|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
If we're going to give up our civil rights, why don't we give them up for something that will really save lives. Confiscate all the guns in the US. Put speed regulators and alcohol testers on all cars. Make smoking and drinking illegal. These are the real killers. But they don't seem to elicit the same response as terrorist attacks.
As far as immigration, the problems are similarly over-hyped and rest on guilt by association. If a Muslim does something wrong or has a problem with the way things are done, it's a "clash of values" problem and all Muslims are to blame. But if a non-Muslim does something wrong or causes a problem, then it is individual stupidity. This is the same things that has been done to other minority groups in the past as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
|
Oh, good God. I usually don't wade into these discussions, but is there another way to make your point without resorting to fallcy by statistics?
First of all, worldwide since 9am 9-11-01, there have been somewhere between 10k to 20k deaths to Islamic terrorism. You're right, automobile deaths dwarf that in a single year in a single country. But that's not the point.
9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. Terrorism is about governance by fear, and it has changed governments and altered the electoral process. That is why terrorism is so dangerous. The deaths are spectacular, avoidable, and are designed to attract attention.
I'm not arguing that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off, nor that we should over-estimate the Islamist threat. I whole-heartedly admire the Bombay attitude when they were struck by terrorism: stoicisim. However, terrorism is not the same as an automobile death or a casualty to disease. Its qualitatively different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
|
Oh, good God. I usually don't wade into these discussions, but is there another way to make your point without resorting to fallcy by statistics?
First of all, worldwide since 9am 9-11-01, there have been somewhere between 10k to 20k deaths to Islamic terrorism. You're right, automobile deaths dwarf that in a single year in a single country. But that's not the point.
9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. Terrorism is about governance by fear, and it has changed governments and altered the electoral process. That is why terrorism is so dangerous. The deaths are spectacular, avoidable, and are designed to attract attention.
I'm not arguing that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off, nor that we should over-estimate the Islamist threat. I whole-heartedly admire the Bombay attitude when they were struck by terrorism: stoicisim. However, terrorism is not the same as an automobile death or a casualty to disease. Its qualitatively different. |
Basically in a nutshell what you are saying is terrorism causes an irrational level of fear. Should Americans be throwing away civil liberties, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, for something irrational? If Londoners are admired for going on with their lives during the WWII bombings, should we think of Americans as cowards for throwing away all that has made America great, just because of some rag-tag hiijackers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
|
Oh, good God. I usually don't wade into these discussions, but is there another way to make your point without resorting to fallcy by statistics?
First of all, worldwide since 9am 9-11-01, there have been somewhere between 10k to 20k deaths to Islamic terrorism. You're right, automobile deaths dwarf that in a single year in a single country. But that's not the point.
9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. Terrorism is about governance by fear, and it has changed governments and altered the electoral process. That is why terrorism is so dangerous. The deaths are spectacular, avoidable, and are designed to attract attention.
I'm not arguing that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off, nor that we should over-estimate the Islamist threat. I whole-heartedly admire the Bombay attitude when they were struck by terrorism: stoicisim. However, terrorism is not the same as an automobile death or a casualty to disease. Its qualitatively different. |
Basically in a nutshell what you are saying is terrorism causes an irrational level of fear. Should Americans be throwing away civil liberties, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, for something irrational? If Londoners are admired for going on with their lives during the WWII bombings, should we think of Americans as cowards for throwing away all that has made America great, just because of some rag-tag hiijackers? |
Dude, I should be on your side, but you're just throwing up strawmen instead of having a conversation. None of the characterisations of my argument you have made are even remotely supported by what I've written.
My countless posts bemoaning America's torture policies demonstrate that I have a passionate concern for our civil liberties.
Belittling the 9-11 attacks makes the civil liberties argument weaker. And as someone on the side of civil liberties, I'm against that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
|
Oh, good God. I usually don't wade into these discussions, but is there another way to make your point without resorting to fallcy by statistics?
First of all, worldwide since 9am 9-11-01, there have been somewhere between 10k to 20k deaths to Islamic terrorism. You're right, automobile deaths dwarf that in a single year in a single country. But that's not the point.
9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. Terrorism is about governance by fear, and it has changed governments and altered the electoral process. That is why terrorism is so dangerous. The deaths are spectacular, avoidable, and are designed to attract attention.
I'm not arguing that we should run around like chickens with our heads cut off, nor that we should over-estimate the Islamist threat. I whole-heartedly admire the Bombay attitude when they were struck by terrorism: stoicisim. However, terrorism is not the same as an automobile death or a casualty to disease. Its qualitatively different. |
Basically in a nutshell what you are saying is terrorism causes an irrational level of fear. Should Americans be throwing away civil liberties, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, for something irrational? If Londoners are admired for going on with their lives during the WWII bombings, should we think of Americans as cowards for throwing away all that has made America great, just because of some rag-tag hiijackers? |
Dude, I should be on your side, but you're just throwing up strawmen instead of having a conversation. None of the characterisations of my argument you have made are even remotely supported by what I've written.
My countless posts bemoaning America's torture policies demonstrate that I have a passionate concern for our civil liberties.
Belittling the 9-11 attacks makes the civil liberties argument weaker. And as someone on the side of civil liberties, I'm against that. |
If by belittling the 9-11 attacks, you mean arguing that 3,000 people is a small number compared to the number of casualties in say Iraq, than yes, I guess I am. We are talking about an unholy convergence of naivety and stupidity that allowed 9-11 to happen, if in fact you believe the American govt had nothing to do with it. Well, I'd say the naive part is taken care of, and probably the stupidity part too, so why through the baby out with the bath water? Obviously the patriot act being brought out 6 weeks after 911, and Bush acting immediately to take advantage of 3,000 deaths to peddle his fascist wares, shows the true power of the hijackers acts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Yes, it would be worse. Now, please answer the question, would you like Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes or no? |
Would I like it? Why would I like anyone having nuclear weapons? |
Good Lord, answer the question. Iran having a nuke - kosher or not?
'Why would I like anyone having nuclear weapons?' Well, they prevented war between the USA and USSR. With relatively sane and civilized countries, I think having a nuclear deterrant is 100% positive. However, when you're a regime full of senile theocrats who believe in and worship a celestial genocidal dictator whose president writes poetry on the joys of being a martyr nation, we should preemptively stop them.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| I'm not sure what you're talking about. Iran? Terrorists? Muslims? |
He meant Muslims and terrorists. Since there is very little (at most) open hostility to Islam-inspired violence from the Muslim community at large - and given that to be silent is to consent - I see little appreciable distinction between a Muslim and a Muslim terrorist.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| I can't answer to a constantly moving target. |
Can you answer straight-up yes/no questions? 
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| I'm neither French nor Dutch. Are you? |
The French and Dutch are political, cultural allies with whom we all as people of European descent have a shared history. It's a natural instinct to oppose barbarians settling by the million in their cities making demands, killing thousands of women, burning books and blowing up cars.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
Because the problems are over-hyped. Sure, terrorist attacks are bad. But they're a lot less prevalent than hand gun deaths, automobile deaths, or septicemia (which virtually nobody as ever even heard of). It's like people getting worried about shark attacks or getting struck by lightening.
|
I've already demolished this. That heart disease kills more than cancer is no reason to do nothing about trying to prevent cancer. Likewise, that many more people die in cars is no reason to ignore the threat posed by Muslim extremists, Iran, Al Queda acquiring nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. |
I disagree with this portion of your post, Kuros. (The rest I agree with.) The only thing that changed was Americans' perception of the possibility of foreign terrorism striking at home. In my opinion, the scale of the attack provoked an over-reaction and the sudden sense of vulnerability led people to allow the administration to manipulate them into accepting both the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 9-11 changed the world. It turned the world upside down by subverting the American military's concept of security. |
I disagree with this portion of your post, Kuros. (The rest I agree with.) The only thing that changed was Americans' perception of the possibility of foreign terrorism striking at home. In my opinion, the scale of the attack provoked an over-reaction and the sudden sense of vulnerability led people to allow the administration to manipulate them into accepting both the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. |
It also changed the military's perception of the possibilty of foreign terrorism striking at home. Since at least WWII, a strong navy was seen as sufficient to thwart foreign threat. After 9-11, the military began to look at distant dirt-holes like Afghanistan as integral to homeland national security.
9-11 was summit expression of jihadist power. But the actual peak of jihadist strength came some time afterwards. 9-11 gave jihadists generally and Al Qaeda in particular enormous influence and popularity. Support and recruitment jumped high after terrorism. 9-11 demonstrated the potential power of the cellular jihadist entity and the actual vulnerability of the American homeland.
Automobile accidents don't spawn drunk-driving supporters. When diseases claim lives, this does not inspire other diseases to join the attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| a strong navy was seen as sufficient to thwart foreign threat. |
Urmm...if the navy was enough, what were all those missiles buried in silos out in North Dakota doing there?
I will agree with you so far as having to take distant dirt-holes seriously as potential breeding grounds for threats, but not just the military, also the administration and the general public. 9/11 did alert people and forced an expanded awareness that the world is indeed shrinking. The strikes at the embassies in East Africa could have done the same, but didn't, probably because CNN wasn't there to give 24-hour coverage of the catastrophe.
I've said all along that the conventional military is too big now. There are no States threatening us, and won't be for several more decades. We should be diverting money from conventional warfare to unconventional warfare to increase our security. If HAMAS is giving $2,500 to the family of a 'martyr', we should be offering $25,000 to anyone who can give us solid information on jihadist cells. If the jihadists are promising 72 virgins in Paradise, we should be offering 72 hours in Hollywood with Britney Spears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| a strong navy was seen as sufficient to thwart foreign threat. |
I will agree with you so far as having to take distant dirt-holes seriously as potential breeding grounds for threats, but not just the military, also the administration and the general public. 9/11 did alert people and forced an expanded awareness that the world is indeed shrinking. The strikes at the embassies in East Africa could have done the same, but didn't, probably because CNN wasn't there to give 24-hour coverage of the catastrophe.
I've said all along that the conventional military is too big now. There are no States threatening us, and won't be for several more decades. We should be diverting money from conventional warfare to unconventional warfare to increase our security. If HAMAS is giving $2,500 to the family of a 'martyr', we should be offering $25,000 to anyone who can give us solid information on jihadist cells. If the jihadists are promising 72 virgins in Paradise, we should be offering 72 hours in Hollywood with Britney Spears. |
Yes, yes, yes. A debate about tactics in dealing with the jihadist threat is exactly what's in order. What you say is spot on: aircraft carriers are nice but they can't stop unconventional assaults such as 9-11.
But there are real enemies out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
[
Yes, yes, yes. A debate about tactics in dealing with the jihadist threat is exactly what's in order. What you say is spot on: aircraft carriers are nice but they can't stop unconventional assaults such as 9-11.
But there are real enemies out there. |
An alternative energy policy plus the the proper next generation weapons can force Iran to be honest
If Iran is kept honest the war on terror becomes much easier.
That is how to go about winning the war on terror. Or gaining the decisive advantage once and for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But there are real enemies out there. |
Yes, there are. But they are far weaker than some would have us believe.
Even I'm too young to remember the McCarthy Era first hand, but I know the tactic when I see it. Newt Gingrich is playing the 'commie under every bed' routine that Ol' Joe played. If you follow American history back, it's been around almost every generation, at least as far back as the days of the French Revolution (the Masons were behind it!) and possibly back to the days of Salem and the trials there.
There's a certain devilish cleverness to the game. Take a real threat, exaggerate it and exploit the fear. The opponent is stuck having to acknowledge that the threat is real, but not as serious as the fear-monger says it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YTB,
Newt is quite right. He can be justified in fearing Islamic extremism - from Muslim fanatics learning Saudi-sponsored Jihadism in the US mosques, to Al Queda forces and Iranian pursuits of the bomb - more than the Soviet Union. The Soviets were godless commies. Sure, things got scary in the Cuban Missiles Crisis especially, but neither side could possibly have a thermonuclear exchange, because mutual annihilation within hours would be the result and nobody in Moscow was gonna go to Heaven after death from US nukes. With Islam, these people do not fear a thermonuclear exchange and are going to Heaven, to be reconciled with their beloved celestial fascist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doutdes
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newt doesn't really say anything in this clip. He would have said more if called a press conference and farted loudly while scratching his groin.
He's offered no solutions, no plans, other than Americans need to be serious and need to build airport runways more quickly. This is a man who's trying to stay relevant, nothing more. If Newt wanted to remind us that he isn't dead, why doesn't he host a reality show like any other B celebrity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Good Lord, answer the question. Iran having a nuke - kosher or not? |
As a hypothetical yes/no question, I'd say no. But living in the world of reality, it is not just an easy, yes/no question. Unfortunately, these things don't boil down as easily as you'd like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
