Al Queda is not a threat
Aug. 30th, 2006 01:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pluralSeriously, in fact all the terrorist groups around the world combined are not currently a threat..
You sitting there reading this have only a slightly higher chance of being killed by a terrorist than you have of being eaten by a shark in your neighborhood swimming pool [unless you piss me off, then the chances of the latter goes up dramatically].
Ok so I exaggerate slightly, lets look at the real numbers [using 2003 figures]:
Your chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident
in any particular year is: 1 in 6,498
over your lifetime those odds increase to: 1 in 84
in contrast
Your chance of dying as the result of a terrorist attack
in any particular year is: 1 in 77,292
over your lifetime: 1 in 996
Which means you are 11.9 times more likely to die in your car than by a terrorist attack.
If terrorists are half the problem the media or government makes them out to be, we should nuke detroit.
For comparison, lets look at some other causes of death
with the same approximate odds as dying from a terrorist attack
Intentional self-poisoning Y = 1/53,250 L = 1/686
Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation Y = 1/43,836 L= 1/565
So you are 1.45 times more likely to poison yourself and 1.7 times more likely to hang yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
If we look at all forms of intentional self-harm Y = 1/9,238 L = 1/119
Then you are 8.4 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
The obvious answer here is to kill you to protect you from the danger you present to yourself.
You sitting there reading this have only a slightly higher chance of being killed by a terrorist than you have of being eaten by a shark in your neighborhood swimming pool [unless you piss me off, then the chances of the latter goes up dramatically].
Ok so I exaggerate slightly, lets look at the real numbers [using 2003 figures]:
Your chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident
in any particular year is: 1 in 6,498
over your lifetime those odds increase to: 1 in 84
in contrast
Your chance of dying as the result of a terrorist attack
in any particular year is: 1 in 77,292
over your lifetime: 1 in 996
Which means you are 11.9 times more likely to die in your car than by a terrorist attack.
If terrorists are half the problem the media or government makes them out to be, we should nuke detroit.
For comparison, lets look at some other causes of death
with the same approximate odds as dying from a terrorist attack
Intentional self-poisoning Y = 1/53,250 L = 1/686
Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation Y = 1/43,836 L= 1/565
So you are 1.45 times more likely to poison yourself and 1.7 times more likely to hang yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
If we look at all forms of intentional self-harm Y = 1/9,238 L = 1/119
Then you are 8.4 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
The obvious answer here is to kill you to protect you from the danger you present to yourself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 01:16 am (UTC)yet we can count those as costs of living
the reality is that WMDs withstanding
current terrorist capabilities
pose little threat to our person or our societies
The question is not binary i.e.
ignore them all / kill them all
rather a question of shades in between
and learning to accept a certain amount as exactly that
a cost of doing business
does that mean we do not go after those who commit any acts?
or try to prevent any terrorist act?
no
it means we recognize a certain amount of acceptible loses
plan both our security and responses around that
That way we could stop all this inane psuedo security
give me back my damn shoes, lighter and bourbon
ack, I gotta run put a child in bed
[I'm watching a friends kids tonight]
but I'm about halfway through a post
describing what this post means to me
in terms of how we should address terrorism
I'd love to hear your thoughts on it
tomorrow when I post it.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 02:06 am (UTC)Sure they are. Suicide rates remain relatively constant from year to year. So do auto accident rates.
Nonsense. Planes could be falling out of the sky by the hundreds, maybe even thousands. There's no lack of willing volunteers. And every successful act provides more encouragement for others to try. Give them an inch, they will take another, until you accept that too. And then another, and another.
This is not a public health issue or any other statistical phenomenon, it's war against a motivated enemy. The last time we approached war statistically it got us Viet Nam and the .223 assault rifle. Because if you get X kills per Y rounds fired, doesn't it make sense to carry more ammo and shoot faster?
But kills don't win wars. And ammo fired doesn't win wars. And "acceptable losses" definitely don't win wars. Destroying the enemy's morale wins wars. I don't think all the most recent security measures achieve that goal, but I do know that the Israelis have won the war for their commercial airspace, so to some degree, security is capable of providing enough of a deterrant to discourage the enemy.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 12:12 pm (UTC)heh.
You should come to DC sometime and see how easy it'd be to kill thousands, and the only place the powers that be feel compelled to put security is the places where tourists are. This leads me to suspect that either: 1) there is no threat, and they are using the security issue as a means to a political end or 2) there is a threat, but they don't care if thousands get killed.
IF there were hundreds (or even scores, for that matter) of highly trained terrorists sitting in the sidelines itching to kill Americans for the sake of some bizzare plot to fill the world with islam I think they would have acted by now.
As for the other acts since 9/11... If memory serves me correctly ALL of them had a local component of scores to be settled, and only cursory attachments to some wider 'plot'.
And finally... Do you really think that if this covert plan to convert all the world to islam really existed, they'd be so stupid to think that they could actually convert a nation that only 30 years ago used to lynch niggers for looking sideways at white chicks? It'll never happen... ever.
Are extremists who use terrorism as a means to an end a threat? yes. Are they in league to take over the world? nope.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 02:37 pm (UTC)Some of them have. Some of them have tried, and been stopped. Others haven't tried because they don't know how. I guess they don't have you to show them around DC.
Oh yeah, those local English lads, bombing double-deckers because they were unhappy over their soccer teams losing.
Yes. We're talking about religious fanatics here. Reason is not their forte. Although they can still be clever enough to be dangerous.
It's quite common for people from secular cultures to doubt the sincerity of those from religious cultures. This may be the greatest disadvantage we have, since it prevents us from knowing our enemy.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 04:48 pm (UTC)Not ONE person stopped for terrorism since 9/11 has actually been proven to actually be a terrorist... As for not knowing how, then that sort of puts a damper on the threat as they clearly aren't the 'highly trained horde' they've been billed to be... As for terrorists in DC... you'd have to be an idiot to not see the soft targets in DC... if they exist, they wouldn't need me to point them out... and I have utterly no military training.
Oh yeah, those local English lads, bombing double-deckers because they were unhappy over their soccer teams losing.
While they clearly fingered the dudes who were holding the bombs, Not one person who knew them believed they were capable of it, and in fact I remember there was at least one investigator who suggested they may have been little more than mules... Given they showed they were using peroxide bombs which are laughably unstable, and there was no real method to their going off isn't it just as likely they were mules, and the damn things exploded enroute?
As for the people who put them up to it? They could have been part of a larger conspiracy... but what were they conspiraring to do? I'm guessing protest the British involvement in Iraq... a LOCAL issue... Also IF the dudes who did the bombing were mules who got unlucky, what does that say about the resolve of those involved in the conspiracy if not a single one of them was willing to actually die for the cause.
Yes. We're talking about religious fanatics here. Reason is not their forte. Although they can still be clever enough to be dangerous.
ALL people work only in their best interests. If all the zealots feel compelled to kill themselves they'll end up like the shakers and eventually die off... I think this is the lovely and talented plural's point (and mine as well): they may exist, but they are rare, so who cares? I knew MANY whack-job militia nuts who claimed to be willing to die for liberty, but they ran and hid after McVey blew up that building (an act, not unlike Bin Ladin's that was intended to get people to rise up)... and where the Hell are they now? People say and believe all sorts of crap, but very few have the grapes to actually follow through and if thems that do kill themselves in the process? Who cares?
Now don't get me wrong: There exist places where circumstance breeds far more discontent to provide the motivation to kill thems you view as oppressing... but they are acting locally, not globally. I personally think the only western country who should have any serious concerns is Israel, and not being Jewish, that ain't my fight, and never will be. If they want to grease arabs till the second coming given the crap hezbolla pulled this summer they have all the moral authority they need, in my book... but don't try to motivate me to put my sons and treasure into a LOCAL fight that's got nothing to do with me.
It's quite common for people from secular cultures to doubt the sincerity of those from religious cultures. This may be the greatest disadvantage we have, since it prevents us from knowing our enemy.
The only fear I have to worry about is crackpots trying to draw me into a war I've got no business being in. Now I suppose that isn't entirely correct... By buying oil from corrupt regimes that keep control of the peasants below them by breeding discontent, and not sharing fully in the wealth created by my needs I do have some obligations here. However engaging in futher slaughter to keep them in power that are truly to blame isn't really an answer... It's a complex question that isn't as simple 'they attacked us... let's kill them.'
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 06:06 pm (UTC)Because we have no suicide videotapes where would-be bombers deliberately state that they are motivated by global solidarity with other religious fellow travellers.
Oh wait. We do.
You are wrong.
You're wrong about this too, as many suicide cults have demonstrated. People work against their own self-interests all the time. Memes, like genes, do not care if they destroy the people who carry them, and many destructive memes and genes can exist so long as they are not so destructive that they prevent their own transmission. Ebola and Shakerism tend to burn themselves out, but other diseases of the body and mind - such as HIV and Islam - can cause plenty of pain and suffering while still propagating themselves.