DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Sleedyhex** · 05-06-2010, 04:52 AM

So what you're saying is that people shouldn't think rationally, because thinking rationally is not rewarded because people don't think rationally. No (really strange comment)[rolleyes], I'm saying the argument that "there is very little chance of me being killed by terrorism" is shortsighted and misleading because there are so many geo-political consequences of a successful attack. Likewise, there is the distinct possibility of more devastating attacks like dirty bombs or biological/chemical devices.

And I'd like a listing of the "numerous who have succeeded" in the US please. that's really cheap, too. because I didn't specify just the US. I was referring to any number of successful terrorist acts worldwide in the last 10 years. ie: the London Bombings, Russian Subway bombings, Indonesia, ect..ect.. all of which were carried out by like minded jihadists, and this Times Square bomber is out of the same cloth. If you want to deal with just the US, I could cite 9/11 (which was fairly significant), Fort Hood massacre, DC sniper, and several close calls like Seattle millenium bombings, WTC 93, shoe bomber, and crotch bomber (both of which would have had far-reaching consequences had they pulled it off)

The main point was, it's not exactly a tough nut to crack. This guy from Pakistan was a jihadist who wished to kill hundreds in Times Square, but his detonator didn't work. It's not exactly difficult detective work; in contrast, your interpretation is politicised and motivated by opposition to big brother, so you downplay it and speculate it could be a conspiracy and now you're saying (with no real factual basis) the guy probably didn't wan't to go through with it

and his family was held hostage and ect... WTF?

And no, I don't want to "wait until someone sets off a dirty bomb and causes an Orwellian nightmare". Listen to you, it almost sounds like you're looking forward to it! How dare you accuse me of that. What a pitiful ad hominem.[rolleyes] Actually, like you, I'm not a big fan of cameras everywhere or intrusions on liberites. I just don't let my opposition to them cloud my judgement. Like I said, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize this clown was just another in a long line of like-minded jihadists, and absolutely he wished to kill people in Times Square.

05-06-2010, 04:52 AM	#68
Sleedyhex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	So what you're saying is that people shouldn't think rationally, because thinking rationally is not rewarded because people don't think rationally. No (really strange comment)[rolleyes], I'm saying the argument that "there is very little chance of me being killed by terrorism" is shortsighted and misleading because there are so many geo-political consequences of a successful attack. Likewise, there is the distinct possibility of more devastating attacks like dirty bombs or biological/chemical devices. And I'd like a listing of the "numerous who have succeeded" in the US please. that's really cheap, too. because I didn't specify just the US. I was referring to any number of successful terrorist acts worldwide in the last 10 years. ie: the London Bombings, Russian Subway bombings, Indonesia, ect..ect.. all of which were carried out by like minded jihadists, and this Times Square bomber is out of the same cloth. If you want to deal with just the US, I could cite 9/11 (which was fairly significant), Fort Hood massacre, DC sniper, and several close calls like Seattle millenium bombings, WTC 93, shoe bomber, and crotch bomber (both of which would have had far-reaching consequences had they pulled it off) The main point was, it's not exactly a tough nut to crack. This guy from Pakistan was a jihadist who wished to kill hundreds in Times Square, but his detonator didn't work. It's not exactly difficult detective work; in contrast, your interpretation is politicised and motivated by opposition to big brother, so you downplay it and speculate it could be a conspiracy and now you're saying (with no real factual basis) the guy probably didn't wan't to go through with it and his family was held hostage and ect... WTF? And no, I don't want to "wait until someone sets off a dirty bomb and causes an Orwellian nightmare". Listen to you, it almost sounds like you're looking forward to it! How dare you accuse me of that. What a pitiful ad hominem.[rolleyes] Actually, like you, I'm not a big fan of cameras everywhere or intrusions on liberites. I just don't let my opposition to them cloud my judgement. Like I said, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize this clown was just another in a long line of like-minded jihadists, and absolutely he wished to kill people in Times Square.
	Quote