MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Don't Be Terrorized: U.K. Edition

Keep calm and carry on.

KeepCalmMOIFirst, condolences to those who lost friends and family last night as a result of the terrorist bombing in Manchester, U.K. According to the latest reports, at least 22 people are dead and 59 were injured in attack. The brutal thugs who run ISIS are claiming credit for the murders.

The British government defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends," including "any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." While it's hard not to be fearful in the aftermath of an attack, especially in our era of wall-to-wall media coverage, knowing just how severe a threat terrorism poses to people's safety might help keep that fear at bay.

According to The Telegraph's comprehensive analysis, 90 people died in Britain between 2000 and 2015 as a result of terrorism. The Telegraph notes that more than 1,000 people were killed by terrorists in the U.K. during the prior 15-year period—basically a reduction of 90 percent. That decline can be attributed to the abatement of IRA terrorism after the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and the inclusion of 271 deaths from the Libyan bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.

Given that the U.K.'s population is 65 million, that means that the chance of being killed by a terrorist between 2000 and 2015 was less than 1 in 700,000. For perspective, in those same 15 years 42,000 Britons died in automobile accidents. Indeed, more Britons die annually from drowning in their bathtubs. Even if ISIS' current campaign marks a riskier period for Britain, it will have a long way to go before terror deaths exceed the rates experienced by the U.K. during the last 30 years of the 20th century.

Of course, most of us do not fear car crashes and bathtub drownings as such; they are everyday background risks that barely register in the media. The malevolent intentions that motivate murders, and especially those caused by terrorist bombings and vehicle rampages, heighten our sense of vulnerability even if a risk is objectively small.

But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though terrorism doesn't exist. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

Again, condolences for the lost lives and best wishes for the speedy convalesence of those injured by the attack in Manchester.

Bonus link: "September 11: Remembering the Lives and Liberties Lost 15 Years Ago."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fascist loofa-faced shitgibbon||

    More people will die from terrorist attacks in the next 100 years than from rising sea levels.

    "But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though climate change doesn't exist."
    FTFY

  • some guy||

    What does climate change have to do with anything in this article?

  • MikeT1986||

    Ron Bailey believes in man-made climate change (though he's a bit of a lukewarmer) and holds that environmental regulation is an appropriate role for government (something even Milton Friedman would agree with). since he's not done a good job of defending that on a libertarian basis some here will snipe at him about it.

  • Fascist loofa-faced shitgibbon||

    In this article, Ron is saying: The danger is statistically insignificant so stop with the fear-mongering overkill reactions.

    I'm saying this is perfectly analogous to the Climate Change drama but Ron doesn't apply the same logic to that subject. And like MikeT said, Ron is Mr. Climate reporter here at Reason.

  • some guy||

    I must have missed the article where Ron calls for government regulation of carbon amidst all the articles where Ron berates attempts by national and international governments to regulate carbon.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And here you have it, Ron--


    But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though terrorism doesn't exist.

    I do, as do other rational, godless individuals.

    You are in agreement with reason's current 'most brain damaged troll'--the creature that makes Palin's Buttplug appear eloquent and germane.

    You need to seek medical attention immediately.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Britain just warned of an 'imminent" attack. Talk about being behind the curve.

  • Ron Bailey||

    DR(P): Doesn't every government issue such warning - just to be on the safe side - after an attack? And is that any reason for you or anyone else not to about your business as usual?

  • Illocust||

    Apparently, according to those actually living there, no they don't. The terror warning they just put themselves under hasn't been seen for a decade.

  • Ron Bailey||

    I: Perhaps that would be because the last significant terror attacks (associated in this case with Al-Qaeda) occurred in London and Glasgow in 2007?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Funny, I seem to recall something more recent.

    Of course we could always play word games on the definition of 'significant.' Or perhaps they raised the threat level to critical then as well. I'm too lazy to check that out.

  • Greg F||

    Perhaps that would be because the last significant terror attacks (associated in this case with Al-Qaeda) occurred in London and Glasgow in 2007?

    How about Paris? Less than 300 miles from London. You think those attacks don't have any affect across political borders?

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    @ GregF, Very true, I definitely think it does. Attacking parts of Europe attacks all of Europe; not unlike all Americans feeling attacked when only New York or Pearl Harbor get hit. I mean isn't that sorta the point of the EU? The idea always smacked of a loose imitation to compete with US statedom and its perks -- it seems like what I imagine the US was like under the Articles of Confederation.

  • ThomasD||

    Does swapping out your usual (armed) police guards for armed soldiers count as 'business as usual?'

    Asking for a friend.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Given that the U.K.'s population is 65 million, that means that the chance of being killed by a terrorist between 2000 and 2015 was less than 1 in 700,000. For perspective, in those same 15 years 42,000 Britons died in automobile accidents.

    The good news is, my car isn't trying to start a caliphate in the West.

  • Ron Bailey||

    DR(P): And your car has about as much chance of doing so as ISIS does.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And yet I'm not allowed to park it in front of the White House. Seems racist to me.

  • Ron Bailey||

    DR(P): I hear you. Clinton closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House in 1995. George Bush promised to reopen it during his 2000 campaign.

  • Agammamon||

    As far as you know.

  • Tak Kak||

    "But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though terrorism doesn't exist. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized."

    Wouldn't something relatively simple, like not allowing Muslims to immigrate, reduce that risk even further?

    "Of course, most of us do not fear car crashes and bathtub drownings as such; they are every day background risks that barely register in the media."

    As driving a car and bathing have common everyday purposes. It's a worthwhile risk one chooses to take, not really comparable to terrorism or violent crime.

  • some guy||

    Wouldn't something relatively simple, like not allowing Muslims to immigrate, reduce that risk even further?

    Wouldn't not allowing anyone to drive cars reduce the risk of people dying in auto accidents? Of course, but the disadvantages of that strategy outweigh the benefits. Immigrants contribute a great deal to the prosperity of our country.

  • TGGeko||

    All immigrants, or only some? Any immigrant will do? They don't bring any risk?

  • some guy||

    All immigrants, or only some? Any immigrant will do?

    Most immigrants contribute more than they take. But you can't really know a priori which few are the bad ones beyond doing basic background checks.

    They don't bring any risk?

    Of course they do. That's what we're talking about. If there weren't any risks with allowing immigrants in we wouldn't need to talk about cost vs. benefit in the first place.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tak Kak,

    Let me catch you up on the consensus opinion among Reason commentators regarding immigration and international law.

    1. All people are equal regardless of where they were born, and international borders are meaningless.

    2. It was an international crime when the Ottoman Empire was broken up into smaller countries.

    3. A Jew who immigrated from Greece (a former Ottoman territory) to the British Mandate of Palestine (a former Ottoman territory) during the 1920's was colonial oppressor.

    4. Siberia is a part of Russia that no one complains about, Alaska is a former colony of Russia that the descendants of Europeans cannot live in without feeling guilty, and only an idiot thinks that Russia is close to Alaska.

    5. Turkey does not owe an apology to Tunisia for colonizing it, France does owe an apology to Tunisia for colonizing it, and the French never colonized the UK despite what the British Royal Family says about their origin.

    6. The refugee camp in Calais, France ... wait there was a refugee camp in Calais, France? Whatever. Who keeps track of international news anyway. Trump!!! Israel!!! Occupation!!!

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    So it's not terrorism if it's just for religious ends.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Remember now, Robert E. Lee is one of the worst human beings who ever lived, and all traces of his memory should be removed not just from the public square, but from history itself! Muslim terrorists who blow up tweenage girls are no real biggie though, so just shut up and stop worrying.

    If only poor Robert E. Lee had been a Libyan born about 160 years later and been named something like Al-Roberto Al-Eduardo Al-Leewiki and been from Libya, Bailey would have handwaved away his misdeeds with no problem.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    You know as a history buff, part of me really hates seeing the desecration and destruction of Confederate history. Yet at the same time I feel that if it is to be so, having your flag ripped down, your culture and memorials destroyed, a pain of death upon waiving the old flag -- this is the fate of the defeated, and many armies have burnt to ash in fires of defeat. It is the blood price of lost wars.

    Perhaps from the very beginning the Confederate flag should have been outlawed, it could have happened easily. Yet full amnesty and pardon was given to the whole South on completion of a war so terrible that equal suffering and respect for valor ensued on both sides.For this reason, I don't mind the heroes and history of the Confederacy; the combatants of the time choose to allow the Confederacy history to exist. But this is a white man's history, as such, by definition it's existence is a symbol of white superiority -- which makes it contemptible and worthy of annihilation in the progressive mind.

  • Ron||

    actually most countries keep their history and flags even after lossing a war. Even those countries where everything was destroyed and the land salted. Germany did not keep its nazi flag since that was something that Hitler changed. more often then not though even the losers doesn't install monuments to the generals that lost after the loss.

  • IceTrey||

    He actually was. If he had taken command of the Union forces when asked to the war would have been over at First Bull Run. His fighting for the Confederacy spelled untold misery.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Either way, the war would have been over after First Manassas had he marched on dc and forced a peace treaty, as the Union army was completely routed and reeling.

  • IceTrey||

    Except for the fact that it was P.G.T. Beauregard who was commanding the Confederate forces.

  • dantheserene||

    IT- Your point is well taken. the North had all the advantages of industry, population, overseas commerce, etc. The one thing it lacked for several years was competent military leadership since so much of the Army and Navy Officer corps came from (and returned to) the South. With Lee commanding, the Union forces would have wrapped things up quickly.

  • ThomasD||

    First Manassas?

    Probably not. The South still had an ample supply of competent and experienced officers, Johnston being the true key to that battle. (His loss as Shiloh was a huge, and largely underappreciated blow to the Confederacy.)

    I do agree that Lee commanding the North would have resulted in a quicker outcome. Just not remotely that quick.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hey, now THERE's a good line insurance companies will put in their disclaimers, er, reclaimers after the actuaries get hold of Bailey's piece. If their intentions were good and holy, and it's not terrorism, then life insurance policies ought to pay off the piffling sums as if it were bear maulings or lightning strikes, right?

  • Sevo||

    Gee, Hank, you ought to stand up next time so the point doesn't go whistling over your head.
    I'm assuming you're a fool instead of a knave.

  • some guy||

    Where did you pull that from? Bailey's quote includes "putting the public in fear". There's no mention of religion either way.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'll just leave this here.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Very good point. In Garland Texas, Mohammedan attacks on art contests are over really quick.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A neighbor of mine belongs to a historically black church. He suffered some grief, including physical violence, for having a same-sex relationship. Yesterday, he started showing off his new switchblade. His fellow congregants will probably start believing in Jesus's message of tolerance this Sunday.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    These percentage pieces that Reason puts out after terrorist attacks are starting to feel... inconsiderate.

    A bunch of children get blown up and some guy stands on a chair and shouts, "Guys! Guys! You're more likely to get drown in your bathtub than get blown up! Stop being crazy! YOU DON'T FEAR BATHTUBS RIGHT!??"

  • Ron Bailey||

    HV2: It's terrible, but don't be terrorized.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Who's shouting?

  • some guy||

    The straw man in HVHV's head.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Well, asked, Unlabelable MJGreen. "Who's shouting?" indeed. It's the bloodlessness of the "bathtub deaths" response and the superficiality of the obligatory condolences/well wishes that's wrong. A little shouting would at least seem human.

    This was a personal, not a statistical event. My dad died of adenoid cystic carcinoma, we were unimpressed by its rarity.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Poor analogy with the "shouting" bit; the crux of the analogy was basically that many other publications put out their typical responses to these very regular terrorist attacks. Like (A) playing on immigrant fears -- there must be a million "the religion of peace at it again" comments on yahoo right now -- side by side with the immediate (B) "do not condemn" narratives, the actors in these attacks are not representative of the whole etc. I sort of see those as the general babble that one can expect after an attack.

    But Reason puts out a slightly unique, variant narrative with terrorist attacks (what I guess I'm calling 'percentage pieces'). Different with respect to (B) in that it doesn't shy away from the actors of the attacks, addressing the religious and ethnic aspects entangled in terrorist attacks -- while not going full (A)... They can be summarized as, "yes this happened but don't be scared", it's shitty but it happens to so few people, a minute percentage of people will die to terrorism so don't be concerned, etc.

    I characterized Reason outlying stance as a guy shouting from a chair to a room of people, trying to have their version heard over the far reaching (A), (B), narratives... bad analogy, the shouting bit makes Reason seem like a crazy person.... The real point was simply, I've read a number percentage pieces now and they just feel cold.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You and Tommy are both complaining that libertarians are responding in a cold, tone-deaf, analytical way.

    Welcome to the party, guys.

  • ThomasD||

    Not cold or tone deaf, just rote.

    Because it can be found on page 183 of the Reason Hymnal.

  • some guy||

    Cold is a good way to be after something like this unless it directly affects you. Emotions make for bad decision-making and bad policy. The victims and everyone close to them have every right to be in whatever emotional state they want to be. The rest of us need to stand back and assess the situation sympathetically, but rationally. I think Bailey did a good job of that here. He reminds us all that we don't really have a good reason to let this change how we live our lives.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    On the one hand, the statistics put the risk in perspective so that we do not surrender out fundamental values and cultural norms as a result of an unjustified fear. On the other hand, the statistical argument never gets told at Reason when it comes to other topics.

    According to a Black Lives Matter post that cites NAACP statistics, 76 unarmed people of color were killed by the police during the 15 year period from 1999 to 2014. There were about 43 million African-Americans in 2015. That means the risk unarmed blacks face of dying from the police in the USA is less than 1 in 500,000 or about the risk that British people face from dying of a terrorist attack. How many writers have the courage to say that blacks should stop worrying about police violence?

  • Hugh Akston||

    The brutal thugs who run ISIS are claiming credit for the murders.

    So ISIS claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in another country, but they're somehow still alive?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hey, Ron

    Please point me to where Reason published the Danish Muhammad Cartoons.

  • Ron Bailey||

    b: Well, there is this. And check out the images at about 1 minute into the Reason TV interview with Flemming Rose.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Almost a decade after the event.

    Anything a bit more timely? Anything contemporaneous with events? Big points for Reason if they did, but my recollection is that almost no publisher in the West did at the time.

    From your article:

    Self-censorship in the face of intimidation has another name: cowardice.

    It's easy to talk a big game about ignoring low probability threats, but in fact people do not. Except for a handful, US media did not.

    You're the science editor. You should know this better than anyone else.

    And in the case of actual intelligent adversaries, and not inanimate threats, we know the *rationality* of fighting back disproportionately.

    heighten our sense of vulnerability even if a risk is objectively small.


    But the risk is not small. The risk is a cowed population, exemplified by a cowed media, but hardly limited to it. It takes very little *actual* directed violence to control people.

    "We know from history that if we submit to terror and threats; what we do not get is less terror and fewer threats," writes Rose. "What we get is more terror and more threats."

    "Keep calm and carry on" was a poster in Britain during WWII, when Britain was fully mobilized to fight the Nazis.

    Is Britain fully mobilized to protect itself from Islamic terrorism? Are we?

    People will be more inclined to "keep a stiff upper lip" when governments get serious about fighting back.

  • ReformRealist||

    Well, the US government has declared a "global war on terror" and has spent over a trillion in an effort to wage it, so that seems fairly serious. This doesn't even take into account the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of laws that curtail civil liberties. If the results have been less than stellar, perhaps the fault lies in the overall strategy?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Like importing people from countries rife with terrorism that we've been bombing.

    Like importing people from cultures without a history of representative government, rule of law, individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,...

    Not a great plan

  • ThomasD||

    There was a rather famous photo from Iraq (IIRC) that said something to the effect "America is not at war. The USMC is at war, America is at the mall."

    We don't go to the mall nearly so much as we did ten years ago (thanks Amazon!) but we still aren't at war either.

  • Agammamon||

    "the use of violence for political ends," including "any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

    Hmm, wouldn't that also describe every single one of their (and our) 'interventions' over the last 50+ years?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Not entirely. Some US interventions were to see to repayment of loans offered to belligerents by stupid bankers with political connections. Some were retaliatory, like what happened to the good folks who bombed Pearl Harbor. There is something about the initiation of force the Libertarian Defense Caucus thought was important, a distinction between that and televangelists urging fools to engage in spontaneous religious violence. Then again, if you mean the US exporting prohibition to unstable countries because Billy Graham and the Drug Czar said it would please Jesus, "we" have had such interventions. I proudly voted libertarian most of these past 50 years, so don't come crying to me.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . .repayment of loans offered to belligerents by stupid bankers

    Using violence to engender fear in the population to effect a political goal.

    Some were retaliatory, like what happened to the good folks who bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Using violence to engender fear in the population to effect a political goal.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Terrorism is done by non-state actors, by definition. When states commit the violence, it is called war or tyranny. We have different names for different types of violence, because the appropriate response to each violence differs. We should respond to acts of war by fighting a war. We should respond to tyranny by changing our political leaders. We should respond to terrorism by arresting and prosecuting terrorists.

  • Homple||

    Here's Mark Steyn's take on the incident, in which he points out that people are not able to "carry on as before".

    http://tinyurl.com/k2buaou


    "Carrying on exactly as before", as The Independent advises, will not be possible. A few months ago, I was in Toulouse, where Jewish life has vanished from public visibility and is conducted only behind the prison-like walls of a fortress schoolhouse and a centralized synagogue that requires 24/7 protection by French soldiers; I went to Amsterdam, which is markedly less gay than it used to be; I walked through Molenbeek after dark, where unaccompanied women dare not go. You can carry on, you can stagger on, but life is not exactly as it was before. Inch by inch, it's smaller and more constrained.
  • GamerFromJump||

    Mark Steyn is a national treasure.

  • Brandybuck||

    I know you will get shit for this post, but thank you Ronald Bailey. Thank you. I'm getting to old to be constantly afraid.

  • Homple||

    You make the mistake that people are afraid. It's more that they're pissed off at being told it's OK to allow adherents of a 7th Century death cult free rein in disrupting normal people's daily lives.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Don't kid yourself dude, everyone is terrified of something. Some people are terrified of a deranged Muslim fanatic denotating a nail bomb in their 8 year old's face. And then there are some guys like Bailey who are terrified of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

  • ReformRealist||

    And then there are people who seemingly care an awful lot about protecting statues of a long dead general...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Which requires more effort?

  • ReformRealist||

    It depends (more often those seeking a statue's destruction I suppose), but I personally don't care. It's a freaking statue, but (at the same time) I sometimes wonder why people are so intent on defending the legacy/reputation of particular individuals who died long ago. Seems like a gigantic waste of time...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Perhaps because the Cause never ends with just that statue or that flag or that name. Something along the lines of he who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past. I think that came out of an obscure and not presently popular book.

  • Jimoxe||

    It sucks all these negative utopia predictions are coming true.

  • SIV||

    Like crying over those obsolete Buddha statues the Taliban tastefully removed.

  • SIV||

    Like crying over those obsolete Buddha statues the Taliban tastefully removed.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Rather than take down the statues, we should post a plaque in front of the statues listing the names and party affiliation of the elected officials who had the statues erected and declare that those elected officials were racists. We as libertarians should reject the concept of collective race based guilt over the statues that racist Democrats erected during the height of the Progressive Era.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm too afraid to be constantly old.

  • Hank Phillips||

    London Convention Center wants to hire Ronald to announce "There is not a problem here" next time a suicide vest goes off in a crowd.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes, I agree that we should not be afraid and that we should carry on as before. I just wish more people would follow this philosophy in other parts of their lives. I'm the only person I know in Bergen County who parks in front of the drug den in Paterson just because the street sign says I'm allowed to part there.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Amen.

  • Greg F||

    But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though terrorism doesn't exist. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

    It seems so simple ... but it isn't. It also doesn't take into account the attacks that were thwarted. Cus knowing people are planning attacks has no effect. Either way killing people is not the goal ... it is simply a means to an end.

    The Most Intolerant Wins the Dictatorship of the Small Minority

    It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences.


    Results:

    Now consider this manifestation of the dictatorship of the minority. In the United Kingdom, where the (practicing) Muslim population is only three to four percent, a very high number of the meat we find is halal. Close to seventy percent of lamb imports from New Zealand are halal. Close to ten percent of the chain Subway carry halal-only stores (meaning no pork), in spite of the high costs from the loss of business of nonpork stores.

    Then there are 'No Go' Zones in the UK.

  • ReformRealist||

    Sure, but it seems policies like greater mass surveillance don't necessarily prevent terrorist attacks from taking place: What's the Evidence Mass Surveillance Works? Not Much

    Does your solution to this purported problem (pointing to the prevalence of halal food relative to the number of people who desire it is a somewhat benign issue, but I can see where you're going with it) involve drastically reducing immigration, administering some sort of cultural test for migrants, a combination of the two, or something else?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hanging used to work back in 1946. But lately there has been a jewish exodus from Nouveau-Vichy France as once again those brave citizens surrender to genocidal invaders. It's like one of those caught-in-a-time-loop movies where only the actors change, never the plot.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Tweak the numbers slightly and replace terrorist with police officer and the rest of the article could be left untouched. What's Farsi for 'awkward'?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good point.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Or eminant domain, the drug war, or anything else that Reason writers regularly (and justifiably, I think) lose their shit over.

  • JeremyR||

    Like clockwork Reason always prints this same article, saying terrorism is just fine because it only happens once in a while

  • DaveSs||

    No, they are saying "Terrorism is rare so don't loose your shit and don't put up with, nor ask your government to get even more authoritarian than it already is"

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    You know the real problem with terrorism from a Libertarian ideology is that it plays on the fear of foreign invaders and enemies -- which is the one thing that some Libertarians might believe actually warrants, if not is the main reason for, a federal government.

    Authoritarianism is awful of course but Libertarians want to cut and cut on the bloat of government but we don't argue for anarchy, there needs to be a fundamental bones of government by in large for the fact of foreign war. Is this not possibly the most compelling reason for centralized government?

    Full circle, I don't think there is anything necessarily un-libertarian about thinking 'if the government is going to do anything it might as well be protect the citizenry for murderous actors'. Of course we will debate til the end of time about what is best.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Well said.

  • Sevo||

    JeremyR|5.23.17 @ 9:39PM|#
    "Like clockwork Reason always prints this same article, saying terrorism is just fine because it only happens once in a while"

    And like clockwork, someone posts:
    PLEASE, GOVERNMENT, HELP SAVE ME FROM SOME MINISCULE CHANCE OF HARM! YOU CAN SEARCH ME IF I GO TO THE CRAPPER IF IT MIGHT SAVE ME! YOU CAN RECORD MY EVERY MESSAGE!
    ***HELP!!!***
    Thanks, Jeremy, your momma is over there.

  • Hank Phillips||

    There is an unmentioned difference. Bear maulings and lightning strikes may be rare, but at least they're not deliberately programmed via death-seeking memes that cause mystics to go amok and murder everyone in sight. Northern Ireland was the hotbed of religious death seekers even before the Guyana People's Temple last call for cyanide and Japan's spirit-world addled Aum cult started perforating bags of sarin on crowded Tokyo subways. Everywhere the burning cross or scimitar of mystical superstition gets planted, folks are menaced over and above the piffling statistics for grizzlies, bolts out of the blue or coal pollution. As pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, mystical altruism is a health hazard like any other. When it involves the coercive (as opposed to free) exercise of belief in what ain't so, it is not at all protected by the First Amendment. Surely this was made clear at the Judgments at Nuremberg, no?

  • Sevo||

    Hank Phillips|5.23.17 @ 9:50PM|#
    "There is an unmentioned difference. Bear maulings and lightning strikes may be rare, but at least they're not deliberately programmed via death-seeking memes that cause mystics to go amok and murder everyone in sight."

    Yeah, and it still doesn't affect my chance of harm one bit.
    If you want your mommy to save you from bad people, help yourself. I'm tired of being groped by TSA because Hank is afraid.

  • Brandybuck||

    And yet Northern Ireland is now a peaceful place despite no change in religion. Gosh, maybe Roman Catholics aren't the martyr-seeking death-cult the British media made them out to be in the 70s and 80s.

  • ThomasD||

    So power sharing, political payoffs, and amnesties are the best approach to dealing with murderous fanatics intent on returning the world to the 7th Century?

    Because otherwise I really don't see your your analogy has any meaning.

  • Sevo||

    "...But with risks this low, those of us who live in western democracies should continue to forthrightly live our lives as though terrorism doesn't exist. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized...."

    Can we tell TSA to get lost? Please?

  • Seamus||

    The British government defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends," . . .

    So war is terrorism?

  • Fascist loofa-faced shitgibbon||

    I came here to say that.

  • Mauser||

    Tell this to the victims and their families. "O no worries, could be worse, you could've drowned instead of getting your legs blown off."

  • ||

    Excellent comment man....

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Of course, most of us do not fear car crashes and bathtub drownings as such; they are everyday background risks that barely register in the media."

    That also does not mean that we approach those activities without acknowledging and taking cautions to deal with the inherent risk of those activities. Driving, in particular, may be the worst example for the point Bailey is trying to make, with how many traffic rules there are and the driving instructor's advice to "drive defensively", that people who consistently drive recklessly have their legal permission to use the roads taken away from them. We live with the risks but try to mitigate them, and those are situations where the risks are accidental, not where there are people actively trying to kill us and our neighbors.

  • Rebel Scum||

    We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

    This doesn't fit with: the use of violence for political ends

    However, turning Mecca into a sheet of glass is still an option. (I keed, I keed...kinda)

  • Underzog||

    The antisemitic, pro Islamic terrorist, "Reason Magazine," calls for people to do nothing in the face of Islamic terror. They even refuse to recognize it as Islamic (maybe the Amish did it). No! If you want to stop Islamic terror, Nuke Mecca and ban Islam where you can -- especially in the U.S. and Britain. Shut down all the mosques, too. And if you don't take these steps, don't complain about Islamic terror. Also, the whole world should stop being antisemitic and realize that Israel is the first line of the West's defense against Islamic terror. Ben Franklin warned us to hang together or we will all hang separately/ Britain is now hanging separately.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    John McCain? I think you're on the wrong website again old man.

  • eyeroller||

    First, condolences to those who lost friends and family last night as a result of the terrorist bombing

    There were probably 1,000 people murdered around the world that day. How come no one offers condolences to their friends and families?

  • E. Kline||

    I suppose it's only specific raw data about terrorism deaths that matter in this moment because that's what fits the Reason/libertarian narrative of open borders bullshit. Forget the 3 no go zones already in Britain, forget the Rotherham rape scandal where 1400 girls were raped by familial gangs of Muslims while officials stood by helplessly because they didnt want to look racist. Lets just talk about deaths from terrorism in a specific span, and act like there's nothing else to see here. Well, an 8 year old girl went to an Arianna Grande concert and didn't get to ever go home again because someone decided to kill her and 21 other people. Several others were maimed as well.
    Fuck you, I'm not treating it like a road fatality. Fuck you Reason. I don't want those fucking people over here. It doesnt take that many deaths, that many rapes, that many assaults, that many little Pakistan's in the city limits to radically change the lives of the citizens who were there first. At this point, England should consider setting up internment camps.
    If the good people of London, Paris, Stockholm etc... want to live their day to day lives as if they live in Tel Aviv, that's their business, but I don't want that shit over here. Not here, not ever.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    If Britain had ignored libertarians and other open borders advocates in the first place, this article would never have needed to be written.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    "At this point, England should consider setting up internment camps."

    Jesus man.

    I guess we should have interned you and your ilk when Tim McVeigh did what he did?

    Maybe we should have interned gun owners when someone shot up a nightclub in Miami?

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Maybe we should have interned gun owners when someone shot up a nightclub in Miami?"

    A muslim. A muslim shot up a nightclub in Miami.

    You couldn't even make your point without including an Islamic terrorist.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Ummm Leo, you sort of proved the opposing side's point. Tim McVeigh was a white person in your eyes and the man who shot up a club in Miami was a gun owner, because you are afraid to say that a Muslim shot up a club in Miami.

  • ||

    I certainly agree with you... Truly sad... "...it does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23)

    -According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • E. Kline||

    "We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized."

    Trite, and not true. An alligator won't stop eating you just because you look bored when it's happening.

  • ||

    Right, but the goal of the terrorist isn't to kill the population, the objectiive is to scare the rest of the Manatees into compliance with the Alligator's demands.If a population doesn't react in fear and deference to the act, it would have failed to achieve the goal.

    I have always advocated for treating terrorist like the common criminals they are and not validating their higher purpose in any way. Press releases regarding terrrorism in a Frankelson Administration would read something like, "A murderer killed himself and twenty-two people at a concert today. We morn for the families of the victims and will seek justice for them." Everytime we attribute these acts to Islam, or whatever ideology and react out of fear we give that ideology more power over us and more incentive to continue what they are doing.

    While, the "The way to defeat terrorism is not to be terrorized." is probably a little reductive there is an element of truth there. If they seek to influence politics by means of fear, the obvious solution is to not let the fear change our politics.

  • ||

    Well ,I guess they won...

    "People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth...."
    (Luke 21:26)

    ●According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Following this philosophy consistently means protesting the interfaith dialogues that communities hold in the wake of these attacks.

  • TGGeko||

    Hey, your chance of being struck by lightning is only 1 in a million, so no need to stop carrying that metal pole during an electrical storm.

  • ||

    I liked your comments... ever read this before?

    "The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself, But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences."
    (Proverbs 22:3)

    ●According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    When they say get use to it, I think they are really referring to the surveillence state and the reduction of civil liberties.

  • ||

    "The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself, But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences."
    (Proverbs 22:3)

    ●According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    OK. I'm calling cultural appropriation on you.

    Speaking of cultural appropriation, when will left-wingers feel outrage against Muslims for mentioning G-d's name? They stole that concept from Jews.

    I normally am fine with cultural appropriation, but for the sake of argument, I'll say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Azathoth!!||

    For the terrorist to win, the populace must do nothing save cower in fear and accede to his demands.

    We do not show images of Muhammad.

    We do not respond to Islamic aggression with force.

    We accede to religious demands.

    We do all this now.

    Why? Because we don't want muslims to get all explodey. We fear terrorism.

    How would we show that we don't fear them?

    Go into their neighborhoods, their mosques, their events and hurt them. Make them pay a thousandfold for every innocent that has died at the hands of their co-religionists.

    That is how you show no fear. Even suggesting it is horrific today.

    "Keep Calm and Carry On' meant carry the fight to the Hun. It meant fight and kill the German aggressors. It meant support the war effort, support the fight for victory.

    Yet another horrific suggestion in this, the current year.

  • Ron||

    another stupid comparison sure more people die by drowning in the bath tub but people can do things to prevent that are you saying we shouldn't also do things to protect ourselves from terrorism or just go about our lives like ignorant babes and never be prepared.

  • colorblindkid||

    There are like 1 or 2 gays killed in hate crimes every year. White supremacists murdering blacks is similarly rare. I wish this "you are far more likely to die from many other things so we should just ignore this problem" logic would be applied to these situations as well.

    In the 1950s, black men were far more likely to die of hundreds of other things more than they were likely to be lynched. It didn't mean we should have just ignored racism and told black people to just not care.

  • ||

    "11 I have seen something further under the sun, that the swift do not always win the race, nor do the mighty win the battle, nor do the wise always have the food, nor do the intelligent always have the riches, nor do those with knowledge always have success, because time and unexpected events overtake them all. 12 For man does not know his time. Just as fish are caught in an evil net and birds are caught in a trap, so the sons of men are ensnared in a time of disaster, when it suddenly overtakes them."
    (Ecclesiastes 9:11*, 12)
    *Reminds us of the Emergency Code 911 doesn't it?

    -According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A very good analogy.

  • ||

    "The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself, But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences."
    (Proverbs 22:3)

    ●According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • Mencken Sense||

    So who recalculates those stats every 3-4 weeks when another Islamist commits mass murder? Is there an intern, or what?

  • Africanis||

    You idiot scrubs out there just live your lives, well that is until Mohammed blows up your children while watching Katey Perry sing about kissing some chick and liking it. Don't you worry, our reassuring politicians are well protected and note that your deaths are worth the price of political correct thinking. Maybe the terrorists will up their game and go after the families of politicians and famous rich people. I am guessing attitudes might change after that with regards to their thinking.

  • Africanis||

    You idiot scrubs out there just live your lives, well that is until Mohammed blows up your children while watching Katey Perry sing about kissing some chick and liking it. Don't you worry, our reassuring politicians are well protected and note that your deaths are worth the price of political correct thinking. Maybe the terrorists will up their game and go after the families of politicians and famous rich people. I am guessing attitudes might change after that with regards to their thinking.

  • ||

    Truly sad... Unfortunately, these are just the norms of today...

    "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
    (2 Timothy 3:1-5; 13)

    The Good News is:

    "When the wicked sprout like weeds And all the wrongdoers flourish, It is that they may be annihilated forever." (Psalms 92:7)

    -According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I once knew a young man who thought that terrorist attacks against Israelis were a justified response to the political situation there. Then the attacks in Paris happened. He did not see why Muslim terrorists would kill audience members at a music concert. He did not know that music concerts are illegal in Kuwait.

  • ||

    "People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken."
    (Luke 21:26)

    -According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The article about Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia got 11 comments. This article got more than ten times that so far. Why do Muslim terrorists kill people in the West? Because terrorism makes a random guy more noticed than President Trump for a while. Some people think that 15 minutes of fame is worth dying for.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online