• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your odds of being killed by terrorism.... [W:194]

Because being killed by a terrorist isn't just dying. It's being killed to allow someone to force their will on others. It's not just the death of one person (or more), it's the fact that the death is used to control large numbers of people. Classic liberal short sightedness....

But it will only be effective in controlling large numbers of people if those people yield to fear.
 
So because you see a few minor changes in how we respond, that means that the terrorists won something?? Yes, they changed some of the ways we act, but for the most part those changes are losses for terrorists, not victories.

Since it's just a numbers game to you, lets stop prosecuting homicides in the US. Only ...38% of Americans will die as a result of homicide, so why waste our time and money on prosecuting murderers when we could be putting all those resources towards improving the lives of a lot of people in this country?? Tell me why we prosecute murderers when the numbers are so small...

Or, we could focus more attention on preventing murders since the odds of being killed that way are much greater than being killed by a terrorist.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065859247 said:
So the US shouldn't spend so much time, energy, and money on Islamic terrorists but we shouldn't ignore them.

A liberal conundrum; your posts prove my point that those who complain about US intervention to combat terrorism are the same who blamed Bush for ignoring the threat.

Make up your mind because the stats you posted imply terrorists are irrelevant.

I don't blame Bush for ignoring the threat.
I blame him for letting them manipulate us into a war.
 
...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
For the same token, why does the federal government spend so much time, money and energy for LGBT restrooms? The odds for someone of a LGBT persuasion needing an appropriate restroom is also quite low.
 
For the same token, why does the federal government spend so much time, money and energy for LGBT restrooms? The odds for someone of a LGBT persuasion needing an appropriate restroom is also quite low.

Good analogy.

We need to focus more attention on what really matters.
 
Locking them up is expensive. Keeping them out is no cost. Plus, we have only so many beds at Gitmo.

No non American has the right to visit or to move to America, it is a privilege, to be handed out as we wish, despite the claims of the Pope and John Kerry.
 
Good analogy.

We need to focus more attention on what really matters.
Dopes who can't read the backstory to the 14th amendment or have their won political agendas push minority issues.
 
because terrorists don't deserve to live, and if my tax dollars can help make them dead, i'm fine with that.
 
To ensure your odds of being killed by a terrorist attack remains slim.
 
It's fearmongering fearmongering. The former being a verb and the latter a noun.
 
I see. It's from the American Spectator. I wonder if the authors realize that the goal of ISIS is to foment a war between Islam and the west.

It is from Daniel Pipes, an acclaimed expert on Islam and the ME, read it again.
 
I don't blame Bush for ignoring the threat.
I blame him for letting them manipulate us into a war.

I guess Japan manipulated the US into war as well.

After almost 3,000 were killed and 6,000 injured on American soil from a terrorist attack on 9/11 a stern warning with a red line should have been drawn then.

Maybe the US government should have just ignored the attack, or just be nicer and capitulate to our enemies; but that hasn't made them love us any more either.

Just ask Iran.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065859771 said:
I guess Japan manipulated the US into war as well.

After almost 3,000 were killed and 6,000 injured on American soil from a terrorist attack on 9/11 a stern warning with a red line should have been drawn then.

Maybe the US government should have just ignored the attack, or just be nicer and capitulate to our enemies; but that hasn't made them love us any more either.

Just ask Iran.

Greetings, Mo. :2wave:

Are they still shouting "Death to America?" I haven't heard the media mention it, so they must have changed their mind about hating us...yeah, that's probably it! :shock:
 
Greetings, Mo. :2wave:

Are they still shouting "Death to America?" I haven't heard the media mention it, so they must have changed their mind about hating us...yeah, that's probably it! :shock:

Greetings, Miss. P :2wave:

That must be it! :rofl
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065859771 said:
I guess Japan manipulated the US into war as well.

After almost 3,000 were killed and 6,000 injured on American soil from a terrorist attack on 9/11 a stern warning with a red line should have been drawn then.

Maybe the US government should have just ignored the attack, or just be nicer and capitulate to our enemies; but that hasn't made them love us any more either.

Just ask Iran.

Iraq did not carry out the attack of 9/11, nor was it an Islamic state. The perpetrators were mostly Saudis. So, why not invade Saudi Arabia?

Answer: Because that would have been an absurd response, just as invading Iraq was an absurd response.
 
Iraq did not carry out the attack of 9/11, nor was it an Islamic state. The perpetrators were mostly Saudis. So, why not invade Saudi Arabia?

Answer: Because that would have been an absurd response, just as invading Iraq was an absurd response.

What's absurd is disregarding the security of a free nation. I'm sure none of those who lost family/friends via terrorism share those shallow world views.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065860416 said:
What's absurd is disregarding the security of a free nation. I'm sure none of those who lost family/friends via terrorism share those shallow world views.

and attacking a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad was really a great idea, wasn't it? Don't you feel a lot more secure knowing that Iraq is now in a state of turmoil and hosting ISIS instead of being under the thumb of a dictator?
 
That's not what I've been saying, and you know it.

..and your comment about being 100% totally secure wasn't what I was saying and you know it...


Back to the OP...

Not fighting against terrorism means that the terrorists efforts will only increase. You also have to factor in the fact that killing is a tool for terrorists, not an end. By killing a handful of people, terrorists can control masses. It's that control that we're fighting against and working to stop the use of the tool is just one of the ways we are doing that. Fighting terrorism isn't only about stopping killing, it's about stopping the use of killing to seize power based on the fear of being killed. The idea behind terrorism is that by killing one person, you can control 100 people. Making it a numbers game and only focusing on the one and not the 100 is a flawed perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom