5 ms·

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
  I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents. It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason. So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.

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
I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents. It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason. So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.