Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists

inmytree

fear the nuts...fear the nuts...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/050107peanutskill.htm

Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists

If western governments were really trying win the "war on terror" they wouldn't give terrorists so much credit

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, January 5, 2007

The menace of global terrorism has been labeled the greatest threat to western civilization since communism and yet swimming pools, peanuts and lost deer kill more Americans every single year. Why are our governments facilitating the terrorist's agenda by hyping a peril that simply doesn't exist?

The number of Americans killed as a result of international terrorism since the 1960's gives us a benchmark from which we can correctly identify and target other dire dangers to our very way of life.

- Allergic reactions to peanuts

- Accident causing deer

- Lightning strikes

That's correct - all of the above have killed an equal number of Americans since 1960 as terrorism. One could even categorize M&M's, lost deer and the weather as an "axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world," as George Bush famously once said.


As Ohio State University's John Mueller concludes in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity, "For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic."

Last summer's much vaunted transatlantic terror plot, a facade that has since collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity, led to ridiculous measures in airports banning any form of liquids in carry on luggage and mother's were forced to drink their own breast milk. Yet there has not been a bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage on an American carrier since the 1988 Lockerbie disaster, itself a false flag inside job. Since that time hundreds of billions of Americans have been routinely interrogated about the contents of their luggage while cargo remains completely unchecked.

To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.

The principle goal of terrorists is to terrify populations and governments into acquiescing to their political demands. The only way they can achieve this is by generating a substantial amount of fear and making people believe the lie that their life is significantly threatened by potential terrorism, when in reality the swimming pool in their backyard poses more of a danger.

As soon as we lose the fear, the terrorists lose their power over us to control our behavior. If western governments were really trying to win a war on terror as they claim then they would downplay and sideline acts of terror, pointing out that an individual has more chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a terror attack.

And yet what do we see? George Bush and Dick Cheney frothing at the mouth predicting mushroom clouds over America, Fox News telling us every day it's not a matter of if but when we're attacked again, the British government warning that only "a miracle" would prevent London from being attacked over the holidays.

Mueller elaborates,

"What is needed, as one statistician suggests, is some sort of convincing, coherent, informed, and nuanced answer to a central question: “How worried should I be?” Instead, the message the nation has received so far is, as a Homeland Security official put (or caricatured) it, “Be scared; be very, very scared — but go on with your lives.” Such messages have led many people to develop what Leif Wenar of the University of Sheffield has aptly labeled “a false sense of insecurity.”

By making these statements and continually recycling the hysteria, these entities are facilitating the goals of terrorists, driving forward an agenda that could not alone be fueled by relatively minor, rare and inconsequential attacks that take few human lives in comparison to the real dangers that we face every day - mundane things like car accidents, cancer and heart disease.

In that context, allied with the voluminous evidence that every major terror attack we have witnessed was either a provocateured set-up or an outright inside job, western governments are staffed at the very top by terrorists who are openly espousing the creed and statecraft of terrorism.

Only by coming to the understanding that terrorism is such a limited threat to our livelihoods and communicating that to others can we disarm the alarmist propaganda that governments utilize in order to enlist our obedience for the construction of the prison planet.

Fear is a lie.

False
Evidence
Appearing
Real.

angelica

Amen. If only people had any idea how their natural fears were being milked from day to day by those with an agenda.

NCfan

icarus wrote:

this is kind of silly. yes terrorism hasnt killed that many americans within US borders, but the fear over terrorism is that it will be used for some sort of catastrophic attack using WMD, which could potentially kill tens of thousands.

Exactly! This is the precise argument that is being made by those "with an agenda". I don't know how or why this can be misconstrued... it's a pretty simple concept. You don't have to agree with it, but please don't distort it for your own "agenda".

angelica

And what's the solution? Fear? I think not. Realism, awareness, understanding and discernment are certainly moving in the right direction. Supporting fear-mongering and it's offshoots is not.

Bu$chlager

Are you kidding me?

What is the motive behind the peanut? The deer? The lightening bolt?

What is the motive behind a terrorist?

Pretty asinine article. Par for the course around here.

- Dan

inmytree

icarus wrote:

this is kind of silly. yes terrorism hasnt killed that many americans within US borders, but the fear over terrorism is that it will be used for some sort of catastrophic attack using WMD, which could potentially kill tens of thousands.

well, that "fear" of terrorism has lead us to Iraq, which has turned into a quagmire, with no end in sight...

we can sit and worry about "what if's" all day long...at the end of the day, peanuts are more deadly that terrorists...

inmytree

BUSH-lager wrote:

Are you kidding me?

What is the motive behind the peanut? The deer? The lightening bolt?

What is the motive behind a terrorist?

Pretty asinine article. Par for the course around here.

- Dan

he he...the Great Dan has spoken....

NCfan

angelica wrote:

And what's the solution? Fear? I think not. Realism, awareness, understanding and discernment are certainly moving in the right direction. Supporting fear-mongering and it's offshoots is not.

How does the above-mentioned concern about terrorism include irresponsible fear and exclude realism, awareness and discerment?

Bu$chlager

angelica wrote:

And what's the solution? Fear? I think not. Realism, awareness, understanding and discernment are certainly moving in the right direction. Supporting fear-mongering and it's offshoots is not.

I'll take a fear mongerer over someone who thinks "realism" is to promote the understanding and awareness that an M&M and an Islamo-fascist are on equal footing.

- Dan

angelica

NCfan wrote:

How does the above-mentioned concern about terrorism include irresponsible fear and exclude realism, awareness and discerment?

What I am saying is our fears need to be looked at and all the hype that literally envelopes us in each day needs to be deconstructed. When people take the hype to be real, we've got dangerous tangents and mass-killing wars being perpetuated. All based on illusions. Fear is an emotion and operating out of fear is the opposite of operating rationally. When our decisions are fear-based, we are not operating reasonably or optimally--quite the contrary.

For example, one can make the case that the intent behind terrorism is the concern. An intent is a far cry from a deed or a fact. Looking at and understanding the basic vast expanse between an intent, and an action is the difference between hysteria, and reason. That is not to say intent is not dangerous, but how we respond to it makes all the difference in the world, and to the outcome. The way we'll get through this stuff is by remaining calm, and carefully addressing very, very fine lines, one at a time, with a willingness to understand.

angelica

BUSH-lager wrote:

I'll take a fear mongerer over someone who thinks "realism" is to promote the understanding and awareness that an M&M and an Islamo-fascist are on equal footing.

- Dan

Your choice, of course.

Lizard

I just read an article where they have had a lot of success feeding little portions of peanuts every day to kids with severe allergies. They slowly build a tolerance to them.

i don't think you could really build up a tolerance to getting a little bombed every day, do ya?

inmytree

I'm pretty sure the point of the article is that fear is a tool used by the powers that be to keep us in lock-step...

the fact is, more people have died from eating peanuts over terrorism...

sure, one can discount this fact and live in fear of a islamofacist kicking down the door and killing them...but the fact is it's not likely...

I wonder, do islamofasicts read my mail or tap my phone calls...oh, wait that's bush and company...

maybe peanuts hate our way of life and freedom...who knows, but it makes me scared...;)

The Illinoisemakers

inmytree wrote:

well, that "fear" of terrorism has lead us to Iraq, which has turned into a quagmire, with no end in sight...

we can sit and worry about "what if's" all day long...at the end of the day, peanuts are more deadly that terrorists...

Peanuts, lightning and deers might kill more per year then terrorists, but I have yet to hear of 3,000 people dying in a single day from cashews or almonds. To compare the two is a little off.

angelica

inmytree wrote:

sure, one can discount this fact and live in fear of a islamofacist kicking down the door and killing them...but the fact is it's not likely...

Also, living in fear, and also struggling to dodge that fear and move on causes American citizens to internalize this struggle, becoming at war inside between battling fear and living one's life. This causes psychological paralysis, and sheepiness which benefits leaders, who only need a conditioning fear-monger word or two at their disposal to keep the citizens gladly following along. It is not about an empowered people. Hence the article addressing that if it were really about overcoming terrorism, different tacts would be used.

norm

Lizard wrote:

I just read an article where they have had a lot of success feeding little portions of peanuts every day to kids with severe allergies. They slowly build a tolerance to them.

i don't think you could really build up a tolerance to getting a little bombed every day, do ya?

even flow?

How about a terrorist with a slingshot and a bag of peanuts. Should I fear that?

Is it terrorism if I send my kid to school, unknowingly with a peanut butter sandwich?

Could you imagine if elephants developed an alergic reaction to peanuts.

even flow?

Lizard wrote:

I just read an article where they have had a lot of success feeding little portions of peanuts every day to kids with severe allergies. They slowly build a tolerance to them.

i don't think you could really build up a tolerance to getting a little bombed every day, do ya?

Take it from your little cousin in the middle east. Anything is possible.

Bu$chlager

It's amazing to me that so many people just think that there is nothing to fear.
That for a government to try and promote the idea that people hate us because of who we are, and will slaughter as many of us as they can if given half a chance is somehow innapropriate.

And then those people who think nothing is worth fearing, and we should all just get along, have the audacity to use a word like "realism."

- Dan

mrwalkerb

Kind of makes you think the terrorists are really trying doesn't it?

norm

"There's nothing to fear but fear itself."