NationStates Jolt Archive

Now in light of the rather humorous attempts to terrorise the UK recently by islamists, I am seeing an increasing number of people deciding that diminishes any possible threat extremist terrorism has. Many people are suggesting that the security services stop having terrorism as a concern, and practically ignore it.

This is of course a stupid idea, just because some attemps will fail does not mean all attempts will. The truth is Islamists are more then capable of producing devestating harm in europe, we shouldn't forget such events like this (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/jpg/15-5.jpg) that justified such concern in the first place. And since extremists are on the increase, mostly due to the fucked up war, there is no reason to believe it's going away any time soon.

People seem to assume that if we cease to be bothered about terrorism, it will just go away. This is not true, terrorists are ultimately attention seekers, so they will always try to get our attention. If we ignore them, they will obviously just try harder. I'm not saying we should go into a state of panic or partake in very extreme measures to fight islamic terrorism, but that doesn't mean the security services should just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Let's see...

How many people have been killed by terrorist attacks in Europe in the last, say, 50 years? Now, how many have been murdered by their spouses in the last 50 years? Guess which number is bigger.

Let's see...

How many people have been killed by terrorist attacks in Europe in the last, say, 50 years? Now, how many have been murdered by their spouses in the last 50 years? Guess which number is bigger.

Clearly, marriage is more than capable of producing devastating harm in Europe, and since marriages are on the increase, most likely due to breeding, there is no reason to believe it will go away soon.

*Cries*

I was like 2 minutes away from posting something like this...xD

I kind of agree (does not totally agree? Leaves that up to reader). If terrorism is failing in the UK, it's because the security services have terrorism as a concern. We all know about surveillance in Britain…

Let's see...

How many people have been killed by terrorist attacks in Europe in the last, say, 50 years? Now, how many have been murdered by their spouses in the last 50 years? Guess which number is bigger.

Yes because domestic violence is not a concern :rolleyes:

I kind of agree (does not totally agree? Leaves that up to reader). If terrorism is failing in the UK, it's because the security services have terrorism as a concern. We all know about surveillance in Britain…

Well, to be fair, the attacks at the weekend failed because of the incompetence of the attackers.

This is of course a stupid idea, just because some attemps will fail does not mean all attempts will. The truth is Islamists are more then capable of producing devestating harm in europe, we shouldn't forget such events like this (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/jpg/15-5.jpg) that justified such concern in the first place. And since extremists are on the increase, mostly due to the fucked up war, there is no reason to believe it's going away any time soon.

Devastating? Three and a half thousand people die in road accidents in the UK every year. 6.3 million people have died from smoking related illnesses over the last fifty years 126,000 per year). What have the terrorists achieved? In the six years since 9/11 they've killed 52 people in the UK, that's under 9 per year. That means that I'm nearly 400 times more likely to be killed in a road accident than I am to be killed by a terrorist.

Sure, we should take reasonable measures to avoid attacks (not attacking Iraq would've been a good start...) but at the end of the day, it's the panic-stricken nuts who run about like headless chickens in the wake of an attack who are the dangerous ones: no amount of of suicide bombs can destroy our democracy, but fear has already destroyed too many of our hard-won liberties.

....
Sure, we should take reasonable measures to avoid attacks..

So we agree then.

Lets look at it another way, just because a really major attack hasn't happened in europe yet, doesn't mean it wont. Lets not deny that this is a dream some muslim extremists have. Lets also remember that it's getting much more easier to be in possesion of more damaging bombs, dirty bombs are already circulating around the black market.

It is completely illogical to use statistics to measure a threat. How many times does a comet smash into earth killing millions a year? Never? Oh so there is no reason to worry about such a thing right? :rolleyes:

It is completely illogical to use statistics to measure a threat. How many times does a comet smash into earth killing millions a year? Never? Oh so there is no reason to worry about such a thing right? :rolleyes:

Greatest. Quote. Ever.

Ever heard of 'actuaries'?

Greatest. Quote. Ever.

Ever heard of 'actuaries'?

Financial actuaries use more then just statistics to measure risk. But this has nothing to do with business, market trends are easier to predict.

So we agree then.

Lets look at it another way, just because a really major attack hasn't happened in europe yet, doesn't mean it wont. Lets not deny that this is a dream some muslim extremists have. Lets also remember that it's getting much more easier to be in possesion of more damaging bombs, dirty bombs are already circulating around the black market.

It is completely illogical to use statistics to measure a threat. How many times does a comet smash into earth killing millions a year? Never? Oh so there is no reason to worry about such a thing right? :rolleyes:

Look, the reason a major terrorist attack has never happened in Europe is because Europe doesn't interfere in their affairs with the same frequency as the US. There are greater evils to the terrorists. Namely, Israel and the US. The reason there are terror attacks in the UK is because of their pro-US stance. And seeing as Tony Blair recently left, this shouldn't be quite as much of an issue.

And do I worry about a comet smashing into the earth? No! Although, to be fair, I don't worry about a terrorist attack either...

Here is another example. If we were to use the logic of using only statistics to measure a threat, we would have to conclude that Russia was absolutely no threat at all during the cold war since it never once nuked any of it's enemies. Do you see where the logic fails?

Well, to be fair, the attacks at the weekend failed because of the incompetence of the attackers.

That too. Terrorist incompetence is better than the alternative.

Here is another example. If we were to use the logic of using only statistics to measure a threat, we would have to conclude that Russia was absolutely no threat at all during the cold war since it never once nuked any of it's enemies. Do you see where the logic fails?

That is a totally different situation. They are uncomparable. If someone has the power to wipe you off the face of the earth forever, then they are definetely a threat.

Look, the reason a major terrorist attack has never happened in Europe is because Europe doesn't interfere in their affairs with the same frequency as the US. There are greater evils to the terrorists. Namely, Israel and the US. The reason there are terror attacks in the UK is because of their pro-US stance. And seeing as Tony Blair recently left, this shouldn't be quite as much of an issue.

And do I worry about a comet smashing into the earth? No! Although, to be fair, I don't worry about a terrorist attack either...

The thing is, groups like Al Qaida were orignally set up against europe and not the USA, due to many things (england for having a huge part in creating Israel for one). Terrorists hate the west, and don't just limit it to the US and Israel. By the way many people think that the USA's security forces should get rid of any concern too. So this thread goes out to them too i guess.

And do I worry about a comet smashing into the earth? No! Although, to be fair, I don't worry about a terrorist attack either...

Tunguska Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) :eek:

That is a totally different situation. They are uncomparable. If someone has the power to wipe you off the face of the earth forever, then they are definetely a threat.

The situation is different, I never said they were the same. But the logic in the argument I was adressing is the same.

That is a totally different situation. They are uncomparable. If someone has the power to wipe you off the face of the earth forever, then they are definetely a threat.

A car filled with gasoline and nails could wipe certain people off the face of the earth forever… unless it gets towed.
My point is that for the person being blown up, it really doesn't matter whether it was a car bomb or a nuclear blast… or a comet's airburst.

Here is another example. If we were to use the logic of using only statistics to measure a threat, we would have to conclude that Russia was absolutely no threat at all during the cold war since it never once nuked any of it's enemies. Do you see where the logic fails?

I've also never been infected with West Nile virus, been struck by lightning or abducted by aliens. But I suppose I should be frightned with all of these since they are possible threats to my person no matter how unlikely they are to occur?

I've also never been infected with West Nile virus, been struck by lightning or abducted by aliens. But I suppose I should be frightned with all of these since they are possible threats to my person no matter how unlikely they are to occur?

This is assuming that a terrorist attack is very unlikely. Which is plainly untrue. And I never said you should be "frightened".

It is completely illogical to use statistics to measure a threat. How many times does a comet smash into earth killing millions a year? Never? Oh so there is no reason to worry about such a thing right? :rolleyes:

Are you serious? It is like saying we should be frightened of air travel because of rare crashes when "statistically" it is the safest way to travel. But I guess we shouldn't use airplanes because statistics are just so illogical.

Are you serious? It is like saying we should be frightened of air travel because of rare crashes when "statistically" it is the safest way to travel. But I guess we shouldn't use airplanes because statistics are just so illogical.

However, air travel, like lightning strikes or alien abductions, doesn't really have the potential to suddenly become huge threats. Planes won't suddenly become more dangerous, lightning won't suddenly start mugging people in the streets, and the aliens must be all probed out by now anyway. :D

Are you serious? It is like saying we should be frightened of air travel because of rare crashes when "statistically" it is the safest way to travel. But I guess we shouldn't use airplanes because statistics are just so illogical.

People are blatently doing as much as they can to make air travel as safe as possible. Companies are spending millions of dollars to invest in the most modern technologies etc..

So unless you think that we shouldn't have tried to make air travel safer, your point is totally invalid.

This is assuming that a terrorist attack is very unlikely. Which is plainly untrue. And I never said you should be "frightened".

Then just "wary" or "concerned"? Such an attack may occur but I'm not going to worry about it. It would be like being scared of dying in a car wreck every time I go out on the road which is much more likely to happen of course then me dying from terrorists. I accept that it MAY happen, just like your mention of a comet that MAY hit the Earth. I'm not going to spend time thinking about it though.

It is completely illogical to use statistics to measure a threat. How many times does a comet smash into earth killing millions a year? Never? Oh so there is no reason to worry about such a thing right? :rolleyes:

There are going to be insurance underwriters all over the world crying into their cornflakes if that's true. I mean just think of all the money the insurance industry is losing due to its' illogical use of so called 'statistics' to assess risk and set premiums.

Then just "wary" or "concerned"? Such an attack may occur but I'm not going to worry about it. It would be like being scared of dying in a car wreck every time I go out on the road which is much more likely to happen of course then me dying from terrorists. I accept that it MAY happen, just like your mention of a comet that MAY hit the Earth. I'm not going to spend time thinking about it though.

Well I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say here. I'm not saying you personally should worry, i'm saying our security services should.

What I would suggest you are seeing is not complacency or indifference from us Brits, but resoluteness and stoicism. The very notion of terrorism is to terrorise, to instill in the everyday populace a sense of fear, a sense of terror. We Brits, from our long experience of dealing with terrorism, have learn't that you can't be terrorised. To borrow a phrase, if you are terrorised, then the terrorists win.

I have mentioned before that i work on the train network in south east England and the south of London. Our security is extremely high, we have armed police patrolling at the stations, etc, etc. Do I worry? No, because if I let the actions of terrorists affect me, then I give validity to their actions and give them a reason to try again.

EDIT Sorry didn't see your last post. To answer that, I would point you towards the number of plots foiled by the British and European security services. To suggest they don't take the threat seriously is, frankly, insulting.

Well I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say here. I'm not saying you personally should worry, i'm saying our security services should.

Yep. That's what your original post said, and what almost everyone ignored. :rolleyes:

Yep. That's what your original post said, and what almost everyone ignored. :rolleyes:

Yep, although I guess it could have been a little clearer.

Yep, although I guess it could have been a little clearer.

…

Now in light of the rather humorous attempts to terrorise the UK recently by islamists, I am seeing an increasing number of people deciding that diminishes any possible threat extremist terrorism has. Many people are suggesting that the security services stop having terrorism as a concern, and practically ignore it.

Meh.

Tunguska Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) :eek:To be fair that comet didn't actually, in the narrowest sense of the term, 'collide' with the Earth. It exploded before impact... kinda like our recent terrorists... only it's theorised that the comet caused more damage because it exploded before impact, whilst, luckily, the reverse is true for our self-immolating friends.

People seem to assume that if we cease to be bothered about terrorism, it will just go away. This is not true, terrorists are ultimately attention seekers, so they will always try to get our attention. If we ignore them, they will obviously just try harder. I'm not saying we should go into a state of panic or partake in very extreme measures to fight islamic terrorism, but that doesn't mean the security services should just ignore it and hope it goes away.I was always taught that the best way to deal with an attention seeker is to ignore. Eventually they'll give up and go bother someone else. Are you telling me my teacher was a liar?

I was always taught that the best way to deal with an attention seeker is to ignore. Eventually they'll give up and go bother someone else. Are you telling me my teacher was a liar?

Yes

Well I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say here. I'm not saying you personally should worry, i'm saying our security services should.

Ah, well that is their job of course. Terrorism is a threat they will have to watch for. Even here though there are more mundane threats that they should be more concerned with. They may not be as flashy but I think stopping things like drug runners and other ordinary criminals should be a higher priority since they are much more likely to encountered than a Muslim extremist with a bomb.

Ah, well that is their job of course. Terrorism is a threat they will have to watch for. Even here though there are more mundane threats that they should be more concerned with. They may not be as flashy but I think stopping things like drug runners and other ordinary criminals should be a higher priority since they are much more likely to encountered than a Muslim extremist with a bomb.

Not if you legalise drugs.

Not if you legalise drugs.

Would you like that?

Would you like that?

Well thats for another thread.

Now in light of the rather humorous attempts to terrorise the UK recently by islamists, I am seeing an increasing number of people deciding that diminishes any possible threat extremist terrorism has. Many people are suggesting that the security services stop having terrorism as a concern, and practically ignore it.

Who, and where?

Who, and where?

Here and around about on the media.

Now in light of the rather humorous attempts to terrorise the UK recently by islamists, I am seeing an increasing number of people deciding that diminishes any possible threat extremist terrorism has. Many people are suggesting that the security services stop having terrorism as a concern, and practically ignore it.

This is of course a stupid idea, just because some attemps will fail does not mean all attempts will. The truth is Islamists are more then capable of producing devestating harm in europe, we shouldn't forget such events like this (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/jpg/15-5.jpg) that justified such concern in the first place. And since extremists are on the increase, mostly due to the fucked up war, there is no reason to believe it's going away any time soon.

People seem to assume that if we cease to be bothered about terrorism, it will just go away. This is not true, terrorists are ultimately attention seekers, so they will always try to get our attention. If we ignore them, they will obviously just try harder. I'm not saying we should go into a state of panic or partake in very extreme measures to fight islamic terrorism, but that doesn't mean the security services should just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Mhm, because going and arresting young muslim men, submitting them to torturing, or starting a war to prevent such act, has done SOOOO much for stopping terrorist attacks. I think you'll find that like with an animal that feels trapped, it will attack you if you come closer, and closer, and closer.(no i am not calling muslims or anyone animals, just making a parallel). However, if you avoid it all together, then you have a nearly impossible chance of it attacking you out of the blue. Terrorism will go away when America, and the west pulls out of Iraq, and afghanistan, stops supporting Israel with weapons and military $$$, and cuts ties with the oil dictators.

Here is another example. If we were to use the logic of using only statistics to measure a threat, we would have to conclude that Russia was absolutely no threat at all during the cold war since it never once nuked any of it's enemies. Do you see where the logic fails?

Russia was a threat. Not because of its nuclear weapons. It was a threat because it was expansionistic. The nuclear weapons were not a threat since they would not be used. Anyone could tell you that. Russia's leaders would have to be complete morons to use a nuclear weapon.

I'm doing my bit to combat terrorism by picking up unattended bags, taking them home and inspecting them for bombs.

Haven't found any yet but I have found a lot of money.

Just doing my bit to make the world a safer place.