Keeping terrorism in perspective

[babatunde]

LimaDelta said:

From the Huffington Post, December 2015.

But, but, Brown people, Muslims, Arabs, Muslims again, Eastern Europeans, Muslim extremists.

I know in my heart that I'm more at risk from being shoot or blown up by terrorists than ever before so you can take your statistics and shove them where the sun don't shine. /s

[matsoc]

greygoose said:

matsoc said:

I disagree.

Not everything is about numbers, life is one of that things.

Even only 1 person killed every year by a terrorist attack in Europe would not be acceptable for me.

I can't see anyone saying it is acceptable but you cannot allow fear to dominate your life. The ludicrous ideas some propose of Muslims taking over the world unless they are wiped out show how easily terrorists can win in pitting people against each other.

I am not scared at all, I am angry. Having no fear and keep living normally is the best way to fight terrorism, but not because the statistics say it is unlikely to die in a terrorist attack, we have to do it because it is the right thing to do.
I mean, we can not tolerate deadly terrorist attacks because the risk of being involved is minimal.

[scherzkeks]

TheGuru said:

Crush said:

Doesn't help does it? In a way it is understandable why people are joining ISIS as all they see is the West killing innocent people (same as people get angry at Islam as they see Muslims killing innocents in Europe).

Type 'western strikes on civilians' into a search and it is frightening to see how many innocents are dying in the Middle East as a direct result of Western intervention.

Which is a fraction of the number of Muslims killed by other Muslims. You sound like the usual apologist.

The CIA's term for what he is describing is blowback. Perhaps instead of spouting nonsense, you could read up on it.

[LittleEnus]

matsoc said:

we can not tolerate deadly terrorist attacks because the risk of being involved is minimal.

Exactly this.

[rscott]

LittleEnus said:

matsoc said:

we can not tolerate deadly terrorist attacks because the risk of being involved is minimal.

Exactly this.

Is anyone suggesting we tolerate them? I can only see people saying they need to get the risk into perspective.

[jjlynn27]

matsoc said:

I am not scared at all, I am angry. Having no fear and keep living normally is the best way to fight terrorism, but not because the statistics say it is unlikely to die in a terrorist attack, we have to do it because it is the right thing to do.

Agree with most of this.

matsoc said:

I mean, we can not tolerate deadly terrorist attacks because the risk of being involved is minimal.

What do you mean by tolerating? I don't understand that. Genuine question.

[matsoc]

jjlynn27 said:

matsoc said:

I am not scared at all, I am angry. Having no fear and keep living normally is the best way to fight terrorism, but not because the statistics say it is unlikely to die in a terrorist attack, we have to do it because it is the right thing to do.

Agree with most of this.

matsoc said:

I mean, we can not tolerate deadly terrorist attacks because the risk of being involved is minimal.

What do you mean by tolerating? I don't understand that. Genuine question.

I was referring to the orginal OP, which put in the same list people dead in car accidents and people killed by terrorism. I don't like this list because putting together something we have to tolerate and accept like the accidents (even if the goal is to reduce them) with something like the terrorism could be wrongly interpreted.

Statistically it can be true but for me terrorism is not just another risk that we have to endure when going out, like a slippery road surface.

[jjlynn27]

matsoc said:

I was referring to the orginal OP, which put in the same list people dead in car accidents and people killed by terrorism. I don't like this list because putting together something we have to tolerate and accept like the accidents (even if the goal is to reduce them) with something like the terrorism could be wrongly interpreted.

Statistically it can be true but for me terrorism is not just another risk that we have to endure when going out, like a slippery road surface.

Get all that. Probably not making myself clear.

I understand what you are saying, what I'm curious about is this; How does behaviour (or approach) changes when you tolerate or not tolerate. (You = not you personally, in general).

[PRTVR]

Is what we are seeing now different ? I think it is more accurate to call it war by unconventional means, if you look at past terrorists attacks their objectives were localised, IRA UK with a holiday to Gibraltar, but Muslim extremists are operating all over the world with world domination as there goal, I think that makes it different.

[Halb]

LimaDelta said:

Also this one.

One only needs to look at the daily death rate in Syria. I posted it in another thread, it was sobering.

[Camoradi]

rscott said:

Is anyone suggesting we tolerate them? I can only see people saying they need to get the risk into perspective.

The risk isn't a constant though. When you are sitting on the London underground and the guy with a backpack full of explosives steps into your carriage, the risk to you changes significantly.

[NickGibbs]

Some people's reaction to risk is barmy.
In US you're more likely to be killed by a neighbour with a gun than a terrorist with a bomb, but Trump is winning followers for saying the latter is the greater threat. Why?
I guess he's pushing a simplistic solution that more people want (fewer Muslims) than the more complicated, less palatable one (gun control)

This article is very good on the craziness that affects humans every so often. Hope's he wrong about the outcome.
https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-w...

[Sylvaforever]

Halb said:

One only needs to look at the daily death rate in Syria. I posted it in another thread, it was sobering.

I don't live in Syria. I live in the United Kingdom, and find this thread nothing more that an act of appeasement to those who hate our way of life and an insult to those who have been killed, scarred mentally and the suffering of their loved ones.

[NickGibbs]

Sylvaforever said:

Halb said:

One only needs to look at the daily death rate in Syria. I posted it in another thread, it was sobering.

I don't live in Syria. I live in the United Kingdom, and find this thread nothing more that an act of appeasement to those who hate our way of life and an insult to those who have been killed, scarred mentally and the suffering of their loved ones.

What a bullst, emotionally manipulative and brainless post! No-one is saying 'don't do anything'. Just 'put it into perspective and don't do anything rash'.

Because bombing entire regions or threatening entire communities WILL make things worse, history has proven that. Or do you secretly want everything to be worse?

[greygoose]

NickGibbs said:

Sylvaforever said:

Halb said:

One only needs to look at the daily death rate in Syria. I posted it in another thread, it was sobering.

I don't live in Syria. I live in the United Kingdom, and find this thread nothing more that an act of appeasement to those who hate our way of life and an insult to those who have been killed, scarred mentally and the suffering of their loved ones.

What a bullst, emotionally manipulative and brainless post! No-one is saying 'don't do anything'. Just 'put it into perspective and don't do anything rash

Indeed a complete loss of perspective and an odd idea of appeasement and what it actually means.

[Disastrous]

Sylvaforever said:

Halb said:

One only needs to look at the daily death rate in Syria. I posted it in another thread, it was sobering.

I don't live in Syria. I live in the United Kingdom, and find this thread nothing more that an act of appeasement to those who hate our way of life and an insult to those who have been killed, scarred mentally and the suffering of their loved ones.

Exactly the sort of narrow-minded thinking that exacerbates the problem.

Also, I think it's pretty poor form to play the guilt-card by suggesting that this thread is an affront to those who lost their lives. Pretty low-rent emotional puppeteering, I'm afraid.

[Lefty]

What's the solution?

Seriously, is there any practicable solution to end it over a period of, say, 5 years? Money no object.

[ikarl]

Lefty said:

What's the solution?

Seriously, is there any practicable solution to end it over a period of, say, 5 years? Money no object.

7,000,000,000,000 megatons of TNT (or nuclear equivalent) should do it.

[iphonedyou]

Sylvaforever said:

I don't live in Syria. I live in the United Kingdom, and find this thread nothing more that an act of appeasement to those who hate our way of life and an insult to those who have been killed, scarred mentally and the suffering of their loved ones.

Was your previous username mojocvh (or similar)?

[TTwiggy]

Lefty said:

What's the solution?

Seriously, is there any practicable solution to end it over a period of, say, 5 years? Money no object.

The situation in Northern Ireland, though not perfect, does suggest that dialogue is the best response. Whether there is a cohesive command structure within IS to open dialogue with and whether they are currently open to any dialogue is debatable. Ultimately though it will be the only way to deal with things.