Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Teroristicki napadi u svetu i rat protiv terorizma


  • Please log in to reply
2878 replies to this topic

#1 DonJuan

DonJuan
  • Members
  • 20,932 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 20:56

Posle niza teroristickih napada na Bliskom istoku, usledio je teroristicki napad u Parizu, obaranje ruskog aviona, napad na vojnike u Bosni i poslednji napad u Maliju.

 

Ocigledno je da teroristi menjaju teren svog delovanja i zele da prosire strah medju stanovnistvom. Prosecan gradjanin se oseca nesigurnim ma gde da je, posto se ne zna gde moze da se desi sledeci napad ili ko moze da bude sledeca meta. Naravno, postoje predvidjanja i proracuni koje drzave su najugrozenije, ali to je vise statistika nego nesto u sta bi ljudi mogli zaista da se pouzdaju. 

 

Najopasniji su "usamljeni strelci" kao onaj u Bosni, posto je njih dosta tesko pratiti i kontrolisati bas svaki korak.

 

Sa druge strane, posle serije napada Rusa i Francuza protiv ISIS-a, jasno je da u "matici" ISIS trpi teske gubitke. Da li je ovo prebacivanje ISIS-a na druge teritorije samo pocetak njihovog kraja, ili ce se trajno prebaciti na gerilsko ratovanje i terorizam.

 

Ko je po vama u ovoj prici oko terorizma najugorezeniji?


Edited by DonJuan, 20 November 2015 - 21:00.

  • 0

#2 GlennGould

GlennGould
  • Members
  • 5,734 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 21:08

EU ("Europe, le ventre mou de l'Occident ...")
  • 1

#3 Schrodinger

Schrodinger
  • Members
  • 20,418 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 21:23

Ko je po vama u ovoj prici oko terorizma najugorezeniji?

Planeta Zemlja. 

 

Posto postoje dobri izgledi da se teroristi uskoro docepaju biotehnologije, a onda adio mare...


  • 6

#4 ironside

ironside
  • Members
  • 3,552 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 21:29

EU ("Europe, le ventre mou de l'Occident ...")

Dobra parafraza, moglo bi se o tome diskutirati...


  • 1

#5 GlennGould

GlennGould
  • Members
  • 5,734 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 21:29

Misliš u poređenju sa Marsom?
(malo humora, kao antidota...)

Kad smo već tu, bilo bi zanimljivo razviti diskusiju u pravcu "kako se od istog (terorizma) odbraniti?" Konkretno, koje korake preduzimati kao pojedinci, društvo, država...
  • 0

#6 simple red white

simple red white
  • Members
  • 12,615 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 21:31

I ovaj upis pokazuje da su akcije terorista postigle cilj, izazvali su strah, koji će biti vodeća emocija, srećom  oni nemaju dovoljno "snage" da bi pokrili clu Evropu.

Verujem da bezbednosne službe imaju većinu problematičnih osoba i osoba koje su bile u Siriji, Afganistanu i drugim "egzotičnim" mestima i da ih do sada nisu dirali zbog politike svojih vlada (sada je situacija promenjena iz korena) i verujem da će u narednom periodu da se pohapse svi sumnjivi i registrovani.

Kada se ima na nivou BiH, što ne bi imala recimo Nemačka kontraobaveštajna služba, ili Austrije. Vidim da su Anonimusi već objavili generalije vehabija i potecijalnih terorista u BiH sa sve njihovim slikama.


  • 0

#7 mihaljevicsinisa

mihaljevicsinisa
  • Banned
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 22:40

Zalosno je sto se bezbednosne sluzbe nisu ranije pozabavile sa tima koji su isli na ta "egzoticna" mesta radi ratovanja. Vec su cekali stravican teroristicki akt u Parizu da bi poceli reagovati. Do tada su im bili u interesu jer su isli u borbu protiv Asada.


  • 0

#8 d clash

d clash
  • Banned
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 22:54

Od neke bajkovite price o udruzenju celog slobodarskog sveta protiv zlih terorista nema nista.Iz dva razloga.Prvi je da koliko se god neke drzave kurebecale,dobro se zna ko u danasnjem svetu vozi traktor a ko otvara vrata.Velike sile rade iskljucivo u svom interesu i interesu svojih saveznika(ako se u darom trenutku slazu sa njihovim).Drugi razlog,koji proizilazi iz prvog je rang lista teroristkic organizacija,koje u kratkim vremenakim periodima mogu da variraju od boraca za slobodu i demokratiju do najgorih zlotvora(prema potrebama velikih).Ova koordinisana akcija Francuske i Rusije dokazuje da je trenutni interes stavljen ispred ostalih neslaganja(sankcije,Mistrali...)Zasto nije Francuska to odradila sa svojim prirodnim saveznikom US?Jer US trenutno nema potrebu da intenzivira tu borbu.Da li ce u bliskoj buducnosti to uraditi videcemo.Ko ce pomoci Nigeriji,u kojoj je samo ove godine bilo preko 7.000 zrtava Boko Harama?Siguran sam niko,jer niko nema nekih specijalnih interesa u tim regionu.Tako da borba protiv terorizma u ovom obliku,borba protiv pojedinaca spremnih da se zrtvuju, nece nikada prestati.Pogotovo sto je ovo relativno novije oruzje terorista,u 70,80,i prvoj polovini 90 godina,ovaj nacin je bio iznimka nikako pravilo.Jedino ce neminovno biti suzene gradjanske slobode,i to bez nekog jaceg otpora stanovnistva,jer svi ce dobrovoljno pristati na vise kamera na ulicama,vise kontrole interneta,aerodroma,privatnosti.Normalna ljudska reakcija na osecaj ugrozenosti vlastitog i zivota svojih najblizih.E sad,uvek ce biti teorija zavere da je to manipulacija strahom radi vece kontrole,ali teorije zavere su jako popularne.Narocito ako se dokazu u stvarnom zivotu.
  • 2

#9 Kinik

Kinik
  • Members
  • 40,744 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 00:22

...

 

... ocigledno je da teroristi menjaju teren svog delovanja i zele da prosire strah medju stanovnistvom ... prosecan gradjanin se oseca nesigurnim ma gde da je, posto se ne zna gde moze da se desi sledeci napad ili ko moze da bude sledeca meta ... naravno, postoje predvidjanja i proracuni koje drzave su najugrozenije, ali to je vise statistika nego nesto u sta bi ljudi mogli zaista da se pouzdaju ...

 
 
- prema statistici u evropi, amerikama i ozilendu dogodi se oko 2,1% od ukupnog broja teroristickih napada, a samo 2% izvrse islamisti (doduse sa vise zrtava)
 
- od 2001. u evropi je bilo samo 4 napada islamskih terorista - Madrid 2004, London 2005, Pariz (januar 2015) sa vise od 10 poginulih i samo u dva, sa vise od sto poginulih
 
- u 2014. kada je u evropi usled napada islamista poginulo samo 4 ljudi, ukupan broj zrtava teroristickih napada u svetu je bio 32.700 (i 39.000 ranjenih). Mesecno je ginulo 2.700 zrtava, skoro po jedan teroristicki napad u Parizu dnevno
 
- iz toga 78% poginulih su bili iz iraka, avganistana, sirije, nigerije i pakistana, a u indiji je u 2014. bilo 426 zrtava
 
- u ratu u siriji je poginulo preko 200 hiljada, u iraku 600 hiljada
 
- u poslednjih 10 godina u svetu je od terorizma bilo 140 hiljada zrtava
 
- godisnje od trovanja hranom u svetu umre 350 hiljada ljudi, 10 puta vise nego od terorizma, od munje pogine oko 24 hiljade ljudi, sto se moze porediti sa brojem poginulih usled terorizma 
 
- u poslednih 15 godina od terorizma u evropi je poginulo manje od 500 ljudi, zato je 27,5 hiljada poginulo u saobracajnim nesrecama, a preko 200 hiljada su ostali invalidi. U saobracajkama dnevno pogine 70 ljudi - kao teroristicki napad u Parizu svaka dva dana. U 2013. u zeleznickim nesrecama je bilo 2.042 poginulih.
 
- u evropi godisnje bude ubijeno 22 hiljade ljudi - 60 dnevno
 
- prema americkoj statistici mogucnost smrti od lekarske greske u razvijenim zemljama je 6.000 puta veca od rizika da vas ubije terorista
 
- cak da se dogodi nemoguce i broj zrtava teroristickih napada bude povecan 100 puta - steta ce opet biti manja nego od voznje u pijanom stanju
 
Nesto malo o proslosti - dovoljno je pogledati XX vek. 
 
Boljsevizam u rusiji pa i istocnoj evropi bio je religija surovija od radikalnog islama. Umiralo se i ubijalo mnogo lakse, kako odusevljene pristalice tako i protivnici, a 'vodje / emiri' su poslali milinone, ne da im se trenutno odrubi glava, vec na mucnu i sporu smrt u logorima. Agenti boljsevizma su preplavili sve zemlje, cas vrseci teror, cas ubistva. Za zvanicni cilj boljsevizma, skoro kao kod radikalnog islama, proglaseno je osvajanje i pokoravanje citavog sveta, uspostavljanje svetske najsurovije diktature. 
Evropski fasizam se od boljsevizma razlikovao samo time sto je uveo nacionalni faktor u radikalnmu ideologiju
 
- pa onda Kina, 'maoizam' i deseci miliona zrtava
 
- nedavni dogadjaji na Balkanu - koliko ono bese zrtava?
 
- ili 10.000 ljudi, plus preko dvesta zrtava u malezijskom avionu, nedaleko od 'centara ruske kulture', koji su poginuli samo zato sto je nekolicina oligarha delila plen, a nekolicina polit-tehnologa odradjivala sefu rejting
 
 
Kada se malo dublje zagrebe - ispada da smo spremni da koljemo, palimo, ubijamo, dizemo u vazduh, umiremo i saljemo u smrt.
 
Jednostavno, danas je na red dosao ISIS.
 
 
disclaimer: namerno sam izbacio svako neumesno moralisanje i zgrazavanje.
 
...

  • 4

#10 mihaljevicsinisa

mihaljevicsinisa
  • Banned
  • 29 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 08:13

Isti si ko onaj Francuski ministar za saobracaj, koji je posle napada terorista u Parizu izjavio da to nije strasno jer vise ljudi gine u saobracajnim nesrecama. 


  • 1

#11 Kinik

Kinik
  • Members
  • 40,744 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 08:39

...

 

 

Nesto si pobrkao oko statistike.

 

No, ako se plasis ajkula - ne kupaj se u kadi.

;)

 

...


  • 1

#12 yossarian

yossarian
  • Members
  • 3,768 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 09:47

 

...

 

 
 
- prema statistici u evropi, amerikama i ozilendu dogodi se oko 2,1% od ukupnog broja teroristickih napada, a samo 2% izvrse islamisti (doduse sa vise zrtava)
 
- od 2001. u evropi je bilo samo 4 napada islamskih terorista - Madrid 2004, London 2005, Pariz (januar 2015) sa vise od 10 poginulih i samo u dva, sa vise od sto poginulih
 
- u 2014. kada je u evropi usled napada islamista poginulo samo 4 ljudi, ukupan broj zrtava teroristickih napada u svetu je bio 32.700 (i 39.000 ranjenih). Mesecno je ginulo 2.700 zrtava, skoro po jedan teroristicki napad u Parizu dnevno
 
- iz toga 78% poginulih su bili iz iraka, avganistana, sirije, nigerije i pakistana, a u indiji je u 2014. bilo 426 zrtava
 
- u ratu u siriji je poginulo preko 200 hiljada, u iraku 600 hiljada
 
- u poslednjih 10 godina u svetu je od terorizma bilo 140 hiljada zrtava
 
- godisnje od trovanja hranom u svetu umre 350 hiljada ljudi, 10 puta vise nego od terorizma, od munje pogine oko 24 hiljade ljudi, sto se moze porediti sa brojem poginulih usled terorizma 
 
- u poslednih 15 godina od terorizma u evropi je poginulo manje od 500 ljudi, zato je 27,5 hiljada poginulo u saobracajnim nesrecama, a preko 200 hiljada su ostali invalidi. U saobracajkama dnevno pogine 70 ljudi - kao teroristicki napad u Parizu svaka dva dana. U 2013. u zeleznickim nesrecama je bilo 2.042 poginulih.
 
- u evropi godisnje bude ubijeno 22 hiljade ljudi - 60 dnevno
 
- prema americkoj statistici mogucnost smrti od lekarske greske u razvijenim zemljama je 6.000 puta veca od rizika da vas ubije terorista
 
- cak da se dogodi nemoguce i broj zrtava teroristickih napada bude povecan 100 puta - steta ce opet biti manja nego od voznje u pijanom stanju

 

 

 

Ove brojke su mi manje - više poznate.

 

Zapravo, poznate su svima, ali izgleda da smo evolucijom predisponirani da najvidljiviju opasnost uvek procenjujemo kao najveću.

Terorizam je, kao i avionske nesreće, uvek jako vidljiv, zahvaljujući medijima, koji nas danima i nedeljama zasipaju slikama, snimcima, analizama i intervjuima. Zato opasnost od terorističkog napada doživljavamo kao daleko veću od mnogih drugih opasnosti koje si nabrojao.

 

To je ono što teroristi i žele - da stvore atmosferu straha i nepoverenja, da nas primoraju da uvedemo bezbroj ausvajsa i kontrola, da se svako svakog plaši.  Time prave razdor među ljudima, a pri tome i ekonomsku štetu (jer sve to košta - ne samo satnice policajaca, već i izgubljeno vreme na čekanju, zastoji na drumovima, roba koja se kvari u kamionima, zakasneli i neispunjeni poslovni ugovori jer je važan sastanak odložen ili delovi nisu stigli u fabriku pa hala stoji).

 

Iz tog razloga smatram da ne treba reagovati histerično i pustiti teroriste da bude "po njihovom".  Cenim to što su Londončani, naprimer, nedugo posle napada nastavili sve kao i pre (opet, oni su  još sedamdesetih oguglali na napade, tada je IRA vršila napade po gradu).

 

Ako policija krene da pretresa i šikanire klince koji pandurima "liče na Arape", šansa da nešto time spreče je nula. Zapleniće po dva peroreza na hiljadu pretresa (a ako je zaista neki lik  već ušao u tramvaj sa bombom, tada je prekasno, taj neće čekati da ga panduri pretresu, već će je aktivirati čim ih vidi).

Daleko je veća šteta koju takve spektakularne a neefikasne kontrole izazivaju. Autoriteti pretresima šalju poruku da "tamnoputi" zaista jesu sumnjivi, a ti "tamnoputi" gube nadu i volju da se integrišu (koju zaista imaju, kao stanovnik velikog i "šarenog" grada to znam iz svakodnevnog iskustva).

 

Sprečavanje terorizma je pre svega posao službi, treba ih pohvatati čim počnu da kuju planove i traže oružje i eksplozive na crnom tržištu (što je prednost Evrope, mora na crno je ga legalno  nigde neće naći).


Edited by yossarian, 21 November 2015 - 10:19.

  • 2

#13 kronostime

kronostime
  • Banned
  • 27,590 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 10:54

Does the West want democracy in the Middle East?
By Owen Bennett-JonesBBC News
_86749294_86749293.jpgImage copyrightAPImage captionThe Islamic State militant group retains control of a swath of territory, including the Iraqi city of Mosul

The Paris attacks have once again revealed the West's bewilderment as to why it is under attack.

In the months after 9/11, Americans asked: "Why do they hate us?"

Today, European politicians, journalists and academics are still searching for an explanation as to why so many young Muslims are being radicalised.

Religion, economic deprivation and Western foreign policy are all put forward as possible drivers of jihadism. The one thing most people can agree on is that the West is unsure how to react to the so-called Islamic State (IS).

The confusion is reflected in the West's uncertain attitude towards democracy in the Arab world. A few weeks before he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W Bush said that once Saddam Hussein had been toppled, Iraq would become "a beacon of democracy across the Middle East".

The neo-cons believed that the benefits of democracy were so self-evident that, given a chance, Iraqis would be bound to grasp them. It had worked in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, so why shouldn't it work in the Middle East too?

But far from embracing Western liberalism, Iraq descended into a civil war. And many in the West took away the lesson that you could not force a country to become a democracy.

And if Iraq convinced some in the West that it was not possible to impose democracy, the Arab Spring revived the issue of whether the West actually wants democracy in the Middle East. Or is it, in fact, frightened of what democracy might bring?

Bankrolling Mubarak

For decades jihadists - like many Western liberals - have argued that the West's endless rhetoric about democracy is hollow. After all, they ask, don't the human rights-abusing Saudi royals get Western backing?

And how come Egypt's former President Hosni Mubarak was bankrolled by US aid?

_86749298_86749297.jpgImage copyrightAPImage captionDetractors argue that the West paid lip service to democracy while supporting autocratic leaders such as Hosni Mubarak

And they cite 1992 in Algeria as perhaps the clearest case of Western double standards. When the Islamic Salvation Front was on track to win parliamentary elections, there were almost audible sighs of relief in Western capitals when the army intervened, banned the party and detained many of its members.

The fear of radical Islamists winning power is felt perhaps most acutely in Israel. It may be the Middle East's most developed democracy, but what would happen if the hostility of many Arabs to Israel found democratic expression?

If Middle Eastern governments did what their people wanted, Israel would have a problem.

The issue was most sharply exposed when Hamas won the election in the Palestinian territories in 2006. Israeli and Western officials all refused to meet their newly elected representatives on the grounds that they wanted the destruction of Israel.

Within a few months, many of Hamas's elected representatives were in Israeli prisons.

What happened in, and since, the Arab uprisings? _86757452_86757451.jpgImage copyrightGetty ImagesImage captionWestern forces intervened in support of rebels fighting Col Gaddafi

Bahrain: Protests broke out in 2011, with demonstrators demanding more democracy and an end to discrimination against the majority Shia community by the Sunni-led state. King Hamad crushed dissent, with help from troops of neighbouring states. He later accepted recommendations of a commission of inquiry, but critics say this was not acted on and abuses continued.

Egypt: Mass protests forced President Mubarak to resign in February 2011, after three decades in power. The Muslim Brotherhood won parliamentary and presidential elections, but President Mohammed Morsi quickly generated huge public anger by granting himself far-reaching powers and pushing through an Islamist-flavoured constitution. After millions of anti-Morsi protesters took to the streets, the army ousted him. The subsequent election was won by former army chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, riding a wave of popularity. His government has since declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, imprisoning many of its leaders as well as secular and liberal critics.

Libya: Anti-government demonstrations in February 2011 evolved into an armed revolt against the four-decade-long rule of Col Muammar Gaddafi. Western powers intervened to support rebels after the UN Security Council authorised "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Col Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured and killed by rebels in August 2011. A subsequent battle for power and resources led to repeated clashes among rival militias, the expulsion of the internationally recognised government from the capital and the division of Libya into rival fiefdoms.

Syria: Streets protests in 2011 against the rule of Bashar al-Assad briefly seemed likely to topple the president. But as a peaceful uprising mutated into armed opposition and then an increasingly sectarian conflict, foreign powers were drawn in, seeking either to defend or destroy the Assad government. The militant group IS, formed in Iraq, took advantage of the instability to carve out territory for itself in northern and eastern Syria. Thousands have died in the conflict, and millions have fled Syria as refugees.

Tunisia: Birthplace of the Arab Spring, in December 2010, when young, unemployed Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself after officials stopped him selling vegetables, sparking mass protests. The resignation and flight of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali has been followed by the first democratic parliamentary and presidential elections in Tunisian history. Political assassinations and fatal attacks on tourists have followed, but Tunisia is often held up as the Arab country that has emerged best from the ousting of a long-time leader.

Yemen: President Ali Abdullah Saleh was the fourth Arab leader to be forced from power. But his departure from office did not lead to the end of his influence, and he remained in Yemen, forming an alliance of convenience with former enemies, the Houthi rebels, against Saudi Arabian forces and others. His successor as president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, has been unable to impose his authority on the country, which remains divided among competing armed factions, including the local branch of al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood's successive election victories in post-Mubarak Egypt once again exposed the West's dilemma. Let's not forget that both IS and al-Qaeda reject the Brotherhood's position that Islamists should seek power through the ballot box.

Safer bet

But fearing a Brotherhood challenge to their own authority, the autocrats in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf persuaded the West that they could not take the risk of an Egypt governed by President Morsi.

The Egyptian army, together with street protesters who wanted to overturn the election result, looked like the safer bet.

It was a policy born of perhaps understandable caution. How could Western leaders trust the Brotherhood's assurances that its first election victory would not be followed by an attempt to grasp power more permanently as a prelude to constructing its stated goal - an Islamic State?

But by failing to back the Brotherhood government, the West handed radical Islamists a victory. "There is no point voting for the Brotherhood," they could now argue, "because they will be kept out of power even if they win. You might as well fight with us instead."

In fact, political developments in Tunisia suggest that democracy can be trusted to work. The Muslim Brotherhood equivalent there - Ennahda - won the post-Arab Spring election and then proved willing to compromise.

_86749296_86749295.jpgImage copyrightAFPImage captionEnnahda won elections in Tunisia and later agreed to relinquish power to end a political deadlock

In a move no secular party in Tunisia would be likely to emulate, Ennahdavoluntarily stepped down from power in the interests of securing broad agreement on a new constitution.

But Tunisia was always a sideshow. Egypt matters more. And with the liberals' and Brotherhoods' leaders thrown into President Sisi's prisons, the field was left clear for the jihadists to offer the only clear argument about how to resist Cairo's oppressive government.

These issues affect the region as a whole. The contradictions are now most pressing in Syria. Western governments are still calling for the downfall of President Assad but hesitate to do much to bring it about for fear of what his departure might bring.

What would a post-Assad Syria look like? What would Syrian elections bring? Might Sunni Islamists come to power? How would that suit the West? And Israel?

That the West has been unable to transform the yearning for democracy, freedom and security in the Middle East into defeats for IS and al-Qaeda is in part a result of the contradiction inherent in arguing for democracy but fearing its results.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-34857789


  • 0

#14 Mama_mia

Mama_mia
  • Members
  • 4,616 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 13:13

...zvuci poznato da oplakujemo ceo svet a nas niko,

ili kako aktuelnu pricu o terorizmu u svetu iskoristiti za samosazaljenje?

 

 


Kako god bilo, jedno je nesporno: dosta smo više sažaljevali te Francuze! Red je da, za promenu, malo sažaljevamo sebe same, nismo odavno:

“A kada se slegne prašina oko ovog napada, da li će iko pomisliti na to da izrazi žaljenje zbog nečega što se desilo Srbiji? Preciznije rečeno, da li će iko od Srba da se seti da žali nekoga u svom narodu zbog toga što nema šta da jede ili gde da živi? Seti li se iko mati Fevronije ili mati Makarije koje se decenijama bore za opstanak naših najvećih svetinja na Kosovu? Pruža li neko njima podršku? Pružamo li podršku našem narodu na Kosovu i Metohiji? Šta je sa onim hiljadama ljudi koji su ostali bez domova u prošlogodišnjim poplavama? Dobiše li svi oni nove kuće? A šta je sa decom u prihvatilištima? Kako oni žive? Pruža li njima neko podršku? Koliko stotina ili hiljada srpskih porodica hoda po ivici između života i smrti? Što im neko ne pomogne i ne gurne ih na onu stranu na kojoj piše ‘ŽIVOT’?”

 

http://www.e-novine....roti-ivalj.html


  • 0

#15 darth bane

darth bane
  • Members
  • 7,071 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 14:16

Planeta Zemlja. 

 

Posto postoje dobri izgledi da se teroristi uskoro docepaju biotehnologije, a onda adio mare...

To i ja kazem!

Ali, neki (mnogi) se ocigledno rukovode devizom " neprijatelj moga neprijatelja je moj - prijatelj" , te im uopste nije bitno kakvo mracnjastvo podrzavaju!

Btw. dobro je sto si pomenuo biotehnologiju koja je potencijalno daleko opasnija cak i od nuklearnog oruzja! Jer jedna atomska bomba moze da unisti sve u precniku od par kilometara .... dok bi neki virus na primer mogao da desetkuje populaciju jedne Evrope za par meseci ! Uostalom to se u srednjem veku desilo sa bacilom kuge! Dok bi naucnici nasli protivotrov stotine miliona ljudi ( cak i milijarde) bi pomrli!


  • 0