By Changing our way of life, are we defeated? (1 Viewer)

[townie]

I have no article, only reference to current discussion in the wake of the london bombing, but, permit me, perhaps, to write my own little article.

Terrorism, is, at it's core, and evil and cowardly act. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, where i disagree, is that it is the most evil of acts to be committed. Where most of the terror we have experienced has been simple (and i use the term simple lightly) killings, is it such a horror? I can understand the horror people feel at the brutality of torturing another, or raping them, and of course, killing, many people, is horrible, yet, we, and politicians react to it as it is the most evil act in the world. Consequently, there is the discussion of errosion of our civil liberties and rights, and changing how we live. Have not many of our politicians on one day declared we wont change our ways, then the next day declared a raft of changes. I talk of ID cards, new ASIO laws, terror hotlines, suspiscion, and fear. It is only natural to fear something unkown, but, let me try put things into perspective for you.
In the 1999-2000 financial year, 337 people were murdered in Australia
Every MONTH in Australia, between 120-160 people die on our roads.
Cancer kills countless people each year
Suicide kills almost somebody everyday.

I will admit, that not all of these deaths are caused by factors outside the victims control (as is the case with terrorism), but at least, and probably more than half, are. And as a consequence, we do accept some limits on our freedoms. We are required to provide medical information that might be relevant to get a licensce, we are not allowed to drink as much as we want, we are not allowed to smoke wherever we want, the police may bug ur phone if ur a suspected murderer.

This small infrigements, most of us are happy to live with, because they are reasonable. Detaining people without a lawyer, is not reasonable, asking people to carry a card with their complete history on it is not reasonable, all these raft of infirgements in the name of terrorism. Should we change our entire way of life, so that 3000 people may survive, but 20,000,000 have less democracy and freedom. As you can see, steadily, terrorist attacks have killed less people, this is because of planning, more police, more ambulance, more security, it is not because we detained somebody for a week without a lawyer, or raided somebodies house on the off chance they might have information.

So i urge you all, by allowing us to lose, even just that little bit of freedom, we give the terrorists just that little bit more satisfcation. To not give them that satisfaction we must stand up, rise from the ashes, walk the streets, and proclaim, WE ARE FREE, AND WE ARE NOT AFRAID.

 

[heybraham]

you must understand that terrorism is a severe case of existentialism, 'to go out with a bang.'

any breaches of rights and securities only feed that train of despair. u can't 'defeat' a fragile mind by naming it a piece of 'inhuman scum'. nor can you ever become defeated by giving simply concessions and a bit of consideration to terrorists, themselves driven by desperation.

understanding is the only path to resolving anything

 

[011]

So i urge you all, by allowing us to lose, even just that little bit of freedom, we give the terrorists just that little bit more satisfcation. To not give them that satisfaction we must stand up, rise from the ashes, walk the streets, and proclaim, WE ARE FREE, AND WE ARE NOT AFRAID.

All too true. Terrorists thrive on seeing people in states of fear, as one of the points that Al-Qaeda seemed to be boasting in the London bombings is 'spreading fear' to the four 'quarters' of london. But problematically the media is more interested in sensationalizing than representing that beneficial viewpoint at large.

 

[Iron]

Surely terrorists only hurt civilians; People who have personally done nothing offensive or provocative. I think that warrants most of the labels. I'm sure politicians would rather not pretend to care, make Blair attend more acting classes or spend long hours trying to appease public concern. But we demand that they do.
I dont understand how a terrorist would be glad to see counter-terrorism measures employed, unless you believe their soul mission is to make us suffer. That both misses the point and feeds their motives.
Clearly governments must act reasonably to curb terrorism, but you can see the bind they're in. What would you suggest?

 

[loquasagacious]

Well obviously a suicide bomber doesnt usually plan for an attack to cause a tightening in scenario, however that may not be true of higher-level members, who it is concievable (although unlikely) do plan for an attack to cause tightening for two reasons it accelerates the fear a targetted population has and it may encourage sympathisers to become activer supporters.

 

[townie]

i have no problem with anti-terror measures, but anti-terror measures should be more intellgience staff, more police, more security.

NOT ID cards, absurb and draconian powers

 

[Iron]

It's the paradox of the problem. The terrorists look like civilians. To find a terrorist involves civilians.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It depends what you mean by "changing our way of life", if the terrorists intention was to make us create a national card (something that's just absurd), then i don't particulary care if they win. It seems like this article is trying to tell everyone just to ignore it when stuff like this happens.

 

[heybraham]

the greatest threat to 'our security' is the government, not the terrorists. at the way it's going, it really does look like we're speeding on a one way street to the doomesday of revelations...i never did quite imagined the persecuted people to be terrorists, let alone muslims.

 

[mesmo]

[QUOTE:
In the 1999-2000 financial year, 337 people were murdered in Australia
Every MONTH in Australia, between 120-160 people die on our roads.
Cancer kills countless people each year
Suicide kills almost somebody everyday. ]

In terms of threat to Australians, these figures show that the 'terrorist threat' is vastly overstated in comparison to the other dangers that we have come to accept (road deaths, lung cancer from smoking, etc). The dramatic and shocking nature in which terrorist acts are committed obviously instills a sense of fear in the general public - a fear that they could be part of the carnage on TV. The dramatic nature of the attacks make them seem more significant than other, less 'visible' threats to our way of life.

In the bigger picture, especially in Australia, the threat to Australians of dying from a terrorist attack is very very low. This has obviously raised the question as to why so much attention is paid to it.

I think one thing missing from the current debate about the threat posed to the 'Western' world by terrorism, is the threat that the West has posed to the rest of the world for the last 50 years. Western intervention and US violence in the Third World (including the Middle East) may go some way to explaining the ideology espoused by terrorists. If I grew up in Latin America or the Middle East I think I could be excused for believing that Americans were the enemies of my people.

good pts in the article, btw

 

[happy cup]

It's amazing how quicky London went back to 'normal' after the bombings. The cricket game went on right after it happened and they even won the match. Great article.

 

[townie]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/li...-war-on-bombers/2005/07/22/1121539155015.html

Denegrate me all you want, but i will stand here and declare

TERRORISM IS NOT A HUGE THREAT, it doesnt kill that many people!

 

[transcendent]

well Britain and American are introducing draconian measures and it looks like Australia is going to follow suit.

 

[transcendent]

sorry that was what the article in SMH said. not my opinion.

 

[withoutaface]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/li...-war-on-bombers/2005/07/22/1121539155015.html

Denegrate me all you want, but i will stand here and declare

TERRORISM IS NOT A HUGE THREAT, it doesnt kill that many people!

It doesn't kill that many people now, but even if we look at just recent weeks the amount of terrorism being carried out is increasing at an alarming rate. As much as you would like to believe that the world is the same now as it was before 11/9/2001, it isn't, and ignoring an obvious threat will do nothing to stop it growing.

 

[townie]

i dont want to ignore it, but i think there are better ways of fighting terrorism then allowing ASIO to hold somebody without a lawyer for however long it is, etc.

 

[Calculon]

i dont want to ignore it, but i think there are better ways of fighting terrorism then allowing ASIO to hold somebody without a lawyer for however long it is, etc.

Such as...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Such as...

omg u fool if we got out of iraq and started giving the terrorists money for skools they'd stop bombing us.

you obviously know nothing.

edit: I question the idea that justified change is wrong. Terrorists haven't killed many people however as far as human nature goes, purposefuly setting out to bomb innocents is one of the worst things that happens. Do you really think that just because the numbers are 'low' now that it's any less of a threat?

 

[loquasagacious]

No one goes out with the intention of bombing innocents (except psychopaths - which suicide bombers are not). In the mind of a terrorist suicide bombing must be artionalised just as we rationalise evry action that we take. The obvious rationale being that suicide bombing achieves a greater good ie freedom of palestinians, iraqis, muslims in general, punishes heathen westerners, etc etc. Suicide bombing is undertaken as the culmination of a rational logical chain of events and reasoning.

Indeed I would argue that suicide bombing is a far more rational and thought out activity than american actions in vietnam. Suicide bombers being volunteers as opposed to conscripts mean that they must have sufficient reason within themselves to join a 'terrorist' movement. Also to knowingly take onesown life on a mission against the enemy must be an action accorded far more weight than carpet bombing from a thousand feet up.

The final point is one we honour in our own popular culture, who in popular culture is more noble than he who will sacrifice himself in a suicide mission for the greater good? First example that springs to mind is stargate atalantis at the series end the male lead goes off on a suicide mission and is accorded instant respect from begrudging superiors (sorry if I spoiled it for anyone). Second perhaps more universal example is The Dirty Dozen a rag tag group of misfits achieves salvationa nd nobility through the sacrifice of their own lives in a suicide mission.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok..... so they rationalise their views, are you telling me that the insane don't rationalise jumping off a building?