which one is worse, a natural disaster or a terrist attack? and why? so what do you think?

Answer 1

Terrorists by far.

Answer 2

A terrorist attack is by far worse than a natural disaster. Natural disasters are not preventable, while terrorist attacks can be due to a lack of security, intel, or whatever. When there is a terrorist attack, there is always the chance of yet another strike from that terrorist group. Natural disasters, however, are completely based on natural occurrences, and are therefore completely unpredictable, except when they are imminent. The only way to lessen the impact of a natural disaster, let's say a hurricane, for instance, would be to evacuate or build underground shelters and whatnot. Even that would merely be an attempt to save lives, and would do nothing to prevent the massive property damage commonly caused by many of these disasters. Terrorism sometimes cannot be prevented, as you never, ever know when these events will take place. However, that doesn't make them inevitable, like many natural disasters are. Also, terrorist attacks are made to inflict fear upon whoever are the victims, hence the prefix "terror". Natural disasters are acts of "nature", and thus don't really have an imposing effect, except possibly before they occur.

Answer 3

Any disaster is a terrible thing however there are differences between the natural and the premeditated.

The Natural disaster is something that we all know can happen, we hope it won't but someday it just might. When it does it is devastating for sure on so many levels.

However a terrorist attack is so much more awful because it could have been prevented. It was created out of hate toward, in most cases, innocents.

On top of dealing with the after mat of the attack itself, your left with the psychological trauma of not only dealing with the disaster but knowing that someone out there actually caused this.

To top it off it then spirals to where the victims and family members and so on are now dragged into the cycle of anger and hate, being robbed of their previous happy lives.

Answer 4

Although it would be horrible for someone to be suffer through either, I feel that a terrorists attach is worse. There is a person, or persons, responsible for a terrorist attack which means that it is deliberate, and not necessary. While the damage and injuries from a natural disaster can be severe, in most cases a lot of the heart ache that results can be prevented if more people would heed the warnings as soon as possible rather than "waiting it out." Natural disasters would be much easier to get through if everyone would show more goodwill and follow the "golden" rule...do unto others as you would have done unto you, or treat people how you would like to be treated.

Answer 5

I think that the difference can be measured in the result. The prolonged affect following both a terrorist attack, and a natural disaster are opposite. There is no way to minimize the suffering that either act causes. To measure the true effect of either a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, consider the response of those that are not directly affected. There is usually an overwhelming rush by the rest of the world to assist those who have been devastated. In the event of natural disaster the world rallies behind the injured and lines of communication are opened. In the event of a terrorist attack, there is also a rush to aid, but it quickly is poisoned by a desire for vengeance. It is acts spawned by this desire to retaliate that have created most, if not all of the hatred and prejudice that we enjoy as part of our current existence, including further acts of terrorism.

Answer 6

The people of the US should read books not watch TV.

Have you considered that there is plenty of blood on the hands of the US?

Im not saying that the US is bad, I am glad they are in the world to help out. I'm just not convinced that the Iraq war was necessary.

What was the reason again?

So terrorist threat is scary. I would go with that.

It is disgraceful that terrorists blew you guys up, and Indonesia, and Spain, but the US army has killed so many of 'god's creatures' it cannot be ignored.

How many civilians have died in Iraq at the hands of US troops and security forces. More than were killed in the 9/11 attack. It is not relevant to compare and I apologise if anyone takes offence to this comparison. All I am saying is that an innocent Iraqi life is worth the same as an innocent US citizen's life.

Also has it made the world safer?

What was the reason for going there again?

Answer 7

First, what is a terrorist? A terrorist is an angery human trying to make changes using violence and destruction. Why? Because our cultures accept violence and destruction as a viable means of change. Humans can change and create the world they live in. Humans can use their knowledge to change the violent means we have interacted with each other for so many thousands of years. Humans can create a new model for the world to function under.
Natural disasters are out of our control, but can be minimized by our knowledge...So, I think natural disasters are worse, they are not part of our creation, they are a part of the way the universe functions.
Terrorism is a way culture function and cultures can be changed.
Which terrorist act is worse, a group of people attacking 3 or 4 buildings killing a few thousand people or a group of humans invading an innocent country destroying a majority of the buildings, hundreds of thousnads of people and making a profit from it?

Answer 8

With all due respect, there is really not a right or wrong answer with this question, because with either- there is going to be destruction, pain, death and fear. The only difference between the 2 which makes my answer the way that it is , is that the Terrorist attack would be worse, because there is so much hatred and revenge enstowed in this people's hearts that makes their attacks very uncontrollable, violent and sometimes unstopable. With a natual disaster, you never know when it is going to hit and there is nothing you can do to stop it, ( mother nature is in charge and you have to let it run it's course ).

Answer 9

I suppose there really is no "worse" in terms of damage,
Both can have large loss of life and severe damage to the localized environment, Both take a long time to recover from.

But lets look at the 2 individually, then we can form an opinion based on which is "worse" under a different criteria

Terrorists claim to be provoked. They hurt innocent people, they are planned and therefore can be planned for. Terrorist plots are foiled by intelligence services all the time without us ever hearing about them. Only the successful plots make headlines. Terrorists are Evil, with little regard for the lives they destroy.

Natural disasters can strike with little or no notice, They are not provoked, unless you see natural disasters the planets defenses fighting back after years of our abuse. Like a child in a rage, mother nature lashes out from time to time, and yes there is loss of life, and yes there is damage, but there is no malice involved, no one person upon which to attribute blame.

All the above said, my opinion would be Terrorist attack, it is Premeditated carnage perpetrated by evil people full of hatred. Nature cannot be controlled and as much as we would like to think this is our planet, we are only tenants.

Answer 10

A terrist attack, b/c a natural disaster isn't preventable, and terrist attacks are just stupidity.

A natural disaster is like katrina, it was devistating, but no one could help it, hurricanes happen, but terrist attacks like the twin towers is preventable, they did that on purpose,

so thats why i would say a terrist attack is worse, the results are both devestating, but one dosnt have to happen and the othe is unstopable....

Answer 11

I'm afraid that the answer to that question largely depends on certain variables introduced by changing circumstances; for instance, if a terrorist unit planned some sort of attack that would have a very extreme impact--as in, affecting several hundreds of thousands of people--there aren't many natural disasters that can exactly compare to this. In fact, the genocide of the Jews--the Holocaust--was one of the worst events we're able to remember, and it was peformed by men. I would not necessarily strike it from the terrorism category, either. To get an accurate comparison, you'd really just have to look at individual events.