7 ms·

That's an easy advice to give when you're not really facing terrorism, but an extremely difficult one to follow when there's non-negligible chance your children

by nir 16y ago

That's an easy advice to give when you're not really facing terrorism, but an extremely difficult one to follow when there's non-negligible chance your children's school bus will be bombed.

moultano 16y ago
There's a much greater chance that your children's school bus will be in a horrific traffic accident.
- nir 16y ago
  Again, depending on where you are.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Where is the danger of a terrorist attack on a schoolbus currently the greatest? How does that danger there compare to the danger of a traffic crash involving a schoolbus? There should be official statistics on all these issues anywhere where governance hasn't completely broken down.
    - nir 16y ago
      You are extrapolating from your own experience on situations which are very different. My argument has two points: 1. I don't consider the current situation in the US "terror". I'm talking about different times and places. If you were boarding a bus in Israel, Sri Lanka, Iraq during certain periods of time, you would have a higher chance of dying from a bombing than from an accident. 2. The natural response to terror is anything but rational. It is a completely different feeling to go on a bus knowing there's a possibility of an accident to going on a bus knowing that one of the passengers may be carrying a bomb.
      - pyre 16y ago
        > It is a completely different feeling to go on a bus knowing there's a possibility of an accident to going on a bus knowing that one of the passengers may be carrying a bomb. I would compare the feeling to the feeling of wanting to do something, but not having the guts to just 'do it.' In this case, you want to search everyone on the bus that you don't trust until you are satisfied there is no bomb, but social pressures prevent you from doing so. This causes the stress. The difference just being acceptance. When you believe that someone may be carrying a bomb you hold onto some hope that something can be done to stop them. When you get on a bus knowing that there is the possibility of an accident, there's not much you can do short of wrestling for control of the bus from the driver (or just not getting on the bus). People have accepted that accidents happen. People have not accepted yet that 'terrorism' is a fact of life.
      - moultano 16y ago
        >If you were boarding a bus in Israel, Sri Lanka, Iraq during certain periods of time, you would have a higher chance of dying from a bombing than from an accident. You should check the stats on these things first. I'm pretty certain that isn't true. Check out the traffic fatality rate in Iraq: http://chartsbin.com/view/0lz http://chartsbin.com/view/0lz Even with the rate of Israel at 7.59 per 100,000, that comes out to 539 people per year. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+israel+*+7.59/100000 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+israel+*+... That is more people every year than have died of terrorism in any year during Israel's history, even 1948. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terrorism%20deaths%20in%20Israel%20-%201920-1999 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terror... Even in the most terrorism-stricken places on earth, traffic fatalities still dwarf terrorism.
        nir 16y ago
        Certain time, certain place. Check bus stats in Israel between 1993-2006 - I guarantee you will find significantly more passengers died of bombings than accidents. In any case, the stats are meaningless, as they have nothing to do with human nature and the way we perceive odds & danger. When the Beltway sniper was operating I don't think anyone was calmed by the knowledge their chances of being hit are really quite small.
pavel_lishin 16y ago
That sounds more like war than terrorism.
- elblanco 16y ago
  Terrorism is a legitimate tool or strategy of warfare. It's terrible, distasteful and I think we can all agree it's bad. But in terms of asymmetrical warfare strategy it's the strongest weapon you can use. People often forget that because most people think along lines of war having rules and being civil (and following conventions of war and honorable rules of engagement and such). But it wasn't all that long ago really that it was perfectly common and acceptable to do things worse than terrorism. Like rape and pillage an entire city as a perfectly legitimate and really quite typical invasion tactic.
  - cousin_it 16y ago
    Yes yes yes. Either you believe that asymmetric tactics like terrorism are legitimate, or you believe that anyone who has the biggest guns should be boss forever 'n ever. And I say that as someone who lives in Moscow, which has faced terrorism very recently.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    That depends on your definition of 'legitimate'. According to broadly-accepted international law, from the 20th century on terrorism is not a 'legitimate tool of warfare'. If you argue that it is (can be) an effective tool, then yes - in the same way rape and pillage can be. Terrorizing opponents is not exclusively for the small party in an asymmetric way.
jrockway 16y ago
Who cares? Making the replacement kids is fun!

by nir 16y ago

That's an easy advice to give when you're not really facing terrorism, but an extremely difficult one to follow when there's non-negligible chance your children's school bus will be bombed.

moultano 16y ago

There's a much greater chance that your children's school bus will be in a horrific traffic accident.

nir 16y ago
Again, depending on where you are.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Where is the danger of a terrorist attack on a schoolbus currently the greatest? How does that danger there compare to the danger of a traffic crash involving a schoolbus? There should be official statistics on all these issues anywhere where governance hasn't completely broken down.
  - nir 16y ago
    You are extrapolating from your own experience on situations which are very different. My argument has two points: 1. I don't consider the current situation in the US "terror". I'm talking about different times and places. If you were boarding a bus in Israel, Sri Lanka, Iraq during certain periods of time, you would have a higher chance of dying from a bombing than from an accident. 2. The natural response to terror is anything but rational. It is a completely different feeling to go on a bus knowing there's a possibility of an accident to going on a bus knowing that one of the passengers may be carrying a bomb.
    - pyre 16y ago
      > It is a completely different feeling to go on a bus knowing there's a possibility of an accident to going on a bus knowing that one of the passengers may be carrying a bomb. I would compare the feeling to the feeling of wanting to do something, but not having the guts to just 'do it.' In this case, you want to search everyone on the bus that you don't trust until you are satisfied there is no bomb, but social pressures prevent you from doing so. This causes the stress. The difference just being acceptance. When you believe that someone may be carrying a bomb you hold onto some hope that something can be done to stop them. When you get on a bus knowing that there is the possibility of an accident, there's not much you can do short of wrestling for control of the bus from the driver (or just not getting on the bus). People have accepted that accidents happen. People have not accepted yet that 'terrorism' is a fact of life.
    - moultano 16y ago
      >If you were boarding a bus in Israel, Sri Lanka, Iraq during certain periods of time, you would have a higher chance of dying from a bombing than from an accident. You should check the stats on these things first. I'm pretty certain that isn't true. Check out the traffic fatality rate in Iraq: http://chartsbin.com/view/0lz http://chartsbin.com/view/0lz Even with the rate of Israel at 7.59 per 100,000, that comes out to 539 people per year. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+israel+*+7.59/100000 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+israel+*+... That is more people every year than have died of terrorism in any year during Israel's history, even 1948. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terrorism%20deaths%20in%20Israel%20-%201920-1999 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terror... Even in the most terrorism-stricken places on earth, traffic fatalities still dwarf terrorism.
      - nir 16y ago
        Certain time, certain place. Check bus stats in Israel between 1993-2006 - I guarantee you will find significantly more passengers died of bombings than accidents. In any case, the stats are meaningless, as they have nothing to do with human nature and the way we perceive odds & danger. When the Beltway sniper was operating I don't think anyone was calmed by the knowledge their chances of being hit are really quite small.

pavel_lishin 16y ago

That sounds more like war than terrorism.

elblanco 16y ago
Terrorism is a legitimate tool or strategy of warfare. It's terrible, distasteful and I think we can all agree it's bad. But in terms of asymmetrical warfare strategy it's the strongest weapon you can use. People often forget that because most people think along lines of war having rules and being civil (and following conventions of war and honorable rules of engagement and such). But it wasn't all that long ago really that it was perfectly common and acceptable to do things worse than terrorism. Like rape and pillage an entire city as a perfectly legitimate and really quite typical invasion tactic.
- cousin_it 16y ago
  Yes yes yes. Either you believe that asymmetric tactics like terrorism are legitimate, or you believe that anyone who has the biggest guns should be boss forever 'n ever. And I say that as someone who lives in Moscow, which has faced terrorism very recently.
- roel_v 16y ago
  That depends on your definition of 'legitimate'. According to broadly-accepted international law, from the 20th century on terrorism is not a 'legitimate tool of warfare'. If you argue that it is (can be) an effective tool, then yes - in the same way rape and pillage can be. Terrorizing opponents is not exclusively for the small party in an asymmetric way.

jrockway 16y ago

Who cares? Making the replacement kids is fun!