Terrorism: overreacting or not?

[arnamenta]

Do you think Americans are overreacting to violent acts that might be terrorist-related, or are we finally catching up to the rest of the world?

There are, sadly, many places where bombings are a weekly or daily occurance. Has America been shelted from this? How should we react?

[FUNKbrs]

I think we are overreacting in the case of calling everything "terrorist", but as far as being hit with bombings, I think we are just catching up with the rest of the world.

[D2Kvirus]

Over-reacting, 100%.

Just because they fell victim to the grand total of ONE terrorist attack, suddenly there's terrorists all drawing up plans to destroy their country? If that were true, why would they have waited for Ossie bin-Laden to go first, because there's some pact between the lot of them, since terrorist groups are all linked to one large, centralised dating agency?

Suddenly, they become experts as to who is a "terrorist" and what to do about them, yet they still don't accept the casual fact that, well, I hate to break it to you, terrorists aren't all from the Middle East. It may have been a good publicity tool for Bush to say Eta would be added when he was in Spain on diplomatic tour of duty, but were they pencilled in at the bottom, or casually ignored? After all, Bush likes Spain, since they agree with him (and they aren't trying to get a leg-up from their spot as one of the poorest countries in Europe by association) over bombing some country or other to dust for the sheer hell of it.

I have repeated, time and again, that for 20-odd years that mainland Briatain was subject to IRA attacks, but did Heath, Thatcher, Major or Blair (when he had his own free will) start to point fingers and interfere with other nation's problems? No; we had enough of our own, hence the minor fact that shouting "terrorist" in a crowded room didn't cause mass panic. Of course, Tony Blair's Culture of Fear levelled us up to paranoia, yet it didn't seem to register outside London. After all, most people accept that it's doubtful that Canturbury, Kiddiminster, or Milton Keynes will top the list of places to visit for British citizens, so Middle Eastern terrorists wouldn't be too bothered.

It didn't make all the tannoy messages about left luggage, and notes saying "Be vigilant, be alert" any less irritating, of course, but it could be worse. Day One of the "war" saw tinned food fly off shelves, and people buying apple trees in garden centres for a source of food for the inevitable holocaust. Thank you, Tony, for deciding that Iraq would bother to turn this country into a crater. Thanks to you and your role model Maggie, large parts of it are close enough as it is.

[arnamenta]

So what do you think people should do about it? Should people ignore it? I don't think that's a real solution. But overreacting isn't helping either.

Personally, I think we need to stop being so afraid. I think if we truly gave people a chance they wouldn't have as much reason to hate us. But does that go too against human nature? And how do we overcome all the generations of hate?

[Freakapotimus]

I think it's pretty sad when something bad happens and people need to be reassured that it wasn't an act of terrorism (eg Yale bombing).

[lapslf]

I think the US is already beyond "overreaction". There now in a fase called "paranoia". After this there will be "madness" and then... who knows?

[Alejandro1]

At 5/23/03 01:45 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: I think it's pretty sad when something bad happens and people need to be reassured that it wasn't an act of terrorism (eg Yale bombing).

The US is overreacting but we should constantly be aware of all possibilities in the future. I mean, since there's been like 3-4 terrorist attacks around the world in a week, who's to say that we're safe from terrorists?

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/23/03 01:15 PM, arnamenta wrote: Personally, I think we need to stop being so afraid. I think if we truly gave people a chance they wouldn't have as much reason to hate us. But does that go too against human nature? And how do we overcome all the generations of hate?

..that's how i see it too

i personally dispise G-Dubba when he repeats that old catch phrase, "we can't negotiate with these scumbags. We will hunt them down like the cowardly dogs they are"

that's like saying you can't negotiate with say, a baby, kos the baby will cry and throw a tantrum, but not understand or accept the word "NO" ..so what would Bush do with such a baby?

Sure, we humans are very good at "hunting"; tornadoes, viri, fish, oil, volcanoes, or people. But only people will be expecting you to come after them.

It might be hard to communicate or deal with them, but it doesn't mean they lack the ability to communicate with their own people, some of whom might help broker some leverage (..some degree of honour betwixt arch rivals)

The IRA haven't blown anyone up for several years - but then again, they did get concessions from the Brits. Bush is plain old stubborn and provocative and will prolly reap all the evil he and his kind are seeking.

[Facethatisyours]

At 5/23/03 09:56 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Over-reacting, 100%.

Just because they fell victim to the grand total of ONE terrorist attack, suddenly there's terrorists all drawing up plans to destroy their country?

I couldn't agree more. Between color-coded terror alerts and going to war with any country possible in order to "wipe out terrorism", I beleive that the U.S. government has gone insane. That is the only way a can describe it. It is as if logic doesn't exist anymore. There are other countries that are being attacked by terrorists once a week or more, and the U.S. acts like it is in even more danger than them. It kinda makes me embarrassed to live in this country. At least a little bit.

[Lyddiechu]

Amen D2K and Veggie... we know now what the rest of the world has known for decades.

If the US wants to be some imperial power, it needs to get used to the fact that they will always have to deal with terrorism since that is the only way for the powerless to affect the powerful. Unfortunately, in the game of world politics, the proverbial "women and children" are always getting in the way as collateral damage. America really has no right to be calling terrorists immoral, since the terrorists are just playing by the rules of international relations which by default are amoral (not moral or immoral people... AMORAL). It is America's own fault that they are attacked (happens to every other "empire" - see D2K's british example). If America really cared about stopping terrorism, they would pull out of the developing world and leave people the hell alone to find their own national sovereignty under the rule they really want.

Of course that will never happen. And I'm not saying it should. The US is too dependant on its international interests to just quit playing global policeman. We just need to get as used to terrorism as we possibly can, improve our methods of fighting it, and MOST IMPORTANTLY win a war of hearts and minds with the use of brainwashing through money. There isn't one culture on the face of this earth who could affect America who isnt interested in money.

Financial interdependence, people. It's the only way to world peace.

[Kay-Turner]

The real reason we people of the Us are so against terrorism is because of possible nuclear threat. If they could happen to get a nuke and plant it somewhere in a city, millions of people will die.

WE must do something or we will have something done to us. Its obvious.

[Jiperly]

Virus, theres been more than one- plenty all around, but on American soil theres been 3 major ones on American soil- the Sept. 11th incident, the 1993 car bombing at the WTC, and the Unibomber.

[arnamenta]

At 5/23/03 07:12 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: Financial interdependence, people. It's the only way to world peace.

And people play fair when money's involved? How could we insure that?

[Lyddiechu]

And people play fair when money's involved? How could we insure that?

people don't really matter in this case, its the corporations that control them that do.. obviously as we have seen with enron in the like, when corps. dont play fair, they fail miserably. i think things like that and a government that plays a serious, heavy handed role in making sure corps. play by the rules would be beneficial to everyone.

countries that trade with each other don't fight each other (ex us and saudi arabia) no matter how different their ideologies are.

[Jimsween]

At 5/23/03 01:56 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: I think the US is already beyond "overreaction". There now in a fase called "paranoia". After this there will be "madness" and then... who knows?

How exactly is any of this overreaction? Can you name any particular way we are overreacting? From what I've seen we are undereacting, but I guess you would know more about America living in Holland.

[Jimsween]

At 5/23/03 09:56 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Over-reacting, 100%.

Just because they fell victim to the grand total of ONE terrorist attack, suddenly there's terrorists all drawing up plans to destroy their country? If that were true, why would they have waited for Ossie bin-Laden to go first, because there's some pact between the lot of them, since terrorist groups are all linked to one large, centralised dating agency?

Could it possibly be because Ossama put out tons of videos saying that he was going to attack America. Or that Al queda goes out of it's way to attack Americans. I dont recall anyone saying that America was the target of every terrorist group, It is however true that there are Terrorist groups who want to attack America. Which is reason enough to worry, but I guess not for you, by your standards a country needs to be threatened by ALL terrorist organisations in order for it to take precautions.

Suddenly, they become experts as to who is a "terrorist" and what to do about them, yet they still don't accept the casual fact that, well, I hate to break it to you, terrorists aren't all from the Middle East. It may have been a good publicity tool for Bush to say Eta would be added when he was in Spain on diplomatic tour of duty, but were they pencilled in at the bottom, or casually ignored? After all, Bush likes Spain, since they agree with him (and they aren't trying to get a leg-up from their spot as one of the poorest countries in Europe by association) over bombing some country or other to dust for the sheer hell of it.

Once again, you just assume that people are thinking this. Nobody ever said that only Middle easterns are terrorists but currently the majority of terroroist groups targeting us ARE set up in middle eastern countries. It doesnt really make much sense for us to invade Ireland because the IRA is targeting us because it isnt.

I have repeated, time and again, that for 20-odd years that mainland Briatain was subject to IRA attacks, but did Heath, Thatcher, Major or Blair (when he had his own free will) start to point fingers and interfere with other nation's problems? No; we had enough of our own, hence the minor fact that shouting "terrorist" in a crowded room didn't cause mass panic. Of course, Tony Blair's Culture of Fear levelled us up to paranoia, yet it didn't seem to register outside London. After all, most people accept that it's doubtful that Canturbury, Kiddiminster, or Milton Keynes will top the list of places to visit for British citizens, so Middle Eastern terrorists wouldn't be too bothered.

And that worked out so well for Britan, the fact of the matter is that Ireland WAS trying to solve the problem and wasn't controlled by the IRA. Unlike Afghanistan which WAS controlled by the Taliban.
Which would be why we attacked them. The fact is, if we keep doing the same things we have been doing to stop terrorism it will never stop, it will only get to be more of a problem like it has already. The only way to stop it is by actually doing something because whatever we were doing before certainly wasn't working.

It didn't make all the tannoy messages about left luggage, and notes saying "Be vigilant, be alert" any less irritating, of course, but it could be worse. Day One of the "war" saw tinned food fly off shelves, and people buying apple trees in garden centres for a source of food for the inevitable holocaust. Thank you, Tony, for deciding that Iraq would bother to turn this country into a crater. Thanks to you and your role model Maggie, large parts of it are close enough as it is.

I should have known you would have brought Iraq into this, seeing as it is the only thing you know how to debate. But I dont see what Iraq would have to do with this at all. According to you Iraq never supported terrorism and I certainly never heard bush say the war on Iraq was to stop terroris. Is it just that you wanted to mock your Prime Minister because Iraq really has nothing to do with this topic.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/23/03 11:00 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/23/03 01:56 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: I think the US is already beyond "overreaction". There now in a fase called "paranoia". After this there will be "madness" and then... who knows?

How exactly is any of this overreaction? Can you name any particular way we are overreacting? From what I've seen we are undereacting, but I guess you would know more about America living in Holland.

I think Veggie means the way that if anything happens, the first thing the Americans release is one of two sentences:

"We have not ruled out the possibilty of Terrorism"
"...was definately NOT an act of Terrorism"

The continual reference to it is the over-reaction. I think most Americans are probably paranoid, just because of this continual refernce to terrorism (it would get me paranoid) but they're not hystarical. Not until the first hi-jacked atomic weapon goes off...

[Commander-K25]

At 5/23/03 07:12 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: Financial interdependence, people. It's the only way to world peace.

I agree with some of what you said, but this last statement really gets to me. The theory of financial interdependence as the insurer of world peace was tossed around during the late 19th - early 20th century. People came to believe that there would never be a long or serious war between major powers because of the financial impact on the countires involved. This notion however was shattered by the horror of World War One. "Financial interdependence" could not prevent the war or bring it to a quick "before the leaves fall" ending. Although the finances of all nearly all nations majorly involved, the war dragged on for four years and wreaked havoc throughout Europe.

[JMHX]

We're overreacting, and everyone can see it. Our media has a knack for making things much, much, MUCH bigger than they actually are so they can get a nice rating from the powers that be over at Nielsen.

[Lyddiechu]

At 5/24/03 02:37 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: I agree with some of what you said, but this last statement really gets to me. The theory of financial interdependence as the insurer of world peace was tossed around during the late 19th - early 20th century. People came to believe that there would never be a long or serious war between major powers because of the financial impact on the countires involved.

excellent point, commander. however, the financial impact would have been because of losses of material goods and life, not from loss of trading partners.

the world today is a much different place than it was in WWI, corporations play more of a role in running the world than governments do. for example, even if the chinese government did something to politically or militarily piss of the US, we would never go to war against them because the corporations and lobbyist groups would never, EVER allow us to. they have too many interests in that part of the world.

ok so i admit, my statement was incredibly one dimensional about financial interdependence bringing world peace. world peace is IMPOSSIBLE because of idealogical conflict. i should have said the world would be more peaceful if oh, lets say, the israelis and palestinians found some way to be financially dependant on one another or something.

i dont want to sound like a psycho uber capitalist here. we still need to keep in mind the rights of the workers and the consumers. thats what governments are for (or should be for).. the protection of unions and consumers.

[Slizor]

people don't really matter in this case, its the corporations that control them that do.. obviously as we have seen with enron in the like, when corps. dont play fair, they fail miserably.

Actually I think that Enron proves that Corporations can play unfairly, sure in the end they got fucked, but that isn't inevitable and a lot of people made a lot of money out of it.

As for Commander's example comment: The world has changed very very dramatically since the end of WW1. We've seen the World's largest empire (It was actually at its biggest after World War 1 as it gained the "mandates") decline into a very very small nation. We've seen the erosion of national sovereignty with Transnational corporations taking power, we've seen two superpowers duke it out. Things have changed. The important point though, after recognising that things have changed is that they have changed giving countries more interdependence. Britain used to have an empire with which to "acquire" raw materials now it does actually have to trade with places. Britain, as an empire could survive without the rest of the world, I highly doubt any country could do that now.

ps I am a wee bit drunk, thus have rambled.

[arnamenta]

At 5/24/03 11:48 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

ok so i admit, my statement was incredibly one dimensional about financial interdependence bringing world peace. world peace is IMPOSSIBLE because of idealogical conflict. i should have said the world would be more peaceful if oh, lets say, the israelis and palestinians found some way to be financially dependant on one another or something.

Israel is rather dependant on cheap Palestinian labor, actually, and Palestinians are dependant on Israel for jobs. It doesn't seem to matter anymore though. True interdependance without one group being dominant is nearly impossible.

[Commander-K25]

My example was not meant to convey a belief that the world is the same as it was circa 1914, but rather that such theories of economics preventing war have been proposed before and proven wrong. If people are turly determined to fight each other, no amount of money will buy them off.

And remember, history is cyclical.

[Jimsween]

At 5/24/03 02:18 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/23/03 11:00 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/23/03 01:56 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: I think the US is already beyond "overreaction". There now in a fase called "paranoia". After this there will be "madness" and then... who knows?

How exactly is any of this overreaction? Can you name any particular way we are overreacting? From what I've seen we are undereacting, but I guess you would know more about America living in Holland.

I think Veggie means the way that if anything happens, the first thing the Americans release is one of two sentences:

"We have not ruled out the possibilty of Terrorism"
"...was definately NOT an act of Terrorism"

The continual reference to it is the over-reaction. I think most Americans are probably paranoid, just because of this continual refernce to terrorism (it would get me paranoid) but they're not hystarical. Not until the first hi-jacked atomic weapon goes off...

Well you would be paranoid too if terrorist groups singled you out, and it doesnt help either that our government TELLS us to be paranoid. Prepare for terrorism jsut like you do hurricanes my ASS.

[mrpopenfresh]

I think what showed the american paranoia was at the superbowl. They beefed up the security at incredible levels. I would've been awe-sturck if terrorist had blown up the superbowl! But on another note, I find it kind of odd that americans think that one terrorist attack after 50 years of peace on home soil, anti-americans would blow things up every other week.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/24/03 06:49 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: I think what showed the american paranoia was at the superbowl. They beefed up the security at incredible levels. I would've been awe-sturck if terrorist had blown up the superbowl! But on another note, I find it kind of odd that americans think that one terrorist attack after 50 years of peace on home soil, anti-americans would blow things up every other week.

Terrorists couldn't care less about the superbowl. They want political places, like the pentagon or the White House. I'm suprised nobody has tried to attack the White House yet.

[Lyddiechu]

maybe the whitehouse is too typical a target? or just too hard to hit? anyway tho, i wouldnt really mind if bush, cheyney, and rummy all got umm... put out of comission during the attack. would probably do a thing or two for world peace :) (uh oh house commitee on unamerican activities, i hear you calling my name!)

[Jimsween]

At 5/24/03 06:49 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: I think what showed the american paranoia was at the superbowl. They beefed up the security at incredible levels. I would've been awe-sturck if terrorist had blown up the superbowl!

They alos beefed up security at the world cup after 9/11, so the whole world is paranoid too?

But on another note, I find it kind of odd that americans think that one terrorist attack after 50 years of peace on home soil, anti-americans would blow things up every other week.

We have had faaarr more than 1 attack, but it was the immensity of the attack that was so important. And that comment is yet more proof of how stupid you are, we start a war in Afgahnistan that was loooonngg overdue and for some reason that means that we go out and start wars after every terrorist attack.

[LiL-FiEND]

I totally agree.. We are overreacting to an extent. However, when the us went to War with Iraq, most people who were campaigning against the war wouldn't have even been able to explain what the war was about. It's really dumb to watch people bitch and complain, about something they don't even know the facts on. But yes, overall, we overreact more than necessary (if there even is a necessary amount of overreacting?)

[Nightshadeplus]

At 5/23/03 08:58 PM, Jiperly wrote: Virus, theres been more than one- plenty all around, but on American soil theres been 3 major ones on American soil- the Sept. 11th incident, the 1993 car bombing at the WTC, and the Unibomber.

Don't forget the bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Georgia. :(

I believe there is an overreaction to the terrorist threat or at least at certain times such as when the US government suggested citizens to buy duct tape and metal sheeting in case of a terrorist attacks (I guess the next step would be that the government will ask the public to start building their own fall-out shelters again -_-*) More often than not, I think that the US is coming to terms that they are not invincible to attack. The amount of uneasiness in the air might be similar to what was felt during some of the Cold War years.