Hello friends,
I've just made my first ever youtube video. It's about how terrorism really isn't dangerous. I don't know if it's any good, but I'd love it if you could watch it and tell me what you think. If you really like it, it would be even better if you could share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAbYG-nFiHg

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

what ? FFA mod ?

Liked and Shared
I agree with the video. While terrorism isn't good for anyone, it is becoming a money making business for dirty politicians (and those with ties to those same politicians). The greater the fear, the more they make.

you imagined it, there's no ffa mod.

What's FFA?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Terrorism not dangerous?.....jeesus!....this is the mother of all oxymoronic statements, dafuq is the matter with you libtards?

Seriously!



Dafuq!

Foog's point was more people die each year from falling off of chairs than are killed by terrorists in the US. He asked the question why is everyone spending money to defeat allahakbar and not more money being spent on research for chairs with seatbelts.

Oh I hate Hitlery supporters too, but I also hate politicians who get rich quick with taxpayer money and that's on both sides of the asile.

Liked...

I will share this on fb with survivors of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Its too late for the dead. I will fiscally support your peronal effort to petition to have this well thought out logical video to be displayed at the 9-11 memorial at ground zero.

mmmm. ultimately it's an argument for treating terrorism as a statistic rather then as a tragedy. It makes for good policy, but poor optics.

and these decisions are ultimately political. and politics in the USA nowadays is mostly optics. Policy doesn't seem to matter much at all.

:vomits:

Perhaps it would go viral if you touched it up from terrorism, to taking a fluff while in a motorhome traveling. That could be funny. This not so much.

The point is - incredible resources are being spent, in order to protect Americans from this thing, which is killing Americans at a much lower rate than hundreds of other things, many of which anybody cares about.

I'm sure this video may not do well at a 9/11 memorial, but it would probably do very well at a memorial for the 145,575 people who died in 2013 of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease... a disease which receives less than $100 million in total funding annually.

But but but but but tanks and guns and bombs and jets and helicopters and death and wheelchairs and fluff.
Over all you are missing a key fluffing word in your video. RADICAL ISLAMIC fluffING TERRORISM. I suppose its ok for honor killings. People beaten and killed into sumission. Children raped. Men raping boys. Sex slavery. Arranged marriages. The outragous oppression of all women. The ethnic cleansing of entire cities and towns one by one.
SURE your pilgrim mother fluffing ass isnt likly to fall victim to radical islam but millions upon millions are effect daily. In the richest countries in the world. So on behalf of logical thinking people, take your closed minded horse fluff lie propaganda film and fluff youself sideways. Progressive pile of fluff.

So, I suppose I should mark Heston's feedback down as neutral?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

What you need to realize Fooglmog, is that if we didn't have the agencies and a military who hunts down and kills terrorists the terrorists would still be alive to kill more innocent people... Because our country is proactive they're less deaths due to terrorism.

Also people don't die from sitting in a chair, they die falling from them when they stupidly use them as a ladder.

More seriously:

When someone dies, who cares if it's "RADICAL ISLAMIC fluffING TERRORISM" or not? They're equally dead.

If you could, for an identical cost, eliminate half of all murders in the US (Which would save 8000 lives/year) or eliminate half of the terrorism deaths in the US (which would save 100 lives/year)... which would you do?

If your answer is eliminate the murders -- you pretty much agree with my "closed minded horse fluff lie propaganda film".

If your answer is that we should eliminate the terrorism -- how are you going to justify that choice to the families of the 8000 people you're letting die?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

That's actually a reasonable point... and it's one of the weaknesses of my argument. We don't know how much terrorism there would be if we didn't go to all this effort to prevent it. This is why I went to such great lengths to show that even an absurd increase in terrorism is actually something we could afford to ignore.

But, seriously, how much terrorism do you think there would be without those efforts? I know it's impossible for us to know... so feel free to give me high-ball estimate. The most you think terrorism might increase before the possibility seems absurd.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Apples and oranges, bro, get a clue!

So i'm guessing your point is that it is more financially costly to host a series of wars as opposed to just letting the terrorism take it's course and lives? You can't put a price on life. Life is priceless. Especially when it's a life that deserves a real chance in this universe.

You have to understand as well that I am completely biased on the subject being an Iraq War combat veteran.

Plenty of Jihadi fluff sticks chose to fight us in the Middle East rather than create terror in the US. Either way, appears posters method of calculation is either intentionally biased or isn't sure how to holistically calculate the actual risks.

The question that stands yet is pretty unanswerable is, does American military intervention against radical extreme terrorism help or exacerbate the situation?

It's all hypothetical in reality. I think a strong argument can be made that waging a boundaryless war on terrorism isnt winnable. In fact they have more targets now than they did at the start... but I cant know this for certain.

Syko:

To be honest syko, do you genuinely believe that spending MORE on counter terrorism prevents terrorism deaths? how much money do you think the swiss spend on wars in the middle east? how many terrorist attacks do the swiss suffer? Have you considered the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks? And anyways, of course life has a price. It always has. Its why people die of tuberculosis, starvation, and all the other curable things in the world. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The real reason that the Syrian war has gone on so long is the $$ cost of the long term rebuilding of a country and the fact that western lives are worth far more to the west than Syrian lives.

Edit: I don't mean to deride the work that Americans have done in many places. And many places are better for it. Ultimately though I do believe that the isolationist argument is probably better for America, if it isn't necessarily better for everyone.

Heston:

I'm sorry. I assume English isn't your first language. But the translator you're using is terrible. Maybe post in a language you're fluent in and leave it to us to translate? I'm struggling to understand your argument. Were you saying we should be terrified of terrorism because millions of people in the west are already enslaved by Islam?


Foog/AT:

I travel for leisure with some regularity and last year made several trips to muslim/middle east-ish countries. I find that life tends to flow pretty similarly no matter where you are. People go to work, they eat dinner, and they complain about the world going to hell.

Anyways, my mother is my pet sitter and she was always scared when I went somewhere that wasn't 'the west.' I used to try to assuage my mother by telling her the places a Canadian tourist was most likely to be murdered based on the number of nights spent in a country were 1)Jamaica 2)China 3)Dominican Rep 4)Australia and 5)Mexico.

But, numbers be damned she would be terrified anyways. I eventually came to the conclusion that she was hopeless, had too much invested in me, and watched too much TV.

I wish you luck with your endeavor, but god only knows how many people you will convince. To me it seems crazy that someone would be afraid of terrorism in the USA. But to be fair, your media and politicians have done everything they can to reinforce that fear and make sure you are as scared as can be.

I would like to add son of a fluff, bastard, fluff, and fluffstabbing to this discussion.
Also i agree that the cash spent not killing islamic terrorists, isis ect is better spent at home. Not because they are not dangerous, but cause our leaders dont know how to properly kill the enemy and save trillions of dollars.

How dangerous would you guys rate this goat?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXJmUqlnUw

Goat prolly has VD and STDs. Shouldnt be going around giving everybody head. Its very dangerous.

Cloaked yes, counter terrorism operations demotes pro terrorism in plenty of ways. For one, it creates fear so that the already thin ranks of the islamic terrorist scum that plagues the middle east will not scourge and infect the other regions of the world on the same scale. If you ask me, they're not enough terrorists to kill on this god forsaken planet, at least that's kinda the impression i'm getting after watching fooglemogs distasteful video!

Specifically, ELEVATED yellow, significant risk of terror per homeland security advisory system.

That's not what I'm saying.

The closest I come to making that argument is this: I believe that if the money we spend on fighting terrorism were spent fighting another cause (or causes) of death -- the increase in lives lost due to terrorism (if any) would be far smaller than number of people we could prevent dying from other causes.

But that's not the core of my argument.

Basically, I believe this:
We know that the costs of how we fight terrorism are significant.
- Lots of soldiers have died.
- Lots of money has been spent.
- Lots of rights have been given up.

There can be no debate that the costs of fighting terrorism the way we do are high.

At the same time.
- We don't know if our methods are particularly effective (pretty much all the terrorist plots we've disrupted were done through pre-9/11 methods).
- There's good reason to think our methods are leading to far more dangerous secondary effects (ISIS?)
- There's little reason to think that the planned/attempted attacks would have done a significant amount of damage (The disrupted attacks we know about, and the government has every reason to not keep them secret, might have killed hundreds more... but not many multiples of what we've seen)

We know for a fact that fighting terrorism costs us a lot -- and not just financially.
And we have every reason to think that doing less to fight terrorism would only lead to a very modest increase in risk.

So why pay a huge cost, for unclear returns, when we know that if we invested that much elsewhere we could get so much more back?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Oil is beneath Iraq, mineral is below afghanistan. when do we get it? setting up the economy for our childrens childrens children.

You mean great great grandchildren? Never. They belong to the chinese.

fuq no, i will make the chinese people work in American sweat shops.

I would say it comes down to the "spectacularness" of the deaths we talk about.

A child being blown to bits by a radical religious nutcase enrages people.
Also a plane crash is a horrific accident with nation wide sorrow, while the same amount of traffic casualties doesn't even make it to the news outlets.

An adult male falling off his chairladder is just a dumbass and, in a sense, brought it on himself.
The same for fatalities from cars/alcohol/sickness/diseases/"self defence guns", and so on. These are every day deaths, and quite common, and does not spark much interest from people one state over.


If we reduce a life to a set amount of $ per year of life, and thus an early death will have a definite cost. If we choose this way of looking at it, everything becomes very easy. Good luck trying to implement it thou.

Fooglmog might seem like an innocent statician but I think he's got a little allah akbar in him.

Aloha Snackbar?

It won't be that hard, they study sewing and basic manufacturing while still in the womb...

Thats probably why they are nine months old when they come out the womb.

I think your video was done very well, especially as a first time vid. Although too logical and statistical people will zone out and tune out IMHO. I liked it (*thumbs up on YouTube) and will share on twitter and other places I think I can. I cannot and refuse to post any political, religious opinions or memes of any kind on Facebook. People just go stupid.

Upon the attack on 9/11, I wrote my opinion on the subject in my alliance forum. (forget what alliance, right before making EEVIL in 1A I think?). In a nutshell I wrote that a sleeping lion had been awoken, free rein had been given to the United States and that we WOULD require revenge by attacking a country or contries (had no idea whom but it would be in the Middle East) and have no qualms bombing the fluff out of anyone and the mindset of the US that we would blow up the world if need be.
I did not foresee the loss of liberties and privacy that our government is taking away from us in the name of fighting terrorism. It's such a sham and scam, I do not understand how people don't see through it. War is the way the united states sustains itself. We love war. War makes rich people richer. We are a war driven economy. If we are not fighting in wars, we are starting or pushing other countries into war so we can sell them weapons. We are brainwashed to fear anything with an "ism" in it. No more Communism, so terrorism takes its place. Although I think the government is realizing terrorism is getting old and trying to make us fear Russia again.
Its so simple to see, but most people in the United States have a roof, food and luxuries, they are willing to give up their freedoms, liberty and privacy.

Again, good job, but people get emotional about this subject. The government and media attempt to cause as much fear as possible in hopes that you will believe they will coddle you with protection, when in fact they are not obligated in any form or fashion to do so.
I think Obama has started dozens of speeches with "As President of the United States, my number one duty is to protect the citizens of this country from terrorists". When in fact it is, "..... will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ...........as he signs the NDAA on New Years Eve night in 2011.

sure

I agree Xintros, it is too analytical... and lots of people will zone out.

But I don't think a emotional approach would have served any better. People's emotions on this are so fixed, and have been for so long, that I don't think trying to introduce a different set of emotions would get through at all.

My feeling is that most people haven't throught much along these lines. So, if I provide analytical information, at least those who are willing to think about it can do so... and I'm not competing directly against the existing biases with emotion v emotion.

I dunno... there's not really a good way to do this... and there's definitely not an approach which will convince everyone. But at least this way, the information is out there in some form for people to think about. Best I could do...

(Actually, I'm already playing around with writing a new script for another video which takes a different approach... not sure if I'll complete that though...)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I will say you put together the video and presented your point of view very well. Regardless my drunken biased rambling and meaningless insults.

Bloody hell... now I am afraid of sitting down on a chair. Cheers mate!

The fact that a window licking cretin like Heston disagrees with it means that you are:

1. Probably on the right track
2. Probably used correct grammar and many words with more than 4 letters
3. Probably put some actual thought into it

Liked and commented

its all fubar...
As a rancher im more likely to die in my everyday job than cops/millitary.

Our media and government lives off fear as long as we have fear we are controllable.
hmm you look at it that way and every government is a terrorist organization.
Terrorists use fear, terror, and propaganda to manipulate the population.
As do governments.

Either way its obey or be punished.

I Highly disagree with isis, and believe its a threat, (even after proved sadi Arabia fixed 9/11, with Clinton's help I might add) but with our deficit we should pull our troops equipment back and let Russia diminish its resources fighting. USA is the only country that has not paid its debt from the world wars.

We have hundreds of viable energy options now days, we should fight the withdrawals of oil, and work on our country before we worry about the rest of the world.
We can save more lives by investing this "war" funds into our vets whom 60+% are homeless my brother in-law served 4 tours Medically discharged / disabled. he receives 650$ a month. My child support payments are higher than that, for 1 kid.
Our returning vets need more help than the victims of Darwin's law, I.E. chair victims.

Speaking of Russia, Putin has my vote over Obama or Clinton that's for sure,
trump has his issues too but far better than Clinton.

Before anyone jumps me not its not because Clinton is a woman. I would gladly vote Betty White for prez. its based on Clinton's "career" ( I prefer crime spree.) record dating back to Watergate, not her sex.
trump is like a televangelist preys on emotion while not having any real ideas how to fix it.

For first vid good job.

This is actually my secret goal. I don't care what people think about terrorism... I was all chairs replaced with standing work stations or exercise balls.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

/eats popcorn

Question: Does anyone who enjoyed this video have reasonable Karma on reddit and want to post it on the /r/PoliticalVideo sub?

I tried, but I've never been much of a reddit user, so haven't earned enough karma... which got me rejected by a bot.

I'd really appreciate it if someone more reddit-savvy did that :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.