Pakistan : Head in the sand

[AbhijitSingh]

---

---

Whatever you say Punditjee...

Not a brahmin.. I am a Kshatriya..

[Icewolf]

Not a brahmin.. I am a Kshatriya..

Okay..........

[AbhijitSingh]

Can you give me any logical reason why 40 people killed in terrorism is worse than 40 people killed in shootings? No rhetorical, melodramatic 'arguments' please.

same reason 26 soldiers killed in Salala are worse than 40 civilians killed in a bomb blast in peshawar.. Or 126 soldiers killed in siachen avalanch has invoked a much larger reaction than 275 soldiers killed in terrorist violence till date in 2012..

Its the events and ideology surrounding the kills/deaths that at times amplify their impact.

[SMC]

same reason 26 soldiers killed in Salala are worse than 40 civilians killed in a bomb blast in peshawar.. Or 126 soldiers killed in siachen avalanch has invoked a much larger reaction than 275 soldiers killed in terrorist violence till date in 2012..

Its the events and ideology surrounding the kills/deaths that at times amplify their impact.

You're not making good analogies.

26 soldiers will killed by a foreign state, that's why that invoked stronger response.

126 soldiers were killed in a single event. If 275 soldiers were killed in a single event that'd invoke even a bigger response.

You have to look at the logical conclusion you're trying to reach. You mention the number of killings each year in Pakistan. The logical conclusion you're trying to show is that Pakistan is unsafe. We can then look at other countries to show how much or less safe Pakistan is. And it turns out Pakistan isn't all that bad compared to what you or the media (both Pakistan, India or even western media) would have us believe.

[AbhijitSingh]

You're not making good analogies.

26 soldiers will killed by a foreign state, that's why that invoked stronger response.

126 soldiers were killed in a single event. If 275 soldiers were killed in a single event that'd invoke even a bigger response.

That's exactly my point mate.. Its not just the commutative numbers and thats why 40 people killed in a terror strike carry more impact than 40 murders scattered over time and geography in a country...

You have to look at the logical conclusion you're trying to reach. You mention the number of killings each year in Pakistan.

No sir.. I didnt.. You did.. You brought up the idea of 15000 murders in the US and hence by comparison, Pakistan not being much worse off...

[Icewolf]

You have to look at the logical conclusion you're trying to reach. You mention the number of killings each year in Pakistan. The logical conclusion you're trying to show is that Pakistan is unsafe. We can then look at other countries to show how much or less safe Pakistan is. And it turns out Pakistan isn't all that bad compared to what you or the media (both Pakistan, India or even western media) would have us believe.

Great post.. I can count 1 factor of India - road accident... This one factor kills more in India than it does in Pakistan.. Does it mean India is unsafe for everyone? No...

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Great post.. I can count 1 factor of India - road accident... This one factor kills more in India than it does in Pakistan.. Does it mean India is unsafe for everyone? No...

Looks like you have no clue about the topic

[SMC]

That's exactly my point mate.. Its not just the commutative numbers and thats why 40 people killed in a terror strike carry more impact than 40 murders scattered over time and geography in a country...

No sir.. I didnt.. You did.. You brought up the idea of 15000 murders in the US and hence by comparison, Pakistan not being much worse off...

I don't think you quite understood my post..

regardless, yes people killed in terrorist attacks invokes a strong response, but at the end of the day you have to look at the logical conclusion. What does it mean in the grand scheme? Does 40 people killed in a bomb blast result in a less safer place than 40 killed in murders? No it doesn't. It results in equivalent type of safety. That strong response is only because lot of people got killed in one incident, but it actually doesn't make a difference when it comes to safety.

[AbhijitSingh]

I don't think you quite understood my post..

regardless, yes people killed in terrorist attacks invokes a strong response, but at the end of the day you have to look at the logical conclusion. What does it mean in the grand scheme? Does 40 people killed in a bomb blast result in a less safer place than 40 killed in murders? No it doesn't. It results in equivalent type of safety. That strong response is only because lot of people got killed in one incident, but it actually doesn't make a difference when it comes to safety.

The bold part is where I differ strongly with you.. In most countries, the growth rate of the regular, run of the mill homicides follow the same progression as the population growth and are not considered detrimental to issues like economy, foreign investment etc. On the other hand, the terror related violence spikes can happen at any time. The economic and social fallout of those is extremely visible in Pakistan today..

If 40 killled in terror strike equated to 40 killed in vanilla murders, half your army wouldnt have been running around in NWFP and FATA trying to get rid of TTP people.

[SMC]

The bold part is where I differ strongly with you.. In most countries, the growth rate of the regular, run of the mill homicides follow the same progression as the population growth and are not considered detrimental to issues like economy, foreign investment etc. On the other hand, the terror related violence spikes can happen at any time. The economic and social fallout of those is extremely visible in Pakistan today..

Terrorist attacks never cause fall in population growth dude.. I am not sure where you're getting that claim from. There are just so many people born that terrorist attacks are a drop in a bucket.

As far as economy, foreign investment etc, yes, and as I mentioned it's because of a perceived emotional perception that comes out due to having terrorist attacks. It doesn't actually result in less safety if an equal number die due to murders. It's just the perception that comes out of it.. nothing logical.

If 40 killled in terror strike equated to 40 killed in vanilla murders, half your army wouldnt have been running around in NWFP and FATA trying to get rid of TTP people.

40 killed in terrorist attacks wouldn't actually result in army doing anything. The reason why the army is involved is because it's a single or few group doing this, and to stop them requires more than just police.. again, it doesn't mean anything when it comes to overall safety.

Btw, let's end this here. Terrorists are being killed as we speak, and there are less and less TTP terrorists alive per day. Overtime, the number of terrorist events are decreasing. Of course, by 2014, the status quo will change significantly and all the enjoyments bharatis have been having will come to screeching halt. I really can't wait to see how bharatis will feel when that happens. It will be like a toy taken away from a kid.

[Vassnti]

---

---

I just googled "world's most dangerous cities"... Nowhere there was Karachi...

Try harder.

10 Most Dangerous Cities in the World in 2010 !!!

number 3.

The reason why terrorism has gone up is because of anger at US occupation and our perceived notion of supporting US. Once US leaves, groups such as TTP and LI will stop having any supporting and will become extinct. I mean why do you think these terrorists cropped out in the first place? Where were they before 2009?

And what do you mean they will turn to Pakistan with no Yanks to shoot? Haven't they been shooting Pakistan already? The reason why they've been getting any support is because of our support for NATO. Again, as soon as NATO goes away, so will this.

I understand your logic but respectfully disagree, the ttp doesnt bomb markets or Shia processions because they dislike NATO the ttp bombs inocent civilians because their nut jobs with a bizare belief that they can slaughter their way to a better Pakistan.
The presence of NATO is thier stated reason but they already kill as many if not more Pakistani's than NATO troops.
Based on their actions rather than their statements i would assume that they will simply substitute another "excuse" after the US leaves and continue pretty much as they have.

and yes i see your point now on the mention of the US murder rate.