Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Husar]

For Syria in particular: I would support making it a crime to travel there right now, unless the person can demonstrate some legitimate purpose, i.e. he/she is a professional journalist or an aid worker.

Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..

Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.

[Papewaio]

If we are going to stretch this disease metaphor; what is proposed isn't supposed to be a cure, it is a quarantine. Limit or sever access to a proven disease carrier will reduce rate of infection at the cost of a mild inconvenience for the vulnerable population resulting in a net benefit for the group as a whole.

The only concession that really needs to be made would be allowing pilgrimages to Mecca.

My guess is that this has a much higher cause and correlation with social media and local hangouts then the Hajj and Mecca.

The ones chasing Lesser Jihad are the standard drop out punks found around the world whilst the ones chansing the Greater Jihad are on the whole older, maybe wiser and a lot more likely to be scholars not martyrs.

[Pannonian]

Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..

Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.

There is a sliding scale on the route to radicalisation. No doubt the security services are already trying their best to monitor social media. However, the internet is the internet, and blowhards are standard. However, once they actually summon up the effort to physically go to these places, it's fairly certain that they're pretty far down the road to radicalisation. Just as internet petitions are normally ignored, but physical letters are not, since the former requires no effort but the latter does, so social media isn't as clear a correlation with substantial radicalisation as physically going to these schools/training grounds in Pakistan, Syria, etc.

Of course, if you disagree, then I'd like to see your definition of what profile constitutes a potential threat, along with a way of defining it in practice. Saying that you should treat the root cause rather than the symptoms sounds good and dandy, until you notice that there is no counter proposal of how to treat or even recognise said root cause. Unless you want to do a Frag and say that Muslims full stop are the root cause.

[Pannonian]

My guess is that this has a much higher cause and correlation with social media and local hangouts then the Hajj and Mecca.

The ones chasing Lesser Jihad are the standard drop out punks found around the world whilst the ones chansing the Greater Jihad are on the whole older, maybe wiser and a lot more likely to be scholars not martyrs.

Among British Muslims, the main vectors of radicalisation are imported clerics, and youngsters wanting to learn more about their Muslim identity by going to religious schools in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan. The first can be dealt with by blocking their entry here and deporting those who are preaching hate (Hookie has since been jailed for life in the US). How to you deal with the latter? Imprison them? Charge them? Blocking their re-entry is probably the mildest way of sanitising the threat, by allowing them to live how they want to live, and allowing us to live how we want to live.

Among British Muslims, the main radicalisation hotspot, at least in the past, has been Pakistan. Among the Paris attackers, it was Syria (and there seems to be evidence that ISIS are deliberately infiltrating troublemakers back into Europe after their radicalisation process in Syria). For the San Bernardino attackers, it was Saudi Arabia (and while you want to excuse Hajj and Mecca, note that the Saudi state is the biggest sponsor of Islamisation in the world, as well as of its worst aspects).

How would you define a profile of potential threats, and how would you practically profile them? What would you do with the profile?

[Kralizec]

Queue salafi journalists and aid workers in 3..2..

Point also being that I assume they usually go there with the goal to radicalize, wouldn't it be better to fight the cause rather than the symptoms? It is more complicated to find out why all young British muslims hate Britain so much, but maybe measures that begin to fight these root causes would be more effective in the long term than ruining the job creators like British Airways by letting the state tell them where they can do business and where they can't. The market will know what is best.

Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.

It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.

Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.

Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.

[AE Bravo]

No good banning one of the positive forces of Islam, which is pilgrimage. Pilgrimage is the spiritual antithesis to jihad, if anything it serves to eradicate radical sentiment. You can't kill a fly in Makkah. You're solution is trying to replace what's actually positive about the religion with "British values" instead of seeking to reconcile them.

Makes no sense.

For the San Bernardino attackers, it was Saudi Arabia (and while you want to excuse Hajj and Mecca, note that the Saudi state is the biggest sponsor of Islamisation in the world, as well as of its worst aspects).

Shia Muslims, Indonesians, and Turkish go to Hajj. It's not really a center of Islamism, that's why IS wants to destroy the Kaaba. Their belief is that it's polytheism.

[Pannonian]

No good banning one of the positive forces of Islam, which is pilgrimage. Pilgrimage is the spiritual antithesis to jihad, if anything it serves to eradicate radical sentiment. You can't kill a fly in Makkah. You're solution is trying to replace what's actually positive about the religion with "British values" instead of seeking to reconcile them.

Makes no sense.

Shia Muslims, Indonesians, and Turkish go to Hajj. It's not really a center of Islamism, that's why IS wants to destroy the Kaaba. Their belief is that it's polytheism.

I never said anything about stopping them from going on pilgrimage. Let them go as they wish. But let them stay and find a home in their preferred world afterwards rather than return to find things to hate over here.

[AE Bravo]

So the point is that you don't want them to come back to their countries after a once in a lifetime nod to their beliefs.

Doesn't sound like "British values" to me. I doubt Brits share that sentiment anyway.

[Husar]

Of course, if you disagree, then I'd like to see your definition of what profile constitutes a potential threat, along with a way of defining it in practice. Saying that you should treat the root cause rather than the symptoms sounds good and dandy, until you notice that there is no counter proposal of how to treat or even recognise said root cause. Unless you want to do a Frag and say that Muslims full stop are the root cause.

I'm not doing social studies, this kind of work needs to be done by others.
I would assume however that the police and several other organizations already have a pretty good idea.
Your idea sounds more like "we can't be bothered as a society, so let's make a sweeping change to do anything at all...."

Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.

It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.

Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.

Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.

I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?

It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....

[Brenus]

Well, in France, 2 years ago (around), it was fashion to go in war against Assad. I (vaguely) remember newspaper comparing the same poeple we now scorn to the Internatianal Brigadists, ignoring de afcto they were suporting a Nazi-like ideology. Remember, it was the time of "moderate" Al-Nusra.

[Pannonian]

I'm not doing social studies, this kind of work needs to be done by others.
I would assume however that the police and several other organizations already have a pretty good idea.
Your idea sounds more like "we can't be bothered as a society, so let's make a sweeping change to do anything at all...."

I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?

It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....

I'd prefer it if those who are telling us off and telling us we need to accept these behaviours volunteer to take in the troublemakers instead. Practice what you preach. Petition your government to take in all the foreign students of the madrassas in Pakistan, who've travelled there from western countries to learn about their faith. Petition your government to take in (and not fob off on other countries) all the westerners who've travelled to Syria to learn about their faith. And so on. Oh, and cancel the Schengen area so you don't get to pass them on in the name of free movement. You take them in, and you keep them.

[Pannonian]

Shouldn't be hard. The employees of the Telegraph and Spiegel you let through. A company that some bloke registered two weeks ago with his parent's house as an adress? Pass.

It's mostly against the ones who return, though. You can't really stop them from going in the first place. More than a few have come crawling back here, admitted they were in Iraq or Syria but insisted they were just there to do good works. Some of them are stupid enough to pose with an AK-47 on facebook, but for others there might not be any proof.

Pannonian has said he wants to block them from coming back, but I don't believe that will work for legal and diplomatic reasons. Having some legal framework to toss them in jail, put them under house arrest or long term surveilance would be great.

Incidentally, I remember an article from a few months ago about ISIS deserters who returned to the countries where they grew up. The two most common reasons why they became dissatisfied were the all pervasive squalor in the caliphate, and secondly, that they saw ISIS commit atrocities against sunni muslims. I have a very low opinion of returnees for more than one reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-isis-fighters

An article in the New Yorker from September this year. Of course, this paragraph is inaccurate now.

Most European jihadis returning from Syria and Iraq have no further violent aspirations, even if they continue to believe ISIS has accomplished their dream of a caliphate. To date, there has been only one major attack by a European returnee, at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, though a number of violent plots have been thwarted across the continent. Many young people who left Europe in 2012 and 2013 to fight against oppression—but not necessarily for freedom—in Syria, grew disenchanted as rifts between Sunni rebel groups caused them to begin killing one another. “I recognize that I have made bad decisions,” one returned Sharia4Belgium member told police. “I want to take my life back and provide for my family. I want to go back to study and look for work. This is the only thing that interests me now.”

This bit was charming too.

“I was a little bit angry that he touched the book,” Delefortrie told me, “because I know it’s a sacred book,” and now it was sullied by his father’s touch.

They've made their bed. They should lie in it.

[Brenus]

So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...

[Pannonian]

So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...

The British who'd gone over to the Germans didn't fare too badly, but then there weren't many of them (fewer than 50 in total in a 6 year war, compared with some 700+ who've joined ISIS in the last year or two). IIRC they didn't face much more than short imprisonment. I can't imagine the French being too kind on their quislings though. Perhaps you can give me more details on what happened to Frenchmen who collaborated with the Germans. I know that Laval, for one, was executed, and Petain only escaped because he was old. Not that I'm advocating such harsh punishment as the French were wont to mete out to their traitors. The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain. If that's too harsh, perhaps France could take them in in our stead. That would give you the high horse that you seem to want.

[Greyblades]

So we should have shot all the Germans after WW2 (well most of them, minus the anti-nazi who survived the Death Camps, of course) as they voted for Hitler so "They,ve made their bed etc"...?
And even in the ones who survived the Camp, I am sure we would have find some who were Nazi at the start...
Then, we would have to congratulate the Communists and the SA who were Hitler's opponents, of course, and put them on power... Err, not...

I dont get how that relates to the previous post.

[Brenus]

"I dont get how that relates to the previous post." Really? Too bad...

"The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain." I think it is a good and brilliant idea... So, a guy or a girl, guilty of terrorism or simply being stupid, should be brought back to the country from where he/she come from... To finish the sentence? So an Englo-Syrian who became a terrorst in Syria should be returned to Syria...Really a brilliant idea!!!! She/he will finish the training I suppose...

"That would give you the high horse that you seem to want" I was just saying it is one of the most illarious proposal I ever read in this kind of thing. Let the terrorist (or aprentice) free to roam, and if they want to come back, stop them to do so, so they won't have to face justice...
And yes, as well, to underline that no one is guilty untill proven to be, and even when guilty, there are degrees in the guilt...
And about the French who fought for the Nazi, the ones guilty of war-crimes and active collaboration with the ennemy were indeed JUDGED, then sentence, some with death penalty, some with prison. Here, we speak of a State, not what is called the Epuration wich was more or less a civil war with all the ugly sides of it.
And as you notice, none was sent in exile or deported, but when kept alive, were kept warm inside jails. It is what is justice is. Not perfect, but it did worked.
This was of course because the problem of the "malgrès-nous", always possible even if really and highly impossible in the case we are debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malgr%C3%A9-nous

Some even wrote books about their experience (even if this one was not relly one of them if you read the book):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the point is that you don't want them to come back to their countries after a once in a lifetime nod to their beliefs.

Doesn't sound like "British values" to me. I doubt Brits share that sentiment anyway.

Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.

Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj. The issue seems to be that they get jolted into taking their religion and then they suddenly feel the need to wear desert robes and stop drinking or looking at lads' mags, then they get upset when their friends think they've gone off.

Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

Which is not to say that I'm in favour banning people who go on pilgrimage from returning to Britain but you yourself have provided some of the ammunition for this argument.

[Pannonian]

"I dont get how that relates to the previous post." Really? Too bad...

"The equivalent of what I advocate would be for British traitors to be permanently exiled from Britain." I think it is a good and brilliant idea... So, a guy or a girl, guilty of terrorism or simply being stupid, should be brought back to the country from where he/she come from... To finish the sentence? So an Englo-Syrian who became a terrorst in Syria should be returned to Syria...Really a brilliant idea!!!! She/he will finish the training I suppose...

"That would give you the high horse that you seem to want" I was just saying it is one of the most illarious proposal I ever read in this kind of thing. Let the terrorist (or aprentice) free to roam, and if they want to come back, stop them to do so, so they won't have to face justice...
And yes, as well, to underline that no one is guilty untill proven to be, and even when guilty, there are degrees in the guilt...
And about the French who fought for the Nazi, the ones guilty of war-crimes and active collaboration with the ennemy were indeed JUDGED, then sentence, some with death penalty, some with prison. Here, we speak of a State, not what is called the Epuration wich was more or less a civil war with all the ugly sides of it.
And as you notice, none was sent in exile or deported, but when kept alive, were kept warm inside jails. It is what is justice is. Not perfect, but it did worked.
This was of course because the problem of the "malgrès-nous", always possible even if really and highly impossible in the case we are debating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malgr%C3%A9-nous

Some even wrote books about their experience (even if this one was not relly one of them if you read the book):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier

Goodness knows why you're talking about justice, as I'm not the one talking about them being hanged, drawn and quartererd, or any other kind of justice. I just don't want them here. I'm assuming that we have the right to control whom we admit into our borders. Unless you want that taken away from our national government as well.

[Pannonian]

Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.

Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj. The issue seems to be that they get jolted into taking their religion and then they suddenly feel the need to wear desert robes and stop drinking or looking at lads' mags, then they get upset when their friends think they've gone off.

Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

Which is not to say that I'm in favour banning people who go on pilgrimage from returning to Britain but you yourself have provided some of the ammunition for this argument.

One of the distinguishing signs is when the ostentatiously take the attitude that they're holier and more pious than thou, either through dress and action, or, as in the article I quoted above, when they think their parents aren't good enough for them. I couldn't believe my eyes at this.

“I was a little bit angry that he touched the book,” Delefortrie told me, “because I know it’s a sacred book,” and now it was sullied by his father’s touch.

For me, that's enough to confirm that the convert is an irredeemable scumbag. I don't care what your religion says. Short of some seriously inhuman actions (murder and such), one's parents are above any religion. If your religion says otherwise, you should be looking for another religion.

[Pannonian]

Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.

The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.

I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.

Just because Britain has been devout in the past doesn't mean it is so now. There are cultural values that exist now that didn't exist 100 years ago. Football was a working class pastime 100 years ago, but now it's practically the national religion. The NHS is probably the most agreed on political issue in the UK, but it didn't exist 100 years ago.

The religious values that Britain adhered to in the past have been gradually taken over by secular humanist values, having begot most of them in the first place. What used to be called Christian values are now secular British values, divorced from their religious roots. In a way, ye olde England has replaced the Garden of Eden as the paradise that believers fix their sights on.

[Brenus]

"I just don't want them here. I'm assuming that we have the right to control whom we admit into our borders. Unless you want that taken away from our national government as well." What you want is not always what you get... I understand your wish, and somewhere, hope it would be as simple as this. The problem in the ones who want to come-back, is in the "back" part. They are British. So, in order to stop them to come "back", if they have a double-nationality (so you immediately introduce a discrimination), you have to take the British one off them. Lot and lot of legal troubles if their parents are English, or their children.
I want nothing. UK signed international treaties, and if UK doesn't want retribution, UK has to honours them. In signing this treaties, this control had been taken away, long time ago, but it why you and I can travel all around the world...

[AE Bravo]

Aside from that, it has been noted that some young Muslim men begin to radicalise after the Hajj.

Noted only by you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erol-y...b_4323216.html

Anyway, you yourself have said that Saudi Arabia is the source of Salafism, it follows that we should limit exposure to these Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

These are holy sites, they aren't Salafi. This is an Islamic neutral ground. There's no politicized sermons or sectarianism. I've never provided "ammunition" because it's well-known that these sites are the eye of the hurricane.

[Kralizec]

I am not going to say that I sympathize a lot with them, but why not let the police/experts sort them out? Why do we need sweeping new laws to treat everybody of a certain group the same based on one single characteristic? What's next? A pre-crime unit?

It is interesting how people are always "defiant" and "won't change their way of life because of a terrorist attack" shortly after it happened, an then two weeks later everybody has a new anti-terror legislation in mind that we totally need to end terrorism once and for all by altering something....

I'm happy to let the experts handle it, even if they think a soft approach is best. I'm not advocating sweeping new legislation, either.

I just don't have any respect for the returnees as a group. I despise their motives for going there in the first place and think that most come back for reasons that aren’t worth an applause, either.

So as I’ve said: if they return here, I’ll let the experts handle it the way they think is best. Maybe it would be beneficial to use the returnees for demotivational speeches, preventing others from going to Syria or Iraq.

But I perfectly understand why others want to prevent them from coming back. Part of me thinks it´s for the best that they stay true to their cause until they get incinerated by an F-16 or a MiG. Regardless of the security risk that returnees present.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(edit)
At first I referred to this report . I had read about it before, and skimmed it before making this post. I thought that it was about ISIS defectors returning to Europe but actually the majority of the people interviewed seem to be from Syria and neighbouring countries

.

[Fragony]

Difficult, a lot of returnees went to Syria to topple Assad and came back when IS came into existance. These should get a second chance I think. Who goes now absolutily shouldn't.

[Gilrandir]

How to battle terrorism: the Italian way:
http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/2015...unterterrorism

[Shaka_Khan]

Now we can see the Indonesian police at work.

[Viking]

Abaaoud told her he was proud of what he had done and claimed that some 90 others had travelled from Syria and were still in the Paris area.

[...]

Chillingly, Sonia says more attacks were to come, at a shopping centre, a police station and a nursery in La Defense business district in Paris.
Abaooud's exact words, she says were: "Some of the attacks were botched and I'm here to make sure there won't be any more that are botched."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35491902

Ominous.

[Husar]

Well, either he's right and the raids targeted all the wrong people (police have no clue) or he's boasting a bit to get more anti-terror laws passed.

[Fragony]

Of course more are comming we willl just have to get used to that. Everybody sane understood that.

[Viking]

Whatever people may have understood, it would not be quite that specific.