What is terrorism?

[WIP]

Congratulations to cybercoma for beginning this thread with the question, "What is Terrorism". Our Ministers in Ottawa have been scrambling in an attempt to describe the term.

Yes. And I think they've agreed that 'terrorism is whatever we say it is!'

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes. And I think they've agreed that 'terrorism is whatever we say it is!'

Yeah and one thing they have said it i is threatening the financial outcomes of the country or words to that effect. So I guess there must be lot of terrorists up around Fort Mac then.

[cybercoma]

Now we are preparing to pass legislation based on "terrorism" with the creators of the bill unable to define the term.

This is not a good thing.

And the vast majority of people supporting the legislation, when they've not read it nor do they have a clear definition of what it is either.

[cybercoma]

Oh really? If we don't believe or trust our leaders acting in secret while claiming to be only acting in our best interests...we're anarchists. got it!

More government oversight = Anarchy. That's an interesting concept.

[eyeball]

I've been called a rational anarchist for suggesting we make politicians wear body-cams.

[WIP]

More government oversight = Anarchy. That's an interesting concept.

Read it again! Those who want more government surveillance are trying to portray everyone opposed as anarchists.

[Mighty AC]

Unfortunately, our fearless leaders are well aware about how irrational most people are when it comes to understanding and assessing possible risks.

I'm reminded that in the aftermath of 9/11, two different university studies (conducted separately and unaware of each other) both concluded that twice as many people died on the roads and highways during the three months after 9/11, because of all of the people who were afraid to fly in case of another terrorist attack, and didn't realize that driving on the highway is the most dangerous thing an average person does!

Fear is a powerful motivator and people are certainly irrational. Our leadership should encourage rationality and chart a reasonable, principled, evidence based course for us commoners. Unfortunately, this government has had little use for reason and is more interested in swaying the sheeple any way they can to install ideological views.

Read it again! Those who want more government surveillance are trying to portray everyone opposed as anarchists.

I believe CC was referring to oversight of those with the power to spy on us.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'm reminded that in the aftermath of 9/11, two different university studies (conducted separately and unaware of each other) both concluded that twice as many people died on the roads and highways during the three months after 9/11, because of all of the people who were afraid to fly in case of another terrorist attack, and didn't realize that driving on the highway is the most dangerous thing an average person does!

Nope....2001 was not statistically different from the previous year based on NHTSA traffic fatality data. If twice as many people had died in 3Q2001, then there would have been a large increase in total traffic fatalities. Perhaps you meant Canada ?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7— The number of people killed in motor vehicle crashes rose to 42,116 last year, up 171 from the previous year. The Transportation Department said that the reason was growth in traffic, and that the death rate per 100 million miles traveled declined slightly.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2002/USDOT+Releases+2001+Highway+Fatality+Statistics;+Deaths+Among+Children+Down+to+Lowest+in+History

Edited February 23, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Fear is a powerful motivator and people are certainly irrational. Our leadership should encourage rationality and chart a reasonable, principled, evidence based course for us commoners. Unfortunately, this government has had little use for reason and is more interested in swaying the sheeple any way they can to install ideological views.

Our leadership rarely if ever rises above the pool of commoners from which it springs, if anything it dives straight to the bottom where it's dark, opaque and mucky.

[cybercoma]

I believe CC was referring to oversight of those with the power to spy on us.

Yes. That.

[The_Squid]

The worse the legislation is drafted, the more likely it will be overturned by the courts like a lot of Harper's legislation.

I hope it's drafted just as it is and the Conservatives once again dig their heels in based on their whacko ideology. It will hasten the process of the SCC making it null and void and forcing the government to change it to be constitutionally compliant.

[eyeball]

The worse the legislation is drafted, the more likely it will be overturned by the courts like a lot of Harper's legislation.

I hope it's drafted just as it is and the Conservatives once again dig their heels in based on their whacko ideology. It will hasten the process of the SCC making it null and void and forcing the government to change it to be constitutionally compliant.

I'd probably agree but I can't discount how badly a real galvanizing event might motivate a government that's so bent on making Canada just as conservative and right-wing as it possibly can - maybe even to the point of making the SCC null and void.

There is real potential for a tipping point here.

Edited February 23, 2015 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

There is real potential for a tipping point here.

I'd say that already happened. But I cannot really tell when it did.

[eyeball]

It might have been when Harper stood up in Parliament and effectively called Mulcair a terrorist.

What will prevent Harper from levelling a similar accusation at the SCC, his base of support? They've been hoping the Charter is burned and slagging the SCC at every opportunity for years with nary a care about what it is they're wishing for.

[jacee]

The worse the legislation is drafted, the more likely it will be overturned by the courts like a lot of Harper's legislation.

I hope it's drafted just as it is and the Conservatives once again dig their heels in based on their whacko ideology. It will hasten the process of the SCC making it null and void and forcing the government to change it to be constitutionally compliant.

Yes that will happen, bit by bit.

And in the process many conscientious Canadians will experience massive disruption of their lives ... when we already know parts of it are unconstitutional.

I think the Bill itself should be put before the Supreme Court.

I think Harper did refer something to the court once.

Ah yes ... the Senate reform bill. He lost.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/harper-government-asks-supreme-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-senate-reform

.

[jacee]

Our leadership rarely if ever rises above the pool of commoners from which it springs, if anything it dives straight to the bottom where it's dark, opaque and mucky.

Bob Simon, 60 minutes journalist (now deceased) did many political and animal stories. He said something like:

'an animal is never duplicitous,

an animal will never get involved in gratuitous cruelty.

I thought about that a lot ... after interviewing so many politicians ...'

.

[WIP]

Nope....2001 was not statistically different from the previous year based on NHTSA traffic fatality data. If twice as many people had died in 3Q2001, then there would have been a large increase in total traffic fatalities. Perhaps you meant Canada ?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7— The number of people killed in motor vehicle crashes rose to 42,116 last year, up 171 from the previous year. The Transportation Department said that the reason was growth in traffic, and that the death rate per 100 million miles traveled declined slightly.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2002/USDOT+Releases+2001+Highway+Fatality+Statistics;+Deaths+Among+Children+Down+to+Lowest+in+History

I heard several commentaries about increase in highway driving and corresponding increases in highway death tolls after 9/11. And, there may have been a trend towards inflating the numbers as time went on, and the original stories passed through two, three, four and more sources in the online game of telephone.

One of the original studies is commented on her on this Sciencedaily article:

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many Americans started driving more due to a fear of flying -- and lost their lives in traffic accidents. But why did this happen more frequently in some states than in others? And why didn't Spanish driving habits change in the same way following the 2004 train bombings in Madrid? Wolfgang Gaissmaier and Gerd Gigerenzer from the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin present new findings on this topic in the journal Psychological Science.

As we all know, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the world: The feeling of vulnerability led to the so-called "war on terror." New laws were passed and surveillance intensified to reduce the risk of direct damage resulting from terrorism. But terrorist attacks also cause indirect damage. This comes about through people's thoughts and fears in reaction to such attacks. In the case of 9/11, it was primarily severe losses in the aviation and tourism industries. Earlier studies showed that, following the terrorist attacks, more people chose to drive rather than fly, feeling it was safer. The result was not just a greater risk of traffic congestion: in the twelve months following September 11, 2001, there were an estimated 1,600 more accident-related deaths on American roads than would have been expected statistically.

But why would such an increase in traffic and, with it, also in traffic deaths, be observed only in some states and not in others? And why was no increase in driving and in traffic accidents seen following the likewise devastating train bombings in Madrid in 2004? Psychologists Gaissmaier and Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Harding Center for Risk Literacy based there present new analyses, which will soon be published in the journal Psychological Science.

In the analyses, they show that car traffic increased particularly in the New York vicinity. The main attacks were focused on the World Trade Center located there. These images, and thus also the fear, were presumably particularly present for people who lived in the surrounding area; other studies also support this assumption. However, the authors further identify a second, even stronger factor that could explain why the traffic volume increased sharply even in some states far away from New York, especially in the Midwest: there, the infrastructure was simply very well suited to replace flying with driving. The streets were very well developed in relation to the number of inhabitants, and many cars were registered.

"Our study findings support the assumption that the fear created by terrorist attacks can cause potentially risky behaviour. But they also make it clear that fear alone is not enough to understand where indirect damage can occur in the wake fatal events like those of 9/11," says Wolfgang Gaissmaier. "To predict where the indirect damage of terrorist attacks can have particularly fatal consequences, and to possibly curb a secondary, psychological attack, we must pay very close attention to the general conditions that first make it possible for risky, fear-induced behaviours to express themselves -- such as the respective infrastructure."

That could also explain why there were fewer Spanish train travellers following the train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, but without any corresponding increase in car travel. Spain simply has a less pronounced car-driving culture, and Gaissmaier and Gigerenzer also express this in numbers: in 2001 in the US, there were around 800 cars registered per 1,000 inhabitants, while in 2004 in Spain, this figure was just around 600.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911091338.htm

So, what have we got here?

1. A substantial increase in highway related deaths during a 12 month period after 9/11. Even your site shows this period bucks the gradual trend of decline in highway deaths that's usually attributed to cars having added safety features in recent years.

2. Fear alone doesn't fully explain the spike in deaths, because a similar train-bombings by Basque separatists I believe...does not cause the spike in highway deaths in Spain in the year afterwards. The authors point to infrastructure as a clue to explain the difference between how Spain and the U.S. reacted after terrorist attacks. In brief, Spain has fewer car-drivers per capita and much greater infrastructure (so the Spanish train riders may have been taking longer trips by bus instead...an option that is not very convenient for most Americans!

3. I would add a third factor that the authors didn't mention: fear generated by infotainment news sources which have a high stake in making their audience as fearful as possible! It is often noted (and I can look it up if you don't believe it) that the more hours a TV viewer watches newscasts/the more fearful they are of crime, and the more inclined they are to exaggerate the risks of crime when they are away from their homes. I don't know much about Spain, except that they do have a public media, like just about every other European nation. This may not present useful news and information (the BBC is really becoming abysmal and hardly worth watching), but they also don't have a vested interest in exaggerating threats and risks....like every U.S. network is doing right now that they don't have to follow Fairness Doctrine guidelines and their network sponsors are heavily financed by weapons-makers!

How does all this connect with Harper, and his attempts to Americanize us into a junior version of the U.S. military-industrial police state? Sad fact is that if the latest polling numbers are even slightly accurate, Canadians are at least as gullible as Americans, and just as easily corralled into a pen that promises protection while they can very easily expand on their definition of "terrorism" to suit their evil purposes!

[bush_cheney2004]

So, what have we got here?

1. A substantial increase in highway related deaths during a 12 month period after 9/11. Even your site shows this period bucks the gradual trend of decline in highway deaths that's usually attributed to cars having added safety features in recent years.

You clearly stated....."I'm reminded that in the aftermath of 9/11, two different university studies (conducted separately and unaware of each other) both concluded that twice as many people died on the roads and highways during the three months after 9/11"

This is patently false.

[bush_cheney2004]

How does all this connect with Harper, and his attempts to Americanize us into a junior version of the U.S. military-industrial police state?

Not news, as this has been the case for decades in Canada...long before PM Harper. It is actually one of the most dependable neuroses to be found in discussions about the Canadian identity and definition of culture.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not news, as this has been the case for decades in Canada...long before PM Harper. It is actually one of the most dependable neuroses to be found in discussions about the Canadian identity and definition of culture.

And its all doe by way of the government controlled CBC