This should remain in the private sector. Getting the federal government Terrorism (or cowardism as it should more appropriately be referred to) should not be excluded under primary policies as with the traditional “war” exclusion. It is a “national exposure” even though certain cities are more likely targets. A cowardism attack on any city is an attack on the entire country. To that extent, the cost to include it in primary policies should be shared by all American businesses on a proportional basis, not borne solely by those in “target” locations.
Since it’s basically hatred of arrogant Am. Govt. policies that makes the terrorists want to destroy our businesses and kill us all, I think the Am. Govt. should help foot the bill.
Hey Ad,
There is a huge difference between forcing religion and invading soverign nations based upon known faulty intellignece. Which would in turn propagate the America the bully notion. But i guess you missed that part.
What nation did we “invade”? Are you referring to Iraq? You use this word as if we entered for conquest or plunder, as indicated in the Merriam Webster Dictionary. That would be a far stretch!
Are you accusing USA Soldiers of invading? I believe they do not plan on taking over Iraq. They plan on coming back home.
Forcing religion? As in killing you if you do not convert.
I could go on, but there is so much more to write to argue against the lame brains who blame America, but I have to get back to work.
If you think America is to blame, you ought to leave.
I won’t bite on all the other posts but will say this: terrorism is called asymetrical war. It is a war of a few radical individuals against a sovereign nation, not your traditional war covered by international law and treaties. To that extent, terrorism should be excluded from insurnance since it, like war, results in a degree of loss severity and frequency that cannot be forecast actuarially. If it could, there would be odds on the winner and loser and bookmakers would be covering it, and there’d be no need for direct insurance, let alone a reinsurance backstop.
Id say should be concentrating our efforts where the terrorists were, afghanistan. We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was virtually no Al queada link to Iraq pre-invasion, now its full of its persuasion.
“no link between Iraq and 9/11”
I heard Chris Matthews hammering this point the other day. I haven’t really dug into it to decide whether I believe that or not. I suspect it’s complicated. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Some want to view a war on terror as simply a quick response to the events of 9/11, and then get the heck out and return life as it was on 9/10. I think it is unfortunate, but it certainly is their right to think that. George Bush and others have clearly stated, and I think rightfully so, that a war on terror is about much more than just the events of 9/11. It’s about going after Islamic Extremism as a whole. If we had gone into Iraq and cleaned out Hussein the first time around maybe we would have seen the changes in the middle east that are much harder to achieve now. The ultimate goal is to push back against the growing threat of extremism and try to stop it; recognizing that Iran is the real enemy. The goal for Afghanistan and Iraq is to put the squeeze on Iran, and hopefully through economic and other means topple the Iranian regime and bring about freedom there as well. The world has been and always will be governed by the agressive use of force. The only way to stop the extremist threat is to be more forceful, plant freedom, and give people a chance to choose a different way of life.
Do they dislike our foreign policy? Sure. They dislike a lot of things about western culture. However, I think their hatred is really rooted in the their desire to take over the world and create a one world Islamic state; regardless of whether individual nations cozy up to them or not. Eventually they would begin to eat their own. We see that happening already where they are perpetrating violence on those they accuse of not being muslim enough.
Personally, I don’t believe we can return to a 9/10 life and ignore what’s going on in the world. We’re in the middle east to try and plant freedom, topple Iran, establish a stronger presence there, go after Islamic terrorism in general, ect. Really it’s about changing the face of the middle east. Can that work? Is that a good idea? That’s where the discussion is in my opinion. While it is sparked by 9/11, it isn’t solely a direct response to 9/11.
Many politicians are saying that the war on terror is only about a response to 9/11 and not about trying to prevent future attacks, without actually saying it. They dance around it, but that’s essentially what they are saying.
This should remain in the private sector. Getting the federal government Terrorism (or cowardism as it should more appropriately be referred to) should not be excluded under primary policies as with the traditional “war” exclusion. It is a “national exposure” even though certain cities are more likely targets. A cowardism attack on any city is an attack on the entire country. To that extent, the cost to include it in primary policies should be shared by all American businesses on a proportional basis, not borne solely by those in “target” locations.
Since it’s basically hatred of arrogant Am. Govt. policies that makes the terrorists want to destroy our businesses and kill us all, I think the Am. Govt. should help foot the bill.
Hey Planet, why don’t you catch a clue. Assuming that you have a job, the govt gets its money from you.
So Gov’t Policies, the government should make us praise Allah so the terrorists won’t want to destroy and kill us? Or maybe you missed that part?
Hey Ad,
There is a huge difference between forcing religion and invading soverign nations based upon known faulty intellignece. Which would in turn propagate the America the bully notion. But i guess you missed that part.
What nation did we “invade”? Are you referring to Iraq? You use this word as if we entered for conquest or plunder, as indicated in the Merriam Webster Dictionary. That would be a far stretch!
Are you accusing USA Soldiers of invading? I believe they do not plan on taking over Iraq. They plan on coming back home.
Forcing religion? As in killing you if you do not convert.
I could go on, but there is so much more to write to argue against the lame brains who blame America, but I have to get back to work.
If you think America is to blame, you ought to leave.
I won’t bite on all the other posts but will say this: terrorism is called asymetrical war. It is a war of a few radical individuals against a sovereign nation, not your traditional war covered by international law and treaties. To that extent, terrorism should be excluded from insurnance since it, like war, results in a degree of loss severity and frequency that cannot be forecast actuarially. If it could, there would be odds on the winner and loser and bookmakers would be covering it, and there’d be no need for direct insurance, let alone a reinsurance backstop.
Hey Common Sense..and what do you have to say about 9/11? Oh, that’s OK, just don’t worry about terrorism, it’ll go away on it’s own? Yeah, right!
Id say should be concentrating our efforts where the terrorists were, afghanistan. We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was virtually no Al queada link to Iraq pre-invasion, now its full of its persuasion.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true
And this makes Americans safer?
“no link between Iraq and 9/11”
I heard Chris Matthews hammering this point the other day. I haven’t really dug into it to decide whether I believe that or not. I suspect it’s complicated. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Some want to view a war on terror as simply a quick response to the events of 9/11, and then get the heck out and return life as it was on 9/10. I think it is unfortunate, but it certainly is their right to think that. George Bush and others have clearly stated, and I think rightfully so, that a war on terror is about much more than just the events of 9/11. It’s about going after Islamic Extremism as a whole. If we had gone into Iraq and cleaned out Hussein the first time around maybe we would have seen the changes in the middle east that are much harder to achieve now. The ultimate goal is to push back against the growing threat of extremism and try to stop it; recognizing that Iran is the real enemy. The goal for Afghanistan and Iraq is to put the squeeze on Iran, and hopefully through economic and other means topple the Iranian regime and bring about freedom there as well. The world has been and always will be governed by the agressive use of force. The only way to stop the extremist threat is to be more forceful, plant freedom, and give people a chance to choose a different way of life.
Do they dislike our foreign policy? Sure. They dislike a lot of things about western culture. However, I think their hatred is really rooted in the their desire to take over the world and create a one world Islamic state; regardless of whether individual nations cozy up to them or not. Eventually they would begin to eat their own. We see that happening already where they are perpetrating violence on those they accuse of not being muslim enough.
Personally, I don’t believe we can return to a 9/10 life and ignore what’s going on in the world. We’re in the middle east to try and plant freedom, topple Iran, establish a stronger presence there, go after Islamic terrorism in general, ect. Really it’s about changing the face of the middle east. Can that work? Is that a good idea? That’s where the discussion is in my opinion. While it is sparked by 9/11, it isn’t solely a direct response to 9/11.
Many politicians are saying that the war on terror is only about a response to 9/11 and not about trying to prevent future attacks, without actually saying it. They dance around it, but that’s essentially what they are saying.