Full Version: Thinking about Terrorism
The question for debate is:
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
[/quote]
It's because it's the politically expedient enemy to have now at this stage of world/political history.
I always thought this, that it was because of the stage of civilization that we are at and the nature of politics, that the nature of politics is about the advancment of power, while the stage at which power is at at this point in history, for one power to dominate the world over is it's next logical step.
That makes "terrorism" politically expedient.
It's like the conspiricists say about one world government and all that. I think that in order to pursue the object of global power, you need an enemy that can show up anywhere. If you want to be able to justify attacking anyplace in the world, "terrorism" gives you the workable pretext.
They did say that the "war on terrorism" is a war on "terrorists" the world over. Since their plans are for Global dominance, it's no surprise that the "enemy" isn't geographically tied down.
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
[/quote]
It's because it's the politically expedient enemy to have now at this stage of world/political history.
I always thought this, that it was because of the stage of civilization that we are at and the nature of politics, that the nature of politics is about the advancment of power, while the stage at which power is at at this point in history, for one power to dominate the world over is it's next logical step.
That makes "terrorism" politically expedient.
It's like the conspiricists say about one world government and all that. I think that in order to pursue the object of global power, you need an enemy that can show up anywhere. If you want to be able to justify attacking anyplace in the world, "terrorism" gives you the workable pretext.
They did say that the "war on terrorism" is a war on "terrorists" the world over. Since their plans are for Global dominance, it's no surprise that the "enemy" isn't geographically tied down.
[quote=Evals,Nov 17 2005, 09:01 AM]
The question for debate is:
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
You also presume that the politcal/economic powers are motivated by regard for the general welfare of all the people. Of course that is always the pretext under which the political pursue thier aims, but the examples you gave for instance, are examples of this pretext being just that, just a pretext. If the general welfare of human life were actually the aim, then this disproportion you've noticed would not exist.
The question for debate is:
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
You also presume that the politcal/economic powers are motivated by regard for the general welfare of all the people. Of course that is always the pretext under which the political pursue thier aims, but the examples you gave for instance, are examples of this pretext being just that, just a pretext. If the general welfare of human life were actually the aim, then this disproportion you've noticed would not exist.
QUOTE
(Evals)
You also presume that the politcal/economic powers are motivated by regard for the general welfare of all the people. Of course that is always the pretext under which the political pursue thier aims, but the examples you gave for instance, are examples of this pretext being just that, just a pretext. If the general welfare of human life were actually the aim, then this disproportion you've noticed would not exist.
You also presume that the politcal/economic powers are motivated by regard for the general welfare of all the people. Of course that is always the pretext under which the political pursue thier aims, but the examples you gave for instance, are examples of this pretext being just that, just a pretext. If the general welfare of human life were actually the aim, then this disproportion you've noticed would not exist.
I presume your comments are directed toward me since I started this topic. I don't particularly disagree with your statement but why did you frame it so negatively? My purpose in starting the topic was to prod ADers to think about the disproportionate fear that had been stirred up around terrorism and hopefully to resist the use of that fear as a tool to manipulate them in the future. If you read my posts under the topic my views will be clear to you.
The question for debate is:
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
[/quote]
Obviously the other issues are important but only Terrorism has the potential to kill Americans well out of proportion to other threats and predicting and preventing significant casualties is difficult.
For example in 1997 the city of San Francisco commissioned a study to predict the result of an anthrax attack in the downtown area using weaponized anthrax (such as that made in Iraq and elsewhere). The result of the study was that within hours of the release over a million people would be infected and IF the attack was discovered and IF people could be prevented from leaving the city (panic) and treated ONLY 12% of them would be sure to die.
Here is another study from 2002:
A little-noticed study ponders the unthinkable: What would happen if a terrorist unleashed a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon in the nation's most populous state?
The answer is as chilling as the question: In a worst-case scenario, as many as 3 million Californians would perish.
The study by the Santa Monica-based RAND Institute, commissioned by state legislative leaders, was written with an eye to helping California prepare for an attack by a terrorist armed with a weapon of mass destruction.
Anthrax and other lethal biological agents pose the biggest danger in the wrong hands -- far worse than a small nuclear device or a chemical attack with a ton of sarin gas, the substance used in a 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, the RAND study found.
In a worst-case scenario, a nuclear or chemical attack in San Francisco, San Diego or Los Angeles would kill as many as 80,000 people. But 220 pounds of anthrax, if properly dispersed under optimum conditions, would cover 180 square miles. Deaths could reach in the millions.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1910EDT0139.DTL
Why does terrorism receive a disproportionate portion of public resources and attention over other threats to human life?
[/quote]
Obviously the other issues are important but only Terrorism has the potential to kill Americans well out of proportion to other threats and predicting and preventing significant casualties is difficult.
For example in 1997 the city of San Francisco commissioned a study to predict the result of an anthrax attack in the downtown area using weaponized anthrax (such as that made in Iraq and elsewhere). The result of the study was that within hours of the release over a million people would be infected and IF the attack was discovered and IF people could be prevented from leaving the city (panic) and treated ONLY 12% of them would be sure to die.
Here is another study from 2002:
A little-noticed study ponders the unthinkable: What would happen if a terrorist unleashed a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon in the nation's most populous state?
The answer is as chilling as the question: In a worst-case scenario, as many as 3 million Californians would perish.
The study by the Santa Monica-based RAND Institute, commissioned by state legislative leaders, was written with an eye to helping California prepare for an attack by a terrorist armed with a weapon of mass destruction.
Anthrax and other lethal biological agents pose the biggest danger in the wrong hands -- far worse than a small nuclear device or a chemical attack with a ton of sarin gas, the substance used in a 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, the RAND study found.
In a worst-case scenario, a nuclear or chemical attack in San Francisco, San Diego or Los Angeles would kill as many as 80,000 people. But 220 pounds of anthrax, if properly dispersed under optimum conditions, would cover 180 square miles. Deaths could reach in the millions.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1910EDT0139.DTL
Well, to me a simple point is this. Think of all the information there is to know about anything anymore. I have dictionaries of most all the natural sciences, reading through such, and then of course having little talks with people like this on issues that would relate, you can see how much stuff is simply not known when making an educated statement. So giving terrorism, how many books of information do you think could exist on that one alone, not to mention all that which is not known for book purposes.
I think it just basically boils down to terrorists like to attack civilians, because for there goals they cannot complete such with force by other means. So that means you are in danger say shopping for an ipod in New York city in the middle of the day...
Plus the whole thing with weapons like nukes and biologically/chemical weapons, it has a bit of a different ring to it then say being mugged for your wallet, or being killed by some drunk driver, that’s to common a way to die maybe.
I think it just basically boils down to terrorists like to attack civilians, because for there goals they cannot complete such with force by other means. So that means you are in danger say shopping for an ipod in New York city in the middle of the day...
Plus the whole thing with weapons like nukes and biologically/chemical weapons, it has a bit of a different ring to it then say being mugged for your wallet, or being killed by some drunk driver, that’s to common a way to die maybe.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.