Not so theoretical murderers

[spikepl]

Out of my office window I watch officers that have cordoned off the side street. At the other end of that street terrorist have two hours ago killed an accidental passer by and shot three cops.

It was a meeting with the French ambassador, a Swedish (Mohammed-) cartoonist and some other notabilities about Blasphemy and freedom of speech. We talk, write and draw and they shoot. They shoot because we write about and draw fanatics who shoot and kill.

I guess there is no way to reach the religious fanatics. They should find themselves their own planet to poison.

 

[Libre]

It seems that there's nothing that decent people can do about it except hope they don't get slaughtered. The whole world has become a dark and scary place - if you want to take a plane or go to a movie - or draw a satirical cartoon - you're potential cannon fodder for these murderers.

 

[Bladerunner]

Until each nation (the world) calls these people what they are there is no hope in defeating them. I surmise when the people get a large dose of reality, they will find that backbone and annihilate this trash. Alas, they will still have to call them what they actually are.

 

[MarkK]

Yeah, there are dark moments, and I don't want to minimize spike's experience, but 1953 looked pretty bleak too, and 1942, and 1929, and 1916, and 1864, and, ..., and, ...,

Your greatest risk of violent injury occurs when you go for a drive. The chance of you being the victim of a terrorist act, compared to some other accident, is vanishingly small. If terrorism was a disease, it would be so rare that it would hardly even be cost effective to develop a vaccine. Sure, when it happens it's horrible, and it sells newspapers and generates mouse clicks, because people are fascinated, but as an actual problem in the world, it's so minor.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yeah, there are dark moments, and I don't want to minimize spike's experience, but 1953 looked pretty bleak too, and 1942, and 1929, and 1916, and 1864, and, ..., and, ...,

Your greatest risk of violent injury occurs when you go for a drive. The chance of you being the victim of a terrorist act, compared to some other accident, is vanishingly small. If terrorism was a disease, it would be so rare that it would hardly even be cost effective to develop a vaccine. Sure, when it happens it's horrible, and it sells newspapers and generates mouse clicks, because people are fascinated, but as an actual problem in the world, it's so minor.

WWII (1942) 250 million plus people lost their lives to terrorist(s). If only 2% of the Muslim Population became Radical Islamic Terrorist (estimated 8-15%) that is 40,000 million. Hitler had 17 million at the height of WWII. That is 1000 RITs in 1000 cites around the world x 40. Your odds just went way up. We tried this isolationist approach in 1939. Look where it got us. Yes, I am afraid that by the time, others like yourself (meaning no disrespect) wake up it will be too late and Radical Islamic Terrorist will be everywhere ready to kill and more importantly DIE.


Blade

 

[spikepl]

Having hit town, had problems getting home because the terrorist hit the city center and everything was cordoned off again. But, few hours later, the police apparently shot him dead. Good job!

@MarkK - I'm not afraid of them, and I agree that my chance of being personally hit is virtually nil.

I deplore the humongous waste of resources of the human race spent on keeping such idiots at bay. There are areas where they do afffect people's lives to a much larger extent - Boko Haram or Taliban, with their acid-at-school-girls stuff ... the virtual prison for females in Saudi. Sick bastards.

 

[Libre]

Accidents happen, sickness and disease happen, and natural death happens. We all know it and other than minimizing risk there's not much we can do about it. Intentional murder of innocents is another thing entirely. Simply ignoring the murders and deciding that there's much more chance of being struck by lightening is surely not the way to go.

 

[MarkK]

WWII (1942) 250 million plus people lost their lives

You lost me. Highest estimate I can find is 80 million. Your math is wrong and your whole argument is based on it.

Simply ignoring the murders and deciding that there's much more chance of being struck by lightening is surely not the way to go.

Our current response to terrorism is to perpetrate terrorism of our own, which has the effect of causing more terrorism. Drone strikes are extra-judical killings that occur in sovereign nations with whom we are not at war. Imagine how you would feel if some other country was killing people in your country on a whim, and taking out bystanders too. We make people hate us.

Our other response to terrorism is to shift power, in our democracies, away from the people and towards the governments, which undermines the very nature of our societies. Freedom to criticize the establishment, certainly exposing its misdeeds, is increasingly treated as criminal behaviour. So the net effect of our current choices of response to terror are all self-destructive.

Maybe just ignoring it would be inappropriate too, but I think we need to recognize that power is consolidating power in response to terror. This, in my view, is harming democracy, and distracting us from more severe problems, namely climate change. In this respect, terrorism is currently winning, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Bladerunner]

QUOTE]

You lost me. Highest estimate I can find is 80 million. Your math is wrong and your whole argument is based on it.

Our current response to terrorism is to perpetrate terrorism of our own, which has the effect of causing more terrorism. Drone strikes are extra-judical killings that occur in sovereign nations with whom we are not at war. Imagine how you would feel if some other country was killing people in your country on a whim, and taking out bystanders too. We make people hate us.

Our other response to terrorism is to shift power, in our democracies, away from the people and towards the governments, which undermines the very nature of our societies. Freedom to criticize the establishment, certainly exposing its misdeeds, is increasingly treated as criminal behaviour. So the net effect of our current choices of response to terror are all self-destructive.

Maybe just ignoring it would be inappropriate too, but I think we need to recognize that power is consolidating power in response to terror. This, in my view, is harming democracy, and distracting us from more severe problems, namely climate change. In this respect, terrorism is currently winning, and it shouldn't be.

[/QUOTE]

You are right about the numbers I put out. Don't really know where I got them but they are definitely wrong. My apologies to you and the thread. However, you are wrong that my arguments are based upon those exact figures or is it not really bad to have 80 million killed because of a terrorist instead of 250 million. In my feeble mind, there is not much difference. From what I can get from your response above (" extra-judical killings, Our current response to terrorism is to perpetrate terrorism of our own") that we who fight back are terrorist are the ones that caused their terrorist response. I really hope not.

As far as the consolidating power of the governments, it usually happens when the liberal ideology finds it way to the top. They Liberals are willing to give up their rights and freedoms as well as everybody's rights and freedoms in order for the government to provide all. We here in the US do not have a democracy (which is mob rule) but rather a Republic. Not exactly sure about Canada.

One other point and I have made it abundantly clear in the past. The Radical Islamic Terrorist want you dead, converted to their style of Islam or a slave to them. Not because of any reasons you put forth but because it is their religion and their Prophet Mohomand has declared you and me infidels.It is as simple as that. But for the sake of argument I will ask you. What did that poor Muslim mother who has several kids and is just trying to get along in life, do to them. They (the terrorist) kill mostly Muslim people, why?? What did they do and I know it has nothing to do with bombs or Drones,

ISIS is not a country, in fact it is taking over countries (nations) or trying to. Kind of like Hitler did??????

p.s. Climate change is the biggest hoax in history of the world and the Radical Islamic Terrorist is winning because nobody cares. Isolationism

Blade

 

[scott-atkinson]

This thread is now in danger of taking a major shift towards Climate Change discussion now, and people we already have a thread dedicated to that.

Terrorism, is a world problem, and we need to unite as a world to defeat it, whist pockets are ignoring it, or worst supporting it, it will never go away.

Together we stand, divided we fall..

 

[ColinEssex]

Who was the worst American president of recent times?

Richard Nixon, who authorised the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in Vietnam by burning them to death by napalm and leaving many thousands in pain and agony for life because they weren't lucky enough to get killed.
Then he went on to head up the Watergate affair and was subsequently impeached.

Or

George Bush Jnr., who authorised the killing and massacre of tens of thousands of Iraqi innocent people by relentless bombing and rockets leaving thousands injured for life. It seems the sole reason for doing it was to finish off what his father started so he would look good in daddy's eyes.

America lost both wars, made them the most hated country on the planet, and left thousands of American families without a father, brother or son.

Col

 

[Bladerunner]

Who was the worst American president of recent times?

Richard Nixon, who authorised the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in Vietnam by burning them to death by napalm and leaving many thousands in pain and agony for life because they weren't lucky enough to get killed.
Then he went on to head up the Watergate affair and was subsequently impeached.

Or

George Bush Jnr., who authorised the killing and massacre of tens of thousands of Iraqi innocent people by relentless bombing and rockets leaving thousands injured for life. It seems the sole reason for doing it was to finish off what his father started so he would look good in daddy's eyes.

America lost both wars, made them the most hated country on the planet, and left thousands of American families without a father, brother or son.

Col

Hi Colin: I will have to disagree with your assessment of Richard Nixon. I do agree that he was one of the worst President but for different reasons. However, to win a War one must become almost as bad as the enemy. For 10 years after Johnson sent and thereby killed 50,000 of 'our boys' to Vietnam, the enemy refused to come to the negotiating table. Nixon was elected on the terms that he stop the war.. The only way to do that was to make war like you meant it not play at it. (Not Play at it means in this post: Taking a hill and then letting the enemy have it back and next week taking it again. Imagine what Europe would have looked like if the allies played that way with Hitler. Nixon went to the source, Hanoi and bombed the hell out of them. They (enemy) decided to come to the table and was there....almost!!?
That is until our illustrious Liberal Hippies decided they would raise all matters of hell here in the states. (One of the reasons I have very little love for a far left liberal is when I come home, I was spit upon and called a baby killer even though I came from the opposite part of the world.)....Back to the war..... The Vietcong decided to pull out of the peace talks.We were already pulling out of the country and Siagon was the last. The Vietcong came in at the very last minute killing everything that was standing (man, woman and child)...But we got out of the war...........

The liberal left will tell you that GWB invaded Iraq because of his father but it really did not go down that way. Sadam did have WMDs (killed is own Curds with gas) and this was presented to to our Congress and the President. Yes, he recommended taking him out (sadam and we did) they said they did not find any WMD but as of late right before we left, there was a whole bunch found over there and then there was a bunch found by the ISIS. Yes, it may have been bad but we are talking 15 years laying there. Also he was good friends with Assad in Syria. Some say that before we invaded Iraq (because it was all over the news about the WMDs) Sadam moved a lot of the WMDs to Syria. We do know that Assad does have WMDs.
The war bombed known enemy positions with surgical precision. However, that precision is null and void if the enemy uses the innocents as sheilds and that is what Sadams forces did. The people of Iraq actually helped us know who the enemy was toward the end. They knew we were there not there to occupy (ISIS) but rather to help rebuild their country. Unfortunately, time run out for GWB and the Far Left Liberals took over.OBAMA! He immediately pulled out of Iraq because it was a political promise and the rest is history. Had we left a contingent of say 10,000 soldiers there, ISIS would not exist to the levels it enjoys today. Look back to the days after WWII. With the exception of Japan, there were warring fractions still active in Europe and they had to be taken care of. In fact, we are still there. Do you really want us to move out???????? Putin is counting on it.

I guess we are the scourge of the planet. But,,,,,,,,who do you come to when you want something? IN fact this whole scenario reminds me of the days/years before WWII where the countries of Europe were very liberal and let Hilter gain power even though they had just got out of WWI. I think they even signed a peace accord with Hitler. Did not your prior PM to Churchhill sit and do nothing while Poland was invaded. And then we have the US who administration was so liberal they would not think of helping oout. In fact, when the reports of the Jewish slaughter, they looked the other day. If the Japanese had not attacked us, we would have let Hitler take over without ever looking back. PH 1941, D-Day 1944. No we did not win the war but when we did enter it shifted the power back to Europe side.

If you are going to fight a war, fight it with as much aggressiveness as the enemy and get it over with and hope you can regain you soul afterwards.

Have a good day Colin

Blade

 

[ColinEssex]

Thanks for the history lesson.

Amongst all that, did you actually answer the question?

I only asked it because it was on TV the other day, they reckoned Nixon was the worst president ever.

Col

 

[Frothingslosh]

Alas, the history lesson happened to be wrong, but c'est la vie. You can't expect Bladerunner to provide anything even remotely factual, after all.

I also note that his history lesson was also one long rant about the Far Left Liberal Plot To Destroy The World.

 

[scott-atkinson]

On the principals of ISIS, how do you fight an enemy who is so hell bent on your destruction they will resort to any means no matter how abhorrent or atrocious...

I agree with Blade here, we must fight hard against these idiots, eradicate every last one of them, hunt them down like the dogs they are, and put them down, and put them down so much with so much venom that nor they or there wannabe forerunners even consider doing it again.

Muslims as a whole are peaceful people, ISIS are not Muslims, they are fundamental terrorists. Muslims can help themselves though by exposing and eradicating all fundamental idealists within there ranks.

We need to kill ISIS at the source and at the roots once and for all.

 

[Frothingslosh]

My only problem with that idea is that US killing them makes them martyrs and recruits more replacements than we kill. Just as happened when the US invaded Iraq, ISIS can and will paint it as a war against Isalm if western nations move in force against them. (They get enough of that right now out of the fact that 80% of the air strikes so far have been by US forces, even if the US news media isn't reporting that at all.)

Vengeance begets vengeance and all that.

I don't disagree that the rebels need to be killed and their support base destroyed - these people are very nearly inhuman, the way they treat those they capture. But the only way to WIN that is to find some way to change the foundation that's giving them so many recruits, and even the attacks against ISIS really need to be led by Middle Eastern nations simply to pull the teeth of the 'Western infidels are trying to destroy Islam!' claim.

This is, honestly, more or less precisely what I was afraid would happen the very first time Bush publicly pushed to invade Iraq.

 

[ConnorGiles]

What really needs to be done is for Muslims to actually publicly condemn ISIS in huge numbers.

What moral standpoint could you have when even your own people know you are wrong.

I agree the US does take a lot of the blame, Scott was right in saying "Together we stand, Divided we fall". Once everyone notices these monsters as what they are (even the muslim people) the sooner this stage of human extinction can end.

Sooner or later, ISIS is going to target the wrong people (aka China or North Korea maybe even Russia). That my friends is when the war shall begin. (Better terminology - When Sh*t hits the fan)

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

What really needs to be done is for Muslims to actually publicly condemn ISIS in huge numbers.

What moral standpoint could you have when even your own people know you are wrong.

I agree the US does take a lot of the blame, Scott was right in saying "Together we stand, Divided we fall". Once everyone notices these monsters as what they are (even the muslim people) the sooner this stage of human extinction can end.

Sooner or later, ISIS is going to target the wrong people (aka China or North Korea maybe even Russia). That my friends is when the war shall begin. (Better terminology - When Sh*t hits the fan)

Shiite hits the fanatics.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I've seen Muslims publicly condemning ISIS in huge numbers. The problem is that it's not "newsworthy", so it's barely even covered in Western media. Hell, if you were to get all your news from Faux News, you'd be convinced that all Muslims are supporting it, based on the 'reporting' there.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Iv'e hear reported that both Jordan, and Egypt are now in the midst of airstrikes against ISIS, lets hope other Arab, and more specifically Muslim nations get involved and follow suit.