The only effective defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized.

Knowledge is the best defense against terrorism. Which, I suppose, would prevent you from being terrorized.

The most important knowledge being that regardless of how spectacular they might be, terrorist incidents are but pinpricks to the body politic: utterly non-threatening unless believed to be so.

We should fear terrorists no more and no less than we fear lightning and meteor strikes. Any individual's chances of being involved much less hurt in such an incident are similar to that person's chances of being struck by lightning.

Stoicism is the best defence.

Simply not acknowledging that a terrorist attack has no affect on the society will NOT stop the attack from taking place. Often terrorist attacks are symbols, not methods by which demoralization occurs.

@zackrspv: The intent of terrorism is terror, not attack or destruction. If you read the description on the claim, it says, "refusing to be afraid is probably the most effective thing you can do against somebody *who's goal is to make you afraid*."

inverseclipse: Refusing to be afraid of a bully does not make that bully inactive. This is a flawed premise. Decisive action to squash these groups is the only method by which control can possibly exist. Simply refusing to acknowledge that their affects exist is not anywhere near enough effective as 'others' would think. I find it funny that most equate the 'act' of terrorism with that which causes 'terror'. The 'act' of terrorism is often the method by which the destruction takes place; the fallout of the act is what breeds terror.

The only method by which we combat terrorism is to seek out those who practice it, and shut them down. Sanctions, tariffs, political control, religious dogma and 'hopeful' thinking are not enough to solve the issue.

The false premise is that "the terrorists" are a bully, or that they are any entity which can actually do enough damage to truly injure the body politic. They cannot.

I don't think anybody is equating terrorists' acts with the terror they are designed to cause. What I'm saying is that terrorists have a goal, and that that goal is to inspire terror.

To prevent someone from achieving their goal is to defeat them. How is that hard to understand?

The destruction which is caused by an individual act is usually quite small compared with the terrorising effect which it is meant to have and often has. The reason that terrorists seek visible targets is exactly so that the attack will be well publisised and will seem much bigger than it actually is.

The most extreme and spectacular act of terrorism in living memory was probably the London blitz. The blitz caused tremendous damage to institutions and people, military and civilians, and in the end it didn't work. It didn't work because the British refused to be afraid.

If the mighty Luftwaffe could accomplish its political goals because its victims refused to fear it, then why should we fear isolated groups of loonies with half-cooked ideas about how to make a bomb? Are we so weak as a society that we must imagine these micky-mouse outfits to be a proper enemy? Are we so weak that we think an ideology, a retoric, and a random number of lunatics operating individually constitutes a true threat to our civilization? Are so deluded as to beleve that these bands of goofballs can be defeated in the same way that a state can?

BTW: Why in the world do you quote the word "act"? Do you think that acts of terror aren't real?

errendum: "could not accomplish"

"Decisive action to squash these groups is the only method by which control can possibly exist."

No, it really can't. This is a fantasy -- and if it were not, it would be a vileness no moral person could countenance.

How fucking scared are you, anyway?

D'A

Mark J: To answer your questions, as you posed:

Are we so weak as a society that we must imagine these micky-mouse outfits to be a proper enemy?
--Any attack on American soil is considered an act of war; at least that is what our lunatic president seems to think. Why, if your question is valid, would we be at war with so called 'terrorists' if this were not true. Terrorists are a 'proper' enemy; anyone who poses a risk to the society or country is an enemy. Your definition (in context) of a proper enemy doesn't elude to much. Do you think, as you ask, that these lunatics are NOT proper enemy's because they are a small band of idiots who wish to do harm?

Are we so weak that we think an ideology, a retoric, and a random number of lunatics operating individually constitutes a true threat to our civilization?
---To move the conversation, slightly, away from the main context: Homosexuality in this country has fit the question you asked. This minority has challenged the very basic belief of the vast majority of communities and cultures within our country. What do we do to them? Persecute, pass laws against them, and limit their abilities. So, the answer to your question is: Yes, this country is so weak to believe that different ideologies are enough to constitute a threat to our very core. Otherwise, we wouldn't fight so hard against minorities.

Are [we] so deluded as to beleve that these bands of goofballs can be defeated in the same way that a state can?
---When you are fighting an 'invisible' enemy (to quote our odd president), the best defense is a great offense. To put on a front of a strong military, increased security, restrictive import laws, screening of passengers, etc, is the only way in which we can show that we will not tolerate 'cracks' or 'chinks' in our armor. America doesn't know who she is fighting, several thousand factions exist who support terrorists. Which one, exactly are we going to fight? We don't know, so instead, we pose ourselves in the best possible manner to protect our interests abroad and nationally as well.

Next, I have to deal with terroristic acts quite a bit in my life. I opened a metaphysical store (quite a large one) in a beautiful town in southern Oregon. My windows were smashed in, my door broken down, and my family harassed. I am a bi-sexual man, and even here in this great city of saint paul, Minnesota, there are many bigots that make my life (for lack of a better word) hell. What were my responses: For the broken store? Call the police, let them do their jobs; they put three teenagers in jail and fined their parents (who supported the act). Was I afraid of it? No, I was remorseful for the lack of tolerance that this country fosters. What would have been the next step had I IGNORED the act? I'm sure it would have been much bigger. Fostering an air of 'inaction' when faced with a hostile act is not a SOUND tactic.

Lastly, I quoted the word 'act' because not all terrorist acts are destructive in nature. Some are just words and idle threats. To assume someone acts all the time in the context I used, was to assume that their acts were physical. To quote the word also allows the non-physical acts as well.

D'Archangel:

"No, it really can't. This is a fantasy -- and if it were not, it would be a vileness no moral person could countenance."
--So, taking action against a terrorist group is 'vileness' and 'immoral'? I would love for you to properly explain your point of view. If we fail to take action against those who threaten our country, we fail in our ability to protect our people. Just how is that immoral?

"How fucking scared are you, anyway?"
--That's the point: I am not scared. Having to deal with bigots threatening my family, having to pull my child from school because it became too degenerate (constant verbal abuse to her), having to move my retail outlet due to bigoted crime, having to keep my life quite because of the physical and mental attacks against me, having to keep terroristic christians at bay in my own neighborhood so that I can live my life, having lived in the military and dealt with terrorists in the first hand, having supported the government in their actions against terrorists, etc, I am no longer scared of such acts. But, for a simple truth: Simply because I am NOT scared of terrorist attacks does NOT mean that the attack will be lessoned. If the terrorist decided to bomb the Excel Energy Center (a convention center that can hold several tens of thousands of people), I would still feel just as remorseful if the press covered it or not.

The entire argument between myself, you, mark and the other person, is the simple contention that I do not agree that simply NOT fearing the act, or fearing the terrorists is an effective weapon against the terrorists. There are thousands of terrorist groups, of those, there are hundreds of groups that simply believe killing an American is morally and ethically correct. There are those who believe that simply abducting an American, abusing them, and then killing them will earn them a 'seat' in their 'heaven'. It is still a terroristic act, no matter how you look at it. And simply failing to acknowledge that the act is terror is not enough to protect people from them. What else can be done? Action against.

>>> Decisive action to squash these groups is the only method by which control can possibly exist.

>> No, it really can't. This is a fantasy -- and if it were not, it would be a vileness no moral person could countenance.

> So, taking action against a terrorist group is 'vileness' and 'immoral'?

You have failed at reading. The "control" you fantasize about in the original quotation above cannot be achieved by moral ends, since it requires totalitarianism enough to make a neocon shudder.[1] It is an obvious and absolute truism of security that there is no defense against the truly determined. You can mitigate risk; you cannot morally eliminate it.

This is the fundamental problem with the culture of fear: It posits that if only we do *enough*, we can somehow be safe. You can never be safe. Your cowardice accomplishes nothing other than harm.

"Simply because I am NOT scared of terrorist attacks does NOT mean that the attack will be lessoned."

Alright, it's spelled "lessened". And you are fundamentally wrong. Refusing to be afraid goes a long way towards lessening the effectiveness of terrorism. America has devolved into a totalitarian regime in the last five years because it's a country crawling with cowards.

And here's the rub: Terrorism relies on a heavily imbalanced risk-to-reward ratio for its effectiveness. If you make it ineffective, you make it a less useful tactic. If you make it a less useful tactic, you lessen its appeal. America has done an excellent job of making terrorism maximally effective.

There is such a thing as real security. It begins with the recognition that security is a trade-off, that there is no such thing as absolute security, that some prices are too high.

If America had spent one hundredth of the money wasted on the occupation of Iraq on counterterrorism, America actually would be safer now rather than more deeply imperiled than ever.

I don't think we disagree as fundamentally as we appear to. I merely find your notion of "controlling" the "enemy" repulsive. That cowardly justification is the reason America has sunk so low during the last five years, shedding everything that makes it great in a desperate race to the bottom.

And for what? Terrorism remains rampant in America, as you yourself can attest. At the same time, its actual toll in lives is a drop in the bucket compared to such prosaic things as car crashes.

Should we resist terrorism? Of course. And the most effective way is to refuse to be terrorized, a course of action which is very far removed from ignoring terrorism. There's the straw man that bothers me about your argument. No one but you has claimed that the two ideas are equivalent.

Terrorism represents no existential threat. America's response to terrorism does.

D'A

[1]: Whether with revulsion of exultation, I leave as an exercise to the reader.

http://zackrspv.myopenid.com/, you seem to have the idea that the claim means, or implies that it's not necessary to call the cops if somebody harms you.

It doesn't say that. It just says that refusing showing fear is the most effective way to deal with people who are trying to scare you, not that you shouldn't also call the cops, etc.