Can terrorism be stopped 100%

[Philosophy Explorer]

My answer is no. Look at the track record (including the rise of ISIS and Al-Queda in the first place).

This article echoes my sentiments (although the part about taxes I don't see how it reduces anti-terroristic activity). A good question is has Obama been too soft on terrorism?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-1 ... -terrorism

PhilX

[wtf]

Let me pose a philosophically motivated counter question.

Should terrorism be stopped at any cost? Why? Why should we even care at all? Let me explain.

Paris death toll, 120 or so. The numbers fluctuate.

Ok. 33,000 people die in US automobile accidents, mostly alcohol-related. That's more or less 100 per day. So on the day of the Paris terror attacks, 100 Americans died. And the day after, and the day after.

We'd save far more lives by imposing stiff penalties for drunk driving. Caught driving drunk? First offense, pillar of the community, white person with a job and a degree? (Being a little facetious there but not much). NO MATTER. One month in jail, mandatory. No picking up trash on weekends. No suspended sentence. No amount of political contributions and friends in high places make a difference. First offense, a month in the slam. Not "let out to go to work." A month, 24/7 behind bars. Second offense, a year. Automobile deaths would plunge. You'd save a hundred Parises worth of death.

I looked up this number the other day. Worldwide, 153,000 people die every day. Did you hear about the terrible tragedy yesterday? 153,000 people died. Another 153k today, tomorrow, every single day of every single year. 153,000. How do they die? Overwhelmingly, heart disease. You want to go on a trillion dollar war on something? Declare war on heart disease and let the terrorists do whatever the hell they want. Kill 150 a year? Pikers. Heart disease kills 70 or 80 thousand every single day. A rationalist would attack heart disease, not terrorism.

Of those 153k global daily deaths, 23,000 are children who die of malnutrition and disease secondary to poverty. You want to shed some tears, you want to feel horrible inside, you want to get off on your own emotions like so many do these days? Think of these sick starving children. Your first-world income could save thousands of lives. You want to get emotional and demand that your government "do something?" Do something about the 23,000 children lying there dying as we speak. 23,000 every single day of the year.

So, if we are rational beings ... if we come down from Mars with full knowledge of the affairs of earth but none of the social or political illusions ... we focus our heartfelt emotions on heart disease, auto accidents, and starving children. Not a paltry 120 Parisians who would be dead anyway in 80 years of heart disease, cancer, household and automobile accidents.

What is it then that we get all worked up about? There are a billion Muslims who AREN'T terrorists. So religious hate is not the answer. In any even Christians are killing plenty of innocents too these days, bombing hospitals and displacing millions from their homes. It's a shit world. Politicians make it so.

You consider yourself a rational person? You care about dead people? Heart disease, childhood poverty, and auto accidents. There are your crusades.

Not terrorism. Death from terrorism is a drop in the bucket, barely statistical noise. 3000 dead on 9/11? One month's carnage on America's highways. But you can still get drunk, drive a car, and if you get caught and you are an "upstanding citizen" with an otherwise clean record, you'll get a slap on the wrist if that.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let me pose a philosophically motivated counter question.

Should terrorism be stopped at any cost? Why? Why should we even care at all? Let me explain.

Paris death toll, 120 or so. The numbers fluctuate.

Ok. 33,000 people die in US automobile accidents, mostly alcohol-related. That's more or less 100 per day. So on the day of the Paris terror attacks, 100 Americans died. And the day after, and the day after.

We'd save far more lives by imposing stiff penalties for drunk driving. Caught driving drunk? First offense, pillar of the community, white person with a job and a degree? (Being a little facetious there but not much). NO MATTER. One month in jail, mandatory. No picking up trash on weekends. No suspended sentence. No amount of political contributions and friends in high places make a difference. First offense, a month in the slam. Not "let out to go to work." A month, 24/7 behind bars. Second offense, a year. Automobile deaths would plunge. You'd save a hundred Parises worth of death.

I looked up this number the other day. Worldwide, 153,000 people die every day. Did you hear about the terrible tragedy yesterday? 153,000 people died. Another 153k today, tomorrow, every single day of every single year. 150,000. How do they die? Overwhelmingly, heart disease. You want to go on a trillion dollar war on something? Declare war on heart disease and let the terrorists do whatever the hell they want. Kill 150 a year? Pikers. Heart disease kills 70 or 80 thousand every single day. A rationalist would attack heart disease, not terrorism.

Of those 153k global daily deaths, 23,000 are children who die of malnutrition and disease secondary to poverty. You want to shed some tears, you want to feel horrible inside, you want to get off on your own emotions like so many do these days? Think of these sick starving children. Your first-world income could save thousands of lives. You want to get emotional and demand that your government "do something?" Do something about the 23,000 children lying there dying as we speak. 23,000 every single day of the year.

So, if we are rational beings ... if we come down from Mars with full knowledge of the affairs of earth but none of the social or political illusions ... we focus our heartfelt emotions on heart disease, auto accidents, and starving children. Not 150 paltry dead people who would be dead anyway in 80 years of heart disease, cancer, household and automobile accidents.

What is it then that we get all worked up about? There are a billion Muslims who AREN'T terrorists. So religious hate is not the answer. In any even Christians are killing plenty of innocents too these days, bombing hospitals and displacing millions from their homes. It's a shit world. Politicians make it so.

You consider yourself a rational person? You care about dead people? Heart disease, childhood poverty, and heart disease. There are your crusades.

Not terrorism. Death from terrorism is a drop in the bucket, barely statistical noise. 3000 dead on 9/11? One month's carnage on America's highways. But you can still get drunk, drive a car, and if you get caught and you are an "upstanding citizen" with an otherwise clean record, you'll get a slap on the wrist if that.

How do you compare accidents with murder?

PhilX

[wtf]

How do you compare accidents with murder?

You think the loved ones of yesterday's 100 automobile deaths are saying, "Oh we're so glad our dad/mom/kid got killed by a drunk driver who will get a slap on the wrist, instead of some mean old terrorist. Let's celebrate.

You really think that our response to 9/11 was effective? One month's highway carnage and two ugly buildings so we go out and blow three trillion dollars and make more enemies and make the Middle East into a worse mess than it was? Is that honestly your response to what I wrote?

Seriously. That's the best you can do?

[Philosophy Explorer]

How do you compare accidents with murder?

You think the loved ones of yesterday's 100 automobile deaths are saying, "Oh we're so glad our dad/mom/kid got killed by a drunk driver who will get a slap on the wrist, instead of some mean old terrorist. Let's celebrate.

You really think that our response to 9/11 was effective? One month's highway carnage and two ugly buildings so we go out and blow three trillion dollars and make more enemies and make the Middle East into a worse mess than it was? Is that honestly your response to what I wrote?

Seriously. That's the best you can do?

Doesn"t sound rational to me. In the US, it used to be over 50,000 people a year died in automobile accidents (I think the number dropped to 36,000 in the most recent year, with driverless cars, I expect the figure to decline further).

With terrorism, death is deliberate. With accidents it's not. Promoting death from terrorism is morally wrong. How you could even think to compare auto accidents with terrorism is beyond me. Are you saying to eliminate all transportation? While we're at it, why not eliminate all births to prevent more deaths? Your rationale is beyond me.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... obal-index

[henry quirk]

"Can terrorism be stopped 100%(?)"

Not as long as crazy folks wanna rule the roost.

#

100,000 accidental deaths versus 1000 'political' deaths.

The difference: the accidental deaths aren't a promise/threat/attempt to change the world. The accidental deaths are ugly, painful, awful and that's all. Politically-rooted death is all about nudging, pushing, forcing the world in a certain direction.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Success of the War on Terror since 11/09/2001.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

[A_Seagull]

[With terrorism, death is deliberate. With accidents it's not. Promoting death from terrorism is morally wrong. How you could even think to compare auto accidents with terrorism is beyond me.
PhilX

The connection between terrorism and auto crashes (we don't call them 'accidents' anymore) is that they are both potential dangers to myself and my associates.

The difference is that auto crashes kill a lot more people in the prime of their lives than do terrorist acts.

The other difference is that I can take precautions to avoid auto crashes by driving carefully and soberly.

To avoid potential terrorist threats I may have to avoid public and busy places, as these seem to be targeted by terrorists; and this could have a severe impact on my lifestyle.

The other difference is that people are accepting of the dangers of auto accidents, they are just a part of modern life. Whereas acts of terrorism are not. And further, people feel insulted by such acts of wanton and deliberate violence. But the possibilities of retaliation and retribution need to be carefully thought out.

The US response of invading Iraq after 9/11 was an unmitigated disaster But you can't just blame the politicians, for all the media and popular opinion was all for some symbol of retribution.