backtop

Internet Binary Heroes: The End is Near
Rob Mach (Blog) - January 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 18 at 5:08 PM
'


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 4
It is not the end, but every end has a beginning. This could very well be another devise the federal government uses to enhance its power.

How many people have died from terrorism? How many people die from health ailments? How much of our federal budget is spent on 'terrorism' and drugs vs that of health care? How many of our liberties have been lost to health care?

Hmm...




RE: Disagree
By Frallan on 1/15/2008 9:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed...


RE: Disagree
By qwertyz on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By ImSpartacus on 1/15/2008 7:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
...smartass


RE: Disagree
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 10:04:23 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, and in addition to what you mention approximately 44,000 people die in traffic accidents each year in the US, and many more are injured. Maybe the government needs to wage a "war" on traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By Micronite on 1/15/2008 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 4
I guess the difference is that the innocents targeted by terrorists are entirely innocent.
Though many people who die in traffic accidents each year are innocent, there are more who die because they were doing something stupid/risky.

Although, I do think you made an ironic comparison. A national ID card isn't too different than a driver's license. One is issued by a State Government and is already used for more than just stating your ability to drive. The other would be issued by the Federal Government and would eventually be used for everything except stating your ability to drive.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
A death is a death. You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By therealnickdanger on 1/15/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that was his point and you know it. Terrorists don't accidentally kill people. They specifically target easy targets that will strike FUD into the hearts of an established society. With terrorism, there are very clear methods of prevention that we already have established: military strikes.

As long as humans are allowed to drive vehicles for themselves, mistakes will be made and deaths will result. The time and cost involved with building an automated, reliable infastructure is overwhelming at this point - not to mention the public opposition.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?

Well, I find it hard to compare 1 life to 100 lives. Not really a fair, or logical at that, comparison at all.

But if you want to dig deep into this, I would say that someone killed in a terrorist attack would get my backing over someone who died by driving drunk. And by that, I do not mean an innocent person who was killed by a drunk driver.


RE: Disagree
By FITCamaro on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 5
Are you sure the government could stop terrorism? Short of breeding people into docile walking zombies?

That's Hollywood's job dude.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 10:47:04 AM , Rating: 1
I must've missed the multiple 9-11 scale attacks in the US since 2001!

It's done a good job at preventing one here, and it's not for lack of them trying, probably much more often than we're aware of. How it stops it overseas, though.. I dont know. "Delenda est Carthago!" I know what the Roman's would do, but that's not a politically correct option 2000 years later. :)

Worth pointing out though that the police-state United Kingdom has in fact been the one getting its ass kicked. I find that strange.. I'd think the invasive systems they'd have in place would help them be more effective than we are, but apparently its not that easy.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:02:10 AM , Rating: 3
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence?

I think the reason we don't get bombed into oblivion daily is because the countries that share a border with us need us more than we need them. Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.

And its not like there wasn't terrorist attacks, they've just picked softer targets.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
Are you another 15yr old wanna be? Are you serious or just parroting neo-cons?
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM. Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!
Get your house in order. Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!
You are thinking " cart before the horse"


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
As with most countries, the US has had it's ups and downs in foreign policy. However, no, we didn't create the worlds terrorists, lunatics, and religous zealots; their own culture did that. We have, however, provided them a large target, for which "you" should be grateful, at least they aren't pissing in your pond quite so much.

The horse is very much before the cart, although it does try to pass on the downhills occasionally.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 4
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?

Osama Bin Laden was party of roughly 40,000 muslim's who teamed up with Afghanistan during the late 70's pushback against the Soviet Union. He wasn't a known figure at the time, and him, along with all the others, were given less training than todays Iraqi & Pakistani armys are. Dont make it sound like the CIA created a monster, all they did was help the middle eastern countries defy the Soviet Unions pressure that was migrating to the middle east.
quote:
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?

The United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran and was refered to as "Operation Staunch".

Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

Of those arms that were provided, none were WMD/Chemical/Biological weapons (like the gas used on the Kurds). Those were purchased from other countries. In fact, the basis of providing any weaponry to Iraq was due to the thought that Saddam's regime would be the lesser of two evils when compared to Iran.

I am going to assume this is not the false information that is being portrayed to you by the liberal left thinkers, but the facts are the facts.


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/18/2008 5:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
What I said, if you would care to read it, was the US did not "create" any of the nutcases you named.

For the rest, See mdog's response, I don't need to retype it.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM.

No they didn't, so stop being an idiot. American CIA trained 40,000+ middle easterners when they were revolting against the Soviet Union in the late 70's. Osama just happened to be one fo the 40,000+, and at the time, was not a threat or a known terrorist. What he evolved into 30+ years later was of his own doing, not the United States. Saddam already had a ruthless regime - but it was considered the lesser of two evils between Saddam and Iran - so the US chose. They needed to choose in order to try to get the least threatening side to win to bring stability (even if temporary) to the region. I dont think there was any right choice - especially when Saddam was ruthless to his own people, and Iran still plays a major threat to the region. I call it a lose-lose situation.
quote:
Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!

Perhaps you should reflect on your own statements. Reading the first and last sentence of a paragraph does not mean you read the entire article andrinoaa.
quote:
Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!

False. More far left propaganda. I've elaborated so many times its becoming a waist of time.
quote:
You are thinking " cart before the horse"

Ahh, but "THINKING" is actually the point.