The total number of terrorists is very low. 9/11 was a major operation and was not something they could ramp up.

PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.

>The total number of terrorists is very low. 9/11 was a major operation and was not something they could ramp up.

There is enormous support for terrorism and they have a lot of recruits. If they found something that worked, and nothing changed to make it stop working, you can bet they'd double down.

>PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.

I'm aware, and yes, there's a tradeoff between the benefit of the hospital vs the risk of picking up something even worse. Point taken. But if you have a gunshot wound, you should probably go to a hospital. It would be a severe error of logic to say, "most gunshot deaths are in a hospital, so if I have a gunshot wound, I should stay away from a hospital" -- because that figure is an artifact of dumping a disproportionate fraction of living victims there.

It's likewise wrong to say, "cities are safe, look how the crime rate is the same as the suburbs" -- there is much more risk, they just work harder to control it.

Over seven years Iraq had 1003 suicide bomb attacks. That's far from zero, but hardly and endless tide. When you consider 9/11 where preceded by an early 'failed' attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot Which included a test bomb that killed one person but failed to down the aircraft. And out of 26 people that attempted 9/11 only 19 where part of the attack you find they actually got somewhat lucky even before heightened security.

The absolute threat is just not that high.

Read the claim again: they will significantly ramp up attacks if they git a high kill ratio and security fails to change in response. The Iraqi forces certainly adapt security in response to the attacks, or they would be much worse.

It's not a refutation to point to zero rampup after a failed attack.

The refutation is they tried again after a failed attack, but not the successful one.