Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reactions to the London Attack, Helpful and Unhelpful
Jon, I was prompted to write this when I saw your post this morning.
I spent the day yesterday with two friends who were visiting from London. They live quite close to London Bridge. One used to be a Ricochet member. Both were, until recently, solid Atlanticists — and still are — but they’re both offended beyond words by the tone of hostility and contempt for Britain that’s oozing, non-stop, out of the US these days, starting with the President, and echoed by many Americans on social media. I don’t blame them for being offended.
“Instructing Londoners to run, hide, and tell,” Jon writes, “is a dramatic departure from the can-do, stiff-upper-lip, globe-striding empire of a century ago.”
Actually, it’s not.
This guidance has been in place since 2014. It’s not a dramatic departure from anything, although it is a response to studying hundreds of similar situations around the world, including many in the United States. You’ll note that Britons are being told, explicitly, not to surrender or negotiate. The reason they’re emphasizing the seemingly obvious — run — is that we now, unfortunately, have a lot of evidence about how civilians (everywhere) behave during terrorist attacks and other emergencies. Some small percentage of them do behave as we all like to fantasize we would: They become superheroes who defeat the terrorists using any implement available. Unfortunately, in reality, many people don’t do that. They freeze.
“Freezing” seems to be something like a biologic default. It’s a cross-cultural reaction to fear. So people do in fact need to be told, specifically, not to obey that instinct. They need to be warned that their first response may be to deny what’s happening, or be confused by it, and freeze. They need to hear (often, repetitively) that this is not the reaction most likely to result in their survival.
This is why we get a lot of seemingly-obvious warnings about what to do and not do in other kinds of emergencies — e.g., “If you need to evacuate this plane, do not stop to get your luggage.” The reason we hear that all the time isn’t because the airline officials condescendingly suspect we might be idiots. It’s because they know we are. There’s evidence, and a lot of it, that a significant number of people will try to get their luggage, even though every second matters when you’re trying to evacuate a smoke-filled plane, and even though people who try to get their luggage put everyone behind them in mortal danger. And yes, this happens in the US as well as the UK. An NTSB study found that 50 percent — yes, 50 percent — of the passengers in emergency evacuations tried to take their bags. Now, why would they do such a stupid thing? Because most people have no experience of situations like this, and most people don’t respond heroically — or rationally — to them, unless they’ve had a lot of training. No matter what you think you would do, the reality is that in emergencies, many people do dumb things, and unless you’ve been in the situation yourself, you don’t know for sure you wouldn’t be one of them.
“Run, Hide, Fight” is standard protocol for active-shooter situations in the US, too. Are Americans wimps because we, too, need to be told to run and hide? Ah, but you say, part of the advice we get is to fight. Well, no one is telling the British not to fight: And indeed, they fought — they fought back with everything they had on hand: chairs, pint glasses, bottles, discarded bicycle parts. They’ve emphasized “Tell” over “Fight” because that actually makes a lot of sense if you’re living a country where the cops are armed and the terrorists aren’t, and it makes even more sense if the cops are able to get there and kill all of the terrorists within eight minutes. That is, by the way, an impressive achievement, and the appropriate reaction from allies to that news is, “Well done,” not “You remind us of Neville Chamberlain.”
Larry Barton, an American researcher at the University of Central Florida, is the highest-rated instructor at the FBI Academy and US Marshals Service. His research supports both the “run” advice and the giving of the advice. He analyzed 61 deadly assaults in public places from 2006 to 2016 — mostly in the United States. Among those who survived, 73 percent did so by running. Those who ran wound up with no no injuries or only moderate injuries, e.g., a sprained ankle. Of those who survived by hiding — 20 percent — a third were more seriously injured. “Running” is generally the best strategy. It is not always and everywhere the best strategy; there is no such thing as a universally successful solution. But it’s statistically likely to be the best strategy. A highly pro-Second Amendment group, The Truth About Guns, ran simulations of the Charlie Hebdo attack, for example, in which one or more of the civilians were armed. The civilians “died” in every scenario except immediate flight from the scene. So overall, based on evidence, the responsible advice to give the public — whether it’s armed or not — is “run.”
When Americans respond to an event like this by insinuating that the victims of the attack are wimps, or that they would have performed better under the same circumstances, it — unsurprisingly — offends the victims. It offends them terribly, in fact. And pointlessly. As one of the friends who was visiting me yesterday wrote on my Facebook page (in response to an offensive comment to this effect):
Before you sneer at us, may I remind you that the UK has the longest continuous experience of terrorism on its soil of any western country, and the greatest expertise in stopping it. Yes, we have had far too many terrorist incidents, but they are a drop in the ocean compared with the myriad plots that have been foiled. I think it’s fair to say the 9/11 plot would probably have been detected here. A little respect for us might be in order, too.
I agree. A lot more respect might be in order.
Many Americans believe the British were offended that Obama moved a bust of Churchill. Obama denied that it had been moved. Whether or not it was moved, I’ve never spoken personally to anyone in Britain who was offended by this story. Many have never even heard it. But everyone I know in Britain — and remember, I lived there for seven years, so I do know many people there, and I stay in contact with quite a few of them — is wildly offended by this kind of sneering. It causes real harm to our relationship with the people of Britain. What we say, in fact, on social media and other public fora, causes more offense than anything our politicians say: A politician’s comments can be dismissed, by people with a generous nature, as unrepresentative of the American character. But when ordinary Americans use social media to sneer at our allies, it really leaves a bad taste — and let’s not pretend we would not feel precisely the same way were the situation reversed. We would.
More than 220,000 British personnel have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Ministry of Defence figures, 456 Britons have died in Afghanistan. More than 7,300 have been treated for battlefield injuries, non-combat wounds, or disease related to their service. In Iraq, 179 British service personnel were killed. Some 5,800 were treated in field hospitals. This is a heavy toll. Britain wasn’t attacked on September 11. We were. They are in Afghanistan because we asked them to be. They entered war in Iraq because we asked them to. They did so despite believing it would increase the risk of terrorism on British soil. They did it because they are our allies.
When in response they hear sneering contempt from Americans to the effect that they’re sheeplike, cowardly wusses reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain — illustrated by wartime enlistment posters, clearly meant to suggest that Britons no longer enlist — they respond exactly as Americans would were the situation reversed. They did enlist, and do enlist, and they have been fighting, by our side, since September 11. Here are photographs of British men (and a woman) who died in 2010 in Afghanistan. In this link, you can see more photos of the British men and women who’ve died in every year of that war since it began.
So why would an American, in the wake of an attack on British soil, taunt the British for failing to enlist? Every one of the men above died because they took seriously the promise that an attack on any one of us would be an attack on all of us. Is taunting the British for being “sheeplike” and unwilling to enlist in the fight the right way to show our respect to their families?
Jon posted a photo of the famous “Keep calm and carry on” poster, intimating that the Britain of calm, dignity, and resilience is dead, replaced by a bunch of cowering ninnies. As it happens, that poster — precisely — has been widely circulating on British Twitter in the wake of the attack. But I suspect that if it were a new poster, Americans would be mocking the British for urging calm and normalcy. Our president would be Tweeting, ‘At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and the British are saying, “Keep calm and carry on!”‘
President Trump’s tweets caused grave offense. You may think the offense misplaced, but I can promise you they did cause offense, and I don’t find that offense at all hard to understand. What on earth would possess him to use an occasion like this to criticize the Mayor of London? Jennifer Rubin’s description of this is accurate:
After receiving blowback for that obnoxious missive, he tweeted out, “Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K., we will be there – WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!” But then he decided to slam the mayor of the city attacked, who had calmly warned his fellow Londoners: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” Trump took the second part out of context and responded viciously, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor, of course, was telling them not to be alarmed by the heightened police presence.) Trump was not done, however, inanely tweeting, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”
The offense caused by this kind of boorishness has real consequences — for us. It’s insane, right before a British general election, to hand ammunition to a politician like Jeremy Corbyn. But that’s exactly what this kind of behavior from Americans does. It puts defenders of the Anglo-American alliance in a terrible position. And this time, the people who are offended aren’t the usual suspects — they’re not British leftists who have always hated Americans and always will. We’re offending people who have always considered Americans their closest allies. And it isn’t because they’re delicate snowflakes, either. It’s because we’re being offensive. The tone of contempt from Americans, above all, is one no amount of rational argument can counter. If American voters didn’t care for being called “deplorable,” how do you imagine British voters feel about being called cowardly, sheeplike, and a disgrace to their heritage?
The UK has committed 1,250 military personnel to the fight against ISIS. Apart from us, the Royal Air Force has conducted more airstrikes in Iraq and Syria than any other Coalition country. It provides intelligence and surveillance to Iraqi Security Forces. It’s trained 39,000 Iraqi soldiers in engineering, medical skills, and infantry. In Syria, UK armed forces are training Syrian opposition groups in infantry, emergency medicine, and explosive disposal. How does undermining this alliance help us?
Why would we mock the British in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed seven innocent people on their soil? We know what it means to be the victims of terrorism. Why would we spit on our friends? What do we get out of it?
My answer: We get nothing out of it. So I suggest we not do it. It’s not in our interests to harm the friendship between the United States and Britain. And more importantly, it’s just not decent.
Published in General
Many of them didn’t just surrender. They are full on Vichy.
It does vary a lot by state and by behavior (if someone has kids, most schools present a problem that way). Also, if you commute by public transit, that removes the possibility of stashing your weapon safely in your car.
Also, ironically, I don’t recall ever seeing so many signs prohibiting carry on premises as I did in Phoenix and Tuscon.
When they haul every jihadi back from the ME in front of a military trial as enemy combatants, when they arrest the 3000 known jihadis, and when they expel the 20000 sympathizers get back to me.
One way to combat that, is to not spend any money in those places, and let them know why…
In Texas, it’s gotten rare to see concealed carry prohibited. The open carry movement seems to have fixed that. Now there are signs in almost every business saying open carry is not welcome in the establishment (30.7 signs by Texas statute) and the places that don’t allow concealed carry have mostly gone away, though they still exist.
tl;dr But, from the first few paragraphs, I think Claire is missing the point. This isn’t about offending friends with harsh words; it’s about the West’s cultural suicide.
This is one of those rare instances where I agree with @zafar. Guns are not the solution to this problem (although I agree with the 2A proponents here). The West needs to regain and reassert its cultural confidence. I think that’s the chief source of the “sneering” of the American Right, and that’s how GB and the US need to “get their house in order.”
And, as President Donald Trump so boldly proclaimed on his trip to the ME, Islam must get its house in order, too. If we are truly serious about ending these jihadi terrorist incidents, I see only two serious actions we can take: 1) attract the jihadis to a fight we engage in on their turf in the ME (worked for Sherman in the South and much of the post-9/11 US military responses), and/or 2) do more than stop Muslim immigration — get. them. out. Begins with “ex,” ends with “pulsion.” I see this as the most “peaceful” means, and probably the only means, of applying pressure to adherents of the RoP to fix it, dammit. Make it their problem (even the “peaceful” ones), not ours. Otherwise its just talk, and more westerners will die.
As to DT’s tweets? Tell your British friends we can sympathize with the chafing under the sneers of an American president — we did it for eight years.
Ha! I’m reminded of the opening ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympics that depicted the entire storied history of the British Isles as merely the steps that lead toward the establishment of the NHS.
One Nation Under Anaesthesia
Everyone is testy over the terrorism and the inability to stop it.
We have tried protecting the feelings of everyone, and that hasn’t worked.
Maybe they need shamed into voting for people who will actually fix things.
People try so hard to prove they don’t have any racial/religious bias, yet the fact they can’t tell the difference between opposing terrorism and religious bias, is in and of itself religious bias.
Moderator Note:
Personal attack, rather than attacking substance of OP.To understand why [redacted]:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html
Moderator Note:
Again, attacking person, not OP.so bombing by the Ira is not trivial, but getting sliced or roadkilled by an Islamist is so trivial, dying in your bathtub should be a bigger concern.
Gotcha.
[Redacted.] Have you figured out what happened in Turkey yet?
Kate, I say this with respect for you and the work you do: the lack of “hate crimes” against Muslims is only astonishing to those who buy into the narrative that white Americans are all racists and just waiting for an excuse to beat and kill our Muslim/black/Hispanic/Asian/etc. neighbors.
From your writings, I know you’re not one who thinks that.
Let’s see…
If Allah is real, we are all in trouble?
True. I can’t argue that point.
But I think that god is Tash. (Mind, some Muslims worship Aslan.)
Those who worship Tash are to be both feared and fought. (If you don’t get the C. S. Lewis references, they’re from The Last Battle.)
None of that abrogates prayer.
If any god is real, then prayer matters.
If jihadists yodeled to work themselves up, I would not tell yodelers that yodeling was the cause of jihadism because that would be incorrect.
Of course Islamism is real.
I don’t let the other team’s theology pervert my own anymore than I have let the Left’s definition of justice change what I mean when I use the term. To do so gives your enemies a great deal of control over your life.
I am not arguing when I pray. If someone thinks prayer is useless, I cannot convince him that his cow died instead of his wife. If God is real, the wife was saved.
I’ll hedge my bets. Thanks.
I believe in God.
Russians are touchy on that subject as well…
FWIW, I think it’s silly to prohibit concealed carry; anyone who’s doing it correctly isn’t going to be noticed or cause a problem. Obviously, people can set whatever rules they want for their property, but it’s a dumb and unenforceable rule.
FWIW, years ago I took courses on emergency first aid (directed at the “average citizen, not EMTs or police). We were told to literally point at someone and tell him/her “Call 911!”
Why? Because the mammalian instinct is to freeze. Giving an order/directive to a specific person snaps him/her out of it.
Then they deserve what they get.
Some people DID fight back. They admitted freezing – and then attacking, saving the lives of others in the process.
Russians should have thought of that when they started the war by allying with the Nazis to take over half of Poland.
Moderator Note:
Personal attack.[Redacted.]
Integration is required here, so the melting pot works. It’s always been that way. Are you saying Europeans are not open to outsiders, so people cannot integrate?
[self-redacted]
America and the west are the only places that need to be demographically changed is what you are saying.
Well… They weren’t exactly standing in the gap to protect western civilization from totalitarianism. ;)
But okay. Yeah.
They were certainly important in defeating the Third Reich.
I guess the question here about how Americans impact an election should lean more in the direction of what do Americans want? To help Labour?
I see a lot of disparaging of May, but… who do you guys think are the options in Britain? And what happens in Britain if the options push the UK completely away from the US?
Is that a good outcome for us? Or do we simply deserve what we get?
It’s astonishing because human beings are human beings, not because Americans are racists.
Might I just say that rhetoric against groups can increase violence against them—police officers have been murdered because someone (must I name names again?) suggested they were morally beyond-the-pale. But the aspersions cast were those of the “these people are out to kill you” type: when a group openly declares itself out to kill you, and then kills people just like you, one would imagine that a pretty strong prejudice against anyone who looks like a member of that group would develop.
It is normal—inevitable—to “stereotype” threats. How else are we to decide which persons are alarming and which are alluring, after all, other than by how they appear to us (rightly or wrongly?).
But I could be wrong about this—seriously. It could be far more normal for human beings to “freeze” not just in response to a present danger, but as a people responding to systemic dangers. It could be that everyone is a natural Chamberlain—maybe if we pretend it’s not a threat it won’t be a threat?
Does anyone have any ideas on this? Any examples? The only one I can come up with isn’t encouraging—Roosevelt agreeing to round up Japanese Americans during WW2. Racism, obviously, was a lot more acceptable in those days. After all, Hitler managed to get Germans to acquiesce in the round-up of Jews without any Jewish terror group attacking random pedestrians while shouting “this is for G*D.” It’s possible that our self-defense mechanisms are really out of whack.
This is not to say (obviously?) that either Americans or Brits should go around beating up Muslims, only that I would have expected them to. Or at least, for more incomprehension, outrage, violent feeling if not actual action to be directed against Islam rather than against, say, American Trump voters.
Um …
I disagree. The reason is because the impulse is to help what is in front of them. It’s too easy to think someone else is calling. By assigning the job to a specific person it becomes clear that they are to leave the scene and find a phone (back when the rule was developed).
You’re confused because you aren’t counting the sneers from Europeans that you agree with. When you count that they come out on top.
I understand what you mean, Kate. To deny that people get lumped into groups is not accept that Americans are the racists that the Left says they are. Your examples of other groups–police officers, Trump voters (!!!)–are good ones. It’s easy to see how some violence has been directed at these groups of people… incited by others.