Its the events and ideology surrounding the kills/deaths that at times amplify their impact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
10 Most Dangerous Cities in the World in 2010 !!!
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 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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)