Log in

View Full Version : The threat of Terrorism



Struggle
3rd June 2011, 01:59
This is an alternative perspective of terrorism, when compared, in my opinion, to the norm in Capitalist society. All credit goes to Professor Richard Jackson of Aberystwyth University, whom wrote this article. I strongly recommend many of you read it.




10 Things More Likely to Kill You Than Terrorism

The US government has spent over two trillion dollars fighting terrorism since 2001, and the UK, EU and many other countries have spent tens of billions more. On this evidence, you would think that terrorism poses a serious threat to human life and each one of us runs a real risk of dying in a terrorist attack on a daily basis. You would be completely wrong. The chances of you dying in a terrorist attack are in the range of 1 in 80,000, or about the same chance of being killed by a meteor. If you take into account the few thousand people killed every year in terrorist incidents, the location of those attacks in a few countries, the world’s population, and other causes of death, you will find that the following list of things are statistically much more dangerous to your continued existence than terrorism:

1. Bathtubs and toilets – more than 300 people drown in their bathtubs and toilets every year in the US alone, presumably after bouts of alcohol. In the US at least, more people have died from drowning in the bath since 9/11 than in terrorist attacks.

2. Vending machines – although the total number of people killed by vending machines (presumably when they are shaking it to get their money back and it falls on them) is not greater than the average number of people killed by terrorism year on year, there are many years and many places in the world where they kill more people than terrorism. In the 1980s, for example, more people died from vending machines than died from terrorism in the US and Canada.

3. Animals such as deer, kangaroos, reindeer, crocodiles, hippos, snakes and other wild animals – admittedly, most of these deaths are not caused directly by the animal, but due to the road accidents they cause. In Australia, a kangaroo killed a man in 1936, which is one more person than terrorists have killed on Australian soil. The same applies to reindeer accidents in Scandinavia. In the UK, people are killed by cows on a fairly regular basis. Of course, we are not including the deaths caused by domestic pets, especially dangerous dog breeds.

4. Insects such as bees, spiders, scorpions and especially mosquitoes – while dozens of people die from allergic reactions to bees or from poisonous spiders and scorpions every year, it is mosquitoes that kill around three million people per year through the transmission of malaria. Next time you’re swatting a mosquito, you can be assured that you are engaged in a war against an enemy that is far more deadly than terrorists!

5. DIY – thousands are killed every year, and tens of thousands injured, in DIY accidents. If you’re ever tempted to fix up your own house, try to remember that you’ve just become a greater danger to yourself and those around you than terrorists.

6. Alcohol – more than 15,000 people per year die from alcohol poisoning and disease in the UK alone, which is far more than those killed in terrorist attacks across the whole world. Think about that next time you raise a glass.

7. Lightning – around 24,000 people per year are killed in lightning strikes, and many more injured. This number is a great deal higher than terrorism.

8. Hospitals – around 100,000 people a year die from preventable medical errors in the US (that is more in a single month than died on 9/11), while another 100,000 die from hospital infections. In other words, if you have to go to the hospital for any reason, you are far more likely to be killed by a doctor or a nurse than by a terrorist!

9. Car – around two million people per year die in automobile accidents, and dying in an accident while out driving is one of the most likely causes of death today at odds of 1 in 5,000.

10. Yourself – tens of thousands of people commit suicide every year in the US alone, which means that you are more at risk of getting depressed and killing yourself than you are of getting caught up in a deadly terrorist incident. Of course, this does not include those people that kill themselves while undertaking a terrorist attack.

You will note that this list does not include the more obvious tens of millions killed every year by poverty, global warming, cancer and heart disease, smoking, HIV-AIDS, guns and small arms, domestic violence, government repression, natural disasters like earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes, pandemics, war and genocide. The point is that on the list of things which can kill you, and which are a real risk to human life and well-being, terrorism comes somewhere close to the very bottom.

Although it seems humorous to mention deaths caused by vending machines and lightning, there are serious questions to be asked. How is it that something which is statistically insignificant as a real cause of death can lead to such widespread fear and hysteria that our governments are willing to invest truly vast amounts of scarce resources, and change our entire way of life, to try and protect us from it? Why is the world willing to engage in a ‘war on terrorism’, but not a ‘war on bees’, a ‘war on lightning’ or a ‘war on suicide’? What are the forces at work which keep this costly exercise in terrorism-death prevention going? Who benefits from the billions spent on counter-terrorism? More importantly, what does it say about our society’s values and priorities that preventing a single death from terrorism commands vastly greater investment and attention than preventing thousands of deaths from domestic violence, and millions of deaths from poverty, guns, hospital infections, and the like? I guess some causes of death are more important than others – although probably not to the dead.

(Actually, I try to answer these questions in chapter six of my latest book.)

Tabarnack
5th June 2011, 19:50
Terrorism is counterproductive, it only serves the interest of the ruling class, justifying the use of repression and war, therefore consolidating it's power and control ...well then I guess it's not counterproductive to the oligarchs...

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

Hermann Goering

Cui bono

Heathen Communist
7th June 2011, 08:20
The worst part about terrorism is that we always fall for it and end up throwing power and money at the state out of blind fear. Sickening.

Old Mole
7th June 2011, 08:32
He should have mentioned injuries and sickness caused by work resulting in the death of the worker, Im pretty sure thats a quite common death cause.... But maybe we should call it terrorism.

Red_Devotchka
7th June 2011, 08:52
well, of course it's easier to control masses making them believe that they have a problem and you have the solution.

W1N5T0N
7th June 2011, 09:22
I think what Noam Chomsky says about this matter in his book "Media Control" is also very interesting.

From an interview:

Chomsky: "It's close to a historical universal that the term "terror" is used for their terror against us and our clients, not our terror against them. Heads of states can qualify as "terrorists," when they are official enemies."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm

Basically, when its "the west" putting terror or financing terror in "villain states", its not terror, its "defending the free world". From the perspective of, for example, taliban leaders etc. Its of course the same, just replace "the west" with "the muslim world". Neither are actually acting in the interest of the people, just their own twisted interests.

tbasherizer
7th June 2011, 19:41
I would go so far as to say that for all intents and purposes, terrorism doesn't exist as an entity. I'm sure that you've all arrived at this conclusion, but to fight terrorism is like fighting the concept of aerial warfare, or the use of artillery: nonsense. Don't get me wrong, those things are terrible, but to fight them in the sense of putting a state or system states in the ring with such abstractions is where the nonsense comes in.

In a way, it's heartening that the bourgeoisie have to be so absurd to coax their respective nations into war. No longer is it good enough to tell them 'That other nation is out to get you! Get them first!', but they have to make up enemies to go after. Sure, this isn't the case in less advanced countries- countries in equatorial Africa still fight conventional wars against each other for more conventional reasons. There is of course a geopolotical argument to be made as to the root cause if these wars, but that is for another thread and another post. That being said, the fact that the most powerful empire the world has ever known has to chase a ghost to fulfill the needs of it's ruling class is interesting.