Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#41

Post by cema »

rick888 wrote: post #25
cstavish wrote: post #7

It amazes me that people freak out when they see "Muslim-looking" people on flights. The politically-correct response is along the lines of "OMG That is highly prejudicial!", but that's irrelevant. From a purely practical perspective, why would a terrorist leader send an attacker whom many Americans immediately view as "suspicious", when he could send someone who appears more "normal"? On another note, people these d…

yeah, well, 9/11 still happened with people that didn't appear "normal". "The way to fight it is to alter the conditions. To do this we must understand why people hate America." We should bend over backwards to make the terrorists happy so they don't attack us? What if they hate us because we aren't part of their religion..is the answer to make the US a Muslim country? Negotiating with terrorists that clearly aren't…

  9/11 still happened with people that didn't appear "normal"
Actually, they did appear normal. USA is a very multinational country, and these guys would not look much different from the rest of the passengers. Especially in international airports of large cities of the Eastern shore where they boarded the planes.

(Mohammed Atta could be an exception. Not by the looks, but by his facial expression. I believe I saw him with a few of his co-conspirators several months before 9/11, and he did stand out.)

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#42

Post by cema »

thyrsus wrote: post #4

Five years latter, the U.S. has institutionalized a terrified attitude, at least with respect to air travel. At this point, the only thing that might compel me to put up with the useless, degrading, indignity of U.S. air travel would be a dire family obligation - like a funeral - which I couldn't meet in any other way. I am appalled that my fellow citizens demand this abasement.

  I am appalled that my fellow citizens demand this abasement.
Many demand the opposite, but there is no political mechanism that would listen to them specifically. They need to convince the rest first, then it can be done.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#43

Post by acabal »

rick888 wrote: post #35
acabal wrote: post #8

Good article but it'll never be read by those who need to read it most. Unfortunately terror has now been institutionalized. The TSA is a massive bureaucracy that generates jobs and cash flow. It's not something that will ever be dismantled overnight. That's not even mentioning the political convenience it provides: with it politicians can keep us afraid, thus getting our votes when they promise to protect us. It goe…

The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society. "fear of walking the streets alone at night" It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense. "Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol" If someone hacked i…

Your view is exactly the kind of fear I'm referring to.

Re. Tylenol, 7 people died in an isolated area, and the response was national legislation and money and materials spent tamper-proofing every drug made since then. People are still scared of Halloween candy being tampered with (which in and of itself has never been recorded as happening). By that logic, we should have outlawed cars years ago; more than 7 people die every day in accidents.

Re. military action, the occupation of Iraq had little to do with stopping "terrorists." If you recall, we invaded because of our fears of WMD's--which of course, turned out not to exist. You would also do well to recall that we have had terrorist attacks since we invaded: remember the shoe bomber, or the underwear bomber, who both successfully smuggled explosives into a plane after military action had begun? Only their own incompetence and the alertness of the passengers prevented tragedy--the military had nothing to do with it. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, simple ignorance.

Finally, I'm reminded of a Simpsons quote: For $100, I can sell you a rock that prevents tiger attacks. It really works: I've never been attacked by a tiger since I bought my own rock!

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#44

Post by jdietrich »

rick888 wrote: post #35
acabal wrote: post #8

Good article but it'll never be read by those who need to read it most. Unfortunately terror has now been institutionalized. The TSA is a massive bureaucracy that generates jobs and cash flow. It's not something that will ever be dismantled overnight. That's not even mentioning the political convenience it provides: with it politicians can keep us afraid, thus getting our votes when they promise to protect us. It goe…

The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society. "fear of walking the streets alone at night" It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense. "Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol" If someone hacked i…

> I actually would love for the US to stop all military actions and then have a major terrorist attack. I know I would be the first to blame all of the people who said we were too "paranoid".

So you'd happily see thousands of people killed as long as it proves you right?

Classy.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#45

Post by huhtenberg »

Jach wrote: post #12
huhtenberg wrote: post #9

That's all great, but consider a situation. I get on the plane and sit next to a guy who avoids eye contact, does not respond to Hi and then starts praying, seemingly detached from the reality. Shall I just ignore this and refuse to be terrorized? I will tell you more. As someone who rode on a subway train that was next to the one blown up in a terrorist attack, I will walk out of a coffee shop if I see a person leav…

> I get on the plane and sit next to a guy who avoids eye contact, does not respond to Hi and then starts praying, seemingly detached from the reality. Shall I just ignore this and refuse to be terrorized? The idea isn't to shrug off what you perceive to be dangerous situations. The recent attempts at US attacks were thwarted because people were correctly suspicious. Level of suspicion also depends on where you're at…

Of course it all depends on many factors, location included. I thought it was obvious, but apparently judging by the down-voting frenzy it is not.

Ironically enough the only time I walked out of public place over a left behind bag was in Vancouver. A hippy-looking Jesus person marched into a Starbucks, dropped his canvas bag on an empty chair, paused for a second and marched out. He was completely spaced out, not focusing on anything, and it all looked as odd as it sounds. It was on Robson street around lunch time. So I got up and left, and do tell me that it was not reasonable thing to do. The guy was outside, just outside the entrance, yelling at someone over a cellphone, and that explained his behavior. But without knowing that it could've been something else.

And, yes, I am familiar with the term "security theater".

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#46

Post by kstenerud »

rick888 wrote: post #25
cstavish wrote: post #7

It amazes me that people freak out when they see "Muslim-looking" people on flights. The politically-correct response is along the lines of "OMG That is highly prejudicial!", but that's irrelevant. From a purely practical perspective, why would a terrorist leader send an attacker whom many Americans immediately view as "suspicious", when he could send someone who appears more "normal"? On another note, people these d…

yeah, well, 9/11 still happened with people that didn't appear "normal". "The way to fight it is to alter the conditions. To do this we must understand why people hate America." We should bend over backwards to make the terrorists happy so they don't attack us? What if they hate us because we aren't part of their religion..is the answer to make the US a Muslim country? Negotiating with terrorists that clearly aren't…

There are two kinds of terrorists: The desperate and the insane. A life of terrorism is very unstable, and usually quite brutal and short. The desperate join up because the only other alternative is rolling over and either dying or becoming enslaved in some way. Theirs is a rational choice. The insane are men who crave power to such a degree that there is little they won't do to secure it, but in order to succeed they need numbers. That's where the desperate come in.

People prefer order to chaos. Order brings prosperity and security. But when there's no hope of prosperity or security, people start to look for ways to change the political landscape to improve their chances of surviving as a group. The closer they feel they are to having their lives or culture or way of life annihilated, the more desperate they become. (It's worth noting that you can manufacture greater desperation in the minds of people around a kernel of real desperation, which makes for an effective recruiting tactic, especially among the religious)

If you want to stop terrorism, you must work to end the source of their desperation. Once you remove (or diminish) the desperate from the equation, the insane will neither be able to form numbers of any notability, nor secure the goodwill of others. They will be treated as they are: criminally insane.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#48

Post by HerraBRE »

rick888 wrote: post #35
acabal wrote: post #8

Good article but it'll never be read by those who need to read it most. Unfortunately terror has now been institutionalized. The TSA is a massive bureaucracy that generates jobs and cash flow. It's not something that will ever be dismantled overnight. That's not even mentioning the political convenience it provides: with it politicians can keep us afraid, thus getting our votes when they promise to protect us. It goe…

The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society. "fear of walking the streets alone at night" It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense. "Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol" If someone hacked i…

Having lived both in the U.S. and abroad (I have dual citizenship), I have to say I agree with the original comment. Americans are afraid, and the culture of fear predates 9/11 by a wide margin.

If you want to estimate how many attacks have been prevented by your paranoia, take a look at how many attacks have succeeded in countries with far laxer security. I think you'll find there's not much of a difference, you are paying dearly for not much at all.

Of course, America may have an above-average number of enemies, which might justify tighter security.

But if that is the case, it is worth asking why - and if the root cause can be addressed by diplomacy or (GASP) better behavior on the global stage, then maybe that would be a good alternative to sacrificing your own civil liberties?

Just a thought. :-)

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#49

Post by mcantelon »

acabal wrote: post #8

Good article but it'll never be read by those who need to read it most. Unfortunately terror has now been institutionalized. The TSA is a massive bureaucracy that generates jobs and cash flow. It's not something that will ever be dismantled overnight. That's not even mentioning the political convenience it provides: with it politicians can keep us afraid, thus getting our votes when they promise to protect us. It goe…

Terrorism is a great guise under which to built a counterinsurgency apparatus.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#50

Post by jamesbkel »

coffeedrinker wrote: post #39
jamesbkel wrote: post #30

This has always been one of my biggest issues with "counter-terrorism". If the costs of fighting terrorism outweigh the damage that a genuine terrorist group could inflict... who really wins? As a US citizen, I don't doubt that some of our spending has directly stopped particular terrorist plots. However, my point for the past ~10 years has been: they [terrorists] are tricking us into burning money chasing them aroun…

>they [terrorists] are tricking us into burning money chasing them around the world The terrorists are not the ones gaining financially and they are not the ones tricking us.

I didn't mean to say that terrorists are gaining financially or that the "burn[t] money" goes to them. I'd be surprised if that's a real goal.

My point was that regardless of where the money ends up, if it's misappropriated then it's a waste.

Post reply on HN