Gyroscopic Investing

One thing I learned about this most recent round of attacks is that Denmark has a pretty cool rehab program in place. Sure, if it is discovered that someone committed a crime, they're going to jail. However, Denmark takes disenfranchised Muslims who have been radicalized and tries to help them get jobs! Even if they have been to Syria. And, they don't even try to get them to renounce their fundamentalist beliefs.

This is making me rethink my whole attitude about deportations (even though I wanted to focus primarily and initially on those with criminal records).

There seems to be a parallel with the way Canada deals with heroin addicts. Heal rather than punish. It just might work.

Pointedstick wrote:

fnord123 wrote: It really is interesting how differently some of us see the world.  E.g. I read http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/h ... ism-should and it seems to me the concern some folks have with terrorism seems extremely overblown.

~ The likelihood of my dying in a terrorist attack by some Muslim fundamentalist is dramatically, outrageously lower than my likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver or getting cancer or something~

I've been hearing since the late 70s that I have a better chance of being in a car accident in Boston than being killed by terrorists in Israel (They say it a bit less often now, but it was used as a kind of ad in my Sunday school to encourage us to visit the country).

I have no doubt that the statistic is correct. It's just that car accidents are less interesting than terrorism. Take terrorism out of the equation altogether: we are more likely to die of heart disease or car accidents than from shootings in the workplace or the mall, but shootings are more interesting. Why are there so many movies about the mafia?

We will continue to eat french fries, drink milkshakes and vodka and drive around without our seat belts fastened, without fear.

I am not some rube* taken in by sensationalist tv news. I just find this clash of civilizations far more fascinating than lone gunmen or salmonella. I like learning that Osama bin Laden was both a computer engineering student and an eloquent speaker of Arabic, compared to Saddam Hussein's brusque, uncouth, gangster-like Arabic.

Also, while I know that car accidents will probably diminish in the future and copycat shootings will increase, I honestly have no idea how this ISIS thing is going to play out.

*reading through this, I feel obliged to say that "rube" is not an oblique reference to Reub. It's not.

Pointedstick wrote:

fnord123 wrote: It really is interesting how differently some of us see the world.  E.g. I read http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/h ... ism-should and it seems to me the concern some folks have with terrorism seems extremely overblown.

I agree. While clearly part of a trend, these are still small-scale, individual events. The likelihood of my dying in a terrorist attack by some Muslim fundamentalist is dramatically, outrageously lower than my likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver or getting cancer or something. Additionally, most of these things seem to happen in European countries with poorly-trained police forces and no tradition of widespread gun ownership and carrying.

Frankly, if there are any geopolitical trends worth worrying about because they might seriously affect us badly at some point in the near future, it's probably what's going on Ukraine right now.

The ultimate "oh shit" scenario that could prove this mind-set wrong would be a nuke going off in Manhattan or something.

But, as insensitive as it sounds, even this has limited direct affect on 99% of the population of the country. And most people could easily avoid whatever little exposure they might have to a terrorist attack by moving out of a metropolitan area.

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: And therefore I'm interested in an answer to Mountaineer's question as well:

The obvious answer is "feel angry or upset about it," which is useless, since it's not actionable. That's why the news is bad for you; 99% of it just makes you feel negative emotions about upsetting but non-actionable information.

+1

This is part of the reason I live in a cable-free household.  Well, that and the ~ $100/month price tag.

You couldn't give me cable for free now. What a distraction.

moda0306 wrote: The ultimate "oh shit" scenario that could prove this mind-set wrong would be a nuke going off in Manhattan or something.

From what I have seen on the subject Al Qaeda did not get as close as Aum Shinrikyo to getting nukes, which didn't get very far. Apparently Al Qaeda was scammed a few times though with stuff like "red mercury" (pretend fissile material) which is pretty funny.

fnord123 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The ultimate "oh shit" scenario that could prove this mind-set wrong would be a nuke going off in Manhattan or something.

From what I have seen on the subject Al Qaeda did not get as close as Aum Shinrikyo to getting nukes, which didn't get very far. Apparently Al Qaeda was scammed a few times though with stuff like "red mercury" (pretend fissile material) which is pretty funny.

Or scary, depending on your perspective.  Just one nuclear bomb going off in the West by a RIFF (Radical Islamist Fundamentalist Fascist) will change the world forever.  Do you want to be surprised or do you want to be prepared?

There was a very good article on Flipboard today about ISIS.  I think it is from the Atlantic magazine.  After reading it and getting an understanding of what ISIS wants, I do think they will have to be taken on militarily.  They are not going away until they are defeated.

And I am as anti-war as they come.  So I hope the USA is not the one who has to play world police again.

I Shrugged wrote: There was a very good article on Flipboard today about ISIS.  I think it is from the Atlantic magazine.  After reading it and getting an understanding of what ISIS wants, I do think they will have to be taken on militarily.  They are not going away until they are defeated.

And I am as anti-war as they come.  So I hope the USA is not the one who has to play world police again.

What ISIS Really Wants
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/

Moda wrote: The ultimate "oh shit" scenario that could prove this mind-set wrong would be a nuke going off in Manhattan or something.
But, as insensitive as it sounds, even this has limited direct affect on 99% of the population of the country.

How about the indirect effect that 9/11, a speck of dust compared to a nuke, had on 100% the country, and large parts of the world. You can no longer fly with a swiss army knife or a tube of toothpaste. The immigration process is much more difficult, including those marrying American citizens. The U.S. was forced to have closer ties to Israel, a relationship you complain about, at the very least for the sake of intel. The economy was affected. I could go on.

Tell me if a city in the States were nuked that the rest of the country wouldn't wonder what's next, every single day.

It's not insensitive, but I think it's incorrect.

And most people could easily avoid whatever little exposure they might have to a terrorist attack by moving out of a metropolitan area.

But they can't. Not if they want to eat. And even if they could, would the United States survive without major metropolitan areas?

MachineGhost wrote: Just one nuclear bomb going off in the West by a RIFF (Radical Islamist Fundamentalist Fascist) will change the world forever.  Do you want to be surprised or do you want to be prepared?

I agree.
Although fear mongering is bad, so is the other extreme of complete complacency. The near consensus here seems to be that things will work themselves out. IIRC, Osama bin Laden once made the cover of Time magazine before 9/11. But the bombings he was behind in the 90s didn't get our attention for very long. He basically announced that he was gunning for us, and this largely fell on deaf ears.

Now ISIS has announced that they're gunning for us, and that they want to "conquer Rome". I don't think they're kidding.

dualstow wrote: Although fear mongering is bad, so is the other extreme of complete complacency. The near consensus here seems to be that things will work themselves out. IIRC, Osama bin Laden once made the cover of Time magazine before 9/11. But the bombings he was behind in the 90s didn't get our attention for very long. He basically announced that he was gunning for us, and this largely fell on deaf ears.

He also announced why he was doing all of it: because of our support for Israel, our strikes in Somalia, our installation of friendly dictators in the middle east, our toppling of democratic movements whose electoral outcomes we don't like, our use of force to keep the oil flowing... and of course the fact that we haven't all converted to Islam yet. But a whole lot of it was specific objections to geopolitical actions we've taken that frankly we maybe shouldn't be the proudest of if we're really honest with ourselves.

Interestingly enough, among his objections are our high levels of pollution, the high interest rates we allow lenders to charge the poor, the inherent contradiction between feminism and the widespread exploitation of female sexuality, our wartime use of nuclear weapons, and our hypocrisy in calling for nuclear disarmament only of nations we don't like, and only after we and our friends had our own.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/n ... heobserver

Also, he was only a person we actually even cared about in the first place because we gave him a ton of money and weapons to bloody the Soviets in the 80s, leading him to become a regional figure in the first place. It's not like he was some random dude with an axe to grind. He was a highly intelligent, highly educated member of the royal family that rules one of our key friendly nations in the region who seemed like the perfect guy to serve our interests when it suited us.

If the article is correct, they are not gunning for us as in coming to the US.  They are wanting us to do battle in Syria, Jerusalem, etc. because that's what is predicted in the Quran. 

ISIS announced during their latest beheadings of 21 Christians that they will conquer Rome. Nothing to worry about, right?

You can cancel your cable television,  close all your shades, and keep your head under the covers, but this threat is real, growing, and barbaric. And they are coming our way soon.

Why do I mention these Islamic animals so often? Probably because their actions  are so reviling. And their successes so staggering.

Pointedstick wrote:. It's not like he was some random dude with an axe to grind. He was a highly intelligent, highly educated member of the royal family that rules one of our key friendly nations in the region who seemed like the perfect guy to serve our interests when it suited us.

I don't think he was royalty, but I think his family was close to the House of Saud. I think they were in construction or something.

I Shrugged wrote: If the article is correct, they are not gunning for us as in coming to the US.  They are wanting us to do battle in Syria, Jerusalem, etc. because that's what is predicted in the Quran.

Are you kidding me?

They would chop off your head today if they could. And every member of your family too. Do you doubt it?

But they can only chop off my head or my family's heads if I take them to Syria.

If they are going to attack Rome, why should the US military solve it? Why not Italy's?

By the way, the Saudi government regularly beheads people as well.  Why aren't Inhofe or McCain or any of you pushing to invade them too?  Note that Saudi Arabia directly helped arm some of the nut jobs in Syria.

If you're suggestion to let the locals handle it were followed in WW2 we would all be speaking German now.

No, Russia would still most likely have kicked Hitler's butt.

Are you seriously equating the danger to the world of Isis, which even the biggest estimate has under 200k fighters with (at best) a few tanks and planes but mostly small arms and crap like technicals, to the the Wehrmacht, which numbered in the millions and had arguably the best equipment and army in the world?

The 'locals' have American hardware, why can't they handle it?

Whoops. Link already posted.

Already posted (by Benko) and discussed a few posts ago.

Good thinking!  If we let them take over the world killing Christians and Jews and reasonable Muslims then we deny them a propoganda victory. Brilliant!

I do hate the idea of putting more young troops over there.

So do I. I also hate going to the dentist when my tooth starts to hurt.

Reub wrote: So do I. I also hate going to the dentist when my tooth starts to hurt.

Heh. But we're talking about *other people* here. The question, "Is it worth it?" is a much more serious one here.

Reub wrote:If we let them take over the world killing Christians and Jews and reasonable Muslims then we deny them a propoganda victory. Brilliant!

Your argument rests on the proposition that more Christians and Jews will die if we do not invade than if we were to invade.

Others have already provided strong evidence that the last invasion we did in the area had the opposite effect.  What evidence can you present to support your argument that "this time will be different"?

The only reason ISIS conquered a large part of Iraq is that the Sunnis there prefer them over the Shias. Since ISIS has had real opposition things haven't looked so rosy for them. So don't worry too much yet they'll be invading Rome. Or the USA! They have peaked.

I Shrugged wrote: There was a very good article on Flipboard today about ISIS.  I think it is from the Atlantic magazine.  After reading it and getting an understanding of what ISIS wants, I do think they will have to be taken on militarily.  They are not going away until they are defeated.

And I am as anti-war as they come.  So I hope the USA is not the one who has to play world police again.

Welcome to the fold, brother!