Fear-Mongering

[Oliver]

This thread is meant as a follow-up to my "Huh? Terrorists??? (

1 2 3 4 )"-Poll.

Politicians all over the World mentioned and reacted to Terrorism after the 9/11 attacks - but they also gave up on this issue soon after everyone realized that the threat isn't bigger then before 9/11.

Now many american politicians I see are different. I still see them using the Fear-Card very often and so I believe that many people still buy their Propaganda.

Since I'm interested in the psychological backgrounds of Mass-Persuasion, not only because History, I would like to ask the ones who actually are scared about Terrorism:

Why are you scared about Terrorism, why do you think it's a bigger Threat than before 9/11 and on what facts are you basing these Fears?

To show you what I'm talking about, I added some clips that portray what I mean by Fear-Mongering:



















I also want to add that this thread isn't about "who is fear-mongering and who's not". It's about the sources why people are still scared.

 

[MG1962]

No I think you have a valid point. Many people actually chuckled at how some US politicians seemed to think terrorism was invented on 911. It is interesting that there were two other attacks that day. ETA blew up a childrens playground in Spain, and a sucide bomber penetrated a market in Israel and detonated his package.

In general though I would have to say the nature of terrorism has changed. The London and Madrid bombings showed a growing trend that began with the twin embassy bombings in Africa of much better and thoughtful planning. Regardless of your emotions of 911 it was a very sophsiticated plan that relied on simplcity and discovered weaknesses in US systems

If you look at older atttacks such as Munich or the Red September movement, there is a real sense of Ad hoc lets make a statement. Particulary with Munich, beyond taking the hostages and making demands, there seemed little thought to what might happen, or how they could maximise the statement they wanted to make

 

[Oliver]

No I think you have a valid point. Many people actually chuckled at how some US politicians seemed to think terrorism was invented on 911. It is interesting that there were two other attacks that day. ETA blew up a childrens playground in Spain, and a sucide bomber penetrated a market in Israel and detonated his package.

In general though I would have to say the nature of terrorism has changed. The London and Madrid bombings showed a growing trend that began with the twin embassy bombings in Africa of much better and thoughtful planning. Regardless of your emotions of 911 it was a very sophsiticated plan that relied on simplcity and discovered weaknesses in US systems

If you look at older atttacks such as Munich or the Red September movement, there is a real sense of Ad hoc lets make a statement. Particulary with Munich, beyond taking the hostages and making demands, there seemed little thought to what might happen, or how they could maximise the statement they wanted to make

I know that but even if flying planes into buildings is new, the Threat didn't raise since 9/11. So I guess that the Media in the US probably didn't mentioned this fact very much - but drastically exaggerated after 9/11.

Nevertheless - this thread is rather meant to people who are scared and for what reasons since I don't believe that the Politicians who use the "Fear-Card" are scared at all - they just use it for their political purposes. This might be highly immoral but this isn't what the thread is about - it's about the psychological nature of it: The Fear-Factor, so to say.

But I thank you for your reply anyway.

 

[Mephisto]

Since I'm interested in the psychological backgrounds of Mass-Persuasion, not only because History, I would like to ask the ones who actually are scared about Terrorism . . .

You need look no further than this philosopher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

And this book by Hoffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

I reread it shortly after 9/11 and was astounded at the insight Hoffer had on the nature of mass movements - they are especially pertinent today.

 

[Oliver]

You need look no further than this philosopher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

And this book by Hoffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

I reread it shortly after 9/11 and was astounded at the insight Hoffer had on the nature of mass movements - they are especially pertinent today.

Thank you, Mephisto. I didn't know Hoffer and his Book about Mass-Persuasion, but I know the basics of this behavior. Maybe I can get my Hands on it, even if it looks a little bit out of Date.

But I still hope that the people who voted for: "Al Qaida is real and they can hit me tomorrow, too" explain why they are afraid. It's probable that this came from the Media and from political Speeches, but I don't know for sure.

Many people have this kind of "Group-Thinking", meaning that if the leaders say something often enough, it must be true. Basically this is the same as Nazi-Propaganda Minister Göbbels did and it's strange that it still seems to work today. So the source is human social behavior, not rationalistic thinking.

 

[Upchurch]

we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Oliver]

we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

*lol* That made me laugh because the irony.

But since I learned that you seem to be very skilled concerning political and social issues, may I ask you how you think about the "Fear-Issue" - of course, if you recognize it in your Media.

 

[marksman]

Now many american politicians I see are different. I still see them using the Fear-Card very often and so I believe that many people still buy their Propaganda.

Since I'm interested in the psychological backgrounds of Mass-Persuasion, not only because History, I would like to ask the ones who actually are scared about Terrorism:

Why are you scared about Terrorism, why do you think it's a bigger Threat than before 9/11 and on what facts are you basing these Fears?

I don't think terrorism is a bigger threat than before 9/11. I do, however, think my perceptions about the likelihood of a terorrism threat was inaccurate prior to 9/11, was likely inflated shortly after 9/11 and has settled to a new level that I'd like to think is more accurate.

America, pre-9/11 had a very sheltered mindset. It had not suffered an attack on its own soil since World War II. It had not suffered an attack on a non-territory (Hawai'i was a territory, not a State, as of Pearl Harbor) or upont he continental US from a foreign power since the War of 1812. That's almost 180 years of relative security within its borders, meaning that, before 9/11, no living American could remember a foreign attack on the American continent, and no living American had a direct descendant who could have personally related such an attack. That sort of history is bound to engender a false sense of security.

(Not to mention how few times English America has ever been attacked on its own soil (justifiably or not) since the founding of Jamestown in 1607. Just a handful of Indian raids, the American Revolution, War of 1812, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. All the other wars occurred in foreign territory -- much of which later became American.)

In contrast, virtually every nation in Europe has had its borders violated by a foreign power within the last 60 years, and most of them within the last 30 years. those that were not invaded have seen neighbors invaded and/or were themselves threatened with invasion. Europe has no false sense of security. If anything, Europe has had to learn to live with a feeling of relative insecurity. As such, an attack simply is a confirmation of their self-image rather than a challenge to it.

So, yes, it's no surprise that America overreacted. It quite simply has not had to deal with such a blow to its national psyche in almost two centuries.

Moreover, the last time America was attacked, it reacted with massive outrage, and an immense immediate effort at massive martial domination against any perceived enemies. In 1941, it was not well-prepared for War in the Pacific. By 1945, it had caused Japan's unconditional surrender. In addition, it was also involved in a war against Germany and Italy, allies of Japan to be certain, but no immediate threat to American security. That reaction seemed to serve America (and the world) fairly well in the 1940's.

Is it surprising that, with so little personal history of an attack on its soil, that America would react similarly to how it reacted when it was last attacked on its soil? To attack Afghanistan, the regime harboring those responsible for the attack, is no surprise. To attack Iraq, however, was a gross miscalculation, driven more by fear and a desire to demonstrate to the world that American military might would be brought, not against direct past threats, but against perceived threats to American security.

The miscalculation backfired. Rather than demonstrate the extent of American power, it demonstrated the limits of that power.

It's about the sources why people are still scared.

Many Americans are still scared because we've never had to live in this sort of uncertainty before. We haven't. Our parents haven't. Our grandparents haven't. Our grandparents' grandparents haven't.

And, assuming we don't suffer another attack like 9/11 for another 60 years, if it were to happen again in 2061, we'll probably overreact all over again. That's an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

 

[Mephisto]

Thank you, Mephisto. I didn't know Hoffer and his Book about Mass-Persuasion, but I know the basics of this behavior. Maybe I can get my Hands on it, even if it looks a little bit out of Date.

But I still hope that the people who voted for: "Al Qaida is real and they can hit me tomorrow, too" explain why they are afraid. It's probable that this came from the Media and from political Speeches, but I don't know for sure.

Many people have this kind of "Group-Thinking", meaning that if the leaders say something often enough, it must be true. Basically this is the same as Nazi-Propaganda Minister Göbbels did and it's strange that it still seems to work today. So the source is human social behavior, not rationalistic thinking.

I'm sure you'll find Hoffer's book is relevant today, and while rereading it, I thought it somewhat prophetic - almost as though he knew how the masses would be politically manipulated.

Proof of your assertion that repetition can "set" something in the mind of the general population is easy to find among the American public. A great many people here STILL think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

Hell, someone even sent me one of those mindless, patriotic emails with a group of Marines in Iraq spelling out: WE REMEMBER 9/11!

It was a call to "support our troops," and I sent it back to them with a note saying that I would support informing the idiots that 9/11 didn't have a friggin thing to do with Iraq.

 

[Oliver]

I don't think terrorism is a bigger threat than before 9/11. I do, however, think my perceptions about the likelihood of a terorrism threat was inaccurate prior to 9/11, was likely inflated shortly after 9/11 and has settled to a new level that I'd like to think is more accurate.

America, pre-9/11 had a very sheltered mindset. It had not suffered an attack on its own soil since World War II. It had not suffered an attack on a non-territory (Hawai'i was a territory, not a State, as of Pearl Harbor) or upont he continental US from a foreign power since the War of 1812. That's almost 180 years of relative security within its borders, meaning that, before 9/11, no living American could remember a foreign attack on the American continent, and no living American had a direct descendant who could have personally related such an attack. That sort of history is bound to engender a false sense of security.

(Not to mention how few times English America has ever been attacked on its own soil (justifiably or not) since the founding of Jamestown in 1607. Just a handful of Indian raids, the American Revolution, War of 1812, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. All the other wars occurred in foreign territory -- much of which later became American.)

In contrast, virtually every nation in Europe has had its borders violated by a foreign power within the last 60 years, and most of them within the last 30 years. those that were not invaded have seen neighbors invaded and/or were themselves threatened with invasion. Europe has no false sense of security. If anything, Europe has had to learn to live with a feeling of relative insecurity. As such, an attack simply is a confirmation of their self-image rather than a challenge to it.

So, yes, it's no surprise that America overreacted. It quite simply has not had to deal with such a blow to its national psyche in almost two centuries.

Moreover, the last time America was attacked, it reacted with massive outrage, and an immense immediate effort at massive martial domination against any perceived enemies. In 1941, it was not well-prepared for War in the Pacific. By 1945, it had caused Japan's unconditional surrender. In addition, it was also involved in a war against Germany and Italy, allies of Japan to be certain, but no immediate threat to American security. That reaction seemed to serve America (and the world) fairly well in the 1940's.

Is it surprising that, with so little personal history of an attack on its soil, that America would react similarly to how it reacted when it was last attacked on its soil? To attack Afghanistan, the regime harboring those responsible for the attack, is no surprise. To attack Iraq, however, was a gross miscalculation, driven more by fear and a desire to demonstrate to the world that American military might would be brought, not against direct past threats, but against perceived threats to American security.

The miscalculation backfired. Rather than demonstrate the extent of American power, it demonstrated the limits of that power.


Many Americans are still scared because we've never had to live in this sort of uncertainty before. We haven't. Our parents haven't. Our grandparents haven't. Our grandparents' grandparents haven't.

And, assuming we don't suffer another attack like 9/11 for another 60 years, if it were to happen again in 2061, we'll probably overreact all over again. That's an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

I fully understand your point about the American generation that didn't make any experiences with attacks on their soil, but why didn't the Media clarify yet that this isn't an extraordinary thing at all in contrast to all the experiences that other Countries made?

I tend to believe that this has something to do with the 2-Party system, meaning that the Media prefers to adopt political opinion instead educating neutrally about the World the way it is - with terrorism as a pretty old fact that occurs all the time.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Why are you scared about Terrorism, why do you think it's a bigger Threat than before 9/11 and on what facts are you basing these Fears?

I woudn't say I'm 'scared' and I wouldn't stop leaving my house because of it. But the main problem, is if you get too obsessed with this 'conspiracy' by the government to scare you, you are diverting your attention from what is, granted, slightly exaggurated, but what is a real and active threat.

For example, this is why I dont think it's a laughing matter.

 

[Darth Rotor]

America, pre-9/11 had a very sheltered mindset. It had not suffered an attack on its own soil since World War II.

1. What about the civil defense drills and living in the shadow of nuclear war for a generation?

2. More to the point, what do you call the WTC truck bombing attack (bungled) of 1993 if not an attack on our soil?

So, yes, it's no surprise that America overreacted. It quite simply has not had to deal with such a blow to its national psyche in almost two centuries.

The "oceans as barriers" myth was exploded in the mid 1980's when a Soviet Echo II class submarine surfaced with in sight of America's shores, off the east coast. It had been cracked by the sinking of numerous merchant ships right off our coast in WW II by German submarines, but people seemed to have forgotten that. <=== That's the problem.

Moreover, the last time America was attacked, it reacted with massive outrage, and an immense immediate effort at massive martial domination against any perceived enemies. In 1941, it was not well-prepared for War in the Pacific.

It was better prepared for a maritime war in the Pacific than it was for a land war in Europe. Our first offensive was, drum roll, Guadalcanal, in the Pacific.

To attack Afghanistan, the regime harboring those responsible for the attack, is no surprise.

Yep.

To attack Iraq,

Was guaranteed to do Iran a favor. It has.

The miscalculation backfired. Rather than demonstrate the extent of American power, it demonstrated the limits of that power.

Agree one hundred percent with that observation.

Assuming we don't suffer another attack like 9/11 for another 60 years, if it were to happen again in 2061, we'll probably overreact all over again. That's an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

An interesting way to put it.

DR

 

[Oliver]

I woudn't say I'm 'scared' and I wouldn't stop leaving my house because of it. But the main problem, is if you get too obsessed with the government attempting to scare you, you are diverting your attention from what is , granted, slightly exaggurated, but what is a real and active threat.

For example, this is why I dont think it's a laughing matter.

I know that Terrorism is a real issue after all, that's not the point. It's about having a basic fear concerning Terrorism, even if this is nothing new in historical context - even if the digital age is able to provide images that can be used to spread fear, do you know what I mean concerning the video you posted?

 

[Mephisto]

I fully understand your point about the American generation that didn't make any experiences with attacks on their soil, but why didn't the Media clarify yet that this isn't an extraordinary thing at all in contrast to all the experiences that other Countries made?

I tend to believe that this has something to do with the 2-Party system, meaning that the Media prefers to adopt political opinion instead educating neutrally about the World the way it is - with terrorism as a pretty old fact that occurs all the time.

As I suspect you suspected already - the two-party system allows much easier manipulation of the public by the media. Here are a few worthy links to some significant examples of how the conservative media exploits the ignorance of the American people:

Here at home another network, ABC, and its parent, Disney, broadcast a prime-time, commercial-free miniseries, The Path to 9/11, also devoted to a deliberately dishonest rendering of history designed to flatter our current rulers.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061002/alterman

and from a website that people who control Faux (Fox) News really hate:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/the_path_to_9_11

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I know that Terrorism is a real issue after all, that's not the point. It's about having a basic fear concerning Terrorism, even if this is nothing new in historical context - even if the digital age is able to provide images that can be used to spread fear, do you know what I mean concerning the video you posted?

But it isn't simply the government using this 'fear'. Have a look at this British Jihad rap

 

[Oliver]

But it isn't simply the government using this 'fear'. Have a look at this British Jihad rap

No, you don't get my point here. I also believe that these Videos are real - my point is that if you see 100 of these Videos, you are tending to believe in a threat, even if none of the Terrorists in these Videos ever made any attack.

I'm talking about the power of images and words to undermine your critical thinking about the real amount of the threat itself.

For example: Would you believe as much in Terrorism without seeing these videos?

 

[marksman]

why didn't the Media clarify yet that this isn't an extraordinary thing at all in contrast to all the experiences that other Countries made?

The media is also populated by Americans. Why should the media have preconceptions that are any different than the poulation at large?

I tend to believe that this has something to do with the 2-Party system, meaning that the Media prefers to adopt political opinion instead educating neutrally about the World the way it is - with terrorism as a pretty old fact that occurs all the time.

To Europe it's a pretty old fact that occura all the time. To America, it wasn't. And still isn't.

America understands that the world outside America is rife with terrorism. We didn't go nuts when Al Qaeda attacked the Cole or the Embassies in Africa. We din't go crazy when Al Qaeda attacked nightclubs in Indonesia or the Muslim Brotherhood shot up tourists by the pyramids.

What America didn't understand is that America isn't safer than the rest of the world. And, heck, we still don't understand that. We've only been attacked once and it was a remarkable unique attack. I still don't think America has internalized the idea that our borders are fundamentally insecurable and another attack could happen.

I don't understand why you think this ties to a two-party system. It seems like the problem of "When your only tool is a hammer everything seems like a nail." Not all of America's problems can be laid at the feet of the two-party system.

 

[Oliver]

The media is also populated by Americans. Why should the media have preconceptions that are any different than the poulation at large?

To Europe it's a pretty old fact that occura all the time. To America, it wasn't. And still isn't.

America understands that the world outside America is rife with terrorism. We didn't go nuts when Al Qaeda attacked the Cole or the Embassies in Africa. We din't go crazy when Al Qaeda attacked nightclubs in Indonesia or the Muslim Brotherhood shot up tourists by the pyramids.

What America didn't understand is that America isn't safer than the rest of the world. And, heck, we still don't understand that. We've only been attacked once and it was a remarkable unique attack. I still don't think America has internalized the idea that our borders are fundamentally insecurable and another attack could happen.

I don't understand why you think this ties to a two-party system. It seems like the problem of "When your only tool is a hammer everything seems like a nail." Not all of America's problems can be laid at the feet of the two-party system.

I guess by "America" you mean the average people "on the street". But your Media should know it much better and telling their people that 9/11 was just another attack like it happens all the time, even if it was the biggest one yet besides Pearl Harbor.

The ties I see to the 2-party system is that I have the strong impression that the Media tends to portray the Dems or Reps POV much more than a neutral view about the World, giving a f* about what others think.

I still try to find out the differences in society to explain it more factual.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The media is also populated by Americans. Why should the media have preconceptions that are any different than the poulation at large?


To Europe it's a pretty old fact that occura all the time. To America, it wasn't. And still isn't.

America understands that the world outside America is rife with terrorism. We didn't go nuts when Al Qaeda attacked the Cole or the Embassies in Africa. We din't go crazy when Al Qaeda attacked nightclubs in Indonesia or the Muslim Brotherhood shot up tourists by the pyramids.

What America didn't understand is that America isn't safer than the rest of the world. And, heck, we still don't understand that. We've only been attacked once and it was a remarkable unique attack. I still don't think America has internalized the idea that our borders are fundamentally insecurable and another attack could happen.

I don't understand why you think this ties to a two-party system. It seems like the problem of "When your only tool is a hammer everything seems like a nail." Not all of America's problems can be laid at the feet of the two-party system.

Europeans of Oliver's stripe think they are above violence and war, even though in recent memory they were utterly unable, without Uncle Sugar's help, to deal with violent Europeans in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia (FYROM) and Albania.

Weird, how these esoterically superior fools are incompetent when it comes to independent collective security, but put on airs about their "cultural superiority." They won't pay for it, but will demand it, when it comes to collective security.

Millstone's for fifty, Alain.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Europeans of Oliver's stripe think they are above violence and war, even though in recent memory they were utterly unable, without Uncle Sugars help, deal with violent Europeans in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia (FYROM) and Albania.

Weird, how those esoterically superior fools are incompetent when it comes to independent collective security. They won't pay for it, but will demand it.

DR

Quite frankly - I prefer to live in Europe because I think I'm much safer and free over here than in the US - even without terrorism. But you ignored to address the topic of this thread - if you recognized this fact.