Conference in London to Revive the Caliphate

[Riverwind]

Then we can say the same for Canada, no? Wiping Canada off the map would not have a significant impact on the lives of the majority living "outside"? This is what you are advocating.

Your red herring is in fact correct. The vast majority of the people in the world would not be affected if Canada was wiped off the map. This is why I have no problem with the measures that Isreal uses to protect itself from the real threats that it faces. I only have a problem with fictious threats created to rationalize political positions. Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Your red herring is in fact correct. The vast majority of the people in the world would not be affected if Canada was wiped off the map.

Good..you have taken the bait. Now to get you in the boat.

Once Canada is wiped out, the American economy nosedives because of oil and hydro, not to mention other key exports and lost markets, worldwide mining, etc. See Great Depression. But according to you, most of the world would hardly notice. Doubtful.

[Riverwind]

Once Canada is wiped out, the American economy nosedives because of oil and hydro, not to mention other key exports and lost markets, worldwide mining, etc. See Great Depression. But according to you, most of the world would hardly notice. Doubtful.

Right - you are assuming that the physical landmass simply dissappears. That is an irrational proposition. The oil will still be there so will the resources. The only thing that could possibly disappear is social and economic infrastructure. If Canada did not exist then something else would exist in its place. Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Right - you are assuming that the physical landmass simply dissappears. That is an irrational proposition. The oil will still be there so will the resources. The only thing that could possibly disappear is social and economic infrastructure. If Canada did not exist then something else would exist in its place.

No, without the economic infrastucture those resources would not be available to the Americans in present form. Productivity takes a serious hit (see post WW2 Germany and Japan). A G-8 nation ceases to exist and drags on world markets. But the majority doesn't notice, right ?

Now, do it again with another nation. Sooner or later it makes an impact that even you can't wish away. Cut to the chase....destroy the economy of the United States (the stated goal of Al Qaeda). The "majority" still doesn't notice?

Edited August 7, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

No, without the economic infrastucture those resources would not be available to the Americans in present form. Productivity takes a serious hit (see post WW2 Germany and Japan). A G-8 nation ceases to exist and drags on world markets. But the majority doesn't notice, right ?

A drag on markets does not mean the markets will stop functioning that that other societies will collapse. After WW2 North American boomed even though the productive capacity of Europe was wiped out.

Now, do it again with another nation. Sooner or later it makes an impact that even you can't wish away. Cut to the chase....destroy the economy of the United States (the stated goal of Al Qaeda). The "majority" still doesn't notice?

Should we invest in space rockets because Bin Laden states that he wishes to cause the moon to crash into the earth? Bin Laden can make whatever claims that he want but that does not mean they are realistic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Should we invest in space rockets because Bin Laden states that he wishes to cause the moon to crash into the earth? Bin Laden can make whatever claims that he want but that does not mean they are realistic.

War torn Europe and Japan benefitted from American loans, the same kind of debt that others say will cripple America in the future. Canada suffered for years.

We already invest in "space rockets". Bin Hidin' is inconsequential compared to the impact of terrorism on world markets and economies.

[ScottSA]

The Iraq invasion has made terrorist attacks much more likely - not less and many many experts (including some working for the US government) agree. Yet we still hear people claiming that the world is a 'safer place' without Saddam.

I can't remember the name of the fallacy that entails using one conclusion to back up an entirely different argument, but that's a classic example of it.

The world is a safer place because Saddam is gone. Of course the threat of terrorism has increased. There is absolutely no contradiction here.

[bush_cheney2004]

The world is a safer place because Saddam is gone. Of course the threat of terrorism has increased. There is absolutely no contradiction here.

Agreed....the threat of a specific brand of "terrorism" actually increased long before the invasion of Iraq, and is generally associated with blessed UN multilateral action against Saddam in Gulf War I. Something about "infidels" in holy lands. That would include Canada.

[jefferiah]

This thread about Caliphates is simply one more example of the fantasy world that war mongers live in and how they seem to be obsessed with creating threats that do not exist.

I was not aware that the "fear mongers" called this conference.

[Riverwind]

I was not aware that the "fear mongers" called this conference.

No it the fear mongers how started this thread in a silly attempt to claim that this non-event is a concern.

[ScottSA]

No it the fear mongers how started this thread in a silly attempt to claim that this non-event is a concern.

Your argument style can't really even be graced as "lightweight." More like "Peewee" or "featherweight."

[Riverwind]

Your argument style can't really even be graced as "lightweight." More like "Peewee" or "featherweight."

Some people are capable of re-examining their fundemental assumptions and are willing to look at things from different angles. Others are obsessed with the 'righteousness' beliefs and reduced to throwing insults when confronted with different ideas. You are clearly in the latter category.

[ScottSA]

Some people are capable of re-examining their fundemental assumptions and are willing to look at things from different angles. Others are obsessed with the 'righteousness' beliefs and reduced to throwing insults when confronted with different ideas. You are clearly in the latter category.

I see, so unless I embrace your sophomoric arguments, I'm obsessed? Shouldn't you be the one embracing my ideas to show how thrillingly re-examinable abd un-obsessed you are? Do you always set up punji sticks and then trot onto them like this?

[Riverwind]

I see, so unless I embrace your sophomoric arguments, I'm obsessed?

No the fact that you resort to insults instead of a counter argument makes you obsessed.

Why don't you try to present an argument that explains why this Caliphate is something to be concerned about. We know today that the USSR was not much of a threat and that much of the cold war rhetoric was a gross exaggeration (you admitted that the USSR could have never invaded the US). I believe that most of the rhetoric regarding Muslims terrorists is a similarily exaggerated and we have already wasted way to much blood and money on a problem that will eventually solve itself.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

No the fact that you resort to insults instead of a counter argument makes you obsessed.

Why don't you try to present an argument that explains why this Caliphate is something to be concerned about. We know today that the USSR was not much of a threat and that much of the cold war rhetoric was a gross exaggeration (you admitted that the USSR could have never invaded the US). I believe that most of the rhetoric regarding Muslims terrorists is a similarily exaggerated and we have already wasted way to much blood and money on a problem that will eventually solve itself.

Read the thread. Your argument consists of "yer dumb and I'm smrt," coupled with ridiculous notions like the idea that the cold war was all a big over-reaction. How trite.

[M.Dancer]

To what? There are no military threats facing Canada today.

Non sequiter. There are serious threats to Canada, some which will require the military, some which will require police.

[M.Dancer]

I never said that Israel would be an acceptable loss. I simply said that it is rediculous to claim that the loss of Israel would have a significant impact on the lives of the majority of people living outside of the region.

It would have a major impact on nations like Canada and the US where there are large jewish populations. The greiving would be immense. Whether you acknowledge it or not, even the loss of rome would have a major impact across the world.

Terroism is a criminal problem and should be treated like one.

You would send some squad carsthen, to training camps half way round the world and tell them they are surrounded? Would you see they got bail hearings?

[Riverwind]

It would have a major impact on nations like Canada and the US where there are large jewish populations. The greiving would be immense. Whether you acknowledge it or not, even the loss of rome would have a major impact across the world.

I am talking about threats to the existence of other societies. Many people would grieve (not just Jews), however, these people would still go to their jobs and the economy and the government would still function even if there are some short term shocks. For most people, 9/11 was a non-event and 6 years later they would be hard pressed to identify any significant change in their lives as a result of 9/11 (getting stripped search at the airport is not a significant change) Edited August 9, 2007 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

For most people, 9/11 was a non-event and 6 years later they would be hard pressed to identify any significant change in their lives as a result of 9/11 (getting stripped search at the airport is not a significant change)

I take it then you live in a warm cocoon?

My wife lost her job and it was directly related to the post 9.11 tourism collapse. She worked in accounting at a large national travel wholesaler. They had laid off 30% of their workforce.

My own business suffered as I was working in cross border investor relations communications and the subsequent market slump meant that far less money was being spent.

[Riverwind]

My wife lost her job and it was directly related to the post 9.11 tourism collapse.

So did I. I moved on and 6 years later my life has not changed that much.

You need to put these things in perspective. There are places in to world where civil society completely collapsed as a result of war, famine or other events. These are the significant consequences that I am talking about. A few people losing their jobs and having to find new jobs is not a significant consequence in my opinion.

[M.Dancer]

A few people losing their jobs and having to find new jobs is not a significant consequence in my opinion.

Define a few.

[Riverwind]

Define a few.

The last 6 years have seen record lows in unemployment. By that measure you cannot claim that 9/11 had a significant long term effect on the economy.

[M.Dancer]

The last 6 years have seen record lows in unemployment. By that measure you cannot claim that 9/11 had a significant long term effect on the economy.

....no, of course not......

Immediate and Short Term Indirect Impacts

Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

But some researchers caution that the indirect economic effects of terrorism may be more significant than many people realize, both because they are so pervasive and because the likelihood of such attacks has been priced into financial markets long before this week’s events.

While true cost of terrorism with its appalling loss of life may be incalculable, a growing body of research since the 9/11 attacks on the United States has tried to accounting of the direct and indirect economic consequences of terrorism.

The cost of the 9/11 attacks, for example, has been estimated at $28 billion in the loss of pure physical assets plus the initial cleanup and rescue efforts. But that was only the beginning, according to a 2002 assessment by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The attack was the greatest insurance disaster in history, with insured losses of about $32 billion for business interruption, workers compensation, loss of life and other liabilities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514278/

[bush_cheney2004]

The last 6 years have seen record lows in unemployment. By that measure you cannot claim that 9/11 had a significant long term effect on the economy.

Using such logic and benchmark, we could also say World War 2 did not have a significant long term effect on the "economy"....and that would be false.

9/11 did have short, intermediate, and long term impact because of direct and indirect consequences, as well as voluntary choices made in the aftermath. The obvious cannot be minimalized away.

[Riverwind]

Using such logic and benchmark, we could also say World War 2 did not have a significant long term effect on the "economy"....and that would be false.

There is no comparison. 9/11 was a blip that destroyed a few buildings in a couple cities. WW2 left the economies in Europe and Japan in ruins. 3000 people died on 9/11 which is nothing compared to the 50 million or so deaths in world war two.

9/11 did have short, intermediate, and long term impact because of direct and indirect consequences, as well as voluntary choices made in the aftermath. The obvious cannot be minimalized away.

The negative economic impact of the useless war in Iraq has easily exceeded the direct and indirect costs of 9/11 itself. The negative impact of additional hurricane activity in the gulf has far exceeeded the economic impact of 9/11.

You need to learn to put things in perspective. 9/11 had some effect on the economy but it is not that significant when you compare it to other events such as WW2 or unusally bad weather.