The Student Room Group

Who are more dangerous to our everyday life? ISIS or our own government?

With many forum topics debating various issues about ISIS including beheadings, the UK terrorism level being made 'severe', British Muslims going to 'fight' along ISIS etc.

However, after seeing a comment on a forum saying 'ISIS are the most dangerous group on Earth' made me think how dangerous are ISIS compared to our own governments? (UK/US).

Here are a few 'dangers' that our governments control:

It was only a couple of months ago when experts announced the divide between the rich and poor is at its largest since the 1930's.

Education standards in the UK in impoverished areas remain at an all-time low, which causes the impoverished to remain uneducated.. (which continues to result in crime levels rising because the 'dole' doesn't fully support a family).

As Autumn/Winter comes, the energy companies dramatically rise prices, which the elderly, working-class and the poor have to decide between food or heat.

UK/US propaganda (infamously The Sun, DailyMail, Fox News etc.) which forms and contorts the majority of the public's opinion to match the objective of the government. (i.e. 'weapons of mass destruction' to enter Iraq).

These same governments that are beginning to militarise its police, which are meant to 'protect and serve' but instead they 'intimidate and oppress'.

Governments which have allowed companies such as Senco and G4S to privatise British prisons, where private investors make money off the criminals being sentenced to prison.

Any comments?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Even if you do not like the government policies, living in a country like the UK will give you democracy, freedom to services like education, the ability to enjoy life without fear of death and all round decent life. Whether it Labour, Tory, liberal or UKIP your life will never be in as much danger as it would with the likes of ISIS.

Gawd people are so selfish and forget how lucky they are to be born in a country like this. Yeh maybe it can be crappy sometimes but compared to most of the world and the past 10000 years you can not get better.
Reply 2
Original post by The Right
Even if you do not like the government policies, living in a country like the UK will give you democracy, freedom to services like education, the ability to enjoy life without fear of death and all round decent life. Whether it Labour, Tory, liberal or UKIP your life will never be in as much danger as it would with the likes of ISIS.

Gawd people are so selfish and forget how lucky they are to be born in a country like this. Yeh maybe it can be crappy sometimes but compared to most of the world and the past 10000 years you can not get better.


No, just no. Read my original post again, I never once say I didn't appreciate this country because I do. But let's define the word 'Democracy': a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.' These 'elected representatives' don't represent me... These men are rich men who have had a military background or an Oxford/Cambridge education, who do not become politicians to help us.

By the way, you said 'freedom to services like education', if I have freedom to education why am I paying £8,700 a year for a degree?
I'd take the UK government over ISIS, but realistically I don't think either are particularly dangerous to my everyday life. If at all.

The government doesn't control the energy companies, by the way. And our education standards are fantastic compared to the vast majority of the planet. Your police comments are wide of the mark, we still have policing by consent in this country (one of the few nations to have it, but we still moan about the odd problem). Propaganda comes from all directions but for 'governmentality' arguments you should look more at state institutions than media outlets. The rich and poor divide is big but we're all pretty well off. Private prisons have their benefits.

I think you're perhaps making a fairly unsuitable and awkward comparison. ISIS is probably among the more dangerous groups in the world but mainly to those in the immediate vicinity. The UK government is a standard western government presiding over a reasonably strong, healthy nation. It's never going to be perfectly in tune with how you want it, but it seems an absurd comparison.
At the moment I don't see IS(IS) as a threat to my every day life. However, should the UK start attacking them in Iraq/Syria then I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to retaliate in the next few years, in which case they would definitely be more of a worry for me if I lived or worked in an urban area.
Undoubtedly our own governments, although indirectly, and especially if you live outside major population centers. If anybody is killed in the west by IS where is it likely to be? It will either be a murder that's difficult to tie down to IS or a terrorist attack in the middle of a large city, so stright away if you are rarely in the middle of London, New York etc the risk is already negligible (not that I would say you're at much risk even in those places).
On the other hand, one could say that the government indirectly poses a risk to us all. For example, while they don't have a bottomless pit of money, hospitals are inherently dangerous (as is their nature), and with additional funding they should be safer (a single night in hospital carrying a risk of something like 74 micromorts). Similarly, especially in rural areas, better quality roads would marginally increase life expediencies (currently travelling ~230 miles carry's a risk of 1 micromort, and as an aside, the UK government wrt road improvements statistically values a life at only £1.6m). And there are, obviously, many many more things.
Reply 6
Original post by RenoHughes
No, just no. Read my original post again, I never once say I didn't appreciate this country because I do. But let's define the word 'Democracy': a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.' These 'elected representatives' don't represent me... These men are rich men who have had a military background or an Oxford/Cambridge education, who do not become politicians to help us.

By the way, you said 'freedom to services like education', if I have freedom to education why am I paying £8,700 a year for a degree?


Oh boohoo poor you for having to pay for something kids around the world dream of. Clearly UK life is unfair and cruel so move to Iraq, I hear you can play real life call of duty, you would love that
Reply 7
ISIS are 1000 odd miles away, so I would say the UK goverment is a greater threat, with all the spying ect.
Reply 8
Original post by The Right
Oh boohoo poor you for having to pay for something kids around the world dream of. Clearly UK life is unfair and cruel so move to Iraq, I hear you can play real life call of duty, you would love that


I did expect a few sarcastic comments like that to be honest, well done for the first one. People like you try to 'twist' my words, never once did I say life was 'cruel' or 'unfair' in the UK. My point is everyone is concentrating their minds on ISIS when our 'problems' could be alot closer to home.
Reply 9
Original post by russellsteapot
I'd take the UK government over ISIS, but realistically I don't think either are particularly dangerous to my everyday life. If at all.

The government doesn't control the energy companies, by the way. And our education standards are fantastic compared to the vast majority of the planet. Your police comments are wide of the mark, we still have policing by consent in this country (one of the few nations to have it, but we still moan about the odd problem). Propaganda comes from all directions but for 'governmentality' arguments you should look more at state institutions than media outlets. The rich and poor divide is big but we're all pretty well off. Private prisons have their benefits.

I think you're perhaps making a fairly unsuitable and awkward comparison. ISIS is probably among the more dangerous groups in the world but mainly to those in the immediate vicinity. The UK government is a standard western government presiding over a reasonably strong, healthy nation. It's never going to be perfectly in tune with how you want it, but it seems an absurd comparison.


You say ISIS are more dangerous to those in the 'immediate vicinity' but you have to remember who caused the original problem in Iraq and Syria for ISIS to rise. Without the illegal invasion of Iraq and the rebel funding from the US in Syria, I doubt this problem would be at this level.
Reply 10
IS are. Say what you will about the foreign policy of the country, our governments aren't doing their best to murder parts of the populace.
Reply 11
Hi...interesting topic. Read 1984. We (the UK and US) are Oceania and ISIS is the current two minutes' hate. You can now safely remove Hitler from the wall and scream at photos of ISIS. It never does end in the Middle East, does it? A puzzle - analyze why, and analyze who is behind it for clues.

I'm sure another "terrorist" attack is just around the corner. Will the result be more gumption, more freedom for us, more stiff upper-lip? Has it been so far?

We are the dog and we are being wagged. Stay tuned...The future awaits.
Original post by RenoHughes
No, just no. Read my original post again, I never once say I didn't appreciate this country because I do. But let's define the word 'Democracy': a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.' These 'elected representatives' don't represent me... These men are rich men who have had a military background or an Oxford/Cambridge education, who do not become politicians to help us.

By the way, you said 'freedom to services like education', if I have freedom to education why am I paying £8,700 a year for a degree?

Education is free until the age of 18, and the student loan system exists in such a way that you don't have a serious issue paying it back.

Besides, there is no such thing as free university education. It would be more accurate to describe it as taxpayer-funded university education. Doesn't it make more sense for the person going to uni to pay for it rather than the whole country?

Having to pay for university is not a legitimate grievance.
Original post by RenoHughes
With many forum topics debating various issues about ISIS including beheadings, the UK terrorism level being made 'severe', British Muslims going to 'fight' along ISIS etc.

However, after seeing a comment on a forum saying 'ISIS are the most dangerous group on Earth' made me think how dangerous are ISIS compared to our own governments? (UK/US).

Here are a few 'dangers' that our governments control:

It was only a couple of months ago when experts announced the divide between the rich and poor is at its largest since the 1930's.

Education standards in the UK in impoverished areas remain at an all-time low, which causes the impoverished to remain uneducated.. (which continues to result in crime levels rising because the 'dole' doesn't fully support a family).

As Autumn/Winter comes, the energy companies dramatically rise prices, which the elderly, working-class and the poor have to decide between food or heat.

UK/US propaganda (infamously The Sun, DailyMail, Fox News etc.) which forms and contorts the majority of the public's opinion to match the objective of the government. (i.e. 'weapons of mass destruction' to enter Iraq).

These same governments that are beginning to militarise its police, which are meant to 'protect and serve' but instead they 'intimidate and oppress'.

Governments which have allowed companies such as Senco and G4S to privatise British prisons, where private investors make money off the criminals being sentenced to prison.

Any comments?


Without a doubt our own government is more of a threat to us than ISIS is at the moment.
Reply 14
Until the day the British Government goes around driving religious minorities out of their homes, raping, beheading and torturing them in the aim of establishing a caliphate, I'll have to say ISIS.
Original post by RenoHughes
You say ISIS are more dangerous to those in the 'immediate vicinity' but you have to remember who caused the original problem in Iraq and Syria for ISIS to rise. Without the illegal invasion of Iraq and the rebel funding from the US in Syria, I doubt this problem would be at this level.


Speculation and tenuous blaming doesn't equal fault. The folks running the Islamic State have been around long before the Iraq War (and Afghanistan); certainly Iraq has a power vacuum at present which is partially down to the removal of Saddam Hussein, but is primarily the result of religious belligerence and intolerance, and the inability of different groups to govern effectively.

The Syrian element is more due to the uprising against the Assad regime and the subsequent civil war it caused, which did have some involvement from various outside governments but is, as in Iraq, primarily a religious conflict. The Assads have been there since the 1970s and Syria has been ****ed for years.

Without the western involvement in Iraq and Syria, the middle east would still be screwed, you'd still have the Syrian civil war, and you'd still have Islamist groups in Saddam Hussein's lovely Iraq. It's easy to pin blame and say something wouldn't have happened without this, that or the other, but with the same argument I could say that without western involvement in Iraq and Syria, who's to say that the problem wouldn't be ten times worse? Both arguments are equally weak. If we want to keep going back and finding fault in history, I'll blame the Muslim conquests in the 7th century for starting the whole mess.
I think the people who are going around murdering people for being different are the most dangerous.
Original post by RenoHughes
No, just no. Read my original post again, I never once say I didn't appreciate this country because I do. But let's define the word 'Democracy': a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.' These 'elected representatives' don't represent me... These men are rich men who have had a military background or an Oxford/Cambridge education, who do not become politicians to help us.

By the way, you said 'freedom to services like education', if I have freedom to education why am I paying £8,700 a year for a degree?


Freedom to do something does not imply that it is gratis. You are free to talk, but need a mouth to do so. You are free to make music, but you need talent to do so. Etc.

A question: what is wrong with companies making money out of providing prison services? Are you saying that the prisoners should not really be there? Are you saying that their sentences are decided by profit, and not justice? I thought the sentences were handed down by judges, not CEOs.

Another question: do you appreciate the massive work that the governments of the two countries in question have done in order to prevent evil over the years?
Reply 18
Original post by russellsteapot
Speculation and tenuous blaming doesn't equal fault. The folks running the Islamic State have been around long before the Iraq War (and Afghanistan); certainly Iraq has a power vacuum at present which is partially down to the removal of Saddam Hussein, but is primarily the result of religious belligerence and intolerance, and the inability of different groups to govern effectively.

The Syrian element is more due to the uprising against the Assad regime and the subsequent civil war it caused, which did have some involvement from various outside governments but is, as in Iraq, primarily a religious conflict. The Assads have been there since the 1970s and Syria has been ****ed for years.

Without the western involvement in Iraq and Syria, the middle east would still be screwed, you'd still have the Syrian civil war, and you'd still have Islamist groups in Saddam Hussein's lovely Iraq. It's easy to pin blame and say something wouldn't have happened without this, that or the other, but with the same argument I could say that without western involvement in Iraq and Syria, who's to say that the problem wouldn't be ten times worse? Both arguments are equally weak. If we want to keep going back and finding fault in history, I'll blame the Muslim conquests in the 7th century for starting the whole mess.


It's so sad when I hear people claim that Syria is a religious conflict when religion has nothing to do with it. FSA had people from all sorts of religions taking part to protect civilians and defeat Assad. Assad media kept saying FSA were terrorists as propaganda to justify killing them, well now he's got the terrorists he's always been hoping for, ISIS are so beneficial to Assad because people forget about FSA who are now having to deal with both messes. Since ISIS are super-terrorists to the likes we've never witnessed before, everyone who just watches media reports and skim reads articles thinks it's better for Assad to win the war, and think it's a religious conflict.
Islam in general is more of a threat to our daily lives than our government.

Quick Reply

Latest