Quantifying terror, how many will die stateside in a year?

Wildflower63 wrote:

Who's doing the name calling? It went over my head. It wasn't me, was it?

No, I was commenting on the post immediately above.

Wildflower63 wrote:

I disapprove of the amount of money spent on Iraq invasion. I do not feel that the people of this country, who work and foot the bill, have been given anything but excuses.

Would you care to estimate for me the cost resulting from a WMD destroying an American city a few years from now? For the sake of specificity, let me refer to a bioweapon killing half a million people in San Fransisco in 2007.

0 Replies

I think that the Iraq invasion has increased the risk of a terrorist attack, and has increased the number of would-be suicide attackers.

Libya has officially come onboard since the attack, but does anyone think more Libyans love the West now? I doubt it.

Abu Graib pictures: what do you think these have done for fundamentalist muslim/ arabist recruitment?

Terrorism: can anyone explain to me the difference between letting off a suitcase bomb in Philadelphia and dropping an official government-approved bomb in Najaf?
We have dropped tens, hundreds of thousands of these babies- and the people were terrified, believe me.

McT

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Terrorism: can anyone explain to me the difference between letting off a suitcase bomb in Philadelphia and dropping an official government-approved bomb in Najaf?

Are you referring to a suitcase nuclear bomb? If you are, the difference is pretty obvious in terms of kill numbers. Also, the bombs we dropped in Najaf were never intended for non-combatants, whereas a suitcase bomb, even if not nuclear, sounds like something directed intentionally at non-combatants - at least that is the common practice of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:
Terrorism: can anyone explain to me the difference between letting off a suitcase bomb in Philadelphia and dropping an official government-approved bomb in Najaf?

Are you referring to a suitcase nuclear bomb? If you are, the difference is pretty obvious in terms of kill numbers. Also, the bombs we dropped in Najaf were never intended for non-combatants, whereas a suitcase bomb, even if not nuclear, sounds like something directed intentionally at non-combatants - at least that is the common practice of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

So, kill 10000, good. Kill 1000000, bad.

The surviving citizens in Iraq will be grateful for this intelligence, and it will comfort them to know that the bombs which destroyed their towns were "intended for non-combatants".

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
McTag wrote:
Terrorism: can anyone explain to me the difference between letting off a suitcase bomb in Philadelphia and dropping an official government-approved bomb in Najaf?

Are you referring to a suitcase nuclear bomb? If you are, the difference is pretty obvious in terms of kill numbers. Also, the bombs we dropped in Najaf were never intended for non-combatants, whereas a suitcase bomb, even if not nuclear, sounds like something directed intentionally at non-combatants - at least that is the common practice of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

So, kill 10000, good. Kill 1000000, bad.

The surviving citizens in Iraq will be grateful for this intelligence, and it will comfort them to know that the bombs which destroyed their towns were "intended for non-combatants".

Not even remotely what I am saying. You asked for the difference between a suitcase bomb used in Philadlephia and a bomb dropped on Najaf. I didn't answer every question under the sun, but the specific question you asked.

1. If the word suitcase was intended to suggest a nuke, then one difference would be that the nuke would kill incomparably more people.
2. It is a blatantly obvious fact that no one will be happier being killed unintentionally that intentionally. That was not the point. The point was that there is a huge moral difference between trying hard to kill only soldiers but sometimes killing civilians, as in every war in history, vs trying hard to kill non-combatants.

0 Replies

all you bloody yanks do is go overboard about stuff that happens around the world daily. oh no! someone is trying to kill civilians! happens in Bosnia every bloody day.
Your country is under attack by people who don't belong! You never did anything to them!....ever heard of Vietnam?

Brandon9000

the american soldiers are not trying to kill soldiers, they are trying to kill anyone that looks at them funny, who is at the wrong place at the wrong time, who 'appeared to be doing a suspicious activity'. I wouldn't be surprised if a death count showed more civilian deaths in Iraq than militant deaths.
"they meant well!" you will say, "they liberated their country!" What about the story of a young boy who walked outside his house one day and saw an american helicopter fire a missile directly into his baby sister's bedroom?

May I also add that 'liberating' Iraq was not on Shrub's agenda. That he went into Iraq for two reasons and two reasons only: Saddam Hussien had ties with Al-Qaeda, and he had weapons that had a slight possibility of harming America. Both these reasons have proven to be false.
No weapons.
No ties to Al-Qaeda.
BUT, he got rid of Saddam Hussien. I agree, Saddam deserved to be destroyed, but destroying the entire nation in the process is a bit much.

It's people like you that make me hate America

0 Replies

melbournian cheese wrote:

Brandon9000

the american soldiers are not trying to kill soldiers, they are trying to kill anyone that looks at them funny, who is at the wrong place at the wrong time, who 'appeared to be doing a suspicious activity'. I wouldn't be surprised if a death count showed more civilian deaths in Iraq than militant deaths.

Please provide a citation which backs up your assertion that American soldiers in Iraq are trying to kill anyone who looks at them funny.

This is not comparable to Palestinian terrorists who strap on a nail bomb and blow themselves up in an Israeli marketplace, or Islamic Chechen terrorists who take a school hostage, and shoot fleeing school children in the back as they try to escape. American soldiers in Iraq aim at combatants, but occasionally get civilians as in every war in history. Islamic terrorists deliberately attack non-combatants as the primary, intended target.

melbournian cheese wrote:

"they meant well!" you will say, "they liberated their country!" What about the story of a young boy who walked outside his house one day and saw an american helicopter fire a missile directly into his baby sister's bedroom?

No,my post didn't say that at all. Now you're just lying.

melbournian cheese wrote:

May I also add that 'liberating' Iraq was not on Shrub's agenda. That he went into Iraq for two reasons and two reasons only: Saddam Hussien had ties with Al-Qaeda, and he had weapons that had a slight possibility of harming America. Both these reasons have proven to be false.
No weapons.
No ties to Al-Qaeda.
BUT, he got rid of Saddam Hussien. I agree, Saddam deserved to be destroyed, but destroying the entire nation in the process is a bit much.

Incorrect. Hussein did have ties with Al Qaeda. All the 9/11 Commission concluded was that there was no evidence that Hussein participated in planning 9/11.

As for the WMD, Hussein had had them, had used them, and had lied about them. The only open question is how recently. Bush was absolutely correct. There was some significant probability that Hussein still had WMD, and WMD programs. We had been trying to get him to verifiably disarm for a dozen years. The consequences of a monster like Hussein having WMD were so grave that finally Bush just had to act. If Hussein had been secretly continuing WMD development and production while stalling us, the consequences of delaying indefinitely could have included the use of WMD in western cities. Even one WMD used in a population center could bring about a death toll that would make 9/11 look infinitessimal by comparison.

melbournian cheese wrote:

It's people like you that make me hate America

I am not prepared to take your word that that is the reason why you hate us. Maybe that is only the way you rationalize your hatred.

0 Replies

brandon

Hussein got his bad stuff, initially, from the US. So sit back and rethink your nation's innocence.

Well, you might respond, "Saddam was a necessary evil that the US had to use in order to counter the growing threat of extremism in Iran."

And that's not a bad point. Except it skips over the niggling history of Iran, and the US support of the Shah's ascendency and his rather ruthless dictatorship and oppression of his people, which went a hell of a long way to producing exactly the problem of Iranian extremism.

So, please do sit back and rethink your nation's moral purity.

0 Replies

well yeah Blatham but the Shaw was a christian surrounded by muslims. We had an obligation you know.

0 Replies

Word-spreading. Soul-fertilizing. Crank up the John Deere, get the kids on board, and head happily out spinning **** up into the spring air.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

brandon

Hussein got his bad stuff, initially, from the US. So sit back and rethink your nation's innocence.

Well, you might respond, "Saddam was a necessary evil that the US had to use in order to counter the growing threat of extremism in Iran."

And that's not a bad point. Except it skips over the niggling history of Iran, and the US support of the Shah's ascendency and his rather ruthless dictatorship and oppression of his people, which went a hell of a long way to producing exactly the problem of Iranian extremism.

So, please do sit back and rethink your nation's moral purity.

This is sort of off the point, although, at least it's polite. Terrible dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile weapons so powerful that one single use of one could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands or even a million. We tried to get him to adhere to his surrender treaty for a dozen years and finally had to act to enforce it. I expect it to happen again.

0 Replies

But it really isn't beside the point.

What is the point? Reducing the threat of terrorism against the US/West. Contingent with any immediate defensive acts (necessary) must come an honest appraisal of the ways in which the US/West has been complicit in creating the situation which they now face. To deny or disregard this element is to:
1) likely be guilty of doing more of it, thus making matters far worse
2) to forward the growing impression (already a strong impression) that the US (particularly) is too arrogant and selfish to bother with any self investigation, and thus a threat to the whole world.

If you listen to the voices here from outside the US, or if you take the time to read press from outside the US, or if you read some of the more detailed and scholarly addresses to present foreign policy matters, you'll appreciate that there are very understandable reasons why, so soon after the support garnered by most of the world at 9-11, the US has now fallen in the esteem and trust of citizens worldwide (lots of polls on this).

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Terrible dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile weapons so powerful that one single use of one could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands or even a million.

America remains the only country to have used an atomic wepon, and now smaller ones are being developed.

Terrible presidents, with ties to oil industry and big business etc etc and no ties to morality, should not be allowed access to such weapons. It's not sensible, and not safe for the world.

0 Replies

I am far from opposed to war against terrorist that attack the innocent globally. Do police deal with bank robbers, holding hostage, innocent people? No, they don't.

If some local cop can pull this off, I don't understand all the confusion about the Iraq invasion. I have yet to read anything conclusive about WMD or terrorist training camps, who were responsible for the horror of the 9/11 attack.

The country of Afghanistan was obviously attached to this terrorist group and refused to turn over the guilty. They get what they got for loss of innocent lives. I feel for those people of that country who had nothing to do with this, as the oppressed.

I question what Iraq, the major target, had to do with this. I am not hearing sufficient answers, from our government, who spends our hard earned cash to pay for years of occupation of Iraq.

I am not saying this was not an oppressive government. I am saying that you better have solid reasoning before invading a country, oppressed or not, as a threat globally. Was Iraq bluffing? I am guessing that they were.

0 Replies

Quote:

Incorrect. Hussein did have ties with Al Qaeda. All the 9/11 Commission concluded was that there was no evidence that Hussein participated in planning 9/11.

And those ties were described as "unsubstantial". That's as close to meaningless as they could go, minimal, tangential, inconsequential and puny would also fit.

Connections as piddling as those ought not be used as reasons for war, and people ought to stop talking about the connections between Iraq and Al Queda as is they meant something, especially Dick Cheney.

This war was and is a huge mistake based on faulty intelligence and faulty beliefs. It will take years to examine, but I believe history will mark it one, if not the number one, of the greatest foreign policy blunders of all time.

We, that is the US, are going to have to spend billions on fixing this mistake while the real battlegrounds of the war of terror, the back alleys of multiple cities of the Islamic and non-Islamic world are won by those who would kill themselves and others for their cause.

This is not a war for military action. It hasn't been since the days of Black September, but the US, disregarding advice given at that time, has continued to regard terrorism as a contingent part of certain nation-states, ignoring the truth that terrorism and terrorists can exist without any connection to any nation. The war of terror is not going to be won by changing regimes, except perhaps in the US, so that we can start to repair the damage done in the past three and half years decades and most especially the past three and half years.

Joe

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Terrible dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile weapons so powerful that one single use of one could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands or even a million.

America remains the only country to have used an atomic wepon, and now smaller ones are being developed.

And this protects us from a dictator or terrorist's WMD how? This frees us from the need to take action to protect ourself how? I don't see the relevance to the issue of what we should do to protect ourselves from WMD. I will agree to one thing. Developing small battlefield nukes is a terrible idea.

McTag wrote:

Terrible presidents, with ties to oil industry and big business etc etc and no ties to morality, should not be allowed access to such weapons. It's not sensible, and not safe for the world.

What you've said strikes me as illogical. With one exception, none of the factors you enumerate above would seem to me to make an American president very likely to use WMD, or give them to terrorists so that they could smuggles them into a target country and detonate them anonymously. If all the US wanted to do was conquer some country, it could do it with conventional forces, so why use WMD? Now, one of the factors in your list actually would make a national leader more likely to use WMD. For a leader to have "no ties to morality" actually would increase this likelihood, since there would be no ethics to restrain him, but your assertion that Bush has no ties to morality is false. He simply has no ties to your morality.

My contention is that a dictator whose behavior makes him appear amoral, who is friendly with terrorists, and who has attempted to annex neighbors to be part of his own country cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile weapons of this unimaginable power. Not that no one can, but that national rulers who fulfill those criteria cannot. Do you disagree and believe that we should allow Hussein and his successors to arm themselved with nukes and bioweapons?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
Incorrect. Hussein did have ties with Al Qaeda. All the 9/11 Commission concluded was that there was no evidence that Hussein participated in planning 9/11.

And those ties were described as "unsubstantial". That's as close to meaningless as they could go, minimal, tangential, inconsequential and puny would also fit.

Connections as piddling as those ought not be used as reasons for war, and people ought to stop talking about the connections between Iraq and Al Queda as is they meant something, especially Dick Cheney.

This war was and is a huge mistake based on faulty intelligence and faulty beliefs. It will take years to examine, but I believe history will mark it one, if not the number one, of the greatest foreign policy blunders of all time.

We, that is the US, are going to have to spend billions on fixing this mistake while the real battlegrounds of the war of terror, the back alleys of multiple cities of the Islamic and non-Islamic world are won by those who would kill themselves and others for their cause.

This is not a war for military action. It hasn't been since the days of Black September, but the US, disregarding advice given at that time, has continued to regard terrorism as a contingent part of certain nation-states, ignoring the truth that terrorism and terrorists can exist without any connection to any nation. The war of terror is not going to be won by changing regimes, except perhaps in the US, so that we can start to repair the damage done in the past three and half years decades and most especially the past three and half years.

Joe

In the coming years and decades, many nations and some terrorist groups will attempt to buy or make WMD. Of all of the entities that attempt to acquire this capacity in the future (or the present), the world must not allow terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terrorists to possess them. If every group arms itself with WMD, including the worst of the worst, then something dreadfully bad will happen entailing massive loss of life. Note that I am not recommending forbidding the weapons to everyone, but only a few entities who would seem to pose the greatest risk of using them or giving them to others to use. We should try very hard to persuade these countries and groups to discontinue the development programs and destroy the weapons, but we cannot allow such negotiations to drag on forever, since the group or country in question may be stalling us while completing development. If persuasion fails to produce results in a reasonable amount of time, we must issue a few warnings, and if they are not heeded, we must invade. As the years pass and technology advances, WMD will become easier and easier for smaller and less sophisticated groups to obtain.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:
brandon

Hussein got his bad stuff, initially, from the US. So sit back and rethink your nation's innocence.

Well, you might respond, "Saddam was a necessary evil that the US had to use in order to counter the growing threat of extremism in Iran."

And that's not a bad point. Except it skips over the niggling history of Iran, and the US support of the Shah's ascendency and his rather ruthless dictatorship and oppression of his people, which went a hell of a long way to producing exactly the problem of Iranian extremism.

So, please do sit back and rethink your nation's moral purity.

This is sort of off the point, although, at least it's polite. Terrible dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile weapons so powerful that one single use of one could kill on a scale of hundreds of thousands or even a million. We tried to get him to adhere to his surrender treaty for a dozen years and finally had to act to enforce it. I expect it to happen again.

blatham wrote:

But it really isn't beside the point.

What is the point? Reducing the threat of terrorism against the US/West. Contingent with any immediate defensive acts (necessary) must come an honest appraisal of the ways in which the US/West has been complicit in creating the situation which they now face. To deny or disregard this element is to:
1) likely be guilty of doing more of it, thus making matters far worse
2) to forward the growing impression (already a strong impression) that the US (particularly) is too arrogant and selfish to bother with any self investigation, and thus a threat to the whole world.

If you listen to the voices here from outside the US, or if you take the time to read press from outside the US, or if you read some of the more detailed and scholarly addresses to present foreign policy matters, you'll appreciate that there are very understandable reasons why, so soon after the support garnered by most of the world at 9-11, the US has now fallen in the esteem and trust of citizens worldwide (lots of polls on this).

Some of what you say might be of interest, but it is not relevant to judging the correctness of invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq because we judged that the likelihood Hussein was still hiding WMD and/or WMD programs, and that he would never seriously disarm but merely stall us was unacceptably high. Since for some of these weapons, one single use of one in a population center can kill hundreds of thousands or even a million people in one single event, we had no choice but to err on the side of caution. For most of human history, national leaders (e.g. Bush) did not have to contend with the realistic probability of this kind of doomsday weapon falling into the hands of someone like Hussein or the hands of terrorists. I add terrorists because part of the danger is that Hussein might have given WMD to terrorists to use against the West, since he seems to have had a sympathetic relationship with them.

0 Replies

Code:

Some of what you say might be of interest, but it is not relevant to judging the correctness of invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq because we judged that the likelihood Hussein was still hiding WMD and/or WMD programs, and that he would never seriously disarm but merely stall us was unacceptably high. Since for some of these weapons, one single use of one in a population center can kill hundreds of thousands or even a million people in one single event, we had no choice but to err on the side of caution. For most of human history, national leaders (e.g. Bush) did not have to contend with the realistic probability of this kind of doomsday weapon falling into the hands of someone like Hussein or the hands of terrorists. I add terrorists because part of the danger is that Hussein might have given WMD to terrorists to use against the West, since he seems to have had a sympathetic relationship with them.

Brandon

Are you prepared to accept the possibility your administration is being deceitful?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Some of what you say might be of interest, but it is not relevant to judging the correctness of invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq because we judged that the likelihood Hussein was still hiding WMD and/or WMD programs, and that he would never seriously disarm but merely stall us was unacceptably high. Since for some of these weapons, one single use of one in a population center can kill hundreds of thousands or even a million people in one single event, we had no choice but to err on the side of caution. For most of human history, national leaders (e.g. Bush) did not have to contend with the realistic probability of this kind of doomsday weapon falling into the hands of someone like Hussein or the hands of terrorists. I add terrorists because part of the danger is that Hussein might have given WMD to terrorists to use against the West, since he seems to have had a sympathetic relationship with them.

Brandon

Are you prepared to accept the possibility your administration is being deceitful?

It would make no difference, because my logic regarding the development of WMD in general, and the invasion of Iraq in particular, would still be true. Just based on known history, circumstances warranted the invasion of Iraq, and will warrant invasions in similar circumstances in the future. What you apparently do not grasp is that there are some aspects of this situation which have no parallel in the past because of the fact that just one single use of one WMD might have unimaginable consequences. In some cases, a WMD event might only kill a few thousand, in others it might kill a million or more.

0 Replies

Quantifying terror, how many will die stateside in a year?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know