There's another reason that I believe people are in fear of terror attacks, it's twofold (dissertations about sharks aside). I think people live under the conception, right or wrong that terrorism cannot be defeated. I think that the majority of people, and correct me if there is a poll somewhere, believe as I am prone to, that terrorists will not be placated and are engaging in a worldwide struggle between fascist Islam and liberal (read western) democracy. So if under that belief, that even if decreased intervention, increased aid and general submission to their demands would not be effective, what other feeling may they have besides a sense of dread, or fear.
Secondly, I think that the majority of the populace believes that the government will not or cannot effectively fight against or protect from terror. Whether blaming civil rights abuse or political correctness, the public sees grandmothers getting the full monty cavity search at the airport, they see the ineptness of the TSA (you don't professionalize unless you federalize - Tom Dashle), and they see the reluctance of the Bush and Blair administrations to call radical Islam for what it is, instead straddling some strange boundary between courtesy and common sense. Aside from PETA and some obscure 'Save the Sharks' groups, nobody is going to raise much of a fuss if we embark on sharkocide, but make some aggressive moves against the mahdrasas and mosques that are breeding and letting fester this perverted worship of hate and TNT, and suddenly they have more legal representation than all of our favorite, inane little lawyer dramas combined.
This is no defense of the status quo, we've made many, many mistakes, and even the lay person that I am, I think I have ideas that would be more effective; but if I'm close to the mark, it could be more insight as to why people fear terror, and why we allocate so much in money and resources to protecting against it. After all, there are still politicians who cater to their constituents, whether out of concern of purposes of re-election.

I think that your comments about a nuclear Amageddon suggest a certain hyperbolic attitude not well-grounded in cool logic.


Are we truly in deep trouble? The WTC attacks, by themselves, had no substantial effect on our society. (Our reactions to them have had a much larger effect on us). But 3,000 dead out of 300 million is not significant to the society as a whole. We lose more people to boating accidents, and I don't see you declaring that civilization is threatened by boating accidents. The economic costs of 9/11, estimated to be as much as $400 billion overall, are still less than what we have spent in response to the attacks.


In those few emergencies in which I have found myself, I have always reacted with even greater coolness than normal, knowing that losing my head will only result in greater damage. Isn't that how you would prefer to respond? Aren't we always better off when we respond to trouble rationally?

Obviously these attacks happened. We are told we're under attack over and over by Bush's Administration..."They hate freedom, America, democracy, women, MTV, baseball, apple pie." The Bush administration has convinced America that our way of life is under attack and that they hold the key on how to thwart the attacks. 9/11 did happen, and people were fearful and justifiably so. However, Bush and Co. took this fear and made people more afraid by exaggerating and continuously reminding us of the threats to America. They would tell us "you're under attack" when they said things like: "Iraq has WMDs", "Terrorists have yellow cake from Niger", "We're at threat level Red", "They hate freedom", "Go buy duct tape", and whatever else would scare Americans into going along with their plan.

But our way of life is under attack. The terrorists themselves say that they hate the west (apple pie, democracy, women, etc.) Should we pretend that they don't hate us and our way of life? What should the administration say that would inspire something other than fear?

Ignoring your disingenuous mischaracterizations of the administration's words on WMD, which we've debated ad nauseum... On a day when terrorists have apparently bombed London again, should Mr. Bush echo Michael Moore and say "There is no terrorist threat. This is the greatest myth." Is there some level of alarm between nothing and "code red" which you would find to be more effective and less fear-inspiring? I, for one, was inspired to support our President's plans (most of them anyway) without feeling fear.

Erasmussimo, I am sorry but this logic is just beyond. The fact is that you cannot compare an accidental death from a boating accent with a rape and murder of an innocent life. You just can't do it! It makes no sense whatsoever to do so. I mean are you going to sit there and tell everyone that if someone whom you know was brutalized and murdered by a serial killer that the circumstances surrounding your reaction would be the same as if he/she died from lets say choking?

The only factor that you are taking into account is loss of human life which is intellectually dishonest to the truth about human emotions. There is a stark difference between dying in a boating accident and getting blown up on the bus you take to work by an Islamic Jihadist who wants to destroy your way of life.

I'm not here to debate the usefulness of a color coded warning system or if terrorists really hate our way of life. My point is that Bush harnessed and encouraged the fear of 9/11 which pushed the American public into a state of irrational thinking much like Erasmussimo has described. With the public in this constant state of fear, Bush was able to "drag the people along" with whatever policy plans he had in mind. Thus terrorism received a disproportionate portion of public resources.

lederuvdapac

...rape?


If you can compare terrorism to the actions of a serial killer, then why can't Erasmussimo compare terrorism to boating accidents?

Its apples and oranges in either direction. Terrorists, (despite what some people on this forum believe) are not mentally ill people who kill for a psychotic need. They are sane people who choose to kill for a cause they believe in, just like any other freedom fighter or soldier you care to name.

The only thing that sets Islamic terrorism apart from most other freedom fighters and soldiers is the extent to which they are willing to murder innocent people for their cause.

This however brutal and objectional you may find it, doesn't qualify them as psychopaths since psychopaths, by definition of their insanity are not responsible for their actions.

Moif, i was trying to make the point that the symbolism of the way a person dies is vastly different in a brutal murder than that of an accident. In one situation your life is lost...in another your life is taken.



Freedom fighters... you know moif, i truly never get tired when Islamic Terrorists are any terrorists for that matter are labeled that.

Serial killers believe in what they are doing. What makes them psychopaths is the fact of what they are doing...KILLING PEOPLE!!

When Karl Rove made his comments about how liberals saw the savagery of 9/11 and wanted therapy and understanding sessions for the terrorists instead of military response...he would have no greater ammunition for his point than the posts in this topic.

I beg your pardon then, I thought you were making some sort of reference to people having been raped in the 11 Sept 2001 attacks.


I on the other hand am quite tired of being told that by regarding terrorists as being just another variation of freedom fighters, I am some how 'requiring therapy and understanding sessions' for them.

That you won't allow the comparison to be entertained in debate does not mean I am calling for sympathy, or apologising for terrorism.

The bottom line, and universal truth is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The only thing that sets them apart is the perception of the beholder. To you they are terrorists, to other people, perhaps to millions of other people, they are freedom fighters.

Understanding this simple truth is not complicity, it is simple observation.


I suggest you look up the word psychopath. It does not mean murderer.

Suffice to say, all psychopaths are not murderers and all murderers are not psychopaths and whilst an individual terrorist may be a psycopath, this not mean terrorists are psycopaths.

By calling these people psychopaths, you are actually providing an excuse for their behaviour.


Yes, its very easy to ignore an opposing point of view if you can convince yourself it has no merit.

And its even easier if some spin doctor does your thinking for you.



editted for clarity

But moif, do you not see this as justification for any act ever committed? Is there not some objective truth that we can all accept? It's all perception. Nothing is wrong...all acts are relative. I don't buy that. Not with these Islamists. They are not fighting their own oppressive regimes for the chance to be free. They are specifically targeting civilians in other countries to bring down the democratic form of government.

When a suicide bomber crashed a van full of explosives into US soldiers handing out candy to children...who's freedom were they fighting for? Were they fighting the Western Imperialists handing out the candy? Were they fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi children they targeted for death? Who's freedom? What freedom?



Does it really matter what they are called? Does it matter that they have a disorder or were brainwashed? Does it matter if they are completely sane and still crash vans into children? What difference does it make on whether or not we should stop them?



Ignore an opposing point of view? It's not like these Jihadists wanted to sit down at a town hall meeting and speak their minds with civility! It's not like they protested or complained or use some democratic venue to voice their opposition. If that happened and then i completely ignored their views then your point would have some merit. But if their avenue of discourse contains the beheading of innocent civilians and crashing a van of explosives into children...then yes their view has no merit in my eyes.

You conflate the emotional reaction to these events with the policy response to them. Yes, you're perfectly welcome to hyperventilate about whatever raises your gorge, and I have no objections to that. But this topic is not about your hyperventilation -- it's about our policy response to it. What are we going to do about it? From the point of view of policymaking, it's another matter entirely. For example, consider these statements:

Terrorism kills 600 people per year, so we're going to spend $100 billion per year to reduce it.
Boating accidents kill 700 people per year, but we'll spend only $2,000 per year to reduce them.

Surely you would not embrace such twisted logic. So let's take it to the next step:

Terrorism kills 600 people per year, so we're going to spend $100 billion per year to reduce it.
Boating accidents kill 700 people per year, so we're going to spend $100 billion per year to reduce them.

Can you accept this pair of statements? Do they not make perfect sense to you? If you instead take the policy espoused in the first pair of statements, what do you say to the families of boating accident victims who attack you for caring more about the victims of terrorism than the victims of boating accidents?

I think this gives us a perfect example of the central point of this topic: because people get so upset about terrorism, they subordinate their rationalism to their fear and make bad choices.

And I really need to come up with some way to conjoin my shark metaphor with my boating accident comparison. Sharks attacking boats to cause accidents? Sharks eating boating accident victims? People hunting sharks who get into boating accidents? There's gotta be a connection somewhere in there!

Leder, you and I can very quickly agree between ourselves that these people are wicked murderers who must be 'gotten rid of' by any means possible but that won't actually get rid of them. In order to do that we have to address the root cause of this terrorism: their ideology and their popular support in the middle east.

If we really want to get rid of Islamic terrorism then we only have a few options, and most are just not viable. We simply cannot kill a whole bunch of Muslims and expect all the other Muslims to sit on their hands in the mean time. No matter how justified we think our actions are, killing Muslims is going to act as a recruiting tool for more Muslim terrorists. If we simply carry on the way we are doing now then we face the prospect of an endless war of terror that will naturally escalate into the use of larger and larger weapons until the day comes when some one finally detonates a nuclear terrorist bomb.

We could try to contain them, but thats impossible as well, you can't deny some one entry into a nation simply on the basis of their religion... I wish we could, but we can't.


It matters because you can't solve a problem you don't understand.


Eh? I though Rove was talking about liberals?

Okay I'll bite. How do you think trying to understand them will help? How would you go about that? I know that you are not an Arab so the likelihood of understanding them is about zero. You do not have even a faint concept on the Arab mind so when they stand right in front of you and tell you the absolute truth that they hate you and you personally because you tolerate other points of view, you do not have a basis to understand that is exactly what they mean and they really do intend to kill you because of that reason.

But in any case you have stated what can not be done, what do you propose? How would you propose getting them to stop?

Personally I do not care why a murderer kills people, or why a rapist rapes somebody. For me it is enough that they did the action, then prevent them from ever doing it again.

...er, the 'problem' is not the terrorists in this context loreng59 They are easily dealt with.

Its the population behind the terrorists thats the problem and just because they are Arabs doesn't mean they are incomprehensible aliens. I'll wager the vast majority of Muslims (not just Arabs) would be far more inclined to supporting us against terrorism if they felt we are on their side and not just supporting their tyrannical governments because we have lucrative oil deals with them.

The first step to getting the Muslim world to support the democratic cause might be to stop providing vast military support to any government in the Islamic world that refused to allow elections ... for example.

loreng59


1. Stop occupying and trying to otherwise control Arab and other Muslim countries.
2. Adopt an even handed approach to the Israel/Palestine struggle and make clear to Israel that our continued military and economic support is conditioned on stopping the illegal West Bank settlements and a negotiated end to the West Bank occupation.

Two pertinent article on the subject:

Pape Interview

Ron Paul Article

Pape concluding statement:

Based on what you are saying here, I suppose you are against Hate Crime legislation. Because all that is punishing somebody based off hate in committing a crime and the way you stated that a death is a death it should not matter right.

Based on your boating analogy I suppose you think banning assault weapons is pointless too because there are far more things that people die to each year than assualt weapons.

I am not particularly enamored of hate crime legislation, but I have nothing against it. I should think that every assault should be prosecuted as an assault, because assault is a serious crime. But your suggestion regarding assault weapons is a non sequitur. We tackle every source of suffering in this society, and we apply resources in due proportion to the magnitude of the suffering the source provides. It costs us very little to ban assault weapons, hence there is solid justification for banning them to obviate the deaths they might otherwise cause.

While I'm sure Mr. Paul would prefer to apologize the terrorists to death, perhaps even kindly paying your and my share of the Jizya, his premise is laughable. We are killing terrorists in the Middle East. Democracy is breaking out in unlikely corners of the Muslim world. Therefore, the longer we stay, the more likely we are to suffer a nuclear attack. OK. Pass me whatever he's smoking in that peace pipe.

For those of you not paying attention - if someone is extreme enough to kill innocent children to make their point (Chechnya, Israel, Iraq, New York, London, etc.), then that person is not rational enough to make judgements about what exact geography should be the purvey of the infidel. You give them an inch, they will take a mile, as they say. It's not just Iraq or the Persian gulf. Why do you believe Osama Bin Laden's talking points on this issue? As John Howard noted today, they first targeted Australia over East Timor. If the entire Anglosphere retired to our borders and we nuked Israel to save them the trouble, is Ron Paul saying that all the hatred would just stop?

I'm curious how you arrive at any round figure at all for the potentiality of a terrorist attack. Based on precedent? This isn't a matter we can fund on an as-needed basis. "Oops! 50,000 people died due to that surprise attack....we'd better up our funding next year". It's too late then. Counter-terrorism efforts require training and intelligence gathering that can take years to accumulate in order to effectively combat. Our funding is an insurance policy, and one we can't ignore in an age where technology permits small radical groups to acquire more powerful and increasingly deadly weapons.

"What enables us to go to war secures our peace" - Thomas Jefferson

Well I am just going to assume that there is no evidence to support the framing or setting of this debate..that we fear terrorism the most. Much like others are being accused of being too irrational, emotional or extreme with their portrayals of how terrorism effects them...I feel that the questions of debate were presented in a very exaggerated style too.

I was hoping someone who supports the terrorism irrational shark eating theory would have addressed carlitoswhey's comments about how terrorism does more than just kill people. Why is it the overall impacts are not being taken into consideration and that many here choose to only view this or look at the results from one source..body count. That does not seem very inclusive to me. In fact it is all becoming very narrow and I am starting to feel like if you don't turn yourself to one side you can't fit into this little "discussion".

So what of the other costs and ramifications ? What of the fact that 9/11 was the largest insurance payout ever? My sister a Lloyd's of London broker told me after 9/11 many felt that writing in the US market was no longer practical business. You think perhaps that has lasting effects on US business? Or what was the downfall in travel and leisure for Americans following 9/11? Or how about the damage to the US stock market that resulted from this attack? Or the fact that foreign investments in the US post 9/11 fell over 50%? Or that in the western nations business spending dropped nearly 60%?

Is this the same in regards to boating accidents? Or shark attacks? Do they too have such reverberating effects?

What you are asking of us is to accept terrorism as just a personal singular loss and only when the bodies begin to pile up should we begin to concern ourselves. I don't see...and no one has attempted to prove otherwise.. that viewing it as such will be of value to our society. Terrorism is an attack on us as a collective..individual deaths are a sad and terrible part of the event but certainly not the entirety of it.

carlitoswhey


Just curious, did you bother to read the interview and article? Pape is a recognized expert who has reviewed every instance of a modern suicide attack. The overwhelming common motivation he found for them was the motivation to drive out occupiers, usually of another religion. His analysis deserves more than your inflammed dismissal. I suspect that you found his well research threatening because they don't match your current mind set. Once again for any who missed it. Pape Interview

Incidentally Pape and Paul don't apologize for the terrorists' acts, they're looking at what we all should be looking at. That is, what motivates someone to become a suicide bomber?

Absolutely! I certainly am not objecting to taking prudent measures to obviate future attacks. My concern lies with emotional responses to a deadly serious problem, a problem that demands the very best reasoning we can bring to bear. It's not hysteria that endangers us, just poor judgment. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, they were searching little old ladies and small children. That wasn't a prudent use of our security resources. Even now, we tend to concentrate on the big dramatic threats that make great Hollywood movies or TV news clips: sabotaging nuclear power plants, for example, or flying airplanes into them. That particular threat is a non-starter, because you just can't do much damage unless you can get inside and take control for hours, or bring several tons of explosives. Even the much-feared nuclear bomb is pretty far-fetched. The amount of resource required to acquire a bomb and get it inside an American city is humongous; I don't think that it could be done reliably for less than an expenditure of $100 million.

My point here is not that these threats are nonexistant but that they are improbable. We need to make every effort not to obsess on the big-ticket items and focus on the full spectrum of threats. For example, the most effective terrorist strategy at this point would be to unleash a steady stream of suicide attackers who charge through shopping malls, high schools, county fairs, and the like, blasting everything they can with grenades and assault rifles. Individually, each attack doesn't kill too many Americans, but if you keep up the pressure the Americans will eventually go nuts and start nuking the Middle East, which guarantees a victory for the terrorists. This strategy can only work if the Americans let their terror run away with them -- which so far, looks highly likely.

bucket raises the issue of other costs besides body count. I mentioned earlier that one study estimated the total economic impact of the 9/11 attacks at about $400 billion. That includes everything: lost productivity of killed workers, insurance payments, cost of rebuilding, lost business to the airlines, higher insurance premiums for business, increased security costs for business, and so forth. That's a lot of money -- 4% of our GDP. But we have already spent more on our response to the 9/11 attacks. In this case, the cure costs more than the disease -- assuming that our efforts to date are completely successful in wiping out terrorism.

Are they easily dealt with? I don't think that they are, nor does anybody that has dealt with them. So how do you think they can easily be dealt with?

As for your wager, how much? A large percentage support and agree with terrorism, all of the polls by Arab organizations show this.

Elections are not the end all of democracy. Iran and other countries throughout history have shown that democracy does not mean just elections, there a lot more than that. Again I return Iran, they receive no aid or military equipment from the West, so what you suggest the governments and or people do?

There are numerous ways to deal with them. I think maybe you are confusing what I wrote with 'catching' them...?

That is difficult, yes, but once they are caught, (and if they survive capture) the western nations have an extensive laws to deal with people like this. They need never threaten any one ever again.


Yes, they do now, which is why I wrote: I'll wager the vast majority of Muslims (not just Arabs) would be far more inclined to supporting us against terrorism if they felt we are on their side and not just supporting their tyrannical governments because we have lucrative oil deals with them.

I'm not stupid enough to wager on any great store of affection for the west amongst the people of the middle east right now. I'm talking about a possible future where by the democratic western/industrial nations, most specifically, the USA, the UK, France, Russia and Germany, stopped arming and supporting dictators in the middle east.

Just look at how fast those nations all were to shake Ghaddafi's hand once he agreed to accept responsibility for Lockerbie...

What kind of morality is that? A military dictator accepts responsibility for a terrorist action that murdered 270 people and Tony Blair rushes to shake his hand!

I contend that if we stopped supporting men like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, King Fahd and Colonel Ghaddafi, then we might see more support for our policies amongst the people of the middle east. If we supported these forces of democracy I hear so much about, if we supported them with the same level of enthusiasm we have shown for supporting tyrants, then I wonder if we'd even have any terrorism at all.


I'm not sure what you are asking?

With regards to Iran?

Leave them alone.



editted for spelling.

Would you care to share with us the study you have cited or used to support this number?

You know I had to perform a word search in order to locate where you made mention of this 400 billion. It does not seem to be very important or have much of a basis in your argument. So I must ask...are you asserting that the total deaths and the body counts of these incidents are the main reason we and our governments fear them?

I can't comment on much of your argument here without seeing the numbers you use to support your claims. I am left here wondering if they take into consideration FDI..which is what I questioned you on earlier. A 50% drop in FDI worldwide is massive.



Again it seems you only acknowledge that the bombings or attacks here in America and London are solely aimed at killing people. You seem once again too heavily focused on the body count and not the full objective. The underground was chosen for a reason, as was the WTC and the Pentagon. You don't hear much about Shanksville PA altho. over 40 people died..you think if it had reached it's target successfully we would maybe talk about it a bit more?

Also Americans have seen their schools attacked. Regardless I have children in public school and I used to live outside of DC and they did send us home an explanation of planned procedures for if or when the school came under attack. And it wasn't presented hysterically and full of emotion and fear mongering.

Ok, then how do propose catching them, since you have said that none of the current efforts work?

You should stay away from any gambling establishment. I do not think that they have any inclination to support us against terrorism at all.

I can agree with that. It is a start in the right direction. Besides when they do turn against again, they won't have the latest weapons to use.
Again this I can agree with. But I would add to this lack of morality is all the European leaders that lined up to kiss Arafat's rear as well. That is just as bad as Ghaddafi, who should be in court to answer for his War Crimes.

You haven't gone far enough though, when you leave out the Mullahs of Iran, 'Presidents' of Egypt and Sudan then you are sending a message that there is a difference in terrorism if your targets are not westerners. The ETA, IRA, Red Army Brigades, etc. are just like the Islamic terrorists. Murderers and thugs.

You stated that we should not aid them until they have elections, my contention is that we should not aid them until they are democracies. There is a huge difference between the two.

And let them keep training and funding terrorists? No thanks, they are a major portion of the problem. We will never succeed if we 'leave them alone'.

*edited to fix quotes

There are a bunch of them, and they cover a variety of issues. Here's one made in August 2002; rather speculative in nature, it comes up with a vague guess of half a trillion dollars. Here's a figure of $95 billion in direct costs to New York City. I can't find a source on the $40 billion that insurance companies paid out. Do you think that the $400 billion figure is too high or too low?


I cannot claim to know what causes emotional turmoil inside a person's head, but I can appeal to common sense in suggesting that the deaths play a much larger role in the generation of fear than the economic costs. It's difficult for me to imagine someone lying awake in bed at night wondering, "Omigod, what will happen if terrorists attack the building I work in? How will we replace the stationery?"


I confess, I didn't take your comments on FDI seriously, as I cannot understand how terrorism affects FDI coming into the USA. I can certainly imagine it affecting FDI in a selected few countries, but perhaps I could understand your point if you expanded upon it.


I don't understand what you are so argumentative about. I am addressing the emotionalism of the American response to terrorism. Perhaps you are suggesting that the symbolism of the targets plays a role; if so, I agree. So what's your point?

Where did I say that? I don't remember writing that, but may be I implied it? Dunno...

But in answer to your question, I'd say that the best way to catch these people is to turn their popular support against them. Human beings, like most other animals, are not violent unless provoked and this is just as true of the average Muslim as it is of the average Christian, aetheist or Hindu. Without provocation then I believe most people, Arabs included, would not support terrorists and would be far more inclined to turn them in.

Right now, the police in London are making a request of assistance to the people of London and the reason for that is because they know that the hearts and minds of the general public are always the key to winning this kind of conflict. Win the public and you'll win the 'war'.

We have to act in the same way in the Islamic world as we do at home. Treat people with respect, treat their political choices as valid, even if we don't like them, and simply reserve the right to only trade with people with whom we, as democratic people's (and not vested military industrial interests) agree with.

This is how we can beat the terrorists.


Perhaps you are right, I don't know. I have a faith in humanity that I extend to all people, regardless of their personal ideologies, that given the chance, the vast majority of human beings will choose peace over war.

Maybe I'm just naive?


Isn't this a bit unfair given that the USA also gave a lot of cash to Arafat?

And I seem to recall that when Arafat made his deal, he was shaking hands on the White House lawn, not outside the EU parliament building...

If we're going to throw stones, lets not waste time on Arafat. We can easily agree that the man was a problem without whom the Palestinians are far better off.


I totally agree. We should regard ALL terrorists as equal in the eyes of the law.

Political or religious ideology makes no difference to the nature of the crime.


I accept your difference and I agree that simply holding an election does not qualify as 'democratic'.

There has to be an enduring democratic spirit that guarantee's fair laws and elections.

On the other hand, I would not disallow some support to a budding democratic government... but any such support should ALWAYS be conditional upon results.


Is there any evidence to support the idea that Iran is still active in supporting terrorism?

And, does that support differ much from our support of Israel?

I don't mean to suggest that Israel is the same as the terrorists in this context, but rather to ask just what support by Iran do you mean?

Iran is said to be a part of the 'axis of evil', but on what basis? Does the state of Iran sponsor terrorists and if so, which terrorists?


Editted for spelling

editted a second time to add:

Does Iran deserve this?

What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?

http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/...is_the_pla.html

Again I have no idea if your 400 billion estimate has any legitimacy or all it entails as you have not provided the source from which you came to this number with. Is it from a combination of sources?
Are you just kind of guessing? I am going to guess then too..I guess it is too low.

I think looking at the economic costs localized as you are..as in the direct costs to NYC or insurance companies is again an attempt to make this a more personal, singular loss. Again I will say this...terrorism is not about individual loss of life or property..it is an attack on the collective.


Well belittle consumer confidence all you want...it is still a very important factor in our economy. Perhaps a better more realistic example you could have used here would have been omigod what if terrorists hijack more planes..perhaps I won't fly to Florida next weekend. Or omigod what if terrorists attack wall street..maybe I won't take this 20 thousand I have and reinvest it into the stock market or omigod what if terrorists bomb my city..maybe I will wait to purchase this rental investment home.
See we have a very open economy here in the US. Name me any other nation the world over who has as much public participation in their stock market as we do here in America. Public confidence plays a major role in how we do business here so I don't think we should approach it or treat it as frivolous.

The largest fear terrorism plays isn't so much in the immediate deaths or destruction but the fear that there is more to come. It sets the stage or the factor of risk in motion and risk is not good for business.


Actually I did define it collectively..again you attempt to singularize this..I did say FDI worldwide. So that would be FDI coming into the US and going out from the US, along with all other FDI coming and going in all the nations all over the world. I am trying to point out that to look at this threat as only something that effects the US or NYC is incomplete. I was asking you exactly how you can rationalize the comparison of terrorism to boating accidents and/or shark attacks when it is quite obvious and well documented that the loss we suffer from terrorism is far more expansive than just the loss of life.
I very much believe these are collective threats and that they harm us collectively...unlike when someone dies from a shark or a boat accident.

But like you have admitted why take this seriously? Well FDI and it's trends along with world trade are in fact massive indicators of the economy worldwide. It is what binds us ...essentially it is globalisation. Post 9-11 FDI outputs and inputs fell over 50% worldwide how much money do you think that translates to? Hundreds and hundreds of billions of USDs would be my guess.

Why do you feel we should only view the financial losses so contained? As in only what it costs the city of New York? Or only how it has affected America's GDP? All financial factors, all financial losses and yet all being contained to one nation or one sector..do you not accept the fact we live in a globalized world and that our nation's economy functions within a global economy?

Is terrorism a national threat or an international one ? Does it remain contained in the statistics and accumulated body counts of a nation or does it transcend national borders?



Why am I being argumentative? This is a debate yes? I don't support your views or agree with them..what else am I suppose to be?

Perhaps I am suggesting that emotionalism is a lot more of an important factor and has been interwoven into our society and how it functions and operates so profusely that claiming it needs to be removed or set aside is extremely unrealistic. I believe it needs to be addressed, dealt with and responded to as best we can. Risk perceptions, risk premiums, future investment plans, consumer confidence, insurance costs, investments, on and on all of these things have a lot to do with how we all feel about or perceive the future and terrorism is meant to change how we feel or perceive our future.

A: Because the worst attack in America happened to be the result of terrorist and terrorism. I know it's clichè to say "September 11th changes things", but what is more important than protecting America...Well, there is one thing, but I'll get to that later, during the more cynical "reason B". Anyway, national defense has always been of huge importance, before it was defense against countries, but now that for the most part, countries get along, terrorists are the only thing left to defend America from.

B: Because it is impossible to curtail civil liberties and give the Federal Government more power without fear or a scapegoat. I'm not saying that the Bush Administration always uses terrorism to scare people into accepting more Federal power, but he/they do it often. Most people can't argue with, "we're just trying to protect you", so they say sure, PATRIOT ACT us all you want, sure hold Americans incommunicado for years. Terrorism is kept in the forefront by the media as well, partly because the media looooves to scare people, and also because the Bush Administration constantly keeps it the NUMBER ONE issue. "Protecting America is the number one issue in the country", what is America? America is what the land "America" stands for, individual liberty and limited government. So while protecting "America" the land is what the Bush Administration talks about as the most pressing issue today, I contend that protecting America the ideal is far more important.

CP

I did provide the source. It's right there in the sentence you quote. Go back and re-read my posting. In the sentence "Here's one made in August 2002", notice that the word "one" is underlined. That means that it's a hyperlink. If you click on it, it will take you to the source.

Having read the source, what do you think of the costs it outlines? Do you think that it's too high or too low?


In terms of policymaking, how does that make terrorism different from any other tragedy? Let's just suppose that on the morning of 9/11, due to some truly weird computer error, two jets flew into the World Trade Center and brought both towers crashing down. Again, I emphasize, we're supposing that it's a completely innocent accident, but with exactly the same physical results. Our policy countermeasures in this case would be different, but would they be any less thorough or careful? Would we truly say that, because this was an accident, it doesn't deserve as much concern as if it were deliberate?


So your concern is with the effect of the terrorism on consumer confidence. Then provide us with some data to make your case. The problem is that the recession started before 9/11, and it will be very difficult to extract the effect of 9/11 on consumer confidence from the effect of the recession. Yes, there was a 17-point drop (click on this link right HERE to see a short summary of some drops in consumer confidence). But in the larger scheme of things, it doesn't appear to have had any long-term effects.


You can find complete information on FDI HERE. Worldwide, FDI flow peaked in 2000 and began to fall in 2001 -- almost certainly as a result of recession following the collapse of the stock market bubble. I did not find any suggestions in the material I read that terrorism had any effect on the fall in worldwide FDI, but there's a lot of material there and perhaps you can find something to support your thesis.

Actually, there is a significant economic factor that you have not mentioned: the price of oil. Experts talk about what they sometimes call "the terrorism surcharge", which they estimate to be about $10/bbl. It reflects the increased price of oil because of uncertainties about the supply of oil. However, it is difficult to assign this specifically to the actions of terrorists, as it jumped the most when the US invaded Iraq. The terrorism surcharge reflects uncertainties arising from the actions of all the players, not just the terrorists.

But this discussion doesn't address the issue I have raised: that we have allowed ourselves to be terrorized by the terrorists. Yes, terrorists kill people, and yes, they cost us money. Neither of these facts justify losing our heads. We need to address the issue of terrorism unemotionally. I don't blame you or anyone for getting upset about the horrific crimes perpetrated by the terrorists, but when it comes time to make decisions, we have to set aside our fears and consider our options cooly. What's so debatable about that?


I would hope that you would discuss this without getting upset with me. There's argument, there's debate, and there's discussion. I refuse to argue, because argument accomplishes nothing. I don't like to debate, because the real world is too complicated for simple yes or no propositions. And besides, I don't want to butt heads with anybody, politely or not. I would rather consider the various points, teach where I can, and learn where I can. Can we not discuss this amicably?

Erasmussimo



Finally you're getting it Erasmussimo. Yes! Of course the countermeasures are different. That's the whole point. The circumstances regarding each individual event are different. STILL the ONLY factor you take into account is loss of human life which is intellectually dishonest.



Easier said than done? Approach the issue unemotionally? I guess you mean the same way that terrorists go about their beheadings and bombings. People by nature are irrational. That's never going to change. I mean there are people out there afraid that the temperature is going to rise a few degrees and cause armageddon!

The simple fact is that terrorism is a true threat. Not just because of the loss of human life but because of the psychological affects that it has on the populace. Faith in government, the economy, our way of life, everything is at stake. We are just trying to go about an effective policy to never put us in such a situation where we wish we could have done more.

I don't understand your vehemence on this point. I have agreed from the outset that economic factors are also worthy of consideration, and *I* have been the only one offering references on the costs of the terrorist attacks and even bringing up economic costs that others have not mentioned. My point here has nothing to do with economics but with rationalism versus emotionalism.


Yes, people are irrational. People have criminal impulses. But as a civilized society, we ask everybody to keep their evil impulses in check. We ask people to behave rationally. Is it not to our own advantage to do the same with political discourse? Is it not appropriate that we reject those who appeal to our baser instincts such as our fear? Is rationalism not our best hope for dealing with the ever-growing complexities of our world?

Erasmussimo

Have Americans really been terrified? Do they truly understand what is going on? According to this article they don't. And, according to this article they are, to some degree, being kept in the dark as to the true nature of the conflict.

Obviously they saw and felt the horrible events on 11 Sept 2001, but since then, what impact has the 'war' on terrorism really had on the people of the USA?

I have seen plenty of accusations that the Bush administration has taken advantage of the people's fear but very little to indicate that this fear is actually tangible... I'm not saying it isn't there, just that I see no real evidence of it.

What I actually see, in posts here, media reports and talking to Americans can best be described as a mixture of complacency and indignation. There are one or two examples I've come across where the fear was obvious, but since the early, post 11 Sept 2001 days, only one poster here at AD and only a few articles in the media have really indicated any sort of deep seated fear.


From the first link...

Throughout this discussion I have been careful to use the word "terrorized", not "terrified", although I may have lapsed. There is a fine distinction between the two words. "Terrified" refers to an intense short term mood, a transitory experience. "Terrorized" refers to a long term state of mind that distorts one's reasoning process. I don't think that Americans are terrified; I do think that they are terrorized.

The BBC did a 3 hour series paralleling the historical background of the Neoconservatives and the Jihadists and how their paths have historically intersected and how both have gained power as a consequence of the actions of the other. No American station including PBS or HBO has so far been willing to show this excellent program series. Hard copies have been passed around and shown to various groups. I've had the opportunity to view part of it. It is very pertinent to this discussion since it focusses on the use of fear politically.

A promo for Part I can be read at Intro to Part I of BBC "Power of Nightmares"

AND for Part II at
Intro to Part II

I think it is possible to view it at
Stream or Download if you have the right software and programing skills. I don't.

Can anyone say 'break out the tin-foil hats? TedN5, i tried to view these pieces but unfortunately the encoding of the videos was not agreeing with my media players. So ill only comment on the premise that BBC said through the links you provided. And if this IS the premise...boy should it be fun to watch. I love conspiracy theories! I read a piece where it was said that Islamic Fundamentalism actually has some roots from Nazi Fascism or something of that matter. That was interesting as well.

Terrorism and Islamo-Fascism is not an illusion. We see it every day on our televisions screens and on our webpages. We saw planes crashing into skyscrapers, we saw them blow up people on buses and trains, and we saw them crash a van into a group of children. This is not fake or some spin by a few neo-conservatives. Have there been those that have capitalized on the terror attacks and the aftermath? Absolutely. But is that to say that they planned or anticipated what would happen? Of course not...thats just more conspiracy talk.

We fear terrorism because it is the unknown and humans fear the unknown more than anything. We fear it because it affects our very way of life. I don't want to be on the bus to work and think that the person next to me has sticks of TNT strapped to his chest. Terrorism isnt the same as an accident. Its impossible to compare. Now we all know that people are afraid of flying...that the plane is going to crash or something. However many people have no problem with it because the risk of a malfunction or accident is very low. With terrorism, again compared to history the probability is very low. But the reaction to it is very different. A terrorist is going to TAKE my life. There is nothing wrong with the plane. Its running well and would fly and land normally without any outside interference. The hijackers are changing that.

Erasmussimo, your definition of what constitutes a rational response is highly subjective. The bottom line is that there is a difference between an innocent person being beheaded by a Jihadist who wants to destroy democracy around the world and a person allergic to bees who gets stung.

I know how hyperlinks work thanks...I just did not recognize that source..you offered several.. as being the source of your 400 billion because it actually supports the theory of a much higher number. I was just curious how you...when many economists claim that to come up with one (single) number for all the damage incurred by 9/11 is impossible...did the impossible. I already told you my guess...I guess it is much higher than 400 billion.


Because when it is a terrorist threat it is not accidental and the markets, the investors, the consumers, the governments and all the other pieces of the machinery worldwide don't view each of these examples as having equal risks.
Computer error of what kind? Don't you think such an accident would be again more localized and singularized to one particular industry or even nation? 9/11 was just a event in a series of events...not the one and only event in and of itself.

It is much easier for the government to react to a catastrophe as the one you have exemplified and make efforts to contain it's effects and gain confidence that it will not occur again. This is just a glorified use of your boating shark accidents example..it is something that is much more easily containable and risk preventable..terrorism's effects are not.



No..I think it is quite obvious that my only concern is not only with CCI. I just didn't think it made much sense for you to belittle it and treat it as if it was something so trivial. I am not the one who is making big claims that the effects of 9/11 or any other terrorist event is singular to only the deaths that incurred or the direct physical damage or loss of property. That isn't my argument nor is it that only CCI should be considered on top of that. I have asked you and others to consider all of the financial effects...from FDI, CCI, trade, savings and consumption, investments, stock markets, and just basic overall global economic growth.

And it doesn't have to have long term effect.
The latest terrorists attacks in London have plunged CCI yet again...obviously it is one of the factors and much like your article asserts that we see historical dips in CCI as results of our run up to our nation's engagement in wars..terrorist activity has the same effect.
Anything that can have such an immediate and detrimental effect on CCI is what I would believe to be something we could consider as a negative influence. And in keeping with the theme of my argument this dip or loss in confidence is not something I believe is contained or localized.
But you want other people to make my argument for me...
In the business community, there seems to be less concern about a disruption to day-to-day operations than the potential impact on consumer confidence. Dick Parsons, chief executive of Time Warner, recently expressed concern that the attacks could threaten consumer spending worldwide.
source

Consumer confidence over the past month slid to a two-year low, and economists say terrorism fears rekindled by the London bombings probably played a large role in the decline.

Economists believe high energy prices weighed on confidence in July. But they thought the London terror attack probably was a bigger factor.

"Terrorism reared its ugly head and it was a downer in terms of the consumer psyche," said Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics.
source



Almost certainly the result of one (singular) factor? How is that possible? In a global market if one sector or region is doing poorly why not just move your monies around to somewhere else? A drop in FDI worldwide is indicative of one thing..a change in the flux in investments over wealth. Why? I am sure there are many reasons for this..but I am also sure that terrorism will unquestionably be in the top 3.

One of the most influential deterrents to the US economy making a full recovery has been the lack of incoming FDI. It has not regained since it's fall in 2001 worldwide like many..even the UNCTAD.. hoped it would. Read what they kept predicting on that site you linked to..we will recover FDI loss in 2002 and continue it's growth for the next 3 yrs. Well it fell even farther..so they revised their predictions for 2004 and it made a measly 6% worldwide gain. Which is good I guess... but still low.

Have you heard of the The Global Terrorism Index ? It currently ranks the US as having the fourth largest risk for a terrorist event. This little publication is compiled and published by a group that calls themselves The World Markets Research Centre Why that name and this index? It is because terrorist events have become detrimental to not only our physical lives, or our properties, or even our way of life..they also undermine our means of life.


The "terrorism surcharge" has always been on oil..it is more or less a security charge which we are in the process of having added to all our walks of life..riding the bus, shopping at the mall, buying imported items, sending mail etc. It was once believed that the threats would remain focused on pipelines in the deserts but as we have seen now this is no longer true..the threats are now focused on where all those pipelines lead to.


I already made a reply or answer to this....I will just repost it.

Perhaps I am suggesting that emotionalism is a lot more of an important factor and has been interwoven into our society and how it functions and operates so profusely that claiming it needs to be removed or set aside is extremely unrealistic. I believe it needs to be addressed, dealt with and responded to as best we can. Risk perceptions, risk premiums, future investment plans, consumer confidence, insurance costs, investments, on and on all of these things have a lot to do with how we all feel about or perceive the future and terrorism is meant to change how we feel or perceive our future.



I am not upset. We all come to AD and use the site and engage and interact in the topics differently..what you like is what you like. If I am misusing the debate forum in a manner the admin does not feel is acceptable or contrary to it's intended purpose they will tell me so.

If you would prefer to use a different definition of what constitutes a rational response, by all means let's discuss it!


Yes, there are many differences. But is an irrational response justified in either case? If you were an allergic person stung by a bee, would you be better off running around yelling or calling 911? If we're attacked by terrorists, are we better off repeating to each other how nasty they are or concentrating on what we're going to do to minimize their damage?

Elsewhere I posted a link to a website where the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" could be downloaded with the right skills and software. So far the series hasn't been shown on any U.S. broadcast. This documentary was largely the work of Adam Curtis. An interview with Adam is available here. The documentary challenges a lot of preconceptions about the nature of the modern terrorist threat and the questioning session with Curtis brings these out fairly well.

The documentary, consisting of 3 1 hour segments, traces the intellectual and political development of the radical Islamists in Egypt and the Arab World and that of the Neoconservatives in this country. The ability of each to use the actions of the other to build political support is then explored.

Few, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, will agree with every conclusion in these films but they are full of facts known only to those who diligently research these subjects and should be seen for that reason alone. For instance, what do you know about Sayyid Qutb, who provided the intellectual underpinnings of Salafi jihadism, or the intellectual foundations of the Neoconservatives? Here is the link to the download again. The Power of Nightmares

In any case the questioning of the author in the first link is highly relevant to our discussion here.