Comments on: Is Terrorism a Bigger Threat than AIDs or Malaria? http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids The Internationalist Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:53:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Juan Moment http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-267 Juan Moment Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:58:46 +0000 http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-267 <p align="justify">Nice post Dmitri, clearly demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy of the west. There is a correlation between what happens in far away places and at home. Terrorism in Europe or North America is a result of events in the Middle East. To a lesser degree, but nevertheless a factor in the rise of extremist reactions to western attempts of domination, is the overall perception the West gives to the rest of the world. </p>   <p align="justify">By keeping on making zillions of profits, much of it on the back of the poor in this world, and then spending only a measly amount on foreign aid, we paint the picture of a greedy Western culture, which spares crumbs for the hungry and sick of this world, whilst living in luxury and spending obscene sums on weapons. </p>   <p align="justify">And in my humble opinion, that is exactly the climate in which religious fundamentalism of any breed flourishes, creating a direct relationship between the ruthless aspects of Western culture and Terrorism, the later being the result of the first.</p>   <p align="justify">If out of the $250 billion spent on "fighting" terrorism, * 25 would have been spend on fixing up destroyed Palestine and Lebanon, feeding and clothing its people, * 25 on doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, * 25 on building schools and teachers in Third World countries, * and another 50 billion on global water sanitation, malaria and AIDS (to name a few), the money would have created a better outcome. </p>   <p align="justify">Effectively spending half the Terror budget on positive signals, you'd still had plenty of cash to find the baddies, but with the goodwill shown through the humanitarian other half, you'd probably reduce the number of terrorist recruits, meaning not creating as many terrorists in the first place, by partly removing one of the main attractions to their cause.</p> Nice post Dmitri, clearly demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy of the west. There is a correlation between what happens in far away places and at home. Terrorism in Europe or North America is a result of events in the Middle East. To a lesser degree, but nevertheless a factor in the rise of extremist reactions to western attempts of domination, is the overall perception the West gives to the rest of the world.

 

By keeping on making zillions of profits, much of it on the back of the poor in this world, and then spending only a measly amount on foreign aid, we paint the picture of a greedy Western culture, which spares crumbs for the hungry and sick of this world, whilst living in luxury and spending obscene sums on weapons.

 

And in my humble opinion, that is exactly the climate in which religious fundamentalism of any breed flourishes, creating a direct relationship between the ruthless aspects of Western culture and Terrorism, the later being the result of the first.

 

If out of the $250 billion spent on “fighting” terrorism,
* 25 would have been spend on fixing up destroyed Palestine and Lebanon, feeding and clothing its people,
* 25 on doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan,
* 25 on building schools and teachers in Third World countries,
* and another 50 billion on global water sanitation, malaria and AIDS (to name a few),
the money would have created a better outcome.

 

Effectively spending half the Terror budget on positive signals, you’d still had plenty of cash to find the baddies, but with the goodwill shown through the humanitarian other half, you’d probably reduce the number of terrorist recruits, meaning not creating as many terrorists in the first place, by partly removing one of the main attractions to their cause.

]]> By: Aby http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-258 Aby Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:16:50 +0000 http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-258 <p align="justify">I agree with Lifuchi above in this aspect, threat perception depends on the location. Terrorism will always have a greater coverage because terrorism is something much more real and more fearsome than malaria in Europe, Asia or USA. As long as public perceives terrorism as a greater threat, governments will have to allocate a larger budget to weed out terrorism from home countries rather than fight malaria in distant continents.</p> I agree with Lifuchi above in this aspect, threat perception depends on the location. Terrorism will always have a greater coverage because terrorism is something much more real and more fearsome than malaria in Europe, Asia or USA. As long as public perceives terrorism as a greater threat, governments will have to allocate a larger budget to weed out terrorism from home countries rather than fight malaria in distant continents.

]]> By: Lifuchi http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-257 Lifuchi Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:47:58 +0000 http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/terrorism-bigger-threat-than-aids#comment-257 I guess it depends where in the world you are. In Africa AIDS is the biggest threat to societies. This is because Malaria has been around so long that our doctors have mastered how to cure it. We don't really have a problem of terrorism, at least not here in Southern Africa. What a topic! Good stuff. I guess it depends where in the world you are. In Africa AIDS is the biggest
threat to societies. This is because Malaria has been around so long that our
doctors have mastered how to cure it. We don’t really have a problem of terrorism, at least not here in Southern Africa. What a topic! Good stuff.

]]>