Muslims should expect to be stopped....

Originally Posted by Graham

The number of people killed on September 11th is approximately the same number killed on the USA's roads in *one month* and resulted in a massive downturn in people using air travel, even though there were huge increases in security.

Well, that's OK then. Nothing to worry about.
Just have a look at the comparison you're making. The number of people dead in 3 hours as opposed to 30 days. You could at least normalise the data to try make a legitimate comparison.
The road deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of modern life, having your life ended by terrorists in the manner of 9/11 can in no way be compared to that.

Originally Posted by Graham

The number of people who died in rail accidents such as Paddington or Hatfield are the equivalent of a couple of *days* deaths on the roads in the UK, but they caused a lot of people to decide to stop using trains and, instead, go back to road travel *even though* they would actually be less safe.

The way the UK railways have been mismanaged, I can't really blame them. It certainly was looking like it might become a common occurance.

Originally Posted by Graham

When a certain type of birth control pill was announced to have a possible link with heart disease, many women stopped taking it, even though the risk of complications due to pregnancy etc were much greater than those from heart disease.

By the same token we should leave all that food contaminated with Sudan I on the shelves, because there really is only a very tiny risk associated with it in the quantities in which it is found in that food.
If you discontinue with something because of an associated risk when you don't need to continue with it is not irrational, it's sensible.

Originally Posted by Graham

The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner. They see headlines and very often don't bother to look behind them, this is very probably what the government is *relying* on to get their anti-terror legislation through Parliament (and also very probably what got George W Bush re-elected).

It is true that some people's response to a perceived threat (i.e. risk) can sometimes be irrational. I have an irrational fear of spiders. Fortunately it doesn't rule my life because I am WAY bigger than said spider, and I can reason my way around that one (and/or flatten the spider.)
If, however, we are faced with a threat/risk we cannot properly quantify or control, then how can we know what is a measured/rational response?

You say quite categorically:

The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner.

I'm saying that it's not at all that straightforward.

Originally Posted by Graham

The terrorists (note the first syllable "Terror") are counting on this, they don't want us to *think* about the fact that actually there aren't that many of them and whilst they can hurt us they can't really "destroy" us, they want us scared and frightened and willing to throw away rights and liberties to counter their "threat" because it serves *their* purposes.

We should *NOT* give in to terror by dancing to their tune.

This is straight repetition of what you said before, and assumes that the threat is less real than maybe we perceive. It also assumes the terrorists motive, which I dispute, since the terrorists have not really given us any reason to assume that.

If, however, that was what their game plan was, then indeed we'd be risking playing into their hands. But before we follow that strategy I'd like some proof.

[Ramrod]

Watch channel 4......right now!.......'Immigration time bomb'

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Watch channel 4......right now!.......'Immigration time bomb'

I've just put it on boss man

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

I've just put it on boss man

Damn straight!
..............Now that made interesting viewing.............1% of UK population is African men but they make up 37% of aids cases and account for 95% of hiv treatments in hospital
Islam is completely opposed to homosexuality......
etc, etc....bluddy hell, that was an eye opener

[punky]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Damn straight!
..............Now that made interesting viewing.............1% of UK population is African men but they make up 37% of aids cases and account for 95% of hiv treatments in hospital
Islam is completely opposed to homosexuality......
etc, etc....bluddy hell, that was an eye opener

And I missed it..

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Watch channel 4......right now!.......'Immigration time bomb'

Of course in the interests of balance you should have seen Monday's programme putting forward the alternative viewpoint. In the interests of balance I missed both of them

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by andyl

Of course in the interests of balance you should have seen Monday's programme putting forward the alternative viewpoint. In the interests of balance I missed both of them

Well I missed it too however having veiwed the channel 4 website on tonights programme Immigrant time bomb it would certainly seem biased in some points, mainly in defense of immigratin tho calling politiians and press attitudes to the problem as complete hogwash.
What was the other program you mention from monady and which side did it balance ?

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Of course in the interests of balance you should have seen Monday's programme putting forward the alternative viewpoint. In the interests of balance I missed both of them

Balance? Channel 4? Eh????? Asking a bit much there....

Not watching any 'documentaries' is about the only way of getting balance.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

The road deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of modern life, having your life ended by terrorists in the manner of 9/11 can in no way be compared to that.

[...]

The way the UK railways have been mismanaged, I can't really blame them. It certainly was looking like it might become a common occurance.

[...]

By the same token we should leave all that food contaminated with Sudan I on the shelves, because there really is only a very tiny risk associated with it in the quantities in which it is found in that food.

[...]

If you discontinue with something because of an associated risk when you don't need to continue with it is not irrational, it's sensible.

In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than from a terrorist attack.

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than in a rail accident.

If you are female you are more likely to die from complications in pregnancy due to *not* taking that type of Pill than from any risk of heart disease.

Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.

It is true that some people's response to a perceived threat (i.e. risk) can sometimes be irrational. [...] If, however, we are faced with a threat/risk we cannot properly quantify or control, then how can we know what is a measured/rational response?

By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.

By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"

By actually using our *own* brains for once.

You say quite categorically:

I'm saying that it's not at all that straightforward.

And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.

This is straight repetition of what you said before, and assumes that the threat is less real than maybe we perceive. It also assumes the terrorists motive, which I dispute, since the terrorists have not really given us any reason to assume that.

If, however, that was what their game plan was, then indeed we'd be risking playing into their hands. But before we follow that strategy I'd like some proof.

If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.

But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.

Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.

So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.

The aim of the IRA was to try to force the British out of Ireland by terror, intimidation or simply by hoping that people would say "sod them, it's not worth our while, let's leave them to sort it out themselves".

The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.

Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".

If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.

If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.

Originally Posted by Graham

In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.

No, I didn't miss the point. The point you were trying to make is just one way of looking at the issue - namely the comparative risk involved.
I was showing how each one could be rationalised, which I thought was important since your view is that anyone that doesn't rationalise it your way is wrong.

Originally Posted by Graham

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than from a terrorist attack.

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than in a rail accident.

If you are female you are more likely to die from complications in pregnancy due to *not* taking that type of Pill than from any risk of heart disease.

Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.

No - it's your evaluation that such is the case. And since you have decided that the comparative risks are what you say they are, then everyone else's evaluation of those risks must by your definition be wrong.

Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Graham

By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.

By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"

By actually using our *own* brains for once.

Based on those statements I take it you consider that only you use your brain and only you are impervious to outside influence.

Since I doubt you did all the research that determined the comparative risks as you describe them I must assume you relied on some other party for that information.

Originally Posted by Graham

And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.

Indeed, any government that tells you it's restricting your personal freedoms for your own good is tyring to act out the 1984 scenario.

But that's not quite how everyone hears it..

Originally Posted by Graham

If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.

OK, so we don't know that they're playing some complex psychological game - they might simply be out to kill us all.
Hence, different people will have a different evaluation of the comparative risks, since they'll probably choose neither of those alternatives.

Originally Posted by Graham

But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.

Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.

Here you're asking me for alternative motivations, yet at the same time trying to deduce that "kill the infidel" is inpractical and therefore not a candidate.

Let's look at some alternative motivations. Maybe it is just "kill the infidel" - maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can achieve it. Maybe they believe the person that tells them they can achieve it.

If that person then also uses their religion to colour that belief and next thing we have these people who actually believe that God is helping them to achieve that seemingly impossibe goal.

Beginning to sound a bit like our fanatical extremists, I think.

But I am equally prepared to consider that they envy us for the 'power' that the west has. The fact that we have sex, drugs and rock & roll, and they haven't. In fact, any number of reasons why they are jealous of us.

Or they hate us. For not being Muslims. For being Christians. Because they still hate us for the Crusades. Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.

I think there are plenty of other motivations besides a realisation that they can't defeat us physically, and that therefore it has to be psychological.

In fact, I don't even think that any number of terrorists all have the same motivation. It's just that the ultimate goal suits them equally.

Originally Posted by Graham

So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.

That's your conclusion because it suits your argument. It's not in any way the only inevitable conclusion.

Originally Posted by Graham

The aim of the IRA was to try to force the British out of Ireland by terror, intimidation or simply by hoping that people would say "sod them, it's not worth our while, let's leave them to sort it out themselves".

No. The IRA were (and maybe still are) committed to driving the Brits out of Ireland. It is true that over the years some people thought that maybe we should just "sod them and leave them to it", but when we started voicing those kind of ideas we just ended up breeding Unionists terrorism - the faction that was going to keep us in there at all cost.
If there was any intimidation by the IRA, it was to try to intimidate the British public into demanding British withdrawal from Ireland from the British government.

They never really succeeded in that.

Yet in the Iraq war that voice spoke up before the terrorists started their campaign. So having already achieved that, what might they be trying to achieve now? If the anti-war message is not enough for them, then they must want more.

Originally Posted by Graham

The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.

We were suffering casualties from the 'insurgents' from very early on after the defeat of Saddam. That wasn't about pushing out the 'west' to make way for an Islamic state. That was about a group wanting to take control in post-Saddam Iraq. It's just that we won't let them. And boy, do they hate that!

It may well be true that they also want to create an Islamic state - probably along the fundamentalist lines, since that's the most attractive to the power hungry.

Originally Posted by Graham

Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".

So you think it is more likely that these people think in terms of a 'domino effect' - instill fear, cause governmental restrictions, generate disaffection - rather than simply 'kill' and dominate?

That wonderful quote, attributed to Sherlock Holmes:

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

I think you have taken this to mean that the improbable must be true. I suggest we consider those 'impossibilities' first.

Originally Posted by Graham

If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.

If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.

That is your conclusion, and you love repeating it, but the statement is no stronger for it's repetition, because it is based on your singular line of reasoning.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Certainly, as soon as you answer me this one:

A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language is most likely to be:

A) An Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist.

B) An innocent person.

Answer my question first.

Here, I'll repeat it for you again so that you don't have to bother looking it up.

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

[TheBlueRaja]

Lets keep this civil ladies...

Originally Posted by punky

Balance? Channel 4? Eh????? Asking a bit much there....

Not watching any 'documentaries' is about the only way of getting balance.

Does that mean I'm well balanced??!

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Does that mean I'm well balanced??!

Peversely.... yes

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by scaredwebwarrior

Or they hate us. For not being Muslims

Got it in one.

There is no political agenda, they are not like terrorists we have been used to dealing with, because those other terrorists like ETA/IRA have a political goal and therefore can be negotiated with.

Al-Qaedas goal is to make islam the only religion in the world.

We are all infidels and therefore death to us is the only answer, they cannot bear us sharing the same planet as we are an abomination.