Terror in Brussels: not even a shock anymore

Last updated on: March 22, 2016 at 7:55 am by Jane the Actuary

Terror in Brussels: not even a shock anymore 2016-03-22T07:55:40-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Look, I’ll be honest with you: when I first read about the bombings in Brussels (link to CNN for convenience), my immediate reaction was not concern for the victims, but, instead, concern for our own vacation this summer. We’ve got it all planned out now, you see. Are the places we’re visiting likely terrorist targets? London, the Netherlands (a spot halfway between Amsterdam and Rotterdam, by the coast), the Moselle Valley, Augsburg, and Munich. They’re all safe, right?

At least 26 dead, and 130 wounded in 3 separate attacks, with two blasts at the airport, at about 8 am local time, and another an hour later at the Maalbeek subway station. Why that station? It’s in the city center, and just 400 yards from the EU headquarters, according to the Daily Mail (Drudge link). It’s not clear to me from the reporting if these were suicide bombs or, well, just bombs.

But after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and the Bataclan attacks (see here for a brief timeline), and especially because of the revelations during the course of that news coverage of Belgian links, today’s attack feels inevitable. And what’s also surely inevitable is the coming debate: Is this ISIS-fueled, and another reason the West needs to more forcefully intervene in Syria and Iraq? Or is this the fault of the Belgians and French themselves, for having failed for decades to integrate their Muslim immigrant communities? — the latter explanation being the favorite way Americans like to tell themselves that we in the United States aren’t at risk because we’ve been nice to our Muslims. But “being nice to our Muslims” didn’t keep the victims in San Bernadino safe, did it?

There’s an ongoing theme among some in American politics and punditry that we shouldn’t worry excessively about terrorism. Sure, there have been scattered attacks, some dramatic, such as the Santa Barbara attacks, and some barely reported, such as various “lone wolf” attacks on individuals. But any given individual’s risk of dying from a terrorist attack is pretty dang low, so it shouldn’t be a cause for concern, or change much about the way we go about our business, or how the administration manages international affairs. Here’s a New York Times analysis piece from just before the State of the Union, “Balancing Terror and Reality in State of the Union Address“:

Here is what he probably will not say, at least not this bluntly: Americans are more likely to die in a car crash, drown in a bathtub or be struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist. The news media is complicit in inflating the sense of danger. The Islamic State does not pose an existential threat to the United States.

He will presumably not say this, either: Given how hard it is for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to detect people who have become radicalized, like those who opened fire at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., a certain number of relatively low-level terrorist attacks may be inevitable, and Americans may have to learn to adapt the way Israel has.

By all accounts, Mr. Obama is sympathetic to this view, which is shared by a number of counterterrorism veterans who contend that anxiety has warped the American public’s perspective.

But the idea that “more people are killed by X than by terrorism” misses the point of terrorism — the very objective of which is to terrorize people, due to the public nature of the attacks, and the fear that you could be next. And I don’t think the residents of Brussels are telling themselves, “hey, all in all, no big deal.”

Uncategorized

Brussels

terrorism

Previous Post

March 21, 2016

The New York Times' readers' peculiar understanding of contraception and conscientious objection

Next Post

March 22, 2016 More on the (contraceptive) mandate

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was told to prophesy to the mountains and valleys of Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Ezekiel Micah Hosea