Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
No it isn't. The chance of being caught in a terror attack is something like its 2 times more likely that you are hit by lightning than being caught in a terror attack.
So we shouldn't get worked up about some thing that only occurs half as much as lightening strikes. But we must create federal mandates to suit those who only comprise 0.3% of the population?
And, BTW, lightening strikes randomly occur during the daily natural 100,000 to 120,000 thunder storms in the U.S. every year. Terror attacks are planned. And they only occur when human agents decide the time and place suits them. Considering how so few terror attacks occur every year in the U.S. compared to the number of thunder storms, the number killed by terror attack can be exponentially higher, even by the thousands, than the number killed by a lightening strike. And it is far more certain that terror attacks will result in death than it will be by lightening strikes. And much more can be done to prevent terror attacks than can be done to prevent thunder storms. It speaks to the deadliness and danger of terrorist attacks in comparison with lightening strikes when 120,000 thunder storms only create twice as many deaths as less than a handful of terror attacks.
Your comparison is a meaningless Spencist apples and oranges one.
Once you realize terror events are used as tools to control the masses you think with open eyes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
That can be true. But it also is true that many of what we call terror attacks are actually not motivated by the desire to scare people into submission, but really are meant simply to kill as many "infidels," for instance, as possible. And in areas where the so-called "terrorists" have the upper hand, actual genocide, not terror, is intended. If we close our eyes to those goals and motivations, we do so at our own peril.