Keeping terrorism in perspective

[jjlynn27]

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

[rscott]

AJL308 said:

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.

How is a ban on only Muslim immigration not singling out one specific religion?

And you will very kindly allow them to practice their religion, but not allow them a building to do it in?

[Derek Smith]

One of the few countries that have been successful against non-conformist armies, such as the PIRA, Mau Mau (to a great extent) and the Malay liberation army, is the UK.

Malaya was won by inspired strategy. We bombed areas but the main thrust was against the ‘hearts and minds’. Against the Mau Mau we used slightly different tactics and some suggest that had not the Malay war started, the success would have been total. The PIRA civil war, for that was what it was, was stopped, not before time I agree, but look around and see what other countries have done in similar circumstances and then judge.

If we want to win against IS then I’d suggest we look to the past. The shame is, as the great man once said, the only thing that history teaches us is that we never learn from it.

That goes for some of the public going by certain posts. Let’s hope it doesn’t for our leaders of the forces.

[AJL308]

rscott said:

How is a ban on only Muslim immigration not singling out one specific religion?

And you will very kindly allow them to practice their religion, but not allow them a building to do it in?

The Muslim religion is the one in who's name the vast majority of unspeakable violence today is perpetrated. So, yes, it is 'singling out' Muslims. If it prevents people coming to Europe and blowing things up and shooting people then it is a reasonable measure.

A mosque, church or synagogue are not required in order to practice the related religions. If they aren't seen then it's one less thing to encourage religion. Just like keeping the ciggies out of view at the corner shop.

[Hoofy]

Disastrous said:

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.

It's very relevant when you lose a leg because you want to show them that you're not frightened. You might still not be frightened but now you only have one leg.

[Trabi601]

Hoofy said:

It's very relevant when you lose a leg because you want to show them that you're not frightened. You might still not be frightened but now you only have one leg.

You're more likely to break your neck putting on your pants in the morning!

[AJL308]

Trabi601 said:

You're more likely to break your neck putting on your pants in the morning!

You have evidence for that, one assumes?

Even if it's true, which probably isn't, it's completely irrelevant, regardless of how tiny the risk might be. Putting on clothes is an essential activity. Running the risk of getting blown up by a religionist is not.

[rscott]

AJL308 said:

rscott said:

How is a ban on only Muslim immigration not singling out one specific religion?

And you will very kindly allow them to practice their religion, but not allow them a building to do it in?

The Muslim religion is the one in who's name the vast majority of unspeakable violence today is perpetrated. So, yes, it is 'singling out' Muslims. If it prevents people coming to Eurowpe and blowing things up and shooting people then it is a reasonable measure.

A mosque, church or synagogue are not required in order to practice the related religions. If they aren't seen then it's one less thing to encourage religion. Just like keeping the ciggies out of view at the corner shop.

So you're worried about the behaviour of anyone with a faith, but want to drive them underground and have secret meetings? I'm sure that makes perfect sense in whatever paranoid world you live in.

Oh and what happens if someone tries to enter the country and says they're no longer a Muslim - do you let them in?
What if someone wants to move to the UK from France after Brexit (when we have control of immigration)? How do you test if they're a Muslim?

[Randy Winkman]

Do some people have Muslim passports?

[Trabi601]

AJL308 said:

You have evidence for that, one assumes?

Even if it's true, which probably isn't, it's completely irrelevant, regardless of how tiny the risk might be. Putting on clothes is an essential activity. Running the risk of getting blown up by a religionist is not.

6000 people ended up in A&E after a trouser related incident in the year stats were taken.

There's a 1 in 30 million chance a trouser incident will kill you.

There's a 0 in 65 million chance of being killed by a terrorist in the UK this year.

[Disastrous]

Hoofy said:

Disastrous said:

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.

It's very relevant when you lose a leg because you want to show them that you're not frightened. You might still not be frightened but now you only have one leg.

So? Like I just explained, that's not 'losing the battle' in a way that I recognise.

Staying in because I'm afraid of losing a leg most certainly is.

It seems very clear to me that losing is something that only you can let happen to you. If IS invaded the UK and demanded we all convert or die, then they'd just have to execute me. My decision and they don't win because you only lose when you surrender internally.

[silent ninja]

AJL308 said:

The Muslim religion is the one in who's name the vast majority of unspeakable violence today is perpetrated. So, yes, it is 'singling out' Muslims. If it prevents people coming to Europe and blowing things up and shooting people then it is a reasonable measure.

A mosque, church or synagogue are not required in order to practice the related religions. If they aren't seen then it's one less thing to encourage religion. Just like keeping the ciggies out of view at the corner shop.

Muslim regions?
Is that India? China? Indonesia? Could you be more specific. It's estimated china has well north of 50m Muslims. One fifth of the world are Muslims. I don't think people like you can fathom how many countries, cultures and races that spans. Consider how diverse white Caucasians are. Muslims number many more and are all over the globe. the variety is ENORMOUS. Russia has over 16m Muslims

So crawl under your rock and return to your tiny little bubble of ignorance. That many people aren't going anywhere. The only way to solve problems is to work together, find common ground. The alternative never works. History has repeatedly shown this.

It's no coincidence that the vast majority of attacks have been from perpetrators in war zones and areas of political conflict, usually where Europe are involved. The juxtapositionin media is "hey they want to destroy our way of life." In reality they couldn't care less, but are doing it for maximum attention to support their political cause. Muslims want to inherently take over the world? No, I think you'll find they just want to go home.

[Randy Winkman]

silent ninja said:

Muslim regions?
Is that India? China? Indonesia? Could you be more specific. It's estimated china has well north of 50m Muslims. One fifth of the world are Muslims. I don't think people like you can fathom how many countries, cultures and races that spans. Consider how diverse white Caucasians are. Muslims number many more and are all over the globe. the variety is ENORMOUS. Russia has over 16m Muslims

So crawl under your rock and return to your tiny little bubble of ignorance. That many people aren't going anywhere. The only way to solve problems is to work together, find common ground. The alternative never works. History has repeatedly shown this.

It's no coincidence that the vast majority of attacks have been from perpetrators in war zones and areas of political conflict, usually where Europe are involved. The juxtapositionin media is "hey they want to destroy our way of life." In reality they couldn't care less, but are doing it for maximum attention to support their political cause. Muslims want to inherently take over the world? No, I think you'll find they just want to go home.

[Wills2]

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.

Not this rubbish again, seriously how can you begin to come to this conclusion.

[Hoofy]

Disastrous said:

So? Like I just explained, that's not 'losing the battle' in a way that I recognise.

Staying in because I'm afraid of losing a leg most certainly is.

It seems very clear to me that losing is something that only you can let happen to you. If IS invaded the UK and demanded we all convert or die, then they'd just have to execute me. My decision and they don't win because you only lose when you surrender internally.

The latter is unlikely so we'll never know but adjusting my activities slightly isn't going to ruin my day. It's easy to be defiant when you're standing there intact. I want to always be intact so I'll just avoid larger, unprotected crowds. And so, I win, not them!

[Disastrous]

Hoofy said:

Disastrous said:

So? Like I just explained, that's not 'losing the battle' in a way that I recognise.

Staying in because I'm afraid of losing a leg most certainly is.

It seems very clear to me that losing is something that only you can let happen to you. If IS invaded the UK and demanded we all convert or die, then they'd just have to execute me. My decision and they don't win because you only lose when you surrender internally.

The latter is unlikely so we'll never know but adjusting my activities slightly isn't going to ruin my day. It's easy to be defiant when you're standing there intact. I want to always be intact so I'll just avoid larger, unprotected crowds. And so, I win, not them!

Fair enough. Like I say, if that's what a win looks like to you then go for it. I hate adjusting my activities for anything, least of all fear or an I,lesion of security so for me that would be losing.

The good news is nobody else but you can define your personal victory conditions so go for it.

[Hoofy]

Disastrous said:

Hoofy said:

Disastrous said:

So? Like I just explained, that's not 'losing the battle' in a way that I recognise.

Staying in because I'm afraid of losing a leg most certainly is.

It seems very clear to me that losing is something that only you can let happen to you. If IS invaded the UK and demanded we all convert or die, then they'd just have to execute me. My decision and they don't win because you only lose when you surrender internally.

The latter is unlikely so we'll never know but adjusting my activities slightly isn't going to ruin my day. It's easy to be defiant when you're standing there intact. I want to always be intact so I'll just avoid larger, unprotected crowds. And so, I win, not them!

Fair enough. Like I say, if that's what a win looks like to you then go for it. I hate adjusting my activities for anything, least of all fear or an I,lesion of security so for me that would be losing.

The good news is nobody else but you can define your personal victory conditions so go for it.

I'm not frightened in any way. Like anything, I adopt a risk assessment. I won't walk through certain parts of London at night.

[Disastrous]

Fair enough. If you say it's not fear of being blown up that would keep you away from crowds I can't dispute that. But whatever the reason, moderating my behaviour because of a terrorist won't be happening.

My understanding of risk assessments is that they plot likelihood of the incident against the consequences should the incident happen?

So a terror attack will have a high consequence but a massively low likelihood of actually happening to you, wouldn't it?

From distant memory, that really ought to put it in the 'acceptable risk' category, if you're being logical about it. I'm sure you wouldn't mitigate against the likelihood of a meteor strike, would you?

[rscott]

Randy Winkman said:

Do some people have Muslim passports?

I'm sure AJL308 will come up with a foolproof way of detecting them..

[Mr Whippy]

Just don't go where Richard Gutjahr is, and I think you might be ok?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/22/nice-munic...