First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Are people too afraid for their own good?
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

TripleBakaKimidori wrote:

Fear is a good thing.


A healthy fear will keep you safe from those who would harm you, an unhealthy one will make you harm yourself.
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

kamahl01 wrote:


severticas wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:


ChaoticRuins wrote:

Yup, I worry about terrorism everyday.

Think of it this way guys, remember Hitler?

Hitler was all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Did we care about him at the time? Nope. Turns out he started an entire World War and many people died. Just because something isn't directly affiliated with us doesn't mean it will never be affiliated with us.


Sadly, fear of terrorism and bad discussions in that front helped lead to the collapse of the US economy in 2008.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/15/study-iraq-war-cost-190k-lives-22-trillion.html

190k lives and more than 2.2 Trillion spent to make Iraq worse off?Thats what fear induced bad decision making does.


Irrelevant study.


"How so?Iraq didn't serve any purpose and was only possible because the post 9/11 fear driven policies. Their are people who still think Sadam had nukes and was partly responsible for 9/11. Trillions is a lot to spend to gain nothing in return. Furthermore, Iraq is worse off now than it was during Sadam's reign and countless civilians and troops died for no reason,Please further elaborate.


I got this explanation from "https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014203917AAXJjO7" because I'm to lazy to write my own. but to summarize it was not just because of 9/11.

The Iraqi war started in the early 80's, when George H. W. Bush (the father of the actual president Bush) decided that Saddam Hussein (dictator of Iraq) was oppressing and killing the Iraqi people, Hussein used chemical weapons to kill those who didn't follow him, the funny thing is that the Reagan administration gave money to the Iraqi government to buy those weapons. George H. W. Bush won the war and over threw Saddam regime, but letting Saddam alive. So guess who recovered power, Saddam recovered power of Iraq. The questionable attacks of 9/11 were the perfect excuse for the bush administration to "over thrown all global tread of terrorism", CIA intelligence in 2003 had "unquestionable proof" that Saddam Hussein had of weapons of mass destruction, that was the main and unique reason of the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the war in Iraq, since today such WMD were never found because they never existed. here come the question, if there were no weapons of mass destruction, if Iraq was not tied with al-queda, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, what was the war in Iraq for? Vise-president Dick allow secret meetings with oil companies in the white house with maps of Iraq, they wanted to secure the natural resources of Iraq (oil). and establish a permanent base in the middle east. the bush administration want to do exactly the same with Iran, but are unable to do so, because USA had 0 credibility around the world.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/15
GMO free salt, gluten free wine, manspreading.....

And even terrorism. Over a decade since we had the last real terrorist attack, yet you'd think it was yesterday. We're terrified our government is out to get us, yet lambaste them for not the silliest of shit.

yeah.. Americans have their collective heads up their asses...
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

ChaoticRuins wrote:

I got this explanation from "https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014203917AAXJjO7" because I'm to lazy to write my own. but to summarize it was not just because of 9/11.

The Iraqi war started in the early 80's, when George H. W. Bush (the father of the actual president Bush) decided that Saddam Hussein (dictator of Iraq) was oppressing and killing the Iraqi people, Hussein used chemical weapons to kill those who didn't follow him, the funny thing is that the Reagan administration gave money to the Iraqi government to buy those weapons. George H. W. Bush won the war and over threw Saddam regime, but letting Saddam alive. So guess who recovered power, Saddam recovered power of Iraq. The questionable attacks of 9/11 were the perfect excuse for the bush administration to "over thrown all global tread of terrorism", CIA intelligence in 2003 had "unquestionable proof" that Saddam Hussein had of weapons of mass destruction, that was the main and unique reason of the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the war in Iraq, since today such WMD were never found because they never existed. here come the question, if there were no weapons of mass destruction, if Iraq was not tied with al-queda, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, what was the war in Iraq for? Vise-president Dick allow secret meetings with oil companies in the white house with maps of Iraq, they wanted to secure the natural resources of Iraq (oil). and establish a permanent base in the middle east. the bush administration want to do exactly the same with Iran, but are unable to do so, because USA had 0 credibility around the world.


Agree with a lot of what this person is saying. Also, politicians are fine with associating with evil dictators when theirs something in it for them,but play the morally superior card when they are no longer useful. To me that puts them on the same level as Sadam Hussein.Look at the former secretary of defense. Also, it seems like its wiped off the internet and I can't find it, but I remember seeing footage of George HW Bush sitting down having a meal with him(Sadam). Think I saw it on the movie Fahrenheit 9/11



Posted 1/24/15 , edited 1/24/15




And this is for kama what's his name

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 1/24/15 , edited 1/24/15

severticas wrote:





And this is for kama what's his name

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/


Your posts always make me laugh! I'm sorry but I have to friend you severticas
Posted 1/24/15

ChaoticRuins wrote:


severticas wrote:





And this is for kama what's his name

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/


Your posts always make me laugh! I'm sorry but I have to friend you severticas


No thanks.
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

severticas wrote:


ChaoticRuins wrote:


severticas wrote:





And this is for kama what's his name

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/


Your posts always make me laugh! I'm sorry but I have to friend you severticas


No thanks.


Aww, ok whatevs
2048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Cambodia
Offline
Posted 1/24/15
I think really this is far too complex a topic to be making Y/N questions about, definitive historical statements about, or referencing yahoo answers for. The reality is most likely that for some people this is true, for others it's not. We're a pretty diverse crowd, us humans, after all. It's not unjustified for the target of a terrorist attack to be paranoid, whereas someone whose life it is never going to affect may be damaged by their irrational fears. For others still, it is a perverse way to satisfy their immoral desires for things like firearms/nationalism, etc. One thing is for certain, there is no way to get any quantative facts in answer to this question, only opinions (*cough* imo).
53239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Norway.
Offline
Posted 1/24/15
Humans fear what we don't know or understand, and our ignorance is vast.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

siliconlife wrote:

I think really this is far too complex a topic to be making Y/N questions about, definitive historical statements about, or referencing yahoo answers for. The reality is most likely that for some people this is true, for others it's not. We're a pretty diverse crowd, us humans, after all. It's not unjustified for the target of a terrorist attack to be paranoid, whereas someone whose life it is never going to affect may be damaged by their irrational fears. For others still, it is a perverse way to satisfy their immoral desires for things like firearms/nationalism, etc. One thing is for certain, there is no way to get any quantative facts in answer to this question, only opinions (*cough* imo).


I agree that this pretty much comes down to opinions,most of these talks do. In terms of the poster quoting a post he read in Y answers, I see nothing wrong with it. Its simply an opinion that the poster agreed with, nothing more, nothing less.
5619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 1/24/15
Things such as Terrorism, Economy, Crime, etc
Are topics to have a sense of fear or worrisome about. They can have an direct impact on our daily lives.
But fear of stupidity is another thing. A lot of things the media considers, of something to be afraid of. Are just plain dumb...
In shorter terms, Americans have things to be scared of, but the majority of it is about stupid things.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

severticas wrote:





And this is for kama what's his name

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/



So many non replies, if you have an opinion than state it

2048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Cambodia
Offline
Posted 1/24/15

kamahl01 wrote:


siliconlife wrote:

I think really this is far too complex a topic to be making Y/N questions about, definitive historical statements about, or referencing yahoo answers for. The reality is most likely that for some people this is true, for others it's not. We're a pretty diverse crowd, us humans, after all. It's not unjustified for the target of a terrorist attack to be paranoid, whereas someone whose life it is never going to affect may be damaged by their irrational fears. For others still, it is a perverse way to satisfy their immoral desires for things like firearms/nationalism, etc. One thing is for certain, there is no way to get any quantative facts in answer to this question, only opinions (*cough* imo).


I agree that this pretty much comes down to opinions,most of these talks do. In terms of the poster quoting a post he read in Y answers, I see nothing wrong with it. Its simply an opinion that the poster agreed with, nothing more, nothing less.


Correct! Nothing wrong with it at all, probably just my inner university student speaking, who usually gets drawn out in such talks, especially when we start veering away from the philosophical and examining historical evidence.

Here is a link that briefly sums up my views on history and its relationship to "reality", if it helps put things into context: http://www.studentsfriend.com/onhist/nature.html
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:

So many non replies, if you have an opinion than state it



Fear of terrorism did not really factor into the decision to go to war with Iraq. Did they use 9/11 as an excuse? Yes. They used something basic like "it's them or us" to put people in line. Any manipulation that followed the decision made had little to do with the intention to take out Saddam.
Should some people then be put on trial for their bravado? If you instead put everyone in the same boat and look beyond who pulled the strings you can't make this judgement.
Was terrorism really a huge as a threat as it was after the iraq war? Yes. Is the fear now legit? Yes. This is at odds with your initial post.

Now, there was the snoopers charter debate that was going around. Can you follow that story with your "fear induced decision making" process of thoughts in mind? Mr Cameron promised if voted it will receive a platform.

Then look at the delay in the Chilton report, delayed. Did Blair shake hands with the then President of America to make sure Britain was behind anything America chose to embark? Yes. As I see it, Blair and his ambitions to stay afloat did mean he had the favor of America.

Now, Cameron is getting a boast from the current President. How can you link that with his decision to see through the revival of the Snoopers Charter?

The public as far as I know ss not in with any games being played in places of power, they just move along to whatever tune is played because they can easily plant the thought that things are out of control and they need direction.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.