Terror on Wall Street
damninteresting.com
damninteresting.com
For instance in the EU: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Un... The number of attacks and number of victims has been pretty much consistent since the 50s with a small spike with the Madrid bombings.
What has changed is our sensitivity to terrorism which has become absurdly high. There are violent crimes happening every day which kill an order of magnitude more people. Gang violence alone in the US kills several 9/11 every year. There are thousands of knife attacks just in London every year. None of that even make it to the news anymore.
And the number of deaths linked to terrorism (1,100 in Europe since the 50s according to that wiki article) is dwarfed by things like death due to accidental drowning (35,000 every year according to eurostat).
It is useful to remember this when we see politicians in pretty much every western countries throwing out of the window basic civil liberties in the name of the war on terror. The budget spent on anti-terrorism should be better spent teaching people to swim.
But when emotions kick in, when YOU feel YOU are attacked (and those are some powerful emotions!), proportions change, and you just want to nuke 'em to hell, twice. I think I react in similar way in... +- similar situations (more personal ones rather than attack on the nation). Sad story that whole USA got swayed into blind acceptance of any security measure to stop that ugly terrorist
For terrorism (or any disease for that matter) they do exactly the opposite. The message is pretty much "this could happen to you".
The reality is that plane crashes in Europe probably killed a multiple of what terrorism killed the past few years. We have 100+ deads in a single accident at least once a year. Us being afraid of terrorism is like an elephant afraid of a mosquito.
That's true assuming the goal is to reduce harm.
If the goal is to increase the power and control of the state, then teaching people to swim wouldn't be very helpful.
Its whole point is that it weakens the prestige of the state being attacked, i.e. it's not a personal but rather a national level attack, hence the retaliation.
The government and the media are the ones that leverage terrorism to instill terror.
Terrorism as a tactic in itself is a proven failure. It requires the support of media and government to have any impact.
Which makes the conspiracy theories of our own governments deliberately encouraging terrorism quite realistic.
Especially given that it has happened before (CCC, Gladio, etcetera). Western governments have never shied away for faking or aiding terrorism, it's remarkable that we keep referring to this as tin foil hattery despite a) the long track record and b) the simple fact that they are the only ones who profit from it.
I think there's two sides to that argument: what victims think and what terrorists think.
Terrorists believe that they instill terror and historically (and still in some countries) that was often the case.
> we just defiantly went about our business the same as before.
That is the American and PARTIALLY western way of dealing with it. It also happens to be the only viable thing I can think of to do against terrorism - although it's not effective at halting terrorism:
The "defiant" solution is sadly only effective as a deep cutting form of revenge, I doubt it will truly ever deter terrorism as it takes a special kind of stupidity to think that fear will turn hearts to your cause in the long run. As defiantly as America stands against terrorism; so will terrorists blindly continue to believe that it actually achieves anything.
This is possibly something that only evolution could fix.
You can reduce your odds of gang violence by not being affiliated with gangs or living in/near a ghetto. You can reduce your odds of a knife attack by not walking alone when it's dark. You can reduce accidental drowning by learning how to swim. There's not much you can do about terrorism other than not go in public or live in a remote area.
So could being struck by lightning, or someone falling asleep at the wheel and running you over, or [insert unlikely phenomenon here]. The reality is people are terrified because they are told to be.
We evolved in a world where most causes of death, you couldn't do anything about. If you got an infection, you either recover or die. Really all medical issues were untreatable. If you got struck by lightening, thats just bad luck. If a big predator attacks you, you probably can't outrun it or fight it. If a natural disaster happens, you can't do anything about it.
But an enemy plotting to kill you, that is something you can do something about. You can fight them. You can be prepared for them. You can strike first. Etc. Violence has never been the primary cause of death, but it's the primary cause of death you can do something about. We have evolved entire emotions and social instincts about dealing with enemies. From anger and hate to paranoia and suspicion/mistrust. We don't have instincts for evading lightening or car crashes.
Hence why shootings and terrorist attacks get far more media attention than natural disasters and accidents. The boston bombing happened around the same time as a massive chemical plant explosion which killed hundreds. Guess which one was all over the news? Guess which one people remember?
If you want to put an immediate end to terrorist attacks the only way to do so is to ensure that there are people witnessing the unfolding events (so they know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys) and empower them to solve the problem right away. No matter how you slice it, you can't make 1 in 5 people permanent, paid police officers so you have to look at the citizenry. If you can't abide the idea of normal people carrying guns everywhere then you need to learn to live with the idea that the police can't be everywhere all the time, and that these are the risks you take regarding terrorism to feel safe from your fellow countrymen who you deem untrustworthy.
That's the only realistic & cost-efficient approach given the threat model.
Edit: I am not being sarcastic at all. It will be exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the guns in the US so suggesting disarmament is a non-starter here. That means that terrorists will be able to get their hands on guns if they desire. Which means that you need someone to counter them with something. The logical conclusion is another person (preferably many people) with guns also. And since the police ratio in the US is on the order of 0.1% that's not going to give you an adequate response time as we've seen from mass shootings.
The real question is "would the cure be worse than the disease?" and while I personally think the answer is "no" that doesn't make me right. And given how much the left hates guns, I suspect that we'll never actually find out, so don't worry.
Power needs to be attacked, otherwise it's protection racket wouldn't work.
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble has something to say about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-ch...
Jesus, that sounds familiar. And this:
> Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists. Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street, but many of those voices fell silent in light of the new public sentiment. Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.
There seems to be no surer way to solidify a political tendency that to murder people while demanding its opposite.
The impact it had on the world is just too big to forget within 100 years. 9/11 fundamentally influenced American foreign policy. Think of the Iraqi invasion, the war on terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, heightened airline security.
We still learn about the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. It may have been the killing of just one man, but it led to WWI. We still learn about the Black Hole of Calcutta (whether it actually happened or not is a different story). We still learn about the Boston Tea Party. We still learn about the Defenestration of Prague that started the 30 Years War. I could go on...
> It'll be relegated to the history books possibly to be replaced with bigger issues that happen later.
Maybe not, if it's the root explanation of said later events.
Similar sorts of geopolitical consequences, similar timescale... the ease with which you recall the event is likely similar to the ease with which inhabitants of the US in 2115 will recall September 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#U...
Btw: it's kind of shocking to see concrete and metal garbage receptacles (shrapnel-enhancing, hiding systems) in the US, after working abroad in FR and UK. These things need to be proactively replaced with tiny alumin(i)um hoops and clear plastic bags. Even the HS I went to in the 90's had a pipebomb issue at some point and hence no lockers.
Like how the stock exchange opened the next day.
I mean, changing garbage cans, really, is fine. It's not a huge cost and doesn't make it hard for us to continue to live our lives. If making a change to the garbage cans makes you feel better, go ahead.
But think of the incredible cost of implementing the level of airline security we have now. For anything under four hours, you are better off taking a car. Sure, we're trying to improve our rail infrastructure to the point where that's an option, too, but we're a long ways off.
The terrorists did some damage, sure... but the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response.
Thumbs up for that. And respect to Boston for the way they handled the marathon bombings back in 2013.
> the actual damage they did in the September 11 attacks has been dwarfed, at least economically, by the fact that we have essentially ruined our air-travel system in response.
That however is a one-sided statement. The question is always: how many attacks did we prevent with the new security? You can't just weigh up 9/11 vs. the cost of airline security. You have to see 9/11 plus any attack that was prevented (which I agree is hard/impossible to measure) vs. our security costs.
I don't deny that some air-travel security is OTT. But you can't claim it's pointless.
(Quite apart from the fact that customers, out of fear, nowadays probably wouldn't fly with an airline that didn't provide an insane amount of security. Despite an almost century long track record of astounding safety, the air-travel industry still has to convince its customers all the time that flying is safe.)
Actually, we can: http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find...
TL;DR: "undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials"
To the extend increased security around air travel deterred anything, it's in the non-airport-screening efforts -- increased/better intelligence is a very plausible source, and the reinforced cockpit doors another.
9/11 has pretty much eliminated the possibility of a successful hijacking of a commercial flight in the United States, between better security between the cockpit and the cabin, and the fact that if any group of hijackers tries to take over using boxcutters again, they'll be bumrushed by the other passengers and beaten to death. Before, a hijacking usually just meant that your vacation plans got a little upset by a detour to Cuba, before negotiations straightened things out.
The last time I flew, I somehow got shuffled into a preferred-access security line. I showed my passport, and walked through to my gate, no dicking around with taking my shoes off, emptying my pockets out, dumping my laptop out of my bag, none of that garbage, and I was through to the gate 5 minutes after stepping out of the car. I did have to toss the last ounce or two of my coffee - clearly, something that I'm consuming in plain sight of the TSA weenies could be a volatile explosive compound. All in all, it was the best experience I've had with an airport since the days when there was no security. Or when I flew out of Germany or Switzerland.
Which is fine until some idiot blows up a train, then all of a sudden that becomes a massive inconvenience (all in the name of public safety!) as well...
Although interesting to see that that's exactly what happened on the 7/7 bombings in London and seems to have made zero difference re: security theatre on the Underground.
An example where terrorism had at least partial success and were undeniably influential was in the creation of modern Israel.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030438712...
There was also the MK in South Africa which did some bombings and then its allies, the ANC took over the government. There were no doubt other factors besides the terrorism here though.
Don't forget Nelson Mandela used to be called a terrorist but has since had his demands met so perhaps by definition a terrorist who wins is no longer considered to be a terrorist. Maybe that's why we don't hear about much history of this happening. We rewrite it.
http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
And also: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective
>In a [previous study of mine] assessing terrorism’s coercive effectiveness, I found that in a sample of 28 well-known terrorist campaigns, the terrorist organizations accomplished their stated policy goals 0% of the time by attacking civilians.
>Jones and Libicki (2008) then examined a larger sample, the universe of known terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006. Of the 648 groups identified in the RAND-MIPT Terrorism Incident database, only 4% obtained their strategic demands. More recently, Cronin (2009) has reexamined the success rate of these groups, confirming that less than 5% prevailed…Chenoweth and Stephan (2008, 2011) provide additional empirical evidence that meting out pain hurts non-state actors at the bargaining table. Their studies compare the coercive effectiveness of 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. Like Gaibulloev and Sandler (2009), the authors find that refraining from bloodshed significantly raises the odds of government compliance even after tactical confounds are held fixed. These statistical findings are reinforced with structured in-case comparisons highlighting that escalating from nonviolent methods of protest such as petitions, sit-ins, and strikes to deadly attacks tends to dissuade government compromise. Chenoweth and Stephan employ an aggregate measure of violence that incorporates both indiscriminate attacks on civilians and discriminate attacks on military personnel or other government officials, which are often differentiated from terrorism as guerrilla attacks (Abrahms 2006; Cronin 2009; and Moghadam 2006). Other statistical research (Abrahms, 2012, Fortna, 2011) demonstrates that when terrorist attacks are combined with such discriminate violence, the bargaining outcome is not additive; on the contrary, the pain to the population significantly decreases the odds of government concessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
The British are no longer in charge of Israel which is what the bombers wanted. I think.
(N.B. I like Jewish and Arab people and have no desire to see Israel involved in any conflict)
It's the investigators that are pointing the finger, not the author: "Investigators immediately suspected that the bombing was the work of Galleanist anarchists"
I'm just keeping you distracted while my minions and I complete construction of my doomsday device. Mwahaha, etc.
I understand that you would like me to have a political opinion that resembles your own, but I prefer to remain impartial and describe the facts.
Nonsense. They were guilty, as subsequent investigations have demonstrated.