Is terrorism a major problem?

[GrowingSmaller]

Why don't we have a War on Cancer instead? Or dementia?

Well we have organised reponses to try to minimise harm. The difference is cancer is not a threat to national security.

 

[Armoured]

Well we have organised reponses to try to minimise harm. The difference is cancer is not a threat to national security.

It causes a lot more death and misery than terrorism. So define "national security "?

 

[SteveB28]

I also believe prayer is a great weapon against terrorism, but many do not believe this, thus the problem continues.

Your prayers or theirs?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It causes a lot more death and misery than terrorism. So define "national security "?

Cant sorry but there'll be a wiki on it I imagine. But the security we have in terms of safety, social cohesion etc is probably due to the work or intelligence and police etc. Quantifying that is something else. You'd probably need secret intelligence.

But:

British intelligence services have foiled seven terror attacks in the past year, including one in the last month, David Cameron has revealed. Sunday 13th December http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six-months.html

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Your prayers or theirs?

Prayer has effects on the brain, on the social climate, on interpresonal relationships, perception etc.

Just try praying on a train, ther'll be effects. Whoosh.

You can grow a tree and feed on the fruit, and grow a brain and feed on the fruit.

Meditation helps mould the brain, its old news.

I dont mean petitionary prayer of the lips only, but focused intent and desire etc. See the concept of "overcoming strongholds" for a spiritual-religious take on this.

 

[Armoured]

Cant sorry but there'll be a wiki on it I imagine. But the security we have in terms of safety, social cohesion etc is probably due to the work or intelligence and police etc. Quantifying that is something else. You'd probably need secret intelligence.

But:

British intelligence services have foiled seven terror attacks in the past year, including one in the last month, David Cameron has revealed. Sunday 13th December http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six-months.html

Even assuming those terror attacks had all been completely successful, I still suspect cancer i causing more pain and misery.

 

[Chris B]

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?

It is a problem and it does matter.
Not least it because it is very much involved in the breakdown of governance in several countries, causing millions of people to become displaced in their own countries, or refugees.

But it is not a problem that should be getting the media, political and public attention that it is.
That's wrong by proportion, and wrong because it serves the agenda of terrorism, which is not primarily about killing people.
(If killing Americans is the goal, I'd suggest opening up "all you can eat for $5" restaurants serving high-fat food.
There'd not be the slightest bit of terror, though. And unless laws change it wouldn't even be illegal. OK, sometimes I have a nasty mind.)

Like a pest infestation, appropriate people and resources should be assigned, but beyond that, why should it be news?
Perhaps done locally, after the county sport and weather.
Because it's nothing like the biggest problem around, except for those who have it as their assigned problem and task.


Chris.

 

[Truly1999]

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.

It is necessary to respond to terrorism appropriately, according to the level of threat. The police and intelligence services need to be given the necessary powers to prevent terrorism. As for individual members of society who have not been directly affected by terrorism, they adapt to the guidance given by the government. Habits are altered but life goes on, except with a heightened awareness. For instance, when the IRA exploded a bomb at a UK rail station, security was tightened, litter bins/trash cans were removed and replaced with a clear plastic bag with a bin lid. Passengers were advised to keep their luggage with them at all times and that any bags left unattended would be taken away and destroyed. So, people travel as normal but keep their bags with them at all times.

So terrorism is a problem but not an insurmountable problem.

 

[Paradoxum]

Wow, this thread has really opened my eyes. You're right - if driving is legal, murder should be legal. I can stop worrying now.

It's a good brain you have there.

 

[Paradoxum]

Three reasons: Intention, Frequency-to-Scale and Ideology.

1) The intentionality of a given terrorist makes it very different than a random car accident. If we had a small number of drivers who were out there on the roads with the intent purpose of causing accidents and death, then that would be a problem.

Yeah, terrorism is a problem. It doesn't mean it significantly matters.

2) The frequency of events is generally closely linked to the scale of an event. But low-frequency-large-scale events often carry more significance, even if they are statistically unlikely. After 9/11, no one was about to say, "Yea, lets just let that go, I mean, what are the chances of it ever happening again!" That's not how it works. Because of human agency, the frequency of events may not behave nicely under some Gaussian distribution.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about how people do feel without statistics. I'm saying that statistics should show that fear of terrorism is silly.

3) Ideology matters. Islamic terrorists (and those that support them but don't commit the acts) don't want democracy. They don't want freedom of religion. They don't want freedom of speech. They don't want rehabilitative punishment. They don't want scientific education. And they want to eradicate or convert those that do want those things. Instead, they want an authoritarian state governed by strict, literalist Islamic Sharia law. They want death for apostates and corporal punishment. Its an ideological war. If Islamic terrorist ideologies are fostered, developed and expanded, then we will be looking at a world which is radically different from what secular humanists have strived for over the last 300 years. It seems wildly unlikely that this ideology would ever take hold outside the Middle East in large numbers but when bombs are going off in Paris and buildings coming down in New York, maybe that's an indication we should try to do something.

Why does it have to mean we do something, if it reduces our liberty and privacy?

I'm not totally against surveillance, but terrorists are a speck compared to real problems and significant deaths.

We have enacted laws to try to limit car accidents and car accident-related fatalities. Think seat belts, speed limits, traffic lights and traffic enforcement. These traffic laws are pretty-well embedded in society. A hundred years ago, someone could say, "Ah, well there's so few cars on the road, why do we need all these laws? It doesn't change anything in the big picture."

More people die in car crashes. Plus there is extremely little liberty lost in wearing a seat belt.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yeah, terrorism is a problem. It doesn't mean it significantly matters.

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

You can't just tally up the number of deaths from Group A and total up the deaths from Group B and say that the one with more deaths is a bigger problem. The number of dead per event matters. In a car accident, maybe one or two people die per event, whereas with terrorism, the numbers are often in the tens or hundreds per event.

Its therefore hard to compare the two. Car accidents are diffuse, small-scale events whereas terrorist attacks are local, large-scale events.

They are both problems, but they must be tackled in such vastly different ways that it is difficult to say whether one or the other is worse.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about how people do feel without statistics. I'm saying that statistics should show that fear of terrorism is silly.

Well yea, fear of terrorism is illogical. We are both in agreement about that.

I would say fear of getting in a car accident is also fairly illogical given the ratio of accidents to total car trips.

But fear (or lack of fear) of a phenomena is irrelevant to whether the phenomena is a problem or not. (E.g. The faucet in my kitchen leaks, I have no fear associated with it, but it is still a problem which needs fixing.)

Why does it have to mean we do something, if it reduces our liberty and privacy?

I hadn't realized this thread was about liberty or privacy. That wasn't clear in the OP.

That is an entirely different topic really. Should the government be allowed to limit our liberty and invade our privacy for the sake of security? Great question...if that's what you want this thread to be about, then go for it. But I don't want to derail.

I'm not totally against surveillance, but terrorists are a speck compared to real problems and significant deaths.

Apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorism requires totally different methods than dealing with car accidents. Hard to compare.

More people die in car crashes. Plus there is extremely little liberty lost in wearing a seat belt.

Yea, its hard to compare the two.

 

[Chesterton]

It's a good brain you have there.

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.

 

[durangodawood]

Wow, this thread has really opened my eyes. You're right - if driving is legal, murder should be legal. I can stop worrying now.

Another confused person^.
Youre mixing up doing risk assessment (the thread topic) with making moral judgements.

 

[Chesterton]

Another confused person^.
Youre mixing up doing risk assessment (the thread topic) with making moral judgements.

You're right it's about risk assessment, but that's what makes it absurd. You can't actively seek out people who are going to accidentally run a red light and kill people, but you can actively seek out people who are premeditating to strap on a suicide vest and kill people.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

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.

Most things are a benefit vs. cost analysis.
Driving provides a lot of benefits, hence we accept the lost of lives that come with driving. I drive knowing everyday I might injure myself because I need to make my life much better and much more comfortable.

Terrorism yields no benefits.

 

[mmksparbud]

A with most things---it's only a problem when it happens to you or your loved ones.

 

[Sketcher]

Why don't we have a War on Cancer instead? Or dementia?

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

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If people dont relate to "overcoming strngholds" style ideas (ie the devils stongholds attacked thorough prayer, whoevery you conceive the devil to be...)

consider the proverbs:

"An ill name is half hanged."

and...


"Ill air slays sooner than the sword."

also:


"When the enemy attacks and you also decide to attack, hit with your body, and hit with your spirit ...." (form "Book of 5 rings").


Usually this may in Western terms now be seen as a "ki" or "chi" strike, from the karate tradition. But it can relate to spiritual focus too.

The issue with strategy according to Kasparov the chess player is not to get too wound up and ensnared in your opponents strategy (eg apocalyptic narrative, messianic narrative etc) , in a reactive fashion. Like in politics, keep your message clear he says.

In hypnois this wuold be changing the visualisation, or sticking to original themes in spite of " messages from neighbours"... (so to speak).

 

[Paradoxum]

Most things are a benefit vs. cost analysis.
Driving provides a lot of benefits, hence we accept the lost of lives that come with driving. I drive knowing everyday I might injure myself because I need to make my life much better and much more comfortable.

Terrorism yields no benefits.

I don't think people actually make that analysis before driving. Very few people drive in fear, but do it anyway because they think it's for the best.

Our fear of terrorism is exaggerated irrationally. Also, the issue tends to be the loss of liberty and privacy, not the loss of nothing.

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

A WMD attack isn't so likely, and requires more planning. You can't just get a nuclear bomb.

Do you actually fear a WMD attack?