"Similarly, the only reason terrorist deaths are so low is because of the phenomenal amount of resources we dedicate to the detection and prevention of terrorism."
You are going to need to offer actual proof of this, because it doesn't at all follow from anything you said.
(and is unrelated to the statistics in the article).
In fact, i'd bet it's just the opposite. You spend a phenomenal amount of resources preventing a very small amount of loss of life.
(and nothing the FBI or other agencies have offered in response to requests for "foiled terrorist plots" seems to dispute this at all)
It follows exactly what I have said. The statistics in the article are not relate to anything either.
Whether the deaths from terrorism are low in comparison to other phenomena is not the issue.
My statement was that "the only reason [edit]deaths from terrorism[/edit] are so low is because of the phenomenal amount of resources we dedicate to the detection and prevention of terrorism."
A truth which is self-evident.
If proof is required we can simply compare and contrast with nation states who do not have technological or economic resources of the US or UK and who are facing a terrorist threat of similar dimensions.
There is nothing more to prove here. The article is nonsense, it is fallacious correlation and simply clickbait.
You are going to need to offer actual proof of this, because it doesn't at all follow from anything you said.
(and is unrelated to the statistics in the article).
In fact, i'd bet it's just the opposite. You spend a phenomenal amount of resources preventing a very small amount of loss of life.
(and nothing the FBI or other agencies have offered in response to requests for "foiled terrorist plots" seems to dispute this at all)