12 ms·

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the

by Rapzid 12y ago

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. Build their bombs. Spend that sweet tax-payer money. Feel important. Lie to the government. The past seemed so legit and so ancient when I was growing up. After 9/11 I had no idea history was repeating itself. Now we have the ever present(statistically ridiculous) threat of "terrorism". The NSA needs more powers, more money; to protect us of course. They WOULD say that because that's how they get more money, more employees, more power. Still lying to the government of course(weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?). Now we have an ex-NSA head launching a venture charging companies 1 million a month to protect them! Of course they'll contract back to government. And the NSA will tell use all about how we don't need to worry about what they are doing, we just need to pay up. sigh

simonh 12y ago
> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. I fully accept a lot of mistakes were made during the cold war, and I also deplore the expensive, ineffective and unnecessary overreach by western intelligence agencies, but the threats they were and are purporting to defend us from are very real. Some of our responses to those threats have been mistaken and unnecessary, but it certainly does not follow that those threats don't exist and don't need to be responded to.
- mkaziz 12y ago
  If we're talking statistics, far more Americans die of diabetes and heart problems than terrorism. Better to spend trillions of dollars there, no, instead of bleeding that money in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- Perseids 12y ago
  > Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. Seriously? There ought to be something analogously to Godwin’s law to declare discussions lost after this class of arguments. To answer in kind: "I'd like to ask how you would explain the proportionality of the respond to the families of the tens to hundreds of thousand civilian casualties[1] in the Irak war." OR "[…] explain the justice and civility of the 'war against terror' to the hundreds (?) of innocent prisoners in Guantanamo bay." OR even "[…] explain the trillion dollar [2] that were spent on the military instead on fighting aids, cancer, malaria, diabetes,… to those suffering or those who have lost friends or family." Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat. No, but numerical arguments quickly become ridiculous when you ignore the fact that the emotional reaction of the nation to 3,000 Americans killed in a terrorist act is itself a physically cognizable phenomenon that must be given due weight in the analysis.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      It should be factored in. But at the same time, screaming about the badness makes that worse. Refuse to be terrorized.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Telling people how they should feel about other peoples' deaths is generally not going to get you anywhere. People feel what they feel.
- kome 12y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. The statistical ridiculousness of terrorism is explained by this https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ more than anything. Try to explain that to Iraqi families as well (among others). So called "terrorism" is more like a sane reaction to this shit.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  > > The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. > I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMD yes, and their population was also kept in constant fear of the western WMDs that were actually aimed at them. All that also served similar ends in their governments's own little empires. Source: museum of communism, Prague. https://www.flickr.com/photos/strawberryfrog/8233554/in/photolist-JcsG-JcxQ https://www.flickr.com/photos/strawberryfrog/8233554/in/phot...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- tomp 12y ago
  Apart from the points other posters made in reply to your comment, please keep in mind that it is not obvious that fearing an attack, military intelligence or threats of retaliation would reduce the probability of an attack happening (especially if it's a terrorist attack).
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. We've lost more people in the Iraq/Afghan wars than were lost in 9/11, for little progress - Iraq's splitting into pieces and much occupied by folks hardcore enough that Al Qaeda goes "hang on, you're making us look bad!" What's your explanation to their families?
  - Kiro 12y ago
    It's easy to be wise but I'm pretty sure no-one could have predicted the rise of ISIS. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannous dictator that ruled for too long.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Pretty much everyone predicted a power vacuum when the US pulled out. Hell, it was the stated reason by Dick Cheney for not going to Baghdad in 1991: > What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      You're right it seemed like most pundits predicted they'd call themselves SPECTRE or H.A.M.M.E.R. or something like that. You never can be too sure with these super-villains.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it." Shark attacks are statistically rare. Lightning strikes (of a human) are statistically rare. Adrenocortical carcinoma is statistically rare. Having to explain this to the family of a victim doesn't change that fact. In 2001, a banner year for terrorism, America lost more people to heart disease than terrorism. This should surprise no one. What's a little more surprising is the scale of the difference - not just more people, but 200 times as many people. To put it another way, if something on the scale of 9/11 happened every other day we'd still be losing more people to heart disease than to terrorism. Sure, there are criticisms to be had (e.g. we should be comparing years lost or quality of life not simply lives lost) but none of these come close to overcoming that 200 fold difference - one year lost by a 70 yo would have to translate to 200 years lost by a younger person, and those lost in 9/11 weren't especially young (average age was 40). Car accidents disproportionately kill the young, and also killed more Americans than terrorism that year. And of course those (and still other causes - many of them!) continue to kill many times more people than terrorism did in 2001 - terrorism does not.
  - refurb 12y ago
    I think comparing 9/11 to events like heart attacks and car accidents is silly. There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks.
    - e40 12y ago
      Agreed. Losing 300,000 is much worse.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks." Since you obviously don't mean the heart attacks are worse, and we obviously don't agree, please support this rather than just asserting it. If it simplifies matters, first support that losing one person to deliberate attack is significantly worse than losing one person to illness. Then we can look at whether "significant" is significant enough. One thing we can quickly agree on is that deterrence (or lack thereof) is more relevant in the case of an attack. But deterrence is only one kind of prevention. I don't see that the actual badness is greater in the case of the attack-caused death.
- mfisher87 12y ago
  > I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
- gone35 12y ago
  Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. This is how: in that year alone, 2001, over 10000 people were killed by gun homicides in the US --over three times as many random, pointless deaths as 9/11. Last year, there were over 15000: an increase of nearly twice as many families mourning the senseless death of their loved ones as the 9/11 families, but every year. And twice as many people every year die of car accidents --sudden, random, untimely deaths. Every year. These are inconceivable amounts of suffering, of mourning families and communities rent apart: almost as if the population of an entire mid-sized town got randomly obliterated every year. And then consider that, in their name, hundreds of thousands of other innocent families around the globe have gone through --and still go through-- their very same suffering on that day: losing their loved ones to unimaginably violent attacks out of nowhere, absurdly justified by some abstract, foreign notion --collateral damage, preventive strike, what not. The numbers don't lie. As a society, sooner or later we will have to come to terms precisely with the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism, and the grotesque price we have inflicted the world (and ourselves) with.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
AJ007 12y ago
The threat of a nuclear exchange is just as possible today as it was during the cold war. Both the US and Russia continue to build new nuclear weapons. This is far, far more serious than anything terrorists can do today. The Cold War de-escalated, but I would hardly call it over. Just today Russia launched three new nuclear submarines, capable of deploying ballistic missiles: http://www.janes.com/article/41339/russia-lays-keels-for-three-nuclear-subs http://www.janes.com/article/41339/russia-lays-keels-for-thr... Unfortunately since journalists rely so heavily on controlled leaks and targeted propaganda it just doesn't make headlines, but these events are hardly secret. I suspect we have a 50% chance of a nuclear weapon incident in the next 5 years. North Korea is run by a guy whose view of the world has almost no basis in reality. Pakistan-India, who knows what could happen. The US is pushing hard against Russia but I suspect both parties remain sane (though the point of the article is accidents.) Get to Mars fast.

by Rapzid 12y ago

simonh 12y ago

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. I fully accept a lot of mistakes were made during the cold war, and I also deplore the expensive, ineffective and unnecessary overreach by western intelligence agencies, but the threats they were and are purporting to defend us from are very real. Some of our responses to those threats have been mistaken and unnecessary, but it certainly does not follow that those threats don't exist and don't need to be responded to.

mkaziz 12y ago
If we're talking statistics, far more Americans die of diabetes and heart problems than terrorism. Better to spend trillions of dollars there, no, instead of bleeding that money in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Perseids 12y ago
> Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. Seriously? There ought to be something analogously to Godwin’s law to declare discussions lost after this class of arguments. To answer in kind: "I'd like to ask how you would explain the proportionality of the respond to the families of the tens to hundreds of thousand civilian casualties[1] in the Irak war." OR "[…] explain the justice and civility of the 'war against terror' to the hundreds (?) of innocent prisoners in Guantanamo bay." OR even "[…] explain the trillion dollar [2] that were spent on the military instead on fighting aids, cancer, malaria, diabetes,… to those suffering or those who have lost friends or family." Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat. No, but numerical arguments quickly become ridiculous when you ignore the fact that the emotional reaction of the nation to 3,000 Americans killed in a terrorist act is itself a physically cognizable phenomenon that must be given due weight in the analysis.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    It should be factored in. But at the same time, screaming about the badness makes that worse. Refuse to be terrorized.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Telling people how they should feel about other peoples' deaths is generally not going to get you anywhere. People feel what they feel.
kome 12y ago
> I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. The statistical ridiculousness of terrorism is explained by this https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ more than anything. Try to explain that to Iraqi families as well (among others). So called "terrorism" is more like a sane reaction to this shit.
SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
> > The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. > I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMD yes, and their population was also kept in constant fear of the western WMDs that were actually aimed at them. All that also served similar ends in their governments's own little empires. Source: museum of communism, Prague. https://www.flickr.com/photos/strawberryfrog/8233554/in/photolist-JcsG-JcxQ https://www.flickr.com/photos/strawberryfrog/8233554/in/phot...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 12y ago
Apart from the points other posters made in reply to your comment, please keep in mind that it is not obvious that fearing an attack, military intelligence or threats of retaliation would reduce the probability of an attack happening (especially if it's a terrorist attack).
ceejayoz 12y ago
> Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. We've lost more people in the Iraq/Afghan wars than were lost in 9/11, for little progress - Iraq's splitting into pieces and much occupied by folks hardcore enough that Al Qaeda goes "hang on, you're making us look bad!" What's your explanation to their families?
- Kiro 12y ago
  It's easy to be wise but I'm pretty sure no-one could have predicted the rise of ISIS. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannous dictator that ruled for too long.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Pretty much everyone predicted a power vacuum when the US pulled out. Hell, it was the stated reason by Dick Cheney for not going to Baghdad in 1991: > What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    You're right it seemed like most pundits predicted they'd call themselves SPECTRE or H.A.M.M.E.R. or something like that. You never can be too sure with these super-villains.
dllthomas 12y ago
"I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it." Shark attacks are statistically rare. Lightning strikes (of a human) are statistically rare. Adrenocortical carcinoma is statistically rare. Having to explain this to the family of a victim doesn't change that fact. In 2001, a banner year for terrorism, America lost more people to heart disease than terrorism. This should surprise no one. What's a little more surprising is the scale of the difference - not just more people, but 200 times as many people. To put it another way, if something on the scale of 9/11 happened every other day we'd still be losing more people to heart disease than to terrorism. Sure, there are criticisms to be had (e.g. we should be comparing years lost or quality of life not simply lives lost) but none of these come close to overcoming that 200 fold difference - one year lost by a 70 yo would have to translate to 200 years lost by a younger person, and those lost in 9/11 weren't especially young (average age was 40). Car accidents disproportionately kill the young, and also killed more Americans than terrorism that year. And of course those (and still other causes - many of them!) continue to kill many times more people than terrorism did in 2001 - terrorism does not.
- refurb 12y ago
  I think comparing 9/11 to events like heart attacks and car accidents is silly. There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks.
  - e40 12y ago
    Agreed. Losing 300,000 is much worse.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks." Since you obviously don't mean the heart attacks are worse, and we obviously don't agree, please support this rather than just asserting it. If it simplifies matters, first support that losing one person to deliberate attack is significantly worse than losing one person to illness. Then we can look at whether "significant" is significant enough. One thing we can quickly agree on is that deterrence (or lack thereof) is more relevant in the case of an attack. But deterrence is only one kind of prevention. I don't see that the actual badness is greater in the case of the attack-caused death.
mfisher87 12y ago
> I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
gone35 12y ago
Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. This is how: in that year alone, 2001, over 10000 people were killed by gun homicides in the US --over three times as many random, pointless deaths as 9/11. Last year, there were over 15000: an increase of nearly twice as many families mourning the senseless death of their loved ones as the 9/11 families, but every year. And twice as many people every year die of car accidents --sudden, random, untimely deaths. Every year. These are inconceivable amounts of suffering, of mourning families and communities rent apart: almost as if the population of an entire mid-sized town got randomly obliterated every year. And then consider that, in their name, hundreds of thousands of other innocent families around the globe have gone through --and still go through-- their very same suffering on that day: losing their loved ones to unimaginably violent attacks out of nowhere, absurdly justified by some abstract, foreign notion --collateral damage, preventive strike, what not. The numbers don't lie. As a society, sooner or later we will have to come to terms precisely with the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism, and the grotesque price we have inflicted the world (and ourselves) with.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

AJ007 12y ago

The threat of a nuclear exchange is just as possible today as it was during the cold war. Both the US and Russia continue to build new nuclear weapons. This is far, far more serious than anything terrorists can do today. The Cold War de-escalated, but I would hardly call it over. Just today Russia launched three new nuclear submarines, capable of deploying ballistic missiles: http://www.janes.com/article/41339/russia-lays-keels-for-three-nuclear-subs http://www.janes.com/article/41339/russia-lays-keels-for-thr... Unfortunately since journalists rely so heavily on controlled leaks and targeted propaganda it just doesn't make headlines, but these events are hardly secret. I suspect we have a 50% chance of a nuclear weapon incident in the next 5 years. North Korea is run by a guy whose view of the world has almost no basis in reality. Pakistan-India, who knows what could happen. The US is pushing hard against Russia but I suspect both parties remain sane (though the point of the article is accidents.) Get to Mars fast.