50 Years Ago When Harold Wilson Was In...
ChatterBank1 min ago
terrorism
5 Answers
what is the percentage of people in the world that have been directly and indirectly affected by terrorism?? Its really urgent i need it for an essay thanx!
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by laxaly. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who can say ?
I am very upset by the bombings in the UK on 7/7 and also by the twin towers 9/11 so I have been indirectly affected.
It could be argued that the whole population of the UK was indirectly efected by 7/7, and the whole world by 9/11.
Also terrorism goes back to the 70s and 80s with the IRA but also ETA in Spain, and various other groups around the world.
This is an impossible thing to put any numbers on.
I am very upset by the bombings in the UK on 7/7 and also by the twin towers 9/11 so I have been indirectly affected.
It could be argued that the whole population of the UK was indirectly efected by 7/7, and the whole world by 9/11.
Also terrorism goes back to the 70s and 80s with the IRA but also ETA in Spain, and various other groups around the world.
This is an impossible thing to put any numbers on.
I agree it's almost impossible to determine. For a start, what do you mean by terrorism?
According to the CIA's defintiion, 'terrorism' is a tactic designed to achieve political aims through terrorising civilian populations. Thus terrorism has been used by states as well as stateless groups such as the IRA or al Queda or ETA etc.
Almost everyone would agree that the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton was an act of terrorism. Ditto 9/11.
to be as contentious as possible, what about the US's bombing of the Sudanese factory that made the vast majority of the countries phamaceuticals in 1998? The US argued that the factory was producing chemical weapons for al Qaeda. Some would say that means the attack was justified. Others would point to the fact that there has been no credible evidence to support the claims (and this is something that critics on both side largely agree on). Which presumably makes it terrorism.
The attack was ordered by Clinton, many claim as a 'Wag the Dog' attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. So is that a terrorism? Some would say so.
As a result of the factory being destroyed, it has been argued that many thousands of Africans died as a result, far more than died as a result of 9/11. This is a hotly contested point and many can and do argue this is terrorism.
The point being, not to have a pop at the US, but that until you define what you mean by terrorism, it's pointless to even consider an answer.
According to the CIA's defintiion, 'terrorism' is a tactic designed to achieve political aims through terrorising civilian populations. Thus terrorism has been used by states as well as stateless groups such as the IRA or al Queda or ETA etc.
Almost everyone would agree that the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton was an act of terrorism. Ditto 9/11.
to be as contentious as possible, what about the US's bombing of the Sudanese factory that made the vast majority of the countries phamaceuticals in 1998? The US argued that the factory was producing chemical weapons for al Qaeda. Some would say that means the attack was justified. Others would point to the fact that there has been no credible evidence to support the claims (and this is something that critics on both side largely agree on). Which presumably makes it terrorism.
The attack was ordered by Clinton, many claim as a 'Wag the Dog' attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. So is that a terrorism? Some would say so.
As a result of the factory being destroyed, it has been argued that many thousands of Africans died as a result, far more than died as a result of 9/11. This is a hotly contested point and many can and do argue this is terrorism.
The point being, not to have a pop at the US, but that until you define what you mean by terrorism, it's pointless to even consider an answer.
percentage of the world, I take take you mean world population, but you don't say from when, also, you have to define terrorism,
I'd say 100%, because a conventional war is terrifying, as is whats happening now, in the middle East, and here in Europe.
No matter where, if just one person is terrified, the perpetrator by definition, is a terrorist.
Hope that makes sense, but give it some thought.
I'd say 100%, because a conventional war is terrifying, as is whats happening now, in the middle East, and here in Europe.
No matter where, if just one person is terrified, the perpetrator by definition, is a terrorist.
Hope that makes sense, but give it some thought.
I take it my last answer wasn't much use?
I think if you are going to use vague terms like affected you're going to get nowhere fast.
Everybody is in some way indirectly affected by terrorism - whether it is just slightly increased taxes or the cost of goods to cover increased security. Maybe it's spending longer in departure during international travel.
BA certainly saw profits fall after 9/11 so that affected all of their shareholders and staff.
If we take a more helpful approach and count just those killed or injured in attacks you have 625 killed and 3,646 injured.
so say 4000 in a world population of 6 billion = 0.00007% you could multiply by say 10 if you wanted to include the family of those so that would give you 0.0007%
Is that any better?
I think if you are going to use vague terms like affected you're going to get nowhere fast.
Everybody is in some way indirectly affected by terrorism - whether it is just slightly increased taxes or the cost of goods to cover increased security. Maybe it's spending longer in departure during international travel.
BA certainly saw profits fall after 9/11 so that affected all of their shareholders and staff.
If we take a more helpful approach and count just those killed or injured in attacks you have 625 killed and 3,646 injured.
so say 4000 in a world population of 6 billion = 0.00007% you could multiply by say 10 if you wanted to include the family of those so that would give you 0.0007%
Is that any better?
1 to 5 of 5
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News22 mins ago
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |