4 ms·

I do understand your point with these posts, but I'm not sure that the best response to a terrorist attack is to do absolutely nothing.

nommm-nommm 11y ago
This is what Bruce Schneier said after the Boston Marathon bombing: As the details about the bombings in Boston unfold, it'd be easy to be scared. It'd be easy to feel powerless and demand that our elected leaders do something—anything—to keep us safe. It'd be easy, but it'd be wrong. We need to be angry and empathize with the victims without being scared. Our fears would play right into the perpetrators' hands—and magnify the power of their victory for whichever goals whatever group behind this, still to be uncovered, has. We don't have to be scared, and we're not powerless. We actually have all the power here, and there's one thing we can do to render terrorism ineffective: Refuse to be terrorized. There are things we can do to make us safer, mostly around investigation, intelligence, and emergency response, but we will never be 100-percent safe from terrorism; we need to accept that. How well this attack succeeds depends much less on what happened in Boston than by our reactions in the coming weeks and months. Terrorism isn't primarily a crime against people or property. It's a crime against our minds, using the deaths of innocents and destruction of property as accomplices. When we react from fear, when we change our laws and policies to make our country less open, the terrorists succeed, even if their attacks fail. But when we refuse to be terrorized, when we're indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed. Don't glorify the terrorists and their actions by calling this part of a "war on terror." Wars involve two legitimate sides. There's only one legitimate side here; those on the other are criminals. They should be found, arrested, and punished. But we need to be vigilant not to weaken the very freedoms and liberties that make this country great, meanwhile, just because we're scared. Empathize, but refuse to be terrorized. Instead, be indomitable—and support leaders who are as well. That's how to defeat terrorists. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-marathon-bombing-keep-calm-and-carry-on/275014/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-bost...
pjc50 11y ago
The best respone to a terrorist attack is to treat it as normal crime: take basic precautions beforehand, leave the police to investigate and arrest afterwards, and everyone else get on with their lives. The UK's response to terrorism in Northern Ireland was very much more localised and stiff-upper-lip than it seems to be in response to Islamist terrorism. Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white supremacist terrorists. Even spree killings have become normalised with "there's nothing we can do", due to reluctance to question the 2nd amendment. Not to mention that if the US wants to get involved with fighting murderous extremists that threaten stability, the Mexican cartels are much closer and just as dangerous. Getting involved in the Syrian civil war is instead just going to turn into a proxy war against the Russians, like 70s Afghanstan.
- chongli 11y ago
  Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white supremacist terrorists That has more to do with cognitive dissonance and tacit approval than calculated strategy. White supremacy is the dominant culture in the US. Violent acts are continually explained away as "isolated incidents" by the "mentally ill", a convenient escape from the hard job of inward reflection and decolonization.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

This is what Bruce Schneier said after the Boston Marathon bombing: As the details about the bombings in Boston unfold, it'd be easy to be scared. It'd be easy to feel powerless and demand that our elected leaders do something—anything—to keep us safe. It'd be easy, but it'd be wrong. We need to be angry and empathize with the victims without being scared. Our fears would play right into the perpetrators' hands—and magnify the power of their victory for whichever goals whatever group behind this, still to be uncovered, has. We don't have to be scared, and we're not powerless. We actually have all the power here, and there's one thing we can do to render terrorism ineffective: Refuse to be terrorized. There are things we can do to make us safer, mostly around investigation, intelligence, and emergency response, but we will never be 100-percent safe from terrorism; we need to accept that. How well this attack succeeds depends much less on what happened in Boston than by our reactions in the coming weeks and months. Terrorism isn't primarily a crime against people or property. It's a crime against our minds, using the deaths of innocents and destruction of property as accomplices. When we react from fear, when we change our laws and policies to make our country less open, the terrorists succeed, even if their attacks fail. But when we refuse to be terrorized, when we're indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed. Don't glorify the terrorists and their actions by calling this part of a "war on terror." Wars involve two legitimate sides. There's only one legitimate side here; those on the other are criminals. They should be found, arrested, and punished. But we need to be vigilant not to weaken the very freedoms and liberties that make this country great, meanwhile, just because we're scared. Empathize, but refuse to be terrorized. Instead, be indomitable—and support leaders who are as well. That's how to defeat terrorists. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-marathon-bombing-keep-calm-and-carry-on/275014/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-bost...

pjc50 11y ago

The best respone to a terrorist attack is to treat it as normal crime: take basic precautions beforehand, leave the police to investigate and arrest afterwards, and everyone else get on with their lives. The UK's response to terrorism in Northern Ireland was very much more localised and stiff-upper-lip than it seems to be in response to Islamist terrorism. Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white supremacist terrorists. Even spree killings have become normalised with "there's nothing we can do", due to reluctance to question the 2nd amendment. Not to mention that if the US wants to get involved with fighting murderous extremists that threaten stability, the Mexican cartels are much closer and just as dangerous. Getting involved in the Syrian civil war is instead just going to turn into a proxy war against the Russians, like 70s Afghanstan.

chongli 11y ago
Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white supremacist terrorists That has more to do with cognitive dissonance and tacit approval than calculated strategy. White supremacy is the dominant culture in the US. Violent acts are continually explained away as "isolated incidents" by the "mentally ill", a convenient escape from the hard job of inward reflection and decolonization.