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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Carl you're right to point out so much of the threat is manufactured. It's what allows incumbent governments to remain in power.

But don't worry. Uncle Johnny will take care of us.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 1:58:00 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
I thought the whole point of "terrorism" was to make people fearful, disproportional to the "real threat". (asymetrical warfare).

It seems that the "terrorists" are succeding.

All governments are damned if they do and damned if they don't, I feel safe though, I have a fridge magnet. :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 2:18:07 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
Sage & Peter JH

Those posts suggest that in the sense of resource management, taking precautions against terrorism is the same as safety measures on trains and such - we take the safety precautions, so why shouldn't we try to stop terrorism correct?

This is a reasonable conclusion, though I tend to view it more in terms of scale. We have so many dollars and we can put so much in each measure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to prevent terrorism - sure, we keep the airline checks and we keep our eyes peeled for bombs.

The issue I have, is spending billions in wars that are theoretically supposed to protect us from terrorism. I'd say, if we're going to take anti terrorism measures, we should start at home. Or at least, shores closer to home. And we should be willing to consider that perhaps an approach at the end of the gun-barrel is going to piss more people off than it will subdue.

The other issue I have, is western governments shouting Boo! Terrorists! in the lead up to each election. Both sides are going to take basic precautions against terrorists, the reality of western politics these days demands them to. The political fallout in the event of an attack would be too extreme for them not to.

So if you're both going to deal with terrorism in whatever way, then fine. Be quiet.
I'd rather hear about what a proposed government plans to do differently than which one is tougher on terror. Sheesh.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 2:39:40 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
We have had Islamics target us twice at Bali. So I believe we must be alert. Also alarmed if the government keeps allowing unsuitable migrants in who will not understand our ways.
We lived with the fear of invasion during WW2 ,but we never had the danger of Japanese as our neighbours.
If the government is dinkum about security, we should be pleased and make sure they keep it up. Don't kid yourself by thinking it could never happen to you.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 3:04:11 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
The Guardian published a map of "terror" attacks on September 11 this year.

It shows that including the WTC attacks there have been a total of 4,319 people killed by "terr'ists" in 33 attacks all over the world.

Minus the WTC the total is 1429 in Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, the Philipines, Mombassa, Riyadh, Morocco, Istanbul, Madrid, Bangladesh, London, Delhi and Amman with most in Karachi.

Constrast that to the "legitimate" war zones the west has created since that time - conservative numbers.

Iraq - 50,000, Afghanistan 17,500, Israel/Palestine - 4,234, Lebanon 1347, Somalia - 4,450, Philipines - 1158, Chechnya - 12,479, Turkey - 1474.

In other words more people were killed in Turkey alone since September 11, using that as an excuse, than in all the "terror" attacks in all the world since.

Of course the deluded US include the "terror" attacks by the resistance in Iraq in their numbers bringing it up to 19,000 according to the cheer squad in the media.

The cost of our war on terror is $2 trillion. And the so-called plane hijacking threat was a hoax according to a long investigation and the "ring Leaders" seem to be MI5 double agents. Fancy that.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 3:08:16 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 are plenty of historical examples of the usefulness of over-playing terrorism. Goering, looking to consolidate the Nazi’s power in 1933, said: “I know two sorts of men: those who are with us and those who are against us”; and referred to “communist terrorism”.

Ataturk claimed that the 1925 Turkish “Maintenance of Order Law” had “given to all government officials the task of preventing an incident before it happens” and was necessary to repress “those who create confusion in the innocent mind of the nation”. Independence Tribunals, which did not require proof, passing sentences on the basis of “considered opinion”, executed people who opposed Ataturk. One of Ataturk’s critics, Cavit was executed, even though one of Ataturk’s admirers later admitted that “Cavit was not a revolutionary terrorist…. He was patriotic and honest. His only defect was arrogance”.

Following the attempt on his life in 1800, Napoleon said that the actions of the “terrorists …gives us an opportunity for the action we propose to take. It is our duty to profit from the present feeling of indignation”. He then decreed a crack-down on dissent.

Stalin consolidated power in the 1930’s with many people being accused under article 58 of the criminal code concerning “terrorist acts aimed at representatives of the Soviet regime” and/or under the so-called Kirov law on “terrorist organizations and terrorist acts”. Former Politburo members Bukarin and Rykov were accused of being involved with “criminal terrorist” and “right terrorist” groups – and eventually executed. Ordinary workers were executed, without any evidence, for “intention to commit terrorist sabotage”.

Laws against “terrorism” are often introduced in haste, and under the cover of an event – which may be “terrorist” – but which is then hyped-up and distorted to create popular fear. As a famous Soviet miner wrote: “When the (“terrorist”) trials took place ………we immediately demanded that they be shot. Even the women in our settlement, who had never been interested in politics, clenched their fists when they heard what the papers said. The old folk and the young all demanded that the bandits be destroyed.”
Posted by Jeff Schubert, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 3:34:53 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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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