At Least 12 Killed in Pair of Terrorist Attacks in Iran

[Elixir]

There are several forms of deaths in the US, such as gun deaths, heart attacks and old age, but that does not mean we should do nothing about preventing terrorism.

You should get another Captain Obvious award...

You can give it to him:

 

[ronburgundy]

ISIS claims responsibility.

Obviously this is blowback for their meddling in the Middle East.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/...arliament-attack-khomeini-mausoleum.html?_r=0

Big deal. As of June 8th, 2017, this year there have been 6,610 gun deaths in the US. But nobody - especially the alt-right - seems terribly concerned. They're far more afraid of dying at the hands of a terrorist, which is statistically an almost non-existent possibility.
Why are people so scared of something that isn't happening? You can thank that giant orange turd on Pennsylvania Avenue and his enablers.

For probably the hundredth time your type of fallacious point has been raised, it is largely rational and psychologically understandable for people to be more afraid of the kind of randomly selected killings that comprise most terrorism than the type of deaths in your meaningless stat. In fact, the whole reason for the name "terrorism" is that such killings are strategically designed to evoke general fear in ways that other killings are not. First, about 2/3 of your 6,610 gun deaths are suicides, and about 5% are deaths of criminals (most of them armed) by police. Despite propaganda, the evidence in the vast majority of those cases strongly favors justified use of that force and even when it doesn't, it is usually a police over-reaction to a criminal doing something stupid. Reasonable non-criminals are not afraid of such deaths. Of the remaining 1900 or so, most are deaths of criminals by other criminals. Again, non-criminals don't fear such killings. Among the hundreds that are non-criminals, most were killed by known criminals they had a close personal relationship to (among female victims, that is often their husband/boyfriend). Some form of argument with the shooter is often involved. Although these people were actually undeserving victims, their involvement with the shooter (who usually has a long criminal history) leads most people to discount such killings as something just as likely to happen to them, or at least something they have some control over. Whether that belief is always reasonable, doesn't change the fact that such a thought process is rather natural.
Among the small % of gun deaths that are of innocent victims killed unpredictably by a stranger, most of those killings occur in concentrated high crime, high poverty areas. While that should not lessen sympathy for the victims, it would likely lessen the sense of fear that the majority of people experience because they do not live in or frequent such areas.

That leaves, at most, a couple hundred shootings where any random American might have been the victim, and thus should evoke fear in most people. However, not only is that less than 1 per million people, but these are mostly single victim events in a massive country, where most people will never hear about them unless they are very local. A dozen victims at once, no matter what the circumstances, will make more news and become known to more people than a dozen separate events spread over a year. That part of it is very analogous to plane crashes vs. car crashes, and the disproportionate fear people have about planes, when driving or being a car passenger is by far the most dangerous thing most people do each day.

 

[Elixir]

Big deal. As of June 8th, 2017, this year there have been 6,610 gun deaths in the US. But nobody - especially the alt-right - seems terribly concerned. They're far more afraid of dying at the hands of a terrorist, which is statistically an almost non-existent possibility.
Why are people so scared of something that isn't happening? You can thank that giant orange turd on Pennsylvania Avenue and his enablers.

For probably the hundredth time your type of fallacious point has been raised, it is largely rational and psychologically understandable for people to be more afraid of the kind of randomly selected killings that comprise most terrorism than the type of deaths in your meaningless stat.

Why all the drama? There's nothing fallacious about those statistics, and you know it. Of course people are easily terrorized; it's an evolutionary feature of an organism that didn't evolve on top of the local food chain.

In fact, the whole reason for the name "terrorism" is that such killings are strategically designed to evoke general fear in ways that other killings are not.

That in no way provides an excuse to the media for ENHANCING, AIDING AND ABETTING that effect, Ron. I don't know what you are thinking there. I am arguing that the media should have the responsibility to MINIMIZE it, not try to blow it up and cash in on it.

First, about 2/3 of your 6,610 gun deaths are suicides, and about 5% are deaths of criminals (most of them armed) by police. Despite propaganda, the evidence in the vast majority of those cases strongly favors justified use of that force and even when it doesn't, it is usually a police over-reaction to a criminal doing something stupid. Reasonable non-criminals are not afraid of such deaths. Of the remaining 1900 or so, most are deaths of criminals by other criminals. Again, non-criminals don't fear such killings. Among the hundreds that are non-criminals, most were killed by known criminals they had a close personal relationship to (among female victims, that is often their husband/boyfriend). Some form of argument with the shooter is often involved. Although these people were actually undeserving victims, their involvement with the shooter (who usually has a long criminal history) leads most people to discount such killings as something just as likely to happen to them, or at least something they have some control over. Whether that belief is always reasonable, doesn't change the fact that such a thought process is rather natural.
Among the small % of gun deaths that are of innocent victims killed unpredictably by a stranger, most of those killings occur in concentrated high crime, high poverty areas. While that should not lessen sympathy for the victims, it would likely lessen the sense of fear that the majority of people experience because they do not live in or frequent such areas.

Valid points, but none of them obviate what I am saying.

That leaves, at most, a couple hundred shootings where any random American might have been the victim, and thus should evoke fear in most people.

VS how many US deaths at the hands of ISIS in the same time period? Why are you arguing for a disproportionate media response?

 

[blastula]

The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive | US news | The Guardian

This says in US, 75 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2015, and 39 in 2016. For anyone unarmed, 235 in 2015 and 169 in 2016.

American Deaths in Terrorist Attacks, 1995-2015 | START.umd.edu

That says all terrorist deaths in US is 44 in 2015 and 19 in 2014. 44 is the highest for any year since 2001.

 

[dismal]

The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive | US news | The Guardian

This says in US, 75 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2015, and 39 in 2016. For anyone unarmed, 235 in 2015 and 169 in 2016.

American Deaths in Terrorist Attacks, 1995-2015 | START.umd.edu

That says all terrorist deaths in US is 44 in 2015 and 19 in 2014. 44 is the highest for any year since 2001.

Hmm, perhaps I should have specified unarmed black people who were not actively attacking a policeman. That seems to narrow it down quite a lot.

The source I found said an average of 175 Americans are killed per year by terrorists over the last 20 years.

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf

 

[blastula]

That's the same link I used. Your 175 includes 9/11 and is worldwide. Excluding 9/11, it would be and average of 13 per year in US only.

 

[dismal]

That's the same link I used. Your 175 includes 9/11 and is worldwide. Excluding 9/11, it would be and average of 13 per year in US only.

Why would one exclude 9/11?

 

[blastula]

It's a clear outlier, if we're considering average risk. And it's not even excluding OKC.

 

[dismal]

It's a clear outlier, if we're considering average risk.

Huh? It's people that died. It affects the average number of people that died.

 

[blastula]

Yes, but it's not as meaningful to include in the average, the total is 100s of times larger by itself than the yearly average without it. Also it's 16 years ago, the police fatalities are only for 2 years back.

 

[dismal]

Yes, but it's not as meaningful to include in the average, the total is 100s of times larger by itself than the yearly average without it. Also it's 16 years ago, the police fatalities are only for 2 years back.

My school didn't teach averages that way. It said you add up all the numbers in the set and divide by the count.

 

[blastula]

It may have forgot to teach you to use meaningful, relevant numbers, if you want to say something meaningful and relevant. Though, it's possible you don't want to.

 

[Jayjay]

I find this terrorist strike actually more impactful than London or Manchester. European countries are fairly stable and they aren't going to do anything that escalates the situation. There will be police action and that's it. Iran, on the other hand, will likely start to crack down on Sunnis and anyone else who opposes the regime for that matter. This will be used as an excuse by the hardliners to further strengthen their grip on the country, although their grip is pretty strong to begin with. In Iran, the real power struggle isn't between the "opposition" (which doesn't even exist for all intents and purposes) and the government, it's between the IRGC and the clergy. With the Ayatollah dying in next few years, there is going to be lots of wrangling who is going to succeed him, and the threat of terrorism might be the excuse that the military needs to make its move.

Also, this will further deepen the rift between Iran and its allies, and the Saudis. Not good, especially since Trump in his idiocy is backing up the latter.

 

[untermensche]

But there was a big Iran-Iraq war too. Surely they are still pissed about that?

ISIS is "still" pissed?

Your history is a little shaky.

There was no ISIS when that happened.

ISIS emerged from the ruins of the US terrorist attack of Iraq in 2003.

 

[ronburgundy]

For probably the hundredth time your type of fallacious point has been raised, it is largely rational and psychologically understandable for people to be more afraid of the kind of randomly selected killings that comprise most terrorism than the type of deaths in your meaningless stat.

Why all the drama?

Pointing out the objective fact that your stat in itself is meaningless and your comparison of the number to the deaths in terrorist attack is fallacious is not "drama". It it is rational analysis this site was created for.

There's nothing fallacious about those statistics, and you know it.

Stats by themselves cannot be fallacious, only completely meaningless as this one is, and it implies nothing about anything. No reasonable person would have any particular emotional response to that stat without knowing the nature and context of those deaths. Whether their is anything to be afraid or angry about, or even whether they should feel sadness and remorse that the person was shot depends entirely upon the context. It is that context that you completely ignore is fallaciously equating those deaths with terrorism deaths that you assert should not evoke any more fear and terror in the general public than a person using a gun to end their pain due to untreatable cancer.

In fact, the whole reason for the name "terrorism" is that such killings are strategically designed to evoke general fear in ways that other killings are not.

That in no way provides an excuse to the media for ENHANCING, AIDING AND ABETTING that effect, Ron. I don't know what you are thinking there. I am arguing that the media should have the responsibility to MINIMIZE it, not try to blow it up and cash in on it.

Your post in no way makes such an argument. You criticized people in general for being afraid when terrorist kill dozens of random people, and blamed such fear entirely upon Trump and the alt-right as though such fear being greater than for more typical targeted murders is not inherent and natural to being a human.

First, about 2/3 of your 6,610 gun deaths are suicides, and about 5% are deaths of criminals (most of them armed) by police. Despite propaganda, the evidence in the vast majority of those cases strongly favors justified use of that force and even when it doesn't, it is usually a police over-reaction to a criminal doing something stupid. Reasonable non-criminals are not afraid of such deaths. Of the remaining 1900 or so, most are deaths of criminals by other criminals. Again, non-criminals don't fear such killings. Among the hundreds that are non-criminals, most were killed by known criminals they had a close personal relationship to (among female victims, that is often their husband/boyfriend). Some form of argument with the shooter is often involved. Although these people were actually undeserving victims, their involvement with the shooter (who usually has a long criminal history) leads most people to discount such killings as something just as likely to happen to them, or at least something they have some control over. Whether that belief is always reasonable, doesn't change the fact that such a thought process is rather natural.
Among the small % of gun deaths that are of innocent victims killed unpredictably by a stranger, most of those killings occur in concentrated high crime, high poverty areas. While that should not lessen sympathy for the victims, it would likely lessen the sense of fear that the majority of people experience because they do not live in or frequent such areas.

Valid points, but none of them obviate what I am saying.

They obliterate what you said, because all you said is that Trump and the alt-right is the sole reason that your meaningless stat does not evoke more fear in the public than these terrorist attacks.

Whatever you think you said, you didn't. What you said was the same tired red-herring thrown onto these boards regularly which makes a false equivalence not merely between apples and oranges, but more like between radishes and pineapples that have little in common beyond both technically being edible.

That leaves, at most, a couple hundred shootings where any random American might have been the victim, and thus should evoke fear in most people.

VS how many US deaths at the hands of ISIS in the same time period? Why are you arguing for a disproportionate media response?

I explained exactly why their is different media coverage in the very next sentences that you snipped. In short, many murders in a single event is of more interest to most viewers than a single victim, so the former gets national/worldwide coverage while the latter only local at best. There are other obvious reasons as well. When a lone killer murders even a group of people then dies, the threat is over. When a terrorist does so, the actual people responsible are still actively planning the next mass murder. It is analogous to a serial killer than is dead vs. still "at large". The dead one gets coverage on the night they are killed, but the at large one gets regular continued coverage because they are still a threat. Terrorism means the killers are always "still at large", because the death of a specific suicide killer is not relevant to that threat.
None of this requires any political bias by the media or even any malicious amoral profiteering by the media (though I don't deny such motives exist in general). Take away all organized media and individuals will be having way more conversations about their fears related to terrorist attacks than your 6,600 stat in bars, at water coolers, at dinner, and on social media.