• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Oozlefinch said:
I used to try and have conversations with him at one time. And at times he does sound very rational. Then he goes right off the deep end where everything is all tied together and part of a vast conspiracy.

If you want to talk conspiracy, you can always go to CT land, where they go on about this over and over again all day long. Many of us in the more serious areas of the forum (like Military and History) wish he would just go away and stop trying to inject his nonsense theories into more serious topics.

Why did Rome fall?
Why, because of the Jews of course! And the New World Order and Muslims wanting the Hagia Sophia to start their own World Order.

Trust me, as somebody who has seen the manipulation of the CTers in here for years, there is nothing interesting in it. Other then their desire to inflict their own damaged mindset into as many others, like a virus. And once you fall into the CT Black Hole, you rarely come out of it again.
Click to expand...

wow...
 
cozmo14 said:
WOW. you just became 1000% more interesting, because i like to he opposing viewpoints. (also a brain games fan)so can you link me to some of the evidence that 9/11 was a hoax?
Click to expand...

The towers were struck by aircraft, but they were not AA11 and UA175. The Pentagon was likely struck by some sort of aircraft, but it was not AA77. The towers did come down, and people were thereby killed, but they did not come down from burning office fires as the NIST report claims. UA93 did not crash in Shanksville.

Your turn. :)
 
faithful_servant said:
Because its' used to control a lot of people though the use of fear and intimidation. If you don't fight it, it will proliferate. The stupid stats you posted only reflect what is happening, the fight is about preventing worse from happening. Without fighting terrorism, those numbers would be far worse. That's what the fight is about. Your attempt to minimize that effect is not well thought out.
Click to expand...

(bolded) I'm not so sure about that. Dropping bombs tends to create more terrorists. Moreover, the war on terror has killed more Americans by far than terrorism ever did.
 
Dittohead not! said:
(bolded) I'm not so sure about that. Dropping bombs tends to create more terrorists. Moreover, the war on terror has killed more Americans by far than terrorism ever did.
Click to expand...

No. Killing terrorists stops terrorists. The idea that it creates them is one of the stupidest ideas put forth in a LONG time (focusing on the ME). People just don't understand Persian/Arab thinking. These are people who respect strength. If you show weakness, they see opportunity. If you show strength, they see someone to stay away from. Our failure to follow through on the post Desert Storm cease fire and the first attack on the WTC made us look weak. It wasn't stopping Iraq that gave the terrorists reason to attack us, it was the fact that we showed ourselves to be weak in the face of an enemy attacking us. Some people think that the chain of logic for terrorists goes something like this: "You bombed us and that made us angry, so we're going to attack you.", when it fact it's more along the lines of: "You bombed us and that made us angry, but you didn't do anything after that and that means you're weak, so we're going to attack you." The response we should be pursuing is: "You bombed us and then killed our leaders, destroyed our finances and wiped out our internal infrastructure. You are stronger than we are, so we will choose to cooperate with you, instead of fighting a fight we cannot win." This takes follow through, effort and a willingness to do what is needed.
 
Fledermaus said:
Plrase share... What "state terrorism " are you speaking of?

Libyan support of terrorists? Maybe Iranian support of Hezbollah? Perhaps Hamas? Prior Afghanistan support of Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

Or US support for all the right wing death squad government terrorists ? US support for despotic regimes past and present ?

The countries of the West are , imo , in no position to decry the acts of violence of others and , as I said earlier , it takes a huge amount of selective viewing to hold the views people like you hold.
 
faithful_servant said:
No. Killing terrorists stops terrorists. The idea that it creates them is one of the stupidest ideas put forth in a LONG time (focusing on the ME). People just don't understand Persian/Arab thinking. These are people who respect strength. If you show weakness, they see opportunity. If you show strength, they see someone to stay away from. Our failure to follow through on the post Desert Storm cease fire and the first attack on the WTC made us look weak. It wasn't stopping Iraq that gave the terrorists reason to attack us, it was the fact that we showed ourselves to be weak in the face of an enemy attacking us. Some people think that the chain of logic for terrorists goes something like this: "You bombed us and that made us angry, so we're going to attack you.", when it fact it's more along the lines of: "You bombed us and that made us angry, but you didn't do anything after that and that means you're weak, so we're going to attack you." The response we should be pursuing is: "You bombed us and then killed our leaders, destroyed our finances and wiped out our internal infrastructure. You are stronger than we are, so we will choose to cooperate with you, instead of fighting a fight we cannot win." This takes follow through, effort and a willingness to do what is needed.
Click to expand...

It didn't take us long to get rid of Saddam Hussain. Seems to me that should have proven strength. We've taken out ISIS leaders numerous times. We've killed a lot of the radicals already. What will it take to "show strength?" Do we have to kill them all? That's not possible when they keep recruiting more all the time.

Logically, it should be easier to recruit people whose family members have been killed and whose homes have been lost due to the war on terror.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It didn't take us long to get rid of Saddam Hussain. Seems to me that should have proven strength. We've taken out ISIS leaders numerous times. We've killed a lot of the radicals already. What will it take to "show strength?" Do we have to kill them all? That's not possible when they keep recruiting more all the time.

Logically, it should be easier to recruit people whose family members have been killed and whose homes have been lost due to the war on terror.
Click to expand...

The fact that we didn't do anything meaningful in response to the massive violations of the cease fire showed weakness. The fact that we left SH in power for so long showed weakness. The fact that we treated an act of war in teh first WTC attack as nothing more than a crime showed weakness. What we need to be doing is putting a target on the back of anyone gives an order to anyone else. If you're the head cook at Camp WannaKillaCrusader, you have a target on your back, if you're the guy directing armies, you have a target on your back. We need to be bankrupting anyone who provides financial support to any terrorist org. and if that means sanctions being applied to nations, then so be it. We need to be actively and aggressively sowing disinformation, disrupting communications, and breaking down internal infrastructure that supports their efforts (supplies and the like). We need to be recruiting from within their own base by showing ourselves to be a better option (stronger, more able to take care of "you and yours") than joining the people who are killing their neighbors.
 
oneworld2 said:
Or US support for all the right wing death squad government terrorists ? US support for despotic regimes past and present ?

The countries of the West are , imo , in no position to decry the acts of violence of others and , as I said earlier , it takes a huge amount of selective viewing to hold the views people like you hold.
Click to expand...

Are those goalposts getting heavy?
 
Thoreau72 said:
The towers were struck by aircraft, but they were not AA11 and UA175. The Pentagon was likely struck by some sort of aircraft, but it was not AA77. The towers did come down, and people were thereby killed, but they did not come down from burning office fires as the NIST report claims. UA93 did not crash in Shanksville.

Your turn. :)
Click to expand...

Evidence shows AA11 and UA175 struck the towers. Zero evidence for any other aircraft.

Evidence shows AA77 struck the Pentagon. Zero evidence for any other aircraft.

Evidence shows UA93 was flown into the ground by the terrorists. Zero evidence of anthing else.

Game, set, match.... Evidence wins 6-0
 
Fledermaus said:
Are those goalposts getting heavy?
Click to expand...

The only burden being carried around that I can see is your complete aversion to reality in a bid to protect yourself from truths that undermine your view of your country and its actions against others
 
Dittohead not! said:
Logically, it should be easier to recruit people whose family members have been killed and whose homes have been lost due to the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

The War on Terror, or rather the crimes committed under the banner of it , is the biggest recruitment officer for groups planning terror attacks against Western targets.

People who don't understand this situation must be pretty stupid imo
 
oneworld2 said:
Exactly!

The War on Terror, or rather the crimes committed under the banner of it , is the biggest recruitment officer for groups planning terror attacks against Western targets.

People who don't understand this situation must be pretty stupid imo
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that intelligence or lack of it is what's in play. What's in play is how easily one can be brainwashed. My bet is that just as certain individuals can be hypnotized and others cannot be, some individuals are more easily indoctrinated than others, more easily deceived than others.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm not sure that intelligence or lack of it is what's in play. What's in play is how easily one can be brainwashed. My bet is that just as certain individuals can be hypnotized and others cannot be, some individuals are more easily indoctrinated than others, more easily deceived than others.
Click to expand...


Yep, you are right , we should never underestimate the power of the indoctrination system here.
 
oneworld2 said:
Exactly!

The War on Terror, or rather the crimes committed under the banner of it , is the biggest recruitment officer for groups planning terror attacks against Western targets.

People who don't understand this situation must be pretty stupid imo
Click to expand...

Please share... What "crimes" exactly?
 
Dittohead not! said:
You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
Click to expand...

Thus arguing online can be as dangerous -- it can cause a heart condition. But alcohol, tobacoo, motorcycles can kill.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, but killing innocents by drone is. Taking the country to war under fraud is not only treason, but also terrorism. Killing US citizens without due process is both terrorism and treason.

KNOWDRONES This explains how the US had committed terrorism by way of its drone policy.
Click to expand...

But during Vietnam and Korean war, USA engaged in deliberate bombing of civilians -- about 2 million Korean and Vietnamese civilians were killed by USA.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is NOT the Conspiracy Theory Forum, so there will be no "truther" stupidity in this thread.
 
SCitizen said:
But during Vietnam and Korean war, USA engaged in deliberate bombing of civilians -- about 2 million Korean and Vietnamese civilians were killed by USA.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true, and I assume your number is correct. With modern drones involved in the GWOT the numbers are likely much lower.
 
Fledermaus said:
Please share... What "crimes" exactly?
Click to expand...

You would have to know a little bit about international law to understand why certain actions are considered necessary for acts of violence by states to be classed as legitimate................. i think that might rule you out.

Add on to that your complete submission to state propaganda and you might understand why there's a certain amount of reluctance to spend time trying to go through the record with you.

But just for you I'll pick one out

The US lead invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003 was a nailed on illegal war of aggression.

To attack a country with the intention of regime change is illegal under international law. That was , as shown by the subsequent documentation , the intended consequence of the US led invasion.

Cue the apologetics
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, that's true, and I assume your number is correct. With modern drones involved in the GWOT the numbers are likely much lower.
Click to expand...

Definitely -- now USA has much more respect for civilian lives then during Vietnam and Korea.
 
SCitizen said:
USA spent $2.4 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That could have been used to save millions lives.
Click to expand...

Actually it is $1.9t. And that is a figure announced yesterday.

https://www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-3306300

oneworld2 said:
The US lead invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003 was a nailed on illegal war of aggression.

To attack a country with the intention of regime change is illegal under international law.
Click to expand...

Really?

Now a war of aggression is generally based upon either the desire to occupy the country for land or resources (which we did not), or because of religious-ethnic purposes.

Darfur is a war of aggression. The invasion of South Korea and South Vietnam was a war of aggression. "Regime change" is actually a good reason since it involves none of those.

Taking out Hitler, that was "regime change". As was Italy, Japan, Libya, Somalia, and many of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia. You remove the government in power, and put in a more peaceful one.

Now let me throw this into the mix. The government in Iraq in 2003 was illegal. Guilty of committing decades of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They took charge in a coup, deposing the legitimately elected government and running it as a police state for 40 years.

oneworld2 said:
Instead of taking and/or destroying millions of lives
Click to expand...

"Millions of lives"?

Wow, is that even close to the truth?

Even the most outlandish claims of the death toll (which includes the deaths by ISIS and by the radical groups) only comes to around 1.3 million. Much less when you only count those that died in fighting the United States (less than 100,000 for all combined in over 15 years).

I love how a terrorist slaughtering Christians in some remote village in Syria is somehow the fault of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom