• 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]

TurtleDude said:
because the goal of terrorists is to kill far far more and if we don't guard against it, those odds get far worse
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there isn't a concern, but there are those on this site who are pure hyperbole and believe ISIS is in every closet.
 
azgreg said:
I'm not saying there isn't a concern, but there are those on this site who are pure hyperbole and believe ISIS is in every closet.
Click to expand...

no doubt but we do know that Jihadist terrorists do want to kill Americans. its a credible threat which we must guard against since jihadist enemies have killed Marines in the Lebanon Barracks, blew a hole into a US naval vessel, blew up the WTCs and attempted to take out the Pentagon and recently gunned down a bunch of innocents in California. Means, motivation and past history are proof that this is a serious matter
 
TurtleDude said:
no doubt but we do know that Jihadist terrorists do want to kill Americans. its a credible threat which we must guard against since jihadist enemies have killed Marines in the Lebanon Barracks, blew a hole into a US naval vessel, blew up the WTCs and attempted to take out the Pentagon and recently gunned down a bunch of innocents in California. Means, motivation and past history are proof that this is a serious matter
Click to expand...

The reason its a serious matter is because we haven't the will to address the matter seriously. We shouldn't still be dealing with it.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065852755 said:
Ignoring terrorists worked well on September 11, 2001, didn't it?

The people who whine about engaging terrorists are the same people who blamed Bush for ignoring the threat.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't ignore them.
Nor should we let them run our lives for us.
 
TurtleDude said:
no doubt but we do know that Jihadist terrorists do want to kill Americans. its a credible threat which we must guard against since jihadist enemies have killed Marines in the Lebanon Barracks, blew a hole into a US naval vessel, blew up the WTCs and attempted to take out the Pentagon and recently gunned down a bunch of innocents in California. Means, motivation and past history are proof that this is a serious matter
Click to expand...

You can take some reason we steps to reduce probabilities of attack. But in a free nation, you'll never be completely safe. There's no way to do so and remain free. Furthermore, certainly retaliatory actions can end up putting us at more risk, as our Infinity War has done.

You can't ignore the threat, but you can't pretend that we can make ourselves immune to it either. Else you get the government quit literally shoving its hand up you butt every time you want to fly.

Free is inherently dangerous.
 
Ikari said:
You can take some reason we steps to reduce probabilities of attack. But in a free nation, you'll never be completely safe. There's no way to do so and remain free. Furthermore, certainly retaliatory actions can end up putting us at more risk, as our Infinity War has done.

You can't ignore the threat, but you can't pretend that we can make ourselves immune to it either. Else you get the government quit literally shoving its hand up you butt every time you want to fly.

Free is inherently dangerous.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.

And slavery is even more dangerous.
 
Fledermaus said:
1. Because the people as a whole expect the government to stop terrorists.

2. It is not the government's job to protect us from our bad choices.
Click to expand...

1. and, unfortunately, they seem willing to give up liberty in order for the government to provide security. That's just a bad bargain.

2. Agreed, but most of the real dangers are not the result of bad choices. Even heart disease is not entirely the result of bad choices unless you count choosing your parents.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, of course it's not.
and it's far and away more likely to kill you than a ragtag army of radicals from the Mid East.
Click to expand...

If it is far and away how is it going to kill me?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
Click to expand...

A lot of it also has to do with where the risk is highest.

To begin with, the highest odds are in major coastal cities. Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc. Yes, attacks do take place in cities like Chattanooga, but they are generally smaller and cause less casualties then those in say a bombing in a major city.

Money, time and energy tends to go where the risk is highest. And in the US, that means major cities. The monthly budget for such things in New York is probably far in excess of the annual budget for anti-terrorism in the entire state of Idaho. Of course, being a major port of entry (both air and sea) also means that New York is a much more attractive target for such attacks.

But what do you think we should do, just end such efforts and simply take whatever happens?
 
Dittohead not! said:
1. and, unfortunately, they seem willing to give up liberty in order for the government to provide security. That's just a bad bargain.

2. Agreed, but most of the real dangers are not the result of bad choices.
Click to expand...

Well, that all depends on what somebody considers to be "liberty".

Is your liberty infringed if your name is run across those of potential terrorists before you get on a plane? Or if you are made to take your shoes off before getting on a plane? According to many, that is a huge infrongement on liberty. Myself, I am much more worried about "Life" (which is a hard and concrete thing) than I am about "Liberty", which can be nebulous and change depending on who is defining it.

After all, the 2nd Ammendment provides me with the "liberty" of owning a firearm so long that I am not a convicted felon. So is it a violation of my "liberty" if the Government says I can not own an M-60 Machine Gun? Where does the liberty of one person and and another being?

And what is a "bad choice"? As TurtleDude stated, one of the first major International Terrorist attacks was at the Marine Barracks in 1983. So what was the bad choice there, agreeing to participate in a UN Peacekeeping mission? And there are other attacks that are similar, going all the way back to the early 1900's.

You have to remember, Terrorism is generally one of 2 things. First as revenge, in retrebution for some previous slight. Secondly, it is to try and change minds and policies, to either support or oppose something else. But there are other times it is just simple hate. Most of the race and religion targeted attacks are because of hate against those groups, not because of anything they have ever actually done. So what "choices" had to deal with the Buford Furrow attack in 1999? Or the Charlston Church attack last year?
 
Oozlefinch said:
Well, that all depends on what somebody considers to be "liberty".

Is your liberty infringed if your name is run across those of potential terrorists before you get on a plane? Or if you are made to take your shoes off before getting on a plane? According to many, that is a huge infrongement on liberty. Myself, I am much more worried about "Life" (which is a hard and concrete thing) than I am about "Liberty", which can be nebulous and change depending on who is defining it.

After all, the 2nd Ammendment provides me with the "liberty" of owning a firearm so long that I am not a convicted felon. So is it a violation of my "liberty" if the Government says I can not own an M-60 Machine Gun? Where does the liberty of one person and and another being?

And what is a "bad choice"? As TurtleDude stated, one of the first major International Terrorist attacks was at the Marine Barracks in 1983. So what was the bad choice there, agreeing to participate in a UN Peacekeeping mission? And there are other attacks that are similar, going all the way back to the early 1900's.

You have to remember, Terrorism is generally one of 2 things. First as revenge, in retrebution for some previous slight. Secondly, it is to try and change minds and policies, to either support or oppose something else. But there are other times it is just simple hate. Most of the race and religion targeted attacks are because of hate against those groups, not because of anything they have ever actually done. So what "choices" had to deal with the Buford Furrow attack in 1999? Or the Charlston Church attack last year?
Click to expand...

A bad choice is sitting on the couch all day eating potato chips, or taking up smoking. Either choice is far more likely to kill you than terrorists are. Even if you don't make bad choices, you're so much more likely to die in a traffic accident or of medical malpractice than a terrorist attack. You're even more likely to die of a lightning strike.

Should we guard against the few thousand radicals who have decided to take over the world and kill the infidels? Sure. Should we be hiding under our beds afraid? No, that's what the terrorists want. Should we be afraid of Islam and talking of a "clash of civilizations?" No, that's what the terrorists want, too. Should we spend billions of dollars and/ or go to yet another war in the name of the "war on terror"? No, we need to be rational about this problem.

Inner city gangs are far more dangerous than terrorists in the United States. Let's focus on them instead of on ISIS.
 
Dittohead not! said:
A bad choice is sitting on the couch all day eating potato chips, or taking up smoking. Either choice is far more likely to kill you than terrorists are. Even if you don't make bad choices, you're so much more likely to die in a traffic accident or of medical malpractice than a terrorist attack. You're even more likely to die of a lightning strike.

Should we guard against the few thousand radicals who have decided to take over the world and kill the infidels? Sure. Should we be hiding under our beds afraid? No, that's what the terrorists want. Should we be afraid of Islam and talking of a "clash of civilizations?" No, that's what the terrorists want, too. Should we spend billions of dollars and/ or go to yet another war in the name of the "war on terror"? No, we need to be rational about this problem.

Inner city gangs are far more dangerous than terrorists in the United States. Let's focus on them instead of on ISIS.
Click to expand...

It is not a few thousand. Tell the truth, it is over a 100 million.
 
coldjoint said:
It is not a few thousand. Tell the truth, it is over a 100 million.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Not with government propaganda, but with documented facts from unbiased sources.

I guarantee you can't.
 
DA60 said:
Prove it.

Not with government propaganda, but with documented facts from unbiased sources.

I guarantee you can't.
Click to expand...

It is estimated that radical Islamists are 3 to 13% of the Muslim population. You do the math.
 
coldjoint said:
It is estimated that radical Islamists are 3 to 13% of the Muslim population. You do the math.
Click to expand...
That's what you go by? You hear rumors and automatically believe it...without documentation? Wow...talk about gullible (no offense).

That's not proof.

Can you provide documented facts from unbiased sources?

Yes or no, please?

Unlike you apparently, I need proof before I believe something...especially if it is from the government.
 
Dittohead not! said:
...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
Click to expand...

Because being killed by a terrorist isn't just dying. It's being killed to allow someone to force their will on others. It's not just the death of one person (or more), it's the fact that the death is used to control large numbers of people. Classic liberal short sightedness....
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, they do, which is why the terrorists do what they do. They spread fear and intimidation. Next time you get on an airplane, ask yourself if they haven't won at least some of the battles.
Click to expand...

So because you see a few minor changes in how we respond, that means that the terrorists won something?? Yes, they changed some of the ways we act, but for the most part those changes are losses for terrorists, not victories.

Since it's just a numbers game to you, lets stop prosecuting homicides in the US. Only ...38% of Americans will die as a result of homicide, so why waste our time and money on prosecuting murderers when we could be putting all those resources towards improving the lives of a lot of people in this country?? Tell me why we prosecute murderers when the numbers are so small...
 
DA60 said:
That's what you go by? You hear rumors and automatically believe it...without documentation? Wow...talk about gullible (no offense).

That's not proof.

Can you provide documented facts from unbiased sources?

Yes or no, please?

Unlike you apparently, I need proof before I believe something...especially if it is from the government.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense on stilts. Daniel Pipes has long argued that between 10 to 15% of Muslims subscribe to radical Islam. Pipes uses the term Islamist to describe this 10 to 15%. By this, Pipes means Muslims who want the establishment of an Islamic caliphate which would impose Shariah law. Not all of these Muslims necessarily support terrorism to bring this about, but a large number certainly do. Here is what Pipes wrote about Islamism back in June 1998 more than three years ago before the September 11th attacks and just over a month before the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania:

Islamism is an ideology that demands man’s complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.

The Pew Research Center estimates there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world comprising 23% of the global population. It won’t be long before 1 out of every 4 people in the entire world is Muslim. Let us for argument’s sake take the conservative end of Pipes’ estimate on the numbers who are Islamists. That’s 160 million Muslims who believe Sharia law should rule the world and good many of those 160 million are willing to bring this about by force. That is more than the population of the U.K. and France combined and more than of half the U.S. population. It’s a critical mass. Those numbers are simply too large for President Obama to dismiss so casually.
Click to expand...

Obama’s Nonsensical Claim That 99.9% of Muslims Reject Radical Islam | The American Spectator

Daniel Pipes is an American historian, writer, and political commentator. He is the president of the Middle East Forum, and publisher of its Middle East Quarterly journal. His writing focuses on the American foreign policy and the Middle East. Wikipedia
Born: September 9, 1949 (age 66), Boston, MA
Education: Harvard University
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/search?q=daniel+pipes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Please don't ever think I believe one thing this administration says.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
Click to expand...

It is in the dynamics of the thing. If you don't fight it hard like domestic and other international security it grows worse, if allowed to fester.
 
Dittohead not! said:
...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
We shouldn't ignore them.
Nor should we let them run our lives for us.
Click to expand...

So the US shouldn't spend so much time, energy, and money on Islamic terrorists but we shouldn't ignore them.

A liberal conundrum; your posts prove my point that those who complain about US intervention to combat terrorism are the same who blamed Bush for ignoring the threat.

Make up your mind because the stats you posted imply terrorists are irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom