Terrorism isn't as bad as drunk driving deaths!

do you stand when you pee as well, or do you always sit? Are women able to stand when they pee???

 

It is interesting that Gtech has finally agreed that this was a worthless war which wasted the Americans lives.

 

You must know since I peed all over you so many times in this forum, do you want some more?

Now tell us what is your excuse for being a sissy cheerleader:

1) "medical"
2) convicted felon
3) yellow belly

 

Thank you for bringing us back on topic..

 

Just a note regarding this chart's sourcing and the resultst -

All sources are displayed as 'official', non-biased organizations, but for terrorist (which is a news organization).

The 9/11/01 event happened within 30 minutes, all the others happened over several years (2001-2005).

Statistically speaking that comparison is not correct. If terrorism is given the same "opportunity", the death toll would be exponentially higher.

A reasonable comparison would have been 30 minutes for each type of death, or all the death because of terrorism over the 2001 through 2005 time period.

Furthermore -

12 Heart disease - it references smoking related cancer, and the heart related deaths are noted as 131,503 not the 3,119,142. Additionally, the time frame is not 2001 through 2005.

11 Smoking Attributable Deaths - Reference is not CDC, but a reference to the reference. Time frame refers to 1995-1999, not 2001-2005. They used an estimate and came up with 1,056,348, not the displayed 2,652,000.

10 Cancer - The reference provide a circumspect reference to estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths for second hand smoking - nothing about total numbers.

9 Diabetes - The number for this source of death is 291,260 from multiplying the 2004 data which is what is in the article (which would not be a correct sample anyway). Not 436,890...

8 Medical Mistakes - the reference is not to the actual information, but again to a CNN article. The chart shows 264,000 deaths, but the CNN article states

That range is huge, furthermore the article is from 1999.

An excellent bait, but not even close to real data.

This is how one person, blogger, or news source can hoodwink millions of people. Once the 'information' is accepted real, it is almost impossible to correct it in the heads of the masses.

 

AGS and gwhirled will both tell you that if you say it enough, it becomes fact...like the Illuminati controlling everything and that gwhirled thinks I am 16 (still wondering about his fascination with boys...)

 

How about you compare terrorism related death in USA between 2001-2005 with cancer or smoking related death between 2001-2005?

 

So... according to you.. Leadership should let the people die in terrorist attacks until the death toll equates to the deaths from Cancer or Smocking...

Makes sense...

 

Why would you compare them in the first place? That is not the point. The point is world protection...right?

Rob

 

gworld has no point...ever.

Smoking/cancer deaths vs. terrorism??? lmfao!!

Smoking/cancer: no one forces you to smoke, it is an individual decision. If you die, it is your own fault.

terrorism: when you die, it is because someone forces you to die, by either shooting you in the head, or blowing themselves up and taking you with them, all in the name of their god.

 

Are you sure it is religion which is causing the problem? Or some leader just blackmailing them?

Rob

 

Define "terrorism related death". Does military death counts? Will the terrorists' death count? Will the incidental deaths count? What about those that die a couple of days after from injuries? What about deaths a couple of weeks, months or years from complications? What if one lost a kidney and spleen damaged, but dies 40 years later from intestinal cancer. Would that be the result from the damages of the injuries suffered, or not? It would not be complicated to show informal causality.

Define "smoking related death". Will you consider death from aortic aneurysm of a fat smoker from smoke, fat, or both, making her die twice? What about influenza or pneumonia of a 97 year old smoker? Will that count as death from smoking related death, old age, or both? These are often used as part of the above death statistics, often twice...

The devil is in the details...

 

I really think it is the radical leaders who interpret their beliefs out of context. It would be like me looking at the old testament and then saying that God is telling christians to go kill people...out of context, it makes no sense.

 

I didn't compare them.. You compared them in your OP.
I only tried to make sense of this comparison..

Okay, if you say so....

 

I make it easy for you, count all Americans death related to terrorism (All death caused by a terrorist group) in USA between 2001-2005 to all Americans death related to cancer in USA between 2001-2005.
Since the pro-war group doesn't care about non-Americans death, this will be a good comparison how these problems are killing Americans.

 

I think the point many miss here is not simply the death toll, but the aftermath and effects that something like terrorism has on several different areas, from people to business, to future events.

While one might argue more Americans died in drunk driving accidents than were killed by Terrorists, I would be willing to bet more people are affected by one single terrorist attack than by 100 or even 1000 drunk driving fatalities. Neither one is pretty, and both problems need to be addressed.

However, the fact remains that 9/11 affected an entire nation. There is not one single drunk driving death that has affected an entire nation, or the world to the degree that just one terrorist attack does.

In the end, both are bad. But trying to say one is worse than the other is nothing more than a sick attempt to justify one over the other.

 

Meanwhile, can you post stats on America spending money on Cancer related researches and prevention..

 

If you weren't too stupid for your own good then you could have found the answer in your own posts when I posted the history of your moronic posts.

May be it is better you listen to others and don't make yourself even a bigger fool than you already are.

 

You missed my point. Apologies for not elucidating it sufficiently.

For one to provide reasonably close comparison, one must set specific and consistent baselines. Without such definitions, one does not know what to count.

I am not interested in finding the information the report purports to represent.

I am simply trying to stress the point that we all need to dig deeper and be skeptics on all news information.