Turkey and the E.U.?

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"

Which is merely a convenient way of belittling facts that don't suit us.

regards,
Scofflaw

censuspro

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on the national political statistic of Turkey that is their most recent general election, Islamic extremism has virtually no support among the populace. The largest far-right Islamist party, The Felicity Party, commanded just 2.3% of the popular vote. Contrast that with the typical polling of, for example, Sinn Féin in this country. In that context, your worries with regard to terrorist attacks are largely unfounded.

In what context??? The only person to mention Sinn Fein was you! Why are you drawing comparisons between Sinn Fein and Islamic exremism in Turkey?

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is merely a convenient way of belittling facts that don't suit us.

regards,
Scofflaw

Which facts were they Scofflaw?

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Which facts were they Scofflaw?

In this case, the statistical likelihood of suffering from terrorism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

In this case, the statistical likelihood of suffering from terrorism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.

And winners of the Lotto have benefited from a statistically unlikely event, but if you planned your financial outgoings around winning the Lotto simply because other people have, then you'd be an idiot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

censuspro wrote: »

Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.

Next you'll be suggesting a bear patrol tax.

djpbarry

censuspro wrote: »

In what context???

The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

And winners of the Lotto have benefited from a statistically unlikely event, but if you planned your financial outgoings around winning the Lotto simply because other people have, then you'd be an idiot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?

censuspro

djpbarry wrote: »

The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).

Which has no relevance to this thread, however it is a tactic used all to often by putting forward a non relevant comparison and then in the same sentence make a rebuttal of that comparison in order to reinforce their own point e.g. Sinn Fein V Islamic extremism or the statistical unlikelihood of winning the lotto V being victim of a terrorist attack.

sink

censuspro wrote: »

Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?

You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?

Not if you're nervous about even smaller risks like terrorism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

sink wrote: »

Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

Also by doing that you are letting the terrorists win.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

Just to reiterate that point:

Fewer than 300 acts of terrorism were registered in Europe last year and only one was an attack from an Islamist group, with most of them committed by separatist organisations in Spain and France, EU's police agency Europol reports.

A total of 294 terrorist acts were reported in EU member states in 2009, representing a 33 percent drop compared to the previous year and half the number of attacks registered in 2007, Europol said Wednesday (28 April).

"While the number of terrorist incidents is declining in Europe, terrorism remains a significant security threat to our society and citizens. Despite the overall trend, we should not drop our guard in the fight against terrorism," Europol director Rob Wainwright said in a statement.

Europol defines a terrorist offence as any act, planned or executed, that may seriously damage a country or an international organisation if committed to intimidate a population, put pressure on a government or destabilise political, constitutional, economic or social structures.

The statistics do not include the United Kingdom, however, because its record-keeping differs with that of the other member states. An additional 124 attacks carried out by dissident republican groups were reported in Northern Ireland.

Most of the attacks in mainland Europe were committed by separatist groups such as Basque separatists ETA in Spain and the Corsican National Liberation Front (FLNC) in France.

"Islamist terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat to most member states, despite the fact that only one Islamist terrorist attack - a bomb attack in Italy - took place in the EU in 2009," Europol said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).

It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths while muslim terrorists usually try to maximise civilian casualties.

As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.

censuspro

sink wrote: »

You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

What are you saying that it's worth the risk??

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to reiterate that point:


cordially,
Scofflaw

It states that terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat! Regardless of the statistic unlikelihood it is still a legitimate threat!

censuspro

sirromo wrote: »

It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths while muslim terrorists usually try to maximise civilian casualties.

As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.

What is 2% of the entire population of Islam?

sink

censuspro wrote: »

What are you saying that it's worth the risk??

Yes. Everything carries risk, if you're not willing to take some risk you're not willing to do anything. Ideally you measure the risk before you decide to take action and on the scale of it the measure of increased risk from terrorism in the event that Turkey joins the EU is minuscule.

The major risk from Turkish entry is economic and political unrest, which is not unmanageable.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

It states that terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat! Regardless of the statistic unlikelihood it is still a legitimate threat!

Are you saying that we should protect ourselves against what we perceive to be dangers rather than real dangers? Should children be protected against things that live under the bed rather than obesity?

amused,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you saying that we should protect ourselves against what we perceive to be dangers rather than real dangers? Should children be protected against things that live under the bed rather than obesity?

amused,
Scofflaw

So which is the bigger threat in your opinion, "gay bashers" or fundamental Islamic terrorists?

irishconvert

sirromo wrote: »

It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths

Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

censuspro

irishconvert wrote: »

Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

Either way, why do posters keep putting up unrelated comparisons as if it makes what they're saying more valid. e.g. Islamic extremeists v Sinn Fein, obesity in children v monsters under the bed.

wes

irishconvert wrote: »

Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

That was carried out by a secular state, during a war. Very different circumstances.

Now, something like this is comparable:

Top UN man investigates massacre claims in DR Congo

Now various terrorists groups use different tactics, depending on there causes, situation etc. Islamic extremists groups aren't the only ones to go for mass casualties, and there are plenty of examples of other groups similarly going for mass casualties.

wes

censuspro wrote: »

The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

Its actually a bit more complicated than that. The US was basically engaged in a economic conflict with Japan before that. The whole US narrative of them being attack for no reason by the Japanese is a myth.

scudzilla

I've not read all this thread but i have 1 question :-

How can a country, over half of which is in Asia, ever be allowed into the E.U??

Sure it has nothing at all to do with there strategically placed military airports :rolleyes::rolleyes:

censuspro

wes wrote: »

Its actually a bit more complicated than that. The US was basically engaged in a economic conflict with Japan before that. The whole US narrative of them being attack for no reason by the Japanese is a myth.

I know there's more to it than that but it's not a relevant post to begin with.

irishconvert

censuspro wrote: »

The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

And the so-called Islamic terror attacks you refer to are not Muslim crusades either. You will find the vast majority stem from political issues.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

So which is the bigger threat in your opinion, "gay bashers" or fundamental Islamic terrorists?

If we go back to the post you originally commented on, you'll find it was this:

I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

If you're asking me which I consider more of a threat, I'd definitely have to go for "any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant" as a bigger threat than "fundamental Islamic terrorists". Much, much bigger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we go back to the post you originally commented on, you'll find it was this:



If you're asking me which I consider more of a threat, I'd definitely have to go for "any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant" as a bigger threat than "fundamental Islamic terrorists". Much, much bigger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No that is not what I asked, that the answer that you want to give.