|
botany posted:Where are you from, out of curiosity? Finland.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Majorian posted:A bunch of people said that about Dylan Roof. They do about basically every mass shooter in the U.S. It's Dylann with two 'n'. Il avait beaucoup de N en lui. We don't bother trying to explain that Dylann Roof was radicalized by Black communities' failure to project a less-threatening image. In his manifesto, Dylann Roof said he started becoming a racial supremacist "after reading on Black-on-White crime" but nobody dignifies that drivel by arguing Blacks share a responsibility for these racist attacks because they did not do a good enough work curbing such crime. We're not trying to explain that racists have reasons for their crimes; that it wouldn't be happening if only Blacks were more accommodating to the sensibilities of racist hicks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Whoa. So basically 90% of terrorists are the same type of person that does school shootings, except the terrorist groups get to claim it for themselves and everyone gets scared of them as a result? It really would be a comedy if not for the whole tragedy of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's Dylann with two 'n'. Il avait beaucoup de N en lui. There's a bit of a difference between that power dynamic and this one, though, don't you think? In Roof's case, he was part of a white majority and was intent on killing members of a considerably less-powerful minority. In the Belgian terrorists' case, they were part of an underprivileged minority striking against a white majority. That doesn't mean that the Belgian terrorists' attack was more justified than Roof's (it absolutely wasn't), but you can't apply the same explanation to both situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Whoa. So basically 90% of terrorists are the same type of person that does school shootings, except the terrorist groups get to claim it for themselves and everyone gets scared of them as a result? It really would be a comedy if not for the whole tragedy of it. The same type of person, except also receiving tips and resources on how to make the most out of their killing spree from a network of tested murderers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
This darkly humorous video turned up in a compilation video and i had to share. I think it was a post-paris attempt to make belgians not afraid of Muslims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljdqmdTFqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjAtRjFgmF8 There was an unconfirmed report that one of these is now out of service due to bomb damage to telephone lines. (i did look back a few pages, sorry if it was posted) MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Nobody has said that anyone except the people who did the attack "share the responsibility" in the attack. People may have said that the security services did not do enough to prevent these attacks which uh, is a valid loving complaint with the information we've been receiving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In the Belgian terrorists' case, they were part of an underprivileged minority striking against a white majority. Had some special bombs that only riddle whitey with nail fragments then, did they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:The punchup/punchdown argument was intended for political advocacy, satire and humor. Not guns and bombs. Except we're discussing explanations for how people in various social demographics are radicalized. So maybe try reading the posts you're quoting next time. Nermal posted:Had some special bombs that only riddle whitey with nail fragments then, did they? Are you somehow under the impression that the white majority of Belgium wasn't the target they intended to terrorize? Pochoclo posted:Whoa. So basically 90% of terrorists are the same type of person that does school shootings, except the terrorist groups get to claim it for themselves and everyone gets scared of them as a result? It really would be a comedy if not for the whole tragedy of it. Kind of. That was basically how a lot of al-Qaeda cells operated in the mid-2000's anyway: dipshits like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could start up their own awful terrorist groups in places like Iraq and just retroactively claim affiliation with al-Qaeda. e: One thing that's really surreal about this all, btw, is that Dikembe Mutombo was in the airport at the time, and thankfully wasn't injured. it's particularly weird for me because my nonprofit works with him and his foundation. he's a super great dude, so i'm glad he's okay. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
The motivation in their attack doesn't have anything to do with the power dynamics of race and religion in Belgium. The fact that they are an underprivileged minority is really in no way or form tied to the terrorism they commit, which is on paper about killing anyone who isn't Islamic enough but for the bombers it's just a way to feel important and strike against people they hate (everyone). Since one in six people going to fight as foreign fighters are converts from that white majority it's really not tied the poverty in their communities. We really need to divorce this poo poo from Islam or demographics in Europe. These people come from poverty, middle class, rich, black, white, brown, male, female etc. The thing that unites them all and separates them from everyone else (who isn't a violent maniac wanting to murder random people) is the fact that they are incredibly unbalanced people due to actual mental conditions who don't fit anywhere. The thing that makes Muslim people of such stripe or people of such stripe willing to become a Muslim is that due to our complicity in various immoral industries (primarily oil) we have financed and armed an organization that specializes in collecting that people and has billions of dollars of money to gather them and send them around the world. Also after the Wall went down our security services apparently grew lazy as poo poo in a decade - but that's a problem for all types of extremists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:The motivation in their attack doesn't have anything to do with the power dynamics of race and religion in Belgium. Eh, I don't agree, though. A lot of the pieces we're seeing in this thread are saying that a feeling of alienation and unjust discrimination against Muslims, particularly in the job market, plays a role. There's a lot of mental imbalance contributing to recruitment, as you've said, but as the article double nine posted said, only 1 in 5 are diagnosed with mental illnesses before they go to join ISIS. The number of those who are undiagnosed is also probably high, but still, it doesn't seem to me that mental illness can account for all of it. There has to be a social power dynamic involved as well. (edit because I can't spell "role," lol) Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lot of the pieces we're seeing in this thread are saying that a feeling of alienation and unjust discrimination against Muslims, particularly in the job market, plays a role. Funny, I must have missed that section in the ISIS manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Funny, I must have missed that section in the ISIS manifesto. It's not exactly a controversial explanation at this point, except among posters like you. Also it would be pretty funny if Garfield mailed you to Abu Dhabi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Funny, I must have missed that section in the ISIS manifesto. It comes up a little but not a lot in their public-facing stuff. One of their Things is that they want to argue that being a good Muslim and a Westerner isn't just inconvenient, but impossible.. So they get more (but still not a lot of) public mileage out of eg hijab bans than out of academic studies of job discrimination  . Their recruiters, now, seem to be perfectly fine with people who just plain feel persecuted and excluded.Edit: and Majorian covers the "how do we keep people from being radicalized in the first place" angle rather than the "actually, if you read ISIS propaganda, they say" angle. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, I don't agree, though. A lot of the pieces we're seeing in this thread are saying that a feeling of alienation and unjust discrimination against Muslims, particularly in the job market, plays a role. There's a lot of mental imbalance contributing to recruitment, as you've said, but as the article double nine posted said, only 1 in 5 are diagnosed with mental illnesses before they go to join ISIS. The number of those who are undiagnosed is also probably high, but still, it doesn't seem to me that mental illness can account for all of it. There has to be a social power dynamic involved as well. Yeah well they're not alone with that feeling. It doesn't drive you to murder people at the drop of the hat while also committing suicide any more then being a Muslim does without serious accompanying mental instability. They aren't pressed into an army and conditioned to murder people, they seek that out themselves. They're crazypants, no different from a school shooter or a serial killer. The conditions they live in obviously don't make for a best ground into being nuts and something should be done about that. But rich white kids do it too, so you can't just stop murdering lunatics from existing. What we can do is not to finance and arm these people. US has a problem with the "arm" part inside their own country a bit more, but at least there aren't spree shooter camps in Haiti or somewhere bought and paid by America. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Edit: and Majorian covers the "how do we keep people from being radicalized in the first place" angle rather than the "actually, if you read ISIS propaganda, they say" angle. Yeah, I mean, pretty much everybody here agrees on one half of what Europe needs to do: capture these guys, bring them to justice, do better intelligence and security work to roll up terrorist cells, etc. None of that is in dispute. The people that are already radicalized and recruited can't be allowed to put their plans into action. It's the other half of the equation that I and others are hammering: how to minimize, and perhaps eventually end, recruitment into Islamist terrorist groups. Some strategies have a chance of being effective, including paying more attention to the needs of the Muslim minority in Europe, helping them integrate, giving them equal opportunities in the job market, etc. Others, like cracking down on all of them for the crimes of a few radicalized members, are counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
It must be really frustrating to be in ISIS. No matter how much you say you want to bring about the total destruction of Western civilisation and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate, people keep telling you you're murdering civilians because you're poor, missed out on a few job interviews or are a bit mental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Nermal posted:It must be really frustrating to be in ISIS. No matter how much you say you want to bring about the total destruction of Western civilisation and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate, people keep telling you you're murdering civilians because you're poor, missed out on a few job interviews or are a bit mental. It must be really frustrating be that gullible. They already have their caliphate. They're attacking us because were bombing the poo poo out of them and wiping out that caliphate. If you think they conquered the old one with nothing but random suicide attacks you really know gently caress-all about ISIS. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Good news, those are all very easy and simple fundamental problems to solve that won't certainly get worse over the coming decades!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:what Europe needs to do: capture these guys, bring them to justice, do better intelligence and security work to roll up terrorist cells Are these not pulling in two differant directions? If they kick down doors looking for ISIS members at 6PM (i was going to say midnight, lol) they are going to piss off the father, mother or little brother of whoever they arrested, who will grow into a terrorist in a few years, or at least feel more solidarity for their fellow immigrants than their new countrymen (who they see as excluding and attacking them). If they leave them alone so they dont feel excluded from society, the whole city is on edge knowing an attack is coming for months, and a bomb goes off at an airport. You cant win. There isnt even a "The only winning move is not to play" option. Mozi posted:The winning move is to go back in time and really make a big and extended effort to incorporate refugees and migrants into the social fabric of the country instead of just sticking them somewhere and forgetting about them. From my perspective this is victim blaming, murder victim blaming. You could also "Go back in time and speak like a white person" or "Go back in time and wear a longer skirt". I know this comparison wont make a lot of folks happy because its a sensative mental door they only want to pass through in one direction (similar to trump supporters hearing about how douche-y he is and responding with "yea but leadership") but we have clearly decided as a society not to blame the victims of violence. its one of the easier rules to follow in this new society. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
The winning move is to go back in time and really make a big and extended effort to incorporate refugees and migrants into the social fabric of the country instead of just sticking them somewhere and forgetting about them. Bit late for that now, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Are these not pulling in two differant directions? If they kick down doors looking for ISIS members at 6PM (i was going to say midnight, lol) they are going to piss off the father, mother or little brother of whoever they arrested, who will grow into a terrorist in a few years, or at least feel more solidarity for their fellow immigrants than their new countrymen (who they see as excluding and attacking them). If they leave them alone so they dont feel excluded from society, the whole city is on edge knowing an attack is coming for months, and a bomb goes off at an airport. You cant win. There isnt even a "The only winning move is not to play" option. In almost all cases it is the relatives of these people who tell police that they went to Syria and police who don't give a poo poo. We actually know the names and faces of almost everyone because of this. People who are merely RELATED to terrorists are ostracized by their community. I really don't think they mind as long as it wasn't just random aimless harassment that the right-wing wants it to be. http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/06/mothers-of-fighters/ You can actually get this magical information yourself with just few minutes of effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Are these not pulling in two differant directions? If they kick down doors looking for ISIS members at 6PM (i was going to say midnight, lol) they are going to piss off the father, mother or little brother of whoever they arrested, who will grow into a terrorist in a few years, or at least feel more solidarity for their fellow immigrants than their new countrymen (who they see as excluding and attacking them). Better intelligence work doesn't necessarily mean kicking in doors, though. Quite frankly, finding out how the one terrorist who was robbing currency exchanges was released from prison, and why Turkey's warning was dismissed so readily, would be good starts in that direction. So would better engagement between law enforcement and the Muslim minority. I forgot which of these studies it was, but the police precinct that has jurisdiction over Molenbeek has an insanely low number of Muslim/ethnically Middle Eastern officers. That's not conducive to building an effective internal intelligence network. Have a look at this story about the mother of a kid who went off to fight for ISIS: she warned the police that her son was radicalizing, asked them to intervene, and didn't get any help whatsoever. That's a big problem, when the Muslim population genuinely wants to help stop terrorist recruitment within its ranks and it can't get the help from the authorities that it needs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Well put. On the subject of radical islamic terrorism and intelligence gathering: That reminds me of a topic i hoped to be able to bring up (long before this weeks attack) with someone who didnt agree with me. Its often seen as the ultimate taboo in law enforcement to spy on (this does of course happen, and apperantly the cops drink tea and eat tasty sweets and dont accomplish much) or raid houses of worship, especially mosques. In america this argument is even more heated and i dont know of any mosques that have actually had the door kicked down. http://www.inquisitr.com/2622046/paris-mosques-raid-police-raid-shut-down-three-mosques-in-paris-after-chilling-discoveries-inside/ In december the french did so and found all kinds of assault rifles, and i'm sure its happened since then. Is this something you would advocate for doing? Surprising them just before dusk and seeing if they have illegal guns and isis recruiting tools? Should they hit a few protestant churches too just to be fair? Is it likely that somewhere in the united states that there is a AR-15 filled mosque? Even if its 1 out of 1000, is that enough to act on? It only takes 5 minutes to throw them in the renault and relocate them, so more gentle law enforcement seems like it would be ineffective. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Well put. On the subject of radical islamic terrorism and intelligence gathering: That reminds me of a topic i hoped to be able to bring up (long before this weeks attack) with someone who didnt agree with me. Its often seen as the ultimate taboo in law enforcement to spy on (this does of course happen, and apperantly the cops drink tea and eat tasty sweets and dont accomplish much) or raid houses of worship, especially mosques. In america this argument is even more heated and i dont know of any mosques that have actually had the door kicked down. Yes if one received actually credible information that a house of worship is storing guns of course you raid it.  cops break up religious cults all the time and Wahhabism is viewed as a particularly insane one by the vast majority of Muslims, who do you think supplied the information, some Christian guy who happened to run into a box of AR-15's?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Well put. On the subject of radical islamic terrorism and intelligence gathering: That reminds me of a topic i hoped to be able to bring up (long before this weeks attack) with someone who didnt agree with me. Its often seen as the ultimate taboo in law enforcement to spy on (this does of course happen, and apperantly the cops drink tea and eat tasty sweets and dont accomplish much) or raid houses of worship, especially mosques. In america this argument is even more heated and i dont know of any mosques that have actually had the door kicked down. I think they should only raid houses of worship if they're as close to absolutely, 100% certain they're involved in terrorist activities as possible. I don't see it any differently from other law enforcement standards. If they have a warrant, they can go in. If not, they should get a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:48
|
|
Majorian posted:I think they should only raid houses of worship if they're as close to absolutely, 100% certain they're involved in terrorist activities as possible. I don't see it any differently from other law enforcement standards. If they have a warrant, they can go in. If not, they should get a warrant. The current standard of getting a warrant is "probably cause" which means that a prudent and cautious person would believe the facts to probably be true, so 51% chance.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The current standard of getting a warrant is "probably cause" which means that a prudent and cautious person would believe the facts to probably be true, so 51% chance. If you're going to make the suggestion that the French government would be unable to get a warrant to raid and search a mosque under normal circumstances, I'm going to need to see some evidence backing that theory up. The reality is, procedures that subvert the need to get a warrant, like the emergency powers that the French government assumed after the November attacks, are completely unnecessary though. Indeed, they seem to be pretty counterproductive: quote:The Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), an organization that assisted Human Rights Watch in contacting people targeted by the measures, said they had documented 180 cases of abusive house arrests and raids. Treating French Muslims, immigrants, and citizens of ME/NA descent as inherent threats only makes it easier for them to be radicalized and recruited. If you want Islamist terrorism to end in Europe, this is a bad way of going about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The current standard of getting a warrant is "probably cause" which means that a prudent and cautious person would believe the facts to probably be true, so 51% chance. I guess the real fulcrum point of this debate is when do you relax the requirements like crazy to get a warrant just because an insular group is turning your city into a warzone? (Putting aside the cultural debate that caused the problem in the first place). At some point do you just raid mosques because "One of the 8 mosques in this neighborhood must be terrorist-friendly" and not "I heard a specific tip that they have bombs in the basement". And to make the choice even harder, to do these raids effectively we arent talking about a gentle knock on the door and an "excuse me sir, can i have a look around". They just delay you for a minute or two while someone takes the contriband out the back door. You need to do the real warzone *Flashbang* GET ON THE FLOOR! stuff. Thats as radicalizing as it gets, just ask #blacklivesmatter. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If you're going to make the suggestion that the French government would be unable to get a warrant to raid and search a mosque under normal circumstances, I'm going to need to see some evidence backing that theory up. A bloo bloo bloo mosques shouldn't be raided because it will make the Muslims angry and then they will turn into terrorist Hulks. In the meantime, weapon caches were found in these mosques that shouldn't have been raided. I'm sure the faithful who went there would never have caused any problem if they had just been allowed to go on their merry way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:A bloo bloo bloo mosques shouldn't be raided because it will make the Muslims angry and then they will turn into terrorist Hulks.  You realize basically everything I'm saying is backed up by counterterrorism experts worldwide, right? I know you want to be as punitive towards Muslims as possible, but the people who actually know what they're talking about are saying that's a bad idea.quote:In the meantime, weapon caches were found in these mosques that shouldn't have been raided. Who said they shouldn't be raided?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
I think current laws (in countries except Belgium, you should be allowed to raid houses 24/7 when you have a warrant) are perfectly fine with regard to the burden of proof needed to get a warrant, but the consequences for the people running a Mosque or any other place where weapons are found without them notifying the police should be much more severe.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I think current laws (in countries except Belgium, you should be allowed to raid houses 24/7 when you have a warrant) are perfectly fine with regard to the burden of proof needed to get a warrant, but the consequences for the people running a Mosque or any other place where weapons are found without them notifying the police should be much more severe. Why should it be more severe, and in what way should it be more severe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why should it be more severe, and in what way should it be more severe? Private citizen doing illegal dangerous poo poo = private individual should be punished for doing illegal dangerous poo poo Organisation supporting illegal dangerous poo poo = organisation should be punished for enabling its entire membership to do illegal dangerous poo poo It's like the one case where US law is superior due to having things like RICO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Majorian posted:
Contradiction within the same post, goongratulations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Private citizen doing illegal dangerous poo poo = private individual should be punished for doing illegal dangerous poo poo Sure, but I don't see why that should warrant more severe punishment. Isn't jailing everyone responsible good enough? blowfish posted:Contradiction within the same post, goongratulations. Where? e: I mean, you realize "raiding mosques that we have a lot of reason to believe are involved in terrorist activities" isn't the same thing as "acting punitively just because they belong to the religion that ISIS also claims to belong to (but actually doesn't)," right? Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Presumably storing a bunch of illegal weapons is already a crime, not sure why it needs to be made into a double crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:Presumably storing a bunch of illegal weapons is already a crime, not sure why it needs to be made into a double crime. Plus conspiracy to commit a felony, belonging to a banned organization, and any number of other charges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Who said they shouldn't be raided? You: Majorian posted:I think they should only raid houses of worship if they're as close to absolutely, 100% certain they're involved in terrorist activities as possible. It has nothing with being more punitive towards Muslims. It's just a question of having cops do their drat job. Holding stricter standards for getting a search warrant on a place of worship than on anything else is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You: So in your mind, "Don't raid mosques unless you've got really compelling evidence that they're involved in terrorist activity" = "you can never raid mosques, ever." Got it. quote:It has nothing with being more punitive towards Muslims. It's just a question of having cops do their drat job. Holding stricter standards for getting a search warrant on a place of worship than on anything else is dumb. That's idiotic. The French government has lowered the bar for getting a warrant considerably since the Charlie Hebdo attacks. No one's talking about making it harder than it already was before 2015.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:46
|
|