Jump to content


Member Since 20 Nov 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:49 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: [Another] London Terror Attack

Today, 12:30 PM

How is domestic violence committed a suburb away by someone I've never met any more internal than a terrorist act?

It's closer in distance, that's all.

Domestic violence is generally an act of an individual against another.  Terrorism is an individual or group acting in a premeditated way against another group.

And saying that we're paying attention to terrorism as an excuse to ignore troubles closer to home... that's a low accusation.



Yes, there are categorical differences between domestic violence, and terrorism.  Terrorism is definitively a lower act, since it involves a small group of people violently attacking a larger group of innocent people, and affecting our whole society at a psychological level.  Additionally, the nature of terrorism means that at any point, hundreds of lives could be lost if our security is compromised.  


I'm not arguing that they are equivalent.


I introduced the topic of domestic violence to give a point of comparison to terrorism.  The point I'm making is that while terrorism is a serious threat, there are other issues that Australians are completely culpable for, that are within our power to manage, that we don't consider a priority when discussing security and safety.  Unless we draw these comparisons, how can we judge that the $1.2 Billion AUD in Federal funding we spend on terrorism each year is good value, and the $100 Million AUD in Federal funding given to manage domestic violence sufficient?

In Topic: [Another] London Terror Attack

Today, 11:54 AM

Not sufficient to paint Muslims as blameless victims in the whole thing you now resort to redefining terrorism as a frivolous event getting more attention than warranted.

Maybe we should be paying more attention to dodgy electric kettles because they kill more people?


Fact of the matter is, the terrorism is a hateful act in the name of a Xenophobic religion.


Read what I've actually written Rybags, instead of using 'pigeon-holes'.


Religious ideology is an essential component of modern Islamic terrorism.  The Muslim religion enables this ideology, but it's not unique to Muslims.  Instead, the evidence available suggests it's environmental.  


We react to terrorism because of its violence, and because it kills innocent people.  Someone getting killed by a kettle is an accident, not even close to the same thing.  Someone getting bludgeoned to death in front of their kids has a similar impact on people connected to the event, yet our monkey brains tell us to ignore violent acts from within our tribe, and focus on external events.  It's faulty logic.

In Topic: [Another] London Terror Attack

Today, 10:57 AM

One could argue that some of the terrorist attacks in non-Western countries are actually part of a civil war or internal power struggle.


I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't the same logic that categorises domestic terrorism as an act of civil war, be extrapolated to suggest that international terrorism is simply an extension of the war on Terror/ISIS/Al Qaeda?  


The US, Australia, France, Belgium, Germany, and Britain have all had active involvement in these wars, so it's not as though the attacks are being carried out on uninvolved nations.


In Topic: [Another] London Terror Attack

Today, 08:29 AM

All other countries are involved now, whether they want to be or not. .


If we go by body count, only 3.2% of total deaths due to terrorism have occurred in Western countries.  This drops to 0.3% if you only consider Europe, Australia, and Canada.  Substantially more people are being killed by domestic violence, which comes from within our culture, than terrorism.  Our brains are hardwired to focus on external threats, but this isn't always rational if the goal is to live is prosperous societies.



In Topic: [Another] London Terror Attack

27 March 2017 - 12:13 AM

i just wonder if youre being a tad too reductive with the prism youre looking through



your main argument is that radicalisation arises from the ground up more so than from the top down.  that is, more from disaffected masses with gripes rooted in the real world than from the influence of wackjob clerics, and i agree.  every drone strike, every manipulation of domestic corruption from afar, every perceived creation of a bigger mess than before which does more to preserve global inequities than peace and all things good.  this is not a fight that can make the inherent problems of the war on terror go away.




 but there are no Afghan mountains to hide in for Daesh's power base — the critical mass of people who believe in it as an idea.  the idea being, that a global caliphate is achievable in the short termthat any and all means, no matter how cruel, no matter if perpetrated against muslims, justify this end.  i would argue that this is an idea that is not, and never has been, nearly as endemic as anti-western or pro-terrorism sentiment.  an idea whose perceived viability we have the chance to severely cripple.  and one we cant afford to let flourish.  are you sure you are not talking about pulling out at the very peak of justification for our involvement in the ME?


On your first point, absolutely.  It was a deliberate move to condense the complexities of the issue into something that could be meaningfully transmitted, to promote an empathetic understanding of the situation seperate from the mainstream narrative.


From the second point quoted above, I think it's a combination of the two modes.  We have strong evidence for top-down organised recruitment, but we're also experiencing 'lone-wolf' and copycat attacks (ala Sydney Seige) that I think are best explained through a grass-roots model.


I think it's reasonable to spit our involvement in the Middle East into two connected, but seperate goals.  The first is to reduce or eliminate Islamic terrorist attacks on Western Countries, the second is to intervene to prevent human atrocities.  To achieve the first, it might seem logical to integrate it into the second.  This is the point I disagree on.  There are ways to intervene using the resources we have available that doesn't have the same level of compromise on security, and the promotion of terrorism.  We can provide sanctuary to those who want out, preferably in collaboration with a local Arab country.  We can provide non-military resources (food, medicine, medical care) in a way that mitigates suffering without manipulating power.  If requested, we can provide peacekeeping forces, but they should be independent, and not working with any particular side.


I support military intervention in addressing the human atrocities Daesh are committing, but it shouldn't come over the longterm from our troops, our warplanes, or our missiles and bombs.  From the perspective of geography, ideology, and history, this is absolutely an Arab issue.  It doesn't involve our land, or our ideologies, or our citizens (at least not in the Middle East).  It's not just that it's ineffective, or that it leads to collateral damage for us to attempt this, I actually don't think it's possible for Western forces to solve this issue over the long term.  As you suggest, we could attempt to take out the brains or the brawn, but I don't think this necessarily resolves the fundamental issues going on in Iraq and Syria.  Not because I think Daesh are impervious, but because in the absence of ideal weapons that could do this with surgical precision, the power vacuum left by Saddam would simply spawn a new movement.


The idea of a new Caliphate doesn't necessarily imply global domination, but it does imply revolution in Arab countries, and this coincides with previous attempts at revolution in a large number of countries during the Arab Spring.  We can't stop it from flourishing if it's the common sentiment of the people, every historical lesson I'm familiar with suggests that we would do more harm than good with continued, longterm intervention (e.g. Russia, Vietnam, Nicaragua).