|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2016 21:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 18:59 xM(Z wrote:On December 21 2016 17:59 Ghostcom wrote:On December 21 2016 17:06 xM(Z wrote:i was looking at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38297302 + Show Spoiler +Woman kicked down stairs in Berlin subway the other day and i couldn't really get it. police had the video tape with those people and couldn't ID/catch them?. was there no database to compare against?. what were people supposed to do there(police asked their help)?. The guy kicking her was caught... you mean people caught him ... I am not quite sure what your problem here is. A criminal kicked a woman down the stairs. The police has a video, and releases it asking whether people know the person kicking her. A guy on a bus recognizes the person, and he gets arrested. Isn't that the result you would want? And no, we don't have Stasi archives anymore. We prefer it that way. the police looked for him for ~2months(she was kicked in october) and couldn't find him. they released the CCTV video in december and had people look for him; people found him.
1)earlier in the page someone was speaking in disbelief about things that he thought would never happen in Germany.
2)why would you spend billions on surveillance when you could use people to do your bidding?(false positives here vs surveillance costs would be a minor inconvenience).
3) how ofter does the police turn to the public for help?(does this rate varies with the attention the case gets in the media/social networks?).
4)how many kickers never get caught because no one cares enough?
you can talk about this for hours but sure, case closed; it's not like it affects other people indirectly and it's not like it could count towards people growing dissatisfaction with the establishment.
it's the little things dude, it's always the little things that pile up.
|
On December 22 2016 00:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 00:18 Tassadar2 wrote:On December 22 2016 00:10 opisska wrote:
On the topic of overreaction to terrorism: in Brno, the second largest city in Czech Republic, they have blocked the entrance to the main square provisionally with a fire cistern, in order to prevent a similar attack to the Berlin one. Tramways have been removed from the idea and a barrier is in construction.
Mind you, I am still talking about a country with zero history of Islamic terrorism a virtually no refugees present (as even those that we try to accept, run to Germany anyway). This is the "security populism" in its purest form.
Such nonsense! (what you are describing, not your post itself) Somehow I get the impression other states are reacting stronger to what happened in berlin than germany. In germany of course the police is alarmed and yes, there are a few idiots who are spouting nonsense, but in general people are calm as f*ck. :-D PS: what was wrong with my post above? Just that I wrote, that I didn't read the discussion you are having right now, or did I make another mistake? I hope you don't mind me asking. Why do you think anything was wrong with your post? Did you receive some negative messages? Because as far as I can see nobody reacted to it negatively - well nobody reacted at all, but that can be essentially seen as agreement, on TL it is generally not usual to provide agreeable responses explicitly.
[Sorry for offtopic @moderators, next post will be on topic again, if I write one.]
No, it was the fact that no one reacted that made me insecure. Because the same thing was happening on facebook at the same time. Three posts - no reaction. If someone called me a r*tard on facebook, I would have known that everythings's normal. :-D
I didn't remember that thing about responses and agreement here on TL. Haven't been here in a long time since I don't like starcraft that much anymore and have had very little time recently.
Greetings, Robert
|
This "you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from terrorism" line of thought is sickening. I certainly hope most people don't think of it in such misguided so-called "probabilistic" terms.
Xkcd and SMBC do a good job of explaining why. It should be obvious that that risk is not so low from lack of trying on the part of terrorists but a result of the fact that a lot of important intelligence work is done to keep it that low. Might as well say that we shouldn't worry about health epidemics as a society because "too few people die from them" or something.
|
On December 22 2016 00:40 LegalLord wrote:This "you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from terrorism" line of thought is sickening. I certainly hope most people don't think of it in such misguided so-called "probabilistic" terms. Xkcd and SMBC do a good job of explaining why. It should be obvious that that risk is not so low from lack of trying on the part of terrorists but a result of the fact that a lot of important intelligence work is done to keep it that low. Might as well say that we shouldn't worry about health epidemics as a society because "too few people die from them" or something.
I disagree with you.
Sure we can ramp up security and install a surveilance state. Maybe we can even defend a few attacks by doing so.
But when we do that the terrorists win. That's exactly what they want: that we change/abandon our free societies. Freedom is more important than security. I'd rather live in a free society for another year and then be killed by a terrorist attack than living till 90 in a surveilance state.
PS: I only looked at the heading of your links because I think I already understand what they are about. But I think if we want to defeat terrorism there is only one option: stop the war(s) in the middle east and pay redemption for the damages we (generally speaking) caused there.
|
On December 22 2016 00:40 LegalLord wrote:This "you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from terrorism" line of thought is sickening. I certainly hope most people don't think of it in such misguided so-called "probabilistic" terms. Xkcd and SMBC do a good job of explaining why. It should be obvious that that risk is not so low from lack of trying on the part of terrorists but a result of the fact that a lot of important intelligence work is done to keep it that low. Might as well say that we shouldn't worry about health epidemics as a society because "too few people die from them" or something.
This is my thoughts on the subject too, luckily only a few hardcore leftists share this deluded logic.
I wonder how the the family's of the dead victims around the world would react if someone told them that.
It's not just about fear, when i turn on the tv and i see that there has been another terrorist attack, the last thing i think of is that "i could be next", yes its obvious that the chance of it ever happening to me is extremely low but its more grief and emotion that i feel for the victims and anger that this could of been avoided. Judging by Opisska's posts here it seems he cares more on what people think about the refugee's then the actual dead victims of terrorism.
|
On December 22 2016 00:40 LegalLord wrote:This "you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from terrorism" line of thought is sickening. I certainly hope most people don't think of it in such misguided so-called "probabilistic" terms. Xkcd and SMBC do a good job of explaining why. It should be obvious that that risk is not so low from lack of trying on the part of terrorists but a result of the fact that a lot of important intelligence work is done to keep it that low. Might as well say that we shouldn't worry about health epidemics as a society because "too few people die from them" or something.
I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't put in the effort to stop terrorism. The response just has to be proportionate to the danger. Oppiska's example, declaring a state of emergency for months like in France or forcing telecom providers to store data of all their consumers is over the top.
EU countries cannot force telecom operators to keep all their customers' data, the EU's top court ruled on Wednesday, weighing in on a privacy debate that has raged since Edward Snowden's 2013 leak on mass surveillance by British and U.S. spies.
Attacks in Europe from France to Belgium - and, on Monday, in Berlin - have reinforced calls for security agencies to be given greater powers, while privacy advocates say mass retention of data is ineffective in the fight against such crimes.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) said its ruling was based on the view that holding traffic and location data en masse allowed "very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained".
Such interference with people's privacy could only be justified by the objective of fighting serious crime and access to data should be subject to prior review by a court or independent body except in urgent cases, it said.
Governments could demand targeted data retention subject to strict safeguards, the ECJ statement said, but the data must be stored within the EU given the risk of unlawful access.
uk.reuters.com
|
So being rational is misguided, deluded and sickening? Honestly, at least from LegalLord (sorry buddy, I am out of ideas how to deface your nick, so back to vanilla, sadly) I would have expected more. Also since when do you argue using webcomics, I thought that is way below your standards.
@Legal specifically: your reasoning lacks internal consistence. The fact that we die so little from almost everything is due to the management of those risks, why it should be taken into account for terrorism specifically? Moreover, you are essentially making my argument for me - there are diseases that affect more people than terrorist attacks in Europe (it's not that hard to find, given the numbers of terror victims in Europe), yet we invest far less money into fighting them than into fighting terrorism. Why?
@Reaps: I wonder how do families of people who died for a reason that does not get so much public attention feel when everyone is suddenly concerned with families of people who died from a terrorist attack, yet nobody gave a shit when their husband died in a "routine" car crash. Or from a rare illness that is understudied because it didn't gain enough public traction due to it being too rare. As for the last sentence, you are again putting into my mouth things I have never said.
|
On December 22 2016 01:12 opisska wrote:
So being rational is misguided, deluded and sickening? Honestly, at least from LegalLord (sorry buddy, I am out of ideas how to deface your nick, so back to vanilla, sadly) I would have expected more. Also since when do you argue using webcomics, I thought that is way below your standards.
@Legal specifically: your reasoning lacks internal consistence. The fact that we die so little from almost everything is due to the management of those risks, why it should be taken into account for terrorism specifically? Moreover, you are essentially making my argument for me - there are diseases that affect more people than terrorist attacks in Europe (it's not that hard to find, given the numbers of terror victims in Europe), yet we invest far less money into fighting them than into fighting terrorism. Why?
@Reaps: I wonder how do families of people who died for a reason that does not get so much public attention feel when everyone is suddenly concerned with families of people who died from a terrorist attack, yet nobody gave a shit when their husband died in a "routine" car crash. Or from a rare illness that is understudied because it didn't gain enough public traction due to it being too rare. As for the last sentence, you are again putting into my mouth things I have never said.
This argument you're making is the same as the gun nuts in the gun thread do, so because people die more from cars or illness we should be fine with insane gun laws that allow people to buy semi automatic rifles and other dangerous weapons with little background checks?
It's a weak argument then and its a weak argument now.
Yesterday you posted that we are "irrational" to spend so much money on security and anti terrorism yet do you have any idea how many terrorists attacks are stopped world wide due to this time and money?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33417300
The UK's most senior counter-terrorism police officer has said up to 50 deadly terror attacks have been stopped since the 7 July bombings.
In the UK alone there was a point where terrorist attacks were being foiled on an almost daily basis, i cant imagine the rest of Europe.. yet you say we shouldn't be spending so much money on terrorism and its almost like you expect people to "accept" it. What do you suggest we should be spending the money on instead.
|
On December 22 2016 01:21 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 01:12 opisska wrote:
So being rational is misguided, deluded and sickening? Honestly, at least from LegalLord (sorry buddy, I am out of ideas how to deface your nick, so back to vanilla, sadly) I would have expected more. Also since when do you argue using webcomics, I thought that is way below your standards.
@Legal specifically: your reasoning lacks internal consistence. The fact that we die so little from almost everything is due to the management of those risks, why it should be taken into account for terrorism specifically? Moreover, you are essentially making my argument for me - there are diseases that affect more people than terrorist attacks in Europe (it's not that hard to find, given the numbers of terror victims in Europe), yet we invest far less money into fighting them than into fighting terrorism. Why?
@Reaps: I wonder how do families of people who died for a reason that does not get so much public attention feel when everyone is suddenly concerned with families of people who died from a terrorist attack, yet nobody gave a shit when their husband died in a "routine" car crash. Or from a rare illness that is understudied because it didn't gain enough public traction due to it being too rare. As for the last sentence, you are again putting into my mouth things I have never said. This argument you're making is the same as the gun nuts in the gun thread do, so because people die more from cars or illness we should be fine with insane gun laws that allow people to buy semi automatic rifles and other dangerous weapons with little background checks? It's a weak argument then and its a weak argument now. Yesterday you posted that we are "irrational" to spend so much money on security and anti terrorism yet do you have any idea how many terrorists attacks are stopped world wide due to this time and money? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-3341730The UK's most senior counter-terrorism police officer has said up to 50 deadly terror attacks have been stopped since the 7 July bombings.In the UK alone there was a point where terrorist attacks were being foiled on an almost daily basis, i cant imagine the rest of Europe.. yet you say we shouldn't be spending so much money on terrorism and its almost like you expect people to "accept" it. What do you suggest we should be spending the money on instead.
Well, it's worth adding that this is over 10 years (probably for UK people, saying July 7 is enough to know the year, but for me it is not a date that would ring a bell immediately). Then there is the question how many of those would actually cause death and how many would have been stopped by a state functioning as usual. And there is the looming question "what do you expect from a counter-terrorism police office do say" on this topic, but let's not be overly speculative.
In any case, i think RvB above has pretty much said it - there needs to be proportionality, not "X happened, let's all freak out and enact a slew of questionable measures" kind of approach that we see so often - and that we have shown examples of.
|
So apparently some guy from Tunisia left his papers in the truck, he's supposedly known for having contacts with extremists and they're looking for him...
How does someone leaving his papers in there even happen in the first place... that sounds like a bad joke
|
On December 22 2016 00:40 LegalLord wrote:This "you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die from terrorism" line of thought is sickening. I certainly hope most people don't think of it in such misguided so-called "probabilistic" terms. Xkcd and SMBC do a good job of explaining why. It should be obvious that that risk is not so low from lack of trying on the part of terrorists but a result of the fact that a lot of important intelligence work is done to keep it that low. Might as well say that we shouldn't worry about health epidemics as a society because "too few people die from them" or something.
That's just terribly misleading and wrong. Your conditional risk hasn't increased significantly. Just because a terror attack happened doesn't mean that your chances just went from safety to "serial killer in your living room". Even if one terror attack makes subsequent attacks more likely, the chances off you individually being affected are still astronomically small.
|
I think he's trying to say that people are stupid for still going to Christmas markets (or any other event like that) despite knowing that those things happen?
Instead of being aware of the situation and thus avoiding those situations to not become a target.
Not sure I agree with that either.
|
On December 22 2016 01:43 Toadesstern wrote:
I think he's trying to say that people are stupid for still going to Christmas markets (or any other event like that) despite knowing that those things happen?
Instead of being aware of the situation and thus avoiding those situations to not become a target.
The bolded is something I'm trying to say, the earlier statement not so much.
Failure to properly address the problem of terrorism, a very real and present threat if not properly considered, turns the risk into something far greater than it would be otherwise. The answer may not be police state, but it certainly isn't, "oh, this is rare, don't worry about it!"
|
If that's the level of risk that LegalLord wants to avoid he literally cannot leave his house any more, let alone drive his car through regular traffic which kills a few thousand people every year. There's nothing cynical, deflective or even leftist(wat?) about pointing this out.
The police state isn't the answer to anything.
|
Not to mention that LegalLord lives afaik in the US, so he'd just get shot be a legally held weapon before everything else  Anyway, I hope I didn't troll out the thread too much, these are really views that I have, but I feel that I didn't really do them justice by just stopping by and showing them, however I am a little short on time to go into details and argue it out properly, sorry about that (and I would lose in Legal's presence anyway). I am off for two weeks, so you'd have your peace back now.
|
Well, that was probably the most bizarre typo ever.
I meant that police state is probably not the answer, missing a very inopportune "not" there. In some cases it is, definitely not in modern Europe's case though.
In any case, as usually happens with this specific discussion, no one will want to yield one way or another and I'm not in the mood for treatise-post wars, so I will simply say "you are more likely to get struck by lightning than die by terrorism" and bow out.
|
On December 22 2016 01:38 Toadesstern wrote:
So apparently some guy from Tunisia left his papers in the truck, he's supposedly known for having contacts with extremists and they're looking for him...
How does someone leaving his papers in there even happen in the first place... that sounds like a bad joke
Yeah I bet conspiracy theorists everywhere think the attack was a false flag operation now
|
On December 22 2016 01:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 01:43 Toadesstern wrote:
I think he's trying to say that people are stupid for still going to Christmas markets (or any other event like that) despite knowing that those things happen?
Instead of being aware of the situation and thus avoiding those situations to not become a target.
The bolded is something I'm trying to say, the earlier statement not so much. Failure to properly address the problem of terrorism, a very real and present threat if not properly considered, turns the risk into something far greater than it would be otherwise. The answer may be police state, but it certainly isn't, "oh, this is rare, don't worry about it!"
I just don't think anyone here wants a police state.
Let's take Testie's "people want their peaceful times back!" or whatever it was. We're probably not going to get rid of people shooting up cinema's in the US, in Europe or anywhere else. At least not for good. We're probably not going to get rid of people dying in (normal) traffic accidents for good either.
Yet when it comes to this it turns into a black and white discussion. Of course we want to reduce the amount of people dying in traffic accidents as well, but we're not banning cars just because that's the only option we see to bring it back to 0 like it was before the car was invented.
//just saw that it was a typo and your response. Ignore in that case
|
On December 22 2016 01:59 LegalLord wrote:
Well, that was probably the most bizarre typo ever.
I meant that police state is probably not the answer, missing a very inopportune "not" there. In some cases it is, definitely not in modern Europe's case though.
In any case, as usually happens with this specific discussion, no one will want to yield one way or another and I'm not in the mood for treatise-post wars, so I will simply say "you are more likely to get struck by lightning than die by terrorism" and bow out.
It was just your subconscious mind taking control for a brief moment, admit it.
|
On December 22 2016 02:00 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 01:38 Toadesstern wrote:
So apparently some guy from Tunisia left his papers in the truck, he's supposedly known for having contacts with extremists and they're looking for him...
How does someone leaving his papers in there even happen in the first place... that sounds like a bad joke Yeah I bet conspiracy theorists everywhere think the attack was a false flag operation now
What's definitely true is that Germany's police done fucked if it just so happens that it's not their guy. I would think ISIS operatives would be smart enough to plant a false lead in the truck just to discredit the intel folk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
