Teaser:
Large-scale study finds most acts of terrorism lack in-depth planning and sophisticated weaponry as well as rarely kill many people and rarely hit U.S. soil.
The events of 9-11 are the quintessential example of the high-cost, low probability event. But the images from that day have clouded the ability of Americans to calmly weigh the risks of terrorism, according to a study reported by The Washington Times .
The study from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) , based at the University of Maryland and primarily funded by the Department of Homeland Security, analyzed over 80,000 attacks from 1970 to 2007. Of those attacks, only 1,350 attacks, or 1.6 percent, hit American targets—mostly overseas.
That small percentage plummets to 0.08 percent when attacks on domestic targets are calculated. The Times has more:
Regardless of public perceptions, the START researchers deal only with hard numbers, and they found that there have been 25 terrorist attacks against American religious figures or institutions and 38 terrorist attacks against military targets in the United States since 1970.
The analysis also found that of 53 foreign terrorist groups judged to be "the most dangerous to the U.S.," 97 percent of their attacks were not on American soil.
"Unlike 9/11, most terrorist attacks in the U.S. and elsewhere are from domestic groups, not international ones," Mr. LaFree said. "Unlike 9/11, most terrorist attacks include few if any fatalities. Unlike 9/11, most attacks do not involve in-depth planning or sophisticated weaponry. Unlike al Qaeda, most terrorist groups are not long-lasting."
Gary LaFree, director of START, told the Times that 9-11 created a conceptual problem for the United States because one very big, audacious, and deadly terrorist attack has become synonymous with all terrorist attacks.
"[I]f we consider [9-11] to be typical of terrorist attacks, we will have a very misleading view of terrorism," he said.
♦ Photo by Sister72/Flickr
Powered by: Phase2 Technology
Comments
The bogus threat of terrorism
It is refreshing to read the above analysis of terrorism, one that does not indulge in cliches but attempts to anchor itself on empirical foundations. The intention of the author is to be applauded and the analysis is solid, as far as it goes. However, the story above fails at least in one respect. It assumes that "real terrorists" perpetrated the attack of 9/11. This assumption is not supported by evidence. There is in fact no evidence - whatsoever - that any "terrorist" actually boarded any of the aircraft that reportedly (or allegedly) crashed on 9/11. This conclusion is borne by a meticulous search of all possible sources for evidence: None were found. Before dismissing my claim as nonsense, I urge readers to undertake their own search for real, credible evidence (not hearsay) that any of the 19 alleged "hijackers" actually boarded the aircraft of 9/11. If it is not found, I would advise to stop rehash the canard peddled by the Bush administration about Al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11.
However, if we accept the view that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government or some of its agencies, a belief borne by a great deal of evidence and supported by a growing constituency, we would be wise to differenciate between "genuine terrorism" and "false-flag terrorism", the former being acts by non-government dissidents who are fighting for a cause they believe legitimate and moral (even if we repudiate such acts as criminal) and the latter type of terrorism consisting of staged attacks by intelligence services intended to be blamed on other states or organizations in order to justify particular state policies.
From evidence that transpires in most cases of terrorist acts committed outside combat zones around the world, it appears that most such acts - including those of 9/11, the London, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul and Amman - are "false-flag" terrorist attacks staged by government agencies. The most glaring modern example of a state known to have conducted such false-flag operations on a wide scale is Algeria. In the "dirty war" that the Algerian government has conducted against its own people (in the name of combatting Islamic insurgency), students of "false-flag terrorism" will identify dozens of methods in which such acts are staged. False-flag terrorism is a science in its own right, admittedly Machiavellic, but practiced widely by states.
Please note the enormous discrepancy between the finding in the article above and the claims by the UN Security Council and individual Western governments that terrorism is "one of the gravest threats to peace and security". The statistics do not bear such an absurd claim.