Support for all my British friends

[MigL]

It seems those bastards are now targeting Europe, and especially Britain, instead of America.

I offer my sympathy and support.

[KipIngram]

Likewise.

[Sensei]

It seems those bastards are now targeting Europe, and especially Britain, instead of America.

 

They are doing it to influence election..

[KipIngram]

That's very possible. I don't really understand the logic they're expecting people to apply, though - this sort of thing would make me want a tougher-minded government in place, not a less-tough-minded one.

[Delta1212]

That's very possible. I don't really understand the logic they're expecting people to apply, though - this sort of thing would make me want a tougher-minded government in place, not a less-tough-minded one.

That is exactly the logic right there.

[KipIngram]

Why would the terrorists want a less-negotiation-minded adversary in control? Surely they don't really think they can win a full-on showdown. If I were in their position I'd want the most conciliatory, discussion-minded adversary possible. Not that I think they really want to negotiate, but that would be the environment that would let them "get away with more."

[Sensei]

That's very possible. I don't really understand the logic they're expecting people to apply,

They want to force election of parties which want to abandon the rest of Europe, split Europe, and destroy it from the inside.

 

this sort of thing would make me want a tougher-minded government in place, not a less-tough-minded one.

Because you're intellectual person.

For non-intellectual voter, it would work exactly reverse.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Sensei

[imatfaal]

It is another attack in an area I know well and frequent - just makes me more determined not to give into to fear

I am afraid that Sensei is correct - but I think that it will have the opposite effect to that which the scumbag terrorists hope for. We will not allow this to breed extremism - not of the islamic sort, nor of the anti-islamic sort.

[dimreepr]

That's very possible. I don't really understand the logic they're expecting people to apply, though - this sort of thing would make me want a tougher-minded government in place, not a less-tough-minded one.

 

One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it; we don't need tough, we need understanding.

[KipIngram]

 

One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it; we don't need tough, we need understanding.

 

I think that depends entirely on their mind set. If it's just a myth that they truly want "infidels" dead, then understanding is what we want. But if it's not a myth then understanding won't help. So you have an opinion on that, and it could be right. Each of us has to form an opinion on that in order to have rational thoughts about what we should do. But none of us knows for sure whether we're right or not.

[Phi for All]

I stand in support of my sisters and brothers across the pond, and trust in their ability to recognize the heartless acts of tiny, cowardly, fear-mongering extremists. We desperately need your example of honor and integrity in the world today, as we refuse to cower under those who use such incidents to command us into aggression instead of leading us to understanding.

[dimreepr]

 

I think that depends entirely on their mind set. If it's just a myth that they truly want "infidels" dead, then understanding is what we want. But if it's not a myth then understanding won't help. So you have an opinion on that, and it could be right. Each of us has to form an opinion on that in order to have rational thoughts about what we should do. But none of us knows for sure whether we're right or not.

 

Ever broke a wall beating your head against it?

 

Understand how the wall was built, then all you need is one bricks removal.

Edited June 4, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

Why would the terrorists want a less-negotiation-minded adversary in control? Surely they don't really think they can win a full-on showdown. If I were in their position I'd want the most conciliatory, discussion-minded adversary possible. Not that I think they really want to negotiate, but that would be the environment that would let them "get away with more."

It's an intentional exploit of the cycle of violence phenomenon and has been utilized successfully by insurgent groups throughout human history. You launch an attack which inspires a crackdown, then use the crackdown to justify launching more attacks.

 

The people who resort first to violence are always the hardliners. Negotiating is, as you say, not their goal. Having an understanding opponent who is willing to negotiate gives moderates cover to try negotiating, sapping strength from the hardliner cause. Having an opponent with whom no negotiation is possible pushes moderates toward the hardliner stance because they lack any other options, bolstering their support.

 

You want an opponent who is going to turn away potential allies and remove the possibility for any solution other than the violent one you are advocating.

 

Responses born of fear and anger tend to be stupid responses. This is no less true of governments than it is of people. Goading the opponent into becoming angry, fearful and stupid is a primary objective of most of these attacks.

[KipIngram]

Ah - I see what you mean. Ultimately its a strategy to influence your (potential) sympathizers, not the enemy. it makes sense when you look at it that way. And likewise, maintaining an understanding approach defeats that by making it less likely for the terrorists to gain new support amongst their own people.

 

So yeah, I agree with that - the uncertainty I made reference to becomes one re: the beliefs of bulk of people who might or might not support terrorism, not the extreme people who already are terrorists. I find it much less likely (nearly impossible) that the average run-of-the-mill Islamic person has those extreme beliefs about killing all infidels. I think the people who try to tell us they all share that belief are full of it.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

[John Cuthber]

It's interesting that the PM said they would stop campaigning for the day.

On the other hand:

today

"Theresa May says UK will not tolerate extremists"

Last week

"Theresa May just visited a homophobic Christian fundamentalist church"

Hypocrisy and bandwagoning

[KipIngram]

Yeah, how easy it is to define "extremism" as only including extremists you particularly disagree with. All to often people think either 1) there are no extremists on my side, only on the other side, or (in my opinion even worse) 2) it's ok for us to be extremists because we're right.

Edited June 4, 2017 by KipIngram

[dimreepr]

It's interesting that the PM said they would stop campaigning for the day.

On the other hand:

today

"Theresa May says UK will not tolerate extremists"

Last week

"Theresa May just visited a homophobic Christian fundamentalist church"

Hypocrisy and bandwagoning

 

Indeed, she (well they) also said, in response to the Manchester attack "we will ensure the funds needed to bolster our defense against terrorism".

[KipIngram]

Way back in the 1980s or so I heard a US Senator being interviewed on TV. There had just been a terror attack of some sort in Europe (this was still back in the day when "such things just didn't happen here"). I forget exactly how this remark got motivated, but I remember him saying that it would always be harder to prevent such attacks in a society that emphasized personal freedom than it would in one that put freedom in the back seat. In other words freedom came with risk, because freedom means freedom for everyone, including people that might use that freedom to plan and attempt bad actions.

 

I remember that really resonated with me, and I had no doubt about what I thought of the "freedom vs. safety" tradeoff - I'll land on the side of freedom every time. One problem with modern actions on this front is that often the actions really don't have as much effect on terrorists as they purport to, but still wind up limiting everyone's freedom.

[dimreepr]

One problem with modern actions on this front is that often the actions really don't have as much effect on terrorists as they purport to, but still wind up limiting everyone's freedom.

 

If we (in the west) continue to denude education in favour of defense, then what do you expect?

 

Soldiers, historically, don't ask questions.

[KipIngram]

Oh, I am very worried about the educational state of the west. Even amongst those that do pursue an education, the tendency (amongst native-born Americans, particularly) is to seek a career in business management and to expect a meteoric rise to the top. I saw this sort of entitled expectation of "big shottery" showing up as early as the late 1990s amongst the newly-graduated engineers I managed. My own stint in management and executive positions came after twenty years or so of purely technical roles.

 

I see very little interest in the young people of today in acquiring knowledge for the pure sake of having knowledge.

 

And yeah, the "Question Authority" mentality is deeply burned into me.

[imatfaal]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

[dimreepr]

Oh, I am very worried about the educational state of the west. Even amongst those that do pursue an education, the tendency (amongst native-born Americans, particularly) is to seek a career in business management and to expect a meteoric rise to the top. I saw this sort of entitled expectation of "big shottery" showing up as early as the late 1990s amongst the newly-graduated engineers I managed. My own stint in management and executive positions came after twenty years or so of purely technical roles.

 

I see very little interest in the young people of today in acquiring knowledge for the pure sake of having knowledge.

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment but what can we expect if knowledge comes at a cost?

[KipIngram]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

 

Absolutely.

[iNow]

[KipIngram]

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment but what can we expect if knowledge comes at a cost?

 

Um, the same thing that we did for hundreds of years prior? Your point is good re: "knowledge for the sheer sake of knowledge," but for ages upon ages people recognized that knowledge brought benefits as well as having a cost. Parents strove for their children to become educated even if they were not, so that their children could have access to better lives.

 

Of course that is still why those that pursue these management paths do it - they've watched TV show after TV show where handsome / beautiful people in their 20's hold all the power and call all the shots. Absolutely not an accurate depiction of the world, nor should it be. Right along with it they've watched show after show teaching them that all that matters is coming out on top. Concepts such as honor and values have become passe. Results are all that matter to them, as opposed to the notion of a "life well lived."

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

 

I always thought of that as a bedrock of American thinking. But then we get 9/11 and what do we go and do? The Patriot Act.