Sickening

Ticomaya wrote:

The clear inference from her post is "you don't see us getting all up in arms about" 30K dead from traffic accidents, so why get up in arms about 3K dead from 9/11?. An inference supported by her above comment.

I do not follow your logic. The clear inference for me is "why aren't you up in arms about these other issues?"

Ticomaya wrote:

but my point is if you minimize the significance of 3K dead from 9/11, you must also minimize the significance of a mere 1K+ soldiers dead in Iraq.

Cyclo has not minimized any deaths. You are trying to put words in Cyclo's mouth, and we see through that.

0 Replies

What I think Cyclopticorn is saying (hoping I dont misrepresent it's position) is that the money spent ion Iraq would have saved a lot more lives if utilised on other fronts. In other words, fighting terrorism (at least as it is being fought at the moment) is not a cost effective way of saving lives. (It is actually counter productive)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
MerlinsGodson wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
So is drunk driving.

Sadly, true. And that is why there are laws against it!

Yes. There are laws against flying airplanes into buildings and laws against supporting people who fly airplanes into buildings.

Why does the one arouse your ire more than the other?

Could you translate that for me?

[liberal translation] why haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia since they supplid the bombers? Instead we blew up Iraq and Afghanistan because they supported the bombers. Bush sucks and is a moron.[/liberal translation]

Thta seems to be the message that I hear every 4th post. Not much more though.

0 Replies

Quote:

Apparently she believes terrorist attacks are unavoidable events - certainly not preventable. Some of us believe action can be taken to minimize the occurrence of terrorist attacks. You disagree with the way we're going about doing it, but my point is if you minimize the significance of 3K dead from 9/11, you must also minimize the significance of a mere 1K+ soldiers dead in Iraq.

I need to get a new avatar; people keep thinking I'm a she....

I do, however, believe that terrorism is preventable, actually, in the same way as smoking, drunk driving, eating unhealthy foods, etc., are preventable. It is not preventable by invading foreign countries and killing lots of people....

Action can be taken to minimize terrorism, and should; my original contention was, however, that we face many many problems as a society, and terrorism should not trump all other issues; this will undoubtedly be a detriment to freedom and the advancement of other causes in the coming years.

The significant figure of casualties from Iraq is the Iraqi casualties, Tico, not the American ones....

Look, people, dead is dead, no matter how the person gets there. To say that one cause of death (terrorism) should be the focus of our policy, when a HUNDRED TIMES as many people die from preventable reasons, is making policy based upon fear, and not reason.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

MerlinsGodson wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
So is drunk driving.

Sadly, true. And that is why there are laws against it!

Yes. There are laws against flying airplanes into buildings and laws against supporting people who fly airplanes into buildings.

Why does the one arouse your ire more than the other?

Could you translate that for me?

Certainly: Why are you (Phoenix32890) more upset about terrorism than you are about the innocent people killed every day by drunk drivers?

Drunk drivers are more of a risk to me and my family every day than terrorists are. Am I against terrorism? Yes. Do I think people focus way to much on "terrorist threats?" Yes.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
MerlinsGodson wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
So is drunk driving.

Sadly, true. And that is why there are laws against it!

Yes. There are laws against flying airplanes into buildings and laws against supporting people who fly airplanes into buildings.

Why does the one arouse your ire more than the other?

Could you translate that for me?

[liberal translation] why haven't we gone after Saudi Arabia since they supplid the bombers? Instead we blew up Iraq and Afghanistan because they supported the bombers. Bush sucks and is a moron.[/liberal translation]

I believe that that was a liberal interpretation.

I may share some of the beliefs that you just posted, but that was not what I was trying to say with my post.

0 Replies

I think BBB made a great point. Idea

0 Replies

Would you care to be more specific?

0 Replies

Should I need to? Confused

Nope, I'll just wait for the thoughtful discussion we were having to resume.

0 Replies

Ah. You mean thoughtful like this?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Keep peddling your nuisance theory... perhaps when an H-Bomb eliminates all traces of the island of Manhattan you'll recognize the danger.

Or this?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

And I thought you had previously reached your personal plateau for making idiotic statements.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I don't have time read all of this thread, but I do not appreciate the extreme fringes of either the right or the left. However, I do admit their right to make fools of themselves.

The extreme fringes do a lot of harm and make it more difficult to effect positive change in people's lives and to improve the general welfare of this country. The fact that people move to the fringes demonstrates their failure of rational thinking and leadership skills. They are generally losers in many respects of their lives and this often leads to violence.

Effective leadership is hard work, and I find most fringers to be profoundly immature and intellectually lazy. I think the extreme fringes of the right and of the left are often more interested in getting attention for themselves than they are for achieving credible goals.

BBB

0 Replies

Yes, I went back and read BBB's post.

What I don't know is if OB is trying to call us fringers, himself a fringer, or if he has a thoughtful comment to add.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Well, ok, I'll say it. I'm for terrorism. That's right I favor it. It's very economical with a minimum amount of casualties for the perpetrating party. Look at all the bang you get for your buck!
Is Mays Gilliam for Cancer or against it?
Mays Gilliam: He's for cancer!

That was a funny movie.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, I went back and read BBB's post.

What I don't know is if OB is trying to call us fringers, himself a fringer, or if he has a thoughtful comment to add.

Might not want to hold your breath on that last one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

lol

I note that the vitriol has dried up a bit.

Also that they did not respond to the questions we have posed.

0 Replies

MerlinsGodson wrote:

lol

I note that the vitriol has dried up a bit.

Also that they did not respond to the questions we have posed.

Trying to stir up the vitriol again, are you?

*sigh*

State your question(s).

0 Replies

Do you know Nato Jenkins? You don't know nothing about Nato. I don't know nothing about Nato.

Hey Cyclops, is that your mini me? I see he's taking notice how quickly conversations are dry up once you guys show up. Idea

Funny, on another thread he wrote:

MerlinsGodson wrote:

Will all trolls kindly remove themselves from the thread?

Hint: Read others posts (2 ears, one mouth).-> Consider what they said.-> Then respond. (That middle step is very important if you want to be taken seriously).

You'll be amazed how many more people will talk to you.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Trying to stir up the vitriol again, are you?

*sigh*

State your question(s).

Not at all. I believe that Cyclo and I were discussing the behavior of a single participant.

My question was this: Why are you so much more concerned about terrorism than drunk driving?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you know Nato Jenkins? You don't know nothing about Nato. I don't know nothing about Nato.

Hey Cyclops, is that your mini me? I see he's taking notice how quickly conversations are dry up once you guys show up. Funny, on another thread he wrote:

MerlinsGodson wrote:
Will all trolls kindly remove themselves from the thread?

Hint: Read others posts (2 ears, one mouth).-> Consider what they said.-> Then respond. (That middle step is very important if you want to be taken seriously).

You'll be amazed how many more people will talk to you.

When people wish to talk to me that way, they can. I have not noticed you in that subset, however. You like to distract from the topic without adding anything. If the bridge fits, wear it.

0 Replies

He's certainly not my mini-me.

A hint from me, to you, Bill: Try not to be so goddamn condescending all the time when you post, and people maybe wouldn't sling so much sh*t your way.

Now, MerlinsGodson had a good question: Why are you so much more concerned about terrorism than drunk driving? Especially as drunk driving has killed ten times the number of people as terrorism has in America over the last year, and one HUNDRED times as many lives snuffed out over the last ten years.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know