Risk of terrorism in US low

I just want to add some perspective to the debate on terrorism. Everyone (yeah I'm looking at you Gingrich) is getting a bit hysterical these days over a threat that is extremely low in the US.

Here's a dose of reality on just how minor the threat is.

American deaths since 9/11
Car accidents: 490,000
Homicides not terrorist related: 243,570
Flu: 828,405
Hospital acquired infections: 1,485,000*
Jihadist attacks: 94
Right wing terrorist attacks: 48

*Hospital acquired infections are now the 4th leading cause of death in America.

So what is the real risk Americans are facing, the one that money and effort should be showered on? Not terrorism at all. Not murder either. The US has a higher murder rate than most of the developed world but for the average American being murdered is a long shot.

The real risk is health related - Chronic diseases and the looming issue of complete antibiotic resistance. Now there's a reason to panic. Imagine that 1/3 of the pregnancies where antibiotics are used the drug has no effect? Or that stepping on a nail can kill you.

Btw speaking of health Congress just failed to cough up Zika virus funding the CDC said was an emergency. How's that for being let down by your government.

 

But the trick is to react to terrorism before the attack happens.

 

Shut down the Pentagon and get to work on this Zika and MRSA!

 

That will only work if the terrorist will always let you know somehow when and where the attack will occur. We won't always know so there will be occasional successful terrorist attacks. Best to work on the low hanging fruit - what are the biggest risks for the average American- working on those will save the most lives. Those are obvious and have nothing to do with terrorism: improve healthcare outcomes, improve road and automobile safety, encourage healthier lifestyles etc. And it's not one or the other - terrorism like other crime has to be prevented as much as possible so that effort continues, but not at the expense of real threats.

 

1. I'll be looking forward to OP's similar analysis of the "hysteria" of BLM protests "over a threat that is extremely low % in the US also," black men being shot and killed by police.

2. The reason I bring "1" up is that there have been no "anti Muslim" or "anti terrorism" protests in my area of the US or any area of the US I'm aware of (maybe there were some somewhere, I just haven't; seen them), so where is OP getting "hysteria?" Is rebuking terrorists and seeking to vet immigrants from countries that practice terrorism, hysteria? I don't think so but apparently OP does. IMO BLM is a great example of hysteria, whereas concern over jihadi terrorism is not, at least I haven't seen the same indicia of hysteria over terrorism that BLM displays. Let's go a step further and wager that OP would not classify BLM as "hysteria," so where does that leave his premise that the concern about terrorism in the US is "hysteria?" I'd say out in the cold.

3. Terrorist attacks are important, regardless of incidence or a % of death they cause (and IMO OP's attempt to downplay terrorism due to the small % of death's it causes is childish) a) they directly threaten and impede the freedoms of mobility and travel that citizens of the US prize, b) like shark attacks, also of low incidence, they breed fear and uncertainty that telling people "oh it's just a few people in comparison" doesn't fix. Being extremely concerned about terrorist attacks is not "hysteria." Speaking out vehemently against terrorism is not "hysteria."

 

For starters, when assessing the historic risk of Islamic terrorism, it is utterly preposterous to exclude 9/11. The mere existence of 9/11 illustrates the undeniable fact that mass attacks CAN and WILL happen. Nobody that is being even a little fair minded would attempt to ignore 9/11 in that analysis. On top of that, by FAR the biggest concern with the recent expansion of Islamic based terror is the notion of a weapon of mass destruction, biological weapon, attacks on bridges, dams, nuclear power plants etc. There is an entire culture that has declared war upon the West, and none of those concerns are a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. The death toll that resulted could literally count into the millions. What you are saying is akin to claiming that we should not focus resources on Ebola, because no one has ever contracted it within our borders. It is the potential catastrophe and the likelihood of that catastrophe that drives resources, NOT the past death toll.

By using your logic, the only place that we should focus ANY resources is in cardiovascular disease, because IT is the number one killer of human beings. We all know such a course of action would just be silly. Our medical system should devote a lot of resources to combatting cardiovascular disease because it poses the most danger to our health. Our national security apparatus should devote a lot of resources to combatting terrorism, because it poses the most potential danger to our security.

 

Even taking the deaths from 9/11 into account the risk is extremely small.

Complete hyperbole. More than that - it's hysteria.

That's the exact opposite of what I just said isn't it.

 

-Then why did you exclude 9/11?

- The concern for a weapon of mass destruction, biological, attacks on dams, nuclear power plants etc is NOT hysteria. Granted, none of them have happened yet, but that doesn't mean they will not. If you think for one second that our national security apparatus has not legitimately contemplated and plotted how to avoid that potential, you are shockingly ignorant. The notion that you are pushing which is that past events are the only guide for future outcomes is utterly preposterous. With that mindset, we could have said that Hawaii has never been attacked prior to Pearl Harbor, derivatives have never crashed prior to 2008 etc etc. Past events do NOT dictate the future. The task of the national security apparatus is to anticipate and hopefully avoid future calamities, NOT simply react to what has happened in the past. We live in a dynamic world that is constantly evolving, and the job of our national security apparatus is to anticipate the dangers that come from that evolution. The fact that Radical Islamists have declared war upon us is not to be taken lightly.

- No, its NOT the exact opposite of what you said.

 

It is in fact. I said this:

And you said this:

...polar opposite of what I said.

 

That's a given. However the one thing that cannot be stopped is self-radicalization. That's are newest and most deadly enemy.

 

Why not compare apples to oranges? Duh.

 

Funny, out of one side of your mouth you say "So what is the real risk Americans are facing, the one that money and effort should be showered on? Not terrorism at all" which directly implies that we should not devote resources to fighting terrorism, and out of the other side of your mouth you weakly acknowledge that it is not one or the other. You are admitting we have to devote "something" to terrorism, but where the REAL resources need to go are "not [to] terrorism at all". You are contradicting yourself other than to support fighting terrorism ONLY to the point that it doesn't direct dollars away from other things which doesn't make a lick of sense since government spending on Terrorism is money that could otherwise go elsewhere. You are now trying to wear that contradiction as if it is somehow a badge of honor. Very strange.

 

I could never explain this simply enough for you to understand. Bye.

 

Because I am too intelligent and savvy to allow you to twist logic into a pretzel, which is precisely what you are attempting. Moving on is probably a wise course of action for you.

 

American deaths since 9/11
Car accidents: 490,000
Homicides not terrorist related: 243,570
Flu: 828,405
Hospital acquired infections: 1,485,000*
Jihadist attacks: 94
Right wing terrorist attacks: 48
Left Wing terrorist attacks: 54

You forgot one.

Attacks on U.S. Soil since 9/11:

2001 - 2008 = 3
2009 - 2016 = 12

Somebody's dropping the ball.

 

A car accident or flu cant be avoided. Not letting a rabid muslim kill us can definitely be reduced.

 

I heard someone say that the risk of terrorism in the US was low but that was the day before the San Beradino and that Gay place got shot up.

 

Yes someone did drop the ball.

Americans killed by Jihadist terrorists
Under Bush: 2,996
Under Obama: 94

- - - Updated - - -

Car accident and flu deaths can be reduced. Terrorist deaths can also be reduced. But you're going to get killed by a car or the flu long before you'd ever have to think about a terrorist getting you.

 

The people in France got killed by a car and a terrorist. What are odds of that?

 

Surely you mean Clinton don't you?

Somebody in the Clinton (*)(*)(*)(*) Up Circus knew about the airliner plot. One would think that there might be a shred of brains enough to check the U.S. Flight schools for anybodys name that might stand out. 1998, isn't that 2 years before Clinton left office? Atta and his pals trained in the United States right under Clinton's nose in early 2000. Just sayin.

 

I'm a stickler for details, so I fixed your Statistics.

 

That is true and the DOJ successfully prosecuted over 200 terrorist related cases within the first six years of the Obama Administration and continues to do so. This is far more than the number of successful prosecutions on terrorist related charges than occurred between 2001-2008 under the prior administration. The claim made by many on the "right" is that the Obama Administration is "soft on terrorism" but that isn't supported by the evidence.

A question I often hear asked, "Is ISIS a threat?"

Well yes and no. ISIS is obviously a very serious threat in Iraq and Syria, less of a threat but still a serious threat in Europe, and it is a relatively minor threat in the United States as the statistics indicate.

In fact statistically "Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist." http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/

 

The following link provides a listing of anti-Muslim hate crimes since 9/11 through 2011. I didn't even take the time to count them but we can obviously call it a "metric butt-load" of religiously motivated hate crimes against Muslims in the United States dwarfing the number of Jihadist terrorist attacks on American soil.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2011/03/29/anti-muslim-incidents-sept-11-2001

 

I wasn't afraid of Islamic terrorism the day before 9/11/2001, I wasn't afraid of Islamic terrorism as I watched the events of 9/11 on the news, and I haven't been afraid of Islamic terrorism for even one moment in the 15 years that have passed since the attacks of 9/11.

What I find ironic is that those with the most fear of Islamic terrorism in the US appear to be Christians that believe they're going to Heaven when they die. That's sort of like being afraid of winning the Powerball lottery IMHO.

 

Wow, you managed to mix religious bigotry, and mindless bluster all in one post, and still make it fail miserably. Stay classy dude.