Browse By

Another Day, And No Terrorism Anywhere In The United States.

A week ago, there was a terrorist attack in Iraq, a nation that has yet to heal itself from the divisions caused when the United States invaded and imposed a long military occupation. In response to that attack, the Elite Daily declared that, “From this horrific event, we should also take away the fact terrorism happens everywhere.”

A week before that, in reaction to a bombing in Istanbul, the Prime Minister of Israel announced that, “Terror strikes everywhere.”

Around the same time, Imam Khalil A. Akbar warned that “Terrorism strikes everywhere indiscriminately and threatens the whole world.”

Christopher Stacks tweeted, “Terrorists are everywhere. We have no idea when/where they’ll strike next.”

Kate Levine wrote, “Terrorism strikes everywhere.”

You get the idea.

Actually Terrorism is not everywhere. It isn’t even close to everywhere.

There have been no terrorist attacks in Dayton, Ohio, though a local television news crew rushed to publish a report last month reassuring residents there that, “Terror attacks in Belgium not impacting Dayton airport”.

There have been no terrorist attacks in Kansas City, Missouri, though that hasn’t stopped people there from forming the Kansas City Regional Terrorism Early Warning Group, an organization that looks for “the presence of suspicious people who just don’t belong”, and waits, and waits, and waits, as year after year, no threat of terrorism ever arrives.

There has never been any terrorist attack in Boise, Idaho, although in 2008, the Department of Homeland Security declared that Boise is the city with the highest vulnerability to terrorist in all of the Western United States. In the 8 years since, terrorists have exploited that vulnerability precisely zero times.

Amarillo has never been the scene of a terrorist attack, although the News West 9 TV station did run a story about a local man who once dated a woman who later was the victim of a terrorist attack on another continent.

There has never been a terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, although TrutherNews claimed in 2014 that the U.S. federal government was planning a terrorist attack there.

For a world in which terrorism is supposed to be everywhere, and in which evildoers are constantly plotting the destruction of civilization as we know it, things actually look very peaceful.

All around the United States, day after day, there isn’t any terrorism.

In the USA terrorism is nowhere.


So, why are American politicians so busy freaking out about terrorism?

peace all around actually

62 thoughts on “Another Day, And No Terrorism Anywhere In The United States.”

  1. ella says:

    Maybe it is because Americans are freaking out, that no more terrorists have killed anyone in the past several months. Don’t jinx it! Or maybe they are afraid of Donald Trump. 🙂

    1. J Clifford says:

      Couldn’t be because of Donald Trump, Ella. Terrorism has been extremely rare in the USA for years and years and years…

      1. ella says:

        Yes, extremely rare, but for over 15 years it has occurred more frequently. There had never been a foreign attack on American soil since the Civil War, unless you count Hawaii, until the Twin Towers. It is interesting that 5 out of 6 successful terrorist attacks in the US happened after 2008.

  2. Korky Day says:

    Again, J Clifford, you get the probability and statistics all wrong.
    See this other recent thread about that:

    1. J Clifford says:

      Oh, okay, Korky.

      Show me the statistics that say that terrorism is everywhere, then.

      Go on. Show me those statistics.

      You can’t.

      Show me the news of the big terrorist attacks all across the United States yesterday, Korky.

      Show me.

      Go on.

      You say I’m wrong.

      Don’t point to a discussion about a completely different topic, in which someone says that they talked to an anonymous professor who says that I’m wrong.

      Show me the statistics and probability.

      Show me them, Korky.


      1. ella says:

        J Clifford, you are being absurd. It is your burden of proof that terrorism is non existent, everywhere.

        1. J Clifford says:

          How about all those terrorist attacks in the United States, yesterday Ella?

          Weren’t they horrible?

          Oh, wait… There weren’t any.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      Good gracious, Korky, J. Clifford doesn’t use a statistical claim here. What on Earth are you talking about?

  3. Korky Day says:

    J Clifford and Jim Cook, thank you both for your persistence.
    My professor friend was unwilling to get drawn into this debate, despite my pleading to her.
    However, no mathematician is willing to go on record on your side, either.
    Until then, please compare my lay arguments to yours.

    You have repeated your arguments which I say are irrelevant.
    For instance, even if the first terrorist hadn’t been born yet, a democracy could still imagine the possibility and try to prevent it, if they wanted to, right?
    Even if you 2 (in the minority) thought it would never happen.
    I think terrorism can be prevented without diminishing anyone’s rights.
    Mostly with love. Also truth.
    Trump and Cruz’s approaches are too crude overall (because they are Republicans), but if either were president, I would welcome their desire to prevent terrorism and try to direct it in more loving, smart, and radical ways.
    Not try to convince them, as you 2 do, that the current and/or future (guessing) numbers of terrorist casualties are not much to worry about in the USA. (To hell with other countries?)

    I don’t have to show ‘that terrorism is everywhere’ or increasing. Those were never my main arguments, though I think they are both true.

    Terrorism is not in my bedroom, no, but still too close for my comfort. And you have no right to decide how close is too close for my comfort.
    You made assertions in the original article, so I think that it’s more you, J Clifford, who has the burden of responsibility to show us ‘the statistics and probability.’ to your statistical claims.

    Until then you can answer what I say in this box.

  4. J Clifford says:

    Hey, Korky, what did you think of all the terrorism that was happening across the United States yesterday?

    Too close for comfort, right?

    Oh, wait a minute…

    … it turns out there wasn’t any terrorism in the United States yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that, or the day before that, or the day before that…

    1. Korky Day says:

      I guess you don’t put on your seat belt, J Clifford, because, after all, you haven’t had any car accidents for 24 hours!

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Why aren’t you wearing your meteorite helmet, Korky? I mean, you wouldn’t take it off just because your head hasn’t been hit by a meteorite in the past 24 hours!

        Get the parallel? It’s not between car accidents and terrorist attacks. It’s between car accidents and meteorite-head collisions; they’re much closer in frequency.

        But you want to draw a parallel between car accidents and terrorist attacks. Fine. Do you homework: look up how many Americans were killed in car accidents in the United States last year, and report that number here. Then count the number of Americans who were killed in terrorist attacks in the United States last year, and report that number here.

        I look forward to your counts.

        1. Korky Day says:

          Everyone knows, Jim Cook, that cars are about 10,000 times more lethal than terrorists.
          At the moment. In the USA.

          But the USA could change. Become more like Syria or Somalia or Artsakh.
          And you don’t want to admit that possibility or do enough to stop that from happening.
          Too unlikely, you think. You’re more of a gambler than I am.
          My mathematics professor friend says mathematicians almost never go into casinos or buy lottery tickets.
          Me, neither.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            So you’re basing your fear, and your willingness to radically alter policy on that basis, on hypothetical possibilities, not on actualities.

            Thanks for acknowledging that.

            When your mathematics professor friend says that, I agree. The meaning is that one should not bet on the occurrence of very rare events (like someone actually beating the casino). You should stop betting on the occurrence of very rare events, too.

          2. Korky Day says:

            Thanks, Jim Cook. You wrote:
            ‘So you’re basing your fear, and your willingness to radically alter policy on that basis, on hypothetical possibilities, not on actualities.’

            No, there are no actualities about the future. No safe bets. We’re all wagering or gambling.

            You continue, ‘one should not bet on the occurrence of very rare events . . . You should stop betting on the occurrence of very rare events, too.’

            Depends on the odds. Three heads in a row in coin-flipping is very rare.
            But if you gave me 88 billion to one odds, I’d bet a dollar in the hopes of gaining 88 billion.
            Smart bet. Not a sure bet, just a smart bet.
            Likewise, the cost of some more police protection could be, I believe, small compared to the possible benefit.
            It’s all predictive. Neither of us can prove that the other is a better predictor except in a probabilistic sense–or by waiting.

            Every decision to decrease, leave the same, or increase protection is making a wager.
            In a democratic country, the people will decide how much risk they want to take.
            You want to convince us that your estimation is better than mine, but you are less rational than I am, I think.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            Fine. You want to spend a single federal dollar on “anti-terrorism” efforts? Go ahead. The military and “homeland” anti-terrorism budget of the United States is nowhere close to a dollar. It’s monstrous.

          4. Korky Day says:

            Whatever the people want to spend, Jim Cook.
            That’s democracy. You can convince them that the risk isn’t worth it, but I’d recommend a better argument on your part, with better probability reasoning.

            Democracy (to the very limited extent that the USA has it) also says I can advocate for getting to the roots of terrorism, not just catching the terrorists.

            The roots include imperialism, inequality, religion, sexism, etc.
            The USA is doing very little against terrorism in those ways.

    2. Korky Day says:

      And, of course, if you’ve NEVER been in a car accident, J Clifford, you should NEVER wear a seat belt, right?

  5. ella says:

    Okay, J Clifford, who needs terrorists when the violence in this country probably causes as much, if not more harm, than foreign terrorist activity. Just in NYC alone, this violence record shows that Hispanic violence is almost as great as African American. Illegal aliens? Cannot call them terrorists, but there is a large proportion in violent crime within that community.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Ella, are you aware that people of European descent commit more crimes in the USA than people of African descent do?

      It’s fascinating to me that, when you are faced with the fact that your panic about terrorists is delusional, you switch into a racist panic against Hispanics and African-Americans.

      Is there another brand of ugly hatred you would like to bring out today?

      1. ella says:

        I was only quoting fact. You, on the other hand, are “spouting” hatred. Why hate? What benefit is Hate? Fact on the other hand, if understood, can be beneficial in that it brings about understanding. Once a fact it recognized, it can be analyzed and addressed, with compassion, with solutions to the underlying problems. Please stop “hating”, and look at what may be done to alleviate the violence.

        1. J Clifford says:

          No, Ella, I’m not going along with your racist revisionism. You have been throwing racist garbage all over on Irregular Times comments on various articles this morning, and you’re not going to steamroll over it. You’re saying this morning that African-Americans should be feared as criminals, that they are inflicting a terrible oppression of “reverse racism” against European-Americans, that the South needs to be given room to breathe as a respite from demands that it stop its racist practices, and now you’re protesting against what you call the “racism ‘theory'”.

          Pointing out that you’re being a racist bigot isn’t hatred, Ella, It’s observation.

          1. ella says:

            There are times that it simply does not serve to try to speak with a person. This is one of those times. You seek your own thoughts.

          2. ella says:

            “Pointing out that you’re being a racist bigot isn’t hatred, Ella, It’s observation.” J Clifford

            You can accuse a person of being something they are not until it becomes obvious that you do not want to accept reality. Fact and truth are sometimes related, but are not the same thing. And this was where I made the first post that day. Since you are intelligent it would seem you are fishing, or just in a, well, bad mood. But bigotry knows no race as it is practiced by all races.

            “This table can be used for a number of interesting calculations. First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.”

          3. J Clifford says:

            There you go, repeating racist garbage from a racist web site, Ella. American Rennaisance? Really?!?

            The statistics you quote are raw numbers – not percentages – and that choice is intended to make “white” Americans seem as if they’re being victimized terribly by predatory “black” Americans. I love that “perhaps not coincidentally…” comment at the end. Not at all racist, huh?

            Look at the percentages, though, and you’ll see that’s not the case. Looking at percentages is important, because the population categorized as “white” is about 9 times larger than the population categorized as “black”. Because there are so many more people “white” people, it’s to be expected that there will be more “white” crime victims.

            From the same Bureau of Justice Statistics, we see that 56 percent of criminal offenders against “white” people were themselves also “white”. Only 13 percent of offenders against “white” people were “black”.

            Do the math, and you’ll see that, no, “blacks” we’re not 84.9 percent of the attackers in “violent crimes involving blacks and whites”.

            But, it fits your racist worldview to think so, right Ella?

          4. ella says:

            DOJ statistics.

  6. ella says:

    Here is another interesting statistic for 2016. The number of killings by location counting backwards from April 4, 2016. Hundreds. Terrorists aren’t really necessary to be the cause of fear.

  7. Korky Day says:

    J Clifford and Jim Cook, in this discussion ‘everywhere’ is not literal, of course.
    Not every cubic millimetre of the universe, no!

    So, obviously, ‘everywhere’ means less. Such as so many places that I’m afraid it might be anywhere I go.
    How much you are scared is irrelevant. It is a measure of the fear of the person who is saying ‘everywhere’.

    And if the majority in a democracy are as scared or cautious as I am, we will take collective precautions.
    Regardless of whether you are scared or not. Regardless of whether we are rational or not. That’s democracy.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Reality Korky, is that terrorism is happening almost nowhere on early.

      It’s exactly the opposite of everywhere.

      Yet, people are freaking out, and saying that terrorism is everywhere. They’re demanding that we build walls around our country and sacrifice our constitutional rights in order to provide protection from terrorism.

      Reality as it is, and the fantasy of fear described by terrorism-obsessed ninnies, have almost nothing in common.

      If you want Americans to sacrifice their liberty, Korky, then join a movement to amend the Constitution. If you don’t have the guts to do that, you’re pretty much just blowing hot air.

      1. Korky Day says:

        In your opinion, terrorism is not a significant threat, J Clifford.
        If the majority disagrees or thinks that the threat might increase, you will lose public support.

        No one is suggesting violating or amending the Constitution on this.
        A wall is constitutional. Surveillance can be done constitutionally.
        Other, wilder accusations are simply mud-slinging.

        If someone violates the Constitution, they can be taken to court, and the opposition can go to the media, etc.
        Candidates can talk sloppily now (in terms of constitutionally and legality),
        but it will all work out as well as usual. Or maybe better.

        You and/or Jim Cook are exaggerating and/or lying. For partisan purposes?
        But that is back-firing. When people see your untruths, they often react by supporting a wall and Republicans, etc.
        The Republicans are almost certain to nominate one wall-builder or another. You want that?

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Excuse me, Korky Day.

          You just called me a liar. Identify the lie. Specifically. Source your claim.

          Or retract.

          1. Korky Day says:

            I wrote, ‘You and/or Jim Cook are exaggerating and/or lying.’ because I was feeling a little lazy.
            Sorry for being lax, but I stand behind the statement technically.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Thank you for admitting (even if in a backhanded way) that I am not a liar.

            You’re still calling me an exaggerator. Identify the exaggeration. Specifically. Source your claim.

            Or retract.

          3. Korky Day says:

            No, I said you, Jim Cook, or J Clifford exaggerated.
            Nevertheless, I think you have:

            ‘Then count the number of Americans who were killed in terrorist attacks in the United States last year, and report that number here.’

            You are in that sentence (in my opinion) exaggerating how small a period is needed to form an opinion on risk.
            I’d say 10 years would be better (not exaggerated), not one year.

          4. Jim Cook says:

            You may think so, but there has never been a single year in which terrorist attacks have surpassed deaths by car. No matter what year you choose, that’s not an exaggeration.

          5. Korky Day says:

            I’m not looking at individual years, Jim Cook, but at the trends over the last decade. Trying to see if the spate of attacks is over. Don’t think so.

            We lost 14 people in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino only 4 months ago. I used to live very near there (Riverside, CA).

            Not as lethal as cars, no, but enough to shock us into doing something.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            You. Enough to shock YOU. Get a grip.

          7. ella says:

            Jim Cook, are you a shock therapist? It occurs to me that you seem to be trying to convince anyone who will listen that they do not need to worry about the actions of others that might kill or destroy property. That is a broad subject that includes far more than ‘foreign’ terrorists. And there is an awful lot of the killing and property damage classification going on in the U.S. today. Although, according to the FBI violent crime is still dropping, as of 2014. But it is nice of you to try to calm the fears of others.

        2. ella says:

          500 people have been killed in EU alone in the past 20 years by terrorists. But a point is made that loss of freedoms in the name of protection has become the mantra in the U.S. Even now “immigrants” from the middle east war zone are in route to Americas shores. These people have been “vetted” and are assured to be “safe”. It is because the U.S. has not allowed a major influx of unknown war zone immigrants that we have avoided more terrorist activity than has occurred. But consider that those who have succeeded were already living in America, sometimes for years. It is not the number of incidents, or even how many are killed and maimed. It is the fact that terrorism acts are meant to disturb the peace of feeling safe in ones own area. Consider if a family member went to the store for dinner groceries. Two hours later she/he has not come home. You turn on the TV and hear about a bomb exploding at your local supermarket. You see injured people everywhere, ambulances, shattered glass and the store generally isn’t there anymore. How will you feel a week from then? Does it matter that you were the only place it happened in the past 10 years?

          1. J Clifford says:

            500 people killed in 20 years? That’s

            25 people per year – in an entire continent.

            That’s not really a high death rate, Ella.

            If you’re really worried about people dying, there are many more urgent causes for you to get involved in.

            But, I don’t think you’re really worried about people dying, Ella.

            Your xenophobia just gives you a thrill.

          2. ella says:

            You are weird. And have no basis for your claim. In fact I am not worried about it one way or the other. It is of interest in order to protect the people of the nation in which I live. That is something that many men and women have worked diligently to accomplish since major terrorist acts began being perpetrated on our shores. The very presence of authority and control makes it much more difficult for terrorists and copycats/activists to complete an act of violence that is enough to be noticeable, i.e. killing publicly. Believe me, killing is no thrill, nor is watching someone be killed. Death is anything but thrilling. Please don’t say that again.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            500 people over 20 years equals what per year, Ella? Out of a population in Europe of how many? And THAT merits a wholesale reorganization of the entire continent? Weak argument.

          4. ella says:

            The real point here is: What would you rather do? And be specific.

          5. Korky Day says:

            Yes, Jim Cook, that DOES merit drastic changes because it is preventable and could increase a lot.
            And because the Western world is ‘organised’ in many evil ways.

            Even if the death toll could be limited to Asia and Africa, we should still try to help. Because we are loving human beings.

          6. J Clifford says:

            Could increase a lot?!? That’s like saying that we need to ban all travel from West Africa because Ebola isn’t common, but could increase a lot. Drastic changes are not merited by things that could happen.

            Paranoid worriers have been warning for years that terrorists are just about to overwhelm civilization, but it just hasn’t happened.

          7. ella says:

            Well, actually there was a temporary ban on travel at the height of Ebola crisis, and the medical workers were quarantined on arrival (for the most part) to be sure they were clean, before being released back into society.

          8. J Clifford says:

            Was there a temporary ban on travel from nations in West Africa, Ella? Was there really?

            Many Republican politicians said we had to have one, or we would all be infected with Ebola, but no such travel ban was actually enacted, I think.

            Can you prove me wrong? Can you find a source that there was a ban for all travel from nations in West Africa?

          9. ella says:

            It was lifted and restated as ‘travel restrictions’. However people were quarantined in the United States for safety reasons. There was one woman who made the news by saying she wasn’t sick and making a fuss about not being allowed to go directly home. But WHO decided that more people would die if the tavel ban continued.
            “The WHO said it was important that airlines resume “vital” flights across the region, because travel bans were threatening efforts to beat the epidemic.”

          10. Korky Day says:

            Even if they didn’t increase, the current levels are tolerable to you, not to me.

          11. J Clifford says:

            The current level of absolutely no terrorism in the United States?

            I’m sorry, did I miss a terrorist attack today, or last week, or last month?

          12. Korky Day says:

            I’m not looking at individual years, J Clifford, but at the trends over the last decade. Trying to see if the spate of attacks is over. Don’t think so.

            We lost 14 people in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino only 4 months ago. I used to live very near there (Riverside, CA).

    2. ella says:

      It is also human nature, called survival instinct.

  8. ella says:

    Speaking of survival, have you read the latest climate report from the White House? Saying 27,000 people a year will die from heat by 2100?

  9. Korky Day says:

    Another Day, And No Major Earthquake Anywhere In The United States.
    I guess we can stop making buildings quake-proof.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Well, Korky, we sure can in New Jersey. Thank you for turning toward rationality.

      1. ella says:

        Don’t you need to thank Governor Christie?

    2. ella says:

      No rivers flooding major cities today. Guess we can forget sandbagging.

      1. J Clifford says:

        What is this weird “major cities” threshold you’ve created? Don’t Americans in medium and small cities – or outside of them – matter?

        Oh, look! There IS river flooding happening in the USA today:

        You need a better example, Ella.

        Wait, I’ve got one. How about this: Terrorism almost never strikes the United States. It’s a rare event that most communities will never experience. So, it shouldn’t be the central determining factor in deciding foreign and domestic policy in the USA.

        1. ella says:

          “Terrorism almost never strikes the United States. It’s a rare event that most communities will never experience. So, it shouldn’t be the central determining factor in deciding foreign and domestic policy in the USA.” J Clifford
          Yes, that is well put. Successful terrorist activity is rarely seen in America. Have any statistics on how many are arrested for plotting attacks? The ones that never happened. At least you get the point. And yes there in fact is/was flooding in the country yesterday.

  10. ella says:

    But then today there is the threat of terrorist activity that alarms students:
    “Update, 4/13 2:00 p.m.: Although Stony Brook University has not responded to MRCTV’s request for more information, the New York Daily News reports the threat written in chalk reads, “KILL ALL INFIDELS.” It also allegedly includes the date, “4/13” and the time, “1 PM.””
    But it did not happen! So, maybe they should have just ignored it and gone on about the day without alarm. Maybe we should all just ignore all warnings, and never worry about what may happen. Then when another Boston bombing happens we can say “there isn’t any terror in the world today”.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Maybe you should, because there are many much larger risks in your life.

      If you spent as much time freaking out about causes of death that were as unlikely, you’d have no time for anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!