Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The number of people killed on September 11th is approximately the same number killed on the USA's roads in *one month* and resulted in a massive downturn in people using air travel, even though there were huge increases in security.
|
The road deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of modern life, having your life ended by terrorists in the manner of 9/11 can in no way be compared to that.
[...]
The way the UK railways have been mismanaged, I can't really blame them. It certainly was looking like it might become a common occurance.
[...]
By the same token we should leave all that food contaminated with Sudan I on the shelves, because there really is only a very tiny risk associated with it in the quantities in which it is found in that food.
[...]
If you discontinue with something because of an associated risk when you don't need to continue with it is not irrational, it's sensible. |
In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.
You are much more likely to die in a road accident than from a terrorist attack.
You are much more likely to die in a road accident than in a rail accident.
If you are female you are more likely to die from complications in pregnancy due to *not* taking that type of Pill than from any risk of heart disease.
Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner. They see headlines and very often don't bother to look behind them, this is very probably what the government is *relying* on to get their anti-terror legislation through Parliament (and also very probably what got George W Bush re-elected).
|
It is true that some people's response to a perceived threat (i.e. risk) can sometimes be irrational. [...] If, however, we are faced with a threat/risk we cannot properly quantify or control, then how can we know what is a measured/rational response?
|
By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.
By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"
By actually using our *own* brains for once.
Quote:
You say quite categorically:
Quote:
|
The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner.
|
I'm saying that it's not at all that straightforward.
|
And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The terrorists (note the first syllable "Terror") are counting on this, they don't want us to *think* about the fact that actually there aren't that many of them and whilst they can hurt us they can't really "destroy" us, they want us scared and frightened and willing to throw away rights and liberties to counter their "threat" because it serves *their* purposes.
We should *NOT* give in to terror by dancing to their tune.
|
This is straight repetition of what you said before, and assumes that the threat is less real than maybe we perceive. It also assumes the terrorists motive, which I dispute, since the terrorists have not really given us any reason to assume that.
If, however, that was what their game plan was, then indeed we'd be risking playing into their hands. But before we follow that strategy I'd like some proof.
|
If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.
But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.
Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.
So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.
The aim of the IRA was to try to force the British out of Ireland by terror, intimidation or simply by hoping that people would say "sod them, it's not worth our while, let's leave them to sort it out themselves".
The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.
Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".
If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.
If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.