To whom does the threat of terror belong?

[rigney]

Such a pity, but what a pity! This country, just rising from a middle ages crisis concept; is now considered fodder for the guns and bombs of terrorism. Why? They are not "America", so why pick on them? Don't those subversive dirt bags know that the U.S.A. is supposed to be the only one bearing the brunt of "all hostilities"?

http://news.yahoo.com/india-terror-attack-kills-17-wounds-81-mumbai-161508702.html

[Moontanman]

The Terror belongs to the terrorists, they bear complete responsibility for it, no one else is responsible for it.

[CaptainPanic]

Such a pity, but what a pity! This country, just rising from a middle ages crisis concept; is now considered fodder for the guns and bombs of terrorism. Why? They are not "America", so why pick on them? Don't those subversive dirt bags know that the U.S.A. is supposed to be the only one bearing the brunt of "all hostilities"?

http://news.yahoo.com/india-terror-attack-kills-17-wounds-81-mumbai-161508702.html

In India, out of every 1000 babies born, 65 die before the age of 5.

UNICEF says that 2.1 million children die every year, because of diseases and malnutrition.

Why do you care about 17 dead people from terrorism in India, when many many many many more innocent children die from a lack of food and diseases?

 

Get your priorities straight, man.

[doG]

In India, out of every 1000 babies born, 65 die before the age of 5.

UNICEF says that 2.1 million children die every year, because of diseases and malnutrition.

Why do you care about 17 dead people from terrorism in India, when many many many many more innocent children die from a lack of food and diseases?

 

Get your priorities straight, man.

Do you tacitly condone terrorism because children are dying of diseases and malnutrition? What exactly is the point of ostracizing anyone for complaining about terrorism? Is that where your priorities lie?

[rigney]

Do you tacitly condone terrorism because children are dying of diseases and malnutrition? What exactly is the point of ostracizing anyone for complaining about terrorism? Is that where your priorities lie?

 

I don't believe the Captain fully understands what most of us consider to be civilized behavior doG. Dying in your sleep, getting ran over by an automobile, killed in an airplane crash or from a lingering malady is not the same as having some 'nut case" zap you while he is living a convoluted dogmatism, giving him the right to blow your ass off. "WOW"! Edited July 14, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Do you tacitly condone terrorism because children are dying of diseases and malnutrition? What exactly is the point of ostracizing anyone for complaining about terrorism? Is that where your priorities lie?

I never said or even suggested we should condone (accept and allow) terrorism. Instead, I say is that there are also other problems in this world which deserve attention. Some people act like terrorism is by far the most important problem in the world. That does not make any sense, as I showed with some numbers in my previous post.

 

The result of everyone over-prioritizing terrorism is that the costs of the war on terror to the US is about to surpass the US budget of WWII (compensated into today's prices)...

 

And I think that's just not worth the money.

 

Sure, we must fight terrorism... but by giving these terrorists so much attention, and by dedicating an astronomical amount of money to fighting them instead of some other problems, you allow them to win.

 

I don't believe the Captain fully understands what most of us consider to be civilized behavior doG.

That's just below the belt, and it does not help you to make a point. You cannot back up that argument by any other point other than that we disagree on something. If you consider "uncivilized behavior" the same as "disagreeing with you", then you should not be in the politics forum.

Dying in your sleep, getting ran over by an automobile, killed in an airplane crash or from a lingering malady is not the same as having some 'nut case" zap you while he is living a convoluted dogmatism, giving him the right to blow your ass off. "WOW"!

From the victim's point of view, I don't see the difference between getting blown up by some crazy terrorist who has a messed up world view, and getting hit by a truck with a driver who did not get enough sleep, or in fact any other accident.

 

Terrorism is so easy that it cannot be 100% prevented. So, the real question is just how much we should dedicate to fighting terrorism, and how much we dedicate to other problems. I seem to disagree with you that we crossed the line a long time ago. When you knowingly ignore massive problems in this world, and make fighting terrorism your primary priority (as the US federal budget spending suggests), you have got your priorities wrong.

[swansont]

Get your priorities straight, man.

 

I don't believe the Captain fully understands what most of us consider to be civilized behavior doG. Dying in your sleep, getting ran over by an automobile, killed in an airplane crash or from a lingering malady is not the same as having some 'nut case" zap you while he is living a convoluted dogmatism, giving him the right to blow your ass off. "WOW"!

 

!

Moderator Note

Don't make this personal

[rigney]

I never said or even suggested we should condone (accept and allow) terrorism. Instead, I say is that there are also other problems in this world which deserve attention. Some people act like terrorism is by far the most important problem in the world. That does not make any sense, as I showed with some numbers in my previous post.

 

The result of everyone over-prioritizing terrorism is that the costs of the war on terror to the US is about to surpass the US budget of WWII (compensated into today's prices)...

 

And I think that's just not worth the money.

 

Sure, we must fight terrorism... but by giving these terrorists so much attention, and by dedicating an astronomical amount of money to fighting them instead of some other problems, you allow them to win.

 

 

That's just below the belt, and it does not help you to make a point. You cannot back up that argument by any other point other than that we disagree on something. If you consider "uncivilized behavior" the same as "disagreeing with you", then you should not be in the politics forum.

 

From the victim's point of view, I don't see the difference between getting blown up by some crazy terrorist who has a messed up world view, and getting hit by a truck with a driver who did not get enough sleep, or in fact any other accident.

 

Terrorism is so easy that it cannot be 100% prevented. So, the real question is just how much we should dedicate to fighting terrorism, and how much we dedicate to other problems. I seem to disagree with you that we crossed the line a long time ago. When you knowingly ignore massive problems in this world, and make fighting terrorism your primary priority (as the US federal budget spending suggests), you have got your priorities wrong.

 

I really didn't mean my statement to be condescending, It's just thougt that your reacting to include another venue was totally unnecessary.

Why do you care about 17 dead people from terrorism in India, when many many many many more innocent children die from a lack of food and diseases ?

A child laying on its death bed is a terrible thing to say the lest. But a young person murdered by a maniacs bomb while on a shopping errend? That's another issue entirely.

And politics and ethics? You actually want to combine them?

 

That's just below the belt, and it does not help you to make a point. You cannot back up that argument by any other point other than that we disagree on something. If you consider "uncivilized behavior" the same as "disagreeing with you", then you should not be in the politics forum.

Edited July 15, 2011 by rigney

[doG]

Some people act like terrorism is by far the most important problem in the world.

Where did that happen?

 

Somebody here started a thread on terrorism and you hijacked it with another topic and ostracized them for posting about terrorism. That is off topic and not conducive to the discussion raised in the OP for this thread! Why don't you start a thread on dying children if that's what you'd like to discuss instead of trying to steer another's that way? Wouldn't that be more productive for both topics than trying to imply my-concerns-are-more-important-than-yours tactics?

[rigney]

Where did that happen?

 

Somebody here started a thread on terrorism and you hijacked it with another topic and ostracized them for posting about terrorism. That is off topic and not conducive to the discussion raised in the OP for this thread! Why don't you start a thread on dying children if that's what you'd like to discuss instead of trying to steer another's that way? Wouldn't that be more productive for both topics than trying to imply my-concerns-are-more-important-than-yours tactics?

 

It really isn't that important to me doG, and I don't believe the Caprtain did it other than as a little misunderstanding. My post are not always laid out properly. So let's forget the incident and work toward something better. Edited July 15, 2011 by rigney

[Ophiolite]

Captain Panic makes excellent points. The obsession with terrorism when there are some real problems in the world is a serious barrier to a better world. For the record my family are under instructions that if I am killed in a terrorist attack they are to sue the pants off of any media that has the ignorance to describe me as an 'innocent victim'. By tolerating the injustices in the world through inaction I am anything but innocent.

[CharonY]

For some reasons I think that is brilliant.

[Brainteaserfan]

Where did that happen?

 

Somebody here started a thread on terrorism and you hijacked it with another topic and ostracized them for posting about terrorism. That is off topic and not conducive to the discussion raised in the OP for this thread! Why don't you start a thread on dying children if that's what you'd like to discuss instead of trying to steer another's that way? Wouldn't that be more productive for both topics than trying to imply my-concerns-are-more-important-than-yours tactics?

His point, simply stated, was that we shouldn't waste our time discussing terrorism because there far worse problems to discuss, and we can't do anything significant to prevent terrorists anyway. If someone is crazy enough to blow themselves and others up, you can't really stop them. At best, intelligence agencies may stop a few.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[jackson33]

rigney; First, please don't be discouraged by these negative points showing up, they are basically coming from one person and I'll erase a couple of them after this post, which I rarely get involved with.

 

On your thread, if it matters, India and the radical Muslim's have been at odds forever and those involved probably don't give a hoot about the US, to begin with. This rivalry goes back to the Ottoman Empire and India's actual independence.

 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/intro.html

 

The Partition of India (Hindi: भारत का विभाजन Bhārat ka vibhajan), (Urdu: تقسیمِ بھارت Taqsim-e-Bharat), (Punjabi: ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਬਟਵਾਰਾ Bhārat dā ban̐ṭvārā), (Bengali: ভারত বিভাজন Bhārot bibhajon) was the partition of British India on the basis of religious demographics that led to the creation on 15 August 1947 of the sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) and the Union of India (later Republic of India). [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

 

CP and Ophie; While there are certainly injustices around the world, those involved do have brains and are capable of solving some of their own problems. In the US 6-7,000 people die EVERY DAY and to their friends and family these are important times, but what can effect mankind must take priority and if the "Islamic Brotherhood" is bent on destroying the West's economy or the annihilation of Israel, IMO any resistance to those goals are justifiable.

[zapatos]

His point, simply stated, was that we shouldn't waste our time discussing terrorism because there far worse problems to discuss, and we can't do anything significant to prevent terrorists anyway. If someone is crazy enough to blow themselves and others up, you can't really stop them. At best, intelligence agencies may stop a few.

If we are not going to waste our time discussing a topic if there are far worse problems to discuss, then perhaps we can cut out these recently discussed posts:

 

What is the opposite of love?

I'm looking for a word.

Rain

What is your perception of Germany?

Anything in Brain Teasers.

Ether model.

Are CANDU reactors safer?

Why use the Wankel engine?

Evidence of human common ancestry.

Anything in Homework Help.

 

This place is going to get real boring if we limit discussion to only the REALLY BIG problems.

[rigney]

If we are not going to waste our time discussing a topic if there are far worse problems to discuss, then perhaps we can cut out these recently discussed posts

 

I understand you loud and clear Zap. And while my statement was in hopes of seeking possible solutions to this problem, it needs a lot of help.

[Brainteaserfan]

If we are not going to waste our time discussing a topic if there are far worse problems to discuss, then perhaps we can cut out these recently discussed posts:

 

What is the opposite of love?

I'm looking for a word.

Rain

What is your perception of Germany?

Anything in Brain Teasers.

Ether model.

Are CANDU reactors safer?

Why use the Wankel engine?

Evidence of human common ancestry.

Anything in Homework Help.

 

This place is going to get real boring if we limit discussion to only the REALLY BIG problems.

Maybe I should change the order of the sentence. We should not waste time discussing terrorism because we can't really do anything about it, and there are far, far bigger problems anyway. I have not yet seen any ideas discussing in this thread as to how we should stop/limit terrorism (which by rigney's next post seems to have been his intent for this thread)

[zapatos]

Maybe I should change the order of the sentence. We should not waste time discussing terrorism because we can't really do anything about it, and there are far, far bigger problems anyway. I have not yet seen any ideas discussing in this thread as to how we should stop/limit terrorism (which by rigney's next post seems to have been his intent for this thread)

I understand why many people get frustrated by the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. The amount of money spent for each life saved is ridiculous.

 

I also understand why many people are happy with the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. It is more than just the number of lives lost to terrorism. If three airliners full of passengers are blown up in the air in a short time, there may very well be a significant impact to the economy as people limit their travel and tourism. I think there is also a big emotional impact. I for one would be much more upset if a terrorist randomly chose to kill my child, than if he died of cancer.

 

But I don't understand why it is a waste of time discussing terrorism for those who want to, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not there are far bigger problems. First, I doubt that very many problems are solved because they are discussed in this forum, certainly no far, far bigger problems. Second, I am sure many people on this site like to participate in discussions because they enjoy the topics and learn a lot (like me!).

 

No matter the importance of the topic or how trivial, people should be able to discuss what they like, whether it meets the approval of others or not. If someone feels a topic is a waste of effort they can just move on to something more worthy of their time. No need to criticize others just becasue of the subject matter, or to decide for others what is worthy of discussion.

 

We may have gotten to ideas on how to stop/limit terrorism if we hadn't been sidetracked by a discussion of whether or not we should have the discussion.

[Moontanman]

Such a pity, but what a pity! This country, just rising from a middle ages crisis concept; is now considered fodder for the guns and bombs of terrorism. Why? They are not "America", so why pick on them? Don't those subversive dirt bags know that the U.S.A. is supposed to be the only one bearing the brunt of "all hostilities"?

http://news.yahoo.com/india-terror-attack-kills-17-wounds-81-mumbai-161508702.html

 

 

Rigney, don't back down off this, it is very true that more people die from other causes every year, probably more people die slipping on soap in the bath tub but terrorism is an attempt to disrupt our entire first world civilization. Terrorism affects every one. Fear of terrorism has far reaching consequences to all of us. literally billions of dollars are spent to try and ensure that terrorists do not succeed in disrupting the every day comings and goings of our society. Terrorists and the fear they spread costs us billions and living in fear touches the lives of nearly every one.

 

Terrorism disrupts not only business and the money trade creates that provides for all of us to live our lives it also disrupts entire governments and causes war and subjugates entire populations and incites them to do horrendous things that they normally would not do. Terrorists of the fundamentalist religious types incite the subjugation of women, influences governments to go to war, terrorist stifles the advance of our entire first world civilization. This effect probably kills more people in third world countries by keeping first world countries from helping than anything else. You are correct Rigeny, terrorism is a huge evil that needs to be stopped if for no other reason it keeps us from fixing things that kill far more people.

[Brainteaserfan]

I understand why many people get frustrated by the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. The amount of money spent for each life saved is ridiculous.

 

I also understand why many people are happy with the level of time and effort that goes into fighting terrorism. It is more than just the number of lives lost to terrorism. If three airliners full of passengers are blown up in the air in a short time, there may very well be a significant impact to the economy as people limit their travel and tourism. I think there is also a big emotional impact. I for one would be much more upset if a terrorist randomly chose to kill my child, than if he died of cancer.

 

But I don't understand why it is a waste of time discussing terrorism for those who want to, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not there are far bigger problems. First, I doubt that very many problems are solved because they are discussed in this forum, certainly no far, far bigger problems. Second, I am sure many people on this site like to participate in discussions because they enjoy the topics and learn a lot (like me!).

 

No matter the importance of the topic or how trivial, people should be able to discuss what they like, whether it meets the approval of others or not. If someone feels a topic is a waste of effort they can just move on to something more worthy of their time. No need to criticize others just becasue of the subject matter, or to decide for others what is worthy of discussion.

 

We may have gotten to ideas on how to stop/limit terrorism if we hadn't been sidetracked by a discussion of whether or not we should have the discussion.

I can't figure out how to use the quote properly on this little mobile device, so I apologize in advance for that.

 

About the economy. With all the security (which isn't actually that secure, see a 2007 GAO study http://cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=3502791&videofeed=36 ), I think that I am more likely to stay at home due to the security rather than the terrorists.

 

I was not trying to decide what was worthy of discussion for you or anyone else, I was saying that IMO, it's not "worth" discussing unless new points are made. As for whether anything will be learned, if you learn that it doesn't need to be discussed that's still learning something. And for accomplishing anti-terrorist discussion, I, nor anyone else here is preventing discussion.

 

Rigney, don't back down off this, it is very true that more people die from other causes every year, probably more people die slipping on soap in the bath tub but terrorism is an attempt to disrupt our entire first world civilization. Terrorism affects every one. Fear of terrorism has far reaching consequences to all of us. literally billions of dollars are spent to try and ensure that terrorists do not succeed in disrupting the every day comings and goings of our society. Terrorists and the fear they spread costs us billions and living in fear touches the lives of nearly every one.

 

Terrorism disrupts not only business and the money trade creates that provides for all of us to live our lives it also disrupts entire governments and causes war and subjugates entire populations and incites them to do horrendous things that they normally would not do. Terrorists of the fundamentalist religious types incite the subjugation of women, influences governments to go to war, terrorist stifles the advance of our entire first world civilization. This effect probably kills more people in third world countries by keeping first world countries from helping than anything else. You are correct Rigeny, terrorism is a huge evil that needs to be stopped if for no other reason it keeps us from fixing things that kill far more people.

Yes, terrorism is a huge evil. However, it largely disrupts things because so much is done to prevent the unpreventable. I think we should ignore terrorism other then to prosecute those living involved. IMO then all of a sudden it will be a much smaller problem.

[Realitycheck]

This is NOT a brainteaser, repeat. This is NOT a brainteaser.

[zapatos]

About the economy. With all the security (which isn't actually that secure, see a 2007 GAO study http://cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=3502791&videofeed=36 ), I think that I am more likely to stay at home due to the security rather than the terrorists.

The economic impact the last time four jets were used by terrorists was significant.

 

The attacks had a significant economic impact on United States and world markets.[202] The stock exchanges did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. Reopening, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8921, a record-setting one-day point decline.[203]

 

By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1,369.7 points (14.3%), its then-largest one-week point drop in history, though surpassed during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.[204] U.S. stocks lost $1.4 trillion in value for the week, [204] equivalent to $1.74 trillion in present day terms.[205]In New York City, about 430,000 job-months and $2.8 billion in wages were lost in the three months after the attacks. The economic effects were mainly on the economy's export sectors.[206] The city's GDP was estimated to have declined by $27.3 billion for the last three months of 2001 and all of 2002. The U.S. government provided $11.2 billion in immediate assistance to the Government of New York City in September 2001, and $10.5 billion in early 2002 for economic development and infrastructure needs.[207]

 

Also hurt were small businesses in Lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, 18,000 of which were destroyed or displaced. Assistance was provided by Small Business Administration loans, federal government Community Development Block Grants, and Economic Injury Disaster Loans.[207] Some 31,900,000 square feet (2,960,000 m2) of Lower Manhattan office space was damaged or destroyed.[208]

 

Many wondered whether these jobs would return, and the damaged tax base recover.[209] Studies of the economic effects of 9/11 show the Manhattan office real-estate market and office employment were less affected than first feared, because of the financial services industry's need for face-to-face interaction.[210][211]

 

North American air space was closed for several days after the attacks and air travel decreased upon its reopening, leading to a nearly 20% cutback in air travel capacity, and exacerbating financial problems in the struggling U.S. airline industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

[Brainteaserfan]

The economic impact the last time four jets were used by terrorists was significant.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

We cannot do anything about terrorists though. Even if we make planes much more secure, they will just move to buses, trains, cars etc. More security and getting more afraid of the terrorists is just going to impact the economy more, and generally make things worse.

[zapatos]

We cannot do anything about terrorists though. Even if we make planes much more secure, they will just move to buses, trains, cars etc. More security and getting more afraid of the terrorists is just going to impact the economy more, and generally make things worse.

I am not suggesting the cost or loss of innocent life due to the war on terror is justified, or that we are completely successful, however we can do something about terrorists.

 

Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation of NATO started in October 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks. It operates in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of militants or weapons of mass destruction and to enhance the security of shipping in general.[32] The operation has also assisted Greece with its prevention of illegal immigration.

 

Operation Enduring Freedom is the official name used by the Bush administration for the War in Afghanistan, together with three smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global War on Terror. These global operations are intended to seek out and destroy any al-Qaeda fighters or affiliates.

 

in October 2001, US forces (with UK and coalition allies) invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime. On October 7, 2001, the official invasion began with British and US forces conducting airstrike campaigns over enemy targets. Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, fell by mid-November. The remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants fell back to the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan,

 

In January 2002, the United States Special Operations Command, Pacific deployed to the Philippines to advise and assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines in combating Filipino Islamist groups.[39] The operations were mainly focused on removing the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) from their stronghold on the island of Basilan.

 

Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (OEF-TS) is the name of the military operation conducted by the United States and partner nations in the Sahara/Sahel region of Africa, consisting of counter-terrorism efforts and policing of arms and drug trafficking across central Africa.

 

In 2004, the Pakistan Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan's Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region.

 

In addition, there have been several planned terrorist attacks that were not successful.

 

21 July 2005 London bombings and 2007 London car bombs

2006 Toronto terrorism plot

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot involving liquid explosives carried onto commercial airplanes

2007 Fort Dix attack plot

2009 Bronx terrorism plot

2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot

2009 Christmas Bomb Plot

2010 Times Square car bombing attempt

2010 cargo plane bomb plot

2010 Portland car bomb plot

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

 

Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

[rigney]

I am not suggesting the cost or loss of innocent life due to the war on terror is justified, or that we are completely successful, however we can do something about terrorists.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

 

Yes, collateral damage to civilians i.e. the result of attacking enemy positions, has never been a rule of engagement for either the United States or its allies, other than twice in 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How fortunate for the world that super arsenals are still controlled by somewhat, "sane" super powers.