Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

Your argument is valid points, the reasons, responses, methods and physical damage are different. What's not different is what the terror and body counts are. I'm pointing to the killing and terror as context that this isn't unprecedented. It's been going on since we started living together

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not exactly. The UK is a country, so it's quite a bit different than comparing two entirely different countries such as Canada and the US.

The graph should also be viewed in the context that it is provided, which is not "is this new?" but "is this as big of a problem as it appears?" and, considering it pales in comparison to recent history (along with other dangers worldwide like gun violence and car accidents, which are treated much lighter), you can assume the concern and media coverage quickly outpaces the actual danger to society.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not exactly. The UK is a country, so it's quite a bit different than comparing two entirely different countries such as Canada and the US.

The graph should also be viewed in the context that it is provided, which is not "is this new?" but "is this as big of a problem as it appears?" and, considering it pales in comparison to recent history (along with other dangers worldwide like gun violence and car accidents, which are treated much lighter), you can assume the concern and media coverage quickly outpaces the actual danger to society.

Technically speaking, the UK is a country, as are England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. The difference is that the UK is a sovereign country. Northern Ireland, England, ect..., are not considered "sovereign" countries because they dissolved their self-government in favour of a confederation.

But let's be honest, the UK is basically an extension of England. If the whole thing fell apart, England would inherit the assets and liabilities of the UK.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that the 3000 people on the UK's watch list are probably going to have a change in their status.

It sounds like May is going to change the UK's stance in terms of these peoples.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not exactly. The UK is a country, so it's quite a bit different than comparing two entirely different countries such as Canada and the US.

The graph should also be viewed in the context that it is provided, which is not "is this new?" but "is this as big of a problem as it appears?" and, considering it pales in comparison to recent history (along with other dangers worldwide like gun violence and car accidents, which are treated much lighter), you can assume the concern and media coverage quickly outpaces the actual danger to society.

And geographically and probably culturally the US and Canada are more connected than mainland UK and Northern Ireland.

The graph should absolutely not be viewed in the context that it is provided because as already mentioned it is misleading. This type of terror threat does not pale in comparision to recent history.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And geographically and probably culturally the US and Canada are more connected than mainland UK and Northern Ireland.

The graph should absolutely not be viewed in the context that it is provided because as already mentioned it is misleading. This type of terror threat does not pale in comparision to recent history.

Why doesn't it? What makes it worse? Because it certainly isn't the numbers or the frequency in the UK.

Terrorism as a whole is just so far down the list of "things that endanger human life" that should garner major concern.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Bagor

.

The graph should absolutely not be viewed in the context that it is provided because as already mentioned it is misleading. This type of terror threat does not pale in comparision to recent history.

I think you're way off here. The graph isn't misleading at all. If I want to find out the number of casualties from terrorism in the UK by year for the past 50 years, how else would you title and present that info?

Whatever interpretations you make from the info are up to you but the graph and title aren't misleading.

[Bagor]

Why doesn't it?
Because the graph's intention is to suggest this is nothing new to mainland Britain when in fact it is.
What makes it worse.
I interpret the graph from 1998 onwards (post peace process and Omagh bomb). I do that with the awareness that the data beforehand is (both from a geographical and group responsible) irrelevant when comparing the threat to today and mainland Britain. From there things have been getting worse. You do it using the numbers from the UK. I say again those numbers are irrelevant.

Also, as has already been mentioned this is a different type of threat where targets are arbitrary and no warning is given.

Yes it is. But risk perception of it involves many variables.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

I think you're way off here. The graph isn't misleading at all. If I want to find out the number of casualties from terrorism in the UK by year for the past 50 years, how else would you title and present that info?

If I was presenting it in context of the recent events (which the poster did) for a risk perception/assessment/management pov.

Britain.
Mainland Britain.

UK involves NI which skews the data enormously. Or at the very least include it and have a separate colour code for NI so the reader can separate the numbers.

A poorly presented and very misleading graph. Someone going to visit London in the 80s might look at that graph and be of the impression there was a terrorism risk there at that time when simply not the case.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bagor

If I was presenting it in context of the recent events (which the poster did) for a risk perception/assessment/management pov.

Britain.
Mainland Britain.

UK involves NI which skews the data enormously. Or at the very least include it and have a separate colour code for NI so the reader can separate the numbers.

A poorly presented and very misleading graph. Someone going to visit London in the 80s might look at that graph and be of the impression there was a terrorism risk there at that time when simply not the case.

So? Gun violence statistics in the US are enormously high and they're generally quoted at a country-wide rate. Someone in New York is at a completely different risk as someone in Whitefish.

If looking at is as the UK doesn't work for you, why does mainland Britain? That sounds like it might mislead someone in Cambridge into thinking they're at as high of a risk as someone in London, which is simply not the case.

[CliffFletcher]

The upsurge in gang murders in Chicago hasn't made Canadians feel less safe. That's what Bagor is getting at. The location and targets of the IRA attacks were so narrowly confined that most British people did not feel threatened. That's not true of today's Islamicist attacks.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If looking at is as the UK doesn't work for you, why does mainland Britain?

I thought that was made clear many posts ago.
Because it takes the NI conflict data out of the pool.

Which I feel are misleading and carry far too much weight when taken in context with the current terror threat. Which is exampled by how the data drops off after the 1998 ceasefire.

Why do you feel they are relevant from a risk perception pov to the current threat?

[FlamesAddiction]

This is the issue with statistics that looks at events in isolation without context. Islamic terrorism in England is not relevant to terrorist acts that took place in, or originated from, what many people considered to be an occupied territory (Ireland), but if you lump all "terrorism" into one group, it paints a different picture.

It's like how in Canada, the Air India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history. Yet it had more to do with Indian politics and wasn't an attack on Canada like the 2014 Parliament Hill shooting that had far fewer casualties. If you were speaking specifically to statistics, 1985 was a worse year than 2014 when it came to domestic terrorism, but 2014 was probably more dangerous if you were to consider the potential for a random attack on Canadian soil (although the danger is still small).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The upsurge in gang murders in Chicago hasn't made Canadians feel less safe. That's what Bagor is getting at. The location and targets of the IRA attacks were so narrowly confined that most British people did not feel threatened. That's not true of today's Islamicist attacks.

That's simply untrue. Dozens of IRA attacks were in London and elsewhere in England killing and injuring hundreds of people. There's a strange misrepresentation here.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._Great_Britain

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The upsurge in gang murders in Chicago hasn't made Canadians feel less safe. That's what Bagor is getting at. The location and targets of the IRA attacks were so narrowly confined that most British people did not feel threatened. That's not true of today's Islamicist attacks.

I am not sure this is true.

The IRA detonated the largest bomb since world war 2 in england in the middle of manchester in 1996. A british MP was assassinated in Sussex and a hotel was bombed in Brighton. Targets were as diverse as the stock exchange, tube stations and churches; mail rooms, industrial plants and train stations.

[getbak]

The benefit concert in Manchester has started and is being live streamed, if anyone is interested in watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9yak899MUs


Here's the set list (Robbie Williams is on now):

Spoiler!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's simply untrue. Dozens of IRA attacks were in London and elsewhere in England killing and injuring hundreds of people. There's a strange misrepresentation here.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._Great_Britain

There is zero misrepresentation.
Let me remind you what I said regarding your graph. Bolded for emphasis.

Originally Posted by Bagor

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.

It is well agreed that there were approximately 3600 deaths and 100k injuries during the conflict.

So, taking your own link why don't you present to me how I am misrepresenting by showing me 360/1000 deaths/injuries on the mainland from the time period of your graph.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by getbak

The benefit concert in Manchester has started and is being live streamed, if anyone is interested in watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9yak899MUs


Here's the set list (Robbie Williams is on now):

Spoiler!

It's on CTV

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bagor

There is zero misrepresentation.
Let me remind you what I said regarding your graph. Bolded for emphasis.



It is well agreed that there were approximately 3600 deaths and 100k injuries during the conflict.

So, taking your own link why don't you present to me how I am misrepresenting by showing me 360/1000 deaths/injuries on the mainland from the time period of your graph.

I didn't say you did. CliffFletcher said Britons were unafraid because it wasn't impacting them. That was a misrepresentation​ of the history

[Kjesse]

U2 is up... a bit of a pleasant surprise. (edit: oops guess not)