
People killed by terrorism per year in western Europe 1970-2015 - MrsPeaches
http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015
======
Fnoord
I'm from NL, and we had MH17 in 2014 (just for completion sake: the plane took
off from Amsterdam, and crashed in Eastern Europe). More people died in that
plane crash (298), than the amount of deaths from terrorism in that year or in
2015.

The goal of terrorism is not merely killing people though.

See also Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism (2011) [1]

[1]
[http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/vi...](http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-
terrorism-definition/html)

~~~
aaron-lebo
It's a very fascinating subject. At UT Dallas we have a couple of world class
scholars on the topic.

Some more reading material:

* [http://international.ucla.edu/media/files/Rapoport-Four-Wave...](http://international.ucla.edu/media/files/Rapoport-Four-Waves-of-Modern-Terrorism.pdf)

Could we consider the terrorism in Europe part of a new wave? Note: it's
thought that "modern" terrorism started with anarchist movements in the 1880s;
Lenin's brother was executed for his involvement in one of the earliest
groups.

* [http://www.utdallas.edu/~tms063000/website/TargetSubstitutio...](http://www.utdallas.edu/~tms063000/website/TargetSubstitution-20091003.pdf)

Terrorists have shifted their targets over the years from hardened military
targets to "softer" ones. It's easier (unfortunately) to run over 100
civilians with a lorry than it is to attack a military outpost.

* [http://www.ir.rochelleterman.com/sites/default/files/pape%20...](http://www.ir.rochelleterman.com/sites/default/files/pape%202003.pdf)

The "logic" behind suicide terrorism is unfortunately pretty sound. If you are
in Palestine where human life is "cheap" due to environment and material
resources are expensive, suicide bombing strikes groups like the West
particularly hard where life is expensive and tech is "cheap", and the
smartest most expensive missiles aren't nearly as smart as someone packed with
explosives who is willing to die.

The worst thing about all of this is that modern terrorism became possible
because media enabled terror to reach farther than before: today's social
media environment is like a best-case scenario for terrorists because their
actions reach so damn far so quickly. Most attacks today are livestreamed.
ISIS virtually has a media empire. Zuckerberg and Ev Williams probably weren't
thinking about the issue much when they were building their their networks.

What's even more striking is the fact that the refugee crisis is gonna keep
this going for another generation or more. The US destabilized the Middle East
by invading Iraq, which created a new wave of terrorism and refugees in
Europe, and new reprisals by the West, which continues the cycle. This was one
of bin Laden and al Qaeda's explicit goals.

~~~
jacquesm
The media are equally culpable in giving platforms to all kinds of entities
that we'd be better off without. At some point the media is going to have to
hold themselves accountable, it will be an interesting exercise in
introspection. They are definitely not just innocent bystanders who
dispassionately report the news, they _make_ the news and determine how much a
platform all kinds of undesirables get based on the simple math of eyballs and
advertising dollars. They are an essential part of the feedback loop.

~~~
mistermann
> The media are equally culpable

I disagree, _at least_ with the "equal" part, but I think entirely. I don't
think Islamic extremists blow up westerners to get famous, they primarily do
it out of revenge and frustration. Revenge for all the things the west has
done to them for centuries, and frustration at how they are treated in western
countries, not just as refugees but even as non-wealthy immigrants. I believe
the west does a really poor job of properly assimilating Islamic newcomers,
and as a result they often end up segregated in "slums", growing up poor and
ignored, while getting the (often incorrect, from TV shows and what not)
impression that "regular" people in western countries are living a life of
luxury while they are dirt poor.

I don't know if the west "deserves" what they're getting with all this
terrorism, but they kind of asked for it in my opinion.

~~~
SamReidHughes
It's not really "the west" per se because it's a bit different in Europe vs.
US/Canada. And you know what? It's newcomers' jobs to assimilate themselves.

~~~
mistermann
> It's newcomers' jobs to assimilate themselves.

If you wants bombs going off in public places, sure.

 _We_ are deciding to allow immigration/refugees from these cultures, and we
have ample evidence to know what happens when they are managed in the way we
are doing now. I think whose "job" it is to manage assimilation is largely
irrelevant compared to the effects of not doing it properly.

~~~
raverbashing
> If you wants bombs going off in public places, sure.

Better, don't bring them in the first place

You can't integrate (some) people who won't let go of their backwards
mentality.

I don't know why are we trying/pretending in the first place

~~~
Fnoord
If it only were that simple. A large part of of the profession of counter
terrorism is about spotting terrorists before they strike. The signal to noise
ratio of just outright stopping helping refugees or allowing Muslims to enter
just is too low, and downright discrimination. IOW the collateral damage would
be too high. The casualties/deaths in these statistics alone underline this.
One should also think deeply of the repercussions of actions like these, or
actions like building walls, bombing a country, etc.

As a parallel thought. The mass murder in Srebrenica was executed by Serbs;
who are in large majority Orthodox Christian. The conflicts in medieval Europe
between Catholics and Atheists, and Catholics and Protestants are also widely
documented (Spanish Inquisition etc). It'd be silly to draw conclusions
towards all Orthodox Christians or Catholics. Silly and also dangerous. How
would you feel if you're on vacation in Egypt and every Muslim you see regards
you as a warmonger, just because you are from the West and your country
supported the war in Iraq? Generalizations like these are a dangerous line of
thinking. We must refrain from these, and understand not everyone with
political view X or religion Y is therefore A or B even if it does
statistically speaking (merely) increase the likelihood.

~~~
raverbashing
> It'd be silly to draw conclusions towards all Orthodox Christians or
> Catholics.

But I'm not. I'm not worried about tourists from any country in general, I'm
worried about people that come to Europe expecting a free ride while not think
they have to adapt. Then somehow if they get frustrated "it's the west's
fault". Come on.

And get rid of the well financed ones that "are asking for asylum" because
"they're persecuted in their home country" (for being an islamist)

> is therefore A or B even if it does statistically speaking (merely) increase
> the likelihood.

"Merely" is ending up with a lot of people killed.

~~~
tnzn
Yet several studies have shown multicultural policies are better than
assimilation ones when it comes to integration. And saying most of them want a
free ride is just nonsense.

~~~
raverbashing
> have shown multicultural policies are better than assimilation ones

Yes, up to a point, or are we supposed to bend over to accomodate
backwards/barbaric practices?

Multiculturalism works if it doesn't involve a-holes

> And saying most of them want a free ride is just nonsense.

I didn't say most. See (try google translate, the video is interesting but
can't be easily translated):

[https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/4j9cip/falsche_versprec...](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/4j9cip/falsche_versprechen_locken_fl%C3%BCchtlinge_an/)

[http://cicero.de/berliner-republik/migrationspolitik-
jedes-u...](http://cicero.de/berliner-republik/migrationspolitik-jedes-
unrecht-beginnt-mit-einer-luege)

------
danielvf
Not sure why this was dead.

FYI, graph at the start is missing the most recent years. End graph is more up
to date: [http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2017-05/ter-
we-i...](http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2017-05/ter-we-
isl-20170523.png)

------
nickserv
So homegrown terrorism peaked in the 70/80s and dropped off in the 2000s, to
be replaced by Islamic terrorists. It's looking like we haven't yet reached
"peak Islam"...

~~~
siidooloo
...and a lot pf those homegrown terrorists form the 70/80s were funded by the
Soviets. Notice how in the charts the rates drop off after the cold war ends.
The same thing happened in Latin America. Presumably this could be a clue on
how to solve current problems.

~~~
spangry
For the benefit of dummies like me, what's the lesson / clue?

~~~
qb45
Rumor has it that certain Arab states are directly funding Islamic terrorism
today.

Also, Western states and NGOs supported and continue to support various rebels
against old, mostly totalitarian and often USSR/Russia-friendly regimes in the
region which used to maintain order and keep extremists under their boot. They
do it in the name of democracy but how it is turning out we all see.

~~~
spangry
Ah, thanks, I think I get it now.

So, if my understanding of the situation is right, there are a number of
conflicts that involve militant Islamic groups, but some of these conflicts
are being spurred on by foreign powers with ulterior motives. These foreign
powers provide support to some of these groups (in the form of arms, training,
and/or direct combat support?)

And the solution would be for these foreign powers to, in one way or another,
directly address and resolve their disagreements? At that point there's no
reason to be waging proxy wars and the foreign powers can withdraw their
support / intervention, or intervene with more benign motives (e.g.
humanitarian) where appropriate.

Just to preface this, my understanding of what's happening in the middle-east
is tenuous at best. But I think one possible wrinkle is that we now have a
situation where there are 'proxy wars within proxy wars'. Starting from the
outermost layer, you've got the US on one side and Russia on the other (I
think?). I'm actually not 100% clear on their motivations. And on the inside
layer you have two opposing regional powers and major oil producers (i.e.
economic competitors, despite the recent tepid OPEC agreement) who also have
religious differences: Saudi Arabia (Sunni / Wahhabi - US aligned) and Iran &
Syria (Shia - Russia aligned). These two might engage in some direct military
action (not with each other though), but also fund groups like Al-Qaeda and
Hezbollah (who are variously thought of as legitimate political entities,
terrorists, resistance movements and so on depending on where you stand).

And then there are 'third-party' groups who I'm not sure are strongly aligned
with one side or another, but are nonetheless involved: IS / Daesh (who are
religiously opposed to Iran, but to whom Saudi Arabia responded by building a
600 mile wall to try and keep them [Daesh] out of their territory), Turkey(?),
Kurdistan and Israel (who, weirdly, I guess are nominally aligned with Saudi
Arabia and the US, given their concerns about Iranian nukes and conflicts with
Hezbollah).

Does that sound right to you, or have I gone horribly wrong somewhere?

------
micv
I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK the only thing keeping us
from numerous terror attacks per year is the panopticon we've allowed our
security services to build. They are stopping numerous attacks every year.
This doesn't feel like a win to me.

~~~
Fnoord
Yet that didn't stop the Boston attacks.

There are other plausible reasons to consider why terrorism has lowered in
Western Europe:

1) IRA is dismantled. IRA and UK are at peace.

2) ETA is dismantled as well. That's more recently though.

3) The Iron Curtain is down. Its a well known fact Eastern Europe states were
supporting terrorists such as Carlos and the RAF. In the 80s this became less
feasible already.

4) Right after the Iron Curtain went down there were wars and new countries
(eventually) born. After that, the region more or less stabilized. NB: This is
merely my perception.

~~~
micv
All of these can be true without changing my point. The security services have
grown vastly more capable through experience and advancement in tech which
results in modern terror groups failing vastly more often than not.

The IRA were vastly more capable than the Islamic terrorists we face in the UK
today, but they never had to face a security service as well equipped to deal
with them.

~~~
Fnoord
> The security services have grown vastly more capable through experience and
> advancement in tech

Can you objectively prove this? Specifically that its due to 1) experience 2)
advancement in tech?

Terrorists also gain experience. Terrorists also advance in tech.

You do realize terrorist plots were foiled in the 70s and 80s as well?
Minimizing (casualties from) terrorism is of all times.

Yet the so-called 'vastly more capable' security services did not stop 9/11,
Madrid, London attacks, Boston, or the attack on the USS Cole. All of that
happened after mid 90s, arguably when mass surveillance was possible.

What your posts continue to lack is any kind of substance on the positive
effect of mass surveillance.

The fact targeted surveillance is much older is a fallacy. However targeted
surveillance has a proven track record. I've yet to see the efficiency of mass
surveillance. I'll put my money on a lot of false positives, and a cat and
mouse game where the mouse is going to adapt pretty quickly to the mass
surveillance. In Belgium, for example, the government wants to have all SIM
cards registered. All anonymous SIM cards will be disabled in a month. Hows
that going to help catch terrorists? If not only for the fact anonymous SIM
cards are still sold in the neighboring The Neherlands?

Finally, as I posted in the other post, we must remember the main goal of
terrorism is not (merely) 'killing people' [1]. So the statistic isn't
accurately describing the 'effectiveness of terrorism'.

[1] Specifically: "7\. The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a
classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message
generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass
media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either
with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"

------
dgut
This ignores the detail that most terrorist plots today (in Europe that is)
are prevented by a more sophisticated police (and no, I'm not referring to
mass surveillance) and increasing security expenses. Remove that, and we would
probably have the 70s and 80s levels if not more.

~~~
mistermann
Is there evidence of this? I can think of numerous failsafe ways of going out
and killing hundreds of people with zero chance of being detected prior to the
fact. Terrorists may be uneducated, but are they _dumb_?

------
jgrahamc
This explains why I was far more worried in the 1970s/80s then I am today
about being caught up in a terrorist incident.

~~~
Bakary
Do you remember how the coverage of terrorist attacks was handled in those
days?

Looking at the graph, I can't help but think that even the peak of yearly
casualties is a rounding error compared to the other types of threats facing
Europeans.

~~~
observation
Then I believe you would be mistaken.

Terrorism isn't warfare, it is a strategy. The object is to get two groups to
conflict aka sectarianism.

I'd say Islamic terror coupled with MENA mass migration is well on its way to
producing low intensity civil conflict in countries such as France.

Examining the civil wars in Lebanon and Syria will likely reveal a series of
escalating attacks before they broke out proper.

You're saying the spark from each struck match is not meaningful. I agree, but
we're at Gas Station across the street from the Dynamite Store!

------
dmoy
Yea, and murder / violent crime rates have historically been going way down in
the last ~4 decades over here in the US (like half of what it was a couple
decades ago). You'd never guess it from watching the news.

~~~
bluedino
Except not in cities like Chicago that dominate the media coverage

~~~
dmoy
2016 was a bad year and comparable to the 90s, but prior years murder was down
50% from decades earlier in Chicago.

------
Kenji
How ready we are to sacrifice many of our freedoms and conveniences to *
prevent 200 deaths - especially considering how mindlessly we accept risks
that are multiple orders of magnitude higher, like driving cars. It is
fascinating.

*try to

~~~
edgartaor
You have a good point. But we don't know if the government agencies are
actually preventing an even higher amount of deaths. Or we are sacrificing
freedoms for nothing.

~~~
thescriptkiddie
In all likelihood, we are sacrificing freedoms for nothing.

[https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-
ha...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-
record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/)

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html)

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-
tsa-20170207-stor...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-
tsa-20170207-story.html)

[http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-
screening-f...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-
failure/)

