The War On Drugs VS. The War On Terror

[Oneironaut Zero]

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?" Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to combat to any skeptic - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through. As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce.

[Techno]

Not that this is evidence, but here's my two cents. If a government is willing to involve itself in the matters of buying and selling drugs that are capable of destroying human lives, then puts on a public relations charade claming it is a messiah of sorts against such behavior, who is to say they are above doing the same for matters involving terrorizing citizens of countries to provoke them to act in a certain way out of emotional response?

[Invader]

Behold the power of mass media and financial influence. When you talk about this issue to others, how does it make you feel when they vehemently deny that what you say is plausible?

[Carôusoul]

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?" Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to give credibility to any skeptics - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through. As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce. I'm not sure what you mean ;_; Like, maybe its because I don't live in America, but what do you mean by 'war on drugs'? ;_;

[Xaqaria]

I'm not sure what you mean ;_; Like, maybe its because I don't live in America, but what do you mean by 'war on drugs'? ;_; Google; "war on drugs" The problem I see with our country is that anyone who isn't part of the main stream media has been branded as a crack pot or conspiracy theorist, and the main stream media only broadcasts what they want you to know. In this way, anyone who reports what is actually going on isn't credible anymore. It doesn't matter how much evidence one compiles against this stuff, to most of the country; if its not on fox or cnn, it isn't true. Its all about the concept of adjacency. Because of the way that we learn and retain information, if you say one word with another word enough times, it won't matter if they really have anything to do with each other, they will still be cemented as related in our minds and that goes for all of the other things that are associated with both of the concepts that are being grouped together. The phrase 'War on Drugs' alone makes people believe that drugs are an enemy because, what else do you go to war with but the enemy? The war on terror takes that concept to a whole new level since it is such a vague concept. Suddenly anyone's name can be grouped with the word terrorist and now they are an enemy of the country just because you've said it. What really drives me crazy is that there are some people who are able to see through the war on drugs for what it is, but because "terror" represents a more realistic danger they buy into it even though its the same shit in a different package.

[SKA]

I say catch 2 birds with one Stone: Legalise most drugs except the most harmfull, addictive ones like Heroin, Cocaine, Meth and Speed. No more immoral, expensive impractical druglaws + harmreduction and at the same time a large drugmarket taken from the hands of terrorists and put into the hands of governments.

[Universal Mind]

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?" Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to combat to any skeptic - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through. As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce. I am a rare person who supports the war on terror but thinks the war on drugs is about the dumbest and most tragic crock in the history of our country. What is so extra-specially idiotic about the war on drugs is that it goes after people but cannot go after their positions. If you arrest a cocaine kingpin today, you have only arrested the cocaine kingpin. His position lives on. He will be replaced right away. Nothing changed. If you arrest his entire cartel, it makes no difference. Another cartel takes their place. If you arrest every drug dealer in the United States today, they are all replaced tomorrow. That is because not a damn thing has changed the market demand that is creating the positions. No matter how many people are arrested, somebody is going to get the public the drugs it demands. The war on drugs reduces the number of dealers, but what it does not do is reduce the amount of drugs being sold. Unfortunately, the public does not understand that and gets sucked into saying, "Look there, Melba Flow, they arrested some cocaine dealers today. That's less cocaine that will be on the streets." No it's not!!!! The war on terror is different. If you arrest an Al Qaeda member today, his position as a terrorist is not replaced. His rank might be replaced, but there is still one less person in the world to help do damage to our country. It is not like there is a constant amount of terror and then it's just a matter of who fills the positions. The amount of drugs available to the public is based on market demand, and whether there are 5 dealers of 5 million dealers, the public is going to get its demanded amount of drugs. The amount of terror, on the other hand, is determined by the number of people participating in it. Thus, when a terrorist is killed or captured, the world really is a little bit safer. That is not the case with drugs. Busting an entire cartel and seizing 60 of their 18 wheelers full of cocaine will not change the amount of cocaine that will be consumed in the country, though busting an entire terrorist organization makes the world much, much safer. Also, the war on terror is not just about killing and capturing terrorists. It is also about changing the socio-economic climate of the Middle East so that far fewer people grow up in backward ass poverty conditions that cause the ignorance and desperation which make it so easy for them to be manipulated into joining a terrorist organization. The war on drugs isn't aimed at changing the cultural factors at the root of drug addiction. It is just aimed at saying, "Never mind the results. The point is that we are doing something about drugs." So, the war on drugs is a moronic joke, but the war on terror actually accomplishes things.

[Xaqaria]

The war on terror is different. If you arrest an Al Qaeda member today, his position as a terrorist is not replaced. His rank might be replaced, but there is still one less person in the world to help do damage to our country. It is not like there is a constant amount of terror and then it's just a matter of who fills the positions. The amount of drugs available to the public is based on market demand, and whether there are 5 dealers of 5 million dealers, the public is going to get its demanded amount of drugs. The amount of terror, on the other hand, is determined by the number of people participating in it. Thus, when a terrorist is killed or captured, the world really is a little bit safer. That is not the case with drugs. Busting an entire cartel and seizing 60 of their 18 wheelers full of cocaine will not change the amount of cocaine that will be consumed in the country, though busting an entire terrorist organization makes the world much, much safer. Don't you think the war on terror creates terrorists? Imagine yourself living in a country being attacked by the U.S.. I would wager that for every civilian death caused by the United States, there are at least 3 new terrorists who wouldn't have otherwise joined the cause. Why is it, do you think, that we don't seem to be making much progress on the terrorist front? I'm sure you are aware that 30,000 new troops are on their way to Afghanistan. What is the need for so many more if the world has been getting safer and safer all this time? Take a look around the world and you might find there really is a near limitless supply of people who hate this country and its policies, and are just one personal tragedy away from doing something that would get them labeled as a terrorist.

[Universal Mind]

Don't you think the war on terror creates terrorists? Imagine yourself living in a country being attacked by the U.S.. I would wager that for every civilian death caused by the United States, there are at least 3 new terrorists who wouldn't have otherwise joined the cause. Why is it, do you think, that we don't seem to be making much progress on the terrorist front? I'm sure you are aware that 30,000 new troops are on their way to Afghanistan. What is the need for so many more if the world has been getting safer and safer all this time? Take a look around the world and you might find there really is a near limitless supply of people who hate this country and its policies, and are just one personal tragedy away from doing something that would get them labeled as a terrorist. The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea. The major goal is to change the cultural landscape of the Middle East over decades so that primitive superstition does not have the same mesmerizing effect it has now. I hate the government of Iran, but because I grew up in a civilized culture and have worldly understanding on some kind of significant level, I cannot be reeled in by a superstitious hate cult that wants me to blow myself up in an Iranian cafeteria full of civilians. With cultural advancement comes a significant degree of rationality, but cultural advancement takes time.

[Invader]

The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea. All of our differences aside, U.M., I have one question. If the people of the Middle East (particularly in the wartorn parts where the U.S. is involved) actually rose up to avenge the deaths of their fellow civilians, are you FOR or AGAINST the genocide of those people on the grounds that you think they're being irrational? No hostility in this question, and I'm not trying to insinuate anything particularly nasty. We can be civil again, I'm sure.

[acatalephobic]

If a government is willing to involve itself in the matters of buying and selling drugs that are capable of destroying human lives, then puts on a public relations charade claming it is a messiah of sorts against such behavior, who is to say they are above doing the same for matters involving terrorizing citizens of countries to provoke them to act in a certain way out of emotional response? Exactly what he said. An atmosphere of fear is the best way to induce the support of less-than-savory ideas that--when looked at more closely--seem like "a paramount waste of time", or worse. A person can do a lot of horribly evil things, if they feel they have right on their side. I'm reminded of a Voltaire quote: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

[Xaqaria]

The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea. The major goal is to change the cultural landscape of the Middle East over decades so that primitive superstition does not have the same mesmerizing effect it has now. I hate the government of Iran, but because I grew up in a civilized culture and have worldly understanding on some kind of significant level, I cannot be reeled in by a superstitious hate cult that wants me to blow myself up in an Iranian cafeteria full of civilians. With cultural advancement comes a significant degree of rationality, but cultural advancement takes time. Why would you ever want to blow yourself up in an Iranian cafeteria when we have air to surface missiles that can be shot down that cafeteria's chimney? We have had several hands in creating the cultural landscape that now fosters hatred for our country and you may be surprised to find out how little it actually has to do with religion. Poverty is the root of the problems in the middle east, not religion or "terror". All we are doing is bombing them further into poverty and then making them more dependant on oil which is a dying resource.

[Universal Mind]

All of our differences aside, U.M., I have one question. If the people of the Middle East (particularly in the wartorn parts where the U.S. is involved) actually rose up to avenge the deaths of their fellow civilians, are you FOR or AGAINST the genocide of those people on the grounds that you think they're being irrational? It depends on what you mean by "rose up". I am for the death of every single individual who tries to kill American soldiers in the name of revenge or the like. However, I do not support aiming bombs at the residences and shopping areas of their family members. Their family members, especially their offspring generations from now, did not perform the controversial acts of liberating their countries, and liberation is something I favor any way. Since this ties into our discussion about Israel, I will say this... I favor revenge against guilty individuals, but not people who are merely associated with them because of race, religion, or nationality. No person is guilty based on where he or she is born and raised, especially if the person is too young to know much about geography. The U.S. military is not "guilty" of liberating 50 million people and going through nightmares and horrific controversy to preserve the new democratic governments. They are heroic for it. Why would you ever want to blow yourself up in an Iranian cafeteria when we have air to surface missiles that can be shot down that cafeteria's chimney? No, I don't, and I wouldn't want to use missiles on an Iranian cafeteria any way. What would it accomplish? We have had several hands in creating the cultural landscape that now fosters hatred for our country and you may be surprised to find out how little it actually has to do with religion. Poverty is the root of the problems in the middle east, not religion or "terror". All we are doing is bombing them further into poverty and then making them more dependant on oil which is a dying resource. It looks like we agree on something. The poverty and the backwardness that comes with it are what allow fundamentalist Islamic teachings to persuade people into becoming terrorists. That is a huge part of the reason we are trying to get democracy and capitalism to pull the heart of the Middle East out of the dark ages. Even without resources, capitalism will allow them to have business prosperity with resources they can buy and sell. Capitalism works. It worked for Germany and Japan. We redesigned their governments, and now they are the 2nd and 3rd wealthiest countries in the world. There is great hope for Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that good news?

[Alric]

Revenge is horrible. We see it all the time, every where, all throughout history. One side kills someone, the other side seek revenge and kills one of their people, and so they seek revenge back. Its a endless cycle, where you only continue to kill each other. You are never going to kill every terrorist in the world, and by blowing people up where ever you go, you only create more. It will never end. Just listen to yourself. You want to kill all the terrorists, and you know new one wills come, and you want to kill them. And your hope is that some point in the future you will have killed every single person who wanted to be a terrorist. How the hell do you defeat terrorism through a war of attrition? All you get are a ton of dead bodies, and in this case you lose a ton of wasted money. The war of terror is propaganda, and a serious waste of time and money. There isn't any more terrorist now than there was fifty years ago. The only difference is the media uses shocking images, and people act out of emotions rather than rational thought.

[Universal Mind]

Revenge is horrible. We see it all the time, every where, all throughout history. One side kills someone, the other side seek revenge and kills one of their people, and so they seek revenge back. Its a endless cycle, where you only continue to kill each other. You are never going to kill every terrorist in the world, and by blowing people up where ever you go, you only create more. It will never end. Just listen to yourself. You want to kill all the terrorists, and you know new one wills come, and you want to kill them. And your hope is that some point in the future you will have killed every single person who wanted to be a terrorist. How the hell do you defeat terrorism through a war of attrition? All you get are a ton of dead bodies, and in this case you lose a ton of wasted money. The war of terror is propaganda, and a serious waste of time and money. There isn't any more terrorist now than there was fifty years ago. The only difference is the media uses shocking images, and people act out of emotions rather than rational thought. Revenge? When did I say my belief is based on revenge? I was talking about reducing the numbers of terrorists. You seem to guess that the numbers are not getting reduced, but I think the increased stability in Iraq shows otherwise. Also, tell me your "rational" thoughts on what I said about using capitalism to advance the Middle East out of the backwardness that breeds the superstitious terrorist mentality. I know you are a big time believer in capitalism. What do you think it will do for the Middle East? Do your thoughts on what kind of government is right only apply to people who live in your country? Are the people of the Middle East not entitled to the same rights?

[Alric]

You said you want to seek the death of anyone who tries to harm American soldiers and that you favor revenge against guilty individuals. I don't believe in correcting people at gun point, and I believe a country should have its own sovereignty. Meaning other countries has no right to tell them what they should and shouldn't be doing(though diplomacy and trade can and should be used between countries). As for the number of terrorist, the stability of Iraq is really kind of irrelevant. Because one, we don't live in Iraq. Two we caused the instability of Iraq not the terrorists. Three Iraq hasn't had anything to do with attacks against us. And four terrorism is propaganda, and we never really been in danger of constant terrorist attacks.

[Universal Mind]

You said you want to seek the death of anyone who tries to harm American soldiers and that you favor revenge against guilty individuals. I do favor revenge, but that does not mean it is the main point of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Invadertech asked me about a hypothetical. What we in actuality are doing in the Middle East is far more important than revenge. I don't believe in correcting people at gun point It gave you the freedom you have right this second. Did it not? and I believe a country should have its own sovereignty. Meaning other countries has no right to tell them what they should and shouldn't be doing(though diplomacy and trade can and should be used between countries). What gives a dictator the right to oppress the Hell out of "his" people? Why should that situation be the least bit respected? Fuck all dictators. They have no business being in power. As for the number of terrorist, the stability of Iraq is really kind of irrelevant. Because one, we don't live in Iraq. Two we caused the instability of Iraq not the terrorists. No, we caused the liberation of Iraq. The terrorists caused the instability that is keeping us there, and they know that, which proves that their goal is not for us to leave. Their goal is to prevent democracy. They don't have my respect on that. I think you missed my point. We created a roach motel for terrorists in Iraq. We have been sucking them out of every sewer crack on Earth, and now fewer roaches are going to the motel. That shows that what we are doing is working. Three Iraq hasn't had anything to do with attacks against us. What the Hussein regime did to others showed what they were capable of doing to us, not that we are the only people who matter. If a rapist gets arrested in your city tonight, are you going to make the argument that he never raped those cops? And four terrorism is propaganda, and we never really been in danger of constant terrorist attacks. Large terrorist networks that have dedicated their lives to making Americans extinct don't exist? We could call off our anti-terrorism efforts and be safe from the killings of large American populations? If you think so, please explain that one on behalf of everybody else who says it. Why do you feel so safe? Is it because people are putting out a major effort to keep you safe, or is it just the way of the universe or something?

[Alric]

It gave you the freedom you have right this second. Did it not? No it didn't. No country needed to invade the US to make us free. Anything we did, we did ourself. What gives a dictator the right to oppress the Hell out of "his" people? Why should that situation be the least bit respected? Fuck all dictators. They have no business being in power. There is no dictator in Iraq. We are talking about the peoples right to their own sovereignty. Allowing them to decide on their own. We do not need to interfere with them. No, we caused the liberation of Iraq. The terrorists caused the instability that is keeping us there, and they know that, which proves that their goal is not for us to leave. Their goal is to prevent democracy. They don't have my respect on that. I think you missed my point. We created a roach motel for terrorists in Iraq. We have been sucking them out of every sewer crack on Earth, and now fewer roaches are going to the motel. That shows that what we are doing is working. That doesn't make any sense at all. We created a horrible place where terrorists gathered, then we cleaned up the area so they go some where else. How does that get rid of terrorism? If anything the instability we created caused a surge in the amount of terrorists in the world, and only now are we bringing the levels back down. So really, we are not gaining anything. What the Hussein regime did to others showed what they were capable of doing to us, not that we are the only people who matter. If a rapist gets arrested in your city tonight, are you going to make the argument that he never raped those cops? If I live in California, and a rapist rapes someone in New York, what do I do? Nothing. I don't tell the California state police to go to New York to arrest him. New York has its own police. People who live over there should deal with the problems caused over there. Large terrorist networks that have dedicated their lives to making Americans extinct don't exist? We could call off our anti-terrorism efforts and be safe from the killings of large American populations? If you think so, please explain that one on behalf of everybody else who says it. Why do you feel so safe? Is it because people are putting out a major effort to keep you safe, or is it just the way of the universe or something? I think that is entirely true. I believe if we stopped all the over sea anti-terrorism stuff we would be perfectly safe here in the US. I do not believe the terrorist networks are a threat to us, and there is no reason for me to. Why shouldn't I feel safe? All statistical and historical data shows that terrorism is no threat to the everyday life of average Americans. If you are a rich American tourist going on vacation to Columbia then yea, maybe being a little more careful makes sense but for the rest of us, there is no threat. Where is the threat? 2.5 million Americans die every year. 90,000 a year from medical errors in hospitals, 40,000 a year in car accidents, 18,000 a year in home accidents. How many people in the US die to terrorism each year? None! Your more likely to die from a lightning strike than from a terrorist attack. You are more likely to die from rabies than from a terrorist attack. Your more likely to trip in the shower hit your head and die, than to die from a terrorist attack! They made one dramatic attack, and you now you live the rest of your life in constant fear. They are going to have to do a hell a lot more than that before I am going to worry. It was a purely emotional attack. There is no threat. Killer bees are more of a threat than terrorists. At least people are actually allergic to bees.

[Universal Mind]

No it didn't. No country needed to invade the US to make us free. Anything we did, we did ourself. You said you don't believe in correcting people at gun point. Well, the British government was corrected at gun point. A lot of threats to us have been corrected at gun point since then. Thus, correction at gun point is what gave you the freedom you have right now. There is no dictator in Iraq. We are talking about the peoples right to their own sovereignty. Allowing them to decide on their own. We do not need to interfere with them. That is exactly what we are giving them. Before our intervention, they had a dictator. When we invaded the "sovereign nation", we were invading a dictatorship. The scum bag dictator was sovereign, but the citizens were totally fucked. They were owned by the dictator. That doesn't make any sense at all. We created a horrible place where terrorists gathered, then we cleaned up the area so they go some where else. How does that get rid of terrorism? If anything the instability we created caused a surge in the amount of terrorists in the world, and only now are we bringing the levels back down. So really, we are not gaining anything. No, we have captured and killed terrorists by the zillions. That is why fewer of the cockroaches are coming to the motel. You think cleaning the place up made the terrorists want to leave? I have no idea what you are talking about on that one. If I live in California, and a rapist rapes someone in New York, what do I do? Nothing. I don't tell the California state police to go to New York to arrest him. New York has its own police. People who live over there should deal with the problems caused over there. That does not answer my question. If a rapist rapes a woman in your very town/city and gets arrested, are you going to make the point that the cops were not raped? As for what you brought up about New York, what if the New York rapists are enemies of your town and have a history of training interstate rapists? Let's say they have a history of engaging in major rape projects and ignored your mayor's cease-arrest on rape grounds for 12 years? Let's say their rape project could easily end up being picked up by a rape group that is your enemy and that has already raped a lot of people in your town. And let's say that the rapists your town keeps having to fight off are all coming from the New York/Connecticut/New Jersey area and you see a need to advance the area out of the rape ages. Wouldn't taking down the rape group and, in the process, civilizing the rapist breeding ground have even a spec of understandability? I think that is entirely true. I believe if we stopped all the over sea anti-terrorism stuff we would be perfectly safe here in the US. I do not believe the terrorist networks are a threat to us, and there is no reason for me to. Why shouldn't I feel safe? All statistical and historical data shows that terrorism is no threat to the everyday life of average Americans. If you are a rich American tourist going on vacation to Columbia then yea, maybe being a little more careful makes sense but for the rest of us, there is no threat. Where is the threat? 2.5 million Americans die every year. 90,000 a year from medical errors in hospitals, 40,000 a year in car accidents, 18,000 a year in home accidents. How many people in the US die to terrorism each year? None! Your more likely to die from a lightning strike than from a terrorist attack. You are more likely to die from rabies than from a terrorist attack. Your more likely to trip in the shower hit your head and die, than to die from a terrorist attack! They made one dramatic attack, and you now you live the rest of your life in constant fear. They are going to have to do a hell a lot more than that before I am going to worry. It was a purely emotional attack. There is no threat. Killer bees are more of a threat than terrorists. At least people are actually allergic to bees. The reason you are safe from terrorists is that people are doing such a good job of keeping the terrorists from hurting you. Do you think Al Qaeda doesn't exist? Have you read or heard their ideals and goals? They are all about killing large masses of Americans, entire cities and groups of cities if possible. The only thing standing between them and you is our national security. If you think organizations like Al Qaeda don't exist, please go ahead and tell me so I can know what I need to address. History is full of incidents of mass killings and national take overs. When did the world turn over the new leaf you think has been brought about?

[Black_Eagle]

You said you don't believe in correcting people at gun point. Well, the British government was corrected at gun point. A lot of threats to us have been corrected at gun point since then. Thus, correction at gun point is what gave you the freedom you have right now. The British government was removed at gunpoint. They even came back for another round during the War of 1812.

[ninja9578]

When an abusing and self-proclaimed world-police force invades sovereign soil because they say that what the current powerholders is wrong, it stirs up strong feeling of resentment against that party, whether they were in the right or not. As fast as that government rids the terrorists, there is such hatred of them that the terrorists gain sympathy and support. Ergo, the war on terror, creates terrorists. We are "Big Brother" from 1984. And FYI. The British government could have easily held onto the states if they had wanted to. The only reason that we got our independence is because England was fighting a big war with France and sunk their resources into that. Pick up a history book that was written by someone other than an American.

[Universal Mind]

When an abusing and self-proclaimed world-police force invades sovereign soil because they say that what the current powerholders is wrong, it stirs up strong feeling of resentment against that party, whether they were in the right or not. As fast as that government rids the terrorists, there is such hatred of them that the terrorists gain sympathy and support. Ergo, the war on terror, creates terrorists. Then they have to die too. Meanwhile, their numbers decrease and the heart of the Middle East moves along the road to advanced culture. Then the Islamolooniecuckoos have a harder and harder time convincing desperate bums that they can screw virgins by blowing up birthday parties. And again, the citizens of Iraq were owned. Only the dictator was sovereign. And FYI. The British government could have easily held onto the states if they had wanted to. The only reason that we got our independence is because England was fighting a big war with France and sunk their resources into that. Pick up a history book that was written by someone other than an American. The only reason we got our independence? The Americans did fight a war and kill lots and lots and lots of Brits, who surrendered. Without our guns, the British government would have held onto their American colony possessions.

[Xaqaria]

No, I don't, and I wouldn't want to use missiles on an Iranian cafeteria any way. What would it accomplish? Fear? Putting the image of a ruthless foe in your enemy's mind? Demoralization? We use these tactics quite often, although no one thinks to apply the term terrorism when we do it. Why did Israel recently use missiles on palestinian schools and UN buildings? It looks like we agree on something. The poverty and the backwardness that comes with it are what allow fundamentalist Islamic teachings to persuade people into becoming terrorists. That is a huge part of the reason we are trying to get democracy and capitalism to pull the heart of the Middle East out of the dark ages. Even without resources, capitalism will allow them to have business prosperity with resources they can buy and sell. Capitalism works. It worked for Germany and Japan. We redesigned their governments, and now they are the 2nd and 3rd wealthiest countries in the world. There is great hope for Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that good news? I don't think we agree. You seem to see poverty as the root cause of religion and religion as the root cause of violence. I see poverty as the root cause of violence. Without their religion telling them that their death will be righteous in god's eyes and that they will go to heaven they may not strap a bomb to their chest to kill 30 people but they will still use a gun to kill 10, and then make their escape. All religion does in this situation is remove the consequences of their own death; it doesn't create the violent act in the first place. The violence is created by the desperation of their living conditions.

[Universal Mind]

Fear? Putting the image of a ruthless foe in your enemy's mind? Demoralization? We use these tactics quite often, although no one thinks to apply the term terrorism when we do it. Why did Israel recently use missiles on palestinian schools and UN buildings? Missiles can be used very effectively in acts of intelligent military strategy, but if I just went and blew up a cafeteria in Iran, it would be an ineffective act of stupidity and evil. I don't think we agree. You seem to see poverty as the root cause of religion and religion as the root cause of violence. I see poverty as the root cause of violence. Without their religion telling them that their death will be righteous in god's eyes and that they will go to heaven they may not strap a bomb to their chest to kill 30 people but they will still use a gun to kill 10, and then make their escape. All religion does in this situation is remove the consequences of their own death; it doesn't create the violent act in the first place. The violence is created by the desperation of their living conditions. It is the combination of the two that is causing what we are dealing with. Without backward ass thinking that comes with extreme poverty, terrorism is not a problem. Without religion, terrorism is not a problem.

[Alric]

I was talking about, seeing a problem with someone else then forcing them to change at gun point. Like forcing other governments to change. I wasn't really talking about self defense. Like I said, they don't have a dictator in their country. So they should be able to decide what kind of government they want. They don't need us there anymore. Ok lets use your cockroaches analogy. We went into Iraq and messed it up, making it a thriving breeding ground for cockroaches. They increased in numbers because they had ideal situations for it. Now you are saying there are less terrorists in the world because of it, but I don't think so. We just turned on the lights and they went scurrying else where. Increases the amount of terrorists, then killing them all. Does nothing to stop terrorism on a global level. That is just horrible logic. All you get are a lot of dead people, who probably wouldn't have become terrorists in the first place if you didn't create them. As for your rapist example, you are just picking the worst possible example and using propaganda to make it sound scary. Remove the entire section about the rapist being in my state, or the threat of the rapist coming to my state, and then you will have a more accurate analogy of what happened. So no, I still don't think the California police should be sending police to New York to deal with their problem. As for your point that is faulty logic. There was no terrorists attack before 9/11, and there was no terrorist attacks after 9/11. Since that is a constant, you can't use that as proof that terrorism has decreased because of the 'protections' the government added. I believe we would be just as safe had they did nothing(except they stuff that already did before then). Thats just fear mongering and propaganda. As I said I believe Al Qaeda exist, I just don't believe they are a threat. They can want to kill all the people they want, that doesn't mean they are capable of it. So what stands between me and the terrorists? About 6000 miles, an ocean. Tens or possibly hundreds of thousand dollars for them to set up a single person in the US. Billions of dollars if they want to kill people in 'mass'. Local police, the FBI. Concerned citizens. The fact that you said poverty causes terrorism and if they moved to the US they would no longer live in poverty, and so their will to blow them self up drastically decreases. The CIA. Companies which put in their own security measures to protect their own assists. So when you say, the only defense we have against terrorist is going over and attacking them in places Iraq, that really isn't even remotely true.