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
Some people are fanatics, and perhaps they can’t be reasoned with or managed. Perhaps you do need to kill them.
But they weren’t born that way. Prevention, as in many cases, is preferable to cure.
I’m refuting oversimplification. This is life and death. We either win or die. No time to be wrong.
Can you be a fanatic from ideology alone, or does it take action?
I had no hope after 9/11 we would get them out, but I did think we would at least not add any more… Instead the Muslim population has more then doubled.
I don’t know that it discourages evil men from being, or doing, evil, either. But I’m not sure that’s the only objective of something like this.
I do know is that it’s sometimes necessary to take a stand. And that when the common perception (backed up by a lot of dead people, a substantial amount of hard evidence, a great deal of money, and some regimes) is that your (generic) faith is being used as a justification to intimidate, brutalize, kill and subjugate those who don’t ‘believe,’ then, if you think your faith teaches differently, and especially if you’re a leader in that faith, you’d better clearly differentiate yourself, and your faith, and your leadership, from the thugs and murderers. And you’d better not just talk the talk, you’d better walk the walk, and the sooner the better.
Because as long as you (generic) do nothing, and as long as your faith remains in denial that this particular evil is done in its name, those looking at your faith from the outside aren’t going to believe a word you say.
Virtue signalling is not always a bad thing, when it’s meant sincerely. No matter what some think.
@Claire this exactly why I had to stop following your Twitter feed since the election.
3% of population, Black males 14-35
commit 1/2 of all violent crimes, 1/2 of all murders.
But we can’t address that either.
Indeed. And the people who do these things are Muslim and they act in the name of Islam and according to their ideal man Mohammed and as to what they read in the Koran. Islam is the reason they do what they do. Islam teaches them to hate the infidel and that they must get the infidel to convert, live as a slave, or kill them. Islam is the problem.
If belief does not result in action then it’s not fanatical. I guess the two must be as one.
Easy. Anyone affiliated with, corresponding with, or supporting ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the ruling class of Iran, etc. The list is pretty extensive. We should have as our goal to kill as many of them as possible, as they are irredeemable.
It is possible that at some point in our killing, a lot of them may, just may, have a change of heart, or there might be so few left that they no longer pose a threat. Until then, kill them.
Blacks males aren’t incarcerated for committing violent crimes? How else would you suggest it be addressed?
I suggest you go do a little reading on Islam.
Which is why I want to stop any more Muslim immigration to the US.
That seems a little broad brush.
I’m saying that it might be more subtle, but it’s still virtue signaling even if it’s among like-minded people. In fact the whole point of having mass is to “give glory to” god in a group to reassure each other that you are like-minded. That is the same as virtue signaling. It is neither good nor bad (except that believing in magic is wrong).
Ask the Chicago police about that.
Jeremy Corbyn has affiliated himself, corresponded with and supported quite a few of these on your list. And he is doing well in the polls.
I despair.
Actually it should include anyone who advocates Sharia.
I believe Kozak is referring to our inability to talk (address) about black crime and its roots in fatherlessness and welfare dependency, but he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
You see, we can’t tell the truth about things. Wouldn’t be
prudentpolitically correct.Of course it is. That’s my point. Which of those groups would you go to live among and expect to remain alive?
Not really. Maybe a little too exclusive.
Kick it up a notch? Bold choice!
I just don’t know how successful that approach is, in the long run, in reality rather than just in theory.
How has it played out in the past?
What percent of the victims are they? I think the weight of all that falls on Black males as well.
The Muslim Brotherhood ( some of them), Hamas (ditto), the ruling class of Iran (most of them).
We killed a lot of Nazis (and Nazi Hangers-on, and non-Nazis who happened to live in proximity to Nazis) in the early 1940s, and they really haven’t been a problem since. (And please don’t tell me about the so-called re-emergence of “Nazi’s” in the so-called alt-right. They ain’t Nazis.)
We didn’t make it a point to kill Commies. Commies are still a problem.
I suggest you back off this line of rhetoric. It’s making you look bad among your peers.
Claire, it’s a shame and not the answer when a western city like Paris or France in general, as well as other modern cities in Europe, has to have armed guards and police at every shopping area, beach, mall, school, etc. This should not be the new norm or accepted by its citizens.
I’m far more familiar with Islam that anyone who has done a little reading.
What would they say?
What do you think they would say?
(see what I did there?)