9/7/2006 10:17:06 AM

well, atleast the world is safer now.

9/7/2006 10:32:55 AM

so

- we're not any safer

or

- terrorism is not a big threat

which side are you going to go with?

9/7/2006 10:46:00 AM

WAIT I CANT CHOOSE BOTH!?!?! OR NEITHER!?!?!?

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 10:47 AM. Reason : df]

9/7/2006 10:47:22 AM

well since they directly contradict each other...

9/7/2006 10:48:06 AM

not at all.

i can easily say that we are not any safer then we were pre-911, but that terrorism is still not a big threat in the grand scheme of things.

the word "big" is extremely relative. big compared to what? compared to UFO abductions, yes. compared to murders in the US, no.

9/7/2006 10:52:05 AM

you could easily say that...you'd be wrong, but you could say it

9/7/2006 10:53:09 AM

how about "big deal" defined as ...what an entire political party is basing part of thier election campaign on

the dems keep saying "but we arent any safer!!....vote for us!!"..

does that work??

9/7/2006 10:53:43 AM

^^whatever you say, boss. youre not worth the effort.

^and i dont think they should be. they're just trying to exploit the situation for political gain. the bigger deal they make it out to be, the more votes they figure they can get. its the same thing the republicans did the last election. i dont agree with what either side is doing.




[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 10:59 AM. Reason : f]

9/7/2006 10:54:37 AM

I'm having trouble understanding the point/significance of this post. Help me out here. Explain your meaning.

9/7/2006 10:56:32 AM

Quote :

"they're just trying to exploit the situation for political gain"

and the democrats are bashing that for their own political gain so you lose again

i'm not worth the effort when you know you're wrong

9/7/2006 10:59:02 AM

what piece of shit publication was this from? there are dozens of missing attacks, such as the Munich 1972 Olympics and the Achille Lauro

9/7/2006 11:00:43 AM

well considering the first attack on this map is in 1993, and Achille Lauro and Munich happened BEFORE 1993, I dont think they just "left them out"

they dont have Pan Am Flight 103 either, among others...

9/7/2006 11:02:22 AM

It's still a lousy list, i'm pretty sure suicide bombings and car bombs were not unique to the time period after 2000.

9/7/2006 11:05:26 AM

Here is a more complete list of terror attacks, although it only goes to 2003

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

9/7/2006 11:05:26 AM

wait a minute

Quote :

"PUK Kidnapping, September 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis. "

i thought iraq didnt have any terrorists until the united states "made them" a few years ago? does not compute

9/7/2006 11:07:37 AM

^You do realize that the leader of that group is now president of Iraq, right?

9/7/2006 11:26:43 AM

yes and its a fucked up situation...but point being, iraq harbored terrorists before "the US created them"

9/7/2006 11:29:54 AM

Hey, treetwist, how do you define "terrorist"?

9/7/2006 11:30:44 AM

i would say, roughly, somebody who attacks innocent people to create fear

but dont quote me on that because unless i take the time to come up with a long, specific definition i will get a bunch of jackasses making stupid analogies like "OMG GEORGE BUSH IS THE BIGGEST TERRORIST"

9/7/2006 11:32:36 AM

Well, I mean, I kinda wanted the long definition. you can take your time with it, I just want to know what your exact definition is, caveats included. If you would be so good to do that

9/7/2006 11:34:31 AM

Quote :

"yes and its a fucked up situation...but point being, iraq harbored terrorists before "the US created them""

dude just admit you have no fucking clue, because we were the ones protecting Kurdistan after the gulf war

If anything it was the US that was harboring the PUK before the invasion.

And besides, the PUK and Talibani is probably one of the least fucked up things about the Iraqi government

9/7/2006 11:39:16 AM

Quote :

"If anything it was the US that was harboring the PUK before the invasion."

NO

9/7/2006 11:45:57 AM

woaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

9/7/2006 12:27:55 PM

wow, i've never seen that picture before, what a revelation, you mean we helped them when we had issues with Russia, oh my gosh wherever did you dig that up

9/7/2006 12:29:02 PM

WTF!!!!

9/7/2006 12:30:01 PM

hey lemme dig up a picture of Governor Clinton flying the confederate flag at the capitol in Arkansas and show it to the black people who think "Clinton was the first black President"

9/7/2006 12:31:14 PM

WHAAAAAAT!

9/7/2006 12:36:59 PM

waaaaaaah?

9/7/2006 12:38:59 PM

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 12:41 PM. Reason : WAAAAAAHH@@@@@@@]

9/7/2006 12:41:43 PM

So, I see 1 dot in the US before 2001, as well as a few scattered around the world. I see quite a bit of dots since 2001. Hmmm, who has been president in that time?

Maybe I counted wrong, but I see 7 dots from 1993-9/10/2001, and 36 dots from 9/11-today.

Not to be a dick Tree, but what are you trying to prove with this map?

9/7/2006 3:00:44 PM

not trying to prove anything, just giving a non-biased map

however...if you notice, after 9/11, NONE of the attacks happened in the US...I personally think the reason there have been more attacks since then worldwide is that radical Muslim terrorism is becoming a bigger and bigger problem...yet no attacks in the US in the last 4 years and 361 days

9/7/2006 3:06:24 PM

Quote :

"I'm having trouble understanding the point/significance of this post. Help me out here. Explain your meaning."

9/7/2006 3:06:58 PM

of which post

9/7/2006 3:10:57 PM

The original one was the one I was refering to before.

9/7/2006 3:16:59 PM

you mean the map? just an illustrated "timeline" of terrorist attacks by Muslims in the last ~13 years, not including Iraq or suicide bombings in Israel

9/7/2006 3:18:48 PM

And what is the significance of that?

9/7/2006 3:22:46 PM

i'm pretty sure the point of this thread is to show that the world has gotten a lot less safe since 9/11...no?

9/7/2006 3:24:59 PM

^^uh, because terrorism is a threat? whats the significance of half the threads in Soap Box, just repeating over and over again how the Iraq war was unjust? The image in the first post of this thread is pretty much concrete, tangible, factual, nondebatable

But maybe since it implies that terrorism IS a threat, some people who dont think terrorism is a threat want the thread to die? Just a guess

^well one thing it shows is that yes there were a higher number of muslim terrorist attacks after 9/11...but moreso that terrorism is a growing problem that should be taken more seriously than "omg look how many people die in car crashes lets ban cars"

9/7/2006 3:25:35 PM

it seems like muslims are like younger stepchilds that know if they fuck with their older stepbrother(the us), it will piss off the US, so they keep on doing it(just like a younger stepchild would keep nagging)

i guess the end of this story is when the older stepbrother beats the shit out of the younger stepbrother, and the younger stepbrother stops(muslims) fucking around...

9/7/2006 3:33:46 PM

How is a war between the jews and hez a terrorist act?

9/7/2006 3:48:21 PM

the map also leaves out all of the stuff in Russia/Chechnya which involved islamic extremists

9/7/2006 3:51:16 PM

i wonder what would happen if someone built a time machine and killed jesus

like just got a 9mm and killed him- i wonder how different the world would be then

9/7/2006 3:52:18 PM

That was actually the plot for the fourth installment in the Back to the Future series. I'm still scratching my head as to why it never happened.

9/7/2006 3:54:35 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: ^well one thing it shows is that yes there were a higher number of muslim terrorist attacks after 9/11...but moreso that terrorism is a growing problem that should be taken more seriously than "omg look how many people die in car crashes lets ban cars""

Compare the numbers. How many years will it take before terrorism becomes a greater threat to your mortality? Why should you fear it more than death by automobile?

9/7/2006 4:45:58 PM

because to some extent, if i drive in a responsible and defensive way, i can avoid most accidents

if on the other hand i'm at a panthers game, for example, and somebody decides to crash a plane into bank of america stadium, i dont really have any control over what might come about

9/7/2006 4:51:03 PM

Does Twista realize PUK is christian and not muslim

and had we not had the no fly zones in Iraq after the first gulf war the PUK wouldn't have been able to carry out those attacks?

Shit, the US was home to Timothy McVeigh, that doesn't mean we harbor terrorists.

9/7/2006 5:03:07 PM

i mentioned PUK after the link that jlphipps posted

I never implied that they were Muslim

but they were clearly one example of evidence that Iraq had terrorists before our current war...when so many people claim there werent terrorists until we bombed them 3 years ago

9/7/2006 5:07:00 PM

To a similar extent, you don't have to go to public sporting events if you're that frightened. Or only go to public events you feel are lower risk targets to terrorists (i.e. Panthers game vs. Giants game). You could also choose not to drive at all. I think these'd be silly solutions, but you certainly exercise a good deal of control over whether or not you die in a terrorist attack.

To increase your already miniscule odds:
1) Run for national political office.
2) Fly internationally, and often.
3) Move to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, or Israel, just to name a few.

To decrease your already miniscule odds, you'd choose not to do any of the above, or to use discretion when choosing to do so. For instance: (1) Don't run for national political office, try to be a political appointment instead, (2) Fly internationally rarely, (3) Move to areas of those countries that are more protected than others.

Neither one is that great a threat to your mortality in the first place. Both are totally quantifiable risks, however. Ask any actuary.

What I don't understand about your graphic, and the case it's supposed to present, is that it doesn't address the quantified risks at all. This is the same beef you tend to see with pacifists who overstate the number of civilian casualties in warfare. The fact is that comparably fewer civilians die in modern warfare than in the past, and that not that many actually do. It's also true that comparably fewer civilians die in terrorist attacks than in historical warfare, and that not that many do, either.

While it was a horrible way to die, all told, your graphic represents a maximum of about 10,000 people fatally victimized by terrorism...on Earth. Over a decade. Grab a calculator. That's 0.000154% of the Earth's current population. Even seeing a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks doesn't change the fact that it's a TINY number compared with the number of fatalities due to car crashes or numerous other mortal risks over the same period of time.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: because to some extent, if i drive in a responsible and defensive way, i can avoid most accidents if on the other hand i'm at a panthers game, for example, and somebody decides to crash a plane into bank of america stadium, i dont really have any control over what might come about"

How does the analogy apply?

You say yourself implicitly that you can't avoid all accidents. I'm presuming that's an admission you can die in an accident that isn't your fault and thus beyond your control...

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 5:12:47 PM

Ok, so there was the 93 bombing, 9/11, where is that third dot around new your coming from? I cant find it... I'd say it looks like we are pretty safe here at home.

When you try to get rid of a bee's nest in your back yard, the bees might sting you back, but in the end there will be less bees.

9/7/2006 5:13:08 PM