- Joined
- Jan 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,069
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
The "new study" decided to start the body count AFTER 9/11/01, and their categorization of the politics of perpetrators since 9/11 is also questionable.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I've already explained this, statistically 9-11 was such a huge outlier, including it would have heavily skewed the numbers away from the reality before and after that event. To date, it's a one off event.
Also, when you start talking about numbers over 50, you're really just quibbling. Oklahoma was 168 dead... And that was just one of dozens.
The point is, frequency of attacks is just as big a consideration as casualty count where terror is concerned. So playing the odds... I'd say it's much more likely there will be several more domestic attacks before we see a foreign one... If we see another foreign attack at all.
In our 14th year of the undeclared Global War On Terror, and you blame 'isolationists and anti-war nimrods'? My goodness, you are in touch with reality....:roll:
In our 14th year of the undeclared Global War On Terror, and you blame 'isolationists and anti-war nimrods'? My goodness, you are in touch with reality....:roll:
I don't believe it's The Long War because the federal government wants it that way. It's The Long War because those who seek our destruction are committed to long term aggression.
I beg to differ. It is the Long War because those who profit from war just happen to have a bunch of influence inside the beltway. The GWOT is meant to be waged, not won. Permanent conflict is good for business, as Ike warned about.
I don't think it would matter USC. :2wave: Nor by how many.
Islamic Terror Warnings Issued Ahead of July 4th Weekend.....
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have issued official warnings about the upcoming holiday weekend.
Federal authorities have warned local law enforcement officials across the country about a heightened concern involving possible terror attacks targeting the July 4th holiday, a U.S. law enforcement official said. While there was no specific or credible threat of attack, the official said the intelligence bulletin prepared by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI alerted local colleagues to the ongoing threats posed by the Islamic State and other homegrown extremists. The official was not authorized to comment publicly.
Two weeks ago House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told CBS the United States faces its highest threat since after 9/11. Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul has echoed that sentiment.....snip~
Islamic Terror Warnings Issued Ahead of July 4th Weekend - Katie Pavlich
14th year, are you not including the many decades since the end of WW2 that we have been involved in the ME. That is the problem with the majority of isolationists and anti-war. They tend to be part of the younger generation who are very badly educated in history. We have been involved in the Middle East since, and arguably, before WW2. They act as if the whole problem of ME terrorism just started after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is how you can tell they are ignorant about history, and possibly, just totally ignorant anyway.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Friends of mine have died or been grievously wounded to defend your free speech. Call it sanctimonious if you will but you owe them, regardless of whether you acknowledge your debt.
A bit too tin foil hat for me.
14th year, are you not including the many decades since the end of WW2 that we have been involved in the ME. That is the problem with the majority of isolationists and anti-war. They tend to be part of the younger generation who are very badly educated in history. We have been involved in the Middle East since, and arguably, before WW2. They act as if the whole problem of ME terrorism just started after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is how you can tell they are ignorant about history, and possibly, just totally ignorant anyway.
So its not just one member of the committee, which further suggests a trend.
People with access the average citizen does not have are quite worried, and the forums lefties (with no special insight) have blanket dismissed the threat.
Life under the Obama years.
A bit too tin foil hat for me.
Do you know why we are at the highest threat level we have been at since the cold war? Because the isolationist and anti-war nimrods have been listened too. We told all of you, that if we were to leave the ME that we would be fighting them here instead of there. well, we are about to see the reality of this soon. With as pourous as our boarders are to our south, and the growing number of enemies through south and central America rise due to the newly perceived American weakness, It is only a matter of time that they start infiltrating us from the south and imbed themselves into our communities. Thanks Anti-war and isolationist movement.
When this began, many preferred to call it The Long War and some still do. We have several decades to go.
House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Faced In This Country’
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee warns that America is dealing with “the highest threat level we have ever faced in this country.” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the threat is coming from the radicalization of young people and foreign fighters heading to Iraq and Syria to join terror groups.
“They’re very good at communicating through separate avenues where it’s very difficult to track,” Nunes said. “That’s why when you get a young person who is willing to get into these chat rooms, go on the Internet and get radicalized, it’s something we are not only unprepared [for], we are also not used to it in this country.”
Ike warning about the inclination of the military industrial complex to be politically invested in advancing that sector of our economy is found by you to be to a foil hat conspiracy
but you are willing to believe that we are now confronted with a threat that is the HIGHEST our nation has EVER faced
any remaining vestiges of credibility within your posts has now vanished
This is the fruit of nearly 7 years of "smart" diplomacy.
A weak president has allowed terror to flourish and in fact ceded a nation to the most violent terrorists in modern history. In Afghanistan he is doing the same, as AQ surrounds cities and Iran pours in more, licking their chops for the last Americans to leave-Obama has let them know its theirs.
China and Russia are emboldened. And "JV" isis continues to grow, striking already in the US, and now subjecting Americans to the greatest threat level we have ever faced from terrorists.
This is what hope and change looks like folks.
Ike warning about the inclination of the military industrial complex to be politically invested in advancing that sector of our economy is found by you to be to a foil hat conspiracy
but you are willing to believe that we are now confronted with a threat that is the HIGHEST our nation has EVER faced
any remaining vestiges of credibility within your posts has now vanished
14th year, are you not including the many decades since the end of WW2 that we have been involved in the ME. That is the problem with the majority of isolationists and anti-war. They tend to be part of the younger generation who are very badly educated in history. We have been involved in the Middle East since, and arguably, before WW2. They act as if the whole problem of ME terrorism just started after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is how you can tell they are ignorant about history, and possibly, just totally ignorant anyway.
I've already explained this, statistically 9-11 was such a huge outlier, including it would have heavily skewed the numbers away from the reality before and after that event. To date, it's a one off event.
Also, when you start talking about numbers over 50, you're really just quibbling. Oklahoma was 168 dead... And that was just one of dozens.
The point is, frequency of attacks is just as big a consideration as casualty count where terror is concerned. So playing the odds... I'd say it's much more likely there will be several more domestic attacks before we see a foreign one... If we see another foreign attack at all.
As Jack Hayes said, you are simply rationalizing. There is no such thing as an "outlier" in such comparisons except for people trying to bend the statistics towards a predefined goal. By your rationale if a right wing radical group were to blow up the Sears Tower and kill 10,000 people you would have to disregard it in your evaluation of most dangerous groups for being an "outlier"... in other words, your rationalization in idiotic.
Person 1: I've done the math and it is practically impossible for there to be a gorilla in this room.
Person 2: Then what it this 800 lb furry ape in the middle of the room?
Person 1: An outlier.
You do realize that graphic is completely false, right?
Hassan: Hassan was registered to vote in Roanoake, Virginia, a state that does not allow partisan registration. Ergo, it is legally impossible for him to have been a registered Democrat.
Harris/Klebold: There is zero substantiation that either of their parents was a registered Democrat.
Cho: Resident alien, couldn't vote.
Holmes: James Holmes was not a registered Democrat, since he wasn't registered to vote.
Lanza: Lanza wasn't either.
The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com
Just another lie from our right-wing friends.
Thanks for sharing your myopic opinion. The article is about future threats and the conditions present in the here and now that give rise to concern. Past death tolls are not a primary factor. Current events, radical ideological chatter, societal pressures (whether economic, racial, religious, etc) ARE the principle considerations when assessing threat levels.
Let's see if you can be intellectually honest enough to respond directly without changing the context of what I've said.
Haha! So your article of who is the most dangerous isn't really about the faulty SPLC selective study, but simply a prediction of future threats... based on the faulty SPLC selective study.
Man, you should have stopped at your first rationalization.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?