RenewableCandy wrote:And they want us to up all the "security" crap. Turn us away from being an open society. That would add to the financial cost for sure, but the other (social, trust etc) cost is what they've got their sights set on.
I have my own theory as to why "the west" has it in for Islam, and it's nothing to do with oil, or even energy.
Do you have something beyond that they hate us and want to kill us all?
Not the average Muslim mind you , just the radicals.
However, the problem with terrorism is that it is conceivable that one day ISIS or other jihadi terrorist state/groups could smuggle a nuclear bomb into western Europe.
It won't be hundreds who die but hundreds of thousands. You won't be able to compare terrorism to being struck with lightening or eating too much sugar.
So, superficially, that argument makes sense (and supports the status quo), but in fact, it ignores the very real risk that the terrorist threat will continue to grow in both quantity and magnitude.
If you also assume, that the Islamic fundamentalism is growing, not receding, and that the entire ME is imploding, than the risks of seeing ever greater terror attacks with ever more people dying is actually rather high.
Of course, that ignores the psychological factor of terrorism and the continual spectre of terror outrages which over time can have a devastating impact on societies.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Lord Beria3 wrote:Statistically you are right, up to now.
However, the problem with terrorism is that it is conceivable that one day ISIS or other jihadi terrorist state/groups could smuggle a nuclear bomb into western Europe.
It won't be hundreds who die but hundreds of thousands. You won't be able to compare terrorism to being struck with lightening or eating too much sugar.
So, superficially, that argument makes sense (and supports the status quo), but in fact, it ignores the very real risk that the terrorist threat will continue to growing in both quantity and magnitude.
Consider for a moment what our retaliation would be. ...
..... I'm sure anybody that gets their hands on a workable nuclear device has that brought to their attention.
What I think is interesting is just how few attacks there are. Given the ease of carrying out these attacks - why aren't we seeing explosions in cinemas, trains, nightclubs every week?
The attacks are easy.
The security services aren't foiling attacks left, right and centre.
So basically there are only a handful of Jihadis in Europe?
clv101 wrote:What I think is interesting is just how few attacks there are. Given the ease of carrying out these attacks - why aren't we seeing explosions in cinemas, trains, nightclubs every week?
The attacks are easy.
The security services aren't foiling attacks left, right and centre.
So basically there are only a handful of Jihadis in Europe?
Well mostly there are not that many people that are willing to die for a cause with no chance of seeing it prevail and enjoy the fruits of their victory.
We need to identify the top 5000 ( pick your own number) radical Islamist and track them down, kill them and bury them in coffins filled with pig guts.
Killing and defiling 5000 Muslims would generate 5 million Jihadis in very short order. Terrorism more dangerous than lightning in the future, probably. More dangerous than sugar? not in my lifetime.
Nuclear bombs ain't easy. Pakistan is the only likely source, and I strongly suspect that the people controlling them would destroy key components should the wrong sort of Muslim got control of the military. Dirty bomb would be possible, but that is an economic bomb, not a terror one.
kenneal - lagger wrote:[Anyone who thinks that inviting half the Muslim world into the EU is going to stop Islamic terror
Has anybody ever suggested such a thing? It seems a bizarre idea that 0.8 billion people, 12% of the global population, would want to leave their homes and move to Europe. Strawman arguments .
vtsnowedin wrote:
We need to identify the top 5000 ( pick your own number) radical Islamist and track them down, kill them and bury them in coffins filled with pig guts.
That's not far off the policy of the US and others, for quite a few years. On of the problems is that each time you make a mistake and kill some outside that 5000 you suddenly recruit a whole extended family to their cause and then there are a lot more than 5000. Drone strikes recently have sent that process into overdrive.
kenneal - lagger wrote:[Anyone who thinks that inviting half the Muslim world into the EU is going to stop Islamic terror
Has anybody ever suggested such a thing? It seems a bizarre idea that 0.8 billion people, 12% of the global population, would want to leave their homes and move to Europe. Strawman arguments .
Yes, someone has. Angela Merkel, although she did not realise it when she opened Germany's doors to migrants. That was seen as an open invitation by any economic migrant in the third word. It has seen Syrian, Afghan, Pakistani and other nationalities flood into Greece and it has done nothing to stem the flow of migrants from all over Africa through Italy.
The flow will only get worse as sea level rise takes its toll on unprotected third world, seaside cities and agricultural delta lands.
John Pilger excels himself in this piece. He's like a good wine.
According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is "unleashing the dark forces of violence" in the United States. Unleashing them?
This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.
No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife - a murder made possible by American logistics - Clinton gloated over his death: "We came, we saw, he died."
One of Clinton's closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting "Hillary". This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as "worth it".
Among Clinton's biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women's candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.
It almost sounds like he's supporting Trump but he's not. He's simply highlighting the American regime's insanity.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:John Pilger excels himself in this piece. He's like a good wine.
That mention of Honduras is interesting "As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras."
In the piece I mentioned in New Scientist, he says that a large proportion of the the migrants entering, and often dying, in the US deserts are not Mexicans but folk fleeing Honduras. Hmmm... I wonder if there's a connection?