Terrorists Don't Kill Enough People to be in the News This Often

[SwiftBradley]

I seems to be in the minority but, I don't really care about terrorism. So many other things present greater threat to my quality of life. Why is terrorism such a big deal? Yeah some people have died, but people dies everyday, tens of thousands of them(maybe more i don't know). Many of those deaths are preventable esspecially if a government is willing to drop a couple hundred billion dollars on the problem. It seems to me that the war on terror is entirely irrational. Spensd this money on something more worthwhile, i'll worry about getting killed by terrorists like i worry about getting struck by lightning. We are all going to die in a eventually, get busy living and stop worrying about terrorists.

[RPatterson]

Yeah I didn't think the twin towers would be such a big deal. It wasn't like TONS of people died.

[SwiftBradley]

Based on your other posts you are probably the biggest moron on this site. Anyone with a brain care to respond?

[Stu Pidasso]

I say you should attack a cancer early and and agressively.

Stu

[Gamblor]

Issues like cancer and traffic accidents DO get tons of money in terms of government research grants, donations, etc, but the fight against them is boring. There are no tanks and bombs and guns, so the news doesn't really care until there's a serious breakthrough.

On the other hand, images of American soldiers charging across open desert, now that's TV. Terrorism, instead of slowly killing off populations like AIDS does, is a sudden shock event and therefore carries more entertainment value, which is what the news is really there for. No CEO of NBC or CNN ever looked at dismal numbers and said "But you know what? We really explained the facts well."

You want to know what it's like when terrorism is a daily problem? Move to Jerusalem.

[MMMMMM]

It isn't just the relative numbers killed by various things that causes concern; it's that when human beings are trying to kill you it is especially disconcerting and dangerous. When human beings are organized for that purpose, it is yet more so. When those human beings are irrational and fanatical, more so again.

The relative numbers could change in the future if terrorists or fanatics ever acquire nuclear weapons: the numbers killed by terrorists could skyrocket then, compared to those killed by certain diseases or accidents.

There is something inherently very disturbing about depraved human beings on missions of terror and murder--sort of like it is more disturbing that Jeffrey Dahmer killed certain individuals than if they died of disease or in auto accidents. Perhaps it is because human beings should know better, and act better. Perhaps it is because it is willful evil as opposed to death by natural or unavoidable causes.

Also, Islamist terrorists want to forcibly establish Islamic rule as widely as they possibly can. They are totalitarians who hate any form of tolerance or pluralism and don't care how many they have to kill to achieve their fanatic goals. They are rabid believers in a 7th century doctrine, and believe that they are charged by Allah to force the world to submit to Allah's law. Their belief in
Paradise for those who die fighting for Allah's law is another deluded aspect of this cult-like mentality. And truly, calling their belief system a cult would be more accurate than not.

So there is a growing danger from these cult members as they seek greater and greater destructive powers. They are so thoroughly brainwashed to fight those who do not subscribe to their narrow view of the world, that classifying them as homicidal maniacs would not be wrong. They are actually as insane as Jeffrey Dahmer was, for all practical intents and purposes, and their purposeful
organization make them the more malignant and darkly threatening for the future.

Islamic terrorists are like mad dogs and are best dispatched as quickly as possible. And yes, specifying "Islamic terrorists" is important, because that is the enemy which has declared war not only on Western civilization, but even on other Muslims who do not subscribe to their own narrow views.

Organized psychopathy is always fascinating--and always dangerous.

[ACPlayer]

It would be far better if:

1. The terrorists did not get the attention from the media that they so desperately want. Without attention the primary force of their tactic (creating fear) would be diminished.
-- and ---

2. Our administration did something positive to address the terrorist problem (which is a real problem and cannot be ignored).

So, far the terrorsits have got the attention they crave from the media creating fear in our community and active support from the administration to help create an environment where the extremist Islamist have bo problems recruiting additional terrorists.

[ACPlayer]

It seems to me that the war on terror is entirely irrational

.... it is our strategy (or perhaps lack of one).

[jdl22]

excellent analysis.

Your mentioning of Israel however I believe demonstrates his point really well. I don't know how many people have died in Israel (I'm sure you will tell me) in the last few years due to terrorism but this is absolutely nothing compared to the aids epidemic ripping through Africa. For example, in South Africa in 2001 20% of the people were HIV positive. That year 360,000 people died of aids related causes in that country alone. 5 million people were currently living with the disease there. 5 million depending on where you consider Israel's border is not far off from its population.

Israel is easily the country most affected by terrorism. While they didn't have the equivalent of 9/11 the effect on daily life is much more extreme there than here. Even in the case of Israel the aids epidemic in a single African country is several orders of magnitude greater. Israeli terrorism frequently will make the US national news while thousands of people dying of aids only makes it if the President made a hollow promise that day during the state of the union.

[MMMMMM]

Not to argue with your points, but just to add something: people can avoid AIDS if they choose to. They can't avoid being blown up by a suicide bomber in Israel if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure AIDS is tragic but it isn't only the numbers that matter. Going out and fooling around with lots of people sexually is like playing in traffic, especially in some regions. To my way of thinking there is a difference between avoidable tragedies and murder.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to argue with your points, but just to add something: people can avoid AIDS if they choose to. They can't avoid being blown up by a suicide bomber in Israel if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure AIDS is tragic but it isn't only the numbers that matter. Going out and fooling around with lots of people sexually is like playing in traffic, especially in some regions. To my way of thinking there is a difference between avoidable tragedies and murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is so ignorant, it's not even funny.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Not to argue with your points, but just to add something: people can avoid AIDS if they choose to. They can't avoid being blown up by a suicide bomber in Israel if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure AIDS is tragic but it isn't only the numbers that matter. Going out and fooling around with lots of people sexually is like playing in traffic, especially in some regions. To my way of thinking there is a difference between avoidable tragedies and murder.

[/ QUOTE ]



That statement is so ignorant, it's not even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really? It may be a little harsh, but the statement is fundamentally true. I don't think MMMMMM is saying that everyone with AIDS has ran around, carelessly sleeping with too many people. But, I think it would be ignorant to disregard that type of lifestyle and its impact on the AIDS epidemic.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be far better if:

1. The terrorists did not get the attention from the media that they so desperately want. Without attention the primary force of their tactic (creating fear) would be diminished.


[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly makes you think the terrorists give two sh*ts about our media? They want to kill westerners and Jews, both of whom they view as evil. They ARE looking to make a statement, but they are not directing it towards us.

[ QUOTE ]

-- and ---

2. Our administration did something positive to address the terrorist problem (which is a real problem and cannot be ignored).


[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so what positive things can be do to address this little disagreement with fanatical psychopaths? A hug and a kiss? Maybe some midnight basketball.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
Thank you for completely trivializing the aids crisis in Africa. Why can't those idiots just learn to stop sleeping around or atleast wear condoms???? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the people in Africa are so uneducated in regards to STD's that they actually believe condoms carry AIDS instead of preventing its transfer. I am sure you are aware that they think if they have sex with a virgin it will cure AIDS to.

AIDS and terrorism are two different demons, both of which affect millions of people around the world. IMO, the AIDS crisis in Africa is just as serious if not more so than global terrorism. The effects of this crisis may not be felt for 10-20 years, but they will be enormous when they are felt.

[J.R.]

Soem people can't help who there parents are. But some people can help where they chose to live.

[ACPlayer]

The media attention generates the fear and uncertainty in the minds of the population, exactly the group that can do little to address the problem. Killing 3000 people in the WTC led the American population into a state of fear. To the terrorist the goal was not the killing but the reaction to the killing. That fear is eating away at our collective psyche -- see some of the more extremist anti-terrorist rhetoric amongst the 2+2ers for examples. Unfortunately we cannot (and should not control) the media.

2. I remember Bush in the first few days adter 9/11 wondering why they would hate us. I submit from his reactions to date he still does not understand why the Arab population hates us so much. Without that understanding he cannot address the problem. Stamping out the Islamists as some suggest will not work.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]

2. I remember Bush in the first few days adter 9/11 wondering why they would hate us. I submit from his reactions to date he still does not understand why the Arab population hates us so much. Without that understanding he cannot address the problem. Stamping out the Islamists as some suggest will not work.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so what should be done to "address" it?

[MMMMMM]

Huh? What exactly is ignorant about it? It's TRUE, right?

I could say YOUR statement is so ignorant it isn't even funny, but I won't--pending an explanation of what you meant, if you care to provide one.

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

I don't believe I trivialized anything. I merely added to what J.R. was saying, by pointing out that AIDS is avoidable whereas being the victim of a suicide bombing is not.

[Gamblor]

Suicide bombings were the only form of terrorism employed against the Jews (note I do not say Israelis; as Israeli Arabs are unintended targets, as evidenced by the apology from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades regarding the death of George Khoury, and even more so the allegations that the Israelis killed the two Arabs who died in the Kalandia roadblock bombing).

Kassam rockets are fired multiple times daily from Gaza into Sderot, a town in the Negev. Motorists are often kidnapped and murdered while driving to and from work. And kibbutzim and villages are regularly infiltrated by terrorists who simply walk into houses and shoot up whoever is inside.

Let's not forget the wonderful Olympic-spirited events of Munich as well as Air Terror in Entebbe.

I somehow doubt deep Africa is as educated about AIDS as you are, but at the same time, money can beat AIDS. No amount of money would ever placate the Arabs (after all, don't they have lots of oil?)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the people in Africa are so uneducated in regards to STD's that they actually believe condoms carry AIDS instead of preventing its transfer. I am sure you are aware that they think if they have sex with a virgin it will cure AIDS to.

OK, now explain to me how this says anything different than what MMMMMM said? The issue is education, obviously. I don't think he was belittling the people in Africa for being ignorant to the reality of AIDS.

It's not like we've cured it here and refuse to help anyone else.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit from his reactions to date he still does not understand why the Arab population hates us so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do they hate us? I can think of some reasons why someone wouldn't like our country but why enough hate for suicide bombings?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
That statement is so ignorant, it's not even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I am ingnorant myself in not reckognizing the ignorance of MMMMMMMs statement. Can you shed some light?

Stu

[Cyrus]

"I say you should attack a cancer early and and agressively."

Statistically, it is quite false to equate the danger from cancer with the danger from terrorism in our daily lives. (I will assume you do not live in downtown Baghdad.) The original poster is correct in this. All moral and political questions aside, the threat of terrorism to everyday lives is comparable to the threat from lightning.

Deaths from cancer are far more common. You are right about the cancer, wrong about the terror. (I will assume you are not a Dick Cheney.)

But, if you still think you are right, go for the free market's assessment: Ask to be insured against cancer and against a terrorist attack - and then compare the two insurance premiums.

--Cyrus

[Stu Pidasso]

Cyrus

The point I hoped to make was that it is better to attack terrorism early, even when it may be a relatively a small problem instead of ignoring it until it becomes a big problem.

[ QUOTE ]
But, if you still think you are right, go for the free market's assessment: Ask to be insured against cancer and against a terrorist attack - and then compare the two insurance premiums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we should all buy insurance policies that protect against terrorist attacks now. If we wait till terrorist demonstrate they have nuclear capabilities, the cost of such a policy would be exorbitantly high( provided you could still even get one at that point).

stu

[ACPlayer]

This is exactly what the administration should be concentrating on. Figuring out and addressing the hatred of young, apparently intelligent, well educated youths who are willing and able to fly a plane into a concrete wall without blinking. Until I see tangible evidence that they are thinking along these lines, IMO, we will continue to loose on the war in terror.

[ACPlayer]

THere is plenty that I can think of. The problem is that, apparently, the administration is not willing to think along these lines. There view point is that there is nothing we can do short of shock and awe (which of course has proved to be a disaster for us and the Iraqi and Afghan populace).

The areas to look at:

1. Addressing the Israeli problem
2. Addressing our support of the Saudi
3. Addressing our support of the Egyptians

Those would be a good start at making the US a safer place from terrorists.

And if I am wrong then let me hear a reasonable explanation from the govt on why 19 young fellows were willing and able to fly a plane into a wall -- and to me the promise of 72 virgins as the reason simply shows lack of understanding of people.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
THere is plenty that I can think of. The problem is that, apparently, the administration is not willing to think along these lines. There view point is that there is nothing we can do short of shock and awe (which of course has proved to be a disaster for us and the Iraqi and Afghan populace).

The areas to look at:

1. Addressing the Israeli problem
2. Addressing our support of the Saudi
3. Addressing our support of the Egyptians

Those would be a good start at making the US a safer place from terrorists.

And if I am wrong then let me hear a reasonable explanation from the govt on why 19 young fellows were willing and able to fly a plane into a wall -- and to me the promise of 72 virgins as the reason simply shows lack of understanding of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, those are areas to focus on, so what should be done "address" it? Sure we should address it, but how?

BTW, there is no reasonable explanation for the 19 guys flying a plain into a wall, nor for suicide bombings. The reason they did it was because they were filled with the irrational, fanatical hate found in psychopaths. They may very well have good reason to hate us, but their acts of terrorism were not reasonable. They were not the acts of people who can be negoiated with. If you can find diplomatic way to solve the problems with middle east terrorism and the problems in Irael, you're smarter than every damn diplomat in the last 50 years.

"That's why you can't work with psychopaths. You never know what those sick assholes are going to do next."

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, I know it is a big stretch for you, but do you suppose that just maybe a small perecentage of Muslims who are radicals, did 9/11 primarily because of their religious beliefs?

I'm not saying all Muslims think like that, not by a long shot--what I'm saying is that there are groups or sects which are believers in outward bloody jihad, which are absolutist and totalitarian in outlook, and which will ultimately be satisfied with nothing less than restoration of the Caliphate, with Shari'a ruling first over all Arab lands, and later the world.

A prominent imam said that the life of unbelievers has no sanctity in the eyes of Allah, so it would not be wrong to kill them. Another imam (one of the two controversial and proiminent imams in the U.K., I forget which one) said that is it OK to kill infidels, because they are kafir, that is, like cattle.

There are people in this world who will kill purely for religious fanaticism.

Now, I do agree that certain things, such as support for Israel, no doubt exacerbate the general level of Arab antipathy for the West. But those fanatics who committed the attacks on 9/11 did it more out of religious fanaticism than out of hatred IMO. They believed they were true jihad warriors, in the spirit of Mohammed's army, sallying forth to fight the impure and the wicked, and the source of evil in the modern world--the United States, as they see it.

I'm not saying the things you mention don't have an overall impact on the degree of antipathy the West faces. But similarly, you would be wrong to discount the strength of religious fanaticism, and the force it exerts on members of certain Muslim groups, who have been brainwashed since birth that only Islam and Muslims are pure, and that all others are to be converted, subjugated, or killed--as in the exact words of Mohammed--and that the USA is the Great Satan.

We may never really understand the depths of such religious fanaticism--but be assured, many not only understand it, they live it. And they are simply following the exact words and example of their Prophet, when they wage war against the non-Muslim, or against those whom they view as being detrimental to Islamic goals and Muslims in general.

Now again, I'm not saying most Muslims are like that, but there are enough who believe that way to be capable of anything in the name of religion. So don't presume that those 19 hijackers acted primarily out of hate--for all we might guess, they were acting primarily out of what they see as their love for Allah and their fellow Muslims, and their desire to follow in the foorsteps of the Prophet in holy war or jihad. My own guess is they acted out of both--what I'm saying is don't discount the depth of their fanaticism in attempting to understand how they were capable of such things.

[ACPlayer]

If I agreed with you that a small percentage did it for religious reasons, would you agree that the large percentage did it for other reasons.

You keep missing the point, the religious fanatics are not the ones who are dying, the religious fanatics are whipping up others into dying for them by exploiting their frustrations at being suppressed and beaten up, their daily miseries caused by economic, military and political occupation and oppression. The frustration of a brother who's sister is killed by a Apache helicopter in WB, the frustration of people suppressed brutally by the House of Saud or the ruthless egyptian police (and in each of these cases actively supported by the US). The fanatics and the mullahs are not the ones dying (just as Bush and his cronies are not the ones dying in Iraq).

The religious argument is an easy one for the ignorant to hang their hats on -- take your hat off and look around. It is not backed up by any form of good sense.

[ACPlayer]

Well, we can either do nothing or actively go create more psychopaths.

Just because a problem has not been solved does not mean it is not solvable or attempts should not be made to solve it. The problem is actually solvable and the first step has to be a true on the ground, viable, policy that gives Palestinians and the Israelis the exact same level of support, financially and politically. Until there is a perception of favouritism the Palestinians will have a genuine beef with us and could legitimately consider us the enemy. It is one of the root causes of 9/11 (IMO) and terrorist plans against us.

[MMMMMM]

All right, I can see your point, that the fanatic leaders are exploiting the frustrations of the masses. I do think there is something to that.

I also think that some of those being exploited, and some of the masses, are so thoroughly and deeply indoctrinated that they become fanatics themselves.

Throughout history, many have killed in the name of religion. Just because this is the 21st century doesn't mean that there aren't some for whom it is still the 7th century, religiously and philosophically speaking.

[Gamblor]

Figuring out and addressing the hatred of young, apparently intelligent, well educated youths who are willing and able to fly a plane into a concrete wall without blinking

You are giving them way too much credit. The fundamental ethics and morals and assumptions about the way the world works (and ought to work) is completely lost on people from that part of the world. Completely, because their morals and assumptions are defined (as are ours) by our life experiences - in their case, total control of information and lifestyle. The idea that people from different religions should be able to co-exist as equals, for example, is patently absurd to them, even for the secular. It's the only way for the totalitarian governments to stay in power, is by focusing blame elsewhere.

If one is educated by racist parents to believe black people are lazy, all that is needed is one lazy black man to confirm one's lifelong beliefs - all of the lazy white people be damned. That is why your Apache helicopter analogy is so baseless - why is nothing made of the $2 billion plus in US aid to Egypt, the self-proclaimed centre of the Arab world?

Either way, the real point is not their hatred. Only moral training can solve that. The issue is the action they take on behalf of their hatred. When that stops, then we can work on the hatred itself.

By this I mean it's one thing to hate me, and it's okay to hate me. I don't mind. But you can not act on that hatred in a way that infringes on my right to life, liberty, etc. etc.

And that is what terrorists do.

[ACPlayer]

If you are educated to believe that all Arabs have morals and assumptions that are different from yours and then If a mullah screams anti-israel or anti-US hate then ofcourse you jump to the conclusion that the Arab masses are anti-israel or anti-US. However, give them a set of reasons to become anti-israel and anti-US and a mass of frustrations built over decades of injustice and you see young well educated engineers piloting planes into a brick wall without flinching. Even they realize that perhaps there were no virgins waiting as they called the friendly escort services for sexual gratification before embarking on the mission. If i know that tomorrow I have that much sex waiting, I probably would simply hold out for the real thing.

We are not even looking for the reasons for the actions of these people, we are simply pressing ahead with worn out, proven to not work strategies.

[Gamblor]

We are not even looking for the reasons for the actions of these people, we are simply pressing ahead with worn out, proven to not work strategies.

Don't you see? They use violence because they think violence will work. By work, I mean "will accomplish their goals of imposing their will on the target". Whatever the "will" is, is irrelevant.

It directly follows, therefore, that if violence is the means by which they will impose their will, that violence is the means by which they will submit to others' will.

Now, if our will (by will, I mean our end goal), is first our own safety and security, and then peace, then following the paragraph above, we can only achieve this goal (that contradicts theirs') by showing them that their violence is no match for our capability to deter that violence.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
We are not even looking for the reasons for the actions of these people, we are simply pressing ahead with worn out, proven to not work strategies.

Don't you see? They use violence because they think violence will work. By work, I mean "will accomplish their goals of imposing their will on the target". Whatever the "will" is, is irrelevant.

It directly follows, therefore, that if violence is the means by which they will impose their will, that violence is the means by which they will submit to others' will.

Now, if our will (by will, I mean our end goal), is first our own safety and security, and then peace, then following the paragraph above, we can only achieve this goal (that contradicts theirs') by showing them that their violence is no match for our capability to deter that violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I think much of the disagreement here is based on the utopian belief that terrorist have any desire to reach a peaceful coexistance. No matter what we do or how nice we are, they will still blow sh*t up. I am all for negotiation where it can achieve some benefit. However, if you are dealing with people who have absolutely no interest in peaceful negotiation and will kill as many innocent civilians as possible to advance their goals, you have to kill or imprision them.

This idea that we can't stop future terrorism at the source if we treat the everyone fairly and don't get too involved and address the social issues is absolute fantasy.

For example, this whole negotiating with Arafat as a national leader is ridiculous. This terrorist should be dead or in prison. I'm all for negotiations between Isreal and Palestine, but Palestine is going to have to come up with a leader who is actually willing to make progress and stop terrorism.

I think as soon as you start performing acts of terrorism, you have acknowledged that you are not a decent human being, serve no beneficial purpose in the world, are a severe detriment to the world, and should be removed from the world ASAP.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It directly follows, therefore, that if violence is the means by which they will impose their will, that violence is the means by which they will submit to others' will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it. Why would that necessarily follow?

This isn't thought out all the way, but I'm thinking along these lines:
I am a true believer willing to both kill and die for my cause (and have my loved ones kill and die for the cause). I have looked at my enemy and determined that they are not willing to die for their cause and I have, thus, chosen a course of violence against my opponent that will shake their collective will.

When my opponent looks at me, they see someone who is willing to die for their cause. Thus, the calculation they make is a different one that what I made when looking at them. Their thoughts are that violence against true believers is not likely to shake their will. In fact, it might encourage more true believers. Absent using violence to annihilate the opponent, violence will not work against true believers.

Perhaps an approach that tries to change the mind-set of true believers (maybe coupled with violence) would ultimately work.

[Zeno]

Interesting discussion. I am posting some links to something that took place almost 432 (1572) years ago (Anniversary date is August 24). It involves a host of issues but at the base was politics, or was it religion, or perceived wrongs, or manipulation of people by the influential, or was it a combination of many things?, or........?

Bartholomew #1 (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0824almanac.htm)

Bartholomew # 2 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StBartho.html)

Bartholomew # 3 (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/barth.htm)

I am posting this under Elwoodblues' post but it is a general post and not a direct response to him. It may appear that what I posted is a 'side issue'. It is not. It is very deep and profound IMO and takes some time and reflection to understand all the implications and its importance in today's world.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

When my opponent looks at me, they see someone who is willing to die for their cause. Thus, the calculation they make is a different one that what I made when looking at them. Their thoughts are that violence against true believers is not likely to shake their will. In fact, it might encourage more true believers. Absent using violence to annihilate the opponent, violence will not work against true believers.

"You love life, we love death" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC23Aa01.html)

Palestinian Arab terrorists and Wahhabi Saudi Islamist terrorists are different species of the same kind of animal.

In "Palestinian Arabs", I see people with serious political/religious goals who are brainwashing the downtrodden/naive/sick/retarded by convincing them that the only way out of their shared misery is to kill as many Jews as possible - the perpetrator (the bomber him/herself) will go to heaven, while the terrorist (the dispatcher and organization leader) will achieve whatever goals he deems appropriate, such as Arab and Islamic rule over Israel. But never has Arafat or any other "educated" Palestinian strapped a bomb to himself. He always has some other, downtrodden/etc person do it for him; an Islamic university student idealist, a child, an adulterous wife.

In Wahhabiist bin Laden type Arabs (and I believe the article refers more to them than Palestinian Arabs), I see people who are consolidating power among the Arab street for the purposes of removing all non-Sunni-Islamic (they hate Shiites almost as much as Jews) influence from anywhere a Muslim might choose to live. All law, ostensibly in the name of Allah, must be Islamic. Period. Any Western modern influence is necessarily evil, and all Islamist "Bush is a terrorist" literature is designed to steer attention away from that (whether or not it's true is another matter).

These two types feed off each other and use each others' causes to lend legitimacy to their own. The key, is that in the Arab world, life is very cheap.

As a Hamas spokesman once pointed out, "the Jews love life more than any other, and they prefer not to die."

In conclusion, I submit, once again, that terrorism is not an "act of desperation" or "response to tyrrany". It is a viable and ultimately successful strategy of warfare.

[Rushmore]

The problem is NOT easily remedied by the individual.

The problem is poverty and ignorance of science, the products of both cultural issues, and environmental issues.

The problem will take a LONG time to solve.

Part of the problem is figuring out who should solve it.

The problem is vastly more intricate and complex than you painted it in your original post.

I line up right-of-center, and even I can see that your tone was either an affectation for emphasis, or, truly ignorant.

I believe in self-reliance and a strong sense of personal responsibility.

Those things simply do not apply here. They are actually vestigial words in the face of the tragedy currently ravaging Africa.

Nobody has the luxury of being able to conjure such noble notions as those I mentioned above when this is happening. It's All Bets Are Off Time.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, or whether their culture is to blame, or anything quite so cavalier.

What matters is making it stop, and seeing that it doesn't happen again.

[MMMMMM]

Rushmore,

I did not make the statement in isolation, but as part of a thread. That thread initially started with a comparison being made of purely raw numbers, with the poster asking why a relatively small number of deaths attracted so much attention and worry. I pointed out some reasons why terrorism is particularly disturbing and potentially worrisome, and another poster entered the fray, pointing out the huge number of deaths due to AIDS in Africa.

Since the initial question of the thread was why do we worry so much about terrorism versus other things that kill, and again raw numbers were held up as example, I felt obligated to expound on why sometimes a smaller number of deaths can be disturbing out of proportion compared to a larger number of deaths. There are many reasons why this can be so. One is this: if it is possible to avoid something, it is not so disturbing as an attack against you which you cannot avoid should you happen to be the chosen target. There is a sense of complete powerlessness in the latter which does not exist in the former. There is also the "evil" feeling of someone deliberately attempting to cause you injury or death--especially if for no really good reason.

So I felt it appropriate to point out these differences, since that was answering the initial question of the title post of the thread. I did not intend to be insensitive or thoughtless; rather I was simply trying to answer the question as accurately as possible from a conceptual standpoint.

Now I do agree that some in Africa have no knowledge of the causes of AIDS--so for them, acquiring it could be entirely accidental rather than deliberately negligent or careless. That was not the point, though, since I was only trying to answer why we are more concerned about deaths from terrorism than some other causes of death. Again, the reasons are many, and I feel I have listed some of them starting with my response to the initial thread title post and conmtinuing down to this point in the sub-thread. Another reason might be that threats directed against us cause us more concern that dangers others may be facing. We can avoid AIDS if we choose to be sufficiently careful, though some Africans cannot. So naturally we are more concerned with deadly threats against us than with some dangers which we know we can avoid.

Hope this answers your thoughts. My intention was not to be moralistic or judgmental, but rather just to show the differences in the danger or threat and why it is natural for us to be more concerned with one than the other. I do not always preface such thoughts with great pains to avoid offending anyone or being misinterpreted. Maybe I should, but then my posts would be even longer, and being misunderstood in my directness is a price I must pay sometimes. I admit that I do rather prefer directness even when it may be misunderstood; perhaps it is my dislike for PC-ness that causes me to try to say exactly what I mean (usually) and no more, no less. Anyway this post is by now overlong, so that's all for now.

[Rushmore]

I understand all of what you're saying.

I suppose I was reacting more to a generally moralistic response that many have to such a situation, some of which I (perhaps mistakenly) detected in your post.

I think maybe your brevity (or maybe just lack of disclaimer) could be interpreted for callousness.

And while this is not generally something I mind, in the context, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

I'm sure I was just being moralistically pedantic.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you, Rushmore.

While writing the post, I did not consider that some Africans might truly be ignorant of the causes of AIDS. Even so, I would doubt that the majority are totally ignorant as to the causes.

I was not trying to be moralistic, though perhaps I was being a bit callous.

Another couple of questions where "callousness" might seem an issue: what about food shipments to countries which have large starving populations, but are run by horrid regimes where the government confiscates the relief food upon arrival and gives it only to officials and soldiers?

What about saving people from AIDS, only so they can be starved to death by a combination of overpopulation and horrid government? I'm not saying that is necessarily the case in all those regions, but if we're talking real-world solutions instead of merely blowing sympathetic smoke, such things must be considered too.

Hopefully there will be a cure for AIDS. And hopefully the world's population will not continue to explode until we eventually have a pandemic or war much greater than AIDS or WWWII or anything that has come before.

Just some cynical, callous musings, I guess.