The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is the terrorism threat overblown? > Comments

Is the terrorism threat overblown? : Comments

By Katherine Wilson, published 3/10/2006

Commentators, terror experts and their media echo chamber are exagerrating the scale of the threat we face

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Been saying it forever
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 12:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PeterJH,
I don't think any of us are saying it won't or couldn't happen. Of course it could. But I think we are all objecting to the disproportionate measures that are taken against terrorism as compared with the on-going mortality or injury rate from existing social concerns.

The death toll from a bomb in a train in England or Spain IS horrific but so is the death toll from a train derailment on a Sydney or Indian commuter train. All of which events have happened. But by fixing our fear on some unknown terrorist threat instead of a derailment when we board a train we are not putting pressure on Government to raise and maintain ordinary railway safety standards.

The people who die in a muliple highway pile-up are just as dead as the same amount of people who die from a terrist bomb - yet instead of regarding the one as requiring instant new lawswe are being guided to focus all our empathy for the victims or relatives of the other.

On a personal level: how many people do you know who have either been in, or are related to a person who has been involved in a serious car accident? And how many people do you personally know who have been involved in or are related to someone who has been involved in a terrorist attack? So why are we not all up in arms against drunk driving laws or the state of our roads, or driving without a licence...or any of the many factors involving car accidents that could and should be addressed?

If one holds all life as valuable why privilege loss of life from one cause over another? More importantly, I think what most of us are also saying is that while Government is constantly braying over the steps it has taken on the war on terror, the focus is taken from areas where it is not taking acceptable measures such as road safety, suicide rates, highway maintenance, hospital care and all the other empiric contributing causes for unnaceptably high mortality rates.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There used to be Reds under every bed, now we have a terrorist threat.

The conservatives in Australia have always used fear campaigns as diversions and to win elections. Howard is just as adept at playing on voters' base emotions such as fear, greed, envy as any previous coalition government.

Conservative governments have never been afraid to trample over individual rights or shed blood (not theirs, yours) to stay in power.

What about the Fourth Estate? Well the Oz media is as complicit in the scaremongering as ever, have a look back at the media whipped up hatred against defenceless students during the days of Vietnam.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair go Romany. A bomb goes off in the London underground and you want info; who are you going to tune into? Will it be one of those DJs on FM without a surname – someone like Simmo on FM BANG who just happens to have the latest rap tune lined up ready to play? Or will it be an information outlet?

Just when are you and Chris going to launch that airline. You know the one…the planes are flown by pilots who are not endorsed to fly the aircraft type; there is no security check; you don’t have to bear any resemblance to the photo in your passport – you could in fact be a male traveling on a female’s passport; your aircraft are not subjected to any airworthiness inspections; and, other slip-shod practices and policies aimed at relieving the irrational fear of the public. Don’t stand near the boarding gates as I’m sure you’ll get knocked over in the rush.

Don't rely on Chris though because he'll be picked up by uncle Phil's secret police any day now. Or at least that is his hope.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany

I take your point and agree with it. Many times more people will die this year from smoking related diseases than from almost any other form of social activity, including all illicit drugs combined.

Where I differ from you is this: we try to stop people from smoking; we try to stop train derailments by safety regulation; we try to stop deaths in motor vehicle crashes (that we mostly call accidents). Isn't it why flying is the safest form of travel because essentailly most of the bugs have been worked out? Shouldn't we also try to prevent terrorist events, even though they may be unlikely? Would you fly in a plane if you were told that only two of the three safety systems were working beacuse it was unlikely any would be needed? At this point I can hear keys being tapped to tell me that such an event would be a personal risk to which I'd say: and terrorism isn't?

Isn't that the paradox: that if we don't work against any unwanted event it will (perhaps) happen? We shouldn't be obsessed with terrorist threats but we shouldn't ignore them either.

I hate the way we treat others because of fears of terrorism. Hicks and others held without trial; cameras popping up everywhere; books banned; the fears (as the article mentioned) being fuelled by a growing industry. To this extent the terrorists have won.

I'll rest on this point: I remember back when the AIDS was still an unknown and unquantifable threat (could you get it from toilet seats? food in restaurants? etc) and to their credit the health authorities moved to change our personal practices and took lots of flack for it (ironically from those who would go overboard with anti-terrorist fears now). We could have just said its a problem for the gay community, as the US mostly did. Perhaps we over reacted but Australia now has one of the lowest incidents of AIDS in the world.

The heading of the article was "Is the terrorist threat overblown?" To which I'd offer perhaps: but whose to know?
Posted by PeterJH, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While politicians do exploit the fear of terrorism I think Katherine (through her ignorance of terror activity in Australia) has provided a poorly balanced view. She could have mentioned actual activity:

Faheem Khalid Lodhi (also know as Abu Hamza. b. 1969/70, Pakistan). He is a Pakistani-Australian architect and the first convicted (June 2006) Australian terrorist.

Lodhi who was born in Pakistan immigrated to Australia in 1996 and obtained Australian citizenship. Based at Sydney Lodhi is an architect by profession.

Convicted by the New South Wales Supreme Court jury in June 2006 on three out of four counts of terrorism, Lodhi was on August 22 2006 sentenced to maximum 20 years prison time, with a 15 year no-parole time and minimum 15 years to be served.

The conviction is the first under a new set of stricter anti-terrorism laws enacted by the Australia Government in 2005. The three charges he is convicted on are:

1) Preparation for terrorist attack, by seeking information for the purpose of constructing explosive devices – carrying a maximum sentence of life in jail.

2) Seeking information and collecting maps of the Sydney electricity supply system and possessing 38 aerial photos of military installations in preparation for terrorist attacks – maximum sentence: 15 years jail.

3) Possessing terrorist manuals detailing how to manufacture poisons, detonators, explosives and incendiary devices - maximum sentence: 15 years jail.

Lodhi received 15 years on the first count and 10 years on the second and third, which are to be served concurrently.

His possible targets were the national electricity supply system, and three Sydney defense installations; the army base Victoria Barracks, Sydney naval base HMAS Penguin and army training area Holsworthy Barracks.

At the ruling Justice Anthony Whealy commented that Lodhi had “the intent of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely violent jihad” and to “instil terror into members of the public so that they could never again feel free from the threat of bombing in Australia.”

Lodhi who is classified as a high security ‘AA’ prisoner will be eligible for parole in 2019.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy