experience across in Saharan africa.

I do not beleive America is evil. I do not believe any terrorist attacks are justified but I just really really wish people would stop lying about the reasons behind the war on terror. It's not to create a world free from tyranny, it's not to save lives, it's to stengthen the US' global positioning in the face of rising power in China and India.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1599 Location: London

Gdawg007 wrote: People know fast food is bad for them. What should we do, force them to eat healthy? Is that what YOUR country does...? Should we force change on society or let people choose of their own free will how to live? We believe in the latter,

You forgot to add

Quote: when it comes to our own country.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

slitedeviance wrote:

Whats the current cost of the war in Iraq up to today?

Somehow you think that money would have gone to medical research...what brings you to that conclussion?

Quote: Since the start of the Iraq war, how much money has been allocated to Unicef?

A) Isn't most of Unicef's money from individual donations?

B) No one gives more to global charity than the American populace.

C) I asked you the same question.

Quote: My point isn't that terrorists don't kill people. My point is they kill very very very very very very very very very few, and the response of the western powers has done nothing but exasapate the situation. Having experience of aid agencies and the work they do, I can tell you that whilst 9/11 was horrific, the suffering is nothing compared to what people experience across in Saharan africa.

AIDS doesn't have an agenda. Again I asked you to show me the numbers. Has money spent towards combating AIDS in Africa been reduced since Iraq?

Quote: I do not beleive America is evil. I do not believe any terrorist attacks are justified but I just really really wish people would stop lying about the reasons behind the war on terror. It's not to create a world free from tyranny, it's not to save lives, it's to stengthen the US' global positioning in the face of rising power in China and India.

OK. I am not against strengthening US Global positioning (which, strengthens her allies by the way) in the face of opposition.

pete · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 66 Location: Jersey

psholtz wrote: The dane wrote: If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong
No, this is precisely what the government desires: more terrorism..

The War on Drugs creates more drugs problems..

The War on Poverty creates more poverty..

The War on Education creates more dumb people..

Wait.. no... they haven't declared war on education yet, have they? :!oops:

Sorry for the Bushism..

At any rate, the government desires more terrorism. What do you expect from a terrorist government?

I couldn't agree more.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1599 Location: London

Ameriman wrote: Somehow you think that money would have gone to medical research...what brings you to that conclussion?

No my point is that the amount spent, and the fear garnered by terrorism and reactions to it is massively disproportionate if it is being fought for the reasons stated. If it is to save lives, then why spend so much on one of the lowest causes of deaths ever?

Quote: A) Isn't most of Unicef's money from individual donations?

Doesn't the funding for the american armed forces come from Taxpayers who have no choice as to where the money is spent?[/quote]

Quote: B) No one gives more to global charity than the American populace.

You're right as far as I know, and this is one of the most brilliant things about the US, and during my time in Africa there were no people more grateful than those who were treated and fed because of this money. But there were still the children who had no mothers because american pharma companies refuse to lower the cost of retro-viruals, there are good aspects and bad aspects.

Quote: AIDS doesn't have an agenda. Again I asked you to show me the numbers. Has money spent towards combating AIDS in Africa been reduced since Iraq?

Again, you're right about AIDS not having an agenda, whereas terrorists do. Therefore they are much easier to combat. They can be traced, tracked and taken down without the need for full blown wars or invasions. They can be captured, they can be negotiated with. AIDS cannot, and AIDS is inherently more dangerous than terrorism. As I said above, it's not the amount spent, but why the amount is spent. It is disproportionate to the direct result.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10775

slitedeviance wrote:
No my point is that the amount spent, and the fear garnered by terrorism and reactions to it is massively disproportionate if it is being fought for the reasons stated. If it is to save lives, then why spend so much on one of the lowest causes of deaths ever?

Potential.

Quote:
You're right as far as I know, and this is one of the most brilliant things about the US, and during my time in Africa there were no people more grateful than those who were treated and fed because of this money. But there were still the children who had no mothers because american pharma companies refuse to lower the cost of retro-viruals, there are good aspects and bad aspects.

They are in business to make money. Life is far from "fair". Again, how this relates to the War on Terrorism is escaping me.

Quote:
Again, you're right about AIDS not having an agenda, whereas terrorists do. Therefore they are much easier to combat. They can be traced, tracked and taken down without the need for full blown wars or invasions. They can be captured, they can be negotiated with. AIDS cannot, and AIDS is inherently more dangerous than terrorism. As I said above, it's not the amount spent, but why the amount is spent. It is disproportionate to the direct result.

The two aren't connected. No war on terrorism does not mean more money towards AIDS. I disagree that Terrorists can be traced, tracked and taken down without the need for War or Invasions.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:42 am Post subject:

One of the most thought provoking debate.

Glad to hear some good news from the west!!

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10231

The dane wrote: This post is directed at noone in particular, though the Bush government does seem to exemplify the mistakes I will describe here, they are not however alone in what seems a very common mistake.

Terrorism first of all simply isn't a top priority, the world has a great many far more serious problems to deal with, making the extreme focus given to this one topic rather ridiculuous. Too name just a few : Environment, Hunger, Poverty, Energy, Infectious diseases etc etc etc. Here's the first thing - the "world" is made up of sovereign nations and is there is no world government. World priorities are the issue of those nations where the problem exists - where that nation or nation(s) cannot affect change or is possibly the cause of the problem itself, it's incumbent upon other nations to intervene only when there are huge humanitarian issues. So the premise of your post is fatally flawed.

The dane wrote: Second of all killing terrorists however justified it may be solves nothing if you go about the way the US is. Going to try to say this as clearly as I can because apparently most still don't get it:

If your war on terrorism creates more terrorists you're doing it wrong

What that means is that if in the process of stopping terrorist you kill so many civilians, destroy so many towns, break so many human rights etc that the end results is increasing the hatred, and with it the terrorists numbers you need to stop and get a new plan. Providing no consequences for the killing of innocent lives is against the laws of God, and barring belief in a higher power, against the laws of man which keeps civilization "civilized". The arguement that killing terrorists only begets more terrorists is also flawed as the alternative creates even MORE terrorists. The accomplishment of killing a terrorists does many things:
- Provides consequences to the leaders of terrorist organization so they cannot operate and kill with impunity
- Holds individuals and organizations accountable for the loss of life
- Requires a high number of martyr's, making martyrdom less effective as a recruitment tool
- Identifies monetary assets from governments and individuals who both support and harbor terrorists and alerts intelligence organizations to monitor them
- Allows intelligence groups to avert potential attacks and save additional human life and property (i.e. UK bombing attempts from August-Sept 2006)
- Unifies both aligned nations and individuals as well as non-aligned nations and individuals against indiscriminate killing for purposes of either political nature or religious nature

The dane wrote: Ofcourse all this boils down to a basic refusal to face reality, you could stop terrorism if you wanted but that might mean actually helping rather than hurting the arab world, which I know is something hardliners refuse to do. So much easier to act like the little child who won't share his toys, but wants others to share theirs. Again, you're logic and approach is flawed. No one can "stop" terrorism, just like no-one can stop the wind from blowing... however, terrorism can be averted and controlled to a point. That is the purpose.

The dane wrote: Terrorism is in essence the concern of the selfish, it's about continuing to deny what's wrong with your own society by focussing on what's wrong in other, and creating a bogeyman you can blame for it all.
Had it been about saving lifes there are a great many ways you could do that a lot cheaper and more effectively, not only around the world but in america too. Terrorism in essence is murder. You claim and infer that nations who are victims of terrorism must see how right it is for terrorists to kill that country's citizens, and those country's need to reflect and conform to the terrorists wishes. Terrorists do not rule the world, and as long as free-will is asserted in the human condition, there are those who will not agree with and will struggle (i.e. jihad) against indiscriminant murder.

The dane wrote: 15000 americans are killed every year by other americans, yet all you do about that is lock people up, another example of "staying the course" even after all evidence shows it's wrong. What is the alternative you suggest?

The dane wrote: 45000 americans are killed every year in traffic, yet you care more about your right to own a big fancy car. What is the alternative here? Outlaw cars?

The dane wrote: Hundreds of thousands of americans die every year from weight related diseases, yet that's less important than the right to buy cheap fastfood. Free will and the freedom to die by cholesterol is a basic right of free people.

The dane wrote: Anyway I'm sure this will just result in people calling me various pointless names rather than face the facts, but I figured it was worth a try.

You should save your time. Free people who have a mind of their own and who do not want to be brainwashed religious robots strapped with Semtex to die for Allah will always disagree with apologists for Bin Laden, misguided and weak-minded clones blindly following some religious bad-joke. There will always be the weak minded and there will always be the strong minded. No sane person who wants to live, see their children live happy productive lives would argue fighting terrorism is a "lost cause - just give it up!" It makes me smile each time I see one of those bastards brains splattered. I have less feeling for terrorists than I do squashing a bug. The innocent people caught in the terrorists bombs, those who are tortured and infused with fear to look the other way, those who are too afraid to speak out are the one's I feel pity for. I don't think there's a name in the English language that I could call you that would do it justice.

indieinmich · Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 539 Location: michigan

slitedeviance wrote: Ameriman wrote: What will it take for you to believe that there are people in the world that want you dead and want your way of life..which boils down to choice...to be squashed? Another 9-11? More beheadings in Denmark? More bombings in London?

No, honestly we get it. We get that there are hardline militant clerics who want us and our parents and offspring dead. Do I really give a f***? Yes. But compare it to a world where Aids has reduced life expectancy in Africa to a full stop. Where cancer and heart disease are thousands of more times likely to kill me. Where over half the population of the world live below the poverty line and die of preventable diseases every second of every day.

It's the difference between a rational fear and a disproportionate one. Work it out, what are the odds of males developing prostate cancer? Over in the UK it's 1 in 3. Now, prostate cancer is not always fatal, but I'll bet the figures work out to show the odds are stacked in favour of me dying of prostate cancer rather than dying of a terrorist attack. So why should I care more about terrorism than prostate cancer?

The entire approach has been wrong, as Dane rightly pointed out. By allowing these a**holes to instill fear in people, by getting people to give up ideas that were supposed to be the bedrock of our societies. Worst of all though, is that it has turned a stupid little Saudi git into an international bogeyman and broadcast his ideas to a world, where some will be receptive.

I like your analogy.It helps make clearer the point of the original poster.