|
On February 22 2015 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 13:28 Tien wrote:On February 21 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Given in Denmark murder is probably more rare than in the US and it going unsolved rarer still, but in the US there are more unsolved murders every year than there were deaths on 9/11. Basically, less overreacting and maybe we could have more money used to solve problems that directly impact many more peoples lives. Like helping people alter their views in a way where killing people isn't a reasonable solution for stuff that upsets them, whether it's blasphemy, abortion, interracial relationships or whatever. Yes US spends too much on military, nobody disagrees here. That said, US should continue to bomb the living shit out of terrorists and keep hunting them. On February 21 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote: That's just a few. At least in America, we have lots to fear, my point being Arab terrorists are just not that high on the list period. There are many things to fear more than terrorism, but why is it that having a discussion on terrorism and how to fight it leads to a discussion about silencing anything to be said about fighting terrorism? The whole 9 yards of "there's more important things you should "fear" therefore we shouldn't be concerned" isn't an argument at all. Outside of the hyperbole, at least one reason is because the response is so disproportionate to the threat (the third time I'm making this point). Which is the point of the "other threats" line of reasoning. Someone (not saying you) suggested earlier in the thread the idea of banning of Arabic languages in book or verbal form. That kind of ridiculous xenophobic response combined with stuff like the Iraq war is why people are skeptical of more extreme rhetoric regarding terrorism as a threat or our suggested response. Terrorism and extreme interpretations of Islam are a threat. They just aren't the threat many seem desperate to make them. We do need to both react and be proactive against those threats. We just don't/shouldn't be doing much of what we do and even more of what more extreme rhetoric suggests. Our lack of comprehension of the proportionality of the threats in our lives lead to all sorts of issues, it just so happens our extreme overreaction to the real but overblown threat of terrorism costs lives, treasure, and freedoms. So, many people think it's important to take a step back before enacting extreme measures and really get an objective look at just what kind of threat certain groups or individuals pose to specific and general people, before riding in guns-a-blazing . Sure, worry about being involved in a terrorist attack if you are the worrying/prepared type, but average people should be more worried about getting mugged, hit by a drunk driver, or being one of thousands of unsolved murders every year. Something similar can be said about domestic policy. I'm not saying ignore the problems of extremists but treat them like the threat they are, not the one from scary campfire tales.
Although i largely agree with your post, i want to remind you that the thread was originally about terrorism in denmark, so the actual threats you mention should be somewhat appropriate for the region
|
To be fair, best I can tell (English Google Limited), there aren't even statistics on many of the problems the US faces, so it's hard to say the level of the types of problems they face themselves, in the area.
That being said, banning Arabic is dumb. Banning the Arabic Quran, even more dumb.
Not only dumb, but in contradiction to everything that is America and freedom (basically putting supporters of such closer to the terrorists than the 'allies') .
So sure, I guess where freedom is a second/third thought (at best), some of the more radical solutions make sense, but for those who put the threats in reasonable perspective, things like banning Arabic languages just sounds insane.
|
On February 22 2015 20:37 GreenHorizons wrote: To be fair, best I can tell (English Google Limited), there aren't even statistics on many of the problems the US faces, so it's hard to say the level of the types of problems they face themselves, in the area.
That being said, banning Arabic is dumb. Banning the Arabic Quran, even more dumb.
Not only dumb, but in contradiction to everything that is America and freedom (basically putting supporters of such closer to the terrorists than the 'allies') .
So sure, I guess where freedom is a second/third thought (at best), some of the more radical solutions make sense, but for those who put the threats in reasonable perspective, things like banning Arabic languages just sounds insane.
Ok i guess we totally talked past each other. My point was that denmark has almost nothing to worry about, neither murderous neighbors, nor terrorists, and as far as i can tell even drunk driving isn't actually a relevant threat, although there is stuff done to combat it, and it seems to be working decently well, so i am not saying that one should not do something against it, just as you said: appropriate to the level of threat, resources needed, and maybe most importantly amounts of rights needed to infringe. And regarding islamic terrorism in central/northern europe, there is no case to be made to further infringe on rights, allocate further resources to combat the actual level of threat, because it is so low.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2015 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 13:28 Tien wrote:On February 21 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Given in Denmark murder is probably more rare than in the US and it going unsolved rarer still, but in the US there are more unsolved murders every year than there were deaths on 9/11. Basically, less overreacting and maybe we could have more money used to solve problems that directly impact many more peoples lives. Like helping people alter their views in a way where killing people isn't a reasonable solution for stuff that upsets them, whether it's blasphemy, abortion, interracial relationships or whatever. Yes US spends too much on military, nobody disagrees here. That said, US should continue to bomb the living shit out of terrorists and keep hunting them. On February 21 2015 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote: That's just a few. At least in America, we have lots to fear, my point being Arab terrorists are just not that high on the list period. There are many things to fear more than terrorism, but why is it that having a discussion on terrorism and how to fight it leads to a discussion about silencing anything to be said about fighting terrorism? The whole 9 yards of "there's more important things you should "fear" therefore we shouldn't be concerned" isn't an argument at all. Outside of the hyperbole, at least one reason is because the response is so disproportionate to the threat (the third time I'm making this point). Which is the point of the "other threats" line of reasoning. Someone (not saying you) suggested earlier in the thread the idea of banning of Arabic languages in book or verbal form. That kind of ridiculous xenophobic response combined with stuff like the Iraq war is why people are skeptical of more extreme rhetoric regarding terrorism as a threat or our suggested response. Terrorism and extreme interpretations of Islam are a threat. They just aren't the threat many seem desperate to make them. We do need to both react and be proactive against those threats. We just don't/shouldn't be doing much of what we do and even more of what more extreme rhetoric suggests. Our lack of comprehension of the proportionality of the threats in our lives lead to all sorts of issues, it just so happens our extreme overreaction to the real but overblown threat of terrorism costs lives, treasure, and freedoms. So, many people think it's important to take a step back before enacting extreme measures and really get an objective look at just what kind of threat certain groups or individuals pose to specific and general people, before riding in guns-a-blazing . Sure, worry about being involved in a terrorist attack if you are the worrying/prepared type, but average people should be more worried about getting mugged, hit by a drunk driver, or being one of thousands of unsolved murders every year. Something similar can be said about domestic policy. I'm not saying ignore the problems of extremists but treat them like the threat they are, not the one from scary campfire tales.
I'm not shaking in my boots, I'm just having a conversation on the internet.
Some measures of anti terrorism I agree with, others I don't. There's no real disagreement between us. I'm not advocating for any racist measures.
I just stood my ground firmly on terrorism being an actual issue rather than being delegated to not relevant issues.
|
On February 21 2015 04:01 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 23:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote:
The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, Were you living under an Afghan cave system for the past year? Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. Somalia. Yemen. They only don't count as wars because the recepients lack any comparative power to strike back so it is closer to a one sided attack. Incidently we do have a correlation between CIA spending against terrorism and the amount of terrorist attacks. It's not the one most people would expect, as it is a positve correlation. Apparently the CIA interviews the prisoners they capture. Of course, they only know about the act before it is perpetrated, because of CIA informants. It turns out that the perpetrators were actively encouraged by the paid informants to commit their acts and for some, multiple perpetrators were even encouraged by the same informants! It's probably not the intended result, but it turns out that "informants" are grooming the "terrorists" so they can receive their money. Afterall, a true believer planning to die for their afterlife is hardly going to be swayed by money. That's right, the CIA are spending money so they have terrorists to catch, thus increasing the danger to USA. Ironic right? Of course, after that came to light the CIA hasn't stopped the bad apples of their informant network, as that would reduce the reason for their own existence. Don't strawman my argument Syria is not an American war, nor is Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, or Nigeria. USA drone bombs in many of those countries but there's no war. I'm not interested in arguing whether a drone bomb mission is a ongoing war or not.
Your 2nd paragraph needs to be reworded better so I can understand your point. It's a strawman to point what is not true in your argument? Also I laugh at your assertation that dropping bombs in foriegn countries is not a war in a foreign country. Hahahahaha. I too aren't interested in debating the obvious.
|
On February 23 2015 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 04:01 Tien wrote:On February 20 2015 23:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote:
The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, Were you living under an Afghan cave system for the past year? Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. Somalia. Yemen. They only don't count as wars because the recepients lack any comparative power to strike back so it is closer to a one sided attack. Incidently we do have a correlation between CIA spending against terrorism and the amount of terrorist attacks. It's not the one most people would expect, as it is a positve correlation. Apparently the CIA interviews the prisoners they capture. Of course, they only know about the act before it is perpetrated, because of CIA informants. It turns out that the perpetrators were actively encouraged by the paid informants to commit their acts and for some, multiple perpetrators were even encouraged by the same informants! It's probably not the intended result, but it turns out that "informants" are grooming the "terrorists" so they can receive their money. Afterall, a true believer planning to die for their afterlife is hardly going to be swayed by money. That's right, the CIA are spending money so they have terrorists to catch, thus increasing the danger to USA. Ironic right? Of course, after that came to light the CIA hasn't stopped the bad apples of their informant network, as that would reduce the reason for their own existence. Don't strawman my argument Syria is not an American war, nor is Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, or Nigeria. USA drone bombs in many of those countries but there's no war. I'm not interested in arguing whether a drone bomb mission is a ongoing war or not.
Your 2nd paragraph needs to be reworded better so I can understand your point. It's a strawman to point what is not true in your argument? Also I laugh at your assertation that dropping bombs in foriegn countries is not a war in a foreign country. Hahahahaha. I too aren't interested in debating the obvious. I think in order to understand anything at all and have a nuanced opinion, one has to drop almost entirely the word "terrorist", which is and has always been a propaganda device. Nazis were calling French resistant terrorists. Were they terrorists? Of course not, because terrorists are the bad guys. There is no such thing as a good terrorist, it's a contradiction. Since the whole "bad guy" question is a question of point of view really, we can safely say that from their point of view, Nazis were absolutely right to label those French guys doing sabotage and assassinating soldiers terrorists and that we are perfectly right to say they weren't. So the whole notion of terrorist is just a total bullshit.
When you want to bomb a whole faction in a country without admitting you are at war, it's very easy: just label those dudes as terrorists. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime was "terrorist" while Massoud insurrection were freedom fighters or whatever.
When you bomb people with jets and drones and have an army deployed to fight whole factions of people, well, you are at war, period.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 23 2015 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 04:01 Tien wrote:On February 20 2015 23:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote:
The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, Were you living under an Afghan cave system for the past year? Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. Somalia. Yemen. They only don't count as wars because the recepients lack any comparative power to strike back so it is closer to a one sided attack. Incidently we do have a correlation between CIA spending against terrorism and the amount of terrorist attacks. It's not the one most people would expect, as it is a positve correlation. Apparently the CIA interviews the prisoners they capture. Of course, they only know about the act before it is perpetrated, because of CIA informants. It turns out that the perpetrators were actively encouraged by the paid informants to commit their acts and for some, multiple perpetrators were even encouraged by the same informants! It's probably not the intended result, but it turns out that "informants" are grooming the "terrorists" so they can receive their money. Afterall, a true believer planning to die for their afterlife is hardly going to be swayed by money. That's right, the CIA are spending money so they have terrorists to catch, thus increasing the danger to USA. Ironic right? Of course, after that came to light the CIA hasn't stopped the bad apples of their informant network, as that would reduce the reason for their own existence. Don't strawman my argument Syria is not an American war, nor is Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, or Nigeria. USA drone bombs in many of those countries but there's no war. I'm not interested in arguing whether a drone bomb mission is a ongoing war or not.
Your 2nd paragraph needs to be reworded better so I can understand your point. It's a strawman to point what is not true in your argument? Also I laugh at your assertation that dropping bombs in foriegn countries is not a war in a foreign country. Hahahahaha. I too aren't interested in debating the obvious.
Is the USA at war with Pakistan? yes or no.
Is the USA at war with Syria? yes or no.
How about Yemen?
Save it, the USA is done with armed invasions and occupations, that was a big mistake then, and I don't see the Obama administration going back in.
|
On February 23 2015 02:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 21 2015 04:01 Tien wrote:On February 20 2015 23:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote:
The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, Were you living under an Afghan cave system for the past year? Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. Somalia. Yemen. They only don't count as wars because the recepients lack any comparative power to strike back so it is closer to a one sided attack. Incidently we do have a correlation between CIA spending against terrorism and the amount of terrorist attacks. It's not the one most people would expect, as it is a positve correlation. Apparently the CIA interviews the prisoners they capture. Of course, they only know about the act before it is perpetrated, because of CIA informants. It turns out that the perpetrators were actively encouraged by the paid informants to commit their acts and for some, multiple perpetrators were even encouraged by the same informants! It's probably not the intended result, but it turns out that "informants" are grooming the "terrorists" so they can receive their money. Afterall, a true believer planning to die for their afterlife is hardly going to be swayed by money. That's right, the CIA are spending money so they have terrorists to catch, thus increasing the danger to USA. Ironic right? Of course, after that came to light the CIA hasn't stopped the bad apples of their informant network, as that would reduce the reason for their own existence. Don't strawman my argument Syria is not an American war, nor is Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, or Nigeria. USA drone bombs in many of those countries but there's no war. I'm not interested in arguing whether a drone bomb mission is a ongoing war or not.
Your 2nd paragraph needs to be reworded better so I can understand your point. It's a strawman to point what is not true in your argument? Also I laugh at your assertation that dropping bombs in foriegn countries is not a war in a foreign country. Hahahahaha. I too aren't interested in debating the obvious. I think in order to understand anything at all and have a nuanced opinion, one has to drop almost entirely the word "terrorist", which is and has always been a propaganda device. Nazis were calling French resistant terrorists. Were they terrorists? Of course not, because terrorists are the bad guys. There is no such thing as a good terrorist, it's a contradiction. Since the whole "bad guy" question is a question of point of view really, we can safely say that from their point of view, Nazis were absolutely right to label those French guys doing sabotage and assassinating soldiers terrorists and that we are perfectly right to say they weren't. So the whole notion of terrorist is just a total bullshit. When you want to bomb a whole faction in a country without admitting you are at war, it's very easy: just label those dudes as terrorists. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime was "terrorist" while Massoud insurrection were freedom fighters or whatever. When you bomb people with jets and drones and have an army deployed to fight whole factions of people, well, you are at war, period. I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you Biff.
On February 23 2015 04:43 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 21 2015 04:01 Tien wrote:On February 20 2015 23:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote:
The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, Were you living under an Afghan cave system for the past year? Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. Somalia. Yemen. They only don't count as wars because the recepients lack any comparative power to strike back so it is closer to a one sided attack. Incidently we do have a correlation between CIA spending against terrorism and the amount of terrorist attacks. It's not the one most people would expect, as it is a positve correlation. Apparently the CIA interviews the prisoners they capture. Of course, they only know about the act before it is perpetrated, because of CIA informants. It turns out that the perpetrators were actively encouraged by the paid informants to commit their acts and for some, multiple perpetrators were even encouraged by the same informants! It's probably not the intended result, but it turns out that "informants" are grooming the "terrorists" so they can receive their money. Afterall, a true believer planning to die for their afterlife is hardly going to be swayed by money. That's right, the CIA are spending money so they have terrorists to catch, thus increasing the danger to USA. Ironic right? Of course, after that came to light the CIA hasn't stopped the bad apples of their informant network, as that would reduce the reason for their own existence. Don't strawman my argument Syria is not an American war, nor is Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, or Nigeria. USA drone bombs in many of those countries but there's no war. I'm not interested in arguing whether a drone bomb mission is a ongoing war or not.
Your 2nd paragraph needs to be reworded better so I can understand your point. It's a strawman to point what is not true in your argument? Also I laugh at your assertation that dropping bombs in foriegn countries is not a war in a foreign country. Hahahahaha. I too aren't interested in debating the obvious. Is the USA at war with Pakistan? yes or no. Is the USA at war with Syria? yes or no. How about Yemen? Save it, the USA is done with armed invasions and occupations, that was a big mistake then, and I don't see the Obama administration going back in. We're not at war with Pakistan, we're at war with extremists in Pakistan.
We are at war with Syria, we've bombed both Assad's forces and the FSA.
Again, we're not at war with Yemen, we're at war with extremists in Yemen.
What world do you live in that dropping bombs is not war?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 23 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:
We're not at war with Pakistan
Again, we're not at war with Yemen
Thank you. That was my only point, USA is done with armed invasions and changing of governments, I have no interest arguing about targeted drone bombs and stretching and pulling that point to equate = USA is at war with all those countries.
No it isn't.
|
But obviously the US is at war with something. You don't constantly drop bombs onto stuff if you are not at war with it. If your military constantly bombs something, you are at war with it. Anything else is semantics.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I think you are forgetting what the original argument was even about.
I argued the USA is done with its land invasion wars, you guys went off on semantics about "what about those drone bombs?"
USA is at war with terrorism, armed invasions with an overthrow of a government is something else completely (which I never supported) and America is done with that (hopefully).
So have you backtracked off that terrorism = not relevant threat or are you still a firm believer?
|
On February 24 2015 02:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:
We're not at war with Pakistan
Again, we're not at war with Yemen
Thank you. That was my only point, USA is done with armed invasions and changing of governments, I have no interest arguing about targeted drone bombs and stretching and pulling that point to equate = USA is at war with all those countries. No it isn't.
It's a war it's just an asymmetrical war. You really think if our opponents were capable of drone bombing the US mainland that they wouldn't?
If the US was getting bombed would you still claim it wasn't a war because there were no ground troops and it was just bombs being dropped on each other?
Of course not. You are right in that we are not fighting the officially recognized governments of those countries directly, but they all have factions within their governments that support the people we are fighting.
As for the invasions being over, that's just because we have a Democratic president, pretty clear Republicans would have ground troops over there in mass and still trying to overthrow governments (to whatever extent the American people allowed).
|
On February 24 2015 02:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:
We're not at war with Pakistan
Again, we're not at war with Yemen
Thank you. That was my only point, USA is done with armed invasions and changing of governments, I have no interest arguing about targeted drone bombs and stretching and pulling that point to equate = USA is at war with all those countries. No it isn't.
US is actively trying to change governament in Syria. They are supporting the rebels, providing weapons and air support.
|
Yes, what was the original argument about? Quoting is a wonderful ability.
On February 20 2015 11:01 Tien wrote: The USA is done with their wars in foreign countries, except Afghanistan but USA isn't invading anyone anymore, nor did I ever agree with invasions. That was the first line which I had quoted. Now, you would probably say, that wasn't your argument or something, in which case, why is that the first line you had written, and why would you write something that you would later dismiss?
You have decided that USA is done with wars in foreign countries, presumably to argue against that the participation of USA had affected the area negativey and promoted extremism. This ignores the actions of the previous administration, which was just a few years ago, as well as the continuous past actions of USA. The present does not change the past.
Besides which I think you will find in the present the USA is indeed at war in foreign countries. Perhaps not at war with the government of the country, but at war with something in those countries, and they are indeed foreign countries, and as they are dropping bombs in those countries, they are in a war in foreign countries. The recipients of those bombs, be they terrorists/insurgents/militia/civilians/labels are certainly viewing that they are at war. Thousands of people have died in Pakistan alone. It is an act of military violence perpetrated by USA. It is war. And it is continuing. It is not debateable.
|
On February 24 2015 02:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:
We're not at war with Pakistan
Again, we're not at war with Yemen
Thank you. That was my only point, USA is done with armed invasions and changing of governments, I have no interest arguing about targeted drone bombs and stretching and pulling that point to equate = USA is at war with all those countries. No it isn't. This is not how you use a quote function. To change the contents of a post so much that you have changed the meaning of the post to the opposite of the original poster. I can play the same game too see?On February 24 2015 02:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:
We're not at war with Pakistan
Again, we're not at war with Yemen
Thank you. USA is at war with all those countries.
|
On February 24 2015 04:32 Tien wrote: I think you are forgetting what the original argument was even about.
I argued the USA is done with its land invasion wars, you guys went off on semantics about "what about those drone bombs?"
USA is at war with terrorism, armed invasions with an overthrow of a government is something else completely (which I never supported) and America is done with that (hopefully).
So have you backtracked off that terrorism = not relevant threat or are you still a firm believer?
No, i think i made my argument quite clear to support the point that terrorism is extremely overestimated as a threat. Never did i say it is not a threat at all. I have just become tired of arguing that point with you, since you can obviously not be convinced to alter your point of view, and i think to the people who are not quite as stubborn it is obvious which side of this argument is correct. Thus i stopped arguing, because it has become pointless and tiresome.
|
|
|
|