please see my revised post, in particular, please see the final paragraph
~ Putting Terrorism In Perspective ~
- Thread starter Zman
- Start date
- Replies 41
- Views 7K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
please see my revised post, in particular, please see the final paragraph
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
every credible report by Guardian, BBC or other reputable source that has been put up, you have denied it all so blindly and now you expect me to waste my time on your propaganda lies, are you feeling ok?
lol
so then you concede, that the report is a joke by omission?
By the way, I dont see anything on this thread from BBC, the Guardian or any other "reputable" source. The only reputable source that I see would be..... THE TIMES
But hey whatever, why would I expect you to back up your false claims with logic anyways, all you are good at is mudslinging and conspiracy theories.
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
----------------------------
Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand
on a clock. BEN HECHT
first quote is good
second quote is dumb, unless of course you are a paranoid psychotic who thinks that everything is a conspiracy imposed on us by the man so that he can further his own cause which is........... dare i say world domination
anyways again, please go back and refute that article and give some solid proof for your lancet study (other than the lancet study itself, which I see you continue to do)
(By the way, the problem you are facing with this is that you wont find anything to back the Lancet, because as Cognescenti stated above, the data was destroyed, hence no answers for what they did are available, they will rely on people who are biased and "one eyed" to maintain their false claims)
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
ALL WAR ALL THE TIME
The battle on terrorism is an excuse to make fighting permanent
Robert Higgs
Sunday, July 6, 2003
I'll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but let's put aside the "why" question for the time being, accepting that you wouldn't want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If, however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war, what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic society such as the United States?
First, you would need that society to have a dominant ideology -- a widely shared belief system about social and political relations -- within which having a permanent war seems to be a desirable policy, given the ideology's own content and the pertinent facts accepted by its adherents. Something like American jingo-patriotism cum anti-communism might turn the trick.
It worked pretty well during the nearly half-century of the Cold War. The beauty of anti-communism as a covering ideology was that it could serve to justify a wide variety of politically expedient actions both here and abroad. The Commies, you'll recall, were everywhere: not just in Moscow and Sevastopol,
but maybe in Minneapolis and San Francisco. We had to stay alert; we could never let down our guard, anywhere.
Second, you would need periodic crises, because without them the public becomes complacent, unafraid, and hence unwilling to bear the heavy burdens that they must bear if the government is to carry on a permanent war. As Sen. Arthur Vandenberg told Harry Truman in 1947 at the outset of the Cold War, gaining public support for a perpetual global campaign requires that the government "scare hell out of the American people."
Each crisis piques the people's insecurities and renders them once again disposed to pay the designated price, whether it takes the form of their treasure, their liberties or their young people's blood. Something like the (alleged) missile gap, the (alleged) Gulf of Tonkin attacks on U.S. naval vessels, or the (actual!) hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran will do nicely, at least for a while. Crises by their very nature eventually recede, and new ones must come along -- or be made to come along -- to serve the current need.
Third, you would need some politically powerful groups whose members stand to gain substantially from a permanent war in terms of achieving their urgent personal and group objectives. Call me crass, but I've noticed that few people will stay engaged for long unless there's "something in it for them."
During the Cold War, the conglomeration of personally interested parties consisted of those who form the military-industrial-congressional complex. The generals and admirals thrived by commanding a large armed force sustained by a lavish budget. The big defense contractors enjoyed ample returns at minimal risk (because they could expect that, should they screw up too royally, a bailout would be forthcoming). Members of Congress who belonged to the military oversight and appropriations committees could parlay their positions into campaign contributions and various sorts of income in kind.
Presiding over the entire complex, of course, the president, his National Security Council, and their many subordinates, advisers, consultants, and hangers-on enjoyed the political advantages associated with control of a great nation's diplomatic and military affairs -- not to speak of the sheer joy that certain people get from wielding or influencing great power.
No conspiracy here, of course, just a lot of people fitting into their niches, doing well while proclaiming that they were doing good (recall the ideology and the crisis elements). All seeking only to serve the common public interest. Absolutely.
The foregoing observations have been widely accepted by several generations of students of the Cold War. Yet now, you may protest, the Cold War is over, the USSR nonexistent, the menace of communism kaput. Under post-Cold War conditions, how can we have a permanent war? Well, all we need to do is to replace the missing piece.
If the ideology of anti-communism can no longer serve to justify a permanent war, let us put in its place the overarching rationale of a "war on terrorism." In fact, this substitution of what President Bush repeatedly calls "a new kind of war" amounts to an improvement for the leading actors, because whereas the Cold War could not be sustained once the USSR had imploded and international communism had toppled into the dustbin of history, a war on terrorism, with all its associated benefits, can go on forever.
After all, so long as the president says he has intelligence information to the effect that "they" are still out there conspiring to kill us all, who are we to dispute that the threat exists and must be met? The smoke had scarcely cleared at Ground Zero when Vice President Dick Cheney declared on Oct. 19, 2001, that the war on terrorism "may never end. It's the new normalcy."
Just as during the Cold War hardly any American ever laid eyes on an honest- to-God Commie, although nearly everybody believed that the Commies were lurking far and wide, so now we may all suppose that anyone, anywhere might be a lethal terrorist in possession of a suitcase nuke or a jug of anthrax spores.
Indeed, current airport-security measures are premised on precisely such a belief -- otherwise it makes no sense to strip-search Grandma at Dulles International Airport.
Potential terrorists are "out there," no doubt, in the wonderful world of Islam, an arc that stretches from Morocco across North Africa, the Middle East,
and Southwest Asia to Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao, not to mention London,
Amsterdam and Hamburg. And that's good, because it means that U.S. leaders must bring the entire outside world into compliance with their stipulated rules of engagement for the war on terrorism. It's a fine thing to dominate the world, an even finer thing to do so righteously.
Better yet, the potential omnipresence of the terrorists justifies U.S. leaders in their efforts to supercharge the surveillance-and-police state here at home, with the USA Patriot Act, the revival of the FBI's COINTELPRO activities, and all the rest. Adios, Bill of Rights. The merest babe should understand that these new powers will be turned to other political purposes that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism. Indeed, they have been already. As the New York Times reported on May 5, "The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States" and "most of the seizures have involved fraud and money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism."
The war-on-terrorism rationale has proved congenial to the American public, who have swallowed bogus government assurances that the so-called war is making them more secure. Much of this acceptance springs, no doubt, from the shock that many Americans experienced when the terrorist attacks of September 11 proved so devastating. Ever alert, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, asked the National Security Council immediately afterward "to think seriously about "how you capitalize on these opportunities" to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September 11.
The president's most powerful and influential subordinates -- Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their coterie -- then set in motion a series of actions (and a flood of disinformation) to seize the day, measures that culminated in the military invasion and conquest first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq, among many other things.
Likewise, the military component of the military-industrial complex has entered into fat city. During fiscal year 2000, before Bush had taken office, Department of Defense outlays amounted to $281 billion. Just four years later, assuming that Congress gives the president what he has requested for fiscal year 2004, the department's budget will be at least $399 billion -- an increase of 42 percent.
No wonder the generals and admirals are dancing in the corridors at the Pentagon: all this loot, and wartime citations and promotions to boot!
The flush times for the officer corps have spilled over handsomely onto the big arms contractors, whose share prices have been bucking the trend of the continuing stock-market meltdown nicely during the past couple of years. With only a single exception, all the major weapons systems have survived funding threats, and their manufacturers can look forward to decades of well-paid repose as they supply models B, C, D, and so forth, as well as all the remunerative maintenance and repairs, operational training, software upgrades, and related goods and services for their Cold War-type weaponry in search of an suitable enemy. In the immortal words of Boeing vice president Harry Stonecipher, "The purse is now open."
Amid the all-around rejoicing, however, the power elite appreciate that nearly two years have elapsed since Sept. 11, 2001, and the public's panic has begun to subside. That won't do. Accordingly, earlier this month, the government released a report that there is a "high probability" of an al Qaeda attack with a weapon of mass destruction in the next two years.
So there you have it: The war on terrorism -- the new permanent war -- is a winner. The president loves it. The military brass loves it. The bigwigs at Boeing and Lockheed love it. We all love it.
Except, perhaps, that odd citizen who wonders whether, all things considered, having a permanent war is truly a good idea for the beleaguered U. S. economy and for the liberties of the American people.
Source
---
Robert Higgs is senior fellow at the Independent Institute. His books include "Crisis and Leviathan" and "Arms, Politics and the Economy."
The battle on terrorism is an excuse to make fighting permanent
Robert Higgs
Sunday, July 6, 2003
I'll concede that having a permanent war might seem an odd thing to want, but let's put aside the "why" question for the time being, accepting that you wouldn't want it unless you stood to gain something important from it. If, however, for reasons you found adequate, you did want to have a permanent war, what would you need in order to make such a policy viable in a democratic society such as the United States?
First, you would need that society to have a dominant ideology -- a widely shared belief system about social and political relations -- within which having a permanent war seems to be a desirable policy, given the ideology's own content and the pertinent facts accepted by its adherents. Something like American jingo-patriotism cum anti-communism might turn the trick.
It worked pretty well during the nearly half-century of the Cold War. The beauty of anti-communism as a covering ideology was that it could serve to justify a wide variety of politically expedient actions both here and abroad. The Commies, you'll recall, were everywhere: not just in Moscow and Sevastopol,
but maybe in Minneapolis and San Francisco. We had to stay alert; we could never let down our guard, anywhere.
Second, you would need periodic crises, because without them the public becomes complacent, unafraid, and hence unwilling to bear the heavy burdens that they must bear if the government is to carry on a permanent war. As Sen. Arthur Vandenberg told Harry Truman in 1947 at the outset of the Cold War, gaining public support for a perpetual global campaign requires that the government "scare hell out of the American people."
Each crisis piques the people's insecurities and renders them once again disposed to pay the designated price, whether it takes the form of their treasure, their liberties or their young people's blood. Something like the (alleged) missile gap, the (alleged) Gulf of Tonkin attacks on U.S. naval vessels, or the (actual!) hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran will do nicely, at least for a while. Crises by their very nature eventually recede, and new ones must come along -- or be made to come along -- to serve the current need.
Third, you would need some politically powerful groups whose members stand to gain substantially from a permanent war in terms of achieving their urgent personal and group objectives. Call me crass, but I've noticed that few people will stay engaged for long unless there's "something in it for them."
During the Cold War, the conglomeration of personally interested parties consisted of those who form the military-industrial-congressional complex. The generals and admirals thrived by commanding a large armed force sustained by a lavish budget. The big defense contractors enjoyed ample returns at minimal risk (because they could expect that, should they screw up too royally, a bailout would be forthcoming). Members of Congress who belonged to the military oversight and appropriations committees could parlay their positions into campaign contributions and various sorts of income in kind.
Presiding over the entire complex, of course, the president, his National Security Council, and their many subordinates, advisers, consultants, and hangers-on enjoyed the political advantages associated with control of a great nation's diplomatic and military affairs -- not to speak of the sheer joy that certain people get from wielding or influencing great power.
No conspiracy here, of course, just a lot of people fitting into their niches, doing well while proclaiming that they were doing good (recall the ideology and the crisis elements). All seeking only to serve the common public interest. Absolutely.
The foregoing observations have been widely accepted by several generations of students of the Cold War. Yet now, you may protest, the Cold War is over, the USSR nonexistent, the menace of communism kaput. Under post-Cold War conditions, how can we have a permanent war? Well, all we need to do is to replace the missing piece.
If the ideology of anti-communism can no longer serve to justify a permanent war, let us put in its place the overarching rationale of a "war on terrorism." In fact, this substitution of what President Bush repeatedly calls "a new kind of war" amounts to an improvement for the leading actors, because whereas the Cold War could not be sustained once the USSR had imploded and international communism had toppled into the dustbin of history, a war on terrorism, with all its associated benefits, can go on forever.
After all, so long as the president says he has intelligence information to the effect that "they" are still out there conspiring to kill us all, who are we to dispute that the threat exists and must be met? The smoke had scarcely cleared at Ground Zero when Vice President Dick Cheney declared on Oct. 19, 2001, that the war on terrorism "may never end. It's the new normalcy."
Just as during the Cold War hardly any American ever laid eyes on an honest- to-God Commie, although nearly everybody believed that the Commies were lurking far and wide, so now we may all suppose that anyone, anywhere might be a lethal terrorist in possession of a suitcase nuke or a jug of anthrax spores.
Indeed, current airport-security measures are premised on precisely such a belief -- otherwise it makes no sense to strip-search Grandma at Dulles International Airport.
Potential terrorists are "out there," no doubt, in the wonderful world of Islam, an arc that stretches from Morocco across North Africa, the Middle East,
and Southwest Asia to Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao, not to mention London,
Amsterdam and Hamburg. And that's good, because it means that U.S. leaders must bring the entire outside world into compliance with their stipulated rules of engagement for the war on terrorism. It's a fine thing to dominate the world, an even finer thing to do so righteously.
Better yet, the potential omnipresence of the terrorists justifies U.S. leaders in their efforts to supercharge the surveillance-and-police state here at home, with the USA Patriot Act, the revival of the FBI's COINTELPRO activities, and all the rest. Adios, Bill of Rights. The merest babe should understand that these new powers will be turned to other political purposes that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism. Indeed, they have been already. As the New York Times reported on May 5, "The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States" and "most of the seizures have involved fraud and money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism."
The war-on-terrorism rationale has proved congenial to the American public, who have swallowed bogus government assurances that the so-called war is making them more secure. Much of this acceptance springs, no doubt, from the shock that many Americans experienced when the terrorist attacks of September 11 proved so devastating. Ever alert, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, asked the National Security Council immediately afterward "to think seriously about "how you capitalize on these opportunities" to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world in the wake of September 11.
The president's most powerful and influential subordinates -- Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their coterie -- then set in motion a series of actions (and a flood of disinformation) to seize the day, measures that culminated in the military invasion and conquest first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq, among many other things.
Likewise, the military component of the military-industrial complex has entered into fat city. During fiscal year 2000, before Bush had taken office, Department of Defense outlays amounted to $281 billion. Just four years later, assuming that Congress gives the president what he has requested for fiscal year 2004, the department's budget will be at least $399 billion -- an increase of 42 percent.
No wonder the generals and admirals are dancing in the corridors at the Pentagon: all this loot, and wartime citations and promotions to boot!
The flush times for the officer corps have spilled over handsomely onto the big arms contractors, whose share prices have been bucking the trend of the continuing stock-market meltdown nicely during the past couple of years. With only a single exception, all the major weapons systems have survived funding threats, and their manufacturers can look forward to decades of well-paid repose as they supply models B, C, D, and so forth, as well as all the remunerative maintenance and repairs, operational training, software upgrades, and related goods and services for their Cold War-type weaponry in search of an suitable enemy. In the immortal words of Boeing vice president Harry Stonecipher, "The purse is now open."
Amid the all-around rejoicing, however, the power elite appreciate that nearly two years have elapsed since Sept. 11, 2001, and the public's panic has begun to subside. That won't do. Accordingly, earlier this month, the government released a report that there is a "high probability" of an al Qaeda attack with a weapon of mass destruction in the next two years.
So there you have it: The war on terrorism -- the new permanent war -- is a winner. The president loves it. The military brass loves it. The bigwigs at Boeing and Lockheed love it. We all love it.
Except, perhaps, that odd citizen who wonders whether, all things considered, having a permanent war is truly a good idea for the beleaguered U. S. economy and for the liberties of the American people.
Source
---
Robert Higgs is senior fellow at the Independent Institute. His books include "Crisis and Leviathan" and "Arms, Politics and the Economy."
Did you read the material, bro? I'm interested in your view...
/Peace To All
snakelegs
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 1,199
i believe that there really are evil people Out There who will (and do) happily kill themselves by blowing up innocent people.
but, i also think there is a lot of truth in the article islamirama just posted. a permanent state of war is indeed a wonderful thing for the right people.
but, i also think there is a lot of truth in the article islamirama just posted. a permanent state of war is indeed a wonderful thing for the right people.
Pygoscelis
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,009
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
I think it is fine to compare it to traffic deaths. It shows how dangerous traffic is. We need to pay attention not only to foreign threats, real and imagined, but also to domestic safety issues. Drunk driving kills more people per year than terrorism. Where is our war on drunk driving?
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
I'm sure more people died from strokes the same year as Pearl Harbor, does that mean the U.S. should have compared stroke statistics with the number of U.S. citizens killed in that attack and base a reaction on the data?
I am with you on this, drunk driving, strokes, car crashes, earthquakes, tornados, etc. These are all incidental whereas murder and/or terrorism are one in the same, the people that are killed by such attacks their families are left with hatred for the perpetrators, thus also fueling what so many Muslims on this site constantly moan about, the demonizing of themselves and their beliefs. A drunk driving accident causes someone to hate alcohol or the consumption thereof, a tornado cause people to move away from the reach or to expect such an occurrence, a stroke is just someones time to die and encourages others around them to eat better or try and live with less stress, but a murder/ terrorism is, in my opinion, one of the many roots of hatred. It cannot be compared to the aforementioned causes of deaths, by this logic I could say in 2004 there were 2.3 million deaths in the US, so what does it matter that since the beginning of the war in Iraq there has only been 73,253, I mean that is really not that many compared to the number of strokes, etc. is it?
This is not only about the number of casualties. Obviously terrorism has a social and communal consequences which can undermine the peace and stability of a country. If someone dies because of a deliberate action of another individual people will demand justice. Denying them that justice might well cause considerable tensions.
That said, I agree that terrorism is only a minor danger to the West and it will remain so as long as terrorists do not get their hands on WMD. Of course, the same cannot be said in places like Iraq, where terrorism is a major cause of death.
That said, I agree that terrorism is only a minor danger to the West and it will remain so as long as terrorists do not get their hands on WMD. Of course, the same cannot be said in places like Iraq, where terrorism is a major cause of death.
Pygoscelis
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,009
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Tornados and strokes maybe... but drunk driving??? INCIDENTAL?!
Drunk driving is something the average citizen can actually do something about, much more so than terrorism. Obesity is another major killer that people can do something about.
What exactly can the average citizen do about terrorism? Besides be afraid when told to be afraid? No. The biggest risk of terrorism isn't another 9/11 or a nuke on California. The biggest risk of terrorism is allowing our own politicians to drive fear into us and take away our civil liberties.
Last edited:
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
Tornados and strokes maybe... but drunk driving??? INCIDENTAL?!
Drunk driving is something the average citizen can actually do something about, much more so than terrorism. Obesity is another major killer that people can do something about.
What exactly can the average citizen do about terrorism? Besides be afraid when told to be afraid? No. The biggest risk of terrorism isn't another 9/11 or a nuke on California. The biggest risk of terrorism is allowing our own politicians to drive fear into us and take away our civil liberties.
The government is between a rock and a hard place in terms of terrorism. Either they don't do enough and are blamed for allowing terrorist attacks to succeed, or they overreach and are blamed for using terrorism to take away civil liberties.
Tornados and strokes maybe... but drunk driving??? INCIDENTAL?!
Drunk driving is something the average citizen can actually do something about, much more so than terrorism. Obesity is another major killer that people can do something about.
What exactly can the average citizen do about terrorism? Besides be afraid when told to be afraid? No. The biggest risk of terrorism isn't another 9/11 or a nuke on California. The biggest risk of terrorism is allowing our own politicians to drive fear into us and take away our civil liberties.
Not every drunk driver kills someone, obesity doesnt kill everyone, not only that but these are "internal" problems that, as you said, citizens must deal with themselves. Terrorism on the other hand is not something that a average citizen can handle which is why we have a government and military to take care of outside threats on mass portions of our country. The bottom line is, you cannot compare murder to man slaughter or death by being a glutton and eating yourself to death, and if you think you can then re-read the last sentence of my previous post.
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Muslims against terrorism, Americans for it...
Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
These findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
These findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html