I'm reading William Gibson's latest offering, "Spook Country" at the moment. I think he is my favourite author. Anyway, one of the characters has something to say about terrorism that I think sums up the situation the world finds itself in since the World Trade Centre terrorist attack.
"A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individuals morals are situational, that individual is without morals. If a nations laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation."
"Are you so scared of terrorism that you'll dismantle the structures that made America what it is?"
"If you are, you let the terrorist win. Because that is exactly, specifically, his goal, his only goal: to frighten you into surrendering the rule of law. That's why they call him 'terrorist'. He uses terrifying threats to induce you to degrade your own society."
"It's based on the same glitch in human psychology that allows people to believe they can win the lottery. Statistically, almost nobody ever wins the lottery. Statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
3 comments:
I think this explains why terrorists seldom win the lottery.
So it follows that if I'm *not* a terrorist, it is much more likely that I will win the lottery.
Buying a lottery ticket should increase my chances even further.
I think I may be on to something here....
The 'statistically' argument is complete drivel. On that basis you'd never go to the beach or drive a car.
Without a response attacks would continue to happen. People seem to have forgotten the USS Cole, Kenya Embassy attack, first WTC attack etc, all of which happened before 9/11.
You are now statistically much less likely to be in an incident now in the US than before 9/11. Australia, too, as it happens though the same can't be said about Europe.
Check out www.thereligionofpeace.com if you want to see exactly how many attacks are going on in the name of Islam that we don't even know about.
Well at what cost? What freedoms have been given up for this greater security? What compromises of principles have been made?
This is the point of the statement.
Post a Comment