I just HAD to respond to this when I read it. Quoth Bob...
"It is impossible to defend against Islamist terrorism domestically, since it originates elsewhere." How do you defend against it? Talk about serving up a softball! It's called don't invade their countries and bomb their homes and families. JEEZ! And AMAZINGLY they may hate us just a LITTLE less. sigh. Going to war costs alot more in blood and treasure than simply minding our own business. Quoth Bob... "However, I will note that many or most of the murders associated with drug prohibition are due to violent thugs killing each other for profit." No they are killing each other BECAUSE DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL! YEESH! I was not alive back then but my recollection of history is good enough to recall when Alcohol was prohibited and the same violence surrounded the areas where it was sold too. You ban something then their will be violence as a result of trying to maintain it's prohibited status with attacks on the sellers by Government. --- In [email protected], "Bob Giramma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We already have laws against arson, and those laws are enforced domestically. I don't see much else anyone can do there. > > It is impossible to defend against Islamist terrorism domestically, since it originates elsewhere. It is of necessity something that must be dealt with quite differently, and that costs quite a bit more. > > Libertarian opposition to the drug war is independent of the Middle East situation. However, I will note that many or most of the murders associated with drug prohibition are due to violent thugs killing each other for profit. Not a very libertarian thing for them to do. > > > From: ma ni > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Re: George Carlin: "We Like War" > > > 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. > > 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. (If you think I've minimized it, let's see > your numbers.) That's 150 Americans killed by terrorists per > year. > > 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. 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. > 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, > my friend.) My math tells me that 400,000 is about 66 times more > than 6000. > > To be thorough, let's do a third comparison. Since you have a > problem with natural disasters, we'll forget my comparison to > lightning-strike victims (even though it was only intended for > numerical perspective). Instead, we'll compare arson fatalities; > which there were 700 reported for 1996. So let's again give you > the advantage and reduce the average to 500 arson fatalities per > year in the US. That's 20,000 in 40 years. > > Deaths in 40 years: > Terrorism - 6000 > Arson - 20,000 > Prohibition 400,000 > > If those numbers are not sufficient to make my point about the > backwards priorities of the US government, let me elaborate. The > numbers suggest that arson should be given at least the same > amount of monetary attention as terrorism. Somehow I doubt it is. > Even more evidentiary is the fact that prohibition fatalities > (the greatest number by far) are actually CAUSED by our own > government; prohibition is US Government policy. IOW, our > government not only fails to give any monetary attention to > protecting Americans from drug prohibition, it gives great > monetary attention to committing drug prohibition (and > endangering & killing Americans). > > So much for your contention that prohibition is not a greater > threat to most Americans than the threat posed by Islamo-Fascist > terrorism. By conservative estimates, the threat level of > prohibition is greater than Islamo-Fascist terrorism by almost a > hundred MAGNITUDES. > > --------------------------- > > This simplistic threat-denial never ceases to amaze me, nor the > blithe comparisons of risks presented by intentional human action > to > natural disasters like lightning strikes, etc. > > Risk is a function of frequency and magnitude, as well as > intentions > and capabilities. The frequency of terrorist attacks is one of > the > easiest things for terrorists to control, as terrorists hold > almost > all the initiative when it comes to their attacks. As for > magnitude, > given that the 9/11 attacks were pulled off with no weapons more > formidable than box-cutters, I'd say that the magnitude of > terrorist > attacks is pretty much under their control, too. > > Natural disasters are pretty infrequent, and their frequency does > not > vary easily. Other risks, such as car accidents, that are often > compared to terrorism, are of greater frequency, but still remain > > pretty constant in their frequency, and are of relatively low > magnitude per-incident. > > I take it that your argument is that there's no need for the War > on > Terror because the risk of terrorism is so low. However, one of > the > main reasons why there have been zero terrorist attacks in > America > since 9/11 has been the War on Terror. Let's list the terrorist > attacks in America in the decade prior to then: > > * 1993 - WTC bombing I > * 1995 - OKC bombing > * 1995 - US military base in Saudi Arabia (not US soil, but zero > attacks upon US military bases in Saudi Arabia - or any other > countries besides Iraq & Afghanistan - since 9/11, either) > * 1996 - US military base in Saudi Arabia - again > * 1998 - TWA800 > * 1998 - US embassies in Africa (technically US soil; there > haven't > been any terrorist attacks on US embassies since 9/11, either) > * 2000 - USS Cole (there haven't been any terrorist attacks upon > US > warships since 9/11, either) > > That makes for a grand total of 7 major terrorist attacks upon US > > soil or US targets in the decade prior to 9/11. Compare that to > the > complete absence of any such attacks after 9/11. What does that > say > about the effect of the War on Terror upon the risk of such > terrorism? > > Now, consider the fate of other countries which have been less > aggressive than America in the War on Terror: > > Britain: Subway bombings > Spain: Train bombing > Indonesia: Bali bombing > France: Massive rioting by Muslim youth > Netherlands: Assassination of Theo van Gogh, threats upon Hirsi > Ali > forced her into hiding, loss of MP position by Ali under pressure > > from Islamo-fascist sympathizers > Denmark: Motoons riots, destruction of Danish embassies > > Even here in America, the press was too scared to publish any of > the > Motoons, except for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and Borders' > Books > was too scared to carry that issue on their newsstands. > > And you say that the threat to Americans from the War on Drugs is > > greater than the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat? Let's see, > Islamo- > fascists want to kill us indiscriminately in surprise attacks for > > being infidels. Drug warriors want to arrest and prosecute us if > > we're involved in the drug trade, according to US criminal > procedure. > > Which is easier for most Americans to do, convert to Islam, or > avoid > taking part in the illegal drug trade? Which would most > Americans > rather face, death by suicide bomber, or arrest by US police & > prosecution in U.S. courts on drug charges? > > I'm all for ending the War on Drugs, in large part because it > acts as > a price support program for black marketeers who fund terrorism. > But > it's not a greater threat to most Americans than the threat posed > by > Islamo-Fascist terrorism. > > Tim Starr > Fight for Liberty! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/ > > --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonberg@> > wrote: > > [snip] > > >Do you have any idea of the excruciatingly low threat level > >presented to Americans in America by terrorism? > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
