Guns don't kill people, Terrorist do. What?
In 2014, 34,000 gun related deaths happen in the USA and only 15 Citizen deaths by terrorist.
How are Islamic countries a greater threat to America than their own people?Howdy Castle!
Would you please identify your source with a link.
Every year 450 deaths are caused by falling out of beds in the USA and only 15 deaths by terrorists.
How are Islamic countries a greater threat to America than their own beds?
That's how ridiculous you sound right now.These numbers are from the (NCTC)
I saw numbers like this over on the other thread with nobody was saying much except that fox. That fox that guards the FBI henhouse.
Yes it is ridiculous when your furniture or a lighting bolts kills you greater than the terrorist killings on American soil.
Not only that, the USA Military get 10 times the budget that of the education budget to chase these terrorist ghosts around the world and protect people at home. Plus pull you over in your cars checking for terrorist and from the most dangerious plant in the world called Cannabis.Don't be ridiculous. The education budgets of the US are far, far greater than that allocated for chasing terrorists.
We spend lots of time and effort preventing terrorism, almost none on preventing gun ownership. Which should answer why there are more terrorism deaths than murders - there are just a few more gun owners in the US than terrorists that manage to get themselves and their weapons into the country undetected.
Show me the stats where death by terrorism out number death by homicide on the soil of USA.
So we should be dedicating resources against furniture more than against terrorists?
Please just think for two seconds.
How often does an American citizen use a bed? How often does that result in fatal injury?
How often does an American citizen encounter a terrorist? How often does that result in fatal injury?
If you answer the above questions it should tell you which is more dangerous.
Mrpopo, agree or disagree. Personal insults aren't necessary.
I don't see how the above was anything remotely close to a personal insult. He said something ridiculous, and I said "that's ridiculous."
You said, "That's how ridiculous YOU sound." You weren't saying the statement was ridiculous. You were saying he was ridiculous, which is why you used the word "you".
I said he "sounded" like he was ridiculous, not that he himself is ridiculous. If you are willing to get pedantic on such nonsense, at least be consistent.
Please do not major in minor things here.
Please show us the facts to backup this nonsense claim comparing gun deaths and terrorist deaths on American soil?If you'll notice, I wasn't the one who started the pedantry.
I have been repeatedly trying to illustrate to you the concept of fatality rate vs. mortality rate. One is an actual measure of risk taking into account the number of deaths per incident, the other is an aggregate total. Comparing the aggregate totals when they have different incidence rates is comparing apples to oranges.
Let's take dogs for example. Last year 42 people died in the US due to a dog attack. That means dogs are killing 3x as many US citizens as terrorists per year.
From the above information, do you think dogs are more lethal than terrorists?
You don't have enough information to make that conclusion. Dogs bite 4.5-4.7 million people per year in the US. Taking that into account, the fatality rate for a dog bite is a whopping 0.001%. Only 0.001% of dog bites were fatal in 2014.
Now do the same thing with terrorists. How many times do terrorists attack people per year in the US? How many of those attacks are fatal? Then find the fatality rate and compare the two on proper terms.
If terrorist attacks have a fatality rate of less than 0.001%, I'd be surprised. They'd be terrible at their job.
Edit: Should be 0.001%, not 0.00001%.Now American's death by dog is a reasonable rate, when we look at death by dog worldwide is 55,000 a year.
If America licence their guns like they do their dogs and cars, there would be a lot better story to tell.
Now death by bears is only 500
worldwide, yet we killed 40,000 bears for each bear that kill us. That's even
worst rate of death than the war in Iraq
The greatest con on the American public and worldwide is Corporatism creating
debt, running our lives and destorying the planet.
Other huge waste is throw away
products, oversizeme houseing and food. Or locking up or killing millions of people over plants. Greatest waste per $ is chasing terrorist ghosts worldwide, trillion dallor tall dark man.
Even my live has been threaten for
recording this freak show. Lucky for me
many think I'm just a crazy artist.That 55,000 figure is because of rabies, not just any dog bite. I would not consider it honest to include rabies bites in the same category as any dog bite, because rabies has a CFR of basically 100% without treatment. Essentially, if you get rabies and you don't get it treated you're pretty much going to die, which is why most rabies deaths caused by dogs occur almost exclusively in low-income countries that are not able to treat or prevent the disease.
Developed countries, on the other hand, implemented large-scale vaccinations of pets and even potential carriers like raccoons using oral vaccine baits. In the off-chance that you get bit by an infected animal, you can get treatment with human vaccines.
Even if you were to include those deaths caused by rabies, the worldwide CFR for dog bites would be 0.275% assuming at least 20 million bites happen per year worldwide. The chances you'll die from a dog bite are minuscule.
What are the chances you'll die from a terrorist attack in the US? Let's try to figure it out: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html
Let's take the 2014 numbers. 16 deaths (not including any killed perpetrators), 38 total victims of terrorist attack.
16/38 = 42% fatality rate.
If you get attacked by a terrorist, your chances of survival are almost down to a coin toss. This is in line with what a terrorist aims to do: cause terror. The only reason more dog bites result in deaths than terrorist attacks is because there are substantially more dog bites than terrorist attacks.
The rest of what you said somehow didn't address anything of mine.
The Islamic countries are more of a threat to their own peoples than they are to foreign countries, including the United States. 9/11 was a horrific and yet freaky-freak event that did change the course of American society, but that doesn't excuse our meddling in other countries' affairs.
As for gun deaths here in the United States, the USA has the highest murder rate per capita by firearms in the Western world, and that's a known fact. Guns are not only a much, much easier way to permanently maim or kill somebody (which they're designed and built to do.), but they're far too accessible here in the United States. Too many unstable people (i. e. people with a history of substance & alcohol abuse, anger management issues, mental illness, etc.) have access to firearms, which makes an already-nasty situation worse. Moreover, the NRA has affectively bullied lawmakers out of passing stronger, more affective gun laws, and even simple things such as requiring gun manufacturers to install safety locks in their products in order to prevent unauthorized use of a firearm in the event that it's stolen or whatever.
Aaron Russo reveals Rockefella 9/11 Plan for America to chase terrorist ghost worldwide. Russo was killed later on.
It's been the old shell game that has cost most us a debt that excessed our income. People are too busy to do much about as the abuse continue until the America $ crashes and crushes us to a point that forces us to do something about it.What part is nonsense, was it my claim American kill themselves better than terrorist do?
Around 20,000 American commit suicide by firearm. In fact suicide deaths are greater than others killing us.Why do people care so much about headlines
of murder,war,and war. It's about stealingyour tax $ to give themselve s lievence kill and steal fro"Nonsense" was referring to promisem's pedantry.
Promisem doesn't use pedantry. He accurately described someone calling another poster "ridiculous." He also tries to move on, but offenders often keep bringing things up.
Good thing I'm not an offender, or don't think I am. Just defending the world because the world's people are my family. Have not killed anyone or killed people by the millions for profit.
I learn more deeply from what people don't say, then what they say. For over 10 times I asked any hubbers, if anyone even cares in anyway for those dead 1/2 Million children in Iraq. If nobody cares for them, why would anyone online really care if I live or die.
So, you may be right, it's maybe time for me to move on to other more proactive and loving sites."For over 10 times I asked any hubbers, if anyone even cares in anyway for those dead 1/2 Million children in Iraq"
There are a multitude of reasons explaining why people won't address your response, one of which is because you haven't provided a source.mrpopo
I'd say you sound ridiculous but I think you're quite past that at this point.
Good thing I don't require your approval to think , or be a crazy artist, not like I do with the elite.
When the elite own almost everything, your home your job most of the good land etc....I worked with many of these elitist for 3 decades. What sources could I present to you without fear written all over it. The Country is run more by fear than by love. That is why these kinds of leader do not work anymore. It will take 10 years before the public will connect their brain with their back bones to change things. Only then, they will finally get sooo sick and sooo too tired of continually as they are now, rapidly spiral rolling downhill.
Governor of Nevada, Russo was noticed by Rockefeller and introduced to him by a female attorney. Seeing Russo's passion and ability to affect change, Rockefeller set about on a subtle mission to recruit Russo into the elite.
Aaron Russo was told by Nick Rockefeller, allegedly of the Rockefeller family, 11 months before 9/11 that there would be an event that would cause us to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, eventually leading to the bankers controlling the world through implanting chips in our bodies.
During one conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo if he was interested in joining the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) but Russo rejected the invitation, saying he had no interest in "enslaving the people" to which Rockefeller coldly questioned why he cared about the "serfs."The comment "I'd say you sound ridiculous but I think you're quite past that at this point" was directed at promisem. Don't worry, you don't have a monopoly on saying ridiculous things.
Edit: and my god, still no source for your claimGave you the number facts from a few known sources. The Aaron Russo story and I've run across him being in the entertainment business too.
Traveled 49 states and most of the middle east during some war zones times. Worked with many elites and many have told me their life story in a nut shell. Even refused GWBush a war sculpture then they took my green card away. There is good reason why nobody will open up for those 1/2 Million kids. People fear their Government or elites wrath. The public carries 10 times more guns than the US military to show their fear. If I get much more sources than this I might get myself killed, like game over, no second chances.I'm going to copy and paste your post:
Governor of Nevada, Russo was noticed by Rockefeller and introduced to him by a female attorney. Seeing Russo's passion and ability to affect change, Rockefeller set about on a subtle mission to recruit Russo into the elite.
Aaron Russo was told by Nick Rockefeller, allegedly of the Rockefeller family, 11 months before 9/11 that there would be an event that would cause us to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, eventually leading to the bankers controlling the world through implanting chips in our bodies.
During one conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo if he was interested in joining the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) but Russo rejected the invitation, saying he had no interest in "enslaving the people" to which Rockefeller coldly questioned why he cared about the "serfs."
Please highlight for me where you have provided a known source for the 1/2 million dead kids claim.On 60 minutes,Madaleine Albright said it was worth killing 500,000 Iraq children.
Senior.UN Officail admits to 1/2 Million children killed in IraqThank you for finally giving me a source that I could look up.
Do note that this is the first source you've given me about the 1/2 million children claim despite me asking for it 5 times in a row. You wonder why people don't respond when you ask 10 times, this is one of the reasons. Because you aren't giving them a source or context to work with despite being asked and because you have a propensity for ambiguity. For example, you stated George Bush killed those children using means worse than Hiroshima. What means would that be? Why and how did he do this?
Even in your vagueness it's fairly easy to see you're wrong, or are at the very least omitting relevant information for the discussion at hand. The 1/2 million children that you refer to, the ones Madaleine Albright talked about in 60 Minutes, died due to the economic sanctions against Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait (http://nointervention.com/archive/Iraq/ … n_Iraq.pdf), and not due to actual war casualties from the Iraq War as you were implying. Already the context is vastly different, from an actual war scenario to effects of attrition.
Your blame should lie not just with the United States but with the United Nations Security Council, as they were the ones who imposed the sanctions on Iraq (https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/ … 36082.html). George Bush wasn't responsible for either the sanctions that began in 1990 or the deaths that occurred from those sanctions, though he was at least indirectly responsible for lifting them when the U.S. declared war on Iraq in 2003.
I don't know why you're claiming that the fear of U.S. government is the reason why nobody will open up about those 1/2 million children since they were able to discuss it in 60 Minutes and it's quite easy to locate this information. Again, these sanctions were imposed by the U.N., not the U.S. Several U.N. officials even resigned in protest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/642189.stm).
Perhaps even more astutely, your blame should lie with the genocidal dictator who invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War), killing over 180,000 Kurds with poison gas in a previous war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign), later erecting dozens of luxurious palaces in every province of Iraq as symbols of his power (http://desertedplaces.blogspot.com/2013 … laces.html). How many resources do you think this individual diverted from the Iraqi people to himself? Why are you condemning the nebulous "United States" instead of this tyrant?
There were valid reasons for the sanctions and there were valid criticisms. Some, like Walter Russell Mead, have concluded that the sanctions had a worse outcome than war (http://www.cfr.org/iraq/deadlier-than-war/p5684). Here is a snippet from Mead's piece touching on the issue:
Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.
Wrong.
The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.
I'm not going to stake a claim one way or another as this is a complex issue and I am lacking in information, but even with my superficial understanding I can tell you are presenting the situation in a dishonest or poorly informed manner. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion (whatever it is), your premises are terribly flawed.
> says he tries to move on
> replies to an 8 day old comment to revive the topic
I'd say you sound ridiculous but I think you're quite past that at this point.
Castle thought I was calling his statements "nonsense" and I simply pointed it out that I was referring to your comment, not his. Is a singular instance of clarification directed at another user enough to label me as an "offender who keeps bringing things up"?
If you still think "sounds ridiculous" = "is ridiculous", feel free to prove it. Personally I think anyone of any capacity is capable of sounding ridiculous despite not being ridiculous themselves, but maybe you can educate me on the matter.
Rabies is recorded on the result of dog bites. Licencing a dog helps control the events of deaths happening.
The means to an end by death results are very high for firearms and very low for terrorism, there is no skirting around that fact, so we are still on the track of this
thread. These numbers are real, too many politricks and corporatism relates more to fairytales that continue to destroy peoples lives."Rabies is recorded on the result of dog bites"
That doesn't mean the cause of death was the bite. The transmission was the bite, the cause of death would be the virus. That's why I consider it an apples to oranges comparison, but even including that the fatality rate for dog bites is 0.28%.
"The means to an end by death results are very high for firearms and very low for terrorism"
How do you consider a 42% fatality rate "very low" death results for terrorists? You haven't addressed anything.2014 out of 318 million people, only 15 deaths by terrorism on American soil is high.
There is got be 100s of higher death numbers ways to die than by terrorism.
Like Religion it is based on fear,not fact, in order to control the power and people."only 15 deaths by terrorism on American soil."
Out of how many attacks?Let me try going about this differently:
Drink A kills 45 people per year. 300 million people drink it everyday.
Drink B kills 15 people per year. 15 people drink it once a year.
Which is more dangerous?What dose it matter if a dog tries to bit, or terrorist tries to attack or you drink or eat something wrong. Knowing the danger is controling the danger by education and experience. When people die that is the ultimate worst thing that can happen.
Unless you are religious and have sex the
wrong way and go to hell. Mannn..they are are the greatest BS Story tellers ever. The Corporatism tell and do the greatest
BS things wail here on earth. Like create terrorist ghosts who people fear and they squeez your last energy and buck out of you."What dose it matter if a dog tries to bit, or terrorist tries to attack or you drink or eat something wrong."
It matters because dog bites rarely kill when they bite, terrorists almost always kill when they attack. Comparing the two on total deaths is dishonest.
My hypothetical on drink A and B matters because you might be at a party serving both drink A and drink B! If you could only choose one, which would you drink? This could be the difference between life and death!
"Knowing the danger is controling the danger by education and experience."
And we are trying to learn here and gain knowledge! Which is more dangerous, Drink A or Drink B?
"When people die that is the ultimate worst thing that can happen."
Yes, it is. And a measure of fatality is a measure of how often a person will die from a given act. Which is more dangerous, Drink A or Drink B?
The rest again has nothing to do with what I said.If Drink A kills 34'000 People.
Drink B kills only 14 people.
You pay the bartender 2000 times more money for drink B. The bartender allows almost free drinks of drink A. =
It' s time to fire your bartender and give the money towards schools in order for them add things up. They will be healthier and happier.
safer for less cost.http://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-star-tre … nAjmZQHEpa
I'm going to need Drink B after that analogy.Join the sheezps and take your pound of pain. They own you and your little dog too.
You call me a sheep when you refuse to address my simple hypothetical?
Have you ever heard of psychological projection?I'm not refusing to anwer your questions, it's that I don't understand where your going with the final result of death to greater number of Americans.
The psychologicial projection is a good example of Corporatism including them tooling religion, politics and the sheep who follow them. Most of USA points their finger at the Middle East wail chasing ghost terrorist. Meanwail they pointing 3 fingers back at themselves.Because the aggregate total doesn't reflect the actual lethality!
Let's do it another way.
Vaccine A saves 45 people per year. 300 million people get the vaccine everyday.
Vaccine B kills 15 people per year. 15 people get the vaccine once a year.
Which is more effective?Being a health nut, I don't find vaccines effective overall causing more side effects like many legal drugs. At my age doctors want me on drugs for life where food and exercise is the oz. of medicine.. In case of emergency drugs can be the pound of cure.
In case of terrorism they mainly want your pound.Treatment A saves 45 people per year. 300 million people get the treatment everyday.
Treatment B saves 15 people per year. 15 people get the treatment once a year.
Which is more effective?The Governiment may have some treatment that work, yet I think they do more harm than good, like Religion. I trust the people I know, not the people who don't care if I live or die, as they are too busy for the money grab.
Jesus Christ, you don't need to agree with every facet of a hypothetical to entertain one. It's meant to illustrate an applicable concept, not a literal depiction of reality.
If it makes you feel better, the above treatments were created by people you trust that are interested in finding out the best possible treatment for people, and they have no interest in money. The treatments have 0 side effects.
Treatment A saves 45 people per year. 300 million people get the treatment everyday.
Treatment B saves 15 people per year. 15 people get the treatment once a year.
Which is the more effective treatment?Based purely on your question, the anwser would be treatment B for cost and effect. It is meaningless without knowing the product as their are side effect to every product.
Earlier you said, how do we compare apples to oranges. Well if most Americans actualy ate them everyday they would be saving millions of life years collectively."It is meaningless without knowing the product as their are side effect to every product."
That's okay! Because this is a hy-po-thet-i-cal. The point of the exercise is not to find a treatment with 0 side effects, because these treatments don't exist in the first place. It is to figure out whether or not we understand proportionality.
Treatment A, despite saving more people in aggregate total, is incredibly ineffective on a case by case basis. Treatment B, despite saving fewer people in aggregate total, is incredibly effective on a case by case basis.*
You've correctly identified that treatment B is the more effective treatment in our hypothetical scenario and it should be an intuitive conclusion, though you haven't shown why it is the more effective treatment. A simple way to compare the two is to convert them into percentages. Treatment A: 45 successful treatments in a year out of 300 million every day is a very small percentage. Treatment B: 15 successful treatments out of 15 treatments is 100%.
(*Note that treatment B has too small of a sample size to make any objective statements about its effectiveness - but again, that's okay! It's a hypothetical! If it were a real life treatment we'd need to do more testing to truly evaluate its effectiveness, but for the purposes of the hypothetical we are just assuming that it does have a 100% effectiveness rate. At the very least, you'd throw out treatment A as a viable treatment and investigate treatment B as a possible viable treatment.)
Now you have to try and compare deaths by terrorists and deaths by firearms in the US, in the same way we just compared our hypothetical treatments. Up until now you've been concluding (or at the very least implying) that terrorists are less dangerous than guns because guns kill more people in total. This would be the equivalent of concluding that treatment A is more effective than treatment B because it saves more people in total. I hope you can see your inconsistency.About 70% of terrorism attack happen in four countries Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. What country has killed most of these people.
A hint, America has lead to a million people killed in Iraq, is it not one Iraqi citizen equal to one American citizen.
Who of the Two countries is acting more like a terrorist?I don't know, Castle. That's why I didn't start a forum thread claiming one way or another.
You have still not addressed the inconsistency in your original claim.What is so off track, guns kill 34,000 People and terrorist killed 14 in the same year and terrorism since 9/11 related costing trillions.
In wars and terrorism firearms also do most of the killing and point is... Guns don't kill people...What?
What I say to Lawyers is ....
"Keep it simply stupid""What is so off track, guns kill 34,000 People and terrorist killed 14 in the same year"
Treatment B is more effective than treatment A, remember?
"In wars and terrorism firearms also do most of the killing"
Precisely! They should have similar killing rates, whether they are used in homicides, legal enforcement or terrorism.
But you haven't demonstrated killing rates for any of them. You've just plopped two totals. Doing that can lead you to nonsensical conclusions like treatment A being more effective than treatment B, despite treatment A being almost completely useless and treatment B being an essentially perfect treatment.
"and point is... Guns don't kill people...What?"
I don't know whose point that is. I don't even quite understand what follows from that statement. Anyway, I certainly didn't mention anything about that.
All I'm questioning is your methodology in reaching the conclusion that American's citizens are a greater threat than terrorists.
I don't even disagree with your conclusion per se. I mostly disagree with the way you reached it.
"What I say to Lawyers is ....
"Keep it simply stupid""
Yes, I can see why you say that.
The person has only the intent to kill, but the gun does the actual killing ~ Guns do kill people period ~
Just think how many innocent victims of violent crimes throughout history could have been saved if access to firearms was restricted or even prohibited ~
Especially those who enter schools or places of worship with mal-intent ~ Imagine if an individual had to enter with a knife or a stick instead of a gun because of a ban on firearms, sure he may get lucky and kill one or perhaps two individuals before stopped, this is of course unacceptable, but I think that would be a much better scenario than 5, 10, or even 20 individuals that are taken by the projectiles of an automatic rifle or pistol ~To kill someone with a knife would take a much greater skill and a deeper personal hate.
It"s like they think we don't notice a hand guns are designed to kill people.
Good pointsI'll also add that the chances of surviving and/or fully recovering from a knife wound can be and sometimes are somewhat better than surviving and/or fully recovering from a gunshot wound. Guns are much, much easier than knives, partly because one only needs to pick up a gun, aim it and fire it at another person from a distance, whereas one needs to be up close to somebody to knife them.
Agree
Someone was telling me hammers murder more people than guns. What a bloody hamburger mess that would be. If true, I'm sure like cars, they were not designed to murder or kill people. Never seen a human pratice target instruction come with product or places where to pratice killing people, except with guns.
I can't imagine needed to kill someone or run out of ideas to kill. Killing will never stop killing because it's a mental illness. Even in self defense, killing someone a great loss in your soul.
What is an American life wroth compared to a non westernized person. An eye for an eye...no. One to one...no. Ten to one American..no. how about one American to.100 up to 10,000. Not sure what America is number one in the World for yet most of the world know's they are number one in terror and War. The only treatment for this killing mental illness is stop killing them and they will stop killing you in return, Mostly from defending themselves on their own soil.Not one person here has anything say about the Half million innocent children who have been killed by American terrorist. I've mention this at lease ten times and nobody has the consciousness to speak up.
The only true prison or freedom is what lives and works in our minds.This is the first time you've said either "innocent", "children" or "half million" in this thread, let alone "at lease ten times." It would also be nice to see the source you are referring to.
There are valid reasons for criticizing the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think "American terrorists" is one of them. How are you defining terrorist?I have asked hubbers over the course of 5 years on different threads. What about the 1/2 million children who were killed over in Iraq?....Nothing..., except some people told me I was crazy. They were far more shocked and sick over a mother that killed her daughters pet hamter.
I asked that ? over on the thread debate
Is slamic a peaceful Religion.
The War on Iraq and the war on terror is the leading cause of terror in the World today. It makes America and the World a more dangerious place. America are the leading terrorist by creating wars in the middle east, and Muslims. They say it's not a war on muslim, it's just coinhhhgeThey say they are not attacking, muslims. It's just coincident that Iraq are 95% Muslim and with the second largest oil reserve in the World
"What about the 1/2 million children who were killed over in Iraq?....Nothing..., except some people told me I was crazy."
Maybe if you could provide a source, or something? For instance, are you referring to direct casualties in the Iraq War, or the consequences of the sanctions on Iraq following the Gulf War?
"The War on Iraq and the war on terror is the leading cause of terror in the World today"
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I thought the Iraq War ended when the U.S. withdrew its troops in December of 2011.
I'm quite confused how you think a war on terror is also a leading cause of terror. What is your definition of terror?America do not do body counts and Iraq do to the tune of 1/2 million children dead. A world record protest against America attacking Iraq after 9/11 and still today they continue. Not one Iraqi killed an American on American soil yet 4% of Iraq population have been murdered over their oil. If Iraq killed 4% Of Americans(12 milliion) I would personally hunt Muslims down worldwide and be like a mental terreorist ghost upon them.. If the America had not already blown the middle east off the map by then
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0Blah, blah, blah , guns kill , cement mixers kill , busses kill , cribs kill , a few more objects that kill are cars , last I knew was over fifty thousand car deaths a year ! Job's kill , take a look at the "on the job " related death figures in America , weddings kill , hospitals , retirement homes , day cares , ..................Yet only in the most open and regurgiative [ my word] , and open media in the world are we able to blame America for all the evils of the world . I was on vacation last week and only upon returning and opening my HP web page , am I realizing just how Face- book like hub pages is becoming ..........any real issues ?
Knowing the dangers is being able to control the dangers.
If the top ten ways to die or allow corporatism to kill us is food and excercise related, Then it makes sense to spend money on the education of those products. Like from fast foods , fats,
sugar, tobacco and so on.
When the US military budget is ten times
that of the education budget. When the
justice system and US military complex
are number 1 and 2 employers in the
world. You know your justice and freedom are being greatly harmed.
When there is 100s of greater way to die or be kill than by terrorism wail costing us trillions of dollars. You know it's the greatest con job since the lightbulb conspiracy and death to native American.
It,s easy to say sorry for those 1/2 million kids and free your conscious mind. OR live a lie and continue supporting the leading terrorist US military complex.
It,s easy to live with low risk of muslim terreorist killing you or me. Think of it as an adventure where much fewer will die. Then give 90% of the US military budget towards your health and education budget. US then will be closer to par with an honest military defence budget with rest of the world
GW Bush said Iraq 9/11 Attack was the worst attrack ever on America soil since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Funny there were no Iraqis on those 9/11 planes.
Based on total BS that most people know. Bush killed a half million children on Iraqi soil. There is no proof that any iraqis killed any Americans on their soil. The death of those Iraq children was worst
than the death of those children in hiroshima. Americans are the only ones who have used weapons of mass destruction on both places. Mrpopo you want to believe this over facts and experiences.
If so, why not sell Americans on the American dream fairytale and US dollar will never die. I know you have to be a-
sheezp (sheep/sleep) to experience it."Mrpopo you want to believe this over facts and experiences."
Believe what over facts and experiences? And whose facts? Whose experiences? Yours?
I don't doubt that you've had the experiences you claim to have had, just like I don't doubt that a schizophrenic is capable of hearing their furniture talking to them about unicorns. It doesn't mean that either are associated with reality."Mrpopo you want to believe this over facts and experiences."
Believe what over facts and experiences? And whose facts? Whose experiences? Yours?
I don't doubt that you've had the experiences you claim to have had, just like I don't doubt that a schizophrenic is capable of hearing their furniture talking to them about unicorns. It doesn't mean that either is associated with reality.
Mrpopo It’s healthy you’re engaging in questioning, yet you won’t be able po po on me assuming I’m schizophrenic with those lame doubts. Being an artist sometimes I ask myself if I am crazy become many systems around us act schizophrenic. I wonder why do most people allow the elitist to run their lives, control them, fear them, and on a daily bases allow their debt to exceed their income. Most people agree this is happening to most of us. From building history museum displays from a pirate museum in Florida where I was kicked out of town for display Christ her Columbus. Why is he not a pirate like the many elitist today? Columbus started slavery to Europe, the gold rush, Christianity, his party continued to kill a million native people. What has changed from thenI never said you were schizophrenic. I made a comparison that despite my acknowledgement of your subjective experiences being genuine, it doesn't mean your subjective experiences are an accurate reflection of reality.
What I'm trying to say is subjective experiences are one of the lowest forms of evidence for reality. To relate back to your original post, your experiences with police officers may have been violent, authoritative and traumatic, through no fault of your own. You may conclude that police officers are corrupt bullies. My experiences have been amicable, respectable and productive. I may conclude that police officers are honorable people.
Does your subjective experience trump my own? Or better yet, do either of our subjective experiences truly establish any sort of facet of reality?
And you haven't answered my question: "Believe what over facts and experiences?" This is the sort of ambiguity you engage in that I talked about earlier. I've stated that I might even agree with your conclusion (if I could figure out what you are trying to conclude) but the way you are reaching your conclusion is flawed or dishonest.Many people don't belive my real job is building sandcastles and snow playground.I spend most of my waking hours of my life loving this work. Where most people don't like their jobs, so that is most unreal to me.
When homeless out number pubic servants and success is due most to 80% management plus public servant claim homeless are 75% mentally ill.
Which of these two groups is acting more schizophrenic?
US Police emprison or kill a million people a year over a plant species called Cannibis that ruins their lives. Only two police are killed in the process each year. The Febs claim Cannibis has no medical or benefits.
Who is acting more schizophrenic?
Experience is knowing, like you don't know what fish taste like, until you have eaten it. That is good evidence what fish taste like and closet to reality on how it tastes.
I have no criminal record or great fear of these bully police and warlords who dominate the world's employment feild. I'm fearless and in time these people's karma that will run over their own dogma. At one time police officers were honorable, not today. The cops for most part are good guys, it's the system they work under that is dishonable and a great disservice.
Reality is more of a perspective, my simple rules are. Be Honest and don't Harm. Will not break those rules for nobody. As far as reaching a conclusion, flawes are mistakes that can be corrected in time and sins I have no use for those kinds of regrets or quilt.
Any final conclusion? just do the best you can do and avoid the hells on earth.
Mrpopo
Lets hear your sound story or reasoning about Terrorism?.
Millions of dead muslims are waiting, heaven OR hell can wait.No, I would just like some specificity in what is considered by many to be a nebulous term.
Terrorism is not new and even though it has been used since the early times of recorded history, it can be relatively hard to define terrorism. If mexico drug wars was terrorism it would be the third largest group in the world.
Lets hear yours, I hope it's good.Hear my what? I've asked what you would like to know, you haven't answered.
Do you think Americans killing 1/2 million Iraq children was wroth it?
Who is the leading terrorist attacking country in the world?"Do you think Americans killing 1/2 million Iraq children was wroth it?"
Well done for repeating a loaded question. Before asking that question, why don't you first demonstrate that Americans really did kill 1/2 million Iraqi children?
"Who is the leading terrorist attacking country in the world?"
You need to define terrorism before that question can be answered.Yes terrorism has nebulous translations and corporatism globalization has used lingistic lawyers to play and run people's lives to whatever they want. About 10 more years of this abues to go.
Terrorism to me is using terror fear for political reasons or bulling other into
getting whatever you want by any
BS means. By licence to kill, to steal, to threat and worse to fear us into anything. BS is worst than lying, BS is lying and you don't care your lying
The world champion at BS stories is Religion, under the war of profit/prophet. (No pun intent) A great tool for a handful of greedy banksters.Can you give some examples of terrorism and why you think they are terrorism?
Mrpopo
Check youtube on 60 minute about UN Sanction with Albright also CBS
US Military has their Military base in 160 countries they hold their policy on these people at gun point. Corporation own most of the World’s economic they also own the UN . When Obama receive the Noble peace prize, how come? He smash the US military budget record to an all-time high. Us has crippled Iraq through destroying their water, food, and health supply and they can only get some those in exchange for their oil.
The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible, are estimated to have killed another 500,000 Iraqis, mainly children. (Infants and toddlers die easily from diarrhea caused by gastroenteritis, which causes fatal dehydration).So the US polished off about a million Iraqis from 1991 through 2011, large numbers of them children. The US killed or created the conditions for the killing of 4% of the Iraqi population.
UN charter and its war crimes in Iraq, none of its high officials has faced prosecution. Some of them even have the gall to come on television from time to time to urge more killing.Let me get this straight. Your first, main and only example of terrorism is the United Nations' economic sanctions against Iraq... and not the dictator who was the primary reason for imposing said sanctions? You know, the guy who:
- gained power through a violent political purge
- committed genocide against an ethnic group (Kurds) using gas weaponry (hence the reason for the sanctions on chlorine)
- invaded and annexed a U.N. member country, destroying over 700 oil wells after being expelled from said country
- refused to honour the ceasefire he himself signed for 12 years, thereby forcing these economic sanctions
You make absolutely no sense.Note that the autonomous region in the North of Iraq actually had their infant mortality rate decrease from 1994-1999 compared to the south/centre of Iraq. Why do you think that is?
I've been world class in sports and arts. Yet there one natural talent blows me away. I can give prediction of world enents for last 30 years and all of them have come true. The corporatism globle powers who own most of the World's economy are destroying nature,and America most. They will continue for
more then 10 years, before Americans wakeup from their greatest abuse ever. America by far is number in the world for worldwide War and terror. Like in world war 1 and 2 lead again by a handful of banksters. The control Nato, UN and for most part the sheezp of the American
people's lives to an unsustainable levels.I ask you a question about why there was a decrease in infant mortality rates in northern Iraq - as opposed to an increase in central/southern Iraq - and you respond with absolutely nothing of relevance. I can't say I'm surprised.
I’m sure they did find a few 1000s household infant mortally rate surveys in some area had risen. It’s all been a hell of a shell game yet Iraq will be another Hiroshima for America//NATO and now UN (New York) join the gang. Estimates of excess deaths during the sanctions vary widely, use different methodologies and cover different time-frames
Mohamed M. Ali, John Blacker, and Gareth Jones estimate between 400,000 and 500,000 excess under-5 deaths.[40]
UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[46] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[47]
Coming my own experience, also from building a few history museum displays around North America. Half the time the Government is lying to me or the other half they don’t know what they are doing. I can not support Corporatism/Government/UN/NATO destructive thinking anymore when their soul job is to protect people not to shorten their life expectancy Even our children for the first time in modern human history having their lives shorten., Iraq is a clear example of the destruction Oil-for-Food Programme. US created the Frankenstein monster Sadam as they were part of the Iran/Iraq war and their hands of mischief is all over the Middle East Oil, because all groups take a share.Thanks for giving me a bunch of sources! Why don't we take a look at them?
(Skip to the blue text at the bottom if you don't like reading)
-------------------------------------------------------
1) Your first source utilizes the same data from your second source, namely the UNICEF surveys:
Ali, Mohamed M.; Blacker, John; Jones, Gareth (2003). "Annual mortality rates and excess deaths of children under five in Iraq". http://nointervention.com/archive/Iraq/ … n_Iraq.pdf
On page 10 (graphs on page 6), the authors state that the northern mortality rates in the north decreased after 1991:
The mortality rates in the late seventies and the early eighties were consistently much higher in the North than in the South/Centre (Figure 2), but by the end of the eighties the mortality rates converged with those of the South/Centre. Immediately after the Gulf conflict, the mortality rates for the North surged to the levels of the late seventies (Figure 2). After 1991 there was a sharp fall in mortality, but from 1993 to 1998 any further decline was small and not statistically significant.
-------------------------------------------------------
2) Your second source is the ICMMS conducted by UNICEF:
UNICEF -- Results of the 1999 Iraq Child and Maternal Mortality Surveys". Federation of American Scientists. Survey in the 3 autonomous northern governorates: http://fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqncont.pdf
On Chapter 4 page 10, the study states that the mortality rate from 1994-99 decreased in the north:
More specifically the results show a decline in under-five mortality from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period from 1984 to 1989, to 72 deaths per 1000 live births in 1994-99. Similarly infant mortality fell from 64 deaths per 1000 live births to 59 deaths per 1000 live births over the same period. The survey did find that the decline was not continuous, and that infant and under-five mortality increased in the period 1989 to 1994.
Note that the Oil-for-Food Program was only accepted in 1996, despite the concept being introduced as early as 1991. Hint hint.
While we're talking about UNICEF, note that even if we are to accept the 500,000 figure it's not a result exclusively due to the sanctions:
“It’s very important not to just say that everything rests on sanctions,” UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy said in an interview at the time. “It is also the result of wars and the reduction in investment in resources for primary healthcare.”
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Your third source is arguing against your position in the first place:
Spagat, Michael (September 2010). "Truth and death in Iraq under sanctions" http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Tru … 0Death.pdf
I recommend you read this in full, not only so you can avoid using it as a source in your favour when it's very clearly against your position, but also because it's a highly comprehensive article that makes valid analyses regarding the discrepancies between northern Iraq and central/southern Iraq. Here's part of its conclusion:
The credibility of the half-a-million-plus figure seems to have remained largely intact even as evidence has piled up against it.
I urge you to read it if you have any modicum of intellectual honesty.
-------------------------------------------------------
4) Your fourth source is criticizing the 500,000 figure obtained by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, similar to the figures utilized in your source 1 and 2:
Subsequently, in 1995 an FAO study in the poor urban neighborhood of Saddam City in Baghdad calculated a mortality rate among under five-year-olds of 216 per one thousand live births (44). This same neighborhood, included in the postwar IST study in 1991, had an infant mortality rate of 80 per thousand. These infant and under five-year-old mortality estimates are more than twice as high as data from a prior or a subsequent study. The study suffered from serious flaws in methods and interpretation:
- the study sample was small, including only 2108 children;
- several of the study clusters showed mortality rates far higher than all the others;
- there were no international team members on some of the field data collection teams;
- there were no independent verification checks on any of the field teams.
...The 1995 study's conclusions were subsequently withdrawn by the authors (45), but not before national projections from these flawed data were published. Notwithstanding the retraction of the original data, their estimate of more than 500,000 excess child deaths due to the embargo is still often repeated by sanctions critics.
The author also states that "It is probable that improved access to food, medicines, and other humanitarian inputs resulted in a reduction in the level of excess mortality later in the year, especially and earliest in the northern governorates. Lacking quantitative indicators of improvements since March 1998, we are unable to estimate the magnitude of subsequent mortality decline."
Basically, he cannot claim the extent of decline in mortality in northern Iraq because he was lacking data.
-------------------------------------------------------
To sum up/TL;DR:
- all of your sources claim that the northern region of Iraq had declining mortality rates from 1994-1999 (1, 2 and 3) or were likely to have declining mortality rates (4)
- two of your sources are either critical of the sanction-related deaths in general (3) or are critical of the 500,000 figure (3 and 4) obtained by the same organization that obtained the values found in 1 and 2
- you did not read any of these studiesThanks Quill. Been enjoying your posts in the Liberal vs. Conservative Worldview thread.
What is well done? The people burning from bombs and guns?
Plus the longing extremely high toxic radiation levels.
In my haste I forgot to include the link for the 4th source. It's here on Garfield's website: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html
I'm also just going to address some minor points in your comment:
"Coming my own experience, also from building a few history museum displays around North America. Half the time the Government is lying to me or the other half they don’t know what they are doing."
If your democratic government is lying to you, what are the chances a government under a dictatorial rule that emerged after a political purge is being honest with you?
"I can not support Corporatism/Government/UN/NATO destructive thinking anymore when their soul job is to protect people not to shorten their life expectancy Even our children for the first time in modern human history having their lives shorten"
Please provide evidence for:
- "children" having their life expectancy shortened (what, do they live to 10 or something?)
- the UN being responsible for this shortened life expectancy, and not, I don't know, technological limitations or changes in living habits
"Iraq is a clear example of the destruction Oil-for-Food Programme."
Can you explain to me how you think a concerted humanitarian aid effort resulted in destruction for the Iraqi people?This Iraq war was been going on for 21 years now. Why would more UN members hand in their resignation letter more over this Iraq sanction than any other issue or reasons?
"This Iraq war was been going on for 21 years now."
So the war started in 1994, 4 years after the sanctions were in place?
"Why would more UN members hand in their resignation letter more over this Iraq sanction than any other issue or reasons?"
Could you give me a citation on this?
we never should have gone to iraq. bush lied us into that war with the motive of halliburton profits. he is a war criminal.
Most of us know it was wrong to go to Iraq, yet no American has come forth to say sorry for those 1/2 million Iraq kids dead, That is why they will continue to kill for Jesus and for Oil. Plus since America is predominately white, it a fears the world being Predominately of color. Boy that will change when all the skins gets mixed and changes to predominantly Brown. That will make those corporatism white boys driven to be Mad as Hell.
Unfortunately, it appears to be another act of barbaric terrorism perpetrated by an individual who had easy access to an automatic weapon(s) ~ 4 of our marines gunned down without cause ~
GUNS actually do the killing ~ How many would have died if this individual had ZERO legal access to a firearm? Answer? Probably NONE ~
Wake-UP ~ The Constitution does NOT grant an individual the RIGHT to own a gun, it's nowhere to be found in this document ~Your right, when was the second amendments added?
When the Constitution was ratified in 1791. They sometimes add the argument that the constitutionally guaranteed right was never meant to apply to individuals.
The modern debate over gun control erupted after a series of high-profile assassinations in the 1960s and gained new urgency after gun-related violence rose in the 1980s and 1990s. After the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado there were renewed calls for Congress to pass stronger gun control lawsGlad you agree Castlepaloma ~
The Constitution affords an individual the right to access a firearm ONLY if he/she is affiliated with a Militia ~ No gray areas, the language is Crystal Clear for anyone who reads it ~
Furthermore, it must be a "Well Organized Militia"
How a Supreme Court concluded otherwise is a complete mystery ~
Desert Storm, defending Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion started in 1990. I know this because I was in it.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
As a matter of political fact , If the entire U.N handed in resignations , it would be the best thing for America in two hundred years , I for one am tired of supporting the rest of the worlds political lack of gonads ! Why is it that when a hotspot arises anywhere in the rest of the world America has to be the first to raise funds , stop tyrannical violence , provide hospital ships , or provide a defending force ? While the rest sit uselessly awaiting the outcome.
NATO bombs UN bread. Bread&Bombs, that is one way to bait them and kill them out in the open. To Troops that would be funny.
About 61% of Americans said they should of stayed out of Iraq. Most of World say America should stay out of Iraq along with the greatest protest worldwide over the invastion. Troops are growing again and sanction in Iraq today. Wiki estimate of 650,000 to million and a half Iraq people have been killed.
Not one person has come forth to say sorry for those 100s of thousands of Iraqi children killed over there. So I will be brave and free to say sorry to those Iraqi families who have lost much of their
heart and soul love ones. Their children and much of their families.
I also feel sorry for America who can't stop terrorizing their own citizens and the
rest of the world. Who can not connect
their backbone with their brain due to the fear of corporatism tooled with religion's based on fear and BS.Still no explanation for why the mortality rate decreased in northern Iraq, huh?
I became a strong green environmentalist because I discovered for the first time in modern history our children are living shorter life expectancy and shorten than my generation. our natural environment is the greatest threat to mankind. The fastest way to die is bad junk food. One UN study reported nine years into sanctions that half the Iraqi population was overweight compared to controlled northern Iraqi provinces and the portions of the country ruled by Saddam Hussein. Obesity kills more people than starvation worldwide. Keep in mind the greedy rich don’t give a dam about nature and most of us. Mainly they want to run people’s lives worldwide and many of them believe in crowd control. They have a license to kill and steal and there will be no end until the people disallow it. USA has been the only countries that have used weapons of mass destruction on Japan and Iraq. Plus how many wars has the US WON certainly not Vietnam or Iraq. Bush and Co. started this whole freaking mess back in the 90s and GW said except to use the Iraq oil to pay for the war. So far an American terrorist Gamble plus s a totally loose /loose for both side had turn out very bad. Even for bullies and pirates that’s bad.
"I became a strong green environmentalist because I discovered for the first time in modern history our children are living shorter life expectancy and shorten than my generation"
I'm all for the environment, better life expectancy and higher standards of living. But I'm also for substantiating evidence. Can you give me a source on the lower life expectancy of this generation?
"One UN study reported nine years into sanctions that half the Iraqi population was overweight compared to controlled northern Iraqi provinces and the portions of the country ruled by Saddam Hussein. Obesity kills more people than starvation worldwide. "
Are you telling me the higher infant mortality rate in southern/central Iraq compared to northern Iraq was due to obesity rates?
Can you please provide a source for this claim?
Also, how did these sanctions create conditions for obesity in children, in less than a decade?Good evening, Castle. I have been following your thread with interest, but I found your retort to me unnecessarily defensive.
I think you know exactly what my comment meant and why it was posted. The “well done” was directed to mrpopo, who did a fine job pointing out that the sources you provided either do not support some of your statements or they contradict a number of your claims. His rebuttal seems to be accurate. Further, his remarks have been ignored and I have seen no effort by you to refute his evidence even when reminded.
To the contrary, your posts continue to make claims and accusations you do not qualify or justify. While I sincerely respect your humanitarian ideals, the din and the sheer volume of unsupported accusations only undermine your credibility. There is no reason to believe any of your claims when you seem unable or unwilling to explain their origins. This latest gem is a humdinger!
I would truly appreciate any verifiable source that corroborates your conjecture: "for the first time in modern history our children are living shorter life expectancy." Pardon my sarcasm, Castle, but where, exactly, do you buy your baloney?
Do you mean for the first time in modern U.S. history?
The most recent decline of life expectancy at birth in the USA occurred in 2008. An observation by Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal was reported in Bloomberg Business on December 9, 2010. “Declines are uncommon, occurring about once a decade, said Harper. The last decrease in life expectancy was in 1993, he said.” [Bold font added for educational purposes] {1}
I should add that there is a subtle irony in this decline if this turns out to be the source of your empathy for the lifespan of infants born in 2008. The life expectancy fell 36.5 days from 2007 to 77.8 years due primarily to the increase of deaths among adults age 85 and older. "Infant mortality declined, as did deaths among all age groups under 85," Bloomberg noted.
Or, do you mean for the first time in modern global history?
Declining life expectancy was seen in both Africa and the Soviet Union during the last 25 years. Unfortunately, you can’t blame those events on America’s foreign policy or on capitalism.
“Since 1990, life expectancy at birth has increased globally by 6 years, but during the 1990s the value in Europe has showed a stagnation, and in Africa it has even decreased. For Europe, the phenomenon is due mainly to adverse mortality trends in the former Soviet Union countries. The decrease in Africa has been caused by HIV/AIDS, but the increasing availability of antiretroviral therapy has reduced the spread of the epidemic, and the mortality due to HIV/AIDS has been decreasing since about 2005, allowing life expectancy at birth to increase again: average life expectancy at birth in Africa, was 50 years in 2000, whereas it was 58 years in 2013." {2}
So, according to you, “for the first time in modern history our children are living shorter life expectancy and shorten [sic]than my generation." You did say “in modern history,” right? My research suggests your post is another example of blatant misinformation. I am looking forward to seeing your sources that say differently.
{1} http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ … eport-says
{2} http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden … s_text/en/Well done, relates to Iraq's radiaration levels being worst than Hiroshima.
My claims and supports come from experience, travel of 94 countries, nature of my work (loved for 40 Years.) Not from Corporatism/Government stats that are corrupted to the core.
These ideas must be worked in my eco
village in Canada and in Belize permacuture workshop and lifestyle.
What creditbility , by whom, your approval. Or by Bush who kick me out of US for refusing him a war sculpture. l have no credit because can' t harm people or live a lie?
What credit are you talking about?
WOW!!! MAN O Man, that felt like I got over a million and a half souls of my chest and balls.
In my personally life , whenever I have negative thoughts that keep coming up about someone. I RING them up and say, I forgive you, the jerk on the line may say
...'.I don't care.' It's not so much about him, it's about getting rid of negative thoughts about him.
Now you out there, try it. Say " Sorry Iraq people for your loss"
Now Christiains say, I forgive you Muslims, oh, oh asking too much.- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
As to the title ! O.P. , I see six states are going to post armed guards at military bases after terror attacks in Chattanooga Tenn......DUH ! .....about time ! Lets see --- Military base with no armed guards ! What moron decided that one !
My origins comes from being a bio-organism first, me and the world, all of nature is the soul purpose. Killed no one.
What is America's soul purpose in Iraq? Is it not the soul purpose of a government is to protect the people, not to kill a million or two in Iraq and it's own people. The leading weapon for suicide is firearms. Suicide kills more people than war,, terror and murder combined. The news or Government do not cover those stats well, Why not?
Related Discussions
- 48
Euro-American Terrorist's Pose The Greatest Threat Here In America. Do U Agree?
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 6 years ago
Euro-American Terrorist's Pose The Greatest Threat Here In America. Do U Agree?This man just killed one person and injured three others at a bar in Olathe Kansas. On the upside, Adam Purinton will only have to make one phone call from jail when he talks to his wife, his sister, and his...
- 81
Why can't we call a "terrorist" a "terrorist" ?
by ManlyPoetryMan 13 years ago
I don't get...the P.C. Climate that is so afraid to call an "Ace"; an "Ace" or a "Spade"; a "Spade".Austin kamikaze pilot (yesterday) = TerroristChristmas underwear bomber = TerroristFt. Hood Army Base Shooter = TerroristTimothy McVeigh- OKC Federal Building...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 11 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 27
Did Muhammad EVER teach its Followers to KILL people?
by CutterM 11 years ago
What's up with all the trolls on HP today? Sheesh.
- 24
Are you a “potential terrorist”?
by ptosis 7 years ago
Are you a “potential terrorist”?Conservative, libertarian, Christian or gun owner? Opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations? Believe in conspiracy theories or living in the “end times”, visit alternative news websites? Answer yes to any of above...
- 21
Is the removal of our ambassadors in the Middle East a sign of a ...
by Deforest 10 years ago
forthcoming terrorist strike from our government in the name of Al-Qaida in any of our cities? The fact that the threat comes from the Saudi peninsula and that the Saudi house is our friend, what is the probability for a terrorist act to happen with their complicity on our soil? Remember Sept11, it...