Part of the problem is that 'terrorist' is an ill defined word. Your stats are couched in rhetoric as a result. Everyone agrees on what a hammer is, or an AK-47, not so true on the term terrorist. Also, that term is used by many factions to describe various oppositional forces. Are those stats lumping together only the US Government's definition of terrorist, or is it a global standard somehow amalgamating all the various and disparate ideas of what a terrorist is? Looking at that link I see we are discussing terrorist as defined by "data from the Israeli foreign ministry." It's a very one-sided data argument.
Terrorist is a real term with a globally liquid definition. It makes it very difficult to discuss the topic with any sort of rational discourse.
I originally used this page http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victim... and was counting by hand, but it took too long. I didn't count a few that were vague ("stabbing attack" where nobody took credit) but if you read the list for 2002, I'm confident >75% would count by anybody's definition of terrorist attack.
This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism. If so, then we have to call just about all crimes terrorism. If we do that, then the word simply means criminal and that's no good. A terrorist is not someone who stabs you. In the strictest sense it is someone who commits acts of violence or uses intimidation in an attempt to achieve a political end.
I've seen so many people labeled as terrorist that never even come close to the "political end" part of the definition. Kids bringing guns to school is not terrorism, but it is a crime, burning crosses in the yards of black families would be.
I don't trust the US or Israel to publish data reflecting acts of actual terrorism, I expect them to bolster their arguments by fabricating this data. Just look at us here in the US. The media and the government have called just about everyone a terrorist that commits a crime and they want to see them treated harshly. I also expect them to use these bolstered numbers to prop-up organizational infrastructure like the NSA and the military-industrial complex.
It's practically impossible to use "terrorism" statistics in any real way for any argument without strict definition of what a terrorist is as put forth by the person making the argument. We can compare gun deaths, we can compare auto deaths, we can compare bathtub falls, but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics.
This kind of proves my point. While a stabbing attack is a crime, and a violent one, I would scarcely call it terrorism.
There are 208 deaths on that list for 2002 from 33 separate suicide bombings. Do you think that is fabricated? Do you think those numbers are bolstered? If that number of people were proportionally killed in the U.S. each year (~8,000) would my point still stand?
but we can't really compare any of that to terrorism statistics.
I agree. That was my point with the 1 or 20,000 deaths comment. But assuming we can compare the numbers, like the author claimed, it still isn't valid. If we can't compare the numbers, the point isn't valid in the first place.
Terrorist is a real term with a globally liquid definition. It makes it very difficult to discuss the topic with any sort of rational discourse.