Bitcoin Forum

'Unprecedented' rise in deaths from terrorism

The number of people killed globally in terrorist attacks jumped 80 percent last year to the highest level ever recorded, the Institute for Economics and Peace said on Tuesday.
The Global Terrorism Index found that 32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014, up from the 18,111 fatalities of the previous year, the largest increase on record.
The study defines terrorism as "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation".
Nigeria-based Boko Haram and the Islamic State group were responsible for more than half of the deaths, according to the study, which measures attacks, deaths and damage from terror attacks in 162 countries.
"Terrorism is gaining momentum at an unprecedented pace," said Steve Killelea, the executive chairman of the Institute of Economics and Peace, which produces the study.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11997820/Paris-France-terror-attacks-isil-suspects-Syria-Raqqa-boming-arrests-live.html

Yeah, and  "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation" is the exact opposite of course.

But it´s the state that decides what´s legal or not. For example I don´t see what´s legal about sending drones here and there around the world wiping out weddings and funerals and more. Nor do I see anything legal about invading countries on totally false pretenses and then leaving them in ruins for terrorism to fester in.

The greatest thing that the American government has done to further its abilities to do anything that it wants is, they have made the people forget the difference between legal and lawful. All the people think that they are bound by legal, when according to the basic, foundational documents that keep the government in place, the people are not under legal, but only under lawful.

If the people understood lawful, they could stop paying income tax, and the government would collapse, and they could file claims against government people rather than their governmental offices, and sue the pants off these crooks so that they would be out of office.

Why don't I do something like this? Because I am only finding out, myself... it has been that well hidden by government and their lawyers.

:)

Well, that´s just a great point, BADecker. Legal and lawful. Form vs. substance. Feel free to post more on that by all means.

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

'Unprecedented' rise in deaths from terrorism

The number of people killed globally in terrorist attacks jumped 80 percent last year to the highest level ever recorded, the Institute for Economics and Peace said on Tuesday.
The Global Terrorism Index found that 32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014, up from the 18,111 fatalities of the previous year, the largest increase on record.
The study defines terrorism as "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation".
Nigeria-based Boko Haram and the Islamic State group were responsible for more than half of the deaths, according to the study, which measures attacks, deaths and damage from terror attacks in 162 countries.
"Terrorism is gaining momentum at an unprecedented pace," said Steve Killelea, the executive chairman of the Institute of Economics and Peace, which produces the study.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11997820/Paris-France-terror-attacks-isil-suspects-Syria-Raqqa-boming-arrests-live.html

Yeah, and  "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation" is the exact opposite of course.

There is Illegal group ISIS and other doing this bomb blasts and everything. But few days before one of Australian minister said this attacks are making International politicians to make their base stronger and stronger. Don't predict anything without handfull of evidence. may be U.S. and France may part in that.

OK, thanks. I see so much that I need to check and then I forget it but this your post is in a word document now and glaring at me from the desktop so I´ll get to it.

""...A total of 32,658 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2014..."". No mention of what part was done by muslim terrorists. Why not? Because telling us would show immediately that muslim terrorists murdered more people than all other terrorists in the world combined.

Why would their religion matter? A terrotist is still a terrorist. I do agree that a lot of terrorist have the religion of the islam but if they say it like you're saying it, it would aggravate a lot people mentioning the religion and it would intend that all muslims are terrorist, which is not true.

In America it's things like the Internet and other forms of communication that are only bringing to light the deaths from terrorists - cops and government - that have been going on for decades. There really isn't an increase in America.

:)

""...A total of 32,658 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2014..."". No mention of what part was done by muslim terrorists. Why not? Because telling us would show immediately that muslim terrorists murdered more people than all other terrorists in the world combined.

Why would their religion matter? A terrotist is still a terrorist. I do agree that a lot of terrorist have the religion of the islam but if they say it like you're saying it, it would aggravate a lot people mentioning the religion and it would intend that all muslims are terrorist, which is not true.

BC: How long it lasts depends on whether the places out of which really big, effective terrorist groups are operating remain essentially stateless. The territories in Pakistan and the border area with Afghanistan are not part of a centralized state. Robert Kaplan has written tons of books about what’s going on in the modern world, and if you read The Ends of the Earth and these books that say we are de facto, no matter what the laws say, becoming nations of mega-city-states full of really poor, angry, uneducated, and highly vulnerable people, all over the world, we would have a lot of slumdog millionaires. If that’s right, then terror — meaning killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders — could be around for a very long time. On the other hand, terrorism needs both anxiety and opportunity to flourish. So one of the things that the United States and others ought to be doing is trying to help the nation-state adjust to the realities of the 21st century and then succeed.


Bill Clinton’s World

The former president tells Foreign Policy what to read, who to watch, and why there really is a chance of Middle East peace in 2010.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/30/bill-clintons-world/

Americans believes this was the first grassroot event to openly engage in this kind of vital dialogue on most dangerous and important issue for our generation. If Iran get nuclear bomb  It ll not need a large army to cause unimaginable destruction of death

LOL, the state can rape, slaughter, torture and it's JUST FINE GUYS!!

BC: How long it lasts depends on whether the places out of which really big, effective terrorist groups are operating remain essentially stateless. The territories in Pakistan and the border area with Afghanistan are not part of a centralized state. Robert Kaplan has written tons of books about what’s going on in the modern world, and if you read The Ends of the Earth and these books that say we are de facto, no matter what the laws say, becoming nations of mega-city-states full of really poor, angry, uneducated, and highly vulnerable people, all over the world, we would have a lot of slumdog millionaires. If that’s right, then terror — meaning killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders — could be around for a very long time. On the other hand, terrorism needs both anxiety and opportunity to flourish. So one of the things that the United States and others ought to be doing is trying to help the nation-state adjust to the realities of the 21st century and then succeed.


Bill Clinton’s World

The former president tells Foreign Policy what to read, who to watch, and why there really is a chance of Middle East peace in 2010.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/30/bill-clintons-world/

If it is confirmed that Iran has A-bomb capabilities, Iran will cease to exist before they get to use their A-bomb. The more stable nations of the world will put an end to them. :)

If Israel can have the nuclear bomb, then why not Iran? Also, unstable countries such as Pakistan are having dozens of nukes in their possession and the Americans have no issue with it. And in my opinion, the Americans don't have the right to dictate to any country to get rid of its nukes, when they themselves are having the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world.

Why not Venezuela?  Cuba?  Uganda?  The Grand Bahamas?