Every year over 40,000 people are killed on America's highways and thousands more die in traffic accidents in other countries. Millions more die from disease that is preventable with simple vaccinations. Additional millions die of starvation and malnutrition that could be prevented with a fraction of US military spending. Terrorism, on the other hand, kills comparatively few. In 2004 the Bush Administration's report on terrorism that was finally released without statistics revealed that terrorism had taken a dramatic jump from 2003. Significant attacks grew from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004. They also grew in Iraq from 22 to 198. Yet an ex-official's estimate of the numbers killed was "well over 1,000." Report Article.

These deaths and the additional thousands maimed certainly are an immense human tragedy and important steps are required to reduce the carnage. However, the same logic applies to the other situations where even larger numbers are dying. Why is it that we are so fearful of terrorism that we will expend hundreds of billions in trying to eliminate it and give comparatively much less resources and attention to other things that take more human life.

The question for debate is:

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

Because our Fearless Leader has emphasized it, and Congress fell in line behind him.

Because it's clearly an "us vs. them" situation, and Toby Keith couldn't sing "we'll put a boot in the a--" of the deficit, or inadequate health coverage, or job outsourcing.

Because this is how President Bush capitalized on the 9/11 attacks by having a scapegoat ready, albeit not those responsible for the attacks.

If "we the people" all contacted our Senators and Representatives to tell them we want this so-called "War on Terror" to stop NOW, and we wanted the domestic problems America is facing to actually be addressed and dealt with, we might have justification in wagging our fingers at our leaders and intoning shame, shame.

But we're not all together on this subject. Bush and his cronies have tapped into the Mother Lode of American Angst and said, This is the foreign enemy that is the monster under the bed. If you don't recognize him, there's something wrong with you. Fall into line, put those yellow ribbon magnets on your cars and wear those American flags on your lapels; and above all else, TRUST US, because we know more than you do.

There are some important psychological factors involved in this which have nothing to do with politics, I think. For one thing, death as a result of deliberate human malice terrifies us more than death from accident, disease, or natural disaster. It is somehow more terrible to die because someone wants you dead rather than because of bad luck. Another factor is that acts of violence create a deep need for justice, punishment, or revenge. You can't punish a tsunami, but you can try to track down a murderer.

Something to keep in mind is the degree of difficulty involved in preventing human death and misery from various causes. Science doesn't yet have a way to stop an earthquake from killing people (although we're making some progress in prediction), but clearly there are some steps that can be taken against terrorism. (The big debate, really, is which steps are effective and which are not.)

There is also the possibility of a gigantic act of terrorism -- nuclear, chemical, or biological -- resulting in the loss of millions of lives. Some may believe that almost any effort is justified to prevent such an event, no matter how remote it may be.

There is something in the human heart which seems to respond strongly to efforts against human enemies. Other efforts are appreciated, or course -- disaster relief agencies receive strong support from ordinary citizens, and people like Jonas Salk and Sir Alexander Fleming are heroes. And yet we wave flags and have parades on Armed Forces day, and best-selling country-western songs urge us to take arms against the enemy. The military stirs emotions within us that resemble religious faith.

Balance must be found. To ignore very real threats from the evil and insane people in the world is suicidal. To react with excessive zeal against the possibility of such threats is destructive to a civilized society. We must do the best we can to avoid either.

I'm not all that convinced that 'terrorism' is the thing we really get so worked up about.
Looking back on the last few decades in Europe I don't see the near hysterical attitudes towards terrorism that we see today. Paris and London were bombed repeatedly in the 80's but neither nation responded with open warfare against 'terrorist sponsors'.

When the IRA blew the Thatcher government at Brighton Maggie didn't respond by invading Ireland.

I think the problem we have here is not so much the terrorism as the terrorists.

Osama Bin Laden and his religious freak show scares us because it is so irrational to us. Over here certain conservative commentators seeking to explain the need for going to war in Iraq have lamented the lack of any adequate western response to extremist Islam. They contend that our freedom is not a defence but rather a gaping hole in our defences that is rapidly being exploited to allow a massive influx of Muslims, and thus potential terrorists, into our midst. They argue that we have no method of dealing with this threat, that our morality of tolerance is being used against us.

Perhaps they have a point in as much as people here are beginning to look upon the influx of immigrants as becoming a serious problem. Suddenly people find themselves surrounded by brown faces whilst on the news they constantly hear of Islamic terrorists murdering left, right and centre and thus they start to fear the possibility of being murdered by some guy with a brown face.

Once upon a time the Christian church in Europe was a bastion against Islam, but this is no longer the case. Now we have no overall ideology around which to rally against the compelling conviction which motivates these Islamic terrorists. We are like villagers huddled in the night as wolves prowl around us. The flame of our religion has died out leaving only the solitude of eternity staring back at us. Above us the stars shine endlessly and indifferent always reminding us of our insignificant mortality.

Our enemies carry a conviction that guards them against doubt and the endless night and gives them the relief of its illusion, the grace of Allah and the rewards of 72 virgins.

But for us, we only have the cold technical reality of science and the horrible legacy of Aushwitz. We could destroy them in an instant. In truth we could wage a war the like of which humanity has seen before, but on a scale beyond even the horrors of Stalin or the Chin emporers of old. We could, but we won't, in truth we can't. Our morality of tolerance and freedom won't allow it and they know this and exploit it.

Our only real choice there fore has become to fight or surrender and since surrender is never an option then we are pitting our vast resources against their vast faith.

For the rest of us, the civilian onlookers, the distinctions are blurred. We are the ones being blown up as the extremists on either side wage their war for our hearts and minds. As we huddle in the darkness, listening to the wolves, perhaps its about time we developed some sense of an ideology to illuminate our lives and defend our freedom?

I really don't fear terrorism. Death is waiting for me anyway so I'm going to die one way or another. I feel sorrow for those left behind and I feel anger at the death of children, but I am not scared of terrorism. A wolf in the dark is a monster until you turn on the lights and see its just an animal.

Osama and his crew maybe terrifying but in truth its only because they are hiding in the dark and we can't see them for what they really.

I take a different tack on the debate- I wonder if the USA can survive as super power WITHOUT a "boogeyman"- we became a super power essentially because of WW2, though we started to emerge as a true force in WW1. We have always been an expanstionist- um- republic, empire, whatever word makes you feel more comfortable. Now, we have no real area to expand to- so, the US has to have enemies to keep the big "mo" going in our supremecy.

Seriously- were would we be as a country, right now, without 9/11? Who is the only person to personally profit from 9/11- GW Bush perhaps?

Without a WOT- what would we have to do- become introspective and start working on our domestic problems- some of which mentioned in the title post?

Since WW2- we have had no real lasting peace in our country- we had the Korean war, then the Cold War, with the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, War against the "evil empire" and now, the War on Terrorism- makes you kind of wonder if the good ol' USA can survive any type of peace?

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
Because it is dramatic and because it is uncontrollable. Studies have shown that people will accept higher risks that they have some control over than risks that they have no control over. Thus, people worry about flying on airplanes but they don't worry about driving a car -- even though the likelihood of death in the latter case is much higher.

Then there is the factor of xenophobia. The Oklahoma City bombing didn't trigger new laws, massive increase in security spending, deployment of the military, etc. Hey, it was one of us, so it was just a nut case. Whereas them furriner nut cases, they's dangerous!

The most important factor in terrorism is the willingness to be terrorized. The American people are easily terrorized. Not so the British. They're not going off half-cocked, ready to invade somebody over this. Americans are wimps.

There a lot of thoughtful responses in the remarks above. I anticipated the likelihood that some would focus on this administration's manipulation of the public's fear of terrorism to promote a policy that it desired to implement for reasons not related to terrorism. However, I was more interested in exploring why we are open to such manipulation. (However, feel free to pursue the manipulation of fear aspect if you want to). Some of the psychological explanations attempt to offer reasons of as to why we are so susceptible, but I would be interested in more elaboration.

I don't think the explanation that looks at the possibility of terrorists using WMDs and killing millions is incomplete. If the public has such an over-riding fear, why doesn't it demand a crash program to identify and dismantle the former Soviet Union's WMDs which are the most likely source of such weapons? Also, why is this fear greater than that of a bird flu mutation leading to a human epidemic or some other source of a mass epidemic. The 1918-19 flu epidemic killed between 20 and 40 million world wide. This was on a much smaller population base than exists today. The likelihood of some similar epidemic is at least as great as a major WMD event, yet we take very few steps to prepare our public heath systems to confront the possibility. In fact, if one considers the world generally, HIV/AIDS will probably rival the Spanish flu yet our expenditures to contain and treat it are miniscule compared to resources directed at terrorism.

The other thing that I find strange is the almost total lack of public discussion of the relative risks we face from such events. What is the reason for failure of the media to even raise the issue for discussion. One would think that commentators would be counselling the public to keep terrorism risks in perspective, instead, all I could find in a Google search was this October 15th 2001 piece in the Tech and Science section of MSNBC. It's actually quite good and worth skimming. Fear Analysis. The only other thing I found in a simple search was this "Watch Blog" discussion and reference to Michael Moore's book. Blog Discussion

Its simple...because people feel that they have some sort of control over the issues you stated. When we get into our cars and drive around...the probablity of getting into an accident is accepted because we have control over the car. When you are in control...there is little fear. In terms of diseases such as AIDS...again when a person consents to unprotected sex...they are making a conscious desicion to accept the risks involved.

Terrorism is a different animal. We have no control. When i am riding the bus to work...i am not expecting for the man next to me to have sticks of TNT strapped to his chest and blow up all the passengers.

By the way you presented the statistics...you are taking it out of context. Your point only analyzes this issue from the point of view that people die from different causes and that terrorism isnt at the top of the list. But its not just the act of people being slaughtered...its all the psychological effects placed upon the rest of the population. I mean are we truly trying to equate the death of a person from a disease and the beheading of an innocent played over the internet. Both are tragic but are hardly equivalent.



I think many people in this country forget that the single greatest check on all government power is that of an election. We elect our leaders to represent our views. If they are no longer representing our beliefs...then we vote them out...simple as that.



Well thats one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that instead of sitting back and taking it like a man so to speak...we decided to actually do something about it and fight. While the many of the Europeans have decided that just getting by through appeasement is good enough...Americans don't see it that way. We will not forgo our freedom and our integrity to the whims of extremists. And if i remember correctly...there was quite a sizable coalition of multinational forces that invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.



I think i'll keep the spinning going by making this point. Many on the left accuse conservative representatives and our president of using fear of terrorism to promote their agenda. Well those in opposition of the administration try to invoke fear of government to promote their agenda. I mean after the Patriot Act it is argued that the government is going to search my home for no apparent reason other than that they don't like me. Both sides of the aisle have been intellectually dishonest in a number of terms.

Some of the psychological explanations are ingrained in human nature. What is worse? The murder of a person or the sexual abuse and murder of another person? Obviously both resulted in the same consequence but the extenuating circumstances regarding the second scenario evoke much more horror and disdain.

Humans fear malicous pre-determined murder for something they do not believe they have anything to do with. A stranger walks up and kills you as opposed to dying in a battle against an enemy. It's the organization that wants us dead just because we are who we are and not what they want us to be. We don't know who there members are, they dont wear a uniform and come storming in a combat formation, they walk down the street in civilian clothes and think of the best way to kill the largest amount of us that they can. It's a human enemy that could be your nextdoor neighboor.

It's not like a car accident, or a death from AIDS. It's a random explosion from another human whose only objective is to kill as many of us as possible.

Of course this is all just "boogymen" stuff, there really isnt people out there like this.

Two points. First, the Europeans have been living with terrorism far longer than we have. Remember the Red Brigades? The Baader-Meinhof Gang? The IRA? The Basque terrorists? The Europeans have been living with terror since the early 70s. I don't think their overall body count equals ours, but it's been a constant element in their lives. And they didn't respond with appeasement. They tackled the problem directly, going after the terrorists themselves. It's an ongoing struggle, but they don't obsess on it the way Americans do and they didn't lash out blindly. They treat it as one of the problems of modern society and they do what they can to minimize it. It's a very pragmatic approach.

Second point: how do we "forgo our freedom and our integrity to the whims of extremists"? I assume that by extremists you mean terrorists -- but terrorists cannot do anything at all to weaken our freedom and integrity. They can kill us, yes -- but only WE can compromise our freedom or our integrity with our own reaction to the terrorists. That's the real danger of American overreaction to terrorism: that in our terror we'll do stupid things.

About half of deaths to disease are directly caused by the body's own immune system. Micrograms of pollen can trigger an immune system response that can, in extreme cases, kill the victim. I suggest that America is responding to terrorists in much the same fashion. Achoo! Sniffle! Gasp! Wheeze!

I completely understand that Europeans have been dealing with their own brand of terrorism for years. But there is definitely a difference between these domestic terrorists and Islam-fascists. First of all, Al Qaeda is worldwide network with training camps and safe haven in a number of countries. These Islamic terrorists carry out suicide attacks because their religion dictates to them that they will end up in paradise. And finally...Al Qaeda is fighting and ideal in democracy and freedom. It isn't a dispute of over territory or a disagreement with a single government. So while the domestic terrorists of Europe are most definitely a threat...it pales in comparison with that of Al Qaeda who are fighting for no cause other than to wreak havoc and destruction.



You can't do much of anything if you are dead right? I mean you are absolutely correct in your assessment but its hard to stand up for your beliefs when a suicide bomber sits next to you on the bus.

There is an obvious difference between outright fear and rational caution. I mean when you go into your car...it is the smart thing to fasten your seatbelt. Its not that you are afraid of going through the windshield...its because you are making a rational decision that you are just a bit safer if ever an accident occurs.



You can't equate a disease to terrorism. Its beyond apples and oranges... The only principle you are applying in your analysis is actual loss of human life. Its like trying to equate death from a heart attack and a brutal murder....its not the same.

Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets



Look i am not afraid to go into NYC or DC because of a nuclear threat. The fear isnt going to make me stay in my basement and dig a really big hole to hide. But you know what?...i also don't want a nuclear bomb to go off.

Where's Jack Bauer when you need him?

One day last year, on my way to the store, I stepped over a young man lying on the sidewalk. He had two bullets in his stomach, was alive, and waiting for the ambulance. The police hadn't got there yet. He was shot by a local, not a terrorist. It never made the local tv or newspapers. If I am to die a violent death; it is more likely to be by the trigger finger of a local youth than a terrorist. I don't understand why media give disproportionate periods of time to the current fear. Perhaps because it is more dramatic; 3,000 dead in one go on 9/11. A plane crash horrifies us all and gets our attention, but car accidents don't. We all know that lives lost to Airplane crashes are insignificant when compared to car deaths, but we still are drawn to the mass-killing-at-once. We still argue Hiroshima, but don't talk about the rifle shots during WW2 that killed many more people.

Terrorism is a casualty of open WAR. Though not understood by most people it is an effect to a cause and visa versa. It did not arrive inside of a vaccum.
Some sides have big armies, technologies, fire power, some have rocks, home-made bombs, bodies and an ideology that refuses to be cowed into domination by exterior forces, forces that cannot be accepted in any way by the invaded.

They HAVE NO ARMY. They fight in any way they can.

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

Its an attention getter. It makes news. Its out of the ordinary and its spectacular!
Ive wondered this myself. Why does the US army get to blow up thousands of women and babies but if a suicide bomber blows up one it makes the news? You know, I just dont get it! Must be the Liberal media.

Terror:
I would do it. If I had a country and a religion and I wanted, as ALL people do, self determination and some arrogant, self absorbed, do good country thought they could come and tell me how to live, I would kill every person, civilian or otherwise standing in the way of stealing my resources, pretending to be liberators while occupying my country and causing a divide and conquer situtation, causing my people to hate each other, because 'they' came here to 'fix' us. First and foremost Id get 'them' out, by any means available.
The Christian hoards who actually came to take the oil under the guise of 'reconstruction' would be the first to go.
We SUPPORTED SADDAM HUSSEIN and OSAMA BIN LADEN, hence, this war has a history! Its not new, we are not 'good', we are greedy and vile, just like them.

I personally dont care about terrorism, Im not afraid of it. I see it as really good propaganda.
I care about how we act towards each other on this planet. Not one of you can say," kill all terrorists" while you support this administration in its support for Saudi Arabia. If you are hypocritical in your support, please then , do not whine or blow hard to anyone, least of all here about dead friends, bombed buses and trains, or any kind of terrorism.

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

The question requires only a simple answer that is lost on many. We 'fear' terrorism because terrorists, unlike the US military, intentionally targets innocent lives. Not as an afterthought, but as a purpose. Not as an unfortunate side effect to war, but as a purpose. Not as something to be avoided, but as a purpose. Our military stands down and aborts strikes and missions daily for reasons of civilians in the area. It's quite the sure bet that the insurgents, terrorists or 'glorious freedom fighters' (whichever designation you prefer) do not take any steps to avoid civilians, in many cases their own countrymen. Those who can't draw the moral line between 'us' and 'them' cannot in good faith or honesty, draw a moral line between a drunk driver or a pedophile, or someone who cheats on their taxes and a serial killer.

We fear terrorism because when someone blows up a teaching hospital in Mosul, or drives a car bomb into a crowd of children receiving candy, we aren't fearing someone defending their country, we aren't fearing some poor soul who gosh darn it, just doesn't have jet planes and an army...........we are fearing someone who does not value life by any measure.

Apologists can blather on about the poor underequipped terrorists, and their noble fight, but it boils down to intent. Terrorists specifically intend to instill fear in a populace by killing women and children, more often than not, in the name of some mythical omnipotent guy-in-the-sky. Not only are they evil, but they are delusional evil, and cannot be reasoned with. That is why people fear them.

Though it's a common bromide (don't give up freedom for security), and I've used it myself in certain context, it's a fact that security provides that freedom. If I'm in real and constant danger of getting blown up while going to the grocery store, or my children taken from me and tortured for some exploiter's gain, a piece of paper stating that I am free does not make it so.


Well, epidemics have historically led to social decline and mass hyteria. People react when they and their loved ones are threatened by conditions under which they have little control. We (as a society) weren't worried about terrorism at all when the USS Cole, Kobar towers, and an American embassy in Africa were bombed...even though a terrorist attack on our own soil was always a possibility. When the same organization hit our civilian population directly and catastrophically it became a more pressing and urgent concern.

Well that strikes to the very core of this debate doesn't it? Why do you feel that you are quote "in real and constant danger of getting blown up while going to the grocery store, or my children taken from me and tortured for some exploiter's gain"? I can certainly understand the emotions behind that but if you look at it intellectually it is a ridiculous fear.

You have a far greater chance of being in a fatal car accident while taking your kids to the grocery store than you do of a terrorist strapping on some TNT and blowing the place up. The car accident would be just an unexpected and beyond your power to do anything about. Yet somehow I doubt you take a hard look at your car every time you get in and wonder if this is going to be the day.

Furthermore, this fear of terrorism is even more ridiculous for the majority of Americans because the places where most Americans live simply wouldn't be good targets. Terrorists are going to go for high profile targets in populated areas, all of their major attacks have fit this profile. They aren't going to blow up the local stop and shop in nowheresville, kansas they are going to be after bigger targets like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, etc. So unless you live in one of those major cities you really are being "terrified" about nothing. They also aren't going to hit the targets we have hardened, so you are pretty darn safe on an airplane.

Even in those big cities you statistically have a much larger chance of being the victim of violent crime. Violent Crime is certainly something people don't take lightly but again, no one is constantly terrified of being murdered when they walk out the door to do a little shopping.

I can understand why people are afraid, but it is really pretty ridiculous if everyone would just stop for a second and think about it.

Um...Notice the qualifying 'if'. I'm not afraid to go to the grocery store. That would be the case in, say, Iraq, where there are extreme security risks that require measures like road checkpoints. No one in the US (perhaps some eccentric hiding in a padded room somewhere) is that fearful, obviously. I was responded to the quote I posted.

DTOM, you seem to be mixing the moral distinction with the emotional response. Yes, we can readily dismiss any claims to morality on the part of terrorists. But that doesn't justify fear. I can condemn the morality of an executive who cooks the books, but I am not terrorized by him. I feel about terrorists the same way I feel about great white sharks. Definitely very, very bad. Definitely something to keep at bay. But we will never exterminate great white sharks nor will we ever exterminate terrorism. We put up shark nets on some beaches and check passports more carefully. But I don't lose my emotional bearings when dealing with terrorists.

This, I think, is the central issue: why do Americans allow themselves to be terrorized by terrorists? One would think that, since the primary purpose of terrorists is to terrorize, the first thing we'd tell ourselves is, "Let's not get terrorized". But in fact our politicians go in the opposite direction; they love to remind us of all those mushroom clouds looming in our future.

Your reference to apologists for terrorism seems off-base to me. Aside from Ward Churchill, I can't think of any apologists for terrorism here in the States. Sure, there are plenty in the Middle East. But as far as the American political scene goes, talking about apologists for terrorism here seems to me a diversion from the real issues of terrorism. We all agree that terrorism is a Bad Thing with capital letters. We all agree that terrorism is immoral. But let's not jump from that agreement to wild-eyed "Nuke Mecca!" talk, as one Congresscritter just did.


You're in real and constant danger of being hit by a meteor falling from the sky, but that doesn't justify living underground. Total American civilian casualties from terrorism in this century have been about 3,000 in five years, or 600 per year. That's less than the number of people who died in boating accidents every year. The US Coast Guard estimates that about 400 lives per year could be saved if everybody wore their life jackets -- but we don't have some sort of Boating Patriot Act with FBI frogmen jumping on boats, guns drawn, dragging people off to jail because they're not wearing their life jackets.

We have lost all sense of perspective with respect to the dangers of terrorism. Yes, it's bad -- but boating accidents are worse. A third of a million people are treated for dog bites every year -- but we're not having the FBI keep files on dog owners. Terrorism is not a significant threat. So why should we sacrifice our freedoms to prevent it?

And without the media to tell us we were being threatened, just how many people would be scared witless of the terrorists?

I'm far more scared of my girl friend being killed in the traffic than I am of any thing else on the planet. We live in the centre of the city and next to the fire station and as a consequence of seeing how often the emergency services are called out I tell her every day to be carefull on the road ever time I say good bye to her.

Short of a city wide attack with mass death weapons though, I can't see what there is for me to fear from Islamic, or any other type of terrorism.

I will take it even one step further-

Boating accidents, preventable diseases, car accidents, dog attacks BORING BORING BORING- dont win election with issues- win with fear

Terrorism- not boring, easy to win elections based on fear.

Think that about says it all.

Mrs. Pigpen


Yes, thanks to our invasion an Iraqi has every reason to rationally fear terrorism but we are talking about our fear and that is entirely another matter.

Dontreadonme


This is untrue on two counts. Terrorists do generally target innocents but they usually have a very particular political goal in mind while doing so. On the other hand, militaries often target civilians trying to terrorize them into submission. Some examples are: the blitz bombing of English cities, the British bombing of Hamburg, the bombing of German civilian populations generally, the bombing of Dresden in particular, and more recently, the almost total destruction of Fallujah including the deliberate targeting of hospitals. There are dozens of other examples, the British even used gas and bombed villages in the 1920s while trying to put down Iraqi insurgents.

British WMD Article

Anyway, as Erasmussimo has pointed out, our question is not one of moral judgment on the perpetrators but of our reaction to their acts.

You're justifying the intentional slaying of innocents because they had a political goal??? Oh, since you put it that way.....why oh why are we condemning them? After all they had a political goal......
My post is still true, you have not refuted the fact that they intentionally target innocent civilians, you have only attempted to justify their actions. Secondly, don't you think that historical references may not be appropriate for the specific threat we are dealing with now? Let's stick to current references, such as Fallujah. What you term the almost total destruction of Fallujah including the deliberate targeting of hospitals, I call fighting the terrorists where they are attacking us from. I don't hear the condemnation from you that the 'insurgents' violated Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare by using mosques and hospitals as weapons caches and fighting positions.
Link

Maybe it was in line with their political goals.


Moral judgement on the perpetrators is the key component to the sub title to the thread - Why do we fear terrorism the most?

I guess I'm missing the connection between FBI frogmen jumping on boats to drag people to jail for not wearing their lifevests and the counter-terrorism equivalent. Maybe you can elaborate. I'll try this again...perhaps I was stuttering or something the first time I posted it as this is the second time I've been accused of being afraid to go to the grocery store. We are free in large part because we are secure. I fail to see the "terror hysteria" that others on this thread seem to think is such an epidemic. At the same time, the weapons available today make those threats a very real concern. If the Catholic Church had possessed chemical and nuclear weapons during the time it was omnipotent, most of us wouldn't be here. That is roughly the radical mentality of many of those who wish to kill us. It isn't the federal government's responsibility (or it shouldn't be) to ensure I wear a life jacket or eat right and take vitamins. It is the federal government's responsibility to protect us from attacks.

First of all, you really need to check your attitude at the door. By making the post and rebutting the previous post by Erasmussimo you are taking this position whether you are speaking hypothetically or not. If that isn't your position then clarify it, don't get defensive. When numerous people seem to interpret something a certain way that would tend to indicate a problem with the original post and not the reading comprehension of an entire group of people... something to ponder.

Secondly, if you fail to see the terror hysteria then you have a pretty short term memory. You'll probably find thousands of stories about people who had terror hysteria for years after 9/11, in fact we have debated some of them here. Recently, the entire country appeared to be a little shaken after the london incident.

But, my point was that people are completely willing to sacrifice our freedoms and civil liberties in the name of security when there isn't any need to do that. Why do they do it? It is because they are afraid, or to use your words have "terror hysteria".

Dontreadonme


How is pointing out that terrorists generally have political goals justifying them? On the contrary, I condemn terrorism and take it far too seriously to use it politically as a tool to justify policies that have little or nothing to do with terrorism as this administration has. I think your real concern is that I also condemn military terror tactics.

My real concern is that we consider the threat from terrorism in the context of other threats and concerns and not allow ourselves to be singularly obsessed with it.

Dontreadonme


I fail to see any moral component unless you attribute some super natural evil to terrorism that creates its own fear. The question is straight forward. Why do we fear (an emotional response) terrorism more than we fear other things more likely to kill us or our loved ones?

It's quite the given that terrorists have political goals, it doesn't even need to be re-stated.
You wrote This is untrue on two counts. Terrorists do generally target innocents but they usually have a very particular political goal in mind while doing so.
That smacks more of justification than a rebuttal. I don't think that you're a terrorist supporter, but you failed to state how my post was untrue.
I condemn 'military terror tactics' when and where they occur. The problem is the vast left wing noise machine pumps out so much propaganda, the average lay person doesn't get the full picture. I rebutted your claim in Fallujah.

We fear terrorism (I believe), because it is an act committed by other humans. Not a microbe, not an act of nature, but sentient humans who have repeatedly shown that they will intentionally target people who haven't an iota of connection to their supposed political goals. And this intentional targeting surpasses the random or even pre-mediated crimes committed by one or a few against one or a few. These acts are committed against as many as possible, against targets that have little or no military or significant infrastructural value. It is the slaying of people that is the goal. Subways, nightclubs, teaching hospitals and groups of children show the populace that nobody and nowhere is safe. I'm actually surprised the Mall of the America's hasn't been hit yet.
Of course the ordinary American or Brit won't be a victim of terrorism, and there is an element of irrationalism to their fear, but it is our moral judgement of these people and our western (or human) reaction to these attacks as a sort of evil, that causes our fear of them.

Mrs Pigpen opines that we are free in large part because we are secure. I agree that basic security is essential to freedom, but I think that the level of security needed to be free is much lower than the insecurity that terrorism imposes upon us. After all, there is no such thing as absolute security -- only degrees of security. If we measure security by the probability that we will be injured or killed, then terrorism simply does not constitute a significant threat to our security, because the probability that any single American will die due to terrorist action is lost in the noise of accidental deaths.



By your reasoning, DTOM, we should not fear sharks, snakes, heights, spiders, or sharp objects, because none of them suffer our moral reprobation. Yet we do fear these things, because fear is irrational. And that is the the issue that we as a society must decide: do we react rationally, or do we allow ourselves to be terrorized? Do we concentrate on the blood and the gore, and how evil these people are -- or do we concentrate on the cold issues?

What exactly is your point? The fact that we fear terror attacks doesn't equate into - we don't fear anything else. We fear sharks because they bite, we fear spiders because they bite, we fear heights because we could fall.....etc.....We fear terror because the average citizen could, for no other reason than being there, be attacked.
Fear may indeed be irrational, but it is also normal and human. We haven't transmogrified into a vulcan society without emotion.

The fear may very well be overblown, but is is present in the minds of many. So, yes, let's stick to the facts. Hard and cold.

Terrorists kill innocent lives purposefully. It doesn't get much more base and void of emotion than that.

A couple of points twitched my nose reading this thread:


Mrs. Pigpen.

I don't mean to imply you are hysterical, but I would point out that hysterical people never see the hysteria, thats why they are hysterical.

If they were able to perceive the panic then they would be aloof from it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dontreadonme

No you didn't. You provided a link to the same site you used last time you and I debated this point, and that link provides no evidence of any fighting from hospitals in Fallujah except to claim that 3 hospitals in Fallujah were used as defensive positions.

As I pointed out to you the last time you made this claim, there are ....sorry, were only four hospitals in Fallujah, one of which was an as yet unused Saudi built clinic. That and another were totally flattened by the USAF in the opening stages of the campaign and so were never used for anything at all, the third was Fallujah General Hospital which was held by coalition forces troughout the main battle period (and blokaded from the civilian population)

The only remaining 'hospital' left to service the population of Fallujah was a small former Iraqi military clinic, which had no water or electricity.

To date I have not seen any evidence of any hospitals being used as 'defensive positions'. If you have such evidence then by all means lets see it, but in the mean time, suffice to say that you have not rebutted TedN5's claim that the US deliberately targeted hospitals in Fallujah...


Other than that, I agree with you that:





editted for clarification

Ted:

Why are you limiting the threat to that of death, since this isn't about death? This is about life and on what terms we plan on living that life.

If I may borrow from our Polish friend, John Sobieski, who in September of 1683 brought himself and roughly 60,000 Christian fighters to Vienna, to meet an Ottoman Muslim army of roughly 250,000: "It is not a city alone that we have to save, but the whole of Christianity, of which the city of Vienna is the bulwark. This war is a holy one."

It has been a "holy war" for roughly 1,300 years. In 670 AD/CE, the army of the Umayyad caliph attacked Constantinople [Istanbul]. Constantinople was the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The seige of Constantinople lasted seven years, with eventual Muslim withdrawal. In the meantime, Islam was being spread via conquest across Byzantine ruled North Africa, from Egypt to Morocco. They "converted" the Berbers [or Moors]. In 711, the Berbers/Moors invaded the Iberian peninsula [Spain and Portugal] and by 715 had conquered most of Iberia. In 721, the Moors crossed the Pyrenees and attacked the southernmost dukedom of the Franks, Aquataine. Following their defeat, they continued to raid, and then in 732, Aquataine was attacked once again. The Moors were victorious on that occasion and sacked the city of Bordeaux and burned the cathedral at Poitiers. To the rescue came Charles aka Martel [the "hammer"]. He and his army of Franks defeated the Moors at the Battle of Tours in either 732 or 733 [we're not sure of the exact date]. The Battle of Tours came to be known to Christian/Western civilization as THE battle that stopped the Moors' [Muslims'] further advance into Europe. But the Moors continued to raid France, with such raids only ending when the Moors in North Africa decided to stage their own uprising. The period of raiding ended around 740. To finish with Iberia, the Moors ruled for another 700 years until, ironically enough, in the very year that Columbus sailed for the New World, Christians expelled the last of the Muslim Moors from Spain.

Back to the Near East. Following the Umayyad defeat at Constantinople in 750, the Abbasids took the reigns of power of the Muslim empire [caliphate], with their capital in, of all places, Baghdad. Thereafter, in 900 or so, the Abbasid caliphate splintered into several caliphates, but that did not stop Muslim conquest, and here think Sicily and India. Sicily was under Muslim control for nearly 300 years. And if certain historians are correct, the Holocaust perpetrated against the Hindus makes the Holocaust perpetrated by the Germans look like a schoolyard brawl [a number of instances of Muslim recorded massacres of between 50,000 - 100,000 Hindus in a day].

Now, to briefly introduce what I left out above, the Muslims had already taken what was then Christian Palestine. So in the 11th century, European kings and popes decided to retake Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land. We call those attempts the Crusades. The first Crusade succeeded in retaking Jerusalem, and it was held for roughly 100 years, until the Muslims retook the Jerusalem, etc. Then, a previous unknown entered the stage and upset the applecart [as it were]. In 1258, the Mongol "hordes" captured Baghdad and massacred its population. And so ended the Muslim caliphate centered, as related, in Baghdad.

Then arose the new Muslim power, the Ottoman Turks. In 1452, the Ottomans beseiged and took Constantinople. And if one cares to learn the lessons of history, then one need remember that the Muslims received prior help in their attempt, as previously, the Franks, the former heroes, launched their own assault on the Byzantine empire while on a Crusade, and they sacked Constantinople and left the Byzantine empire a fragmented shadow of its former self. And so, again, in 1452 the Ottoman Muslims once again beseiged Constantinople and took it. But not only Constantinople, as over the next 100 or so years, the Ottomans went on to take Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania, and Hungary. Then the Ottoman Muslims marched on Vienna in 1529. After being defeated, the Ottomans tried again in 1566. The Ottomans' second attempt also failed, and then 100 years later, we have the third time's the charm attempt and our above-mentioned friend, John Sobieski.

Lucky for us, Sobieski's army was successful and the Ottomans vacated Vienna and environs in defeat. Their seige marked the high point of their empire, and after their defeat, the Ottoman empire entered a period of continual albeit gradual decline. The Ottomans did retain Constantinople aka Istanbul, but one by one, the formerly conquered European countries, or their people, rebelled and reclaimed their independence.

Then, in 1798, comes Napolean and his rule of conquered Egypt. And so began the era of European imperialism in the Muslim world. The Russians took over Central Asia [all of those countries ending with -stan, etc.], the French, North Africa, the British, Egypt, and the Dutch, Indonesia.

Then comes WWI, and with the defeat of Germany, its ally, the Ottoman empire, lost some more of its empire, as the French took Syria and the British took Iraq and Palestine.

And here is where we need to be, since in 1924, a young military officer named Mustafa Kemal Ataturk overthrew the last of the Ottomans and founded the modern nation of Turkey. And here is the key to the whole affair, since for the very first time ever in the history of Islam [1,300 years of history], Mustafa Kemal set up a secular government that separated government from religion. And in his name, the term, Kemalism, was coined. For just what Kemalism is, please see:

http://www.ataturksociety.org/asa/voa/kemalizm.html

But before you go there, the foundation of Kemalism: "The foundation of advancement was clear and indisputable: a secular republican democratic system."

And to those who here and elsewhere claim that Osama/Usama and friends have "hijacked" a faith/religion, you could not be more wrong. Osama has stated on any number of occasions, and so have any number of others preaching hatred and intolerance against the West, that he and they would like to see a new Islamic caliphate. And once that is accomplished, then we go back to our 1,300 years of history of warfare between Islam and Christian Europe [and now the US, Canada, and Australia, as well, and we can even toss in the Catholic Philippines]. And as I have said elsewhere on this forum, and as I said above, it isn't about the number of dead, or our deaths, but about our lives and the manner in which we live those lives. Osama & Co. don't believe in Kemalism. As I related on that other thread, Osama and his friends at CAIR want to see a Muslim America wherein the Qur'an and shari'a rule the land. And believe it or not, like it or not, their plan is to infiltrate us first, i.e., to immigrate as much as possible and outbreed us along the way. That way, when the caliphate comes into existence and then becomes strong enough to openly challenge the West, we will not only have to deal with an external enemy, but also with the enemy within. And, no, I am not saying that all Muslims, or even a current majority, hold that view. But one must wonder why, if we are so decadent and so evil, the Saudi Wahabbis are pumping all of this money into the US and Europe to establish mosques, schools, etc., with nearly all of them preaching the same intolerant hatred of all things Western.

And the reason why we are being attacked now is because there are actually two wars going on, the war between Muslim and Christian [or more correctly, Christian, Jewish, pagan, and atheist], and the internal war within Islam, which is between the Osamas, who want to see an Islamic caliphate, and the Kemal Ataturks, who want to see an Islam within a secular, republican, democratic government. So whether those in power were and are aware of the matter or not, the West has taken sides in an internal war within Islam. And so we are being attacked. And, no, they do not expect to defeat us. Instead, they want us to end our support for the Kemal Ataturks of the Muslim world.

And, ironically enough, for those against the Iraq war, the best argument you have is that although Saddam was certainly no Kemal Ataturk, at least he was a secular leader [and one who crushed with a rather ruthless brutality the Osamas], and as evil as he may have been, at least he was preferable to a possible Islamic state [with a majority Shia population, we run the risk of another Iran]. And so, when you hear Dubya and Co. speak of a secular Iraqi government that is all inclusive, you're hearing Dubya speaking the words of Kemal Ataturk. And as should be obvious, that redounds to our benefit in 2 ways, i.e., we hope to Kemalise Islam, and we hope that such puts an end to 1,300 years of warfare between Islam and the West.

Sorry for the quasi-short, quasi-long history lesson, but, again, the question isn't one of merely winning a so-called war on terrorism, the question is one of the future course of the Muslim world, i.e., will there be a new Islamic caliphate that may one day resume it's 1,300 war with the West [Christianity, etc.], or will we see the spread of Kemalism throughout Islam. And the success of that struggle will determine not so much whether we live or die, but how we live. As the Ataturks of America so aptly put the matter:

"The positivist, rational and realistic answer to these questions would be: Theocracy in general, Muslim religion in particular do not allow freedom of thought, democratic society, sovereignty of people, hence advancement. People must have sovereignty in order to be able to be independent and to advance. To challenge secularism is tantamount to endangering the sovereignty of the people (democracy). Once the people are robbed of their sovereignty they will cease pursuing progress."

So if you think that the risk of avian flu is bad now, just wait until we are robbed of our sovereignty and then cease to pursue progress. And, no, I am not intending to dehumanize anyone, but just look at the Muslim world, largely mired in poverty, and when was the last time some new medical or other discovery, invention, what have you, came out of the Muslim world? So this so-called war on terrorism, properly understood, is not simply against the bombing of the no. 9 bus, but against the bombing of the no. 9 bus and in favor of such progress that may one day enable us to eliminate poverty, eliminate the danger of avian flu, and eliminate and/or solve all those other things that you wish to see made better and safer. And, frankly, it's time that we stopped looking at the next five years, or our lifetimes, and instead took the long term view of where are we going to be when it's our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children who have inherited our world. So as Dubya & Co. have been saying, settle down to a long war [and, remember, it's already been 1,300 in progress].

Lastly, so there is no mistake, Constantinople and the Byzantine empire were the first bulward against the Islamic caliphate. With the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine empire, it became Vienna and the Holy Roman empire. And now, you guessed it, it wasn't simply because of the threat posed by the USSR that Turkey is in NATO. No, not just that, but also because Turkey is now the bulwark. And the debate now raging re Turkey's admission to the EU can be summed up rather simply, to wit, those on the one side who want to see Kemalism succeed, with the bulwark extending outward and across Islam, and who are otherwise willing to risk a change of course, and those who desire the same, but are not willing to take the risk re Turkey once again becoming the caliphate, with all that such entails.

Sorry if that was not the answer you were looking for, but that's the answer to your question, at least when we've taken into account our and their history.

I was responding to your earlier statement:

You were claiming that we fear terrorism because it is not an act of nature. This would suggest that we don't fear nature. OK, so now you assert that we do fear nature. So why then do we fear terrorism?


Indeed, we have not. But should we allow our fear to affect our judgment? I don't deny the emotional validity of fear, but I think it should be kept out of the decision-making process. We use our emotions to decide what we want to accomplish -- then we use our logic to decide how to accomplish it.

In any case, we are both getting away from the topic under consideration, which is why we fear terrorism. You maintain that we fear terrorism because terrorists are evil people. I believe that we fear terrorism because we're ignorant and narrow-minded. Let's compare terrorists with great white sharks more closely, shall we?

Suppose that somebody posted a debate topic asking "Why do we fear great white sharks?" And somebody else responded by explaining that great white sharks kill people. That's fine so far. But suppose now that somebody else explains at length the great white sharks are especially fearsome because they don't need to attack people, but can live quite happily attacking seals and fish; that great white sharks attack and kill people but often don't eat the entire body; they just kill for the bloodlust of killing; that great white sharks will attack boats and eat oars and swallow paint can lids and every time they eat somebody, that just gives them the resources to make even more great white sharks; and they're everywhere, they can show up on almost any beach, and they have REALLY BIG TEETH...

At this point I would start to wonder if this person hasn't gotten obsessed with great white sharks. Yes, all of these things are true, and yes, great white sharks are fearful things, but in the grand scheme of things, they're not what I consider a major threat to civilization.

But now suppose somebody posts a long history of great white sharks, discussing in gory detail every great white shark attack ever documented, listing the arms and legs bitten off, the size of the wounds, the amount of blood in the water, and so forth. They provide a long anatomy lesson on the great white shark, showing how it's a perfect killing machine, that it's always on the move, that it can sense blood and certain kinds of splashing from far away, and so on. They point out that great white sharks are not Christians, and in fact are evil, evil atheists who don't like puppies and kittens and in fact would kill puppies and kittens at their first opportunity.

What are we to think of people who carry on like this about great white sharks? Yes, everything they say is true. But in the grand scheme of things, great white sharks just aren't that important. If we allowed this fear to overwhelm us, then nobody would ever go near the ocean, and without any shipping our society would collapse -- but that's due to our own fears, not the great white sharks.

I suggest that terrorists are like great white sharks with the volume turned up. With some reasonable precautions, the threat they impose can be kept to a level we can live with. But some people just go nuts over this issue, allowing their fear to overcome their better judgment, to the detriment of us all.

If we are to engage in open war then terrorism upon us is simply part of that.
DTOM,


So have we with our great armies. We have carpet bombed innocents, destroyed their homes, shot and killed their families.
The truth of the matter is that on a scale of fear, we have done more damage.

They have no army. That is something that you have to understand at some point. They have no planes to drop bombs on us, a we do. They have no tanks to run down our streets. We are here living our lives, going work each day, the mall to shop, out to dinner at a fine restaurant, while our army does the killing. It affects us in daily life-nil.

These people do not go to shop, they sit at night with no electricity and no running water. They dont allow their children out on the street. They bury their dead between bombing raids.

DTOM- THEY cower, each day, every day and night because of what we are doing and what we have, as a christian, democratic nation decided to bring upon them, a civil war. They had no choice when we supported Saddam against Iran, they had no choice in our invasion, they just die and suffer more all the time as pawns.

Terrorism in the UK and the US is nothing in comparison. Noone is afraid of going to the grocery store! The terrorist threat is small potatoes. Have a war on their ground "so that we dont have to fight it here" is the epitome of cowardice, and lack of diplomacy. You say terrorists target innocents? Iraqis were the most innocent of all people and WE TARGETED THEM for nothing but having had a cruel dictator that we sponsored. Hows that DTOM for hypocrisy, cruelty and killing innocents?

Its talked about as if 'they' want to destroy western culture, what a bunch of crap!
At this rate it would take them longer than the destruction of the dinosaurs.

The fear machine is about another endless war. Actually I cant believe the public has bought the spectacle of an endless WOT. It just goes to show that the human being does not evolve quickly and would rather kill than solve their common problems with grace and expediency.

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

This is complicated.

Of course it does involve the subconscious fear of the unknown, as alluded to by others. It includes not wanting to be a victim.

A key, I think, is that we have examples of places were terrorism is fairly commonplace and we simply don't want downtown New York to turn into downtown Fallujah (or Tel Aviv for that matter). This is the real fear, that terrorist attacks with become common, not that you will be blown up walking into the Seven Eleven in downtown Rio Linda.

We have seen an escalation over the years. It was so gradual that not many people noticed until it struck downtown New York in September of 2001.

Why have we seemingly spent so many resources on this "little" problem recently? Simply because it has not been a high priority in the past. Now we need to spend more to make up for what we had not spent in the past. Also, there is a feeling that this threat is preventable, whereas car accidents and other causes of death are not really preventable.

Whether you agree or disagree with the methodology employed, I think most people would agree that something different needed to be done post-9/11. If you have a better plan/idea, convince the next President that your idea is the way to go.

Have meteors in recent history hit earth and killed thousands ? Have they sent us little notes telling us that god has told them to come here and kill us?

Does cancer only seek out individuals who do not accept it's believed superior religious ideology?

Do sharks only like the taste of white meat?

And not because I think any of these examples have any validity but Erasmussimo people do make long drawn out explanations and presentations of the dangers of Sharks ..the discovery channel is full of them. Jaws was a very popular horror movie, everyone in this country (and many other countries) knows what dada dada dadadada means.
In Australia when you visit a secluded beach that is in certain areas (queensland) the government has placed up signs warning of sharks and box jellyfish..all very real present dangers when you enter the ocean. In Florida the police or lifeguards whoever patrol the waters where people are swimming and if a shark or a pack of sharks is seen too close they will evacuate the waters. After shark attacks they usually close access off to the ocean completely to swimmers until they believe the danger has passed.

We teach our children dog safety..they are told never approach a strange dog, always ask the owners permission if you wish to pet the dog and the appropriate way to pet and/or play with a dog.

Auto makers are continuously improving safety standards..and they do have a set of gov. implemented standards they must adhere to. There are laws that say you must wear a seatbelt or a lifejacket.

And any fatal accident in my neighborhood is considered front page news.

I think all of the "examples" are ridiculous. Humans in general are NOT casual about death...no matter the cause.
Hitler only killed 6 million Jews..who cares then? I am sure many more people have died in car accidents since the 1930s so why bother focusing on how horrid Hitler was or Pol Pot or Stalin...we should all be focusing on motor vehicles instead or else we are hypocrites. How is this a reasonable argument?

People fear their enemies..more so when they are human. That is just they way we are. Sharks are a natural enemy, as would be a meteor. Why are we placing or making comparatives of terrorists murdering people as something natural? Why should we have to accept the idea that just as the rain falls when the clouds darken , or thunder strikes when the skies rumble or a shark will bite if you meet him in the water, that man will kill because you are not like him. I think KivrotHaTaavah summed it up perfectly for me when he/she said..This is about life and on what terms we plan on living that life. Sorry I don't want to live in a world where people get blown to bits for just going shopping, riding a bus or dancing in a disco. I don't want to be asked to regard this as if it was just another statistic of life..just another dog bite or auto accident.

bucket, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. My point is we should fear terrorism based on its danger, not on the moral depravity of the terrorist. If terrorists kill 100 people and sharks kill 50 people, then we should be twice as fearful of terrorists as of sharks. You and several others emphasize the moral depravity of the terrorists as a reason to fear them for more than the amount of injury they can inflict. If I'm faced with a deadly poisonous snake and a equally dangerous terrorist, I really don't care about any differences in the moral state of my two threats -- all I care about is the task of minimizing that threat.

There are so many boring, mundane ways to die -- and they are just as deserving of our concern and our resources as the dramatic, sensational ways to die. What counts here is minimizing human suffering, not worrying about the video on the news at 11.

Here's a table of various sources of death. What's striking about this is the number of deaths that we simply take for granted. For example, we lost 767 pedalcyclists in accidents in 2002. How many of those people could have been saved if only we had better bicycle lanes? How much would it have cost us to put in those bicycle lanes?

There's actually a way to measure this decision. It's called the "cost per life saved". According to the NHTSA, the cost per life saved in vehicle accidents through 2002 was $750,782. This report from the World Bank includes this cute factoid:


I don't know the cost per life saved of our current anti-terrorism measures, but I suspect that it is much higher than the cost per life saved of mundane measures, because we are so terrorized by terrorism that we lose our ability to consider the problem logically.

But it isn't simply about saving lives that are potentially lost due to terrorism, Erasmussimo. This struggle is one of culture as well as risk.

Of course we could probably be free of random killings and other major crimes (including terrorism) if we strip searched everyone, enforced strict curfews, or made everyone walk around naked. However, these things don't fit into our culture.

This isn't about doing what ever is needed to reduce deaths by terrorism: it's about reducing the effects of terror on everyday life.

Although reducing cancer risks or installing bike lanes might reduce deaths, NOT doing so will not change our way of life significantly.

Not for every one it isn't. For many people, terrorism is just a question of an especially violent but distant crime. Thats a part of the problem, right? We can't even agree on this. We are not sure what these people want, or what their motives are or who they are, or what we must do to stop them...

I even doubt that most people even really fear terrorism except in the most abstract way. Its more likely they get angry or indignant that some one else dared to attack their nation/ethnic group.

How are we ever going to solve this problem without a clear understanding as to what the problem even is?

KivrotHaTaavah


Thanks for the history lesson. Not much of it was new to me. All of it was irrelevant to the topic being discussed and most of it was not very meaningful to the current situation. If your purpose was to provide a frame of reference for bin Laden's motivations perhaps there is a point. However, I fail to swallow your over ridding thesis about a clash of civilizations. I would agree with you that the Bush Administration had goals in Iraq other than the ones they sold to the public but not the one you lay out. In either case, it doesn't say much for him as a democratic leader. Let's digress from the topic long enough to consider just what has been accomplished or not. According to the State Department terrorist acts are way up. According to opinion polls the standing of the U.S. throughout the Muslim World has dropped drastically. Bin Laden's numbers, on the other hand, are way up though lower than a year ago. Most importantly our actions and those of Israel have radicalized thousands if not 10s of thousands of potential terrorists. More and more studies are coming out showing that the invasion and occupation of Iraq played right into bin Laden's designs. Afghanistan is now a narco state largely governed by warlords. Meanwhile, Iraq is in utter chaos and approaching civil war if not in one.

You did make one point that I found relevant. I do think that some people reacted to the terrorist attack viscerally because they felt our greatness and sense of inviolability had been violated. Perhaps this is understandable; however, the invasion of Afghanistan should have been enough to satisfy our need for revenge. One would have hoped that we could have then adopted a more reasoned approach to a long and difficult struggle, one that should have been substantially non military, while keeping other important issues in perspective.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am suggesting draconian measures to stop terrorism; my overall argument points in the opposite direction. If, as I believe, Americans are terrorized by terrorism, then we conclude that they are over-reacting to the problem, which would include overly harsh security measures. The effects of terror on everyday life are objectively miniscule but they are subjectively perceived by Americans to be huge. This mismatch between reality and perception is what I mean when I say that Americans have played right into the hands of the terrorists by permitting themselves to become terrorized by what are, in the larger scheme of things, pinpricks. We need more of the British stiff upper lip and the ability to get on with life without obsessing on terrorism.

Yes I understood your point and I was disputing it based on the sense of opposition not inability to comprehend.

I don't think fear has a direct correlation with the statistics or the math. If I asked my kids who they feared most...sharks or terrorists I think they would answer sharks. Even tho ..by your logic..statistically and mathematically they should be more fearful of terrorists since terrorists have killed more humans than sharks have this year.

I don't agree with the premise of the debate....that we fear terrorism the most or have been obsessed with it or have even been all that terrorized by it. I think sharks are a very pervasive human fear as I have said even my 6 and 7 yr old would identify with it. I don't feel that this is the case with terrorists.

I just have not seen such a widely accepted and permeating view of terrorists. Terrorism and how we view it and approach it is very political not natural. To view a shark (or any other large predator) as a natural predator of man is something that all humans are in agreement on. It is a natural shared phenomena, much like many others and so regardless of whatever cited statistics it will continue to be so.

I don't think it is logical or beneficial to be asked to view terrorism similarly. I don't feel blowing people up because they don't think how you want them to think is a natural occurence of life on earth. I am not willing to accept that man can and only will act as animalistic as any other predator and so we must just clump deaths caused by man in along side those caused by sharks or germs or other natural causes. I think when it is something caused by our own hands we intrinsically recognize it is something we can control. How we each react or perceive this sense of control or causation is of course different but I do believe the root perception is the same. We know terrorism is of man's realm and so we feel more responsible to it. I don't think it invokes such a heightened sense or need for action because it is uncontrollable..but rather we do we believe we can control it.

Many things that our society upholds or personifies as things of great value and praise can not be easily defined, statistically accounted for or fixed with a monetary value. What is the point of art? Or making sure all kids get educated? Or spending millions so that people can have their own baby from their own DNA?
I think in that same progressive push our societies continually make we must also define and denounce and devalue those things we collectively abhor.

Citing terrorism as evil, making public condemnations and acknowledging not only it's fear but it's absolute antagonistic nature to our chosen way of life is by no means hysterical. It is what I would not only expect my culture/society to do it is what I think we all should do. I think it is the basic start or pursuit of a more liberal way of life.

bucket, perhaps we can agree that we are talking about two different kinds of fear. You are talking about the profound emotional reponse, during which your stomach churns and your skin crawls and your mouth goes dry. I am talking in terms of the reaction to the stimulus: do we respond to it in a rational manner or not? I believe that we are not reacting to terrorism rationally, and the emotion that supplants our reason is fear. The fear to which I refer is not the same kind of emotion to which you refer.


There's a big jump from irrational behavior to hysteria. No, I don't think we have become hysterical over terrorism. I do think we have become irrational about it. I still remember vividly my reaction while watching the video of the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. The narrator was expressing his utter disbelief at the events of the day. I blurted out in response, "What did you expect?" A terrorist attack such as 9/11 was the inevitable result of world developments up to that point. Indeed, my first reaction upon hearing the news was to mutter, "Well, it finally happened." First Americans were emotionally unprepared for the inevitable; when it happened, they swung around to fear. If we had been more rational up front we might have had preparations in place to prevent it. Now that it's happened, we need to use our heads instead of our stomachs. If we indulge in emotionalism, more people will needlessly die.

Interesting observation Erasmussimo. My reaction to the attacks was quite similar.
My second thought was, Oh no... GW Bush is the President of the USA...

I wonder if there is any significant connection between how people react to these attacks as they happen and their overall view of global Islamic terrorism...?

How many of those people who were taken completely by surprise on 11 Sept today share a pro or anti war stance for example?

I've already noted a strong tendency of the pro war camp to deny any share in the responsibility for what has taken place in the build up to todays global crisis (though many will gladly hold Clinton responsible).

The pro war camp also strikes me as being more influenced by fear, and this seems more obvious the more extreme they are.

This is an interesting point moif. For many Americans, our first reaction was "thank God GW Bush is the President" because we felt somehow safer that he would respond strongly to the attacks. (Just a visceral reaction, people, please let's not argue war policy on yet another thread). Even Democrats and liberal TV personalities made this point. I remember Jay Leno literally wiping his brow with a relieved "whew," referring to the fact that we almost had a President Gore during this crisis.

To take this one step further, I was taken by complete surprise by this, despite reading extensively on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and knowing about all of the previous attacks. By coincidence, at the exact day of the attack, I was on vacation and reading of a book that featured terrorists using a plane as a bomb. And I tend to be pretty hawkish regarding my view of terrorists - "pro war" even. I wouldn't say that I live in fear though. Defiance and anger on occasion, but not fear.

You are right about the direct cost per life saved of our terrorism policies, but don't forget what 9/11 did to the markets. economic effects of terror may be lasting (msnbc)

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

For me (and i'd venture to guess most Americans) the reason for this is September 11th.

We finally came to understand the extreme seriousness of the matter. We came to understand that we are now all targets. They came after us.....here....in our homes and workplace. They did it in a manner that was to cause maximum death on a catastrophic scale. Yes, ONLY 3,000 folks died that day. That was a minor miracle. When I watched those towers fall, I thought they had probably just murdered between 10,000 and 20,000 people. If those buildings had not been able to withstand the impact, it probably would have been worse.

Yes, we lost ONLY 3,000 folks that day....and we were EXTREMELY lucky we lost ONLY 3,000 souls that day.

These terrorists are evil, they are ruthless and most importantly COMMITTED to their cause which is to kill as many of us (you, me and everybody else who is an "infidel") as possible. They will try again. Most of us believe they will succeed. They have shown the willingness and propensity to escalate. They are actively searching for materials to produce nuclear bombs to set off in major U. S. cities.

Can anyone here imagine the chaos that would ensue if we were to see multiple nuclear weapons exploding in cities in the United States? Does anyone here hold out hope that if such a thing were to occur that we would not respond in kind to the entire middle east?

Their is a word for the result.....Armageddon.

So, in answer to your question...

Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?

I can only say this. To ME, their is no single greater issue facing the civilized world today. And we had better wake up to this fact REAL soon. Before its too late.

Call me an alarmist. Call me chicken little. Call me a sheep.

And while you are at it, call me scared....cause thats the REAL answer to your question.

I do believe that the terrorists have succeeded admirably in your case -- your declaration that they have succeeded in terrorizing you amounts to a victory for them. I can only ask that you set aside your terror and remember that rationalism lies at the heart of the greatness of Western Civilization. Let others think with their stomachs. By navigating with our minds we have journeyed where no men have gone before. Regressing to their level robs us of our greatest asset: our minds. Let us use them.

This is an interesting line of discussion. It's difficult to find any kind of statistics about supporters of the war versus opponents and their corresponding attitudes toward terrorism. Since most opponents of the war voted against Bush (not necessary for Kerry), they acted as the swing voters in some Blue states. Conversely real supporters of the war voted for Bush overwhelmingly. Is there anything we can conclude about the distribution of Blue and Red states? The thing that stands out to me is that the likely terrorist targets are almost entirely in Blue states - NY, NJ, MA, PA, IL, CA, DC and a few other cities that also tended to support Kerry. However, this may just be an artifact of previous party strongholds and the fact that many sophisticated voters who feared terrorism regarded the invasion as counterproductive.

As for my personnel reaction to the 9/11 attack, I was horrified but not surprised. I had repeatedly brought up the risks of terrorism to my circle of associates and had written an occasional letter to my Congressman and Senators. In particular, I remember a bull session in San Diego waiting for a system training session when I blurted out that it was inevitable that someone was going to bring a rusty ship into one of our harbors with a primitive nuclear device and seek to blackmail us or worse. I was somewhat reassured by another participant who had previously worked with the group trying to secure former Soviet nuclear materials. It was his contention that we did have devices that provided some kind of protection against this kind of threat. However, he went on to add that his real fear was bio-terrorism.

My concern about these kinds of events was raised by reading the RMI study Brittle Power written in the late 80s and illustrating how vulnerable our energy system was to terrorist disruption. Incidental (contrary to Condi Rice's statements) it talked about the potential of hijackers crashing airliners into nuclear power plants. I also followed the Hart/Rudman Commission on t