Is the London attack........

[drk]

If murder is the measure of society's health (as you suggested in an earlier post), we had an excellent run from 1980 to 2000; during those two decades - presumably the period during which this moral death-spiral has occurred - the murder rate fell by almost half.

Maybe people were too busy having sex to bother with killing each other.

I'll have to check out that link. That's actually very good news, to me. Maybe I should lighten up.

Very funny, BTW.

[drk]

As open as ours? Yes. Of course, contrary to the president's reasoning, terrorism can indeed function more easily in a free society than it can in a police state. But it's not our openness that inspires the suicide murders. Wanna be safer? Let's stop killing people we don't absolutely have to.

In any case, I'm not sure I would worry about the masses from Pakistan, India, and China storming your castle. It's just as likely you'll be working for them.

Have to disagree with your root cause of terrorism.

I do hope that your assessment of a peaceful co-existence with the eastern masses comes true.

[Spexvet]

The disparity is too great between the developed countries and the developing countries. I'm fearful that Pakistan, India, China, other developing major population centers will find ways to take us down unconventionally. I don't think we will ultimately have what it takes to pull through, because we are not unified.

Then maybe we should reduce the disparity. How do you think we're viewed when our corporate executive are paid millions of dollars a year, and folks in developing countries are drinking filthy water out of roadside puddles. Might make you want to bomb someone, you think?

[drk]

Then maybe we should reduce the disparity. How do you think we're viewed when our corporate executive are paid millions of dollars a year, and folks in developing countries are drinking filthy water out of roadside puddles. Might make you want to bomb someone, you think?

Feeling guilty? Ok. Let's you and me pay an extra 10% in taxes this year to donate to our poor country of choice. I get dibs on Tajikistan. :)

Oh, we don't make enough? Let's make Bill Gates and the Donald pay for it.:hammer:

Are poor people violent and angry? I think they'd trade places with that exec in a minute and never look back. I can't imagine that they are feeling that our rich are somehow making their life more miserable.

Think about WHY countries are poor.:cheers:

[Spexvet]

Are poor people violent and angry?

Ask the Russian and French peasants just before thier revolutions.

I think they'd trade places with that exec in a minute and never look back.

Or they'd strap a bomb to themselves and go for broke (so to speak).

Think about WHY countries are poor.:cheers:

Because they've been exploited by corporate America, instead of being treated as partners?

[drk]

Because they've been exploited by corporate America, instead of being treated as partners?

Poverty in Africa due to exploitation of what? We've been taking away their fossil fuels? We've sold them too many overpriced cars?

C'mon Spex! You can do better than that!

[drk]

drk, here's another article you may find interesting and horrifying:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508

If this infers that increased abortions have somehow killed off an undesireable segment of the population before they have had a chance to commit crime, I do find it horrifying.

Maybe the mechanism is something else?

Think of the irony, though, of that presumably liberal position paper on abortion's social value: It serves as a pre-emptive death penalty! No strikes and you're out!

I've used every muscle in my brain sparring with you, Shanbaum, and I need a good night's sleep to unfaze myself.

[Spexvet]

That's one of the most honest statements that can be made in a discussion such as this.

Specifically, what is it that you fear you'll lose?

I know just what you're feeling, because I've been there, but if you analyze it, you will probably come to the conclusion that it's more of an emotional fear than a rational one. You are probably 95% in agreement with Christian morals and standards.

Some examples, off the top of my head:
Do not kill
Do not steal
Honor your parents
Turn the other cheek
Don't cheat on your spouse
Don't lust after money (greed)
Help your neighbors


Which Christian beliefs are you opposed to?

I haven't ignored this, I just needed to give it lots of thought.

I was raised as a Christian, so the values are not that alien to mine. But it's not just about me. Consider me like the white man in 1970 South Africa, who is against apartheid. I would see the situation and think "Black South Africans should be able to own land" as I now think "homosexual Americans should be able to marry someone of the same sex", "Black South Africans should be able to travel freely throughout their country", as I now think "American women should have the right to choose", "Black South Africans should not have to feel intimidated as they walk into a courthouse because it is filled with white people" as I now think "Non-Christian Americans should not have to feel intimidated as they walk into a courthouse because the ten commandments are displayed on the wall", or "virtually all of South Africa's wealth and power should not be controlled by the white majority", as now I think "virtually all of America's wealth and power should not be controlled by the white majority".

I also have issues with the integrity of those who espouse Judeo-Christian values. If they were to behave consistently with those values, I might be more likely to side with them. But the likes of Jim "adulterer with an air conditioned dog house" Bakker, Jimmy "got porn? - I have sinned aginst you" Swaggert, and Rush "Kerry lacks morals, hand me another illegal pain pill" Limbaugh have disgusted me to the point that my initial reaction to anything they and their ilk present is: BS!

[Spexvet]

If this infers that increased abortions have somehow killed off an undesireable segment of the population before they have had a chance to commit crime, I do find it horrifying.

Maybe the mechanism is something else?

I've seen an interview with the mathemetician who developed this theory. There seems to be a pretty solid corolation (sp?).

Think of the irony, though, of that presumably liberal position paper on abortion's social value: It serves as a pre-emptive death penalty! No strikes and you're out!

Think of the irony, though, of that presumably conservative position paper on abortion's social value: Wanna be tough on crime? Perform more abortions!

[chm2023]

This AM's aborted bomb attempt (alleged) in London raises an interesting question: are these attacks in London a coordinated effort, or are the incidents since 7/7 unrelated in the sense they are spontaneous acts from other groups? I think it's the latter and something tells me that's the worse scenario. We are going to London in October, should be interesting to say the least.

[chm2023]

I've seen an interview with the mathemetician who developed this theory. There seems to be a pretty solid corolation (sp?).


Think of the irony, though, of that presumably conservative position paper on abortion's social value: Wanna be tough on crime? Perform more abortions!

Or as liberals say, conservatives care about life up until birth. (Or something like that, think the actual expression is somewhat pithier!:D )

[drk]

I haven't ignored this, I just needed to give it lots of thought...!

Good post.

Let me see, you are for the oppressed, the little guy, you have a strong sense of fairness, you intensely dislike hypocrisy...

Sound like anyone you've read about in the Bible?

You are totally correct in your feelings! You are mad only at the lying, greedy, hypocrites, and you have actually NO PROBLEM with God or Jesus! Are you aware of that?

I challenge you to read Matthew and see what you think about what Jesus said and did now that you are an adult. You'll see what you posted, written 2000 years ago.

[Spexvet]

You are mad only at the lying, greedy, hypocrites, and you have actually NO PROBLEM with God or Jesus! Are you aware of that?

I don't think I've ever said that I have a problem with Jesus, have I?

[drk]

Ok, I've got it now.

[RT]

For a good discussion on the link between abortion and crime, read Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Levitt is the economist who showed the strong correlation between abortion and crime, along with other associated social issues.

But don't be too quick to decide whether it was a "conservative position paper" or a "liberal position paper". It was neither--it was a nerd doing his job crunching numbers. As far as conclusions go, Levitt says:

...the trade-off between higher abortions and lower crime is, by an economist's reckoning, terribly inefficient.

What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in position to raise the baby as well. If she decides she can't, she often chooses the abortion. Freakonomics, P. 144.

It's an interesting chapter.

[drk]

What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in position to raise the baby as well. If she decides she can't, she often chooses the abortion. Freakonomics, P.

That's hard logic to follow.
Choice -> wise economic/life and death decision -> healthier society?


We are all so fooled into imagining some poor, unwed mother who, through little fault of her own got pregant, and, realizing that she already has three little mouths to feed with only a cleaning-lady's income, decides responsibly to sacrifice the one for the many.

Who are really getting the abortions, demographically?
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm

[drk]

The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists.

They don't just hate the US. They hate the west, all who have contact with the west, all people in Iraq that are trying to live peacefully and pull themselves into the 21st century, anyone who they deem to be "collaborators"...

Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.

[Spexvet]

Ok, I've got it now.

What do you mean?

[shanbaum]

The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists.

What theories, and how are holes poked in them?

Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.

Who said they have an "excuse"?

Do you actually object to the idea that one should try to understand what motivates one's adversaries? You don't think that such an understanding might be helpful in defeating them? Do you really think that what we have to do is just, kill, kill, kill, without thinking too much about it? Do you think that there is no possibility at all that that just might - not "will", but "just might" - turn out to be counterproductive? What evidence do you have that killing as a policy is particularly effective? Do you really think that we're better off for having killed God-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis?

Certainly, there's a sense of the word "senseless" that can be applied to what the Islamist fanatics do, but are you saying they have no motivation - that they are automatons, like the Terminator - they just have to kill, and that's the beginning, middle, and end of it? Or what?

Who is advocating "mollycoddling"?

Are you thinking, or just responding emotionally?

[rinselberg]

U.S. Army general poses with Afghan workers at a DoD-funded road construction project in eastern Afghanistan.
photograph -- Daniel Cooney / AP

DoD (Department of Defense) is moving to increase the speed and scope of DoD-funded civil affairs projects in Afghanistan. These are also known as "reconstruction" projects, and involve new construction and repair work to rebuild and expand Afghanistan's civilian infrastructure, including roadways, schools, medical clinics, government offices and police stations. New and refurbished housing for the Afghanistan army is also part of the package. In a bid to undercut the recruitment of terrorists by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, DoD wants to hire more underemployed and unemployed Afghans for the reconstruction effort. According to the latest report on MSNBC, "The U.S. commander in Afghanistan ... believes that putting more local Afghans to work helps take away some of the enemies’ ability to recruit ... We are hiring as many Afghans as we can."

DoD wants to keep the reconstruction efforts moving forward without interruption, even during the less favorable fall and winter weather ahead.

The DoD-funded reconstruction effort is separate from and comes on top of the $570 million worth of reconstruction aid channeled through USAID during the current fiscal year. (USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development.)

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8691488/

I posted this as a response to some of the previous posts in this thread about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the U.S. is (or should be) using its national resources to pursue the GWOT (Global War On Terror).

[Spexvet]

U.S. Army general poses with Afghan workers at a DoD-funded road construction project in eastern Afghanistan.
photograph -- Daniel Cooney / AP

DoD (Department of Defense) is moving to increase the speed and scope of DoD-funded civil affairs projects in Afghanistan. These are also known as "reconstruction" projects, and involve new construction and repair work to rebuild and expand Afghanistan's civilian infrastructure, including roadways, schools, medical clinics, government offices and police stations. New and refurbished housing for the Afghanistan army is also part of the package. In a bid to undercut the recruitment of terrorists by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, DoD wants to hire more underemployed and unemployed Afghans for the reconstruction effort. According to the latest report on MSNBC, "The U.S. commander in Afghanistan ... believes that putting more local Afghans to work helps take away some of the enemies’ ability to recruit ... We are hiring as many Afghans as we can."

DoD wants to keep the reconstruction efforts moving forward without interruption, even during the less favorable fall and winter weather ahead.

The DoD-funded reconstruction effort is separate from and comes on top of the $570 million worth of reconstruction aid channeled through USAID during the current fiscal year. (USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development.)

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8691488/

I posted this as a response to some of the previous posts in this thread about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the U.S. is (or should be) using its national resources to pursue the GWOT (Global War On Terror).

Still may not be working:

A military helicopter crashed Tuesday while bringing reinforcements to the team, killing all 16 service members aboard. The U.S. military believes the chopper was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=100697

[Spexvet]

The blast in Egypt and the Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism in Iraq really seems to poke holes through the theories of what motivates the terrorists.

They don't just hate the US. They hate the west, all who have contact with the west, all people in Iraq that are trying to live peacefully and pull themselves into the 21st century, anyone who they deem to be "collaborators"...

Terrorists have absolutely no excuse. They are senseless, insdiscriminant murderers. Let's stop allowing them our guilt-laden super-sensitive understanding and mollycoddling. Let's call it what it is: mass murder, not political action.

Do you recommend continuing with the same strategy that we've used so far? After all, it's resulting in great success....

Or maybe continuing the same strategy will result in a different outcome. We can only hope...

[rinselberg]

A military helicopter crashed Tuesday while bringing reinforcements to the team, killing all 16 service members aboard. The U.S. military believes the chopper was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade.

Part of the reason that this helicopter downing was so newsworthy is because it was unexpected: U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been taking very few casualties. And even in Iraq, helicopter downings like this have become an increasingly rare occurrence.

DoD is ramping up the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan (as I reported in my previous post in this thread) in order to improve the security situation before a new insurgent offensive that is expected at the start of 2Q 2006, when the annual cycle of warmer weather reopens the mountain passes after winter 2005-2006.

[drk]

What theories, and how are holes poked in them?
Who said they have an "excuse"?
Do you actually object to the idea that one should try to understand what motivates one's adversaries? You don't think that such an understanding might be helpful in defeating them? Do you really think that what we have to do is just, kill, kill, kill, without thinking too much about it? Do you think that there is no possibility at all that that just might - not "will", but "just might" - turn out to be counterproductive? What evidence do you have that killing as a policy is particularly effective? Do you really think that we're better off for having killed God-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis?
Certainly, there's a sense of the word "senseless" that can be applied to what the Islamist fanatics do, but are you saying they have no motivation - that they are automatons, like the Terminator - they just have to kill, and that's the beginning, middle, and end of it? Or what?
Who is advocating "mollycoddling"?
Are you thinking, or just responding emotionally?

I certainly was not specifically referring to anyone on this board. There is a liberal segment who believes that the US is reponsible for the terrorism, not the terrorists. It's obvious that the terrorists are willing to kill Muslims to meet their objectives, showing that they are not just "oppressed" by the West. They have a quasi-military objective, and they will kill any and all who get in their way.

Understanding the enemy is fine, in the "intelligence" sense. No sense in understanding their motivations, otherwise, any more than there is need to understand what makes a child-killer tick: pure evil needs no investigation.

As to how to deal with it, I know what DOESN'T work. Peace treaties, aquiescense, etc. will not stop an evil group, because they want evil, and that cannot be agreed to.

Now, what other options are there? Destroy or imprision them. That's all there is to do.

I understand those who don't want the US to use military force except when absolutely necessary. I do not understand those who don't want to use it, ever. It seems to me that searching and destroying terrorist networks is good use of the military. How many of us are willing to do nothing, or accede to their demands?

[drk]

Do you recommend continuing with the same strategy that we've used so far? After all, it's resulting in great success....

Or maybe continuing the same strategy will result in a different outcome. We can only hope...

Spex, can you briefly outline a better strategy, in general?