Terrorists or those who run terrorist operations terrorize us for the enjoyment of the payoff. The payoff is witnessing the terror and despair evidenced by society at large. If they terrorized just those AT the terror event, it would be worthless.
The way to disrupt their enjoyment is obvious: by forgoing the all the news coverage and political jawboning and threats or revenge and remembrances which come afterward. In other words, by turning a situation like the recent terror attack on the Boston Marathon into a non-event or 9/11 into a nonevent.
It's contrary to our nature it seems, but it would work. It might not end every act of terror, but after a while it would assuredly cut their frequency way down,
I've read this line two days ago on wired:
Terrorism is not just violence aimed at civilians. Terrorism is violence aimed at civilians with a political objective — most often, designed to cause a spectacle.
turning the spot lights away from such incidents may change the game.
Unfortunately, politicians see these incidents as a chance to get in the public eye in a positive way and journalists start thinking Pulitzer Prize.
It might work. Just like asking all Americans to stop overeating might end obesity.
This idea of controlling the media works.
As proof I give you North Korea.
It is overkill. Taking away the non-stop-media-bombardment of panic and confusion would definitely work.
Why would you want to deprive our society of their insatiable appetite for human tragedy? We seem to eat it up and ask for seconds. I'm all for banning it from the airways but in this age of twitterdom and facebook these events will still be exchanged & communicated at fiber optic speed.
If they are Islamic terrorists, that's not going to work. They are not about wanting spectacles, more so political revenge for the west being involved in the Middle East.
They want the most public events they can take credit for. Rest assured, they are not about secret attacks. All the hooplah is the evidence we give them that their attack succeeded.
I was ambiguous in my last statement. I was talking more so of Al Qaueda.
They only care about if their attacks succeeded and caused damage. Everything else to them is secondary. The lone wolves that try to emulate them are a different case though.
Despite what most people think, Al Qaueda is more of a political terrorist organization than they are a religious terrorist group. Religion is just the convenient justification and recruitment tool. Their goal is cause terrorism until Western nations especially UK, France and US gets the heck out of Mid East and leave them alone.
I wonder what a criminal psychologist would say.
I completely agree. I wonder what would happen if the US did stop covering stories like this in the way we do now. Make it second line news rather than front page. I'm sure that is completely unrealistic, but it might work. But, at the same time, asking people to not drive drunk doesn't work, so asking people to quit 'rubber necking' situations like this is a lost cause. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need to see an event repeated for several days in a row to know it happened. Cover it once and then let it go. Let the people affected by this grieve in peace, rather than being reminded of the tragedy several times a day for weeks, sometimes even months after the event.
I don't know if it would slow down the acts of terrorism, but I'm sure it would make it better for the people who are right in the middle of it all.
Another thing. Rather than reporting that some group is claiming responsibility for a terror attack, why not require news agencies to report that they are claiming irresponsibility.