Can't shake dread of terrorism

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but no one has really been talking about changing their behavior in irrational ways on this thread.

Some people are saying that they'd prefer not to work or live in DC because of the higher terrorism risk here than in many of the smaller or less symbolically important cities and towns in the US. Such a move would really not be irrational IMO. Even if it is true that the next large terrorist attack will be somewhere else than DC, the chances of you happening to pick that very town to move to are, indeed, very unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, but no one has really been talking about changing their behavior in irrational ways on this thread.

Some people are saying that they'd prefer not to work or live in DC because of the higher terrorism risk here than in many of the smaller or less symbolically important cities and towns in the US. Such a move would really not be irrational IMO. Even if it is true that the next large terrorist attack will be somewhere else than DC, the chances of you happening to pick that very town to move to are, indeed, very unlikely.

Agree with this poster.

[Anonymous]

Do you think the terrorists would choose another target city? Been there, done that, need to see what else can be done...

[Anonymous]

Read "The Gift of Fear." You'll shake the dread of terrorism and put it in perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, but no one has really been talking about changing their behavior in irrational ways on this thread.

Some people are saying that they'd prefer not to work or live in DC because of the higher terrorism risk here than in many of the smaller or less symbolically important cities and towns in the US. Such a move would really not be irrational IMO. Even if it is true that the next large terrorist attack will be somewhere else than DC, the chances of you happening to pick that very town to move to are, indeed, very unlikely.

Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is very very very low. Choosing which city to live in on that basis is not rational. It is like saying I won't live in California because autism rates or higher, or Virginia because of West Nile Virus.

But there is no point in arguing about this. People who are gripped by phobias are not amenable to reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But there is no point in arguing about this. People who are gripped by phobias are not amenable to reason.

I don't think OP was phobic. It sounded to me like she was debating whether to move away from DC, or grit her teeth and learn to live in a bulls-eye. It's not phobic to believe living in DC is living in a top 3 terrorist target city. It is. It's whether you stay or how you deal. To suggest we don't have plans and make decisions in advance because of that, is ridiculous in this day and age.

At the end of the day, if she can't reconcile where she's living with her own personal safety and comfort level, it would seem logical to move. Phobic would be a fear of living in Iowa or some small town in Anywhere USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But there is no point in arguing about this. People who are gripped by phobias are not amenable to reason.

I don't think OP was phobic. It sounded to me like she was debating whether to move away from DC, or grit her teeth and learn to live in a bulls-eye. It's not phobic to believe living in DC is living in a top 3 terrorist target city. It is. It's whether you stay or how you deal. To suggest we don't have plans and make decisions in advance because of that, is ridiculous in this day and age.

At the end of the day, if she can't reconcile where she's living with her own personal safety and comfort level, it would seem logical to move. Phobic would be a fear of living in Iowa or some small town in Anywhere USA.

Maybe not phobic, but unnecessarily anxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Analysts are projecting that the next terrorist attacks will occur in the Midwest. So despite where we THINK we should move, we'll never be 100% sure about our safety.

As they always say, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, the world will view us differently under new leadership if Obama lives up to word and replaces bullying with diplomacy.

OP again--which analysts? I am curious because that contradicts what the PPs said (the ones whose husbands are in counter-terrorism). Would you mind please sharing the sources of your information? Thanks!

OP, I sorry, but the guy who posted it on our work website has since deleted it and can't retrieve it. It was a military publication, and I believe the author was a professor at a local DC university - like GW.

And you'll get all sorts of theories, depending upon whom you ask. You piqued my curiosity. So I just emailed a friend whose boyfriend is a big time defense consultant - NSA, the whole bit. If anyone is in the know, he is b/c he's dealing with military and IS former military.

Personally, I'd trust the counter-terrorists (correct word?) to something theoretical such as a research article - even though the articles are based on interviews and strong data.

What a world we live in, eh?

[Anonymous]

Personally, I'd trust the counter-terrorists (correct word?) to something theoretical such as a research article - even though the articles are based on interviews and strong data.

The term is counterintelligence. CI people work in HUMINT (human intelligence) gathering sources, but also rely on analysts.

[Anonymous]

I don't actually think OP is gripped by fear. I think the title she chose for the thread ("Can't shake dread of terrorism") came across a that way, but if you actually took the time to read what she wrote, in general she sounds sensible.

It's not at all the same thing as being a person whose life is completey consumed by irrational phobias. I really haven't seen anyone on this thread post anything like that -- that they are consumed by fear about the possibility of a terroristic attack, such that they cannot function or care for their children, or make important life decsions.

I completely understand that some people just prefer to take a fatalistic attitude towards possible hazards in life. ("If it happens, it happens, there's nothing I can do about it so why think about it.") I myself have never felt that way about ANYTHING. My attitude is, if there's something reasonable I can do in advance to prepare for different things or to do better on it, I'm a fool not to educate myself about it -- especially if it could affect my children as well... there's that Mom-emotion kicking in a bit, for sure.

My life isn't consumed by fear about the possibility of car crashes, either -- but certainly I factor that into my decision making at the appropriate times, such as in deciding between two preschools for my children. One is a 5 minute drive away on local streets; another is a 20 minute drive away, through 3 stop lights and a brief stretch on a busy highway. The further away one might be better or cheaper, but I have to factor in the extra hour of driving time every day it would entail. Besides thinking about the cost of gas and wear and tear on the car -- there is the factor of more time in the car = more time to an accident to happen. This is just a matter of statistics. I didn't dwell on it, but I did think about it in making my choice for preschools.

I didn't say, "Well, if a crash happens, it happens... there's nothing I can do about it." I considered it as part of my decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My life isn't consumed by fear about the possibility of car crashes, either -- but certainly I factor that into my decision making at the appropriate times, such as in deciding between two preschools for my children. One is a 5 minute drive away on local streets; another is a 20 minute drive away, through 3 stop lights and a brief stretch on a busy highway. The further away one might be better or cheaper, but I have to factor in the extra hour of driving time every day it would entail. Besides thinking about the cost of gas and wear and tear on the car -- there is the factor of more time in the car = more time to an accident to happen. This is just a matter of statistics. I didn't dwell on it, but I did think about it in making my choice for preschools.

I didn't say, "Well, if a crash happens, it happens... there's nothing I can do about it." I considered it as part of my decision making.

This made me chuckle, because I went through the same thought process when picking my son's preschool and ended up choosing the one 15 mins away. The closer one where my daughter went when she was little, had a blind, hail Mary exit onto a main road. I never trusted ANYONE other than me to take her to/from preschool because of that damn exit. The preschool I chose is at the intersection of two major highways about 6 mi away, but I was able to ferret out a footpath (well, almost!) that takes me all the way using nothing but neighborhood streets. It feels very Mayberry driving him to school, and I love it, even though it's further away.

He's the one I worry about getting to though in case I ever get "the call". Guess that shows my threat level is not on red right now.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think your fears go beyond normal prudence and caution. What reinforces your feelings is the security precautions everywhere you go in DC. But if you fear something constantly without taking steps to address your fears, it isn't good for you or your family. Either move somewhere you feel comfortable or go to a counselor to help you feel more in control. Perhaps there's a middle ground. You could take precautions that help you feel more secure in the unlikely event something happened in DC, but remain here. Moving seems like a drastic response to a threat that is so unclear. If the whole U.S. is under threat, where are you going to run?