[hullexile]

Originally Posted by Mat

The "War on Terrorism" really made people scared seeing such things...it is sad and troublesome....

A bus explodes, and first reaction is Terrorism...really sad. Media here really made a fantastic work.

The 'War on Terrorism' may have made Americans scared but unfortunately for many of the rest of us bombs in public places was not a new event.

[jgl]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

Three people in an accident wouldn't make a difference/be scary. Had it been some sort of attack it would have.
I was on the SZ subway this morning and there was one of those wheeled buggies with a package or two on it just sitting by itself in the handicap area. It made me think twice about switching cars/trains.
SZ is already bad enough with all the petty thieves, who wants to worry about random violence for a cause?

Why are you getting worried about the potential for terrorism in China? The society is so rigidly controlled, and possible dissent is stamped on so quickly and so hard, that I can't think of a single plausible terrorist cause there. The Falun Gong is the most visible cause, but can you imagine them going around trying to bomb things? Most people are generally too obsessed with economic growth to bother with abstract causes, and minorities have no effective voice- Tibet is a big issue in Tibet, but nowhere else in China.

People who are afraid of things are usually afraid of the *wrong* things as humans tend to be really bad at accurate threat assessment. Take a look at Bruce Schneier's "Beyond Fear" (or any one of the books that talk about the 'culture of fear') if you want to put things into meaningful perspective. For example, you should be much more concerned about being mowed down by a crazy Chinese taxi driver than you are about terrorist bombings on Chinese public transport.

The !@#$ western media does have a lot to answer for. In fact, I'd go so far as to pin this on American media. The Brits lived for decades with IRA bombings, and didn't let it take over their lives. I was in London during the more recent ones, and people complained more about the effect on the rickety Tube system than they did about the IRA.

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by jgl

The society is so rigidly controlled, and possible dissent is stamped on so quickly and so hard, that I can't think of a single plausible terrorist cause there.

Wouldn't that in itself be a cause? How long can you keep the lid on the pot? Of course, having an army that willingly shoots its own civilians helps--just ask Burma.
And yes, I realize people aren't good with fear. But fear isn't about logically rationalizing all the other possibilities and assigning a threat value, it's about emotion.
And I am sorry that the Brits now feel that having things blow up around them is just the way things are now. Rather sad and unfortunate, really.

[jgl]

It might be a cause sometime down the line, when the population starts to care about more than simple wealth accumulation. At the moment, it certainly doesn't appear to be a cause for concern that has any affect on day to day life. Maybe in 5 or 10 years time, when the middle classes start to be concerned more with a political voice than buying a nice car.

Emotions are important. But letting emotion overrun rationality is pitiable and not to be admired. As an example, if I have a deathly fear of clowns, that's very important to me. And quite pathetic at the same time.

The Brits never had an apathetic attitude towards bombing. They just didn't let the very small risk colour the entire way they looked at life and poison their society. Would you say that the US reaction to terrorism has made the world a safer place?

[hullexile]

Originally Posted by jgl

The Brits never had an apathetic attitude towards bombing. They just didn't let the very small risk colour the entire way they looked at life and poison their society. Would you say that the US reaction to terrorism has made the world a safer place?

Very well put. A pub I frequented in Birmingham got blown up the week after I was last in it. Did I stop going to pubs? Of course not. Given the risk of being run over or a car accident, dying of cancer (as a smoker), an accident at home, even dying in a plane crash, I don't rate bombs as a serious risk at all. You just get on with life as normal. To do otherwise is of course to give the terrorists exactly what they want.

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by jgl

It might be a cause sometime down the line, when the population starts to care about more than simple wealth accumulation. At the moment, it certainly doesn't appear to be a cause for concern that has any affect on day to day life. Maybe in 5 or 10 years time, when the middle classes start to be concerned more with a political voice than buying a nice car.

Emotions are important. But letting emotion overrun rationality is pitiable and not to be admired. As an example, if I have a deathly fear of clowns, that's very important to me. And quite pathetic at the same time.

The Brits never had an apathetic attitude towards bombing. They just didn't let the very small risk colour the entire way they looked at life and poison their society. Would you say that the US reaction to terrorism has made the world a safer place?

Okay, I'll agree that if the population's big goal is either trying to survive this day or the endless accumulation of wealth/things, they are not likely to agitate against the government. Nor blow things up.

However, Mr. Spock , I think letting emotion overrun rationality is more human than pitiable. It happens all the time in so many facets of life. And not that you can always let your emotions run wild, though some do, but your emotions will always run wild sometimes.

And, no, the world is not a safer place. But there must be some answer between the British and American responses that actually works.

I do live life as normal. For instance, I didn't change train cars in my subway example, I just thought about it. However, a trip to Pakistan is really not in the cards.

[jgl]

Why do you imply that there was something wrong or ineffective with the British response? The British response worked- they were certainly never slack about internal security and the political differences were eventually reconciled (well, just about).

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by jgl

Why do you imply that there was something wrong or ineffective with the British response? The British response worked- they were certainly never slack about internal security and the political differences were eventually reconciled (well, just about).

Keep in mind I'm American and the US media only covers Wimbeldon, the Royal family and bad news out of the UK.
That having been said, it seems a lot of things in the UK blew up during the response. And a lot of people on both sides of the fence were killed in/around Ulster.
Also seems the IRA used to like to warn people before it blew things up, unlike the terrorists the US responded to.