TED Conversations

Irfan Noori

Project Manager, Icon Constech (P) Limited

This conversation is closed.

Is really Unemployment is a reason to join terrorism or an excuse??

For the first Time I totally disagree with the facts by TED. How come we can give unemployment the reason of Terrorism. Charles Kingsley Once Tod that "NO-ONE KNOWS WHAT HE CAN DO, UNTIL HE TRIES"
I mean in today's era of high end needs and technology,it true that unemployment is growing fast and people are getting frustrated but terrorism is definitely not an option. Terrorism is not just a phenomena, its the sick mindset, its like a mental disease,
Nothing can justify of be a reason for terrorism. and even if Unemployment is somehow linked to it, the How can we justify the people with much higher paid salary and have so much riches, and still promoting terror.?????


Closing Statement from Irfan Noori

I am really thankful to all of you for sharing your intellect with me
this conversation, some how Inspires me doing what is being needed in today's era
The best enlightenment with the word TERRORISM
I just use to see its one aspect only
now i can see its diversification.
I thank you all for your support.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 24 2013: It seems you are not familiar with the relativistic aspect of the term 'terrorism' and that it is a strategy, a tactic, which can only be used, yet never joined.

    Try to join a 'castling' in chess and you may know what I mean and it may also become clear, that the calling for 'war on terror' is not just plain stupid, yet also draws strong correlations to fight windmills and the mindset it takes for such a venture... :o)

    To what terrorists are you specifically referring to? And why as terrorists and not as freedom fighters, as which they can also be seen, depending from which side of the barricade you are looking from?

    Did you know that members of the French Resistance were seen as terrorists in Nazi Germany at that time of German occupation of France? And do you think that Nazi Germany was right in naming them as such?

    To think of just one reason as the source of resistance, or terrorism is quite naive I would say, yet blends nicely in the overall simplification about it.

    Any resistance I know of has a reason to use asymmetric warfare strategies to get their goals realized and as soon as you call someone a terrorist, yet don't know about his/hers original reasons and goals, you can be very certain about the fact, that you yourself have been manipulated by 'your' side (including media & government).

    I am pretty surprised how little people actually know about a specific 'terror' and about the 'other story' of those who use this strategy, as to understand a conflict, how can they ever side when they know only one side of the coin?

    What if 'we' are part of the reason for 'their' resistance?

    And isn't it interesting, that comparable levels of terror and brutal violence of drug cartels in Mexico and/or Honduras is not coined the same way? Maybe because there is less political motivation involved to use the term terrorists?

    So we may start asking those we call terrorists, why they do what they do, and maybe this understanding becomes then part of solutions?
    • thumb
      Nov 24 2013: Explaining your point is good.
      To elaborate I'd like to remind you about Nelson Mandela
      He was assumed and treated as terrorist and later he was awarded Noble prize for peace for the same.......

      So let us acquire real definition of Terrorism::
      Going Against the government rules of Protesting for freedom.... I simply don't considering it as terrorism


      making these cause as a mere excuse and then creating fear among innocent rather to government.... Is it really justified

      Secondly, i am well aware of chess and castling, so can you please tell me to save the game is their any provision to go off the board or moving a rook diagonally, making a knight to step back, or bishop straight???

      same is with the life, we've to see the limitations and value them...
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2013: Is collateral damage justifiable? I think, it isn't, yet seems widely tolerated amongst the 'good guys' and their crusade for 'humanity' ... aka resources ...

        Terror as strategy is currently not available in international chess rules and one of the reasons may well be, that this war game is plain symmetric - at least at its beginning.

        Also the definition of 'innocents' has always been difficult at times of war and many civilians have been and will be directly targeted by regular soldiers. May this be to destroy the general moral (which usually doesn't work, on the contrary) or because military targets are embedded within civil infrastructure, which they usually are.

        From a humanistic standpoint it doesn't make any difference if a civilian dies by a suicide bomb attack, or because the GPS coordinates of his place of death got coincidentally close to a cruise missile 'surgery' attack. The result is the same, and both could be named terror.

        To what specific terror are you referring to?
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2013: Not both could be, indeed both are the forms of terror,
      and terror in global scenario can not be limited by some specification,
      In my perception. Terrorism can not be tagged solely to one end, it is joined and interconnected with both ends.
      U've some differences the fight in between yourself, why the hell there are innocent like on stake, it doesn't matter to me that the source of death is by some shithead suicide bomber or by the most pathetic drones, it should and must be limited to their entity and compulsory out of bound from the innocent lives.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.