|
|
On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion.
You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad.
The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that.
Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion.
Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun.
|
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco.
|
On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun.
Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor?
Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point.
Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this.
I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents.
|
On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco.
Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not.
|
10000 armored soldiers stationed on the streets in France? Ridiculous! Everybody knows that this will only be temporary, it will burn tons of money and it won't do anything except create an atmosphere of fear. Terrorist attacks are really hard to prevent, and having soldiers stand around certainly isn't a way to do it. This won't prevent anyone from, say, arming a model airplane or quadrocopter with a self-made bomb and flying it into the nearest football stadium. Or anyone could easily take a whole suitcase full of explosives into a train and blow it up. There are just too many attack vectors. Patrolling soldiers won't do shit, and neither will mass surveillance. The solution must be to combat the source of the problem, which is largely a socio-economic and geopolitical matter.
|
On January 12 2015 20:58 Scorch wrote:
The solution must be to combat the source of the problem, which is largely a socio-economic and geopolitical matter.
Absolutely.
|
On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco.
What freedoms exactly are being lost by having some soldiers stand around for a few days in some cities?
Let's not overreact just yet.
|
On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents.
If I were the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. Also, by attacking the square guarded by armed soldiers, I'd show that I'm not afraid of the military either, showing in another way that military presence does not make a difference. Also, why wouldn't I attack the square with the soldiers? I'm expecting (and wish) to die a martyr anyway.
This is what terrorists want: they want people to be afraid. "Terror" means extreme fear. Terrorists want to instill extreme fear in the people they seek to terrorise. If you show that you are afraid of them in any way (e.g. by allowing your liberties to be taken away for more protection) then they win. Showing them that you won't let that happen, even if it might cost you your life, is the right thing to do. This is what happened in France yesterday.
The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons.
Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this.
|
On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this.
Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11?
Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same.
Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore.
|
On January 12 2015 21:03 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. What freedoms exactly are being lost by having some soldiers stand around for a few days in some cities? Let's not overreact just yet.
+1
On January 12 2015 20:58 Scorch wrote:
The solution must be to combat the source of the problem, which is largely a socio-economic and geopolitical matter.
this.
On January 12 2015 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 09:49 Scorch wrote:On January 12 2015 01:26 Scorch wrote:
I just hope this won't lead to even more tensions between the West and Islamic countries, or with muslim communities in western countries. I also hope all the "anti-terrorism" surveillance madness doesn't escalate further. Yup. Here we go.Already, interior ministers propose more flight passenger surveillance, tighter border controls and modifications to the Schengen treaty. Ways of re-establishing data retention and sharing surveillance data with the US are also being discussed. We'll get our very own Patriot Act eventually, big brother throws our civil liberties out the window and the terrorists win. Well lucky for you we already have the top rated cable news outlet lamenting the fact that France didn't already have police in body armor with assault rifles already roaming the streets for general security prior to the shootings. I feel for people with young children, I have no idea how all of this doesn't lead to significant world wide conflict. I mean it feels like the people in power now make leaders from the Cold War era look reasonable, and as calm as a herd of Hindu cattle.
it just goes to show how "far out there" some people already are. to live happily ever after in a police state is about as realistic as to live in a world without any weapons.
//edit:
Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue.
that is not true if you don't add that it is linked to failed international policies/interventions/wars abroad. the people are local, but they are most definitely not fighting their own little, misguided jihad.
|
On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents.
Well, there are several far right governments in Europe, in fact Denmark has a majority right wing government and the coalition contains what many people would consider a far right party. Furthermore, there is the upcoming Pegida in Germany, the PVV in the Netherlands, the British village idiot, and not to mention le Penn in France....
You suggest living in a police-state governed by fear and guns is preferable to an open, free society. The best thing to do is show you are not afraid, and unwilling to change, and that there will always be freedom to be an idiot (if you want to be). But believe it or not there is a limit to free speech, for example, if someone espoused hitlers ideas at this time, should he be allowed to do that (in the name of free speech)? Í don't think so, and in fact there are rules against hate mongering.
People who do these things often come from impoverished backgrounds, with no future prospects, they meet someone who gives them a meaning to their life (usually an imam) and they are brainwashed fundementalists before you can say al-queda.
But don't be so ignorant as to believe only muslims can be fundamentalists, it is not the religion which causes these actions it is fundamentalism, which makes people believe they have the only correct answer, and it happens in every religion, including atheism.
|
On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore.
The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns.
9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected.
The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas.
Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose.
|
On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not.
How about second hand smoke?
|
On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke?
Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away 
|
On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose.
I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world.
|
the 10 000 soldiers aren't gonna last long, this is indeed a short term solution, or i would say a pure political move
half of them will be assigned to jew school and synagogue only, which is huge
from a political point of view he(the president) wants to be sure to have all the vote from the people that are jewish (huge community, 600k iirc)
|
On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected.The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people.In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose.
that would be an argument against having "the best intelligence services" - no?
throwing money at the problem and giving those people toys the stasi or any other totalitarian government could have only dreamed of won't help.
what good is a data base as big as the NSA's (they basically can have an image of everything 2014 of the internet/telecommunications/etc...) if you don't have the manpower and the people smart enough to connect the dots?
people have to get smart again.
On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke?
please don't say you are a non smoking nazi... yes it's bad for you and all, but if people want to do it - OUTSIDE - let them.
|
On January 12 2015 21:47 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2015 20:56 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems if people really want to sacrifice freedoms for saving lives we should probably start with tobacco. Smoking tobacco is a spontaneous choice: being killed by a shooter while you're buying grooceries it's not. How about second hand smoke? Well inside it's forbidden and outside you can just move/ask to move few steps away
What about children at home or in the car?
From what I hear the enforcement on those bans is rather meh too.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore.
Lines like this always give me the shivers.
|
On January 12 2015 21:48 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2015 21:42 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 21:30 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 21:22 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:55 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:40 maartendq wrote:On January 12 2015 20:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 12 2015 20:13 Simberto wrote:
Most countries have this principle that the army is not supposed to do police work. It is a very good idea to distinguish those two forces very clearly. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the laws against citizens of your own country, while the military forces are supposed to protect you from outside forces. Historically, if you do not have this distinction, you have a lot of problems with military coups and oppression, as the military tends to be a lot less careful when dealing with problems when compared to the police.
Thus, having military personnel do the jobs of the police is very problematic.
And personally, i don't feel save around people with assault rifles. Even if they are there to protect me, that implies that the situation is so unsafe that you need people in body armor and with assault rifles around. But the situation is exactly like that. When criminals are ready to suicide themselves in order to kill more people, the situation is exactly like that. Of course we could just all close our eyes and dull ourselves in a false sense of security but reality isn't forgiving. I also really don't get the 'restrictions' comment. Suppose all our elevators travel at 10 m/s. Then bad incidents happen and people start to say 'we should put a cap at 5 m/s'. How could anyone complain about this restraining our freedom? This is exactly what is happening with the Schengen discussion. You cannot protect yourself against terrorists, no matter how hard you try. You can buy a weapon and ammo faster than security forces notice you're about to do something really bad. The whole Schengen discussion is right-wing politicians wanting to win votes from ignorant voters (which is sadly the majority of voters nowadays). Terrorist attacks in Europe are done by people who have been living here all their lives, by Europeans. Not by outsiders. Altering the Schengen agreements (which will never happen because Germany and most of the Eastern European countries won't allow it) will do nothing to change that. Your behaviour is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want: a population that cowers in fear for the next potential attack, and that will gladly give up their freedoms to have a little more security. The good reaction against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you, that you will not bow downto violence and extortion. Also, people are dozens, if not hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident than to die in a terrorist attack. Apparently that doesn't stop people from driving their cars everywhere and resisting stricter traffic regulation because speeding and treating the road like a rally track is too damn fun. Firs thing, saying that you can't protect yourself from terrorism is false. You can't prevent it from happening but that's different. It's similar to death (sad analogy, I know): you can't prevent it but does that mean you should not take medicine or visit a doctor? Your second paragraph is self-rebutting. If the majority of people are ignorant voters and as you claim right-wing movements appeal to those voters, why are there not any far right governments in Europe? Also, Schengen applies to people circulating between european countries, so why do you say 'attacks done by people who have been living here all their lives'? That is exactly the point. Third, your reasoning would almost be ok if we were not talking about human lifes. If you were a terrorist, would you rather attack a country where policemen don't even have guns or one where in every square there are 2 soldiers with m16 and bullet-proof? 'Good reactions against terrorism is showing that it did not affect you' that is true but if people die that's not so good. We should continue living our lifes, using metros, planes and busses. More security will not hinder this. I won't even comment the last paragraph since it is an insult to victims both in terrorist attacks and car accidents. If I was the terrorist, I'd attack the square with the two soldiers carrying m16s. If they'd try to hit me, chances are that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die as well, showing people that apparently even the military can't protect them from terrorists. That would scare the people a lot more than attacking a place guarded by unarmed policemen. The terrorists in France were French people, i.e. French nationals. No amount of amending the Schengen agreements would have stopped them from doing what they did. Anders Breivik was a Norwegian national. Three of the London bombers were British nationals. Terrorism in Europe is a domestic issue. Politicians want to amend the Schengen agreements for economic reasons (i.e. they want to persue more protectionist policies), not for national security reasons. Right wing movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Hungary... If you'd keep up with international news you'd know this. Then you'd not be a very smart terrorist. Every attack until now has been organized against unprotected targets. How many planes hijacking have there been after 9/11? Revising Schengen may help in dealing with terrorist groups in Europe - we don't know the links between french, german, italian cells (just to name some). If one is not doing anything illegal, everything will be the same. Maybe they are on the rise because actual governments suck terribly? Oh no, clearly they are all fascists. Please. This moral high grounding by socialist and left movements maybe was working in the '60s: people do not believe it anymore. The offices of Charlie Hebdo were protected by two (armed) police officers. They were both killed without even being able to draw their guns. 9/11 managed to scare US citizens into accepting the patriot act. Despite having arguably the best intelligence services in the world, the US could not prevent two planes from flying into two towers that basically symbolised American economic power, killing thousands of people. US soil is far from unprotected. The same with the London bombings: MI5 is incredibly competent but could not stop domestic terrorists from killing 52 people. In Afghanistan and Iraq, suicide bombers managed to do damage and kill scores of people even in heavily guarded areas. Conventional military methods will never stop terrorists who assume and accept that they are going to die on their mission. After all, they have nothing to lose. I really cannot understand your positions, sorry. They killed 2 guards at Hebdo's offices therefore your solution is removing guards from places at risk? It would work in an uthopia maybe but not in this world.
I did not say that it was a solution, I just said that armed forces will not stop people who want to kill others and expect (and want) to die doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
