• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
wherebee

A very quiet Ramadanabomathon

Recommended Posts

Well, I guess we are heading towards the end of the Ramadanabomathon period and appeared to have escaped any major attacks.  A light smattering of stabbings, to be sure, but victims mostly police who are, in most European countries, agents of the pro-islamic authorities now so I won't shed as many tears as I would have when I served alongside them.  I was in two major European cities during this period and hated having to change my behaviour due to the risk of enriching attacks.

 

Lets all give thanks to Tezcatlipoca that Europe suffered very little this time round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

STFU do not tempt fate I have to go through Paris on Friday night. And there seem to be fewer soldiers about. :ph34r:

Yeah, last week there were loads of squadies about but this week I haven't seen any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Libspero said:

The chance of being killed by a terrorist in the UK is about 1 in a million (960k to be precise).

With those odds I won't be losing much sleep personally..   wake me when we get to 1 in 1000.

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/european-terrorism-fatalities-annual-chance-being-murdered

 

I'd agree with you if terrorist attacks were random, and therefore normally distributed, but they're not.

Terrorist attacks are not random. They are the result of human agency. This gives them a fat tailed distribution, and a much greater risk of you getting caught up in a single extreme event.

Think about how your perception of the risk of air travel was changed by 9/11. Particularly if you were an office worker, who would have reasonably (but wrongly) assumed that the risk of being killed in a plane crash, when you weren't even in a plane was laughingly negligible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution

Compared to fat-tailed distributions, in the normal distribution events that deviate from the mean by five or more standard deviations("5-sigma events") have lower probability, meaning that in the normal distribution extreme events are less likely than for fat-tailed distributions. Fat-tailed distributions such as the Cauchy distribution (and all other stable distributions with the exception of the normal distribution) have "undefined sigma" (more technically, the variance is infinite).

As a consequence, when data arise from an underlying fat-tailed distribution, shoehorning in the "normal distribution" model of risk—and estimating sigma based (necessarily) on a finite sample size—would severely understate the true degree of predictive difficulty (and of risk). Many—notably Benoît Mandelbrot as well as Nassim Taleb—have noted this shortcoming of the normal distribution model and have proposed that fat-tailed distributions such as the stable distributions govern asset returns frequently found in finance.[2][3][4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There’s true in what you say,  but terrorism is fairly random still..  it almost has to be by its nature in order to avoid detection and prevention.

If you wanted to increase your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack,  how would/could you do it?  Where do you think you would be at highest risk and what relative risk would that be?  

Edited by Libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Libspero said:

There’s true in what you say,  but terrorism is fairly random still..  it almost has to be by its nature in order to avoid detection and prevention.

If you wanted to increase your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack,  how would/could you do it?  Where do you think you would be at highest risk and what relative risk would that be?  

In general they're not seeking to avoid detection and prevention by being random, but by attacking in unexpected ways. 

This isn't like slipping in the shower, or falling down the stairs. It's people planning to attack in whatever way they think will have the most impact.

I can't put numbers on the risk because there's too much I don't know. Do you remember Donald Rumsfeld's great quote about what we know?

In this scenario we have the things that we know we know; there's a risk of copy cat attacks like those that we've seen before, so random stabbings, running people over, bombs on public transport and at events etc. This is all part of the standard playbook now, that forms much of public perception of the risk.

Then there are the things that we know we don't know,.This is the area that the security services will be focusing on. Tracking high risk individuals, preparing high value infrastructure to be more resilient, working out scenarios for what might happen and how we might respond. Basically trying to get the things that they know they don't know, and turn them into the things that they know that they know.

Then there's the things that we don't know that we don't know. The unknown unknowns. This is the bit that worries me. The black swan that changes my understanding of what's possible in the world in the way 9/11 did to America or Hiroshima did to the Japanese.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Libspero said:

There’s true in what you say,  but terrorism is fairly random still..  it almost has to be by its nature in order to avoid detection and prevention.

If you wanted to increase your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack,  how would/could you do it?  Where do you think you would be at highest risk and what relative risk would that be?  

Spend all day wandering around busy parts of London during Ramavan would be a good start most years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not bothered how infrequent attacks are, or how unlikely it is you will personally be attacked. I don't want any terrorism in our country, or the world.

The effects of these attacks goes far beyond those felt by people killed or injured and their family and friends, beyond those who have to witness them, we are all affected by it, and we must wipe out the threat.

The demographic threat in many ways worried me even more, we are set for a shit future if we don't remove that threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll just respond in bulk rather than individually (sorry)

I agree with Spectrum FX about the unknown unknowns..  they are probably more worrying.  I would say on balance there is more risk from a major unexpected incident (like the Chinese just deciding to take over the world one day crippling every major western city).

With the exception of 911 there has been very little properly organised terrorism in the West,  most of it is opportunistic. I think you'd struggle to create a major incident without access to proper NBC weapons..  at least on the scale of wiping out a couple million people.

Idiocrat.. to me it's not worth worrying about,  I may have a higher tolerance/acceptance of risk and your mileage may vary.   I like to keep everything in perspective as far as possible..  there are other things much more likely to kill/hurt you than terrorism,  that's just a fact.    To me though,  all of the risks in our society are over stated / sensationalised.   95% of people survive to their 60th birthday..   to me those aggregate odds of all the risks we face are minimal:

 

main-qimg-9fb58d4c93b72408a0d55fd4093d95

ezgif.com-webp-to-jpg.jpg

Edited by Libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

Night of Power was two days ago - so just over half way.

Possible answers.

  • Reports that Daesh have been defeated are fundamentally true, and the cowards slinking back to the UK after having their arses whipped by girls and kuffar don't have the stomach to fight and are now fully disillusioned with the insane idea of a worldwide caliphate run by a CIA stooge.
  • Our intelligence services have actually prevented a load of nasty stuff from taking place (don't titter at the back there).
  • There isn't enough money in the kitty to finance anything big since the upheaval in Saudi.
  • They're waiting for this Friday or next Friday.

Good summary. Points 1 and 3 are particularly interesting, the kind of thing that would never be speculated upon in the MSM; it is only sites like DOSBODS which enable these theories to be examined. 

I wonder whether the demonstrations about Tommy Robinson have had any effect. Eg, if angry crowds of native Britons come out in support of someone who spoke out against Islam simply because he was arrested, what might happen if another outrage such as the Manchester bombing occurred? I am not sure this time the population would take it lying down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

Night of Power was two days ago - so just over half way.

Possible answers.

  • Reports that Daesh have been defeated are fundamentally true, and the cowards slinking back to the UK after having their arses whipped by girls and kuffar don't have the stomach to fight and are now fully disillusioned with the insane idea of a worldwide caliphate run by a CIA stooge.
  • Our intelligence services have actually prevented a load of nasty stuff from taking place (don't titter at the back there).
  • There isn't enough money in the kitty to finance anything big since the upheaval in Saudi.
  • They're waiting for this Friday or next Friday.

There's one of those Saudi inclined mosques down the road from me  and they definitely seem to have smaller congregations for the past months, maybe a year. I wondered was it less Sudi cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Libspero said:

Idiocrat.. to me it's not worth worrying about,  I may have a higher tolerance/acceptance of risk and your mileage may vary.   I like to keep everything in perspective as far as possible..  there are other things much more likely to kill/hurt you than terrorism,  that's just a fact.    To me though,  all of the risks in our society are over stated / sensationalised.   95% of people survive to their 60th birthday..   to me those aggregate odds of all the risks we face are minimal:

 

main-qimg-9fb58d4c93b72408a0d55fd4093d95

 

Don't get me wrong @libspero, I'm not at all worried, although I do pay attention to who's around me when getting on a tube train in London for example, but the stats in that info you linked to are just wrong in terms of "threat" level. I just don't like "the chances of being hit by a terrorist attach are tiny" arguments as it's used by the authorities to help do fuck all about stopping it. It's really just an extension of "it's normal in a modern city" from the bus driver's son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, This Time said:

We're only half way through, plenty of time for us to all get blown to pieces still.

Pussy. 

These muzzer fuckers won't get close to me (I'd like to think)

Fuck em hahaha - Bongs a go go & tunes...

 

Edited by mattydread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Well before Liege it struck me that female prison officers with pretty faces, nice figures and the fighting prowess of an ice cream are a disaster in waiting.

Granted some have a face like a butcher's dog, weigh half a ton and are more manly than some men. Not all though, there are plenty that could be Kylie Minogue.

Women fighter pilots fine, if you can suspend disbelief and accept women can fly planes. 

Little women patrolling streets of rage in pairs is reckless. 

There needs to be a return to physicality.

I tend to agree, but those 2 women had guns? (Granted the murderer took their guns off them quite easily.) So, in theory, when armed,  woman and men police officers should be more equal?  Which is not the case when not armed. But seems that the principle behind unarmed female police officers in the UK is that they can often diffuse a tense situation, better than men can? (Where the agitators have a least a shred of decency?) Scrap that notion when it comes to terrorists of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.