KEEPING SCORE

attacks

The pie chart above depicts the percentage of terrorist attacks within the United States by groups representing various factions between 1980 and 2005 and was developed from an FBI data base. It was produced by Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization and is dated May 1, 2013.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Looks like my Jewish friends have been more active than my Arab ones though it would seem I have more to fear from my fellow lefties.

More from that report

U.S. News and World Report noted in February of this year:

Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Muslim-American suspects or perpetrators in these or other attempted attacks fit no demographic profile—only 51 of more than 200 are of Arabic ethnicity. In 2012, all but one of the nine Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered were halted in early stages. That one, an attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, caused no casualties.

And just to be clear, although the Fort Hood murders were perpetrated by a Muslim, since that attack was against U.S. military personnel I would not designate that as an act of terrorism. As one of my frequent commenters so conveniently provided on my entry, Isis In America

Further, per wiki, 22 USC 38, says, in the context of State Department country reports: “[T]he term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

So those unfortunate victims were combatants and I maintain justifiable targets in the U.S. declared War on Terrorism, just as troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been killed by clandestine means rather than during an open firefight.

The purpose of all this?

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the reality that while terrorism of any nature is real and needs to be guarded against, it is far from the all-consuming danger portrayed by the rhetoric of countless politicians supported by mouth-breathing pundits whose livings depend on the number of readers/viewers they attract. And none of them will be earning their paychecks should they choose to report the truth that there is not a terrorist bomb lying in every dumpster and that every one of the 2.5 million Muslims in the United States is not intent on slitting their throat at the first opportunity.

Moreover, with over 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world, if the adherents of that religion as a whole were consumed by the need to destroy Western Civilization, one would think that much greater increments in that destruction would have been achieved than has in fact been done by the Wolves of Wall Street.

Here within our boundaries we have our own home-grown terror groups finding comfort in their Second Amendment Rights to arm themselves to the teeth for protection against homosexuals, IRS agents, and blacks. They are not content to maintain an alert defensive posture but individuals and small groups of them have deemed it necessary to be pro-active.

That is why in 2013 Mother Jones could report that between 9/11 and the end of 2012 domestic right wing terrorists had killed 29 people across the nation as opposed to 17 fatalities from Muslim terrorists…and they are including the Fort Hood deaths which should be discounted for the reasons above.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/charts-domestic-terrorism-jihadist-boston-tsarnaev

And perhaps potentially deadly attacks by Muslims have been thwarted? Fair enough, with a few notable instances of shoe and underwear bomber wanna-bes. Any others?

The jihadists’ record as bomb makers would probably be even worse if not for the FBI, which has reeled in dozens of would-be terrorists with its controversial informant program. Of the 203 jihadist terrorists counted by the New America Foundation, just 23 got their hands on explosives or materials to make a bomb; more than half of those obtained the components (often nonfunctioning) from federal informants or agents as part of a sting. Of the 174 nonjihadists, 51 right-wing terrorists and 5 anarchist terrorists tried making bombs. Only five of the right-wing terrorists got their bomb-making supplies via sting operations.

So it appears that

The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men. Gang aft agley

And many would have gone further aft agley had the FBI simply stayed away and not provided both the inspiration and the means for terror dreams to morph into civilian nightmares.

How about abroad? While some Americans have been targeted for well-publicized killings by ISIS, and we have the four American dead in the Benghazi consulate attack, the total number of fatalities from American targeted incidents is negligible. But thousands of Iraqis have been murdered by Muslim groups during and after the war there so it would be more accurate to say that Muslims have more to fear from Islamic terrorism than do non-Muslims.

For further references I would suggest these.

http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/faf397e9-96e6-4a7a-89d4-1968e1a44a15,db7611a2-02cd-43af-8147-649e26813571,frameless.html

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/our-gti-findings

If interested one can access any number of reports/analyses from both conservative and liberal organizations (Heritage Foundation included) that provide statistics about terror.

None may be exceptionally expansive and may duplicate  others’ work in some aspects. If they do not editorialize that Americans are pretty safe from that violence the facts presented easily support that conclusion. Too, there may be discrepancies in their numbers, most likely due to utilizing different sources with different time frames of reference and often with somewhat flexible definitions of terrorism.

What of ISIS or Boko Haram?

As much undeniable terror as they do spread, they are more akin to traditional armies than to Al Qaeda and consanguineous organizations. Indeed, ISIS has declared itself a state…without established borders to be sure… but truly embarking upon its version of Manifest Destiny.

Much as the threat from these foreign entities, especially Muslim centered ones, is palpable in their part of the world, it is equally impalpable in the United States or to American targets anywhere, save for rare instances.

Yet, Peter King, Lindsey Graham, and even President Obama, can be quite prone to hyperbole that exaggerates the danger in order to…when it comes right down to it…justify huge military and intelligence budgets, as well as severe security measures that protect us from the slightest of threats.

It is as if a hovering mother sends her adorable five year old outdoors to play in September wearing a complete snow suit because it once snowed on that date thirteen years ago…and mother and child reside in Phoenix.

There are numbers galore that reveal how little we have to fear from terror. The likelihood of death from driving without a seat belt or smoking cigarettes, jaywalking, owning a gun, or not having health insurance outranks your chances of dying from a terrorist attack, foreign or domestic. And these are issues of concern we address less drastically or not at all.

And you know something else? We have the same Arabs to thank for those revealing numbers that we now want to declare our enemies.

Isn’t it ironic?

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Devildog  On February 14, 2015 at 5:40 PM

    UMOC, this might be your worst. So bad I can’t even get anywhere near end. How can Islamic Extremists be counted when there is no such animal. What is the significance of only U.S. Citizens being counted. Unsuccessful attempts not counted (you’ll never know). Troops in the U.S. counted as “combatants”.

    What’s your point! You are a “liar” (in quotes) using absurd figures!

  • Devildog  On February 14, 2015 at 5:51 PM

    Btw, Wiki global research. Liar, liar, pants pants on fire!

  • umoc193  On February 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM

    For anyone who has missed the point…and so far that appears to be unanimous…this piece is another in a line of my opinions that the terror threat to the United States is far overblown for mostly political reasons but which has been taken advantage of by the military/industrial/terror security complex.

    • Devildog  On February 15, 2015 at 7:33 AM

      Am I supposed to take from all this that auto accidents and global warming are greater threats to one’s life than Islamic terrorism? Thank you!

  • Tourist  On February 16, 2015 at 2:50 AM

    UMOC, let me acknowledge again how much you and I agree on. Tell me if the following three sentences do not fairly summarize your position.

    “There are numbers galore that reveal how little we have to fear from terror.”

    “[T]he terror threat to the United States is far overblown for mostly political reasons but which has been taken advantage of by the military/industrial/terror security complex.”

    “Much as the threat from these foreign entities, especially Muslim centered ones, is palpable in their part of the world, it is equally impalpable in the United States or to American targets anywhere, save for rare instances.”

    Is that it? Because the third is not like the others. The third is the argument that if we don’t abuse children and our own are in fact grown now, how does what goes on down the street warrant our concern, must less intervention? The biggest threat to any of us is old age. In the end, why get involved on behalf of anyone lacking educational opportunities, healthcare or the rest – assuming we ourselves have them?

    I’m obviously taking about the Islamic State.

    At this point the argument against wiping them out usually goes either or both of two ways. One, we can’t fix everything. Two, how is what it’s doing any different from . . . ?

    No, we can’t fix everything. We can’t be the world’s policeman. That does not mean the world does not sometimes need policemen. There are real limits. To me, that’s not reason to shrug our shoulders. It’s reason to figure out what we might still do. This is what Devildog was, I think, getting at with global warming. Your own statistics would say global warming is a far greater threat than terrorism, and we should be taking it seriously – right, Dog? – but Devildog thinks we should care about ISIS, too.

    How are they any different from . . . ?

    Until we are perfect, the difference will not be satisfactory. Nor does the difference matter to the dead. Nor is the difference one of body counts. The difference is what at this time in human history we expect. We expect violent conflict. We expect war. We lament it, we oppose it to varying degrees, but few delude themselves. There is war. Consequences are horrific. Death and the destruction of lives, of participants and innocents, is some of what war does. We expect this.

    Some things we do not expect. Some things are not done. The jungle has one law and no standards. Nothing shocks the conscience of a beast. We distinguish collateral damage from atrocity. Some things we call war crimes.

    9/11 killed fewer people than a month of traffic accidents but flying passenger planes into office buildings is not done at this stage in human civilization. Neither are butchering and burning people alive triumphantly.

    We make the distinction for what it would mean if we did not.

    • Devildog  On February 16, 2015 at 4:26 AM

      Well said Tourist. While I may be concerned about humanity also, perhaps I put a little more emphasis than do you (I think) on protecting Americans (versus humanity).

      Why “must” you when you disagree with UMOC always preference your comments reminding him of how much the two of you agree with? Do you think he needs that?

    • umoc193  On February 16, 2015 at 5:16 PM

      “Much as the threat from these foreign entities, especially Muslim centered ones, is palpable in their part of the world, it is equally impalpable in the United States or to American targets anywhere, save for rare instances.”

      There are some areas of the world where the daily threat of violence from terror is real and must be dealt with. The frequency of attacks must be dealt with in a sensible way. One of those areas is not the United States. There are far more dangers that await us in our daily lives and even in most of those cases they often do not call for more than a modicum of caution.

      Does that mean we should not care about these dangers? Of course not. Am I shrugging my shoulders? Not really but I suppose I am in a relative sense compared to the domestic dangers I believe we should be far more occupied with.

      9/11 was shocking more for the methods used than for the death toll itself, though horrific. And it directly affected thousands upon thousands of people who were not targeted including the police and firemen who perished and those cleaning up who have developed health problems. In, let’s say, a normal suicide bomber event, the collateral damage is not so extensive nor so enduring.

      But do not forget that there has not been…before or after…an Islamic terror attack with as many as ten victims. In Iraq in 2014 there were nearly fifty days when terror bombings killed anywhere from 10 to 75 people. It seems the folks having most to fear from Islamic terror are Muslims.

      • Devildog  On February 16, 2015 at 6:32 PM

        Have you lost your sanity? So what that the ones having most to fear are Muslim-that MOST victims are Muslims? So what that the 9/11 method was MORE shocking than the number of victims (if you say so). If three thousand isn’t enough to get your interest, how many are required to do that? You imply that you care and that you don’t shrug your shoulders at the threat of Islamic terrorism but is that really the case. You do a great job indicating otherwise.

        Are the Republicans one of those far greater dangers that face us in our daily lives? Gun violence-a threat for sure but I don’t usually go into those areas. Global warming/climate change? Keystone pipeline? Gimme a break!

  • Little_Minx  On February 19, 2015 at 1:20 PM

    UMOC, I notice that the pie chart at the top is for the years 1980 and 2005. I wonder how relevant you think the data for the 1980s still are, or for the 1980s-’90s. Can you find data for solely the 21st century, and if so, how do they differ from 1980-2005?

    • Little_Minx  On February 19, 2015 at 1:23 PM

      Erratum: …for the years BETWEEN1980 and 2005.

    • Devildog  On February 19, 2015 at 1:33 PM

      Why bother? The data is irrelevant no matter what the years!

      • Devildog  On February 19, 2015 at 1:34 PM

        Are irrelevant.

  • umoc193  On February 19, 2015 at 2:48 PM

    The pie chart and related article were published in 2013 based on the data then available. If anything the differences between what Islamic terrorism means to the security of Americans and what it means to the security elsewhere in the world is even starker.

    Now, tell me one death from terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11 attributable to foreign terrorists.

    • Little_Minx  On February 19, 2015 at 4:13 PM

      I was more interested in the percentages of the other groups in the 1980-2005 period, and how they changed in later years (i.e., have some groups decreased, others increased?).

    • Little_Minx  On February 19, 2015 at 4:19 PM

      I also wonder if there’s a comparable chart depicting terrorist attacks averted, by group.

    • Devildog  On February 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM

      The guy who is against droning wants to know how many deaths have occurred here. The guy who is against killing them there to prevent their killing here wants to know how many deaths have occurred here. The guy who is against any military action there wants to know how many deaths here have been attributable to foreign terrorists. Nice UMOC!

      Now UMOC, tell us how many deaths here have been avoided by military action there. Surely UMOC, you must know the answer is zero. Right?

  • Tourist  On February 20, 2015 at 2:07 AM

    UMOC, you say you want discussion. Devildog asks a fair question.

    You insist that Islamic terrorism is no meaningful threat within the United States, that fear is being stoked politically, and so on, and at one point my response was a string of “Who’s arguing?” When you equated ISIS with America via the KKK as well as directly (“traditional methods of military action”), I wondered if you saw any difference. You repeated that Islamic terrorists present no threat within the U.S.

    I still think ISIS has demonstrated sufficiently that it should be wiped from the face of the Earth, even if it promises to remain “over there,” but that’s okay.

    Devildog asks now if “no threat” might be a result of America doing other things you are on record as not wanting it to do. You can of course argue the *harm* being done by the things you don’t want America doing. But since little is ever all one way or all the other, might there be something to what Devildog says?

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: