No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You still haven't said what evidence informs your belief that we have armed ourselves to the teeth, so to speak, against a non existent terrorist threat.

Not non-existant.

Just not necessarily greater than any other foreign threat that every other President faces during his term(s).

I have already stated numerous times that foreign-sourced attacks on domestic soil are extremely rare. What more evidence do you need?

Better yet....what evidence do you have that our country is in greater danger now than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago? What is so special about today over previous threats?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Why? Doesnt having life insurance protect you from death?

tihs is an easy game to play, so keep them coming.

What? Your point was that you don't need a gun at your house because you are statistically unlikely to need one. I pointed out by analogy that there are lots of events that are only remotely likely to happen, but that we nevertheless safe guard against because its catastrophic if they do.

Maybe I'm just at the end of a long week, but I'm having a terrible time following your logic.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

no doubt in a gated community full of other white yuppies. you do't have to say it. we know it.

Ha. You're out of ammo again.

I can always tell when I am done having my way in our online coitus because you get all pouty and personal.

Thanks, mikewaters. I think I will now smoke a cigarette. Please be a dear and light it for me with you gun.

PS I actually do not live in a gated community. those are annoying. My kids lost their super soakers that we left on the porch, so perhaps it is time for me to buy a gun. Either that or we left them at my brother's house. Either way, I should buy a gun just in case.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

no doubt in a gated community full of other white yuppies. you do't have to say it. we know it.

Living in a neighborhood filled with crime is a badge of honor? Mike, have you been listening to some gangster rap lately?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What? Your point was that you don't need a gun at your house because you are statistically unlikely to need one. I pointed out by analogy that there are lots of events that are only remotely likely to happen, but that we nevertheless safe guard against because its catastrophic if they do.

Maybe I'm just at the end of a long week, but I'm having a terrible time following your logic.

there is a high statistical probability that you will die. So life insurance is not a reasonable comparison.

there is not a comparable statistical terrorist threat.

Everyone is going to die. Terrorist threats are rare.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Living in a neighborhood filled with high crime is a badge of honor? Mike, have you been listening to some gangster rap lately?

I'm saying that I don't want someone in a gate community telling me that he wants to take away my gun. Because there is no threat.

Perhaps even you can understand that.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

there is a high statistical probability that you will die. So life insurance is not a reasonable comparison.

there is not a comparable statistical terrorist threat.

Everyone is going to die. Terrorist threats are rare.

So the odds of a future terrorist attack during the remainder of your childrens' lifetimes is less than the odds of them dying during the next 75 years?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Ha. You're out of ammo again.

I can always tell when I am done having my way in our online coitus because you get all pouty and personal.

Thanks, mikewaters. I think I will now smoke a cigarette. Please be a dear and light it for me with you gun.

PS I actually do not live in a gated community. those are annoying. My kids lost their super soakers that we left on the porch, so perhaps it is time for me to buy a gun. Either that or we left them at my brother's house. Either way, I should buy a gun just in case.

Please don't. Someone like you shouldn't own one.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying that I don't want someone in a gate community telling me that he wants to take away my gun. Because there is no threat.

Perhaps even you can understand that.

Even I understand you gots to keep your gun and keep it real homie!

I don't think DDD wants to take away your gun. I am not even convinced that Obama will actually try and take away your gun even if he wants to.

The 2nd amendment is pretty safe my friend despite the scare tactics the Right employs in order to motivate a significant voter base. It is just politics my friend the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere.

Gun control does not move the meter for me, but I know there is a large number of fellow republicans, libertarians and independants that are highly motivated by perceived threats to the 2nd amendment so in every election they get their strings pulled by the politicians.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Not non-existant.

Just not necessarily greater than any other foreign threat that every other President faces during his term(s).

I have already stated numerous times that foreign-sourced attacks on domestic soil are extremely rare. What more evidence do you need?

Better yet....what evidence do you have that our country is in greater danger now than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago? What is so special about today over previous threats?

This is a set of questions that has an answer. I think I could write for an hour on it. But lets just start with the rise of Wahhabism in the middle east and the ascendence of both Al Queda and the Taliban. Read some Wiki articles about each of those topics. Militant Islam has had this country in its sights for well over two decades now for a number of reasons and have attacked our interests all around the world (where it is easier to do) and a few times on our soil where we thought it was hard to do and found out that it wasn't.

The history of the IRA in London or the PLO in Israel amply demonstrate that small scale terrorist activities (bombing cafes, buses, etc) is easy to carry out and very hard to stop. You can view the 90's and early 2000's on a timeline and see that attacks against us were escalating both in number and in scale, culminating in 9/11. The militant Islamists had become both more sophisticated by virtue of the training camps (which multiplied during the Clinton years mostly unbeknowst to us) and which had not existed formerly. Al Queda and others we also now receiving funding from governments in the Middle East, a new development. In otherwords, their capacity was growing and giving them the ability to carry out the attacks they desired to.

Then after 9/11 we invaded two countries in the Middle East. Any Islamic extremist in the world who didn't hate us already certainly did at that point. Fortunately, it would appear, most of them have focused their energy on killing soldiers rather than trying to come over here to carry out further attacks. But had we done nothing, simply based on the history of the last 15-20, there is every reason to expect that we could have anticipated further attack.

I suppose you are taking a position that is impossible to fully refute because we don't know what would have happened had we not done all the things we did. I left my crystal ball at home. But if you are arguing that based on the 10-15 years preceding 9/11, and including 9/11, that we had no real reason to fear further attacks, then you are out on a limb that even the most radical lefties wouldn't join you on. I have simply never heard that seriously articulated in the last 7 years.