Letter to the editor: War's costs include lost opportunities

And the mass murderer will claim that his crimes were for the greater good. Another symptom of psychopathy.

The Iraq War is a gross exaggeration and overreaction to 9/11. More than One Million Ways to Die and terrorism does NOT rank very high.

Sept. 11, 2001 was undoubtedly one of the darkest and deadliest days in United States history. Al-Qaida's attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed 2,976 people, and the country recoiled in horror as we witnessed the death of thousands of Americans when the towers fell.

In the seven years since that shattering day, the government has spent hundreds of billions on anti-terrorism projects, instituted a color-coded alert system that has never been green, banned fingernail clippers and water bottles from airplanes, launched a pre-emptive war on false pretenses, and advised citizens to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting.

But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?

Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist -- at least, statistically speaking.

In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.

With that in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).

S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327

H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302

E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742

G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171

L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
---
Sources: National Highway and Safety Agency (.pdf), National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 15 (09/16/2002)(.pdf), US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Insurance Information Institute.

SadButTrue wrote:

The Iraq War is a gross exaggeration and overreaction to 9/11. More than One Million Ways to Die and terrorism does NOT rank very high.
Sept. 11, 2001 was undoubtedly one of the darkest and deadliest days in United States history. Al-Qaida's attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed 2,976 people, and the country recoiled in horror as we witnessed the death of thousands of Americans when the towers fell.
In the seven years since that shattering day, the government has spent hundreds of billions on anti-terrorism projects, instituted a color-coded alert system that has never been green, banned fingernail clippers and water bottles from airplanes, launched a pre-emptive war on false pretenses, and advised citizens to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting.
But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?
Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist -- at least, statistically speaking.
In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.
With that in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).
S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742
G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171
L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554
---
Sources: National Highway and Safety Agency (.pdf), National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 15 (09/16/2002)(.pdf), US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Insurance Information Institute.

But all it would take is one massive attack and you would probably be blaming the administration (or the next...) for not doing enough to stop it. That's what people did after Sept 11th. It was ridiculous for people to blame Bush as he was only in office for 8 months...and it was ridiculous to blame Clinton because the attack was just so huge. Now, I would rather error on the side safety and would prefer to NOT be a statistic...I'm sure the people on those airplanes, in the towers and in the Pentagon would have preferred it also.

X chambersburg resident--you say: "But all it would take is one massive attack and you would be blaming the administration..." That "massive attack" would need to be much larger than 9/11 to to equal electrocution deaths, should we start a war on electricity. Should we start a war against swimming and boating to reduce accidental drownings? What if we are hit by a meteor? What if you are struck by lightning?

SadButTrue wrote:

X chambersburg resident--you say: "But all it would take is one massive attack and you would be blaming the administration..." That "massive attack" would need to be much larger than 9/11 to to equal electrocution deaths, should we start a war on electricity. Should we start a war against swimming and boating to reduce accidental drownings? What if we are hit by a meteor? What if you are struck by lightning?

I'm talking about the money the government spends to thwart terrorist attacks...not accidents. Do I agree with how much money? Probably not...but again...if they didn't and something happened the fingers would be pointed in their direction...

X Chambersburg Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
But all it would take is one massive attack and you would probably be blaming the admini....I'm sure the people on those airplanes, in the towers and in the Pentagon would have preferred it also.

X, SadButTrue seems to me to be the kind of person that can speak for himself. I'm not sure it is fair of you to put words in his mouth.

I agree with you that the dead would rather not have died prematurely, but as a firefighter/emt that has seen a lot of death, I think that dead is dead. I'm really quite certain that the people that die in car wrecks would rather have not died.

It really bothers me that people drive huge gas-guzzling SUVs with no regard for other people’s safety. They seem to think it is just fine to drive a car that makes other people less safe if they think it improves their own safety.

If we were serious about reducing the pain and suffering of our fellow citizens, we would address the issue of automobile safety first and foremost.

I also think that as a citizen of Oklahoma City, I can say that terrorism is not necessarily a foreign based offense. When I see people talk about 9/11 as a reason to do things to other countries or cultures, I'm reminded that the second most deadly terrorist attack in the history of our nation was here, in OKC, driven as a response to Waco.

Lil John wrote:

<quoted text>
Shows your immaturity, doesn't it! You worked for a political campaign? NO wonder you aren't working there this time around!
BTW When did Jim Baker run congress like you said? You seem to leave that question unanswered.
What did the Rep take on his pizza , pizza man, Oh, I forgot you were a volunteer right? LOLL

You have me confused with someone else. For real, you have me mixed up with someone else.

Does that mean you made a mistake?

Would you admit you made a mistake if you made one?

Florian - I have to disagree and I may be reading into your response, but are you saying that we should not go after the terrorists in other countries? I've been to both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can honestly say that the people there are wonderful! I can also say that the people that I talked to also understand why we are there and do not blame us for their current conditions because the opportunities for them are better. We are not the ones causing the majority of their hardships. Yes, they live in fear...from terrorists...not us. We need to go after the 'home grown' terrorists also...but it doesn't take as much because they are not as sophisticated or numerous...or intelligent.(pictures of bubba with his shot gun and overalls comes to mind!)

To compare terrorism to car wrecks, eletrocutions, swimming and boating accidents...well...you can't compare them because accidents are accidents and terrorism is on purpose...

X Chambersburg Resident wrote:

Florian - I have to disagree and I may be reading into your response, but are you saying that we should not go after the terrorists in other countries? I've been to both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can honestly say that the people there are wonderful! I can also say that the people that I talked to also understand why we are there and do not blame us for their current conditions because the opportunities for them are better. We are not the ones causing the majority of their hardships. Yes, they live in fear...from terrorists...not us. We need to go after the 'home grown' terrorists also...but it doesn't take as much because they are not as sophisticated or numerous...or intelligent.(pictures of bubba with his shot gun and overalls comes to mind!)
To compare terrorism to car wrecks, eletrocutions, swimming and boating accidents...well...you can't compare them because accidents are accidents and terrorism is on purpose...

Oh, no, no way do I mean that we should not go after criminal terrorist in other countries. In particular I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. I agreed at the time and I still do.

I do think it worth noting that most of the 9/11 terrorist, some 16 of 20 I recall, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. I don't think we're going to invade SA under any circumstances.

I think when someone, anyone, commits a crime against us, our first recourse should be to attempt lawful extradition. If the country involved will not give up the criminals, then forced covert extradition might be the next best course of action.

I think that the best reason to have invaded Afghanistan is that it was being ruled by a foreign element, the Pakistani Taliban. Since they also refused to give up the 9/11 perpetrators, we were able to kill two birds with one stone. The thing that gets me, though, is that even though we invaded Afghanistan, we still don't have Osama bin Laden in custody. I have questions about.

X Chambersburg Resident wrote:

To compare terrorism to car wrecks, eletrocutions, swimming and boating accidents...well...you can't compare them because accidents are accidents and terrorism is on purpose...

Yes, but, we should do everything possible to make our roads safer. That includes making the vehicles safer. That means that vehicles should be designed with both the safety of the occupants and the safety of other drivers in mind. I don't see that with giant SUVs and pick-ups.

As an example, my Honda Accord was designed to minimize harm to pedestrians. When someone buys a big SUV or pick-up and puts a brush guard on it, they greatly increase the potential to harm or kill a pedestrian.

I'm not comparing the morality of accidents and crimes, but I do have real questions myself about how much of an accidental death is accidental when a vehicle has been intentionally modified in a way that greatly increases the danger to others.

Another thing is the subject of letting Mexican truck drivers on American roads. I am very much opposed to this, because I think driving a truck is a serious matter. American drivers are held to pretty high standards, and so are the trucks they drive.

What’s more, when there is an accident involving an American truck, there is probably going to be a lawsuit, which is a great incentive for American truck companies to maintain pretty high standards of safety. What about with a Mexican truck. Sue a Mexican trucking company? I don’t think that is going to work out very well.

So I’m very much against letting Mexican trucking companies operate in the U.S. and I’ very much against letting those that hold Mexican class A licenses operate trucks on American roads. For me it’s a matter of safety and accountability.

X Chambersburg Resident wrote:

Yes, they live in fear...from terrorists...not us. We need to go after the 'home grown' terrorists also...but it doesn't take as much because they are not as sophisticated or numerous...or intelligent.(pictures of bubba with his shot gun and overalls comes to mind!)

I pretty much stand by opinion about 9/11 and 4/95. 9/11 has been getting most of the press for a long time now, but 4/95 was something that left also remains important.

Timothy McVeigh was arrested by an acquaintance of mine, btw. He was wearing a T-shirt at that time with the motto “sic semper tyrannis”, the same words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot Abraham Lincoln. It means,“Thus always to tyrants.”

McVeigh and Nichols were sympathizers of the militia movement and their motive was to retaliate against the government's handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge. The bombing occurred on the anniversary of the Waco.

Timothy McVeigh didn’t strike anyone here as a ‘bubba’. He was raised in Pendleton, New York. He was a Catholic and a registered Republican.

He was a decorated (bronze star) veteran of the United States Army, having served in the first Gulf War, and he was honorable discharged.

After his arrest for the 4/95 bombing he maintained a reputation among law enforcement as someone that always kept his emotions under control. He frequently quoted the white supremacist novel ‘The Turner Diaries’.

One of the lessons of the Oklahoma City bombing is that the domestic radical right poses an extremely serious threat. It taught us that not all terrorists speak different languages, wear turbans or speak to different gods.

It is true that there has not been another 4/95, but it is just as true that there has not been another 9/11. I'm given to understand there have been numerous attempts to repeat both.

Florian - Thanks for the history lesson. Seriously, I mean that because I think many people have forgotten what happened.

"One of the lessons of the Oklahoma City bombing is that the domestic radical right poses an extremely serious threat."----This is the only thing I have a problem with. When the term "radical right" is used,'right' is a reference to Republican. I don't view someone like McVeigh as 'Right' or 'Left'. When this term is used...it's an insult. I could say 'Radical Left' about someone who thinks we should tell Christians, or all religions for that matter, that they don't have the right to say what they believe in public...and I'm sure that would upset some Democrats.

X Chambersburg Resident wrote:

Florian - Thanks for the history lesson. Seriously, I mean that because I think.....ve the right to say what they believe in public...and I'm sure that would upset some Democrats.

Ok. But in a way then it's a good example of something else I have been saying. Lumping people together into one big ‘them’ is not really cool.

Because the actual fact of the matter is that McVeigh was a registered Republican at the time he blew up the Murrah Building. He had never been anything but a Republican. Does that make all Republicans responsible for his murderous actions? No, of course not.

But by the standards of conduct that are being applied to me every day here, I would be well with my rights to hammer down the throats of others something like,“The truth is the truth!!!!! McVeigh WAS a Republican and a monster and it just proves that ALL Republicans are filthy murderers and racists and worse and we should lock them all up in cages!!!!!”

So I would ask some of the people throwing around the term ‘Democrat’ around as if all Democrats are responsible for …. well, they accuse us of every bad thing that ever happened, they accuse us of being demons and sub-humans and anti-Christians and so many nasty bad things that I don’t want to try to think of them all.

I know I’m not going to get this wish, but it doesn’t hurt to make it. The thing that I have learned here though and am grateful for, is that I’m better then that, and I won’t be drug into the gutter.

Lil John wrote:

<quoted text>
ONCE again the moron Misrepresents th.....
Tell us again how Jim baker controls congress to get the ISG commission and not to mention that it was bi-partisan.
Tell us again how Bush was anointed to be president when it takes elections.
You are nothing more than a flamer.
I don't believe you worked for any political party due when you are so naive about what really happens in this country.

You have me confused with 'falasha' on this one, he is the one the spoke about Jim Baker and the ISG commission.

I never mentioned the name Jim Baker, nor did I ever make any claim about working on any political campaign.

You have made a mistake.

Lil John wrote:

<quoted text>
Shows your immaturity, doesn't it! You worked for a political campaign? NO wonder you aren't working there this time around!
BTW When did Jim Baker run congress like you said? You seem to leave that question unanswered.
What did the Rep take on his pizza , pizza man, Oh, I forgot you were a volunteer right? LOLL

Again you have me confused with someone else,'falasha' I believe.

You made another mistake.

Florian wrote:

<quoted text>
You have me confused with 'falasha' on this one, he is the one the spoke about Jim Baker and the ISG commission.
I never mentioned the name Jim Baker, nor did I ever make any claim about working on any political campaign.
You have made a mistake.

I never said Jim Baker ran congress! I worked for Jim Baker when he was Sec. of Treasury. I also said Jim Baker and George Schultz annoited George Bush to be the Republican nominee for President. That's how the Republicans did it. Boy what a mistake they made! That's why they aren't doing it that way anymore. Can you blame them?

Call them like I see them wrote:

<quoted text>
A liar that most probably believes your own lies.
You are in need of some serious therapy.

http://www.therecordherald.com/community/x883...

Do you see any qualifications in this story to be a psychiatrist? He's really GOOD at analyzing people! Also...LOVE his qualifications to be a state senator!!!

You all must feel safer now that the Federal Government has more than 900,000 people on their domestic Terrorist Watch-List. Wow, that's a whole bunch of evil doers. We need to spend more billions to keep us even safer. We need more searches and no warrants. Designated terrorist have no rights. We need more agencies, departments, administrators and directors to join the War on terror. What if the boogie man gets us? This is terrifying.

falasha wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said Jim Baker ran congress! I worked for Jim Baker when he was Sec. of Treasury. I also said Jim Baker and George Schultz annoited George Bush to be the Republican nominee for President. That's how the Republicans did it. Boy what a mistake they made! That's why they aren't doing it that way anymore. Can you blame them?

Well, I've gone over the posts and it's pretty clear Lil John got you confused with me. I guess he got what you said confused as well. I think he may be getting Andy in here somewhere too.

So then that is three mistakes Lil John has made.

SadButTrue wrote:

You all must feel safer now that the Federal Government has more than 900,000 people on their domestic Terrorist Watch-List. Wow, that's a whole bunch of evil doers. We need to spend more billions to keep us even safer. We need more searches and no warrants. Designated terrorist have no rights. We need more agencies, departments, administrators and directors to join the War on terror. What if the boogie man gets us? This is terrifying.

No...I don't think we should be spending that much money. I said that in my original response.

Using your line of thinking, I guess we should all lock ourselves in our homes so we don't have an accident of some sort?

Accidents and terrorism are two different things and comparing the two is like apples and oranges...