I agree with you except that there is some balance missing................ All terrorists in the NI conflict were bad, not just the IRA. How about criticising the UDA and UFF too and adding some balance? They killed more people in Northern Ireland than the IRA did. ALL terrorism is wrong.
No issue with that, Finglas. All terrorism is wrong, and the Unionist paramilitaries carried out some heinous crimes. I highlighted the IRA because John MacDonnell celebrated them, and wanted members to be honoured, for what he felt they had achieved by use of bomb and bullet
Unbelievable Jeff!!! Did anyone else see ITV run an Ainsley Harriott clip during a Lenny Henry knighthood video? Good grief.
Interesting that the 'peace loving lefties' are so quick to issue death threats to MPs who voted for the Syria bombing to start, you couldn't make it up...
I just think DTs analysis is rather deeper than yours. Terrorism is the symptom of what this is about. We are taking steps to manage the symptoms, which I support, but they won't cure the illness. Painkillers don't cure a broken leg. We also need treatments for - poverty - ignorance - religious bigotry - borders which mean nothing to the people who live within them - populations who have no say in the way they are governed - international game playing between Russia, Turkey, the West, the Saudis, Iran etc and probably China too. - Assad, who is the biggest mass muderer involved in this - the complete lack of credibility and support for the western powers in much of the region based on history and economic exploitation, real or imagined it doesn't matter - the whole Israel/Palestine thing Unfortunately Daesh is an idiotic religious totalitarian ideology rather than a geographical state. It's more like a particularly aggressive cancer than a broken leg. Destroy it in Iraq/Syria and we still have it in every country where there are radicalised Muslims, which is just about everywhere (does anyone think that those swine - a word chosen to cause maximum offence - in California were controlled from Syria?) It will die out, because by definition death cults have limited life spans. But as long as the (incomplete) list above remains untreated, stuff like this will keep happening, sometimes locally specific, sometimes global. Looking at that list it's pretty obvious that we don't have the leadership to even start tackling the causes of this particular disease. The desire, vision, intellect and drive are absent. Reactive rather than active.
DT hasn't given an analysis. He's Just thrown out a few statements, topped off by the 'its not about terrorists' bit, which is stupid. It's all about terrorists. The root causes go way back - I said that before. There's no disagreement there, although my list may be a little different to yours. But to say it's not about terrorists is crazy. They are the danger of the here and now. We can't ignore them But as I said above, We can't ignore their threat, but the diplomatic, political, and humanitarian stuff has to go on as well. I disagree that we don't have the leadership to start addressing these - but then I doubt that's a surprise to you.
In order to keep some perspective here. The statistical odds against dying as a result of a dog bite are: 1 in 700,000 In a road accident 1 in 8,000 From alcohol poisoning 1 in 820, 217 In a fireworks accident 1 in 1 million being murdered 1 in 18,000 Being hit by lightning 1 in 576,000 Drowning in the bathtub 1 in 685,000 Fatally slipping in the shower 1 in 812,232 Being killed in a terrorist attack 1 in 9.3 Million !
I had suspected the odds were pretty remote but that's a good list of comparatives. The one thing that bumps tackling the threat of ISIS is their desire to increase their death toll. Regarding the comparisons, I find the psychology interesting. If it was proven that halving the speed limit would reduce the likelihood of fatality by a factor of 10, say, then the public would mostly refute and reject any changes. If the government had to spend, say, double the budget in dealing with murder to get a tenfold reduction then they'd refuse because it's not such a hot topic. This is most interesting since there'll be a fairly strong link to domestic poverty so the root cause is known to a large extent. The use of the word "terror" and the proportion of media coverage given to it undoubtedly heightens the public sensitivity and allows the government to take a hardline stance which helps their public image. Conversely, my opinion is that the terrorist groups crave limelight almost as much as their actual aims and the global media does feed their egos significantly (and even exaggerates their success by use of blanket coverage in a perverse way). This is where I think DT has a very credible point.
Interesting comparisons, but I don't get the 1 in 9.3 million figure. Is that a global statistic, because the odds for people in the UK would be much shorter? It would suggest that only 7 of the current population will be killed by terrorists. Perhaps the numbers are based on one year rather than a lifetime? Sorry, numbers interest me.
You are right in that action is being taken only in response to a direct terrorist threat to us, in that sense it's 'all about terrorism' i.e passive, no real attempt to deal with any of the root causes. We're doing **** all about the refugee crisis, so it looks like we have to be bombed and shot at to lurch into action. If we weren't directly affected we would be letting hundreds of thousands of innocents die and be displaced without a second thought. Of course we are doing that even so. Cameron is a follower not a leader, Obama has given up on everything by the look of him, leaving Hollande, a French socialist, as leader of the free world. Because his capital city was attacked.
Hello Stroller. I think these are figures for the whole World for a complete lifetime. I would think that the figures would vary from place to place eg. Britain or France would be much higher than China for the terrorism one. However, Britain could also have higher rates for traffic accidents, and probably has more bath tubs and shower units than some other countries. I would also think that the 'lightning' one could be higher for those living in the Alps. Not sure who would top the league for alcoholic poisoning !
I am not sure this is all about terrorists because it has me thinking You have the two global powers both in focus on Syria ... Why? You have had a mass exodus of people leave the area Syria a peaceful country during the Iraq wars then refused a pipeline to the west We now look and the Iraq wars and know for certain lies were told to the UK public by the PM then. It left questions without answers Chaz based on that I think everyone in the UK should question what the very small laughable effort by the UK is all about ? The story being told is that we can now bomb ISIS strongholds ... If we knew where they were why wasn't something done before ? Chaz based on what you watch do you really believe that wars are run on TV coverage? I prefer to follow my own feelings and will naturally question anyone who is just repeating mainstream information they have seen on the media. I may not be right but what has just happened is shameful IMO
We will be in danger until we adopt better security IMO and the tech is here to do that now. I believe it would root out any rat This bombing thing can't be anything more than political bullshite I agree with Col that there Syria will have our SF on the ground now and I bet they have been there for years The press release stuff that Chaz sucks up cannot be the truth How do I know this ? It based on the fact that the company I work for produces every single bit of paper than goes to the public in the UK ... Every department Based on the fact that every single word is questioned hundreds of times I am certain the information eaten by Chaz on war is carefully constructed If people are thinking that hard about what is important for you to see and hear then why?
I suppose the tiny likelihood of being killed by terrorists is irrelevant compared to the fear of them. My daughter was planning to take her two-year-old son to the Winter Wonderland event in Hyde Park at Christmas, but so many people have questioned the wisdom of doing so that she has now decided not to go. They are winning.
To balance the terrorist threat my son got mugged by two blokes in Leamington Spa last week, losing his wages being carried in cash and getting a big cut on his cheek in the process. Bears out the stats that the victims of crime are often the same as the perpetrators - young men. Interestingly the police are taking it very seriously, as a violent crime, they came to see him at his flat and called a paramedic to look at his face, took his parka to test for DNA, gave him a counselling interview, and had him in today to look at mugshots. No sign of catching the ****ers though. I seem to remember not being especially aware of the terrorist threat as a teenager in London in the seventies, despite being within the blast zone of one bomb as it went off, and certainly didn't change my chaotic lifestyle to cater for it. Though I did miss my only home match of the epic season as a result. Good job we couldn't do 'surgical' bombing in those days, or the history of Ireland may be very different.
