Deadly Blast at Moscow’s Main Airport Seen as Terror Attack

That's the first thing that comes to mind when you see a bunch of people blown to bits?
 
Glaucus said:
That's the first thing that comes to mind when you see a bunch of people blown to bits?
Click to expand...
No, usually I think about Drone attacks in Pakistan or Iraqi wedding parties. It sucks to get blown up but you're still more likely to die from a prescription. Ultimately the state will have more impact on you than terrorists (unless you are one of those unlucky enough to be involved in an attack).

And remember the difference between tragedy and statistics.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
No, usually I think about Drone attacks in Pakistan or Iraqi wedding parties.
Click to expand...
Not about bombs in Grozny? Oh yeah, I forgot, only the US commits war crimes and the Russians are cool because they're bad ass.

It sucks to get blown up but you're still more likely to die from a prescription.
Click to expand...
Ya and so what? It sucks to die for any reason. The fact that any one person is statistically not likely to die from a terrorist attack isn't very important or meaningful. Fact is some people were killed while others celebrate their death.

Ultimately the state will have more impact on you than terrorists
Click to expand...
A true statement, but what's your point? If the state did nothing at all in response, it already has more influence on everyone's day to day life. However that's not to say the terrorism has NO impact on daily life. And in fact Russia has had a much harder time with terrorists then the US has while at the same time Russia has been criticized for not being as up to date with security measures. There may in fact be a correlation there.
 
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
No, usually I think about Drone attacks in Pakistan or Iraqi wedding parties.
Click to expand...
Not about bombs in Grozny? Oh yeah, I forgot, only the US commits war crimes and the Russians are cool because they're bad ass.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid we had the IRA (even in London), we had ETA over in Spain (guess that's still the case) and the Baader-Mainhoff gang and others. On the whole, Maggie Thatcher was worse.
 
Glaucus said:
That's the first thing that comes to mind when you see a bunch of people blown to bits?
Click to expand...

No, but *I* have not seen a bunch of people blown to bits. There may be video out there on the internet full of gore from this scene, I have no need to be entertained by other people's misery.
 
Glaucus said:
It sucks to get blown up but you're still more likely to die from a prescription.
Click to expand...
Ya and so what? It sucks to die for any reason. The fact that any one person is statistically not likely to die from a terrorist attack isn't very important or meaningful. Fact is some people were killed while others celebrate their death.
Click to expand...
You are also more likely to hear about people getting killed by bombs than individuals getting killed by prescriptions because bombs a) make better television b) don't impact profits. They get more attention because they are acute but infrequent. Thus they cause people to mis-focus their concerns.

Twenty five thousand people will die from starvation today and another twenty five thousand tomorrow and a lot of that isn't just "nature" but the consequence of the policies of industrialized nations. Is it reasonable to expect you to feel a thousand times worse about those who starve to death today versus the 35 who were killed by violence in an airport?

People died, that's one thing, and we can't do much about that now nor do we know them, but the fact that they did die is going to get used.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
When I was a kid we had the IRA (even in London), we had ETA over in Spain (guess that's still the case) and the Baader-Mainhoff gang and others. On the whole, Maggie Thatcher was worse.
Click to expand...
That's debatable, but even if I were to agree I'd still argue that overall both were very bad.
 
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
When I was a kid we had the IRA (even in London), we had ETA over in Spain (guess that's still the case) and the Baader-Mainhoff gang and others. On the whole, Maggie Thatcher was worse.
Click to expand...
That's debatable, but even if I were to agree I'd still argue that overall both were very bad.
Click to expand...

I agree it's debatable but I'd also agree that Thatcher had a far greater impact on the lives of most ordinary British folk than the IRA or any of their off-shoots.
Thatcher had an adverse affect on the wellbeing of the majority of the British population.
Obviously, those caught up in IRA attrocities fared far worse than those who lost their jobs and homes due to Thatcher but their numbers were relatively so small as to be statistically almost negligible, i.e a few thousand compared to tens of millions.
 
redrumloa said:
You know what that means, our slavemasters will use this as proof we need more "enhanced" security measures.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I know it's not that often we agree but I can't really argue with a word of that.

:pint:
 
Robert said:
Thatcher had an adverse affect on the wellbeing of the majority of the British population.
Click to expand...
Not debating that but we are getting into a philosophical discussion here. Is it better or worse to cause mild suffering for many or severe suffering for a few? I'm sure we can argue that back and forth, but one thing is certain, it's not a black and white issue.
 
Robert said:
redrumloa said:
You know what that means, our slavemasters will use this as proof we need more "enhanced" security measures.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I know it's not that often we agree but I can't really argue with a word of that.

:pint:
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is nice to finally see common ground. Shame that common ground is our loss of freedoms :?
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
redrumloa said:
You know what that means, our slavemasters will use this as proof we need more "enhanced" security measures.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I know it's not that often we agree but I can't really argue with a word of that.

:pint:
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is nice to finally see common ground. Shame that common ground is our loss of freedoms :?
Click to expand...

Ach, it's not all doom and gloom; we both have an irrational affection for Amiga computers and the Miami Dolphins. Two peas in a pod, Jim! :pint: :banana: :pint:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Medvedev blamed security, heads are already rolling. Putin has said "It's not Chechens". The previous week Medvedev had visited Palestine and cancelled talks with Israel while confirming the Russian position on the recognition of Palestine". ICTS has security contracts with Domodedovo airport. ICTS is an Israeli company. Can we read a little into this about the direction the Russians might be looking in?
Click to expand...

Curiouser and curiouser.

What's your take on this?
 
Robert said:
Curiouser and curiouser.

What's your take on this?
Click to expand...

Tricky because I would have expected the Russians to blame Chechens even on the flimsiest of pretexts. To not do so but to point at security may simply mean that an opportunity for cleanup has been identified. It could also just be another turn of the security state ratchet but if that is all it is then one would expect people to keep their jobs.

It may just be a way to yank some contracts so they can be given to friends or it could be a real low level war. It would be simple self defense, after he dismantled the empires of the oligarchs (who since fled to the automatic protection of Israel since they were mostly Jewish) to take opportunities to close down organs of potential Israeli influence. It would be expected that certain elites in Israel would be angry and would do their best to make life difficult for Putin and to destabilize his state. Putin has been around and knows he can't shut down all things Jewish without looking like he's on a pogrom.

Of course, Medvedev's shunning of Israel and his visit to Palestine is similarly a hostile act against Israel. Russia may also be behind all the countries that have recently recognized Palestine. It politically weakens Israel and that would be both good for Putin personally (it weakens old adversaries if they don't have a stable state to shelter them), and it probably helps Russia in general since it will have had to right off Israel as an ally in the region and can now cultivate Iran and also the entire region by visibly backing the Palestinians. This won't play well with the western owned governments in the region but it plays better with the people - and look what the people are doing.

All just speculation though. It's usually the best you can do in the absence of leaks or the passage of 60 or 70 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top