Ground Shaking???

cleanbluesky said:
How about we take a wider view and compare it to terrorist fighting worldwide?
Click to expand...

Because we'd then be comparing apples with oranges....

[quoteI believe it is self-evident that we live comparatively safely compared to Africa, Palestine and other areas within the Middle East... which demonstrates that terrorism can have massive devastational effects[/quote]

...such as this. Why should the devastating effects of terrorism in the places you've mentioned (which have a high level of terrorism), affect our attitude to terrorism in the UK, which has an extremely low level of terrorism?

We do not suffer HIV infection rates of other countries, although that does not mean we trivialise or mock those who take such issues seriously... why should our attitude be any different to terrorism?
Click to expand...

Because there are about 50,000 HIV sufferers in the UK wheras we've had 52 deaths from terrorism in the last 10 years? Why on earth would we treat the two with the same mavity?
 
Richdog said:
I'm a little baffled by the comparison between a natural weather feature and an un-natural violent act such as planting a big bomb with the express intention of blowing lots of people up. Surely there's a lot more chance of being affected by terrorism than hit by lightning these days... and when you factor in the increased risk of terrorist acts due specifically to the circumstances currently affecting the world then the chances increase even more. Not saying it's a given, but it's a very real threat.

However I agree with you that I don't let it bother me, and don't think about it on a day-to-day basis.
Click to expand...

Well, since the IRA announced their ceasefire we've had on average 5 deaths per year from terrorism in the UK, while the number of deaths from lightning strikes is about 3 per year.

So yes, im (roughly) about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as a terrorist attack.

And at the end of the day, does it matter whether the casue is man made or not? You're still dead....
 
cleanbluesky said:
How about we take a wider view and compare it to terrorist fighting worldwide?

I believe it is self-evident that we live comparatively safely compared to Africa, Palestine and other areas within the Middle East... which demonstrates that terrorism can have massive devastational effects

We do not suffer HIV infection rates of other countries, although that does not mean we trivialise or mock those who take such issues seriously... why should our attitude be any different to terrorism?
Click to expand...

But these things aren't happening in the place we live. :confused: The terror level is about the likelyhood of an incident in this county. By your logic we should be worrying every day about being killed by a hurricane, malaria or a rampaging herd of wilderbeist. Hurricanes and malaria have a devistating effect on other countries too but the occur so rarely in this country they don't need thinking about.

Richdog said:
I'm a little baffled by the comparison between a natural weather feature and an un-natural violent act such as planting a big bomb with the express intention of blowing lots of people up. Surely there's a lot more chance of being affected by terrorism than hit by lightning these days... and when you factor in the increased risk of terrorist acts due specifically to the circumstances currently affecting the world then the chances increase even more. Not saying it's a given, but it's a very real threat.
Click to expand...

How many brits have died in the last 5 years from terrorism? 55 I think. Now I would wager that the number of people hit by lightning and killedis higher than that over 5 years. Yes in 2005 there were probably more people killed by terrorism than by lightening but the years surrounding that it was the other way round. So there is good reason for the comparison
 
Visage said:
...such as this. Why should the devastating effects of terrorism in the places you've mentioned (which have a high level of terrorism), affect our attitude to terrorism in the UK, which has an extremely low level of terrorism?
Click to expand...

Because terrorism has a demonstrated negative potential.

Because there are about 50,000 HIV sufferers in the UK wheras we've had 52 deaths from terrorism in the last 10 years? Why on earth would we treat the two with the same mavity?
Click to expand...

Terrorism has wider ranging effects, just as HIV does. There is also the question of just how many people would die were it not the case that our laws have become increasingly draconian and our security services extremely good at what they do. There are more deaths from HIV, but this has nothing to do with how seriously we should treat terrorism. Violence against civilians is a significant killer around the world and historically has much further reaching effects than HIV.
 
cleanbluesky said:
Because terrorism has a demonstrated negative potential.
Click to expand...

Where as catching HIV or getting struck by lightning is a picnic?



Terrorism has wider ranging effects, just as HIV does. There is also the question of just how many people would die were it not the case that our laws have become increasingly draconian and our security services extremely good at what they do. There are more deaths from HIV, but this has nothing to do with how seriously we should treat terrorism. Violence against civilians is a significant killer around the world and historically has much further reaching effects than HIV.
Click to expand...

So because terrorism has profound effects we should disregard its scarcity and be more focussed on it?

Getting anally probed by ET would be an incrediby disturbing experience for me. Should I disregard its unlikeliness and start wearing tinfoil pants?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom