What ever the number of deaths due to the war on drugs it still as
been more than the deaths due to Islamic terrorist, probally the war
on drugs is more every year than the total deaths so far from Islamic
terrorist. I suspect even the war on guns in the US has caused more
deaths in the US since the year 2000 that the total deaths in the US
due to Islamic Terrorist. Probally the war on guns results in more
deaths every 4 or 5 years than the total terrorist deaths in the
US.
The Us governments also has a direct or indirect link to deaths in
the US through other actions, legislation and
regulations.
So yes I think it is safe to say the US governments causes
more death and destruction to Americans than Islamic Terrorist have
so
far.
But it still pays to keep on guard against Islamic terrorist the
price of liberty is enternal vegelinace weither that vegeliance
protects you against Islamic terrorist or the US government both are
very important and you can't trust either. Yeah sure you can trust
many people in the US government while you can't trust any of the
Islamic terrorist but very few of those people you can trust in the
US government are in Congress and we have not had anyone in the
office of president that you could trust a little bit since Grover
Cleveland and even he violated the Constitution and the sovereinty of
the states.--- In [email protected], "ma ni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim Starr,
>
> You call my math "simplistic" but you don't explain. What figure
> do you dispute?
>
> You call my time frame "cherry picking" but you get it backwards.
> Your narrowing of the time frame to maximize terrorist incidents
> is TRUE cherry picking.
>
> Your newest attempt to minimize the drug-war threat is the same
> non-point as your last one, which I rebutted with this: "I'm
> afraid that ignores prohibition's main threat: being a
> non-consensual victim of drug-war related crime." You simply
> ignored my rebuttal and reworded your non-sense.
>
> Your first disagreement with my "20,000 national murder average"
> makes no sense. Are you disputing my average or what?
>
> Your second one makes even less sense. "A time period ... under
> Nixon and Reagan ... when drugs remained legal"? What are you
> talking about? Please check for a major typo. And what's with "a
> 33% decline"? Are you disputing my average or what? You claim "a
> good deal of the homicides you cite as part of the total has
> little or nothing to do with the drug war." I don't get it. Are
> you disputing that 50% of homicides are drug related? Even though
> your points are mysteries, you criticize my lack of sources.
> Please indicate which figure you are disputing and refute it with
> some clear logic and I will supply a source.
>
> But your third is the ultimate in pseudo-sophisticated hogwash.
> Good luck using your shameless prohibitionist prejudice to gain
> any credibility here. You obviously reject the MOST FUNDAMENTAL
> historical lessons taught by alcohol prohibition.
>
> Your last three points are just as hazy. If you can't come up
> with a better argument than a vague accusation that I've
> "probably exagerrated the size of the true number involved, by an
> unknowable extent", I need not even perform a direct rebuttal.
>
> The one thing apparent is your futile attempt to argue the
> numbers, but here's how ridiculous that argument is:
> I could concede every single one of your attempts to maximize
> terrorist fatalities and minimize drug-war fatalities, and the
> drug war would STILL be many many many times more fatal/dangerous
> to all Americans. AND FURTHERMORE: Even if you were to somehow
> refute the laws of mathematics and make the number of terrorism
> fatalities equal to the number of drug-war fatalities, your
> argument would still fail. The fact remains that our own
> government commits terrorism on US via their drug war ON OUR OWN
> SOIL. That fact alone at least indicates atrocious priorities.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> >
> >Tim Starr,
> >
> >It's not hard to see how you make your "points": by
> conspicuously
> >leaving out NUMBERS. So allow me to easily rebut you by
> supplying
> >what you omit: simple math.
>
> Simplistic math, that is.
>
> >If your post changes anything, it increases the number of
> >terrorism fatalities. So let's give your position further
> benefit
> >and maximize the number of terrorist fatalities at 6000 for the
> >past four decades.
>
> Nice cherry-picked timeframe you've got there. That includes
> periods
> when the US both was and was not doing much counter-terrorism,
> and is
> thus not indicative of the threat in the absence of US counter-
> terrorism. The reason I picked the time periods before & after
> 9/11
> is that between 1993 and 9/11 the US wasn't doing much counter-
> terrorism, and afterwards the US has been doing a lot. Thus, the
> two
> time periods are indicative of the relative risks. Most of those
>
> 6,000 deaths to which you refer occurred during the 1993-2001
> timeframe, when the US wasn't doing much counter-terrorism.
>
> >Now let's do an HONEST comparison to fatalities resulting from
> >drug-prohibition. It is curious for you to accuse me of
> >minimizing when you greatly minimize the drug war threat down to
> >the risk of getting arrested for a consensual choice to do
> drugs.
> >I'm afraid that ignores prohibition's main threat: being a
> >non-consensual victim of drug-war related crime.
>
> Most drug-related homicide victims are involved in the drug trade
>
> (drug dealers killing each other). To avoid being such a victim,
>
> pretty much all you have to do is stay out of the illegal drug
> trade.
>
> >There were 16,692 murders in the US in 2005. Since there were
> 23,326
> >in 1994 and 25,000 in 1972, we can safely average it at 20,000
> per
> >year.
>
> 1) Homicides are normally tracked by criminologists as rates per
> 100K
> population, not absolute numbers. Since the US population was
> smaller in 1972 than in 1994, and in 1994 than in 2005, the
> homicide
> rates were even higher back then than can be told from the
> decline in
> the absolute numbers that you present.
>
> 2) The figures you gave (without any source, BTW) indicate a 33%
> decline, in a time period when drugs remained legal, and drug
> law-
> enforcement was fairly strict for much of that time (under Nixon,
> and
> since the Reagan administration). This indicates that a good
> deal of
> the homicides you cite as part of the total has little or nothing
> to
> do with the drug war.
>
> 3) The demographic distribution of homicide rates within the USA
> and
> other countries belies the claim that drug prohibition is the
> primary
> driving factor. The non-hispanic white homicide rate in America
> is
> considerably lower than the rates for blacks & hispanics, about
> the
> same as the homicide rates for Canada & Australia, which have
> similar
> non-hispanic white populations. Within the American non-hispanic
>
> white population, the homicide rate is higher in the South than
> in
> the North. Yet drug prohibition applies to all races in America,
> and
> also exists in Canada & Australia. The black homicide
> victimization
> rate in America is about 6 times that of the non-hispanic
> victimization rate in America. What's the difference? Not
> genetics. It's that blacks & hispanics in America are far more
> likely to be involved in the illegal drug trade. But that's a
> function of the cultural differences between the ethnic groups,
> not
> the laws themselves. People who are willing to kill each other
> over
> drugs will be willing to kill each other over other things if
> drugs
> are legalized. Thus, drug legalization will not lead to that
> great a
> decline in the homicide rate.
>
> >Let's give you another advantage and minimize the percent of
> >those related to prohibition at only 50%. That's 10,000 per
> year.
> >10,000 times 40 years = 400,000. That's 400,000 drug-prohibition
> >FATALITIES. (Your referral to "magnitude" is funny, since we are
> >talking FATALITIES. There ain't no greater "magnitude" than
> DEAD...
>
> I meant quantity of fatalities.
>
> >my friend.) My math tells me that 400,000 is about 66 times more
> >than 6000.
>
> 1) You've probably exagerrated the size of the true number
> involved,
> by an unknowable extent.
>
> 2) However, drug-dealers have already been pretty much doing
> everything they can for quite a while to maximize their
> operations/
> profits, and American homicide rates have been in pretty steady
> decline since the early 1990s.
>
> 3) Terrorists, on the other hand, have not been doing all they
> can to
> inflict harm upon Americans for very long. When they were doing
> so
> pretty much unopposed by the Clinton administration (and before
> Bush
> had a chance to do much about terrorism), they racked up quite a
> number of casualties, and were rapidly improving the lethality of
>
> their capabilities (the US found anthrax labs in Afghanistan that
> Al
> Qaeda was running under the Taliban's protection, among other
> things). If the US were to return to doing virtually nothing to
> stop
> terrorism, then terrorists could acquire WMDs from their state
> sponsors quite rapidly, and attack the US with great success &
> impunity.
>
> Tim Starr
> Fight for Liberty!
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/
>
