Paris attacks

[neutrinosalad]

Still a lot of talk about Islamic attacks in France.

Not so much about French Separatist attacks in France

 

Given the data

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

this seems odd.

 

That is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Separatist attacks are a part of internal power struggles. Also, I scrolled down to the article and read some of the comments and it is clear that the article is constructed to create a pro-muslim worldview by piecing together information in a specific way to put them in a better light.

 

These terrorist attacks are part of an external group making moves to grab European territory.

 

Separatist attacks in France would end with the restructuring of the power dynamic in France.

 

Terrorist attacks would end with ISIS/Arab people making significant land grabs from the indigenous French people.

 

You cannot compare the two.

[Moontanman]

Emphasis mine. I think this is an important distinction. Religion seems much more of a scapegoat than a root cause of anything. IMO, these groups a product of mass disenfranchisement of swathes of people in the Middle East following Western involvement. If you've read anything on the sheer level of mismanagement and idiocy that went on during the initial years of the Iraq war, the rise of these terrorist cells, and ISIS in particular, was practically inevitable and had nothing to do with Islam.

 

You also don't need to go back to the Crusades to find examples of horrible things supposedly done in the name of Christianity, either. Africa has plenty and they are ongoing. The Anti-balaka and their ethnic cleansing of Muslim people from Central African Republic are one such example. Again though, I would argue that it had little to do with the religions themselves.

 

It's easy to convince people who are desperate or poor or both that the reasons for their misfortunes are because of the other. It's also about as easy for others to prey on that desperation and inspire hatred and anger.

 

 

People do horrible things in the name of alsorts of groups, be they religious or otherwise. That is not to say that the groups themselves are responsible. It would be a great disservice to the majority of people in those groups to take the actions of a minority of them and say that they are the actions of the whole. They are not.

 

You say that you do not want to call all Muslims the enemy, but then what are you trying to say? There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. How many of those do you think are terrorists? I doubt it's over 785 million. In which case, why should a group of assholes who do horrendous things get to say what Islam is about when they represent what is likely a very small proportion of people who claim to adhere to the religion?

 

 

I think it can be said that fundamentalism is the real culprit, once you start thinking you are doing gods work you can be talked into doing what people in authority tell you is gods work. If, and many are in many religions, the leaders are crazy they will breed crazy followers, at least some percentage of people are willing to anything they think god wants them to...

 

Welcome to the start of WWR...

[CharonY]

Do you really suggest that Isis is trying to make a territorial grab in France? How does that even begin to make sense?

 

Edit: cross-posted. Was referring to post 51.

 

Moon, I think we are touching on what I mentioned earlier. The creation of fanatic groups is not due to crazyness either by the leaders or the followers. Rather, it falls under the broader aspect of propaganda to further political goals. Symptoms, not causes. Based on historic evidence, pretty much any ideology can be adapted to inspire followers and legitimizing bloodshed.Religion just happened to be a terribly convenient one as most demand a certain amount of obsequiousness from the followers towards the religious leaders.

Edited November 15, 2015 by CharonY

[Moontanman]

Do you really suggest that Isis is trying to make a territorial grab in France? How does that even begin to make sense?

 

 

I'm not sure it is implausible that ISIS thinks it can do this, the 5th column method could sow considerable disorder and unrest among the populace. If you get enough "believers" in the right places in government but I think ISIS has delusions of grandeur, I'd sooner try to move in with a nest of hornets by intimidation that try to take over a country like france from within via violence and fear...

[CharonY]

I doubt that this the idea behind it. There are a few things that appear to be more likely to me (all speculative, of course). The first is to use it as propaganda/recruiting tool. A second but related aspect is incite internal conflicts in the targeted countries with the Muslim minorities. A third, but probably not expected goal is to leverage these conflicts to limit the offensive capabilities of these countries against ISIS. Just to be clear, there is not a single aspect that makes a territorial grab likely (i.e. man power, military supremacy, support from separatist movement or, heck, even just geography).

[MonDie]

I think it can be said that fundamentalism is the real culprit, once you start thinking you are doing gods work you can be talked into doing what people in authority tell you is gods work. If, and many are in many religions, the leaders are crazy they will breed crazy followers, at least some percentage of people are willing to anything they think god wants them to...

 

Welcome to the start of WWR...

Crazy leaders? Which mental illnesses and why, and what ecological factors contribute?

Crazy leaders, as vague as it is, is far more scientific than the age-old my book versus your book.

 

Mania, or bipolar type I, is probably a good candidate along with some personality disorders like sociopathy and narcissism. A person experiencing mania is highly expressive, confident, energetic, restless, motivated, and in the extreme, irritable and psychotic. Sociopaths are callous, deceitful, impulsive, fearless, arrogant, and power hungry, and were often physically abused. They assume that people deserve what they get, except themselves, and they tend to favor social inequality.

Edited November 16, 2015 by MonDie

[neutrinosalad]

I doubt that this the idea behind it. There are a few things that appear to be more likely to me (all speculative, of course). The first is to use it as propaganda/recruiting tool. A second but related aspect is incite internal conflicts in the targeted countries with the Muslim minorities. A third, but probably not expected goal is to leverage these conflicts to limit the offensive capabilities of these countries against ISIS. Just to be clear, there is not a single aspect that makes a territorial grab likely (i.e. man power, military supremacy, support from separatist movement or, heck, even just geography).

 

I guess I was a bit vague.

 

What I was trying to point to was the larger demographic changes that are occurring. It is not a territorial grab right now, and it will most likely not happen soon.

 

But think about this, the traditional European population generally has a below replacement rate of births. The traditional middle eastern/Arab population is exploding. They neighbor each other geographically. Groups of middle eastern/Arab people are already immigrating into Europe as there is a growing hole in the population due to the low birth rates of the European people.

 

In fact all signs point to this immigration accelerating beyond the rate of being able to properly integrate the population into the existing culture and values of the European people.

 

What I am trying to say, is that under these conditions, territorial grabs are a highly likely outcome. I cannot say it will happen for certain, but territorial grabs have happened under the exact same conditions multiple times throughout history. I do not see how this demographic change will have a different outcome.

 

I just brought up ISIS because some news reports were saying they were a part of the attack, but the large scale demographic changes are what I am focused on.

[CharonY]

That is entirely hyperbole and unfortunately an argument that has been repeated in certain circles without much in-depth thought of context. First of all, if demographics of a country changes, it is obvious that the society will change. Be it that we have an aging society an ethnically homogeneous one or a diverse one. Some feel that there is a status quo that has to be preserved, but looking at even recent history it is clear that societies were never static. In contrast, especially in modern times values and cultural norms have changed more rapidly in the past, to a large extent due to modern means of communication. If a population is declining by choice (i.e. no wanting to have children) what is the issue or solution? Forcing people to bear children?

 

And this line of thinking highlights another issue. There is the assumption that Muslims cannot be part of the general (Western) population (we have to count them differently) and as long as these thoughts persist, how can we expect integration? The problem with terms like "values" or "culture" is that they are very vague and subject to changes, yet everyone thinks they know what it means without questioning (reminds me of something...).

 

For example, if you meet a modern well-educated Iranian coming from Tehran and discuss world views, do you think that you will agree on more or less things than someone from your population from, say 60 years ago? Or 70? (think in terms of controversial topics such as LBGT rights, role of women, anti-semitism etc.). Check out colleges, it is great place for meeting highly educated foreigners.

 

Or how about a comparison with contemporary groups of your chosen ethnicity that are considered fringe (say, radical revolutionists or neo nazis)? The big issue of using things like culture or values is that they are so vague that they can always be conveniently be used (by either side) as a divisor and hence prevent integration.

 

This is not even touching the issue that at least in Europe culture is often seen to be interchangeable with ethnicity which makes it very hard for immigrants to be properly accepted (even after several generations). What should be an uniting aspect (and in that regard I think North America is doing a better job) should be the constitution in which the values of a nation are openly presented and against which behavior can and should be benchmarked individually and there should be no difference in the treatment of citizens, regardless of their faith (which, incidentally is typically something anchored in most constitutions).

 

Of course, certainly particularities should be addressed, but it is dangerous for example to simplify these issues simply down to culture. The role of women, for example has changed markedly in Western societies, even within the last decades. Treating Islam as monolithic unchangeable construct has the danger of being a self-fulling prophecy, rather, modernization should be supported and embraced, but stating that this can be done due to the mythical "culture" is self-defeating. Note that I am specifically addressing that as in former discussions in Germany a number of politicians have proclaimed that just following the constitution is insufficient, but rather that people also have to follow Judeo-Christian values (which, in some way, is quite hypocritical). Using that line of thought, you can as easily sow division as proclaiming that everyone has to follow the one true religion. Mind you, I am not saying that this one-sided. However the point is that it is more constructive to get people together that see and work on commonalities rather than standing one side and accusing the other (whichever side one is on).

 

That being said, looking at various estimates the Muslim population in Europe is supposed to to increase within the next 20 years by 2% (8 up from 6%). But again, this is just a minor distraction from rather complex issues that, unfortunately, tend to be often fueled by fear.

Edited November 16, 2015 by CharonY

[MigL]

Given that the Paris events are likely to influence immigration into Europe from various areas of the Muslim world, culture is certainly an aspect that should be looked at CharonY.

On the one hand you have the US model for integrating immigrants. The 'MeltingPot' model makes every-one an American, and makes them proud to be Americans ( mostly ).

The Canadian model is called 'Multiculturalism' and was introduced by the father of our current Prime Minister. It promotes diversity by paying people fleeing from oppressive regimes, to keep their native 'culture', which, in a lot of cases, facilitated the rise of said oppressive regimes. It has led to what is called the 'hyphenated' Canadian ( Italo-Canadian, French-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, etc. ). And while I applaud the cultural diversity, no-one is proud to be just Canadian.

I;m not sure which model is prevalent in Europe, and while both models have advantages, they also have disadvantages, with my personal preference slightly greater for the 'Melting Pot'.

 

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your point, Hyper.

But as I've said, I'm just 'grasping at straws' trying to understand the motivation behind the Paris attacks.

So, of course you are right, don't understand nor can I make any sense of these senseless acts.

It is one thing to target a military installation, camp or militant hide-out, and kill innocent civilians ( you know what they say about the fog of war ), and a totally different one , to deliberately target innocent civilians ( or use them as hostages and shields ).

 

It takes a 'different' kind of person or 'mentality', to strap a bomb to your chest, and go out and explode it amongst young people having a good time in a club.

( or go on a shooting spree in a school, or blow up a train in the cause of Irish or Basque separatism, etc. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

[CharonY]

What I think is that one has to be very precise in contextualizing what you are actually looking at. Like any other scientific question it is relevant to disassemble an issue into pieces that can be investigated. I think we can agree that culture is a very broad term and in my mind not fine-grained enough to find anything of relevance. For example, assume that in a particular population (take any classifier, ethnicity, religion, whatever) domestic violence is more frequently than in another (incidentally this is something where little good comparative statistics is available but many have preconceptions).

If we just state it is a culture of violence, we have learned precisely nothing.

 

Instead, we would have to figure out what the reasons behind violence in group 1 vs group 2 are. What external and internal factors and stressors may or may not be involved (income, job distribution, psychological stress, nutrition, familial relationships, social connections or lack thereof, history of alcoholism and so on). Even then, we are barely scratching the surface, but by leading the discussion using these rough identifiers at reduces it to soundbites. As you have noted, people from each cultural background can have abhorrent ideas. Another thing that I dislike about culture or ideals is that people often mistake the ideals of their society and benchmark people from outside of their cultural circle against this ideal rather than against reality. What I am saying is that we should look at contents, instead of labels.

 

With regards to mentality, I think that while true, the question is under which circumstances are these mentalities created?

 

On USA vs Canada, it is an interesting perspective. I cannot say I had the same experience (Canadians seem to be a bit muted in general in terms of national pride), most of the time I have discussions that were like, yeah I am Canadian/Insert US state here but my great-great parents were from (insert European country here). I have heard that in Quebec it may be different, though. Likewise, Canadians from different visible ethnicity that I have met all declared themselves Canadian. Exceptions were freshly immigrants to either US or Canada. But then again these are only personal anecdotes.

I do have noticed a massive difference in the status of native Americans/First nations, though.

[neutrinosalad]

That is entirely hyperbole and unfortunately an argument that has been repeated in certain circles without much in-depth thought of context. First of all, if demographics of a country changes, it is obvious that the society will change. Be it that we have an aging society an ethnically homogeneous one or a diverse one. Some feel that there is a status quo that has to be preserved, but looking at even recent history it is clear that societies were never static. In contrast, especially in modern times values and cultural norms have changed more rapidly in the past, to a large extent due to modern means of communication. If a population is declining by choice (i.e. no wanting to have children) what is the issue or solution? Forcing people to bear children?

 

Charon, I will agree with you. What I said is hyperbolic and is essentially a "doomsday scenario".

 

I have thought about it and halting or reverting these demographic changes are nigh impossible, which is why I can understand why society has to collectively embrace them to some extent.

 

I will also admit that my thoughts do not have a high level of in-depth thought of context. I do not constantly seek out news articles or am deeply involved in political discussions or reading up on current world events, so I rely heavily on random pieces of information I pick up and use that to construct a worldview that is influenced by a conservative bias.

 

 

And this line of thinking highlights another issue. There is the assumption that Muslims cannot be part of the general (Western) population (we have to count them differently) and as long as these thoughts persist, how can we expect integration? The problem with terms like "values" or "culture" is that they are very vague and subject to changes, yet everyone thinks they know what it means without questioning (reminds me of something...).

 

For example, if you meet a modern well-educated Iranian coming from Tehran and discuss world views, do you think that you will agree on more or less things than someone from your population from, say 60 years ago? Or 70? (think in terms of controversial topics such as LBGT rights, role of women, anti-semitism etc.). Check out colleges, it is great place for meeting highly educated foreigners.

 

Or how about a comparison with contemporary groups of your chosen ethnicity that are considered fringe (say, radical revolutionists or neo nazis)? The big issue of using things like culture or values is that they are so vague that they can always be conveniently be used (by either side) as a divisor and hence prevent integration.

 

This is not even touching the issue that at least in Europe culture is often seen to be interchangeable with ethnicity which makes it very hard for immigrants to be properly accepted (even after several generations). What should be an uniting aspect (and in that regard I think North America is doing a better job) should be the constitution in which the values of a nation are openly presented and against which behavior can and should be benchmarked individually and there should be no difference in the treatment of citizens, regardless of their faith (which, incidentally is typically something anchored in most constitutions).

 

 

The problem with this is that our behavior in large groups is influenced by varying levels of tribalism. Whether or not it has been proven yet that the human mind is hardwired through a genetic basis to self-select into tribes, you have to admit that this kind of behavior can be observed in people on a day to day basis. Culture, ethnicity and race tend to meld together and form a basis for the "tribe" that we as individuals see ourselves as collectively being a part of. This meld influences hiring decisions, relationships, the ability to progress within society among many other things.

 

How do you suggest that we abate this natural tendency to self-select into these various groups?

 

The US to this day still has a problem resolving the population's tendencies to behave tribalistically. One of the long standing issues has been the biases that have been negatively enforced upon the African-American/black community due to the color of their skin. Even to this day getting a loan or a professional job is more difficult for an African-American person due to these biases.

 

If the US could not resolve these biases in the 50 years following the civil rights act, how will the European leadership resolve these biases against the Muslim community now?

 

It is hard to compare these two things directly, but the point I am trying to make is the problem that tribalistic behavior presents in the face of large scale immigration from an external group.

 

I will agree with you on your point with Iranians. I have met highly educated Iranians in college and found them to share a similar set of values to American people. I even befriended a couple. Maybe I need to meet people from the rest of the Muslim world to change my mind.

 

 

Of course, certainly particularities should be addressed, but it is dangerous for example to simplify these issues simply down to culture. The role of women, for example has changed markedly in Western societies, even within the last decades. Treating Islam as monolithic unchangeable construct has the danger of being a self-fulling prophecy, rather, modernization should be supported and embraced, but stating that this can be done due to the mythical "culture" is self-defeating. Note that I am specifically addressing that as in former discussions in Germany a number of politicians have proclaimed that just following the constitution is insufficient, but rather that people also have to follow Judeo-Christian values (which, in some way, is quite hypocritical). Using that line of thought, you can as easily sow division as proclaiming that everyone has to follow the one true religion. Mind you, I am not saying that this one-sided. However the point is that it is more constructive to get people together that see and work on commonalities rather than standing one side and accusing the other (whichever side one is on).

 

That being said, looking at various estimates the Muslim population in Europe is supposed to to increase within the next 20 years by 2% (8 up from 6%). But again, this is just a minor distraction from rather complex issues that, unfortunately, tend to be often fueled by fear.

 

I will admit that some of my thoughts are fueled to some extent by fear. The European people appear to be in a state of decline in terms of population and a stagnating economy. Living in a time where it can be readily observed that the Europeans are moving from a waxing stage (capturing territories, growing population and wealth) to a waning stage (losing some territory with a declining population and stagnating economy) makes me afraid.

[John Cuthber]

 

That is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Separatist attacks are a part of internal power struggles. Also, I scrolled down to the article and read some of the comments and it is clear that the article is constructed to create a pro-muslim worldview by piecing together information in a specific way to put them in a better light.

 

These terrorist attacks are part of an external group making moves to grab European territory.

 

Separatist attacks in France would end with the restructuring of the power dynamic in France.

 

Terrorist attacks would end with ISIS/Arab people making significant land grabs from the indigenous French people.

 

You cannot compare the two.

I look forward to your evidence.

[Ten oz]

 

Charon, I will agree with you. What I said is hyperbolic and is essentially a "doomsday scenario".

 

I have thought about it and halting or reverting these demographic changes are nigh impossible, which is why I can understand why society has to collectively embrace them to some extent.

 

I will also admit that my thoughts do not have a high level of in-depth thought of context. I do not constantly seek out news articles or am deeply involved in political discussions or reading up on current world events, so I rely heavily on random pieces of information I pick up and use that to construct a worldview that is influenced by a conservative bias.

 

 

The problem with this is that our behavior in large groups is influenced by varying levels of tribalism. Whether or not it has been proven yet that the human mind is hardwired through a genetic basis to self-select into tribes, you have to admit that this kind of behavior can be observed in people on a day to day basis. Culture, ethnicity and race tend to meld together and form a basis for the "tribe" that we as individuals see ourselves as collectively being a part of. This meld influences hiring decisions, relationships, the ability to progress within society among many other things.

 

How do you suggest that we abate this natural tendency to self-select into these various groups?

 

The US to this day still has a problem resolving the population's tendencies to behave tribalistically. One of the long standing issues has been the biases that have been negatively enforced upon the African-American/black community due to the color of their skin. Even to this day getting a loan or a professional job is more difficult for an African-American person due to these biases.

 

If the US could not resolve these biases in the 50 years following the civil rights act, how will the European leadership resolve these biases against the Muslim community now?

 

It is hard to compare these two things directly, but the point I am trying to make is the problem that tribalistic behavior presents in the face of large scale immigration from an external group.

 

I will agree with you on your point with Iranians. I have met highly educated Iranians in college and found them to share a similar set of values to American people. I even befriended a couple. Maybe I need to meet people from the rest of the Muslim world to change my mind.

 

 

I will admit that some of my thoughts are fueled to some extent by fear. The European people appear to be in a state of decline in terms of population and a stagnating economy. Living in a time where it can be readily observed that the Europeans are moving from a waxing stage (capturing territories, growing population and wealth) to a waning stage (losing some territory with a declining population and stagnating economy) makes me afraid.

People do behave tribalistically however what defines a tribe appears to be on a moving scale. Today all of Europe appears to be a tribe but any review of the history of war between European nations would quickly reflect that such has not always been the case. Throughout history no group has fought more battles against Europeans and killed more Europeans that other Europeans. In context to the way the English treated African slaves I suppose Irish slaves had it pretty good but still obviously were not seen as the same tribe.

 

As for European decline; when was it so much better? Poverty rates in India and China are still at crisis level. Africa, any time genocide or war grips part of the continent. Central and South America struggle with crime and economic instability. People are literally risking their lives and leaving behind family to escape the Middle East. Yet you are concerned about the "waning stage" of Europe? A stage where the average person has significantly more wealth, more education, more opportunity, and etc? I think if you were born in the late 1800's or early 1900's and were lucky enough to live through both world wars your overall feelings about Europe's present stay would be very different. There was still a wall seperating Germans 30yrs ago.

[iNow]

I will admit that some of my thoughts are fueled to some extent by fear. The European people appear to be in a state of decline in terms of population and a stagnating economy. Living in a time where it can be readily observed that the Europeans are moving from a waxing stage (capturing territories, growing population and wealth) to a waning stage (losing some territory with a declining population and stagnating economy) makes me afraid.

Interestingly, study after study seem to show that conservatives are conservatives precisely because they are more easily/rapidly made afraid on a deep biological level. The fear response to novel and aversive stimuli and their general need for certainty and consistency / intolerance for ambiguity and change is a large part of the reason they respond to these issues like they do (and it seems to be almost innate).

 

One consequence of this is the inescapable conclusion that conservatives are being manipulated by these terrorists much more so than are non-conservatives and liberals. It also means that conservatives are much more likely to respond in a way that terrorists want, a way that helps them to achieve their own political goals and that advances their agenda (which is much more about inspiring fear and attracting new recruits to spread the ideology than it is about seizing land).

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kanai_Political_Orientations.pdf

 

 

Maybe I need to meet people from the rest of the Muslim world to change my mind.

I think that's a very good idea. It never hurts to meet actual people from different cultures to better understand just how very similar to one another we all are. Including more real examples of real humans from these various groups adds important depth and dimension to the flat 2-dimensional stereotypes we so often hold in our minds and use to inform our views of them and their cultures.

[CharonY]

 

I will admit that some of my thoughts are fueled to some extent by fear. The European people appear to be in a state of decline in terms of population and a stagnating economy. Living in a time where it can be readily observed that the Europeans are moving from a waxing stage (capturing territories, growing population and wealth) to a waning stage (losing some territory with a declining population and stagnating economy) makes me afraid.

 

I suggest to look at things in perspective. Compared to today European powers during the age of colonialism were in severe conflicts and many were very brittle. In fact, one reason that colonialism and territory expansion was ditched was because it was not profitable enough anymore. Past WWII we have seen unprecedented economic growth and wealth throughout (Western) Europe. Even looking at the 2009 economic crisis just highlights how much stronger Europe is now compared to what it used to be. The last time a similar economic crisis occurred was in the 20s and look at the consequences. Europe is now nowhere near facing revolution or war. The worst case scenario now is that Greece has to leave the EU. The worst scenario then was millions of deaths.

If you think about it is complaining from a high level of comfort you can worry about demographics because you do not even need to think for a millisecond about the possibility of an European war, for example. If you compare to colonialism and post-colonialism you will find that basically all indicators have been massively improving, standard of living, economy, health, crime and so on. Many are at least partially technology-driven, but that also means that land grabs or similar ideas are useless in modern times.

No, I think despite current economic issues Europe has never been in better shape to deal with it, especially when compared to how European nations used to be.

 

I do agree that we still face issues of discrimination, it seems to be part of human nature. However, at least we acknowledge widely that is not a good thing. Whether we can live up to that ideal is up to each of us.

[Airbrush]

Why not make traveling to Syria or Iraq and returning to your home country illegal?

 

There is no mention in the news about plans for infiltration of ISIS by using the huge resource of Suni Syrians fleeing ISIS. I suppose this is happening and we want to keep it secret? Why not publicize infiltration opperations to make the ISIS recruiters uneasy about new recruits when they know some of them are spies who want to destroy ISIS?

 

Disaffected youths should be channeled into activies such as soccer leagues to keep them occupied.

 

Law enforcement should be able to penetrate the "dark web" if they have a search warrant.

 

Any other ideas?

[DevilSolution]

I love the way that any western "terrorist" attack is splashed around the media endlessly while there is constantly acts of terror far worse than this happening to people everyday in 3rd world countries. I think this illustrates the influence of media over our general outlook.

 

I wonder how many people actually understand the current situation in the middle east and what has caused these outcomes.

 

For example right now there are 4 primary ground forces at war with each other and each having different goals, the kurds, ISIS, the rebel group conglomerate and assads forces. These are just the ground forces fighting (mainly ISIS) but also the general consensus of the rebels is to remove assad aswell. Then the financing of these forces, again all with their own agenda's........Any form of terrorist attack (muslim) will automatically be associated to ISIS aslong a the west want assad out of power, unlike russia who back assad.

 

I hear rumours that the Hezbollah are being shipped in too......Such as a sad state of affairs, all in the name of oil and money essentially.

 

RIP victims of this attack, but its your countries foreign affairs you should be blaming. Not refugee's, immigrants or even extremists (as they are just an effect).

Why not make traveling to Syria or Iraq and returning to your home country illegal?

 

There is no mention in the news about plans for infiltration of ISIS by using the huge resource of Suni Syrians fleeing ISIS. I suppose this is happening and we want to keep it secret? Why not publicize infiltration opperations to make the ISIS recruiters uneasy about new recruits when they know some of them are spies who want to destroy ISIS?

 

Disaffected youths should be channeled into activies such as soccer leagues to keep them occupied.

 

Law enforcement should be able to penetrate the "dark web" if they have a search warrant.

 

Any other ideas?

 

1) It's usually a 1 way ticket, most peoples fear mongering is centred towards refugees and immigrants in "disguise"

 

2) I'm not sure the initiation techniques conform to most people moral compass, if there was an infiltration it wouldnt be easy.

 

3) The disaffected youths obviously gravitate towards politics and religion, I don't think they are concerned with the trivialities of the general populous.

 

4) I don't fully understand how you "penetrate" the dark web, its simply unlisted websites and servers that tends towards accepting connections via particular protocols. You could only shut the server down and arrest the owner, but that isnt a massive achievement.

 

5) Stop invading foreign countries, Stop creating civil unrest in foreign countries. Be more transparent in your countries intentions, including "by proxy".

[tar]

DevilSolution,

I think the time for not getting involved in the Middle East , is already in the past. Withdrawing our forces (U.S.) after ousting Saddam is one of the reasons that the Sunni power structure returned in the form that it did (ISIL.)

 

I think you have it right, that the situation is complex, and the Turks don't want an autonomous Kurdish nation on their southern border, and everybody from the Saudis to the Russians want some say over the oil in the area. Iran and Hezbolla are involved and hence Israel has some concern over who is in power in Syria. And if Israel is concerned the U.S. is concerned, and since we left the power vacuum in Iraq, we are somewhat responsible for what happens in the area, now. Many in the world agree that Assad is not a reliable leader, and should lose power. But that Arab spring revolt seems to have gone quite awry. The U.S. is responsible perhaps for some internet instigation related to the Arab Spring, and responsible for backing groups fighting Assad with logistical and medical and humanitarian and military support. It is hard, in good conscience to stir the pot, and not stick around to eat the soup. I think the time for not invading foreign countries has passed.

 

Not only because of our interests and history in the area, but because of the age of the internet. Foreign countries are now only a keyboard tap away.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2015 by tar

[iNow]

Why not make traveling to Syria or Iraq and returning to your home country illegal?

Because there are perfectly legitimate and valid reasons for such travel by us, a free people. Doctors, nurses, journalists, diplomats, business people, aid organizations, and more. All that would happen if we implemented an idea like this one above is MORE people would suffer and MORE people would be motivated to join the extremist ranks. Why would we do this? That's just silly.

 

RIP victims of this attack, but its your countries foreign affairs you should be blaming. Not refugee's, immigrants or even extremists (as they are just an effect).

I'm not a huge fan of victim blaming. Seems to miss the point, a bit like blaming a woman who's been raped saying it's her fault because her pants weren't baggy enough. No. The fault resides squarely and solely with the rapist, just as here it belongs with the extremists.

[tar]

Thread,

 

I have been listening to CNN today as they have had 24 hour coverage on Paris and the aftermath including Obama's press conference at the G20.

In the last couple hours they are talking about SONY PlayStation and its potential role in providing ISIL fighters with a secure chat room from which they can plan attacks and even practice them in the games, virtually.

 

I am thinking that this merge of fantasy with reality is a serious problem that we should be talking about ways to counter.

 

The soccer games that Airbrush mentioned are a good start

The internet is a strong recruiting tool for Da'ish and young disenfranchised youth are certainly a prime resource for the leaders of Daesh to draw upon.

 

I heard earlier today, on Fox, (which I tend to click off) that Minnesota has a large number of Somalian refugee youth, and some twenty or thirty of them have left the U.S. to fight for something in foreign lands.

 

Many of the Paris attackers were French and Belgium Nationals. Fighting for a cause, and changing the world is a draw for 18 year olds.

 

Where I am trying to stand against this movement, is in its unreality. In its disregard for life. In its promise of afterlife reward, which must be a part of the message that causes a person to wear an exploding vest and sacrifice their life for the Caliphate.

 

Two unreal aspects. The confusion of virtual death with actual death. And the confusion of the false reward of virgins and satin couches and rivers of honey (which don't exist, by all evidence) with the rewards of actual survival and joy on this planet, which by all evidence is the ONLY thing that exists.

 

We need to offer our youth enjoyable and profitable actual living skills and strategies, to keep them from drugs and the opiate of religion, and the dream world of PlayStation.

 

I know this is a thread on Paris, but ways to feel good, about actual survival and human love and interaction need to be central to our discussion. These are the things that will cause a person to cure diseases and build hospitals and the wealth and infrastructure that will result in a happy, secure life. Blasting away aliens is probably not the best way to learn how to find enjoyment in life.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

tar - I'm fairly confident that letting kids use PlayStation and related gaming consoles is a nonsequitur / red herring here and perhaps a waste of time when considering underlying root cause of these atrocities. It used to be that darned television, dag nabbit, and that awful rock and roll music before that, and those hootin-annie new fangled electric carriages before that. Xbox is not a valid focus area, IMO.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

tar - I'm fairly confident that letting kids use PlayStation and related gaming consoles is a nonsequitur / red herring here and perhaps a waste of time when considering underlying root cause of these atrocities. It used to be that darned television, dag nabbit, and that awful rock and roll music before that, and those hootin-annie new fangled electric carriages before that. Xbox is not a valid focus area, IMO.

 

I agree, especially when encoded communications apps are a dime a dozen these days.

 

I've played them all, online and offline. I don't know anyone who's even remotely radicalized by it.

 

If anything, it's an inconsequential vent for frustration, not a cause.

[tar]

iNow and Lagoon Island Pearls,

 

OK playstation is a red herring. But the idea of unreality getting confused with reality is a potential cause for some of our problems. I am not suggesting that we should outlaw video games. I am suggesting that we should pay attention to our youth and give them judgement skills and living skills, rather than think that the internet will teach them how to be.

 

Same with drugs. They are a terrific draw and its hard for a mom and dad to compete with the local pusher, in terms of providing ways for their 17 year old, to feel good.

 

We adults are not always that great at being role models, with our addictions to TV shows and sitting in front of the football game with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

 

My thought about the video games stemmed from my memory of a report concerning the young man who shot up Sandy Hook. He did not have the proper people skills and he had spent a good deal of his time on the computer. I am not blaming video games, as I don't blame gun ownership or Hollywood, or the drug companies, for our issues. I am just suggesting that people should not kill me to provide a rush for themselves. There are other ways to feel good that are helpful and considerate of other people.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2015 by tar

[DevilSolution]

DevilSolution,

I think the time for not getting involved in the Middle East , is already in the past. Withdrawing our forces (U.S.) after ousting Saddam is one of the reasons that the Sunni power structure returned in the form that it did (ISIL.)

 

I think you have it right, that the situation is complex, and the Turks don't want an autonomous Kurdish nation on their southern border, and everybody from the Saudis to the Russians want some say over the oil in the area. Iran and Hezbolla are involved and hence Israel has some concern over who is in power in Syria. And if Israel is concerned the U.S. is concerned, and since we left the power vacuum in Iraq, we are somewhat responsible for what happens in the area, now. Many in the world agree that Assad is not a reliable leader, and should lose power. But that Arab spring revolt seems to have gone quite awry. The U.S. is responsible perhaps for some internet instigation related to the Arab Spring, and responsible for backing groups fighting Assad with logistical and medical and humanitarian and military support. It is hard, in good conscience to stir the pot, and not stick around to eat the soup. I think the time for not invading foreign countries has passed.

 

Not only because of our interests and history in the area, but because of the age of the internet. Foreign countries are now only a keyboard tap away.

 

 

Regards, TAR

 

The colonial age is over and since WW2 there has been no major force involved with land grabs (not including border disputes or civil wars (such as bosnia and czechoslovakia)) which means any invasion of foreign troops is politically motivated. If we cut to the chase almost all foreign invasions are over money (mainly oil), power or ideological. Pretty much all cases fall into the former. Now i see no reason for any country to invade another on that basis. Which is why NATO is even involved in the middle east. If a country is at civil war its up to them to sort it out, there's a reason we killed gaddafi and not mugabe, that reason being that gaddafi posed a threat to the west with the unification of africa under a gold standard (massively depreciating fiat currency and giving africa a great deal of power over its resources) where as mugabi poses no threat, even less of a threat he is a danger to his own country, which we obviously dont care about.

 

This shows how corrupt the west is in its foreign affairs. It's all smoke and mirrors, self preservation of power.

 

Now as we shouldnt be there in the first place i see no reason why we shouldnt remove ourselves, its not america's job to police the world, it has more than enough problems at home.

 

 

 

 

I'm not a huge fan of victim blaming. Seems to miss the point, a bit like blaming a woman who's been raped saying it's her fault because her pants weren't baggy enough. No. The fault resides squarely and solely with the rapist, just as here it belongs with the extremists.

 

There's obviously psychology to this which you dismiss, i dont condone the results but there is some sympathizing that can be made. One example is the bully, i dont know the statistics but generally speaking a typical bully will have been bullied himself or have some psychological issues regarding childhood, so although the bully is wrong to bully its actually caused by some other issue directly effecting that person. The answer isnt to systematically punish that bully the answer is to find the cause of the problem and stop it. This spills over to the extremist and its actually quite sad to some extent, to think that these people are willing to blow themselves up and attack as many random people as possible before doing so just to make a point. That point isnt that we should all be scared of this terrible group of people, the point is they are desperate humans with very little options for there country or beliefs. If you flip the coin and say china was politically manipulating america, invading different states if they make too much noise or wanted a particular resource then you as an american would think "how is this fair?", they take our wealth, murder anyone who tries to stop them and then make you the american look bad for trying to stop them........

 

I dont think its as black and white as they make out. Like there's a group of evil humans trying terrorize us all for no apparent reason.

 

Again im not condoning it, i just find it sad that they need to resort to such desperate measures to make a point or a stand.

Edited November 16, 2015 by DevilSolution

[MonDie]

America's Real Criminal Element: Lead | Motherjones

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

Nevin collected lead data and crime data for Australia and found a close match. Ditto for Canada. And Great Britain and Finland and France and Italy and New Zealand and West Germany. Every time, the two curves fit each other astonishingly well. When I spoke to Nevin about this, I asked him if he had ever found a country that didn't fit the theory. "No," he replied. "Not one."

 

[...]

 

Groups of children have been followed from the womb to adulthood, and higher childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes.

Childhood Lead Exposure in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and Jordan: Results from the Middle Eastern Regional Cooperation Project, 1996-2000

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480480/

 

The mean and geometric levels in the region are now approaching those of Northern Europe and the United States, where mean PbB levels in children range between 2.1 and 2.7 μg/dL (Pirkle 1998; Ponka 1998; Strömberg 2003; Wilhelm et al. 2002).

 

[...]

 

The 85% drop in lead emissions in Israel explains the fall of population-wide PbB levels in Israeli children from 14.3 μg/dL in the 1980s to 6.0 μg/dL in the mid-1990s, to those currently reported.

 

[...]

 

In 1998–2000, we measured blood lead (PbB) levels in children 2–6 years of age in Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority (n = 1478), using a fingerstick method. Mean (peak; percentage > 10 μg/dL) PbB levels in Israel (n = 317), the West Bank (n = 344), Jordan (n = 382), and Gaza (n = 435) were 3.2 μg/dL (18.2; 2.2%), 4.2 μg/dL (25.7; 5.2%), 3.2 μg/dL (39.3; < 1%), and 8.6 μg/dL (> 80.0; 17.2%), respectively.

 

 

Blood Lead Levels -- United States, 1988-1991 | CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032080.htm

 

The 3-5 age group in Figure 1 would correspond to the 2-6 age group used for their samples. Their levels in 1998-2000 were higher than US levels in 1988-1991.

Edited November 17, 2015 by MonDie