4 ms·

I think you'd feel differently if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11

cnp 11y ago
In times of tragedy it is especially important to think rationally. This does not demean ones loss, but prevents further loss from occurring.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
He might feel differently. He's still right that the overreaction causes more damage than the terrorist attack did.
Houshalter 11y ago
I have no idea what your point is. If I lost a loved one to a vending machine accident, I might develop a really irrational fear of vending machines. It doesn't mean vending machines are a threat to our society. I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.
- pyrrhotech 11y ago
  Why are you so convinced that terrorism is not a threat to society? Lots of Romans probably thought the Huns were a laughable foe as well.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Exactly. Look at what the Shining Path did in Peru. Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming. Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Algeria.
      - refurb 11y ago
        Great example. Another is South Vietnam. Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?). Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    Well I'll start with these two gwern essays: Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals. I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it? Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them. We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      > No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.
    - flubert 11y ago
      >And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals. Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?
    - serge2k 11y ago
      I don't think that bit about 0 groups achieving goals through terrorism is true. For example, didn't the Medellin cartel effectively use terrorism?
    - gotchange 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
electromage 11y ago
The point is that the effect that attack has had on the US for the past 14 years has been massive. Probably thousands of new security protocols are in place, that arguably wouldn't have stopped an attack like that had they been in place previously. Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.
pvaldes 11y ago
I even think that if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11 you could feel inclined to go to a third unrelated country, like... lets say Irak, and start to killing thousands of innocent civilians, also loved by somebody. This would be a bad idea of course. Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.

cnp 11y ago

In times of tragedy it is especially important to think rationally. This does not demean ones loss, but prevents further loss from occurring.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

He might feel differently. He's still right that the overreaction causes more damage than the terrorist attack did.

Houshalter 11y ago

I have no idea what your point is. If I lost a loved one to a vending machine accident, I might develop a really irrational fear of vending machines. It doesn't mean vending machines are a threat to our society. I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.

pyrrhotech 11y ago
Why are you so convinced that terrorism is not a threat to society? Lots of Romans probably thought the Huns were a laughable foe as well.
- refurb 11y ago
  Exactly. Look at what the Shining Path did in Peru. Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming. Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Algeria.
    - refurb 11y ago
      Great example. Another is South Vietnam. Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?). Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Well I'll start with these two gwern essays: Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals. I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it? Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them. We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.
  - flubert 11y ago
    >And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals. Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?
  - serge2k 11y ago
    I don't think that bit about 0 groups achieving goals through terrorism is true. For example, didn't the Medellin cartel effectively use terrorism?
  - gotchange 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

electromage 11y ago

The point is that the effect that attack has had on the US for the past 14 years has been massive. Probably thousands of new security protocols are in place, that arguably wouldn't have stopped an attack like that had they been in place previously. Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.

pvaldes 11y ago

I even think that if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11 you could feel inclined to go to a third unrelated country, like... lets say Irak, and start to killing thousands of innocent civilians, also loved by somebody. This would be a bad idea of course. Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.