Terrorism and why Laughter is the Best Medicine.

Great article in Macleans last week.

There is a reason terrorists spend so much time making threats. Hiding in the Somali desert or Syrian ruins, they are separated from the West by armies, oceans and a trillion-dollar security industry. The only thing that can reliably reach us from there is menacing email. This is why terrorists mostly trade in fear.

The truth is that they simply are not very good at actually killing people. There were approximately 18,000 people killed by terrorists globally in 2013. Car accidents killed 70 times more. In Canada, only two people have died in terrorism attacks over the last decade. Moose are far more likely to kill you.

Unable to compete with moose, terrorists try to scare us instead. Islamic State recently announced it would send half a million migrants from Libya to conquer Rome. And al-Shabaab has threatened to attack shopping centres such as the West Edmonton Mall and London’s Oxford Street.

www.macleans.ca...

It goes on to say who wins in the terror game:

Fear is a commodity. It is exported from places and people with little else to offer. Our politicians then use it as a raw material to manufacture an ill-defined existential dread that can only be relieved with invasive security powers and larger police budgets. Media move the fear further up the value chain, adding dramatic graphics and foreboding bumper music. And then industry generates the most profit, selling us spy software, body scanners and guns.

It is very symbiotic. Terrorists attract followers. Politicians earn support. The media get traffic. And business sells the solution. Everyone wins-

And who loses:

Everyone wins—except us. The inevitable by-product of the fear economy is that we become ridiculously frightened, browbeaten into actually worrying that shopping for new sneakers could end in our death at the hands of an illiterate guerilla sitting in a mud hut 13,000 km away.

What to do then? Follow the Italian example:

But there is hope. Ending the fear economy is relatively simple. When Italians learned of Islamic State’s threat to overrun Rome, they reacted with laughter. They mocked the terrorists and offered them advice on visiting hours and traffic. This debased the currency. The value of the threat plummeted, Italians got on with their lives, and the trade in fear was disrupted, if only temporarily.

We can all do this. The next time a politician claims that removing privacy is the only way to keep us safe, or the news breathlessly reports on a suspicious package, or a security expert explains we need to be concerned, respond the only way we should. Remember that terrorism is literally the least of our worries, and laugh at them.

Good advice imo.

It's very good advice. I'll follow it now, if you don't mind.

Recent developments have helped me greatly, what with ISIS and Boko Haram joing forces.

I've struggled to remember all the names of the apparent terrorist groups currently running amok, but this has killed 2 birds with 1 stone, I can just say Boko ISIS now

And it sounds really stupid, bit like this whole terrorist charade which politicians seem to like talking about a lot

a reply to: intrepid

I suppose some people are afraid some where. The terrorist I'm
most concerned with are in D.C. but, their campaign of fear doesn't
work either. At all! I think it works on the elderly in some cases tho.

a reply to: intrepid

Thanks a lot, intrepid! Just when I was feeling secure, you tell me about Terrorist Moose??? I'm gonna have bad dreams tonight!

Canadians, be alert! Be safe...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: intrepid

Thanks a lot, intrepid! Just when I was feeling secure, you tell me about Terrorist Moose??? I'm gonna have bad dreams tonight!

Canadians, be alert! Be safe...

The difference is that moose are damn tasty.

The author of this piece I think nails is down HARD. Fear sells. He's also saying.... don't buy.

originally posted by: intrepid
Fear sells. He's also saying.... don't buy.

And I agree! I refuse to live my life in fear! Fear of "other" feeds hatred. And we got more hatred than we need right now.

The truth is that they simply are not very good at actually killing people. There were approximately 18,000 people killed by terrorists globally in 2013.

Wow, the author is an idiot...

I can only assume he thinks there are many more terrorists on Earth, than there actually is...


Because they are good at killing people...
& 18,000 in 365 days is a damn big number!



How does one become "good" at killing people?




Maybe it's just a poor choice of words in the guise of humour to make a point.



I know I'm being picky because he did have a good point elsewhere in the article...
Fearmongering and such.


I just don't know how many who have been affected would find it all that funny!

Little pesimistic I guess, but the cold truth is rarely funny, imo.



Edit: Sorry for putting a downer on things.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The truth is that they simply are not very good at actually killing people. There were approximately 18,000 people killed by terrorists globally in 2013.

Wow, the author is an idiot...

I can only assume he thinks there are many more terrorists on Earth, than there actually is...


Because they are good at killing people...
& 18,000 in 365 days is a damn big number!

Not compared to the threat that is being attributed to them. And how many of that number are outside the ME? How many are non-Muslims. THAT is the point.

How does one become "good" at killing people?

You need to be a government to get good at that imo.

a reply to: intrepid

Yeah I'm aware he's talking worldwide, Intrepid...


The point I'm trying to make, which maybe I only noticed with my pesimistic reading process...


He says they're not good at killing people...
Because they've only killed 18,000...


So I take that to mean he would expect a larger number because he thinks there is more terrorists than there actually is...



I suppose he could mean the media portray that there are more terrorists than there is, using humour to target that myth...


But because he didn't actually elaborate on that in the part I read, seemed like it could easily have been the former.