October 9, 2007
Column: Fear the deer, not the terrorists
In a recent book John Mueller, an American academic, notes that the number of his fellow-countrymen killed by terrorists since 1960 “is about the same as the number killed over the same period by accident-causing deer”.
I was upset when I read this. Hitherto, I have always rather enjoyed watching the deer in Richmond Park in London. But now I find myself looking at them with suspicion and resentment. Of course, we must be careful not to generalise about deer. Most of them live peaceful lives. But surely it is foolish to blind ourselves to the murderous threat posed by a small, but fanatical, minority of the deer community? A vicious ideology has lodged itself between their antlers. They seem to be willing to kill and die in pursuit of a deadly fantasy – returning to a golden age when deer controlled the forests of medieval Europe.
The remainder of this column can be read here; comments can be made below.
I assume that like all right-thinking people you are opposed to capital punishment. It follows logically that, were it in your power, you would not hand over to the US any terrorist who would be executed by the US following a pseudo judicial procedure. (An advertised $50 million reward is an irrelevant distraction.) Were you to make your position known, or be suspected of having such, you would acquire the status of enemy combatant. You would then be eligible for kidnap and rendition to an American secret prison – or to Guantánamo Bay, where you would remain for the duration.
We should be prepared to state where we stand on this question. From today’s mildly critical editorial we can detect the direction of the FT editorially. But let’s hope that no more journalists get rendered to Cuba to join Sami al-Haj, a prisoner in President Bush’s “war on al-Jazeera” who is said to be ending his days on a hunger strike.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 9th, 2007 at 11:13 am | Report this commentA 1 per cent chance of an individual to die in an accident is simply not valued the same by the society as the death of several thousands or hundreds of thousands of its members from one nuclear or biological terrorist attack that is believed the have the same statistical 1 per cent chance.
Posted by: Gabriel | October 9th, 2007 at 11:34 am | Report this commentEven if only one individual dies in a terrorist attack, the value that the society puts on this loss (of security, physical as well as, well, ideological) is much higher than the value assigned to one accidental loss of life.
Only ‘Acts of God’ are to be accepted (as long as it’s “our” God… but this is slightly another discussion).
Gideon Rachman does a disservice to those who are concerned about the survival of democracy in America by impliedly accepting the Bush administration’s line that the movement to restrict freedom is related to the terrorist threat, and that it is necessary to downplay this threat in order to preserve our civil liberties. The reality is that the pressure to give the executive branch virtually unlimited power goes back at least to the time of the Watergate scandal in the Nixon administration, in which, for example, Vice-President Cheney, one of today’s fiercest opponents of democratic government, served early in his career.
John W. Dean, the former counsel to President Nixon who went to prison for his role in the Watergate coverup, has written a number of books, most recently “Broken Government”, in which he shows in graphic detail how governmental secrecy and the undermining of democracy serve a long standing authoritarian agenda within the Republican party at all levels, including Congress and the courts, not just the White House. This agenda is to establish permanent monolithic one-party rule.
This would not only will make it easier to achieve the long-standing far right wing goals of destroying labor unions and rolling back decades of environmental and other regulations protecting the public, but would also make it easier for the US to pursue the belligerent foreign policy goals, including starting wars, to which Mr. Rachman refers.
Looking at the Bush/Cheney assault on civil liberties solely through the prism of the terror threat merely plays into the hands of political extremists, including but not limited to the current occupants of the White House, for whom the “war on terror” is merely a pretext for waging a larger and far more dangerous war on democracy.
Posted by: Roger Algase | October 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentComparing the accidental deaths of people killed on roads or even by deer, to the deaths caused by terrorism has long being used as a device in making the argument that concerns about terrorism are over-blown. However, these arguments fundamentally misunderstand the aims of terrorists, which are always about more than simplistic body-counts. A typical terrorist attack seeks to achieve the death of civilians as part of wider aims, which, include; the immediate disruption to society, short and long-term economic impact, an over-reaching response from the target government and publicity for the cause. In short, terrorist attacks are not accidental and therefore, comparing them to deaths caused by accidents is an irresponsible argument.
Similarly, comparing global warming to terrorism is also a strange choice. Global warming is presented as having a straightforward cause and effect (unless I dozed off through the relevant parts of Al Gore’s movie). CO2 emissions= rising temperatures. It is therefore; clear that in some form CO2 emissions need to be addressed. The causes of terrorism are simultaneously, local and global, religious and financial, historic and contemporary – addressing any or all of these causes holds no guarantee that the threat from terrorism would be reduced.
There are clearly, serious shortcomings in America’s response to the terrorist threat – as Colin Powel recently noted, by sharing his view that America’s response to terrorism was a greater threat than terrorism itself. But we should agree that being accidentally hit by the number thirty bus is a very different proposition than being blown up on the number thirty bus. They shouldn’t be compared.
Posted by: Roderick Jones | October 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm | Report this commentThank you, Roderick; I couldn’t agree more. It is nonsensical to compare accidental deaths to terrorist deaths. Furthermore, the statistical chance of a death occurring is by no means the same as a full risk assessment of the event. It is inappropriate and misleading to discuss risk management in such a superficial fashion.
You’ll find that risk is generally agreed by experts to be a multiplicative combination of threat, vulnerability and consequence. In your flippant comparison of deer accidents to terrorist attacks, you have not considered that critical third factor at all. You also belittle the substantial differences between types of threats.
Posted by: ppp | October 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm | Report this commentYour line of risk assessment applies most strongly to the war in Afganistan where politicians assume without question that Taleban control implies with certainty the recreation of Al Quaeda “invisible” training camps etc. To pose the question is really enough to cause the doubt. Beyond the Al Quaeda argument there is no reason to be at war with Afganistan at all.
The root of Al Quaeda involvement in Afganistan is simply that certain Saudis were there for the Russian war, and then had a ready host government who wanted money directly afterwards. But many (particularly Central Asian) states can qualify for need of money and Iraq illustrates the high “liquidity” of the Al Quaeda operation. Al Quaeda is a bit like growing opium.
No one in authority wants to face the bang for buck question for reasons I suppose of political suicide, in this prevailing environment. But the direct consequence is of a US (and UK) who expend very highly and crudely on low risk priorities, while failing to invest with sufficient sophistication in governmental engagement with China etc.
Where is the one eyed man when you need him?
Posted by: Richard Moon | October 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pm | Report this commentppp, you are absolutely correct. For readers not versed in statistics, here is an example:
To properly assess the risk, one should multiply the probability of the outcome (using Mr Rachman’s example, this would be 1 percent) by the magnitude of the destruction were the threat to transpire: For a nuclear terrorist attack this would be very great, say 100,000 lives, i.e. the risk is 1 percent of 100.000 which is 1,000 - a number approaching the road toll statistics Mr Rachman mentions.
Posted by: RCS | October 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pm | Report this commentSir,
Your main point is that the probability of terrorism going forward is low based upon historical data on terrorism. One has to conclude that you consider the probability of mass scale terrorism to be infinitesimal. Hence your dismissal of Dick Cheney’s “1% doctrine”. I was wondering if you could share with me and your readers your estimate on the following probabilities.
1. Probability Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and will soon have the technical capability.
2. Probability that Russia and China will join the US and Europe in imposing strict sanctions on IRAN.
My guess for point one is 100% and point 2 is 10%. Assuming independent probabilities this means that the probability of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is 90% since I also assume you would be against any military action against IRAN.
So given a nuclear IRAN is practically a certainty I am curious why you feel we should worry so little about terrorism.
Best Regards,
Marc Weiss
Posted by: marc weiss | October 11th, 2007 at 5:53 am | Report this commentDear Marc Weiss,
The probablity you ascribe under 1 is entirely arbitrary and is based emotionally and on the con tricks and propaganda by Washington.
The IAEA is screaming loudly that they have not found any evidence of weaponisation of the Iranian research effort but are being dismissed by the very same voices that assured us of the existence of Iraq’s WMD’s and the imminence of their use.
Even if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it would be national suicide to try and use it, wouldn’t you say?
Of course, the crazies in Washington have their usual fallback that people in Iran are irrational( they have said this against every previous opponent of the West), but recent experience that the people in charge in Iran are highly rational and canny. That is why they have managed to outflank the much better equipped America on a region-wide basis from Afghanistan and Iraq to Lebanon.
We should worry about terrorism, American terrorism to be precise, that has given rise to the deaths of millions of Third World people and continues unabated.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 11th, 2007 at 10:16 am | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
The IAEA is not being allowed unfettered inspections. Making dirty bombs requires centrifuges (which the Iranians are now operating). The Iranian’s are foregoing tens of billions of dollars of income per annum due to slow foreign investment in their oil industry because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons (irrational). The current Iranian president has denied the holocaust (irrational) and calls for the destruction of Israel (irrational) and believes in the coming of the 12 Imman (irrational).
I can only imagine that you are against the Nuclear non proliferation treaty since you seem to think its OK if Iran goes nuclear. I hope you appreciate that a nuclear Iran will only cause more nations to go nuclear worldwide particularly in the middle east. Allowing that to happen is irrational.
American Terrorism?? I suppose you mean WWI, WWII, Korea, the dissolving of the Eastern Bloc, etc.
Best Regards,
Marc
Posted by: marc weiss | October 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm | Report this commentDear Marc,
- Not only Iran allowed IAEA all the inspections under the NPT but Iran also signed up for the additional protocol for a period of two years on an entirely voluntary basis in exchange for promises of technical and economic aid that were not forthcoming. Iran decided that the unilateral delay of her technical development amounted to a denial of that development and withdrew from the additional protocol because the EU3 did not keep their side of the bargain.
- Iranians were being denied foreign investment long before the nuclear issue. Don’t forget that Iranian Libya Sanctions Act was signed back in 1996. This alone confirms that the nuclear issue is just a ruse to starve Iran and Iranians. Even if Iran gives up her nuclear research entirely, America will not ease its sanctions. They will just accuse Iran of terrorism or of being anti-Israel. Therefore, it is not worth Iran’s while to try and mollify Washington.
- The president of Iran has very limited executive powers as has been mentioned countless times in this forum and elsewhere. Again, I find it funny that when the former president (Khatami) was holding up the olive branch, the usual Western experts were falling over themselves pointing out his limited powers but now the same type of people are building up Ahmadinejad into Hitler reincarnate.
-Moreover, it has been pointed out again and again that the current Iranian president did not call for violent destruction of Israel.
As for charges of holocaust denial, his position is to question two things:
A-) Why isn’t the extent of the holocaust the only topic on the planet that is not open for discussion? For example see the current furore over the Armenian genocide:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/europe/12turkey.html?hp
Note in particular what President Bush has said:
Quote
Before the Wednesday vote, President Bush appeared on the South Lawn of the White House and implored the House not to take up the issue, only to have a majority of the committee disregard his warning at the end of the day, by a vote of 27 to 21.
Unquote
You need to consider why the American president wants to go to war with Iran over the Jewish holocaust but asks the Armenian genocide to be glossed over. Are the lives of the Armenians worth less than Jewish lives?
B-) Ahmadinejad also wanted to know why the treatment of European Jewry by the Goyim meant that the Palestinians should pay the price. Why import so many Ukrainian, Polish, German and Russian Jews into Palestine and kick out the Palestinians because the Germans (with quite a bit of support from many other Europeans) wanted to wipe them out? What was the crime of the Palestinians?
- Yes Ahmadinejad believes in the second coming of the 12th Imam and it is irrational. Doesn’t Bush believe in the second coming of Jesus? Are you comfortable that he has his finger on the nuclear button? (Ahmadinejad doesn’t and he wouldn’t have that power under the Iranian constitution even if Iran possessed nukes).
- You imagine wrong. I am totally in favour of the NPT, under which Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (which the West is seeking to deny it). Moreover, the US is in breach of the NPT by its passing of nuclear technology to India and Israel (both non-members) and by its development of tactical, battlefield, nuclear weapons.
In fact, I am in favour of a nuclear-free Middle East including an expulsion of the American nuclear fleet and nuclear disarmament by Israel.
- When I speak of American terrorism, I am speaking of the million or more who have died in Iraq since 2003, of the carpet bombing of Indochina, of countless subversions against figures like Mossadeq in Iran and Pinochet in Chile. (Not to speak of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm | Report this commentP, Please be clear. On one hand you’ve implied its not significant if Iran has the bomb but then you seem to believe they are only pursuing a peaceful program. My point is that if Iran gets the bomb it will accelerate proliferation across the world. Thus you must be against nuclear proliferation unless we are to believe that Iran is not going for the bomb. So please answer yes or no. Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons?
Bush will be out of power in 18 months (as if we should take seriously your assertion that Bush is more willing to use nuclear weapons than Iran). However the Mullahs, the real power in Iran, will still be in power and they all believe in the second coming on the 12th Imman.
Obviously you support the expulsion of jews from Israel, which would be the natural result of Ahmadinejad’s reasoning which you seem to agree with. Can you clarify?
Finally I think the multiple millions that were killed in Indochina post America’s withdrawal speaks volumes about which perspectives (Hitler’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s) have caused the most damage to the world.
Posted by: marc weiss | October 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm | Report this commentP,
One more question. You call Hiroshima and Nagasaki American terrorism.
Please explain which of the following factual declarations you disagree with.
1. Japan started the war in Asia by invading Manchuria in 1931. This was a decision made by a dictatorship, not a democratically elected government.
2. The Japanese army raped and killed 300-600k people in the city on Nanking in 1937.
3. The US started cutting off oil and steel to Japan in 1940-1941.
4. Japan attacked the US fleet at Pearl starting the war with the US
5. By 1944 America was winning the war against Japan.
6. However, unlike German troops which surrendered in increasing numbers as the allies got closer to Germany, the Japanese increased the intensity of their fight as made evident by the mass suicide attacks at Okinawa.
7. After Germany surrendered it was evident that Japan could not win the war. But yet the Japanese did not surrender. By 1945 the US had 2 choices (A). Invade Japan until Japan surrendered. B Drop the atomic bomb and shock the Japanese into surrender. Choice A would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives on both sides. Clearly dropping the atomic bomb was the only rational choice. Yet I gather from your perspective you would have sought out a third option. Negotiate a peace with Japan and leave the same government and institutions intact so Japan could start a war another day. On this point I feel the vast majority of Koreans and Chinese would disagree with you.
8. The memory of Japan’s brutal occupation of Asia in WWII can still touch off very strong emotions as made evident by the controversy every time a Japanese prime minister contemplates visiting a WWII memorial.
So please stop rewriting history. The atomic bombs stopped Japan’s terrorism in a war they started.
Posted by: marc weiss | October 12th, 2007 at 1:58 am | Report this commentForget the deers: Americans are much more at risk of dying from their insane gun laws than from terrorism
Posted by: Dominique | October 12th, 2007 at 2:10 am | Report this commentDominique,
Please go to the following link. America’s murder rate is ranked 24th and is comparable to many other countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Best
Posted by: marc weiss | October 12th, 2007 at 2:46 am | Report this commentM
Dear Marc,
- My belief is that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons because it would not be able to use them without very dire consequences for itself. Moreover, as you say, it would cause region-wide proliferation which can be dangerous for Iran too.
The objection of Iranians is that they are being deterred from developing peaceful nuclear technology.
- Believing in the second coming of the 12th Imam or Jesus is not of itself a reason to want to use nuclear weapons.
In any case, I would point out that the incredible strength of the evangelicals (a quarter of the US electorate) and Christian Zionists in the US. They are serious believers in the Armageddon and bringing it forward. Interestingly, in their scenario, Jews will have to convert or die but for now they want to bring forward the End Times by supporting Israel.
I find the fact that so many Americans believe in this garbage, and that they are politically powerful, more frightening than any speech that an insignificant figure like Ahmadinejad makes. After all, militarily America is infinitely more powerful than Iran. It has nukes that it has used against civilians which no other country has done.
Also don’t forget that prominent American politicians make daily speeches saying how they like to bomb Iran. This is one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
- I don’t support the expulsion of Jews from Palestine. I was merely pointing out that Ahmadinejad’s questions are not as crazy as they are made out.
For what it’s worth, I support the return of Israel to pre-1967 borders with cast iron security guarantees and even some adjustment to borders to ensure that those guarantees can be met.
The international community (especially the US) can then direct its money and effort towards the economic development of the land of Palestine. (Mr. Gates asked for a budget of $190 bn for 2008 to kill yet more people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine what impact that sort of money can have on ameliorating the problems in Palestine).
- As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you are being glib. America nuked millions of civilians. That is the salient fact and the rest are all excuses.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am | Report this commentP,
Thank you for being clear.
1. But “My belief is that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons because it would not be able to use them without very dire consequences for itself.” Implies rationality. The power structure in Iran believes in the coming of the 12th Imman, which is irrational. Your thoughts on the religious right in America is amusing. While true that they are an important power base they still couldn’t stop the democrats from taking the house and the senate. And the US constitution will kick bush out in 18 months. Since Iran is a sham democracy a small number of people control the country (i.e. like North Korea) and will be in power indefinately. I trust the US system far more than the Iranian system. American’s like to enjoy life which is why you do not see Evangelicals blowing up churches of Catholics. I wish the same could be said and the shia and the sunni.
2. If Iran is bombed its because China and Russia do not help isolate Iran. I am afraid you are quite alone in your belief that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapns.
3. Finally you have not disputed any one of the facts I have list in reference to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and yet have the temerity to call me glib.
Please answer the following questions.
Did Japan start the pacific war? yes or no?
Did Japanese resistence increase as America’a forces got closer to japan as made evident by the massive kamikaze assualt near Okinawa? yes or no?
What was the alternative for the US besides invading Japan or dropping the atomic bombs?
Best
Posted by: marc weiss | October 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm | Report this commentM
Dear Marc,
Your characterisation of Iran, Iranians and their belief is straight out of the Fox TV central casting of the “baddies” whereas your complacency about the American fundies is quite concerning to the rest of us who have seen irresponsible and criminal American actions worldwide. Sadly, those actions are on the increase rather than decrease.
I also have to laugh at the suggestion that if America bombs Iran (which could be a nuclear attack that you justify in the way that you justify the attack on the Japanese), then it would be the fault of the Chinese and the Russians!! Whose fault was the invasion of Iraq?!
As for your last segment, I am not a fan of the militarist, ultra nationalist Japan but we both know that America tried to strangle them by economic sanctions to preserve / extend American hegemony over the Pacific region and not out of any altruism for the Chinese or Koreans.
Now let’s say Japan started the war and you imply that therefore it deserved to get nuked. Would you extend that to saying that America deserves to get nuked because it started an unjustifiable war against Iraq?
Your second question in that segment is also indicative of your belief that anybody who resists America and defends his homelands deserves to die. You say “Did Japanese resistance increase as America’s forces got close to Japan…”. So what if they resisted hard? Did this justify a nuclear attack? No, in my opinion.
As for other American alternatives, as the enclosed article states, historians will never agree but Japan was probably ready to surrender anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, a Japanese historian says:
Quote
Truman refused to modify the “unconditional surrender” demand because he wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor, courted popularity at home and needed to demonstrate strategic power.
Unquote
An America professor says:
Quote
“This was in fact a race with the Russians. The bomb was to announce to the world American superiority. It would also stop any Russian advance against Japan and create a situation, as happened, in which the US would dominate the occupation of Japan.”
Unquote
I do not expect you to agree with me but simply to acknowledge that on all issues, from Iran to Japan there is a multiplicity of views.
By the way, I think if we continue this, the moderator will intervene!!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentP,
so let’s use quotes,
Sarkozy, “in the event diplomacy failed, the world and France would be “facing a disastrous alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran”. Sarkozy does not work for Fox.
Who is blocking tighter sanctions on Iran, Putin. Congratulations on your bedfellow.
Iraq war? The Fault is the US AND France AND Russia. If the security council lines up behind the United states saddam would have folded and war could have been avoided. Instead saddam was empowered by the actions of France and Russia who were owed multi Billions by the Saddam. As you say, there are a multiplicity of views.
It is very easy to argue about what Japan may have done years later. But the facts are the US had an obligation to its citizens to end the war as soon as possible and Japanese were showing only increased signs of resistence in the war they started. The US had only one choice.
Since your views are exclusively anti-american maybe you can also try to understand other points of view.
Best
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12th, 2007 at 5:24 pm | Report this commentM
Marc,
Congratulations! At last someone with a stamina which is a match for P’s.
Best,
Posted by: RCS | October 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentR
Marc,
Congratulations! At last someone whose stamina is a match for P’s.
Best,
Posted by: RCS | October 12th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentR
Hi Marc,
1-) The underlying understanding of the NPT is that the non-nuclear powers refrain from developing nuclear weapons and, in exchange, the nuclear powers undertake not to attack them using nukes. Hiroshima happened pre NPT and we put it down to a lack of experience with nuclear weapons at the time (to be most charitable towards Americans’ intentions.)
Today there is NO excuse for use of nukes against other countries and if the US uses even the smallest nuclear device against Iran it will be a signal to everyone else to arm themselves. It will be another gigantic mistake by the idiots in the Bush regime.
2-) France, Russia and Germany were right to oppose an invasion of Iraq. With hindsight we know that the US/K case against Iraq’s supposed possession of WMD’s was fraudulent. This fact is something that you conveniently forget.
3-) As for Sarkozy, he is mistaken. He is trying for the mantle of Tony Blair as Bush’s favourite puppet. His views are a break from the traditional thinking of the French. I think his presidency will be a disaster for France. Just wait and see the strikes and the civil strife that will ensue in France.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am | Report this commentGideo, for your review: Portents of A Nuclear Al-Qaeda - By David Ignatius.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101702114.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 18th, 2007 at 9:06 am | Report this comment