Sickening

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

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?

But nobody chooses to die by a terrorist attack.

Is drunk driving illegal in your state, because it is in mind. Do you have a pragmatic suggestion to further our battle against this evil?

Or is this another argument that we can't wage a battle on two fronts: We can either fight the drunk driving problem, OR we can battle terrorism.

Ticomaya wrote:

Is drunk driving illegal in your state, because it is in mind. Do you have a pragmatic suggestion to further our battle against this evil?

Or is this another argument that we can't wage a battle on two fronts: We can either fight the drunk driving problem, OR we can battle terrorism.

Of course it is... so is terrorism.

Let me rephrase my question: what is the moral justification for spending resources on the war in Iraq when we have so many ways to prevent unnecessary deaths of US citizens?

Why not? Dead is dead.

...
Let me rephrase my question: what is the moral justification for spending resources on the war in Iraq when we have so many ways to prevent unnecessary deaths of US citizens?

You mean like keeping terrosists from attacking us at home?

cannistershot wrote:

You mean like keeping terrosists from attacking us at home?

Thank you for playing, but that is not a moral justification.

Is drunk driving illegal in your state, because it is in mine. Do you have a pragmatic suggestion to further our battle against this evil?

MerlinsGodson wrote:

cannistershot wrote:

You mean like keeping terrosists from attacking us at home?

Thank you for playing, but that is not a moral justification.

Thank you for keeping score. It's good enough for me.

As the nineteenth century ended, it seemed no one was safe from terrorist attack. In 1894 an Italian anarchist assassinated French President Sadi Carnot. In 1897 anarchists fatally stabbed Empress Elizabeth of Austria and killed Antonio C novas, the Spanish prime minister. In 1900 Umberto I, the Italian king, fell in yet another anarchist attack; in 1901 an American anarchist killed William McKinley, president of the United States. Terrorism became the leading preoccupation of politicians, police chiefs, journalists, and writers from Dostoevsky to Henry James. If in the year 1900 the leaders of the main industrial powers had assembled, most of them would have insisted on giving terrorism top priority on their agenda, as President Clinton did at the Group of Seven meeting after the June bombing of the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

From this perspective the recent upsurge of terrorist activity is not particularly threatening.

My point is not that terrorism isn't a problem; it is that to focus on terrorism to an extent that it hurts other aspects of your society (which we are oh so clearly doing now) accomplishes the very goals the terrorists themselves have laid out: to disrupt the flow of Freedom within America. This is not acceptable to those who value freedom.

Therefore; it is imperative that we deal with terrorists like we would deal with any other criminal organization, and leave this stupid military response idiocy out of it. All we've done is spent tons of money, killed thousands of innocents, and convinced thousands more to fight us. Not a good track record.

MerlinsGodson wrote:

...
Let me rephrase my question: what is the moral justification for spending resources on the war in Iraq when we have so many ways to prevent unnecessary deaths of US citizens?

You can argue all day about the relative number of deaths attributable to cancer, or heart disease, or auto accidents, or lightning strikes, compared to those attributable to terrorism, in support of your argument that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism. That thin argument is not pursuasive. It is that same mentality that rationalizes that the world is not a safer or better place without Saddam in power.

If the US had not taken the bull by the horns and finally launched the war on terrorism, who would be fighting that war? Nobody.

Bin Laden would still have sanctuary in Afghanistan, and Saddam would still be paying the families of Palistinian bombers $25K to blow up as many Israelis as they can. In addition, the horrific tortures and murders that took place under both regimes would still be taking place. Anyone remember the mass graves in Iraq?

If we can battle terrorism outside of America's borders in places where the terrorists are being supported and comforted, we should. That moral obligation is owed to our citizens.

The last thing we should be thinking about is how many more deaths occur on our highways,

and it is precisely that kind of thinking that I'm convinced Kerry would have brought to the issue. "Terrorism is just a nuisance. It really isn't that big of a deal. Let's just sit back as see if anything happens."

Let's take your position to the extreme. Let's open our borders even more than they are, and let's do away with the metal detectors at the airports. Because as you say, the numbers just don't justify the expenditures that are being made in the name of Homeland Security.

How can we deal with terrorists like a criminal organization? we can't send police officers in a u-haul to pick 'em up in Iraq, or whatever other country that they are hiding in. Would you rather wait until they set up another good base of operations here and then get them? What if we are too late? A police action? Please explain how we can treat terrorists like a gang or a shoplifter.