 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Terrorism is not a big threat |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                   Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| 1 - There's not much risk of being killed.
The actual direct risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. About on par with dying in the bathtub or falling down the stairs. And of course it's much lower than the risk of dying in a car accident. 2 - Terrorist attacks are easy. They're easy. Anyone with a slight background in engineering or mechanics or access to the internet could do it. If there were an intelligent and massed enemy they would have hit, and hard. September 11 was done with box-cutters. Two guys in a van with a gun terrorised Washington DC for weeks. Some guy mailed anthrax all over the place and was never caught. Your average place of business, bus, school, etc, is so poorly defended that they're easily attacked by anything from bricks to bombs. One example: Small explosions at a gas station f*ck sh*t up. It would be ridiculously easy for a disciplined group of, say, 50 people, to organised and carry out hundreds of such attacks. And the resulting panic at the rest, and security panic in general, would cause such widespread disorder that it would bring the US economy into serious crisis. 3 - There are very few terrorists. As established above, it is not hard to orchestrate a decent terrorist attack. Yet they only strike/get caught very occasionally. This is not due to the governments of the world secretly battling a widespread, strong, nebulous threat. This is due to the fact that there are very few people with the will and capability to organise a terrorist attack. The fact that attacks don't occur more speaks to the fact that there are very few terrorists. 4. Anti-terrorist laws are, through any rational analysis, virtually unnecessary. Virtually all crackdowns on civil liberties and the legal system in the name of security are byproducts of an unjustified panic and populist governments playing to unfounded fears. Shoot-to-kill policies are insane. Internment without trial is nuts. And the "Persecution of Muslims" component is actually contributing to the fanning of the flames as per 5. 5. The war on terror is creating a threat where not much existed. We're giving the jihadists what they want. After September 11, it would have been easy to ride the wave of revulsion and, with a little cunning, isolate Bin Laden and his tiny organisation as bloodthirsty lone fanatics. He was already something of an unwelcome guest in Afganistan, after all. Instead we did his job for him. We panicked and complied with bin Laden's wish for a big ole civilisational war. We declared war on something we called "terrorism" but was easily definable as "Islam" to anyone watching from the outside. We declared a crusade against evil. We restored Taliban credibilty in the Muslim world by making them resistance fighters once more, made Iran a sworn enemy, invaded Iraq, persecuted Muslims across the western world, and backed Israel's invasion of Lebanon. We gave them what they wanted. Suddenly every Muslim discontent could claim al Qaeda as their inspiration, and a pan-national jihadist phenomenon was born. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES  Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| Yeah, we shot our own feet in Iran. We could've had this guy rather than the man we have in there currently.
Then again, what do you expect? Much of the foreign policy is being directed by people that buy into Strauss' ideas or even the ill thought out and pompous ideas of Huntington. When you have the primary military leader of this mission believing in a hegemony with them at the absolute centre, empire building through market, and a world view of Civilized and Savage people...well, expect to have problems. Although, on one point, radical Islam is a threat. We should've been working through economic incentives to stamp it out rather than bombing it. The first thing should've been the weakening of the Arabian peninsula regimes and their Wahhabist ideas (which have spread out like a cancer and infect any and all movements relating to Muslims, like the Chechens and Kurds). |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| It's a threat, but unless terrorists get nukes, it's not a serious threat to us. It's a threat to our geopolitical interests and to many Islamic countries. I think that's an important distinction to make.
Nightmare scenario is revolutions in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| Even then, it is representing a growing internal threat in Europe which has much more proximity to the Muslim world than North America.
That said, I should expand, religious extremism of ANY kind is an inherent threat to the stability of any nation in question. In Africa (Kenya, Sudan, Congo, etc.) the religious extremists come of many stripes. Congo's Lord's Resistance Army is an example of Evangelical Christianity gone awry. Mind you, the threat rests not simply in third world nations, but in nations like America. The radical fundamentalist Christians are quickly reversing the tides of hundreds of years of progress and are effectively going to lampoon the economy with their archaic thoughts. As they gain power and intertwine religion and politics they're going to begin striking out. One may not think that this war on evolution has much of a significant effect on an economic sphere, and admittedly it does not in the short term. Within 50 years, given the growth of Evangelical communities which adhere to these extreme principles of anti-modernism, the US could for once be at a deficit of intelligence. This will not be like the intellect deficit which affects nations like Canada, where the talent is drawn OUT of the nation. It will be because the intellectual will simply not exist. Again, there must be some understanding that this is a sort of nightmare scenario. Many areas in the Bible belt have spawned great inventors and minds, however I fear that Southern ingenuity may go the way of the dodo. These people were given the advantage of a good education. Arwon had posted in another thread about the lack of true meritocracy and class advancement in USA. This is going to become even more marked in the future of America. With the growth of lower-cost Bible colleges and community/low cost private colleges they're looking like a nice alternative to State universities or other areas of true higher learning (mind you, a good seminary, theological institute, or divinity school is as good a place of learning as any). This will have a detrimental effect on the nature of discourse among the intellectuals of America (in which intellectual ranks may become thinned out). Of course, this isn't going to be an America-wide issue. This issue can, if it arises which is really just a toss of a coin about demographics and religious trends, truly ruin the economy as people with faux-religious pedigrees climb the ranks of power and begin the muzzle and gag those that are not within their ken of understanding. Now, before I got shot at by the Evangelicals on the board for a fair analysis, I'm going to make something clear. You're all wondering "alright, Ziff, what does this Millenarianism/other crazy ideas have to do with terrorisms lack of threat". I'm going to get to that. In Pakistan and other areas the chief way of education is through the locally provided religious institutions. This is where extremist ideals are bred, spread, and refined. Now, that is in the Islamist Fundamentalist experience. Of course, in the United States long before there was Islamic terrorism there was a consistent tradition of radical Christian and racist terrorism. Luckily these elements are too busy hating Islam to hate the government right now, but should the war on terror shore up or this new Perpetual Conflict shift from Eurasia to Eastasia what will happen to the poor people? The American people are inundated, like the rest of the world, by media. Once the portrayl shifts from dastardly turban wearers to a less palatable foe the extremists may just become anti-goverment again. And then there will be a resurgence of homegrown terror, not from Islam/Communism/whatever Zeitgeist Amerikana there is, but rather from an internal fifth column that has grown there all along and is simply a bizarre exp In short - radical religion bad. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| excellant posts, could'nt agree more.
Terrorism is like a bear/shark attack. The chances of being eaten by a bear/shark are miniscule, many many times less likely then dying in a car accident or from smoking, yet when it does happen it generates lots of publicity. The publicity makes it seem like its more common and threatening than it actually is. People start getting scared and acting irrationally. What's messed up about terrorism is that certain politicians are harnessing this fear and paranoia to do some frightening things. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Now Jomb lets not get nuts here. Bear attacks are very real and deadly.
BEARS. |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb Yeah.... especially when the real issue we need to be worried about is the blacks. |
|||
sandrocklq Red Cheep-cheep  Since: 07-31-06 Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon If people only realized this, they wouldn't be so quick to give up their civil liberties. |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| You suggest Bush is a terrorist! TRAITOR!
However, I must agree with Arwon on most parts of his original post, though there are some things I wanna speak on.
True, but the number of their FOLLOWERS grows by hundreds every day. So far, Al Quaeda has managed to spread it's ideal throughout the vast majority of the middle east, and as we've seen in not so recent news, it's even reached the fucking United Kingdom. I believe it's only a matter of time before people begin acting out on the North American continent in the name of some Jihadist.
Somehow I doubt them wanting their followers to die unneccessarily when all the US Government has to do is work WITH them to overcome their differences. Oh wait... |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Bears? Yogi bear and smokey the bear are not threatening. Bees are a different matter, especially killer bees. And birds to (because of bird flu). So basically, we should be terrified of the birds and the bees. | |||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
I've been scared of those ever since my Dad had that talk with me when I was 4  . |
|||
Doppelganger 8DS  Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| No, it's not a big threat after all. Despite the attacks on the Twin Towers, which did indeed hurt the US and its people, it did not warrant the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If you look at the death toll for either, side by side, there's some stark differences. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have done anything in the first place, but the fact that we didn't use all the resources we had to capture Bin Laden after we DID have him on the run, and instead devoted said resources towards Iraq simply baffles me. It's a dissapointment, in the least. Not to mention the loss of quality of life these constant terror threats have had on most people travelling. | |||
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom  Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6311 days Last view: 6311 days |
| ||
| Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. It's for the oil. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
I've been wondering if maybe the Bush white house has intentionally let Bin Laden go, that way they can continue to use him to scare the voters with, in order to get votes, and as further justification for taking more power and control for themselves.. If we caught him and the war on terror ended, that would most likely be bad for the Republicans in the long run (after the initial good will that he was caught). If he is magically captured shortly before an election that the white house is worried about then we know what's what  |
|||
|
Doppelganger 8DS Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb This seems kind of far fetched to me. I can't imagine even with this administration would do something like that. We probably did almost have him to begin with, as seen in his early videos, he looked all gray and kind of frail, now he's back to good health with most of our attention on Iraq. But still, I highly doubt the administration would sink that low. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I would'nt put anything past this administration, at this point |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| You're not alone. It seems that YouTube has had numerous 9/11 conspiracy video's popping up, and it's not without reason. There are numerous things that are being left unexplained because it was a national tradgedy, and the very thought of it being set up by the president is TREASON.
But that aside, we've already seen how much the President loves the Iraqi's with the White Phosphorous thing. I personally prefer mine rare, but well done is good enough for anyone these days. |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6299 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom Manic I'm unsure if you're trying to be ironic here or not, but I'll put in my thoughts anyway. Compare the number of people who think it's completely ok to bomb muslim countries, treat muslims as second-class citizens, and such in the name of fighting terror today with the number of people who thought it was ok before the 9/11-attacks. I don't have any statistics, but I'm willing to bet a whole lot that the number has grown by a lot since 9/11. It's the impression I'm left with looking at discussions today vs. discussions 6 years ago. Besides, it's standard human psychology. "They attacked us, so by God we'll attack them!" Now, with this in mind, is it not normal to assume that by bombing muslim countries, support for groupings that want to attack the west will grow in those countries? As such, we are giving the terrorists what they want, they've got a visible enemy (the west), they've got a simple solution (destroying the west), they've got loads of potential recruitees (people somehow affected negatively by western attacks). As such, we're making it a heck of a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members. So, yes, we're giving them what they want. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6293 days |
| ||
| You misunderstand me. I meant that if the US and Al Quaeda actually took the time to sit down and talk and sort out their differences, Jihadists lose their reason to fight the Americans and focus their energy on other things.
PROBLEM SOLVED. If only George Bush wasn't such a proud man. "We do not negotiate with Terrorists. Period." |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I think it's more a matter of dialogue with *other* folks so that Al Qaeda remained marginalised fanatics. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Terrorism is not a big threat |
| |
