4 ms·

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html In 2002, 451 people were killed and ~

by mehwoot 13y ago

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html In 2002, 451 people were killed and ~2,300 injured in 134 separate terrorist attacks in Israel. From a population of about 7.7 million people. If that were the U.S., that would be 18,300 deaths annually and close to 95,000 people injured. Point is, whilst terrorism is designed to affect people psychologically more than the physical effects, you can't simply ignore it. A balanced response is needed and surely that includes some element of intelligence gathering on who is causing these attacks. Where to draw the line is a valid question, but to reject terrorism completely as irrelevant is stupid. People who discuss these issues in terms of absolutes ("we should never give up any freedom") are rarely considering the reality of the situation. The reason I find this so disturbing is it is exactly the wrong way of approaching the situation. If we say terroism only killed X people so it isn't worth sacrificing these rights, we are saying there is some level of deaths that these rights are worth scarificing for. Personally I feel the balance between privacy and security is one that should be figured out beforehand and not changed in response to events, otherwise people who want to abuse such power will always have an incentive to play up and exagerate how much danger we are in. The rights we have when 1 person dies from terrorism should be the same as when 20,000 people die. But I don't believe that should be the right for every person to keep everything they do private. That just isn't living in reality.

vinbreau 13y ago
Part of the problem is that 'terrorist' is an ill defined word. Your stats are couched in rhetoric as a result. Everyone agrees on what a hammer is, or an AK-47, not so true on the term terrorist. Also, that term is used by many factions to describe various oppositional forces. Are those stats lumping together only the US Government's definition of terrorist, or is it a global standard somehow amalgamating all the various and disparate ideas of what a terrorist is? Looking at that link I see we are discussing terrorist as defined by "data from the Israeli foreign ministry." It's a very one-sided data argument. Terrorist is a real term with a globally liquid definition. It makes it very difficult to discuss the topic with any sort of rational discourse.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  I originally used this page http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html#2003 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victim... and was counting by hand, but it took too long. I didn't count a few that were vague ("stabbing attack" where nobody took credit) but if you read the list for 2002, I'm confident >75% would count by anybody's definition of terrorist attack.
  - vinbreau 13y ago
    This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism. If so, then we have to call just about all crimes terrorism. If we do that, then the word simply means criminal and that's no good. A terrorist is not someone who stabs you. In the strictest sense it is someone who commits acts of violence or uses intimidation in an attempt to achieve a political end. I've seen so many people labeled as terrorist that never even come close to the "political end" part of the definition. Kids bringing guns to school is not terrorism, but it is a crime, burning crosses in the yards of black families would be. I don't trust the US or Israel to publish data reflecting acts of actual terrorism, I expect them to bolster their arguments by fabricating this data. Just look at us here in the US. The media and the government have called just about everyone a terrorist that commits a crime and they want to see them treated harshly. I also expect them to use these bolstered numbers to prop-up organizational infrastructure like the NSA and the military-industrial complex. It's practically impossible to use "terrorism" statistics in any real way for any argument without strict definition of what a terrorist is as put forth by the person making the argument. We can compare gun deaths, we can compare auto deaths, we can compare bathtub falls, but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics.
    - mehwoot 13y ago
      This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism. There are 208 deaths on that list for 2002 from 33 separate suicide bombings. Do you think that is fabricated? Do you think those numbers are bolstered? If that number of people were proportionally killed in the U.S. each year (~8,000) would my point still stand? but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics. I agree. That was my point with the 1 or 20,000 deaths comment. But assuming we can compare the numbers, like the author claimed, it still isn't valid. If we can't compare the numbers, the point isn't valid in the first place.

by mehwoot 13y ago

vinbreau 13y ago

Part of the problem is that 'terrorist' is an ill defined word. Your stats are couched in rhetoric as a result. Everyone agrees on what a hammer is, or an AK-47, not so true on the term terrorist. Also, that term is used by many factions to describe various oppositional forces. Are those stats lumping together only the US Government's definition of terrorist, or is it a global standard somehow amalgamating all the various and disparate ideas of what a terrorist is? Looking at that link I see we are discussing terrorist as defined by "data from the Israeli foreign ministry." It's a very one-sided data argument. Terrorist is a real term with a globally liquid definition. It makes it very difficult to discuss the topic with any sort of rational discourse.

mehwoot 13y ago
I originally used this page http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html#2003 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victim... and was counting by hand, but it took too long. I didn't count a few that were vague ("stabbing attack" where nobody took credit) but if you read the list for 2002, I'm confident >75% would count by anybody's definition of terrorist attack.
- vinbreau 13y ago
  This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism. If so, then we have to call just about all crimes terrorism. If we do that, then the word simply means criminal and that's no good. A terrorist is not someone who stabs you. In the strictest sense it is someone who commits acts of violence or uses intimidation in an attempt to achieve a political end. I've seen so many people labeled as terrorist that never even come close to the "political end" part of the definition. Kids bringing guns to school is not terrorism, but it is a crime, burning crosses in the yards of black families would be. I don't trust the US or Israel to publish data reflecting acts of actual terrorism, I expect them to bolster their arguments by fabricating this data. Just look at us here in the US. The media and the government have called just about everyone a terrorist that commits a crime and they want to see them treated harshly. I also expect them to use these bolstered numbers to prop-up organizational infrastructure like the NSA and the military-industrial complex. It's practically impossible to use "terrorism" statistics in any real way for any argument without strict definition of what a terrorist is as put forth by the person making the argument. We can compare gun deaths, we can compare auto deaths, we can compare bathtub falls, but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism. There are 208 deaths on that list for 2002 from 33 separate suicide bombings. Do you think that is fabricated? Do you think those numbers are bolstered? If that number of people were proportionally killed in the U.S. each year (~8,000) would my point still stand? but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics. I agree. That was my point with the 1 or 20,000 deaths comment. But assuming we can compare the numbers, like the author claimed, it still isn't valid. If we can't compare the numbers, the point isn't valid in the first place.