The think tank New America issued a report today documenting “the lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11.” It found that a total of 26 Americans have been killed by “deadly jihadist attacks” in the last 14 years, while almost double that number — 48 — have been killed by “deadly right wing attacks.” The significance of that finding was well-captured by the New York Times’s online home page caption today, promoting the paper’s article that included this quote from Terrorism Professor John Horgan: “There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown.”

That the U.S. government, media and various anti-Muslim polemicists relentlessly, aggressively exaggerate “the terror threat” generally and the menace of Muslims specifically requires no studies to see. It’s confirmed by people’s everyday experiences. On the list of threats that Americans wake up and worry about every morning, is there anyone beyond hypnotic Sean Hannity viewers for whom “terrorism by radical Islam” is high on the list?
To believe the prevailing U.S. government/media narrative is to believe that radical Islam poses some sort of grave threat to the safety of American families. The fearmongering works not because it resonates in people’s daily experiences and observations: it plainly does not. It works because it’s grounded in tribalistic appeals (our tribe is better than that one over there) and the Otherizing of the marginalized (those people over there are not just different but inferior): historically very potent tactics of manipulation and propaganda. Add to that all the pragmatic benefits from maintaining this Scary Muslim mythology — the power, profit and policy advancement it enables for numerous factions — and it’s not hard to see why it’s been so easily sustained despite being so patently false.It’s literally hard to overstate how trivial the risk of “radical Islam” is to the average American. So consider this:
(Sources: deaths from traffic accidents; deaths from bees; deaths from lightning; deaths from furniture; deaths from right-wing extremists)
If anything, the chart severely understates how exaggerated the threat is, since it compares the total number of deaths caused by “Muslim extremists” over the past 14 years to the number of deaths caused daily or annually by threats widely regarded as insignificant. This is the “threat” in whose name the U.S. and its Western allies have radically reduced basic legal protections; created all sorts of dangerous precedents for invasions, detentions and targeted killings; and generally driven themselves to a state of collective hysteria and manipulation.

Photo: CNN screen capture
Here is a very detailed look at the flawed reasoning in that “think tank” report used as a basis for this article:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-30/tallying-right-wing-terror-vs-jihad
Curiously, the DC Beltway Sniper shootings of 2002 were not included in the statistics. 17 were killed by John Muhammed, a self-professed “jihad” advocate. That would bring right-wing vs jihadist totals much closer together, with Jihadists “scoring” 43 to the right-wing extremists 48. One wonders why this was not included.
Muhammed was convicted of six counts of terrorism following a trial in Virginia in 2003. Do your research, boys and girls.
Lol, talk about cherrypicking. You pick the data to exclude 9/11 – if you include 9/11 the numbers say something quite different. Certainly 9/11 is still very present in every American’s consciousness and it’s quite unreasonable to exclude it as part of the reason the Americans perceive a threat. There is also the issue of disrupted plots, not touched on here, but there have been more than 80. Yes, some are clunky and seem a bit ginned up but certainly nowhere near all of them.
What a joke that this passes for intellectual thought or discussion. What rant agitprop.
Americans know almost nothing about foreign affairs, especially Mideast affairs. This is the result of lack of interest among Americans, and the result of getting only propaganda from the mainstream media, both electronic and print. With a press controlled by anti-U.S. interests, it is extremely difficult for ordinary Americans to get an accurate picture of the world.
If you’d object to being fed propaganda, know nothing about foreign affairs and have no interest to learn about it either you should probably be skeptical when being served perhaps ideologically soothing, but completely disingenuous summations of disconnected factoids. Especially when you tally up the death toll caused by islamist terror attacks during this Ramadan alone.
How do folks view these stats and the increasing numbers in 2014, 2015? Thanks in advance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
Okay, but that is not the right kind of reality, so that’s to be ignored.
Perhaps its a “Post Edward Snowden Spike in Nation State Sponsored False Flag Entrapment Schemes”
#winning
Why discount 9/11? It happened.
Re the difficulty of displaying two quantities that differ greatly without a log scale (who knows what that means besides scientists?), I decided to use the areas of a set of disks to represent the different death rates in the much discussed graphic. I cannot find a way to display graphical information here, so I put it on twitter as a photo. Wow, I found a use for twitter? It is @mikesulzer.
Oh yes my replanting in the meadow. Tell Pam I never wanted to tell the tulips they were idiots but I definetly implied they were. I think the whole town is stupid and that for whatever reason they thought they were all protected by some cour injunction not to talk was pathetic. They gossip 24-7 so have lee start asking some questions to the numbers I have you and stir it up. They will talk to protect themselves it always works like that.
Can you spot a link between these two stories?
– “Who Lost Vietnam?”
nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20gallowt.html
– “Who Lost Iraq?”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/iraq-roundtable-george-w-bush-barack-obama-119221.html
Can you imagine the reaction if the German press were putting out these stories today the way Americans are?, stories such as:
– Who lost the western front?
– Who lost Stalingrad?
– who lost North Africa?
People might get the impression that Germans had kind of missed the point.
Before I forget, I hope it is not too early to congratulate Americans on electing the real hope and change president, Hillary Clinton:
– “Hillary Clinton has hired a former lobbyist for the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, further upsetting environmentalists who have long been wary of her commitment to fighting climate change.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122147/hillary-clinton-has-hired-former-keystone-pipeline-lobbyist
But Clinton must do a lot more than hire oil lobbyists if she’s going to save Israeli apartheid:
– “Former US secretary of state and potential presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a staunch defense of Israel over its conduct of the war against Hamas, placed full ultimate responsibility on Hamas for the deaths of children and other innocent people, and defended Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining security control in the West Bank in the next few years. “
– “Foreign investment in Israel drops by 50%
Dr Ronny Manos, one of the report’s authors and a researcher in the department of Management and Economics at the Open University of Israel, said that the decline was primarily caused by the fallout from the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Operation Protective Edge and international boycotts against the country for alleged violations of international law.”
http://europe.newsweek.com/foreign-investment-israel-slashed-by-half-329269
Friday Funk’off Contest:
Isaac Hayes – 69′
https://youtu.be/iqR4CZj0mJQ
A Chef’s Chocolate Salty Balls Production
H.R. Grump-n-Stuff..
re: “playing off Iranians and Iraqis in a war that cost one million lives, helping Saddam with intelligence to gas Kurds..”
I believe that one would have to include the Iranian Military w/ respect to the stated gassing(s).
Appreciating your cognisant contributions..
dong`
[snip]
‘In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.’
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
A Keep On With The Keeping On Production
Hmm, the soaked-in-oil-money Saudis are having trouble conquering next door neighbour Yemen, “the Arab world’s poorest country”, so sad.
SANA, Yemen — For nearly three months, Saudi Arabia, along with its allies, has been bombing Yemen, its southern neighbor, hoping to force the retreat of Shiite rebels who have seized major cities and to return the country’s president from the Saudi guest mansion where he lives to the presidential palace.
So far, it has not worked. The rebels, known as the Houthis, have gained ground, more than 2,600 people have been killed, and aid groups have blamed the Saudi-led bombing and limits on maritime traffic for exacerbating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-houthis.html?_r=0
I’m trying to find an article on why the US is supporting the Saudi war effort, I guess this is it:
– “In contrast to Kuwait and even Iran, there are no elections, political opposition or dissenting viewpoints in Saudi Arabia. The royals once explained that elections were “not consistent with our Islamic creed.” No doubt. The eruption of the Arab Spring was met with generous social spending and ruthless repression. At the time, said Saudi Interior Minister Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz: “What we won by the sword we will keep by the sword.”
Anyone who voices criticism is treated as if he was in the Soviet Union. The State Department’s latest human rights assessment noted that “citizens lack the right and legal means to change their government; pervasive restrictions on universal rights such as freedom of expression, including on the internet, and freedom of assembly, association, movement and religion, and a lack of equal rights for women, children and noncitizen workers.” The report went on to cite “torture and other abuses; overcrowding in prisons and detention centers; holding political prisoners and detainees; denial of due process; arbitrary arrest and detention; and arbitrary interference with privacy, home and correspondence.” “
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/the-washington-that-never-says-no_b_7524628.html
Here’s some more terrorism, the Palestinians are opening a TV channel:
– “Netanyahu trying to shut down ‘Palestine 48′ TV channel
Human rights groups have consistently documented Israel’s attacks on Palestinian and international media outlets and press workers.
…Israel’s crackdowns on media have also been fatal at times. During Israel’s 51-day attack on Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip last summer, at least sixteen press workers were killed and dozens more were injured.
…According to international watchdog Reporters Without Borders, Israel was the second deadliest country in the world for journalists in 2014.
Prime minister, who also serves as communications minister, instructed Communications Ministry to examine all means to prevent the station’s launch on Friday.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is acting to ban the Palestinian Authority’s new TV channel, Palestine 48, from going on air. The channel, based in Nazareth, is due to start broadcasting on Friday. “
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.661896
Democracies like Egypt and Israel know how to put the media in their place:
– “With imprisonment of journalists at an all-time high, Nour Youssef speaks to leading journalists about their inability to criticise the government
…Today, many of Egypt’s top TV presenters and journalists are remarkably candid about their willingness to act as government mouthpieces.
“I would say anything the military tells me to say out of duty and respect for the institution,” says Ahmed Moussa, one of the most popular TV presenters in Egypt.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/egyptian-media-journalism-sisi-mubarak
Then there is the proud democracy of Saudi Arabia:
– “BEIRUT (AP) — A financially troubled Lebanese TV network received a $2 million Saudi bailout in return for adopting a pro-Riyadh editorial policy.
A news agency in Guinea got a $2,000 gift, while small publications across the Arab world received tens of thousands of dollars in inflated subscription fees.
…”Buying Silence,” was the headline Saturday in Beirut’s Al-Akhbar daily, which is critical of Saudi Arabia, in describing the revelations in the cables.
The correspondence showed Saudi officials offered or denied free trips to the kingdom, home to Islam’s holiest shrines, to secure allies in the media or to punish those the government deemed critical.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-saudi-arabia-has-bailed-out-failing-middle-east-media-organizations-in-exchange-for-pro-saudi-coverage-2015-6
Hmmm …
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.662814 (pay wall)
Yes, Israel is only a war-like nation if you do not take into account the historical complexity of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I see now: historical complexity goggles reveal Israel is behaving correctly wrt civilian slaughter in Gaza. It really is a shame god chose Israel … the poor bastards had no choice in the matter. Why Them ?
Everything “since 9/11″ – but why is it ok to talk about these things and leave out the largest terrorist attack on US soil by Islamic terrorists? Are we cherry picking the data maybe?
492,926 people dead from all these other causes (assuming 365 days in a year and 14 years since 9-11 [the big killer being car accidents]) compared to 3000 tops in 9-11 the numbers just don’t stack up to much
agreed, but the title is: THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO ANTI-MUSLIM FEARMONGERING AND BIGOTRY: REALITY (headline caps, not mine) so mixing traffic accidents, bee stings and lightning, feels a bit random in either case. if you compare “people killed by right-wing vs. islamic terrorists” that one day makes a pretty big difference (48 vs. 26 since 9/11 or 48 vs. 3026 (tops) incl. 9/11)
my point was, by the same logic you can say “nuclear: safest and cleanest energy source in Japan since Fukishima”. sure, it might not be wrong, but it’s putting a dishonest twist on things.
People fear catastrophic events. That is why they buy insurance – to have peace of mind. While it is easy to condemn this as irrational and tell everyone to simply ignore the possibility of low probability events, the behavior can also be defended. People reason that the insurance doesn’t cost very much and they can afford it without significantly affecting their lifestyle. They wish to protect themselves against an extreme event which, if they were uninsured, might wreck their lives. This is not altogether unreasonable.
For events which occur with great frequency, the annual risk is easy to determine. The number of people killed each year by automobiles varies within a reasonably small range. For other risks, evaluating the annual probability of occurrence may be more difficult. Simply extrapolating the data from the past 10 years may not work so well.
An example is the risk of a large meteor hitting the Earth and wiping out all life. The probability of this happening in any given year is quite low. However, the consequences are quite high, so it might still be worth considering if anything can be done to prevent it. Even more so if a large meteor is actually spotted heading towards the Earth. There would still be people writing articles about how more people had been killed by bee stings in the past 10 years than by meteors. They would mock any attempt to do something. But others would be working on interceptor rockets to try and divert the incoming meteor. When they succeeded through dint of hard work, the original skeptics would pat themselves on the back for being right that meteors were not a threat.
In other words, perception of risk is quite subjective, so both groups may simultaneously be right.
How clever of you to shift the emphasis! The discussion has been about a comparison of the deaths of individuals by, say, automobile (significant probability) to deaths by terrorism (very low probability). But now it is about the death of everyone, something feared by all. And, yes, you have, by subtle implication, planted the idea that the terrorists are out to get us all!
You completely misrepresented Mussolini’s argument, which is excellent, but even more obvious. The point is: “The probability of this happening in any given year is quite low. However, the consequences are quite high, so it might still be worth considering if anything can be done to prevent it.” “This” can be any low-probability, high-cost event. A perfect example is another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. This is just common sense.
I thought misrepresentation was his argument!
I’ll admit it can be hard to tell. (Sorry if I misread you.)
The point is that threat perception is related to the scale of particular event. The number of people that can be killed in a motor vehicle depends on how many persons can be squeezed into one car. This is why airline disasters, even if less common and which kill many fewer people overall all, attract more popular attention. A plane carries more people. A terrorist event can potentially kill an even larger number. The meteor scenario is simply a logical extrapolation. The ultimate catastrophic event would probably be the entire universe being sucked into a black hole.
Inducing fear in the general public is the goal of every system of government ever devised by human beings. But the meteor impact, unfortunately, is not very useful to politicians since setting up a system of surveillance to monitor for meteors wouldn’t further anyone’s agenda. Such a system would only detect an occasional passing alien vessel and little else. The universe being sucked into a black hole is also not very useful, since it might be difficult to convince people that even the most extreme government actions would be effective against it.
Climate change is more interesting though. A good case could be made to set up a system of surveillance to monitor everyone’s carbon footprint. This level of surveillance would have the side (principle) benefit of detecting threats to the existing order and controlling them, without even requiring so much as a warrant.
However, climate change doesn’t further the goal of fighting continuous wars in the Middle East. So we are stuck with Muslim extremists as being the main focus of attention. If they aren’t sufficiently threatening to suit the agenda of the US government, they can be made more so. The CIA is no doubt working on the problem at this very moment. So Glenn Greenwald’s complaints don’t serve any useful purpose.
The correlation coefficient between errorism and terrorism is just one letter, benitoe. *e.g. the killer furniture statistic is in error (i.e. not terror).
>”In other words, perception of risk is quite subjective…”
Ergo; lies, damned lies and statistics. *For example: the risk of Iraq ‘mushroom clouds’ in the U.S. was a lie, the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq a damned lie, and the death/injured (tens of thousand U.S. and ‘millions’ of Iraqis) from the war are the resulting statistics (of the Lies).
It may have technically been a lie, but the US government had the power to give Saddam a nuclear weapon any time it liked. Since they could have made their own lie come true, it wasn’t really a lie.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that you’re being satirical.
He thinks the furniture is out to get him!
*And then, he worries profusely about large meteor impacts (which, in the past, wiped out ‘all life on earth’.) and being sucked out of the universe, to God knows where, by a giant Black Hole!!
In any case, I’m going to buy insurance against extinction of all life on earth, whether by a few huge meteors or by being sucked out of the universe by a giant Black Hole, just in case.
Fear mongers need to be creative. People are wired to respond more intensely to a change in their environment. If nothing changes, they become complacent, perhaps even insubordinate. So it’s always necessary to conjure up new threats.
All because Glenn Greenwald doesn’t know what terrorism .. is.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that the Bush Administration had credible information that a large-scale attack was coming weeks before the attacks happened. If we had enough information to prepare for 9/11 before the Patriot Act, then how do 26 more deaths in the last 14 years since justify any kind of action that we have taken, any kind of surveillance that was not already being implemented? It’s not the amount or the invasive quality of surveillance that matters, it’s the people in charge knowing what the hell to do when presented with valuable and threatening intelligence. And last I checked, the TSA just got a 5% on their most recent midterm. So it’s not like they’ve even tried to improve security, other than subjecting many innocent people to racial and ethnic profiling, hate and unwarranted suspicion. Your post is exactly the kind of language this article is trying to address. Sorry, you must not have looked up to see the discussion going over your head.
Oh, wait, I meant to say MONTHS in advance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
“The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.”
Yeah, oooh scary; btw, if IS and the like are such a threat 2 us here, then how cum they don’t ground invade our biggest ally over there: Zion Land, aka Isreal (god forbid), or are they all in bed with our other pimp Saudi Arabia? Just wondering how that works..
Forgiveness of Islam: Empathy for the other, or a way to attack my enemies?
And, interestingly, we do NOT see the statistic of how many are killed/murdered by police in the U.S., annually…. Ain’t it, like, 1 a day, for years, now?
Here’s another definition of terrorism from “the only democracy…”. Apparently, terrorism is …taking a boat to Gaza:
-”WATCH: Knesset erupts after deputy minister calls on Arab lawmakers to ‘return’ Israeli citizenship
‘Terrorists won’t be allowed to sit here,’ Likud’s Yaron Mazuz says; Netanyahu accuses Arab Joint List of hypocrisy; Zionist Union MKs leave session to avoid taking part of a vote on the citizenship law.”
– “A Knesset session descended into acrimony on Wednesday, after the deputy interior minister accused Israeli Arab lawmakers of participating in terrorist acts and called on them to “return” their Israeli citizenship. “
– “During a discussion about a flotilla making its way to Gaza in a bid to break Israel’s blockade around the Strip, Deputy Interior Minister Yaron Mazuz said he would act to revoke the citizenship of any politician who supports protest flotillas and told Arab politicians that Israel was “doing them a favor” by allowing them to be in the Knesset.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/mk-demands-probe-into-lawmakers-call-for-revoking-arab-mks-citizenship/
Regrettably, the view that Muslims are the root of most/all evil has become a religion in and of itself. And, similar to dogmatic religion, attempts to shake the foundations of this new found religion with factual information tends to lead to shrill calls of “unfair”, “biased”, “heretic”, …
It is really very simple – the folks on FOX and their followers claim that world after 9/11 is different. Glenn’s graph shows that it is not.
Okay, so you would like to choose a different point, and a different definition.
Someone suggested including deaths elsewhere in the world. For example, by ISIL, Boko haram, etc. etc. If we include accounts of conflicts, we should include deaths, directly or indirectly, from western/US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, … If we include all deaths, Muslim terrorists will loose the death count!
I grant you that if you look hard enough and long enough and define your criteria cleverly enough, you may come out with a scenario that suggests Muslim terrorists are the root of all evil. But, for you, the person looking for a self-gratifying answer, this is just another gratification. So what did you demonstrate? Cherry picked data to support your preconceived opinion? Fantastic!
Glenn has demonstrated that the world did not change after 9/11! At least as drastically as FOX news and the purveyors of fear would like you to believe. What is your claim, and what can you demonstrate?
Good question. Since no one has answered I’ll say it looks like they are attempting to demonstrate a belief in dominance and murder as the chosen way of communicating and enforcing claims of spiritual truths. So when they encounter other text followers who have the same beliefs they have but directed at themselves they feel spiritually threatened AND insulted, hearing nothing else.
But it also looks like the obsession with Muslims and terrorism from certain people because it keeps them employed. If government isnt scared then they might not award as many contracts… but then the president will always be concerned for the economy.
I’m kind of rambling here and could easily carry on because (awkward) I think I know you and just wanted to say hi. If not, may I utter a short violent exclamation? Damn.
(watched Black Adder recently and have been wanting to use that or versions of)
Shame on America the most stupid government on mama Earth
And if we didn’t have intelligence agencies, I wonder what the figures would be… This article is a great commercial for NSA’s efforts.
Good security plays a role, but your claim that NSA surveillance does it has no basis in reality.
Peter,
By the time GCHQ JTRIG was through cooking the “figures” for the intelligence agencies WE DO HAVE no doubt some anti government nut job (you know the type) would probably start claiming 15 years of around the clock wholly unconstitutional domestic surveillance of law abiding americans would fail to prevent one (1) US cab driver from rendering material assistance to a know terrorist organization. Thankfully thats not the case.
You are not helping yourself Peter.
Your effort to sell the Boston police’s version of recent events, by claiming to have witnessed video that turned out to be anything but conclusive, still reverberates. Now you’re selling the NSA with think how many would be dead if we didn’t have the NSA.
What’s Al Sharpton eating for lunch today?
Nope. The NSA programs have been analyzed and seen not to have prevented any domestic terrorist plots. One supporting link is in my comment at the bottom of this page.
Peter, while we have you here, how is it that the claims you made about what was shown in the video of 26-year-old black Muslim man who was shot and killed by agents of the FBI and Boston Police Department were so wrong?
At the time you made these claims, the video was unavailable to the public, but you said in comments that you had seen it. Kitt has posed some good questions for you here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/10/major-questions-remain-unanswered-killing-alleged-boston-isis-beheading-plotter/#comment-139499
Peter?
An example of “what the figures would be” can be noted by the total failure that came out of the spying and surveillance partnership between the CIA and the NYPD on Muslim communities, which, no matter how much money squandered and many hours, days, month, weeks, years were spent hanging out in Muslim owned restaurants or in mosques and other places where Muslims interact and spend time living their lives, nothing, not one damned illegal activity, much less “terrorist plot” was ferreted out by the sneaks and creeps.
Here is a link to much of the information about the Pulitzer Prize winning writing about the issue:
http://www.ap.org/media-center/nypd/investigation
This “Peter” reminds me of Russell. Some of you who have been following Glenn’s articles and comment boards over the years will recall Russell. He, same as “Peter” would post comments claiming to be “Facts,” (such as “Peter’s” claims about viewing a video that turned out to show nothing at all that “Peter” claimed that it showed when it was revealed a few days after “Peter’s” claims). Then when called out to explain Russell or Peter go dark and move onto the next set of “facts” or concocted fantasies. I’m not saying this “Peter” *is Russell reincarnated, I’m just saying that “Peter’s” MO is the same air ball that Russell used to toss around.
Figures?
In 1953, CIA & British intelligence services perpetrated a coup d’état in Iran. “Against a fascism government”, will you certainly respond!
Nop! They overthrown Mohammad Mosaddeq wellknown for his secular reforms and social progress.
Washington weaken the political standing of the first democraticaly elected Prime Minister for years by refusing him financial aid; publishing propaganda on Iranian news papers and organizing riots. They helped the Shah to get his throne back and he revoked the PM against Iranian constitution.
Oil interests…
Check American national archives!
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
While many of us quibble over the merits of the graph, do watch this excellent 10 minute Intercept video about the destroyed family of three entrapped American-Muslim young men: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/25/entrapped/#respond
Two are living a tortured existence in an American Supermax prison because they are Muslims (with New Jersey accents and appearance) who went to the Poconos to shoot guns with their friends.
Mynbrother was killed on 9-11 along with almost 3000 others so I wonder why this article chose to start the stats AFTER 9-11. I guess it the old adage statistics don’t lie, liars use statistics.
You have to remember if the Islamic State could kill 3 million of us at once they’d be happy to do so. The statistics shown in this article are used for a political viewpoint. If you include the 9-11 statistics things look very different
How different do the statistic look if you take a time unit of the last 50 years to determine annual threat risk?
Why do you ask? That’s not what was done. The question is “why this article chose to start the stats [the day] AFTER 9-11″. How is that choice justified when it’s so flagrantly convenient for the argument being made about right-wing versus Muslim terrorism? What justification can be given for starting the count on the day after the most deadly attack in US history?
Perhaps, it’s because many have said that history began AFTER the evil acts of 911.
Ha! Yes. Glenn is just conceding that we do live in a post-911 world!
No shit! Which is why I asked how different the threat assessment would be if they had used a 50-year period instead.
Well?
ISIS is in the process of carving out territory to make a new state. They are perfectly happy to stimulate some terrorism in the west, but why would they want to do enough damage to assure that they are nuked out of existence?
The reason to look after 9-11 is to evaluate the current danger of dying from terrorism. Remember, 9-11 occurred during an administration that downplayed the danger from terrorism, and took advantage of the results to do things that otherwise would not have been possible. The administration that allowed by far the biggest attack that has ever occurred in a US city convinced most people that it was strong on security.
So, the reason to start the count after 9/11 is that the threat of Muslim terrorism has been reduced as a result of the government’s sustained response to the attacks of that day (i.e., WOT)?
I think that good security, good police work, plays a role. I do not see any reason to start counting exactly the day after 9-11 since it is the current rates that matter. But I think that the estimates of the current rates that you get from starting after 9-11 are reasonably accurate.
What else could it be? What else changed after 9/11? The disposition of Muslim extremists? No.
But if the threat of Muslim terrorism has been reduced since 9/11 and is low as a result of the ongoing WOT, is it fair to say that the threat is “exaggerated”? How exaggerated? What would it be without “good security, good police work”? And what would the threat from right-wing extremists be if the government had been waging the same WOT against them for the last fourteen years?
Anyway, although your justification for “looking after 9-11″ makes sense, I doubt it’s what Greenwald had in mind. He’s always argued that the WOT engenders more terrorism than it prevents. So I wonder what he had in mind…
You must see that 9-11 was an usual event. For one thing, it was executed in a very competent manner. I do not see that level of competence in any of the plots that have been prevented since then. So it is more than security; it is also the level of effort and organization; so yes, Muslim extremists have changed, too.
Mr. Sulzer..
Chuckleberry Hound, sends his regards!!
‘So from a mile out, the man (Hani Hanjour) who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States’ military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat – despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon..’
A Question The Answers Production
“executed in a very competent manner. ”
Indeed. So well executed that one might almost think it was an inside job, kinda like the FBI stings.
No planes hit WTC7. But I digress …
Black Lives Matter…
Rich,
Well put. Most people do not understand, refuse to understand, put their heads in the sand or like the authors of this article, make killings by the Islamic State seem trivial. However, I am willing to bet that if it was one of the authors or one of their family members were beheaded I’m sure their tune would change. It does make me wonder just where The Intercept and the authors are getting their directions from.
NJ Resident
Well put. Most people do not understand, refuse to understand, put their heads in the sand (which does make it harder for the Saudis to chop off 50 heads per month) or like the NJ Resident, Make Drone Killings and Endless Wars of Agression By The American Empire (or the very few overhyped killings by the Islamic State) Seem Trivial. However, I am willing to bet that if NJ Resident or Intercep Commenters of a Similar Mindset (or one of their family members) Were Killed By Drone Strikes or Endless Wars of Aggression By The American Empire (or were among those exqusitely recedingly few beheaded beheaded by the CIA trained Islamic State) I’m sure their tune would change. It does make me wonder just where The Islamic State the Authors Are Getting Their Directions From.
Reply
You putzheads make me puke.,Terror is a tactic in a war we and our erstwhile pal,Israel,started,as there was absolutely none of this stuff prior to 48,unless we talk Irgun.And since our global war of terror,terrorism worldwide by the stateless has increased exponentially,but damn statistics,heil Yahoo!
NJ Fear Monger..
.. I’m sure their tune would change”.
So, what rights do the ‘family members’ of the 500,000 children who lost their lives via our sanctions on Iraq, have?
“We think the price was worth it..” -madeleine albright
https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
A U.S.A Fuk`Yeah(!!) Production
NJ Resident, I think you missed this below.
YOU: ‘I am of the opinion that [Greenwald] has a very distorted and biased view of what the Muslim culture wants to do to America and it’s citizens.’
ME: ‘What does “Muslim culture” “want to do” to America, and how is Greenwald’s understanding of those things “distorted?”’
So sorry to hear about your brother; that must make it hard to think in terms of statistics.
I imagine that this was a post 9/11 assessment to take into account the heightened effort to prevent terrorist attacks. There has to be a starting point, and there are many more attacks predating this one that affirm the bias the article discusses. The figures that really matter are the ratios of terrorists to the general population they come from/identify with.. With nearly 2 billion Muslims being blamed for the acts of quite literally a few hundred terrorists, we have a problem with proportions and perceived threats versus real ones. .
Again, sorry to hear bout your loss.
Why not put gun deaths on the chart too? Or is there not enough room?
What’s the stats on the world? ???
The graph was clearly prepared by someone without a background in the sciences. Graphs provide a visual description of data: you never require the reader to ‘do some math’ when presenting a graph as it defeats the purpose of the graph.
It reminds me of this graph from a few years back (A John Bolton favorite). Juan Cole debunked that graph nicely;
(My first version of this comment ended up in the ether. just sayin’)
Yeah, any number of smart people [waving at Fluffy] are saying that Glenn violated the Graphing Prime Directive when he mixed different units of time. Oh well — his basic point nevertheless stands.
Yes, I remember making some nasty comments about that graph, but it is absurd to compare it and Glenn’s. The meaning of his graph is so overwhelmingly obvious that it should be clear to anyone without bothering to do any math, and I did put everything in the same units below for anyone who wants it so. Glenn’s graph is so flawed while still conveying the message correctly that I am almost convinced he did it on purpose to see what the reaction would be. Almost, but not quite.
The chart was probably done by Josh Begley, the co-author, who’s “a data artist and web developer based in Brooklyn”.
Absurd? I beg to differ. Graphs are pictorial representations of data; a check-sum if you will. Mess with the units and you fundamentally alter it. Yes, many of us know what the difference is between 96 deaths a day and 26 in 14 years but look at the response from people who insist the 911 tally should be included.
A graph with correct units, plotted on a log axis, would clearly show 2977 deaths either way has virtually no impact against 490,000 deaths (less than 1%).
My first thought on the graph was that Glenn was highlighting some group wishing to show that terror deaths were still in the neighborhood of everyday real threats, so it’s OK to still be scared. Folks avoid numbers but they are attracted to pictures and this picture tells the wrong story just as Bolton did with that pulse/cumulative graph.
If you include 9-11 and put everything in total deaths from 9-10, then death by Muslim jihadist is greater than everything except cars. You no longer can claim that it is less than all those other things that everyone knows are unlikely. That changes the meaning completely.
I think it is the current relative rates of deaths by various causes that you want to look at. Glenn’s graph kind of does that far better than a lot of people think. Why is the rate for deaths by terrorism so low? I think some kinds of security are partly responsible, much more normal police work than digital surveillance, but also it is just not that easy to get people to carry out this stuff. Look how hard the FBI has to work, providing everything from motivation to materials.
Why would you want to put it on a log scale? If you want 2997 to look insignificant compared to 490,000, you use a linear scale. Nobody understands what a log scale means; in a plot or bar graph people just look at the relative sizes of things.
“in a plot or bar graph people just look at the relative sizes of things.”
Yes that’s why the lines of stick figures in the graph do a very poor job of displaying the relative risk.
‘Relative size of things’ are what graphs do. The log plot will give a small bar that is still readable; a linear graph of 3000 against 490,000 would barely be visible. Without log plot on a 5 inch full scale you would have a bar roughly 3/100 of an inch.
I chose auto deaths vs terrorist deaths including 911 to illustrate that folks have no qualms over getting in a car where they are still more likely to die by a factor of 163 than from a terrorist attack. Since 911, you would have a chance of dying in a car crash that is 18,800 times greater than dying from a terrorist attack.
And that is exactly what you want to show: how absurdly small the probability of dying in a terrorist attack is. How could you possibly want to sacrifice that clarity by putting it on a scale that almost nobody can understand?
Guys, what does it matter? Would all he Defenders of the Honor and Integrity of Graphs feel better if Glenn and Josh had labeled the thing an illustration?
Geez, Mike, feeling a bit pissy today, are you? I just don’t get all this angst over the “graph,” is all. It communicates some information, but apparently is some horrendous, unnatural use of the Holy Graph in the way it does that. So I suggest all those who are aesthetically offended should simply consider it a not-graph.
@Mona “aesthetically offended’
WTF? Labeling a graph wrong is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
To a scientist graphs are sacred. We think in graphs.
It is funny how lawyers without a BS degree think they understand science. Science isn’t done in a court room, where innocence has no baring on a murder conviction (h/t Scalia), science is done in a world where there is no bluffing.
@Sulzer
I see your point. I’d log it and take my chances that no one claimed it was linear.
nuf, this…illustration…did not purport to be scientific evidence. It is an illustrative piece of drawing, not a formal graph. As you note, facility with graphs is not part of my training and I entirely concede superior knowledge to you and other scientists, mathematicians and statisticians re: the drafting of graphs.
But Glenn’s above doesn’t hide anything about what and how long it is measuring. That it isn’t using uniform units of time may be icky for people who professionally deal with graphs, but as a picture with some text the thing does not lie.
Mona, “did not purport to be scientific evidence.” Yet the data was sourced so it is a reference.
Agreed that the graphic in Glenn’s/Josh’s piece does not lie. It tells the story. I have never claimed otherwise. The information could have been presented more effectively; that was the critique. Then we discussed the problem of using a graph to best tell the story and we found some difficulties with scaling. That is what happens in the real world.
The bit about “uniform units of time may be icky for people who professionally deal with graphs” was rich.
Spare the condescension, deary. A good high-school science education is sufficient to create and use simple graphs.
i realize this is comparing US deaths from various sources, but another startlingly relevant fact is how many hundreds of civilians are killed each year by US drone bombings–in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, to name only four.. The U.S. deals death to noncombatants / civilians from other nations in enormous numbers, then wants us all to quake in fear of our own impending death from ISIS…(thereby justifying more drone strikes, and on and on…)
The Greatest Obstacle to Anti-Right-Wing Fearmongering and Bigotry: Muslims
This article is right as far as it goes… it just doesn’t go far enough. When we add in those September 11th deaths, what do they tell us? They tell us that flying was as safe as driving — for the month of September, 2001! They tell us that the trillions spent on war and terror and nonsense hasn’t saved anywhere near as many lives as the $30 billion spent yearly on the NIH’s perpetually flat budget. All the airport gropers and silver-tongued FBI snitches in the world aren’t worth the sweat off the genuine pair of balls that would have had us keep flying on September 12th with no more response to terrorists than an “Inshallah”. Everyone admired the British who kept going during the German bombing … who will admire Americans who lock down cities over a couple of kids with a pressure cooker?
Terrorism is no threat at all to a nation that won’t give in to its fear and won’t surrender everything for nothing. And it has been devastatingly effective.
When we add in those September 11 deaths, we see that what the US has taken is still nothing compared to what it dishes out. Do not ask for true patriotic emotions and actions from a bully.
If you are looking for examples of the trouble with the term terrorism, check out this case, a guy is picked up for the crime of “retweeting” and now the Canadian government wants him charged with “inciting terrorism” because he talked to the media about it:
– “- “MP James Bezan wants Aaron Driver charged for inciting terrorism
James Bezan, Conservative MP for Selkirk-Interlake, and Canada’s parliamentary secretary of defence, said the 23-year-old Winnipeg-based ISIS supporter made detestable comments in an interview.
“I believe that he should be charged again for promoting attacks against Canadian members of the armed forces, as well as against our police officers,” Bezan said.””
– “Aaron Driver, a Winnipeg man who was arrested for expressing support online for ISIS, has been released on bail with 25 conditions, one of which is that he undergo “religious counselling.”
Winnipeg human rights lawyer Corey Shefman calls those conditions unprecedented, adding they don’t align with Canada’s democratic values.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/isis-supporter-aaron-driver-s-rights-being-violated-winnipeg-lawyer-says-1.3116255
He calls the Oct. 22 attack in Ottawa “retaliation” and the death of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo “justified” for Canada’s role in bombing Muslims in Syria and Iraq.
“These are not attacks on malls or any kind of public place, like churches. These are attacks on police officers and these are attacks on soldiers. These are people who are part of the system. It’s entirely different,” Driver said.
…”I think it’s a little hypocritical that people would take issue with people retaliating against them … when it’s the police and the military who are killing Muslims.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aaron-driver-defends-isis-attack-on-parliament-but-denies-he-s-a-threat-1.3124815
I’m trying to remember, even in the height of the anti-war movement of the sixties, seventies in the US, did Nixon ever send anti-war protesters to undergo “religious counselling”?
That sure sounds like a violation of religious freedom. Any person in the US who would be willing to perform that involuntary counseling should do jail time. Of course this is in Canada; different traditions.
– “Human rights lawyer Corey Shefman and security expert Tom Quiggin debated freedom of speech vs security in the case of Aaron Driver”
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2670416865/
Shefman “@coreyshefman” has some good questions on twitter, here’s one:
“3. The requirement that he get religious counselling? What if he gets “counselling” from a pro-ISIS religious leader? Does that count?”
Shefman is debating Quiggan, who thinks rounding up people such as Driver, who haven’t committed a crime, without charge nor trial, jailing them, is a good alternative to what was done to the people of Japanese ancestry who hadn’t committed a crime during WWII, namely, rounding them up, without charge nor trial.
(no I don’t get his point either)
Some have suggested (without evidence) that Aaron Driver might have a mental health issue.
I have two comments to that one is covered by Shefman:
– “2. If he didn’t think the State was oppressive before, not being allowed to use the internet and 24/7 GPS monitoring will certainly not help”
and I would add, that commendable as it is would be to try to keep actual mentally ill people out of prison, how do you force political dissidents to seek treatment, without replicating the abuse of psychiatry as practised in places such as the Soviet Union?
Creating -”the very preconditions under which non-standard beliefs could easily be transformed into a criminal case, and it, in its turn, into a psychiatric diagnosis”
Were Mr. Greenwald or Mr. Begley in NY on 9/11 watching people jump from the Towers and hearing or seeing the bodies rupture on the sidewalks because people choose to jump to their death rather than burn to death? While I enjoyed Mr. Greenwald’s book “No Where to Hide” I am of the opinion that he has a very distorted and biased view of what the Muslim culture wants to do to America and it’s citizens. When people threaten my life, the life of my family and MY Country I take that very seriously and I don’t care how many few deaths there have been. The threat is real and wide spread.
Were Mr. Greenwald or Mr. Begley in NY on 9/11 watching people jump from the Towers and hearing or seeing the bodies rupture on the sidewalks because people choose to jump to their death rather than burn to death?
Greenwald was living and working in NY. He had his own law firm at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_greenwald
When people threaten my life, the life of my family and MY Country I take that very seriously and I don’t care how many few deaths there have been.
Based on the article above, then, it would seem wiser, statistically-speaking, for you to look to the radicalization of bees, wasps, hornets and heavy furniture. Of course, that would entail thinking with your mind as opposed to your gut, something a fairly large percentage of Americans seem to have trouble doing in the propaganda-soaked environment we live in.
Glenn Greenwald lived and worked in Manhattan on 9/11. Moreover, at one time we considered placing our law firm in Twin Tower office space.
What does “Muslim culture” “want to do” to America, and how is Greenwald’s understanding of those things “distorted?”
Your comment is so a-historical one scarcely knows where to start. Look, in my lifetime offhand this country has variously bombed or seriously destabilized directly or via proxy Lebanon, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada (my God, can anyone still believe that one), Honduras, and many others (but as noted that’s off the top of my head – encyclopedia Britannica I am not). If you shoot up enough people and places on specious pretexts in order to secure resources and maintain a corrupt political and corporate culture, sooner or later someone is going to get damned sick of it and shoot back. That’s not a politically ideological statement – that is a plain matter of statistics.
For a long time ignorance – historical, scientific, economic, sociological, judicial, etc. etc. etc. – has not been a bug but rather a prime feature of our politics. I tell my Greek history students that democracies can sometimes suck the big one when it comes to collective risk assessment. Perhaps Muslims would cease to be a threat if we ceased to, oh I don’t know, bomb them, appropriate their resources, and support nefarious autocrats in their countries, as we’ve done for lo these many decades.
Maybe what we need is John Cleese to deliver the lesson by impatiently drumming his fingers on the table before exclaiming, “Right, apart from supporting Iraqi, Saudi, Tunisian, and Egyptian tyranny for forty years and longer, taking their oil and other resources for ourselves and our allies, bombing their countries, supporting Israeli action against their neighbors especially Lebanon, doing nothing as Gaza becomes a prison, playing off Iranians and Iraqis in a war that cost one million lives, helping Saddam with intelligence to gas Kurds, supporting a dictator in Indonesia for decades to secure oil and other resources, creating false vaccine programs in Pakistan, waging war directly or indirectly on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and illegally detaining and torturing Muslims worldwide, what on Earth have we ever done to offend them!”
Don’t be angry with the Muslims; be angry with the stupid elite that “governs” the country – and governs, for that matter, the west in general. By the way, just because we are willfully deaf and don’t hear the bodies go splat half a world away, doesn’t mean they don’t make a sound when they are torn apart by US bombs.
Finally, you sound very fearful, and from a government standpoint that is excellent. The tyrant loves to rule through fear. You are perfect for them.
‘m not fearful at all because I see things for what they are and do not bury my head in the sand and believe BS statistics. Secondly, have any of you seen any of the beheading that have occurred overseas and murderers that have occurred on US Soil all in the name of Islam? But it’s only a small percentage unless you are the one being beheaded or murdered in the name of Islam. I’m not angry with anyone, but people need to start seeing things for what they are.
I saw that by the middle of May Saudi Arabia – our, ahem, “ally” – had beheaded it’s 84th person. Can you speculate for me as to why this fact merits no discussion by our political class and most of the MSM?
I was devastated as I watched the footage on that day from my home in the midwest, and wanted the criminals responsible apprehended and subjected to justice just like anyone else who commits a horrible crime (See Dylann Roof), but the craptastic amounts of money that have been squandered on a myriad corporations created in the immediate aftermath (See Chertoff Group) in a delusional search for some utopia of perfect safety that does not exist has been critically harmful to the freedoms that we were all raised to respect and cherish.
I don’t have to give up my rights because you are afraid or have turned yourself over to illogical hatemongering. That’s not how it works. I’m sorry you think it should work that way.
At what point did I ask you to give up your rights? Illogical hatemongering? Nope, I don’t hate anyone. But the real world is the real world and the authors want to make you think that these killings by the Islamic State are so “tiny”. I guess they are small until it’s someone close to you.
In the U.S., the numbers are zero.
Victims and their families as such have no special insight into relative threat.
You will need to explain what is BS about the simple fact that this threat is grossly overblown and exaggerated? We needed no study for that. And what is BS about the simple fact that if you shoot up enough countries someone is eventually going to shoot back? In this regard, the relative patience of the peoples of southeast Asia, Central America, and the Near East in the face of the horror we have visited on literally millions of them is, frankly, inspiring. Your appeal to the personal (“unless you are the one”) is strictly emotional – but worse than that, it plays into the hands of organizations such as ISIS. Why? Recall part of Bin Laden’s anti-US strategy was to involve us in wars and bleed the US dry. Current count: Bin Laden 2, US 0. This strategy and intent wasn’t a deep secret, in fact it was quite public.
As for murders and beheadings: have you seen what our weaponry does to people? Individuals suffer for days under rubble caused by American weaponry, dying an agonizing death. Our military has engaged in wanton and capricious massacres: remember El Mozote, Amiriyah, Panama City, Kuwait’s Highway of Death? For perspective, Panama is a country of just under four million. When Bush invaded in 1990 under pretty specious pretexts, a single neighborhood in Panama City was bombed, killing between 2000-4000 civilians. That is an unimaginable loss for a country that small, and a much much much greater loss than what the US suffered proportionally on 9/11. And we did it. At Christmas. And it got stuffed down the memory hole. And no one in this country gives a good goddamn.
“Seeing things for what they are”: yes, always good. Start with Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech “Beyond Vietnam”, April 4, 1967. His assertion that the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world held true then, it holds true today. The horrific thing about that is it would be true based on foreign policy and military adventurism alone, but the US has 44 companies who make 60% of the world’s armaments. For more on this link to:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
And the peoples of the world who we bomb daily,do they have the right to have the same feelings of vulnerability?sheesh,the arrogance of the typical Western hypocrite.Whom the gods destroy,they first make mad.
Very true. I especially like the car accident data. Nearly 100 – a day. Or 1,000 people killed by cops a year. Don’t forget that one. Most bloody gang in the U.S.
However, what this misses is the international dimension. Imperialism is an international system. As such, the threat to ‘families’ in the ‘homeland’ is really only to make a point about international sites. Losing the oilfields in Syrian/Iraq or Libya to Daesh (which in Iraq is also has a large Sunni tribal/Hussein influence.) is the real point of the hysteria. And again, if you were Shiite, Turkomen or Kurd in Syria or Iraq, or a Egyptian Copt in Libya or an American reporter in Syria, you WOULD be very afraid. The logic of a purely nationalist argument in this situation, even from the ‘left’, actually is inadequate.
Interesting chart. I wonder what it would look like if we changed the date from “since 9/11″ to since “9/10″. Adding just one more day to the chart sure changes its meaning. I suggest the authors study the word propaganda, “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
No, it doesn’t. It’s “meaning” *is about AFTER 9/11.
If we’re trying to calculate the threat from Muslim extremists versus right-wing extremists today, then why only consider data after 9/11/2001?
9/11 is an outlier. An anomaly. A one-off. Anomalous events do not generally factor into general threat assessments.
Ok, when assessing the threat from Muslim extremists, 9/11 never happened. Too many dead. It only happened once. So start the count on 9/12. Ok.
If they’d taken the last 10 years the results would have been the same. But let’s say they’d taken the last 50 — what would the annual risk rate look like?
Are you expecting Japan to bomb our coast any time soon? Remember Pearl Harbor!
Who knows? But, since right-wing terrorism goes back at least until the formation of the KKK, a reasonable starting point might be the first Muslim terrorist attack within the US, which, according to this site, was in 1972. (It doesn’t matter if that date is accurate.) Then the two could be compared side-by-side. That’s just an idea. It’s a starting point that isn’t completely arbitrary, and wouldn’t appear to be chosen to favor either side. To start the count on the day after the most deadly and destructive terrorist attack in US history, on the other hand, seems far too convenient for the argument being made. That choice needs to be justified. When assessing the current threat of right-wing terrorism do you think the Oklahoma City bombing should be disregarded? Obviously, attacks can be given less weight over time, but these two major attacks can’t be thrown out for the reason that they were too effective. That makes no sense at all.
Ten years, or 50 years, are start dates that are not at all arbitrary. So, how would that look? What truth would that reveal?
“Ten years, or 50 years, are start dates that are not at all arbitrary.” Round numbers are no less arbitrary than random numbers. The first day of a year or a decade is no less arbitrary than any other day. But this point is irrelevant because your question is a non sequitur.
“So, how would that look? What truth would that reveal?” I replied to this question above.
I do believe that’s false. Picking a commonly chosen increment of time such as 10 or 50 years isn’t as susceptible to manipulation as choosing, say, 13 years and 5 months to avoid capture of an event 13 years and 6 months ago.
Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with the way Glenn and Josh did it, but if your think there is, then use the 10 or 50 year period. The truth that yields is going to still underscore the folly of heralding Islamic terrorism as some supremely dangerous threat in America.
Before or After 9/11 …
yeah, that’s the question …
everything changed!!!
mum’s the word.
Another NJ bridge is fallin’ down production …
In what way does the death of ~3,000 folks impact the death of 490,560 folks from car accidents?
The chart would be altered by less than 1%.
Everything we sell must first be counted
Wouldn’t it make more sense to breakdown muslim violence into right and left wing violence? If we do this correctly we might even be able to include 9/11 in this chart.
The point of charts is never numbers. Numbers are what we use to dress up words in credible clothing. Numbers are lab coats and glasses for letters. Mathematicians are arguing over the wrong axis. It’s never the numbers.
You don’t win by having higher or lower numbers. You win by repeating words…and by making others surround your words with numbers–and division.
The premise determines what is to come. Numbers always surrender the premise.
“Right wing” violence surrenders the premise.
The meaning of the table should not be confusing, but if it helps, put all the numbers in the same units. That is only approximately what really would be done but it will do. So, very roughly,
Killed since 911 by various causes (data from Glenn’s table, changed units, approximate):
Cars: 473,040
Bees, etc.: 837
Lightening: 432
Own Furniture: 365
Right Wing terrorists: 48
Muslim Terrorists: 26
26 in US only. Not counting all those who died under Isis or Boko Haram who were known to kill more than 26 in one day. Not counting the 52 in London on July 2005. And of course not counting the thousands that died on September 11.
There are also the uncountable – those that might have died if security was not tightened. If it was possible to drive another plane into another high rise, would an extremist group do it? Or was every group satisfied with 9/11 and moved on to more peaceful solutions? Fear should not be overblown but don’t gloss over Muslims killing other Muslims in many parts of the world. What is the point of that? How can there be peace?
How about those that have died as a result of “tightening security”? You know, all the innocents killed during our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?
“The lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11” is the topic. I was commenting on that. Please do make it look as though I am leaving something out. You have a point about how effective security since 911 has been. It is possible all the plots that have been stopped since 911 were not amplified out of the noise by the FBI, but I have my doubts.
More like 71 deaths at the hands of Muslims in America since 9/11 –
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm
Most people’s perception of risk has nothing to do with number of people killed, but rather with their own degree of control over the risk. On your chart, the number of people crushed by furniture appears slightly larger than the number killed by Muslim extremists. If you plotted them on the same scale, the difference would appear larger. But it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how many people are killed by furniture, I remain reasonably confident of my ability to outmaneuver my couch. I do not feel any temptation to try and bench press it. If I want to move it from one side of the room to the other, I will hire someone to do it. So I just don’t spend a lot of time worrying about being killed by furniture.
People also feel in control when they are driving a vehicle, even if such confidence isn’t always justified. I have been stung by bees, but am not allergic, so I don’t expect to be killed by one. I avoid going outside in a thunderstorm, so I’m not too worried about lightning either.
So all the other risks have been controlled and that leaves only the right wing and Muslim extremists to worry about. I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but assume that many others reason the same way. So I think that government fear mongering is focused on the right targets – the ones that really worry people. Some may argue that the government may disproportionately focus on one group. But this ignores the fact that the surveillance apparatus created for Muslim extremists can just as easily be used against right wing extremists, or anyone really. Maybe the FBI doesn’t launch many sting operations to sell guns to mentally challenged right wingers. But those individuals seem to manage alright without the FBI assistance. Right wing extremists are integrated into US society, so they require less government assistance, and most of them already have guns. I may be accused of being a socialist, but it seems reasonable to provide more for those who have the greatest need.
Well I suppose if you go through the quantum mechanical calculation, you might find that the probability of your couch jumping off the floor and killing you is down there with that the existence of the Christian God, or the Muslim God, or…. But that does not stop people from being religious. It is American to believe what you want. It is the duty of of government officials to help people believe in the right things, no?
And by the way, you can control the probability of getting killed by a terrorist, too. You can build a bomb shelter, or duck and cover. Oh, wait, that is the response to the wrong overblown threat. But actually, it will do just as well for this one!
interesting how you ignore 9/11 in your calculation, it kind of skews the result doesn’t it?
The “chart” is quite clear and easily understood. If one wants it “fixed”, the last bar would be, what, “People killed by Muslim extremists every year: 0.1.”
Also, the 26 killed were by in some cases, not all, but most, by just crazy people like the U.S. Army psychiatrist at the Fort Hood — 13 of the number. (Ooooo, but he said “God is great!”…)
Charts and right-wing propaganda not withstanding, your chance of dying at the hands of “Muslims” is so statistically negligible it is non-existent.
oopps, that “People killed by Muslim extremists every year: 2.”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176013/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_armed_violence_in_the_homeland/
Quote:
National security officials and politicians have been pounding home the message that the “greatest threat” to Americans is an extreme and brutal jihadist movement thousands of miles away and the videos and social media messages its followers produce that make it seem close at hand. With that in mind, let’s take a look at a few of the dangers of armed life in these United States, a quick survey of national insecurity in a country armed to the teeth.
I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that, in the first half of 2015, there’s been a plethora of incidents to draw on. There’s the killer still on the loose in northern Colorado who shot at people in cars or out biking or walking late at night. There’s the suspected serial killer who dumped seven bodies behind a strip mall in New Britain, Connecticut, and may now be in jail on unrelated charges. There’s the ongoing trial of James Holmes who blew away 12 moviegoers and wounded 70 in a multiplex in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012. There was the mass killing of seven people in February in the tiny town of Tyrone, Missouri, by Joseph Aldridge, an armed recluse who then killed himself. And don’t forget Sudheer Khamitkar, who shot to death his wife and two young sons and then himself in Tulsa in April, or Christopher Carrillo, who murdered four of his family members and then turned his gun on himself in a Tucson home in May. And many others.
…
Moving on to bigger things, one kind of killing has been much in the news of late: police shootings. The figures the FBI has traditionally compiled on them have proven to be way too low, so others have entered the fray. The Washington Post, for instance, recently began compiling a database of “every fatal shooting by police” in the U.S. in 2015 (deaths by Taser not included). Their figure so far: at least 385 for the first five months of 2015 or approximately one of every 13 non-suicide gun deaths so far this year.
“About half the victims,” the Post reports, “were white, half minority. But the demographics shifted sharply among the unarmed victims, two-thirds of whom were black or Hispanic. Overall, blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the shootings occurred.” A Guardian study adds this detail: “Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people.”
According to the Guardian, a recent Bureau of Justice report found that over the last eight years an average of 928 Americans have died annually at the hands of the police. (FBI figures: only 383.) In other words in those years, there were 7,427 police homicides, the equivalent of more than two 9/11s. Compared to other developed countries, these figures are staggering. There were, for instance, more fatal police shootings in the United States in the month of March 2015 (97) than Australia had between 1992 and 2011 (94). Similarly, there have been almost three times as many police shootings in California alone in 2015 (72) as Canada experiences annually (25).
The reason is because we spend billions of dollars per year on a department of homeland defense that stops attacks before they happen. Does not make it less of a threat, just means these guys are doing their jobs? NO! Get rid of DHS and the NSA and see how many people die in these sort of attacks. Is the New America think tank comprised of kindergarten kids?
The chart is very poor and understates the fact that death by Muslim extremists is very rare compared to cars or even bees.
26 dead in 14 years? Two people a year? That is something the public needs to consider.
The fact is that people see these attacks on TV and get all excited about their own safety. It is much like the people who are afraid to fly in an airplane because we see deadly accidents reported on TV. They would much rather take their car on a trip in spite of the fact that deaths per mile in an airplane is far less than in a private automobile. Statistics be damned!
But on the subject of Muslim extremism, one does wonder if the fact that the US government has been murdering men, women, and children in the middle east for over a half century might possibly have something to do with their anger. Worth a moment of your time to consider, I think.
Well, white people make up over 60% of the U.S. population, whereas Muslims apparently make up only 1%. So to say Muslim extremists “only” killed 26 people, whereas right-wing extremists killed 48 is a bit misleading. According to the very statistics you cite, Muslims are massively disproportionately participating in acts of terrorism against Americans (about 30 times more per capita than right-wing whites).
But Muslims, of course, are not the primary purveyors of murder in America: https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/interracegraph.jpg Will you be writing on what these criminals are up to, Glenn? Too many innocent men, women and children have lost their lives at the hands of these vicious brutes.
What are you talking about? 911 was committed by Muslims from outside the US. You have to consider all Muslims, not just those in the US. Do that, and you will see that the “Muslim on US resident” murder rate is unbelievably low. You do see that nothing you say has any meaning at all, right?
They certainly were in the U.S. when they boarded the planes in Boston. I used to walk past an apartment Muhammad Atta lived in (not while he was there, though). American Muslims may feel it is unfair that people are worried about other Muslims who only came here to do harm, but it’s not like you can tell one from the other on the street.
That said, however, the fear remains incredibly remote, and respect for human rights should certainly prevail over it. There are times when anti-Muslim sentiments may be relevant, such as when setting immigration quotas from various countries; but there are many more times where our respect for the almost certainly law-abiding and even more certainly honest person we are actually speaking to should be our top concern.
Did you look into the cases? Quite a few were inconclusive of any terrorist or religious involvement and furthermore motivations often involved opposition to the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan or opposition to US foreign policy in Israel. This hardly sounds religious, nationalism would seem to be a much stronger motivation.
Also your little chart about racial violence was pretty cute. You can read Race, economic inequality, and violent crime by Lisa Stolzenberg, David Eitle, and Stewart J. D’Alessio for your answer. Essentially the relative deprivation theory as well as socio-economic inequality serve as much better predictors of violence and those who are likely to commit it within each group than race alone. Next time do your own homework.
“If anything, the chart severely understates how exaggerated the threat is”
If anything? This chart is one of the most confusing, deceptive illustrations of relative risk that I’ve ever seen.
You. Do. Not. Put bar charts of mortality per day, right next to mortality per year, right next to mortality per 14 years, in order to illustrate relative risk. Ever. Don’t do it. Particularly not when you are trying to bolster an argument about the mortality risk from Islamist terrorism.
Do not use different scales for each “bar” when you make “bar charts” of anything. Let them be the same scale always. Number of dead per day on each bar. Or number of dead per month on each bar. The “bars” should always share the same grading curve. You completely damped out the actual extent of variation in risk by illustrating it in this way.
I feel like eating nails after seeing this. Hire some statisticians for God’s sake. Or some graphic artists. Or both. Whatever it takes. And tell us how many real dead people are represent by each cute little restroom man icon in each bar chart.
Agreed – it is poor graphical design to use different scales for each bar. (Not sure it is one of the worst, but I’ll still eat nails with you.)
Also, to those who say the low Muslim extremist number shows how effective the US governments polices have been, I’m reminded of tiger repellent (see, no tigers around here!) and, more rationally, how much money and effort has gone into reducing many of the other risks also, like car deaths, and still they are high (as they are real risks).
Clearly, the graph was prepared by one without a background in the sciences.
My first reaction to the graph was, “wow. somebody is practicing the art of statistics …” i.e. skewing the message by using a variable scale. The text explains the data but that is the job of the graph; to present data.
A classic example of this practice is illustrated here. (John Bolton anyone …) Here is a description of the error in that graph;
Under no circumstances do you require the reader to ‘do the math’ when presenting a graph.
The data in the article are useful, one could say, critical, for putting the threats into perspective.
The graphics are another matter. You note that the chart “severely underestimates” the relative threats. I would put it more bluntly. The chart incorrectly compares ratios (threat counts per unit of time). The purpose of the graphics is to portray the relative magnitudes of threats. The graphics (but not the ratios of quantities) give the mistaken impression, for example, that the threat of being killed by right-wing extremists lies somewhere between the threat of being stung to death by bees and that of being killed by lightning. In reality, bees represent an 18 fold greater threat than right-wing extremists. And lightning is nine times *more* likely than a right-wing extremist to kill a person. One should not directly compare amounts employing different units (of time). May I suggest that you fix the drawings, using a uniform unit of time (per year, for example)? That would make your important article not only more compelling but also more accurate.
How convenient that they leave out +300 gang related deaths in Chicago – each year. This is biased race baiting reporting g at its finest.
“This is the “threat” in whose name the U.S. and its western allies have radically reduced basic legal protections; created all sorts of dangerous precedents for invasions, detentions, and targeted killings; and generally driven themselves to a state of collective hysteria and manipulation.”
As Mos Def said a few years back, he is not scared of “terrorists”; he’s scared of the police. That is emblematic of the many, many dangerous and profoundly oppressive aspects of life in the USA for all of us.
Glenn you hit the #NAIL right on the #HEAD and described what Americans are seeing take place under what appears to be a large scale media control effort.
While I completely agree that the jihadist threat is overblown, I must take issue with the stupid bar chart in the article, which is so misleading I would think it comes from the MSM. In particular, the “since 9/11″ time frame naturally excludes the lives lost on 9/11. A more neutral starting date would be something arbitrary, such as January 1, 2000. Second, it is improper to plot different units together. The chart shows total casualties due to terrorism over a 14 year period, but traffic fatalities per day, bee stings in a particular year, and so on. The only ‘apples to apples’ comparison is between terrorism and right wing extremism, and that one is itself biased because of the choice of start date.
Lastly, in light of the current discussion about classifying hate crimes as terrorism, might I suggest we stop making a distinction? The federal government has instituted this sorry practice in the case of hate crimes because some states would otherwise not prosecute them, and terrorism to impose extra penalties. But the fact is that the terrorism category is now abused by police at the local level, and otherwise contributes to an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. Better that we think of the so-called “terrorists” and “hate criminals” as what they are: criminals, and their organizations as criminal organizations. That might even lead to a rethinking of our strategy for countering “terrorism.” After all, the Mafia are a criminal organization, that has taken thousands of innocent lives every year, but nobody has suggested that to counter them we need to bomb Sicily. (At least not yet)
I don’t get the objection to: “People killed by Muslim extremists since 911.” It’s not like the authors are hiding anything. It’s right out there.
Mona, you a Agency puppet?
We have sent Our Team to your home. They are in your kitchen right now. Some are crawling into your basement windows. We Are Going To Get You. With electromagnetic poison rays.
Poor, broken Mona, the torturers’ apprentice. What do they call you at the office? Igor?
They call me “sir.”
Every person you see today is One of Us.
No but {I} could be…. Leave Mona well alone… SHE IS REAL… Some call her an attack dog…Belonging to GG!
H/T the usual suspects {inc Baldie M/E}
#AnonGhost #AskWorzel
The screamingly obvious reason that the “since 9/11? is how the poll was conducted is because the surveillance state exploded after that date, as did the propaganda about the need for that explosion of surveillance. It’s another example of how billions spent on more and more surveillance has been either a colossal failure, if the goal is stopping terrorism, or a smashing success if the goal is diverting billions of dollars into the coffers of a few, and shit loads of power into the hands of those few and a few others.
Kitt, the only sincere posts you have submitted here are those demonstrating your strenuous efforts to help maintain your country’s domestic torture programs. I’m sure many other stasi and non-stasi regulars here have noticed.
The rest are just by-product of your employer’s lorem ipsum generators, and they, like your post above, are as meaningful and sincere as this: Suspendisse vitae ornare lorem. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Vestibulum tincidunt, purus vel vulputate tempor, urna lacus ultricies tellus, facilisis eleifend neque massa ut leo. Cras sed massa et orci posuere finibus. Ut facilisis mollis ipsum eu mattis.
You are full of shit, Kitt.
Kitt, I issued orders yesterday to deal with “Stan.” Why have you not yet done so? His brain should be scrambled eggs by now — well, more scrambled. You know, as in, unable to use a computer.
What is it, Kitt? Is the Electromagnetic Poison Ray Machine not working?
Stan is exposing Us, Kitt. I order you to immediately commence Operation Scramble, Stir Fry & Poison Stan.
Judging by Stan’s comment, it seems to me that Stan has taken it upon h/her/it self to scramble, stir fry & Poison h/her/its brains all without my assistance. And thus my tardiness to take on the assignment is of no consequence.
You predictably outed yourselves.
I think that’s pretty much missing the point, Jeff. I mean, when it comes to any individual person, I say they have the right to make such decisions for themselves – if anyone today still wants to let Pearl Harbor inform their feelings about the Japanese, well, that’s a subjective stance. But we’re talking day-to-day risk in 2015.
That said, obviously what this article does not include is how much that risk has been reduced by measures taken during the War on Terror. It’s very difficult to ever really know, in that case, but I don’t think it’s an open and shut case of “Clearly none, end of story.” I think it would be difficult to make a case that if we’d left terror networks as they were in 2001, and not taken any preventative security measures, that these statistics would be the same today.
Nic- if you’re going to raise the “reduced by measures taken during the war of terror” argument, you need to be honest and recognize that the Iraq war has bred radicalism and created IS… funding and arming al Qaida, er, I mean moderate rebels in Syria to topple Assad, supporting the coup in Egypt and the crushing of the Arab Spring in Bahrain, and creating chaos in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere have all been counterproductive and increased, not reduced the risk.
It’s not at all “difficult to know” and is clearly an open and shut case.
You can (try to) argue intentions, but not the outcomes.
You have some kind of magic crystal ball that tells you this? And you really think the War on Terror did nothing that impacted global networks like Al-Qaeda? The Iraq War is different, but as for the other events you mention, it’s not like there’s evidence they would have gone swimmingly if we’d just let them run their course. Whatever. It’s stupid for me to post here and then be shocked when I get black-and-white thinking responses, so my fault on this one – ciao.
yeah Nic, you are still missing the big picture.
Blowing the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan in ‘response’ to 9/11 guaranteed the endless war we now face.
Read ‘The Real Story Behind the Fort Dix Five Terror Plot’ and then ask yourself; would the government ever create a situation to usher in endless war? Would they? If only the agencies dedicated to preventing attacks had bothered to talk to each other … we might have prevented the excuse for endless war …
I quoted your words, but when I use them it’s “black and white thinking”?
Try checking out US intelligence assessments from 9/11 onwards, and you will see even our own “experts” admit increasing numbers of extremists affiliated with various groups including al Qaida.
The war of terror not only did nothing positive, it’s made things worse.
You’re the one using crystal ball claims pulled out of thin air and not only unsubstantiated by fact, but contradicted by them.
If you have any evidence to substantiate your claim of a successful reduction of risk, I would love to see it.
I’d also love to see you expand on your “the Iraq War is different” statement… are you admitting it has made things worse, or are you excluding it as a factor for some reason? Why is it “different” than the war in Afghanistan? Libya? Yemen? Syria? etc.
We do agree that it’s your fault though.
Again, I think this black-and-white thinking is counterproductive and I find myself actually getting polarized against points that GG makes that I originally agreed with just because I find the conspiracy-mongering so irritating, so I’m taking a break from the intrawebz again. I realize there are some groups who will never be convinced of alternate narratives. Anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, and people who scream about the military industrial complex creating pretend violence in a world that would otherwise be very similar to the It’s A Small World ride at Disney. The majority of people hold two ideas in their mind at the same time – security threats are real and it is not the case that the only threats that exist are US-created because we made people mad (the history of – I don’t know, all humanity in any time and place – is pretty solid evidence against that idea, we did not live in world peace except during periods where someone made someone else mad); and that anti-Muslim bigotry is anathema to liberal democratic ideals and that there is a potentially dangerous dynamic when one side has all the big guns and is also setting the standard for what’s justified in order for them to feel ‘secure’.
Saying we should act in the most humane way possible because it’s all a big conspiracy / lie and no threat really exists is like saying we should establish prisoner rights because everyone in jail is always wrongfully convicted. Not only is it false, it’s likely to create more fallout for the very groups you’re trying to help in the end, via knee-jerk reaction if (or when) said predictions are wrong. Why create a dichotomy where one isn’t necessary? Again, neither one of us has data on things like how much less powerful terrorist groups are, or whether the very chart Glenn uses is proof that threats have been successfully prevented against. Those things are a matter of intuitions. But you don’t need to ‘prove’ that crime doesn’t exist to believe in prisoner rights, and you don’t need to believe terrorism is some kind of government conspiracy in order to believe in raising the bar for humane treatment worldwide.
Or maybe people do, I don’t know. Maybe that’s a pragmatic reality of life and issues, you get nowhere by trying to see both sides because people don’t get fired up enough. I’m ever hopeful, though. Anyways, this is my last post, so let me take this chance to wish you well and say I’m sorry if I was curt earlier, I was in a horrible mood but probably I was being rude, so sorry.
[…] people who scream about the military industrial complex creating pretend violence in a world that would otherwise be very similar to the It’s A Small World ride at Disney. […]
[…] the only threats that exist are US-created because we made people mad […]
Saying we should act in the most humane way possible because it’s all a big conspiracy / lie and no threat really exists […]
Why create a dichotomy where one isn’t necessary?
Well, I’d like to ask you about that last bit because it seems to me that this is how you often argue your points, as evidenced by the quotes (and my bolding for emphasis) in the statements that came immediately prior to it. I don’t want to see you leave, but I do wish you could take constructive criticism and sharpen your arguments by pointing to things like facts instead of creating the sort of false dichotomies that you prefer which really don’t help your case. No one has made those arguments here. You just created them as written frills to make your flounce more dramatic.
I think you are a good person, who wants to believe the best in people. I’m like that too. Where I think we differ is in where we place our faith in humanity. I tend to think that the powerful are subject to tremendous impulses to abuse their power, and so deserve a much larger modicum of suspicion of their assertions. You, otoh, seem to wish to defend the powerful, insisting they should be extended all sorts of courtesies of assumption, even when many of the facts available prove that position naive and/or extraordinarily harmful.
I hope you continue to read, even if you don’t comment, as I suspect you might be one of those people who end up learning from GG and the commenters here in spite of yourself. That’s the sort of hope I can continue to hold out for and believe in. ;-}
Pedinska – I phrased it that way because I was responding to a post I felt presented a dichotomized choice, and was making a point about that specific post. I take periodic posting breaks because I get sick of being misunderstood, as in, having my views filtered through a foreign mindset and set of assumptions and then played back to me as ‘reality’. Experiencing this helps me feel empathy for how others must feel when they think the same is happening to them, on the other hand, over time I feel myself hardening to points of view here mostly out of association (“If that’s what those inconsiderate types think, I must disagree.”) I realize this is not fair so I try to back away for away for awhile when that happens. Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate that.
So, I take it you’re not going to admit that US government stats show your claims to be false ((data BOTH of us have access to)) or answer any of my questions?
Ignoring the content and then playing the victim card… claiming to be misunderstood… and then going off on tangents arguing against points nobody made and making accusations about commenters without any basis is not something a “bad mood” causes. An honesty factor comes into play though. But, I guess if an American disagrees with you, it has be because they have a “foreign mindset” and are conspiracy theorists.
I usually let conversations stalemate around the time someone asks me for data because I hate finding it. It gives me flashbacks to the stupid social studies fair when you had to cite things using those little pink slips of paper from the library that always got lost by the week it was time to type the abstract. That said, I am relatively confident that I can find something supporting the idea that the Al Qaeda that took down the twin towers does not exist in this same form today, in large part due to the War on Terror. Of course it exists in another form, but there’s pretty much no definitive way to say one way or the other what role the US played in that using data vs. speculation. So fine, by all means, please provide these statistics you keep referring to – link to a source. My instinct is that the fact that you went so personal so fast means that you’re bluffing, but we’ll see I guess. Remember that the claim you’re defending is that the war on terror “did nothing positive” and “made things worse”. Pretty bold statement. Sources?
Ok, you know what Spongebob Sassy-pants? This article is horribly prejudiced against extremely high-strung slightly hysterical people, and I for one don’t appreciate it. I mean, yes, some people overreact to terrorism threats, but some people also flip out because their yoga instructor spent 30.5 seconds assisting them and like, 98.7 seconds spotting that stupid girl in front of them who thinks she’s so cool with her Asian tattoos although it’s not like they were timing it or anything; and then end up spending the evening crying into a tub of ice cream wondering if it’s because they have kind of a bitchy resting face that will mean a distant and loveless and assist-free life forever, ok? So like, don’t even talk to people about terrorism m’kay, just be thankful we’ve collectively kept it together as much as we have and not voted to just go ahead and drink the Kool Aid now because the end is imminent or something, if not by terrorist then by evil f-ing bees who hate us. Jesus. I’ve had it with your insensitivity.
(An aside, does this mean that you and Sam Harris are finally going to have some kind of Brazilian-centered debate? He has a new book with Maajid Nawaz coming out with this description: In this short book, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz invite you to join an urgently needed conversation: Is Islam a religion of peace or war? Is it amenable to reform? Why do so many Muslims seem drawn to extremism? What do words like Islamism, jihadism, and fundamentalism mean in today’s world? Shockingly, it seems you are going in different directions on this topic.)
Glenn- please update your graphic to include the menace from cows.
They kill between 20 and 30 Americans every year… trampling, goring, crushing dangerous beasts they are… and a growing threat both domestically (with sleeper cells in every state) and worldwide.
(figures do not include those who choke on large bites of steak or beef related foodborne illnesses)
This is shocking! More people killed by their furniture than by Muslim extremists. If we can justify a Department of Homeland Security to deal with the latter, we certainly must have at least a Bureau of Bureau Security for the former. Our national credenza is at risk, and we must armoire ourselves.
Isn’t someone in the president’s cabinet already assigned to this shocking, dangerous problem?
Hee hee hee! Good ones, you guys!
Why would the President keep someone in his cabinet?
Ask Cheney. He’s the man-sized safe expert.
BTW, is that thing still in the VP’s office? If so, who does Biden keep in there?
Seems rather arbitrary to make it after 9-11. I mean why not chose 9-10-01? Would make your chart look different right. Also lets not discount the numerous failed attempts, intent matters IMO.
. . A government of lies.. beware of terrorists – and the most dangerous are homegrown?? be afraid – be very afraid OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
In New York State two prisoners escaped ( all over the news) – their DNA is found in a cabin? WE have prisoners locked up for decades that can not get a DNA test…Women’s rape kits stack up on shelves UN-TESTED?? but two prisoners WE know about immediately? A GOVERNMENT OF LIES & The reason WE are in IRAQ for over a decade NOW?? Cutting benefits on the 99% to support the (so-called) WAR?? The rich get richer – and richer….( you know the rest of the line). and the POOR – get poorer and. poorer…. WE support Wall Street the FED is still buying bonds to float their record bonuses…
Spot on.
There may be a correlation between the low death count due to Muslim jihadists and the intensive snooping activity that is undertaken to keep us all safe by monitoring all the jihadist plans and countering them before they act.
Also try convincing the relatives of those 26 people that this is a trivial matter of bad luck that their loved ones are no longer in their midst.
Whatever said and done, we need to listen in to every Muslim and every European right down from their Presidents and Chancellors. These fellows are all crooks that cannot be trusted at all – especially those that are squatting right up the system. The only time we can trust them is when they are either vaporized by a drone or are resting peacefully under six feet of dirt.
You were in that Italian wrestling movie from 1962 – glad you’re still ticking and licking.
You are the one trivializing the matter by all this bullshit you’re writing here. How can one keep a straight face reading all these utter nonsense?
What goes unsaid, of course, is that all the loss of freedoms and the rest of it have nothing to do with protecting the Exceptionals. Philosophers are now calling it Post-fascist authoritarianism.
Don’t know if people here have been following the “Pivot to Asia” the US Empire has now positioned a trillion+ dollars worth of war making equipment and personnel encircling both China and Russia. The new Modi gov. has moved decisively into the Neoliberal camp and the US is in effect supplying them with nuclear arms (by supplying fuel for their reactors so they can use their own to make more bombs). A full 60% of the US Imperial nuclear (armed and powered) submarines now patrol in the South and East China seas. There are now B-1 long range bombers in Australia the list is quite long, and everything is nuclear capable. Today it was announced that NATO might station nuclear weapons on the border of Russia (which means they already have done so).
There will be some excitement soon enough.
‘If anything, the chart severely understates how exaggerated the threat is, since it compares the total number of deaths caused by “Muslim extremists” over the past 14 years to the number of deaths caused daily or annually by threats widely regarded as insignificant.’
Well, the real comparison stressed here is between the right wing extremist murders versus the muslim extremist murders, which show that there have been 22 more of the former since 9/11- the day that we were told to fear the Muslim extremists at all costs. It’s effective enough to compare these two. They could then scale it to the other things like furniture terrorism and electrical terrorism from heaven above to indicate, yearly, just how insignificant these things are.
To make a stronger argument, how about we compare the number of terrorist deaths per year to the total number of firearm deaths each year? Let’s start looking at that proportion for some extreme comparisons and to watch the gun lobby’s ‘self-defense’ justification for private firearms ownership dissolve into nothingness.
This reasoning can only be used to justify an expansion of the security state to more people, not less.
Another fantastic article by Greenwald. Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth against the tides of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Devin Nunes says: “We are facing the highest threat level we have ever faced in our nation.” And he’s the House Intelligence Chair, Glenn. So who do you think you are telling him where to get off? Imagine that? “The highest threat level we have ever faced in our nation.” Isn’t that something? What are we going to on this upcoming fourth of July weekend? Maybe we should just call the whole thing off?
Kitt, “House Intelligence Chair” is not a very high rank within the intelligence community. Actually, the House Intelligence Chair is an intelligence outsider — he is a legislator, not a spy.
I wouldn’t take his warning very seriously, it seems he’s drank the intelligence kool-aide.
i was fucking joking and making fun of the asshole who made the absurd scare mongering declaration. I don’t take his “warning” the least bit seriously. He’s a tool. If I were the journalist conducting the interview I would have forced his hand.
Classic example of misunderstanding. You, as well as this article, have the notion of a threat to life and limb of Americans. The Hon. Mr. Nunes is undoubtedly talking about the threat to American business interests in the Middle East. It is an easy mistake to make.
So, are you suggesting that WWII was just a shuffle?…
If you, dollyme, were addressing me, I was being facetious. I thought that was obvious
Core Robin deserves a live link here: http://coreyrobin.com/2015/06/24/why-do-we-fear-the-things-we-do-maybe-the-wrong-question/
with a recursive update highlighting the effects of the media.
Someone on Twitter noted that the beltway sniper‘s ten victims weren’t counted in the tally. John Allen Muhammad was probably more a generall psycho than a politically or religiously motivated terrorist, but he did call it a “jihad” and he was found guilty of “terrorism” in a Virginia court.
Then again, objectively determining what acts are ‘terrorism” is like arguing over what kind of food is objectively “delicious”. It’s a label that refers to the nature of our (presumed) response, not an inherent, measurable quality of the act itself.
Tally of what? Comparison was of “Muslim extremists” to “right ring extremists.” Was Muhammad either?
They weren’t? I’m having trouble figuring out where the 26 comes from. I know there were 3 victims in Boston.
Are they counting US victims overseas as well?
Possibly counting Fort Hood shooting where 13 people were killed.
Thanks. I was wondering what “lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11” the report was talking about. There have been a few that seemed mostly homegrown. Not planned and financed abroad, if I recall correctly.
I think Muhammad’s motivation was black nationalism. He wasn’t really a radical Muslim, in the religious sense. He wasn’t trying to establish a caliphate or impose Shariah or get the US to stop interfering with Muslims. His motivations were more similar to Dylann Roof’s than Osama bin Laden’s. (well, at least that’s the sense I get, and assuming he was at least sane enough to have legitimate reasons for his actions).
I can just imagine the argument the NSA-defenders will make: “well, the only reason Muslims have managed to kill so few people is because bulk collection helped us to monitor them…”
The way to tell that there’s no real threat is to look at all plots the FBI has claimed to stop. In nearly every case, it’s a mentally unstable Muslim kid who the FBI encouraged to carry out an attack of their own making. As a practical matter, real Islamic terrorists are virtually non-existent in the US.
Except it has been well-established that the bulk collection has not thwarted terror attacks.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible
Similar argument could be used by the perpetrators of Salem witch-hunt, had they not taken care of all those witches at that time we would have witches everywhere.