• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why we shouldn't worry too much about terrorism at home

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The news likes to make terrorism this scary boogeyman and that the only way to stop them is to spy on civilians. Terrorist attacks make easy news because they usually kill multiple people at a time.

However when you look at the statistics, you find that relatively few people die from terrorist attacks, at least in America.
Total_deaths_terrorism_bar_graph.png

From 1988 to 2005, around a million people died from car accidents. Meanwhile the bar for terrorist attacks is barely visible and a majority of them died in 9/11.

So next time you see Donald Trump on television talking about how Obama isn't doing enough to keep America safe or a campaign ad attacking a candidate who dares support a bill which may limit the ability to find terrorists, remember that you are fare more likely to die in a car accident or a non terrorist homicide than a terrorist attack and I can tell you from experience that I know only 1 person who died from a car accident.
 
Masterhawk said:
The news likes to make terrorism this scary boogeyman and that the only way to stop them is to spy on civilians. Terrorist attacks make easy news because they usually kill multiple people at a time.

However when you look at the statistics, you find that relatively few people die from terrorist attacks, at least in America.
View attachment 67206624

From 1988 to 2005, around a million people died from car accidents. Meanwhile the bar for terrorist attacks is barely visible and a majority of them died in 9/11.

So next time you see Donald Trump on television talking about how Obama isn't doing enough to keep America safe or a campaign ad attacking a candidate who dares support a bill which may limit the ability to find terrorists, remember that you are fare more likely to die in a car accident or a non terrorist homicide than a terrorist attack and I can tell you from experience that I know only 1 person who died from a car accident.
Click to expand...

Terrorist attacks like Sandy hook?
 
Masterhawk said:
The news likes to make terrorism this scary boogeyman and that the only way to stop them is to spy on civilians. Terrorist attacks make easy news because they usually kill multiple people at a time.

However when you look at the statistics, you find that relatively few people die from terrorist attacks, at least in America.
View attachment 67206624

From 1988 to 2005, around a million people died from car accidents. Meanwhile the bar for terrorist attacks is barely visible and a majority of them died in 9/11.

So next time you see Donald Trump on television talking about how Obama isn't doing enough to keep America safe or a campaign ad attacking a candidate who dares support a bill which may limit the ability to find terrorists, remember that you are fare more likely to die in a car accident or a non terrorist homicide than a terrorist attack and I can tell you from experience that I know only 1 person who died from a car accident.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely not that worried about any terrorist attacks happening at home.

I don't let that fear of a terrorist attack cloud my judgement, either.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Terrorist attacks like Sandy hook?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Sandy Hook a "terrorist attack;" however, people tend to define "terrorist attacks" as whatever's politically convenient.

For example, well before I came here, on a different forum, I referred to the killing of Drs. George Tiller and Bernard Slepian as terrorist attacks. They were unlawful acts of violence intended to, through fear, induce social change -- in that case, to scare physicians who perform abortive procedures into not doing it anymore. And I was roundly scolded by anti-abortion posters that I was wrong, that wasn't terrorism, even though, by the so-called "textbook" definition of terrorism, they most certainly were.

Was Dylann Roof a terrorist? Was Nidal Hasan? Was Lee Harvey Oswald? Terrorism is a term that is extremely elastic in its definition, depending on to whom you're speaking.
 
Kobie said:
I wouldn't call Sandy Hook a "terrorist attack;" however, people tend to define "terrorist attacks" as whatever's politically convenient.

For example, well before I came here, on a different forum, I referred to the killing of Drs. George Tiller and Bernard Slepian as terrorist attacks. They were unlawful acts of violence intended to, through fear, induce social change -- in that case, to scare physicians who perform abortive procedures into not doing it anymore. And I was roundly scolded by anti-abortion posters that I was wrong, that wasn't terrorism, even though, by the so-called "textbook" definition of terrorism, they most certainly were.

Was Dylann Roof a terrorist? Was Nidal Hasan? Was Lee Harvey Oswald? Terrorism is a term that is extremely elastic in its definition, depending on to whom you're speaking.
Click to expand...

So when a Muslim kills people it's terrorism but when a white kid does it it isn't? Explain?
 
CLAX1911 said:
So when a Muslim kills people it's terrorism but when a white kid does it it isn't? Explain?
Click to expand...

It's not just killing people. It's why they did it.

If they do it for political purposes, then it's terrorism.
 
Kobie said:
I wouldn't call Sandy Hook a "terrorist attack;" however, people tend to define "terrorist attacks" as whatever's politically convenient.

For example, well before I came here, on a different forum, I referred to the killing of Drs. George Tiller and Bernard Slepian as terrorist attacks. They were unlawful acts of violence intended to, through fear, induce social change -- in that case, to scare physicians who perform abortive procedures into not doing it anymore. And I was roundly scolded by anti-abortion posters that I was wrong, that wasn't terrorism, even though, by the so-called "textbook" definition of terrorism, they most certainly were.

Was Dylann Roof a terrorist? Was Nidal Hasan? Was Lee Harvey Oswald? Terrorism is a term that is extremely elastic in its definition, depending on to whom you're speaking.
Click to expand...

Dylann roof yes, Nidal Hassan yes lho no. Lee Harvey Oswald was an assassin. His goal was to kill one person not terrorize people. It isn't that difficult.
 
TheGoverness said:
It's not just killing people. It's why they did it.
Click to expand...
So ... the Sandy hook shooter did it to...what exactly? Do we even know?

If they do it for political purposes, then it's terrorism.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If they do it to terrorize people it's terrorism.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So ... the Sandy hook shooter did it to...what exactly? Do we even know?
Click to expand...

I believe he was just crazy.

I disagree. If they do it to terrorize people it's terrorism.
Click to expand...

This is the actual definition of terrorism:

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with that?
 
CLAX1911 said:
So terrorists have to be sane?
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. They just have to have a political, religious, or ideological motive for committing whatever violent act they commit.

I don't beleive Adam Lanza had any political or religious motive for doing what he did.

Yes. Terrorists can do all of that for religious reasons or.no reason at all.
Click to expand...

Religious reasons also fall under the defintion of terrorism.

If they are doing it for no reason at all, then it's not terrorism.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Dylann roof yes, Nidal Hassan yes lho no. Lee Harvey Oswald was an assassin. His goal was to kill one person not terrorize people. It isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...

There are some who would say Roof was or wasn't; Hasan was or wasn't; even Oswald might have been. Terrorism is trying to affect social change through violence. Sometimes. It's often in the eye of the beholder.
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't beleive Adam Lanza had any political or religious motive for doing what he did.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty well established he didn't; he was just nuts.

James Holmes didn't appear to have any overt political aims when he shot up a theater. The VT shooter didn't either. Yet by some, both are considered "terrorist attacks." Why?
 
Kobie said:
I think it's pretty well established he didn't; he was just nuts.

James Holmes didn't appear to have any overt political aims when he shot up a theater. The VT shooter didn't either. Yet by some, both are considered "terrorist attacks." Why?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I've got no idea why. I don't consider those incidents terrorist attacks. I just consider them to be mass shootings.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So terrorists have to be sane?
Click to expand...

I think, and this is broadly generalizing (is there any other kind of generalizing?), there has to be a political aim for it to be considered according-to-hoyle terrorism. Was Adam Lanza trying to change society? No, he just was ****ed up in the head and decided to shoot a bunch of elementary school students. CRAZY.

I'm not saying terrorists are SANE, per se, but they tend to believe that what they're doing will alter the course of events in the favor of whatever cause they've attached themselves to. Lanza didn't have a cause.
 
TheGoverness said:
Honestly, I've got no idea why. I don't consider those incidents terrorist attacks. I just consider them to be mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Of course they weren't terrorist attacks. They were the actions of people who had serious mental and emotional problems.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So when a Muslim kills people it's terrorism but when a white kid does it it isn't? Explain?
Click to expand...

Wait, what? That's not at all what I said. That's pretty much the ****ing opposite of what I said.

I honestly don't think the Fort Hood shooter was a "terrorist attack." Nor do I think the Orlando shooter was. Both Muslims. I think the Beltway Sniper was a terrorist, and John Muhammad was a Muslim, but I don't think his actions were driven by radical Islam. He had some serious axes to grind in his head.

Sick people do sick things. Each incident has to be examined from ALL aspects, not just religion or mental stability or any other factor, before it can be determined whether it's a "terrorist attack" or not.
 
TheGoverness said:
No, not necessarily. They just have to have a political, religious, or ideological motive for committing whatever violent act they commit.
Click to expand...
I still don't agree. They only have to commit acts of terrorism. Their motives aren't relevant.

I don't beleive Adam Lanza had any political or religious motive for doing what he did.
Click to expand...
Were people less terrorized than if he would have screamed allah akbar during the act?



Religious reasons also fall under the defintion of terrorism.
Click to expand...
When people are running away from people that are shooting at them, I don't think they care why they are shooting at them. They are just as terrorized.

If they are doing it for no reason at all, then it's not terrorism.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If the goal is to terrorize it is terrorism.
 
Kobie said:
There are some who would say Roof was or wasn't; Hasan was or wasn't;
Click to expand...
The people that day they weren't are idiots.

even Oswald might have been.
Click to expand...
No,he was an assassin.
Terrorism is trying to affect social change through violence. Sometimes. It's often in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
No, terrorism is terrorizing people.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I still don't agree. They only have to commit acts of terrorism. Their motives aren't relevant.

Were people less terrorized than if he would have screamed allah akbar during the act?



When people are running away from people that are shooting at them, I don't think they care why they are shooting at them. They are just as terrorized.

I disagree. If the goal is to terrorize it is terrorism.
Click to expand...

The goal is to further a political end by use of violence. That's what terrorism is. Two elements, violence and politics (which can be religiously based)
 
Kobie said:
Wait, what? That's not at all what I said. That's pretty much the ****ing opposite of what I said.

I honestly don't think the Fort Hood shooter was a "terrorist attack." Nor do I think the Orlando shooter was. Both Muslims. I think the Beltway Sniper was a terrorist, and John Muhammad was a Muslim, but I don't think his actions were driven by radical Islam. He had some serious axes to grind in his head.
Click to expand...
Armchair quaterbacking and mindreading are woo that I won't participate in. The fact remains they both terrorized people they are both terrorists.

Sick people do sick things. Each incident has to be examined from ALL aspects, not just religion or mental stability or any other factor, before it can be determined whether it's a "terrorist attack" or not.
Click to expand...
You care to much about the motive. It's really meaningless and you'll never know what was in their head.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Armchair quaterbacking and mindreading are woo that I won't participate in. The fact remains they both terrorized people they are both terrorists.

You care to much about the motive. It's really meaningless and you'll never know what was in their head.
Click to expand...

Motive is pretty much what delineates "terrorism" and "not terrorism." Not whether people were scared. People were scared of Son of Sam, who wasn't exactly a terrorist.
 
i worry more about the future terrorism that's going to occur when we finally cant afford welfare handouts and EBT goes down. that's going to be like 9/11 x10 in every city in the country. as for the current terrorism, nothing that worries me has happened since 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom