Dave >Well that is one way to think about it. If 50,000 would have died that would be a different story. What is the cutoff number?
I didn't make the numbers so I can't tell you the cut-off. I do agree, however, that 50,000 would have been a much more significant number. What Reese is saying, and what I said before, is that on a relative basis the incidence of deaths attributed to terrorism is very small in comparison to other forms of death. In fact, as I understand the article, Reese is trying to apply some reason in a situation of hysteria. You don't have to accept his argument --- that is your choice. That's why I said in #17360, "...here's something to take comfort from." Perhaps I should have added,.."if you wish to."
BTW, neither Reese nor I said there were no deaths from terrorism, only that there were relatively few. In fact, I think that is a salutary and a sobering point worth remembering, even if you don't. And, from a practical point of view, it's also worth remembering that being "terrorized" is exactly what the "terrorist" wants. The more hysteria evoked and publicity the act of terrorism receives the more the terrorist wins. Being quiet, calm and confident is surely a better approach.
>Do you believe in conspiracies?
Sure, some of my best friends are conspirators.
> Who killed Kennedy?
Elvis, without any doubt. You didn't think it was Lee Harvey Oswald, did you?
home.pacbell.net
>Are flying saucers real?
I'll wait till my wife throws one at me and then I'll tell you.
>The only conspiracy I believe is that Clinton bombed the aspirin factory to divert attention from Monica.
Wow, Monica must be some lady! No wonder he was prepared to throw away the Presidency for her.
<<<Twelve of the so-called "terrorists" still alive. How come?>> Thats a new one. Never heard of that. Is that from Charley Reese?
No, it's not from Charley, it's what I read at the time. I'll scratch around and see if the reference is still available. |
