1. I accept that I am under the control of a higher power (Muppet).

There's a terrorist suspect in your neighborhood.

435,000 suspected terrorists in the USA = 1 in 680 Americans

http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=21143
Permalink  
March 26th, 2007 9:20am
1 in 142 Americans are already in prison.
Permalink Send private email xampl 
March 26th, 2007 9:33am
1 in 367 (male) Americans have Wayne as a middle name. 1 in 38,000 were coxswain in HS/college. Which is doubly dubious, of course.
Permalink puny mcpunnerston 
March 26th, 2007 9:42am
> 1 in 142 Americans are already in prison.

Nearly all for drug related issues. And given that nearly *everybody* has had some encounters with drugs (maybe not using them, but knowing somebody who does, or, etc.) in their lives - hardly a big surprise.

How many Americans have *any* encounters with terrorism, except via TV?
Permalink  
March 26th, 2007 9:45am
Excellent point.  Because of course almost EVERY American has had exposure to Terrorism on TV.

I think it distorts our understanding of how uncommon it really is.  Not that that is an excuse for ignoring it, steps MUST be taken.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 26th, 2007 9:55am
Every American also thinks it's possible to drive from Van Nuys to El Segundo during a commercial break while a city is under curfew.
Permalink puny mcpunnerston 
March 26th, 2007 10:08am
"How many Americans have *any* encounters with terrorism"

A lot of Americans have had family members affected. I have a relative who was killed on 9/11 for example, and another relative was killed in Afghanistan. I'm not exceptional here, for most people I know, al qaeda or other grades of radical islam have directly affected their own families.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 1:09pm
"I'm not exceptional here, for most people I know, al qaeda or other grades of radical islam have directly affected their own families."

Yet, if you WERE exceptional here, then it would not be unusual for "most people I know" to also be affected.

The point being, from what you've said you may, or may not be, exceptional.  True, you don't FEEL exceptional.  But you really have no data for how 'typical' you are.

In fact, if you add up the 3,000 people killed on 9/11, and EVERYBODY we've sent to Iraq, you've only got 0.05% of the U.S. population.  If each of those 153,000 people "affected" 100 other Americans, that would be 5%.

Now, 5% would be a large number.  But I would contend that 5% were the "exceptional" people directly affected by the incident or the war.  The other 95% I would say would be more "representative" of the population of America.

Even though those 5% would probably see themselves as being "not exceptional".
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 26th, 2007 1:22pm
Terror is a feeling and so victims of terrorism are those who feel terrified, not just personally injured.

This widens the circle of victims while making the boundary cases much more dilute. It also does make it a soft and gooey definition easily manipulable (as Bush and bin Laden have done). Yet just because it's fuzzy and imprecise doesn't make it inaccurate (love too is gooey and soft around the edges).
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 26th, 2007 2:09pm
"Terror is a feeling and so victims of terrorism are those who feel terrified, not just personally injured."

Hmm.  Interesting.  Well, since Bush and his verbiage have made more Americans more terrified of Terrorism than ever before, this would make Bush the world's greatest terrorist.

Which is why I don't like such touchy-feely emotion based "I FEEL like a victim, therefore I AM a victim" types of definitions.  It becomes too easy to justify ANY off-the-wall reaction you wish to have -- like invading Iraq because they "harbored terrorists", and had WMD, and were scary, and would nuke New York City.

Which is how we got to where we are today.  Did I just give an argument ad-absurdim?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 26th, 2007 2:15pm
> In fact, if you add up the 3,000 people killed on 9/11, and EVERYBODY we've sent to Iraq, you've only got 0.05% of the U.S. population.  If each of those 153,000 people "affected" 100 other Americans, that would be 5%.

I suppose I agree that of immediate family and close friends, the typical person probably has 100-200 of these.

Add in work associates, social friends, and so forth and most people have 1000 people they know by name.

Don't forget that there were 1.5 million people living in Manhattan when it got attacked and 8 million in New York City. Most all of those people feel they have been personally affected by terrorism. Most will never be the same. Many are in counseling even now over it.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 2:35pm
> Most will never be the same. Many are in counseling even now over it.

Without wishing to sound harsh, it's only because Americans are such pussies.

If each of the 3,000 from 9/11 knew 100 New Yorkers very well --- which is probably a massive overestimate, given many of the 3000 were foreign visitors, and most people don't have 100 close personal friends/famil --- then that's still only 300,000 people who were in close relationships with a victim.

There is no reason to be traumatized and need to go into counseling because somebody you didn't know was killed in a bad way.  In fact, in most cases, there's no reason to go into counseling if somebody you did know was killed in a bad way.  Ask the residents of London, Dresden, Beirut, Sarajevo, Kuwait City, Teheran, Berlin, etc.


And going back to the original post: I doubt if there are more than a few thousand - at most - people in the US even vaguely associated with terrorism.  And that number is only if you count people who once gave money to radical groups, and similar peripheral people who probably would never commit terrorism themselves.  Which, even if you count these people as terrorists, means that well over 90%, probably over 99%, of the suspects list is garbage.
Permalink  
March 26th, 2007 3:06pm
Just for the record there's a lot of overlap in the friendship circles of the 9/11 victims (at the WTC at least). You you knew someone who died, it's likely you knew someone else. If you didn't, you probably didn't.

I knew a woman whose fiance's brother-in-law died. But it wasn't just him. Once you entered that friendship circle there were 3, 4 more close buddies that died. My friend ended up going to 3 funerals, while I went to none.

It's also true that millions of New Yorkers walked home that day not knowing anything about what was happening. The uncertainty of the event is what caused the terror and trauma.

And the constant threat of more attacks, uncertainty of one's own health (the fire at the WTC burned for over three months), and for some of us close by, worse, the helplessness of it all. As odd as it may sound, it was traumatic not to be able to help other on the street desperately running around with photos of loved ones.

> London, Dresden, Beirut, Sarajevo, Kuwait City, Teheran, Berlin, etc.

The first attack of a conflict is always more traumatic than the others. They have the advantage of psychological preparedness. Sarajevo and Beirut were traumatized, no? (Tehran, Berlin, wtf?)

> given many of the 3000 were foreign visitors

Huh? There were not a lot of tourists. It's not Times Square. What you mean is that there were many with connections elsewhere. Still New Yorkers.
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 26th, 2007 4:21pm
Berlin was bombed to rubble in WW2.  A lot more than 3000 were killed.

Teheran was under constant daily missile fire during the Iran-Iraq war

Re: 300,000.  I had forgotten about the overlap of people knowing more than 1 in the WTC.  So the assumption of 100 connections is 100 *unique* close personal connections per victim, which has to be an over estimate.

Re: Foreigners. There were a lot of foreign business people in the WTC, who probably didn't know too many people (except those who were also in the WTC) in NYC. 

Anyway, let's stick to 300,000 direct personal connections in NYC of the victims.

That still means well over 90% of NYC had no direct personal connections to a victim,

And using 100 connection per victim, it was often a friend of a friend acquaintance, etc.  If you count close relationships, say 10 or 20 per victim, then it's more like 99% of NYC didn't have a close personal connection to a victim.

I am sympathetic to victims and those who were in real relationships with them...  but there's no way that you should need counseling if a friend of a friend, or an acquaintance, or nobody that you personally know, dies in a bad way.
Permalink  
March 26th, 2007 5:00pm
> Berlin was bombed to rubble in WW2.  A lot more than 3000 were killed.

Right - wtf still holds. Berlin started it. There was no surprise element. There was no "What did we do?" "Why do they hate us" aspect to it. (Post-war German trauma was different - see Boll, etc. It was about "how could we".)

The comparison doesn't hold up.
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 26th, 2007 5:22pm
> That still means well over 90% of NYC had no direct personal connections to a victim,

Again: millions of New Yorkers were directly affected. They didn't die, no, but it's not like all they did was sit at home and watch the TV like someone 10000 miles away.

Directly affected implies trauma. They don't all need counseling or whatever was said above, but it was a traumatic experience that lowers the barriers to entry for depression/anxiety, etc.
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 26th, 2007 5:26pm
Again: If you like this logic, that "Fear == Trauma", then you should like exactly what we are doing in Iraq.  For that matter, you should approve of our attacking Iran.  For that matter, you should approve of raising your taxes and instituting a draft in order to pay for the multi-generational "War Against Terror".

If instead, you recognize that being afraid is NOT by itself trauma, then you also can recognize that invading Iraq because we were AFRAID they were GOING to attack us sometime in the future is a bogus reason.

Whatever happened to people being willing to die for their country?  When did it become people willing to kill for their country?  All of a sudden, it's people being willing to send our soldiers to somebody ELSE country, and borrow the money to do it from the Chinese.

Quite frankly, *I'm* afraid Bush is going to blow a tiny little incident (3,000 people dead, while huge in America, is tiny in the scheme of the American economy and people) into World War III, by antagonizing Russia and China and North Korea.  Again, George Bush as Terrorist.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 26th, 2007 9:23pm
The overlap thing is probably true - I have a lot of family in NYC, even though I've never lived there myself.

The comment about New Yorkers being 'pussies' is pretty funny. The commenter has obviously never been there, but really, feel free to visit there and let them know what you think.

Yeah, all the firefighters and police and rescue workers and bystanders who pitched into help are 'pussies'. Uh huh.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 10:45pm
"most people don't have 100 close personal friends/famil"

Don't they? It looks like I have just over 2200 people in my address book. I know all of them and could stop by with a phone call. And I'm considered introverted and reclusive. I can't imagine what the phone book of an extrovert looks like.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 10:47pm
"Whatever happened to people being willing to die for their country?"

You need to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 10:54pm
"Bush is going to blow a tiny little incident (3,000 people dead, while huge in America, is tiny in the scheme of the American economy and people)"

I don't consider 9/11 a tiny incident at all, any more than Pearl Harbor was a tiny incident.

I am happy and content to blow the fuck out of whatever countries we feel might be involved, until people learn that it's not worth their time to fuck with America.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 26th, 2007 10:55pm
Pull your head out of your Fox news feed.  Which countries were demonstrably involved in 11th September? Which terror groups? Hmm?

The worst thing about the current debacle os the way the dismay and revulsion directed towards the perpetrators has been harnesserd and channelled to make some very rich people even richer at the expense of innocents.
Permalink trollop 
March 27th, 2007 5:33am
> Yeah, all the firefighters and police and rescue workers and bystanders who pitched into help are 'pussies'. Uh huh.

Dumbass

I said those directly affected and involved might be traumatized.

Those who just happened to live with 20 miles of the WTC, have no reason to feel traumatized.  And they  - the ones who aren't directly involed - ARE the pussies if they are traumatized

As for 2200 people in your address book.  You might know them, but it's a safe bet that at least 2100 would not be traumatized if you were run over by a bus tomorrow.  Knowing somebody who died, even in a bad way, is no reason to be traumatized.
Permalink  
March 27th, 2007 9:45am
P.S.
I have visited New York many times. And I've seen lots of people die including some people I know. And I've even killed a few people, although none that I knew.  And I'm not traumatized. Death is a part of life. Deal with it. You can't go into therapy everytime somebody you vaguely know dies. Even ifthey horribly.
Permalink  
March 27th, 2007 9:48am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics