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

[coldjoint]

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.

When has Washington(Obama administration) ever used those kind of numbers?

 

[Oozlefinch]

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

Kiling terrorist leaders does almost no good. Because all that happens is that some other leader pops up to take their place.

Now consider this. If the 1942 Raid on Tokyo had somehow killed both Emperor Showa and the Prime Minister, does anybody think that would have ended the War in the Pacific? Would killing Hitler in an air bombing in 1940 have ended WWII in Europe? No, of course not. Somebody else would simply have taken over and things would have largely continued as before.

If the Arab Coalition in 1968 had been able to kill the Israeli PM does anybody think that would have let them win the war? Once again, of course not.

The main way to win a war is to show to the common soldiers and their direct leaders that to continue to fight is tatamount to suicide. Kill enough soldiers, then the leaders either withdraw, surrender, or the individual soldiers surrender in defiance of orders. Eliminate enough combat force, and the country has to surrender or stop fighting, they have nothing left to give.

Look throughout history. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, even today. Killing the leaders does absolutely nothing to end a conflict. During the Battle of Okinawa Army Lieutenant General Buckner was in command of US forces, when he was killed. Did that end the battle? Once again, of course not. Marine Major General Geiger took over and led US forces until the battle was won.

You seem to think that real life is like in movies. Kill the "lead bad guy" and everything falls apart. This is not true at all, and can even have the reverse effect. Eliminate a capable leader, and the replacement may be even more brutal, bloodthirsty, or unpredictable then the one that was removed.

Kill the Captain, and the Lieutenant takes over. Kill the Lieutenant, and the Sergeant takes over. Even the Soviet Union had a "rank structure" and "chain of command", which meant that if you eliminate one leader, another takes their place. Eliminating a leader of a regiment without eliminating the regiment simply means that the regiment continues to fight.

 

[Thoreau72]

When has Washington(Obama administration) ever used those kind of numbers?

The Obama administration is notorious for its mendacity. Thus, I don't keep track of what it says, and do not care what it says.

Your man sounds like an apologist for the western media to me. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm right. eace

 

[Dittohead not!]

Kiling terrorist leaders does almost no good. Because all that happens is that some other leader pops up to take their place.

Now consider this. If the 1942 Raid on Tokyo had somehow killed both Emperor Showa and the Prime Minister, does anybody think that would have ended the War in the Pacific? Would killing Hitler in an air bombing in 1940 have ended WWII in Europe? No, of course not. Somebody else would simply have taken over and things would have largely continued as before.

If the Arab Coalition in 1968 had been able to kill the Israeli PM does anybody think that would have let them win the war? Once again, of course not.

The main way to win a war is to show to the common soldiers and their direct leaders that to continue to fight is tatamount to suicide. Kill enough soldiers, then the leaders either withdraw, surrender, or the individual soldiers surrender in defiance of orders. Eliminate enough combat force, and the country has to surrender or stop fighting, they have nothing left to give.

Look throughout history. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, even today. Killing the leaders does absolutely nothing to end a conflict. During the Battle of Okinawa Army Lieutenant General Buckner was in command of US forces, when he was killed. Did that end the battle? Once again, of course not. Marine Major General Geiger took over and led US forces until the battle was won.

You seem to think that real life is like in movies. Kill the "lead bad guy" and everything falls apart. This is not true at all, and can even have the reverse effect. Eliminate a capable leader, and the replacement may be even more brutal, bloodthirsty, or unpredictable then the one that was removed.

Kill the Captain, and the Lieutenant takes over. Kill the Lieutenant, and the Sergeant takes over. Even the Soviet Union had a "rank structure" and "chain of command", which meant that if you eliminate one leader, another takes their place. Eliminating a leader of a regiment without eliminating the regiment simply means that the regiment continues to fight.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that our military is killing more than just the leader of ISIS. That entity has lost power and momentum, has lost membership and money. They are far less of a threat than they once were.

Moreover, in fighting ISIS, we're fighting against people who will strap bombs to themselves and set them off. They're not afraid of being killed, and killing off some of them does not strike fear into the rest of them.

 

[coldjoint]

The Obama administration is notorious for its mendacity. Thus, I don't keep track of what it says, and do not care what it says.

Your man sounds like an apologist for the western media to me. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm right. eace

The Western mainstream media needs to apologize. They whitewash Islam.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that our military is killing more than just the leader of ISIS. That entity has lost power and momentum, has lost membership and money. They are far less of a threat than they once were.

Moreover, in fighting ISIS, we're fighting against people who will strap bombs to themselves and set them off. They're not afraid of being killed, and killing off some of them does not strike fear into the rest of them.

Funny, does not look that way from my eyes. ISIS has been a serious issue in that area for over 3 years now, and things only seem to be getting worse.

Sure, we make advances in some areas, but then they simply advance in other areas. And remember, that is how this entire mess all started. Al-Qaueda in Iraq was pushed totally out of Iraq during the last of the Surge offensives, and retreated into Syria. While there it bided it's time. Made secure bases in Syria (knowing the US would do nothing) and waited until the US withdrawl. Then it came storming back and took over large areas of 2 countries.

And "suicide bombers" are not born, they are made. It takes time to convince somebody that is the way to go. The vast majority of people there are just like they are anywhere else. They just want to carry on with their lives. But just as if you put some people around a group like ISIS long enough they will turn to terrorism, you place what are normally good kids in a bad neighborhood with bad friends, and the next thing you know they are doing drive-by's and hustling crack.

And we have been killing leaders of ISIS before it was even ISIS. And has it stopped it at all? Or even seriously slowed it down?

And killing them off does do something. It keeps them from putting on bombs and picking up rifles in the first place.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Funny, does not look that way from my eyes. ISIS has been a serious issue in that area for over 3 years now, and things only seem to be getting worse.

Sure, we make advances in some areas, but then they simply advance in other areas. And remember, that is how this entire mess all started. Al-Qaueda in Iraq was pushed totally out of Iraq during the last of the Surge offensives, and retreated into Syria. While there it bided it's time. Made secure bases in Syria (knowing the US would do nothing) and waited until the US withdrawl. Then it came storming back and took over large areas of 2 countries.

And "suicide bombers" are not born, they are made. It takes time to convince somebody that is the way to go. The vast majority of people there are just like they are anywhere else. They just want to carry on with their lives. But just as if you put some people around a group like ISIS long enough they will turn to terrorism, you place what are normally good kids in a bad neighborhood with bad friends, and the next thing you know they are doing drive-by's and hustling crack.

And we have been killing leaders of ISIS before it was even ISIS. And has it stopped it at all? Or even seriously slowed it down?

And killing them off does do something. It keeps them from putting on bombs and picking up rifles in the first place.

It's not as bad as you think:

Mapped: The Islamic State Is Losing Its Territory — and Fast

 

[Oozlefinch]

It's not as bad as you think:

Mapped: The Islamic State Is Losing Its Territory — and Fast

And notice what land it controls, and where their advances are.

Yea, they largely lost border regions, but expanded deeper into where their main base of power is. Including the large expansion into Palmyra. And they still control most of the remote desert areas and the roads that connect them. If you look at your own map, most of the southern parts of each nation is listed as "unpopulated desert areas", and to be honest nobody controls that because nobody wants it. To put it in a hyprthetical US perspective, it would be like a revolt in Arizona. Where the opposition controls Phoenix and Tuscon, and the I-10 and I-40 coridores, and the US controls the rest of the state. Who cares, nost of the rest is empty scrubland that means nothing. And it takes losses along route to Winslow, but makes gains taking ground all the way to Las Cruces, NM.

Oh, and one of the 2 main forces helping hold them at bay at the same time cleaving the conflict.

You are looking at this purely politically, while I am looking at the ground lost and gained and it's actual importance in controlling the region. It controls most of the center regions of both countries, holding most of the land that really matters. And most of the Northern losses are not actually to each of the respective nations involved (Syria and Iraq), but to yet a third player, the Kurds. That would be like going back to our hypothetical and having the regained land being taken over not by the US but by a Mexican Seperatist Movement. Does anybody really think that because the revolt has lost those areas that they have reverted to US control?

And in the 2 months since that report was made, they have made large gains in Syria, specifically into Aleppo. There is now fighting going on in the outskirts of that city, with ISIS forces taking several key control positions. And the group that controls that region is not the Syrian government (notice dark grey is "Territory controlled by other actors"). 2 of the major other revoling groups that it is taking out in gaining control of Aleppo is not the Syrian government, but the Sham Legion (al-Sham) and al0-Hamza.

If you were to look at a map showing the area that ISIS and other seperatists control, as well as that which Iraq and Syria controls, you will find things very different.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And notice what land it controls, and where their advances are.

Yea, they largely lost border regions, but expanded deeper into where their main base of power is. Including the large expansion into Palmyra. And they still control most of the remote desert areas and the roads that connect them. If you look at your own map, most of the southern parts of each nation is listed as "unpopulated desert areas", and to be honest nobody controls that because nobody wants it. To put it in a hyprthetical US perspective, it would be like a revolt in Arizona. Where the opposition controls Phoenix and Tuscon, and the I-10 and I-40 coridores, and the US controls the rest of the state. Who cares, nost of the rest is empty scrubland that means nothing. And it takes losses along route to Winslow, but makes gains taking ground all the way to Las Cruces, NM.

Oh, and one of the 2 main forces helping hold them at bay at the same time cleaving the conflict.

You are looking at this purely politically, while I am looking at the ground lost and gained and it's actual importance in controlling the region. It controls most of the center regions of both countries, holding most of the land that really matters. And most of the Northern losses are not actually to each of the respective nations involved (Syria and Iraq), but to yet a third player, the Kurds. That would be like going back to our hypothetical and having the regained land being taken over not by the US but by a Mexican Seperatist Movement. Does anybody really think that because the revolt has lost those areas that they have reverted to US control?

And in the 2 months since that report was made, they have made large gains in Syria, specifically into Aleppo. There is now fighting going on in the outskirts of that city, with ISIS forces taking several key control positions. And the group that controls that region is not the Syrian government (notice dark grey is "Territory controlled by other actors"). 2 of the major other revoling groups that it is taking out in gaining control of Aleppo is not the Syrian government, but the Sham Legion (al-Sham) and al0-Hamza.

If you were to look at a map showing the area that ISIS and other seperatists control, as well as that which Iraq and Syria controls, you will find things very different.

You speak of US control as if that were the goal. Is it?

 

[Oozlefinch]

You speak of US control as if that were the goal. Is it?

Really, you dismiss it all with that statement?

Funny, I just reread what I had posted, and nowhere did I say anything about US control. I really expected better of you than to imply that I had said something that I had not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Really, you dismiss it all with that statement?

Funny, I just reread what I had posted, and nowhere did I say anything about US control. I really expected better of you than to imply that I had said something that I had not.

Apologies. I was in a hurry and had to leave quickly.

You said:

Does anybody really think that because the revolt has lost those areas that they have reverted to US control?

which is the part that really piqued my interest and to which I responded.

And that the Syrian government is not in control is no surprise. In many ways, they're just as bad as ISIS.
That area of the world is a cesspool of ideological extremists, to be sure. Perhaps the idea that ISIS might be losing ground to someone, anyone, is attractive but perhaps not supported.

The original argument that I was making was that terrorist attacks in the US rank way down the list of ways in which we're likely to be killed, and that maybe starting wars over the issue is not appropriate. Perhaps the world would be better off if we simply let the people of the Middle East determine their own affairs.

 

[Masterhawk]

we need to shut down the department of homeland security

 

[thinkagain]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

The best one I heard was that the risk of harm to a US citizen from a terrorist attack is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking".

Driving a car to work in the morning - thousand of times greater.

 

[thinkagain]

Apologies. I was in a hurry and had to leave quickly.

You said:



which is the part that really piqued my interest and to which I responded.

And that the Syrian government is not in control is no surprise. In many ways, they're just as bad as ISIS.
That area of the world is a cesspool of ideological extremists, to be sure. Perhaps the idea that ISIS might be losing ground to someone, anyone, is attractive but perhaps not supported.

The original argument that I was making was that terrorist attacks in the US rank way down the list of ways in which we're likely to be killed, and that maybe starting wars over the issue is not appropriate. Perhaps the world would be better off if we simply let the people of the Middle East determine their own affairs.

!! way better off. Prior to us getting involved in this mess the Shia and Sunny (and various factions in between - even one's in the same group) were happily killing each other and minding their own business.

We stroll into a forest full of hornet nests, start swinging a stick, and then act surprised when the hornet's attack us.

Is this not Dumb and Dumber on steroids ?

What happens after than is even more retarded - but that story is for another day.

 

[depakote]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

why??

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/murders

 

[cozmo14]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

because all those figures go out the window the minute a jihadist gets a WMD.

 

[Common Sense 1]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

Ask the people who were in the World Trade Center Center when both were hit by commercial airline jets!

"During the September 11 attacks in 2001, there were 2,996 people killed and more than 6,000 others wounded. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon."


COSTS related to the terror attack
Here are a few of the 9/11 line items:

$7 billion: Amount paid out through the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to the survivors of the 2,880 people killed and 2,680 injured in the attacks.

$8.7 billion: Estimated lifetime potential earnings lost of the victims who perished in the World Trade Center towers.

$500 million: Amount the city of New York paid in overtime compensation to clean up Ground Zero.

$19.6 billion: The drop in U.S. airline revenue between 2001 and 2002.

$5 billion: Direct government aid to U.S. airlines to cover losses incurred during three days of grounded flights immediately after 9/11 and sustained through the end of the year. The government also extended $10 billion in future loan guarantees.

$21.8 billion: Cost to replace the buildings and infrastructure in New York destroyed in the attacks.

$500 million: Cost to repair the Pentagon after the attack.

$40 billion: Insured losses related to the 9/11 attacks, including property, business interruption, aviation, workers compensation, life and liability insurance.

$192 million: Cost to run the NYPD's counter-terrorism and intelligence activities for one year.

$5 million: Amount the NYPD has earmarked from a Homeland Security grant to buy a high-speed, bullet-proof boat designed to respond to a suicide or live shooter attack in the city's port area.

$408 billion: Cost to operate the Department of Homeland Security since it was created in 2002.

$80.1 billion: Civilian and military intelligence gathering costs in 2010 - more than double what was spent in 2001.

$43 billion: Minimum cost of 10 years worth of U.S. airport security. Passengers cover roughly 40 percent each year through the passenger security tax of $2.50 per flight.

$1.1 billion: Estimated price to modify and add stealth features to a fleet of 73 MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, two of which are thought to have been used in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, according to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group Corporation.

$1.3 trillion: Cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to date in 2011 dollars, according to Pentagon appropriations.

$4 trillion: Total war costs through 2050, if you include veterans' care, war-related foreign aid, and interest paid on Pentagon appropriations.

The cost of 9/11 - in dollars - CBS News

 

[Thoreau72]

because all those figures go out the window the minute a jihadist gets a WMD.

Is your worldview based upon hypotheticals?

 

[Thoreau72]

Ask the people who were in the World Trade Center Center when both were hit by commercial airline jets!

"During the September 11 attacks in 2001, there were 2,996 people killed and more than 6,000 others wounded. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon."


COSTS related to the terror attack
Here are a few of the 9/11 line items:

$7 billion: Amount paid out through the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to the survivors of the 2,880 people killed and 2,680 injured in the attacks.

$8.7 billion: Estimated lifetime potential earnings lost of the victims who perished in the World Trade Center towers.

$500 million: Amount the city of New York paid in overtime compensation to clean up Ground Zero.

$19.6 billion: The drop in U.S. airline revenue between 2001 and 2002.

$5 billion: Direct government aid to U.S. airlines to cover losses incurred during three days of grounded flights immediately after 9/11 and sustained through the end of the year. The government also extended $10 billion in future loan guarantees.

$21.8 billion: Cost to replace the buildings and infrastructure in New York destroyed in the attacks.

$500 million: Cost to repair the Pentagon after the attack.

$40 billion: Insured losses related to the 9/11 attacks, including property, business interruption, aviation, workers compensation, life and liability insurance.

$192 million: Cost to run the NYPD's counter-terrorism and intelligence activities for one year.

$5 million: Amount the NYPD has earmarked from a Homeland Security grant to buy a high-speed, bullet-proof boat designed to respond to a suicide or live shooter attack in the city's port area.

$408 billion: Cost to operate the Department of Homeland Security since it was created in 2002.

$80.1 billion: Civilian and military intelligence gathering costs in 2010 - more than double what was spent in 2001.

$43 billion: Minimum cost of 10 years worth of U.S. airport security. Passengers cover roughly 40 percent each year through the passenger security tax of $2.50 per flight.

$1.1 billion: Estimated price to modify and add stealth features to a fleet of 73 MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, two of which are thought to have been used in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, according to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group Corporation.

$1.3 trillion: Cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to date in 2011 dollars, according to Pentagon appropriations.

$4 trillion: Total war costs through 2050, if you include veterans' care, war-related foreign aid, and interest paid on Pentagon appropriations.

The cost of 9/11 - in dollars - CBS News

Common Sense????

15 years later, still believing the Official Narrative about 9/11 is throwing Common Sense out the window. eace

 

[Common Sense 1]

Common Sense????

15 years later, still believing the Official Narrative about 9/11 is throwing Common Sense out the window. eace

Your comment belongs in the conspiracy thread. Guess the World Trade Center is still standing? Nutty people! :doh

 

[Thoreau72]

Your comment belongs in the conspiracy thread. Guess the World Trade Center is still standing? Nutty people! :doh

Your comment also belongs in the conspiracy thread. You post details of the Official Conspiracy Theory, I pointed out in most general terms how invalid that theory is. You brought it up, I challenged your narrative.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ask the people who were in the World Trade Center Center when both were hit by commercial airline jets!

"During the September 11 attacks in 2001, there were 2,996 people killed and more than 6,000 others wounded. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon."


COSTS related to the terror attack
Here are a few of the 9/11 line items:

$7 billion: Amount paid out through the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to the survivors of the 2,880 people killed and 2,680 injured in the attacks.

$8.7 billion: Estimated lifetime potential earnings lost of the victims who perished in the World Trade Center towers.

$500 million: Amount the city of New York paid in overtime compensation to clean up Ground Zero.

$19.6 billion: The drop in U.S. airline revenue between 2001 and 2002.

$5 billion: Direct government aid to U.S. airlines to cover losses incurred during three days of grounded flights immediately after 9/11 and sustained through the end of the year. The government also extended $10 billion in future loan guarantees.

$21.8 billion: Cost to replace the buildings and infrastructure in New York destroyed in the attacks.

$500 million: Cost to repair the Pentagon after the attack.

$40 billion: Insured losses related to the 9/11 attacks, including property, business interruption, aviation, workers compensation, life and liability insurance.

$192 million: Cost to run the NYPD's counter-terrorism and intelligence activities for one year.

$5 million: Amount the NYPD has earmarked from a Homeland Security grant to buy a high-speed, bullet-proof boat designed to respond to a suicide or live shooter attack in the city's port area.

$408 billion: Cost to operate the Department of Homeland Security since it was created in 2002.

$80.1 billion: Civilian and military intelligence gathering costs in 2010 - more than double what was spent in 2001.

$43 billion: Minimum cost of 10 years worth of U.S. airport security. Passengers cover roughly 40 percent each year through the passenger security tax of $2.50 per flight.

$1.1 billion: Estimated price to modify and add stealth features to a fleet of 73 MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, two of which are thought to have been used in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, according to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group Corporation.

$1.3 trillion: Cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to date in 2011 dollars, according to Pentagon appropriations.

$4 trillion: Total war costs through 2050, if you include veterans' care, war-related foreign aid, and interest paid on Pentagon appropriations.

The cost of 9/11 - in dollars - CBS News

My point exactly. All that money spend, all those lives ended or changed radically, for a tragedy that took about 3,000 lives. Now, don't get me wrong, the attack was terrible, it had to be addressed, but meanwhile ten times that many are killed on the highways every year, and there doesn't seem to be much of an effort to get the nutters off of the highway, more than ten times that many are killed by heroin overdose, and there isn't more than just words about that, it just seems that the response has been out of proportion.

Maybe it's because of the scale of the attack, the heinous act, the evil intent.

But the response has killed more Americans than the original attack.

 

[Common Sense 1]

"So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?"


Post 142 is why!

 

[Fledermaus]

Common Sense????

15 years later, still believing the Official Narrative about 9/11 is throwing Common Sense out the window. eace

CT forum is that way. ->

Here in the real world Mohammed Atta and his bffs did the deed.

Still, the likelihood of being killed by a Muslim extremist is miniscule.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your comment also belongs in the conspiracy thread. You post details of the Official Conspiracy Theory, I pointed out in most general terms how invalid that theory is. You brought it up, I challenged your narrative.

You have (as usual) presented nothing other than your opinion.

There is nothing "invalid" in post #142.