4 ms·

Always reminds me of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism

Always reminds me of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/ame... Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

Houshalter 11y ago
There is a lot of evidence that terrorist groups are incredibly ineffective. Not just recent attacks in the US, but statistics world wide and through all of history. Gwern wrote a detailed essay on how incompetent terrorist groups are: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective >9/11, the crowning incident of terrorism in those centuries, was equaled by just 29 days of car accidents in the US - and 9/11 was only accidentally that successful! 9/11 is also a sterling example of the availability bias: besides it, how many attacks could the best informed Western citizen name? Perhaps a score, on a good day, if they have a good memory; inasmuch as the MIPT database records >19,000 just 1968-2004, it’s clear that terrifyingly exceptional terrorist attacks are just that. Remarkably, it seems that it is unusual for terrorist attacks to injure even a single person; the MIPT database puts the number of such attacks at 35% of all attacks. Certainly the post-9/11 record would seem to indicate it was a fluke... >Many terrorist organizations keep very detailed financial records (consider the troves of data seized from Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, from Bin Laden’s safehouse, or Al Qaeda’s insistence on receipts), with little trust of underlings, suggesting far less ideological devotion than commonly believed & serious principal-agent problems. Stories about terrorist incompetence are legion and the topic is now played for laughs (eg. the 2010 movie Four Lions), prompting columnists to tell us to ignore all the incompetence and continue to be afraid. Also see his essay Terrorism is not about Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
- StillBored 11y ago
  Terrorism is ineffective when ignored. OTOH, when in response, governments spend trillions invading other countries, killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, spending 100's of billions spying on its own citizens, and passing totalitarian laws to peek into the most private of peoples possessions, and bodies, then yes, terrorism is effective.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    You're assuming that what the terrorists want is to e.g. have the US invade Iraq. You're assuming the terrorists want anything in particular, instead of being irrational criminally insane crackpots. Unless by "the terrorists" you mean the people who make money when governments and people overreact to terrorism. For them it seems quite effective. But presumably they aren't the ones actually carrying out the attacks, they're just the ones exploiting the loss of human life to gain filthy lucre.

Houshalter 11y ago

There is a lot of evidence that terrorist groups are incredibly ineffective. Not just recent attacks in the US, but statistics world wide and through all of history. Gwern wrote a detailed essay on how incompetent terrorist groups are: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective >9/11, the crowning incident of terrorism in those centuries, was equaled by just 29 days of car accidents in the US - and 9/11 was only accidentally that successful! 9/11 is also a sterling example of the availability bias: besides it, how many attacks could the best informed Western citizen name? Perhaps a score, on a good day, if they have a good memory; inasmuch as the MIPT database records >19,000 just 1968-2004, it’s clear that terrifyingly exceptional terrorist attacks are just that. Remarkably, it seems that it is unusual for terrorist attacks to injure even a single person; the MIPT database puts the number of such attacks at 35% of all attacks. Certainly the post-9/11 record would seem to indicate it was a fluke... >Many terrorist organizations keep very detailed financial records (consider the troves of data seized from Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, from Bin Laden’s safehouse, or Al Qaeda’s insistence on receipts), with little trust of underlings, suggesting far less ideological devotion than commonly believed & serious principal-agent problems. Stories about terrorist incompetence are legion and the topic is now played for laughs (eg. the 2010 movie Four Lions), prompting columnists to tell us to ignore all the incompetence and continue to be afraid. Also see his essay Terrorism is not about Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

StillBored 11y ago
Terrorism is ineffective when ignored. OTOH, when in response, governments spend trillions invading other countries, killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, spending 100's of billions spying on its own citizens, and passing totalitarian laws to peek into the most private of peoples possessions, and bodies, then yes, terrorism is effective.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  You're assuming that what the terrorists want is to e.g. have the US invade Iraq. You're assuming the terrorists want anything in particular, instead of being irrational criminally insane crackpots. Unless by "the terrorists" you mean the people who make money when governments and people overreact to terrorism. For them it seems quite effective. But presumably they aren't the ones actually carrying out the attacks, they're just the ones exploiting the loss of human life to gain filthy lucre.