Keeping terrorism in perspective

[Eric Mc]

What "perspective" does that give us?

How does it assess our own personal risk to an act of terror?

Personally, I was far more at risk living in Ireland in the 1970s are living in the UK in the 1980s.

[WinstonWolf]

Eric Mc said:

What "perspective" does that give us?

How does it assess our own personal risk to an act of terror?

Personally, I was far more at risk living in Ireland in the 1970s are living in the UK in the 1980s.

Yup, I grew up in the IRA era. Terrorism isn't nice but all you can do is crack on with your life.

[Eric Mc]

Absolutely. Just keep your wits about you etc.

[rscott]

Sylvaforever said:

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid, however you don't need to be a huge hero to do this, you just need a few facts and figures. You are massively more like to die in terribly mundane way that terrorism or crime in general.

World wide deaths due to terrorist in 2014 - 32,658

Food poisoning - 350k

Murder/Death due to crime in 2014 - 400,000+

Suicide - 800k

Traffic Accident - 1.3 Million

Malnutrition - 3.1 Million

Child death from lack of vaccination 6.6 Million

Preventable disease 56 Million people a year


In the UK More people are killed by lightning than Terrorism

Perspective eh..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/15/fr...

"A government committee’s testimony translated by Heat Street, a conservative site owned by News Corp., on Friday spotlights beheadings, gouged-out eyes, and sexual abuse at the Bataclan theater last year. The Islamic State terror attacks killed 130 across the city and 89 at the concert venue alone.
A translation provided by the website show France’s Commission of Inquiry asking an investigator about the remains of victims on the second floor of the theater. The questioner said that injuries attributed to shrapnel seem dubious given that one man had his testicles removed and placed in his mouth.
“Some of the bodies found at the Bataclan were extremely mutilated by the explosions and weapons, to the point that it was sometimes difficult to reconstruct the dismembered bodies,” an prosecutor said. “In other words, injuries described … may also have been caused by automatic weapons, by explosions or projections of nails and bolts that have resulted.”
“Would those have put a man’s [testicles] in in his own mouth?” the committee member fired back.
“I do not have that information,” the prosecutor replied

Or if you look at what other sources about those Bataclan claims, they soon fall apart:-

1. Heat Street claim the inquiry report was covered up - the unedited transcripts have been been on the official French site for some time. Heat Street's source for this was an article on infowars.com (normally found denying the moon landings and rambling about chemtrails).

2. The claims were made by a witness who admits he never saw anything but heard it from another investigator at the scene.

3. She carefully trims the transcripts eg, the response from the investigator to the testicles question was quoted as " We do not have that information" when he actually said "We do not have that information and if these facts had been established, I think such information would not have escaped us." Completely changes the meaning, I think.

4. Reading more of the transcript from later than month, there is an unequivocal statement from a prosecutor that the forensic doctors had not seen any evidence of any of this type of mutilation whatsoever. Yes, some faces were badly disfigured, but that's not unexpected if shot at fairly close range.

5. No knives were found anywhere at the crime scene.

6. Over 1000 people were in the Bataclan - only 89 were killed. Not one of the 900+ survivors has reported seeing any torture or mutilation.

7. IS haven't published any photos or videos of the mutilations - surely they would have done by now if any existed?

8. This twitter exchange - https://twitter.com/jmaccaud/status/75510664639381... - is enlightening. It's a French journalist who was actually in the Bataclan that night challenging Louise Mensch (who runs Heat Street) about the false claims in the article.


For a more accurate summary of the inquiry on this aspect - http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/bataclan-terro...

[rscott]

WinstonWolf said:

Eric Mc said:

What "perspective" does that give us?

How does it assess our own personal risk to an act of terror?

Personally, I was far more at risk living in Ireland in the 1970s are living in the UK in the 1980s.

Yup, I grew up in the IRA era. Terrorism isn't nice but all you can do is crack on with your life.

Agreed - I grew up in Colchester in the 1980s, went to college in the town centre and worked in a shop in the town at weekends. Bomb scares weren't exactly rare back then (usually some old dear left her shopping in M&S!)
Felt far more at risk back then than I do now, even when travelling around London days after the Brussels bombings.

[Sam All]

rscott said:

Agreed - I grew up in Colchester in the 1980s, went to college in the town centre and worked in a shop in the town at weekends. Bomb scares weren't exactly rare back then (usually some old dear left her shopping in M&S!)
Felt far more at risk back then than I do now, even when travelling around London days after the Brussels bombings.

Do you think the next decade will be much worse - not perception but reality and how how ordinary citizens are forced to adapt their lives. The airline security is one such example, courtesy of the 9/11 types - all with hatred of the West.

[matsoc]

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.

[greygoose]

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.

[rscott]

Sam All said:

rscott said:

Agreed - I grew up in Colchester in the 1980s, went to college in the town centre and worked in a shop in the town at weekends. Bomb scares weren't exactly rare back then (usually some old dear left her shopping in M&S!)
Felt far more at risk back then than I do now, even when travelling around London days after the Brussels bombings.

Do you think the next decade will be much worse - not perception but reality and how how ordinary citizens are forced to adapt their lives. The airline security is one such example, courtesy of the 9/11 types - all with hatred of the West.

I honestly don't know if the real risk will change. Depends a lot on what happens in the next 12 months - if Trump gets in and imposes some of his anti-Muslim policies then they won't help the situation at all. They'll make it far easier for IS to gather support amongst some Muslims.

There's also the risk of a backlash from from the extreme right wing to any of the IS attacks which will also escalate the situation.


I think the population in general need to play their part - yes, be cautious, but carry on life as normal. Don't stop doing things because of a perceived risk. After all, I'm far more likely to be injured in a train crash when travelling from Essex to London than I am in a terrorist incident once I get there.

Edited by rscott on Saturday 23 July 17:25

[Sam All]

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.

Agree with both of you.

However all it needs is a couple of terrorist attacks at UK shopping centres/train stations and that will influence behaviour.

Extra checks by the French at Calais has resulted in multi hour delays and gridlock on the A2

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/port...

[Magic919]

Sam All said:

Extra checks by the French at Calais has resulted in multi hour delays and gridlock on the A2

Incredible.

[Frik]

greygoose said:

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.

Which is of course specifically what IS want. A black and white world; Muslims against the "crusaders". If we allow terrorism to influence us then we are doing exactly what they want. Be aware, be sensible but for fks sake don't fall prey to their scare tactics.

[4x4Tyke]

PositronicRay said:

What are you suggesting?

I thought that is pretty self evident.

Less hysterical fear and more informed stoicism.

[Sylvaforever]

rscott said:

Sylvaforever said:

4x4Tyke said:

The intent of terrorism is provoke fear. Therefore the best defence is to not be afraid, however you don't need to be a huge hero to do this, you just need a few facts and figures. You are massively more like to die in terribly mundane way that terrorism or crime in general.

World wide deaths due to terrorist in 2014 - 32,658

Food poisoning - 350k

Murder/Death due to crime in 2014 - 400,000+

Suicide - 800k

Traffic Accident - 1.3 Million

Malnutrition - 3.1 Million

Child death from lack of vaccination 6.6 Million

Preventable disease 56 Million people a year


In the UK More people are killed by lightning than Terrorism

Perspective eh..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/15/fr...

"A government committee’s testimony translated by Heat Street, a conservative site owned by News Corp., on Friday spotlights beheadings, gouged-out eyes, and sexual abuse at the Bataclan theater last year. The Islamic State terror attacks killed 130 across the city and 89 at the concert venue alone.
A translation provided by the website show France’s Commission of Inquiry asking an investigator about the remains of victims on the second floor of the theater. The questioner said that injuries attributed to shrapnel seem dubious given that one man had his testicles removed and placed in his mouth.
“Some of the bodies found at the Bataclan were extremely mutilated by the explosions and weapons, to the point that it was sometimes difficult to reconstruct the dismembered bodies,” an prosecutor said. “In other words, injuries described … may also have been caused by automatic weapons, by explosions or projections of nails and bolts that have resulted.”
“Would those have put a man’s [testicles] in in his own mouth?” the committee member fired back.
“I do not have that information,” the prosecutor replied

Or if you look at what other sources about those Bataclan claims, they soon fall apart:-

1. Heat Street claim the inquiry report was covered up - the unedited transcripts have been been on the official French site for some time. Heat Street's source for this was an article on infowars.com (normally found denying the moon landings and rambling about chemtrails).

2. The claims were made by a witness who admits he never saw anything but heard it from another investigator at the scene.

3. She carefully trims the transcripts eg, the response from the investigator to the testicles question was quoted as " We do not have that information" when he actually said "We do not have that information and if these facts had been established, I think such information would not have escaped us." Completely changes the meaning, I think.

4. Reading more of the transcript from later than month, there is an unequivocal statement from a prosecutor that the forensic doctors had not seen any evidence of any of this type of mutilation whatsoever. Yes, some faces were badly disfigured, but that's not unexpected if shot at fairly close range.

5. No knives were found anywhere at the crime scene.

6. Over 1000 people were in the Bataclan - only 89 were killed. Not one of the 900+ survivors has reported seeing any torture or mutilation.

7. IS haven't published any photos or videos of the mutilations - surely they would have done by now if any existed?

8. This twitter exchange - https://twitter.com/jmaccaud/status/75510664639381... - is enlightening. It's a French journalist who was actually in the Bataclan that night challenging Louise Mensch (who runs Heat Street) about the false claims in the article.


For a more accurate summary of the inquiry on this aspect - http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/bataclan-terro...

indeed, hence the cover up allegations.

We are so fortunate that we have chosen a different path from the imploding eu.

[jjlynn27]

Sylvaforever said:

indeed, hence the cover up allegations.

We are so fortunate that we have chosen a different path from the imploding eu.

Yes, proof of imploding eu, Heat.

eta: as for every other conspiracy nutjob, lack of proof is a proof of cover-up.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 23 July 19:45

[LimaDelta]

From the Huffington Post, December 2015.

[LimaDelta]

Also this one.

[jjlynn27]

And in those 2 graphs, the thread ends. Not that it'll make any difference whatsoever.

[Sam All]

Plenty of st in the rest of the world, so it must be good. Lets bring that over here. NOT.

[Mr Gearchange]

^ The best way of avoiding a horrible Islamic militant terrorist death is to not be Muslim.

More people were killed by toddlers in the USA last year than by terrorism but I don't hear trump pushing for a total ban on 2 & 3 year olds entering the US.

Fear - good for the media and good for government