Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
Like Prague, you know I have a great deal of respect for you too SDAddick, but that's not really fair is it?
How was his statement a "dog whistle" back to his proposed policies? He literally offered his condolences, and didn't add much more substance other than that.
For what I expected from Trump, today he's been surprisingly measured.
Fair. My comment from like four days ago broke my own personal rule, which is be patient with everything said. To me it felt like Trump was going to leap back into some of the things he has said in the past (and has used past terrorist incidents to re-highlight). But he didn't. He just toed the Presidential line of "this is bad, our thoughts are with France." And I'm not going to give him credit for that because that's literally the bare minimum you should expect from a President, but I was wrong in thinking he was trying to use this to highlight his own racist/nationalist agenda.
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
So please keep in mind the below is not meant to question the way you feel, because how safe you feel is entirely your own, and I lived in London post-9/11 and 7/7 and never felt unsafe, but did not live there in the '90s.
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on: Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this: 1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence" 2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
Dissident bomb currently no.9 on BBC web page way below bloke helps other bloke in marathon and something about the northern lights. Guarantee hard to find by morning. Now if it had been planted by Faisal O'Leary and Abdul Kelly........
Dissident bomb currently no.9 on BBC web page way below bloke helps other bloke in marathon and something about the northern lights. Guarantee hard to find by morning. Now if it had been planted by Faisal O'Leary and Abdul Kelly........
WHAT? A Muslim-Catholic terrorist caliphate? Tricky.
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
So please keep in mind the below is not meant to question the way you feel, because how safe you feel is entirely your own, and I lived in London post-9/11 and 7/7 and never felt unsafe, but did not live there in the '90s.
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on: Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this: 1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence" 2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
You are been disingenuous when focusing on the place of birth of the attackers. If the attackers are inspired by Islamic extremist teaching then it is 100% an attack by the Islamic world.
There are many many more attacks then you infer. In Europe we have had Nice, Paris 4 or 5 times, Brussels, Westminster and Woolwich in the last few years. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that only a few major attacks have been thwarted in the last few years.
Finally, what has the overall crime rates got to do with the threat of terrorism. I have heard this comment from a few sources and it make no sense to me.
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
So please keep in mind the below is not meant to question the way you feel, because how safe you feel is entirely your own, and I lived in London post-9/11 and 7/7 and never felt unsafe, but did not live there in the '90s.
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on: Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this: 1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence" 2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
You are been disingenuous when focusing on the place of birth of the attackers. If the attackers are inspired by Islamic extremist teaching then it is 100% an attack by the Islamic world.
There are many many more attacks then you infer. In Europe we have had Nice, Paris 4 or 5 times, Brussels, Westminster and Woolwich in the last few years. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that only a few major attacks have been thwarted in the last few years.
Finally, what has the overall crime rates got to do with the threat of terrorism. I have heard this comment from a few sources and it make no sense to me.
And I guess I don't see how you can ignore the birthplace of attackers, or treat Islam or the "Islamic World" as one large entity. By far the largest number of people killed by Islamic Extremists are Muslims. What you're presumably referring to is one particular strain of one particular sect of Islam. It would be like associating the Christian world when an attack was carried out by a Mormon.
If what you're getting at is this is a problem with the Islamic religion, I would agree with you up to a point. But I'm not being disingenuous in mentioning the birth place of attackers. I would also point to a number of other unifying factors--gender, ages (late teens to early 30s), second generation immigrants, working class/poor, and history of crime and in some cases violence. That is a far narrower subset of the population than "Islam."
My initial reaction to your comment about the overall crime rate versus terrorism was "how on earth can you ignore that?" But I sort of wonder if that's a cultural difference. Here in the states we have thousands of people die in gun violence each year, from homicide, suicide, and accidents. Even though, contrary to what the White House says, murder rates are at a low point compared to the last 40 years, our crime rate is still astronomical when compared to western Europe. As such, I would posture that large "statement" crimes live larger in the memory there.
To expand that out, I also don't think there is as large of a diversity in mass killings in the UK as we have here in the US. I can't think if the UK equivalent to Aurora or Charleston or Columbine or even Orlando for that matter, where you had someone with a history of homophobic statements who also pledged allegiance to ISIS (...and Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda).
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
So please keep in mind the below is not meant to question the way you feel, because how safe you feel is entirely your own, and I lived in London post-9/11 and 7/7 and never felt unsafe, but did not live there in the '90s.
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on: Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this: 1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence" 2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
You are been disingenuous when focusing on the place of birth of the attackers. If the attackers are inspired by Islamic extremist teaching then it is 100% an attack by the Islamic world.
There are many many more attacks then you infer. In Europe we have had Nice, Paris 4 or 5 times, Brussels, Westminster and Woolwich in the last few years. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that only a few major attacks have been thwarted in the last few years.
Finally, what has the overall crime rates got to do with the threat of terrorism. I have heard this comment from a few sources and it make no sense to me.
Your last point red. I suppose it comes down to this, in simple terms how many people are affected? How many murders in UK last year? Roughly 600? It's normally 550 upwards. So being specific rather than crime rates in general- Although multiple deaths may occur from a terrorist incident, We are still more likely to be murdered for a reason other than terrorism and in either case it is very unlikely to happen. Your passionate and exasperated use of the language of fear/threat and your focus on one threat source gives you the appearance of one who can "see" when others are blind. Of course from a work perspective I might consider that as one sign of a person vulnerable to radicalisation and engage you in structured debate about current affairs to determine a generalised view of your outlook. Keep em peeled.
Dissident bomb currently no.9 on BBC web page way below bloke helps other bloke in marathon and something about the northern lights. Guarantee hard to find by morning. Now if it had been planted by Faisal O'Leary and Abdul Kelly........
If it's any help, it did have a slightly higher profile here.
However, there remains a base level of dissident activity and this is, sadly, not really out of the ordinary.
Dissident bomb currently no.9 on BBC web page way below bloke helps other bloke in marathon and something about the northern lights. Guarantee hard to find by morning. Now if it had been planted by Faisal O'Leary and Abdul Kelly........
If it's any help, it did have a slightly higher profile here.
However, there remains a base level of dissident activity and this is, sadly, not really out of the ordinary.
My point exactly NI if the extent of activity was reported fully in rest of UK instead of down played consciously I believe under UK government instruction then there would be considerably more attention paid. If the level of activity was replicated in England and there was even a whiff of Oud about it we'd be apoplectic.
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
So please keep in mind the below is not meant to question the way you feel, because how safe you feel is entirely your own, and I lived in London post-9/11 and 7/7 and never felt unsafe, but did not live there in the '90s.
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on: Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this: 1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence" 2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
You are been disingenuous when focusing on the place of birth of the attackers. If the attackers are inspired by Islamic extremist teaching then it is 100% an attack by the Islamic world.
There are many many more attacks then you infer. In Europe we have had Nice, Paris 4 or 5 times, Brussels, Westminster and Woolwich in the last few years. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that only a few major attacks have been thwarted in the last few years.
Finally, what has the overall crime rates got to do with the threat of terrorism. I have heard this comment from a few sources and it make no sense to me.
Your last point red. I suppose it comes down to this, in simple terms how many people are affected? How many murders in UK last year? Roughly 600? It's normally 550 upwards. So being specific rather than crime rates in general- Although multiple deaths may occur from a terrorist incident, We are still more likely to be murdered for a reason other than terrorism and in either case it is very unlikely to happen. Your passionate and exasperated use of the language of fear/threat and your focus on one threat source gives you the appearance of one who can "see" when others are blind. Of course from a work perspective I might consider that as one sign of a person vulnerable to radicalisation and engage you in structured debate about current affairs to determine a generalised view of your outlook. Keep em peeled.
You seem to be saying I should measure my response to Islamic attacks by how many deaths are incurred. If the number of deaths are much less than the number of deaths caused by crime or cars I should be relaxed about it. You completely miss the point. Deaths from crime or cars present a zero threat to western civilisation. Our values, our system of laws, our civil rights, our belief in science, our belief in religious freedom are not threatened by deaths resulting from criminal activity or cars. Every death resulting from an attack inspired by a medieval belief system that is expanding in many quarters of the world is a threat to our way of life. I stated on another thread a few weeks ago that I am currently reading a book by an Israeli titled Homosapians. I am still reading it. It is a big book. What it has emphasised to me is that over the millions of years that man has roamed over this planet there have been many civilisations and empires that have developed and then crumbled within 400-500 years. We should not take our civilisation, its values and its systems for granted.
I won't respond to your cheap, childish and arrogant remarks about how you think I might be a person vulnerable to radicalisation.
For those attempting to use the flawed 'you're more likely to' analogy/logic when it comes to terrorism and other crimes/occurences that create victims.
To return to my point a few pages ago, it's not by fluke that lawnmowers and toasters are safe devices to use. It's as a result of designers and engineers taking the time to minimise the risks, it's as a result of manufacturing processes taking in to account the tolerance of the chosen components and materials, and it's as a result of competent QA procedures.
If more people are being killed by their dishwasher than Islamist terrorism, then I want to know what Bosch is doing to prevent it: I don't simply laugh and shrug my shoulders the next time someone is killed by a terrorist because my dishwasher is more dangerous.
Behind every one of these false-equivalencies used to undermine people's concerns (whether those concerns are valid or not.) is a whole lot of work that has been conducted to minimise those risks. The reason that work is conducted is because we recognise that one avoidable death is one too many, be it at the mercy of a toaster, a car, a lawnmower or a religious fundamentalist.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
If he had a good point to make, he could have - should have - chosen a better way to make it. That's my opinion. Although, as you point out, my opinion holds no water.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
If he had a good point to make, he could have - should have - chosen a better way to make it. That's my opinion. Although, as you point out, my opinion holds no water.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
Rob wasn't trivialising it, that's the point that you are spectacularly missing.
Shouting falsehoods loudly doesn't make your opinion any more valid as you've still yet to ask Rob to explain the context behind what he said. You've jumped two-footed into the 'this is what he said and this is what he meant, in my opinion' argument.
You're also letting emotion overtake rational thought.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
If he had a good point to make, he could have - should have - chosen a better way to make it. That's my opinion. Although, as you point out, my opinion holds no water.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
Rob wasn't trivialising it, that's the point that you are spectacularly missing.
Shouting falsehoods loudly doesn't make your opinion any more valid as you've still yet to ask Rob to explain the context behind what he said. You've jumped two-footed into the 'this is what he said and this is what he meant, in my opinion' argument.
You're also letting emotion overtake rational thought.
This thread is about a terrorist shooting incident, not about drink driving.
In my view, we should not be any more worried about acts of terrorism that we were (those of us who were around) in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The threat now comes from a different direction, but it's less frequent than it was.
We should all be aware, but not in fear. We should all be vigilant, but not cowed. And we should all do what we can to reduce barriers between people, not build them up.
Comments
There is one part of your post that I want to expand on:
Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis.
Two main issues with this:
1) Attacks have no been a "regular occurrence"
2) I would argue that the "Islamic World" has hardly attacked the west at all when compared to citizens of the west.
To the first point, post-9/11 we thought that things like that would be a regular occurrence. And by-and-large, they really haven't been in Britain or the US, especially when compared against overall crime rates and deaths. That is not to in any way diminish 9/11, or 7/7, or Orlando or San Bernardino, it's more to say that since 9/11 we've only had a handful of attacks, with roughly a few more major attacks thwarted (underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Bowling Green).
To the second point, I would argue that the Islamic World hasn't opened up the flood gates as much as they've influenced certain individuals in the west (and to be fair you make reference to lone wolf attacks later in your post). In the States we've had one foreign national attack on Jihadi grounds (Columbus). And (correct me if I'm wrong here), Germaine Lindsay, the foreign born attacker on 7/7 was born in Jamaica, and the Abdulmutallab, the attempted underwear bomber was born in Nigeria. Neither or these are Muslim majority countries, let alone bastions of the "Muslim World."
There are many many more attacks then you infer. In Europe we have had Nice, Paris 4 or 5 times, Brussels, Westminster and Woolwich in the last few years. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that only a few major attacks have been thwarted in the last few years.
Finally, what has the overall crime rates got to do with the threat of terrorism. I have heard this comment from a few sources and it make no sense to me.
If what you're getting at is this is a problem with the Islamic religion, I would agree with you up to a point. But I'm not being disingenuous in mentioning the birth place of attackers. I would also point to a number of other unifying factors--gender, ages (late teens to early 30s), second generation immigrants, working class/poor, and history of crime and in some cases violence. That is a far narrower subset of the population than "Islam."
My initial reaction to your comment about the overall crime rate versus terrorism was "how on earth can you ignore that?" But I sort of wonder if that's a cultural difference. Here in the states we have thousands of people die in gun violence each year, from homicide, suicide, and accidents. Even though, contrary to what the White House says, murder rates are at a low point compared to the last 40 years, our crime rate is still astronomical when compared to western Europe. As such, I would posture that large "statement" crimes live larger in the memory there.
To expand that out, I also don't think there is as large of a diversity in mass killings in the UK as we have here in the US. I can't think if the UK equivalent to Aurora or Charleston or Columbine or even Orlando for that matter, where you had someone with a history of homophobic statements who also pledged allegiance to ISIS (...and Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda).
Your last point red. I suppose it comes down to this, in simple terms how many people are affected? How many murders in UK last year?
Roughly 600? It's normally 550 upwards.
So being specific rather than crime rates in general- Although multiple deaths may occur from a terrorist incident, We are still more likely to be murdered for a reason other than terrorism and in either case it is very unlikely to happen.
Your passionate and exasperated use of the language of fear/threat and your focus on one threat source gives you the appearance of one who can "see" when others are blind. Of course from a work perspective I might consider that as one sign of a person vulnerable to radicalisation and engage you in structured debate about current affairs to determine a generalised view of your outlook.
Keep em peeled.
However, there remains a base level of dissident activity and this is, sadly, not really out of the ordinary.
I won't respond to your cheap, childish and arrogant remarks about how you think I might be a person vulnerable to radicalisation.
If more people are being killed by their dishwasher than Islamist terrorism, then I want to know what Bosch is doing to prevent it: I don't simply laugh and shrug my shoulders the next time someone is killed by a terrorist because my dishwasher is more dangerous.
Behind every one of these false-equivalencies used to undermine people's concerns (whether those concerns are valid or not.) is a whole lot of work that has been conducted to minimise those risks. The reason that work is conducted is because we recognise that one avoidable death is one too many, be it at the mercy of a toaster, a car, a lawnmower or a religious fundamentalist.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
Shouting falsehoods loudly doesn't make your opinion any more valid as you've still yet to ask Rob to explain the context behind what he said. You've jumped two-footed into the 'this is what he said and this is what he meant, in my opinion' argument.
You're also letting emotion overtake rational thought.
In my view, we should not be any more worried about acts of terrorism that we were (those of us who were around) in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The threat now comes from a different direction, but it's less frequent than it was.
We should all be aware, but not in fear. We should all be vigilant, but not cowed. And we should all do what we can to reduce barriers between people, not build them up.