Trump 2016

[noobium]

I wish the Republicans rat****ed Trump so we wouldn't be at this low point as a country.

[octobrev]

Why would anybody waste time or money trying to keep Muslims out? It's not even an issue worth our attention. Here are 3 things more deadly than terrorism in the US:

• Peanut Allergies
• Dogs
• Televisions (specifically the falling of them onto people)

Why is neither party focused on mandating TV sets are placed on the floor if life matters so much to them?

[octobrev]

Misdirection bump!

[pathetic sheep]

Why would anybody waste time or money trying to keep Muslims out? It's not even an issue worth our attention. Here are 3 things more deadly than terrorism in the US:

• Peanut Allergies
• Dogs
• Televisions (specifically the falling of them onto people)

Why is neither party focused on mandating TV sets are placed on the floor if life matters so much to them?

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/13225...anuary2015.pdf

Sixty-five percent (279) of the 430 reported fatalities involved televisions falling (2000-2013)

33 per year furniture. 22 television specific.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...statistics.php

In the 11-year period of 2005 through 2015, canines killed 360 Americans

33 per year

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...stic-terrorism

From 1969 to 2009, 5,586 people lost their lives due to international terrorist attacks on U.S. interests.

140 per year. 65 per year 9/11 excluded.

So dogs + furniture combined are about the same deadliness as terrorists if you exclude 9/11. But why not include 9/11 or to be fair exclude pitbulls?

[octobrev]

But why not include 9/11 or to be fair exclude pitbulls?

Didn't Bush do 9/11? I thought I had seen that on the news.

[pathetic sheep]

Didn't Bush do 9/11? I thought I had seen that on the news.

It is quite certain that George Bush was not flying an airplane. He was at an elementary school the morning of September 11, 2001.

Regardless of who did an act of terrorism it is still an act of terrorism. Finding out that more people were involved in planning an act does not change the number of fatalities.

I have not seen any evidence that Clinton, Bush, or Obama planned any television set tumbles. I also have not seen any reason to believe that they took any action to prevent these tragedies. The intelligence agencies working for all 3 administrations did have easy access to data that indicated more tumbles were going to occur within days or months. Feel free to invent motives for inaction. Why did Bush fail to warn the public? What did the Bush administration stand to gain by crushing a toddler?

[octobrev]

What is terrorism exactly? What attributes are necessary to turn killing x, y, or z people into terror?

Is the US military a terrorist cell with delusions of grandeur? If not, why?

[pathetic sheep]

What is terrorism exactly? What attributes are necessary to turn killing x, y, or z people into terror?

Is the US military a terrorist cell with delusions of grandeur? If not, why?

I thought I read an excellent set of definitions written by a colonel in the 1990s. Then realized no one used it. He said that all wars could be lumped into 6 categories. total strategic, strategic, tactical, civilwar, insurgency/guerrilla, and terrorism. Terrorism is an act of war which does not attempt to defeat an enemy military and does not capture any land.

In common use (especially media) the word terrorist only includes enemies. So, for example, a U.S. history textbook would not call the boston tea party an act of terrorism. A similar action taken today would get you a terrorism sentence in a U.S. court under the patriot act. The Doolittle raid April 18, 1942 is unlikely to ever be called a terrorist strike in U.S. history textbooks. Japanese history might call it terrorism. If Japan had won WWII and the Doolittle raid had not been the first of a long series of air attacks then it would almost certainly get the terrorist label. The firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima are clearly not terrorist attacks. Sometimes people associate "terrifying" or "terrible" with "terrorist". These people are generally not informed about history or international relations. Bombing cities to destroy all industry and/or exterminate an enemy population is "strategic warfare".

The United States military clearly maintains an arsenal which can be used for all categories of warfare. "Strategist" or "tactician" is a more appropriate label for U.S. generals. The military establishment prefers that you worry about terrorism. They cannot establish a monopoly on terrorism. They do not want you to become opposed to war.

You could invert the question. Instead of asking "is the U.S. military a terrorist cell" you could ask "was 9/11 really a strategic attack against the United States". I suggest being very cautious asking the question near real world Americans. It is a legitimate semantics question. There is also a political problem when our tax resources get directed toward hunting animal rights activists. You think you are paying money to prevent loss of life. Some of the "terrorists" getting locked up will not drive a car because of the danger to moths.

The School of the Americas (now called western hemisphere institute for security cooperation) is essentially a terrorist training center. Of course they are U.S. allies so we call them "security professionals".