6 ms·

If it's the only half ass solution we have to prevent the next Boston Bombing or Paris Attacks what else can be done? Until we find better solutions its just p

by Sven7 11y ago

If it's the only half ass solution we have to prevent the next Boston Bombing or Paris Attacks what else can be done? Until we find better solutions its just par for the course along with comments likes yours.

sandstrom 11y ago
Norway had a terrible terror attack a few years ago. They didn't opt for more surveillance. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  Norway also has a fraction of the population and has a history of very low violence. It's easy to say this attack was an outlier considering the long history of non-violence in their country. Norway isn't a really high target on any terrorist hit list either. One of the reasons for mass surveillance is the idea if you have a massive population its the only way to keep tabs on the bad guys. This of course begs the question how the San Bernardino shooters got away with their attack if the NSA was properly doing their job and mass surveillance actually worked; which it clearly didn't in the California case.
  - sandstrom 11y ago
    The non-violent history of Norway is true. Still, I think this misplaced fear (which many feel) is what's tricking us. If you dig a bit, there are examples in the other direction. === # More likely to be crushed by furniture then killed by a terrorist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/2... # Guns kill many more than do terrorists (similar argument): http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-terrorism http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-ter... # Spending isn't allocated to the common causes of death: http://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/594-1.jpg?resize=620%2C1546 http://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/... # Airport security 'causing' unnecessary deaths Slow air travel due to security is shifting (some proportion of) travelers to cars, where accidents are more common. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... === I could go on. Yes, terrorism is an issue that should be dealt with. But it should be handled rationally and with proportionality.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      >The non-violent history of Norway is true. I disagree, based on what I've read about Vikings. Those were some pretty brutal people.
jessaustin 11y ago
The disturbingly common "this is a solution, so it must the right solution" crap would be more convincing if we actually had a problem in the first place.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
"If" being the operative keyword there. Yes, if that was the case. If this had anything to do with anyone being concerned about terrorism and other atrocities, step one would be to not commit them, step two would be to not fund people to commit them, and THEN step three would be something, and "trample on the human rights of everybody on the planet to prevent some violations of human rights" is not even in the running for that. Good we cleared that up, this should lessen the number of "comments like yours" in the future, no?
- Sven7 11y ago
  If you were in charge what would you do today if a report came across your desk that a city was going to be attacked next week? Things aren't black and white. Obama shows he understands all the nuances of the complex world we live in and from the looks of things the world has just grown more complex despite that understanding. Just look at how hard he has found it, to get what you might call the "common sense/simple" solutions implemented. And he has had the time.

by Sven7 11y ago

sandstrom 11y ago

Norway had a terrible terror attack a few years ago. They didn't opt for more surveillance. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...

at-fates-hands 11y ago
Norway also has a fraction of the population and has a history of very low violence. It's easy to say this attack was an outlier considering the long history of non-violence in their country. Norway isn't a really high target on any terrorist hit list either. One of the reasons for mass surveillance is the idea if you have a massive population its the only way to keep tabs on the bad guys. This of course begs the question how the San Bernardino shooters got away with their attack if the NSA was properly doing their job and mass surveillance actually worked; which it clearly didn't in the California case.
- sandstrom 11y ago
  The non-violent history of Norway is true. Still, I think this misplaced fear (which many feel) is what's tricking us. If you dig a bit, there are examples in the other direction. === # More likely to be crushed by furniture then killed by a terrorist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/2... # Guns kill many more than do terrorists (similar argument): http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-terrorism http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-ter... # Spending isn't allocated to the common causes of death: http://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/594-1.jpg?resize=620%2C1546 http://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/... # Airport security 'causing' unnecessary deaths Slow air travel due to security is shifting (some proportion of) travelers to cars, where accidents are more common. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... === I could go on. Yes, terrorism is an issue that should be dealt with. But it should be handled rationally and with proportionality.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    >The non-violent history of Norway is true. I disagree, based on what I've read about Vikings. Those were some pretty brutal people.

jessaustin 11y ago

The disturbingly common "this is a solution, so it must the right solution" crap would be more convincing if we actually had a problem in the first place.

PavlovsCat 11y ago

"If" being the operative keyword there. Yes, if that was the case. If this had anything to do with anyone being concerned about terrorism and other atrocities, step one would be to not commit them, step two would be to not fund people to commit them, and THEN step three would be something, and "trample on the human rights of everybody on the planet to prevent some violations of human rights" is not even in the running for that. Good we cleared that up, this should lessen the number of "comments like yours" in the future, no?

Sven7 11y ago
If you were in charge what would you do today if a report came across your desk that a city was going to be attacked next week? Things aren't black and white. Obama shows he understands all the nuances of the complex world we live in and from the looks of things the world has just grown more complex despite that understanding. Just look at how hard he has found it, to get what you might call the "common sense/simple" solutions implemented. And he has had the time.