Either your position is changing, from a focus on Western victims of violence to a focus on victims in places like Syria, or it has been like that all along but that was not clear. — andrewk
That position is prima facie more reasonable to me than one about heightening domestic anti-terrorist activities — andrewk
What would you like to be sufficient conditions for the US to intervene militarily in another country, and what form would you like that intervention to take? — andrewk
How does this apply to countries like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and Congo? — andrewk
That's reverting to action to prevent domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms.I mentioned that Western governments should shut down mosques that breed terrorists, try those suspected of plotting terrorist activities for treason, and force the Gulf Arab states to take more refugees. — Thorongil
domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms — andrewk
What action would you like taken, and what is the threshold criterion that must be met for such action, so that we can work out what other countries it should be applied to. — andrewk
I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.
-The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.
You mentioned genocide earlier. You could pick a particular definition of genocide and use that as the centre of a criterion. I am interested to see what that criterion will be, and whether it also mandates military intervention in those other non-Islamic trouble spots I mentioned. — andrewk
AndrewK is quite right to point out that it's no more practical to throw money at the domestic "war on terror" than it is to throw money at the war on intestinal infection if we're trying to actually save lives rather than merely assuage outrage.
The question is: why should we throw away more money to fund "security theatrics" in the west when the actual safety it provides is increasingly marginal and there are far more cost effective ways to save lives which are currently underfunded? Why is stopping terrorism related death more important than stopping obesity related death? (hint: emotion)
Closing down mosques and banning Qur'ans in the west is a steep price to pay to try and end terrorism, and aside from being a terrible strategy to begin with (obvious reasons), it may come back to bite other religions in the future (obvious reasons). I know politicians would love to convince you that TSA agents groping your children and the NSA spending tax money to invade your privacy using every possible covert means available has something to do with protecting your freedom; or that spending money on the military is required to stop terrorists from blowing you up, but in truth it amounts to less than the boost in actual safety you would get from purchasing an emergency medical kit or attending a driving safety class. — VagabondSpectre
Rest assured you would have received a direct reply. — VagabondSpectre
But now that we're here, what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage that results? — VagabondSpectre
what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage it causes as a result? — VagabondSpectre
Is your proposal then that, whenever the UN declares Genocide to have occurred in a region, you want the US government to do whatever is necessary to prevent that, including invading and attempting to install a new government if no other way appears likely to achieve that? — andrewk
I'd be an interested reader of, and probable participant in, such a thread. — andrewk
That having been said, who produced the figure that more Americans have been killed by domestic gunfire than all the Americans killed in its wars? — Bitter Crank
There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths.
I've more than addressed this in my recent posts. — Thorongil
...Islamic terrorists, on he other hand, are hellbent on creating a worldwide theocratic state and will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way...
...I am not saying that some ISIS fighter poses the same statistical risk as innumerable other ways in which one could die. But I am saying he poses more of an existential and civilizational risk than a great many other things. You may not care about preserving civilization, but I do...
...If you don't nip terrorism in the bud, then you are taking a massive risk, for if terrorists do acquire the means to better achieve their ends, they will not hesitate to make use of them... — Thorongil
How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US? — VagabondSpectre
The contrived answers to these questions I've seen from all sources are comedic to me. — VagabondSpectre
Terrorism can bring down the West not by military action but by making the West betray its values in the name of the so-called 'war against terror'. The fall will not be military but moral, and is well underway.How will terrorism bring down the west? — VagabondSpectre
Did you find 9/11 amusing? — Wayfarer
The fall will not be military but moral, and is well underway. — andrewk
the fact that Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) had the towers fully insured puts a damper on the idea that severe or lasting infrastructural damage was inflicted. — VagabondSpectre
radical Islam does not actually pose an existential threat to the west. — VagabondSpectre
So...the fact that the buildings were insured means what? — Wayfarer
If it doesn't, it's only because it doesn't have the means, but it does certainly have the intent. — Wayfarer
what it implies about Muslims in general — andrewk
Any Muslim advocates for or performs terrorists attacks against Western societies until we ban pornography and gay marriage. — TheWillowOfDarkness
How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US? — VagabondSpectre
Here is the definitive article.
There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths. — Wayfarer
It won't, if we defeat it.
Andrew also said that it can undermine Western values, and I agree with him, though from a slightly different angle, I imagine. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.