Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris 13.11.2015 - Page 10

well it's like, it does make sense. In a way. Since 2000, there have been like 20ish plane hijackings significant enough to get a wikipedia entry, and at least 15 of them by muslims. Aside from 9/11, most of these actually had no casualities btw.

But then, that's 15 instances in 15 years. I can't find numbers for how many muslim passengers there are, but for 2015, we're looking at a total projected number of more than 3 billion airline passengers. Obviously muslims in general live in poorer regions and will on average be much less likely to use airplanes, so even though they're about a fifth of the world's population, they're not close to a fifth of the airline passengers. But let's just say for the sake of simplicity, and to make sure that I err on the 'right' side, that only one in 300 passengers is muslim. I'm sure it's significantly more - but this gives us an easy number: 10 million per year. Now, going by this number, and by how likely a hijacking is to have a muslim culprit, we'd be looking at muslims being hundreds of times more likely to hijack a plane than what well, other people would be. (I can accept that it's a triple digit number even if we adjust the number of passengers to the real number, it's not really important. I can also accept that there might even be some deterring aspect of the likelihood of being searched or whatever making it less likely for a hijacking to be attempted, but I mean, it's not like it's the threat of a random body search that hinders you from bringing a weapon - the scanners and metal detectors all people are subject to take care of this quite nicely I think?)

But then, that's still 10 million muslims flying without hijacking a plane for each hijacked plane. In what instance is any of us fine with being profiled based on something one out of 10 million white people do? Isn't it conceivable that maybe (no stats here. just ideas), this type of profiling actually does more bad than good, because if you look at 10 million people, and you look at all the latent mental issues likely to be present in such a large group of people, some number of people might actually find this incessant suspicion and distrust so annoying that it combines with their already present problems to function as a further trigger for a personal radicalization process? Imo it's just, this whole profiling part, while it to some degree 'makes sense', is also pushing the us vs them narrative further, and contributing to increased polarization, which is so dangerous in today's globalized world.

Liquid'Drone, is this the same retoric as "more people are killed in traffic than in terrorist events" ?

The first thing some SV politician said after the Paris attacks...

I mean, if the goverment selected 10 people to be drown every year. I can sure say "its not a big problem because the chance you would be selected would be less than getting cancer". And the chance you get stoned, hanged or get your hand cut off in Iraq / Saudi Arabia for some minor incident that might not even be a crime in our country might still be smaller than getting killed in traffic. But it doesnt mean these countries are not cruel or we shouldnt fight it.

Sorry Erling but I don't really understand what you are asking.

If you're asking me if I think that current fear of terrorism is way overblown, then yeah, of course it is. Chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack is absolutely miniscule, not just compared to traffic, it's more comparable to being struck by lightning.. But that doesn't mean that I don't want us to combat it - all I am saying is that any combatting of terrorism must not lead to the creation of more terrorists - and certainly not more than what we kill, because then we will start a circle leading to perpetual war.

And this does not just apply to the actual 'military fight' against terrorism (where it should be obvious to anyone that watching your family perish to bombs is likely to make you hate the party responsible for that. Like, I don't know what the equation for how many terrorists you have to kill for each civilian you kill for us to see a net decrease in terrorist numbers, all I am saying regarding this is that it is perfectly understandable to me that civilian casualities create a backlash, and that thus, even disregarding all humanitarian ideals and the instrinsic value of civilian lives (which I personally find very important), then the fight against terrorism can't be fought stupidly and recklessly.)

It applies just the same to discussions around terrorism. I am hypothesizing that terrorism (in whatever form) spawns from a multitude of reasons. Once again, I don't have an equation for 'which factors contribute which percentage', but I would say it's something like; unfathomable desperation/hopelessness / dehumanizing ideological beliefs / enormous hatred. Basically, you can't become a terrorist if you're a happy guy with good life prospects. You can't become a terrorist if you believe in the sanctity of all human life, and you can't become a terrorist if you're a loving guy surrounded by love. Then, I'm postulating that: Firstly, people are emotionally influenced by their surroundings. If people are subject to hate, they are more likely to become hateful. Secondly, yes, I agree that certain interpretations of Islam (but only certain interpretations, and if you believe all Muslims have the same interpretation, then you are wrong) fits into the dehumanizing ideological beliefs category - but I am also arguing that this is not unique to Muslims. Basically, my argument is that when you have the combination of hopelessness and no life prospects and being surrounded by hatred, it is quite normal for humans to interpret their normative ideology in a way that becomes more dehumanizing and hateful. Everything is interconnected with everything, you can't explain terrorism by merely pointing to Islam, because it should be self evident that it by itself is not a sufficient ingredient. (If it were, not only would we not see non-muslim terrorists (and being Norwegian, we should both know that it's possible to become a terrorist without adhering to any of the tenets of Islam), then the numbers of Islamic terrorists would necessarily be much closer aligned with the number of Muslims worldwide - and as stated, even the worst estimates for amount of active terrorists places us closer to a 1:10000 ratio. )

Now, for all my arguments, this doesn't mean I don't think there can be valid criticism of either Islam or how Europe is handling the refugee crisis. I do believe that if we accept a bunch of refugees, but that they are then unable to contribute to society in any meaningful way or find any life improvement, then you get a situation of hopelessness and no life prospects. I also think that Islam has some elements (as do any religion with an 'Afterlife', because then the Afterlife by default becomes more important than the current one) that are dangerous, particularly with regard to martyrdom. And we do see that in certain Mosques, there are people who try to recruit young muslims who have felt the combined no-prospects-hopelessness-hated by society, and who then present them with a dehumanizing, dangerous interpretation of Islam coupled with prospects for the future, in the form of excitement, wealth and sex (and hey, when I was a nearly-virgin-18 year old, I was dumb enough to believe a lot of idiotic shit in hopes of getting laid). But then it becomes so, so important that we at least do not supply Muslims with the third ingredient - hatred, because then I am postulating that numbers of muslim terrorists will grow significantly.

This is why I think any 'close the borders to muslim immigration' argument is really dangerous, because we already have a large amount of them, and I know that if I were Muslim, this type of argument or political action taken by my country of residence would by me be experienced as hatred. I also think 'deport them', or 'don't allow them to practice their faith', or any more extreme measure would be dehumanizing - and it would make our own society less worthy of protection and admiration.

So we need to have a respectful debate. We need to avoid generalizing arguments, we need to not see people as muslims first and people second. We can't generalize based on the actions of an absolutely tiny minority, and as for the fact that larger minorities (and sometimes majorities) of Muslims hold views that, while very different from 'I personally want to kill people for having a different faith', are still problematic, discriminatory and sometimes dehumanizing themselves, these issues are issues we need to tackle in a humanitarian, calm, reasonable manner. Essentially, and I know that I myself am sometimes at fault here - I am a flawed human like everyone else - we always need to have a de-escalationary approach, both to policy choice and how we debate these issues, because if we do not, then the situation is only bound to become more tense and more dangerous.

I actually just read this article right after posting that. It's a pretty succinct breakdown of how I feel, and with more weight behind the words than what I can offer.

Nah, mate. Making arguments based on prejudice is quite smart, keep it up.... It's one thing to be thinking it and being aware of the stereotypes and potential things that can come out of them, its quite another to just act on them blindly like you obviously do - kudos on trying to justify it with arguments that directly strike your beliefs down.
And no that doesn't make you a racist, makes you shallow as i said

Drone, your posts made me think of this funny dialogue from Homeland.
+ Show Spoiler +

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34991855

muslims obv

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/th...olitics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Good read,
http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt...ims-against-their-parents-generation/

On December 03 2015 16:23 uiCk wrote: Good read, http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt...ims-against-their-parents-generation/

cliffs: islam has nothing t do with islam

I've read a few articles about the shooting yesterday and I haven't seen the words Muslim or Islam once. The term they're using is "radical ideology".

^you have to read between the lies obv


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...aughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html

https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/972617129492550/

huehuehue

It's fucking ridiculous. You can't say that Islamic Extremism is poisonous horseshit without offending some high-horsed liberal. Well guess what, if the truth offends you, go fuck yourself, its the truth.

Told you we'd have a new thread each month. One the shooters was their co-worker, basically friends with them, invited to parties etc, name was
Syed Farook, I think he was Christian or an Athiest, not sure though. lol
People had a lot of good things to say about him, went to high school then college. You think refugees are a good idea then good luck.

https://www.rt.com/usa/324380-san-bernardino-shooting-live/


I might be wrong, he might be hindu or hispanic/christian fundamentalist

So let me get this straight.

There are lots of refugees. Most of them are just innocent peaceful people presumably. Some are Muslim, some are Christian (most are Muslim, but not by any means all).

There are dozens of Muslim 3rd world theocratic countries in the area that share similar values to the refugees - who do not hold American values (freedom, liberty, equality, etc). It doesn't mean they are bad people, but those are not Muslim values. It's a fact. Not up for debate. None of them will accept Christians who do hold American values. They don't really want the Muslims because of the Shiite / Sunni conflict (seems to be a lot of violence with Islam these days, not just through Jihad) but they'd take them if the UN put on enough pressure (but they won't because they are cowards).

So am I a bigot for saying it might be practical for America to take in the Christian refugees and force the Muslim Theocracies to take the Muslims by threatening to give their countries less money (Saudi Arabia for example)? Wouldn't that just make sense? Or are we more into the concept of equality over practicality, even if it inevitably means the failure of assimilation and more terrorism.

Answer me this please. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just asking why my logic is flawed.

And FWIW, this is not our fault, these motherfucking theocratic Sharia governments have been killing and gassing their own long before America intervened. You know, like Sadaam Hussein used mustard gas to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Then we tried to do something about it and everyone got mad. The whole Western Imperialism argument is for indoctrinated sheep.

http://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/158...st-attacks-destroy-ben-shapiro#listen

Best American Millennial thinker there is.

It's true that when recruiting young people, especially young men, from a sexually repressive culture/religion, that the sadistic promise of killing and raping, we can all imagine, it would be tempting for retarded young people on the verge of psychosis. (While this base sexual appeal can apply to men, I don't see that it applies to the women who willingly - I'll say "willingly" despite that I doubt getting out is an option for either sex - join up with Daesh, although it's possible that base female sexuality might find it partly attractive, just like all the twats who flooded social media saying the Boston Marathon bomber was cute and so on.

But this kind of thing isn't strictly a sexual inadequacy or sexual complex or whatever. That's an aspect of baiting people into it, but that's not how totalitarian machines sustain themselves (though fortunately they don't seem to last forever). Places like the Third Reich, Stalin's USSR, the Khmer regime's Cambodia, Baathist Iraq, the DPRK, they're not fundamentally fueled by sexless young men. It's something else, and it's important to realize that. It's an organism which at its heart is based on hatred, psychopathy, and the lust to grab and hold onto power, as far as I can tell.

I'm not saying this to be rhetorically cheap. I can't imagine much worse evils on this planet. Maybe I spend more time ruminating about stuff like this, but it's been eye-opening recently to see how little perspective people have. The way people are so safely sheltered that they don't, or can't, bother thinking.

On December 03 2015 16:23 uiCk wrote: Good read, http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt...ims-against-their-parents-generation/

That was actually a terrible read, and I can briefly explain why.

Unlike the theologically-trained recruits selected by Al Qaeda, these sign-ups are rarely “Islamic” or devout to begin with. They speak the colloquial French of the suburbs, not Arabic, and don’t come to ISIL by reading the Koran or obsessively praying alongside their Muslim brothers.

Most people in ISIS don't speak French, believe it or not. This article starts out as an honest appraisal of the failure of a class of people, Moslems, to integrate in France specifically, and then absurdly leaps to that alone being the picture of ISIS.

Almost one in four “radicalization alerts” to France’s “Stop Jihadisme” hotline and government channels concern converts, with 62% from “Arab-Muslim families.” Of French fighters for ISIL in Syria and Iraq, almost a quarter are believed to be converts.

Essentially she's trying to claim that French "converts" aren't really part of the religion, and therefore radical converts aren't part of a religious problem. Yet she's also counting 62% of 1 in 4 (about 15.5%, between 1/7 and 1/6) of those people as "converts" despite that they came from "Arab-Muslim families." How can anyone write this? Are you kidding me? If you were born to two Baptist parents, and converted to Baptism when you were 20, do you consider "convert" would be the most appropriate way to describe how you adopted your faith?

Then she admits that most radicals aren't converts anyway (in other words, 3 in 4 radicalization alerts and 3 in 4 French Daesh fighters are about people who ARE NOT converts - i.e., people who were always in the religion), so clearly conversion is not the main problem for France.

“Deradicalization” campaigns are thus unlikely to dissuade them either, “because radicalism is exactly what the terrorists are looking for,” Roy says.

Do I even need to touch this gem of sheer retardation and defeatism?

Let me pose a harmless question. We all know young people to rebel against their parents. Smoke weed, drink, whatever. Have you ever hated your parents so much that you considered joining a terrorist army that controls half a country? Does this woman's thesis adequately explain the growth of Daesh?

Her point basically boils down to "many terrorists have relatives that are terrorists." What an amazing insight. I'm no genealogist, but I hear that blood is thicker than water. Would she not expect relatives to radicalize relatives in the framework of such a personal religion like Islam? And if the author thinks it should be unusual for people to become radicalized with their siblings, wouldn't that be a clue that maybe there's something about radical Islam that's especially fucked up?

On December 04 2015 00:58 soberstone wrote: So let me get this straight. There are lots of refugees. Most of them are just innocent peaceful people presumably. Some are Muslim, some are Christian (most are Muslim, but not by any means all). There are dozens of Muslim 3rd world theocratic countries in the area that share similar values to the refugees - who do not hold American values (freedom, liberty, equality, etc). It doesn't mean they are bad people, but those are not Muslim values. It's a fact. Not up for debate. None of them will accept Christians who do hold American values. They don't really want the Muslims because of the Shiite / Sunni conflict (seems to be a lot of violence with Islam these days, not just through Jihad) but they'd take them if the UN put on enough pressure (but they won't because they are cowards). So am I a bigot for saying it might be practical for America to take in the Christian refugees and force the Muslim Theocracies to take the Muslims by threatening to give their countries less money (Saudi Arabia for example)? Wouldn't that just make sense? Or are we more into the concept of equality over practicality, even if it inevitably means the failure of assimilation and more terrorism. Answer me this please. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just asking why my logic is flawed. And FWIW, this is not our fault, these motherfucking theocratic Sharia governments have been killing and gassing their own long before America intervened. You know, like Sadaam Hussein used mustard gas to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Then we tried to do something about it and everyone got mad. The whole Western Imperialism argument is for indoctrinated sheep.

The region has and is taking most (as in like 95%) of the 4 million + refugees. Germany and Sweden are taking hundreds of thousands together. What the USA would take in is probably a pittance. I haven't looked much. It's common for countries to give people asylum, and that's a good thing, especially with many Muslim countries, where an atheist or homosexual or someone like that, facing serious persecution and threats, if they manage to escape, definitely deserve safety somewhere.

What I have a severe problem with is that people I know apply for visas and get rejected, yet some guy's house burns down in the desert, and the humanitarian answer to that is to give him permanent residency in Germany. That's just not an answer to what's going on in Syria on a large scale. It's an excuse. "Well country x took in some refugees, we've done all we can" and meanwhile Syria is still totally fucked up.

On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: And this does not just apply to the actual 'military fight' against terrorism (where it should be obvious to anyone that watching your family perish to bombs is likely to make you hate the party responsible for that. Like, I don't know what the equation for how many terrorists you have to kill for each civilian you kill for us to see a net decrease in terrorist numbers, all I am saying regarding this is that it is perfectly understandable to me that civilian casualities create a backlash, and that thus, even disregarding all humanitarian ideals and the instrinsic value of civilian lives (which I personally find very important), then the fight against terrorism can't be fought stupidly and recklessly.)

I feel like you haven't internalized that these people fight and kill each other as a way of life, completely independent of the west.

On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: It applies just the same to discussions around terrorism. I am hypothesizing that terrorism (in whatever form) spawns from a multitude of reasons. Once again, I don't have an equation for 'which factors contribute which percentage', but I would say it's something like; unfathomable desperation/hopelessness / dehumanizing ideological beliefs / enormous hatred. Basically, you can't become a terrorist if you're a happy guy with good life prospects. You can't become a terrorist if you believe in the sanctity of all human life, and you can't become a terrorist if you're a loving guy surrounded by love. Then, I'm postulating that: Firstly, people are emotionally influenced by their surroundings. If people are subject to hate, they are more likely to become hateful. Secondly, yes, I agree that certain interpretations of Islam (but only certain interpretations, and if you believe all Muslims have the same interpretation, then you are wrong) fits into the dehumanizing ideological beliefs category - but I am also arguing that this is not unique to Muslims. Basically, my argument is that when you have the combination of hopelessness and no life prospects and being surrounded by hatred, it is quite normal for humans to interpret their normative ideology in a way that becomes more dehumanizing and hateful. Everything is interconnected with everything, you can't explain terrorism by merely pointing to Islam, because it should be self evident that it by itself is not a sufficient ingredient. (If it were, not only would we not see non-muslim terrorists (and being Norwegian, we should both know that it's possible to become a terrorist without adhering to any of the tenets of Islam), then the numbers of Islamic terrorists would necessarily be much closer aligned with the number of Muslims worldwide - and as stated, even the worst estimates for amount of active terrorists places us closer to a 1:10000 ratio. )

Yes, anybody can become a terrorist. Many ideologies can be co-opted for violence. It's not unique to Islam. It doesn't need to be. It is far and away dominated by Islam, and that's why radical Islam is a problem per se because it has so much of the market share of terrorism.

Please take 5 minutes to flip through this list. Like 95% of it is Islamism, sectarianism, or what have you. It's true that most Muslims aren't terrorists. But there are 7 billion people in the world, and maybe 1.6 billion of those are Muslims. We know they're not all terrorists. But why does ''Allahu Ahbar'' show up at almost all terrorist incidents? Why is Islam nearly always involved with what's on this list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

Also, where did you get 1:10000? There's 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, right? 160,000 of those are terrorists at the most, is that what you're saying? When Daesh alone claims to have a strength of 200,000?

On November 25 2015 16:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: Now, for all my arguments, this doesn't mean I don't think there can be valid criticism of either Islam or how Europe is handling the refugee crisis. I do believe that if we accept a bunch of refugees, but that they are then unable to contribute to society in any meaningful way or find any life improvement, then you get a situation of hopelessness and no life prospects. I also think that Islam has some elements (as do any religion with an 'Afterlife', because then the Afterlife by default becomes more important than the current one) that are dangerous, particularly with regard to martyrdom. And we do see that in certain Mosques, there are people who try to recruit young muslims who have felt the combined no-prospects-hopelessness-hated by society, and who then present them with a dehumanizing, dangerous interpretation of Islam coupled with prospects for the future, in the form of excitement, wealth and sex (and hey, when I was a nearly-virgin-18 year old, I was dumb enough to believe a lot of idiotic shit in hopes of getting laid). But then it becomes so, so important that we at least do not supply Muslims with the third ingredient - hatred, because then I am postulating that numbers of muslim terrorists will grow significantly. This is why I think any 'close the borders to muslim immigration' argument is really dangerous, because we already have a large amount of them, and I know that if I were Muslim, this type of argument or political action taken by my country of residence would by me be experienced as hatred. I also think 'deport them', or 'don't allow them to practice their faith', or any more extreme measure would be dehumanizing - and it would make our own society less worthy of protection and admiration. So we need to have a respectful debate. We need to avoid generalizing arguments, we need to not see people as muslims first and people second. We can't generalize based on the actions of an absolutely tiny minority, and as for the fact that larger minorities (and sometimes majorities) of Muslims hold views that, while very different from 'I personally want to kill people for having a different faith', are still problematic, discriminatory and sometimes dehumanizing themselves, these issues are issues we need to tackle in a humanitarian, calm, reasonable manner. Essentially, and I know that I myself am sometimes at fault here - I am a flawed human like everyone else - we always need to have a de-escalationary approach, both to policy choice and how we debate these issues, because if we do not, then the situation is only bound to become more tense and more dangerous.

One of your problems is calling for a disconnected, level-headed debate while saying you know what the answer isn't. Dismissing things out of hand because you somehow know they're wrong. Closing borders to Muslim immigration is an extreme proposition, one that will probably never become reality, and if it were a mistake, then we could figure that out easily with an open discussion. And if you're going to talk about decreasing immigration, then talking about stopping immigration is also a part of understanding that.

There's something wrong with the argument I'm seeing a lot:

-"The west" rejecting Muslims/refugees is exactly what "the terrorists" want -because that would lead to further radicalization and violence -Therefore you have to accept xyz people into your country, people I just admitted become violent at the drop of a hat, because if you don't accept them, they will kill you even more err, if you don't accept them, the terrorists win, I mean

Very fucking freaky to hear adults rationalize like this.

As to current-est events, it's gotten to be the most predictable shit.
>Shooting happens.
"This is why guns should be illegal! There's like a mass shooting every day omg."
>Guy has radical Islamic ties.
"Omg, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are like 0.000000000000000000001% stop spreading fear that's how they win!"

On December 04 2015 02:57 soberstone wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/158...st-attacks-destroy-ben-shapiro#listen Best American Millennial thinker there is.

so... the best American Millenial thinker believes in god, free will etc?
it's tough to listen to this dude's anti-left argumentation when he focuses so much on his own biased bs

seen a lot of funny social media comments about this latest one. kinda weird people want to inject political agendas into this stuff.

continue to find it odd how ignorant the average person is to general middle eastern history as well. actually broke a rule and had to ask one guy who controlled the territory of Iraq prior to WW1 and of course nobody with very strong opinions on imperialism had the slightest clue.