Ah, I missed this part, since it was addressed to Alessan:
[QUOTE=Rachellelogram]
Your response is not logical, rational, or statistically-significant. It doesn’t matter what experiences you personally have had. If we’re discussing logic (which is necessarily based on statistics and probability), what matters is how many people have died in terrorist attacks on US soil vs lightning strikes on US soil in the same time period. I won’t belabor the argument further.
[/QUOTE]
According to this (I used this cite because it’s from such a credible source that’s certainly pro-America), 4700 people have been killed (in total, all countries US is using drones over) in US drone strikes since 2004. So, mister logic and statistics and probability, want to take a gander at the statistical probability of being killed by a US drone strike verse, oh, say being killed because your house collapsed in an earthquake? Or died of malnutrition? Or were killed by roving bands of armed thugs? How about died of disease? Hell, how about died of air pollution IN THE US? My back of the envelop calculation is this represents less than 600 people per year, spread out over multiple countries, so even if we double that (and pretend that everyone killed is an innocent victim) it’s less than the number of folks who fall off ladders ever year. You are, however, less likely to choke on a toothpick than be killed by a drone in the various countries we operate armed drones in, though.
The concept of “first [second, third] world” countries has grown increasingly outmoded over the past twenty years, but I don’t think Israel was ever clearly among the “first.”
Alessan does not live in the United States, but rather in a little country called Israel. The odds of him being caught in a terrorist attack or, more particularly, knowing someone who has, is rather larger than it is for you or me.
Re terror bombings in Iraq, I read the New York Times, and coverage is extensive, albeit less than when the victims are in the same country as the newspaper.
The larger significance of the Boston bombings is dependent on whether they are political violence. An attack on an iconic American event raises that possibility, even that probability. And political violence is more historic than non-political.
You could say that vehicle accidents should have been bigger in the news, in September 2001, than 9/11, because more people died in vehicle accidents. But since 9/11 was an attempt to intimidate our government by attacking our people, and the accidents were not, the political attack was in fact more important.
If it turns out that the Boston attack was the product of a schizophrenic hearing voices, will coverage then appear to have been somewhat overblown? Yes. But the coverage is justified because of the potential that the attack in Boston was part of something bigger.
Do you really not understand why a terrorist attack in Boston would get significant press coverage? Because if that is the case, I would really have to question how you perceive the world in general.
Look up “man bites dog” story as it relates to journalism.
In general, we expect a certain level of “shit happens”. Cars get into accidents. 3rd world countries have bombings and ethnic warfare. People commit violent crimes. These events are fairly regular to the point where they are no longer newsworthy. At least not on a national or regional level.
A terrorist killing three people and injuring a hundred more (some critically) during a major sporting event is a rare occurance.
Certainly the most educated, Democratic country in the area.
Greenhouses that grew plants, provided jobs and made money in an area turned over to the Palestinians had the plumbing ripped out and sold as scrap.
Sorry..you’re wrong.
“First world” has always been simple to define:
a stable democratic country where the new government is elected every 4 years or so with zero violence, where the citizens are not afraid of their own police force, where the judicial system is fair,where bribery is not tolerated, where the media is free to criticize the government, where the politicians care about the standard of living of the middle class, the lower class has access to assistance from the government, and there is no raw sewage flowing along the streets.
This puts Israel solidly among the “first world” nations.
[apologies for the hijack…I doubt if my post is controversial enough to generate much reaction, but if it does, let’s move it to a new thread]
