terminology of terror

[SkepticLance]

john5746 said that the decision for war is a cost/benefit exercise.

 

I agree. However, I do not think that the powers that be in the USA carry out that exercise correctly. The cost/benefit must include human lives as well as money, and the value we put on human lives should make one African peasant of equal worth to one American soldier.

 

We all too often see news items that say, in Iraq for example, that a certain number of Americans and British have died, and how terrible is that. We ignore the fact that the casualty rate among locals is several hundreds of times greater. The great tragedy of Iraq is not that 3000 American soldiers die. It is that 650,000 Iraqis die.

 

A proper cost/ benefit analysis should take into account local casualties also. Even the casualties on the side of the 'enemy'. They are also human.

[geoguy]

john5746 said that the decision for war is a cost/benefit exercise.

 

I agree. However, I do not think that the powers that be in the USA carry out that exercise correctly. The cost/benefit must include human lives as well as money, and the value we put on human lives should make one African peasant of equal worth to one American soldier.

 

We all too often see news items that say, in Iraq for example, that a certain number of Americans and British have died, and how terrible is that. We ignore the fact that the casualty rate among locals is several hundreds of times greater. The great tragedy of Iraq is not that 3000 American soldiers die. It is that 650,000 Iraqis die.

 

A proper cost/ benefit analysis should take into account local casualties also. Even the casualties on the side of the 'enemy'. They are also human.

 

The irony with Iraqinam is that there is still no definition of the enemy. Rumsfeld identified them as 'a few thousand malcontents and criminals'. Well, if even a small percent of the Iraqis murdered by the americans were these 'malcontents and criminals' then the enemy must be down to 3 or 4 individuals....super humans able to eventually send the American military home with its tail between the legs a la Vietnam.

 

Why not build a wall?: That sure is a sign of 'progress' after 4 years!

[ParanoiA]

I agree. However, I do not think that the powers that be in the USA carry out that exercise correctly. The cost/benefit must include human lives as well as money, and the value we put on human lives should make one African peasant of equal worth to one American soldier.

 

Good point. And consider that what little footage I've seen in the media covering operations by the military, candid footage of soldiers working the streets, a proud respect for these people is shown by them. I believe the soldiers do see the value of human life here, even if those who sent them there do not.

[Pangloss]

The number of people who die in a just cause is irrelevent.

I disagree. I think it is a cost/benefit decision like anything else. Trouble is that the costs are difficult to measure and the benefits even more so. That is why we invade Iraq and not Korea or Darfur. The perceived costs were low when compared to the perceived benefits.

 

I did get a bit carried away there. That's probably a more reasonable way to look at it. 3' date='000 dead Americans who volunteered to help out, equating to 650,000 dead Iraqis fighting for their freedom... that sounds about right.

 

(Who said moral equivalence was a bad argument anyway?)

 

Bear in mind, of course, that we can't sit down and map out X number of lives for Y benefit with these kinds of enterprises. That kind of "CBO" just isn't going to be real accurate when applied to this particular game.

 

 

Maybe we should get involved, but we can't fix all injustices, especially those of the mind and spirit.

 

I agree.

 

 

The great tragedy of Iraq is not that 3000 American soldiers die. It is that 650,000 Iraqis die.

 

IMO the great tragedy of Iraq would be if 650,000 Iraqis died and got nothing for it.

[Sisyphus]

 

IMO the great tragedy of Iraq would be if 650,000 Iraqis died and got nothing for it.

 

I suppose that would depend on what they were dying for...

[pharmacol]

Terror:

 

Abu Graib.

 

Hoods and electrodes.

 

Exactly geo. Also killing 50 000 somali civilian b4 911. The Somlais didnt attack USA. Did they?

 

Backing war Lords (ie extortion mafia) in Afghanistan and now Somalai.

 

I was watching a video by an ex American general ( i think name of wesly Clark) and he said he knew Iraq would be invaded in the 90's and the USA planted to invade 7 Muslims countries in 5 years.

Iraq, iran somalia, sudan, lebanon, libyia.

 

Actually taliban Is islamic movement and Islam prohibits opium. And the Taliban believe opium is forbidden.

 

 

From some of the what the British intelligence were saying on Tv it suggested that there would be a wave of invasions of Muslim lands to force them to give up Islam.

 

The first wave was to split them into many smaller nations . So they could be latter attacked again a few generations latter to force them to give up a certain percentage of Islam. then say another generation or few generations to attack them again

[pharmacol]

You cannot go to nations and say sell us your oil for this much or we will bomb and torture you. That is terrorism. Thats what the Mafia does.

 

If some one doe not give you their resources then taking by force, threats is terrorism. or is that different?

 

I thinking killing so many Iraqis is not a big deal for the white nations as killing red indians was not a big deal.

 

 

iraqis are fighteing against what you call freedom and not for it. It is only a few Iraqi traitors that are fighting for freedom (ie the puppets)

 

such puppets were used by racist british empire in India and otehr countries. Even by the English in Scotland and irland.

 

those days terrorising non white nations was covered with fancy words like speading civilasation (even though the queeen only bathed once a year)

 

and now terrorising non white nations is covered with another nice word freedom.

 

what word will be used in the future?

 

Until an effective counter block against the white nations will continue to terrorise the rest of the world.

 

hopefully we have such a block we can have some peace and harmoney in the world.

 

USA has just taken up the war to conqure the world for the white race. I do not think that the USA public wanted that but the british have tricked the USA elite into accepting this.

 

Maybe USA will run out of steam and the ball for terrorsing the non white world will go to the europeans again.

 

 

Muslims do not hate the Americans or the europeans but they have a strong dislike for people forcing their way of life on them. When they say we hate America they forget to make it clear which americans they hate and why. I think they just assume Americans would know they do not hate all Americans and just hate bush , rusmfield, isreali lobby etc.

 

Even Osama doesnt hate all Americans and i am sure if soem one was to ask him he would say he doesnt.

 

Islam goverens every aspect of muslims life and no one can just come and say replace your way of life with our way of life.

 

There are some brainwashed pupppets the brits left behind in many Muslim countries but who cares about them.

 

I am sure the Americans would not have wanted british puppets goverening them when they were kicked out of the USA. SO why should the Muslims?

[Saryctos]

did the delete post button just up and dissapear? or am I going blind @_@

[Pangloss]

Lol, you brainwashed puppet.

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess.

[jackson33]

You cannot go to nations and say sell us your oil for this much or we will bomb and torture you. That is terrorism. Thats what the Mafia does.

 

REPLY;the US government nor any industrialized nation, buys oil. companies, corporations do so, but have no means to take anything.

 

If some one doe not give you their resources then taking by force, threats is terrorism. or is that different?

 

REPLY; free trade is not terrorism. people killing their own, blowing yourself up to kill innocents, planned violence to disrupt economic conditions and professing the death of groups -Jews-Infidels by major leaders or theological clergy, are some that smell of terror.

 

I thinking killing so many Iraqis is not a big deal for the white nations as killing red indians was not a big deal.

 

REPLY; i don't know any RED Indians, but many American Natives. what they have to do with Iraq, i have no idea. by any math, the deaths of Iraq innocents, generally Muslim, have be caused by other of the same faith.

 

iraqis are fighteing against what you call freedom and not for it. It is only a few Iraqi traitors that are fighting for freedom (ie the puppets)

 

REPLY; no, the Iraq people, with unanimous participation, voted for a form of government, even knowing to do so could cause their death. many have died for showing this desire to be free.

 

such puppets were used by racist british empire in India and otehr countries. Even by the English in Scotland and irland.

 

REPLY; by far the least racist and most diversified European Nation, has to be Britain. as i recall the Scott's and Ireland were the culprits, as England refused to take action on the general population. Both after realizing their actions were terroristic, have ceased.

 

those days terrorising non white nations was covered with fancy words like speading civilasation (even though the queeen only bathed once a year)

 

REPLY; the British empire was instrumental in bringing much of the world out of the mid-ages. even the American Colonies, were content to a point. this war for independence 240 years ago, was fought over several things- the queens alleged habits, civilization and European presence, none of which...

you might check out some of the Islamic Empire results which were lined to advance only Muslims and their beliefs.

 

and now terrorising non white nations is covered with another nice word freedom.what word will be used in the future?

 

REPLY; you are thinking freedom loving, not white. many predominantly white nations have fought for their freedom.

 

Until an effective counter block against the white nations will continue to terrorise the rest of the world.

 

REPLY; these freedom loving nations, wish any nation which the people want the same should have it. these same people that fought with-in themselves to free their minorities and in particular their women, have set views on the rights of people period. in the US, to deny a person freedom or make them a slave, will land you in jail...

 

hopefully we have such a block we can have some peace and harmoney in the world.

 

REPLY; my thought is this block is very small. a few disgruntled males tangled in some ideology giving themselves value and dominance over others, along with a few brainwashed clergy, does not represent a very large block.

 

USA has just taken up the war to conqure the world for the white race. I do not think that the USA public wanted that but the british have tricked the USA elite into accepting this.

 

REPLY; just where is the idea the US, wishes to conquer or occupy any place.

we are in many places by obligation, but have no control over any governing force.

 

Maybe USA will run out of steam and the ball for terrorsing the non white world will go to the europeans again.

 

REPLY; no, the USA, will never run out of steam, if your think as a nation they will allow any group to force an attitude on the remaining world. we did do this once, BUT NEVER AGAIN..

 

 

Muslims do not hate the Americans or the europeans but they have a strong dislike for people forcing their way of life on them. When they say we hate America they forget to make it clear which americans they hate and why. I think they just assume Americans would know they do not hate all Americans and just hate bush , rusmfield, isreali lobby etc.

 

REPLY; the Americans elected Bush to be their president. do not confuse the American free speech and political system, with an over all attitude. by saying "force ing a way of life", i assume your saying the few incidents around the world, including the USA, where Muslims attempt to change the traditions of a country, will disrupt efforts of all. not true, these Muslims are just playing the freedom card.

 

Even Osama doesnt hate all Americans and i am sure if soem one was to ask him he would say he doesnt.

 

REPLY; OBL, hates his mother, sisters and all Infidels. his words, not mine. some have asked, therefore my reply.

 

Islam goverens every aspect of muslims life and no one can just come and say replace your way of life with our way of life.

 

REPLY; IMO; no religion, can be forced on any human. this goes against the inherent nature of mankind. to do this an injustice to the intelligence or the dignity of a person. top this off with a government and legal system, based on a very old philosophy from a very different era where purposes where much different, makes no sense. having said this, no one is asking any nation to change. as said the Iraq people voted, many other Islamic nations as well, which indicates their is a will to be somewhat free.

 

There are some brainwashed pupppets the brits left behind in many Muslim countries but who cares about them.

 

REPLY; have no idea what this means...

 

I am sure the Americans would not have wanted british puppets goverening them when they were kicked out of the USA. SO why should the Muslims?

 

REPLY; this going back 2-300 years is from another period, which is a downfall to an argument. since the founding of the US, Canada and even Australia, many descendants from the UK, have ruled. my heritage goes back to the 1600's, but i have never denied being from British stock. my heritage also, was from the south, but i am still American and my ancestors conformed to all the laws. heritage, customs and traditions are important, should be followed, but in the end no society can exist with out a rule of law.

 

 

.............

[Haezed]

I don't know why. But I don't like thinking that covert agencies have procedures. I mean really. Doesn't the word "procedure", imply a repetitious behavior or system? Systems have loop holes. Repetitious systems are predictable and can be easily thwarted the better the system is followed.

 

Do you ever hear about "procedures" with ninjas? Hell no. Ninjas don't have procedures, systems and etc. They have "training", but that's even covert. Ninjas don't mess around with "flowchart" thinking. I think that's why we suck at it and they're bad ass. Once a spy or something sees our flowchart procedure, we're done for...

 

Righto. The intelligence communities do not get a "blank check" and they are highly regulated. This was a product of hugely important reforms in the 1970s. See, e.g. Church Committee reports, and this vast Wiki understatement:

 

The Church Committee investigations have become somewhat controversial, particularly after the September 11th attacks, as investigations are blamed by some for reducing the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence.