Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
So calling for beheading. Enslaving, rape and terror attacks on the west is a legal thing for you?

That would be illegal, but is covered just fine by existing laws on inciting violence and/or conspiracy to commit violence.

Treating infidels as slaves?

Define "treating infidels as slaves", in a way that is a viable legal definition and not just "I don't like this thing".

They throw gays off roof, impose brutal law and cut limbs off people.

Murder and cutting off limbs is already illegal.

They have raised ainciant monuments to the ground.

So have lots of other governments. You'll have a lot of US politicians to throw in jail and/or deport if you want to make this illegal. And let's not forget that they aren't doing this in the UK, they're doing it in other countries. Being associated with someone who doesn't treat their property according to the standards you demand is not a crime.

You wanna defend those gak holes?

No, I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that you can't come up with a viable definition for "those gak holes" that catches the guilty people without punishing anyone for thoughtcrime and without being a completely arbitrary "I don't like you, I deport you" system.

Covered but thr likes of chaudry and others got away with it for too long, it needs to be quicker and dealt with more decisively.

If they are a hate preacher they need sopping now. Not 6 months later. Damage done. Poison is spread and out there with potential to kill.

Define slaves.
Well the yazzidi people come to mind. Raped, or genocide was there fate. Sold as slaves for mens amusement....

Others too suffered so.

Thr men where killed on mass
That's is slavery and war crime.

Or the forced conversion to Islam or promoting thr idea.thats covered under infidels and forcing them against there will.

Don't be focused on definitions. There will always be someone that decides if you are dangerous or not. Not an algoritm, not a statement, but the judgement of some people.

Think about any possible crime, at a trial a jury or a judge can have completely different opinions about a specific case, and the result can be the opposite even with the same evidence.

Determining if someone is not compatible with a civilized world will always be matter of personal judgement. Of course there would be laws, definitions and guidelines but at the end of the day it's ALWAYS a personal decision when it comes to take action on a criminal matter.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think we're becoming desensitised to these attacks. The media try to play up the 'blitz spirit' but really no one is too bothered, we're not struggling on through rather just don't care, we went to the pub all got on trains and buses to go home.

In a way that is a good thing, because the terrorists plan to create terror failed.

Or a bad thing we used to it. They keep happening. And I'm bloody sick of it.

We should be safe to go to London, Manchester with out fear of being killed by degenerate, murderous scumbags.

This bomber was a bad bomb maker. We will not be so lucky next time.

Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Maybe we should stick this ass holes head on a spike over traitors gate as a warning to others. If they insist on fighting for people who want to drag us back to centuries past. Maybe they understand that message.

Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

It did. Foreign jihadidts are now deported back to country of origin, same with terror propagators and jihad preachers.
Do a serious crime in UK and its ground to lose your visa etc.
You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

Should slim the numbers down by a few thousand.

I'm on board with deporting Foreign criminals. And other countries should do the same and deport British expat criminals back to the UK.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

What I suggest would prevent a lot of them, I think. No laws can wipe out completely crimes like murder, rape, etc... and no possible laws can wipe out completely the religious fanatism. But we can limit it to a point in which we can consider the problem solved.

Our governments are doing almost nothing at the moment, they only act when the threat becomes immiment. We should act before. As I said most of the terrorists that carried attacks in europe were known to the intelligence, as well as their preachers. Deport people that are not entitled to stay using the force if necessary, ban/lock people at the first sight of radicalism, that's the answer. Strip their european nationality if they're not foreigners.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

What I suggest would prevent a lot of them, I think. No laws can wipe out completely crimes like murder, rape, etc... and no possible laws can wipe out completely the religious fanatism. But we can limit it to a point in which we can consider the problem solved.

Our governments are doing almost nothing at the moment, they only act when the threat becomes immiment. We should act before. As I said most of the terrorists that carried attacks in europe were known to the intelligence, as well as their preachers. Deport people that are not entitled to stay using the force if necessary, ban/lock people at the first sight of radicalism, that's the answer. Strip their european nationality if they're not foreigners.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

More extreme than me!
I was working on outward signs of radicalisation and a phase later as such preachers, campaigners or active supporters of terror or its groups. Also actively targeting those places such as known extremist mosque and preachers to prevent some of spread of there evil poison.

Easier to identify and prove than just being a radicalised.

However it should be a rule that those who do join groups such as Islamic state, fight for them and return are never welcome home again. Exiled in ll but name and if return will be locked in jail for the rest of there natural lives.

Make it very clear. If they wanna go out there they know the price of doing so.

Targeting the recruiters aboard, and such with cyber warfare would also try to reduce some of the numbers. And intel gained can be passed on to local forces to deal with the person or group in question.

JFC. "Deport anyone we disagree with" is an idea so obviously flawed that I can't believe that multiple people are, apparently 100% sincerely, suggesting it as a viable plan.

For what is probably the umpteenth time, how do you deport someone who doesn't have somewhere to get deported to? You can't make people stateless, and even if they have citizenship somewhere else what do you do when that somewhere else doesn't want them back?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
For what is probably the umpteenth time, how do you deport someone who doesn't have somewhere to get deported to? You can't make people stateless, and even if they have citizenship somewhere else what do you do when that somewhere else doesn't want them back?

If states Don t want em back there obviously a bad egg and we where right to want to Deport then. They can be held in a remote penal facility until a suitable nation or arrangement can be made for there deportation such as the Saudi extremist rehabilitation centre.

If someone joins Islamic state or similar group as a soldier. They are hear by kept as citizens but informed they will have a lifetime in jail for there crimes and treason fighting for enemy of the united kingdom.

They are welcome to choose to live in some gak hole Somalia or wherever or return and live rest of days behind bars.

They merely lose there freedom not citizenship.

Fighting for a orgonisation whose aim is to destroy your own nation merely now becomes a form of lesser treason subject to life in prison.

Higher treason remains the unused death penalty charge.

 Blackie wrote:

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

Why? Beyond the high profile media fapping about this stuff, it's a total non issue. Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part (hyped up to sell papers). Likely more people were harmed in London because of the delayed 999 response after the attack, than in the attack.

If you're talking about human lives; why waste so much effort on something with such an insignificant affect? Why not focus on something like road accidents or gang crime, and clamp down on media sensationalism?

For instance, 30 people in the UK were killed by terrorists in the last few years. In 2015, 30,000 deaths were directly attributed to austerity related cuts. Which one gets the attention? The one that sells frothers a couple of papers.


Before I get pounced on for being a terrorist sympathiser - terrorism is awful, but (a) it's not really any more awful than an accidental rail crash, for instance, and (b) terrorism only happens because we react exactly how we want them to and fuel more of it (via the inevitable racist attacks, overreact, and media storm that follows). I'd much rather we dropped the terrorist label and treat it as a one-off crime "man denotates bomb on tube" rather than "terrorist attack on tube", or just ignored/downplayed the whole thing, and thus show the terrorists that we're better than that.

We can obviously still use intelligence services and the legal framework to identify and process criminals as they come up, but they should be treated as criminals and not terrorists, because we're not afraid of them.

 jhe90 wrote:
If states Don t want em back there obviously a bad egg and we where right to want to Deport then. They can be held in a remote penal facility until a suitable nation or arrangement can be made for there deportation such as the Saudi extremist rehabilitation centre.

Ah yes, indefinitely throwing people in prison without a trial just because we've declared them a "bad egg" is such a great idea. Never mind the fact that people can be unwelcome in the country you want to deport them to for other reasons...

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

It absolutely is "pretty much no one". Put those numbers into perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/?utm_term=.e21b6d0e3e72

What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

3551 people in 7 nations on 3 continents and over 16 years, with the overwhelmingly vast majority (almost 5/6ths, 83%) coming from a single incident. Even if we add in a few more from smaller or forgotten attacks, from a statistical viewpoint, looking at death rates and meaningful contributors to it, that fully qualifies as "pretty much no one". More people drowned to death in the 2005-2014 ten year time period in the US alone in non-boating related incidents. The US had about five times as many deaths from homicide alone in 2015, and about a quarter million total homicides over the 2001-2017 time period.

This is not to take away anything from these people's deaths, but looking the size of the populations involved here, the time period, and geographic spread, your bathroom is more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

I'm more bothered by other practices like FGM that put tens of thousands at risk (I think about 20,000 girls are 'at risk' in the UK every year and 6000 have it carried out) than I am by terrorism. I travel on trains every day in London and I'm more concerned by the former.

'Extreme' meaning exclusively terrorism is a very small minority, but tens of thousands suffer as a result of extreme barbaric practices like FGM that have absolutely no place in British society, and almost nothing gets prosecuted because families and communities close ranks.

That's the real problem where there's a failure to integrate into British values - the tiny minority of people who want to bomb us is neither here nor there because they don't represent the views of a large number of people. But if you find FGM intolerable, then you do take issue with the firmly shared belief of thousands of families in the UK.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm more bothered by other practices like FGM that put tens of thousands at risk (I think about 20,000 girls are 'at risk' in the UK every year and 6000 have it carried out) than I am by terrorism. I travel on trains every day in London and I'm more concerned by the former.

'Extreme' meaning exclusively terrorism is a very small minority, but tens of thousands suffer as a result of extreme barbaric practices like FGM that have absolutely no place in British society, and almost nothing gets prosecuted because families and communities close ranks.

That's the real problem where there's a failure to integrate into British values - the tiny minority of people who want to bomb us is neither here nor there because they don't represent the views of a large number of people. But if you find FGM intolerable, then you do take issue with the firmly shared belief of thousands of families in the UK.

Thats a bad issue but one thats more difficult to penetrate,
sheer brute force merely bounces off the closed ranks as all the doors close around you and no one will say anything against anyone or create a crack to start a workable breach.

to truely tackle that issue requires a softer power, to get talking into the comunity, build trust and such.
legal means have a place if you catch say the ones cutting... they are a target. but unlike other extremists whom using more agressive tactics and police lead operations. This requires a lighter touch. FIrm, and backed by legal force when needed, but a lighter, more refined aporach workign within the local cultrual structure, ie like convincing a respected elder to come out against it

For all intents your working in a firiegn country. In the iddle east western forces adapted to cultrual norms, used elders, grew beards for respect at times or women to get into the more closed world of some of there groups men could not,. Adapting tactics, ppeople, even aperence, and your very way you talk and body languafge to best work with the existing systems and norms.

the same systems apply here.

I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

Also, other posters may be aware that my reputation is not as the most empathic individual so take that into account when I say, one cannot impugn AN ENTIRE PEOPLE for the actions of a few.* If nothing other than enlightened self interest, that concept is self defeating by fostering radicalization and defeating efforts to redirect vulnerable people away from the jihadi culture.



*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

The thing about secret service work, you only know about it when they feth it up.

"When you do things right, no one will be sure you did anything at all"

*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

Classic doglord projection. Cat people are not hollow inside, because we aren't desperately trying to fill the void with a slavish, co-dependent creature that has zero personal hygiene skills and a pathological need to cater to our whims. We have self motivated, furry room mates with independent lives that trade tummy rubs for dead birds.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

The thing about secret service work, you only know about it when they feth it up.

"When you do things right, no one will be sure you did anything at all"

*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

Classic doglord projection. Cat people are not hollow inside, because we aren't desperately trying to fill the void with a slavish, co-dependent creature that has zero personal hygiene skills and a pathological need to cater to our whims. We have self motivated, furry room mates with independent lives that trade tummy rubs for dead birds.

You win this round, cat lover. But we'll be watching (and barking, and sleeping under the desk and snoring loudly as I type).

 jhe90 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

hrm, I would caution against some of the conclusions here. Most attacks are against soft targets with relatively minimal coordination, and what coordination or subtlety there has been isnt anything terrorists weren't doing a a hundred or more years ago, often much less. The assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881 for instance. The difference is that theyre targeting normal people and going for bodycount rather than hitting out at figures of power or authority directly.

These arent military-level carefully coordinated and intricately planned attacks in most instances. They dont need to be. Theyre not playing 3 dimensional chess with counter terrorism agencies in most instances, nor are they undermining carefully planned and prepared defenses. There are practically an infinite number of targets to attack, few of which can be hardened or adequately protected, especially when the probability of an attack at any one place is basically lotto-odds low (meaning only the most high profile and important places get such protection). There will always be a plethora of tagets for such actors to attack that cannot be adequately defended. The game of vigilance is more one of attempting to undercut the motivators that bring people do engage in such attacks and identifying people *before* they actually carry out an attack (usually the dumb ones), not really in tactical operations and physical security.

Looking at it purely from a lives saved versus dollars spent viewpoint, most counter terrorism spending nets a woefully small return. Mostly it's psychological, terrorist attacks whole point is to have a psychological impact out of all proportion to the damage inflicted, and counter terrorosm security helps making people feel safe and secure, which is important to a functioning society, but in terms of actual lives saved usually nets a whole lot less than healthcare or education or the like.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

You do realize that it's not a choice between "do nothing" and "concentration camps", yes?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

And 1700 people die every year in the UK alone in road accidents. Death by terrorist is down there with shark attack.

It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

In terms of $/life saved, anti terrorism measures are pretty poor value, and that's before you factor in the inconvenience factors and invasion of privacy.