Tim Starr, It's not hard to see how you make your "points": by conspicuously leaving out NUMBERS. So allow me to easily rebut you by supplying what you omit: simple math.
If your post changes anything, it increases the number of terrorism fatalities. So let's give your position further benefit and maximize the number of terrorist fatalities at 6000 for the past four decades. (If you think I've minimized it, let's see your numbers.) That's 150 Americans killed by terrorists per year. Now let's do an HONEST comparison to fatalities resulting from drug-prohibition. It is curious for you to accuse me of minimizing when you greatly minimize the drug war threat down to the risk of getting arrested for a consensual choice to do drugs. I'm afraid that ignores prohibition's main threat: being a non-consensual victim of drug-war related crime. There were 16,692 murders in the US in 2005. Since there were 23,326 in 1994 and 25,000 in 1972, we can safely average it at 20,000 per year. Let's give you another advantage and minimize the percent of those related to prohibition at only 50%. That's 10,000 per year. 10,000 times 40 years = 400,000. That's 400,000 drug-prohibition FATALITIES. (Your referral to "magnitude" is funny, since we are talking FATALITIES. There ain't no greater "magnitude" than DEAD, my friend.) My math tells me that 400,000 is about 66 times more than 6000. To be thorough, let's do a third comparison. Since you have a problem with natural disasters, we'll forget my comparison to lightning-strike victims (even though it was only intended for numerical perspective). Instead, we'll compare arson fatalities; which there were 700 reported for 1996. So let's again give you the advantage and reduce the average to 500 arson fatalities per year in the US. That's 20,000 in 40 years. Deaths in 40 years: Terrorism - 6000 Arson - 20,000 Prohibition 400,000 If those numbers are not sufficient to make my point about the backwards priorities of the US government, let me elaborate. The numbers suggest that arson should be given at least the same amount of monetary attention as terrorism. Somehow I doubt it is. Even more evidentiary is the fact that prohibition fatalities (the greatest number by far) are actually CAUSED by our own government; prohibition is US Government policy. IOW, our government not only fails to give any monetary attention to protecting Americans from drug prohibition, it gives great monetary attention to committing drug prohibition (and endangering & killing Americans). So much for your contention that prohibition is not a greater threat to most Americans than the threat posed by Islamo-Fascist terrorism. By conservative estimates, the threat level of prohibition is greater than Islamo-Fascist terrorism by almost a hundred MAGNITUDES. --------------------------- This simplistic threat-denial never ceases to amaze me, nor the blithe comparisons of risks presented by intentional human action to natural disasters like lightning strikes, etc. Risk is a function of frequency and magnitude, as well as intentions and capabilities. The frequency of terrorist attacks is one of the easiest things for terrorists to control, as terrorists hold almost all the initiative when it comes to their attacks. As for magnitude, given that the 9/11 attacks were pulled off with no weapons more formidable than box-cutters, I'd say that the magnitude of terrorist attacks is pretty much under their control, too. Natural disasters are pretty infrequent, and their frequency does not vary easily. Other risks, such as car accidents, that are often compared to terrorism, are of greater frequency, but still remain pretty constant in their frequency, and are of relatively low magnitude per-incident. I take it that your argument is that there's no need for the War on Terror because the risk of terrorism is so low. However, one of the main reasons why there have been zero terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 has been the War on Terror. Let's list the terrorist attacks in America in the decade prior to then: * 1993 - WTC bombing I * 1995 - OKC bombing * 1995 - US military base in Saudi Arabia (not US soil, but zero attacks upon US military bases in Saudi Arabia - or any other countries besides Iraq & Afghanistan - since 9/11, either) * 1996 - US military base in Saudi Arabia - again * 1998 - TWA800 * 1998 - US embassies in Africa (technically US soil; there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US embassies since 9/11, either) * 2000 - USS Cole (there haven't been any terrorist attacks upon US warships since 9/11, either) That makes for a grand total of 7 major terrorist attacks upon US soil or US targets in the decade prior to 9/11. Compare that to the complete absence of any such attacks after 9/11. What does that say about the effect of the War on Terror upon the risk of such terrorism? Now, consider the fate of other countries which have been less aggressive than America in the War on Terror: Britain: Subway bombings Spain: Train bombing Indonesia: Bali bombing France: Massive rioting by Muslim youth Netherlands: Assassination of Theo van Gogh, threats upon Hirsi Ali forced her into hiding, loss of MP position by Ali under pressure from Islamo-fascist sympathizers Denmark: Motoons riots, destruction of Danish embassies Even here in America, the press was too scared to publish any of the Motoons, except for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and Borders' Books was too scared to carry that issue on their newsstands. And you say that the threat to Americans from the War on Drugs is greater than the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat? Let's see, Islamo- fascists want to kill us indiscriminately in surprise attacks for being infidels. Drug warriors want to arrest and prosecute us if we're involved in the drug trade, according to US criminal procedure. Which is easier for most Americans to do, convert to Islam, or avoid taking part in the illegal drug trade? Which would most Americans rather face, death by suicide bomber, or arrest by US police & prosecution in U.S. courts on drug charges? I'm all for ending the War on Drugs, in large part because it acts as a price support program for black marketeers who fund terrorism. But it's not a greater threat to most Americans than the threat posed by Islamo-Fascist terrorism. Tim Starr Fight for Liberty! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >Do you have any idea of the excruciatingly low threat level >presented to Americans in America by terrorism?
