Essay on terrorism...and it's true threat

**Mithrandir** · 06-06-2006, 09:32

Just thought I'd start of my very own controversial thread...

Something I don't quite understand, and very much dislike, is all the hype around terrorism. The law in the US giving up some privacy to "protect the citizens" and other measures is one of the things I hate about it.

Ofcourse it's horrible that 3000 people died in the attack on the WTC, so don't get me wrong, I don't want to make it sound like it was nothing.(same for the 300 in madrid & # in london).

But how many people die each year in traffic? And what's the total percentage of people killed in terrorist attacks?Almost 0%.

The number of alcohol-related fatalities, 15,794, also dropped slightly in 1999 from 15,934 deaths in 1998, according to preliminary estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

(http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm)

around 16000 only from alcohol related accidents in the US.Instead of investing millions in some hunt for Bin Laden

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

wouldn't it be better to invest in tighter traffic control if saving lives is the issue? Or to improve healthcare ?

Personally I would rather have a 0,5% chance of getting killed by a terrorist attack each day than having people listnen into my telephone calls and rather have the chance to be killed but knowing my taxmoney is spent to improve healthcare (the chance I end up in the hospital with a broken neck is much bigger than dying from a terrorist attack).

I dont know if someone has posted anything like this,sorry if it has.Just curious to hear different opinions...

**Fragony** · 06-06-2006, 09:59

Apples and oranges, traffic deaths you control with traffic law and terrorism you control with information, just a matter of picking the right tool. And I think the real trouble with terrorism is not the occasional explosion but the domestic support within some groups, it's a war of ideoligy which is now in our backyards. And it should be dealt with, just like exorbitant alchohol consumption and other things that are not so good for your health.

**x-dANGEr** · 06-06-2006, 10:00

Hmm.. Some very good points round their. I don't support US' invasion on Afghanistan, but I admit it was justified. How much money they spent on it isn't really the meter for the whole issue, US gained many things other than 'Limiting al-Qaída', for once, they now have 'planted' a loyal gov, or as some people like to call it, an ally..

**Duke John** · 06-06-2006, 11:50

I think it has to do with acceptance. People accept that they have a 0.005% chance of dying in traffic, because they think the advantages of cars is worth the risk.
You could probably save alot of lives by limiting the top speed of all cars to 60 km/h. But people much rather drive faster and sacrifice a few lives instead.

The same counts for cigarettes, powerlines, gas stations and further away companies doing ecological and social damage for the greater good in the Western world.

The current benefits are more important than a possible consequence that is mostly invisible. However there is no advantage of having terrorism and thus people do not accept of having people being killed by it. Politicians make (ab)use that.

As a result I find citizens or soldiers being killed a reason to wage a war silly as in that sense you might just as well wage a war on car manufacturers. So a soldier got killed when pratrolling, so what? Yesterday a kid died when crossing a street.

**nokhor** · 06-06-2006, 12:53

you can quantify the billions spent on improving traffic and see a direct correlation with lives saved. the numbers are more opaque with something like terrorism, where the input is coming from outside of your system.

example: say you spent 5 billion on traffic and you save 5000 lives from traffic accidents easy math. but if you spent 5 billion vs terrorism, it's much harder to quantify how many lives you saved because it's much more difficult to know because of plots you foiled, intelligence you gleaned, people you persuaded to your ideology with that money. so your anti terrorrism minister might say, "if you don't spend that 5 billion on terrorism then lives lost will be much greater than the traffic deaths" he can't prove it of course but as a politician, you can't afford to take the risk of ignoring it. how much more destructive would al qaeda be if the US hadn't started the 'war on terror?' no one really knows.

**rory_20_uk** · 06-06-2006, 13:43

There is also the issue of not perhaps what everyone wants, but also what people don't want.

In the UK motorists have on several occasions attacked cameras designed to catch speeders. There argument is not that they are all breaking the law, but merely that they don't like this. Perhaps the unstated addition is that they view the increased possibility of death as acceptable as long as they can drive fast.

If the government were to (for example) legislate so that car manufacturers had to program their cars to never drive over the maximum speed limit this would probably save lives AND be very unpopular.

Guns that require either fingerprint ID to fire or some other security measure would again save lives. Again, unpopular.

Cracking down on alcohol can be done by reducing where it can be inbibed and the price. Again, unpopular.

The government doesn't so much want to save lives as remain elected. Looking at the "bigger picture" is not wanted by most when it means that what they want is affected.

Then there is the issue that to annoy one's sponsors is not a great idea either.

Terror allows the government to give military companies masses of money with the only result the population sees is that nothing happens! Reports of this complex destroyed and a 30% reduction in whatever can be trumpted with no evidence, as a cruise missile strike leaves little to sift over. And no attacks have occurred - that must be the massive increase in spending!