This conversation is closed.

If terrorism and WMD are such a threat, what are the causes?

Terrorism is the "greatest threat of the 21st century". But only according to the US, the UK, and media, news, we hear the word "terrorism" many times almost every day.
Nobody has benefitted more from terrorism than the US, the UK, and Israel. They use terrorism as an excuse to change the law, giving more power to the authorities and withdrawing freedoms from the people. They use terrorism as an excuse to attack and conquer foreign lands. They exploit our fear to win support.
by the wuy next time you leave your house, beware, because crossing the road is many hundreds of thousands of times more of a threat to your life than terrorism.

  • Oct 17 2013: i believe that the conversation was very obvious,that we can immediately understand the issue meanwhile the reasons-causes-behind this...
    a perfect lie cannot live for ever , we cannot stop terrorism if we didnt stop the monster inside us pretending what we are not ,soon or later the lines well be clearer.

    Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).
    "Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding-place." --Isaiah 28:17.

    the point is we have the power.... but we need a strong perception besides honest people who can take care of us and make sure that evry one well get what he deserve.
    sadly our people dealt with the devil...can we defy them & say stop;no more lies no more suffer no more terrorism,from the president of the united state to the poorer and weekless person on the earth.we are not fool but we are humain.
  • Oct 15 2013: Its not quite that simple.

    A few terrorist attacks can destabilize a country both economically and politically much more thoroughly than say, traffic accidents, despite having a much smaller death toll.
    Where you live also makes for a pretty big difference. Terrorism is a major problem in countries like Israel. In places like the US and UK, not so much.

    As for WMDs, chemical weapons really aren't all they're made out to be, but biological and nuclear weapons on the other hand, are a threat to civilization itself. The fact that neither have been deployed on any real scale since WWII makes that easy to forget.
    • Oct 16 2013: Mr Nadav
      i agree,but what i cant understand is that you mentioned that places like UK & US dosnt consider terrorism as massive your own view, (why??)
      have you heard about Culture of fear is a term used by certain scholars, writers, journalists and politicians who believe that some in society(gov.US-UK) incite fear in the general public to achieve political goals
      it is used to describe fears about Islamic terrorism which, it is argued on the one hand that are fears that are usually exaggerated or irrational in nature-
      is islam means terrorism????whose in charge of spreading weapons around the world don't tell me people from the third world,don't tell me egypt,syrianpalestine & so on..its a wonderfull trick to come down with musilms ans week people all around the world so they can ensure that they are the only rulers
    • Comment deleted

      • Oct 16 2013: I'm not saying its not considered a massive problem, I'm saying its not actually a massive problem in the US and the UK. Reality and perception of reality are two very different things.
        If you look at the record of terror attacks in both countries, you'll find incidents to be few and far apart. Which is why terrorism hasn't done much to either country's stability. Personally, I find the efforts to stamp it out to be completely out of proportion.

        I find the whole "war on terror" campaign idiotic. Whats the precise objective? What's the end goal that lets you know you're done? How does one declare war on an abstract concept anyway?
        There may be a conspiracy involved, though personally, I suspect simple incompetence. Invading Iraq in 2003 was a stupid mistake, and attempting to stabilize Afghanistan didn't turn out much better.

        In a country like Israel on the other hand, where terror attacks are frequent and ever present (a bit less in recent years, but that can change in a heartbeat), you've got a different picture.
        Terrorism's real damage to a nation isn't the people killed--great personal tragedies, perhaps, but they don't put a dent in demographics. The damage done to economies is tremendous (you don't invest in locals perceived as dangerous), as is the driving political force--frequent enough terrorism radicalizes the recipient, which comes with all sorts of nasty consequences for everyone involved.

        This is terrorism's real threat. It may be of Islamic origin, but there are also plenty of non-Islamic terror groups, of both religious and secular colors. And regardless of why, those whom practice terrorism need to be dealt with harshly, and if possible, in a preemptive manner before most of the damage is done.

        I have no problem with countries like Egypt, Lebanon, or Syria or Palestine (even if the last two aren't exactly de-facto countries at the moment, but bear with me).
        I have a problem with organizations that practice terror within them, like Hezbollah.
    • thumb
      Oct 16 2013: Nadav, if 'destabilize a country both economically and politically' was the real concern about terrorism, why do those countries who declared 'war on terrorism' didn't learn from the latest economic meltdown?

      If those countries keep allowing private companies to be 'to big to fail', they are willingly accepting the risks that those companies will again destabilize their economical and political systems to the very core.

      By this, the burst of the US housing bubble was far more destructive than 9/11 by levels of magnitude.

      So your argument can not explain why the 'threat of terrorism' was enough to take private freedom away from the people, yet the systematic economic meltdown didn't change anything how business is done.

      If economical and political stability was 'our' real concern, we would not have any more 'to big to fail' company anywhere in the western world since 2007. Yet we still have them, all of them, and not even any regulations whatsoever have been put in place to make the capitalistic market any saver.

      So no, economical and political stability is not the reason and the true agenda remains quite that simple.
      • Oct 16 2013: My response to this would be remarkably similar to the response to the post above, so I'll just direct you to that.

        Shame to have to copy and paste nearly 2000 characters. Clogs up the page.
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2013: I found the comment, thank you.

          Regarding your view that 'the whole "war on terror" campaign (is) idiotic' we are on the same page, again, so it seems we are collecting good reasons to celebrate one day what we have in common. :o)

          Yet this day got postponed by your view on what you consider a nation to be.

          In short words, a nation to you is its economy alone, its people a personal tragedy.

          So the purpose of the Israeli army is not to protect their people, its to protect corporations, right?

          Wow ... at least someone speaks open about it!

          I highly disagree with this!
      • Oct 16 2013: Not my intention in the slightest.
        I meant that terrorism's greatest threats are the economic and political side of things. In terms of simple body count, we've already established that we've all got much bigger things to worry about, like traffic accidents, even in terror prone countries like Israel (current average stands on twice as may deaths per year in traffic than in wars and terror combined in the country, and Israel is well above the average for the developed world).

        A nation's ability to say, provide better healthcare or safer infrastructure has nothing to do with its counter terrorism division in anything other than budget allocations.

        One must also remember that the economic side of things saves lives just fine in the long run. An economy in shambles means less money to throw around, which means poorer infrastructure, healthcare, security, and all those other tidbits that a nation does to save lives, among other things.
        And of course, any direct nation to the state as a state, usually a war, though not always, can lead to a deterioration in stability which will kill many more people in the long run.

        Defending the economy and political stability isn't just about greed and government self perpetuation. It actually does save lives and increases everyone's standards of living, even if its not evident immediately.
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2013: Then I understood your words and intention wrong and apologize for it.

          The question now remains, what to do against terrorism on the long run?

          Terrorism to me is a violent form of disagreement, a violent form of communication.

          If that was true, could you imagine preventive measures for this not to happen in the first place? And could you think of ways to restart a communication process which obviously didn't find sufficient compromises?
      • Oct 16 2013: The most overarching solution is the fundamental premise that people are a lot less likely to turn to violence if their quality of life is good enough. Aside from the odd lunatic (which are thankfully only a small minority of any population), only desperate people turn to desperate measures. Mutual economic cooperation is a big help, as is locking up all the more outspoken violent radicals (in Israel we have laws against calling out for someone or some group's murder for example, despite freedom of speech).
        In essence, a content population and economic prosperity reduce violence in general, and terrorism specifically.

        Of course, raising your enemy's standards of living is rarely a practical option for where terrorism has already taken root.
        In that case, one must draw a fine line between violent elimination of terrorists, and creating more terrorists through collateral damage which is an unavoidable result of such a campaign. Good intelligence, precision strikes, cutting off terrorist's foreign funding, and diplomacy where possible (it often isn't) all serve a major role here.

        A willingness to get your hands dirty is also necessary, but its equally crucial to keep your goal in mind, and remembering not to get carried away. A clear, well defined set of objectives does wonders in helping (say, 'wiping out Al-Qaeda's operational and financial network' as opposed to 'let's invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and see where it goes from there'), which is where the 'war on terror' has failed spectacularly.
  • thumb
    Oct 15 2013: Exactly! You got it right!

    It takes one look on how many people die in car accidents in those countries compared to terrorist attacks, and how much budget is spent on 'anti terror programs' and 'street safety'.

    Its a perfect example of mis-perception, real concerns and real agendas.
    • Oct 16 2013: how can we avoid that?????
      • thumb
        Oct 16 2013: By education, reasoning and public discussion.

        The current 'fear propaganda' didn't happen for no reason and the 'war on terrorism' was needed to fill the gap of the cold war threat, which, by the fall of the Soviet Union, simply disappeared.

        It is easier for any authority to rule a fearful majority, and if there is no obvious threat, it gets 'invented'.

        To avoid that, the change of perspective got to happen from the bottom up, as it is not expected that the media nor authority has any interest for a top down approach. On the contrary.

        To me it doesn't make any difference, if a family dies in an terrorist attack or by a drunken driver, as both was unnecessary in the first place. And the differences in 'intention' becomes irrelevant the moment you compare statistical numbers.

        The question got to be what risks is a society willing to accept and what is done to reduce them.

        This discussion has to happen in between the people of which you are part as well. Inform your friends, confront them with with this question, give them comparative data, so that they come to see whats going on. Only this way the 'internal pressure' within a society rises high enough when it comes about the 'reduction of personal freedom' for the sake to fight terrorism and it will become more and more difficult for a ruling authority to get away with 'classified information' about a vague threat.

        It also helps to study the basic principles of asymmetric warfare to get to see the absurdity and the dangers for freedom of the chosen approach. Make it public, spread the word.