• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

theREALkoreaboy said:
establishing some kind of moral equivalence between 17,000 separate drunk driving accidents and the purposely planned terrorist attack that was 9/11 to minimize the significance of it is utterly and completely deplorable, and if you honestly can't see why, then you have a problem.
Click to expand...

nothing accidental about drinking and driving

but if you care about americans (and are not an anti american) then 17000 people dying should take priority over 2000 and whatever

but i guess you are anti american and do not care about them...just the manner in which they die

what if i told you most of the drunk drivers were muslim?
 
picard.jpg
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no they're not. i've provided a half dozen quotes here, stored right here on this forum. which aint broke.
Click to expand...

you do realize they do not say anything right?

those quotes do not prove whatever you are trying to say

damnit you got me..... i know you only mean half of what you say and the rest is you just being the devils advocate/trolling/pissing with people
 
if you can't see the difference between:

-a group of people carefully, methodically over a period of months and years planning to specifically attack a defenceless civilian target to kill, terrorize, and maim as many thousands of people of possible and,

-a guy (or girl) getting behind the wheel after a night at the bar thinking they're probably ok to drive and they can make it home but they accidentally hit something and kill someone on the way

then your moral compass is busted. or, more likely, you are so rabidly anti-american and sympathetic to the people carrying out the terrorist attack that you choose to see the two things as equal, or even see the accidental drunk driving death as WORSE than the terrorist attack.

go and look up the difference between murder 1 and manslaughter and tell me what the penalties are for those two crimes. and then try to ask yourself why. what ME is doing here is the exact equivalent of saying manslaughter is a WORSE crime than murder 1 if that murder 1 happens to be carried out by someone you are sympathetic to against someone you're not all that sympathetic to.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
if you can't see the difference between:

-a group of people carefully, methodically over a period of months and years planning to specifically attack a defenceless civilian target to kill, terrorize, and maim as many thousands of people of possible and,

-a guy (or girl) getting behind the wheel after a night at the bar thinking they're probably ok to drive and they can make it home but they accidentally hit something and kill someone on the way

then your moral compass is busted. or, more likely, you are so rabidly anti-american and sympathetic to the people carrying out the terrorist attack that you choose to see the two things as equal, or even see the accidental drunk driving death as WORSE than the terrorist attack.

go and look up the difference between murder 1 and manslaughter and tell me what the penalties are for those two crimes. and then try to ask yourself why. what ME is doing here is the exact equivalent of saying manslaughter is a WORSE crime than murder 1 if that murder 1 happens to be carried out by someone you are sympathetic to against someone you're not all that sympathetic to.
Click to expand...

no one has talked about the morality of one issue over the other.


The issue is which one you devote more resources to.

Morons killing 15-20K people a YEAR warrant more attention and resources than sick, evil people killing a grand total of around 3000 people in the history of the USA. Maybe 4000 if you expand it to the USA and the commonwealth.
 
Yup. It has nothing to do with morality and more to do with numbers. Why should you concern yourself as much over a risk that is infinitely less likely to happen to you (terrorism on North American soil) than an occurrence that claims lives every single day?

It's not a matter of morality or condemning one act over the other. It's a matter of likelyhood and proportionality.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Yup. It has nothing to do with morality and more to do with numbers.
Click to expand...

it has EVERYTHING to do with the morality of it. everything. your (and his) argument only holds true if we were spending nothing on combatting drunk driving and we were deciding whether to use money and resources to combat it, or spend it instead on fighting terrorism.

the fact is that we are already spending millions and millions (billions?) on confronting drunk driving through awareness, education, policing, enforcement, incarceration, liquor licensing, etc. etc. etc. etc. its not like dealing with drunk driving suddenly got dropped from gov'ts list of responsibilities because the war on terror came along.

the issue here was, why would someone pooh-pooh the most heinous terror attack in north american history by basically dismissing it as a mere triffle compared to drunk driving?
 
Last edited:
another example of blantant anti-americanism posted here...

"They went into Afghanistan for these reasons:
(1) oil deposits
(2) to build a pipeline"

which is complete BS. just like it was complete BS when everyone slammed the US for going into iraq just for oil, when it has no become clear the the major western nation that benefitted the LEAST from new oil and business contracts in the new iraq has been the US.
 
Well no it's not BS. It's well-documented by Ahmed Rashid in his authoritative book on the subject, Taliban, that the CIA was extremely concerned about an Argentine contract (in collusion with the Russians) that would have diverted plans for an American pipeline through Afghanistan and that the US wanted to gain control over the flow of reserves through the region.
 
Yep there is zero point zero percent chance that the two wars (Iraq/Afghanistan) resulted in an increase in wealth for a few select people at the sacrifice of untold thousands. Keep telling yourself that.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
it has EVERYTHING to do with the morality of it. everything. your (and his) argument only holds true if we were spending nothing on combatting drunk driving and we were deciding whether to use money and resources to combat it, or spend it instead on fighting terrorism.

the fact is that we are already spending millions and millions (billions?) on confronting drunk driving through awareness, education, policing, enforcement, incarceration, liquor licensing, etc. etc. etc. etc. its not like dealing with drunk driving suddenly got dropped from gov'ts list of responsibilities because the war on terror came along.

the issue here was, why would someone pooh-pooh the most heinous terror attack in north american history by basically dismissing it as a mere triffle compared to drunk driving?
Click to expand...

Afghanistan (even ignoring Iraq) is, even ignoring the lives of hundreds of soldiers, orders of magnitude more costly than the sum total of all costs incurred in combating drunk driving. If you were to do a "cost per death" analysis the only way it would work out is if you think that it was a statistical certainty that a major city would have been levelled by islamic terrorism. Even then, you'd have to make the (dubious) assumption that those troops on the ground and the tightening of security in the US actually reduced the odds of a terrorist attack.
 
Loads of people die every day because of car accidents, way more then were killed on 911, yet we dont have a war on cars.
Terrorism will never stop, just like we cant stop murder, abuse, etc all we can do is try to take steps to make it less likley. Either way, starting wars is the least effective way of dealing with this. Millions of people have died in the wars in Iraq,Afghanistan and nobody is safer for it..in fact, more terrorists have probably been created, from kids watching their siblings, parents, die for no reason.

The United States simply over-reacted to an event.
 
Afghanistan war I can understand, but not the illegal war in Iraq.

September 11, 2001 is only one day in time, likely never to be repeated.
 
The only reason for any of the recent "wars" is economic. Much worse things go on in many countries, but the US doesn't do shit, because there is no interest in doing so. Every military action undertaken in the last 20 years has been financially motivated.

People just don't get it. The only way for any capitalist society to survive is to have continuous growth. The only way to achieve that is to take in more than you give out. This is basic, basic stuff. Kindergarten. In order to maintain their lifestyle, the US needs to exploit weaker / resource richer countries.

It's been happening for decades. Open your eyes.

The reasons given are political, designed to appease the masses, or to give ideologues like KB their spank fodder. But the simple truth is that we've all been living off of other people's backs for a few generations now. South America, China, India, wherever...we've maxed out our credit. There is nowhere else to borrow / steal from. It must have been a good ride for our parents and grandparents, but it's obviously over, and we have to deal with the new reality that is screaming in our faces.

/end rant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top