jimmy. Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) Jimmy, 'genius,' old buddy old pal, you lost me. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say, but I think you missed the point my sarcasm was intended to drive home - that terror is a minimal threat (roughly 5 times more people died as a direct result of drunk driving in 2001 than the 9/11 death toll) that won't necessarily increase with apathy. In fact, blowing up homes, families, and arming other factions statistically leads to more terrorism, more death vendettas, and more groups willing to join Uncle Bin Laden's cause. I mean, really, who armed the Taliban in the first place, then left them to rot? Make no mistake, much of what we know as terrorism is personally and politically motivated - religion is simply an easy way to manipulate the impressionable to carry out your plans. Furthermore, to take this back to Iran (we're talking about Iran, remember?) - simply blowing the sh*t out of them will lead to the exact same problem. A protracted occupation. Civil unrest. IEDs. The seeds of terrorists with vendettas. To argue that there hasn't been another 9/11 since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is to argue that Haley's Comet hasn't shown up since reality TV was invented. Especially considering that we still haven't caught the mastermind behind the attack. So to justify Iran as some sort of terrorism repellant is a flawed argument and a terrible reason to go to war. To oust Amenidinjad from power so that he can't build nuclear weapons and blow up people, however, is a perfectly legitimate reason. It just has to be handled far better than Iraq. I was being perhaps a little bit sarcastic in my post quoting you. I was quoting almost verbatim multiple right-wing pundits to form that post. Do you see a "civilized" Jew/Christian that's a citizen of Canada flying to Afghanistan just to commandeer a bus full of Muslims and drive them all off a cliff? Not exactly that scenario. But religion and a very successful anti-Muslim campaign in the west turn a lot of people into violent nutjobs in their own right. In one of the statements, John Doe 2, who worked for Blackwater for four years, alleged that (CEO) Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe” and that his companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life”. He also gives lots of the other kids money and stops other kids from beating the crap out of each other from time to time. Strange bully. Sounds like a mafia don, actually. Edited March 17, 2010 by jimmy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordDastardly Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It isn't quite the same level as 11/9... (or 9/11 for you Americans). The same level? You're seriously saying there's a difference between 2,000 and 3,000 people HURT OR KILLED? I guess I can almost see it. When you manage to get more 2,500 people, then it's time for action, right? The point I was making was that the Twin Towers, especially, were world-renowned - the majority of people knew of the twin towers whereas a train or a bus is just that. If terrorists were to attack the Whitehouse, Buckingham Palace, Disneyland.etc. it would have a much bigger impact than if a train was attacked even if more people were killed in the train attack - it is not just who is hurt but what is hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It isn't quite the same level as 11/9... (or 9/11 for you Americans). The same level? You're seriously saying there's a difference between 2,000 and 3,000 people HURT OR KILLED? I guess I can almost see it. When you manage to get more 2,500 people, then it's time for action, right? The point I was making was that the Twin Towers, especially, were world-renowned - the majority of people knew of the twin towers whereas a train or a bus is just that. If terrorists were to attack the Whitehouse, Buckingham Palace, Disneyland.etc. it would have a much bigger impact than if a train was attacked even if more people were killed in the train attack - it is not just who is hurt but what is hurt. And it's still nonetheless, wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Ah, God damnit Jimmy. You gotta work on that sarcasm. I'll work on my detector in the meanwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now