Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 10:57 AM

I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all:

3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago:
3000 : 2089 = 1.4

_________________________________________________

Now compare and explain why anyone should be afraid about Terrorism in the US or believe any politicians fear-mongering at all:

1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11.

8 young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996)

115 persons die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the United States.

328 smoker in Britain die each day from smoking-related illnesses.

12,000 children around the globe die per day because starvation.

Darth Rotor · 1st June 2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all:

3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago:
3000 : 2089 = 1.4

_________________________________________________

Now compare and explain why anyone should be afraid about Terrorism in the US or believe any politicians fear-mongering at all:

1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11.

8 young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996)

115 persons die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the United States.

328 smoker in Britain die each day from smoking-related illnesses.

12,000 children around the globe die per day because starvation.

How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake?

Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action.

You are trying to compare apples and fleas.

People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a

POLITICAL

difference.

DR

UserGoogol · 1st June 2007, 11:08 AM

Yes, but all we have to do to address their "intent" that is to simply... not change our policies. If we can pull that off, then we should treat terrorism as "just another way people die." To get too caught up in the intent behind actions is just metaphysical nonsense anyway, if the World Trade Center had collapsed because of a freak earthquake, it would have been just as bad for the people directly involved, although admittedly not as bad for the people who were only tangentially involved and watched the disaster on TV. People flying planes into buildings effects people's emotions differently from freak earthquakes, but such emotions are illogical and should not be encouraged to the point of being the basis behind major foreign policy decisions.

Although at the same time, I admit there's some emotions and poor thinking in Oliver's own argument; dividing by the amount of time between September 11th, 2001 and now is an extremely simplistic way to measure the probability of terrorism, and very large fonts are generally a sign of emotional rhetoric, but I have to agree with the basic gist of the argument if not the particulars of its argumentation.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake?

Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action.

You are trying to compare apples and fleas.

People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a

POLITICAL

difference.

DR

Nope. You're wrong. The possibility to die in an US-motor vehicle accident, for example, is 82.14 times higher than to die during a muslim terror-attack in the US.

Apples and Oranges, huh?

hgc · 1st June 2007, 11:17 AM

Oliver, I wonder if you understand the meaning of the word "threat."

Solus · 1st June 2007, 11:20 AM

It's political, and it doesn't make logical sense. I think the problem is you don't understand politics...

Tailgater · 1st June 2007, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Nope. You're wrong. The possibility to die in an US-motor vehicle accident, for example, is 82.14 times higher than to die during a muslim terror-attack in the US.

Apples and Oranges, huh?

Why are you trying to make me fear my car?

Bob Klase · 1st June 2007, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all:

3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago:
3000 : 2089 = 1.4

In 1993 only 6 people died when the WTC was bombed. That means that from 1993 until 2001 only .002 people died. Obviously the threat had ended long before 9-11.

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 11:23 AM

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

Oliver, I wonder if you understand the meaning of the word "threat."

I understand it, but if the possibility to die on lung-cancer as a smoker, heart disease or accidents in general is at least 100 times higher than to die in a terrorist attack, I guess this shows pretty clearly what's a threat and what not, doesn't it?

I guess that a terrorist attack is statistically pretty much at the bottom of the mortality risks. There is no reason to hype it the way we heard in the past.

And especially there is no reason to get up any freedoms because of that, is there?

Darth Rotor · 1st June 2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Nope. You're wrong. The possibility to die in an US-motor vehicle accident, for example, is 82.14 times higher than to die during a muslim terror-attack in the US.

Apples and Oranges, huh?

Prior to WTC 1993, and of course WTC 2001, you would have had to divide a car accident statistic by zero to make a comparison, and thus get a nonsensical answer, much as your post is nonsensical. Yet oddly enough, due to the problem of drunk driving, the US decreased the number of people killed on the highways from drunk accidents, per capita, from 1970 to 2000.

In 1970, about 66000 people per year died in car wrecks, with about 45,000 of those being from alcohol related causes. (Population about 200,000,000)

Recent stats: About 50,000 people die per year in car wrecks, and about 35,000 of them from alcohol. (Population about 300,000,000)

Given the opportunity and risk, which is every time you drive, times drivers, about 100,000,000, times 365 days of the year, modified by a safety factor, you will find that your point won't scale when you look at the proportional mismatch between opportunity, 4, and dead, 3000, for the 911 attacks.

The agency, the cause, of the risk is different, and thus the threat, and risk assessment, is different.

You also presume that all terror attacks will fit the 9-11 template.

Bad assumption.

What's funny is: I found the hype and hand wringing, the garment rending after 9-11 to be contemptible. In that you and I sorta agree.

My personal view was "Fargin' Ice Holes, let's go find who was behind this, kill them, and then kill their entire extended families."

DR

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

How do you explain this?

foiled terror attacks since 2001:

Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html

Just a few I found with a really quick search...

This is not fear mongering, it’s reality. Stop diminishing the threat of terrorism.

I'm impressed. You will probably die soon in a terrorist attack ... watch out.

Tailgater · 1st June 2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I understand it, but if the possibility to die on lung-cancer as a smoker, heart disease or accidents in general is at least 100 times higher than to die in a terrorist attack, I guess this shows pretty clearly what's a threat and what not, doesn't it?

I guess that a terrorist attack is statistically pretty much at the bottom of the mortality risks. There is no reason to hype it the way we heard in the past.

And especially there is no reason to get up any freedoms because of that, is there?

I can choose not to smoke. That is why the comparison is bananas and broccoli.

BPSCG · 1st June 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

In 1993 only 6 people died when the WTC was bombed. That means that from 1993 until 2001 only .002 people died. Obviously the threat had ended long before 9-11.

And from April, 1973 to 1992, nobody was killed by terrorists at the WTC, for an average of zero persons per decade. Obviously, the threat had ended even before 1993.

Okay, obviously not.

Oliver, if you graph the above numbers, you will approximate a parabola, indicating that the threat from terrorism is increasing exponentially.

Amazing what you can prove if you minimize your number of data points.

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I'm impressed. You will probably die soon in a terrorist attack ... watch out.

That's not the point. I know I personally have very little chance to get killed in such an attack (probabilty wise), but still the threat exists.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Prior to WTC 1993, and of course WTC 2001, you would have had to divide a car accident statistic by zero to make a comparison, and thus get a nonsensical answer, much as your post is nonsensical. Yet oddly enough, due to the problem of drunk driving, the US decreased the number of people killed on the highways from drunk accidents, per capita, from 1970 to 2000.

In 1970, about 66000 people per year died in car wrecks, with about 45,000 of those being from alcohol related causes. (Population about 200,000,000)

Recent stats: About 50,000 people die per year in car wrecks, and about 35,000 of them from alcohol. (Population about 300,000,000)

Given the opportunity and risk, which is every time you drive, times drivers, about 100,000,000, times 365 days of the year, modified by a safety factor, you will find that your point won't scale when you look at the proportional mismatch between opportunity, 4, and dead, 3000, for the 911 attacks.

The agency, the cause, of the risk is different, and thus the threat, and risk assessment, is different.

You also presume that all terror attacks will fit the 9-11 template.

Bad assumption.

What's funny is: I found the hype and hand wringing, the garment rending after 99-11 to be contemptible. In that you and I sorta agree.

My personal view was "Fargin' Ice Holes, let's go find who was behind this, kill them, and then kill their entire extended families."

DR

Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes and freedoms, not mine.

A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear threat is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there?

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

That's not the point. I know I personally have very little chance to get killed in such an attack (probabilty wise), but still the threat exists.

I never said it doesn't exist. But you should be 100 times more afraid of dying during a heart attack or an accident. Are you ~100 times more afraid about that?

No.

See? You're exaggerating ... ESPECIALLY IN CANADA!

Tailgater · 1st June 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes, not mine.

A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear thread is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there?

You mean a dirty bomb like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Quote:

The attacks led to the U.S. government passing legislation designed to increase protection around federal buildings and to thwart future terrorist attacks. Under these measures, law enforcement has since foiled over fifty domestic terrorism plots.[2]

Giggywig · 1st June 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I never said it doesn't exist.

Doesn't the thread title say exactly that?

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I never said it doesn't exist.

Yes you did:

Quote:

Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Are you ~100 times more afraid about that?

No.

Quote:

See? You're exaggerating ... ESPECIALLY IN CANADA!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...enium-plot.htm

Quote:

Ahmed Ressam, 23, had illegally immigrated to Canada in 1994. Using a falsified passport and a bogus story about persecution in Algeria, Ressam entered Montreal and claimed political asylum. For the next few years he supported himself with petty crime. Recruited by an alumnus of Abu Zubaydah’s Khaldan camp, Ressam trained in Afghanistan in 1998, learning, among other things, how to place cyanide near the air intake of a building to achieve maximum lethality at minimum personal risk. Having joined other Algerians in planning a possible attack on a U.S. airport or consulate, Ressam left Afghanistan in early 1999 carrying precursor chemicals for explosives disguised in toiletry bottles, a notebook containing bomb assembly instructions, and $12,000. Back in Canada, he went about procuring weapons, chemicals, and false papers.

Darth Rotor · 1st June 2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes and freedoms, not mine.

A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear threat is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there?

I was playing hockey, and if you want to play tennis now, by all means, go play with yourself. Your game is both incoherent, tiresome, and as noted by Giggywig, self contradictory from square one.

DR

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Yes you did:

No.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...enium-plot.htm

Okay, you won. Literally I said it in the Header - but you know what I mean.

And? How many Candians died because of Ahmed Ressam?

And because you live in Canada. Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security- and military commission act, too?

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Okay, you won. Literally I said it in the Header - but you know what I mean.

No I don't know what you mean, and quite frankly, I don't think you do either.

Quote:

And? How many Candians died because of Ahmed Ressam?

Thanks to good intelligence and security, no one got hurt. The bastard is rotting in prison.

The threat exists.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I was playing hockey, and if you want to play tennis now, by all means, go play with yourself. Your game is both incoherent, tiresome, and as noted by Giggywig, self contradictory from square one.

DR

No, it's not. Think about the probabilities for another attack and then think about if all the acts that are limiting your freedoms did make you safer. And then think about if anything politicians say in their campaigns will make you safer.

Maybe I misunderstand you but you're either promoting the propaganda some politicians use -or- you're just trying to find arguments to counter my points without debunking them with hard facts about why anyone should be afraid.

What is it? Why should people be afraid about terror in your opinion?

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

No I don't know what you mean, and quite frankly, I don't think you do either.

Thanks to good intelligence and security, no one got hurt. The bastard is rotting in prison.

The threat exists.

No, no, no - you missed the interesting part for Canadians:

Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security-, military commission act and wiretapping, too?

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

No, no, no

Ziggurat · 1st June 2007, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11.

A million years from now, the 3000 people who died on 9/11 will amount to only 8 micropersons per day.

A car crashed a 8:57 PM last night, killing the driver. At 8:58 last night, that car accident had killed a whopping 1440 people per day.

Math is fun!

I've been over this in other threads. A well-quantified risk with known costs for its reduction is not equivalent to a fundamentally unknowable risk whose reduction we cannot measure. And the death totals alone aren't a good metric. Aside from the associated property damage and economic impact (half a trillion dollars, roughly, in the case of 9/11), the fact is that concentrated casualties are more damaging to society than spread-out ones, because the damage to social networks is not linear with the number of casualties. That's why we don't still have Pals Battalions.

Tailgater · 1st June 2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

No, no, no - you missed the interesting part for Canadians:

Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security-, military commission act and wiretapping, too?

He was caught leaving Canada when they went to check his ID again and he tried to run, unless I misunderstood something. I think that falls under homeland security.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A million years from now, the 3000 people who died on 9/11 will amount to only 8 micropersons per day.

A car crashed a 8:57 PM last night, killing the driver. At 8:58 last night, that car accident had killed a whopping 1440 people per day.

Math is fun!

I've been over this in other threads. A well-quantified risk with known costs for its reduction is not equivalent to a fundamentally unknowable risk whose reduction we cannot measure. And the death totals alone aren't a good metric. Aside from the associated property damage and economic impact (half a trillion dollars, roughly, in the case of 9/11), the fact is that concentrated casualties are more damaging to society than spread-out ones, because the damage to social networks is not linear with the number of casualties. That's why we don't still have Pals Battalions.

So you agree that there is no need at all to propagate the Terror-Card - and they had all information before 9/11 - and there was no need to improve or legislate any law because it was the current Bush regime that screwed it up to avoid the attacks?

I can proof this.

fuelair · 1st June 2007, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Solus

It's political, and it doesn't make logical sense. I think the problem is you don't understand politics...

That is frighteningly obvious from his inability to understand how the USs' size makes more than two functional parties difficult - within the contest of our early political development.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Yes, yes, yes.

foiled terror attacks since 2001:

That doesn't impress me at all - unless you can proof that there were lesser terror plots before 9/11. Maybe you just recognize these things because people and the media started to spend attention to terrorism after 9/11?

Find a similar list for 2000 or any year before the Terror-Hype that proofs that the terror threat increased.

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Find a similar list for 2000 or any year before the Terror-Hype that proofs that the terror threat increased.

English please.

IXP · 1st June 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake?

Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action.

You are trying to compare apples and fleas.

People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a

POLITICAL

difference.

DR

Darth,

I have always found your arguments to be reasonble and rational though we often diasgree on the premises or the values that necessarily underpine them. But this post has me totally puzzled.

Here is what I think you are saying:

1. Terrorism is designed to coerce people into a political action that they would otherwise not take.

2. Therefore, we cannot respond to the threat of terrorism the same way that we do to other threats.

3. I believe we respond rationally to other threats such as accidental deaths, disease, natural disasters, and well, maybe not gun deaths.

How is number 2 different from being coerced into a political action that we would not otherwise take? Are you suggesting that the correct response to terrorism to throw out logic and react emotionally?

IXP

Ziggurat · 1st June 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

So you agree that there is no need at all to propagate the Terror-Card - and they had all information before 9/11 - and there was no need to improve or legislate any law because it was the current Bush regime that screwed it up to avoid the attacks?

Uh, no. I didn't say anything resembling any of that. Are you really that clueless about what I meant?

Quote:

I can proof this.

Spelling mistakes on a message board don't matter, so don't bother proofing it.

That's a joke, BTW. When used as a verb, "proof" means something different than "prove".

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

And from April, 1973 to 1992, nobody was killed by terrorists at the WTC, for an average of zero persons per decade. Obviously, the threat had ended even before 1993.

Okay, obviously not.

Oliver, if you graph the above numbers, you will approximate a parabola, indicating that the threat from terrorism is increasing exponentially.

Amazing what you can prove if you minimize your number of data points.

Well, 9/11 is what the political Terror-Hype is about, isn't it? So of course I've chosen this number. And my point still is - there was no hype after 1993, so there is no need to panic after 2001.

Oliver · 1st June 2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. I didn't say anything resembling any of that. Are you really that clueless about what I meant?

Spelling mistakes on a message board don't matter, so don't bother proofing it.

That's a joke, BTW. When used as a verb, "proof" means something different than "prove".

Sorry for any spelling error.

Basically you seem to be afraid of a phantom, meaning that somehow someone could somewhere at some time do something that scares you. Sorry, but this sounds paranoid to me - and please note that I didn't say I believe you're paranoid.

So why do you support Terror-Politicians and limitations in your Freedoms? You didn't address these points so far.

hgc · 1st June 2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I understand it, but if the possibility to die on lung-cancer as a smoker, heart disease or accidents in general is at least 100 times higher than to die in a terrorist attack, I guess this shows pretty clearly what's a threat and what not, doesn't it?

I guess that a terrorist attack is statistically pretty much at the bottom of the mortality risks. There is no reason to hype it the way we heard in the past.

And especially there is no reason to get up any freedoms because of that, is there?

It's nice that you know a little about statistics, but we're working with a vanishingly small sample size with terrorist attacks as compared to lung cancer and heart desease. Consider this: What was the terrorist threat, statistically speaking, on Sept 10, 2001? Pretty damn nil, by your calculation. Was there a threat, or were the events of the next day something else altogether?

Pardalis · 1st June 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Sorry for any spelling error.

Basically you seem to be afraid of a phantom

Ziggurat · 1st June 2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Sorry for any spelling error.

Basically you seem to be afraid of a phantom, meaning that somehow someone could somewhere at some time do something that scares you. Sorry, but this sounds paranoid to me - and please note that I didn't say I believe you're paranoid.

Yeah, well, it isn't. What things sound like to you is rather irrelevant to me. And your inability to take a threat seriously has no bearing on whether or not the threat is serious.

Quote:

So why do you support Terror-Politicians and limitations in your Freedoms? You didn't address these points so far.

What limitations on my freedoms? The only limitations on my freedoms are that I can't bring large bottles of beverage on airplanes. And actually, I do think the FAA restrictions are overzealous. But that's not really what we're debating, is it?

Bikewer · 1st June 2007, 12:32 PM

I think that the fear of terrorism, like the fear of being raped or murdered, is all out of proportion to the actual threat. That being said, this sort fear of attack by shadowy outside forces is a very powerful thing, and perhaps more so in our relatively attack-free country.
Being in law enforcement, it's long been apparent that the individual citizen's fear of criminal attack is vastly unjustified, and news of such incidents always get a very strong reaction in the media.

Nonetheless, very few would be willing to live without what they perceive as a functional criminal-justice system.

Carried on up to the level of the country as a whole, the 9/11 sort of attack is completely unsupportable in the minds of most. No appeal to statistical likelihood of death-by-terrorist is liable to allay such fears.

I completely disagree with the Bush administration's assertion that we are "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

The people we are fighting in Iraq have little or nothing to do with the Al Qaeda agenda of attacks against the West for their perceived grievances.
Were we to leave Iraq tomorrow, these grievances would remain unaddressed and the threat of further attacks would remain.

1st June 2007, 10:57 AM	#1
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period. I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all: 3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago: 3000 : 2089 = 1.4 _________________________________________________ Now compare and explain why anyone should be afraid about Terrorism in the US or believe any politicians fear-mongering at all: 1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11. 8 young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996) 115 persons die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. 328 smoker in Britain die each day from smoking-related illnesses. 12,000 children around the globe die per day because starvation.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:00 AM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by Oliver I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all: 3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago: 3000 : 2089 = 1.4 _________________________________________________ Now compare and explain why anyone should be afraid about Terrorism in the US or believe any politicians fear-mongering at all: 1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11. 8 young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996) 115 persons die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. 328 smoker in Britain die each day from smoking-related illnesses. 12,000 children around the globe die per day because starvation. How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake? Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action. You are trying to compare apples and fleas. People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a POLITICAL difference. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

1st June 2007, 11:08 AM	#3
UserGoogol Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,074	Yes, but all we have to do to address their "intent" that is to simply... not change our policies. If we can pull that off, then we should treat terrorism as "just another way people die." To get too caught up in the intent behind actions is just metaphysical nonsense anyway, if the World Trade Center had collapsed because of a freak earthquake, it would have been just as bad for the people directly involved, although admittedly not as bad for the people who were only tangentially involved and watched the disaster on TV. People flying planes into buildings effects people's emotions differently from freak earthquakes, but such emotions are illogical and should not be encouraged to the point of being the basis behind major foreign policy decisions. Although at the same time, I admit there's some emotions and poor thinking in Oliver's own argument; dividing by the amount of time between September 11th, 2001 and now is an extremely simplistic way to measure the probability of terrorism, and very large fonts are generally a sign of emotional rhetoric, but I have to agree with the basic gist of the argument if not the particulars of its argumentation.
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor Last edited by UserGoogol; 1st June 2007 at 11:19 AM.

1st June 2007, 11:17 AM	#5
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,986	Oliver, I wonder if you understand the meaning of the word "threat."
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

1st June 2007, 11:20 AM	#7
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by Oliver Nope. You're wrong. The possibility to die in an US-motor vehicle accident, for example, is 82.14 times higher than to die during a muslim terror-attack in the US. Apples and Oranges, huh? Why are you trying to make me fear my car?
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

1st June 2007, 11:10 AM	#4
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake? Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action. You are trying to compare apples and fleas. People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a POLITICAL difference. DR Nope. You're wrong. The possibility to die in an US-motor vehicle accident, for example, is 82.14 times higher than to die during a muslim terror-attack in the US. Apples and Oranges, huh?
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:20 AM	#6
Solus Tinkering with my brain Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: L.A. area Posts: 1,723	It's political, and it doesn't make logical sense. I think the problem is you don't understand politics...

1st June 2007, 11:20 AM	#8
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Oliver I made this comparison in another thread but to clarify it once and for all: 3000 People died on 9/11 and this event is 2089 days ago: 3000 : 2089 = 1.4 In 1993 only 6 people died when the WTC was bombed. That means that from 1993 until 2001 only .002 people died. Obviously the threat had ended long before 9-11.

1st June 2007, 11:23 AM	#9
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	How do you explain this? foiled terror attacks since 2001: Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html 10 plots in the US: http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US...ots/index.html G8 terror attack foiled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...076285,00.html In Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot intelligence about dirty bomb and nuclear threats: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...947295,00.html plot foiled in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_German_train_bombing Busted terror cells in Canada: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c Just to give you a sample. I’m sure there are many more of these in many other countries. plots that unfortunately did work since 2001: In England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings In Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot In Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Marc...Madrid_attacks In Indonesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing In Jordan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings In Tunisia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_Synagogue_Attack In the Philipines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_Bombings In Morocco: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm In Gibraltar: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html In Kenya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_hotel_bombing In Saudi Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings In Istambul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings In Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sh...Sheikh_attacks In Algeria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Algiers_bombings oil tanker bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_tanker_bombing Just a few I found with a really quick search... This is not fear mongering, it’s reality. Stop diminishing the threat of terrorism.

1st June 2007, 11:25 AM	#10
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by hgc Oliver, I wonder if you understand the meaning of the word "threat." I understand it, but if the possibility to die on lung-cancer as a smoker, heart disease or accidents in general is at least 100 times higher than to die in a terrorist attack, I guess this shows pretty clearly what's a threat and what not, doesn't it? I guess that a terrorist attack is statistically pretty much at the bottom of the mortality risks. There is no reason to hype it the way we heard in the past. And especially there is no reason to get up any freedoms because of that, is there?
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:26 AM	#12
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Pardalis How do you explain this? foiled terror attacks since 2001: Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html Just a few I found with a really quick search... This is not fear mongering, it’s reality. Stop diminishing the threat of terrorism. I'm impressed. You will probably die soon in a terrorist attack ... watch out.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:29 AM	#13
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by Oliver I understand it, but if the possibility to die on lung-cancer as a smoker, heart disease or accidents in general is at least 100 times higher than to die in a terrorist attack, I guess this shows pretty clearly what's a threat and what not, doesn't it? I guess that a terrorist attack is statistically pretty much at the bottom of the mortality risks. There is no reason to hype it the way we heard in the past. And especially there is no reason to get up any freedoms because of that, is there? I can choose not to smoke. That is why the comparison is bananas and broccoli.
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

1st June 2007, 11:31 AM	#14
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Bob Klase In 1993 only 6 people died when the WTC was bombed. That means that from 1993 until 2001 only .002 people died. Obviously the threat had ended long before 9-11. And from April, 1973 to 1992, *nobody* was killed by terrorists at the WTC, for an average of zero persons per decade. Obviously, the threat had ended even before 1993. Okay, obviously not. Oliver, if you graph the above numbers, you will approximate a parabola, indicating that the threat from terrorism is increasing exponentially. Amazing what you can prove if you minimize your number of data points.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

1st June 2007, 11:31 AM	#15
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Oliver I'm impressed. You will probably die soon in a terrorist attack ... watch out. That's not the point. I know I personally have very little chance to get killed in such an attack (probabilty wise), but still the threat exists.

1st June 2007, 11:31 AM	#16
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Prior to WTC 1993, and of course WTC 2001, you would have had to divide a car accident statistic by zero to make a comparison, and thus get a nonsensical answer, much as your post is nonsensical. Yet oddly enough, due to the problem of drunk driving, the US decreased the number of people killed on the highways from drunk accidents, per capita, from 1970 to 2000. In 1970, about 66000 people per year died in car wrecks, with about 45,000 of those being from alcohol related causes. (Population about 200,000,000) Recent stats: About 50,000 people die per year in car wrecks, and about 35,000 of them from alcohol. (Population about 300,000,000) Given the opportunity and risk, which is every time you drive, times drivers, about 100,000,000, times 365 days of the year, modified by a safety factor, you will find that your point won't scale when you look at the proportional mismatch between opportunity, 4, and dead, 3000, for the 911 attacks. The agency, the cause, of the risk is different, and thus the threat, and risk assessment, is different. You also presume that all terror attacks will fit the 9-11 template. Bad assumption. What's funny is: I found the hype and hand wringing, the garment rending after 99-11 to be contemptible. In that you and I sorta agree. My personal view was "Fargin' Ice Holes, let's go find who was behind this, kill them, and then kill their entire extended families." DR Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes and freedoms, not mine. A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear threat is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there?
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 1st June 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Spälling, again... :"/

1st June 2007, 11:34 AM	#17
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Pardalis That's not the point. I know I personally have very little chance to get killed in such an attack (probabilty wise), but still the threat exists. I never said it doesn't exist. But you should be 100 times more afraid of dying during a heart attack or an accident. Are you ~100 times more afraid about that? No. See? You're exaggerating ... ESPECIALLY IN CANADA!
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:34 AM	#18
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by Oliver Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes, not mine. A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear thread is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there? You mean a dirty bomb like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing Quote: The attacks led to the U.S. government passing legislation designed to increase protection around federal buildings and to thwart future terrorist attacks. Under these measures, law enforcement has since foiled over fifty domestic terrorism plots.[2]
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Last edited by Tailgater; 1st June 2007 at 11:37 AM.

1st June 2007, 11:39 AM	#19
Giggywig Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,853	Originally Posted by Oliver I never said it doesn't exist. Doesn't the thread title say exactly that?

1st June 2007, 11:40 AM	#20
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Oliver I never said it doesn't exist. Yes you did: Quote: Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period. Originally Posted by Oliver Are you ~100 times more afraid about that? No. Quote: See? You're exaggerating ... ESPECIALLY IN CANADA! http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...enium-plot.htm Quote: Ahmed Ressam, 23, had illegally immigrated to Canada in 1994. Using a falsified passport and a bogus story about persecution in Algeria, Ressam entered Montreal and claimed political asylum. For the next few years he supported himself with petty crime. Recruited by an alumnus of Abu Zubaydah’s Khaldan camp, Ressam trained in Afghanistan in 1998, learning, among other things, how to place cyanide near the air intake of a building to achieve maximum lethality at minimum personal risk. Having joined other Algerians in planning a possible attack on a U.S. airport or consulate, Ressam left Afghanistan in early 1999 carrying precursor chemicals for explosives disguised in toiletry bottles, a notebook containing bomb assembly instructions, and $12,000. Back in Canada, he went about procuring weapons, chemicals, and false papers.

1st June 2007, 11:43 AM	#21
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	Originally Posted by Oliver Now since the cockpit doors are safe and there are very strictly controls on airports, how big is the threat? I mean it's your taxes and freedoms, not mine. A dirty Bomb would probably kill less then 50 people. Another nuclear threat is a problem for the CIA. No need to wiretap you, is there? I was playing hockey, and if you want to play tennis now, by all means, go play with yourself. Your game is both incoherent, tiresome, and as noted by Giggywig, self contradictory from square one. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

1st June 2007, 11:44 AM	#22
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Pardalis Yes you did: No. http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...enium-plot.htm Okay, you won. Literally I said it in the Header - but you know what I mean. And? How many Candians died because of Ahmed Ressam? And because you live in Canada. Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security- and military commission act, too?
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:47 AM	#23
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Oliver Okay, you won. Literally I said it in the Header - but you know what I mean. No I don't know what you mean, and quite frankly, I don't think you do either. Quote: And? How many Candians died because of Ahmed Ressam? Thanks to good intelligence and security, no one got hurt. The bastard is rotting in prison. The threat exists.

1st June 2007, 11:49 AM	#24
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I was playing hockey, and if you want to play tennis now, by all means, go play with yourself. Your game is both incoherent, tiresome, and as noted by Giggywig, self contradictory from square one. DR No, it's not. Think about the probabilities for another attack and then think about if all the acts that are limiting your freedoms did make you safer. And then think about if anything politicians say in their campaigns will make you safer. Maybe I misunderstand you but you're either promoting the propaganda some politicians use -or- you're just trying to find arguments to counter my points without debunking them with hard facts about why anyone should be afraid. What is it? Why should people be afraid about terror in your opinion?
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:51 AM	#25
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Pardalis No I don't know what you mean, and quite frankly, I don't think you do either. Thanks to good intelligence and security, no one got hurt. The bastard is rotting in prison. The threat exists. No, no, no - you missed the interesting part for Canadians: Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security-, military commission act and wiretapping, too?
	__________________

1st June 2007, 11:53 AM	#26
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Oliver No, no, no Yes, yes, yes. foiled terror attacks since 2001: Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html 10 plots in the US: http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US...ots/index.html G8 terror attack foiled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...076285,00.html In Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot intelligence about dirty bomb and nuclear threats: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...947295,00.html plot foiled in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_German_train_bombing Busted terror cells in Canada: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c plots that did work since 2001: In England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings In Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot In Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Marc...Madrid_attacks In Indonesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing In Jordan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings In Tunisia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_Synagogue_Attack In the Philipines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_Bombings In Morocco: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm In Gibraltar: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html In Kenya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_hotel_bombing In Saudi Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings In Istambul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings In Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sh...Sheikh_attacks In Algeria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Algiers_bombings oil tanker bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_tanker_bombing

1st June 2007, 11:54 AM	#27
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,178	Originally Posted by Oliver 1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11. A million years from now, the 3000 people who died on 9/11 will amount to only 8 micropersons per day. A car crashed a 8:57 PM last night, killing the driver. At 8:58 last night, that car accident had killed a whopping 1440 people per day. Math is fun! I've been over this in other threads. A well-quantified risk with known costs for its reduction is not equivalent to a fundamentally unknowable risk whose reduction we cannot measure. And the death totals alone aren't a good metric. Aside from the associated property damage and economic impact (half a trillion dollars, roughly, in the case of 9/11), the fact is that concentrated casualties are more damaging to society than spread-out ones, because the damage to social networks is not linear with the number of casualties. That's why we don't still have Pals Battalions.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st June 2007, 11:57 AM	#28
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212	Originally Posted by Oliver No, no, no - you missed the interesting part for Canadians: Which laws had been improved or legislated to catch him? I mean, do you have a patriot-, homeland security-, military commission act and wiretapping, too? He was caught leaving Canada when they went to check his ID again and he tried to run, unless I misunderstood something. I think that falls under homeland security.
Tailgater Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,212

1st June 2007, 12:00 PM	#29
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Ziggurat A million years from now, the 3000 people who died on 9/11 will amount to only 8 micropersons per day. A car crashed a 8:57 PM last night, killing the driver. At 8:58 last night, that car accident had killed a whopping 1440 people per day. Math is fun! I've been over this in other threads. A well-quantified risk with known costs for its reduction is not equivalent to a fundamentally unknowable risk whose reduction we cannot measure. And the death totals alone aren't a good metric. Aside from the associated property damage and economic impact (half a trillion dollars, roughly, in the case of 9/11), the fact is that concentrated casualties are more damaging to society than spread-out ones, because the damage to social networks is not linear with the number of casualties. That's why we don't still have Pals Battalions. So you agree that there is no need at all to propagate the Terror-Card - and they had all information before 9/11 - and there was no need to improve or legislate any law because it was the current Bush regime that screwed it up to avoid the attacks? I can proof this.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 12:04 PM	#30
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by Solus It's political, and it doesn't make logical sense. I think the problem is you don't understand politics... That is frighteningly obvious from his inability to understand how the USs' size makes more than two functional parties difficult - within the contest of our early political development.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881

1st June 2007, 12:08 PM	#31
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Pardalis Yes, yes, yes. foiled terror attacks since 2001: That doesn't impress me at all - unless you can proof that there were lesser terror plots before 9/11. Maybe you just recognize these things because people and the media started to spend attention to terrorism after 9/11? Find a similar list for 2000 or any year before the Terror-Hype that proofs that the terror threat increased.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 12:09 PM	#32
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Oliver Find a similar list for 2000 or any year before the Terror-Hype that proofs that the terror threat increased. English please.

1st June 2007, 12:10 PM	#33
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor How is the starvation (and the rest of that rubbish) used to influence, sway, coerce, or otherwise strong arm people into a political course of action they are generally unwilling to undertake? Terror attacks are explicitly used to apply force for a political aim, and the threat of force to coerce others into an involuntary course of action. You are trying to compare apples and fleas. People die every day, so what? It is the purpose (and for that matter, means) behind the process that makes a POLITICAL difference. DR Darth, I have always found your arguments to be reasonble and rational though we often diasgree on the premises or the values that necessarily underpine them. But this post has me totally puzzled. Here is what I think you are saying: 1. Terrorism is designed to coerce people into a political action that they would otherwise not take. 2. Therefore, we cannot respond to the threat of terrorism the same way that we do to other threats. 3. I believe we respond rationally to other threats such as accidental deaths, disease, natural disasters, and well, maybe not gun deaths. How is number 2 different from being coerced into a political action that we would not otherwise take? Are you suggesting that the correct response to terrorism to throw out logic and react emotionally? IXP
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	__________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar Last edited by IXP; 1st June 2007 at 12:12 PM.

1st June 2007, 12:11 PM	#34
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,178	Originally Posted by Oliver So you agree that there is no need at all to propagate the Terror-Card - and they had all information before 9/11 - and there was no need to improve or legislate any law because it was the current Bush regime that screwed it up to avoid the attacks? Uh, no. I didn't say anything resembling any of that. Are you really that clueless about what I meant? Quote: I can proof this. Spelling mistakes on a message board don't matter, so don't bother proofing it. That's a joke, BTW. When used as a verb, "proof" means something different than "prove".
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st June 2007, 12:12 PM	#35
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by BPSCG And from April, 1973 to 1992, *nobody* was killed by terrorists at the WTC, for an average of zero persons per decade. Obviously, the threat had ended even before 1993. Okay, obviously not. Oliver, if you graph the above numbers, you will approximate a parabola, indicating that the threat from terrorism is increasing exponentially. Amazing what you can prove if you minimize your number of data points. Well, 9/11 is what the political Terror-Hype is about, isn't it? So of course I've chosen this number. And my point still is - there was no hype after 1993, so there is no need to panic after 2001.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 12:20 PM	#36
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Uh, no. I didn't say anything resembling any of that. Are you really that clueless about what I meant? Spelling mistakes on a message board don't matter, so don't bother proofing it. That's a joke, BTW. When used as a verb, "proof" means something different than "prove". Sorry for any spelling error. Basically you seem to be afraid of a phantom, meaning that somehow someone could somewhere at some time do something that scares you. Sorry, but this sounds paranoid to me - and please note that I didn't say I believe you're paranoid. So why do you support Terror-Politicians and limitations in your Freedoms? You didn't address these points so far.
	__________________