Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Greyblades]

...you do know the troubles have been over for about 20-30 years right?

[Papewaio]

...you do know the troubles have been over for about 20-30 years right?

1. Omaha bombing which was the worst one was only 17 years ago so get your fecking facts right.

2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.

3. It wasn't until 9/11 that the U.S. figured out the hard way that fianacing terrorist groups makes one complicit

[Greyblades]

Angry much?

2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.

Did the vatican teach people how to create bombs? Or for that matter encourage violence against protestants?

[Pannonian]

1. Omaha bombing which was the worst one was only 17 years ago so get your fecking facts right.

2. We didn't ban Catholic's going to the Vatican even at the height of the Troubles.

3. It wasn't until 9/11 that the U.S. figured out the hard way that fianacing terrorist groups makes one complicit

The Northern Ireland troubles were always political in nature. Potential troublemakers were profiled that way. Define a way of profiling potential Islamist troublemakers that doesn't involve greater and more zealous religious belief. You won't find a more culturally neutral, yet almost completely accurate way that the definition that they've been to the usual radicalisation hotspots. I made that definition some years ago based on the profiles of past attackers, and in this year alone, nearly all the Paris attackers (Syria) and San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia) have fit this profile. The only one that did not was someone who grew up in a ghetto in Belgium. I'd be surprised if the police did not already highlight British citizens who have been to Syria as an alarm bell for greater attention.

[Idaho]

All of these attackers have drunk a cup of coffee at some point in their life. Therefore, by your logic, we should ban coffee.

How about the people this soldier talks about. They are all Muslims who've been active in a middle east warzone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35054442

[Pannonian]

All of these attackers have drunk a cup of coffee at some point in their life. Therefore, by your logic, we should ban coffee.

How about the people this soldier talks about. They are all Muslims who've been active in a middle east warzone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35054442

You disagree with a proposition, and therefore come up with an absurd counter proposition to "prove" that the original was equally absurd. I've already asked you to define a way by which we can practically profile potential troublemakers, but you've not done owt so far.

As for your second point, I've already qualified my bar in the past with people who have been officially approved by the British government. That's centralised control and monitoring of who's been there. People serving over there in a government approved capacity qualify. People over there doing government business qualify. Private travel is barred. Why would anyone go to, for instance, Syria, but with the aim of causing trouble, or to join ISIS? And if that's what they've done, why should we welcome them back?

[Gilrandir]

But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrong

As I have once argued, books don't make people do things. When people take up a book of this kind, they have a system of values and beliefs already entrenched inside their mind and heart. The book only resonates with what is already there. Since Holy Books under discussion are full of controversial and mutually excluding premises he chooses those that chime with his image of the world. So blaming books is like stating that the Moon shines on its own.

They go to countries that are notable for producing radicals who return to Britain and other countries to cause trouble. Christianity has dropped the idea of pilgrimage. Maybe British Muslims should think about that too.

Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.

[Pannonian]

Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.

Since you don't believe that Muslims who travel to these hotspots to get radicalised don't exist, why doesn't Ukraine offer to take them in instead? Why don't you argue for Ukraine to take in European Muslims who have been to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.? Come to think of it, what's Ukraine's share of the Syrian exodus? Google tells me the number is a massive "more than 300".

[Greyblades]

Let's forbid people (especially the British, they seem so easily influenced by cultures they come in contact with) to go to Papua New Guinea which is notable for producing cannibals, Central Africa notable for FGM and Singapore, where you get inhumanely fined several hundred dollars for throwing a chewing gum on the ground.

We have multiple examples of middle east visits radicalizing western muslims. Its a bit late to start trying to declare the concept absurd.

[Idaho]

Pannonian and Greyblades are making the same logical error.

This is called a Type I error. A false postive. You are looking at an outcome, finding common precursors in that outcome, and suggesting we act on all of those who share those common precursors.

So, for example, if you were testing for a disease - let's call it terroritis. Your test is whether the person is a) Muslim and b) frequently visits certain countries. If both a) and b) are met, the person is supposed to have terroritis.

But if we look at the actual numbers of people with terroritis - it's a very very rare disease. With less than, say 20 incidences a year. We are testing a group of over two million (a wild guess of how many people frequently travel back and forth to visit family in Pakistan, or who go to Haj in Saudi each year).

So first off we are adversely affecting the lives of a few million people for a common trait in 20 people.

But the situation is even more complex than that. Of the 20 people with terroritis - actually only 15 have condition a) and b). So it's a poor test logically, and an utterly unworkable and unjust one in reality.

[Gilrandir]

Since you don't believe that Muslims who travel to these hotspots to get radicalised don't exist, why doesn't Ukraine offer to take them in instead? Why don't you argue for Ukraine to take in European Muslims who have been to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.? Come to think of it, what's Ukraine's share of the Syrian exodus? Google tells me the number is a massive "more than 300".

Who said I don't believe? I just point out that sorting them will take much time and effort and meet a huge uproar for violating human rights and yadda yadda.
As for Syrians coming to Ukraine - You corroborate what I said: they aren't REFUGEES they are immigrants. They don't camp at the first place where shelling isn't heard, instead they pick and choose trying to get where they will be better off, not just safe from bombings. If it were otherwise, Ukraine would have faced the same deluge Germany is experiencing. Or, more probably, all refugees would have stayed in Turkey, Jordan and Lebannon.

Besides, Ukraine is hard put to it to deal with refugees from Donbas, so new ones will be just too much for it.

We have multiple examples of middle east visits radicalizing western muslims. Its a bit late to start trying to declare the concept absurd.

I have expressed my opinion on the question: no entrance for ANY outsiders. Attempts to sort them (as well as those who travel outside) into categories will get you bogged into discussions on how liberal the EU should be and is it short of leaving people to starve etc. You can't apply your system of values (including political ones) to aliens.

[Gilrandir]

Pannonian and Greyblades are making the same logical error.

This is called a Type I error. A false postive. You are looking at an outcome, finding common precursors in that outcome, and suggesting we act on all of those who share those common precursors.

So, for example, if you were testing for a disease - let's call it terroritis. Your test is whether the person is a) Muslim and b) frequently visits certain countries. If both a) and b) are met, the person is supposed to have terroritis.

But if we look at the actual numbers of people with terroritis - it's a very very rare disease. With less than, say 20 incidences a year. We are testing a group of over two million (a wild guess of how many people frequently travel back and forth to visit family in Pakistan, or who go to Haj in Saudi each year).

So first off we are adversely affecting the lives of a few million people for a common trait in 20 people.

But the situation is even more complex than that. Of the 20 people with terroritis - actually only 15 have condition a) and b). So it's a poor test logically, and an utterly unworkable and unjust one in reality.

They follow the same logics that vaccinators offer. Why call it false?

[Idaho]

They follow the same logics that vaccinators offer. Why call it false?

The maths of vaccination is quite different - and depends on which disease is being vaccinated against.

[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.

[Idaho]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Kralizec]

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

Maybe it's my limited knowledge but I don't know of many examples of countries forbidding their own citizens to go to X or Y. Only ones that come to mind are unfree states like Syria (bans travel to Israel and Iraq, or at least used to) and certain other Arab countries (again, Israel)

Which admittedly doesn't invalidate the idea by itself. I wouldn't reject your idea out of hand, but I doubt that your premise is correct. Many western muslims make the Hajj. I googled it and a Dutch news article from several years ago said that around 5000 Dutch muslims make the journey on a yearly basis (before the world economy went to shit). Even with a strict interpretation of Islam the Hajj is mandatory only once, so I think we can assume that most of those make the journey for the first and only time.

I can believe that making the Hajj impossible would prevent a few people from radicalising, but it would piss off a far greater number.

[Greyblades]

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.

[Pannonian]

Maybe it's my limited knowledge but I don't know of many examples of countries forbidding their own citizens to go to X or Y. Only ones that come to mind are unfree states like Syria (bans travel to Israel and Iraq, or at least used to) and certain other Arab countries (again, Israel)

Which admittedly doesn't invalidate the idea by itself. I wouldn't reject your idea out of hand, but I doubt that your premise is correct. Many western muslims make the Hajj. I googled it and a Dutch news article from several years ago said that around 5000 Dutch muslims make the journey on a yearly basis (before the world economy went to shit). Even with a strict interpretation of Islam the Hajj is mandatory only once, so I think we can assume that most of those make the journey for the first and only time.

I can believe that making the Hajj impossible would prevent a few people from radicalising, but it would piss off a far greater number.

If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary. Pakistan's religious schools were the destination of choice for would be British Islamists in the past, while Syria is the more current training ground from which the Paris attackers got their schooling. Saudi Arabia is, of course, the most active promoter of the worst of Islam. When people complain about the US funding unsavoury activities, they should ask themselves why they're excusing Saudi Arabia in all this, since they're the biggest funders of them.

Also, note that I never said anything about barring anyone travelling from Britain. They can travel to wherever they like. But if they go into these hotspots, Britain should have nothing more to do with them. They can go there, and Britain can't stop them (even though there is established liberal-founded precedent for stopping minors from doing so), but they can't return. Whom Britain lets is is our own business.

[Gilrandir]

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.

Then it is a selective quarantine. You forbid access only to one group of people but allow others a free hand in taking journeys everywhere.

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.

My aunt lives in Russia and my wife's friends, so I don't see anything wrong in mutual border crossing. If it happens in places controlled by Ukrainian authorities who thus decide who can cross the border and who can't.

You forget that the war between Russia and Ukraine is hybrid, both counrties trade with each other (though on a constantly decreasing scale), our president owns business in Russia (and allegedly in the Crimea).

The only thing I don't understand in your post is reference to pro-Russian Ukrainians living in western Ukraine. This part of the country is known for its anti-Russian sentiment (Sarmatian calls all of them nazis), so I can't imagine any serious number of such people desiring to be aligned to Russia, as you put it.

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?

There are different motivations behind those two. Disregarding the warning not to travel to a war zone will harm those who choose to visit it, disregarding the proposed ban will harm others.

If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary.

What if they want to make another Haj? In this case piety will look a crime.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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..."

[Greyblades]

Then it is a selective quarantine. You forbid access only to one group of people but allow others a free hand in taking journeys everywhere.

Pretty much, not all muslims are islamic terrorists but all islamic terrorists are muslim.

The medical analogy falls apart a bit as in medicine even those who are immune to a disease are still capable of being carriers.

[Idaho]

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

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

[Idaho]

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

Those word? Whose word?

[Gilrandir]

Those word? Whose word?

Theirs word.

[Kralizec]

If it's a once only journey, they can apply for special dispensation for a once in a lifetime journey, and tick it off their list, and make it the only point in their itinerary. Pakistan's religious schools were the destination of choice for would be British Islamists in the past, while Syria is the more current training ground from which the Paris attackers got their schooling. Saudi Arabia is, of course, the most active promoter of the worst of Islam. When people complain about the US funding unsavoury activities, they should ask themselves why they're excusing Saudi Arabia in all this, since they're the biggest funders of them.

Also, note that I never said anything about barring anyone travelling from Britain. They can travel to wherever they like. But if they go into these hotspots, Britain should have nothing more to do with them. They can go there, and Britain can't stop them (even though there is established liberal-founded precedent for stopping minors from doing so), but they can't return. Whom Britain lets is is our own business.

I don't have any fundamental objection, I just question wether it's proportional or even necessary.

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.

Our Prime Minister got some flak a couple of months ago when he said that personally he'd rather have Dutch ISIS combatants die in Syria than having them return here. Most of the noise came from the usual assholes in the opposition, though.

[Fragony]

Some uplifting news http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-85270297/

nice gesture from the muslim community