The ISIS threat to Europe

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I went outside a bit earlier, to soak up some of the early spring sunshine, and 2 foreign-looking blokes were stood by a doorway. I overheard one say to the other "swarm today innit?"

I think that's conclusive proof that, y'know, something's afoot. Should I rat on them? 

 

Just tell them to remove a layer of clothes or something.  It is difficult though as we are sort of between seasons so its better to wear to much than to little overall.

[LxYoungAVFC]

3 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

Nope

Look, if you want to dissect every term I use, go on and waste your time. I think it's an amusing way of showing your discontent because you don't agree with me. Cry on

Edited March 23, 2016 by LxYoungAVFC

[Paddywhack]

2 minutes ago, LxYoungAVFC said:

Look, if you want to dissect every term I use, go on and waste your time. I think it's an amusing way of showing your discontemt because you don't agree with me. Cry on

NO I AM THE ONE WHO FINDS IT AMUSING YOUR ARE THE ONE WHO IS CRYING LOLOLOL

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, LxYoungAVFC said:

Edit: I understand it is a question of whether the term "swarm" is used to accuratly describe the behaviour of a group or to maliciously label it as an uncontrollable mass.

In which case, I believe you don't 'understand it'.

The most important thing to me about the language used (swarms, rats, pests, plagues, animals, worse than animals, &c.) is the dehumanizing angle.

[Wainy316]

5 minutes ago, LxYoungAVFC said:

Look, if you want to dissect every term I use, go on and waste your time. I think it's an amusing way of showing your discontemt because you don't agree with me. Cry on

 

Okay, threatening to put somebodies parents in chilli is a step too far.

[lapal_fan]

2 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

NO I AM THE ONE WHO FINDS IT AMUSING YOUR ARE THE ONE WHO IS CRYING LOLOLOL

Stop trying to be me

[ender4]

21 hours ago, Awol said:

 

 It's not beyond imagination that in a decade the Middle East will consist of Turkey, Egypt, Israel and Iran, while the remainder resembles a  version of Mad Max - with camels.  

  

  

 

Cool. 

Will it be shown in Imax 3D HFR?

 

[Awol]

19 hours ago, ender4 said:

 

Cool. 

Will it be shown in Imax 3D HFR?

 

Youtube clips shot on12 MegaPixel phone cameras I expect.  The effects will be good, but plotlines likely to get repetitive...  

[Dr_Pangloss]

I guess the #callbrussels tourism campaign will not be getting reshown. 

 

[YGabbana]

Barely any coverage of the terrorist attack in Pakistan. 65 dead and 300 injured with alot of those being women and children.

No pakistan flags on downing street or minutes silence anywhere.

RIP to all those that have lost their lives.

[Chindie]

We've been over this before.

There has been a fair amount of media coverage. Only this morning, when responsibility was claimed, the story was the headline news on the front page of the Beeb. Even now it's the on the front page even when the story has developed into 'Head of state states bloody obvious'.

Unfortunately we haven't developed, yet, a globalised 'we feeling' where we act and think like a planetary community. Until that point, unfortunately stories about tragedies in far flung places, where we feel those tragedies are common, and where the common man on the street of the UK probably doesn't have much connection to that place, don't make waves in the media and don't make waves in the political sphere either.

That might change eventually. Probably not in our lifetimes. Until that time, tragedies in Europe, and moreover tragedies in places with a common cultural root to the UK, from similar sources (I.e. Islamic flavour terrorism currently) where the norm is not perceived to be extremist violence, will have far greater coverage and far greater political heft than tragedies in Africa, Middle East and Asia. Unless those tragedies are so horrific they can't be ignored. 

Personally, I wouldn't have any of these solidarity actions for any nation. They don't achieve anything, are entirely for show, and only seek to show the bastards currently inspired by a stupid book to turn themselves into red mist and flying splinters of bone and murdering dozens of innocent right minded people that they managed to get the global media eye exactly as they wanted.

But for the time being, if we must do this, it's not a shock that a tragedy in Belgium, a near neighbour unused to bombings, is more likely to inspire such actions than a tragedy in Pakistan which is remote to most of the UK, isn't on our doorstep, isn't tying into the IS narrative, but does fit into a narrative the UK didn't really care about - that this kind of thing happens to Pakistan a lot. Israel has a similar standing.

[mjmooney]

Forget the 'share' thing, but the graphic does rather illustrate the above posts.

 

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, Chindie said:

unfortunately stories about tragedies in far flung places, where we feel those tragedies are common, and where the common man on the street of the UK probably doesn't have much connection to that place, don't make waves in the media and don't make waves in the political sphere either.

That might change eventually. Probably not in our lifetimes.

I wonder about this Chindie. I think it's gone the other way in my lifetime - i.e. there used to be more reporting in mainstream media of tragedies in far flung places. Like in the 80s and 90s, so I think in the last 30 years it's changed one way, and it could change back again. Don't get me wrong it was never "all over the place" in terms of coverage, but it was there in the press and on the telly.

I think the internets has made people more globally aware in terms of twitter and face page and instant grams etc. though perhaps you have to go and look for it by typing in #Nepal or whatever.

I agree that stuff that happens on our doorstep will get more coverage and that that is fair enough, and even right. I wonder though if it's proportionate - i.e there should be more coverage, but it's almost blanket coverage compared to a minuscule amount. That seems out of kilter to me.

[sharkyvilla]

I also think it's because we've become a bit desensitised to it now, it's almost a regular occurrence.  Even the Beligan attacks seemed to get less coverage than the French ones.  That said, I have seen a lot of coverage about the Pakistani bombing, but I think much of that is due to it being aimed at Christians.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wonder about this Chindie. I think it's gone the other way in my lifetime - i.e. there used to be more reporting in mainstream media of tragedies in far flung places. Like in the 80s and 90s, so I think in the last 30 years it's changed one way, and it could change back again. Don't get me wrong it was never "all over the place" in terms of coverage, but it was there in the press and on the telly.

I think the internets has made people more globally aware in terms of twitter and face page and instant grams etc. though perhaps you have to go and look for it by typing in #Nepal or whatever.

I agree that stuff that happens on our doorstep will get more coverage and that that is fair enough, and even right. I wonder though if it's proportionate - i.e there should be more coverage, but it's almost blanket coverage compared to a minuscule amount. That seems out of kilter to me.

I wonder whether this is a counter intuitive result of the internet?

We've now all got more access to global information and we're all more aware of the global situation, and therefore the desire for media coverage of far-flung issues has diminished - I.e. in the 80s when a major event happened a reporter would be sent to check it out and it was on the news, it was a big deal, now your phone can tell you minute by minute about even minor events in places you couldn't find on a map, with live video whenever you want, so the media doesn't bother with it.

Inversely, it's also allowed for stories that might have remained local to go national, which further drowns out the international 'norm' of African tragedies and Middle Eastern slaughters and so on - a scandal in Northumberland that on the 70s might tension a local news issue can grow today to be national, for example. I wonder whether the Stafford hospital scandal makes the News at 10 20 years ago, for instance?

You also have to balance 24 hour news coverage as well - these burn out stories faster than they did before and they've changed the way news is reported to compensate. We saw last week photographers and reporters rush to get photos of injured distressed people on a bus leaving the Brussels airport chasing the latest image that defines a tragedy. We didn't have that even when I was a kid, the news was more restrained and the story was only reported 3 times a day so you didn't need the constant push for the latest angle.

[blandy]

Yes I agree that's definitely part of it. But I don't think the local to National thing is right - Stafford hospital, Paedos in Cleveland (80s, I think it was), will and did always make the national news, IMO.

24 hour news can be informative, but as you imply they go for stories the have pictures of, rather than stories which might be more significant, but for which they have no footage. Perhaps that's part of the reason why there's disproportionately less middle east terrorist attack "news" as there are not many western journos there. So yes, first and last paras I agree completely, middle one, not so much.

[chrisp65]

They've just made an interesting point on Radio 4, springing from some mindless fascist speech Trump has made. He's stated in his usual garbled confused divisive way that it's 'dangerous' to visit europe. That it's dangerous for americans to visit Paris or Brussels or elsewhere in europe.

They then crunched some stats on 'danger' for americans and 'danger' for tourists. Easily the most dangerous place to go, if you're a tourist, is somewhere where you could be tempted to get boozed up and then either go for a swim or hire a motor scooter. Thailand was singled out as being particularly dangerous, Greece got an honourable mention. There was some stat I didn't quite catch that there is more chance of an american being shot dead by their own toddler than killed by a bomb as a tourist.

That the road death rate is four times greater in the USA than in the UK, and then there's the obvious guncrime stuff in the USA.

Statistically, if you discount Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria, somebody is killed by a terrorist every 15 minutes.But somebosy is killed in a road traffic accident every 25 seconds.

So you could ask, why are we so obsessed with giving publicity to publicity seeking murderers, when so many many more people are dying on the roads? The same effort, publicity and money expended on road safety as expended blowing up Afghan huts, would preserve so much more life. Much greater value, but obviously, less sexy.

[ROTTERDAM1982]

Statistically as well Chrisp is the fact that 100% of suicide bombers are Muslim, there has been more "suicide attacks" in Europe in the last 3 years than there has been in the last 100 years, and how many would there have been if not for the security services.

 40% of the prison poulation in Britain are muslim, they make up 4% of the population, in France i believe its even higher.You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, but the general consesus is that the world is a less safe place than it was 10 years ago.

No doubt its our fault.

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

Statistically as well Chrisp is the fact that 100% of suicide bombers are Muslim, there has been more "suicide attacks" in Europe in the last 3 years than there has been in the last 100 years, and how many would there have been if not for the security services.

 40% of the prison poulation in Britain are muslim, they make up 4% of the population, in France i believe its even higher.You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, but the general consesus is that the world is a less safe place than it was 10 years ago.

No doubt its our fault.

Literally nothing to do with Chris' post.

[ROTTERDAM1982]

Literally has, because the inference was that Trump was wrong to suggest that travelling to Europe was getting more dangerous for Americans.The reasoning being that terrorist attacks in Europe are on the increase, hence my post.

 

 Sorry if you had trouble understanding it.