2017: Terror Attack Attempted in Europe Every Nine Days

[Calminian]

Mind boggling when you think about it. Yet Trump attacked for wanting to halt immigration until better vetting is available. Western cultures have lost their way. The question is, are they waking up, or are they content to die a slow death?

2017: Terror Attack Attempted in Europe Every Nine Days
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/23/2017-seen-terror-attack-attempted-europe-every-nine-days/
Agents Tracking 3,500 Potential Suspects in UK… 18,000 in Belgium

Europe, the United Kingdom, and Russia have witnessed terrorist attacks or attempted attacks every nine days in 2017 on average, analysis of security incidents has revealed.

by RAHEEM KASSAM AND VICTORIA FRIEDMAN

 

[Brent W]

Over 3,000 people die from car wrecks each day. From a quick glance and seeing 2015 numbers, just over 28,000 people died due to terrorism in 2015 globally. Including war torn countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. That is roughly less than 30 a day.

Simple math shows that most people in this world have an irrational fear of terrorism, mostly due to the media latching on to each and every attack. I am willing to bet that if CNN and Fox News covered every single car wreck in this country non stop less people would be willing to get behind the wheel and more legislation would be aimed at the auto industry.

If we take your right leaning news source and assume it is 100% true that a terror attack was attempted every 9 days in Europe and we give a generous 20 deaths per attack every day days (lets just go ahead and say that every 9 days a terrorist is able to kill on average 20 people), you still fall drastically short of simple car accidents in this country, coming in at around 800 terrorist related deaths per year in Europe.

Someone can check my math but based on your article you posted Europe looks pretty light on terrorism.

 

[MennoSota]

How many terrorist attacks and deaths are acceptable to you @Brent W?

 

[Brent W]

How many terrorist attacks and deaths are acceptable to you @Brent W?

What kind of question is that? None, obviously. To imply that there is a limit is insulting in itself. If you can not come up with a better question than that to me then that is disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out irrational fear when it exists. Unless you think that we should spend unlimited money and give up our liberties to fight what can be shown to be an irrational fear that is portrayed as a bigger threat than comparable normal day to day activities you do such as driving to work.

 

[MennoSota]

What kind of question is that? None, obviously. To imply that there is a limit is insulting in itself. If you can not come up with a better question than that to me then that is disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out irrational fear when it exists. Unless you think that we should spend unlimited money and give up our liberties to fight what can be shown to be an irrational fear that is portrayed as a bigger threat than comparable normal day to day activities you do such as driving to work.

I ask the question because you intentionally tried to downgrade deaths by terrorism when you compared them to death by other means.

We cannot live our lives I'm fear, but we also cannot live our lives ignorant of Muslims who follow the hadith literally and thus choose to kill infidels in the name of Muhammad and Allah.

Will there be more or less terrorist attacks in a region where radical Islamists are not allowed immigration status? It seems stupid to even ask you such a question, but you seem to want an open air policy on immigration.

 

[Brent W]

I ask the question because you intentionally tried to downgrade deaths by terrorism when you compared them to death by other means.

You assumed I was downgrading their deaths which is a bit ridiculous to assume. Kind of sad that your first instinct is that I would do something like that.

The point was that it is an irrational fear to be so consumed with worrying about terrorism when you grab your keys and get in your car every day. The statistical numbers continue to show time and time again that terrorism is among one of the lowest causes of death in the world. Does that mean we should ignore it? Absolutely not. It doesn't mean we should be spending the amount of money we are and giving up the civil liberties we have at the level we are though.

We cannot live our lives I'm fear, but we also cannot live our lives ignorant of Muslims who follow the hadith literally and thus choose to kill infidels in the name of Muhammad and Allah.

Will there be more or less terrorist attacks in a region where radical Islamists are not allowed immigration status? It seems stupid to even ask you such a question, but you seem to want an open air policy on immigration.

I do not want an open air policy. How you got that out of me pointing out statistics I do not understand. I am not even completely opposed to the idea of a wall if I thought it would work, which I don't think it will. I do not think that banning certain countries in an attempt to keep muslims out is a good practice or practical one. I think we can continue to improve our screening and our border without the need for irrational fear driving it. There are lots of ways we can improve.

 

[MennoSota]

You assumed I was downgrading their deaths which is a bit ridiculous to assume. Kind of sad that your first instinct is that I would do something like that.

The point was that it is an irrational fear to be so consumed with worrying about terrorism when you grab your keys and get in your car every day. The statistical numbers continue to show time and time again that terrorism is among one of the lowest causes of death in the world. Does that mean we should ignore it? Absolutely not. It doesn't mean we should be spending the amount of money we are and giving up the civil liberties we have at the level we are though.



I do not want an open air policy. How you got that out of me pointing out statistics I do not understand. I am not even completely opposed to the idea of a wall if I thought it would work, which I don't think it will. I do not think that banning certain countries in an attempt to keep muslims out is a good practice or practical one. I think we can continue to improve our screening and our border without the need for irrational fear driving it. There are lots of ways we can improve.

Where was the irrational fear in the OPs comments? You derailed the topic by creating an entirely different topic.
It seems you may have an irrational fear that others are having an irrational fear of terrorism. [emoji41]

 

[MennoSota]

Back to the OP.
What constitutes a terror attack attempt? Is it one that takes place or one that is discovered before it can take place...or both included?

What areas are considered as being in the scope of Europe? Is it the entire Peninsula, Scandinavia, Britain and Russia up to the Ural mountains?

I wonder if the statistics are accurate.

 

[Calminian]

Back to the OP.
What constitutes a terror attack attempt? Is it one that takes place or one that is discovered before it can take place...or both included?

What areas are considered as being in the scope of Europe? Is it the entire Peninsula, Scandinavia, Britain and Russia up to the Ural mountains?

I wonder if the statistics are accurate.

Yes, I would think the latter. I think you're correct on the geographic areas as well. It's good to know what's happening behind the scenes, because some my think the problem does not exist if they can't see it.

And per the car comparison, don't we have mass recalls when we suspect a car issue? Wouldn't we stop an import if we knew a few cars in the batch were going to kill someone? Yet the left protects even violent illegal aliens in sanctuary cities.

 

[Brent W]

Where was the irrational fear in the OPs comments? You derailed the topic by creating an entirely different topic.
It seems you may have an irrational fear that others are having an irrational fear of terrorism. [emoji41]

The irrational fear is that an attempted attack every 9 days should be cause for extreme alarm such as completely halting immigration which is what he mentioned. Under that thought process we should ground all vehicles.

Do you have a different interpretation on why he would quote that article and then call for a halt to immigration based on those numbers?

 

[Brent W]

And per the car comparison, don't we have mass recalls when we suspect a car issue? Wouldn't we stop an import if we knew a few cars in the batch were going to kill someone? Yet the left protects even violent illegal aliens in sanctuary cities.

Recalls and defects account for very little of deaths. Nice try though.

 

[Calminian]

I think most reading this never heard me call for a halt to all immigration. that's the reason for the faulty comparison of halting all car production.

Take away those false assumptions, my analogy stands.

 

[Brent W]

Yet Trump attacked for wanting to halt immigration until better vetting is available.

If not you then it was applied Trump was attacked for it. I think it is reasonable to "attack" a President for wanting to halt immigration based on the above data presented. Especially considering his rhetoric while campaigning about wanting a Muslim ban.

You are correct in that you did not out right ask for it but the President you referenced in your post has and it doesn't make sense based on the data available.

 

[Calminian]

...You are correct in that you did not out right ask for it but the President you referenced in your post has and it doesn't make sense based on the data available.

No he did not. You are not familiar with his order. It was not a halt on all immigration, only a tiny fraction. This would be akin to one mfr. bing singled out for a mfg. defect.

The analogy stands.

 

[Brent W]

No he did not. You are not familiar with his order. It was not a halt on all immigration, only a tiny fraction. This would be akin to one mfr. bing singled out for a mfg. defect.

The analogy stands.

Yet Trump attacked for wanting to halt immigration

Then why did you word it the way you did in your original post? Your analogy is your original post and it says literally that above! I can only go on what you post and that is what you said.

My comment regarding the article stands, regardless of your inaccurate comment about Trump then. That article is nothing but a scare tactic headline.

 

[Calminian]

Then why did you word it the way you did in your original post? Your analogy is your original post and it says literally that above! I can only go on what you post and that is what you said.

My comment regarding the article stands, regardless of your inaccurate comment about Trump then. That article is nothing but a scare tactic headline.

I figured people in the forum knew what Trump's order was about. I didn't realize you thought it was a ban on all immigration worldwide.

 

[Alcott]

During the Vietnam era how many more were killed in wrecks in the USA than were killed fighting in se Asia?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Is Schumer crying now?

 

[Brent W]

I figured people in the forum knew what Trump's order was about. I didn't realize you thought it was a ban on all immigration worldwide.

I know what it was about. I've read every single like of each one of them. I was concerned you didn't since you obviously worded your original post in a manner that would imply all immigration would be stopped.

 

[Calminian]

I know what it was about. I've read every single like of each one of them. I was concerned you didn't since you obviously worded your original post in a manner that would imply all immigration would be stopped.

Fair enough. Everyone makes mistakes.