"Green" vehicles hurt government revenue.

All true even in states with no direct sales tax. The whole issue of high mileage cars reducing government tax revenue is bogus, crazy bogus.

1. We should be encouraging people to DRIVE LESS and USE LESS GASOLINE so discouraging that behavior with a tax is against national interest at every level.

2. If transportation fossil fuel revenues need to be increased then increase the tax. The only reason that simply solution is not applied is the nutty and disastrous economic ideology of the last 30 years.

3. There are not ENOUGH high mileage cars on the road to really be affecting the tax revenues which are down due to the Great Recession caused by the nutty and disastrous economic ideology of the last 30 years.

 

Are you seriously comparing american's fighting british solders for their freedom to the murders that hijacked planes to fly them into the towers to kill as many civilians as possible? This shows your utter lack of any understanding. The country has the oblisgation to protect its citizens from those that use terror whether they are foreign or domestic. There is no excuse for killing innocent people sitting in an airplane or office building.

 

Those that win write the history books. The Israelis have Freedom Fighters, but had they lost, the history books, written by the British, would have labeled them as terrorists. The same with the U.S. and our revolutionary war.

It's not easy to picture anyone in the Middle East overthrowing the U.S., but if they did, the 9/11 terrorists could easily be considered heroes in the new history books that followed.

Not being able to see this simple fact shows a serious blind spot in relation to world history and human behavior. We all want to overlay our personal feelings of truth, justice, and all that is righteous and fair, but the world doesn't work that way.

Tom

 

I know the books that bin laden grew up with labeled the jews as terrorists. They did not mention isreal, as isreal was not recognized. Britain was not distinguished by the american revolution, even though they hired and armed Indians to commit terrorist acts. They have written their own history of the american revolution.

But come on, what I was saying was even if the US acted perfectly, there would still be terrorist attacking innocent people, and that would still be the FBI's responsibility. I also do not think I was unclear. When the aim is to kill and wound civilians that is an act of terrorism. It is a disgusting tactic.

They already are in stories in some places. I've seen bin laden t-shirts. This is because they were able to murder americans. I don't think the stories are the important thing here. I don't think there is any moral reletivism that allows you to say it is a heroic deed to highjack a plane and kill your self and as many civilians as possible.

No it is a world view that does not allow for the moral relativism where murdering civilians is ok. There are some things that are just wrong and before the pale. It was also wrong for jimmy carter to fund and arm the terrorists in afghanistan, something that he and reagan continuing his policy should be condemned for. We should not say it was ok, because it helped bring down the soviets. Many Afghans, Pakistanis and others have suffered by this terrorism.

We need to condemn it even more when US presidents support it.

The Damage of Jimmy Carter - US News and World Report

I hate the fact that some in the arab world believe that the american people are complicit in this terrorsim. It needs to be rejected. Civilized people should not support terrorists with words or action. Note Hamas is equal opportunity they murder isreali jews, isreali arabs, and Palestinians.

How do you praise an organization that fires rockets at schools to murder children? Do you think that is exactly the same as american's attacking british soldiers in the american revolution?

 

It wasn't too long ago some crackpot (no agenda) went after the Amish ... so yea, violence ignores the boundary of peace. I get it ... but war is hell ... and if the poorly 'armed' side has no other way to retaliate against horrible injustice ... and yet they have no means by which to strike back ... then civilian targets happens. The Irish Republican Army comes to mind. Yet now, 30 years later, the IRA folks that planted bombs in the train station lockers are looked back on as heroes ... as qbee-Tom mentioned about history books above. When our buddy the Shaw of Iran (Saddam Hussein too, at one time) was torturing and killing his opponents, we turned a blind eye. The result (blowback - term coind by our CIA) of that kind of activity (however loosely associated) is that you make serious enemies.

True - you don't end ALL terrorism by not inter-meddling. But by the same token, take my Amish example above ... it happens a whole lot less to peaceful folk. Who isn't fond of the idea of a whole lot less terrorism that we THEN have to then waste government (anti-terrorism) revenue on. It's a double savings. Save on anti-terror ... and save on a debt-crushing military budget. Win win.

.

 

Bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" when, while in US employ, he killed Russians and Afghans and bombed India's capitol.

Bin Laden was a "terrorist" when he killed Americans, Afghans and bombed US capitol.

A lot of hypocrisy on the topic.

As for the comment that the British called Americans terrorists during the US revolutionary, interestingly the British would not treat US soldiers as soldiers but as "terrorists" and accorded them none of the rights of soldiers. They also used that as justification for attacking civilian relatives of the soldiers. The same policy US employs in Middle East vs. native people fighting a foreign occupying military power.

There was, according to Washington and Jefferson, terrorism (attacks on civilians as a tactic of war) by both Americans and British during US revolutionary war. You might want to read some American history. I'd recommended "Washington: A Life" by Ron Chernow and "Thomas Jefferson and His Time" by Dumas Malone.

As for "no excuse for killing innocent people sitting in an airplane or office building", I would add or those sitting in Iraqi, Afghan or Pakistani villages with Predator drone strikes, killing anyone, anytime, anywhere. Do you think the Afghan man seeing his family killed by a US drone strike considers it an act of terrorism?

Which brings us back to green cars, using less oil and eliminating US oil imports will stop the US from its attacks in the Middle East and will stop the oil policy generated terrorist attacks against the US.

We should be taxing oil use and giving big rebates to people driving high mileage "green" cars. The most effective anti-terrorism tactic US can employ.

 

More than just soldiers were involved and killed from both sides during the Revolution. Same with the Civil War. A few believe that the second worst terrorist attack in American history was the explosion of a river board that killed over a thousand people after the declaration of the end of the war.

The concept of restricted warfare really didn't come into being until the advent of film and video.

 

That was all I was saying but somehow that message got warped.

Do you really believe that the end justifies the means. That these are acts of war not acts of murder. How do any of them help the poorly armed side to target schools, and planes, and office buildings? Do the Names gandhi or Mandela ring any bells? Al quida doesn't want freedom, they have plainly stated they want to kill as many christen and jewish civilians as possible.

There are grey areas of war, there are civilian casualties to get to the military targets, but there is no excuse to target the civilans directly.

I don't think they are heros to the families of the civilians they blew up. I don't care what the books say, there is a line that should not be crossed. Justifying it because someone likes it does not make it right. In the last greek election, a neo nazi came in second. In Sudan the jajaweed that burned farms and raped children as a tactic are praised. That does not make it right. Praising a terrorist because they "won" or "killed" the enemy is not a good thing.

That is quite different. The US should never have gotten involved with the terrorist. Funding the foreign fighters has blow back. The story that bin laden defeated the soviet empire has routes in what carter and regan administration said. No excuse for carter giving sadam the green light to invade iraq while iraq was funding terrorist organizations. The Iranian people had been our friends, but somehow the change in leadership made the whole country our enemy according to one administration. It was wrong for Reagan to continue the support even as Saddam used WMDs on his own people. But the blow back can be looked at from the US supporting terrorist regimes. By saying terrorism is ok if you win, is part of the reason the country got in trouble. I don't think the terrorists hate US because we use oil, at least none has stated that. But using less oil is important irrespective of terrorism.

Can you name a place where the revolutionary army targeted british civilians? The british did target civilans. They called dumping the tea and guarrila tactics terrorist. These things are quite different.

There were acts of terrorism in the Civil war. These did not help either side win, and should be condemned even if you think they helped in the war effort.

There is a difference between targeting civilians and targeting the military but killing some civilians. The new terrorist face has been fairly recent, and targets civilians instead of the military. There is no excuse for support for it. I guess according to our history decides lesson, the crusaders were right to murder infidels along the way, since there were not tv cameras yet.

 

I agree that most humans and societies have a moral line in the sand, over which acts are beyond the pale. The line is generally the same for most, although its exact placement varies by culture. Some value human life more than others.

However, and this is a big however, almost every society has shown a willingness to make exceptions when the conditions required it. We killed a lot of innocent civilians in WWII, but justified the loss of life by saying it reduced even greater suffering. I tend to agree, but it proves that we are willing to kill innocents in large numbers if necessary.

The same could be said about those behind the 9/11 attacks. Most likely they see the U.S. as an evil empire bent on the destruction of their way of life, and likely to bring mortal danger to their doorsteps. Given that, it wouldn't be too hard to justify killing a few thousand civilians for the greater good.

I don't agree with their view or their actions. I don't believe that terror attacks are justified or necessary. But then they don't share my view.

To understand other people and hope to live together in the same world, one needs a degree of abstraction. If we only view the world through the filter of our own reality, we will never get a clear view. And if we can't live together, one still needs a clear view to understand his enemy.

Tom

 

Actually you can believe what they say or not, but you can read what they say.
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' | World news | Observer.co.uk
Sure they are killing for revenge, and the destruction of palestine, and want americans to suffer. But what will get them to stop

You can't make that up. They will keep killing Americans until they give up drinking, and gambling, banking, and homosexuality. It should be noted most even wahabi muslems reject what the terrorist want, but there you go.

Live and let live is what I say, YOLO. The US should have never gotten involved with these people. But at a miniumum the FBI needs to keep a watch out and stop them from attacking us here. We can also support our allies like indoneasia when they decide its worth killing there, you know those people were americans or they were in bars, so not good muslems.
BBC News - The Bali bombing plot

Sure, lets understand them. No problem with that, but justifying what they do with some kind of moral relativism is not helpful. It seems to help them to recruit. Do you think those Indoneasians that died in the bali bombings died for a good cause? At least the Imam has changed his mind, after watching what he wrought. Some people I talk to in Indoneasia think it really was to cut down tourism, which would increase poverty, and perhaps get more people in the religious party in the government. I don't think it really helped al quida in its drive to get all americans to convert either. It did punish a moderate muslem country, which I guess in the terrorist eyes was too moderate.

 

A ) I'm not justifying what they do. Reread my posts. I said from their perspective I'm sure they feel justified.

B ) I never commented on what would make them stop. That's your discussion, not mine. I don't know why you continue to relate this to my posts.

All I am saying is that you are naive if you believe that you, and only you, have the final say on what is moral and ethical. Americans often feel that way, but then Americans are often naive when it comes to the rest of the world. As a result, we find ourselves continually entangled in ugly foreign wars. For some reason we never learn.

Tom

 

How about a vote for civility? Romney is Governor Romney, and Obama is President Obama.

 

I'm not justifying it. Just pointing out we're no angel, and one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Our government did turn a blind eye to what some of our 'allies' were doing during the Cold War, and that has a part in what we are dealing with now.

Terrorism isn't the intential killing of civilians though. It is the use of fear and intimidation for governing or to affect political or social change. Threat of death just happens to be the most effective.

We should condemn it no matter the side. We just shouldn't be surprised when the rest of the world doesn't buy the innocent victim routine. Whether or not this is the greatest country on Earth, it isn't an excuse to be ignorant of the rest of the world and acting an nice person with it.

 

Hi Big Steve--

Not what I expected to see in the middle of a conversation about green vehicles that turned into terrorism.

Personally, I shorten the two to Obamney, since I consider them one and the same.

 

I don't understand why so many threads become poisoned by politics. This could have been - and should be - a meaningful discussion with application to many topics. But no. It's just more of the same BS.

 

Yep - the nature of most any set of actions/issues/policies, though - has its roots in the politics that drive it. All-in-all I'm pleasantly surprised at the civility we've all maintained in discussing the 'hurts government revenue' issue. I'd feared from the very beginning it'd go way south, and far into the blame thing . . . so . . . I vote for a big attaboy for everyone doing a pretty good job. It doesn't happen too often.


.

 

I only commented that the FBI would need to continue to do counter terrrorism, even if the US "acted Perfect". It seems many do not believe this idea and want to tax oil for that effort. I answered what this one group of terrorist wants because you said we "need to understand them". Understanding terrorism often means redoubling efforts to prevent attacks. Putting ourselves in the "freedom fighters" shoes is unhelpful, when the said terrorist attack civilians.

Why would you call describing and trying to prevent attrocities naive, or uniquely american?
Shared Humanity - Attacking Civilians, the War Crime of

I am sorry that you disagree with much of the international community on this matter. Being naive would be to believe that the hate and murder could be justified. I don't think it will go away, simply by understanding those that commit crimes against humanity. I'm sure you don't think it is appropriate for Americans to target non-combatants in war, why would it be appropriate for others?

As an american, on this memorial day weekend, we should give thanks to the men and women that bravely died for this country. It doesn't matter whether you believe that the leaders of the country that sent them to war were correct or not. As citizens it's not just our right but our responsibly to speak out if we believe the government is acting in an immoral manner.

Shared Humanity - Afghanistan, Gross Human Rights Violations in

IMHO, the problem with afghanistan was not that we supported human rights, its that president carter armed, paid, and trained foreign terrorists to fight a proxy war against the soviets. Reagan continued this policy. Neither cared about the citizens in afghanistan. A better moral compass was needed. When we were attacked by the terrorists, it certainly was just to fight them there, and clean up some of the mess we had helped to make.

IMHO Iraq was quite a different matter. Saddam was conducting his human rights abuses at a much earlier time. The worst abuses occurred when the US government was supporting him, and when the US asked people to rise up and were massacred after the first gulf war. I don't believe that the US can invade every country like iraq that supports terrorism. The US unfortunately has in the recent past has made mistakes and harmed civilians of many countries. We should learn from our mistakes, and that lesson should not be terrorism can be forgiven if the cause is just. By targetting civilians the cause is never just.

 

You see that clearly when the foreigners are doing it, but consider recent US behavior: Al-Qaeda attacks the US and kills ~ 3 thousand civilians; the US uses the attack as an excuse to enter into a 10 year war against Iraq in order to set up a puppet regime they hope will stabilize oil interests and offset Iran. Civilian deaths are 100K+ plus, but the US cannot take responsibility for any of them because it does not bother to even count them.

The US justification: collateral damage during a 'war on terror.' In a country that had exactly zero to do with the 9/11 attack. Is that really so different than Bin-Laden labeling all US citizens enemies of Islam ? At least Bin-Laden can quite rightfully point to US meddling in the affairs of Islamic countries.

FYI, Indonesia is NOT a friend of the US, it's "democratic" government is propped up by US influence rather similarly to the decades long dictatorship of Suharto.

 

Because oil is a very political topic. The reasons the US is 50% less energy efficient than Europe, the reason we import oil, the reason we are big polluters, the reason we support terrorism and terrorists and wage war in the Middle East, the reason we spend $1T a year on military and have run up $14T in debt are due to POLITICAL decisions regarding oil use.

Prius owners reason for being, no matter what their political stripe, is not using oil...that most political of products.

So politics will come up every time oil use comes up.

In regard to this topic, taxing non fossil fuel using cars, it is a political push by the forces (oil companies, US car mfgs, military contractors) that want to keep US using more oil. The wear and tear on the roads is a cover for attacking anything that reduces oil use and the profits they make from US energy inefficiency and resulting oil use.

The proposal to tax green cars is political. The proposals to tax oil use and promote green cars are political.

 

First we were attacked, the brave men and women that went to war did not do so to attack innocent men and women.

Iraq Body Count

Certainly every civilian tragedy is bad, and we do count. The US should not have been in Iraq. Once there the military should have taken every measure to not harm civilians. Many of the civilian deaths were caused by the insurgence, and a surge should have been done earlier to stop them. Clinton was blamed by bin laden for 500,000 deaths there because of the sanctions. Do you count them too, you and your terrorist loving buddies?

It is shocking how many of the attacks against the Coalition forces are really targetted to increase the body count. Tactics were wrong, and I guess these deaths would not have happened under Saddam.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/lancet-2011/

Almost 15,000 were caused by collateral damage and that is way too many.

Yes, the things are quite different. The US should have never gone in, as Iraq was not in our strategic interest, and the factions there were likely to kill each other. But in no way can you compare this to the specific targetting of civilians by al quida.

Bin Laden is dead. His organization added to the body count last week in yemen. Do you think al quida went there for US meddling? You are wrong to support terrorist. I have an acquaintance that died in the bali bombing, do you think she, and indoneasian citizen should die because she was in a bar with foreigners! Give me a break. The terrorist hate the way of life. Women are supposed to be covered,alcohol forbidden. If you violate shera law the penalty is death, not according to islam, but according to these terrorists.

I consider any country that attempts to give there people freedom and doesn't attack the United States a friend. I guess you and your terrorist buddies in hamas and hezballah and al quida speak for you. Have you ever even talked to an Indonesian? The government is hardly perfect, as any new democracy is. It hardly deserves your wish for terrorism, nor is it in any way a US puppet.