4 ms·

> What keeps the US relatively free of terrorism is the massive ocean that's between the terrorists and their target. What keeps most countries relatively free

> What keeps the US relatively free of terrorism is the massive ocean that's between the terrorists and their target. What keeps most countries relatively free from terrorism is that they aren't occupying other peoples land or bombing their women and children all the way to hell. Ever wonder why extremists haven't bombed the Cook Islands or Peru?

rdouble 14y ago
Peru has had tens of thousands of civilians killed in conflict with the Shining Path.
- ipedrazas 14y ago
  funny but at first I didn't recognise Sendero Luminoso. I wouldn't expect English speaking people to know about them or ETA or so many others
- markdown 14y ago
  TIL. However, a cursory skimming of the Wikipedia page seems to indicate that it's an internal conflict. Not really relevant to this discussion.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Quite relevant considering that no known terrorist organization actually obeys a distinction between "internal" and "external". You say "legitimate nation-state", they say, "bourgeois oppressive occupier". You say "reactionary fascist regime" they say "glorious liberator". You say "death", they say "glory".
MichaelApproved 14y ago
"Ever wonder why extremists haven't bombed the Cook Islands" It's nice to be a country like the Cook Islands. You're surrounded by a vast ocean that makes it very difficult to attack. Your interests are also protected other, larger nations, so you don't have to do any "dirty work" to protect them. You also don't have to spend tons of money on a military and can rely on treaties with other countries to provide your defense.
- markdown 14y ago
  You know that before any attack whatsoever, there has to be a motive, right? South Africa meets your definition of a targetable country. Why isn't it attacked by terrorists?
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    This is going off track. My original argument is: 1) The US is a target. 2) The reason it's a target is not what I'm debating. 3) Terrorists are not having trouble attacking the US because they are dumb, as the author stated. 4) Terrorists are experimenting with different ways to attack the US and are evolving. 5) The author of the article is mistaking these experiments with stupidity. 6) The ocean is an obstacle that won't protect the US forever.
  - ptaipale 14y ago
    South Africa is inherently so violent that terrorism doesn't make much difference (though there is some terrorism, at least bombings by white supremacists 10 years ago or so, and some activity against Israel.)

rdouble 14y ago

Peru has had tens of thousands of civilians killed in conflict with the Shining Path.

ipedrazas 14y ago
funny but at first I didn't recognise Sendero Luminoso. I wouldn't expect English speaking people to know about them or ETA or so many others
markdown 14y ago
TIL. However, a cursory skimming of the Wikipedia page seems to indicate that it's an internal conflict. Not really relevant to this discussion.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Quite relevant considering that no known terrorist organization actually obeys a distinction between "internal" and "external". You say "legitimate nation-state", they say, "bourgeois oppressive occupier". You say "reactionary fascist regime" they say "glorious liberator". You say "death", they say "glory".

MichaelApproved 14y ago

"Ever wonder why extremists haven't bombed the Cook Islands" It's nice to be a country like the Cook Islands. You're surrounded by a vast ocean that makes it very difficult to attack. Your interests are also protected other, larger nations, so you don't have to do any "dirty work" to protect them. You also don't have to spend tons of money on a military and can rely on treaties with other countries to provide your defense.

markdown 14y ago
You know that before any attack whatsoever, there has to be a motive, right? South Africa meets your definition of a targetable country. Why isn't it attacked by terrorists?
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  This is going off track. My original argument is: 1) The US is a target. 2) The reason it's a target is not what I'm debating. 3) Terrorists are not having trouble attacking the US because they are dumb, as the author stated. 4) Terrorists are experimenting with different ways to attack the US and are evolving. 5) The author of the article is mistaking these experiments with stupidity. 6) The ocean is an obstacle that won't protect the US forever.
- ptaipale 14y ago
  South Africa is inherently so violent that terrorism doesn't make much difference (though there is some terrorism, at least bombings by white supremacists 10 years ago or so, and some activity against Israel.)