Serious discussion: How many civilian lives are worth stopping terrorism? - GoFuckYourself.com

DWB · 01-10-2007, 01:55 AM

The Iraqi death toll is way over 100,000. I'm not sure how many in Afghanistan to date, but it's a handful. We just killed 31 or so in Somalia, and I'm sure many more are to follow.

I personally think 1 is too many, but also understand it's impossible to achieve this unachievable goal of ending terrorism.

What do you think is acceptable? How many people do you think are disposable in this insane quest for security?

And what makes it OK for us to kill WAY more people than the terrorists have ever killed, all in the name of fighting terror?

biftek · 01-10-2007, 01:57 AM

well considering that iraq had no connection to terrorism (re:no wmd's founds , no connection to bin laden )the 100,000 deaths in iraq is fueled by oil/greed

BV · 01-10-2007, 02:03 AM

better them than us

L-Pink · 01-10-2007, 02:04 AM

thirty six?

notabook · 01-10-2007, 02:09 AM

I believe the answer is 17.

DWB · 01-10-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

I believe the answer is 17.

What was the name of that crazy ass movie?

Mad Man of Porn · 01-10-2007, 02:57 AM

17 does somehow 'feel' right

fr0gman · 01-10-2007, 03:00 AM

NONE

It's like trying to stop the Shriners.. it can't be done.

sumphatpimp · 01-10-2007, 03:11 AM

going to need the draft soon.
spread way too thin.
you'll see.
watch Bush tonight.
troop surge they call it.

notabook · 01-10-2007, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

What was the name of that crazy ass movie?

I dunno, I just think 17 is the right answer. You may be thinking of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (answer was 42 in that movie).

01-10-2007, 01:55 AM	#1
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Serious discussion: How many civilian lives are worth stopping terrorism? The Iraqi death toll is way over 100,000. I'm not sure how many in Afghanistan to date, but it's a handful. We just killed 31 or so in Somalia, and I'm sure many more are to follow. I personally think 1 is too many, but also understand it's impossible to achieve this unachievable goal of ending terrorism. What do you think is acceptable? How many people do you think are disposable in this insane quest for security? And what makes it OK for us to kill WAY more people than the terrorists have ever killed, all in the name of fighting terror?

01-10-2007, 02:09 AM	#5
notabook Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Not a Library! Posts: 9,748	I believe the answer is 17. __________________

01-10-2007, 03:00 AM	#8
fr0gman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,093	NONE It's like trying to stop the Shriners.. it can't be done. __________________ Earn up to $.03 per Visitor -> No Click Monetization! "Because the World Wide Web is all about two things: horrifyingly stupid psychodrama, and naked chicks." Wild College Videos \| ICQ: 7746696

01-10-2007, 01:57 AM	#2
biftek So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,030	well considering that iraq had no connection to terrorism (re:no wmd's founds , no connection to bin laden )the 100,000 deaths in iraq is fueled by oil/greed

01-10-2007, 02:03 AM	#3
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	better them than us

01-10-2007, 02:04 AM	#4
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	thirty six?

01-10-2007, 02:57 AM	#7
Mad Man of Porn Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 132	17 does somehow 'feel' right

01-10-2007, 03:11 AM	#9
sumphatpimp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,235	going to need the draft soon. spread way too thin. you'll see. watch Bush tonight. troop surge they call it.