Quote :

"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"

They weren't being harbored

There is a difference between being there and being harbored

the administration claimed they were being harbored.

Saddam Hussein was not a fan of extreme islam

9/7/2006 5:14:04 PM

Quote :

"the fact that it's a TINY number"

i'm glad its not a bigger number...its still unacceptable...and one thing the chart clearly shows throughout that ~decade is an increase in attacks

Quote :

"where is that third dot around new your coming from?"

for some reason i thought, even though all dots seem to be in the tristate area, that one of the red dots was WTC 9/11 and the other was Pentagon 9/11 but I'm not sure

Quote :

"Saddam Hussein was not a fan of extreme islam"

I'm (Saddam's) not a fan of Virginia Tech (extreme islam) but I'll certainly pull for them over the Tarheels (America)

9/7/2006 5:17:04 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i'm glad its not a bigger number...its still unacceptable...and one thing the chart clearly shows throughout that ~decade is an increase in attacks"

An increase from practically nothing to slightly more than practically nothing.

There was a similar increase in death-by-vehicle when automobiles became mass produced...

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 5:21 PM. Reason : momma told me someday it was gonna happen but she never told me when]

9/7/2006 5:19:06 PM

just because you probably havent had friends or family members directly killed as results of acts of terror doesnt mean you can belittle them as "practically nothing"...its innocent americans getting killed by psychopaths and you seem to be content with it since its not killing 100,000 people a year

its not ACCIDENTS by bad drivers or wet roads, etc

its people INTENTIONALLY ATTACKING US who want to MURDER US and our FAMILIES

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2006 5:20:38 PM

Not at all. I just don't think our response matches the threat (or risk)--which is only slightly more than nothing. I said nothing to belittle the lives of those people. And I challenge you to explain how I did.

You don't go outside wondering if you're going to die because of some event that's 0.0001% likely to happen to you and wildly adjusting how you interact with the world because of it, do you?

Given the current state of technology, I don't think we have any excuse to have as many people dying in car accidents as we do. Since more people die in them, at a greater rate, and the government can rather directly influence that by imposing greater safety standards, I'd argue we ought to spend at least an equal amount of time trying to address that far greater risk as we do obsessing over terrorism.

Again I remind you, despite recent evidence to the contrary, a government can focus on two things at once...

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 5:26 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 5:23:29 PM

Quote :

"car accidents "

terrorist attacks are not accidents

9/7/2006 5:24:01 PM

Same with death-by-vehicle sometimes.

Same with murder most of the time.

Where's the war on those?

Heart disease isn't an accident. Where's our Global Struggle Against Obesity?

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 5:26:25 PM

How about drunk drivers?


You can say someone driving drunk and crashing isn't an "accident"

9/7/2006 6:01:46 PM

That's a great example.

9/7/2006 6:23:45 PM

Thanks, I've been working on it for weeks

9/7/2006 7:47:19 PM

DWI checkpoints...increased penalties for DWIs...I would say there is definitely an effort to curb drunk driving

9/7/2006 7:54:21 PM

really, that graphics is so fucking biased it's not even funny. It includes a foiled attempt in the "attacks." It also includes a bomb that killed four people. And yet it doesn't mention any of these types of things before 9-11...

9/7/2006 8:32:09 PM

Those terror strikes in other countries are alienating our allies and potential allies.

9/7/2006 10:51:37 PM

Quote :

"it doesn't mention any of these types of things before 9-11..."

what do you call the 6 terrorist attacks on the map before 9-11?

9/8/2006 12:59:09 AM

I call them dramatically different than "guy blows up a car and kills 4 people..." Why did they leave out an attack on November 13, 1995? It's of about the same magnitude as the March 2, 2006 one from the graphic, and is referenced on another website...

I see 9 "terrorist attacks" that involve the killing of less than 10 people, excluding the Daniel Pearl incident. The invasion of Iraq is listed in the "terrorist attacks," as is the Hezbollah-Israel conflict last month and the foiling of the plot last month.

If April 7, 2005 counts as a "terrorist attack," why not count this:

Quote :

"November 13, 1995 Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement but praises the attack (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98). "

Really, the graphic is purposely skewed

9/8/2006 2:15:42 AM

well ok they left some out

how is it skewed though in your opinion? do you think they intentionally left out certain incidents?

9/8/2006 11:11:27 AM

it was the liberals who left them out

9/8/2006 11:15:53 AM

I mean somebody apparently left some out, but I think they included enough to show that yes, terrorism is a threat

9/8/2006 11:16:29 AM

well stop using my money to fight it because I dont give a shiiiit.

9/8/2006 11:18:10 AM

ok fine...as soon as you stop using my money to pay for illegal immigrants' illegal servies and benefits

9/8/2006 11:29:56 AM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: DWI checkpoints...increased penalties for DWIs...I would say there is definitely an effort to curb drunk driving"

Sure there's an effort. But does the magnitude of that effort reflect the mortality risk associated with it? Comparitively? Those are the questions.

You seem to be expending a lot of effort to avoid answering that question.

9/8/2006 5:32:33 PM