Your odds of being killed by terrorism.... [W:194]

[Dittohead not!]

...are pretty slim:

– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
​

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.The annual number of deaths in the U.S. due to avoidable medical errors is as high as 100,000. Indeed, one of the world’s leading medical journals – Lancet – reported in 2011:

A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.
​

That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.
​

source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

 

[azgreg]

...are pretty slim:
So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

Because :scared:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because :scared:

Yep.
Your little emoticon tells it all:
When in trouble, when in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.

 

[Ikari]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

because it's a good fear issue to make people stop thinking about what they are letting government get away with. Fear based tactics exist for the prime purpose of quickly growing government power.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[Crovax]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

We spend 3.8 trillion a year on healthcare and 16 billion on counter terrorism.

We should apparently spend more on mathematics though...

 

[Thoreau72]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

Because it's really good for business, if one happens to be in the weapons business. Consider Ike's warning in 1961.

And for the perverse amongst us, keeping the populace in a permanent state of fear makes it very easy to manipulate their emotions.

 

[Tigerace117]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

Because terrorists kill more people at once, and because people can't control the factors involving terrorism. You can adjust your lifestyle to avoid heart disease, but not terrorism. People get uneasy.

 

[Crovax]

because it's a good fear issue to make people stop thinking about what they are letting government get away with. Fear based tactics exist for the prime purpose of quickly growing government power.

Considering the govt has significantly less power now than in previous decades or centuries, I think you are the fearmonger

 

[legalimmigrant]

The odds of being killed by a Muslim terrorist after September 11, 2001, were .0000001%.

The odds of being killed by a Jap after December 7, 1941, were .0000001%.

Yet, FDR started killing Japs. How bloody stupid to spend all that money and effort with the odds so low.

Instead, he should have hired a bunch of mathematicians specializing in probabilities to calm all the racist and xenophobic trigger-happy hotheads down.

 

[natsb]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

As long as we are calculating odds... What are the odds that someone will miss the whole point about terrorism and focus on something as mundane as the number killed. It has nothing to do with the numbers killed, it has everything to do with causing terror within, and controlling the living.

A society can lock themselves in, watch their economy collapse, and wallow in fear. Or, they can "spend so much time, energy, and money" defeating the terrorist; allowing the living to maintain a normal life.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Because it's really good for business, if one happens to be in the weapons business. Consider Ike's warning in 1961.

And for the perverse amongst us, keeping the populace in a permanent state of fear makes it very easy to manipulate their emotions.

Yes, and that is why your government keeps the gates open to let as many Muslim terrorists as possible. To speed up the process, they even import "refugees" against all the warnings from the FBI and, of all places, ISIS. Yes, ISIS, which freely and honestly says they will infiltrate the flow of "refugees" with their killers. The reaction from Obama and other loons? "We have to show the world we are not afraid."

I wonder if the 132 who died in Paris were afraid in the last few seconds of their lives.

 

[legalimmigrant]

After the Boston bombs went off, that "brave" city was paralyzed for days. After 9/11, all flights (except the one to let Osamas escape from the FBI) were suspended for almost a week.

Now imagine a low-yield dirty nuke going off in NY. That stunt would require just a couple of Muslims and a suitcase.

Now, how relevant is it that 1 million Muslims are sweet and cuddly and "only" two were bad "apples"?

A dirty bomb may be hard to make and smuggle into the U.S. Low-tech terrorism on-the-budget may be just as effective if it is massive and well coordinated. Again, just imagine a couple of hundred explosions in different cities at the same time on public buses.

Are we still going to be talking about privacy and rights? I doubt it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because terrorists kill more people at once, and because people can't control the factors involving terrorism. You can adjust your lifestyle to avoid heart disease, but not terrorism. People get uneasy.

Something is going to get you eventually. Heart disease is far more likely. Traffic accidents are far more likely. Getting shot is far more likely. Even getting struck by lightning is more likely than dying at the hands of a terrorist.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As long as we are calculating odds... What are the odds that someone will miss the whole point about terrorism and focus on something as mundane as the number killed. It has nothing to do with the numbers killed, it has everything to do with causing terror within, and controlling the living.

A society can lock themselves in, watch their economy collapse, and wallow in fear. Or, they can "spend so much time, energy, and money" defeating the terrorist; allowing the living to maintain a normal life.

Or, quit being so afraid of boogymen. In the 1950s, it was commies under every bed. Now, it's terrorists. Ikari, Utility Man, and Thoreau have it right: It makes it easier to control the masses and increase the power of government.

 

[Tigerace117]

Something is going to get you eventually. Heart disease is far more likely. Traffic accidents are far more likely. Getting shot is far more likely. Even getting struck by lightning is more likely than dying at the hands of a terrorist.

Yeah, but terrorist attacks stick in people's minds longer then lightning strikes do.

 

[Bodi]

...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?

Are we not spending time, energy and money on heart disease or cancer, or somthing?

 

[Bodi]

Something is going to get you eventually. Heart disease is far more likely. Traffic accidents are far more likely. Getting shot is far more likely. Even getting struck by lightning is more likely than dying at the hands of a terrorist.

Lightning and heart disease are not actively seeking people out and trying to kill you nor do they have an agenda for world domination...

 

[Bodi]

After the Boston bombs went off, that "brave" city was paralyzed for days. After 9/11, all flights (except the one to let Osamas escape from the FBI) were suspended for almost a week.

Now imagine a low-yield dirty nuke going off in NY. That stunt would require just a couple of Muslims and a suitcase.

Now, how relevant is it that 1 million Muslims are sweet and cuddly and "only" two were bad "apples"?

A dirty bomb may be hard to make and smuggle into the U.S. Low-tech terrorism on-the-budget may be just as effective if it is massive and well coordinated. Again, just imagine a couple of hundred explosions in different cities at the same time on public buses.

Are we still going to be talking about privacy and rights? I doubt it.

Muslims and dirty bombs? Better lock 'em all up right now then... like we did those dirty Japs.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Muslims and dirty bombs? Better lock 'em all up right now then... like we did those dirty Japs.

Locking them up is expensive. Keeping them out is no cost. Plus, we have only so many beds at Gitmo.

 

[Bodi]

Locking them up is expensive. Keeping them out is no cost. Plus, we have only so many beds at Gitmo.

They are already here... they are Americans. Do you want to lock them up like we did the dirty Japs?

 

[Grand Mal]

The odds of being killed by a Muslim terrorist after September 11, 2001, were .0000001%.

The odds of being killed by a Jap after December 7, 1941, were .0000001%.

Yet, FDR started killing Japs. How bloody stupid to spend all that money and effort with the odds so low.

Instead, he should have hired a bunch of mathematicians specializing in probabilities to calm all the racist and xenophobic trigger-happy hotheads down.

What a crock.

 

[Grand Mal]

Locking them up is expensive. Keeping them out is no cost. Plus, we have only so many beds at Gitmo.

I can smell your fear from here.

 

[legalimmigrant]

I can smell your fear from here.

I can smell a foreign liberal from here.

 

[Tigerace117]

I can smell a foreign liberal from here.

:roll: