So what are some ways were you more likely to die in America than by terrorism statistically in 2001.
You are more than 100 times more likely to die of Colon, Bronchial, Lung or Prostate cancer if you are a white male than by terrorism.
You were 5 times more likely to kill yourself with a gun than to be killed by a terrorist. You were 2.5 times more likely to be shot by a fellow American.
You were 5 times as likely to be killed by the flu.
You were 10 times more likely to be killed in an automobile accident.
http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html
On a related note, if your life were of a lesser exchange rate than that of an American, like say an Afghani civilian you were about equally as likely to be killed by American bombs between Oct 7, 2001 and March 2002.
Here are some other statistics of things that were far more likely to kill you than Islamic Fundamentalism in 2001.
If so, I’m speculating that you are frustrated that real world issues are intruding on your ideological vision of how you think the United States should operate.
Or, and this is just speculation on my part, that what I was saying is that the amount of resources we are spending on the terrorism issue are not in line with the threat posed by terrorism. Though I can’t prove that this is what I was getting at.
But if the resources were not being spent, the threat would be higher. We have no choice but to plan…and spend…for worst case scenarios. If I was abrupt with you, I apologize. I’m just getting irritated lately at the “the terror war is a waste of money” crowd. In my opinion that is a naive and narrow view.
Y’know, if the terrorists killed “only” about 3000 people on September 11, it wasn’t for lack of trying, as they were hoping for many, many more deaths at the Twin Towers (such as from one or both tipping over immediately, taking other buildings down with them, or from the fires trapping many more people than they did).
It’s ironic that you can be so blase about the terrorist threat, mswas, seeing as how you’re posting from a “capitalist’s Mecca”. The victims of the WTC also thought they were working in just such a place.
And for the past couple of years or so, Al-Qaeda figures have publicly acknowledged their intent to procure radioactive materials and/or nuclear weapons – leaving the civilized (“Infidel”) world only one reasonable conclusion: that they must be stopped, even at tremendous cost.
The fact that we’re individually much more likely to die from, say, a myocardial infarction than from armed robbery doesn’t lessen the public’s demand that the thugs be caught and locked up, nor should it.
Absolutely. Seriously, I completely agree. I think we should just let the terrorists blow people up, if that’s what they need to do. Tend to the victims and their families, but there is no need for anything but grief and support. Some might argue that this would only encourage further terrorism. But I submit that grief, a grim, stern condemnation of terrorism, and a bold unified statement that violence will never move us in any direction, would be a greater deterrent to terrorism than anything we’ve done since 9/11. Our government’s statement should have been, “We refuse any policy which heaps violence upon violence, but we beg forgiveness in advance for what our free citizens might do to the next terrorist who tries to hijack a plane.”
Many times, our perception of risk is different than actual risk. For instance, there’s that trivia fact that everyone knows…that you’re more likely to be killed in a car than in a plane, yet more people are afraid of plane travel than car travel. Partly, I think, it’s because when plane crashes happen, they happen in spectacular ways, and also, because in getting in a plane, we turn over control to the pilot, and we’re helpless to prevent an accident.
You’re right that these other things killed a lot more Americans than terrorism did in 2001. But, to at least some extent, we’ve come to accept murder, heart attacks, lung cancer, and all these other terrible things. And we figure that we can take actions to reduce our risks. We say “I’ll stay out of the bad part of town. I won’t eat red meat, and I’ll quit smoking”.
The terrorist attacks were different, because we weren’t used to them, we weren’t prepared, they happened without warning, and there was nothing we could do to stop them. So the fear was greater, because we were trying to understand why it happened and how we could stop it from happening again.
I happen to think that the war on terror increases my risk, as I probably would not have been at risk in the first place had we not been meddling in middle eastern affairs.
I am not saying that terrorism isn’t a threat. I am for reacting rationally to threats, which I think the war on terror is far from such a reaction.
FYI The Capitalist’s Mecca is New York City. I am at a far higher risk of being hurt in a terrorist attack than most of you as New York is one of the most attractive targets for such an attack.
I for one have not let the terrorists win, because well, I’m not afraid of them, because the odds of me getting hurt in a terrorist attack are statistically very low.
Exactly, and everyone who thinks we should do everything we can to be prepared for the war on terror has fallen prey to terrorists. Ironically, (or should I say, moronically) it is the people least at risk who are the most afraid. Really, what is the difference between violence perpetrated by terrorists, and violence perpetrated by muggers? Their both disenfranchized people employing violence because they have no other recourse. Let it run its course – these people have already lost.
So, what I take from these statistics is that we’re being advised to ignore lesser threats to life and limb until the more important ones are solved. But I’m not in favor of abandoning those expensive Federal prisons of murders until the day that cancer is cured, so I’m sure that our country can figure out ways to address different threats in different ways.
Along those lines, if anyone knows who to bomb to stop cancer, I’ll draft the war resolution and walk it down to the Capitol myself.
Umm it was in response to a very specific post about giving cancer to the enemy. If the numbers don’t help my case, whatever I say is pretty much irrelevant because people will want to follow their irrational fears wherever they take them. I made the only point I need to make in my OP, and that is that the likelihood of me being killed by another American is significantly higher than of me being killed by a muslim terrorist. That’s all that needs to be said. This isn’t about me and my relationship with people on this board.
It’s not irrational in and of itself to take steps, even violent steps, to stop terrorists though I’ll admit the current strategy may be lacking.
Actually, the whole Iraq thing more likely involves a long-term strategy involving oil and China and trying to guide mid-to-late 21st-century global economics. Whatever opinions one might have of Bush, he has many many smart people guiding and advising him.
Well… okay. Personally, I think most of the people here already knew this.