Terrorism in Perspective: The True Magnitude of Terrorism
Sponsored Links
Terrorism in Perspective: The True Magnitude of Terrorism
Submitted by Khalid on Mon, 2005/11/07 - 17:39If one takes a few steps back, and tries to take an objective and pragmatic look at Terrorism, free from the rhetoric of mass media and think tanks with an agenda, we find that its true magnitude is not as large as it feels.
For example, consider the following:
- On September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, around 3,000 people were killed..
- On March 11, 2004 in Madrid, Spain, 191 people were killed.
- On July 7, 2005 in London UK, about 50 people were killed by two bombing attacks.
Compare the above with the casualties of USA and Britain's invasions of Afghanistan (5,000) and Iraq (up to 100,000), the above is statistically insignificant. The above figure pales in comparison with "normal" crimes such as gun fatalities in the USA (16,000 per year), or car accident fatalities. If we venture into fatalities caused by less sensational means, such as poverty, unhealthy situations, terrorism becomes more insignificant.
More recently, Canada's Fintrac, an organization charged with investigating suspicious financial transactions, released a report stating that in 2004 out of $2 Billion total in 2004, only $180 million are suspected to fund terrorism. This shows that the bulk of the money is from "normal" crime, such as drugs, organized crime, money laundering, and the like. Moreover, I have never seen media reports on court cases on terrorism in Canada resulting from reports on previous years.
From the above one can peel away the rhetoric and come to some practical conclusions:
- The media gives disproportionate coverage due to the sensationalist nature of terror acts. In turn, terrorism becaomes ingrained in the psyche of the population.Terrorism terrorizes because of the psychological impact, and the media helps this by over coverage.
- The eroding civil liberties and privacy that ensued after terrorism acts is an over-reaction, but serves to give governments more power, with less oversight.
»
Two wrongs do not make a
Two wrongs do not make a right.
An eye of an eye will make the world blind.
Live by the sword and die by the sword.
What you are saying is it is ok to carry on killing and this makes you as all evil as each other.
Why does noone look for the moral high ground?
Why does noone have the courage to put down the weapons?
http://www.vov.com/experiences/gandhi.html
Am I saying that?
I know that it is hard to write about such an emotionally loaded subject, but I did not expect that people would put words in my mouth.
Did I say "it is OK to carry on killing"?
Please read an important node on the terrorism section.
--
Khalid Baheyeldin
I strongly agree
I am an American. You have put into words thoughts I have felt for years.
I cannot condone terrorist activities, but, to a family in Afghanistan who's father is killed in a futile bombing raid (you do not kill guerrillas with bombs), who is the "terrorist"?
In America, we seem to have a problem understanding that others have their own world view, which is totally true from their perspective.
If we had a Chinese peacekeeping force on our soil, we would resist. I would hope that we would not be blowing up wedding parties or restaurants.
My heart is full, and the words are not flowing well.
Terrorism Defined
Q: When does "collateral damage" or "a preemptive attack" become terrorism?
A: When done by a Muslim!
It is sad that the west that represent less than a 20% of the worlds population can create a definition that is so flawed yet so accepted by the world.
A look at Merriam-Webster's definition would lead one to view an army who bombs cities are being terrorist (see below)...do we have a case of Israel, US and UK calling the kettle black?
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
noun : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror - 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (insurrection and revolutionary terror).
Perspective...
Hi,
How many people should be killed to get make it look big??? I have met people who have told me that (I am from India, a Hindu by birth, an atheist by choice), 100,000 people die every year in road accidents in India, but the 37 deaths of Hindus in Kashmir makes headlines.
But accidents are not terrorist attacks. A few killings, and life becomes miserable. Do not, please, try to whitewash such atrocities. This makes muslims look even worse.
By that logic of perspective, 3800 people have died in Israel-Palestine starting from 2001-2006. Should we say Israeli aggression is benign and palestinian suicide bombings are tolerable because not many die???
Gujarat in India claimed 1000 (maybe more too) muslim lives and another 1000 Hindu lives. Can we say, more people die in India of road accidents and since muslims from 13% of the population, India should not worry about atrocities against muslims but rather focus on regulating traffic???
It takes only a few words to frighten people.
While you might think that I am yet another islam/muslim hater... I can only say that I support reservations (look up in Wikipedia) for muslims in Indian public services, education & jobs.
So please... Do not try to play down violence. Do not shun away from criticism. Only thru self-examination and self-criticism can we make this little planet better.
An untimely death devastates a family. So many unfulfilled dreams, so many geniuses gone in a flash. Who knows my brothers, when 9/11 went down, we might have lost another Einstein???? Never ever try to play the numbers game when it comes to violence. It only weakens your cause.
Regards.
Not whitewashing ...
The question here is not about whitewashing ...
In all cases, be they wars, accidents, disasters and terrorism, lives are lost, yet the official reaction by governments is very different.
The main point is that contrary to accidents and disasters, terrorism is abused/misused by governments to:
a) justify foreign interventions, including wars
b) erode civil liberties
c) gain more power
and much more.
Terrorism is a shock tactic for sure, designed to grab headline. What is sad is the disproportionate response for political gains by the politicians which just plays into the hands of terrorists.
--
Khalid Baheyeldin
I liked the part where you
I liked the part where you said an eye for an eye will leave the world blind. Nicely said, really heavy feelings.
Post new comment