Lxxx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Fear drives consumerism....so its important to have a "boogeyman" to hang those fears on. Whether it be the IRA, AIDS, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Killer bees, terrorists, Islam.......the list goes on. Spot on. Throw in a compliant mainstream media bombarding your senses 24/7 and you have a sleep-walking population, lapping it all up and waiting for the next bit of direction from our 'keepers.' The Americans have seen their freedoms all but eradicated now with the introduction of the stasi...sorry TSA and the Homeland Security/Patriot Act (Orwellian double-speak), how long before we get it here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Moral panic There's the phrase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Moral panic There's the phrase Yup, The Tavistock Institute's wet dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 phoney war on terror? ? ? ? amongst others there is the september bomb attacks in london 2005 the lockerbie bombing 1988 the shoe bomber 2001 The point I am trying to make is that yes, there are nasty people out there who don't like me or you, but the hype surrounding it is massively disproportionate to the risk involved. Open your eyes and use a bit of critical thought. Show that to any survivor/relative of someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, the London Bus bombings, Lockbie, etc and tell them they/they're relative was lucky not to have been bumped off by cancer or drowning. What that pretty little "infograph" doesnt mention is that almost all of those ways of dying are accidental, natural occurences or just plain shitty luck. Terrorism is not an accident, it is a planned attempt to kill and injure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Fear drives consumerism....so its important to have a "boogeyman" to hang those fears on. Whether it be the IRA, AIDS, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Killer bees, terrorists, Islam.......the list goes on. Jurby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Spot on. Throw in a compliant mainstream media bombarding your senses 24/7 and you have a sleep-walking population, lapping it all up and waiting for the next bit of direction from our 'keepers.' The Americans have seen their freedoms all but eradicated now with the introduction of the stasi...sorry TSA and the Homeland Security/Patriot Act (Orwellian double-speak), how long before we get it here? Not likely to happen here unless there is a terrorist attack. In the wake of the 7/7 bombings UK legislation already changed to remove a lot of civil liberties. And in the last two years there was a push against this from many politicians. But nothing more is likely to happen unless the government can present a almost certain threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Show that to any survivor/relative of someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, the London Bus bombings, Lockbie, etc and tell them they/they're relative was lucky not to have been bumped off by cancer or drowning.What??? What are you talking about? Where is there mention of 'luck'? What that pretty little "infograph" doesnt mention is that almost all of those ways of dying are accidental, natural occurences or just plain shitty luck. Terrorism is not an accident, it is a planned attempt to kill and injure. And what is the relevance of whether the cause of death was accidental or not? Yes, terrorism is purposeful and the other examples are accidental. But what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Show that to any survivor/relative of someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, the London Bus bombings, Lockbie, etc and tell them they/they're relative was lucky not to have been bumped off by cancer or drowning.What??? What are you talking about? Where is there mention of 'luck'? What that pretty little "infograph" doesnt mention is that almost all of those ways of dying are accidental, natural occurences or just plain shitty luck. Terrorism is not an accident, it is a planned attempt to kill and injure. And what is the relevance of whether the cause of death was accidental or not? Yes, terrorism is purposeful and the other examples are accidental. But what's your point? Accidental and natural causes of death are far easier to accept than death caused by sheer retardedness by some bearded turban wearing fu*kwit 'terrorists'. I'm quiet comfortable with the fact I might die early due to an accident or natural cause, not so much with the aforementioned. The “risk”. Its an unacceptable risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I get ya. I think Lxxx is demonstrating how remote the possibility is and thus there is no real war against terrorism given that it is a threat that is so unlikely to be carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Spot on. Throw in a compliant mainstream media bombarding your senses 24/7 and you have a sleep-walking population, lapping it all up and waiting for the next bit of direction from our 'keepers.' The Americans have seen their freedoms all but eradicated now with the introduction of the stasi...sorry TSA and the Homeland Security/Patriot Act (Orwellian double-speak), how long before we get it here? Not likely to happen here unless there is a terrorist attack. In the wake of the 7/7 bombings UK legislation already changed to remove a lot of civil liberties. And in the last two years there was a push against this from many politicians. But nothing more is likely to happen unless the government can present a almost certain threat. My point entirely. Which is why I think the London Olympics offer the perfect 'opportunity' to bring it to the forefront of people's attention. We have started to push back as a society against infringements on civil liberties, we need to be brought to heel. In my opinion obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Show that to any survivor/relative of someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, the London Bus bombings, Lockbie, etc and tell them they/they're relative was lucky not to have been bumped off by cancer or drowning.What??? What are you talking about? Where is there mention of 'luck'? What that pretty little "infograph" doesnt mention is that almost all of those ways of dying are accidental, natural occurences or just plain shitty luck. Terrorism is not an accident, it is a planned attempt to kill and injure. And what is the relevance of whether the cause of death was accidental or not? Yes, terrorism is purposeful and the other examples are accidental. But what's your point? Accidental and natural causes of death are far easier to accept than death caused by sheer retardedness by some bearded turban wearing fu*kwit 'terrorists'. I'm quiet comfortable with the fact I might die early due to an accident or natural cause, not so much with the aforementioned. The “risk”. Its an unacceptable risk. I see you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the stereotypes. Anyway, my point was merely to highlight the fact that the risk to harm ratio is grossly disproportionate to the level of publicity it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 AS a society, I don't think there has been a pushback. The pushback has come from politicians and judiciary. Although in other respects more and more people are aware of the importance of civil liberties. But there is no all-embracing society that is beginning to reject things. In many respects, society is so atomised, concerns directed elsewhere, people so subservient, apathetic, and uneducated that they don't give a shit. But I think the law was in its worst position around 2003-2010 over the past fifty years in respect to such liberties. It has improved but a lot has stayed. Some measures were prudent; others were not. But nothing is going to worsen until there is good cause as even high up members of the State have serious concerns. And it does seem that the Tories are less keen on restrictions and new measures than Labour was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 AS a society, I don't think there has been a pushback. The pushback has come from politicians and judiciary. Although in other respects more and more people are aware of the importance of civil liberties. But there is no all-embracing society that is beginning to reject things. In many respects, society is so atomised, concerns directed elsewhere, people so subservient, apathetic, and uneducated that they don't give a shit. But I think the law was in its worst position around 2003-2010 over the past fifty years in respect to such liberties. It has improved but a lot has stayed. Some measures were prudent; others were not. But nothing is going to worsen until there is good cause as even high up members of the State have serious concerns. And it does seem that the Tories are less keen on restrictions and new measures than Labour was. Fair point. I didn't mean the majority of sheeple, as you quite rightly point out they are more preoccupied with who is winning X Factor or who the next England manager is. I meant with people higher up the food chain in the main, although there are now very aware pockets of resistance across society who can see the trend and are starting to spread the word and push back via various channels. I am sure this has been picked up on the radar of the establishment and they'll be wanting to nip it in the bud before it catches hold and multiplies. Hence my view that these Olympics will not go to waste on that score. We have already heard noises about troops on the streets of London, FBI coming over to be a visible presence at events and warships and ground to air missiles on the banks of the Thames(??!!)... so I expect that to continue, maybe to a 'crescendo.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Show that to any survivor/relative of someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, the London Bus bombings, Lockbie, etc and tell them they/they're relative was lucky not to have been bumped off by cancer or drowning.What??? What are you talking about? Where is there mention of 'luck'? What that pretty little "infograph" doesnt mention is that almost all of those ways of dying are accidental, natural occurences or just plain shitty luck. Terrorism is not an accident, it is a planned attempt to kill and injure. And what is the relevance of whether the cause of death was accidental or not? Yes, terrorism is purposeful and the other examples are accidental. But what's your point? Accidental and natural causes of death are far easier to accept than death caused by sheer retardedness by some bearded turban wearing fu*kwit 'terrorists'. I'm quiet comfortable with the fact I might die early due to an accident or natural cause, not so much with the aforementioned. The “risk”. Its an unacceptable risk. I see you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the stereotypes. Anyway, my point was merely to highlight the fact that the risk to harm ratio is grossly disproportionate to the level of publicity it has. In what respect exactly. I hold my own opinions, I try to keep politicians and the media from influencing them to much as I'm fully aware of the detritus they are capable of feeding us through their various means. I can see it all the time, I don’t need anyone to point it all out for me. I know I was just replying to LDV's and MDO's comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatu Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Its all well and good showing a pretty little graphic but it proves fuck all I bet the same infograph wouldn't be the same if it was applied to Baghdad or Kabul . Yes it shows some things that are more likely to happen than death by terrorism and you could argue that other than the death by police in that graph that all of them are basically forces of nature or disease or accident . What the graph dosn't show is that any of those risks can be greatly reduced , eg you can probably greatly reduce your chances of electrocution by installing RCDs in your house and making sure that electrical goods are in good order etc . To me , deporting Al Qatada is a similar step , at the end of the day the bloke gets on his soapbox and preaches hate against the infidel , yes it's easy to dismiss him as a harmless raving nutter and that nobody really takes notice of him anyway , say he gets up everyday and gets an audience of say 20-30 people listening to his rantings , even if just 1 of those listeners decides that he is going to go blow himself up in the town centre then the risk has suddenly became higher . To me removing the risk no matter how small is preferable to just leaving it here going ah it's not going to happen , a bit like getting a mole checked out because it looks slightly different or would you just ignore it because it hasn't done anything yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.