To whom does the threat of terror belong?

[Brainteaserfan]

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

I think though that the more people killed, the more we have that are angry at us, and more that become potential terrorists. Therefore, I think that the war on terror is quite counter-productive. Just because people won't join Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they won't commit acts of terror against the US or other involved nations.

 

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.

I think that will change soon, and that, IMO, very much needs discussion.

[zapatos]

I think though that the more people killed, the more we have that are angry at us, and more that become potential terrorists. Therefore, I think that the war on terror is quite counter-productive. Just because people won't join Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they won't commit acts of terror against the US or other involved nations.

Hmm. Could be. Do you have any references to back up these assertions?

[CharonY]

Also, there is homegrown terror. Unfortunately sometimes it just takes one to create a tragedy. BBC

[rigney]

Also, there is homegrown terror. Unfortunately sometimes it just takes one to create a tragedy. BBC

 

If you are referring to this link, I understand. A madman in any country is capable 9f pulling off such a disasteroue scheme. Just what can be done to prevent it? Nothing as long as we have people who disagree vehemently with civil cause and seem to condone such action. Then it will always be a burden of civilized humanity.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/witnesses-describe-scene-terror-norway-camp-010853069.html

 

By the way, where is this guy when we need him most? But then, eighty more 15 or 16 year old dead kids shouldn't really matter one way or another; or should it?

 

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.

Edited July 23, 2011 by rigney

[Brainteaserfan]

 

 

By the way, where is this guy when we need him most? But then, eighty more 15 or 16 year old dead kids shouldn't really matter one way or another; or should it?

It matters just like being struck by lightning matters. Lightning kills (there are many estimates, google to see the wide range of estimates) roughly 75 people each year. So, it matters, but not any more than lightning and is just about as hard to prevent as lightning.

 

http://www.weather.gov/om/lightning/medical.htm

Note: that's just US deaths.

[zapatos]

It matters just like being struck by lightning matters. Lightning kills (there are many estimates, google to see the wide range of estimates) roughly 75 people each year. So, it matters, but not any more than lightning and is just about as hard to prevent as lightning.

 

http://www.weather.gov/om/lightning/medical.htm

Note: that's just US deaths.

Maybe it is just me but I don't understand how being struck by lightning is equivalent to being randomly murdered. It is true that the end result is a dead body, so I get that part. What I don't get is how people see no difference in the means to the death.

 

If a kid riding his bike is hit by lightning people don't really get mad, they get sad. If a kid on a bicycle is hit by a car and the driver was distracted by a cell phone, then the driver will likely be punished in some way. If the driver was drunk and should have known better, the punishment would be more severe. If the driver had followed the kid home from school, knew where he would cross the street, then sped up and purposely hit him, it would be worse yet. And finally, if the driver had first sexually tortured the kid before throwing him out of the car and running him over, in many US states the driver would be facing the death penalty (if he lived that long).

 

So none of those means of death matters more to you than being hit by lightning? Like I said, maybe it's just me.

[Brainteaserfan]

Maybe it is just me but I don't understand how being struck by lightning is equivalent to being randomly murdered. It is true that the end result is a dead body, so I get that part. What I don't get is how people see no difference in the means to the death.

 

If a kid riding his bike is hit by lightning people don't really get mad, they get sad. If a kid on a bicycle is hit by a car and the driver was distracted by a cell phone, then the driver will likely be punished in some way. If the driver was drunk and should have known better, the punishment would be more severe. If the driver had followed the kid home from school, knew where he would cross the street, then sped up and purposely hit him, it would be worse yet. And finally, if the driver had first sexually tortured the kid before throwing him out of the car and running him over, in many US states the driver would be facing the death penalty (if he lived that long).

 

So none of those means of death matters more to you than being hit by lightning? Like I said, maybe it's just me.

Does it matter to you whether you die by a burst of energy from a bomb or a lightning strike? Either way, you die by a burst of energy.

 

A terrorist's punishment is similar to your last case scenario who may live. A terrorist almost always dies so he has, in essence, already inflicted the death penalty upon himself.

 

IMO, both means of death would be similarly awful.

[Mr Skeptic]

Lots of countries experience terrorism, but they have enough sense not to overreact to it. Hence why terrorism is a problem in the US but not elsewhere. Now I'll gladly agree that murder and terrorism are worse than natural or accidental or "unintentional" death if only because there is the additional injustice of someone having caused it, or of having caused it intentionally. But, where do we draw the line at when to be offended and when not? People made comparisons to cancer, but some cancer deaths are simply accepted as the side effects of doing business, so that we don't get particularly offended by a company releasing carcinogens even when we know that statistically it will cause several deaths. Or, when a car company skimps on the car's safety components, this too will lead to foreseeable and preventable deaths. Then there is a lot of deaths that we could claim not to be responsible for yet could also prevent for a few dollars per life.

 

So to put it another way... would you rather 10 of your fiends died of natural causes, or 1 of them die from terrorism? Is it more terrible if 1 of your friends get murdered or if 3 of them die from a company polluting the air or skimping on safety measures? Is it more terrible that 1 American die from a terrorist than that 10,000 die in Africa due to lack of clean water? Certainly all deaths are a tragedy but must we really spend so much more on terrorist deaths than on the various other causes of death, couldn't we just declare that we will spend 10 times more per terrorist death than per person killed by natural causes, rather than the crazy overboard spending we do now? And for what? So we can tremble in fear and thank our politicians for providing us with "safety" against "them", so we can give up our rights to privacy lest any terrorist get away, so we have an excuse to send our military places? Yet somehow I think that if we spent all the money from the War on Terror on providing foreign aid, we'd have prevented far more terrorist deaths than by bombing other countries.

[zapatos]

Does it matter to you whether you die by a burst of energy from a bomb or a lightning strike? Either way, you die by a burst of energy.

No, it doesn't matter to me either way. I won't know the difference. But it would matter to my family. I would be much more devastated if my child died because someone was angry that an artist I didn't even know drew a cartoon of Allah, than I would be if my child was struck by lightning.

A terrorist's punishment is similar to your last case scenario who may live. A terrorist almost always dies so he has, in essence, already inflicted the death penalty upon himself.

Hmm. Could be. Do you have any references to back up this assertion?

 

Certainly all deaths are a tragedy but must we really spend so much more on terrorist deaths than on the various other causes of death, couldn't we just declare that we will spend 10 times more per terrorist death than per person killed by natural causes, rather than the crazy overboard spending we do now? And for what? So we can tremble in fear and thank our politicians for providing us with "safety" against "them", so we can give up our rights to privacy lest any terrorist get away, so we have an excuse to send our military places? Yet somehow I think that if we spent all the money from the War on Terror on providing foreign aid, we'd have prevented far more terrorist deaths than by bombing other countries.

Yes, I agree. It seems the amount we spend is exorbitant.

 

What I find interesting is that since it is exorbitant, some people no longer seem to have empathy for those victims of terrorism. If this were a thread in the Medical forum and someone brought up a rare disease that only affects very few people living in a certain area, I don't think people would immediately criticize them for talking about it. If the topic is terrorism though, its "eh, quit whining and wasting our time, other things kill even more people!".

 

Seems to me some are taking out their frustration for what they see as an outrageous response to terrorism on the victims of terrorism, instead of on the policy makers.

[Brainteaserfan]

No, it doesn't matter to me either way. I won't know the difference. But it would matter to my family. I would be much more devastated if my child died because someone was angry that an artist I didn't even know drew a cartoon of Allah, than I would be if my child was struck by lightning.

 

Hmm. Could be. Do you have any references to back up this assertion?

 

 

Yes, I agree. It seems the amount we spend is exorbitant.

 

What I find interesting is that since it is exorbitant, some people no longer seem to have empathy for those victims of terrorism. If this were a thread in the Medical forum and someone brought up a rare disease that only affects very few people living in a certain area, I don't think people would immediately criticize them for talking about it. If the topic is terrorism though, its "eh, quit whining and wasting our time, other things kill even more people!".

 

Seems to me some are taking out their frustration for what they see as an outrageous response to terrorism on the victims of terrorism, instead of on the policy makers.

When I say 1, 2 etc I mean the 1st group of words, 2 the 2nd etc.

 

1. Maybe people need to not be so upset then.

2. Why don't you show evidence to the contrary? In every well known terrorist event that I can think of, the terrorist died.

4-5. The difference is that if a cure for a rare disease is found, it will generally save several people's lives each year, or at least raise their standard of living. Historically, when a disease is studied, eventually a cure, partial cure, or something that contributes to medicine is found. Not, IMO, that way with terrorism.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[rigney]

Very few people have death wishes. Tragedy as such can only be calculated in your own imagination and ability to feel the emotional anger of such a particular situation. Had this guy and/or a couple of his buddies been accidentaly sucked into this oversized carp, catfish, I would have only thought, "WOW, WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTs". And that critter isn't even packin'.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/whale-shark-swim-1311371866-slideshow/#crsl=

Edited July 24, 2011 by rigney

[zapatos]

When I say 1, 2 etc I mean the 1st group of words, 2 the 2nd etc.

 

1. Maybe people need to not be so upset then.

Maybe. And maybe we should all be rich. But we're not all rich, and people will be upset when they lose loved ones. Saying things 'need to be' or 'shouldn't be' doesn't change reality.

2. Why don't you show evidence to the contrary?

I believe the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion.

In every well known terrorist event that I can think of, the terrorist died.

But in the spirit of cooperation...

SUNDVOLLEN, Norway (AP) — The man in the police uniform shouted for the campers to come closer. When they did, he killed them.

 

The gunman who killed at least 80 people at an island youth camp northwest of Oslo used his disguise to lure in his victims, then shot them twice to make sure they were dead, survivors said in the village of Sundvollen, where they were taken after the massacre.

...

Police said the man arrested in the shooting is Norwegian and had set off a bomb that killed seven people outside the prime minister's headquarters in Oslo, about 20 miles (35 kilometers) from the camp.

http://news.yahoo.co...-010853069.html

 

4-5. The difference is that if a cure for a rare disease is found, it will generally save several people's lives each year, or at least raise their standard of living. Historically, when a disease is studied, eventually a cure, partial cure, or something that contributes to medicine is found. Not, IMO, that way with terrorism.

I refer you back to post #24 where I listed several failed terrorist plots where presumably lives would have been lost, or at least their standard of living would have been lowered if the plots were successful.

 

In addition, while I don't know much about terrorist organizations, the following, as well as others, are listed as defunct in Wikipedia:

 

Islamic International Brigade

Japanese Red Army

Red Army Faction

Red Brigades

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_Italy

[Ophiolite]

2. Why don't you show evidence to the contrary? In every well known terrorist event that I can think of, the terrorist died.

I can't think of a single IRA terrorist who died during terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland or the UK mainland. I'm sure you remember The Troubles.

[Brainteaserfan]

I can't think of a single IRA terrorist who died during terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland or the UK mainland. I'm sure you remember The Troubles.

You are right. Dumb me. How many times does it take me to remember not to say every, all never etc.

However, that is on the edge of what I would consider a terrorist group. They, IMO, were more of a guerilla group.

 

@zapatos - I don't have much time now, I plan to have more time later to discuss this.

 

However, very quickly... People can change their "upsetness" much easier than they can change whether they are rich. I mean by that that if they had common sense, or a relative did in explaining it to them, then they would not more upset if their loved one was murdered by a terrorist. (sure I'd be upset if a loved one died, but not much more whether blown up than struck by lightning. Of course, neither has happened to me so I guess I don't really know)

 

Yes, I did try looking for a source, but when I google anything with terrorist, many useless links come up. Thanks for the source, I see that there are a few more attacks where the terrorist didn't die than I realized.

 

Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated.

 

The last bit about defunct organizations I was wondering what they had to do with the rest unless they were caused to be defunct by the war on terror. I didn't see any evidence for that though. Perhaps I didn't do enough following of the links.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Realitycheck]

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.

 

 

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.

Yeah, it made the Army base martyr wannabe go ballistic in frustration at so little successes terrorists were making in the homeland, so he had to take things into his own hands and make some news. Then, there was that shoebomber guy, and that other guy, and that other guy ... I lose track of them all. Just go to the airport an hour earlier once a year. What's the big deal? How has terrorism prevention affected YOU today? In the past month? In the past year? Maybe since bin Laden is now dead, we can just drop everything and go back to what we are doing. Kind of defies the meaning of "al Qaeda", but excuse me if I think that it's a tad bit soon.

[Brainteaserfan]

Yeah, it made the Army base martyr wannabe go ballistic in frustration at so little successes terrorists were making in the homeland, so he had to take things into his own hands and make some news. Then, there was that shoebomber guy, and that other guy, and that other guy ... I lose track of them all. Just go to the airport an hour earlier once a year. What's the big deal? How has terrorism prevention affected YOU today? In the past month? In the past year? Maybe since bin Laden is now dead, we can just drop everything and go back to what we are doing. Kind of defies the meaning of "al Qaeda", but excuse me if I think that it's a tad bit soon.

How has it affected me? Let's see, how many tax $ would that be..... Friends having to go halfway around the world to fight.....

 

And where I live, I have to arrive 3 hrs before the plane leaves.

 

For the foiled terrorist attempts, I'll quote myself.

"Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated. "

 

The two meaning that terrorist prevention money isn't usually what gets them.