Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   The last time the murder rate was this low in NYC was in the 1890's.   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3612 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2002 at 8:38 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

75 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-03-18 08:45:03 AM  
Another reason to never visit NYC.
2002-03-18 08:46:21 AM  
There's a gang called the "Jeri Curls"?
2002-03-18 08:47:17 AM  
You guys are missing the important news in this story!

"A modern New Yorker would have to take a time machine back to the late 1890s to find..."

New York has time machines!
2002-03-18 08:49:36 AM  
But crime is on the rise, right? I mean all that violence on TV and in video games is turning our children into killers! Things are worse now than when we were kids, we have to do something about it!
2002-03-18 08:54:20 AM  
Well done, at this rate you will reach UK levels of murders in 125 years.
2002-03-18 08:55:09 AM  
2002-03-18 08:55:43 AM  

Per capita or just cumlative?
2002-03-18 08:59:30 AM  
Fb-: I was thinking the same thing.
2002-03-18 09:01:28 AM  
2002-03-18 09:07:10 AM  
Can somebody find an updated chart of cities with highest murder rate, rape, fires, and such. I'm behind on my statistics. Last I heard Detroit was first in car fires, but behind in the rest.
(hoping for a comeback!)
2002-03-18 09:16:18 AM  
Frolixo -- check out a book called Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Has more stuff like that than you possibly ever wanted to know. Any library should have it.

Fb -- not funny.
2002-03-18 09:18:56 AM  
brought to you by Arthur Andersen sociological studies institutea
2002-03-18 09:19:52 AM  
Webalina: You'll often find on Fark that if you remove your head from actually inside your bottom, you can read and appreciate the humour a little more clearly.
2002-03-18 09:23:37 AM  
Anyone else think that the New York gangs sound more like out of work hair bands?

And besides wouldn't murdering someone in NY after the WTC (I refuse to use that god-awful 9-11 bullshiat)attack be like following Eddie Izzard on stage? That's just a lot to live up to.
2002-03-18 09:24:03 AM  
Either Fb.
2002-03-18 09:26:00 AM  

"Well done, at this rate you will reach UK levels of murders in 125 years."

And it will take about 900 years of gun-crazy, bloodthirsty Americans killing each other to even come close to the 6 years of killing and government-induced famine in WWII. When Europe goes 137 years without a war on their soil, then maybe you can climb up on your high horse.
2002-03-18 09:26:41 AM  

If you are coming to fark looking for niceities or tasteful jokes you will be very disappointed.

I stand by my Detroit line.

Damn mods.
2002-03-18 09:29:33 AM  
As a New Yorker,this is interesting.The funny thing is the squeegee guys are back,and are REALLYY aggressive now!!! It's seems the with Herr Rudy out,the crystal walls of the phantom zone broke,and they were freed again.Strange!!!!
2002-03-18 09:40:39 AM  
And the USA does not have wars because it has handguns Millay?

What a very strange comment.
2002-03-18 09:44:51 AM  
Hmmmm prison population levels at all time high. Crime levels at all time low. Could it be getting tough with people who break the law and throwing them in shiatty prison conditions for violent crimes actually reduces the crime rate???
2002-03-18 09:45:58 AM  

US does not have wars because we are smart and wealthy enough to pay other people to do our dirty work.
2002-03-18 09:48:03 AM  
millay: quite few less would have died had the US got off it's isolationist arse and instead of waiting for pearl harbour
2002-03-18 09:51:12 AM  

Typical. Damn the US for not getting involved sooner. Then damn them for getting involved in other's business at all.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Might as well just say fark all to the world and do whatever serves our interests.
2002-03-18 09:54:56 AM  
"US does not have wars because we are smart and wealthy enough to pay other people to do our dirty work."

yes I noticed that in operation oops they have all went to Pakistan while we were bombing empty mountains Anaconda

So we never again have to hear you boast about how you saved us all (except the Germans, Austrians and Swiss) from speaking German?
2002-03-18 09:57:47 AM  

You have proof that happened? Or just another liberal .org/.uk article?
2002-03-18 10:01:38 AM  
Fb- actually you're right. i think your point explains why the US and it's people are so attracted to isolationism. i retract my previous comment.

millay you're still full of shiat though. you can't compare war with the civilian murder rate.
2002-03-18 10:07:37 AM  

The only thing I gathered from that is a buncha anti-US arabs are trying to say the war isn't working.

Hardly a source.
2002-03-18 10:11:17 AM  
jesus, I see there is a never ending end to Harmonia's copy-n-paste-n-fuk-the-Americas-n-the-arse point of view.
2002-03-18 10:12:19 AM  
Those guys are your noble allies Fb

I have beenthrough this before, I post a link you attack the source, one week later it turns up on CNN and you then say it doesnt matter anyway.

The red cross buildings, the attack on the village, you always go through exactly the same steps.

Its from a liberal source its rubbish

ok then its true but who cares.
2002-03-18 10:14:12 AM  
Here is evidence the war isn't working: their masterminds are still alive, and Bush is saying they aren't that important to capture or kill anymore. Why? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One could be due to his close ties to the bin Laden family (and Cheny's), and the other could be due to the fact that he over estimated himself and is just like his daddy (let the bad guy get away).

When you fail to accomplish your chief objective, you LOSE.
2002-03-18 10:15:08 AM  
I see there is no beginning to Vegasj's relevant points.
2002-03-18 10:16:45 AM  
And so we captured some soldiers: that is hardly a dent in their militia. Typical Republican thinking: eliminate the red herrin, not the real problem (bin Laden, his fellow leaders)
2002-03-18 10:18:02 AM  
Nobel allies?

They are just a buncha rag head fighters that can tell which way the wind is blowing and are smart enough not to piss into it.

They are muslim. They are bound by their religion to hate America. Don't think for a minute they are really on our side, or our friends. They are just tools. We are using them to accomplish a goal. American lives are expensive. We can save $ by using Afghans.

The paper is good, the article and it's sources are trash. Just fodder to increase banner impressions.
2002-03-18 10:18:45 AM  
Bin Laden, sans fighers and finances, it irrevelant. I know that's hard for some to fathom, but I assure you it's the case.
2002-03-18 10:19:59 AM  
Vega: something simular could be said about 90% of the fark community (except it isn't "fuk-america-in-the-arse" it is "fuk-everyone-else-in-the-arse-because-america-is-god-and-saintly-inca​pable-of -doing-anything-wrong-and-never-lying-to-civilians-except-when-a-dirty​-liberal -does-it.)

The whole conservative "movement" after sep. 11th reminds me of the neo nazi movement.
2002-03-18 10:21:43 AM  
They are muslim. They are bound by their religion to hate America.

Everything you've said is rendered irrevelant by that statement of pure ignorance.
2002-03-18 10:23:20 AM  
2002-03-18 10:23:39 AM  
The whole conservative "movement" after sep. 11th reminds me of the neo nazi movement.

Everything you've said is rendered irrevelant by that statement of pure ignorance.
2002-03-18 10:28:58 AM  
So Fb, all muslims are your enemy?

And there was me thinking this was not a religous war.
2002-03-18 10:30:47 AM  

I'm atheist. I suppose the only think that remotely makes this a religious war is the whole "Muslim vs Everybody else on the plant that must be destroyed because they are infadels! JIHAD LALLALALALA!" thing.
2002-03-18 10:38:59 AM  
This made me laugh. With gang names like these I doubt they will be killing a lot of people.

"But the single most important assault by his office was on drug gangs, knocking out, for example: 35 Wild Cowboys; a dozen Purple Top Gang members; 17 from the Good Job Crew and the Black Stallion Gang; 15 from the Jeri Curls; and 64 members of La Compania."
2002-03-18 10:39:12 AM  
Congratulations New York! (i'm here in school), still, good job at not murdering someone noble people of New York.

As for this flamewar. Bugger off Fb-
2002-03-18 10:49:51 AM  
'Bin Laden, sans fighers and finances, it irrevelant. I know that's hard for some to fathom, but I assure you it's the case.'

Uh, didn't Bush promise on the site of the Trade Center to bring Bin Laden in Dead or Alive? heck, he said the people who brought down the Towers. I am not aware of that many conspirators being brought to justice anyways.

But that is irrelvant, since we gotta bomb Iraq now.
2002-03-18 10:51:15 AM  

We are fighting terrorism. This isn't a war on Osama bin Laden.

Besides, for all you know, he's dead.
2002-03-18 10:54:50 AM  
although, it's gonna be tough for people to believe that until we have a body.

And Bush did say that the people that brought down those towers would hear all of them, which means Al Qaida.

A war on terrorism being conducted without capturing Osama and his advisors is like conducting World War II by taking over Nazi Germany but not capturing Hitler and his main henchmen.
2002-03-18 11:00:03 AM  
WWII was a war of occupation, not terrorism. I fail to see how you can draw any rational parallels at all.

The goal is to distrupt/destroy the world's largest terrorist network.

Cutting off the head of Osama is not important. Look at it this way you could either,

A. Capture/kill Osama but have no impact on the troops or finances of al Qaeda.

B. Devistate the al Qaeda network, both financially and physically, yet Osama remains at large.

Osama can be replaced. I'll take choice B.
2002-03-18 11:01:43 AM  
A) Not done
B) not done either

Although the USA's actions have probably brought the thousands of recruits.
2002-03-18 11:04:10 AM  
I'd take choice C, a combination of A and B (kill Osama, devastate Al Qaeda)

for two reasons-

1: Bush pretty much made a promise to get Osama dead or alive.

2: Osama's organization is not a snake, it is a chameleon, it blends in to the host country, if you cut off some arms and legs, the arms and legs will return, but if you cut out the heart, it dies. Osama is the heart of Al Qaida, keep him alive and you keep Al Qaida alive.
2002-03-18 11:05:53 AM  

You make me laugh. You hate the US so much, and want to see them so badly, that you can't even see that truth that you so used to preach about.
2002-03-18 11:07:57 AM  

BS. Osama's head is just a trophy for Bush. I could care less about him. Killing him will have no impact. Osama isn't what brings in the people to al Qaeda, the mosques do.
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.