Pakistan Taliban kill scores in Peshawar school massacre

Dayton, spending federal money on AIDS awareness and safe sex has been proven to dramatically lower rates of infection transmission so, yes, there was a hell of a lot which could have been done but wasn't.

Doesn't mean they'll do it for you.

Redheads love my soul. It's delicious. Like rabbit jerky.

You do realize that it wasn't until the late 1980s that it was even thought to be POSSIBLE that heterosexual sex could spread AIDS?

Using that to point out that a vast amount was not known about the disease during the Reagan years.

That doesn't speak too well of the social mōrēs of the time, does it. "Eh, it's just the Liberace set, who cares."

You are so wrong it is unbelievable. That hetro sex could transmit AIDS was known by the early 1980's and was taught to my sex ed class in 1986 so, no.

OK. I'll take your word on it. If I was off a few years my apologies.

http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

Jan 7, 1983 the CDC published a paper about hetro transmission of AIDS. So no need to take my word on it just take the CDC's.

Thanks. I had thought it was 1987.

Ahem.

He's doing it again.

This can be 24 pages of Dayton Channeling Pat Robertson, or it can be about Peshawar. Your choice, people.

^I'd rather see pages of his posts than yours.

Reagan was not only the first US politician in history to come out strongly in favor of gay rights (he and Nancy used gay babysitters and were close friends to countless gays in Hollywood), he also had no qualms about sending the CIA into Pakistan.

Syria's in the geo-politically important Middle East, borders Israel, has political ties to Iran, and is home to a large contingent of ISIS fighters. What happens in Syria could have huge implications for the entire world. What happens in Burma? Not so much.

Are there threats in Europe today comparable to Islamic terrorism that are being ignored?

I'm not going to address the flawed narrative you present, but, even accepting it for argument's sake, what's your point? Are you saying diseases like AIDS should be taken seriously by officials? Of course they should. And so should Islamic terrorism.

Off-topic.

You are badly mistaken. Burma fell to a military dictatorship in 1962, when American men looked like this:



By 1964, just two years after the supply of shaving cream was cut off, Americans were starting to look like this:

It's also untrue that Reagan waited that long. He didn't give a major public speech mentioning AIDS until 1987, but he'd been talking about it in press conferences and cabinet meetings for years, saying it should be a top priority. A whole lot of his friends were gay, including Rock Hudson who was a close friend. His son Ron, the ballet dancer, had been seeing his own friends die of the disease. His daughter relates that she grew up with gay couples all around, and even at a young age they had no problem that she knew they were couples. Her baby sitters were lesbians.

Of course it is only a matter of time. The Sheriff's Office and the County's Board of Education came together to run some exercises using simunitions on a real school with real teachers and real students. They played everything out as realistically as possible. The SO and the High School in question covered all of the legal and safety bases and then they were given three dates. On one of those dates at an unknown time, the "attack" would take place.

Five Municipal PD Officers dressed as bad guys assaulted the school using AR-15's and Glock 17's loaded with simunitions. They "killed" over 400 people before the first Deputy arrived on scene. They actually ran out of ammunition. They stopped the "assault" and waited on the Deputies when they were down to only one Glock magazine per person. Armed with one magazine each, they managed to "kill" twelve Deputies before they were subdued.

Was probably more education than those kids got the rest of the year.

This is an interesting and valid point. But does it actually apply to the travesty under discussion in this thread? Despicable and evil can describe everything Tuckerfan mentioned. And you are correct that despicable and evil does not necessarily translate to bad for world stability. But I'm also not seeing how a mass murder in Pakistan does. Do we fight all evil, or just some? If just some, is stability really the only decision point?

Well that shouldn't stop me from trying it anyway! Maybe it's a myth.

Of course you would. His posts help you retain your delusion of intellectual superiority.

That wouldn't have involved Reagan's Nicaraguan "freedom fighters," would it?

Sure. The Taliban is no different than ISIS or Al-Qaida; all of these are massive sources of instability in a geopolitically important region.

In and of itself it wouldn't, anymore than a mass shooting in Norway would call for intervention there.

But there's a difference between an isolated incident brought on by one lone nut and a regular, organized, ongoing strategy of terror.

We cannot fight it all. We live in a world of finite resources and alternative choices.

The question isn't "all or none?" It's "which?" And the evil that most directly and significantly impacts us is what we should address first.

Absolutely. So then it's a matter of method, isn't it?

Yes.

But the "soft" methods--diplomacy, negotiation, reason, tolerance, understanding, the promise of prosperity--are not going to work with people who are so virulently opposed to everything that we stand for that they will wipe out a hundred schoolchildren to make their point. They're animals.

To quote Watchmen's Rorschach: "Men get arrested. Dogs get put down!"

So in addition to the soft methods, infiltration, special ops, pinpoint targeting. Better intel + legal and more accurate use of drones.

Deprives Dayton and @Archangel of slaughter-porn, Kleenex stock will take a beating, but there are always tradeoffs.

Although there's been very little Obama's done in office that I've liked, I do support his policy of ongoing drone strikes because they seem to be very effective.