Far fewer terror attacks now than in the 1970s

[revelarts]

far fewer terror attacks now than in the 1970s

putting the terror threat in perspectivethe terror threat is greatly exaggerated. After all, the type of counter-terror experts who frequently appear on the mainstream news (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/13/glenn_greenwald_on_how_to_be) are motivated to hype the terror threat (http://www.amazon.com/overblown-politicians-terrorism-industry-national/dp/1416541721), because it drums (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62117/g-john-ikenberry/overblown-how-politicians-and-the-terrorism-industry-inflate-nat)up (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/private-firms-fear-9-11) business (http://books.google.com/books/about/the_terrorism_industry.html?id=ysddaaaaiaaj) for them.
The same is true for government employees. As former fbi assistant director thomas fuentes put it (http://www.privacysos.org/node/1660) last week:

if you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that “we won the war on terror and everything’s great,” cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half.
You know, it’s my opposite of jesse jackson’s “keep hope alive”—it’s “keep fear alive.” keep it alive.
fearmongering also serves political goals. For example, fbi agents and cia intelligence officials, a top constitutional and military law expert, time magazine, the washington post and others (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/constitutional-expert-government-was.html) have all said that u.s. Government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the american people would give them more power”. Indeed, the former secretary of homeland security tom ridgeadmitted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32501273/) that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help bush win reelection. Former u.s. National security adviser zbigniew brzezinski – also a top foreign policy advisor to president obama – told the senate that the war on terror is a “a mythical historical narrative” (http://web.archive.org/web/20070206230803/http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/brzezinskitestimony070201.pdf).
Indeed, the government justifies its geopolitical goals – including seizing more power at home (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/u-s-government-using-terrorism-against-the-american-people.html), andoverthrowing oil-rich countries (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/u-s-already-completed-regime-change-syria-iran-iraq-twice-oil-rich-countries.html) – by hyping the terror menace. So the government wants you to bescared out of your pants (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/refuse-terrorized-win-terrorists-lose.html) by the risk of terrorism. No wonder national security employees see a terrorist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html)under every bush (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%c2%b7ror%c2%b7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html).
But terrorism has actually dramatically declined in the united states. Daniel benjamin – the coordinator for counterterrorism at the united states department of state from 2009 to 2012 – noted (http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/arrests-across-europe-in-anti-terror-raids-385428547996)last month (at 10:22):

the total number of deaths from terrorism in recent years has been extremely small in the west. And the threat itself has been considerably reduced. Given all the headlines people don’t have that perception; but if you look at the statistics that is the case.
indeed, the washington post noted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states/) in 2013 that the number of terror attacks in the u.s. Has plummetedsince the 1970s:
http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/terrorist-attacks-since-1970.png
indeed, you’re now much more likely to be killed by brain-eating parasites, texting while driving, toddlers, lightning, falling out of bed, alcoholism, food poisoning, a financial crash, obesity, medical errors or “autoerotic asphyxiation” (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/youre-much-likely-killed-brain-eating-parasites-lightning-alcoholism-obesity-medical-errors-risky-sexual-behavior-terrorist.html) than by terrorists.
Obviously, a huge number of innocent americans – 3,000 – were killed on 9/11 … a single terror attack.
However, 9/11 – like the boston bombing (and the paris terror attack) – happened because mass surveillance replaced traditional anti-terror measures (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/authoritarians-use-paris-terror-attack-excuse-power-grab.html). Similarly, cheney and company were criminally negligent (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/911-criminal-incompetence-and-ass-covering-by-the-bush-administration.html).
And the “war on terror” has been counter-productive, and only increased the terrorism problem (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/paris-terror-attack-isis-result-911-cover.html).

If we had stuck with tried-and-true anti-terror techniques, high-fatality events like 9/11 would neverhave happened.
source: washington's blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/far-terror-attacks-u-s-soil-1970s-today.html)

[revelarts]

SOURCE: WASHINGTON'S BLOG (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/terrorists-muslim.html)

Terrorists, Counter-Terror “Experts”, and Governments Are All Motivated to Cover Up the Facts
Experts say that terrorists are strongly motivated – for two reasons – to exaggerate their abilities to inflict damage:

(1) Terrorism is defined (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/terrorism) as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. So terrorists exaggerate their destructive abilities in order to increase intimidation and push their aims
and
(2) The more damage people believe that a terrorist group has inflicted, the more donations and funding they will receive from radical extremists. Specifically, radicals are more likely to fund terrorists who are “effective” in inflicting damage than those who can’t pull off murder and mayhem
So terrorists want to exaggerate how much damage they’ve actually inflicted.
Likewise, the type of counter-terror experts who frequently appear on the mainstream news (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/13/glenn_greenwald_on_how_to_be) are motivated to hype the terror threat (http://www.amazon.com/Overblown-Politicians-Terrorism-Industry-National/dp/1416541721), because it drums (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62117/g-john-ikenberry/overblown-how-politicians-and-the-terrorism-industry-inflate-nat)up (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/private-firms-fear-9-11) business (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Terrorism_Industry.html?id=ySDdAAAAIAAJ) for them.
The more scared of terrorism people are, the more books they’ll sell on terrorism, the more people will pay them to give talks on terrorism, and the more they’ll be asked to appear on mainstream news. So they don’t want you to know the real statistics on terror, either.
And the government has also exaggerated the threat of terrorism for political purposes (literally seeing a terrorist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html) under every bush (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html)). For example, FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, a top constitutional and military law expert, Time magazine, the Washington Post and others (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/constitutional-expert-government-was.html) have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”. Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge admitted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32501273/) that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection. The threat from Islamic terrorists – while real – has been greatly exaggerated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm). Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski – also a top foreign policy advisor to President Obama – told the Senate that the war on terror is a “a mythical historical narrative” (http://web.archive.org/web/20070206230803/http://www.senate.gov/%7Eforeign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf).
Indeed, the government justifies its geopolitical goals – including seizing more power at home (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/u-s-government-using-terrorism-against-the-american-people.html), and overthrowing Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Iraq twice, Afghanistan twice, Turkey, Libya, and other oil-rich countries (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/u-s-already-completed-regime-change-syria-iran-iraq-twice-oil-rich-countries.html) – by hyping the terror menace. So the government wants you to be scared out of your pants by the risk of terrorism.
So what are the real terrorism facts?
The actual statistics are stunning:


Daniel Benjamin – the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the United States Department of State from 2009 to 2012 – notes (http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/arrests-across-europe-in-anti-terror-raids-385428547996) today (at 10:22):


The total number of deaths from terrorism in recent years has been extremely small in the West. And the threat itself has been considerably reduced. Given all the headlines people don’t have that perception; but if you look at the statistics that is the case.


Indeed, you’re much more likely to be killed by brain-eating parasites, texting while driving, toddlers, lightning, falling out of bed, alcoholism, food poisoning, a financial crash, obesity, medical errors or “autoerotic asphyxiation” (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/youre-much-likely-killed-brain-eating-parasites-lightning-alcoholism-obesity-medical-errors-risky-sexual-behavior-terrorist.html) than by terrorists



Despite the horror, there have actually been very few terror attacks in Europe (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/01/daily-chart-8)



Non-Muslims have carried out the vast majority of terrorist attacks (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html) on U.S. soil



Non-Muslims also carried out the vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html) as well



The overwhelming majority of victims (http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/most-victims-of-islamic-terrorism-are-muslims-and-why-america-is-to-blame-for-it/) of Muslim terror attacks are – in fact – Muslims



The “War on Terror” has been counter-productive, and only increased the terrorism problem (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/paris-terror-attack-isis-result-911-cover.html)



Governments have admitted that many terror attacks around the world have actually been carried out by government forces and blamed on their enemies (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/first-question-ask-terror-attack-false-flag.html), as a way to justify war or other objectives. Indeed, Saudi Arabia (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/saudi-arabia-source-islamic-terrorism.html) – America’s closest Arab ally – and the U.S. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/experts-from-the-left-and-the-right-agree-america-is-running-the-worlds-largest-terrorist-operation.html) are arguably the world’s largest sponsors of terrorism

Postscript: While terrorists, counter-terror “experts” and governments are trying to scare the pants off you, the truth is that – if we refuse to be terrorized – we win and the terrorists lose (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/refuse-terrorized-win-terrorists-lose.html).
Stunning Terrorism Statistics that Nobody Wants You to Know (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/terrorists-muslim.html) was originally published on Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/)

[tailfins]

This is called "perception management". I'm amazed how ubiquitous it's success is. Unlike you, I believe in certain circumstances torture and even gunpoint interrogations and killings if they don't talk are justified. However I'm considered soft on Muslims because I think there should be evidence before acting against a community or small group.

[NightTrain]

Those numbers on the graph aren't going to show how many terrorists were otherwise killed off in US operations before they got to America to carry out their plot. And as far as I'm aware, we weren't being targeted by muslims until about 1990 or 1991 when OBL first tried and failed to bring down the WTC with that bomb in the basement.

One Tomahawk strike at an AQ training camp would kill off, what - 50? 100? One bomb on a New York subway from one terrorist is all it takes to have a national tragedy again.

And I'm really wondering about the 1970 part - what was going on there? I was born that year, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't counted. Was it riotous hippies? Black Panthers?

I don't know what the author of that graph was trying to show, but I suspect it's the old "America is killing helpless brown people all over the world because we're meanies!" liberal school of thought. I guess I'll have to go research this a bit.

[NightTrain]

I found a very comprehensive USA terrorism spreadsheet that goes from 1865 to 2015. It also includes thwarted terrorism attacks, which I think is very relevant to this discussion.

The two sources differ greatly from each other, for instance :

In 1970 there were a total of 4 terrorist plots, one was thwarted and 3 were successful with a total of 5 fatalities and 1 injured that year.

In 2014 there were a total of 11 terrorist plots, with 0 thwarted and 11 were successful with a total of 23 fatalities and 22 injured that year.

In addition, this source gives the location and other info of the event so that it can be verified.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

I would say, Rev, that your man there is skewing his numbers to show the results he wants to show.

[Drummond]

Applying the number of terrorist attacks as a supposedly useful and instructive criterion has limited usefulness at absolute best, and is disingenuous at worst.

Say you applied that methodology to the UK. Well, I'm certain that the UK suffered WAY more terrorist attacks in the 1970's than now. Why ? Because THEN, the IRA was active !!

The IRA, by contrast today, is just about dead and buried (.. oh, I think there's one splinter group out there, but it rarely does anything). So .. what does this say for useful context ?

NOTHING AT ALL.

Terrorism today is different. It is deadlier. It is more widespread. It is driven by Islamists in a way that the world hadn't seen in modern times until relatively recently. And tell me .. what, in the US's history, compares in terrorist terms to 9/11 ?

On 10th September 2001, I'm sure that the prevailing mood in the US, at all levels, was one of complacency. DID THE EVENTS OF THE FOLLOWING DAY PROVE THAT JUSTIFIED ... OR NOT ?

[aboutime]

Thanks again rev. And some question me when I question you?

Everything you posted in comparing terrorist attacks actually sounded very much (to me), that you were actually DEFENDING those today who are accused, and proven to be committing Terror attacks around the World.

In other words. (To me) You sound more like the apologist Obama who enjoys blaming America for everything.

[NightTrain]

Applying the number of terrorist attacks as a supposedly useful and instructive criterion has limited usefulness at absolute best, and is disingenuous at worst.

Say you applied that methodology to the UK. Well, I'm certain that the UK suffered WAY more terrorist attacks in the 1970's than now. Why ? Because THEN, the IRA was active !!

The IRA, by contrast today, is just about dead and buried (.. oh, I think there's one splinter group out there, but it rarely does anything). So .. what does this say for useful context ?

NOTHING AT ALL.

Terrorism today is different. It is deadlier. It is more widespread. It is driven by Islamists in a way that the world hadn't seen in modern times until relatively recently. And tell me .. what, in the US's history, compares in terrorist terms to 9/11 ?

On 10th September 2001, I'm sure that the prevailing mood in the US, at all levels, was one of complacency. DID THE EVENTS OF THE FOLLOWING DAY PROVE THAT JUSTIFIED ... OR NOT ?


Very good point. That IRA business you guys had going was pretty nasty, I'm glad that finally died down.

Most of the terrorist attacks prior to 1990 or so in the USA were those weirdos from Earth Liberation Front and those animal rights nutjobs, with our homegrown terrorists like the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh at Oklahoma City, a few KKK shitheads thrown in as well, and of course the abortion clinic bombings. Oh yeah, and that Anthrax mailer.

According to the source I provided, almost every attack now is an Islamic attack, and that's something that liberals constantly try to whitewash.

[revelarts]

I found a very comprehensive USA terrorism spreadsheet that goes from 1865 to 2015. It also includes thwarted terrorism attacks, which I think is very relevant to this discussion.

The two sources differ greatly from each other, for instance :

In 1970 there were a total of 4 terrorist plots, one was thwarted and 3 were successful with a total of 5 fatalities and 1 injured that year.

In 2014 there were a total of 11 terrorist plots, with 0 thwarted and 11 were successful with a total of 23 fatalities and 22 injured that year.

In addition, this source gives the location and other info of the event so that it can be verified.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

I would say, Rev, that your man there is skewing his numbers to show the results he wants to show.

Well the links to the data set is for open review via the links.
at that point you can compare what's what's.

for folks like drummond it doesn't matter . He's completely feared up. the dirty nazi kruaks i mean Muslims will never change. Muslims terrorist (most/all muslims?) are just irredeemable "animals" that must be stopped by only torture and death. by as much American soldiers blood and money as it takes to satisfy him that the "threat" is gone BTW.
But for others getting a real... honest... handle on the "threat" does make a difference. at least it should.

Link to the Global Terrorism Database where the numbers come from.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=overtime&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=217
I'd take some time to run through it but you can find the raw numbers there.

below is the Washington Post story with similar info and more already parse from the database.
Washing post isn't known as a Leftist rag so much. but the it seems to me we should let the numbers speak for themselves. and decide HOW afraid we should be based on the facts not the Hype am i off base?
or should the HIGHEST FEAR and preemptive Action be the standard OP no matter how small the threat, Global warming anyone?




By Brad PlumerApril 16, 2013Here are a few basic things we know (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/explosions-disrupt-boston-marathon/2013/04/15/2664e802-a600-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html?hpid=z1) about the Boston Marathon blasts on Monday: Two bombs went off. At least three people died. Others lost limbs. More than 150 were rushed to the hospital. Police found at least two other suspicious packages in the area.<article style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: FranklinITCProLight, HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Beyond that, there's a lot we don't know — including who did this, or why.
“Any event with multiple explosive devices — as this appears to be — is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror," the White House told reporters on Monday. "However, we don’t yet know who carried out this attack, and a thorough investigation will have to determine whether it was planned and carried out by a terrorist group, foreign or domestic.”
The FBI says (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005) that there "is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism," but the U.S. federal code defines it as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” We still don't even know if the Boston blasts qualify — or if they were the work of a person with no goals except death.
One thing we can do, however, is provide some very general context about the history of terrorist attacks in the United States. A helpful set of basic facts and figures can be found in this big December report (http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/START_IUSSDDataTerroristAttacksUS_1970-2011.pdf) by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Here are some key findings:
1) Terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in the United States have become less frequent since the 1970s — though September 11 was a huge exception:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/terrorist-attacks-since-1970.png
There have been 2,608 total attacks and 226 fatal attacks in the United States between 1970 and 2011.
Two big caveats about this chart. First, it only shows the frequency of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, not severity. The attacks on September 11 in New York City, Arlington, and Pennsylvania are counted as just four events, even though there were far more fatalities than all the rest combined. So keep that in mind.
The report also takes a very comprehensive view of terrorism. It includes September 11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. But it also includes the murder of abortion-clinic doctors. And the guard shot at the Holocaust Museum in 2009. And all the instances of the Earth Liberation Front setting fire to SUV dealerships or police stations. It also includes serious but unsuccessful attempts — like the May 2010 attempted vehicle bombing in Times Square.
If we just look at the decade between 2001 and 2011, we still see that the number of terrorist attacks has declined since September 11, although the number of fatal attacks has ticked up of late. (That includes a fatal shooting at a Knoxville church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting) in 2008, the assassination of abortion provider George Tiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller) in 2009, the shooting at Fort Hood (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/fort-hood.html) that killed 13 people and injured 30 in 2009, and so on.)


http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/terrorist-attacks-2001-2011.png
2) Law enforcement officials appear to be getting better at thwarting terrorist attacks — but they can't stop all of them:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/unsuccessful-attacks.png
Sometimes sheer luck plays a role, too: "The highest proportion of unsuccessful attacks occurred in 2011, when four out of nine recorded attacks were unsuccessful," the report says. "In three of these attacks bombs failed to detonate before they were discovered, and in the fourth unsuccessful attack, shots were fired at the White House by an individual who has since been charged with attempting to assassinate President Obama."
3) Just about every part of the United States has been hit by some form of terrorist attack since 1970:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/terrorist-map.png
Keep in mind, though, that this includes all attacks, lethal and non-lethal. Here's a breakdown of the states that have seen the most attacks and fatalities:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/fatalities.png
Notice that New York and Virginia dominate the list of fatalities — again, that's because of the September 11 attacks. (Pennsylvania is also up there, because of Flight 93 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93).) After that is Oklahoma, mainly because 168 people died in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing).
Puerto Rico, which is counted here, ranks third in number of attacks in large part because of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_Puerto rrique%C3%B1a), a paramilitary separatist group that was responsible for more than 120 bombings in the 1970s and 1980s.
Florida ranks high on the list in number of attacks because of the Earth Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front), which has been particularly active in the past decade. But there haven't been many fatalities from these attacks. It's worth noting that the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front have been two of the most active groups since 1970, with 161 attacks total (and 84 since 2001). But they've killed zero people over the years — they mainly focus on setting fire to facilities, like SUV dealerships.
4) Since the Oklahoma City bombing, a greater portion of terrorist attacks have been carried out by individuals:


http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/individuals-vs-groups.png
5) The types of organized groups that carry out terrorist attacks, meanwhile, have become extremely diverse:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/groups.png&w=1484

Al-Qaeda dominates this list, and the two eco-terrorism groups have been particularly active (though they both seem to be declining (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-eco-terrorism-wanes-governments-still-target-activist-groups-seen-as-threat/2012/02/28/gIQAA4Ay3R_story.html)). But aside from that, terrorist groups seem to come in all types
"These organizations are quite diverse," the report notes. "The [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] attack was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s Detroit suicide bomb attempt on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. The TTP attack was Faisal Shazhad’s attempt to detonate a bomb in Times Square. Members of the Minutemen American Defense, an anti-immigration militia group targeted a Mexican-American family. The KKK assaulted someone, and the Justice Department sent razor blades in envelopes to those conducting experiments on animals." (Note that the "Justice Department" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Department_(animal_rights)) referred to here is an animal-rights group, not the federal agency.)
6) Bombings have long been the tactic of choice for terrorists in the United States:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/methods.png
Bombings have dropped in popularity over the last decade — accounting for just 27 percent of the attacks since 2001. (Again, though, this reflects the fact that eco-terrorists have dominated the raw numbers in the 2000s.) And, notably, guns have never figured heavily in U.S. terrorist attacks.
7) North America suffers far, far fewer terrorist attacks (http://www.start.umd.edu/datarivers/vis/GtdExplorer.swf) than most other regions around the world:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/regional.png
That tiny blue sliver on the bottom represents North America. Even Western Europe (in red) gets hit by terrorism more frequently. And the vast majority of attacks worldwide take place in South Asia (green) and the Middle East and North Africa (pink).
8) Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack are still far, far lower than dying from just about anything else.

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/chance-of-death.png
In the last five years, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should) (that's including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath) from the Economist shows, that's considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning.
That said, terrorist attacks obviously loom much larger in our collective consciousness — not least because they're designed to horrify. So, understandably, they get much more attention.


</article>

[revelarts]

Very good point. That IRA business you guys had going was pretty nasty, I'm glad that finally died down.



Most of the terrorist attacks prior to 1990 or so in the USA were those weirdos from Earth Liberation Front and those animal rights nutjobs, with our homegrown terrorists like the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh at Oklahoma City, a few KKK shitheads thrown in as well, and of course the abortion clinic bombings. Oh yeah, and that Anthrax mailer.


According to the source I provided, almost every attack now is an Islamic attack, and that's something that liberals constantly try to whitewash.

Liberals white wash a lot of stuff. whatever, that's not the point here,
the question is, is the fear and reaction justified based on the threat?
we should never white wash but we should never exaggerate the threat either.


everyone

Concerning the other terrorist.
would it be OK to torture some KKK sh**heads? "IF We KNEW they were planning an attack" on Jews or Blacks? many of them have military training. they have diminished but not gone away like the IRA. they pass out Flyer in neighborhoods and march down the streets of America.

should we have drone struck a few if we knew they are INCITING others to violence. or to dangerous to pick up.
What about the Enviro-terrorists .. "animals"? not due human rights or constitutional rights?

Muslims are different!! HOW DARE YOU... i thought you better than..
the KKK believe they are... well you know whatever they believe.
Eco terrorist BELIEVE... the earth and animals are just as important, MORE important than man.
Muslims Terrorist Believe the infidels must be dominated or killed.

all beliefs, all bad but one get -special treatment-
you folks may be able to see the "clear" difference, frankly i don't.
the FBI calls them all terrorist so do i.

when KKK idiots bombs a black church and kills kids because of what they believe I see NO difference in a Idiot muslim bombs a Synagogue and kills kids.
both are terrorist murders in my book, both motivated by false beliefs.

it's just the muslims turn to play on the stage a bit more. it's no worse, Many KKK still want america free of Blacks Jews and immigrants illegal AND Legal.... for the White Race.
the Muslims want a American kalifah or something.

Frankly i could probably find a KKK member or a "sympathizer" a few blocks from me. i suspect most of you could as well. But a terrorist minded Muslim or "sympathizer", not so much i'd guess.
Are they the same kind of active threat "today" no.
Are they basically, generally, foundationally the SAME TYPE of threat i'd say yes.

And somehow we managed to survive the others without being afraid out of our minds and losing every right and breaking every rule of war we've created and are party too.

so are the Muslims worth it?

[Drummond]

Well the links to the data set is for open review via the links.
at that point you can compare what's what's.

for folks like drummond it doesn't matter . He's completely feared up. the dirty nazi kruaks i mean Muslims will never change. Muslims terrorist (most/all muslims?) are just irredeemable "animals" that must be stopped by only torture and death. by as much American soldiers blood and money as it takes to satisfy him that the "threat" is gone BTW.
But for others getting a real... honest... handle on the "threat" does make a difference. at least it should.

Link to the Global Terrorism Database where the numbers come from.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=overtime&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=217
I'd take some time to run through it but you can find the raw numbers there.

below is the Washington Post story with similar info and more already parse from the database.
Washing post isn't known as a Leftist rag so much. but the it seems to me we should let the numbers speak for themselves. and decide HOW afraid we should be based on the facts not the Hype am i off base?
or should the HIGHEST FEAR and preemptive Action be the standard OP no matter how small the threat, Global warming anyone?






Tell me. What, to you, is more important .. the number of successful attacks which happen, or, their effect ?

How many attacks did the US see on 11th September 2001 ? And what was the outcome of those 'very few' attacks on that day ?

If terrorists someday get a nuke, then successfully deploy it in a major US city, will it look 'good' on your charts because it's only ONE ATTACK ... that maybe wipes out a million people ? Would you emerge from that year and argue that in statistical terms, it 'was a good year' ... one justifying a certain future complacency ??

And I see a correlation of sorts between the reduction in attacks and their successful neutralisation ! Now, should that mean the COMPLACENCY you're pushing is justified, OR THE EXACT OPPOSITE ?

Police and intelligence agencies need to win all the time. Terrorists need only win ONCE by comparison. This hardly justifies the smallest degree of complacency.

I repeat an earlier point. The US was complacent on 10th September 2001. This was proven utterly unjustified THE VERY NEXT DAY. Now, Revelarts - why are you unwilling to learn from this ??

Do the recent Paris attacks teach you nothing ?

Do you think that ISIS, an even more barbarous emergence of Islamic terrorism than Al Qaeda was/is, presents no danger that Western powers need be concerned with ? Perhaps their hostages have just been 'unlucky' .. ??

WHY do Lefties KEEP on trying to lull us all to sleep on matters such as this ??