Hostages being held in Sydney

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: aa1986
...
However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning. ....


I had a car struck by lightning. I suppose I could have been standing there at the time. Risks are only insignificant until you're the one that comes up on the short end of the odds.

Regardless, it's an extremely poor analogy, imo, to compare terrorism to lightning strikes. I can't defend myself from a lightning strike. I can carry some degree of protection and defense from a potential hostage taker in my pocket, and often do.

All people should have the basic, fundamental, right of effective self defense. Whether they choose to avail themselves of it is a personal decision only the right holder can make.


It is not a poor analogy but if you think it is, pick anything else to compare it to.

The fact is you have a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed by terrorism. Killed by lightning is 1 in 126,158. Killed by a dog 1 is 126,158.

Now compare the amount of money being spent, the civil liberties that have been infringed and the unnecessary fear that has been created, and it's clearly out of proportion to the actual risk.

Indeed the terrorists objective, by definition of the word, is to create terror which is a feeling not just physical results.

It's just logic. But of course, people think with emotion and act and vote accordingly. And some politicians know that looking like tough leaders will get them votes, book sales and relevance with voters and other politicians.

In your case, you are prepared to prevent yourself from becoming a hostage, but perhaps not as prepared to be attacked by a dog, which is more of a risk to you.
 
aa1986 said this: The fact is you have a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed by terrorism. Killed by lightning is 1 in 126,158. Killed by a dog 1 is 126,158.

This is false mathematics. Logically, if terrorists someday come into possession of nuclear weapons, which may well happen, the chance of being killed by terrorism increases. How many people in New York City would die if a nuclear weapon was exploded in New York City? So the chance of being killed by terrorism increases if the terrorists come into possession of more powerful weapons.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. What if very radical people take over that country? And Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is considered to be a nation that supports terrorism.

And the terrorists don't have to have nuclear weapons to increase the chances of somebody dying from terrorism. Close to 3000 people died in New York City on September 11, 2001. What were the odds that day of somebody in New York City dying from terrorism?

I think it is silly to try to come up with mathematical odds of somebody dying from terrorism. It depends on what sort of weapons the terrorists have and it does not matter to the victims. If somebody actually is the victim of terrorism the odds of dying from terrorism does not matter to that person.

What are the odds of dying from terrorism in Iraq or Syria? Thousands of human beings have been murdered by ISIS terrorists. People have been beheaded with knives, children have been cut in half, people have been burned to death, etc. So tell me the mathematical odds of dying from terrorism in Iraq. Let us see you do a quick calculation.
 
From what I know, there aren't that many Americans in Syria or Iraq so the chances of an American dying there are probably very low.

I certainly don't feel in danger of dying there. Do you? Don't tell me you've booked your vacation there and that's why you're so angry about this.
 
Do you have any concerns for the human beings dying there? Does it bother you at all that people are being murdered by having their heads cut off with knives, children cut in half, people burned alive, etc.? And does it ever occur to you that if ISIS becomes powerful there in Iraq and Syria they might try to attack the USA or other countries later? They have already threatened to do so on social media.

You say that I am so angry about all of this. Well, you are the one who really seems to be keenly interested. Anybody can go through this post and see how many times you have posted compared to me. I have only a few posts here.

You lecture us on Islam and terrorism and I don't see where you are the big expert. You don't seem to know a lot of history. You try to compare what the USA did with a few captured terrorists compared to what the Japanese did in WWII. I don't consider you the resident expert on everything from oil filters to motor oil to Islam to terrorism to everything else.
 
Last edited:
Do I have concerns about what is happening? Of course I do. But the fact that it is happening is our fault, because we went into Iraq, for no good reason whatsoever.

Does it bother you that we helped create the mess? Does it bother you that we spent trillions of dollars to do it, dollars that future generations are yet to earn?

Does it bother you that you still trust and believe the people who created the mess? People who have been shown to have poor judgement and who will defend their actions to the end, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were wrong?

Even **** Cheney knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. In 1994 he said this:

Originally Posted By: **** Cheney
Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing is casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for the families it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Do you have any concerns for the human beings dying there? Does it bother you at all that people are being murdered by having their heads cut off with knives, children cut in half, people burned alive, etc.? And does it ever occur to you that if ISIS becomes powerful there in Iraq and Syria they might try to attack the USA or other countries later? They have already threatened to do so on social media.


Why feed the troll? Ever read that guy's replies? Classic Troll trying to rile people up that's all.-RD
 
That is true. I think I have a pretty good idea who this guy is. But I don't like being lectured by somebody who, judging from what he said in the thread about the Taliban murdering 120+ students and teachers in Pakistan, knows little about history and yet tries to lecture people as if he is some sort of expert on Islam, terrorism, etc.

Really terrible things are happening in this world, like ISIS cutting innocent children in half in Iraq, and for somebody to talk about it using nonsense mathematical odds upsets me quite a little bit.

But you are right. It is a waste of time to respond. So let him continue to lecture whoever is really willing to read his 'profound' lectures on everything.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic


But you are right. It is a waste of time to respond. So let him continue to lecture whoever is really willing to read his 'profound' lectures on everything.


Profound lectures, ha. You're too kind. Seems more to me like someone who is seeking attention, pretending to be an authority on anything and everything. It surprises the [censored] out of me that the mods on this site allow this to go on the way it does.-RD
 
Yes, I think it would be best just to ignore what this guy says on everything. When he apparently has no clue what actually happened in Japanese POW camps in WWII why should we care about his lectures on Islam, terrorism, oil filters, motor oil, or anything else?

All of that mathematical odds nonsense can be disproved with mere thought and logic. Even when it comes to being hit by lightning, any thinking person should be able to realize it depends on where a person is, what time of year it is, etc. There are some places in the world, like in Peru, where it almost never rains. So the odds there would be almost zero.

Trying to come up with some sort of ridiculous odds on the chances of being killed by terrorism is the same thing. For people here in the USA, obviously the odds would increase after the first attack that ISIS terrorists might make here in the USA. If they were able to obtain a nuclear weapon, the odds would increase greatly. A person does not have to have a degree in mathematics to figure all of that out. And for me, it turns my stomach when some guy is trying to pontificate on terrorism and talking about mathematical odds when innocent children are being cut in half by savages. And then that guy manages to blame the USA for everything of course. And he seems to try to compare what the USA did with a handful of captured terrorists with what the Japanese did in POW camps in WWII.

No human being is an expert on everything. I am not an expert on everything and neither is anybody else. And when somebody does not even appear to know basic history I am not interested in attending their lectures on Islam, terrorism, or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: CT8
All terrorists seem to be muslim yet all muslims aren't terrorists. This has to be Bushes fault, It some how Started with Nixon and probably Carter especially. Was the perp breast fed? Then if so how long.


You're mainly incoherent, but yes I agree with you that all muslims aren't terrorists and Bush needs to take a lot of blame here.
Sarcasm. What in reality can or will be done. Trillions of dollars and lives lost playing cowboys and muslims hasn't made much of a difference. Well other than enriching certain corporations and the politicians they lobby $$$
 
35.gif


I B T L
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
All of that mathematical odds nonsense can be disproved with mere thought and logic.


OK, I'm listening.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Even when it comes to being hit by lightning, any thinking person should be able to realize it depends on where a person is, what time of year it is, etc.


So you're saying the probabilities are greater in some situations compared to others. So how does this negate the overall probability being correct?

Originally Posted By: Mystic
There are some places in the world, like in Peru, where it almost never rains. So the odds there would be almost zero.


Aha, you're thinking of the Atacama Desert.

Well there have not been any reported incidents of terrorism in the Atacama Desert.

However, there have been reports of lightning. In fact here is video.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Trillions of dollars and lives lost playing cowboys and muslims hasn't made much of a difference. Well other than enriching certain corporations and the politicians they lobby $$$


Totally agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top