The number one threat to the United States is said to be international terrorism. So you’d think it would easy to find out exactly how big a threat. Unfortunately, Google will pretty much fail you on this, perhaps because, well, the numbers just aren’t all that exciting.
For example, the State Department, well buried in its annual report, was able to find just nine Americans worldwide who died in 2009 as a result of terrorism.
And Firedog Lake came up with this domestic calculation: “If you count the Ft. Hoot shooting as a terrorist attack, 16 people have died in the United States as result of terrorism in 2009. The other three deaths include the Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, the Holocaust Museum shooting, and Dr. George Tiller’s assassination, the last two coming at the hands of right-wing extremists.”*
Indeed, this is merely the power of propaganda, which (side note) doesn’t exist in this country. The government, or “military-industrial complex”, as Eisenhower sheepishly called it (and, as Chris Hedges reminds us, only when Ike was safely on his way out of office), has great plans for conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia. Fear is merely a mobilizing tool to keep us solidly behind their objectives.
So as we go on about our business of killing native Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Colombians, (and soon Iranians, if they would just give us pretext!)**, it is nice to know that even though they do not threaten us in any way, that domestic propaganda is so effective that merely saying as much in public will bring swift retribution. Neither wing of “The Party” speaks out at the absurdity of our fears or the underlying reality of our safety.
So on this Thanksgiving, 2010, let us remember the 19 who died in 2009 (including the two killed by right wingers), and of course forget the hundreds of thousands that we have dispatched abroad. May they all rest in peace as we here in the home of the brave live in cowardly fear and inexpressible ignorance.
__________
* I’m having a hard time recalling, but I think to date the number in 2010 is zero.
** And, as the Obama Administration desires, American citizens
(h/t: LB)
Piece of Mindful 
If any serious effort — beyond designing another pill paid for with Medicare Part D (not inside the “donut hole”) — went to reducing our intake of carcinogens alcohol and cholesterol, we’d be a lot safer, healthier, and less fearful. But that would require that we get smarter. Wild turkeys may have higher IQs than some of our more vocal knotheads. So, here’s a toast to the turkey that got away.
LikeLike
Off topic, but I see that one one the normal Tokarski kids got their picture in the paper:
http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/article_2d625e77-0088-50ec-b71b-1a291dc577fe.html
On the topic at hand:
… hundreds of thousands that we have dispatched abroad.
is a gratuitously high figure. None the less, if you want to make such utilitarian calculations, I’ll point out that illegal aliens have invaded our country and kill around 10,000 people a year from murders and auto accidents, so in the last ten years or so they have racked up a body count equaling or exceeding our MIC’s efforts. Seems to me if you are going to fret about body counts, you should consider the whole field.
I’ll make you a deal: I’ll work to cut the foreign involvement you decry if you will work to give us an enforced border/immigration policy.
LikeLike
rightsaidfred spouted a “gratuitously high figure” and became wronglysaidfred by saying that illegal aliens kill 10,000 people a year in America.
Prove it with real facts, not just from some crazy right wing regurgitation mill.
And Catholic Reverends are normal people? 😉
LikeLike
RSF – I have one thing you lack – evidence. Not proof, but evidence from objective sources.
You? Fox? Drudge? Palin? That dark cavity?
LikeLike
I have one thing you lack – evidence
It seems to me conclusions usually precede evidence on this blog.
I’ve read your posts on the Iraqi body count. Methinks you defend your stats too much.
One thing to notice about the costs of illegal immigration is that there are few statistics on the matter. Hmmm…what are we afraid of here?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want public policy to limit the body count, there are steps to be taken closer to home.
LikeLike
SO, let me read your straight here: My evidence, admittedly imprecise, yet indicative of something horrible, is bogus because it relies on statistical sampling.
Your evidence, on the other hand, is the absence of any statistical sampling, indicative of a plot to cover up your conclusions.
Gotcha. Happy Thanksgiving.
LikeLike
Ah, go on, Trotsky. You know as well as anyone that there are too many Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Colombians, Iranians, and other assorted subhumans in the world. Wiping them out is not a political issue. It is an environmental issue!
Besides, where else can our military get live-fire practice?
LikeLike
This is classic Tokarski bullshit. The guy is paranoid, and creeps through his books late at night looking for monsters to be scared of. Yea, Tokarski, your own country goes out and makes big massacres, and then covers it up.
Tokarski is a stupid deluded shithead, straight out of an institution, and not of higher learning. He lives in the mountains now, and is probably putting together letter bombs to send to the Pentagon. They’ll carry him off in a white jacket some day, and he’ll be blaming everyone else.
Get some rest, Tokarski, and quit hallucinating.
LikeLike
Bux,
Meaning there are not enough of what?
And what would the real thing (not practice) be in your opinion?
LikeLike
I never said there was a shortage of anything.
The “real thing” is when Nature takes her normal course.
LikeLike
Your evidence is not suspect because it relied on statistical sampling. Your evidence is suspect because the inputed data was flawed.
I’ll entertain sympathy for the viewpoint that our adventure in Iraq needlessly killed people, and the gains were non-existent or counter productive, and that support for the venture relied on a well of blinkered patriotism. In this same era, however, we have immigration policies that rely on the unquestioned assumptions that “all people are equal”, “immigration is good”, when what we get is demographic replacement with a cohort that brings more crime and less economic and intellectual achievement, but the chattering classes don’t countenance any statistical sampling of the human cost of this conflict.
LikeLike
We’ve been over the studies of Iraq deaths ad infinitum. Just note two things – there are three existing studies (the U.S. government has not studied the matter). One, IBC (currently 103,000), uses flawed methodology, as it only counts those deaths listed in published reports. Obviously, they are going to miss a lot. Another, ORB, uses straight sampling, as with an election, which allows for dissembling and doesn’t account for a chaotic situation which skews numbers, and came up with 1.2 million deaths. Lancet, peer reviewed, came up with a midpoint of 655,000 in 2006 using cluster sampling, which is accepted methodology in conflict and natural disaster areas.
Those who dispute the findings offer no alternative findings, and only say “Can’t be! Can’t be!” without studying the matter, and the reason is easy to fathom: They don’t know and don’t want to know. It’s irrelevant to our purposes.
Regarding immigration, if you could only put it in context we’d be closer to agreement (your notions about deaths it has caused are absurd): It all goes back to Bill Clinton and NAFTA. At that time, American agribusiness corporations were allowed to penetrate the Mexican economy and undercut their own farmers, who were soon out of business. They head north, and not because they want to be here, but rather because they have to make a living.
Clinton knew this would happen. He militarized the Mexican border at that time, though it’s virtually impossible to stop the flow.
LikeLike
Last time I checked you were flogging us with the Lancet study. I see now you are triangulating the issue. Nicely done.
… and of course forget the hundreds of thousands that we have dispatched abroad.
Most of those killed by their compatriots. But if Iraq et al rocket through history with a clan and tribal based culture that builds up resentments and revenge killings, I guess it is our fault for loosening the lid and giving them all an excuse to go to equilibrium. I’ll call this Tokarski’s wife beater logic: don’t nag or confront the husband lest the lid come off his built up resentments and things get physical. Keep your head bowed and eyes averted.
your notions about deaths [illegal immigration] has caused are absurd
Don’t want to know, eh? “Can’t be! Can’t be!” without studying the matter? Here’s another take.
At that time, American agribusiness corporations were allowed to penetrate the Mexican economy and undercut their own farmers, who were soon out of business. They head north, and not because they want to be here, but rather because they have to make a living.
Simplistic and wrong headed. In general, finding a cheaper source of commodities makes a country richer, and allows the displaced to find better local employment. Importing cheap oil to heat houses puts the local woodcutters out of business, but the overall savings to the economy puts the woodcutters to work somewhere else at a higher wage. But I won’t even argue this with you. If stopping the sale of corn to Mexico ends illegal immigration, I’ll work for that.
Clinton knew this would happen. He militarized the Mexican border at that time, though it’s virtually impossible to stop the flow.
Illegals were a problem long before Clinton, who made the usual lame attempt at enforcement. There are ways of controlling the border under such situations and scale, see India – Bangladesh, Israel – the West Bank and Gaza, or Iraqi oil pipeline protection.
LikeLike