Perspectives?

Norm

Another year has passed since the horrible events in New York and the world continues to be a dangerous place. Almost 3000 people died an awful death that day on September 11. 2001 and it will take time for the painful memory of it all to fade.

It is sad to see how the tragic event has been used to take away many of the civil liberties enjoyed by US citizens up to that time. The country seems to be held in a perpetual state of emergency which makes it easier to get people to accept having rights taken away from them.

If you try to look at the number of killed on that day, which had such a dramatic impact on the United States and the world has so far cost tens of thousands of people in other countries their lives, people who most of which didn?t have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11.

But let us for a moment take a pause and consider the approximate 3000 killed on that day and look at the number of people killed in the US traffic in 2003. The total number was 42,643, which means that there were over 3500 people were killed every month in traffic that year, and the number was higher in 2001 and 2002. It is really a horrific number. Of course they were not all killed in one day and most probably weren?t killed by purpose, but shouldn?t someone declare ?war? on traffic deaths? Do we see anyone out there clamping down of the ?freedom? of the US motorists in order to save lives? Do we see a state of emergency being declared because of the horrific number of people being killed every month and year?

I mean isn?t there a ?war? on crime and drugs going on? Will the ?war? on crime and drugs ever be won? Will the ?war? now declared on terrorism ever be won? Or will it take as long as the ?war? on crime?

Norm

seven006

I don't know Norm. Maybe it has a lot to do with the amount of people in the USA and the number of cars we drive. Do the math and see if the ratio matches things like how many babies die in Africa due to starvation? More babies, less food, ya get more dead babies. More people, more cars, you get more deaths by car accidents. The only thing that is going to stop terrorism is a war on stupidity and dumb ass religions.

How many people die in your country in auto accedence and what is the ratio per capita?

The war on terrorism wouldn't even exist if people weren't so stupid and believed in stupid promises of living in a mythical paradise and having either 72 wives blowing them twenty-four hours a day or eat grapes the size of basketballs and a lion patting a lamb on the head instead of eating his fluffy little butt. The stupidity of their god is better than someone else's god and their daddy can beat up your daddy is the stupidity that breeds ignorance and causes people to blow the other team up.

Terrorism exists because of three things, Ignorance, stupidity and greed. The same thing could be said about car accedence. Not all of them are due to someone making a mistake. A good portion of them happen because stupid people make stupid mistakes because of what they want at the moment overrides the consideration of the other people that surround them. I think you will find that to be the same anywhere in the world that has people and cars, not just the united states.

As I said, how many died in your country and what is the ratio per capita? Perspective is based on perspective. How that perspective is slanted is due to...well, that varies doesn't it?

Dave

Narkissos

Dave,

For once I don't agree. Terrorism appeals to people who -- rightly or wrongly -- feel that they have no political option. The wannabe terrorists are manipulated by religious and/or secular leaders who may or may not use religion as a catalyst.

The "war against terrorism" as it is presently waged is obviously missing its mark. Actually it feeds terrorism, as the recent developments in Iraq show. Make it a war against religion and you will have, not a group of decided, politically conscious and/or religiously fanatical individuals, but entire peoples against you. That's exactly what leaders such as Bin Laden hope, I guess.

Pole

Narkissos,

I couldn't agree more. I hope most people in the "western" world will one day realize that ascribing terrorism to totally irrational religious/doctrinal motives is a big mistake. It's simply a big waste of time, money, lives and it's counterproductive.

Terrorism almost always results form utter political frustration of one group of interest or another. It ususally raises its ugly head when a political problem has not been properly dealt with for a long time, thus leading to such frustration.

Of course it's easier to blame the fanatics for everything. Of course it's easier not to recognize our own mistakes. It's easy to dishonestly argue even the silliest opinion. But, as someone said: "Everybody has the right to have their own opinion, but not their own facts." And the facts are, terrorism cannot be fought by means of military force only. If someone holds such an opinion the facts will be very sobering.

Example: Russia and Chechnya. Who has really summoned the Beslan demons?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3643324.stm

If it's too much off topic, please ignore me. :)

Pole

frankiespeakin

The war on terrorism in the US is very misplaced in its objectives and is used only as an excuse to attack Iraq. Seems to be a complete failure. I marvel at the politions who equate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism in the same sentence.

The war on drugs has been lost and is a total waste of money. Instead of criminalizing people who use drugs,, they should just put reasonable taxes on them to support "truthful" education(not propaganda) of the public, and rehabilitation of those afflicted with addiction. This is far more effective and friendly towards its tax paying citizens of whom the government is suppose to serve.

The war on crime will never be won through force, or any other means, it will just be, as it always has been. Winning this war is an impossible dream.

SixofNine

America would do well to quit using the term "war" for things that are not wars. Originally the term was of course meant to show how serious we take whatever issue it is that we are "at war" with, but it is having the opposite effect, as truely being serious about terrorism would mean that we confront it in any and all ways possible, even *gasp* learning about our terrorist foe. Unfortunately, to too many simpletons, suggesting that we approach terrorism with intelligence and a view to understanng it is tantamount to treason.

hillary_step

Norm,

I know what you are trying to say but I have to disagree with your drawn comparison.

The effect of 9/11 was not felt just in terms of loss of life, but it tolled a massive finacial bell of doom around the world and has pushed the US to the brink in terms of fiscal gloom. The US economy, despite the spin of those who are trying to stave off panic, is in a dire condition and will be for at least the next five years. Just look at the repurcussions to the travel industry of 9/11. This is one facet of the huge economic damage done to most Western Countries by this terrorist action.

In actual terms of loss of life, the attacks in New York, PA and WA are small in comparison, not just to car accidents in the US, but even deaths by accidents in the home, however the damage done to the psyche and economy of the world, which also leads to the privation and death of thousands in a collateral damage, is massively greater in comparison.

Best regards - HS

PS - Just to add that I completely agree with the point you make regarding the dissolution of personal rights due to the emotive use of the word 'war' in these circumstances, I just think that no real comparisons exist in the Western World in recent decades with 9/11. It is a unique action, which has resulted in a unique set of circumstances.

ros

Norm:

Long time, no see. How have you been? :-)

In this thread, you have taken MY argument with civil libertarian extremists.
I don't want to create a false impression about my political views (or perhaps the term should more appropriately be *non*-political views) and nationalism, but I have wondered why raving socialists who rant about the numbers of people killed in a military action (which I agree is tragic), don't express the same concern for life lost with the world's real "weapon of mass destruction", i.e., automobiles. Does political ideology versus social expediency somehow make a moral difference about the reason for the numbers of deaths? If I understand it, statistically, a greater number of the young soldiers killed in combat would die in traffic accidents if they were not in the Military.

~Ros

ros

SixofNine wrote:

America would do well to quit using the term "war" for things that are not wars.

Precisely what I have thought. There is a vast difference between a police action against crime against humanity (i.e., brutality, torture, mass murder, etc.) and "war" for conquest for national gain. If this were indeed a real war (of which is it is said "all is fair in love and war"), I think the world basically realizes that the U.S. has the technological capability of WMDs to anhilate a country like Iraq--IF this were a real war in "worldly" terms.

~Ros

Edited to remove duplicate quote from 6o9.

heathen

I don't think the war on terror will ever be won especially since the US has taken the role as the #1 terrorist in the world . Sure it would be easy to wave the flag and ignore the truth as most seem eager to do , it's the same thing hitler did back in WW2 . Since when did saddam housein morph into bin laden any way ? It looks as if all the al quaida were based in saudi arabia but do you think anything is being done ? Of course not George Bush is buddy buddy with the saudi royals . The whole Iraq thing is about control of the worlds second largest oil supply and has nothing whatsoever to do with 911 or international terrorism.

Perspectives?

Share this