Keeping terrorism in perspective

[RMK87]

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.

Not 5 years but maybe 30/40.

Leave the middle east alone. That means no more propping up dictators or royal monarchies. No more weapon sales. No more taking sides. Leave the place well the fk alone. Not just the UK but the "West" as a whole.

There are more moderate sensible Muslims who want a peaceful world than extremists. In a war/crusade environment the extremists get a lot of support. Their viewpoint makes sense when your kids have been blown up by the other sect, the West, Russians or your own Government [take your pick]

Airstrikes/invasions/sectarian violence/propping up dictators/Israel etc leaves the average Muslim with a pretty st taste of the "West"

Take away the violence and ISIS has no propaganda anymore. Overtime (more than 5 years mind you) their support for attacking the West will diminish. Most Muslims want to attack the West due to the political situation and not due to the religious differences. Give normal Muslims a chance of living a a decent life and extremist groups will be non existent or not as potent.

We are not the whole problem but a part of it. Everybody needs to do their bit. Muslims need to educate themselves better in some parts of the world. But the West needs to stop bombing them. Whats missing is the mutual respect between two civilisations that would prevent ISIS but also prevent trigger happy yank in his A10 and drones.

[Lefty]

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



Predictable answer!

Anyone remember the episode of Homeland where the guy (Quinn?) says there are two options:

1. Send 200,000 primary school teachers, 200,000 doctors and 200,000 soldiers to Syria and wait
2. Pound the country into dust



Serious question, is there a way to stop it? Anything that involves another war against terrrrr will only incite more violence from the potential militant muslims (a tiny minority of the muslim population) who have already left the middle east.


Do we just give-in? I'm not sure what we are supposed to be giving in to.

Do we wait long enough for all the would-be suicide bombers to kill themselves and write off the hundreds/thousands of civilians killed as inevitable

Do we spend an extra billion on intelligence services and spec forces / anti-terrorism police? An extra 10 billion? 100 billion? Would that "fix" it?

[Lefty]

TTwiggy said:

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.

That is a very good point. But are their aims and objectives even feasible for us to live alongisde? What are they? Genuine question, I don't know!

A global caliphate?

[TTwiggy]

Lefty said:

That is a very good point. But are their aims and objectives even feasible for us to live alongisde? What are they? Genuine question, I don't know!

A global caliphate?

The call for a global caliphate is just PR. It's probsbly a useful recruiting slogan but they are never going to achieve it. The IRA had the much more modest aim of a unified Ireland, and they didn't get anywhere near that in the peace process.

There will have to be compromises on both sides and it won't be an easy task. The biggest problem right now is identifying someone on their side who is willing to talk and who speaks for enough of IS to make it worthwhile speaking to.

[Sam All]

Islamic influence/population worldwide is in the rise, nothing to stop it. Anyone disagree?

[Mr Whippy]

To really be entirely safe we need to live like we're in a prison. No thanks.

The danger we face is that we give up a lot of freedom for no real benefit in reduction of risk.


Sadly I think we just have to learn to not live in fear of it.

The fear is the motivation for those doing it in the first place.

[TTwiggy]

Sam All said:

Islamic influence/population worldwide is in the rise, nothing to stop it. Anyone disagree?

You're very fond of these enigmatic 'I'm not taking sides just asking questions' soundbites aren't you?

Let's break it down shall we? There may be a trend that shows the Muslim population is growing. The question I'd fire back to you is: is that a problem? You also say there's 'nothing to stop it'. Does that mean you would be in favour of 'stopping' it, if possible?

[anonymous-user]

Fear and perception are often not linked to the reality of a situation.

Camoradi said:

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.

As it does with all the other areas of risk when the 'event' presents itself. That doesn't change the generalised probabilities of the event occurring, which is what the OP is comparing.

[Hoofy]

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid,

I hear similar a lot: the terrorists have won when you change your way of living (eg not going out).

I think it's truer to say the terrorists have won when your left arm is 5m away from your head. They want you to be defiant and continue gathering in crowds so they can kill you.

Didn't the IRA used to give coded messages to the police to let them know of a bomb rather than just trying to kill as many people as possible (there are some exceptions, of course).

[Disastrous]

Hoofy said:

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid,

I hear similar a lot: the terrorists have won when you change your way of living (eg not going out).

I think it's truer to say the terrorists have won when your left arm is 5m away from your head. They want you to be defiant and continue gathering in crowds so they can kill you.

I don't think so. Surely terror represents an ideological war, rather than a physical one. I don't see terrorists as attacking individuals so much as attacking our values, our freedoms and our way of life. If you compromise those things in order to stay 'safe' then they have won.

I'd rather be blown to bits than live in a Police state, thank you very much. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that sort of thing, no?

[ikarl]

Lefty said:

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



Predictable answer!

Anyone remember the episode of Homeland where the guy (Quinn?) says there are two options:

1. Send 200,000 primary school teachers, 200,000 doctors and 200,000 soldiers to Syria and wait
2. Pound the country into dust

Just for clarity, as my post was probably too subtle, but I'm sure I remember hearing that 7 trillion tonnes of TNT would be enough to destroy the WHOLE planet

I don't think there is a way back from where we are, other than a major catastrophe (disease, natural disaster, famine, WW3 etc), or a change in mankind so monumental that there is no need to fight against each other (real A.I. or proof of 'other' life (aliens)) - in my mind there are too many people on the planet pulling in too many different directions.

I'd like to think that the sensible-intelligent majority will overcome the current issues the world is facing... not sure if we're past that point now though

[Frik]

Lefty said:

TTwiggy said:

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.

That is a very good point. But are their aims and objectives even feasible for us to live alongisde? What are they? Genuine question, I don't know!

A global caliphate?

The IRA are not comparable to IS. The former believed that political violence was the only way to persuade the British government to see things from their point of view. There were plenty of people who agreed with their aims, if not necessarily with their methods. With dialogue and patience it was possible to reach a compromise that reduced the violence.

Terrorism for IS is not merely for them to get their own way, it is designed to cause fear and anger to divide us. They simply believe that the world is headed for holy war, Muslims against the rest of the world, and they are obliged to do all they can to hasten that war. These are not the thoughts of sensible people. They are certainly not the thoughts of the vast majority of peace-loving, ordinary Muslims who just want to live a normal life.

We can never live alongside IS. Their ideology won't allow for that. They can be defeated though. They certainly don't have the majority of the world's Muslims on their side. Whether this is through violence (which seems to be working in Iraq and Syria at least, despite the obvious drawbacks), or through indirectly destroying their ideology remains to be seen. All we can do is avoid doing precisely what they want us to. The more we blame all Muslims for the actions of IS, the more divided we become and the closer IS get to achieving their aim of holy war.

[mikemike08]

Frik said:

Lefty said:

TTwiggy said:

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.

That is a very good point. But are their aims and objectives even feasible for us to live alongisde? What are they? Genuine question, I don't know!

A global caliphate?

The IRA are not comparable to IS. The former believed that political violence was the only way to persuade the British government to see things from their point of view. There were plenty of people who agreed with their aims, if not necessarily with their methods. With dialogue and patience it was possible to reach a compromise that reduced the violence.

Terrorism for IS is not merely for them to get their own way, it is designed to cause fear and anger to divide us. They simply believe that the world is headed for holy war, Muslims against the rest of the world, and they are obliged to do all they can to hasten that war. These are not the thoughts of sensible people. They are certainly not the thoughts of the vast majority of peace-loving, ordinary Muslims who just want to live a normal life.

We can never live alongside IS. Their ideology won't allow for that. They can be defeated though. They certainly don't have the majority of the world's Muslims on their side. Whether this is through violence (which seems to be working in Iraq and Syria at least, despite the obvious drawbacks), or through indirectly destroying their ideology remains to be seen. All we can do is avoid doing precisely what they want us to. The more we blame all Muslims for the actions of IS, the more divided we become and the closer IS get to achieving their aim of holy war.

Killing is killing, ira = isis, no difference

[Frik]

Apart from what I just mentioned, yes. What's your point?

[AJL308]

Lefty said:

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



Predictable answer!

Anyone remember the episode of Homeland where the guy (Quinn?) says there are two options:

1. Send 200,000 primary school teachers, 200,000 doctors and 200,000 soldiers to Syria and wait
2. Pound the country into dust



Serious question, is there a way to stop it? Anything that involves another war against terrrrr will only incite more violence from the potential militant muslims (a tiny minority of the muslim population) who have already left the middle east.


Do we just give-in? I'm not sure what we are supposed to be giving in to.

Do we wait long enough for all the would-be suicide bombers to kill themselves and write off the hundreds/thousands of civilians killed as inevitable

Do we spend an extra billion on intelligence services and spec forces / anti-terrorism police? An extra 10 billion? 100 billion? Would that "fix" it?

1) Ignore the middle east - leave it to its own devices. If they want to kill each other (which they do) then let them do it.

2) Don't allow any immigration from the middle east. None for any reason what-so-ever, including accepting refugees. In fact, no Muslim immigration from anywhere.

3) Anyone of ME decent allowed to ps off out of the Country with a cash incentive. If they dislike this country/the west/civilisation then paying to get rid of them is preferable to having the country blown to bits.

4) Prohibition on anything religious in public; no new mosques, churches, synagogues, no religious dress visible in any public place. No religious support in any form by the state and disestablishment of the CoE

[rscott]

AJL308 said:

Lefty said:

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



Predictable answer!

Anyone remember the episode of Homeland where the guy (Quinn?) says there are two options:

1. Send 200,000 primary school teachers, 200,000 doctors and 200,000 soldiers to Syria and wait
2. Pound the country into dust



Serious question, is there a way to stop it? Anything that involves another war against terrrrr will only incite more violence from the potential militant muslims (a tiny minority of the muslim population) who have already left the middle east.


Do we just give-in? I'm not sure what we are supposed to be giving in to.

Do we wait long enough for all the would-be suicide bombers to kill themselves and write off the hundreds/thousands of civilians killed as inevitable

Do we spend an extra billion on intelligence services and spec forces / anti-terrorism police? An extra 10 billion? 100 billion? Would that "fix" it?

1) Ignore the middle east - leave it to its own devices. If they want to kill each other (which they do) then let them do it.

2) Don't allow any immigration from the middle east. None for any reason what-so-ever, including accepting refugees. In fact, no Muslim immigration from anywhere.

3) Anyone of ME decent allowed to ps off out of the Country with a cash incentive. If they dislike this country/the west/civilisation then paying to get rid of them is preferable to having the country blown to bits.

4) Prohibition on anything religious in public; no new mosques, churches, synagogues, no religious dress visible in any public place. No religious support in any form by the state and disestablishment of the CoE

Why the total block on Muslim immigration?

And a wonderfully tolerant attitude that because you have no faith, no other person is allowed it either.

[Hoofy]

Disastrous said:

Hoofy said:

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid,

I hear similar a lot: the terrorists have won when you change your way of living (eg not going out).

I think it's truer to say the terrorists have won when your left arm is 5m away from your head. They want you to be defiant and continue gathering in crowds so they can kill you.

I don't think so. Surely terror represents an ideological war, rather than a physical one. I don't see terrorists as attacking individuals so much as attacking our values, our freedoms and our way of life. If you compromise those things in order to stay 'safe' then they have won.

I'd rather be blown to bits than live in a Police state, thank you very much. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that sort of thing, no?

I don't think they're that bothered. They want to kill you.

[Disastrous]

Hoofy said:

Disastrous said:

Hoofy said:

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid,

I hear similar a lot: the terrorists have won when you change your way of living (eg not going out).

I think it's truer to say the terrorists have won when your left arm is 5m away from your head. They want you to be defiant and continue gathering in crowds so they can kill you.

I don't think so. Surely terror represents an ideological war, rather than a physical one. I don't see terrorists as attacking individuals so much as attacking our values, our freedoms and our way of life. If you compromise those things in order to stay 'safe' then they have won.

I'd rather be blown to bits than live in a Police state, thank you very much. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that sort of thing, no?

I don't think they're that bothered. They want to kill you.

But what they think or want is largely irrelevant. I or more accurately we, as a society, are free to define what a win or a loss looks like to us.

For me, losing is defined by longer queues and more hassle at airports, people afraid to gather en masse in public areas and a pervasive fear of the Arab bogey man.

Winning is continuing as normal.

[Trabi601]

AJL308 said:

1) Ignore the middle east - leave it to its own devices. If they want to kill each other (which they do) then let them do it.

2) Don't allow any immigration from the middle east. None for any reason what-so-ever, including accepting refugees. In fact, no Muslim immigration from anywhere.

3) Anyone of ME decent allowed to ps off out of the Country with a cash incentive. If they dislike this country/the west/civilisation then paying to get rid of them is preferable to having the country blown to bits.

4) Prohibition on anything religious in public; no new mosques, churches, synagogues, no religious dress visible in any public place. No religious support in any form by the state and disestablishment of the CoE

You'd have loved 1930s Germany.

[AJL308]

Trabi601 said:

AJL308 said:

1) Ignore the middle east - leave it to its own devices. If they want to kill each other (which they do) then let them do it.

2) Don't allow any immigration from the middle east. None for any reason what-so-ever, including accepting refugees. In fact, no Muslim immigration from anywhere.

3) Anyone of ME decent allowed to ps off out of the Country with a cash incentive. If they dislike this country/the west/civilisation then paying to get rid of them is preferable to having the country blown to bits.

4) Prohibition on anything religious in public; no new mosques, churches, synagogues, no religious dress visible in any public place. No religious support in any form by the state and disestablishment of the CoE

You'd have loved 1930s Germany.

No, I wouldn't.

And, notice that I didn't single out any particular religion nor did I suggest that people should not be free to believe whatever irrational rubbish the like. They just shouldn't have the right to inflict it on other people.