Ignore the Paris Terrorist Attack
by Benjamin Studebaker
Last night, in a series of horrible attacks, at least 128 people in Paris were killed. The attacks were committed by the Islamic State with internal help from homegrown French terrorists. The best way we can respond is by completely ignoring the attack and paying no attention to it whatsoever. Here’s why.
The more attention we pay to terrorist attacks, the more power we give those terrorists to determine how our societies will respond. Every time a terrorist attack happens, the attention our societies pay only serves to assist the terrorists in achieving their political goals. They want us to be scared. They want us to react emotionally. They want to see our grief. They want us to give in to the cowards and fools who are chomping at the bit to do something thoughtless–more xenophobia, more racism, more Islamophobia, more surveillance, more military intervention in the Middle East. None of the actions people propose in times like this make the situation any better or make our societies any more safe. No matter how good the government’s security apparatus is, sometimes violent murderers and terrorists will slip through the cracks. Targeting immigrants and Muslims is racist, it blames the collective for the actions of a small fringe minority. Expanding the surveillance state is wasteful and ineffective–the security measures implemented after 9/11 in countries around the world have made no difference to the terrorism fatality rate. If anything, it’s higher:
The same is true of all the military interventions that have been justified on the grounds that they will somehow “keep us safe”. The Iraq War cost the United States alone $2 trillion. That’s 408 times what the US government spends every year on cancer research. It’s enough to provide tuition free college education to American students for 32 years. We could have written every American currently living below the poverty line a check for $44,000 and it wouldn’t have cost as much. What did we get for this? Iraq is less stable than it was under Saddam Hussein. There are more terrorists living in the country than there were before, and the Iraqi government is so feckless that it has allowed them to seize territory and cannot even push them out. Interventions in Libya and Yemen to push out dictators have produced failed states and civil wars, as both countries have become havens for radicals. Afghanistan is a quagmire–thanks to our efforts, it now leads the world in illegal opium production.
Today the interventionists want to chuck out Assad in Syria, leaving yet another power vacuum in the Middle East to be filled by people who are even worse. They want us to send ground troops in to fight the Islamic State, doing the job the governments in the Middle East should be doing themselves. Once again, we’d be flushing lots of money down the toilet and there’s no reason at all to think we’d end up any safer. We have to recognize that when we blow cash on feckless efforts to “fight” terrorism, we are giving up opportunities to invest that money in our own societies and in our own future. The governments in the region need to do their jobs–Islamic State is a problem for Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to solve. We should cooperate with their efforts and provide them with whatever logistical support and intelligence they need, but we must not throw good money after bad. The terrorists want us to do precisely that. They want us to waste our resources on a never ending war on terror. The more we focus on the grisly events in Paris, the more we express sadness, the more we press our governments to do something stupid.
Here’s the truth. 265.5 people in France die of cancer every day on average. We don’t run 24 hour news coverage on them. Nobody makes any statements. Nobody puts up their “thoughts and prayers” on social media. The families of terrorist victims don’t need us any more than the cancer victims do. This terrorist attack is a pinprick on France. France is so strong and so powerful and the terrorists are so feeble and so pathetic. France doesn’t have to change a single government policy in response to this, and neither do we. Our countries can and should collectively shrug at this and go “is that all you got?” Because it is all they got. Terrorism is a weapon of the weak. Only we can make that weapon strong, only we can allow them to achieve their goals. We must refuse to allow ourselves to become accessories to the political goals of terrorists and murderers.
The best way to stand up to terrorism is to ignore terrorism and treat it with the contempt it deserves–as a lesser threat than the ordinary diseases and accidents that never make the front page. Yawn at it. It’s boring. Dare to not care. The French state can and will handle it. They don’t need our thoughts and prayers. They need us to be stoic, to resist the throngs of terrified, deeply misguided people who in the coming days will push us to take rash and stupid action. Have the courage and the strength to look away. Go on with your day. Buy stuff. Make love. There’s no better way to flip off the terrorists. The best way to affirm the value of the lives of the victims is to go on living yours.
UPDATE:
I’ve since written an additional post detailing how weak the Islamic State is militarily and how a policy of ignoring the region can force regional stakeholders to stop depending on the west for security and take responsibility for their own futures.
Glad someone said it.
Yeah, just ignore them and they’ll go away. Are you for real? Do you honestly believe the nonsense that you wrote above? I don’t profess to know the answer but one thing is for sure. Just turning the other cheek means you’ll get slapped twice instead of once.
There are no actions that we can take that will make us any safer. The Middle Eastern states have to step up, and until they do things like this will happen. We have to be stoic and not give in. We can’t waste more money. This threat is not that serious and it’s not worth the kind of cash we’ve thrown at it over the past 15 years.
There has to be other solutions than turning the other cheek. What if they’ ll take it to a next level. What if last night they would have put bombs to Stade de France? Would that change your reaction?
What are these other solutions? The Islamic State is a weak organization and terrorism is only a minor threat to the west–the number of people killed by terrorists is quite small:

How much money should we spend on this threat as opposed to the other threats that kill far more people?
The one action the West could take would be to leave the Middle East, quit overthrowing secular governments through aerial bombardment campaigns and funding and training Islamic fundamentalists. With ISIS, we could contain it by getting Turkey to close its borders which it leaves open for extremists to go through, but closes it for supporters of revolutionary Rojava — the one secular, democratic force actually fighting ISIS in a serious matter on the ground.
Reparations for destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria should be paid. Then there’s removing support for Saudi Arabia which fuels monetarily and ideologically Islamic extremism. And we could end unconditional support for Israel and demand the dismantlement of settlements, ending the occupation of Gaza and West Bank.
That’s a start to making us safer.
That’s a good point, Mike–we could change some of the policies we have that inspire hatred from disaffected individuals in the region. We should change some of our policies toward Saudi Arabia and Israel and move into more of an offshore balancing role (I wouldn’t go so far as reparations, enough western money has been spent). Unfortunately after terrorist attacks happen the public pressure is overwhelmingly on the side of doing precisely the opposite and engaging even more heavily in the kinds of behaviors that fuel terrorism.
Not that serious to you in the USA maybe. In the same way that the destruction of the Twin Towers wasn’t important in Europe? Is that what you mean? Ignoring them is NOT the answer, these people won’t be satisfied until they have converted everyone to Islam (or their version of it). Ignoring them just will not stop them and anyone who thinks it will is a fool, I’m afraid.
You’d find the same kind of statistics for the European countries. The 9/11 attack was blown way out of proportion, we massively overreacted to it. If we don’t overreact, the countries in the region will be forced to deal with it, and that’s the only way to get a sustainable solution.
The 9/11 attack was blown out of proportion? How do you blow 2900 deaths out of proportion?
You spend 408 times more on fighting terrorism than you spend on fighting cancer, when cancer kills over 500,000 Americans every year as opposed to 2,900?
Your logic is sadly flawed. You’re comparing apples to lightbulbs. Cancer is not caused by terrorism, 9/11 was.
That’s exactly my point–terrorism doesn’t kill nearly as many people as cancer, yet we spend far more money on terrorism than we do on cancer. If we’re trying to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, our priorities are messed up.
[…] you, but you can control what you do about it. What I think we should do is very well expressed in this article, and that is: go on with our lives and refuse to be […]
Absolutely. It is so important not to give in to the terrorists and react out of fear
Benjamin – You say, and you back up with documentation, exactly what has been going through my head. The “counter-terrorist” mechanism that the UK and the US have been setting up is really to deal with future domestic protests against the destructive effects of austerity.
War is bad and ruinously expensive. Peace, curing cancer, and education are good. Make war against an intractable enemy on foreign soil and there is serious risk they will retaliate against our civilian population on home soil.
These points I get. But what response is appropriate in the wake of an IS statement (released after Benjamin’s blog article) threatening more criminal violence against western targets if we continue the ‘crusader campaign,” as they put it?
Just “buy stuff?” “Make love”? Continue to “ignore it”? Order a stand-down, pack our drone-bags, kiss off our Middle Eastern allies, and go home?
I doubt it. I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think moving “into more of an offshore balancing role” — whatever that means — changes anything either, unless we’re just going to be fishing off the deck of those aircraft carriers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-this-is-just-the-beginning-isis-vows-after-killing-at-least-127-people-in-french-a6734546.html
Of course they will tell us that they’re going to commit more acts of terror–they’re trying to scare us. Everything they say is part of the terrorist act. They want us to believe they are much more powerful and much more threatening than they really are. The Middle Eastern states in the region have combined military resources that dwarf that of IS, and if we make it clear that we are not going to do their work for them, one or more of them will eventually put those resources to use.
By “offshore balancing”, I mean that we ensure that no one Middle Eastern state dominates the region (i.e. maintain a balance of power) but otherwise allow these states to handle their own business. It’s the only way to make them responsible stakeholders rather than bystanders.
You know it is curious that the gulf states and Saudi and even egypt and Jordan and morroco and even Sudan and Senegal have all organised their military to intervene agaisnt a militia which is destabilizing a government …………no not in Iraq or Syria against Islamic state but in Yemen against the houthis.
If the regional powers were really motivated to fight Sunni Islamic state they would but they don’t. Not only should we ignore these attacks but we should call out KSA and gulf states for being the Sunni wahabbi terrorist funding states that they are(funding alqaeda if not Isis against Assad).Europe could at least equally call the Israeli apartheid what it is,an apartheid police state (AIPAC will always guarantee US financial support to Israel)
[…] Source: Ignore the Paris Terrorist Attack […]
I get what you are saying, but I think you are drastically underestimating IS. They are the most well organised terrorist group I have seen in a long time, they are also well funded to a point were I have read reports were they have several hundred million dollars behind them.
Ignoring them is not an option, to do so we will only have repeats of Paris and Beirut. They have just to much support in European and gulf states.
What I feel we need to do is get in there face, not how the western powers have being doing it. But as a society and civilisation and not just as Europeans, but everyone.
Several hundred million dollars is not nearly as much as it sounds like it is when we’re discussing military strength. Saudi Arabia spends $56 billion on defense. Turkey spends $18 billion. UAE spends $14 billion. Iran and Iraq spend $6 billion each. IS is not competitive. The CIA estimates that IS has 20-30 thousand fighters. The Saudi army has 230 thousand. UAE has 51 thousand. Iraq has 270 thousand. Iran has 520 thousand. Turkey has 470 thousand. IS is not competitive. Western military might is not necessary if even a single one of these countries committed to the fight. And there are so many other countries that have arms and funds to contribute in the region–Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc.
IS is not competitive? Try standing in the Place de la Concorde and say that out loud. You really are amazing. Clearly they ARE competitive or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The ability to kill scores of people in an isolated attack is not equivalent to the ability to seriously threaten the integrity of a society or to compete for power within a geopolitical region.
I forgot that if I ignore my cancer it just eventually goes away. Spending money and attention on getting rid of it is hopeless.
We spent $2 trillion fighting terrorism and only made the problem worse. By doing nothing, we force the Middle Eastern states to deal with IS instead of allowing them to sit on their hands waiting for us to solve the problem.
Your argument is correct as long as the primary goal of terrorist acts committed by IS is to provoke us to respond with indiscriminate violence, which will lead to the local population’s increased sympathy for the terrorist groups. But, the reality is not that simple. Many terrorist acts are performed not to intimidate us, but to garner support from the local population and loyalty from its members, by showing them that they have such great resolve to even commit large scale terrorist attacks. In these later cases, silence will not help us at all. Rather, silence will induce the terrorist groups to seek further drastic measures.
The more attention we draw to the attack, the more we glorify it in the minds of any locals who might be inclined to support it. The terrorist groups have limited capabilities and we have no reason to fear them.
I agree that we should not let this attack obfuscate more pressing issues –but idea that we should not “care” about the massacre of a people is under the cloak of anti-imperialism is disgusting. I would expect more nuance that this.
If we care about the victims of terrorism, we have to not care about terrorist attacks. The more we care, the more likely our governments are to take counterproductive action that will lead to further terrorist attacks.
you cannot separate “terrorist attacks” from the “victims of terrorism”. They are logically interlinked. To care is not the same thing as to glorify or take advantage of. In fact, if we really do care, then we should to prevent the government from taking counterproductive action.
Sure we can–as I use the terms, caring about the victims means doing everything we can to reduce the suffering of the victims and their friends and families. Caring about terrorism means modifying our daily routines or government policy in response to terrorist attacks. We certainly should not do that, and in that sense we should not care about terrorism, and we should be proactive in encouraging others not to care.
There are other ways you could define “caring about terrorist attacks” in such a way that there would be this logical interlink, but I’m not using the terms in that way and deliberately so.
it would have been helpful to have defined caring about terrorism v. caring about victims more carefully, I think.
While sad, the most confusing part to me is why anyone would pay money to see this band. I know that’s off topic but I would just hate to think that’s where my head was at when I met my maker. What a low bar. Of course I’m one of those people who actually believes in a maker. What is it we said in the 60’s? “you can go to college, you can go to school, but if you don’t have Jesus you’re an educated fool. Really don’t mean it to be preachy since know this isn’t where the choir is but seriously can’t understand it.
Ben, I have to say I truly enjoy reading your blog. You often say the things nobody else will, and even more often you say the things nobody else thinks to say. Unfortunately, in times like these, ignorance will never be the course of action the majority will take, at least not any time soon. These events will continue to be sensationalized and plastered all over every media and social media outlet that exists until everybody knows the names and faces of those involved and people are afraid to leave their houses.
Easy to say when it’s not your loved one who’s been slaughtered, mutilated, traumatized for life,… or when you don’t have to experience or witness the day to day suffering of those who live under murderous & inhumane regimes…
Every effort must be made to find the particular culprits responsible for every atrocity. They cannot be allowed to kill & maim with impunity because their violent acts come under the banner of ‘terrorism’… or because you think the best way of dealing with them is to refuse to be ‘terror’-ized & you are willing to wait until they get bored of killing innocent people. Here is what you suggest in practice:
https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/paris-terror-attacks/tom-bradby-paris-report-scene-094539424.html
&
https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/paris-terror-attacks/false-alarm-paris-hundreds-flee-093226002.html
To suggest that we should feign a lack of ‘terror’ in response to those who ‘terror’ize us is an evasion of the problem… & somewhat unempathetic. The collective expression of outrage & grief demonstrates solidarity & fortitude in the face of adversity & it vilifies those who act beyond the pale. You just have to be specific about whom you vilify – you cannot generalize… & vigilantism must be checked. You said “Make love” instead: ‘Love in general – Hate in particular’.
An act of terrorism is a crime like any other. If domestic crime figures escalate because of the vicious cycle of poverty & because of political interventions which may have aggravated rather than alleviated the problem, the answer is not simply to “ignore” the perpetrators; it is to understand the causes & apply measures to prevent the emergence of further victims… even if this is difficult & costly. It is no different with terrorism. The cost of NOT doing so will be higher… & it may cost us more than money eventually.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
We are told that several potential atrocities have been foiled through the diligence of security services, police & local communities – I doubt if they accomplished this by nonchalantly “ignore”ing such atrocities. Just because unwise decisions of the past may, in part, be responsible for the current state of affairs does not mean that we should not do everything we can to deter such outrages. “Ignore”ing something is not a deterrent – it is facilitating more of the same. It is also not caring about those who have suffered directly as a result of such heinous crimes. We ought to consider crime more from the victim’s point of view, not society’s or the perpetrator’s… & certainly add to their burden with notions of ‘forgiveness’ & expecting them to stifle appropriate emotions like ‘hatred’ & ‘fear’. Doing nothing encourages the perpetrators to think that they are succeeding in their quest, that they should continue to attack us because we are helpless in the face of their aggression. Meekness usually results in extinction. In any case Daesh (http://theweek.com/speedreads/446139/france-says-name-isis-offensive-call-daesh-instead) don’t care whether people fear or hate them or not – they will carry on killing innocent people regardless. (It matters not whether their sympathizers are acting independently or whether they have been formally recruited by Daesh; people with their mentality are growing in number & the dangers are growing with them.)
Of course, any response to aggression needs to be executed wisely, without grandstanding & without the provocative macho rhetoric employed by so many politicians in the aftermath of such calamities… but most particularly with an understanding of who & what you’re up against. Time & time again we are told that our forces have been deployed to deal with situations hindered by misinformation or a substantial lack of knowledge which later proves to be the cause of their undoing.
See for example:
AFGHANISTAN ‘THE GREAT GAME’ – A PERSONAL VIEW by Rory Stewart M.P.
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a7bP49ehKQ
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPpQkNibJ_8&list=PLNZzjE3CZXAauYpLiTKtm77sUFPkuL_r6
‘BITTER LAKE’ by Adam Curtis
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQt3uxp5i3s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j4JATgwiD4
Movements like Daesh do not exist in a cultural vacuum – they arise out of clashes between ideologies that just cannot co-exist. The simple, unsayable truth is that those whose culture & ‘philosophy of life’ is incompatible with countries like France should not have been allowed to emigrate there in the first place. (Daesh called France “the capital of prostitution & vice”). This automatically creates conflict where the only possible resolution is for one culture to dominate, subsume or eliminate another – there can only be one prevailing Law/government (not pockets of Sharia law & no-go areas like those that have arisen in some European countries). I am sick of hearing disaffected & poorly educated young fundamentalists boasting about ‘taking over’ the country that welcomed their parents. I see the barely suppressed ‘unease’ frequently now where 30 years ago it did not exist & I have witnessed 1st hand the strain unchecked immigration causes on public services. The self-evident fact is (unless you live a closeted life cut off from ‘ordinary’ people as most politicians do) allowing such ideologies to get a foothold in a host nation causes social instability & facilitates attacks from within. The intolerant should not be tolerated. If they wish to be a part of that host nation, they must wholeheartedly conform & bring up their children to do likewise… to be there for economic reasons only is not enough.
One obvious indication of this incompatibility is the veil – I am as offended by it as those who wear it are about the way I dress – it is a clear signal that those who advocate it participate in the subjugation of women (but this has been regarded as a minor ‘women’s issue’…). Another is membership of religions which segregate the sexes; which are disdainful of the lifestyles & ‘philosophy of life’ of others (e.g. Western women are immodest; cartoons & novels about a prophet are offensive & punishable by death;…); & which place restrictions on the lives of those born into them (e.g. arranged marriages; the inability to socialize or marry or receive education outside of their group; husbands required to vet & approve their wives’ activities outside the home & those they come into contact with; the upholding of patriarchal family honour under punishment of death; rape within marriage is not rape;…). Notice how many of these particularly affect women – that is why they are so easily trivialized & “ignore”d. The importance of guarding against regressive ideologies is more easily understood when the cultural tradition involves something like the genital mutilation of female babies & children.
These regressive mentalities & behaviours are eroding the hard won rights & freedoms of their host nations – that is the real reason why immigration causes fear & dread. It has nothing to do with “racism”, though trying to accommodate ideologies that are so fundamentally alien to a host nation can give rise to racism. We fail to acknowledge that racism is often a ‘two-way street’ & overlook the contempt shown towards Western women by those who think it is beneath them to regard women as their equal. It is easier to understand that someone who reviles those involved in the traditional practice of mutilating little girls is not racist than someone who has a revulsion for those who advocate the aforementioned regressive & misogynistic attitude. The latter is allowed free reign by the authorities but both practices emanate from the same ignorant desire to regard half the population of the world as ‘less than’ & ‘other’.
But let’s “ignore” all that & think about saving money or the more deserving cancer sufferers instead…
Would it be “racist” or “xenophobic” to deny paedophiles, rapists, murderers, violent offenders or even lesser criminals entry to another country because of the potential harm they may do there? It would seem to be just common sense. We have to be more selective, to reduce immigration & take into account other considerations (like the safety & well-being of existing inhabitants) instead of exploiting the cheap labour immigrants provide & their willingness to work without the rights Unions fought so hard to achieve. The resentment this causes is just allowed to fester & the real racists exploit people’s sense of displacement. We have to return to investing in training home-grown talent & stop poaching skilled people from other countries who suffer brain-drain as a result of our selfishness.
To use your own logic in reversal, if money had NOT been spent & attempts had NOT been made to demonstrate that there will ALWAYS be consequences to wrongdoing, how can we possibly know that we would have been better off than we are now? How do you measure the deterrent factor? How many atrocities have NOT happened as a result of such actions? How much worse off would the world be if we had NOT intervened in Iraq? (remember the invasion of Kuwait?) Do you make a distinction between terrorist acts like New York 9/11, London 7/7, Paris 13/11, or attacks against one individual & let numbers dictate what can & can’t be “ignore”d? Or is one murder too much? How many & whose death is acceptable to you before you cease to “ignore”? Might this threshold not determine how far a terrorist organization must go in order to get your attention? The best kind of action, after prevention, is to ‘nip the problem in the bud’.
A case could be made for the contention that: It is precisely the “ignore”ing of a country’s inhumanity, injustices & their abuses of basic human rights (in the interest of money, that root of all evil) that perpetuates & spreads unrest. What of NATO’s ‘An attack on one is an attack on us all’? Like the disregard of women in our own communities who are treated as ‘less than’ & ‘other’, this attitude should not be extended to ‘other’ nations as well. We are more than ever a global entity (especially economically, if that is your sole concern) but you seem to be advocating that we turn a blind eye to the troubles & injustices elsewhere & just allow them to proliferate unchecked by anything but hands-off diplomacy. Or is that only when we are not beholden to a nation for vital resources? This would seem to be more “racist” than trying to control immigration (I am the child of a parent who emigrated from a former British colony – I have lived there & I still have family there… I also have many relatives who emigrated to other countries all over the world).
Your approach would also seem to contradict the lesson we are supposed to have learned from WW2 – “ignore”-ing the German invasions of its neighbours (& the spread of the abhorrent Nazi regime), partly because of the horrific human & economic cost of WW1, resulted in an escalation that had far reaching consequences. Hitler did what he did because he was counting on the reluctance of other nations to intervene. Had we intervened earlier we might have saved millions of lives & untold suffering.
“Ignore” the screams & terror of these people Benjamin – I can’t:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/shocking-footage-of-the-bataclan-attack-emerges-094524531.html?vp=1#JzeTaQc
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lightbox/the-victims-of-the-paris-terror-attacks-1447666552-slideshow/5369615l-photo-1447836762331.html
The US spent $2 trillion on the Iraq War and only made the region less stable. Our responses are not cost effective and they do not show respect for the value of the lives of people who are killed by cancer, heart disease, automobile accidents, ordinary homicide, even lightning strikes and bee stings. Only 1 in 20 million people in the west is killed by terrorism.
The comparison to Nazi Germany is unreasonable, Nazi Germany was an industrial state with an immensely powerful military machine served by 20 million Germans with the best weapons and training available at the time. IS is 20-70 thousand nutters in the desert working out of pickup trucks.
*Correction to text above:
that should be “… & certainly NOT add to their burden with notions of ‘forgiveness’…”
Maybe “the US spent $2 trillion on the Iraq war and only made the region less stable” but we have no way of knowing what would have happened had there been no intervention. There were attempts to build nuclear facilities there during Saddam’s reign.
Almost all the deaths you think are of greater “value” (but cheaper money-wise) are not the result of deliberate killing. Why is “ordinary homicide” more worthy of consideration because it does not come under the banner of “terrorism”? Homicidal murders are not “ignore”d – every effort is made to bring the murderer to justice & to prevent further killings & terrorist victims deserve the same kind of justice & prevention. Why are a certain number of deaths acceptable to you when they are the result of terrorism but not when they are the result of “ordinary homicide” or misfortune? You should, instead, include terrorist murders in your list of unacceptable deaths, not trivialize them & treat the victims as if they are expendable.
The comparison with Nazi Germany is apposite, especially when the situation was fomented by racial hatred arising from the same kind of economic climate we are seeing now. The Nazis were a minority party when they gained power & started with “a few nutters” no one initially took seriously (‘The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich’ William L. Shirer). Germany was not “an industrial state with an immensely powerful military machine” – it invaded its neighbours for land & resources it badly needed. When even those nations bound by treaties to aid the invaded countries failed to act, Hitler was emboldened to escalate his ambitions for a German empire & felt invincible enough to commit genocide with impunity.
Daesh do not constitute only the “20-70 thousand… in the desert” – they now have supporters world-wide with the same mentality spreading their regressive ideology amongst the young & disaffected. We have to ‘nip the problem in the bud’, not wait until numbers rise even further, for the sake of future generations. We can make a start, not by escalating the war, but by securing our borders once again & being selective about immigration.
I mention ordinary homicide not because I think it’s the best use of our dollars either, but to point out that terrorism is not the biggest killer and therefore does not deserve our highest priority. If we want to prevent deaths and suffering, one of the most cost-effective things we can invest in is preventing and curing diseases. Many deaths around the world are preventable at a low cost–if we invested a fraction of the $2 trillion in mosquito nets, we could save many people around the world from malaria. Another great way to invest is to help disadvantaged people in our society enjoy true equality of opportunity.This puts a stop to marginalization, which drives people to commit suicide, homicide, etc. It also helps these people maximize their potential, which helps our society be more innovative and dynamic. Counter-terrorism spending is wasteful and it disrespects the value of human life because it takes funds that could be used to genuinely help people and prevent significant numbers of deaths.
I have no doubts whatsoever that if we had left Saddam Hussein in power the region would be more stable and peaceful today, even if Hussein got nuclear weapons (which he was not trying to do at the time of the invasion). North Korea has nuclear weapons and northeast Asia remains stable.
Closing the borders to immigrants would be immensely foolish–statistically, immigrants and refugees are less likely to commit crimes than native citizens. They contribute to European economies and improve government balance sheets.
The account you give of the Nazis is simply false, it fails to acknowledge the differences between terrorist organizations and industrialized national states. Nazi Germany was only successful in invading its neighbors because it was more industrialized than they were and because its military was far stronger and more technologically advanced. Had the Nazis been elected in a country like Syria or Iraq, they would not have been able to invade neighboring states because they would have lacked the industrial infrastructure necessary to do so. Even if IS were to completely take over both Syria and Iraq (which will not happen because the Shiite populations in these countries deplore IS and IS doesn’t have the manpower to subjugate them), it would not have the industrial capacity to seriously threaten anybody.
More & more people are acknowledging that there is a serious problem which, if “ignore”d, can only get worse. (The “ignore”ant UKIP party got nearly two & a half million votes & millions more pressurized the Tories into doing something about unchecked immigration). You “ignore” the fact that the current threat has its roots in conflicting ideologies which are simply not compatible (as well as “ignore”ing the subjugation of women issue) . It looks like things will have to get a whole lot worse & future generations will bear the brunt.
I am surprized that you made the kind of error that people who cry ‘racist!’ tend to make every time someone mentions immigration (as well as your completely “ignore”ing the spread of the regressive fundamentalist mentality):
I did not say that we should close the borders to ALL immigrants. I said we should be more selective about who we let in, & go back to how we were before European nations opened their borders so that anyone from a member state can live & work anywhere in Europe without having to go through any immigration process (or any vetting process whatsoever). The safety & well-being of existing inhabitants should be prioritized over the economy (especially when it is an economy which serves an elite minority of its citizens who tend not to live in areas with high numbers of immigrants or their progeny).
One of our Tory MPs was involved in clandestinely exporting certain elements required for the production of nuclear arms – (he was imprisoned in a libel case relating to this) that was one of the activities which gave rise to the fear that Saddam harboured “weapons of mass destruction”:
“…former Tory minister Jonathan Aitken was a director, supplied … Secretly, the British government guidelines on arms exports to Iraq were “relaxed”. … military fuses, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program…”
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/12320
&
http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/
Fortunately, due to intervention, not much headway seems to have been made in Saddam’s plans.
You will keep confining the fundamentalist ideology (which also threatens decent Muslims & which often compels them to emigrate to other countries) to “a few nutters” or “20-70 thousand”. Daesh is a movement which has sympathizers all over the world & there are other movements & individuals who have the same agenda.
Maybe it will seem less ‘racist’ if the warning comes from Muslims themselves (in the interest of fairness, the last is a word from the fundamentalist camp):
&
&