What is politics of toleration?

[DimaMazin]

Seems it is when we are silent and waiting when tolerant people will be killed. Do terrorist attacks in Belgium prove that European politics of toleration is mistake?

[iNow]

No. That's what's known among educated people as a nonsequitur

[Phi for All]

Tolerance means a dialogue can happen. After that, many things are possible, most good, some bad.

 

Brussels has nothing to do with tolerance, imo. It's more a question of vigilance, but I think Brussels shows that it's possible to be tolerant, vigilant, and still be vulnerable to extremists.

[EdEarl]

Nonviolence is a flop. The only bigger flop is violence. Joan Baez

Hitler practiced violence, the world rose to oppose him, and he is the epitome of evil. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were nonviolent, won their cause, and each is a hero.

 

Violence is sometimes necessary to oppose evil, but it results in death and destruction that cannot be called good, only necessary.

 

A person who opposes evil with violence may be celebrated as a hero, but feels a heavy burden from death and destruction wrought by that opposition. Inevitably they say, my fallen comrades are heroes; I merely survived with horrible memories.

 

Tolerance is a tool of nonviolence. Sometimes the oppressors kill good people who are nonviolent, but revenge is bitter sweet. It often results in more deaths than nonviolence. If one's purpose is to make a better world, we must hold violence until we know without doubt there is no other way, and reevaluate our motives to make sure we are not acting on emotions only.

 

If by acting violently you kill someone, was it because they threatened you or others and their death was necessary?

Edited March 23, 2016 by EdEarl

[Bells]

Tolerance means a dialogue can happen. After that, many things are possible, most good, some bad.

 

Brussels has nothing to do with tolerance, imo. It's more a question of vigilance, but I think Brussels shows that it's possible to be tolerant, vigilant, and still be vulnerable to extremists.

I think the bigger issue with Brussels is that they were not as vigilant as they could have been or should have been.

 

The airport bombers were reportedly able to enter the departure check-in area armed with guns and bombs and an hour after that, they were able to attack the Metro station. Questions must be raised as to how their attacks were able to be so successful. Why weren't all systems shut down immediately after the first blast at the airport? Why weren't the train lines effectively shut down immediately after the airport attack? How were they able to enter the airport so well armed and with bombs? I mean, I dropped my mother off at the airport yesterday and it was a domestic flight. And the amount of security we went through to, even to just get to the departure lounge, was, in my opinion at the time, ridiculous. I got home and a couple of hours later, news of the attacks hit the news. I don't think it's so ridiculous anymore.

 

Other countries have fairly well defined communications systems and Muslims themselves have dobbed in people they suspect of being terrorists. Belgium does not appear to have this in place and the intelligence on the many radicalised cells in the country itself seems to be fairly thin. Belgium has some of the highest rate of returned fighters from the Middle East. And there appears to be a lack of information sharing between agencies in Belgium, which probably contributed to their being able to be so successful in their attacks.

 

A lot of these issues were flagged since the Paris attacks and they do not appear to have made much headway in that regard.

 

I think the issue in Belgium is a lack of vigilance and they have been playing catch up. There is also a lack of information sharing between agencies in Belgium and with its neighbours, as the events after the Paris attacks show.

 

While it would be impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks in the current climate, what is astonishing is that in a country with a high amount of radical Islamist's, that they were able to be so successful. That they weren't more vigilant.

[swansont]

Why weren't all systems shut down immediately after the first blast at the airport? Why weren't the train lines effectively shut down immediately after the airport attack?

 

 

Simple. It's because that's impossible.

[Bells]

 

 

Simple. It's because that's impossible.

Well, not really.

 

Evacuating public areas like this are pretty much standard fare after such attacks. But it took two separate incidents for them to react by shutting down all transport hubs.

 

On the one hand, terrorists have a chance of escaping through public transport networks and the airport had a train station that went right underneath it. And on the other hand, it is a means of keeping people safe by removing them from danger while they check each of these transport hubs.

 

It isn't impossible to shut down transport systems.

 

To put it into some perspective, and how time is crucial, at the airport, the bombs went off at 8:00am. The train network to and from the airport was shut down 20 minutes later.

 

The bomb at the Metro station went off at 9:10am. They shut down the rail system at 9:27am. Trains were still running between that time.

 

It wasn't until 10:00am that they shut down the whole transport network, including trains, buses and road closures and people were told to remain where they were.

 

Two hours is an awfully long time to implement such measures. Especially after everything we have learned and experienced from these attacks.

 

Anywho, this is way off topic, so my apologies.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Bells

[swansont]

Well, not really.

...

It isn't impossible to shut down transport systems.

 

 

Yes, really. Your statement wasn't just shutting down the systems, it was immediately shutting down the systems.

 

You're in charge and hear an explosion. Now, how do you immediately know it was a terrorist attack, vs some other problem? There will be a span of time it takes to gather the information you need. In the early part of any event like this, information is typically spotty and unreliable. If it's gunfire, you might not even be close enough to hear it — reports will have to get to you. You may go into lockdown mode, and not be able to get word out even when you do confirm what's going on. Once you can communicate, you have to get that information with other people, and they have to act.

 

Immediate shutdown is simply not possible.

[DimaMazin]

 

Other countries have fairly well defined communications systems and Muslims themselves have dobbed in people they suspect of being terrorists. Belgium does not appear to have this in place and the intelligence on the many radicalised cells in the country itself seems to be fairly thin. Belgium has some of the highest rate of returned fighters from the Middle East. And there appears to be a lack of information sharing between agencies in Belgium, which probably contributed to their being able to be so successful in their attacks.

 

It is important to stop the arriving and arriving danger. We lose and lose people to reconvince tolerant people.

[Strange]

It is important to stop the arriving and arriving danger.

 

Much of the danger that arrives is information (or disinformation). How do you stop that? Spy on every citizen? Censor all messages, websites and forums? Cut the country off from the Internet?

[DimaMazin]

 

Much of the danger that arrives is information (or disinformation). How do you stop that? Spy on every citizen? Censor all messages, websites and forums? Cut the country off from the Internet?

Did you talk about information in brains of arriving people?It is more danger than internet.

Edited March 23, 2016 by DimaMazin

[Strange]

Did you talk about information in brains of arriving people?

 

That is even harder to control. Many of the terrorists (now and in the past) are residents or citizens of the country already. What would you do about that?

[DimaMazin]

 

That is even harder to control. Many of the terrorists (now and in the past) are residents or citizens of the country already. What would you do about that?

I already said that to stop the arriving danger. But Europeans didn't stop it earlier therefore now they have tiny part of future problem.

[Strange]

I already said that to stop the arriving danger. But Europeans didn't stop it earlier therefore now they have tiny part of future problem.

 

How do you decide who to stop?

Or do you want to completely close the country to outsiders?

[iNow]

Why weren't all systems shut down immediately after the first blast at the airport? Why weren't the train lines effectively shut down immediately after the airport attack?

Because doing so would merely amplify the attack. Doing so would allow any idiot with a firecracker to realize an overblown response due solely to our complicity and over-reaction.

 

People need to stop shitting their pants and start being smart. It's called terrorism for a reason. Their aim is to inspire terror and cause us to defeat ourselves from within by abandoning our values and rationality.

 

Don't let them.

[DimaMazin]

 

How do you decide who to stop?

Or do you want to completely close the country to outsiders?

If Belgium doesn't need the outsider then the person should be stoped. Idlers can be dangerous.

Because doing so would merely amplify the attack. Doing so would allow any idiot with a firecracker to realize an overblown response due solely to our complicity and over-reaction.

 

People need to stop shitting their pants and start being smart. It's called terrorism for a reason. Their aim is to inspire terror and cause us to defeat ourselves from within by abandoning our values and rationality.

 

Don't let them.

To feed terrorists it isn't values and rationality.

Edited March 23, 2016 by DimaMazin

[Delta1212]

If being vulnerable to attack is a sign of failure, then you are starting from the premise that every possible stance you can take is going to be a failure. There is no such thing as perfect security. You can't say "There should be more security because there was an attack." You have to look at the cost and consequences of various forms of added security.

We could lock every every person in the country in a steel box and never let them out. Then the innocent ones would be protected from attacks and the guilty ones would be prevented from carrying them out. But I don't think anyone believes that's a good solution. If you agree that it is not, then you are agreeing that increased security is not always a plus depending on how exactly that security is implemented. From there, it becomes a discussion about degrees and methods.

 

It's easy to look at one attack after the fact and say "This could have been done differently and would have mitigated the damage in this instance." But the question is not "How would a specific action have affected this particular attack?" It is "What are the consequences of implementing this action every single time there is a scenario that looks somewhat like this attack at the point at which it would have mattered?" If a terrorist calls in a bomb threat and then detonates a nuclear weapon in a downtown metro area, do we evacuate a city every time there is a bomb threat? Stripping the 9/11 hijackers and doing a cavity search on their way through security likely would have prevented them from getting any weapons onto the plane. Do we do a strip search of every passenger before boarding? If the first sign of a terrorist attack is the sight of smoke coming from a public building and we would have been able to catch the terrorists responsible had the entire transport network been shut down at that first sign, do we shut down the transportation of an entire city every time we see smoke?

 

You can't look at the impact of an action if it was implemented the one time it would have helped. You have to look at the impact if it is implemented across the board. You can't look at a negative consequence of an ideology and say "Well, this a failure." You have to look at all of the positive and negative consequences of an ideology and compare them with the positive and negative consequences of adopting a specific other one.

 

There is no perfect solution to most problems, and so declaring that one solution is not perfect and therefore we should implement a different one is not a particularly helpful stance to take, because it will always be true of any solution you care to choose.

[Strange]

If Belgium doesn't need the outsider then the person should be stoped.

 

Like all countries, it does need them. As tourists, academics, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, investors, and workers. Among other things.

 

So, again, how do you decide who to keep out?

[swansont]

If Belgium doesn't need the outsider then the person should be stoped.

 

 

The alternative then is to shun refugees, making them suffer even more. In the effort to protect yourself from harm you instead inflict it on others. Not really a good solution. Closer to "if you can't beat them, join them"

[DimaMazin]

 

Like all countries, it does need them. As tourists, academics, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, investors, and workers. Among other things.

 

So, again, how do you decide who to keep out?

For these kinds there should be similarity definition . The terrorists were criminals.Only lazy intelligence agencies can't observe similarity.

[swansont]

For these kinds there should be similarity definition . The terrorists were criminals.Only lazy intelligence agencies can't observe similarity.

 

 

 

Not entirely sure what this means, but it implies we should be able to identify criminals just by sight. If that's what you meant, then it's dead wrong.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

The alternative then is to shun refugees, making them suffer even more. In the effort to protect yourself from harm you instead inflict it on others. Not really a good solution. Closer to "if you can't beat them, join them"

The politicians can't accept the refugees without harm for citizens. Therefore they have no right to do it. Earlier recieving of earlier refugees caused the suffering of the refugees in Europe.

 

 

 

Not entirely sure what this means, but it implies we should be able to identify criminals just by sight. If that's what you meant, then it's dead wrong.

If you have only sight data then the person should be stoped on a border.

[dimreepr]

Politicians can’t do anything without causing harm to its citizens; BTW at what point does your allegiance stop? Is it family/friends, current location, nation, national alliances and in the case of an alien threat, the Earth?

 

The point of tolerance is to accept what you don’t like, not fear it.

[EdEarl]

The politicians can't accept the refugees without harm for citizens. Therefore they have no right to do it. Earlier recieving of earlier refugees caused the suffering of the refugees in Europe.

If you have only sight data then the person should be stoped on a border.

What happens to refugees that have no home, for example they are fleeing from war, stopped at the border, lets say on a beach after arriving in in a boat. Leave them on the beach indefinitely?

[DimaMazin]

Politicians can’t do anything without causing harm to its citizens; BTW at what point does your allegiance stop? Is it family/friends, current location, nation, national alliances and in the case of an alien threat, the Earth?

 

The point of tolerance is to accept what you don’t like, not fear it.

Can you define final quantity of refugees?