NineBerry wrote:The threat posed is simply not high enough to do more extreme stuff.
The main objections to more extreme stuff are twofold. 1) It engenders more oppressive governments in societies that seek protection from terrorism. 2) It is counter-productive.
NineBerry wrote:The only meaningful effect terror has on society is derived from society's reaction. If we didn't react that hysterical, it would not have much of an effect.
That's rubbish. While the terrorists do aim to provoke hysterical reactions precisely because they help their cause, there are numerous very real additional effects. Tens of thousands of individuals have been killed. Hundreds of thousands of their families are emotionally and materially affected by that. Millions of people have quite reasonably become apprehensive or downright fearful of stepping out into public spaces or attending public events.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
The folks in England are motivated by and aligned with ISIS. Rip the lungs out of ISIS, and it will stop some folks in England from acting out. Also, when something like this happens, mercilessly track down the networks of these people and remove them from the country or jail them.
And we need to stop importing Islam to the West. There is no obligation to even out the religions in the West. There is no obligation to let the same number of people in from different countries. Discriminate based on nationality and keep out people from a list of countries, and enact serious vetting of refugees and other immigrants.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
NineBerry wrote:The threat posed is simply not high enough to do more extreme stuff.
The main objections to more extreme stuff are twofold. 1) It engenders more oppressive governments in societies that seek protection from terrorism. 2) It is counter-productive.
NineBerry wrote:The only meaningful effect terror has on society is derived from society's reaction. If we didn't react that hysterical, it would not have much of an effect.
That's rubbish. While the terrorists do aim to provoke hysterical reactions precisely because they help their cause, there are numerous very real additional effects. Tens of thousands of individuals have been killed. Hundreds of thousands of their families are emotionally and materially affected by that. Millions of people have quite reasonably become apprehensive or downright fearful of stepping out into public spaces or attending public events.
I think you'll find he was referring to the West.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
No, tens of thousands of individuals have not been killed by terrorism in the West recently. Especially when looking at these low-effort attacks in the recent years, the effect is very low compared to a lot of other deadly dangers we face in our daily lives.
And being fearful of stepping out into public or attending public events is not reasonable. The risk of being affected by terrorism is extreme low. There are so many public events. Even a small city has multiple events every day. There are hundreds of events that could attract a terrorist every day in each larger city. The risk of dying in a traffic accident on the way to a concert is much higher than the risk of dying at a concert because of a terrorist attack.
Forty Two wrote:The folks in England are motivated by and aligned with ISIS. Rip the lungs out of ISIS, and it will stop some folks in England from acting out. Also, when something like this happens, mercilessly track down the networks of these people and remove them from the country or jail them.
And we need to stop importing Islam to the West. There is no obligation to even out the religions in the West. There is no obligation to let the same number of people in from different countries. Discriminate based on nationality and keep out people from a list of countries, and enact serious vetting of refugees and other immigrants.
All that does is to alienate those communities already in country, defeating the purpose. The solution is going to have to involve better integration of those communities into society. Fearmongering against them isn't going to help in that goal.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Rum wrote:Well there is a lot that can be done and IS done. It was reported that between the two recent attacks five other plots were disrupted and nipped in the bud. Given the large numbers of people who are potential jihadists it isn't a bad record. I'm not suggesting it is acceptable, but the reality is that if we want to be more effective they are going to have to do some radical thinking.
A fair point, Rum. I'm not saying that the authorities are hopeless, let's simply do the most extreme stuff we can think of. I'm simply saying that we cannot be satisfied with saying "we're doing everything that could possibly be done, the rest is up to fate..." Without going to right wing extremes, surely with some increased resources, lateral thinking and more effective support from moderate muslims we can both reduce the probability of future attacks, and reduce the chances of populist demands for extreme solutions...
We have a programme called Prevent in place here. It is meant to identify people at a range of stages off 'radicalization'. It has had some partial success though in some Muslim communities it suffers from being seen as a spying project. It is due for a review and will no doubt bet a big boost.
I do think Islam is the real problem; its founding priciples, its precepts, its doctrines. I'm not for harassing people because they are Muslims but I'm all for challenging a 'faith' that equates criticism with blasphemy and mandates violence as a virtuous response. Fundamentaliam is close to the surface of Islam.
If we adopt an attitude that Muslims as a group are a problem, and focus our attention on the group, then my worry is that we'll strengthen a sense of solidarity between all Muslims; whether they're enlightened, moderate, or fundamentalist they'll all feel like "We are under the microscope. We are being oppressed." We need to focus our attention the bad ideas that Islam promotes, ideas that flow from its origins and sit at its core.
This is where Jim has a point. Islamic leaders and religious authorities have been crriticisng and challenging Islamic fundamentalism and islamic literalism, but we need to give these views more space and prominence in the public debate. Broadcasting an interpretation of Islam that appeals to universal values and basic ethics, particularly the ethic of nonviolence (which it has to be admitted is not present in Islam), will both reassure the general public and reinforce a positive message to the wider Muslim community. This could do far more good than any tub-thumping politician declaring "Enough is enough" while advocating measures that essentially undermine the values and ethics we need to promote.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Brian Peacock wrote:I do think Islam is the real problem; its founding priciples, its precepts, its doctrines. I'm not for harassing people because they are Muslims but I'm all for challenging a 'faith' that equates criticism with blasphemy and mandates violence as a virtuous response. Fundamentaliam is close to the surface of Islam.
How true is this? As far as I know Islamic terrorism was minor to non-existent before Israel and the West's meddling in the middle-east.
The real problem is our failure to pursue proper secularism. You can't seriously say the problem is one religion and not another. The problem is extremism/fundamentalism, and while that's not unique to religion, it certainly has a predisposition to it. This sort of assumption that western countries are "christian countries" is part of the problem. We shouldn't be affiliated with any religion more than another. While ever we do Muslims will feel as second class citizens.
This is where Jim has a point. Islamic leaders and religious authorities have been crriticisng and challenging Islamic fundamentalism and islamic literalism, but we need to give these views more space and prominence in the public debate.
The mainstream media isn't really interested in giving these views much space. Conciliation and peace don't sell.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
NineBerry wrote:No, tens of thousands of individuals have not been killed by terrorism in the West recently. Especially when looking at these low-effort attacks in the recent years, the effect is very low compared to a lot of other deadly dangers we face in our daily lives.
And being fearful of stepping out into public or attending public events is not reasonable. The risk of being affected by terrorism is extreme low. There are so many public events. Even a small city has multiple events every day. There are hundreds of events that could attract a terrorist every day in each larger city. The risk of dying in a traffic accident on the way to a concert is much higher than the risk of dying at a concert because of a terrorist attack.
Are NineBerry & Galaxian the only ones talking sense here? Cui Bono? Mostly the secret services
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian "This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian
I don't disagree with what you say about promoting secularism - I made that very point earlier. What I'm addressing here is the toxic doctrine of violence that sits at the centre of Islam, and how we might positively encourage Muslims to jettison it safely.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Some of these reactions are self defeating. Tougher sentences and death sentences would be the best recruiting sergeant ISIS could have. What is lacking in Britain is funds. Here we have our version of the Aarhus method. We have a well funded social service which does a lot of work in the muslim community. Also our education system is strictly monitored. These for me are the primary ways of solving the problem; education and communication. Dont leave up to the muslim community itself. Get in there and get involved. All these terrorists are home grown so it was the system that went wrong allowing these people to be radicalised.
May made big mistakes during her time as home secretary now they are coming home to roost. You can never do security on the cheap.
Brian Peacock wrote:I don't disagree with what you say about promoting secularism - I made that very point earlier. What I'm addressing here is the toxic doctrine of violence that sits at the centre of Islam, and how we might positively encourage Muslims to jettison it safely.
This is where you need social services. You do it through the mothers and children.
Are NineBerry & Galaxian the only ones talking sense here? Cui Bono? Mostly the secret services
