Terrorism, a real threat to the western way of life, or a tool used by politicians?

[wooda]

Over the past few years terrorism has been in the headlines, ever since 9.11.2001, and has been rapidly growing so that it is accepted by many as the largest threat to the modern western world.
But when you actually think about it, over the past few years there have been only several thousands of deaths due to terrorist acts against western countries, while I don't know the numbers, they are no larger than aids deaths, starvation, and various other death causes around the globe, no where near those infant.
On the other hand though, terrorism causes fear (hence the word terror), disrupting the lives of many fearful citizens and often forcing the government to take away civil rights from faithful law abiding citizens, to insure their safety.
Some would say that terrorism is a terrible threat to the western world and way of living, and must be stopped, using all methods necessary, while others might say that terrorism isn't such a large threat, and that is blown out of proportion to further their political interests.
What is your opinion?
Discuss.

[mike^_^]

exactly.

it's a bunch of hog-wash

do these check points and shakedowns at the stadium protect us? no.

if there was really a terrorist, he'd just run up and blow himself up.

terrorism is being used as a pretext for governments to get more control over our lives!

[Dirty Harry]

9.11 did a HUGE amaount of damage, how can you possibly dismiss the threats of similar attacks as trivial??

[mike^_^]

because when you look into any major terrorist event it leads back to the very same government prancing around telling us they are going to save us

[wooda]

Just as a small side note.
I live in Israel, and have lived here for all my life; I know the full impact of terrorism.
And as difficult as it is, I' am trying not taking any side.

[Denny Crane!]

Since the threat of Islamic terrorism (which has been benign compared to what we faced from the IRA) we have had ancient rights like Habeus Corpus and parts of the magna carta overturned. There are a number of other highly suspicious legislations that were not neccessary as well. So I will agree that politicians are using this situation to further their own aims.

In fact when Labour turn around and say they want to cancel local elections next year to implement a new law you could be forgiven for creating a conspiracy theory on the spot.

PEter

[Siena72]

Terrorism, a real threat to the western way of life, or a tool used by politicians?

It is both. You can also say it like this:
Terrorism, a real threat to the western way of life AND a tool used by politicians.
Also, it is used by politicians on both sides. One side uses terrorists to pressure other side in relenting, and another side is using threat of terrorism to loud themselves as defenders and "war leaders"
So terrorism is good for politicians on both sides.
In effect - terrorists were the ones that helped to elect Bush.

[Last Roman]

I think terrorism is a real threat. Whether Islamic militants truly intend to destroy the west or simply curb it's influence on the world I do not know. As for governments taking away certain rights (the Patriot Act in the US, the removal of habeus corpus in the UK), I am against it. There are better ways to fight terrorism.

[Big War Bird]

No I don't think terrorism in a threat at all. In fact I just reserved my hotel in the Gaza Strip and will be travelling with my Danish passport. While there I intend to wear my Star of David swim suit and Stars and Stripes bandana to the beach. After going to the beach I intend to go to my art exhihbit were I will stand proudly beside lastes work, "Mohammed in a Jar of Urine, just becasue I can."

[Irishman]

I think with the ammount of attacks in England, the US and Spain it is obvious that terrorism is a serious threat to the west.

Of course, that doesn't stop it from being usefull...

[Denny Crane!]

I think with the ammount of attacks in England, the US and Spain it is obvious that terrorism is a serious threat to the west.

Of course, that doesn't stop it from being usefull...

Err what? We had far more attacks from the IRA, upto and including almost losing our Priminster. Yet one attack on our home soil by islamic terrorists and they overturn the biggest defence of our basic rights in one swift move. Not only that the changes they made don't protect us more, since if someone really wanted to plan an attack they will get through eventually.

Peter

[Erik]

Terrorism is a big threat.

Not because it kills a few people, but because it encourages politicians to take away our liberties.
The real damage wasn't done on 9/11, but in the years that followed.

And Al-Qaida knows this very well.
They know they can't destroy America by killing it's citizens.
But they CAN destroy America by changing it's political course.

The best weapon against terrorists is to simply ignore them, and live your lives the way we would normally do.
But sadly too many people are easily tricked into giving up their civil liberties, so that the terrorists win.
That said I must praise the people of London, and we should all follow their example.

While there I intend to wear my Star of David swim suit and Stars and Stripes bandana to the beach.

Fashion advice: don't.
Too many stars is never a good option.

[viper1980]

I agree with Siena72. It's both threat and tool. Terrorists try to destroy western lifestyle from outside - so they are most visible and clear enemies. But politicians use it for own and so destroy from inside. Many minor changes of laws, precedents... it's like cancer cells, destroying the body.

[Dirty Harry]

Terrorism is a big threat.

Not because it kills a few people, but because it encourages politicians to take away our liberties.
The real damage wasn't done on 9/11, but in the years that followed.

And Al-Qaida knows this very well.
They know they can't destroy America by killing it's citizens.
But they CAN destroy America by changing it's political course.

The best weapon against terrorists is to simply ignore them, and live your lives the way we would normally do.
But sadly too many people are easily tricked into giving up their civil liberties, so that the terrorists win.
That said I must praise the people of London, and we should all follow their example.

Yes why dont you tell the 3000 people who died on 9.11 to ignore the terrorists and they will go away?

Or tell the citizens of new york to just ignore that burning pile of rubble that was a day before two of the tallest buildings in the world?

Brilliant plan, you should be president or something.

[bdh]

Many people point to a lack of terrorist attacks as cause to say terrorism is overblown, but that isn't wholely reasonable. Incredibly large amounts of money (in the billions) is used to prevent terrorist attacks. If that money suddenly disappeared, would the terrorism continue to be a relatively minor threat in the west? Probably not, but there is no way to measure the effects of the deterrants or the number of attacks thwarted since the public has little access to that kind of data. Honestly, I would like to see more facts and figures.

[Denny Crane!]

Many people point to a lack of terrorist attacks as cause to say terrorism is overblown, but that isn't wholely reasonable. Incredibly large amounts of money (in the billions) is used to prevent terrorist attacks. If that money suddenly disappeared, would the terrorism continue to be a relatively minor threat in the west? Probably not, but there is no way to measure the effects of the deterrants or the number of attacks thwarted since the public has little access to that kind of data. Honestly, I would like to see more facts and figures.

The fact is our government ministers in Britain have said that all the increased security has not decreased the chance of a terrorist attack, so it has all been for nothing. The problem is if someone decides to attack they could choose something completely random and unprotected and the police can't guard everything or arrest everyone.

All: I also reiterate my post that Britain has suffered more damage and death and threat at the hands of the IRA and we never introduced these kinds of laws. The USA has had its share of domestic terrorism I believe to.

PEter

[bdh]

The fact is our government ministers in Britain have said that all the increased security has not decreased the chance of a terrorist attack, so it has all been for nothing. The problem is if someone decides to attack they could choose something completely random and unprotected and the police can't guard everything or arrest everyone.

A) They have to get into a country and operate undisturbed.
B) Governments have to vest that major attacks sites won't become targets so thousands won't die. That is very expensive, but there is nothing to stop a terrorist from killing dozens. But, given the expense and difficutly of getting into and operating in the country, terrorists want to make big statements.
C) If they say it won't protect you, its probably a bad idea.

All: I also reiterate my post that Britain has suffered more damage and death and threat at the hands of the IRA and we never introduced these kinds of laws. The USA has had its share of domestic terrorism I believe to.

PEter

Yes, but its much more than terrorist attacks. The demographics of Europe are slowly changing and some people may think this poses greater risk in the future. The problem is that risk assessment isn't easy and the citizen doesn't fully know the government's intentions or knowledge of risk. Of course, that makes it easier to be politcally controlled, but that doesn't mean there is no rationale. To write something off as pure politics is unreasonable.

[Ahlerich]

3000 on 9/11 ya thats sad.
but how many americans died in irak since the last war there started?
i dont even start to mention the irak children , women and male civilists.
and one day the us troops will leave irak, sooner or later.
they will say 'we archieved our goals' and go.
within the next 3 years after that irak will still be a mess there will be ethnical wars, civil war and the country will break of into a few more countries that fight each other, or if irak stays one country it will after a hefty civil war be ruled by the mightiest warchief.
he will be most likely a dictator again coz there is no other way to keep a country of different cultures together. now there is even a good chance that that warchief, unlike saddam, will be a fundamentalist and militant muslim.
US did not free irak, they opened its doors to terrorism. because at saddams time it was terrorism free. saddam wasnt religious at all and did not deal with islamic terrorists.
now he was a leader that made lots of pressure on his ppl. he tortured irakis and killed them.

now the irakis are tortured by the americans and killed by the militant muslim terrorists.
so i guess they are really happy about their freedom and democracy..

and all that finally was possible to be realized with the background of 9/11
now how does this help the 'war on terror' the wtc victims, the irakis or anybody else?

[GambleFish]

Well, I guess you can't rule out the fact that govts. are going overboard with trying to control lives by using terrorism as an excuse.

Actually to any who have read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, he talks about how the media and govt uses fear and plays off of dark emotions to occupy and control our emotions. Great book.

But you also can't rule out the fact that terrorism is a huge threat in certain parts of the world.


Mike says that terrorists would just run and blow themselves up if they were a real threat. I pointedly stare at Israel.

Using Israel as an example, if no govt. control over the matter was established, terrorism and death could riseby 70% there. I mean, they have to build walls and go to extreme measures and they still have attacks almost daily.

But then again Bush is a twinkie. He sucks up our rights... and he claims that 12 attacks have been stopped. Compared to the 12 attacks a month israel has, the threat for some Western nations isn't as big but is still dangerous.

[Ahiga]

I found it really offensive that apparently very little proof was given in the recent claim that the patriot act, or spying by the NSA, somehow caught a terrorist act. I heard the mention of shoe bombing, so I guess they've claimed the credit of the individual who..*ahem* spotted a fellow on a plane trying to set his shoe on fire?

If an act occurs, they will try to discredit the possibility of anyone having found out. If something happens, they will act like it was their selfess endeavor that found it. Typical of politicans, of course