For a complete perspective, one should post the deaths caused by US on foreign grounds (iraq, Afghanistan, Servia/Kosovo, others?).
I'm not saying this justifies terror attacks in the US or anywhere, but that it's so sad that we're in 21st century, and we still see people get killed by other people for whatever reasons, but mainly for resources(oil?) or religion.
Just to clarify where this number comes from: Wikipedia tells me the number of deaths caused by the 9/11 attacks was "2,996 (2,977 victims, 19 hijackers)". Where do I find 2953?
I think he did what I did: sorted by fatalities, found the top 3 which were 9/11 and added them up. He was missing flight 93 which would bring the total to 2997. Here are the relevant incident summaries:
Wikipedia has a bunch of random news articles as sources and even it's own entry for casualties saying 2606 at WTC, 125 at Pentagon, and "About 292 people[citation needed]" killed by "burning debris and falling bodies" on the street.
There was a google spreadsheet that had summed it up, embedded into (iirc) a Washington Post article. The article was quite convoluted though, that's why I linked to the data source instead.
I can't find that spreadsheet back right now, however, here's a different article (presumably based on the same dataset) that provides a table with "Fatalities per Country":
FWIW, I find the comparison to getting struck by lighting to be somewhat facetious. Sure, goes to show just how unlikely it is to be killed in a terrorist attack, but I wager that the purpose of a terrorist attack is often more than just the immediate deaths.
Every single terror victim is a tragedy and one too many.
However, when you follow the news media and the politician speeches you are led to believe that we're all going to die from a terrorist attack any minute now. In my opinion, the numbers don't support that.
Moreover, it's this perception of an urgent threat that governments worldwide use to justify an unprecedented curtailment of civil rights (privacy, presumption of innocence, etc.).
So yes, the comparison may be seen as facetious or tasteless.
But at this point I'm far more worried about the NSA and the increasingly commonplace "us vs them" rhetoric, than about being harmed by a terrorist.
Moreover, it's this perception of an urgent threat that governments worldwide use to justify an unprecedented curtailment of civil rights (privacy, presumption of innocence, etc.).
Exactly right. But why? Is this curtailment of civil rights an emergent behavior, or is it on purpose? Back in 2001, I was pretty shocked at how fast the PATRIOT Act went into law: it was signed Oct 26, 2001. Was there some kind of potential candidate law lying around, ready to be put into the hopper for Congressional approval? If so, who wrote it, and why?
> I wager that the purpose of a terrorist attack is often more than just the immediate deaths.
And judging by the last 13 years, rather succesfully too.
The US has not gone on a global campaign to install lightning rods everywhere, nor have they declared a War on Thunder.
Instead they are happily responding to terrorists' incitements in the most desirable way: creating the atmosphere to breed the current and the next generation of terrorists. (The domestic ones have been so incompetent that they've needed assistance from the FBI with their plans and attempts.[0][1])
3467 people in the USA have been killed by terror attacks[1] since 1970.
In the same timeframe 2091 americans were killed by lightning strike[2] and roughly 102.000.000 died of old age.
[1] http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatal...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology