How governments respond to terrorism | Dr. Max Abrahms | TEDxHollywood

This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. In this talk, Dr. Abrahms takes terrorism one step further and sheds light on digital privacy, security, and counter terrorism.
Max Abrahms is a professor of public policy in the department of political science at Northeastern University. He is also a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@Jimalax11]

So, if I followed correctly, the logic is: 1) Despite conventional wisdom, terrorism is actually a poor political tactic. 2) Governments are exaggerating the threat to exercise more control over their own populations. 3) Enacting more oppressive laws might create conditions that are more likely to produce domestic terrorists. How does the first part about terrorism's ineffectiveness connect with the other two points? To me it seems to undermine them; if terrorism actually worked better, politically speaking, then that fact, in combination with increased state control would make terrorism look even more appealing.

[@dgknox1]

Interesting argument, but seemingly making some broad generalizations. This may be understandable in the required brevity of the presentation, but it would be interesting to see the links to the research Dr Abrahms conducted. Most research, and some solidly conducted and validated throughout history, seems to contradict his overarching premise that terrorism does not work. Or maybe he is partially correct; terrorism seems to work in the short term, but if not followed by sound political objectives, and if it doesn't transition out of the use of extreme violence, than it is far less affective in the long term. My research has shown that whether terrorism works or not is dependent upon the context of its use, incorporating the inherent dynamics of all the variables of any given group or situation. Still, he makes good points about the delicate balance of civil liberties and security, but again, I think they are over-broad in presentation. Good reference for rational argument though...

[@bivio1]

To all you people accusing the prof of not mentioning Israel as terrorist. You a have a future at the United Nations. Believe me you have a future there.

[@t33nyplaysp0p]

This aged

[@t33nyplaysp0p]

This aged

[@thomaswilburn6263]

"The rest of Israel"?

[@yrubin07]

Is he saying Hammas arent terrorists???

[@m0nt0y4]

no, no he isn't.

[@Eliazer011]

No, Hamas are no terrorsists. Israeli government is a a terrorist. Who decides who is a terrorist and who not. Just because you was tought to call a special group of people as terrorists, it does not mean, they really are. If you are honest, you will look deeper.

[@Daniel-it6ls]

Eliazer011 hamas are not terrorists? 😂😂😂