Is there war?

[demi-conservative]

I was going to ask who the sides are, and note that having to ask who the sides are would seem to indicate it ain't much of a war. But you've answered that question in a later post and apparently we're all at war with Islamic extremism. Well I guess all I can say in response is that we don't seem to be, and that I always figured WW3 would look a bit different to normal life.

This is what Open Borders has added to French tourism.
https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/759044006458253313

And guess what!!! France still in state of emergency!! After months!

The town's mayor David Lisnard announced the ban on any bag which could conceal a weapon on Wednesday, in response to the massacre in Nice almost two weeks ago.

The decision also comes the day after an 85-year-old priest was murdered as he performed morning mass in Normandy.

According to 20Minutes, a spokesman for Cannes town hall explained: 'The Mayor has put in place additional protection for locals and tourists on the beaches, under the State of Emergency, banning the possession and transporting of large containers (backpacks, suitcases or other luggage), the opacity and size could hide dangerous materials, weapons or explosives.'

People are being encouraged to carry 'see-through' bags instead
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-attacks.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/arch...-guard/493595/

Methinks kiwi needs to check isolation privilege!!!

[demi-conservative]

World War III has already started: The Free World vs. Islam, and Trump seems to be the only one willing to acknowledge it.

For all intents and purposes, we're already in WWIII - it's just a much less conventional war, and many of the parties don't yet know they're in it.

I said in Spartacus thread that there is war; but enemy using mostly guerilla tactics in West. But let's play, pretend it's not happening!!

[demi-conservative]

Methinks kiwi needs to check isolation privilege!!!

E.g. Starlight: 'blah blah why does Kiwiland need armed forces??!!!'

[Starlight]

It's a matter of statistics: You've got a higher chance of dying by tripping over your own furniture, or dying from a lightening strike, than dying of terrorism. Yet governments spend trillions of dollars wasting people's time with security theatre, and the media whips people into an irrational frenzy of fear.

I'm personally a very rational and unemotional numbers-driven person and so I don't worry about improbable events like terrorism and would be fine visiting a recently terrorised city. And probably more than anyone else here I know what its like to live with a terrorising threat hanging over the city I live in - in the last 6 years I have personally experienced over 1000 earthquakes in my city some of which have collapsed buildings and one of which killed over 100 people. Regardless of whether it's an "act of God" terrorising the populace and destroying buildings or religioius terrorists, the fear and stress is the same and the way to deal with it is the same - accept that the possibility of you being one of the ones killed is tiny, that you've vastly more likely to die of a heart attack, cancer, or a car accident, and carry on with life without fear and live as you normally would.

With regard to the war on terror, I find to be an interesting question is "what is this 'war' against precisely?" I've heard secular people say "religious extremism" and then they denounce the evils of religion in general. I think this is having a big impact on how the next generation perceives religion because they are growing up in a time when it is true to say "religion is currently causing people to do terrible things" and there is not the same level of example of religion causing good things in the news. (And Christians have been anti gay rights which has played into the same narrative) Christians tend to get upset at this and say "no, no, the problem is Islam. Islam is a bad religion. Christianity is fine." Liberals tend to respond "well, if you want to be technically correct, the problem is certain strains of Wahhabism, a small subbranch of Sunni Islam, and obviously the vast majority of adherents of Islam are fine." But conservative Christians get upset with this explanation because they want to generalise the blame more to Islam as a whole, but when secular people generalise the blame to religion as a whole, the conservative Christians get upset. So in a sense the conservative Christians want to have their cake and eat it too in terms of wanting exactly the right amount of generalising to be done... as much as possible so that they can blame all of Islam but stopping just short of blaming themselves and all religion in general.

[Jaecp]

Lightning?

Star, bro, you're more likely to have a cow succeed, intentionally, at killing you than die to a terrorist on our own soil

[Starlight]

Lightning?

Star, bro, you're more likely to have a cow succeed, intentionally, at killing you than die to a terrorist on our own soil

I have a friend who's afraid of cows. He literally refuses to walk across a paddock containing cows. Maybe he's wise. They are probably all Muslim.

I'm actually a little bit afraid of animals currently... I'm in Australia on holiday and they have every kind of dangerous animal over here - poisonous snakes, spiders, sharks, crocodiles, stingrays, lethal jellyfish etc. I have to keep reminding myself that millions of people live here without all dying to poisonous animals. It's a change from kiwiland where cows are the most dangerous animal.

[Jaecp]

I have a friend who's afraid of cows. He literally refuses to walk across a paddock containing cows. Maybe he's wise. They are probably all Muslim.

I'm actually a little bit afraid of animals currently... I'm in Australia on holiday and they have every kind of dangerous animal over here - poisonous snakes, spiders, sharks, crocodiles, stingrays, lethal jellyfish etc. I have to keep reminding myself that millions of people live here without all dying to poisonous animals. It's a change from kiwiland where cows are the most dangerous animal.

Oh, sure it's not the sheep? :D I hear you're all outnumbered like 6-1

[Starlight]

Many farmers converted from sheep to dairy over the last few decades because England entered the eurozone and was forced to stop buying our lamb, and China now buys a bazillion tons of milk so there's a market for that. So it's generally more cows than sheep now in areas where there's enough irrigation to support them.

[Bill the Cat]

Lightning?

Star, bro, you're more likely to have a cow succeed, intentionally, at killing you than die to a terrorist on our own soil

Statistics like that are pretty useless. For instance, it's almost the same rate of death per day for the Iran/Afghan wars as it is for death by autoerotic asphyxiation.

[Jaecp]

Statistics like that are pretty useless. For instance, it's almost the same rate of death per day for the Iran/Afghan wars as it is for death by autoerotic asphyxiation.

Yeah, death per day in a war zone, but I'm talking about stateside [although the 16-17 intentional deaths by cows per year is equal to 8-9 days of the Iraq/Afgan, not "almost the same"]. It's not as though a bunch of idiots in stolen trucks armed with nothing more than small arms is exactly a threat to either of us over here.

I'm significantly more likely to get shot in a mass shooting from one of my fellow American's than to be within 100 miles of a terrorist.

Or, to do it while trying to choke myself masturbating, apparently, since that 600 a year statistic is only slightly lower than the 365x2=730 deaths a year we suffered in Iraq/Afganistan according to your source.

[demi-conservative]

It's a matter of statistics: You've got a higher chance of dying by tripping over your own furniture, or dying from a lightening strike, than dying of terrorism.

'hey, X is flying airplanes to bomb our city! But our antiaircraft is good and so only small number of our people die, less than by lightning/cows!! Therefore we not at war at all!!'

With regard to the war on terror, I find to be an interesting question is "what is this 'war' against precisely?"

Better to ask 'who's at war with us??' After that we see who's enabling them!!

[Cow Poke]

[Sparko]

Yeah, death per day in a war zone, but I'm talking about stateside [although the 16-17 intentional deaths by cows per year is equal to 8-9 days of the Iraq/Afgan, not "almost the same"]. It's not as though a bunch of idiots in stolen trucks armed with nothing more than small arms is exactly a threat to either of us over here.

I'm significantly more likely to get shot in a mass shooting from one of my fellow American's than to be within 100 miles of a terrorist.

Or, to do it while trying to choke myself masturbating, apparently, since that 600 a year statistic is only slightly lower than the 365x2=730 deaths a year we suffered in Iraq/Afganistan according to your source.

and what were the odds of a civilian dying in the USA from war violence in WW2? your argument is invalid.

[Jaecp]

and what were the odds of a civilian dying in the USA from war violence in WW2? your argument is invalid.

Err, what? We were fighting very different kinds of opponents then. Isis doesn't have any particular way to get it's troops here, let alone invade the place. Your comparison is inane

[Bill the Cat]

Err, what? We were fighting very different kinds of opponents then. Isis doesn't have any particular way to get it's troops here, let alone invade the place. Your comparison is inane

Sure they do. Boats and airplanes. And recruiting those already here.