Open your eyes.

Car crashes kill way more people than terrorists can. Even in Israel that's true.

There's also a study that said that you are more likely to drown in your bathtub than be killed by a terrorist.

Life is a death sentence. Make the most of it.
Get in the tub with a bowl of spicy peanuts while watching al Jazeera and rooting for al Qa'ida.

I hear Fox has already asked their graphics staff to come up with some "War on Peanuts" imagery in case the Bush administration picks up on this clip and decides that we must take pre-emptive action.

Bill O'Reilly is sure to lay the blame for it all squarely at the feet of Jimmy Carter.

I always knew Charlie Brown was up to something...

This is just goofy.
The problem with things like this is that some people will say, "Yeah,man"....."right on,man"....and various forms of blind agreement, and actually think this means something.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Of course when you add up all of the deaths since 1960 it will amount to more than the number resulting from only a handful of successful attacks against Americans. To make this a more fair comparison, how many people died from peanuts on 9/11 versus how many Americans died from a terrorist attack? I think you put a little thought into it, you'll find terrorism is much more dangerous.

Anything is true, but only terrorist attack You with weapons...

Readmore, that's just as bad of a comparison. You picked the day with the highest amount of terrorist attacks to determine the likelihood on all other days. That's a statistical blunder if ever there was one.

A better comparison would be the amount of peanut deaths in a year compared to the amount of terrorism-related deaths in a year (and not just in 2001, which tips the scales heavily). If you did that comparison, you'd probably get the same results that they got.

Consider also the death toll resulting from car-usage. This would dwarf all figures, but people put up with it because the benefit is regarded as outweighing the cost. The same is true of peanuts. There is a benefit from peanut production and consumption, and society has decided that that benefit is greater than the suffering.

Now, terrorism would appear to have no benefit to society and therefore should not be compared to peanuts.. but I ask you this: What would all those right-wing nutters do if it wasn't for terrorism? It keeps them busy and away from me. For that, I'm thankful.

So, terrorism v's peanuts.. it's an open question

Man, this is great comedy.

Personally, I prefer the "drowning in bathtubs" comparison.

Hey, Enbar, do you get the Charlie Brown allusion? Never been a Peanuts fan. I'd ask BNut but he's incommunicado for a while.

Embarrassingly enough, I don't actually get it.

DUDE! It's so true!
I was just reading the back of a cashew container and in the fine print it said, "DEATH TO AMERICA!"
and when I hit that deer with my car last year I could of sworn it yelled "FREEKIN JIHAD" right before it jumped in front of my car... I knew there was a link between deer, peanuts, and Osama. Why go after Osama when deer and Mr. Peanut live right here in the U.S.?
With that off my mind I’ll ignore those silly terrorists, continue hunting deer each year, and track down Mr. Peanut and hand him over to Bush. I might even get a metal for this one.

LGagnon--it's a bad comparison all around, period. You can't really "measure" how "dangerous" terrorism is by counting deaths alone as long as we're taking so many measures to prevent it. If we let terrorists have free control of nuclear bombs, for example, there would be no one left in America, Israel, and possible a few other countries. Add up peanut related deaths from the past few centuries and it still won't equal that.

Right on, Readmore!