3 ms·
Maybe the fear-mongerers have won instead? There are lots of public places/events that don't require any searches/background checks and where a bomb would yiel
by Nextgrid 3y ago
Maybe the fear-mongerers have won instead?
There are lots of public places/events that don't require any searches/background checks and where a bomb would yield a significant number of casualties and terror to blowing up a regional jet, yet we don't seem to be having explosions every other day.
Maybe the terrorist threat is overblown and is merely kept around as a convenient excuse for more surveillance/repression?
- hoseja 3y agoThe terrorists were explicitly inducing the fearmonger response, no?
- sokoloff 3y agoYes, but that doesn’t obligate us to indulge them.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoYes and no? Terrorism is generally used against an enemy when actual military action is not possible. The intent would normally be to steer government action via basically public pressure. So the purpose is not the inconvenience or intrusiveness of counter terrorism precautions, that is just a side effect. Though most modern terrorism is likely a weird edge case rooted in an overly literal interpretation of a certain book which did not consider the case of a distant empire when it was designed, and therefore the terrorism has no logical game theoretic explanation (unlike, say, the IRA).
- sokoloff 3y agoIt’s a substantial jobs program as well, making it an additional amount sticky.
- skyyler 3y ago"fearmonger" and "terrorist" have strikingly similar definitions.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]