Chinahand Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000). You wouldn't think there would be a problem until you listen to the scaremongering media and the traumatised posters on social media. What possible benefit would there be in psychologically traumatizing the sheep of imminent terrorist attack could there be? Are they perhaps looking for a swing in public opinion. It is basically impossible to reduce the death rate from drowning in your bathtub, or being struck by lightning, and it is a generational effort via public service announcements, education and tightening regulations in car design to improve road safety and reduce dangerous practices like not wearing a seat belt and drink driving. But it is possible for the police, army and intelligence services to stop a small group of people and as a result save hundreds of lives. And if they the attackers do get through the pressure to hold people responsible in the subsequent investigations makes politicians very cautious. Intelligence failures can put 100s of lives at risk in a way totally different from deaths due to baths, cars or lightning. The latter trio can hardly be prevented, while society fervently hopes that clever policing/use of the intelligence services can prevent terrorist attacks. Brussels is again a useful example - they've already caught and arrested some people in that city directly connected to the Paris massacres - if they capture others they'll feel vindicated, and if not I doubt many feel this was an Orwellian example of authoritarianism - more a bureaucratic democratic state (and how else would you describe Belgium) trying to protect its citizens. If a similar thing happened in London it is perfectly understandable to me if the authorities did the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Remember what happened after the 7/7 bombings? After a bungled intelligence operation, "We" executed an innocent man and then tried to cover it up. And that was the police, can you imagine what all those troops are going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 If we go into siege mode in major UK cities the terrorist have scored a major victory. Increased military presence on UK cities (as opposed to overseas), restrictions of movement and services, people afraid to go out for fear of an attack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 But it would give comfort to the mass of the population in a crisis. Apart from the 1984 theorists and the terrorists of course. How did that work out in NI? Or the streets of Kabul or Baghdad for that matter? There is a difference between home troops and foreign troops. As for Northern Ireland, the troops were sent in because the police were in danger of losing control. They feared a massacre of republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 But it would give comfort to the mass of the population in a crisis. Apart from the 1984 theorists and the terrorists of course. How did that work out in NI? Or the streets of Kabul or Baghdad for that matter? There is a difference between home troops and foreign troops. As for Northern Ireland, the troops were sent in because the police were in danger of losing control. They feared a massacre of republicans. True. The rules of engagement are waaayyyyyy stricter on UK soil than war time roe on enemy soil. Also I seem to remember the Army can't act without invitation from the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 According to this analysis here at The Guardian Putin is more or less right about Turkey not particularly treating IS as an enemy - and being far more bothered about attacking the Kurds than IS. Not that this excuses him making allies of Hezbollah. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 According to 2011 data, the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million. Compared to the likelihood of you drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), losing your life in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000). You wouldn't think there would be a problem until you listen to the scaremongering media and the traumatised posters on social media. What possible benefit would there be in psychologically traumatizing the sheep of imminent terrorist attack could there be? Are they perhaps looking for a swing in public opinion. I have twice in my life come close to terrorist attack. Firstly, the office I worked in had its windows blown in by a bomb placed by PIRA in June 1992. Secondly, I was at Kings Cross at the time of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London. I was evacuated from a Northern Line Train in a tunnel, joining the walking wounded from the Piccadilly Line train at the first landing in Kings Cross underground station, and making my way out with blackened, distraught and bleeding people. My experience is not unusual for someone living and working in a large city, I think. Your thesis that the terrorist threat is some sort of invention designed to scare and control is balony, like most of what you post here. The fact you are still here means the chances of you being killed is still 1 in 20 million for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 If we go into siege mode in major UK cities the terrorist have scored a major victory. Increased military presence on UK cities (as opposed to overseas), restrictions of movement and services, people afraid to go out for fear of an attack... maybe it wont be so bad if the army are like the police are acting here. nice to be pulled over, protected and given presents hey x https://www.facebook.com/viralthreaddotcom/videos/513997105408803/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 It's when the UN forces are called in that's when you need to have reservations. Foreign troops who have no allegiance to the citizens of the country they are deployed in, plus don't speak the same language, are less susceptible to any form of humanitarian thinking in these situations, regardless of them having the nice cuddly blue helmets on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 According to this analysis here at The Guardian Putin is more or less right about Turkey not particularly treating IS as an enemy - and being far more bothered about attacking the Kurds than IS. Not that this excuses him making allies of Hezbollah. What a mess. Well since the Turks shot down that Russian fighter today, and then machine gunned the pilots as they ejected from the planes I'm guessing that Putin really isn't going to give a shit about much over the next week when it comes to Turkey. Biggest mistake they've made (if it was a mistake). I wonder how het up the EU will get about Russia bombing an EU state when he unleashes what Turkey has coming to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 things like that dont really warrant a mention on here oldmanxfella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Turkey didn't machine gun the pilots, Turkey is not in EU, but Russia is pissed off with Turkey. OMF maintains his usual hit rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 but someone is going to have to back down sooner or later, putin or the west, syria was always about russia v the west. all the bollocks and the bullshit inbetween is just that. we are getting ready for war and so is russia . isis is just a sideshow. how else could our governments approve multi multi billion pounds new weapon purchases amid deep austerity cuts without a perceived threat? these weapons certainly arent for combatting isis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Turkey didn't machine gun the pilots you know this for absolute certain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 but someone is going to have to back down sooner or later If much of Iraq - Syria becomes a satellite / client of Iran and the Kurds have a state - then pragmatically there presumably has to be a be a Sunni state somewhere. Whatever they call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.