Who are the Real Terrorists?

HotShotX

HotShotX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
31 (100%)
RAMSTORIA touched on this in his thread, but I had been thinking about this for some time and want to ask it in a very direct format:

How was September the 11th that bad?

Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible, horrible act brought against America and deserves retribution, but consider something:

September 11th Death Toll: 2,974 (Wikipedia)
Iraq War Death Toll: 4,155 (Antiwar.com)
Afghanistan Death Toll: 581 (Wikipedia)
Total: 7710

*All Counts are American Deaths, both civilian and uniform

American Murder Rate (2006): 16,692 (FBI.gov)

The September 11th attacks took years of planning and managed to net the high score on a single day, and cost our country more lives over the next few years in the following wars.

Despite that, we still kill more of ourselves by a ratio of more than 2-to-1 every year.

That being said, why are we pissing away billions of dollars in a foreign country instead spending it here, even if every single penny goes towards better law enforcement?

As horrible as it sounds, every time I hear someone say we need to chase down those who planned the 9/11 attacks, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy when it comes to how many of our own we kill each year, and wonder why more isn't being done at home.

If were going to have a record deficit, I'd rather it was spent here. Hell, maybe we could dome something noble and help all those fucked over by natural disasters.

~HotShotX
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the Joker from The Dark Knight said it best.

"You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when everything goes according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow, I told the press that, like, a gang banger would get shot or that a truckload of soldiers would be blowing up, nobody panics, because it's all part of the plan."
 
The wars are not just to avenge the dead, but to also eliminate the threat for other terrorist attacks in the future. It's not just that 2,000+ Americans died, our false sense of security that we were somehow immune to fanatics attacking us on our home soil was shattered as well. It looks like we're going to keep the world safe from terrorism or die trying.
 
How about we consider that someone dying in a vehicular homicide is different than, say, a cold blooded assassination style murder during a robbery. Should we believe that the killing of a moral and kind person is 1/10th as tragic as killing 10 mass murderers ? Of course not. There are many more ramifications of the act itself other than the quantification of the resulting casualties. If the numbers are all that matters, then we should be able to conclude that Stalin wasn't as bad as cigarettes.

How about we also consider that the purpose of 4k soldiers dying over 6 years was to prevent 3k American civilians dying in any, or multiple, random day in the future.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']
That being said, why are we pissing away billions of dollars in a foreign country instead spending it here, even if every single penny goes towards better law enforcement?[/quote]
It's not about revenge. It's about an attempt at striking the perceived threat (Radical, violent, Islamic Fundamentals) at the jugular to stop future attacks. The logic is, keeping them busy on their own turf in running and fighting, will keep us safe back at home.
It's up for debate if that is even possible though. It's a little like the war on drugs. An impossible victory to be had, but a fight you can't just ignore.

As horrible as it sounds, every time I hear someone say we need to chase down those who planned the 9/11 attacks, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy when it comes to how many of our own we kill each year, and wonder why more isn't being done at home.
Click to expand...
Well I sort of agree with you. Especially since I firmly believe that spending those war resources on an aggressive goal of ceasing all money spent on the oil of that region asap will do far more for the above goals than any amount of soldiers or wars.

If were going to have a record deficit, I'd rather it was spent here. Hell, maybe we could dome something noble and help all those fucked over by natural disasters.
Click to expand...

Or better yet, the government should lower everyone's taxes by a few percent, and don't find reasons to pretend they need money.
 
Not to be insulting but that's a shallow way of thinking about September 11th. In most murders in America, the victims are intraracial and certainly not killed due to philosophical or political differences. September 11th was a political and religious statement by islamic terrorists designed to evoke radical change in the America way of life. Their statement was convert to Islam or die like the infidels in the Twin Towers. The change was to deny your freedom to live, worship or govern oneself in the manner of your choosing. In contrast, the typical violent crime is aggravated assault done to individuals due to emotional or financial reasons. So, the context of the comparison is incorrect.

If one just wanted to compare the numbers, one could use the statistics about car accident fatalities as well to minimze the extent of the acts of September 11th, but it would be comparing a random act to a directed effort to take people's lives. From Wikipedia: In the United States, "car accident" fatalities have increased slightly from 40,716 in 1994 to 42,884 in 2003. It would make the numbers seem less significant, but car accidents do not force one to change one's lifestyle. (I will admit that on several occasions when driving with some lunatics that I've gotten very religious until I got out of their car though. )
 
Before anybody asks, I'm sober.

9/11 changed everything.

Those terrorists who can't afford socks and shoes while hiding in Pakistan caves could get a hold of a nookular device that could kill as many people as the Interstate system kills on a Saturday night.

The truth? (I don't have that, but feel free to read the following rant.) The US won the Cold War. Our nemesis, the Soviet Union, imploded. People looked at the books and realized the nemesis had a GDP on par with Greece. They weren't a legit threat outside of Mutual Assured Destruction.

So, we started pumping money into China; building up their economy. We figured a growing Chinese economy would lead to an expanding Chinese empire. But do you know what those bastards do? They reinvested in their own economy.

Then, Algore invented the gods damned Internet. People in this country were talking to people in that country. Those Americans learned that most Chinese people had a net worth of an used condom and, despite an iron-fisted government, people were still rebelling. If a worthless human wasn't afraid of its government, how could an American with material possessions be afraid of a government with the world's largest ocean in the way?

What to do? What to do? We have this massive military with no real enemies. We needed a boogeyman. Some god answered our prayers and gave us Al Queda. Sure, we had to disconnect a lot of dots, but, by God, they finally delivered on 9/11.

BUT ... Al Queda wasn't big enough. People were starting to find out Al Queda's literal Persian translation was "Camel Pleasers Liberation Alliance". People were noticing the boogeymen couldn't afford soap. Too many people saw Al Queda's 9 out of 10 review of E.T. on GameFAQs.

We needed a big enemy again. But who? We asked Russia, but Putin claimed they were broke. People in Russia were abandoning their babies faster than GM dropped the EV1. Fortunately, W relayed the CPC (Contrived Petroleum Crisis) plan perfectly to Putin with the help of phonetic cue cards and a sock puppet named Samson. Putin agreed to let Bush invade Iraq. You see ... Putin was blackmailed. In 1998, a very persuasive Bill Clinton and 2 pounds of a friend we call Mary Jane convinced the younger Putin to become the current holder of "The Largest Stick Put In Somebody's Ass" and photgraphed it for posterity.

So, we had our war with the most rusted army in the world. 45 minutes later, Iraq surrendered. We were all set to invade Syria and Iran. They had bigger armies and were prepared to rumble much in the same way Snapper Carr is ready to fight Darkseid. Then, Algore's fucking Internet struck again. People weren't going to support invading another country ran by another asshole until them WMDs were found. Curses!

As Rumsfeld said, "You have to break the army you have, not keep invading countries until unarmed infantry can choke your tank treads with their dead."

So, we had to wear down the world's biggest army. We poisoned their drinking water, backordered their body armor, gave them translators who only spoke French or Klingon, replaced their pornographic movies with "Chairman of the Board" and didn't charge the freon in the Humvees.

Little by little, it worked. The world saw the best fighting force on Earth stumble. Oil started to tick up with the bad news. Little by little, Put-in's oil exports got the Russian bear out of the grave and back on life support in intensive care.

And that's where we are today. A couple amendments lighter, a few trillion wasted, and the Glassy Joe of superpowers (Russia) ready to take on the champ again.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The wars are not just to avenge the dead, but to also eliminate the threat for other terrorist attacks in the future.[/quote]

Well, that was Afghanistan at any rate. Should've been an invasion of Saudi Arabia, too - but, you know they're our friends and everything, so never mind how many of the 19 were Saudi.

Iraq had nothing to do with this, just like we didn't restore the levees in Arkansas to make sure there would be another Katrina.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The wars are not just to avenge the dead, but to also eliminate the threat for other terrorist attacks in the future. It's not just that 2,000+ Americans died, our false sense of security that we were somehow immune to fanatics attacking us on our home soil was shattered as well. It looks like we're going to keep the world safe from terrorism or die trying.[/quote]

The problem with that idea is that it seems like we're fighting because we lost our virginity of ignorance, and now that we can no longer ignore what bullshit goes on with the rest of the world, we can just ignore what goes on back home instead, and let our people suffer (shitty economy, poor response to disasters, etc).

[quote name='darkshadows6000']Not to be insulting but that's a shallow way of thinking about September 11th. In most murders in America, the victims are intraracial and certainly not killed due to philosophical or political differences. September 11th was a political and religious statement by islamic terrorists designed to evoke radical change in the America way of life. Their statement was convert to Islam or die like the infidels in the Twin Towers. The change was to deny your freedom to live, worship or govern oneself in the manner of your choosing. In contrast, the typical violent crime is aggravated assault done to individuals due to emotional or financial reasons. So, the context of the comparison is incorrect.

If one just wanted to compare the numbers, one could use the statistics about car accident fatalities as well to minimze the extent of the acts of September 11th, but it would be comparing a random act to a directed effort to take people's lives. From Wikipedia: In the United States, "car accident" fatalities have increased slightly from 40,716 in 1994 to 42,884 in 2003. It would make the numbers seem less significant, but car accidents do not force one to change one's lifestyle. (I will admit that on several occasions when driving with some lunatics that I've gotten very religious until I got out of their car though. )[/quote]

The thing is though, even if terrorists managed to pull off a 9/11 every year, it would still pale in comparison to the number of senseless American vs. American murders in our own country. Hell, at least the terrorists have a freaking message, you know?

As for denying us our freedoms to live, worship, or govern ourselves in the manner of our choosing, mission freaking accomplished. Perhaps not as extreme as they would like just yet, but search online for the number of people unable to fly or work in the airline industry because they're on a "Terrorist No-Fly List", or unable to publish a book, air a television program, or write for a newspaper because "it might offend the Muslims". How about the number of people having their phone calls screened because the government they might be a threat to national security due to their heritage.

The ugliest thing about our country and humanity itself is that we simply cannot bond together unless were hating a common enemy. I think quite a number of foreign taxi drivers can attest to the number of whites and blacks that beat the shit out of them following 9/11 simply because they "looked" like a terrorist.

As for your car accident analogy, the key word there is "accident", which I'm sure you noticed. I'm not using the murder rates in American to belittle 9/11, I'm using it to put it into perspective. While 45,000+ dead from car accidents is certainly a tragic number, there is a lack of human intent involved and thus, harder to prevent by a large magnitude.

As for murder though, that is solely grounded in human intent, as was the 9/11 attacks. As for changing your lifestyle to "prevent" the attack, that's utter bullshit. If someone bullies you on the playground, and you capitulate to try to get them to leave you alone, they will bully you again in the future for another reason, and will continue you to do so because they know you will not put up a fight. Fear of harm is absolutely no reason in Hell to not exercise the rights offered us by the Constitution, or to take away said rights from others because you fear for your own safety.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before anybody asks, I'm sober.

9/11 changed everything....[/quote]

That made quite possibly the most fucking sense I've ever heard regarding America and wars. Good show, sir.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='dopa345']The wars are not just to avenge the dead, but to also eliminate the threat for other terrorist attacks in the future.[/quote]

thats well and good except we have created perfect conditions for terrorism to grow. Strong hatred towards us, destroyed infrastructure of a country, few opportunities besides gang/militia/terrorist group, detainments, deaths of family and friends. We are Al Qeada's biggest recruitment tool.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']RAMSTORIA touched on this in his thread, but I had been thinking about this for some time and want to ask it in a very direct format:

How was September the 11th that bad?

Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible, horrible act brought against America and deserves retribution, but consider something:

September 11th Death Toll: 2,974 (Wikipedia)
Iraq War Death Toll: 4,155 (Antiwar.com)
Afghanistan Death Toll: 581 (Wikipedia)
Total: 7710

*All Counts are American Deaths, both civilian and uniform

American Murder Rate (2006): 16,692 (FBI.gov)

The September 11th attacks took years of planning and managed to net the high score on a single day, and cost our country more lives over the next few years in the following wars.

Despite that, we still kill more of ourselves by a ratio of more than 2-to-1 every year.

That being said, why are we pissing away billions of dollars in a foreign country instead spending it here, even if every single penny goes towards better law enforcement?

As horrible as it sounds, every time I hear someone say we need to chase down those who planned the 9/11 attacks, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy when it comes to how many of our own we kill each year, and wonder why more isn't being done at home.

If were going to have a record deficit, I'd rather it was spent here. Hell, maybe we could dome something noble and help all those fucked over by natural disasters.

~HotShotX[/quote]

ok. I'm not sure exactly how to interpret your post.

The title of you're thread is "Who's the Real Terrorists?" You compare the 2006 American murder rate with 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghan war death toll. You basically argue that our nation's leadership should be more concerned with our own backyard, then with someone else's.

Here's where I get confused. Are you trying to say terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda should not be considered "real terrorists" because they aren't racking up as high a numbers as our own people?

Also, you stated that the money spent overseas, would be much better spent over here, even if it all goes to better law enforcement. So my question is: How do you define "better law enforcement?"

Now, are you aware that there are some neo-conservatives who have openly stated that they wish our country was struck with more 9/11 style attacks? Not because they necessarily want to see more people dead, but but because they realize politically it would be beneficial to their agenda overseas? One of the most prominent ones being Rush Limbaugh, when mentioning a discussion he had while visiting the White House.

Now let's just say the Terrorist murder rate was actually double the American murder rate. Would your attitude about the whole matter change?

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ananag112']I think the Joker from The Dark Knight said it best.

"You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when everything goes according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying."[/quote]

Except almost nothing went to plan.

Jumping right to the war option in Iraq was a terrible move and alienated the world. Where's the WMDs? Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap', which ignored the occupation phase, was a colossal failure. Disenfranchising the Baath party and thumbing our nose at foreign reconstruction bids practically sealed the fate of Iraq during the first few years of occupation.

And Bush W. is so unpopular he's the first lame-duck President since LBJ to not show up in person to the convention.
 
[quote name='level1online']ok. I'm not sure exactly how to interpret your post.

The title of you're thread is "Who's the Real Terrorists?" You compare the 2006 American murder rate with 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghan war death toll. You basically argue that our nation's leadership should be more concerned with our own backyard, then with someone else's.

Here's where I get confused. Are you trying to say terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda should not be considered "real terrorists" because they aren't racking up as high a numbers as our own people?

Also, you stated that the money spent overseas, would be much better spent over here, even if it all goes to better law enforcement. So my question is: How do you define "better law enforcement?"

Now, are you aware that there are some neo-conservatives who have openly stated that they wish our country was struck with more 9/11 style attacks? Not because they necessarily want to see more people dead, but but because they realize politically it would be beneficial to their agenda overseas? One of the most prominent ones being Rush Limbaugh, when mentioning a discussion he had while visiting the White House.

Now let's just say the Terrorist murder rate was actually double the American murder rate. Would your attitude about the whole matter change?

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.[/quote]

You're following my point exactly. I'm not arguing who is or isn't a "terrorist" by definition, but rather which threat warrants a higher response. To me, it seems more effective to pour billions of dollars into a threat that takes the lives of 16,000+ Americans each year than a threat that took 8,000+ American lives over the course of 7 years.

The definition of "better law enforcement" is going to be different to everyone, but with a 6.1% unemployment rate, hundreds of thousands of Americans looking for jobs, and millions of underpaid and under-equipped law enforcement facilities across the United States, I strongly believe that the money pissed away in war could be put to much better use at home, even if it is solely poured into law enforcement (which it wouldn't, but I digress).

And yes, I'm aware that some of the more fucked up politicians would cream their pants if we were attacked again, and have suspected for several months that all of a sudden, Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed 2 weeks before the General Election. Simply put, I'm well aware that our country will not get better until we get some of these sick fucks out of office. Politics for the past 8 years has gone far beyond improving our country. The problem is, it's going far beyond in the wrong direction.

As for changing perspective, and having 2x the Terrorist murder rate over American murder rate, yes, my attitude would change. Simply put, I believe the amount of investment should reflect the magnitude of the issue, and I believe that currently, more should be done to prevent murder at home than from abroad, because currently, Americans are more effective killers of Americans than Terrorists.

Thanks for the response, it's nice to have an intelligent conversation on a controversial topic.

[quote name='Brak']Who are the Real Terrorists?*[/quote]

Thank you for the correction.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='camoor']Who are the warriors?[/QUOTE]

I can't believe you pulled that card out.

The way I tend to draw the line between terrorists and warriors is that one of them actively targets old women, young children, and everyone in between in order to TERRORIZE their agenda into fruition. The other one TRIES to target only combatants whenever possible.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I can't believe you pulled that card out.

The way I tend to draw the line between terrorists and warriors is that one of them actively targets old women, young children, and everyone in between in order to TERRORIZE their agenda into fruition. The other one TRIES to target only combatants whenever possible.[/quote]

No card was being pulled. I was simply referencing an old movie called "The Warriors" - that was the tagline. There was no commentary intended.
 
[quote name='camoor']No card was being pulled. I was simply referencing an old movie called "The Warriors" - that was the tagline. There was no commentary intended.[/QUOTE]

Ah . Sorry. I need to lay off the after mid-day caffeine.
 
[quote name='darkshadows6000']Their statement was convert to Islam or die like the infidels in the Twin Towers. The change was to deny your freedom to live, worship or govern oneself in the manner of your choosing.[/QUOTE]

Far be it from me to call bin Laden an especially trustworthy source, but it *does* kind of defeat the whole point of terrorism if you're only going to obscure the reasons you committed the act in the first place.

"Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

Bin laden's been pretty straightforward about his agenda since before the Cole, and it ain't "convert or die."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top