It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is everyone really fooled by the current adminstration????

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
www.anotherperspective.org...

You have a better chance of dying in your tub today than being killed by a terrorist.

Using the odds of dying in a terrorist related attack during your lifetime as noted below from the CDC, let's compare them to the odds of dying from a long list of real, everyday dangers.

1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   
problem is, those are historical odds, and they will most definitely be adjusted downward going forward.

anyone who does not perceive the threat has their head in the sand.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Or just realize that everyone else is scared. My grandfather and father would have never given up any rights just because they were attacked, unlike this generation.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
by 10 you still have a better chance of dying in your tub.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
And if the only thing you had to worry about from a terrorist attack was death you might have a point. But as I and Dr_strangecraft pointed out in another thread the damage caused by 9/11 in terms of loss of lfe while severe, was no where near the magnitude of the economic disruption it caused. The fact is if a terrorist attack happened 2000 miles away from you it would still have a massive impact on you.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
There was just a terrorist attack in spain no to long ago? Do you remember? How did it impact you or me?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
You are aware that spain and the US have seperate economies aren't you?
An attack in America would affect you.
In truth the madrid train bombing did have a slight impact on the global economy but not much.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
economy is the global economy right? BTW, it had no effect on the global economy. Show me the effect.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
People are fooled period.

Every last one of us.. fooled.

Fooled into thinking we matter, fooled into thinking that a human life is worth something, fooled into thinking the system gives a #$% about us.

The system has us all neatly fooled so it can go do what it does without interferance from "those pesky meddling kids" (to quote various Scooby-Doo villains).



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )


Odds for the latter two are high only because they select a specific individual. If you calculate the odds for any individual that happens to be shopping at any mall in the United States at any time or flying to and/or from a US airport at any time during the month, the odds of someone being victimized rised considerably.

The Michael Moore argument that the odds are low so that we don't need to act are faulty. According to his logic, you would relax safeguards for nuclear proliferation, nuclear power plants, and other low probabilty but catastrophic mass casualty events.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
"Odds for the latter two are high only because they select a specific individual. If you calculate the odds for any individual that happens to be shopping at any mall in the United States at any time or flying to and/or from a US airport at any time during the month, the odds of someone being victimized rised considerably.

The Michael Moore argument that the odds are low so that we don't need to act are faulty. According to his logic, you would relax safeguards for nuclear proliferation, nuclear power plants, and other low probabilty but catastrophic mass casualty events."


If they odds are as high as you say they should be, why haven't we been attacked again? If you look at how many illegal mexicans cross our borders everyday, around 8 to 10 thousand, you can't tell me a few million Al Quaida couldn't cross the border with them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join