Is terrorism a major problem?

Paradoxum said:

A large number of people are never killed by terrorists. Even 911 killed a small number of people.

Click to expand...

Not sure if trolling or serious...

"Since when is intentionally killing large numbers of people in a single event not a significant problem?"

The number of people killed by terrorism per event is much higher than many other causes of death. In fact, outside of natural disasters, they probably are the highest. What other single event can you think of (outside of natural disasters) which killed over 2000 people?

And btw, we have broad political programs to address natural disasters as well. Even though, by gross totals, the numbers killed by natural disasters is relatively small compared to car accidents, cardiac disease, obesity, etc.

I might add that it is not zero sum. We can invest resources into combatting multiple problems at once. Hence, we have programs meant to tackle obesity, tornados, forest fires, gun violence, car accidents, gang violence, terrorism, etc.

Ok... so? You're still more likely to die fro a car crash. Does your corpse care how you died?

Click to expand...

By that logic, murdering someone in their sleep is a-ok.

Also, a car accident has no intentionality to it. Terrorist have intent to harm not only individuals, but whole societies.

But you aren't going to take great measures against small issue. You combat the issue relative to the extent of the problem.

Click to expand...

The terrorist ideology is at war with Western, democratic ideals. Unlike car accidents, the terrorist ideology is not static but will only grow if left unchecked.

Because laws against terrorism never reduce liberty or privacy? What did you think the issue was?

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't get that from your OP.

Why? No one care all that much about car deaths. So why do terrorist deaths matter all that much?

Click to expand...

Because terrorism is ideological. Car accidents are not.

I agree they are different, but why care about terrorist deaths all that much?

Click to expand...

Because terrorism is ideological. Car accidents are not.

The rate, frequency and severity of car accidents will not increase with time. The cars are not trying to destroy our culture. The cars are not intentionally killing us. The cars have not sent messages saying that they intend to do harm to us. The cars have not declared war with us.

Are you trolling? Or do you seriously not see the difference?

leftrightleftrightleft said:

Not sure if trolling or serious...

"Since when is intentionally killing large numbers of people in a single event not a significant problem?"

Click to expand...

It's a significant problem, but **nothing like the scale of problem that it is being taken as** by politicians, much of the public, and undoubtedly the media.

The number of people killed by terrorism per event is much higher than many other causes of death.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
If that were the yardstick we would have to have the newspapers and social media totally preoccupied and panicking over the possibility of a major meteor strike.
Or of collapse of the Yellowstone caldera,
or of a volcanic mega-landslide in the Canaries.

And btw, we have broad political programs to address natural disasters as well. Even though, by gross totals, the numbers killed by natural disasters is relatively small compared to car accidents, cardiac disease, obesity, etc.

I might add that it is not zero sum. We can invest resources into combatting multiple problems at once. Hence, we have programs meant to tackle obesity, tornados, forest fires, gun violence, car accidents, gang violence, terrorism, etc.

Click to expand...

Correct in broad, though you are not so correct about it being zero-sum. That's national budget as genuine limitation, not any limitation in running policies and agencies side-by-side.

Whether priorities are being assigned correctly so that premature death is most effectively reduced as a risk for any single individual, there is major reason to doubt.
Again, because of peculiar public, political and media bias. A massive amount of skewing.

Roughly 3,000 Americans die on the roads each month. Yes, a twin towers death toll each and every month.
Twin towers equivalent headlines, and outrage, in the media every month? No. Barely a note.
Now this is where the oddities of perception come in. What level of headlines would there be if each month and every month seven passenger 747's crashed to the ground, killing everyone on board?
Well it wouldn't get to the second month, would it? For the same death toll.
Human beings have some bad* wiring when it comes to instincts.

*probably un-adapted for modern life: the change has been too fast

Also, a car accident has no intentionality to it.

Click to expand...

So? That's irrelevant to scale, and to priority, and to allocation of resources, seen unemotionally.

Terrorist have intent to harm not only individuals, but whole societies.
The terrorist ideology is at war with Western, democratic ideals. Unlike car accidents, the terrorist ideology is not static but will only grow if left unchecked.

Click to expand...

That's where it rather looks as though you've been terrorised. Without deliberate effort car accident deaths would be far higher than they are today, whilst there are factors in place working against the "natural growth" of violent terrorism.
Not least that the more fanatical the faction, the greater the tendency to get into conflict with other extremist factions notionally on the same side. Intolerant purists very easily find things to fall out over.
And there is not one "terrorist ideology": it's fragmented.

Because terrorism is ideological. Car accidents are not.
. The cars have not sent messages saying that they intend to do harm to us. The cars have not declared war with us.

Click to expand...

Which actually makes the cars nastier, of lower profile in their danger.
Intent makes no difference. Dead is dead.
And screaming and shouting about "terrorist activity" is clearly a terrorism-encouraging approach, anyway.
If you poke the West with a stick and get a roar and a flailing about, what seems like a good idea but to do it repeatedly?
A near silent non-reaction (confident in the knowledge that pest-control procedures are being carried out) now that is far more likely to avoid that.

You want to live longer? Pay minimal attention to terrorism.
It just isn't where (unless it's your job) your attention is most profitably spent.

"Keep Calm and Carry On" has become a cliché, but its original thought is perfectly correct.
What can you most effectively do against terrorism? Refuse to be terrified.

Go where you normally would, be as charitable as you normally would.
Don't let town-centre businesses and restaurants suffer by staying away.
Why avoid a foreign holiday when you've done something more dangerous in driving to the airport?
(and a country in economic collapse through lack of tourists is one more terrorist victory...)

Chris

Chris B said:

It's a significant problem,

Click to expand...

I agree.

To me, that's all the OP was asking. See the thread topic question.

To argue that it is not a major or significant problem is incorrect. And to attempt to compare it to car accidents is trying to compare apples and oranges. That's all I am saying.

but **nothing like the scale of problem that it is being taken as** by politicians, much of the public, and undoubtedly the media.

Click to expand...

Yea for sure. Media sensationalism is absurd. I'm aware.

That doesn't mean that terrorism is not, as you say, a "significant problem".

Irrelevant.
If that were the yardstick we would have to have the newspapers and social media totally preoccupied and panicking over the possibility of a major meteor strike.
Or of collapse of the Yellowstone caldera,
or of a volcanic mega-landslide in the Canaries.

Click to expand...

You're thinking too linearly. There is a trade off between number of dead and frequency. If an event is too frequent with too few dead, it won't be thought of as a "threat". However, if it is so infrequent and unlikely then it won't be thought of as a "threat". Terrorism is in that middle ground: we see relatively large numbers dead, relatively often enough to have a media frenzy.

Also, as I've said before, intent matters. Natural disasters and random car accidents are a different beast when compared to murder, rape, terrorist attacks, etc.

Whether priorities are being assigned correctly so that premature death is most effectively reduced as a risk for any single individual, there is major reason to doubt.

Click to expand...

Governments don't always look at single individuals. Car accidents are killing individuals while terrorism (and terrorist ideologies) are attempting to take down entire societies and cultures. Do you see the difference?

Again, because of peculiar public, political and media bias. A massive amount of skewing.

Click to expand...

Yea, maybe we are investing too much into it. Its tough to know. If we were investing less would we be seeing more terrorist attacks and growth or less? Its hard to tell. There's no way to repeat the experiment.

Roughly 3,000 Americans die on the roads each month. Yes, a twin towers death toll each and every month.
Twin towers equivalent headlines, and outrage, in the media every month? No. Barely a note.
Now this is where the oddities of perception come in. What level of headlines would there be if each month and every month seven passenger 747's crashed to the ground, killing everyone on board?
Well it wouldn't get to the second month, would it? For the same death toll.
Human beings have some bad* wiring when it comes to instincts.

Click to expand...

Intent matters. Intent is the entire basis of our moral system. Intending to kill/harm someone is treated as entirely different than accidentally killing/harming someone.

So? That's irrelevant to scale, and to priority, and to allocation of resources, seen unemotionally.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can argue this. Intentionality is the basis of our moral system. Someone simply threatening to kill or harm an individual is seen as bad. If you go out and threaten to kill someone, you'll find yourself in legal trouble.

Because terrorists are intending to kill and harm not only individuals but entire societies, we must treat them differently than natural disasters or accidents.

That's where it rather looks as though you've been terrorised. Without deliberate effort car accident deaths would be far higher than they are today, whilst there are factors in place working against the "natural growth" of violent terrorism.
Not least that the more fanatical the faction, the greater the tendency to get into conflict with other extremist factions notionally on the same side. Intolerant purists very easily find things to fall out over.
And there is not one "terrorist ideology": it's fragmented.

Click to expand...

When the US left Iraq, the terrorist factions did not just "fight it out" amongst themselves. Rather, they coalesced and one group came out on top and then proceeded to take over vast swathes of Iraq and Syria.

Like I said earlier, its really tough to know the best approach because you can't repeat the experiment. But, I am not so sure that terrorism would "naturally die out" due to infighting if left alone. It seems just as reasonable to envision one group growing in strength and coming out on top as the leader.

Intent makes no difference. Dead is dead.

Click to expand...

Again, I have no idea how you can say this. Is murder not wrong?

And screaming and shouting about "terrorist activity" is clearly a terrorism-encouraging approach, anyway.
If you poke the West with a stick and get a roar and a flailing about, what seems like a good idea but to do it repeatedly?
A near silent non-reaction (confident in the knowledge that pest-control procedures are being carried out) now that is far more likely to avoid that.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

I agree. But this thread is about whether the pests are a major problem or not, which you already conceded in your first sentence that they are.

The OP seemed to suggest that the bolded bit was not even necessary.

You want to live longer? Pay minimal attention to terrorism.
It just isn't where (unless it's your job) your attention is most profitably spent.

"Keep Calm and Carry On" has become a cliché, but its original thought is perfectly correct.
What can you most effectively do against terrorism? Refuse to be terrified.

Go where you normally would, be as charitable as you normally would.
Don't let town-centre businesses and restaurants suffer by staying away.
Why avoid a foreign holiday when you've done something more dangerous in driving to the airport?
(and a country in economic collapse through lack of tourists is one more terrorist victory...)

Click to expand...

I agree. There's no point in being afraid of it because it is so unlikely.

But as I said, fear =/= problem and lack of fear =/= no problem.

I have a leaky faucet at my house. I have no fear associated with it. But that is still a problem which needs fixing.

Similarly, we can simultaneously be not afraid of terrorism while still recognizing it is a significant problem which needs to be dealt with in some manner.

Interesting. We have some common ground, but not as yet a meeting of minds.

leftrightleftrightleft said:

To argue that it is not a major or significant problem is incorrect. And to attempt to compare it to car accidents is trying to compare apples and oranges. That's all I am saying.
Yea for sure. Media sensationalism is absurd. I'm aware.

That doesn't mean that terrorism is not, as you say, a "significant problem"..

Click to expand...

"[M]ajor or significant" are not the same, and it is going to depend on what they are being compared to.
This is problem one: I think lots of people do not weigh up relative risks, or handle statistics other than, well, terribly.
Which is why I won't lay aside the other risks of living, including car accidents: "what is going to kill me?" is a fair question
with which to orient myself to the world, and even when I was living in London during IRA campaigns there terrorist attack wasn't in the top four. It's much further down now. Why should I give it more attention than it's due? Especially when that would mean I've been terrorised.
"Media sensationalism is absurd. I'm aware."
I agree and you're aware. But why are so many not, and seemingly paying uncritical attention to it?
Is this public and the media (add politicians) then stuck in a feedback loop?
"Give the public what they want" even if it is inaccurate or poisonous, because that gets ratings?
But how many of the public turn to quieter, more analytic news channels?

You're thinking too linearly. There is a trade off between number of dead and frequency. If an event is too frequent with too few dead, it won't be thought of as a "threat". However, if it is so infrequent and unlikely then it won't be thought of as a "threat". Terrorism is in that middle ground: we see relatively large numbers dead, relatively often enough to have a media frenzy.

Click to expand...

Precisely. The responses are not logical and proportionate. Frequently they are dangerously disproportionate.
And that matters.

Also, as I've said before, intent matters. Natural disasters and random car accidents are a different beast when compared to murder, rape, terrorist attacks, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've said, and I disagree. Solidly.
We should get rid of all traffic police, assigning them to anti-terrorism duties? No.
We should make no effort to ameliorate the effects of earthquakes or floods in order to pile resources into any potential threats with "Intent"?
On the scale of national concern, of government action, why does "intent" become trumps?

Governments don't always look at single individuals. Car accidents are killing individuals while terrorism (and terrorist ideologies) are attempting to take down entire societies and cultures. Do you see the difference?.

No, not at the scale terrorist violence is at, or likely to be at.
Unless the societies are so fragile and easily panicked that they will shake themselves to bits with a few terrorist attacks.
And then its not the numbers it's the induced (and again, disproportionate) terror.
That needs defeating almost before anything else.

In Britain the end of 1941, with 20,000 civilians killed in London and another 20,000 in the rest of the UK,the minister for home security gave permission for and wrote the foreword for a small book...
... of jokes, stories and cartoons about air raids and bombings.
I have a rare surviving copy, which I treasure.
Laughter, black and twisted if necessary, is one antidote to terror.
I learned that from my grandfather who served in the trenches in WW1.
It was caught superbly in the cartoons of Bruce Bairnsfather, a serving front-line officer.
Or in the Wiper's Times, a troop written and printed newspaper.
And they all had an awful lot more terror than we have.

Chap being interviewed for the post of air-raid warden...
"Well, I wouldn't have to deal at all with a bomb that landed very close to me..."

Yea, maybe we are investing too much into it. Its tough to know. If we were investing less would we be seeing more terrorist attacks and growth or less? Its hard to tell. There's no way to repeat the experiment.

Intent matters. Intent is the entire basis of our moral system. Intending to kill/harm someone is treated as entirely different than accidentally killing/harming someone..

I don't see how you can argue this. Intentionality is the basis of our moral system. Someone simply threatening to kill or harm an individual is seen as bad. If you go out and threaten to kill someone, you'll find yourself in legal trouble.

Because terrorists are intending to kill and harm not only individuals but entire societies, we must treat them differently than natural disasters or accidents.

Click to expand...

OK, when it comes to court. But that's hardly the case here. It's about priorities of resources, and priorities of attention, not in terms of justice (though reactions need to be justified) I want the drunk-driver found and stopped before he kills me, just as much as I want the same for any terrorist. And there are a lot more drunk and otherwise incompetent and dangerous drivers.

When the US left Iraq, the terrorist factions did not just "fight it out" amongst themselves. Rather, they coalesced and one group came out on top and then proceeded to take over vast swathes of Iraq and Syria.

Click to expand...

I utterly deny "coalesced". And one group is prominent, but is far from being "on top". ISIS' current prominence is in no small part due to the inability of those opposed to it to get on with each other!

Like I said earlier, its really tough to know the best approach because you can't repeat the experiment. But, I am not so sure that terrorism would "naturally die out" due to infighting if left alone. It seems just as reasonable to envision one group growing in strength and coming out on top as the leader.

Click to expand...

I don't think I said die out. Infighting is and will be a factor in reducing both growth and effectiveness.

Similarly, we can simultaneously be not afraid of terrorism while still recognizing it is a significant problem which needs to be dealt with in some manner.

Click to expand...

Here we agree. And one of the prongs of attack has got to be against the western media, which are doing such a good job(unintentionally, I presume) of spreading terror and alarm.

Chris

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chris B said:

"[M]ajor or significant" are not the same, and it is going to depend on what they are being compared to.

Click to expand...

Check

This is problem one: I think lots of people do not weigh up relative risks, or handle statistics other than, well, terribly.
Which is why I won't lay aside the other risks of living, including car accidents: "what is going to kill me?" is a fair question

Click to expand...

As I've said before, the "fear" of terrorism and the significance of it goes beyond an individual and an individual's death. The significance is that the terrorists are trying to, not only kill individuals, but kill (or destroy) whole societies and cultures.

This is fundamentally different than car accidents and natural disasters and requires different approaches.

I agree and you're aware. But why are so many not, and seemingly paying uncritical attention to it?

Click to expand...

To put it bluntly, because people are uneducated and were not taught to think critically.

Is this public and the media (add politicians) then stuck in a feedback loop?
"Give the public what they want" even if it is inaccurate or poisonous, because that gets ratings?
But how many of the public turn to quieter, more analytic news channels?

Click to expand...

Tough questions. Unfortunately, it might belong in a different thread. Don't want to derail.

Yes, you've said, and I disagree. Solidly.
We should get rid of all traffic police, assigning them to anti-terrorism duties? No.
We should make no effort to ameliorate the effects of earthquakes or floods in order to pile resources into any potential threats with "Intent"?
On the scale of national concern, of government action, why does "intent" become trumps?

Click to expand...

This is a strawman. I said before that it is not zero-sum. I would never propose getting "rid of all traffic police" and completely ignoring the effects of earthquake or flood risks. You're thinking too linearly again.

Intent doesn't become a trump, it simply makes it a very different problem. A tornado is a natural phenomenon that is semi-random. You can't "go after" the tornado to stop it before it comes. All you can do is have preparation measures ready to deal with it when it does. It has no ideology which you can root out and remove.


With regards to the rest of your post, I think you missed a "/quote" somewhere, so it is very hard for me to reply to.

Chesterton said:

Let's not forget that cars can't seek to deploy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which could destroy a city's population. I hope and pray nothing ever happens that might make you regret making a thread like this, the kind of thing law enforcement is trying to prevent.

Click to expand...

No, cars and their drivers just kill more people here and now, day to day.
And in my world view "...deploy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which could destroy a city's population." is an event that will happen, sooner or later, somewhere.
As the IRA said having just failed to kill Margaret Thatcher (though murdering others)
"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."

Law enforcement has lots of jobs, and finding the right allocation of a non-infinite resource is not easy.
10,000 fewer traffic cops, 10,000 more people reviewing electronic intelligence? Lives overall saved or lost?

Of one thing I am sure. Life cannot be made "safe". That's an illusion, and a dangerous one.

Chris

Again, we have some agreement and some marked differences.

leftrightleftrightleft said:

As I've said before, the "fear" of terrorism and the significance of it goes beyond an individual and an individual's death. The significance is that the terrorists are trying to, not only kill individuals, but kill (or destroy) whole societies and cultures.

Click to expand...

They haven't got a chance, unless societies are so easily terrorised that they were already crumbling.

(on terrorism) This is fundamentally different than car accidents and natural disasters and requires different approaches.

Click to expand...

Different approaches, yes, but not otherwise fundamentally different. They fall in the same category of needing resources to address them, and this very much takes on the character of a zero-sum distribution.

As a major policy, the British government is working to reduce and eliminate its international debt, making it more stable against economic shocks, more able to resist financial pressures.
As a result budget cuts have had to be made in government spending, including "a reduction of 20% since 2011 in the amount spent by the Home Office on the police."
And at least another 5% is being looked for.

There's a painful trade of of risks... more lawlessness because of fewer police, or more lawlessness if the economy breaks down?
(actually overall crime is going down in the UK)

This is a strawman. I said before that it is not zero-sum. I would never propose getting "rid of all traffic police" and completely ignoring the effects of earthquake or flood risks. You're thinking too linearly again.

Click to expand...

I agree. There has to be a distribution. Zero traffic police, or zero flood precautions, these would be nonsense
But I say it is a zero-sum, or something very like it (one could always demand more taxes from the people, so as to have more to spend. And more people unhappy with government!) There are not infinite resources.

I'm currently in a minority, but a large one, who think the billions of pounds to be spent on renewing Britain's nuclear missile deterrent would produce far more security if it was spent on conventional military forces and on intelligence resources.
It's a trade off: we can't do both.
Zero sum. Where do you calculate (or emotionally panic, just for those who cannot do this coolly) the bigger risk to be?

Chris.

Chris B said:

No, cars and their drivers just kill more people here and now, day to day.
And in my world view "...deploy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which could destroy a city's population." is an event that will happen, sooner or later, somewhere.
As the IRA said having just failed to kill Margaret Thatcher (though murdering others)
"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."

Click to expand...

But that seems like saying "I'm going to die sooner or later so I won't worry about anything. I'll just consume bacon, whiskey and tobacco everyday". I think some reasonable steps aimed at health and longevity should be taken.

Law enforcement has lots of jobs, and finding the right allocation of a non-infinite resource is not easy.
10,000 fewer traffic cops, 10,000 more people reviewing electronic intelligence? Lives overall saved or lost?

Of one thing I am sure. Life cannot be made "safe". That's an illusion, and a dangerous one.

Chris

Click to expand...

I agree life cannot be made safe, and over-zealous attempts by politicians to aim for 100% safety can be dangerous, unnecessary, counterproductive and just plain stupid. But there has to be some balancing act, otherwise why have government at all? And if we had no governance we'd likely all kill each other off anyway.

P.S. Around here anyway, traffic cops are not employed to increase safety but to generate revenue for government.

Paradoxum said:

Many more are killed by the voluntary act of driving, but few fear driving. So why does terrorism matter enough to worry about it at all?

Why change any laws to combat it? It basically does nothing in the the big picture. Almost no one dies from terrorism. It's more of a bogeyman than a real threat to anyone.

Click to expand...

Part of it, possibly the largest part of it, is the money involved. Imagine getting the contract to put scanners in all the airports. Or earning a penny every time a bullet fired, and ten thousand dollars every time a missile is fired. You get richer really really quickly.

Chris B said:

It's a trade off: we can't do both.

Click to expand...

Yes we can. And we are. We currently have fund distributed amongst a large number of risk management and enforcement agencies. Some devoted to traffic law enforcement and education and others devoted to de-radicalization and anti-terrorism measures.

Where do you calculate (or emotionally panic, just for those who cannot do this coolly) the bigger risk to be?

Click to expand...

Okay. So, statistically, for a given individual, there is greater risk of death or injury when driving your car to work than there is from terrorist activities. That is not debatable. You are more likely to die from a whole host of things before being killed by terrorist activities.

That is from an individual's perspective. This is from the perspective of an individual's self-motivated self-preservation.

However, for the government or society as a whole, car accidents effectively have zero-risk associated with them. Car accidents alone will not destabilize our economy. Car accidents alone will not interrupt or disrupt major sporting events or political gatherings. Car accidents alone are not intent on destroying our cultural ideals of democracy and freedom. Car accidents alone have not declared war on us.

That is from the societal or governmental perspective. Societies are also bound by self-preservation tactics and car accidents pose no threat to our society's existence.

What's the alternative? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?[/quote][/QUOTE]

Sketcher said:

Well, we do have a War on Drugs and a War on Poverty.

Click to expand...

Declaring a "War on ...." seems to be code for "We're going to spend billions of dollars a year, in perpetuity, to accomplish nothing."

If Americans were really concerned about preventing terrorism, Snowden would be a yawn.

"Chris B said: ↑"
It's a trade off: we can't do both.

leftrightleftrightleft said:

Yes we can.

Click to expand...

Oh, no you can't!
(It is the pantomime season, after all.)

And we are. We currently have fund distributed amongst a large number of risk management and enforcement agencies. Some devoted to traffic law enforcement and education and others devoted to de-radicalization and anti-terrorism measures.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's my point: if you wanted to double the resources/funding for anti-terrorism measures, other agencies (with valuable worthwhile jobs to do) will have to take a cut.
If there is excessive (disproportionate) fear of terrorism then anti-terrorism measures will get given too large a slice of the pie.

Okay. So, statistically, for a given individual, there is greater risk of death or injury when driving your car to work than there is from terrorist activities. That is not debatable. You are more likely to die from a whole host of things before being killed by terrorist activities.

That is from an individual's perspective. This is from the perspective of an individual's self-motivated self-preservation.

Click to expand...

Agreement on this.

However, for the government or society as a whole, car accidents effectively have zero-risk associated with them. Car accidents alone will not destabilize our economy. Car accidents alone will not interrupt or disrupt major sporting events or political gatherings. Car accidents alone are not intent on destroying our cultural ideals of democracy and freedom. Car accidents alone have not declared war on us.

Click to expand...

"Car accidents alone will not destabilize our economy." Just damage it.
To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
(google - economic cost of car crashes in us -)
And that's with the current level of agency/police intervention, prevention etc.
And 35,000 deaths per year.

If that was "intent-led" it would be a major war.
Actually a Korean war (1950-53) every year.
Which is why I don't think, given the relative scale, that "intent" counts very highly in assigning priorities.

That is from the societal or governmental perspective. Societies are also bound by self-preservation tactics and car accidents pose no threat to our society's existence.

What's the alternative? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?

Click to expand...

Now who's being "linear"?
No. Deal with it. in proportion.
But one of the big things in dealing with terrorism, and very much in terms of affecting culture and society, is not being terrorised, individually or collectively.
To avoid that, one major thing would be not to give too much attention to the topic, and the balance there is definitely way, way, off. The next major thing which flows from the first is avoiding making unbalanced responses. That can play straight into the hands of terrorists. That's definitely been the case more than once, too.

Don't go to war angry. Bad move.
(Actually I've got a superb board game that illustrates that. The winner is almost always the player who manages to stay cool, though few do. The game is purely democratic, as well. No dice, no chance cards... )

Anyway, that's more than enough time on terrorism...
Model railways. That's a better thing to put time into.
And to quietly show terrorists their importance.

Chris

Chesterton said:

But that seems like saying "I'm going to die sooner or later so I won't worry about anything. I'll just consume bacon, whiskey and tobacco everyday". I think some reasonable steps aimed at health and longevity should be taken.

Click to expand...

I agree. It isn't saying "I'm going to die sooner or later so I won't worry about anything." to me, rather the "consider reasonable steps to improve the chance of longevity."
(No, I don't quite practice what I preach: I've struggled with weight issues all my life.)

Hmm. I may have bacon and beans on toast for lunch.
Living dangerously,
Chris.

Chris B said:

Hmm. I may have bacon and beans on toast for lunch.

Click to expand...

On toast?! That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. No one in their right mind would put ... oh, you're British. Never mind.

Paradoxum said:

Many more are killed by the voluntary act of driving, but few fear driving. So why does terrorism matter enough to worry about it at all?

Why change any laws to combat it? It basically does nothing in the the big picture. Almost no one dies from terrorism. It's more of a bogeyman than a real threat to anyone.

Click to expand...

I suppose the average driver is not driving a vehicle packed full of explosives? In some parts of the world today - many more are indeed killed by the voluntary act of such kinds of driving. Accidents are one thing ..... deliberate acts quite another.

Chesterton said:

oh, you're British. Never mind.

Click to expand...

In a move that may be anti-terrorist or merely British, the front page headline news for the BBC website is on the sacking of Chelsea Football Club's manager, Jose Mourinho.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Not that I'm particularly interested in football, but it's a definite improvement.

Chris.