Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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

I agree with the majority of your post. I just cut it out due to length.

Almost every war in the history of humanity can be dissected to the point that something physical or tangible is the root cause. Sometime it's land or a "state", sometimes it's resources (food, gold, energy, etc...), sometimes it is for the unification or protection of people. Even the Crusades were more about monarchs acquiring relics and loot to boost their credibility and power, than they actually were about freeing people or the "holy land".

Religion is often the mechanism used to recruit and motivate people, but the root causes tend to be simple. In cases where religion is removed as the motivation, people still tend to rally around whatever is convenient (nationalism and ideology probably being the most secular).

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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

Would it make you feel better if this happened in July? I don't see why it matters if this happens in Ramadan or another random month, it's not like this wasn't happening before Ramadan.

[Street Pharmacist]

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.

Killing innocents in the name of a cause to ilicit a reaction from a populace has been going on for millenia. We haven't solved it yet unless you think you have it solved. It's an awful state of affairs for sure, but the silver lining of it is that it has made their attacks less impactful.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that Islam is an awful religion in general, but I don't have much positive to say about any of them.

But banning immigration, isolating 1.5 billion people, and killing hundreds of thousands of them in collateral damage isn't going to help. It makes it worse.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

Nobody said "Do Nothing". We are doing lots of things and it's helping. What more is there? Bomb innocent Syrian human shields in an attempt to scare these people? Turn away the vulnerable looking for help? Ban religions? None of those would do anything more than exacerbate the problem. You cannot scare people away from these crimes when they're willing to die to accomplish them.

There will be more we do, but it'll help incrementally. You cannot be totally safe, this was always true and continues to be so. We used to feel like you could, but the current scourge of terrorism has only lifted the veil to what was always there. Call that fatalism or pessimism, fine. But real solutions will take time. Rash military campaigns have very literally caused this problem, they will not solve it

[Zulu29]

"Nobody said "Do Nothing". We are doing lots of things and it's helping. What more is there? Bomb innocent Syrian human shields in an attempt to scare these people? Turn away the vulnerable looking for help? Ban religions? None of those would do anything more than exacerbate the problem. You cannot scare people away from these crimes when they're willing to die to accomplish them.

There will be more we do, but it'll help incrementally. You cannot be totally safe, this was always true and continues to be so. We used to feel like you could, but the current scourge of terrorism has only lifted the veil to what was always there. Call that fatalism or pessimism, fine. But real solutions will take time. Rash military campaigns have very literally caused this problem, they will not solve it"

What exactly are we doing that's "working"? What is deterring islamic terrorists from their goals?

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.

Awareness is vitally important to the citizenry, are you proposing we zombie walk with out collective heads in the sand? No, the public must be made aware of this so that they can collectively decide on how to proceed. Don't legislate it? The state needs the power to collec intelligence in order to conduct pre-emptive raids/disruption for public safety.

Ban immigration? Of course not, but have strict screening and veracity checks on new Canadians. Bomb innocent Syrian human shields? Who suggested that? Laying on the hyperbole nice and thick.

You can't scare people away from these acts of terror, you're right, but you can absolutely hamstring their ability to do so.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

What exactly are we doing that's "working"? What is deterring islamic terrorists from their goals?

Without the security screenings we now do, undoubtedly more attacks would've occured. Counter terrorism units are stopping plots all the time. Law enforcement outreach has helped us keep tabs on known extremists and intelligence agencies are working internationally with each other to prevent attacks.

Awareness is vitally important to the citizenry, are you proposing we zombie walk with out collective heads in the sand? No, the public must be made aware of this so that they can collectively decide on how to proceed. Don't legislate it? The state needs the power to collec intelligence in order to conduct pre-emptive raids/disruption for public safety.

Ban immigration? Of course not, but have strict screening and veracity checks on new Canadians. Bomb innocent Syrian human shields? Who suggested that? Laying on the hyperbole nice and thick.

You can't scare people away from these acts of terror, you're right, but you can absolutely hamstring their ability to do so.

We already have extremely strict "vetting". You're making assumptions that this isn't already happening. My "bombing human shields" hyperbole was intentionally to point out the impossible case of defeating ISIS with overwhelming force, not to paint a strawman.


Here's the question that proves my point:

How would you hamstring these guys' ability to drive a car and have a knife in a country they're a citizen in?

[Snuffleupagus]

A country like Canada needs immigration for economic survival but everyone interested in moving here needs to be taught before they enter why we have wonderful place to live in, human rights, woman's rights and males/females are equal in this country and their religion needs to take a back seat from these rights and our laws.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

A country like Canada needs immigration for economic survival but everyone interested in moving here needs to be taught before they enter why we have wonderful place to live in, human rights, woman's rights and males/females are equal in this country and their religion needs to take a back seat from these rights and our laws.

These are nice statements, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But how do you implement this in addition to what is in place? Currently, immigrants must take a citizenship test that requires knowledge of the things you mentioned. What else can/should be done?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

These are nice statements, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But how do you implement this in addition to what is in place? Currently, immigrants must take a citizenship test that requires knowledge of the things you mentioned. What else can/should be done?

I'm not an immigration officer but I know one very well, I'm told many immigrants slip past the proper process because of family and sponsorship.

[Snuffleupagus]

Toll is now 7 dead, 48 injured (many still very serious)

So very sad.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

I understand what you're saying. But we are irrational. And any government that doesn't take its citizens' fears and anxieties into account isn't going to last long.

More than a dozen children under 16 are killed in auto collisions in Alberta every year. If, instead, a dozen children in the province were strangled to death by strangers and tossed in dumpsters every year, it's safe to say there would be mass outrage. Any government or police organization that didn't show it was taking serious measures to address the murders would come under withering fire. That's human nature.

The UK has now seen three major terrorist attacks in 10 weeks. Police say they have broken up 5 more imminent attacks so far this year. They've made 12 arrests so far in connection with this attack, so like the Manchester bombing it's not a lone wolf attack. Police have 3,000 radicals in the UK under surveillance, and 20,000 more who they have reason to believe are connected to jihadi terrorism, but who they don't have the resources to monitor.

The attacks we see carried out are bursts of steam erupting from an enormous cauldron, as authorities desperately try to hold down the lid. This issue isn't going away. It could get far worse. And anyone who thinks multiple mass-murderous rampages a year in cities - even ones as cosmopolitan as London and Paris - won't undermine the confidence and change the behaviour of residents and visitors is kidding themselves.

[Street Pharmacist]

Worth posting for some context:

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Worth posting for some context:

Context in what sense?

Whilst the graph says UK I would say ~90% + of those figures are from Republican and Loyalist groups solely in NI.

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah man white people killing white people because of religion/political independence doesn't count.

[Bagor]

I'm referring to the geographical context.
The graph title is very suggestive of mainland Britain. That's all.

[Street Pharmacist]

Nm

[Bagor]

Because I feel the graph is misleading in its title suggesting that mainland Britain has had more than the numbers represent deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks. It uses UK giving the average reader the impression of mainland Britain.

Would be like if I posted a graph of gun deaths/injuries in North America and people might make the assumption that it was more common than is the case in Canada.

Both are strictly correct but very open to misinterpretation.

If your graph was to give context to terrorist injuries and deaths in Britain as opposed to UK then the figures would be much lower

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Because I feel the graph is misleading in its title suggesting that mainland Britain has had more than the numbers represent deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks. It uses UK giving the average reader the impression of mainland Britain.

Would be like if I posted a graph of gun deaths/injuries in North America and people might make the assumption that it was more common than is the case in Canada.

Both are strictly correct but very open to misinterpretation.

If your graph was to give context to terrorist injuries and deaths in Britain as opposed to UK then the figures would be much lower

I think you're splitting hairs here though. Sure to the rapidness of news cycles, we feel as though this type of threat is an new precedent. It's not. The epicenter of terror may have moved a couple hundred miles and changed race, but that's it

[Bagor]

Agree to disagree.
To the people of mainland Britain this is pretty much new to them regardless of race which is why I felt the graph misleading.
No different than saying Canadians shouldn't treat a rise in gun crime as a new precedent as it's been a couple of hundred miles south of them for years.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

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

You're confusing constantly talking about something with doing something. The media frenzy serves no purpose in fighting terrorism. It probably makes it more difficult by politicizing the issue and inflaming racism and religious bigotry which in turn fuels terrorism.

The police can do their job without all the media attention (most likely they'd prefer it that way), as can the people who are working inside the communities.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're splitting hairs here though. Sure to the rapidness of news cycles, we feel as though this type of threat is an new precedent. It's not. The epicenter of terror may have moved a couple hundred miles and changed race, but that's it

Very different situations. Northern Ireland was basically a low-level civil war. And the authorities and the IRA had channels of communication that enabled them to negotiate and sometimes dial down the violence. The IRA usually targeted British servicemen and politicians. They often phoned in warnings before bombs were set to go off - their goal wasn't to maximize civilian casualties, but to demonstrate their strength and capability.

Islamic terrorism is very different. It has no coherent political agenda. There are no channels or even reason for negotiation. Maximizing civilian casualities is the whole point. And let's not forget that the people carrying out the attacks want to die because they're sure they'll go to paradise as martyrs. If they could press a button and kill themselves and 10,000 random people, they would do so in an instant. You couldn't say the same for the IRA.

However, the comparison cuts both ways. We might ask if the UK should come down on Islamic terrorism as heavily as it did on the IRA. Bring in the army to patrols neighbourhoods where terrorists are known to live. Scoop up radicals and lock them in internment camps. Allow special forces in plain clothes to gun down radicals in the street.

Of course, those measures would be counterproductive (which is why they haven't been taken). But the notion that British media and politicians are over-reacting to Islamicist terrorism relative to Irish terrorism is unfounded. They've shown far more restraint than their counterparts 40 years ago.