• 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]

faithful_servant said:
..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.
Click to expand...

Again, I've never said we need to "stop fighting against terrorism". What I've said is that we can't yield to the fear they're trying to foment, and the best way to do it is to understand that the odds of being killed by a terrorist are very, very long. It is not rational, therefore, to start wars, to fear all Muslims, or to give the government the power of indefinite detention without trial or a license to kill out of fear of terrorists.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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?
Click to expand...

Iraq was secure until Obama withdrew support. Now terrorism is spread across the ME thanks to US support of the Arab Spring.

Leading from behind, a true oxymoron. Thanks Hillary and Obama.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065861502 said:
Iraq was secure until Obama withdrew support. Now terrorism is spread across the ME thanks to US support of the Arab Spring.

Leading from behind, a true oxymoron. Thanks Hillary and Obama.
Click to expand...

If you believe that first one, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. You may also be interested in ocean front property in Arizona.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Again, I've never said we need to "stop fighting against terrorism". What I've said is that we can't yield to the fear they're trying to foment, and the best way to do it is to understand that the odds of being killed by a terrorist are very, very long. It is not rational, therefore, to start wars, to fear all Muslims, or to give the government the power of indefinite detention without trial or a license to kill out of fear of terrorists.
Click to expand...

It's NOT about the odds of being killed by a terrorist, but the odds of terrorists taking control of entire nations and the strong possibility of one those nations using it's resources to continue the use of terror. You seem to think that terrorism's only effect on us is the possibility of being killed today, but the threat is that of a terrorist NATION carrying out steps that will cause substantial harm to a lot of people. You're also only focused on us and not taking any responsibility to use our strength to defend others.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you believe that first one, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. You may also be interested in ocean front property in Arizona.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that Iraq wasn't 100% secure, but it was on a path that would have led to a strong and secure nation. By leaving Iraq and showing that we weren't willing to step up fight terrorists in the ME, we most certainly did open the door to the Arab Spring of Terrorism. We have been taking very minimal steps to stop terrorism and have publicly backed away from fighting terrorists beyond a small handful of very low impact/high publicity strikes. Under Pres. Bush we were taking the approach of killing anyone who was a leader in any way, attacking finances and recruiting local allies. Pres. Obama stopped most of those efforts and that show of weakness is what emboldened groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS/ISIL.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065861502 said:
Iraq was secure until Obama withdrew support. Now terrorism is spread across the ME thanks to US support of the Arab Spring.

Leading from behind, a true oxymoron. Thanks Hillary and Obama.
Click to expand...

Iraq was never secure. It was haphazardly propped up by US force. It was never secure, it was never stable, which is why it fell like a house of cards without direct outside intervention.

And yes, our interventionism made things worse.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's NOT about the odds of being killed by a terrorist, but the odds of terrorists taking control of entire nations and the strong possibility of one those nations using it's resources to continue the use of terror. You seem to think that terrorism's only effect on us is the possibility of being killed today, but the threat is that of a terrorist NATION carrying out steps that will cause substantial harm to a lot of people. You're also only focused on us and not taking any responsibility to use our strength to defend others.
Click to expand...

It's also about the terrorists successfully using fear to control us. That will only happen if we let it happen.
 
faithful_servant said:
I'll agree that Iraq wasn't 100% secure, but it was on a path that would have led to a strong and secure nation. By leaving Iraq and showing that we weren't willing to step up fight terrorists in the ME, we most certainly did open the door to the Arab Spring of Terrorism. We have been taking very minimal steps to stop terrorism and have publicly backed away from fighting terrorists beyond a small handful of very low impact/high publicity strikes. Under Pres. Bush we were taking the approach of killing anyone who was a leader in any way, attacking finances and recruiting local allies. Pres. Obama stopped most of those efforts and that show of weakness is what emboldened groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS/ISIL.
Click to expand...

Obama is still killing terrorist leaders and attacking their finances, and with considerable success.

and the only way Iraq would have remained stable would have been under the control of the US military. As soon as we left, chaos would have ensued regardless of whether or not Obama followed Bush's negotiated withdrawal schedule. We could have, as McCain suggested, stayed there for the next hundred years.
 
faithful_servant said:
Responding to them isn't allowing them to control us... If your daughter misbehaves and you ground her for it, is she controlling your actions???
Click to expand...

If she threatens to run away from home if you ground her, and so you let her go out, then you're yielding to fear and allowing her to control you.

Sometimes, teens are really good at manipulating their parents.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Obama is still killing terrorist leaders and attacking their finances, and with considerable success.

and the only way Iraq would have remained stable would have been under the control of the US military. As soon as we left, chaos would have ensued regardless of whether or not Obama followed Bush's negotiated withdrawal schedule. We could have, as McCain suggested, stayed there for the next hundred years.
Click to expand...

He's only going after the high profile leaders, and leaving the other 99% of them free and active. He has not only not fought to cut off financing, in at least a couple of cases, he has allowed finances to be freed up. Iraq needed another 10-20 years of assistance and protection and we would have had a 2nd staunch ally dead center in the ME. Instead, we walked away from them and they failed due to a lack of support to stay on track.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If she threatens to run away from home if you ground her, and so you let her go out, then you're yielding to fear and allowing her to control you.

Sometimes, teens are really good at manipulating their parents.
Click to expand...

That's what terrorism is... You're recommending being the parent that allows her to do what she wants, I'm recommending that you hire a babysitter to follow her around 24/7 and make sure that she follows the rules and doesn't run away. You don't give in to terrorism, either by action or inaction (your option), you stand up and actively fight against it. Getting us to do nothing is teh 2nd best outcome that the terrorist can hope for (the first being capitulation).
 
faithful_servant said:
He's only going after the high profile leaders, and leaving the other 99% of them free and active. He has not only not fought to cut off financing, in at least a couple of cases, he has allowed finances to be freed up. Iraq needed another 10-20 years of assistance and protection and we would have had a 2nd staunch ally dead center in the ME. Instead, we walked away from them and they failed due to a lack of support to stay on track.
Click to expand...

Latest news:

Syrian troops retake Palmyra, proclaim ISIS is dying

U.S. Forces Kill Top ISIS Leader
Justin Worland @justinworland Updated: March 25, 2016 1:49 PM
Haji Imam, a key figure overseeing ISIS finance, was killed in a raid earlier this month
Click to expand...

Weakest President Ever’ Has ISIS So Desperate For Cash They’re Buying Guns With Kidneys
 
faithful_servant said:
That's what terrorism is... You're recommending being the parent that allows her to do what she wants, I'm recommending that you hire a babysitter to follow her around 24/7 and make sure that she follows the rules and doesn't run away. You don't give in to terrorism, either by action or inaction (your option), you stand up and actively fight against it. Getting us to do nothing is teh 2nd best outcome that the terrorist can hope for (the first being capitulation).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Grounding the kid is being a parent.
Not grounding her when she should be because she makes threats is yielding to fear.
 
coldjoint said:
Daniel Pipes for one. In fact, he is an expert on the ME and estimates it is 10 to 15%.
Click to expand...

I just read a short biography of Daniel Pipes. He is affiliated with the mainstream media and Stanford University, the same outfit that hired John Yoo to teach law, and the home of Condi Rice.

So far he is a good candidate for a spokesman for the status quo. A likely propagandist for the official western view.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I just read a short biography of Daniel Pipes. He is affiliated with the mainstream media and Stanford University, the same outfit that hired John Yoo to teach law, and the home of Condi Rice.

So far he is a good candidate for a spokesman for the status quo. A likely propagandist for the official western view.
Click to expand...

I see, then you must think that Obama is a Weatherman because he lived in the same neighborhiood as Bill Ayers. Not a good excuse, but an adequate apology.

And Pipes is a Harvard graduate.
 
coldjoint said:
I see, then you must think that Obama is a Weatherman because he lived in the same neighborhiood as Bill Ayers. Not a good excuse, but an adequate apology.

And Pipes is a Harvard graduate.
Click to expand...

No, I did not think he is a Weatherman, and I do not think he is a constitutional law professor either.

Harvard graduate? I suppose that means he has been initiated into some secret fraternity ritual too, eh? :cool:
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, I did not think he is a Weatherman, and I do not think he is a constitutional law professor either.

Harvard graduate? I suppose that means he has been initiated into some secret fraternity ritual too, eh? :cool:
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? Is it just because he says what you can't accept?
 
coldjoint said:
Why would you think that? Is it just because he says what you can't accept?
Click to expand...

No, it's because he says the party line, if you know what I mean. He presents the "conventional wisdom" as proposed by NATO and Washington.

Maybe he is right, but maybe he is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom