Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
He's underestimating Wilders when we just had an election where he lost influence?

Define "lost influence".

Didn't his party GAIN 5 seats? That's hardly what I'd call losing influence.

4 seats, but point taken.

Wikipedia says 5.

PVV Geert Wilders 13.1% 20 +5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2017


In any case, he didn't "lose influence", he gained it. He simply didn't gain as much as was predicted. i.e. His gains were overestimated.

Ok, take it from the Dutch person. Wilders lost influence. In 2010 he got 15.4% (24 seats) of the vote. This year he got 13.1% (20). He lost plain and simple, the only way he gained 5 seats is because in 2012 almost everyone blamed him for failing government and causing new elections. His party has not gained the popularity it had upon being founded. Gaining a couple of seats is in no way significant and the fact that he won only 5 seats mean he lost influence. Even after Trump, Brexit and terror attacks (as well as Erdogan calling us Nazi's days before the elections) he just can't climb to a significant number of seats anymore. People have lost confidence in Wilders' ability to actually achieve anything and almost every large party has ruled out forming a government with him. He lost influence plain and simple.

 Blackie wrote:
Well to be honest many of the illegals that came by the sea are actually from morocco, algeria or tunisia, even anis amri, the killer of german market, was a tunisian that crossed the mediterranean sea. You talk about what muslims want, but many people I met that were from northern european countries, including holland, had no real relationships with these people. French banlieus, molenbeek, birmingham, rotterdam are not the perfect example of decent people that want to live in a western democracy.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1338480bdc4.html?eng=y

You are basically justifying muslims that turn into terrorists, saying that they are stupid or they have no choice, in italy there are millions that live in regions ruled by mafia groups, where the state has no power at all, kids that born there have little chances to avoid being part of the mafia system too, but no one justify them here, there are also people that die because they want to change things and many other that live making huge sacrifices in order to live honestly. If a muslim turns into a terrorist it's entirely his/her fault, especially if he/she's born in europe and not in the third world.

I've told several times that I'm not against muslims, I'm against those muslim communities that live with their rules and hate western societies. Believe me or not there are a lot of them, even in your country, which actually host the capital of eurabia.

You underestimate le pen, akesson or wilders, like people underestimated trump. Politicians like these one would have got 100.000 votes 10 years ago, now there are millions that voted for them. If things continue this way they would have great chances to win and rule their countries.

Ok, so now we have you saying we have masses of illegals crossing over without ever getting noted down in official records. You have not provided any solid statistics besides those provided by the same places you get your 'savages' comments from I gather.
I'm so glad your anecdotal evidence of a handful of terror attacks and people from a country you couldn't even spell properly have provided you insight in broad trends none of the security experts have picked up on.
Have you ever been in Molenbeek, Rotterdam Zuid or the Schilderswijk in the Hague? I have and I can tell you most people there are just trying to live their lives and are not busy trying to subvert Western democracy. We only have fringe parties such as Sharia for Belgium that have virtually no popular support to ever participate in elections. Provide me with some evidence that is not in Italian or fething calling cities like Rotterdam 'Eurabia' (I have spend a great deal of my life in the city and around the region, believe me that your article is a load of bs, I mean the 'mayor is Muslim'? What the feth is wrong with this piece of gak right wing author, everybody loves this mayor as one of the most moderate politicians!) if you want to have a serious discussion, or I can just start throwing around a bunch of Dutch sources that say you're completely wrong. I have provided you with German crime statistics and immigration numbers and even undermined your 33% and criminal illegal foreigner claims.

I'm not at all justifying terrorism, I'm acknowledging the structural political, social and economic issues that lead to terrorism.
You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society? Like you're claiming about Muslim society? No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into. Keeping kids away from these organizations is an important part in solving this. If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.

You aren't against Muslims, yet you keep saying things like 'vast Muslim communities' in Europe, 'eurabia' and 'savages' wanting to undermine our society. When you say things like that its hard to believe you're all that reasonable regarding Muslims in Europe and the world. It comes across as Trump claiming hes not racist

I don't underestimate these politicians at all. Look at my other response on this page regarding Wilders. Furthermore, Le Pen is nothing new, to think she suddenly gets a massive amount of support from some magical new place is just playing ignorant, she is in no way projected to win. The same goes for the German AfD, we just have to wait if they are even able to get past the 5% threshold. Where is the logic behind them suddenly winning if they couldn't for over a decade? Trump was a one off wildcard, these people have been part of the political establishment for years. Wilders had a different party precede him that collapsed and Le Pen has had her racist as feth father in politics for decades. Why will they suddenly get 'great chances'?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society?

Actually yes, my country is a perfect example of corruption at any political level and a perfect place for criminals, many italians are into the mafia system because it's appealing and/or grants an easier future.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into.

When did I say that? I always said to fight radicalization in europe and never talked about killing someone or deport all the muslims, you are the one that was brainwashed. And you totally lack of respect, people that offend someone that thinks differently shouldn't deserve any reply, I would never say to you or that frenchmen that is an idiot.

Do you actually know people that are immigrants or with foreign origins? Like I said before many people talk in general but despite a huge number of foreigners or of foreign origins they only have relationships between "pure blood". I grew up with people that are from north africa or sons/daughters of african immigrants, some of them muslims. I also met people from albania, ivory coast, ukraine or china in my life, never considered them strangers or different. I actually know people from different cultures and religions, I never said they're an issue and should go away. I only said to not tolerate radicalisms and to deport the illegals, as they're are not needed here and we should invest in their countries instead.

And those "kids" only regret the comfort they had in europe or they get scared when they deal with a real war, the recruits offrered them a perspective of life that is a lie, a wife they never get, etc.... but they don't regret the concept of the islamic state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.

I'm not ok with murderers released after a set amount of time, they should belong to prison till they breathe.

If they kill someone it's too late, most of the times we could have prevented those murders. The killer of the german's market for example was known to the german police and they had intel that he could make a terror attack months before he actually did it.

You can bring all the articles, numbers and statistics you like to show, it doesn't change the fact that we live in a world that seems to consider normal islamic terrorism in europe. Be critique towards your sources too, remember that in koln on 2015-2016 new year's eve over 1000 of sexual attacks and robberies were made and meda released the news only 10-15 days later as they didn't want the citizens to know about it.

My biggest fear is not a europe under sharia, it's a europe with far right politicians at the power. I hope you're right about le pen or wilders or the ones that will come after them, but wait for some other attack in germany, france and maybe your country and let's see if those politicians won't get the votes they need to rule.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society?

Actually yes, my country is a perfect example of corruption at any political level and a perfect place for criminals, many italians are into the mafia system because it's appealing and/or grants an easier future.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into.

When did I say that? I always said to fight radicalization in europe and never talked about killing someone or deport all the muslims, you are the one that was brainwashed. Those "kids" only regret the comfort they had in europe or they get scared when they deal with a real war, the recruits offrered them a perspective of life that is a lie, a wife they never get, etc.... but they don't regret the concept of the islamic state.

Just to be clear, the 'you have to be stupid, brainwashed etc.' was directed at people considering to be a professional terrorist for a rewarding career, not you as a person. Also I hope your Italian comment is sarcasm. If you truly believe that Italians are inherently drawn to the maffia because of your culture, Italy should immediately stop exporting these vast Italian communities to the rest of the world who want nothing to do with these professional criminals trying to undermine our Western justice system for their criminal goals. (fun fact, for some reason Italian mobsters seem to like hiding in the Netherlands)

You implied I was justyfying terrorism, I was not. I'm arguing that there is a need to understand why these things happen. You're implication that wanting to understand the reasoning is justification makes you seem favourable to a single approach. If you look at research provided on the matter of young people travelling to Syria it is also a matter of adventure and excitement. Imagine a place that offers you all the things you ever wanted out of life and you never got in your country of birth, doesn't that sound great? Of course this is ignorant and not a little stupid, but these kids are disillusioned with their place in society and no less disillusioned when they finally get to Syria, where the actual terrorists see them as useful cannon fodder. Lets try to understand and fix the things that make these people want to go do this, cause they certainly don't start off as a full grown terrorist when they get born.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.

I'm not ok with murderers released after a set amount of time, they should belong to prison till they breathe.

If they kill someone it's too late, most of the times we could have prevented those murders. The killer of the german's market for example was known to the german police and they had intel that he could make a terror attack months before he actually did it.

You can bring all the articles, numbers and statistics you like to show, it doesn't change the fact that we live in a world that seems to consider normal islamic terrorism in europe. Be critique towards your sources too, remember that in koln on 2015-2016 new year's eve over 1000 of sexual attacks and robberies were made and meda released the news only 10-15 days later as they didn't want the citizens to know about it.

My biggest fear is not a europe under sharia, it's a europe with far right politicians at the power. I hope you're right about le pen or wilders or the ones that will come after them, but wait for some other attack in germany, france and maybe your country and let's see if those politicians won't get the votes they need to rule.

As Western society we believe in being able to rehabilitate even murderers, this is just something we sort of have agreed upon, ymmv of course. But I certainly object to Western governments treating people differently just because we call them a terrorist (before something serious happens). The issue is that its incredible difficult to know when someone is going to act and in the case of Berlin the intelligence agencies might have decided that it was prudent not to act yet, as other more valuable information or leads might be lost. Why they didn't prevent it is a difficult question and one there will be little to no answer on.

We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?

Seriously man, as the guy who linked me an 'Eurabia' article about my country with some of the most vile assumptions and lies I have seen written, critiquing me on my use of sources comes across as laughable. I remember Köln very well, I also remember that however horrible that was, it was only one single event. Köln is an abnormality like the size of 9/11 or shooting down flight MH17. These things just don't happen with any kind of frequency to make a huge deal out of it. Besides the argument it took 10-15 days before media reported on it is just untrue, most picked it up right after new year weekend on the 4th and the 5th when reports started coming in, I can show you if you truly insist on the 10-15 day narrative. I won't even start to respond to the 'didn't want the citizens to know about it', if you're going so far down the rabbit hole that both the government and media are teaming up to lie to us about things like this, there is no space for reasonable discussion based on facts and sources.

If your biggest fear is far right politicians, perhaps stop giving far right media with 'Eurabia' claims anymore of a platform by spreading the kind of disinformation that these politicians feed on. For someone being afraid of this you seem very badly informed on the state of far right parties and the political situations in the countries you keep talking about. Look at political trends and background, read moderate media and look at data that the governments provide. Don't fear a Europe with far right politicians, fight it, help educate people around you about the dangers, be critical! Regardless, we have seen the polls after massive attacks in France and smaller ones in Germany, so far it does not translate into a victory for Le Pen or Wilders. We don't have to necessarily wait for an attack, people are actively expecting it to happen any day in most European countries. People who are actually afraid enough to vote for Le Pen after a terror attack are probably already not objectively looking at politics anymore and most likely already in her camp.

Why has this thread devolved into a series of personal attacks. Knock it of.

 Blackie wrote:
that frenchmen that is an idiot.

Sure, go ahead, insult me.
In the meantime I'll just post more about “those savages that couldn't serve any other purpose than being human guinea pig in a lab”, here comes a few links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Baharvand

He has given numerous invited talks and tutorials. He is the editor of four international books which were published by Springer (2010 and 2012) and John Wiley, USA (2015). He has published 252 international [6] and 100 national peer-reviewed papers, as well as seven chapters in international books, seven books in Persian, and eight translated English text books into Persian.

As of February 2016, Google Scholar reports over 5100 citations and h-index 37 to his work.[7] He is currently the editorial board member of eight international journals (e.g., Journal of Biological Chemistry[8] and Scientific Reports from Nature Publishing Group[9]). He holds two USA patents on the basis of his research. […]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rahbar

In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) bestowed a special, one-time National Scientific Achievement Award on Rahbar in recognition of his discovery of HbA1c as a marker of glycemic status in persons with diabetes. The award is named after the awardee and is called the Samuel Rahbar Outstanding Discovery Award.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saba_Valadkhan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_Bissell

That's like 2 minutes of Wikipedia…

Recent news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39401326

Syria fighters 'take control' of IS-held airbase near Raqqa

A US-backed force of Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters say they have taken full control of a key airbase held by the Islamic State group (IS) near Raqqa.
Its capture is seen as a significant step in the fight to drive the jihadists out of the city, which has become their de facto capital.
Talal Sello, a spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), said they had seized Tabqa airport from militants.
The Kurdish-led fighters are continuing to advance towards the city itself.
However, civilian rights groups have expressed safety concerns for citizens still living in the area.
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said coalition air strikes have killed at least 89 civilians over the past week.

The capture of the military airport is the first major success for the SDF since the US-led coalition airlifted its fighters to place them behind IS lines last week, the BBC's Arab affairs editor Sebastian Usher reports.
The Tabqa airbase was seized by IS militants in 2014 from the Syrian army. The jihadists then carried out one of their worst atrocities - a mass execution of captured soldiers.
Its capture by SDF fighters was part of an offensive aimed at also taking control of the Tabqa dam - the largest in Syria - as well as Tabqa town.

More factional warfare to come though. As I would expect pro Assad forces to attempt actions to retake the airport and tabqa dam.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?

I think all the things you listed here are (or were) issues not impossible to solve. Left wing terror and IRA attacks are gone, mass shootings in the US CAN be prevented or at least extremely limited. I don't accept the concept of a modern society, a democracy, with terrorism as a sadly part of its life. Maybe in africa or asia, not here. An harsher society doesn't mean a militarized one, which is something that I don't want. But to punish and prevent (any) crimes in a more efficient way would make the society a better place and maybe you are willing to let someone perish in your country as a good deal to keep the society as you like, I'm not. Those people that died, and the many others that were badly injuried are not numbers.

Italian society is extremely corrupted and thousands are in the mafia system, that's not mean that every italian is linked to mafia. If I say send back the illegals it does not mean that I want to expel anyone that is not from EU, and if I say we should not tolerate radicalism means that I'm against radicalized people and communities (that don't belong to any democracy), not muslims. You seem not able to distinguish those cases.

You are justifying terrorism IMHO as you're basically saying that they choose that way because society doesn't offer a future to some minorities and that's not true, the point is there aren't enough rooms for everyone, that's the ugly truth that people like you don't want to accept. People that belong to a minority have the same chance of success than others, they have to work hard and deserve their success though, because a democracy and a fair society doesn't award someone because of his/her origins but because his/her competence.

Take one of the bruxelles airport's terrorists: his brother is a taekwondo athlete that also represented belgium at the olympic games. People chose their way of living.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?

I think all the things you listed here are (or were) issues not impossible to solve. Left wing terror and IRA attacks are gone, mass shootings in the US CAN be prevented or at least extremely limited. I don't accept the concept of a modern society, a democracy, with terrorism as a sadly part of its life. Maybe in africa or asia, not here. An harsher society doesn't mean a militarized one, which is something that I don't want. But to punish and prevent (any) crimes in a more efficient way would make the society a better place and maybe you are willing to let someone perish in your country as a good deal to keep the society as you like, I'm not. Those people that died, and the many others that were badly injuried are not numbers.

Italian society is extremely corrupted and thousands are in the mafia system, that's not mean that every italian is linked to mafia. If I say send back the illegals it does not mean that I want to expel anyone that is not from EU

Exactly, left wing terror and insurrection throughout the world went on for decades. Islamic terror has been around for a few decades too, but nothing says that it will be impossible to fix or limited in the future. The amount of people dying to Islamic terrorism is already on the decline cause its heyday was during the 2003-2008 period in Iraq when there were daily attacks killing hundreds of thousands to even perhaps a million. The numbers we see today while tragic just don't hold up against those of the previous decade.

You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.

Again you brought up 'vast Muslim communities', if as you say Italians are involved in the maffia I'm going to claim vast Italian communities. See how annoying it is when people just make blanket statements like that? Furthermore the EU already does send back illegals. You know why Italy couldn't deport Amri after his prison time in Italy? Its because Tunisia said no, this leaves us in an awkward diplomatic spot where we can't just drop illegals of in no-mans land.

 Blackie wrote:
I say we should not tolerate radicalism means that I'm against radicalized people and communities (that don't belong to any democracy), not muslims. You seem not able to distinguish those cases.

I'm sorry, you aren't against Muslims? Again when you make comments like 'vast Muslim communities' wanting to overthrown society and link to racist as feth authors calling Rotterdam 'Eurabia' for things like just having a Muslim for a mayor I don't think you can claim the high ground between what I am and aren't able to distinguish against. I very much make this distinction, but it seems your comprehension of my argument is lacking as we go into the next clusterfeth:

 Blackie wrote:
You are justifying terrorism IMHO as you're basically saying that they choose that way because society doesn't offer a future to some minorities and that's not true, the point is there aren't enough rooms for everyone, that's the ugly truth that people like you don't want to accept. People that belong to a minority have the same chance of success than others, they have to work hard and deserve their success though, because a democracy and a fair society doesn't award someone because of his/her origins but because his/her competence.

Take one of the bruxelles airport's terrorists: his brother is a taekwondo athlete that also represented belgium at the olympic games. People chose their way of living.

I never justified terrorism. The fact that I look at the institutional and societal issues that provide a feeding ground for terrorist recruitment does not mean I justify terrorism at all. Any intelligent person will tell you that if you take away the root of a problem, frequently the problem will disappear too. These people frequently chose the path of terror because they are disillusioned with our society for whatever reason, and racism is still a part of the system, making it overall harder for them to achieve regular succes like kids with a European sounding name. I accept the ugly truth, but I see no reason to make it uglier for arguments' sake. We do have to solve the issues of terrorism, but those issues don't stop at just locking up these people and preventing attacks, we have to be proactive. Your claim that minorities have the same chance of succes is as ridiculous as people claiming women have equal chances to men. There has been tons of research done to the point where the Dutch government is considering it illegal to put your name on your CV to prevent institutional racism from just rejecting applicants with a foreign sounding name. You're completely right we don't award someone for their origins as Western society, but we sure as hell reject them for it.

So your argument basically is, look at how his brother did? His brother is a completely different person who's chances of succes and succes in life do not in any way affect his brother. Can you right here and now prove to me that the brother who committed these attacks got exactly the same amount of respect and opportunities as his athlete brother? People chose their own future, but what we need to look into is how and why they made these choices, not just at the result. Stopping terrorism without looking at how they got to that future is basically useless.

Who the feth booby traps a mass grave???

Rhetorical question of course...

There's no low they won't stoop to.

They are preparing for the zombie apocalypse, because at this point the only thing that could make the Middle East worse is a zombie apocalypse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4353586/Syria-threatens-use-SCUD-missiles-Israel.html

hmm much as Syria is a soverign country scuds are unless vastly uograded kinda accurate as a musket ...

patriot batteries/Davids Silng, iron dome And Iron beam plus arrow missiles. any conflict of bombardment might not be as effective as before.

though a dangerous ante up.

 jhe90 wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4353586/Syria-threatens-use-SCUD-missiles-Israel.html

hmm much as Syria is a soverign country scuds are unless vastly uograded kinda accurate as a musket ...

patriot batteries/Davids Silng, iron dome And Iron beam plus arrow missiles. any conflict of bombardment might not be as effective as before.

though a dangerous ante up.

Israel have probably done what they needed to. I said earlier ITT that Israel were probably posturing for internal consumption (threatening to destroy Syrias AD network). I stand by that. Syria are in the same position, Israel did what they needed to, Syria got lucky. Now Assads regime can posture after the fact.

Although sending a message via Russia ups the Ante a wee bit.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.

I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.

At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical. You don't seem to accept that those terrorists mostly belong to muslims communities, and that's not mean that the entire community is radical and helps terrorists. But things like hate preachers or salatiftes speechs in public squares can't be tolerated, and some countries in the name of political correctness close its eyes. There are swimming pools in some countries that force men and women to be separate because muslims complained that they can't be together as they consider it inappropriate, but if they can't bear that men and women can share some entertaining activities together I'm sorry, they aren't going to have a place in a democracy. When in koln german women were harassed by foreigners Sami Abu-Yusu, the milan's imam (not a hate preacher or a terrorist, but a simple imam, very popular and respected among milan's islamic community), said that happened because women wear perfume and tight dresses and those men couldn't do anything to prevent their desire to grope them. Those concepts are all linked to radicalization and accepting that people that think like that are not a problem and they shouldn't be educated to live properly in a western society is exactly the reason why some of them turn into terrorists at a certain point of their life. There are people that live in very difficult areas but usually, if they fail to find a room in their society, they turn into criminals not into terrorists, if they do it's because we had tolerated some hate preachers doing their speechs in the name of freedom of thoughts.


The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.

Fighting terrorism means nothing, as terrorism is not the problem, is the consquence of the problem which is islamic radicalization, and this must be cancelled in a modern society. You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all. You probably think that terrorism can't be defeated unless we live in a sort of big brother with no human rights, I think it's possible in a democratic way.

A problem with everything you've written there is. "itati ok n Required."

There are jerky countries out there I'm sure of it but that's not religions fault, that's the fault of whatever group is in power using religion, division and separation as suitable tools to retain power and divert peoples attention.

"Latveria murders any child named Reed, John or Ben."

Becomes "some countries kill people based solely on their names, people in America, UK and Italy live on gear because of their names."

I feel this needs to be at the bottom of every single post in this thread.

The vast, vast majority of people murdered by Isis are Muslim.

I think it might actually be possible to say that religion has never been responsible for any deaths. Yeah, seems a crazy statement but here me out.

It's always some charismatic jerk, or group of charismatic jerks who have re allowed that they can use some other persona beliefs to their own ends to achieve their own personal goals. Whether that belief is religion, politics, using the bathroom or football teams. It's because some ahole has found something to take advantage of people over and they stand to gain from it, somehow, in some way.

think it might actually be possible to say that religion has never been responsible for any deaths. Yeah, seems a crazy statement but here me out.

It's always some charismatic jerk, or group of charismatic jerks who have re allowed that they can use some other persona beliefs to their own ends to achieve their own personal goals. Whether that belief is religion, politics, using the bathroom or football teams. It's because some ahole has found something to take advantage of people over and they stand to gain from it, somehow, in some way.

You're right, it is crazy.

My counter argument to your counter argument is that in many cases if not every case, Religions are often founded by said charismatic jerks (depending on the religion). Can anyone here honestly say that Mohammad himself was not a charismatic and violent medieval Warlord who used religious conviction for his own ends?

You say Religion is hijacked by charismatic jerks for their own ends. I say they founded and wrote the rulebook for Religion.


Anyway...have you heard of the Aztecs? Human sacrifice was a fundamental part of their religion.

And you do realise that Islamic Sharia Law carries the death penalty for a whole range of crimes? How does that not equate to Religion being responsible for Death?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


And you do realise that Islamic Sharia Law carries the death penalty for a whole range of crimes? How does that not equate to Religion being responsible for Death?

And do you realize that Sharia Law is one of the most vague things in Islam? everyone has their own interpretation, because Sharia law is based on interpreting God's will and there is no such thing as God's approved Sharia FAQ.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.

I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.

We have done almost everything possible to bring down traffic deaths but at one point we just have to accept that it will be impossible to reduce the amount of deaths to zero. Think of it like this, most people would balk at just sacrificing a few thousand people each year at a temple for economic prosperity, yet the car is the altar on which these sacrifices are made for our economy and way of life. In just the Netherlands alone, one to two years of traffic deaths outnumber almost two decades of Islamic terror in Europe. Why are we prepared to give up so many liberties and invasion of privacy to save these people while for example we don't regularly install breathalyzers or speed caps on cars? Its because in the end we don't consider the trade off worth it yet every time there is a terrorist attack we give intelligence agencies a little more power over our society.

 Blackie wrote:
At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical.

Man, its like you're trying to flip generalizing against Muslims on me, let me remind you of some of the things you kept saying:

 Blackie wrote:
Force muslims to really become part of society by making them abandon some of their typical way of living..
EVERY terrorist in europe is a muslim or a person that comes from a muslim country or a european with origins from a muslim country..
Eurabia

 Blackie wrote:
You don't seem to accept that those terrorists mostly belong to muslims communities, and that's not mean that the entire community is radical and helps terrorists. But things like hate preachers or salatiftes speechs in public squares can't be tolerated, and some countries in the name of political correctness close its eyes. There are swimming pools in some countries that force men and women to be separate because muslims complained that they can't be together as they consider it inappropriate, but if they can't bear that men and women can share some entertaining activities together I'm sorry, they aren't going to have a place in a democracy. When in koln german women were harassed by foreigners Sami Abu-Yusu, the milan's imam (not a hate preacher or a terrorist, but a simple imam, very popular and respected among milan's islamic community), said that happened because women wear perfume and tight dresses and those men couldn't do anything to prevent their desire to grope them. Those concepts are all linked to radicalization and accepting that people that think like that are not a problem and they shouldn't be educated to live properly in a western society is exactly the reason why some of them turn into terrorists at a certain point of their life. There are people that live in very difficult areas but usually, if they fail to find a room in their society, they turn into criminals not into terrorists, if they do it's because we had tolerated some hate preachers doing their speechs in the name of freedom of thoughts.

Terrorists come from every walk of life in society. We have had anarchists, socialist and right wing violence in Europe. Pretending that terrorism in Europe is some sort of new thing or that Islamic terrorism is going to be around forever is mighty facetious. We tend to crack down on hate speeches by Muslims and at the same time have far right protests and politicians giving us the same amount of hate speech. WE tolerate both these things to the fullest extent of the law and prosecute both sides for their excesses. What example of political correctness can you give me that was just free to preach forever? Furthermore, did you know there are bathrooms in countries that separate men and women because some Christians can't tolerate being together in that space (see how I use 'some' where you do not, that's how you avoid generalizing) because then sexual assault and stuff? I'm sorry, but if they can't bear men and women sharing a basic human function together then they don't have a place in a democracy (Am I Doing it right?). We have to reform and change those attitudes, progress will march onward whether hyper conservative states like it or not, even in Saudi Arabia you can see examples of women protesting against it nowadays, attitudes change, but time is needed. To say most Muslims in Europe aren't well adjusted is not true.

Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147

Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.
The court in Turin ruled last month that the woman saying "enough" to her colleague who allegedly attacked her was not a strong enough reaction to prove she had been sexually assaulted.
The alleged victim is now facing charges for slander, reports said.

I guess these kinds of things are all tied to Western rape culture. Cause these judges sure as hell weren't Muslims. So do both Western Muslims and 'regular' Westerners lack a certain respect towards women? Yes, in some cases both do! If this is the example we are showing the European Muslims of how to "be educated to live properly in a western society" were sure doing a grand job! Remember guys, its ok as long as she isn't being too loud!!! The disgusting attitude that only Muslims have some sort of perverted view on sexual violence is such a misleading argument, were all equally bad in that regard. I can keep going and link you to the case in my village of the Christian parents selling out their 15 year old daughter as a sex slave to 40 year olds if you want?

More is needed than just hate speech to turn a person into a terrorist. There needs to be the opportunity for that person to be susceptible to the ideology, and that frequently takes the form of perceived social or economic troubles.

 Blackie wrote:
The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.

Fighting terrorism means nothing, as terrorism is not the problem, is the consquence of the problem which is islamic radicalization, and this must be cancelled in a modern society. You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all. You probably think that terrorism can't be defeated unless we live in a sort of big brother with no human rights, I think it's possible in a democratic way.

This is exacly the problem with intelligence agencies. Once they have this type of access they will abuse it and share it with other law agencies. Just ask any American on this board how often police conduct unlawful searches of cars during traffic stops or go through other belongings without the right. Why in the hell should they just be granted acces to our phones too! Why not also our house or bank account if they think you might be a bad person for visiting a strange board called DakkaDakka and going into just the "ISIS" thread, maybe this is all just some secret code?

Again, Islamic radicalization is affected by a multitude of factors that all come down to the social and economic problems these people face growing up, getting an education and finding work. No one gets born as a religious extremist, unless your parents indoctrinate you. But in the end something has to set things in motion that allows this radicalization, something will have had to have happened to either the person or his parents/friends/family in life. I think this is very much possible, so stop with your BS of falsifying what I say with things like "You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all." Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...' we can stop terrorism, it won't be easy, but they stopped the RAF in Germany and the FARC in Colombia, which took decades. There are no shortcuts and pretending it will be around forever is just flat out wrong. We have to adress the structural issues in society that give Islamic radicalization its feeding ground, take away the food and the beast will starve. I don't think at all Islamic terrorism is getting worse, like I said, the 2000's were worse. We are already heading slowly in the right direction, we don't need to take a hard turn on existing policies unless you can actually statistically prove its getting worse or a seriously larger issue. You putting words in my mouth without having a single clue about how the world works comes off as really rich though, nice horse you have there

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4353586/Syria-threatens-use-SCUD-missiles-Israel.html

hmm much as Syria is a soverign country scuds are unless vastly uograded kinda accurate as a musket ...

patriot batteries/Davids Silng, iron dome And Iron beam plus arrow missiles. any conflict of bombardment might not be as effective as before.

though a dangerous ante up.

Israel have probably done what they needed to. I said earlier ITT that Israel were probably posturing for internal consumption (threatening to destroy Syrias AD network). I stand by that. Syria are in the same position, Israel did what they needed to, Syria got lucky. Now Assads regime can posture after the fact.

Although sending a message via Russia ups the Ante a wee bit.

makes sense, but yeah sending it via Russia does give it somewhat a serious aspect.

 Blackie wrote:
At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical.

You know, that seems very reasonable when you put it like that. Except with all the terrible stuff you said elsewhere it's hard to take you seriously on this…

Here is a good rule of thumbs. There are plenty of vocal ex-Muslims that are pretty active in fighting Islamists. Of course there are, I mean Islamists want them dead so…
They usually don't care about being politically correct. But still, they won't back racists and xenophobes, for obvious reasons.
So, to check if something is valuable attacks on Islamism or a terrible display of bigotry, a good way is to read what they have to say about it. And they will definitely tell you that you crossed the line on bigotry long ago, Mr Human-Guinea-Pig.

I'm reminded that i should read the Quran one day so i can further discuss my points. So I'll concede, not personally knowing further about the Muslim faith that i personally am unable to argue my point further. Smarter men than i can, of course. I imagine the answer will be related to the various versions of the faith, including i believe the extreme ends of wahabiism.

I saw an example earlier though on Twitter.



That's not an example of the Baptist flavour of Christianity. It Christianity as a whole. That's just some jerk with something to gain

Edit:
Nevermind

Blackie wrote:I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.

I don't have the sources right now but if I remember correctly most islamic terrorism happens in the middle east (like nearly all of it) with some in Africa and the biggest chunk of it happens in Afghanistan and Iraq (and is a result of these wars). A comparison of car deaths and terrorism leaves you with really skewed numbers. I think it was something along the line of "you are 5000% more likely to die from a car hitting you (as a pedestrian) than you are to die of a terrorist attack" (in the wester developed world). If we had spend a fraction of the money we put into fighting "terrorism" into autonomous vehicle research and humanitarian aid for the regions in the middle east where terrorist "come from" (instead of bombing them to hell and back again) we probably would have few problems with both types of deaths (and that's not even including the US military deaths, PTSD, and suicides). One because of better self-driving cars and the other because we wouldn't have made so many terrorists directly and indirectly by destabilised the region even more. Right now Trump's accepting even more collateral damage while bombing than Obama. That surely won't help with the radicalisation problem :/

The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.

You can't, either your encryption works or it doesn't, security through obscurity or other partly secure schemes just aren't secure. Then you have the "cloud" (meaning servers somewhere on the net) so the data you are looking for might not even be on the phone or be accessible through it. And it doesn't even matter because even if you have a backdoor into some service they can just use another one that's not compromised or get lost in the big haystack that is the internet. If I remember correctly the Paris terrorists simply used SMS for coordination/communication and did their initial planning offline. And look at the recent attack in London. It's one of the cities with the most CCTV cameras yet that didn't help with preventing the attack. Most of the "problems" you hear about from agencies/police only add help the spying agencies to collect more data while at the same time burying them in so much useless data that they they are accidentally poisoning their own dataset with it. Sifting through all that barely related data only slows down their actual work. But it sounds good because you can use it as an excuse after the fact and say you "tried everything".

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Also can someone explain why the mods have no problem with this comment?

The frenchman is triggered

 Stevefamine wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Also can someone explain why the mods have no problem with this comment?

The frenchman is triggered

Wow, you're so edgy ISIS should strap you to an IED to increase lethality.

On topic shade!

Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147
Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.

This italian gem has caused a huge amount of backlash against that judge, which is typically a category that is quite hated in italy. An imam instead is a person that speaks to people and has great influence above them, what an imam thinks and says has certainly more weight. I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately. We're not going to defend and accept behaviour like this if they belong to common citizens but we're going to put our head under the sand if they come from a minority, because we fear to be branded as racists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...'

Not muslims, radical muslims. I actually grew up with some people that happened to be muslims, none of them was radicalized, they all lived like anyone else, just with a different religion. Many northern europeans always talk about including the refugees in their societies, or how the muslim communities are misrepresented but they never had friends among that minorities, and they wouldn't hang out with those people. Many of these defenders of the minorities are actually among the most racists people I met, they do so only because they fear to be called for what they really are, racist people. I'm not referring to you, as I don't know anything about you, but I've met several of them, and it's the reason why in countries like yours, germany, sweden many crimes committed by these minorities are poorly covered and at the same time far right polititians have significant consense. Maybe they won't win the elections (yet) but here in Italy I've never seen polititians like le pen, akesson, wilders or even orban with more than 5-6 %.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately.

Sure. Defending pedophiles will be okay, though .

 Blackie wrote:
Not muslims, radical muslims.

Ahah no. Such dishonesty…

 Blackie wrote:
but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.

You're now arguing that a judge is not a person with a "great influence" over people. This thread is rapidly turning into a car-crash; I should look away, but morbid fascination keeps me coming back.