|
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 26 2016 22:45 mustaju wrote:
-It's extremely difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, and the methods we use can easily be counterproductive. I don't think people really realize what kind of society we would need to have to prevent the sort of attack that occurred in Nice or Berlin.
No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part.
The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras!
And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam...  And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness...
There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...)
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 26 2016 23:12 TheDwf wrote:No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part. The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras! And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam... And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness... There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...)
There are always things one can do better, preventative measures and people will be incompetent. I was more alluding to the fact that having a death toll of zero would have been extremely hard, once a person like him was committed. Thank you for clarifying, however. Nice seems like a worse example now.
|
On December 26 2016 23:20 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 23:12 TheDwf wrote:No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part. The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras! And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam... And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness... There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...) There are always things one can do better, preventative measures and people will be incompetent. I was more alluding to the fact that having a death toll of zero would have been extremely hard, once a person like him was committed. Thank you for clarifying, however. Nice seems like a worse example now.
Yeah, and similarly there's no way to stop 100% of the attacks, you're right and no one serious will dispute that. But security services and politicians tend to abuse this “no zero risk” to cover their own mistakes/failures/malfunctions, or lack of anticipation.
The French system is a complete mess, for instance. From memory there are like 9 services which can handle terrorist stuff, 3 different coordination structures (!), several data bases, and apparently rivalries/conflicts between different services (with communication problems, etc.). Bureaucracy at its finest.
For Charlie Hebdo, one of the future perpetrators actually came for reconnaissance and asked a neighbour the location of Charlie Hebdo. He asked: “is it here that they insult the Prophet?” (!) and threatened Charlie Hebdo. This incident was reported... nothing happened.
One of Charlie Hebdo's journalists was put on Al-Qaïda “kill list,” yet a few months later they actually removed half of the people who were in charge of his security.
When the attack happened, one of the two people in charge of this journalist's security was apparently... doing groceries. Can you fucking believe that?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016.
|
On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
??
Out of all attacks in France, only a few terrorists took some migrant route to come (and they don't even need it to come back unseen...). Most of the criminals were French or European anyway. Even the Nice guy who wasn't French was here for 10 years. France took almost no migrant.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 27 2016 02:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events. ?? Out of all attacks in France, only a few terrorists took some migrant route to come (and they don't even need it to come back unseen...). Most of the criminals were French or European anyway. Even the Nice guy who wasn't French was here for 10 years. France took almost no migrant.
Did they coordinate with ISIS to stage the attacks?
You seem to miss the point of my statement, where "decentralized" rather than "migrant" is the core problem.
|
On December 26 2016 23:12 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 22:45 mustaju wrote:
-It's extremely difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, and the methods we use can easily be counterproductive. I don't think people really realize what kind of society we would need to have to prevent the sort of attack that occurred in Nice or Berlin. No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part. The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras! And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam... And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness... There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...)
So every event held everywhere should be utterly closed off and with full police protection on every corner?
Someone once used a truck somewhere? Do you wanne know how many different ways have been used to stage attacks by terrorists/crazies/angry partners/whatever? To many to count and to many to all cover at all times for all events ever
Driving under the nose of camera's. Implying that those camera's are constantly monitors which is again a hilarious proposition. Those camera's exist so that if a crime happens and the police is alert to it they can go back and review the footage. If people don't see him driving on the pavement and call the police about it they will not know.
Or do you want to hire another few hundred people per city to stare at camera images 24/7?
Should police stop every single vehicle that enters every city at all times to check its weight or permits? Again, simply not realistic possible.
Stop and think for a moment how many gatherings there are in just a single country every single day and consider the amount of resources needed to protect every single one of them from all possible threats at all times.
Its simply impossible.
|
On December 27 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 02:08 TheDwf wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events. ?? Out of all attacks in France, only a few terrorists took some migrant route to come (and they don't even need it to come back unseen...). Most of the criminals were French or European anyway. Even the Nice guy who wasn't French was here for 10 years. France took almost no migrant. Did they coordinate with ISIS to stage the attacks?
Unclear for Nice, for the 13 November it definitely was.
On December 27 2016 04:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 23:12 TheDwf wrote:On December 26 2016 22:45 mustaju wrote:
-It's extremely difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, and the methods we use can easily be counterproductive. I don't think people really realize what kind of society we would need to have to prevent the sort of attack that occurred in Nice or Berlin. No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part. The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras! And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam... And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness... There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...) So every event held everywhere should be utterly closed off and with full police protection on every corner?
There were almost 30 000 people on that avenue to watch the fireworks, so yes when dozens of thousands of people are gathered in a tight area AND you already had attacks before AND the threat is still there, you make sure that you have basic measures ready.
Someone once used a truck somewhere? Do you wanne know how many different ways have been used to stage attacks by terrorists/crazies/angry partners/whatever? To many to count and to many to all cover at all times for all events ever
Yeah, except using trucks is specifically in AQ/ISIS' instructions, and cops had blocked the main road—which means that this option (an attack with a vehicle) was considered. Too bad that the geniuses in charge forgot that maybe terrorists wouldn't bother to respect traffic regulations and would circumvent the barrage by using the pavement!
Driving under the nose of camera's. Implying that those camera's are constantly monitors which is again a hilarious proposition. Those camera's exist so that if a crime happens and the police is alert to it they can go back and review the footage. If people don't see him driving on the pavement and call the police about it they will not know.
Or do you want to hire another few hundred people per city to stare at camera images 24/7?
You can't know since you're not familiar with the situation, but the local bineuronal right-wing baron bragged about his cameras after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, claiming that if Paris had the same security system as Nice, “[the terrorists] would not have passed 3 crossroads” (quoting literally). 18 months later, 86 dead + hundreds of wounded in his city despite his beloved cameras. So the point is precisely that cameras are absolutely useless to prevent this kind of thing, contrary to what demagogues like this guy claim.
Should police stop every single vehicle that enters every city at all times to check its weight or permits? Again, simply not realistic possible.
The regulation bans trucks above 3.5 tons. That vehicle was a 19 tons. It could move freely for hours within the city. Something failed. End of story.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life.
I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016.
I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region.
|
If you guys want to see a disgusting movie that moves beyond normalizing the police state into outright lionization check out Mark Wahlberg's upcoming rubbish.
|
On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. Show nested quote +I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region.
Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values.
Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone.
Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example.
Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power.
|
On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power.
The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries.
As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history.
As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry.
|
We've seen how great 'safe corridors' and local help works in Rwanda and Srebrenica. And I think people were finally a little tired of seeing countless people being slaughtered followed by the inevitable "well who could have known huh".
|
On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry.
It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own.
Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe.
|
On December 26 2016 23:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 23:20 mustaju wrote:On December 26 2016 23:12 TheDwf wrote:No! Stopping the Nice attack was a piece of cake; all that was needed was some device to prevent a vehicle from physically entering the area. Literally anything would have done it: a police truck parked there, concrete studs... And those things WERE used during the football Euro before. Nice is a massive, spectacular failure from people who were in charge of security. They have no excuse (this “ram vehicle” modus operandi was known, and was even used in another city in 2014 by some psycho...); it was complete incompetence/negligence from their part. The truck was not even authorized to drive there (too heavy), cops should have stopped it as soon as it entered the city! Recently, a newspaper even revealed that, apparently, the author of the attack tested eleven times his route with the truck, driving on the pavement (again illegal!) just under the nose of the goddamn cameras! And instead of blaming relevant authorities for that, the debate once again revolved around islam... And the state of emergency was again prolonged despite proving its complete uselessness... There is no need to resort to racist or totalitarian methods to fold this kind of attack, basic security and common sense would have been enough to save dozens of lives in Nice. (And there were similar malfunctions for Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan...) There are always things one can do better, preventative measures and people will be incompetent. I was more alluding to the fact that having a death toll of zero would have been extremely hard, once a person like him was committed. Thank you for clarifying, however. Nice seems like a worse example now. Yeah, and similarly there's no way to stop 100% of the attacks, you're right and no one serious will dispute that. But security services and politicians tend to abuse this “no zero risk” to cover their own mistakes/failures/malfunctions, or lack of anticipation. The French system is a complete mess, for instance. From memory there are like 9 services which can handle terrorist stuff, 3 different coordination structures (!), several data bases, and apparently rivalries/conflicts between different services (with communication problems, etc.). Bureaucracy at its finest.
For Charlie Hebdo, one of the future perpetrators actually came for reconnaissance and asked a neighbour the location of Charlie Hebdo. He asked: “is it here that they insult the Prophet?” (!) and threatened Charlie Hebdo. This incident was reported... nothing happened. One of Charlie Hebdo's journalists was put on Al-Qaïda “kill list,” yet a few months later they actually removed half of the people who were in charge of his security. When the attack happened, one of the two people in charge of this journalist's security was apparently... doing groceries. Can you fucking believe that?
In this US, we have 17 intelligence agencies, and the two biggest ones (FBI, CIA) dislike each other strongly and think each is dumb lol
|
On December 27 2016 15:06 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own. Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe.
Actually, the current path seems to be the most costly by far to Europe's own people. Far more costly than if you protected your border against countries that have gone to hell.
|
Perhaps the discourse on the "refugee" crisis would be better articulated if every single person seeking asylum in Europe wasn't called a refugee. Legally they are refugees, but not always actually are refugees.
A refugee is anyone escaping imminent threat of death. They don't really care where they go, so long as they aren't getting bombed.
An economic migrant is someone who is coming from a poorer country in search of a better life in another one.
A terrorist refugee is someone pretending to be a refugee in order to cause destruction.
I believe that anyone with a brain wishes to help refugees. We are all human. Where it gets muddled is that a huge % of "refugees" are economic migrants, and some "refugees" have no intention to run away from bombs but to bring bombs.
My grandparents during WW2 were young children and escaped from Poland. One ran away as far as India(!!!) to get away from the war. Then he returned to Poland.
During the Vietnam war, refugees were accepted in to Poland. The vast majority of them left when it was safe.
While more than three million refugees settled in the United States from 1945 to 2000, American support of the UNHCR was based on the belief that most refugees wanted to return home when conditions permitted and not necessarily immigrate to the United States.
Source: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Refugee-Policies-Refugees-and-the-cold-war.html
The anti economic migrant view is much more understandable than the anti refugee one. I can even understand it knowing that most of my friends and family left Poland for western countries for a better life. Especially after Poland joined the EU.
The problem is that it is quite hard to differentiate a refugee from an economic migrant. You can't do it by skin colour. They are smart enough to pass any "values" interview even if they believe anti-western things. You can't do it by country, since a Sunni might be safe in one country where in the same country a Shia is persecuted. In the same vein, it is hard to differentiate a terrorist from a refugee.
Anyways, the thought police are always out and about so I'll stop there.
|
On December 27 2016 16:10 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 15:06 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own. Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe. Actually, the current path seems to be the most costly by far to Europe's own people. Far more costly than if you protected your border against countries that have gone to hell.
Exactly what would be less costly? People will not stop coming unless they are shot at the border. Turning them back will destabilize the region they came from, potentially creating more refugees. Shooting them will create massive backlashes from liberals and the terrorist narrative of a war against Islam gets more headlines. In the short term, maybe some terrorists are foiled. It could easily also radicalize parts of the native populations. However, shutting our borders during others times of need will definitely have long term effects. The EU is not defending themselves from countries at the moment, it is doing their best to not make a humanitarian crisis worse.
EDIT: Earlier I claimed that the terrorist attacks were lone wolf attacks, Foreign Affairs disagrees. I was likely wrong.
|
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/islamic-state-changing-terror-tactics-to-maintain-threat-in-europe As the so-called Islamic State (IS) loses ground in the Middle East, the pattern of its recent terrorist attacks in Europe suggests that it has already adopted new tactics to attack the West. These developments are highlighted in the report Changes in Modus Operandi of IS revisited published today by Europol’s European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC). The report provides an up-to date assessment of the threat this group poses to the EU, on which basis EU Member States can prepare for future attacks. Currently the EU is facing a range of terrorist threats and attacks: from networked groups to lone actors; attacks directed by IS and those inspired by IS; the use of explosives and automatic rifles as well as bladed weapons and vehicles; and carefully prepared attacks alongside those that seem to be carried out spontaneously. The so-called Islamic State has proven to be very effective in inspiring people to commit terrorist acts and in setting attacks in motion themselves. ... Ten key judgements of Europol’s Changes in Modus Operandi of IS revisited:
1) Further attacks in the EU, both by lone actors and groups, are likely to be attempted. Estimates from some intelligence services indicate several dozen people directed by IS may be currently present in Europe with a capability to commit terrorist attacks.
2) In addition to France and Belgium, all other EU Member States that are part of the US-led coalition against IS may be targeted by terrorists led or inspired by IS.
3) The most probable scenario is the use of the same modus operandi, including the same types of weapons, used in earlier attacks.
4) If IS is defeated or severely weakened in Syria/Iraq by the coalition forces, there may be an increased rate in the return of foreign fighters and their families from the region to the EU or to other conflict areas.
5) Counter-terrorism experts expect that IS will start planning and dispatching attacks from Libya.
6) Modi operandi employed in Syria and Iraq, such as the use of car bombs, extortion and kidnappings may be employed as methods of attack in the EU.
7) The apparent preference for soft targets means that attacking critical infrastructure such as power grids and nuclear facilities is currently not a priority for IS.
8) Elements of the Syrian refugee diaspora may be vulnerable to radicalisation once in Europe and may be targeted by extremist recruiters. Given that it is in the interests of IS to inflame the migration crisis to polarise the EU population and turn sections of it against those seeking asylum, some infiltration of refugee camps and other refugee/migrant groups is likely.
9) Contacts between terrorists and career criminals are generally of a very pragmatic and opportunistic character, and for very specific purposes only. However, the relative incidence of such cases in which there are connections appears to have increased. Typically this is because terrorists are known for previous criminal activity and/or because they make use of organised crime networks in the preparation of attacks, e.g. to obtain false identity documents and/or firearms.
10) What should not be overlooked is that IS is not the only terrorist organisation with the intent and capability to carry out attacks against the West, or to inspire individuals and groups residing in EU Member States to do so. Al Qaeda and / or Al-Nusra affiliated or inspired groups and individuals continue to pose a serious threat to Member States of the EU and to Western interests in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
