In a previous post, I quoted facts that I had taken from the newspaper which I fear were wrong. I stated that less than 5000 people have lost their lives since 9/11. I was wrong. I've come across this post by Bob Geiger which is based on information from National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) with information taken from its Terrorism Knowledge Base. This, I believe, is a government agency and the information it holds would have been accessible to Bush. He chose not to use them. Instead, he used the tactic that all right-wing governments use to maintain their authority, - scare the little people, then tell them, they are the only people who can protect them. What he didn't say, but is now quite obvious, is that he, George W Bush, is probably the best recruiting sergeant the terrorists have ever had, and that Americans should really be scared of him and his policies.
The information Bob Geiger's post, clearly shows that terrorist incidents and subsequent deaths have risen year-on-year since 2001, but didn't Bush say that "we are in this fight to win and we are winning" in this year's State Of The Union speech. As Bob Geiger says, - "So if we're really winning the war on terror, shouldn't all of those numbers be going down?"
I am prepared to apologise for the mistaken impression I gave in my post. My defense is that even with the revised figures, Americans with guns are still far more dangerous than terrorists, - and Bush lied again in a State Of The Union speech.
34 comments:
You're welcome dub. Thanks for the comments, personal opinions are very welcome here, along with healthy disagreement and discussion (except about rugby - my opinion is always right!). Have you got a blog? I couldn't find one.
The damage done w/ guns in this country continues to go unchecked. The NRA is so incredibly strong, that even political appointments can be shot down, if they disagree w/ them.
No one needs an Uzi to kill a deer.
And everything you said about Bush .. and rugby, are correct.
"terrorist incidents and subsequent deaths have risen year-on-year since 2001"
Mark, how many of those have been in the United States?
There have been no Islamofascist terrorist attacks against America since 9/11. (Unless you count one Muslim nut with a gun at an airport.) Why do you suppose that is?
It's because we broke the back of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and then overthrew Saddam and continue to defeat the terrorists in Iraq. It's because of the Patriot Act and programs like the NSA's wiretapping of known terorist affiliates in our country.
Encouraging defeat by refusing to act is not morality, it's foolishness.
Thanks James,
How many deaths from guns owned by Americans since 9/11. How many people would be alive around the world if Bush hadn't followed his diseasterous policies in the Middle-East. I see he now wants even more money. This war in 3 short years has cost the American Taxpayer, - you, - the equivalent of the 13 years in Vietnam, - and the outcome is going to be the same!
Bush, who seems so devoid of any sense of morality, is actually quite happy that innocents around the world are getting slaughtered. You have not broken the backs of anything. Stop deluding yourself. And the Patriot Act is the biggest threat to your freedoms you have ever faced.
What you don't realise is that you are losing theis "war on terror" and Bush is too scared to admit it.
Get out a bit more, meet some real people for a change and you might actually open yourself to the truth of what you ahve lost, and in danger of losing.
How many people would be alive around the world if Bush hadn't followed his diseasterous policies in the Middle-East.
How many people in America would be dead if America didn't have the moral courage to fight this war?
And the Patriot Act is the biggest threat to your freedoms you have ever faced.
Oh, I disagree. It's nowhere near as dangerous as were the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Quartering Act or the Sugar Act.
The Patriot Act basically enables both Democratic and Republican presidents to spy on those they do not like. You may like to live in that type of world, but I'm glad I still live in the free world. Mind you, Blair is trying to move in that direction, but fortunately, we live in a democracy.
I notice you didn't answer the question, how many people have died in America from guns since 9/11? Now that is what I call a moral question! Also, I do not see it as moral that Bush, to protect his interests, is prepared to allow terrorism to grow in the rest of the world, and is happy to see innocent people suffer to keep America safe. I hope you don't either.
Move away from spin, check out the sites I've linked, - these are government sites, check out the figures, - they are all researchable and start asking some serious questions of what your president is up to. My view, from the outside, is that your government has, by deliberate act of policy, divided fundementally, your nation. Wherever there has been a right-wing government in the world, that country was governed by the divide and conquer rule. It happened here under Thatcher, and it is happening in your country as well. I seriously believe that you are closer to dictatorship than I think you realise. All it takes is for good people to become complacent and stop questioning their leaders for that to happen.
Just remember, what Bush is doing now to his own population, a future Democratic president can also do. If Bush gets away with illegal wiretaps, so can a future president, and he or she could be wiretapping you (mind you Bush is probably doing it to you now, - that man has no scruples, and I wouldn't put anything past him). Once Bush has totally ripped apart the constitution, the gloves are off. Remember, far better to wrap yourself in the Constitution burning the flag, than wrap yourself in the flag and burn the Constitution. Remember also, it is this president who believes "the Constitution is just a piece of paper".
For your own sake, if nothing else, open your eyes and see what Bush is doing to your Country. Do some real objective reading. Don't dismiss the evil "liberals" and what they say, - you would not have the freedoms that Bush is attacking without the past courage of liberals. Love your country, and get rid of the lying, idiot who is really nothing more than a front man for others.
"How many people in America would be dead if America didn't have the moral courage to fight this war?"
Hard to say. One thing for certain, a couple of thousand brave young men and women would be alive enjoying a pleasent saturday like you, James. Several thousand more will continue to spend it in pain in hospitals and rehabs or crying for the memory of someone dear to them lost in senseless war....but not you...right? Never the ones who think war is some grand adventure. Never the ones who stay home to cheer the killing but haven't the stomach to follow their mouths into battle for their monkey leader.
I refused to listen to the State of the Union speech by this dictator. As long as he's in office, I'll never listen to it. It's just lie upon lie upon lie. You owe no apology, your words were truly in error; his lies weren't.
Mark: "The Patriot Act basically enables both Democratic and Republican presidents to spy on those they do not like."
Congressional Research Service:
"The Act grants federal officials greater powers to trace and intercept terrorists’ communications both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence purposes. It
reenforces federal anti-money laundering laws and regulations in an effort to deny terrorists the resources necessary for future attacks. It tightens our immigration laws to close our borders to foreign terrorists and to expel those among us. Finally, it creates a few new federal crimes, such as the one outlawing terrorists’ attacks on mass transit; increases the penalties for many others; and institutes several procedural changes, such as a longer statute of limitations for crimes of terrorism.
... The authority to monitor e-mail traffic, to share grand jury information with intelligence and immigration officers, to confiscate property, and to impose new book-keeping requirements on financial institutions, are among the features troubling to some.
The Act itself responds to some of these reservations. Many of the wiretapping and foreign intelligence amendments sunset on December 31, 2005. The Act creates
judicial safeguards for e-mail monitoring and grand jury disclosures; recognizes innocent owner defenses to forfeiture; and entrusts enhanced anti-money laundering powers to those regulatory authorities whose concerns include the well being of our financial institutions."
Mark: How many deaths from guns owned by Americans since 9/11?
Depends where you get your "facts", Mark. You probably like the "43-1" statistic on justifiable homicides that the New England Journal of Medicine cited in 1986. Of course that factoid has been proven to be hysterical nonsense.
Dave Kopel: "Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths."
Berkeley Media Studies' found that between 1990 and 1998 homicides went down 33% but coverage of homicides on network news broadcasts leapt an astounding 473%. Maybe that's why you are afraid that America is still the wild West.
Studies show that 86 million people in America own over 200 million guns in America. (About 60 million handguns.) Yet only 30,000 of these weapons are involved in fatalities. That's only .015 percent of those guns.
Banning guns doesn't stop gun crimes. Washington, D.C. outlawed handguns in 1976. Only outlaws must have them now because by 1991 the murder rate tripled compared to only a 12% percent increase across the rest of the nation in the same time period.
In 2003 a CDC study found no link at all between increased gun control and lower crime rates.
More children under five drown in five-gallon plastic buckets every year than children under ten die from gunshot. Let's outlaw buckets!
How about automobiles, bathtubs, houses (the source of residential fires)? They all kill more children annually than guns do.
Did you know that in states that have enacted conceal carry laws violent crimes have dropped significantly? In Texas the murder rate dropped 60 percent in four years. In Florida it dropped 23 percent in five years, while the U.S. muder rate rose 9 percent.
James @ Right Face!
Not to get into a comment debate with your fan...but I did want to point out to you, Mark, that the murder rate in C&C states is actually higher than in states without such laws.
Same old stuff from that crowd...tell the big lie long enough in hopes that people will just accept it as fact.
Jay: I did want to point out to you, Mark, that the murder rate in C&C states is actually higher than in states without such laws.
Nice spin, Jay, since that was not the point I made at all. The fact is violent crime has dropped in states with conceal carry laws from previous levels.
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
In other words legal gun ownership reduces violent crime rates.
James @ Right Face!
Sorry James, but what world are you living in. The simple fact is that in America, the death rate from guns per capita is higher than in countries that have gun control. Get real! Stop believe in spin and do some proper research on the subject before you start to look stupid. (p.s. start looking at some more recent stats than 13 years ago!). By the way, a quick browse through the web indicates that Dr John Lott is hardly an unbiased voice in this matter.
Dr John Lott is hardly an unbiased voice in this matter.
And neither are you, or Jay, or I. I doubt if very many studies or reports are done by "unbiased voices". So?
I just look at facts, maybe you should as well. You really are starting to sound daft.
Mark said:
"Bush, who seems so devoid of any sense of morality, is actually quite happy that innocents around the world are getting slaughtered. You have not broken the backs of anything. Stop deluding yourself. And the Patriot Act is the biggest threat to your freedoms you have ever faced."
Mark, the ludicrous remark that Bush has no morality aside, just how is the Patriot Act the "biggest threat to my freedoms that I have ever faced?"
I guarantee you that a majority of the gullible people who are frightened by the hollow liberal threat that the Patriot Act is a bogey man after their freedom, actually make overseas calls to al Qaeda operatives. And if they do, they deserve to be arrested.
My wife calls home (over seas call for us) daily and has no problem whatsoever with any possible wire tap (i.e. she's not guilty of anything).
I submit to you that the liberal bally hoo surrounding the Patriot Act is "much ado about nothing" and really is just one more "we hate Bush" obsessive behavior.
Patriot act is the biggest threat to my freedom ever? Yeah right.
al Qaeda terrorist plans for the U.S. (remember 9/11?) however, is a very real and present threat. Thanks to the Patriot Act, we have a chance to catch those bastards before they murder thousands.
Those who hide behind imaginary violations of their civil rights could concievably find the sword of the terrorist at their throat as a reward for their cowardly appeasment.
I got news for you Mark. The Islamo-Facists tend to frown on beer consumption.
Welcome Clay, clearly you are another sap. If you don't mind your government getting bigger and impinging your freedoms, then who am I to care. Your government is doing precisley what the terrorists want it to do, - that is why Bush is a moron. And don't be fooled about the "I've got nothing to fear" nonsense, - yes you have. Mistakes can be made, and the wrong information gets attached to your file, suddenly you are a criminal. Recently, 25,000 people's DNA was added to the central criminal database in this country - what databases are you on?
Your just the sort of person Bush likes, - easily fooled, complacent and childlike in believing everything that comes out of his lieing mouth. Wake up, stop dreaming before you dreams become a nightmare!
Mark,
Ok. this is rich. A moonbat is calling me a sap? Whatever.
About my government getting bigger and bigger, (this coming from a guy whose government has been always bigger and bigger. Ref. phone tax, tv tax, parking outside your front door tax and on and on ad nauseum), I do stand against it. That I why I won't vote democrat ever, or at least while they continue to be the liberal socialist party that they are.
As for for your apparently crazed paranoia that I'm in some secret data base and being watched and perhaps just one step away from being errouneously labled as a criminal and locked away, don't they have medicine for this condition? Perhaps lithium or some psychotropic drug?
As for America falling for what al Qaeda wants, what do you mean? Defending ourselves from more terrorist attacks, killing them and capturing the memembers we don't kill and taking the fight to them, and keeping their leaders in hiding and contantly on the run?
Well if that's what they want, then I guess you're right. We are playing along nicely aren't we.
Mark, you are just the kind of gullible person that will fall right in lockstep with the paranoid, appeasment propaganda of the anti-American, communist/socialist left. But then, look at where you live. Europe. Not exactly a pro-American place in the first place.
Surprise, surprise.
Sorry Clay, Your comment doesn't change my opinion very much, other that to say I now think you are a sad sap.
I don't know where you get your information from about our taxes, but I've never paid a phone tax, tv tax parking tax, so I would query the integrity of those who have told you that, and it, unfortunately, labels you as the gullible sap you are for believing such nonsense.
Do you have any idea what Government databases you are on, and to what that information is being used? I bet you don't. And what if that secret information about you is wrong?
James, above, gave a pretty good description of what the Patriot Act is supposed to be, and I don't know about you, but it scares me. It all hinges on the definition of what a terrorist is and who is defineing it. Possibly someone who disagrees with the government? Of course, to catch the terrorist, they actually have to listen to everyone. If you like the idea of living in Big Brother, then so be it, but I prefer to live free, and here in the cradle of civilisation, I can still feel that way.
My socialist government may not be the moral government I had hoped, and not doing the things I like, but lies seem to be harder to get away with in Europe than in America, simply because the people of all persuasions would stop it, unlike the neo-con cowards in your country.
"...it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about "killing" or "playing chicken" with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us.
More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate George Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations." - Debra Burlingame, attorney and sister of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Sorry James, but I think you are dangerously wrong. From where I sit, the Patriot Act is probably the MOST politisised piece of legislation before Congress. Please don't allow your bigotry to sensible debate and arguement to blind you to the dangers of this act. I can guarentee to you, that something similar would never get passed in the free world.
Terrorists will never defeat a country, - that is not their purpose. The goal is to force weak democratically ellected governments to introduce draconian and unconstitutional legislation "for the good of the population". Passing the Patriot Act is a massive victory for the terrorists. bin Laden will be laughing his head off to know what he has managed to acheive. Unfortunately, at this time of crisis, you have a president like Bush, - I feel sorry for you and all Americans, - you deserve much better.
I suppose we in Britain have a much more sensible approach to all this because of the lessons we have learnt from history. We've had Northern Ireland. The terrorists struck in London, but you never heard the hysterical clamouring for "action" and "protection" you get from the weak in America.
When I hear that you have joined up to fight Bush's war, then I might be prepared to listen further. Those of us who have had the misfortune of being led by Americans in action, know to their cost, what international arrogance can do.
P.S. James, but I'm not sure whether you are aware or not, but Americans ARE dieing in large numbers because of the policies of your president and the cabal that he heads.
Unlike you, I don't get frightened. I don't fear al Qaeda, I just don't subscribe to their policies.
Try and control your fear, James. Fear is the killer, don't submit to it. I'll be thinking of you. Take care.
Sorry, Mark but like "Saint Cindy", Ms. Burlingame has "absolute moral authority". As one who has lost a loved one to Islamic jihadists her word is law when it comes to the war on terrorism, right?
After all that's what you on the left pretend about Sheehan, isn't it?
James @ Right Face!
"When I hear that you have joined up to fight Bush's war, then I might be prepared to listen further."
Wow, I thought that's what I'd been doing during my last 18 years of military service.
James @ Right Face!
What military service? What was your regiment, where were/are you based? Where have you fought? The more I know about you, the more I realise that you are not really what you say you are. You really don't need to pretend with me. Some of us have truely served out Country
As I say, don't get too frightened of the bogyman, he is mainly a Bush fiction which you seem to have been gullible enough to swallow.
P.S. James, Like Cindy's son, Ms Burlingame's son would still be alive but for Bushco's lies. Why doesn't Bush's untruthfulness make you angry, I know it would me.
I am exactly what I claim to be. 18 years and counting in the United States Air Force. Since I'm still on active duty I'm not about to disclose my unit or base over the Internet. At least two other bloggers can vouch for the veracity of my claims, but frankly I don't give a rat's hind end if you think I'm bonafide or not.
By the way, Cindy Sheehan's son would be alive had Saddam Hussein not violated UN sanctions and threatened the entire Middle East for 12 years. Debra Burlingame's brother would be alive had Islamofascist killers not declared war on America.
James @ Right Face!
Mark,
So the best you can do is "see me now as a sad sap". I don't expect a moonbat like you to see any different.
You are gullible and steeped in your appeasment, paranoid delusions.
It's quite clear by your own comments that you merely disagree with the terorrists policies. And you foolhardedly (or maybe it is just false bravado) declare you don't fear the terrorist threat.
Just how much do you disagree with their policies Mark?
Is it a disagreement with some of the finer philosphical distinctions between their philosophy and yours?
It can't be that you disagree with their policies enough to want to stop them from enacting them in any serious way, since you spend your time lamblasting those who are standing up to them on the battlefield (ref Bush).
Of course, you're pathetic, British people don't pay TV taxes etc. I don't know where you get your information from shtict is particularly humorous. Too bad it's a bald face lie.
While I have never lived in England I have met many people who were stationed there and they all reported the same thing regarding the extent of British taxation.
Even one of your country's biggest bands, The Beatles dedicated an entire song to satire the ridiculous extent of taxation in Britain, "Taxman" by George Harrison. So, just who do you think you're kidding in the first place?
How do you expect "My socialist government may not be the moral government I had hoped" to pay for all of it's "free to the citizens care of the government" in the first place?
As for your statement:
"...but lies seem to be harder to get away with in Europe than in America, simply because the people of all persuasions would stop it, unlike the neo-con cowards in your country."
That sounds real clever until one points out that the idea that your socialist government wouldn't get away with lying to it's people is absurd since, a. It already has. It's citizens have already traded some of their liberties, not to mention personal dignity to the nanny government's promise to take care of them. And, b. The ideological position that many of it's citizens hold to with feversih protest is the position of the socialist government in the first place. (i.e. it is highly unlikely you are going to catch your government in a lie when you have already bought its lies to begin with and the position you are arguing is your governments).
Nice try though.
So, when it comes to the adjective "sad" it actually more than applies to you, yourself. A sad, little gullible moonbat,who typical of those who spout the leftist viewpoint will think nothing of resorting to lies to fill in when their position just can't be rationaly defended.
James:
When Mark said:
"Unlike you, I don't get frightened. I don't fear al Qaeda, I just don't subscribe to their policies."
He is either lying about not fearing al Qaeda, or he is so delusional that the threat they pose to his very freedom and life won't occur to him until the sword is at his throat, and then, of course it will be too late for him, since he spent all of his time denouncing those who would stand up to the terrorist threat instead of doing what he could to support it.
When he says to you:
"Try and control your fear, James. Fear is the killer, don't submit to it. I'll be thinking of you. Take care."
I'm sure you can see the humor and irony involved when someone who is obviously this delusional and paranoid about being in important government files attempts to give you advise regarding controlling fear.
Mark has fear alright. But it is horribly misplaced. He is more worried about imaginary government conspiracies against him (as if he was that notorious to begin with) than he is the charging ravenous wolves who are on their way to rip his throat out along with the rest of Western Civilization if they get their way.
Thank God Bush isn't listnening to losers like this moonbat, and is standing up to al Quaeda.
Speaking of standing up to al Quaeda...any news on the capture (dead or alive) of Osama bin Forgotten?
Al Qaeda? Yeah, we just nabbed their #4 man ... in Iraq.
Jay:
Fancy that.
Hi there. Swung by on recommendation from one of your readers. I have to go shovel out my car, so I'm only giving things a cursory read... but I don't really understand how you guys are interthreading arguments.
Some examples:
It's nowhere near as dangerous as were the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Quartering Act or the Sugar Act.
I don't know about y'all, but I wasn't alive in the 1700's. That's like arguing against Avian Flu being a terrible threat (regardless of whether it is), because of Bubonic plague... I'm not getting the logic.
I don't understand how Mark can use the Guns in America issue to express feelings on Terrorism. They are mutually exclusive issues. REGARDLESS of opinion on each.
The COST of a war is a separate issue from the morality of a war.
Comparing an external threat like 9/11 (something I witnessed firsthand in NYC. The second plane flew over my head.), with a perceived internal theat like the Patriot Act does nobody any good.
And stuff like "Bush is actually quite happy that innocents around the world are getting slaughtered" is absolutely useless crap... and I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.
Oh, and the insults: sad sap, moonbat, all that stuff...
I dunno. This whole thing depresses me. Where's the possibility of discussion, here?
I don't know about anybody else here, but I have to concede that Rich has got a point here.
I have to confess that I shouldn't have responded to being called a name with the same tactic. Shame on me.
I don't apologize for stating my veiws, but name calling doesn't really do anybody any good.
Post a Comment