Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

**Greyblades** · 12-10-2015, 11:48

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.

**Idaho** · 12-10-2015, 12:01

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

"Mild inconvenience" in this instance means "won't bother me, and I don't know or care how much it will bother others".

It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.

**Greyblades** · 12-10-2015, 12:15

Oh please, it's hardly a human rights violation to forbid visiting a war zone/sharia state. Besides, I'm leaning more on the stick them on a watch list side of the argument.

It's not a proven disease carrier. It's just a correlation.

Seems someone wasn't paying attention over the last month.

**Pannonian** · 12-10-2015, 12:39

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Oh please, it's hardly a human rights violation to forbid visiting a war zone/sharia state. Besides, I'm leaning more on the stick them on a watch list side of the argument.

Seems someone wasn't paying attention over the last month.

Border controls are a violation of human rights apparently, going by the above arguments. I wonder if Gilrandir is in favour of free movement of Russians to and from Ukraine. Or, for that matter, free movement of Ukrainians aligned with Russia, to and from western Ukraine.

**Idaho** · 12-10-2015, 13:45

If I had family in Pakistan who I liked to visit a few times a year, or a business in Pakistan that I wanted to visit frequently, I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.

This kind of simplistic, xenophobia-motivated internet armchair solution plays well to keyboard mavericks such as yourself, but no serious civil servant, politician (other than a Trumpesque mob demagogue) takes it seriously. It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.

**Pannonian** · 12-10-2015, 13:52

Originally Posted by Idaho

If I had family in Pakistan who I liked to visit a few times a year, or a business in Pakistan that I wanted to visit frequently, I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.

This kind of simplistic, xenophobia-motivated internet armchair solution plays well to keyboard mavericks such as yourself, but no serious civil servant, politician (other than a Trumpesque mob demagogue) takes it seriously. It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.

Or a relative in the USSR that you wanted to visit frequently, etc. I wonder what you think of the government's warnings not to go to certain places (eg. Tunisia). Are they a violation of your human rights?

**Greyblades** · 12-10-2015, 14:26

Originally Posted by Idaho

I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.

That would make you ignorant of international human rights, so I believe you.

It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.

I don't think those word mean what you think they mean.

**Idaho** · 12-10-2015, 16:13

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I don't think those word mean what you think they mean.

Those word? Whose word?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-10-2015, 16:08

Originally Posted by Idaho

If I had family in Pakistan who I liked to visit a few times a year, or a business in Pakistan that I wanted to visit frequently, I would consider an arbitrary, and pointless movement embargo a violation of my human rights.

This kind of simplistic, xenophobia-motivated internet armchair solution plays well to keyboard mavericks such as yourself, but no serious civil servant, politician (other than a Trumpesque mob demagogue) takes it seriously. It's unworkable, counter-productive and nonsensical.

"If I had family in East Germany..."

**Idaho** · 12-10-2015, 16:13

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

"If I had family in East Germany..."

Go on - if you had a family in East Germany... what?

**Papewaio** · 12-10-2015, 20:48

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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** · 12-10-2015, 21:35

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?