• Jihadi arrests in EU nearly double in 2 years: Europol
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Omesh;52377457]You're bringing up all muslims. I think though that almost all would disagree and westerners cave aka give preferential treatment aka submit, as the name of Islam goes.[/QUOTE] You suggested that the drawing of the prophet is what prompted thowe muslims to commit the charlie hebdo attacks, suggesting that it was the drawing which made them become terrorists. I'm telling you that those attackers were radicalized way before they committed that attack for them to want to engage in that kind of violent behaviour.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52377430] How do you know they don't have the same motivations.[/quote] Because they live totally different lives and have totally different experiences. [quote]Read the upper part first. I mentioned the rest of the world because there's no marginalization there, in some cases they spread there by force, so how can marginalization be so important for you, as if they have no doctrine to follow.[/quote] Marginalisation is how people are susceptible to listen to the radical preacher (or go on the bad website) in the first place. They then pick up the "doctrine" from there. It's an effect acknowledge by left and right (brietbart did an article on it), marginalisation makes people more open to radicalisation, not just islamic but neo nazi, suicide cults etc. [quote]I know second generations+ are more radical. It's laughable when people say immigrants didn't do it.[/quote] Why do you think that is? [quote]Well, their intake leads directly to that anyway.[/quote] huh? [quote]Unequal privilege leftists[/quote] Wha? [quote]Unequal privilege leftists was my answer to him why I see it controversial myself and I think for many others too.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/british-muslims-driven-to-extremism-alienated-at-home[/url] [url]https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/radicalisation-and-violent-extremism-causes-and-/Radicalisation%20eBrief.pdf[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4340315.stm[/url] [url]https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/radicalisation_awareness_network/ran-papers/docs/issue_paper_root-causes_jan2016_en.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-working-class-muslim-i-know-what-causes-radicalisation-so-why-dont-these-rich-white-men-believe-a6805976.html[/url] and just to avoid cries of ""((((((FAKE NEWS)))))""" [url]http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/09/ginger-jihadis-why-redheads-are-attracted-to-radical-islam/[/url] And to demonstrate its not just muslims: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/20/i-was-radicalised-by-a-neo-nazi-group-it-could-just-have-easily-been-isis[/url] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/how-far-right-extremists-draw-vulnerable-people-into-their-poiso/[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3269454/Former-teen-neo-Nazi-says-ISIS-using-techniques-lure-disgruntled-teenagers-terrorism-facist-groups-used-groom-years-ago.html[/url] (I think I got the meaning of your post, it wasn't easy to understand what you were referring to at times) [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Omesh;52377457]You're bringing up all muslims. I think though that almost all would disagree and westerners cave aka give preferential treatment aka submit, as the name of Islam goes.[/QUOTE] Do you actually know any muslims?
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52377491]You suggested that the drawing of the prophet is what prompted thowe muslims to commit the charlie hebdo attacks, suggesting that it was the drawing which made them become terrorists. I'm telling you that those attackers were radicalized way before they committed that attack for them to want to engage in that kind of violent behaviour.[/QUOTE] I saw that. Anyway, I'm not bringing up Charlie Hebdo specifically, but the drawing of their prophet being being a low threshold "marginalization" for them. As for the source of the radicalization, well, I'm obviously arguing against marginalization being the defining factor. They obviously take their religion more seriously than westerners, that's where I'm putting most of the blame. Of course, the hate preachers help spread it, but the thing is that they are not committing apostasy by basing violence on Hadiths and etc. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]Because they live totally different lives and have totally different experiences.[/QUOTE] They still have the same doctrine. Are you going to willfully ignore that. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]Marginalisation is how people are susceptible to listen to the radical preacher (or go on the bad website) in the first place. They then pick up the "doctrine" from there. It's an effect acknowledge by left and right (brietbart did an article on it), marginalisation makes people more open to radicalisation, not just islamic but neo nazi, suicide cults etc.[/QUOTE] They're so marginalized in India when they're the ones barging in. Have to leave. Will reply to you later. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]Why do you think that is?[/QUOTE] It's well accepted even by ""liberal"" sources. [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/opinions/homegrown-terrorism-opinion-bergen/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-to-do-about-second-generation-terrorists/article/2618291[/url] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/world/middleeast/thousands-enter-syria-to-join-isis-despite-global-efforts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0[/url] and so on. Your own link says so. [url]https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/radicalisation_awareness_network/ran-papers/docs/issue_paper_root-causes_jan2016_en.pdf[/url] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]huh?[/QUOTE] To have a second generation you have to have a first generation. I thought that's self evident. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]links[/QUOTE] So I never was denying marginalization here. I just think the main cause is the toxic political message in Islam. The whole point is that I wouldn't take any responsibility for their actions via my supposed marginalization. The part about not just muslims. They barely do anything, so I don't see the relevance. Remember Dylann Roof!1 Meanwhile dozens of islamic terror attacks happen since the last white guy loses his shit. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377494]Wha?[/QUOTE] They ignore everything and just focus on the new bourgeois, white people.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52374853]Yep, being mean to muslims turns them into terrorists. Concurrently, terrorism has nothing to do with Islam Secondly, 'anti-islamic rhetoric' or at least anti-refugee rhetoric in Poland has made it the one of the few countries in Europe left without any terror attacks or problems with islamic refugees, I wonder how that works[/QUOTE] oh fucking sweet, all we need to do to beat terrorism is become horrible people get it done lads alternatively: terrorists don't give a shit about poland because poland has had very little involvement with foreign policy and the middle east in the last 20 years other than being a member of NATO
[QUOTE=Omesh;52377547]I saw that. Anyway, I'm not bringing up Charlie Hebdo specifically, but the drawing of their prophet being being a low threshold "marginalization" for them. As for the source of the radicalization, well, I'm obviously arguing against marginalization being the defining factor. They obviously take their religion more seriously than westerners, that's where I'm putting most of the blame. Of course, the hate preachers help spread it, but the thing is that they are not committing apostasy by basing violence on Hadiths and etc. [/QUOTE] And yet most Muslims would not support the drawing of the prophet but they would not react in the same way. And extremism exists across all religions, therefore people justifying violence in response to criticism of their religion is not exclusive to Muslims. No one is saying marginalization is the main factor, but it is a contributing factor, therefore it wont stop the spread of Islamic terror and radicaliation
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52377781]And yet most Muslims would not support the drawing of the prophet but they would not react in the same way. And extremism exists across all religions, therefore people justifying violence in response to criticism of their religion is not exclusive to Muslims. No one is saying marginalization is the main factor, but it is a contributing factor, therefore it wont stop the spread of Islamic terror and radicaliation[/QUOTE] They only do more in a year than all other religions combined in far longer. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52377654]oh fucking sweet, all we need to do to beat terrorism is become horrible people get it done lads alternatively: terrorists don't give a shit about poland because poland has had very little involvement with foreign policy and the middle east in the last 20 years other than being a member of NATO[/QUOTE] Horrible people by what criteria? Not taking them in and giving them charity? If Poland does not deal with them then the migrants don't lose anything because it was not theirs to take to begin with. Poland only has to not take them in. You on the other hand can enjoy your multicultural country with terror attacks every week and subsequent government power grabs, but please don't force the mess onto others that had nothing to do with your white man guilt for colonies and etc.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378077]They only do more in a year than all other religions combined in far longer.[/QUOTE] "They" have also been in a shit situation (war, poverty) that has never been helped by western powers who have been hugely involved for atleast 100 years. What is with this generalization of "islam and other religions" ?? It's silly, we live in a mostly secular society here in the west.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378077]Horrible people by what criteria? Not taking them in and giving them charity? If Poland does not deal with them then the migrants don't lose anything because it was not theirs to take to begin with. Poland only has to not take them in. You on the other hand can enjoy your multicultural country with terror attacks every week and subsequent government power grabs, but please don't force the mess onto others that had nothing to do with your white man guilt for colonies and etc.[/QUOTE] horrible people by the merit of having a prelevant, anti-refugee rhetoric, where refugees are people escaping war torn areas i'll happily take my country suffering "terror attacks every week" and "power grabs" over a country that think its OK to give unfair treatment to people who make up 1.6-1.8 billion of the world, any day of the week don't know what the fuck you mean by white man guilt for colonies, extra hilarious to me because my father's half of my family[I] are refugees from Poland you donkey[/I]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52378162]"They" have also been in a shit situation (war, poverty) that has never been helped by western powers who have been hugely involved for atleast 100 years. What is with this generalization of "islam and other religions" ?? It's silly, we live in a mostly secular society here in the west.[/QUOTE] Sweden owes them nothing. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52378192]horrible people by the merit of having a prelevant, anti-refugee rhetoric, where refugees are people escaping war torn areas i'll happily take my country suffering "terror attacks every week" and "power grabs" over a country that think its OK to give unfair treatment to people who make up 1.6-1.8 billion of the world, any day of the week don't know what the fuck you mean by white man guilt for colonies, extra hilarious to me because my father's half of my family[I] are refugees from Poland you donkey[/I][/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sure the non stop stream of black migrants disembarking from Libya are fleeing war in Syria too. Fantastic, suffer then. Funny that you put the terror attacks every week in quotes. Must have not been watching the news. You know I don't know why I bother. It used to anger me at first, but now new terror attacks in the west only makes me laugh. You obviously want it by what you said here. Just don't push the cancer on me and we'll be fine.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378200]Sweden owes them nothing. Yeah I'm sure the non stop stream of black migrants disembarking from Libya are fleeing war in Syria too. Fantastic, suffer then. Funny that you put the terror attacks every week in quotes. Must have not been watching the news.[/QUOTE] Some people feel obliged to help suffering men women and children in need, and good on them. Stopping immigration won't stop people from being radicalized in your country. When you mention Libya you do realise that there is a civil war there which the west have been involved in
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378200]Sweden owes them nothing. Yeah I'm sure the non stop stream of black migrants disembarking from Libya are fleeing war in Syria too. Fantastic, suffer then. Funny that you put the terror attacks every week in quotes. Must have not been watching the news.[/QUOTE] i'm putting in quotes because i'm quoting you, that's what they're for and if the UK took your attitude to refugees in 1947, my family, me, and a whole lot of other people in the UK wouldn't have the lives we have today, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Resettlement_Act_1947]educate yourself[/url]
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52378212]Some people feel obliged to help suffering men women and children in need, and good on them. Stopping immigration won't stop people from being radicalized in your country. When you mention Libya you do realise that there is a civil war there which the west have been involved in[/QUOTE] Libya is arab.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378217]Libya is arab.[/QUOTE] And? [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] What does that even mean
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378200]Sweden owes them nothing.[/QUOTE] What does this fuckin have to do with anything? It's a humanitarian issue, not a fucking children's game.
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52378219]And? [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] What does that even mean[/QUOTE] Learn to read. It's a place where migrants from all over Africa pass, so I don't see why you mention the civil war there. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;52378228]What does this fuckin have to do with anything? It's a humanitarian issue, not a fucking children's game.[/QUOTE] Nothing. Take them, if you so wish, but I don't see why people get outraged when Poland does not want to repay (you yourself said West was involved in making these places shit) what it did not do.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378246]Nothing. Take them, if you so wish, but I don't see why people get outraged when Poland does not want to repay (you yourself said West was involved in making these places shit) what it did not do.[/QUOTE] Then what are they doing in the EU if they're not willing to go through with promises they've made? [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] It isn't just wrong on a moral level, this is a legal and diplomatic issue.
[QUOTE=Omesh;52378246]Learn to read. It's a place where migrants from all over Africa pass, so I don't see why you mention the civil war there. [/QUOTE] You could be a little clearer next time as its hard to grasp your point. And you do not know why these people are fleeing their country anyway, if we are talking about Africa then there is plenty troubles there including civil war, violence, poverty, disease. And let me re state that halting immigration will not prevent terror attacks as a lot of the terror attacks done recently were committed by home grown terrorists. And the civil war in Libya is exactly why they dont want to stay there
Would be interesting to see, were Omesh a refugee, if he would choose to stay in North Africa/Syria rather than travel to Europe.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52367357]Wait maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Your argument is that the number of deaths caused by terrorism is minuscule compared to things like cancer and traffic accidents so we should be concentrating on those instead. That the attention you give to a problem should be proportional to the death toll? Is that correct?[/QUOTE] To some extent, yes. If your argument for caring immensely more about an issue that causes a relatively minuscule amount of deaths than about an issue that deeply affects a sizeable portion of a population is that you "want to save innocent people's lives", then you're an hypocrite. [QUOTE]Society can function pretty good even if 40% of deaths are cancer and heart disease related. If you had 40% of deaths terrorism related it would be a fucking warzone.[/QUOTE] Are we even remotely close to that point? Does the current amount of terror attacks directly threatens the stability of our society because of the lethal risk it presents? I'm pretty sure a lot more instability is caused by the fearmongering peddled by the media and politicians alike than by the attacks themselves that wouldn't do that much damage to society themselves if nobody talked about them. [QUOTe]When 5 people die in one year on a certain neighborhood due to cancer it will not be treated the same way as if someone brutally murdered 5 people in one year on that certain neighborhood. Stop equating those things.[/QUOTE] Actually 5 people dying of cancer the same year in a specific location would be rather concerning, and might warrant evacuating the neighborhood to find a possible cause. I think both situations would warrant important scrutiny. [QUOTE]I never said a word about laws, I don't know what you are going after here. I simply disagreed that terrorism is a minuscule problem because a lot more people die due to cancer.[/QUOTE] So you're okay with maintaining the status quo as far as anti-terror measures are concerned? If that's the case that's at least something we do agree on.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52381269]Actually 5 people dying of cancer the same year in a specific location would be rather concerning, and might warrant evacuating the neighborhood to find a possible cause. I think both situations would warrant important scrutiny.[/QUOTE] you're ignoring his point that 5 deaths in a neighbourhood (whatever the causes may be, such as from cancer) are random and happen anyways as a natural ongoing thing. it matches previous yearly numbers of deaths the difference with terror attacks is that while they are (relatively) rare, they have the potential to kill anywhere between a couple to thousands of people. it's called a fat-tailed distribution my friend. unless something like a new drug or nuclear waste disposal goes horribly wrong, cancer is unlikely to suddenly spike up and kill thousands of extra people in a year. terrorism is capable of suddenly and with no warning to take a lot of lives and cause a great deal of harm - often in unexpected places. the typical measures taken to control it thereafter (like airplane security or funding the NSA) are almost useless and barely reduce terror attacks while at the same time soaking up vast quantities of resources and manpower that could be used elsewhere of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52381304]you're ignoring his point that 5 deaths in a neighbourhood (whatever the causes may be, such as from cancer) are random and happen anyways as a natural ongoing thing. it matches previous yearly numbers of deaths the difference with terror attacks is that while they are (relatively) rare, they have the potential to kill anywhere between a couple to thousands of people. it's called a fat-tailed distribution my friend. unless something like a new drug or nuclear waste disposal goes horribly wrong, cancer is unlikely to suddenly spike up and kill thousands of extra people in a year. terrorism is capable of suddenly and with no warning to take a lot of lives and cause a great deal of harm - often in unexpected places. the typical measures taken to control it thereafter (like airplane security or funding the NSA) are almost useless and barely reduce terror attacks while at the same time soaking up vast quantities of resources and manpower that could be used elsewhere of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient[/QUOTE] But cancer doesn't need to "spike up" to kill thousands of extra people in a year. When you get over a million deaths to cancer per year in Europe alone, a small variation of less than 1% is enough for thousands of extra deaths to occur, and that kind of variation happens all the time. Whichever way you put it, to say that terrorism is on equal footing with (let alone a more pressing issue than) much more devastating and lethal phenomenons purely on the basis of innocent people dying doesn't make a lick of sense.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52381304] of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient[/QUOTE] What are those [i]better[/i] ways of dealing with terrorists?
Defending it's populace from foreign threats is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52382244]Thanks for the obvious fact stated. Unless you claim that any and all refugees are "foreign threats" and refugee rights serve to undermine the security of all individuals across the globe, I have yet to see anyone disagree with this statement or any other connotations. I haven't seen anyone yet say that the number is too high and they should release some of those arrested.[/QUOTE] My point is that saying we shouldn't focus on terrorism because things like cancer are bigger threats ignores the responsibilities of government.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52382288]My point is that saying we shouldn't focus on terrorism because things like cancer are bigger threats ignores the responsibilities of government.[/QUOTE] You do know another fundamental responsibility of the government is to ensure the well-being of its people, right? Appeal to government is rather pathetic, just because a threat isn't foreign doesn't mean it shouldn't be focused on when it has a disproportionately bigger impact. I guess terror attacks committed by nationals shouldn't be focused on either, since it's not a foreign threat but a domestic one.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52382349]You do know another fundamental responsibility of the government is to ensure the well-being of its people, right?[/QUOTE] There's no fundamental responsibility of a government to stop diseases, cancer, car accidents, etc. Accidents are accidents. The government is also responsible to protect your rights (not getting cancer isn't a right, for example), and that includes your right to life not being taken by another person. For example, the government is not required to stop everyone form smoking cigarettes, even though it has a good likelihood of giving you cancer, but the government is required to stop a murderer if they know it's going to happen. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] I don't think this is the totality of why focusing on stopping terror attacks is important, but I do think it's an important distinction.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52382421]I dont think when someone says "cancer kills more", that they mean we should just ignore it and let it slide. Measures are implemented. I think it is a counterargument to people who allege that terrorism is an exceptional threat. Because when that is the case, it will require extraordinary measures, and most people who praise Poland and Hungary vouch for such measures such as dumping all refugees on Greece and Italy, stopping all Muslim immigration, taking extra steps in reducing in-house Muslim population, crackdown on the borderline of human rights, taking away of many personal liberties, etc... A list with no end since no way to guarantee no terrorism, so no such thing as too far, right? It is an exceptional threat and we [I][B]must [/B][/I]stop it after all, no matter the cost.[/QUOTE] That's a strawman of their position. Nobody is saying that we need to stop it "no matter the cost." The disagreement is what is an appropriate amount of cost.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52382457]I am sure it falls under "protecting well-being" of the citizens. Actually, stopping diseases is mentioned and cancer is thus implied in the German constitution to be the responsibilities of the Government. IDK about the US but here in Europe, the government serves the people in all capacities that people need them to. Also there is the protecting of "human dignity" which is explicitly a "duty" of the State, thought that is special to here. However, I am sure disease control and making available and promoting the means of prevention and treatment of cancer is the duty of all objectively [I]good [/I]regimes across the globe.[/QUOTE] That is talking about communicable diseases, as in trying to stopping a plague. It is not talking about some overarching responsibility to stop all physical ailment.
Also, let me clarify that by "fundamental" responsibility of government, I'm talking about the very nature of being a government. Any and all governments have an inherent responsibility to protect it's citizens from foreign threats and to protect the recognized rights of it's citizens. Any government that doesn't do those things isn't much of a government at all. This is not true of stopping natural or accidental death. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52382469]I have yet to see any reasonable amount suggested by them. There are reasonable amounts that you can increase the current measures, but I haven't heard those from them. Actually, I haven't heard many amounts anyway. Most I hear is "not enough", with the increase open ended, but almost always begins with no sharing of refugees from Greece and Italy to other countries, which is absurd to begin with so I don't listen that much after they start to argue for that.[/QUOTE] Of course you don't think it's reasonable... that's the whole disagreement. If you thought it was reasonable, then you wouldn't be so adamantly against them.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52381506] Why none in Italy? They have big population of Muslims & a large base of radicals.[/QUOTE] I've heard two theories about this. Immigration into Italy only really started in the 90s, therefore it has very few Muslim immigrants of the second and especially third generation, who tend to be more susceptible to radicalization. The other is that an attack would result in much stricter control of access, therefore limiting the potential purpose of Italy as a gateway to Europe for organized radicals. Or maybe just their intelligence agencies work somehow really well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.