Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

Okay, now we got car bombs again in Britain. Well, this isn't really a big deal here: I think the Blitz made Brits pretty immune to threat or scare, and we pretty much shrugged off similar campaigns by the IRA, so the reaction in this country (despite an ever-frenetic media) is shrug and get on with it. Who cares?


I wish they'd give it a name to better suggest these sort of endeavours to belittle and ridicule those trying to scare and hurt people. I vote 'futile tosspotting by sad lonely men who have very little meaning to their lives other than whatever idiocy they've been fed' rather than 'terrorism', but it's too long.

Any better names anyone? Anyone got any other suggested alternative methods of combatting this nonsense by ridicule, belittling and deride the whole thing outside the usual "be vigilant" and watch potential 'tosspotters?'

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

Brainwashed puppets.

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

I'm not sure what you'd call it but I know I'm scared! I don't like hearing about this stuff every day and it is freaking me out. I guess that's bad huh. I don't know if the news media is helping or hurting.

Are these car bombings in the UK part of the whole al qaeda (sp?) thing or what? Did the media come up with the al qaeda name?

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

Katy,

You have missed the point of the OP meaning.

Brits are not scared,so instead of calling these brainwashed puppets, terrorists,he is saying lets find a better name for them.

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you'd call it but I know I'm scared! I don't like hearing about this stuff every day and it is freaking me out. I guess that's bad huh. I don't know if the news media is helping or hurting.

Are these car bombings in the UK part of the whole al qaeda (sp?) thing or what? Did the media come up with the al qaeda name?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
fewer than 50,000 people worldwide have died as a result of terror attacks since the 60's, and accident causing deer, swimming pools and peanut allergies have all proven more deadly than international terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not call them what they ultimately are. Self publicists.
So two options:

1: Today there was a publicist attack at Glasgow Airport.
2: Today there was an irrationalfearinducingist attack at Glasgow airport.

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

That's an interesting point. All our judgements of risk are often over- or underestimated to some degree. We all know cars are more dangerous places than planes, yet getting in a car is less stressful than a plane journey, no?

Maybe Brits have assimilated a more realistic level of actual risk than those unused to this sort of ideologised criminal activity.


I like 'deluded fantasists' is quite a good term, but 'brainwashed puppets' and 'self-publicists' are quite good too.

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

[American establishment] You sound like one of the terrorists. [/American establishment]

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

On the whole these guys are succeeding only in making themselves look totally incompetent. Less Al Quaida and more Monty Python.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGxG...ed&search=

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

The fear inspired by plane flight is similar to the fear inspired by terrorists.

We are somewhat inured to the danger in our cars because we drive them everyday. Familiarity breeds contempt. Also, we have a feeling of control. While we can't control all the risk factors involved in riding in a car (in fact, more of them are probably out of our control than we generally admit) we operate and maintain the vehicle and impact our own destiny.

Plane rides and terrorist attacks are (for most of us) 1)rare enough that we don't become desensitized to them and 2)completely out of our control. If the British population is immune to 1, that would make a huge difference.

I like publicist, if for no other reason than President Bush would have to rename it "The War on the Public", which is much closer to reality imo.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Can you call it \'terrorism\' if no one is scared?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting point. All our judgements of risk are often over- or underestimated to some degree.

Maybe Brits have assimilated a more realistic level of actual risk than those unused to this sort of ideologised criminal activity.





It is an interesting point. I think most judgements of risk can be reduced to statistics. Bungee jumping, parachuting, four card flushes, and the like are easy. "Can I beat the train across the tracks..." is a bit more difficult but a still a judgement call, just with a time constraint. Google can't help you with that one.
But "terror" is different. It adds the emotional element of fear. I think it is the word of choice because it is a political tool here in the states.
I think it might be less effective in Britain because of the Blitz. At first I thought that was so long ago that those not alive then would buy into "terror", but I suspect being raised by the generation who did live through the Blitz might have infused a cultural, more realistic view.

Fear, it's all about fear. It can be difficult to remove fear from ones' judgement of risk.


And I've got no name for them. Deluded maybe? Perhaps they should be called delusional fanatics.