• 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!

More Ex-Detainees Resort to Terror, Officials Say

Charles Martel said:
I see, and how many terror attacks have we had in the past 20 years?
Click to expand...

terror_attacks_by_president.jpg


<Terrorist Attacks and Presidents

I compiled a pair of graphs to illustrate incidents of terrorism during each of the last three presidents, including President Obama, as a means of locking down what happened and when.

In terms of methodology, I covered the following types of terrorist attacks against American personnel, civilians and interests:

1) Domestic (Abortion-related attacks, Oklahoma City, Unabomber, Anthrax)

2) Domestic Islamic (9/11, WTC 1993, Beltway Snipers, Chapel Hill)

3) Overseas Islamic (Iraq, Afghanistan, USS Cole, Embassy Bombings)

4) Known Failed Attempts (Shoe Bomber, Underpants Bomber)

5) Overseas Attacks Against U.S. Allies (London, Madrid).

These categories should cover the basic forms of terrorist attacks against Americans whether abroad or on our soil.>

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!: Terrorist Attacks and Presidents
 
You know, there's a bit of this thread which sounds like "we don't need to spray for mosquitoes; there's hardly any malaria!"
 
I covered the following types of terrorist attacks against American personnel, civilians and interests:
Click to expand...

You're not listing the Amercan military?
 
Charles Martel said:
I see, and how many terror attacks have we had in the past 20 years?
Click to expand...

a handful on American State soil. You get more if you include embassies especially in areas where America has an aggressive, interventionist policy. But in terms of our daily lives, it would probably only include attacks on the State soil itself (50 proper).
 
Ikari said:
a handful on American State soil. You get more if you include embassies especially in areas where America has an aggressive, interventionist policy. But in terms of our daily lives, it would probably only include attacks on the State soil itself (50 proper).
Click to expand...

And given the low probability, is that probablity today rising...or receding?
 
Did the weekend refresh your memory, JD3?
 
Charles Martel said:
And given the low probability, is that probablity today rising...or receding?
Click to expand...

Near zero is still near zero. It remains relatively constant when compared to the other things which have threat against our life. For example, compared to drunk drivers, terrorism hardly shows up on the scale at all. Far more likely to be taken out by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, I'm far more likely to slip in the shower and be taken out by gravity than I am to be taken out by a terrorist.
 
Ikari said:
Near zero is still near zero.
Click to expand...

So Major Hasan nor alHaji nor the Pakistan 5 are a concern, zero is zero?

It remains relatively constant when compared to the other things which have threat against our life. For example, compared to drunk drivers, terrorism hardly shows up on the scale at all. Far more likely to be taken out by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Hell, I'm far more likely to slip in the shower and be taken out by gravity than I am to be taken out by a terrorist.
Click to expand...

But, I don't look to Homeland Security, our military, nor intelligence agencies nor our President to defend me from drunk drivers or gravity. Any state Mothers against Drunk Driving initiative I'm all about it. when we're arguing threats the federal government, namely our President, is accountable for...like terrorism and all enemies foreign and domestic, then we can compare.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, meteors may indeed be a larger threat to mankind, doesn't mean you access same resources. It's our President and Executive Branches' job and responsibility to keep us safe from terrorism, not gravity nor drunk drivers. Your argument is silly.
 
Charles Martel said:
So Major Hasan nor alHaji nor the Pakistan 5 are a concern, zero is zero?
Click to expand...

How many of those were successful? How often do they occur? The probability isn't zero, so it will happen from time to time. Even with excessive government control and monitoring of the people, it will happen. But not often. At some point I think there is a lot of freaking out and improper call to action because people don't understand probabilities.

How many people in America will die in car accidents today? You know? About 100. Way more than any terrorist is going to get. How many Americans have been taken out on state soil since 9/11? Zero.

Charles Martel said:
But, I don't look to Homeland Security, our military, nor intelligence agencies nor our President to defend me from drunk drivers or gravity. Any state Mothers against Drunk Driving initiative I'm all about it. when we're arguing threats the federal government, namely our President, is accountable for...like terrorism and all enemies foreign and domestic, then we can compare.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, meteors may indeed be a larger threat to mankind, doesn't mean you access same resources. It's our President and Executive Branches' job and responsibility to keep us safe from terrorism, not gravity nor drunk drivers. Your argument is silly.
Click to expand...

No, what's being compared is threats to life. How much do I really have to fear terrorism? Well when compared to everything else which poses threat, not a whole lot. I don't mean we ignore the situation, I just mean that we don't have to freak out and run around pretending that the sky is falling. It's not. We don't need to freak out, we don't need larger government, we don't need infringements against our rights. You're not going to get that much more "safe" by doing so and you may actually find that you've fallen to a larger threat by taking the path.

And meteors aren't a large threat. They're a statistical outlier. It's like freaking out over the fact that the sun will run out of fuel in 5 billion years.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
How many of those were successful?
Click to expand...

How many uncovered irresponsible process unsuccess...and that we're clearly still unprepared.

How often do they occur?
Click to expand...

We've had three or four just in the lst months. 5 young men travel from Alex. Va. to Pakistan, Major Hasan, Alhaji on the Detroit flight, it seems the campaign has been stepped up, yes?

The probability isn't zero, so it will happen from time to time. Even with excessive government control and monitoring of the people, it will happen. But not often. At some point I think there is a lot of freaking out and improper call to action because people don't understand probabilities.
Click to expand...

What people understand is who is supposed to strengthen our abilities to defend ourselves. It's environmental scares and calls for health care takeover we consider alot of freaking out and calling for improper actions. What we want is accountability and right now, we're not getting it.

How many people in America will die in car accidents today?
Click to expand...

Math stats aren't relevant and distract from the issue.

How many Americans have been taken out on state soil since 9/11? Zero.
Click to expand...

You don't consider the Hasan incident one of terror? Perhaps I see the problem now.

No, what's being compared is threats to life. How much do I really have to fear terrorism?
Click to expand...

How much does our Homeland Sec factor in terrorism and would if be safe to assume her job title makes her responsible for you and I, it's her job to understand and take action against a terror attack. It's not fear, it's vigilance.

Well when compared to everything else which poses threat, not a whole lot. I don't mean we ignore the situation, I just mean that we don't have to freak out and run around pretending that the sky is falling. It's not.
Click to expand...

This gentleman getting on an airplane, the Hasan holes in the intelligence system, the President's correct analysis that there is a systemic failure...means you take action, not pretend it isn't happening to match your incorrect poltiical leanings.

And meteors aren't a large threat. They're a statistical outlier. It's like freaking out over the fact that the sun will run out of fuel in 5 billion years.
Click to expand...

But terrorists ARE a large threat. Let me give you a good analogy. The Great Wall of China. IT was built out of what?

Sheer fear. Not a sky is falling, a confident knowledge that a coming menace...despite disease and illness that killed most of them...the Chinese built a wall and were not alone. The Roman Empire, Denmark and Korea all did so at certain time in the past. IN England there is a wall to keep the romans safe from "Barbarians."

there is a difference between vigilance and seeing the obvious, you want to ignore these realities, do it on your dime.
 
All that is nothing but deflect. You're hiding from the fact that terrorism is a low probability event which often does not succeed and does not overall pose a large threat to Americans. It doesn't mean we can't do reasonable things to watch for terrorism and look for plots. But it also means we don't have to freak out either. Zero American civilians killed on State soil since 9/11. A few attempts, no successes. Zero. Am I to live in fear from zero? I couldn't live life if I was. You can take the Hasan case even though it was a military base and didn't involve a large number of civilians. But even then, you have 1 success since 9/11 and killed what, a handful of people at best. Shaking in my boots. Oh wait, I'm not. Low number and low probability events are not proper reason for authorizing authoratative, big brother government.

The real threat to liberty and freedom is not in the least terrorism. The real threat to freedom and liberty is the government itself.
 
It is a low probability threat? So is murder, should we not go after murderers? ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It is a low probability threat? So is murder, should we not go after murderers? ;)
Click to expand...

I never said we couldn't go after it. If you read what I wrote I said we don't have to freak out. We can take reasonable precautions, go after the individuals at fault (though maybe we shouldn't be attacking countries as much). But this isn't something to freak out about. 9/11 was the most successful terrorist attack on the proper State soil ever. And what did they get? 3,000 people. Cars kill over 30,000 a year. My whole point is that we must take this in perspective to other things so that we can find reasonable solution and action. If we're lead around by our emotions and flail around out of fear, we'll only make the situation worse.
 
Ikari said:
I never said we couldn't go after it. If you read what I wrote I said we don't have to freak out. We can take reasonable precautions, go after the individuals at fault (though maybe we shouldn't be attacking countries as much). But this isn't something to freak out about. 9/11 was the most successful terrorist attack on the proper State soil ever. And what did they get? 3,000 people. Cars kill over 30,000 a year. My whole point is that we must take this in perspective to other things so that we can find reasonable solution and action. If we're lead around by our emotions and flail around out of fear, we'll only make the situation worse.
Click to expand...




I agree to a point. I think body scanners and shoes are rediculous.... I'd much prefer profiling. ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I agree to a point. I think body scanners and shoes are rediculous.... I'd much prefer profiling. ;)
Click to expand...

Depends on the profiling. The kind which is effective takes a lot of training and knowledge and would cost a lot. But in the end would most likely be more effective than the long TSA lines and strip searching everyone.
 
Ikari said:
Depends on the profiling. The kind which is effective takes a lot of training and knowledge and would cost a lot. But in the end would most likely be more effective than the long TSA lines and strip searching everyone.
Click to expand...




All foreign nationals from terrorist identified hot spots? :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
AllYou're hiding from the fact that terrorism is a low probability event which often does not succeed and does not overall pose a large threat to Americans.
Click to expand...

Reality shows all Americans must be vigilant.

The real threat to liberty and freedom is not in the least terrorism. The real threat to freedom and liberty is the government itself.
Click to expand...

Is it really, may I ask where you are on the health care debate?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
All foreign nationals from terrorist identified hot spots? :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, the whole "pull over all the brown people" type of profiling is easily defeated by recruiting not brown people. What you need are people trained in human behavioral sciences.
 
Ikari said:
No, the whole "pull over all the brown people" type of profiling is easily defeated by recruiting not brown people. What you need are people trained in human behavioral sciences.
Click to expand...




why not both?
 
Charles Martel said:
Reality shows all Americans must be vigilant.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we couldn't be vigilant. I said we don't need to freak out and encourage out of control government because of it. We'll end up somewhere worse by doing just that. Fulfilling Daniel Webster's prophecy.

Charles Martel said:
Is it really, may I ask where you are on the health care debate?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
why not both?
Click to expand...

I think that actual profiling can be linked with information found about terrorist organizations/plans/etc. But just straight up get all the brown folk is in and of itself easily defeated. You need someone who can identify behavior trends and external clues. Which takes a lot of training, education, and would be expensive. Linking it with intel is fine as well, but we need to keep things general. Over specialization breeds in weakness. Also, our intelligence seems to be poor as of late. Or at least, it's always getting blamed for the mistakes.
 
Ikari said:
I didn't say we couldn't be vigilant. I said we don't need to freak out
Click to expand...

Comparing this to gravity proves this isn't true.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not when your previous statement includes this?

The real threat to freedom and liberty is the government itself.
Click to expand...

Remarkable how inconsistent, you'll tell us government is to fear when engaged in its Constitutional duty of protecting us, bet you lunch you're all in favor of this "threat" to our freedoms and liberties running our health care. I asked as I believe your point of view is one that comes from a political animal, rather than a reasoned one. Again, where do you stand on health care?
 
Ikari said:
I think that actual profiling can be linked with information found about terrorist organizations/plans/etc. But just straight up get all the brown folk is in and of itself easily defeated. You need someone who can identify behavior trends and external clues. Which takes a lot of training, education, and would be expensive. Linking it with intel is fine as well, but we need to keep things general. Over specialization breeds in weakness. Also, our intelligence seems to be poor as of late. Or at least, it's always getting blamed for the mistakes.
Click to expand...




Ever see the very 1st episode of cops......


It was in Newark, and this cop kept saying how it was unfortunate, but he profiled black men who had a certain style of dress and look, and more often than not, he was right...


Profiling works.



btw think the guy was a racist or pragmatic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom