Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is terrorism going to be the defining issue of the next election?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    I was listening to the radio while driving about and the host asked that question.

    So what do you think, is terrorism going to be the largest issue?
    Like a few others posting here, I don't think it will be the "largest issue" but likely in the top three-four issues.

    If not, it should be, we are engaged in a resurgence of a 1400 year war that could go another 1400 years if we don't deal with it effectively!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
      Terrorism is the new Oogie Boogie that keeps us afraid and distant from the real and fundamental problems.
      Everybody knows that the future of humankind resides in children 's education but it is much more boring than a good old and unfounded fear that allows our dear leaders to do what they want while we're frightened.
      Out of the ball park. Fear makes them stronger, lets arm ourselves and let the dear leaders feck themselves...
      Credo quia absurdum.


      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #48
        Well, they arrested another one, this time in the "Berkeley" of Arizona, Tucson...

        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...Kz&ocid=SMSDHP

        PHOENIX — The FBI and the Arizona Attorney General's Office have arrested an 18-year-old man they say conspired to carry out acts of terrorism against government buildings in Maricopa and Pima counties.

        Mahin Khan was arrested in Tucson after an investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, according to the FBI. He was booked into Maricopa County jail on suspicion of conspiring to commit terrorism.
        Obama's denial of radical Islamic terrorism is the gift that keeps on giving...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
          Terrorism is the new Oogie Boogie that keeps us afraid and distant from the real and fundamental problems.
          Everybody knows that the future of humankind resides in children 's education but it is much more boring than a good old and unfounded fear that allows our dear leaders to do what they want while we're frightened.
          Who's scared, Seb? I'm pissed off!

          Fear and anger are very different things.
          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

          Comment


          • #50
            Hey ! That's not an attack against you!
            If a gov repeat daily"you're in danger" ad lib,I will believe him after some days and look with suspicion my bearded neighbor in the bus.
            That rug really tied the room together

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
              WHAT?!?!?!?!?

              He extensively studied his target, he prepared and executed a well thought out plan.

              I'm talking from the view of victimhood. The odds of being a direct victim of terrorism in the United States was the "lethal lottery". The odds of being killed by terrorists are much smaller than so many other, more banal ways.

              I didn't expect that to be a difficult or controversial statement, honestly.


              Nor do I. And stop thinking of islam as a religion.

              And try to accept that multiple, completely unassociated risks can occur at the same time, and they require completely different solutions.
              But I'm looking at the risks as a whole, to the average American, to give applicable numbers to most of the population.

              Park rangers are more likely to be struck by lightning than the average population, for example, but they represent a minority of the wider population. The odds of being struck by lightning are still incredibly low to the average American.

              No matter how one tries to measure it, objectively the risk of a random American being killed by terrorists are incredibly low, especially relative to other threats.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                I'm talking from the view of victimhood. The odds of being a direct victim of terrorism in the United States was the "lethal lottery". The odds of being killed by terrorists are much smaller than so many other, more banal ways.

                I didn't expect that to be a difficult or controversial statement, honestly.




                But I'm looking at the risks as a whole, to the average American, to give applicable numbers to most of the population.

                Park rangers are more likely to be struck by lightning than the average population, for example, but they represent a minority of the wider population. The odds of being struck by lightning are still incredibly low to the average American.

                No matter how one tries to measure it, objectively the risk of a random American being killed by terrorists are incredibly low, especially relative to other threats.
                The odds of an American being killed by Japanese military forces were just about as low on Dec. 6, 1941.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  The odds of an American being killed by Japanese military forces were just about as low on Dec. 6, 1941.
                  There was also a very low chance of being killed by the Swiss on Dec. 6, 1941.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    There was also a very low chance of being killed by the Swiss on Dec. 6, 1941.
                    Yet by Dec. 8,1941 the odds for the Swiss were unchanged, but for the Japanese had increased exponentially.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Yet by Dec. 8,1941 the odds for the Swiss were unchanged, but for the Japanese had increased exponentially.
                      Funny how that works.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        Funny how that works.
                        History is just full of "laughs".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          I'm talking from the view of victimhood. The odds of being a direct victim of terrorism in the United States was the "lethal lottery". The odds of being killed by terrorists are much smaller than so many other, more banal ways.

                          I didn't expect that to be a difficult or controversial statement, honestly.




                          But I'm looking at the risks as a whole, to the average American, to give applicable numbers to most of the population.

                          Park rangers are more likely to be struck by lightning than the average population, for example, but they represent a minority of the wider population. The odds of being struck by lightning are still incredibly low to the average American.

                          No matter how one tries to measure it, objectively the risk of a random American being killed by terrorists are incredibly low, especially relative to other threats.
                          Derek, every risk is different. Terrorists and teenage idiots are completely different.

                          I'm sorry, my friend, but you're comparing things that have no relation......
                          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            There was also a very low chance of being killed by the Swiss on Dec. 6, 1941.

                            http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories...rland-ww2.html

                            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                              Derek, every risk is different. Terrorists and teenage idiots are completely different.

                              I'm sorry, my friend, but you're comparing things that have no relation......
                              I fail to see how. I'm using the same standard: the actual threat it poses to the life of the average American. It is using a common variable between all of these to look at their relative risk to the average American. By using that common variable we can then look at what is a greater threat to American lives: Cougars or tree branches, gas leaks or expired fish, terrorists or sharks.

                              Risk is always relative. You cannot look at risk in isolation because that tells you nothing. You have to compare it to something. In this case all I have done is put terrorism in the context of other risks to your life, of which terrorism is.

                              So yes, I fail to see how the risk from terrorism cannot be compared to anything else when one is looking at common shared variable.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                I fail to see how. I'm using the same standard: the actual threat it poses to the life of the average American. It is using a common variable between all of these to look at their relative risk to the average American. By using that common variable we can then look at what is a greater threat to American lives: Cougars or tree branches, gas leaks or expired fish, terrorists or sharks.
                                How can we use the same standard for these completely different forms of risk?

                                For instance, I can control the risk I face when driving, or motorcycling. With terrorism, I'm forced to rely on others to control the risk.

                                Risk is always

                                relative. You cannot look at risk in isolation because that tells you nothing. You have to compare it to something. In this case all I have done is put terrorism in the context of other risks to your life, of which terrorism is.
                                But you're comparing controllable and non controllable risk.

                                So yes, I fail to see how the risk from terrorism cannot be compared to anything else when one is looking at common shared variable.
                                It's the variable that's at issue.....
                                ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                                BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                                BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X