Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

A van mowed down pedestrians on london bridge and two people were stabbed minutes later near the bridge, UK PM say there are fatalities and are treating the incidents as potential acts of terrorism.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40146916

Metropolitan Police have confirmed vehicle attack on London Bridge pedestrians and Borough Market stabbings are acts of terrorism.

[jayswin]

Vehicle attacks are such a scary invention in the terrorism world. Just pick a random crowded street that a vehicle can get into and you're pretty much guaranteed mass casualties and world wide attention.

[Street Pharmacist]

Sounds like all the unconfirmed reports made it sound like there was multiple attacks. Based on eyewitness accounts, the van mowed people down, then they guys got out and started stabbing people

[bluejays]

Definitely scary. I know a couple people who apparently stay a couple blocks from there. I'm glad to know they're safe (through Facebook check-in). All you can do is live your life and not worry about things you can't control. Sad that people feel the need to do this to others.

[jayswin]

Yeah, it's amazing how statistically safe we are from being caught in a terrorist act compared to how much we fear it. It's unfortunate, but it's human instinct.

We don't fear the car accident that's much more likely to take our life because it isn't deliberate. That and our primal instincts force us to desire enemies and terrorism fulfils this need.

"We need to find ways to reduce traffic collisions, but it's also part of life as everyone needs to get places"

vs

"We MUST stop the enemy who hates us! They aren't like us either, which makes them even worse, this is issue number one!!!!!!! Hell, why stop there, what about everyone else that looks, acts and prays like them? They're also the enemy, be VERY weary of them all, they aren't like us, they are different".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, it's amazing how statistically safe we are from being caught in a terrorist act compared to how much we fear it. It's unfortunate, but it's human instinct.

We don't fear the car accident that's much more likely to take our life because it isn't deliberate. That and our primal instincts force us to desire enemies and terrorism fulfils this need.

"We need to find ways to reduce traffic collisions, but it's also part of life as everyone needs to get places"

vs

"We MUST stop the enemy who hates us! They aren't like us either, which makes them even worse, this is issue number one!!!!!!!".

Amen. And by reporting on it, discussing it, arguing about it, politicizing it, and legislating about it, we give the perpetrators more incentive to commit these acts.

The only silver lining is that as they overplay their hand with more attacks, we become less sensitive to it and hopefully, less reactive and more thoughtful in our responses

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Amen. And by reporting on it, discussing it, arguing about it, politicizing it, and legislating about it, we give the perpetrators more incentive to commit these acts.

The only silver lining is that as they overplay their hand with more attacks, we become less sensitive to it and hopefully, less reactive and more thoughtful in our responses

In Canada you can already see the thoughtful, less reactive response starting to take over, but I don't have faith the same will ever happen in the United States as terrorism has always been a purposeful distraction for the citizens and all administrations and media will lean heavily on it whenever they can.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, it's amazing how statistically safe we are from being caught in a terrorist act compared to how much we fear it. It's unfortunate, but it's human instinct.

We don't fear the car accident that's much more likely to take our life because it isn't deliberate. That and our primal instincts force us to desire enemies and terrorism fulfils this need.

"We need to find ways to reduce traffic collisions, but it's also part of life as everyone needs to get places"

vs

"We MUST stop the enemy who hates us! They aren't like us either, which makes them even worse, this is issue number one!!!!!!! Hell, why stop there, what about everyone else that looks, acts and prays like them? They're also the enemy, be VERY weary of them all, they aren't like us, they are different".

Seriously man, comparing stats on terrorism with traffic accidents is beyond reaching, we choose to drive a car and doing so fully know the risks, we don't choose to be blown up, stabbed or run over walking down the street.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Seriously man, comparing stats on terrorism with traffic accidents is beyond reaching, we choose to drive a car and doing so fully know the risks, we don't choose to be blown up, stabbed or run over walking down the street.

Correct, this is exactly my point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Seriously man, comparing stats on terrorism with traffic accidents is beyond reaching, we choose to drive a car and doing so fully know the risks, we don't choose to be blown up, stabbed or run over walking down the street.

But you do choose to go out knowing that the risk of terrorism exists. You could stay at home and do nothing or you can go out acknowledging all of the risks.

Whether the risk is getting run over by a car by a drunk driver or being run over by a terrorist shouldn't matter and yet one would receive way more attention than the other. You don't choose either of those scenarios yet people fear terrorism more. It's not rational.

We should be rationally assessing risk, then devoting resources in the most effective way to reduce risk.

For example I would rather take the risk of getting shot at a flames game then wait in the metal detector line.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's difficult to predict how Canadians would react if there started to be really frequent terrorist attacks or one really large one on Canadian soil. The British have shown themselves to be pretty resilient and I would like to think Canadians would show the same temperance. But we aren't that unlike Americans and really people tend to behave in similar patterns when exposed to the same environmental conditions.

I hope we never find out of course.

[Ducay]

Hope the rest of Ramadan doesn't continue on how it has started....

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

For example I would rather take the risk of getting shot at a flames game then wait in the metal detector line.

Off topic but...The metal detectors were installed around the same time they started selling beer in cans. I'm not suggesting the flames don't care about you getting shot, but to me this always seemed like too big of a coincidence timing wise to not consider that the main motivation behind the added security was fans potentially sneaking booze to avoid paying $8/drink.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Seriously man, comparing stats on terrorism with traffic accidents is beyond reaching, we choose to drive a car and doing so fully know the risks, we don't choose to be blown up, stabbed or run over walking down the street.

You don't choose to get run over walking across the crosswalk, which is still more likely than getting killed by a terrorist. You don't choose to get into an accident, either. They happen and you don't get to choose either of them.

The argument is about what a realistic risk reduction step is, and I'm not sure there's any more real steps to make. Continue law enforcement outreach to mosques, etc. I don't support reactionary restrictions that are unlikely to decrease that risk, but do have negative consequences for others

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Amen. And by reporting on it, discussing it, arguing about it, politicizing it, and legislating about it, we give the perpetrators more incentive to commit these acts.

The only silver lining is that as they overplay their hand with more attacks, we become less sensitive to it and hopefully, less reactive and more thoughtful in our responses

Sorry, but this almost Chamberlain type thinking is just wrong. Lunatics don't go away if you ignore them.

A group of degenerates continue to kill innocent civilians in the name of some BS religion, and you think we should train ourselves to simply ignore them, hoping that the idiots are motivated mostly by the publicity?

And yes, while the public (those living in areas of the world not experiencing these attacks anyway) becoming desensitized is likely unavoidable, it is not a silver lining; it is a bloody sad state of affairs.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Sorry for the late reply - I don't often come into this forum.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sorry, but this outlook - and it's widespread - betrays a woeful ignorance of history. It's fundamentally wrong on two fronts:

1) If foreign imperialism and meddling in itself gave rise to radical terrorism, why aren't we seeing terrorism in all the other destabilized parts of the world? Vietnam was colonized and brutally exploited for centuries, and less than 50 years ago being bombed into the stone age by Americans. Where are the Vietnamese jihadis blowing themselves up at restaurants and pop concerts? Or the Congolese terrorists? Or the Hondurans?

2) How does it explain that everywhere Islamic societies borders with non-Islamic societies we have radicalized violence? Not only in the Middle East, but in Nigeria, Chad, Kenya, India, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines? Why aren't the Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists in those regions blowing themselves up and slaughtering civilians?

There is a political dimension to this issue. But religion is the catalyst. And certain strains of Islam have proven remarkably effective agents for radicalization. Far more effective than any Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or secular ideology today.

First off, it isn't a woeful ignorance of history. What you are showing is a woeful ignorance of Islam and a Muslims in general.

Why didn't those countries you listed lash out against the west like the middle east are?

Aside from the fact that Vietnam won the war, Vietnam became a socialist state where religion was not encouraged. Now, before you connect the dots here and say: "see! Religion!", consider this.

In how many of the above countries you listed have the USA and/or Britain gone in and removed responsible and representative governments and replaced them with religious zealots? Yes, that's right - ZERO. Those nations were all coup targets - even South Vietnam during the Vietnam war - but they were replaced with puppet regimes that were controlled through financial rewards.

The Middle East was different. The Russians were moving in. The USA tied its' currency to Oil, rather than Gold. They could not lose the middle east to Russian influence. They found through trial and error that the middle east was difficult to control and have Oil flowing steadily and cheaply into the USA and into Great Britain with simple bribery. After the second world war, the west fanned the flames of religion, citing that if Russia came in that their communist philosophy was a danger to Islam.

The 60's and 70's saw an uptick in the USA training and radicalizing the middle east, and the results were easy to see. Russia couldn't take Afghanistan.

You have to remember that this is now a few generations of disenfranchised people living in the middle east, living mostly under fear of the people in power, and constantly being bombarded with this radical ideology - one that only existed as all radical ideologies exist in the other parts of the world - the fringes of society.

Another example getting out of the middle east altogether can be found in Cambodia. What happened there? Cambodia officially took a stance of neutrality in the Vietnam war, never bending under the US pressure to enter it. So, with the US under Nixon and (more importantly) Kissinger, they made a plan to leave Vietnam and show Russia that although they lost, they were not to be pushed around. They developed the Man Man plan - to show Russia that its' leaders were crazy and willing to destroy a nation when said nation did not want to support the USA.

What did they do? More bombs were dropped on Cambodia than they were on Vietnam. Cambodia - the real "Pearl of the Orient" at the time with their high quality of life - was bombed to the stone age. The USA (partnering with China, who were uneasy with Russia's influence on Vietnam who they considered a province of China) worked to put into power a fringe radical group into power there. Funny thing was, they were communists. Not just communists mind you, but the worst, most radical form of communism ever seen to this day - the Khmer Rouge. You might have heard of who their leader was? Some guy named Pol Pot? Well, he marched everyone out of the cities. Everyone with education was pulled away and shot. Doctors. Lawyers. Teachers. Professors. All shot dead. All the books in all the libraries were burned. They were intent on returning Cambodia to a completely agrarian society.

Now, what does have to do with the topic at hand? Well, the USA formally made peace with Vietnam and surrendered. Why then, did they support Pol Pot and encouraged excursions into Vietnam? They were very much 'terrorizing' Vietnam, and it lasted right up until Vietnam marched into Cambodia. Vietnam - just finishing a long and difficult war - commanded every household to contribute one bowl of rice to the people of Cambodia. Many millions of lives died because of the USA's decision to conduct a secret and ILLEGAL bombing campaign in Cambodia, and millions of lives were saved by the Vietnamese coming in and putting a stop to the Khmer Rouge.

Look, I am not defending these idiotic terrorists who heinously murder the innocent. I am Catholic by the way, in case you are wondering if I have some personal agenda here.

Those Islamic terrorists need to be stopped. ISIS needs to be stopped. I think it is a mistake for any nation in the world to withdraw from this war at this point. The world needs to deal with this.

However, I do think that it is extremely hypocritical to point at Islamic Terrorists and say "Only them!!" when the country who for a very, very long time has exported more terrorism than any other country in the world is absolved. If you are going to cite Islam as the reason that terrorism exists, then you should also at least stop being hypocritical and cite Captialism as being terrorist by nature as well. I mean, that's exactly what has been happening for a very long time, isn't it? Or doesn't it count because who cares about the people they are destroying 'over there somewhere'?

Lastly, I want to touch-upon your last point. "And certain strains of Islam have proven remarkably effective agents for radicalization."

How on earth do you think these 'strains' of Islam gained enough power and sway to radicalize so many?

Wait... what do you even mean by 'strains'? I think you will have to be more specific with regards to 'strains'. Sects? I was going to start answering your question there, but I don't really know what you are referencing. I assume you are referring to sects of Islam, rather than pockets of radicals in certain mosques, but I am not sure.

The most remarkable agent for radicalization is for a radical organization (sect, strains, pockets - whatever you want to call them) to gain control through force in a region. That is how they radicalized more and more people. Then they use propaganda in order to further their beliefs. Guess where a lot of that propaganda is coming from?

You see Islam and believe that correlation is proving causation. Well, I see one (or two or three) nations destabilizing other nations and propping up Islamic radicals. It was simply the west using religion like they did in the last crusades, or against the Ottoman Empire, or against those dirty non-believers Russian Commies who won't let you practice your faith. Now everything is out of control.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So you don't agree with my theory but you do.

Look its easy to blame the West and they need to take a big bite of a blame sandwich, but it goes far beyond that. Groups like ISIS and Al Queda are all about charismatic leaders who want to acquire power and wealth.

ISIS their leaders wanted to form a caliphate, their own nation of basically slaves, kept in line by terror and a f'd up interpretation of their religion.

Al Quaeda wanted to basically purify their holy lands, and not for all of Islam, but the more radical interpretation,

Leadership in these groups is no different then Hitler or Stalin or Mao with the exception that they didn't have a country to to subvert, they had a hypothetical, a religion without borders.

So yeah, their message was blame the West and strike back from our umbrella of righteousness. But I'm pretty convinced that even without interference from the West we would have seen the rise of groups like this anyways.

I don't think that they would have gained any sort of relevancy if it wasn't for the west's involvement.

Just like in my example above, there would have been zero chance for the Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge to take control of Cambodia if it wasn't for the USA's (and China's) assistance. It is just like expecting the Montana Freeman to take over the USA with their radicalized viewpoint. However, if Russia had worked with the USA, helped to conduct a coup and bombed the crap out of the USA overnight, well... who knows then, right?

That's what I think happened in the middle east. That is what I think IS happening all the time. Unfortunately, the world has no choice but to go in and completely root out ISIS and all the other radicalized groups, but they also need to work at the grassroots level and actually help build these countries up for a change. That's the only way you can defeat a radicalized group once they take over, in my opinion, and the more generations worth of radicalization, the more difficult the task is going to be. I definitely agree with you that there needs to be a sustained globally coordinated military action against ISIS and all like groups. I just think that these groups wouldn't have gained such prominence without the help of the west to begin with.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You don't choose to get run over walking across the crosswalk, which is still more likely than getting killed by a terrorist. You don't choose to get into an accident, either. They happen and you don't get to choose either of them.

The argument is about what a realistic risk reduction step is, and I'm not sure there's any more real steps to make. Continue law enforcement outreach to mosques, etc. I don't support reactionary restrictions that are unlikely to decrease that risk, but do have negative consequences for others

This is an Islamic problem, Islam has to find a way of totally removing the the ideaoligy that causes these acts, start by banning the perverted and hideous sharia law, respecting woman's rights and separating religion from law period.

In the 15th century Christians would say "God said it, so I'll do it" when doing a despicable act like burning a witch,killing a gay or slaughtering masses of non Christians, threw time they weeded out most of the bad ideas and civil laws weeded out the rest.

Islam needs to modernize and catch up before the bigotry stops.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Amen. And by reporting on it, discussing it, arguing about it, politicizing it, and legislating about it, we give the perpetrators more incentive to commit these acts.

The only silver lining is that as they overplay their hand with more attacks, we become less sensitive to it and hopefully, less reactive and more thoughtful in our responses

Just so much wrong with this post. Let me get this straight. People conduct terror attacks, kill, maim and wound innocent citizens and you propose the public sits on their hands and says awe shucks hopefully it doesn't happen again?

I'm very curious to hear your "thoughtful" response to this.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry, but this almost Chamberlain type thinking is just wrong. Lunatics don't go away if you ignore them.

A group of degenerates continue to kill innocent civilians in the name of some BS religion, and you think we should train ourselves to simply ignore them, hoping that the idiots are motivated mostly by the publicity?

And yes, while the public (those living in areas of the world not experiencing these attacks anyway) becoming desensitized is likely unavoidable, it is not a silver lining; it is a bloody sad state of affairs.

It's pretty straightforward. Terrorism is at its most effective when it has a reach much further than the victims, it's not about killing people, it's about terrorising a population. If you eliminate the incentive to use terrorism as a tactic they become less potent. The incentive to commit these acts is so high because it draws the reaction groups like ISIS desire: fear, anger, hate.

Desentization is not an ideal state to reach, because it means the acts have become commonplace (or in this case, sensationalised by the media), but it is absolutely a silver lining as well. Any state where we can eliminate as much emotion from our responses to extremists is a good state to be in for dealing with them effectively.

A calm, focused response is the most effective. It's not easy though, and you could probably argue it's impossible.

[GGG]

In addition it doesn't mean do nothing, In areas where intervention is effective you continue to. Intelligence gathering and outreach to Muslim communities.

What you don't need is a 24hr news cycle for every event.