Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Yup. And no amount of security can stop them. Even the most totalitarian security state would not be able to completely eliminate the threat. There are ways to combat terrorism - but visible security measures at airports and border crossings are not one of those ways. Such security does nothing to prevent terrorism; at best it might move it to other targets - if bombing a plane is hard, then the terrorists will bomb trains; if bombing trains is too hard, they can bomb buses. Or stadia. Or concerts. Or shopping malls. Or restaurants. If you put enough security checkpoints in place to scan every person entering any popular public place, then the lines for scanning become viable targets. Security checkpoints are a strategy that cannot possibly succeed.

You can't stop small numbers of determined people from committing terrorist attacks by checking IDs, X-Raying or searching bags, making people walk through metal detectors, or forcing passengers to take off their shoes before boarding a plane. But you can give paranoid citizens a confidence boost with these measures, and you can be seen to be doing something (even though it is something utterly futile and pointless); and you can win votes by doing that. Ultimately, the only result of all this "security" is that blameless citizens are less free, and more inconvenienced. The money wasted on the TSA would be much better spent on the CIA, and FBI counter-terrorism departments; But such expenditure is invisible to the public, so it wins no votes.

Of course it's political. But it has to be done to keep the nut jobs from committing terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the havoc they would cause by removing these security measures.

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course it's political. But it has to be done to keep the nut jobs from committing terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the havoc they would cause by removing these security measures.

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

The have reduced the amount of terrorist attacks, not prevented all attacks.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course it's political. But it has to be done to keep the nut jobs from committing terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the havoc they would cause by removing these security measures.

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

That's false for a couple of reasons. First, not all targets are equal: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building killed thousands. Hijacking a bus and driving that to a building would probably not even in worst cas scenario kill more than a hundred. If security measures can divert terrorists from higher casualty targets to lower-casualty targets, that's still a win.

Second, when making getting away with terrorist strikes becomes more difficult, at some point, the potential terrorist is not going to switch to another target, but just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

What... the actual fuck... are you talking about? This just sounds insane.

This is warfare. ISIS have not banned its own members from visiting Europe. At the moment Europe is trying to close the door from Turkey to Syria where Brits and others go for training and then come back. This is the main route for home grown terrorists. The amount is very minor so this does not mean every Muslim whether from abroad or as a convert.

Are you talking about the Paris attacks? That was a one off thing. Also... terrorism is almost impossible to combat or defend against. European police agencies are 100% reactive. If we want a free democratic society we just can't increase security any more. The only times when terrorist attacks get foiled in advanced is because they receive a tip-off from one of their own. Ie, a fundie militant Muslim who thinks terrorism is bullshit and won't put up with it. We have no way of stopping a handful ISIS fighters getting in a truck and just driving to where ever in Europe and blow shit up. There's no point in even trying to.

It's also important to keep in mind what the goal of the attacks were. The goal was to get Europe involved, to create conflict. The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were great from a recruiting point of view. Militant Islam, just like militant Christianity, is about martyrdom. They don't care if they die. They just want to go down in a bullet rain of glory. They are trying to create conflict, to create war. They want us to lash out in desperation so they get more converts to their side.

But we have no reason to get pulled in by it. The correct response to the Paris attacks is to ignore it and just get on with life. If we do that the terrorists lose. Even though the deaths of the Paris attacks was a tragedy. In the big picture terrorism as the cause of death in Europe is still 0% of total deaths. It's so low there's no reason to worry... even the slightest bit. I think that's where the mistake in your thinking is.

That said I'm all for a Western invasion of Syria, Iraq style. But that's not because of the Paris attacks or because of any anti-ISIS sentiment. It's because war is shit and no war is better than war.

Security measures will drastically reduce attacks. We can't prevent drugs entering the USA but we do reduce the amount that do. This is part of our defence. In any war there are casualties. The Wars in Iraq and Syria have only allowed these groups to fill the voids left by the regimes when their armies lost control of these territories.

Every attack is a one of thing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He had weapons, lots of them supplied by the West and Gas from Germany. This was not the problem. The allies claimed he had weapons of mass destruction and found none.

He wanted the sort of stuff we said he couldn't have.

The problem is he didn't have the stuff we didn't supply him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Free speech is where we have to read what we don't like or agree with.

No, it isn't; Free speech doesn't say anything about a guaranteed audience.

Sometimes its unavoidable if someone states this at a debate or on a TV program which you are watching. IT may be contained in a passage of a book as it is not censored. Of course you can switch off the TV or not attend a conference if you know what it is about. We could draw the line at libel, but then in the US courts this is admissible in there is no evidence of malice as intent.

 

[angelo]

Of course it's political. But it has to be done to keep the nut jobs from committing terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the havoc they would cause by removing these security measures.

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

They may not avoid terrorism, but it most certainly has reduced hijackings as well as a free for all for jihadis.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

The have reduced the amount of terrorist attacks, not prevented all attacks.

That is, of course, impossible to know.

My guess is that someone who is sufficiently motivated as to kill for his beliefs is not going to give up just because the effort is too great; He is more likely to just change to a softer target.

Fewer planes have been hijacked since 9/11, but as the Paris attacks show, one does not need to hijack a plane in order to carry out an attack.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

That's false for a couple of reasons. First, not all targets are equal: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building killed thousands. Hijacking a bus and driving that to a building would probably not even in worst cas scenario kill more than a hundred. If security measures can divert terrorists from higher casualty targets to lower-casualty targets, that's still a win.

Second, when making getting away with terrorist strikes becomes more difficult, at some point, the potential terrorist is not going to switch to another target, but just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building worked ONCE. After 9/11, that action was rendered impossible to repeat, simply because passengers and crew no longer assume that hijackers can be reasoned with to get a good outcome. No new security measures were needed to prevent a repeat of 9/11; even on that very day, the hijacking of UA093 failed for this reason.

And someone who cares enough to kill and/or die for his cause is not going to just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

 

[bilby]

Yes. But it needs an environment in which to develop. If such an environment doesn't exist = shake the piggybank until it does. Syria under Assad wasn't going anywhere. That's the nature of fascism. It's about inventing make-believe enemies. To constantly keep people fearful and on the edge to make them unable to develop rituals around free thought and institutions to promote it. Removing Assad wouldn't guarantee any of that. But keeping Assad guarantees that it won't happen. So we're still better off kicking him out.

The way things are going, ISIS will infiltrate Europe in small numbers as its forces are being driven out of Syria. We still have virtually no security for the illegals that come in so this loop hole is ideal. Perhaps a few dozen or few hundred will come in.

I'm sorry, but this is a paranoid delusion. ISIS isn't infiltrating Europe, hasn't been infiltrating Europe and they never will. ISIS isn't the same thing as Islam. And some bored kids with Middle-Eastern heritage watching ISIS promotional Youtube videos to relieve their boredom isn't the same thing as "ISIS infiltrating Europe". We're doing the same thing now. Coming to this forum talking about how awesome secularism is. Can't you feel it... how atheism is corrupting your soul? How you are being radicalised against religion?

ISIS is already here though in small amounts, and not the half a million or so it is claiming which is impossible. If we don't check all IDs (which is the case) the chances of slipping in are great. There is also traffic leaving Europe and returning with ISIS trained people. Only a handful are necessary to plant explosives and shoot people. Better security will reduce this.

What... the actual fuck... are you talking about? This just sounds insane.

This is warfare. ISIS have not banned its own members from visiting Europe. At the moment Europe is trying to close the door from Turkey to Syria where Brits and others go for training and then come back. This is the main route for home grown terrorists. The amount is very minor so this does not mean every Muslim whether from abroad or as a convert.

Are you talking about the Paris attacks? That was a one off thing. Also... terrorism is almost impossible to combat or defend against. European police agencies are 100% reactive. If we want a free democratic society we just can't increase security any more. The only times when terrorist attacks get foiled in advanced is because they receive a tip-off from one of their own. Ie, a fundie militant Muslim who thinks terrorism is bullshit and won't put up with it. We have no way of stopping a handful ISIS fighters getting in a truck and just driving to where ever in Europe and blow shit up. There's no point in even trying to.

It's also important to keep in mind what the goal of the attacks were. The goal was to get Europe involved, to create conflict. The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were great from a recruiting point of view. Militant Islam, just like militant Christianity, is about martyrdom. They don't care if they die. They just want to go down in a bullet rain of glory. They are trying to create conflict, to create war. They want us to lash out in desperation so they get more converts to their side.

But we have no reason to get pulled in by it. The correct response to the Paris attacks is to ignore it and just get on with life. If we do that the terrorists lose. Even though the deaths of the Paris attacks was a tragedy. In the big picture terrorism as the cause of death in Europe is still 0% of total deaths. It's so low there's no reason to worry... even the slightest bit. I think that's where the mistake in your thinking is.

That said I'm all for a Western invasion of Syria, Iraq style. But that's not because of the Paris attacks or because of any anti-ISIS sentiment. It's because war is shit and no war is better than war.

Security measures will drastically reduce attacks.

Citation needed.

We can't prevent drugs entering the USA but we do reduce the amount that do.

Nope; The cartels simply send more drugs to replace those that are seized. The seizures put the price up - but addicts are not deterred much by high prices. If drug seizures stopped tomorrow, the cartels would simply scale back their shipments to keep the total volume arriving at the market roughly equal, because to flood the market would hurt their profitability.

The amount of drugs that arrives on the street is pretty constant; Law enforcement just increases the volume that is shipped to achieve that end result.

This is part of our defence. In any war there are casualties. The Wars in Iraq and Syria have only allowed these groups to fill the voids left by the regimes when their armies lost control of these territories.

Every attack is a one off thing.

Yup. So it's stupid to talk about reducing attacks - unless terrorists are captured.

If the security screening process doesn't detect terrorists before they attack, then it is just elephant spray - I spray it on my house twice a week, to keep the elephants away, and I have never seen an elephant near my house, so that proves that it works.

How often do we hear on the news that a terrorist was captured when the metal detector at the airport picked up his weapon? If that's not a fairly common occurrence - happening with a frequency in the same ball-park as the frequency of terrorist attacks - then that's a big red flag that the whole exercise is pointless. Terrorists are not caught by screening because screening just makes them go find a softer target.

 

[Jayjay]

That's false for a couple of reasons. First, not all targets are equal: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building killed thousands. Hijacking a bus and driving that to a building would probably not even in worst cas scenario kill more than a hundred. If security measures can divert terrorists from higher casualty targets to lower-casualty targets, that's still a win.

Second, when making getting away with terrorist strikes becomes more difficult, at some point, the potential terrorist is not going to switch to another target, but just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building worked ONCE. After 9/11, that action was rendered impossible to repeat, simply because passengers and crew no longer assume that hijackers can be reasoned with to get a good outcome. No new security measures were needed to prevent a repeat of 9/11; even on that very day, the hijacking of UA093 failed for this reason.

That particular method seems now to be out of the question. But smuggling a bomb to the plane and blowing it up would still almost certainly kill everyone on board, and depending on where the debris lands some more. That's easily a couple of hundred people. Trains and busses or mass shootings aren't as effective. And that's not even taking into account the effect that terror can have on air travel.

And someone who cares enough to kill and/or die for his cause is not going to just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

There are always those who are willing to go the extra mile to kill a hundred infidels, but not for just a couple. Plus there are those who fund and provide the logistics for these attacks. Every bomb that blows up is potentially leading back to the bomb maker, and every middle-man between him and the bomber. Smaller payoff means they are less inclined to risk being exposed.

 

[barbos]

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

That's false for a couple of reasons. First, not all targets are equal: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building killed thousands. Hijacking a bus and driving that to a building would probably not even in worst cas scenario kill more than a hundred. If security measures can divert terrorists from higher casualty targets to lower-casualty targets, that's still a win.

Second, when making getting away with terrorist strikes becomes more difficult, at some point, the potential terrorist is not going to switch to another target, but just say "fuck it" and go play videogames.

Yes. Planes are most valuable targets which terrorists can reach. Plane itself is >$200mil plus 200-300 people dead for sure, and added "benefit" of air travel scare. Blowing up a train does not compare in any of these categories, at best you can hope for 20-30 people dead and less than a $1mil in damage. Simply shooting large crowds of people seems simple and pretty sure way but it produce no economic damage, and it requires fair amount preparation to be highly successful, otherwise you end up with no more than 20 people shot.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It doesn't have to be done; and as these security measures don't do anything to prevent terrorism, the total amount of 'havoc' removing them would cause would be zero.

The nut jobs are NOT prevented from committing terrorist attacks; such attacks still occur. The only thing the security does is change the targets.

They may not avoid terrorism, but it most certainly has reduced hijackings as well as a free for all for jihadis.

Preventative measures will reduce it. Given the circumstances, the US has done quite well. Europe needs to tighten on its immigration and tracking of its citizens leaving for places like Turkey which is a gateway to Syria.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The have reduced the amount of terrorist attacks, not prevented all attacks.

That is, of course, impossible to know.

My guess is that someone who is sufficiently motivated as to kill for his beliefs is not going to give up just because the effort is too great; He is more likely to just change to a softer target.

Fewer planes have been hijacked since 9/11, but as the Paris attacks show, one does not need to hijack a plane in order to carry out an attack.

Security measures will make attacks more difficult. There are numerous options such as blowing up nuclear facilities of oil storage centres. The worst thing to think is that it cannot happen. Preventative measures reduces the risk.

 

[angelo]

Of course preventative measures reduce the risk. No doubt whatsoever. Remove them and the Islamist would have a field day!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course preventative measures reduce the risk. No doubt whatsoever. Remove them and the Islamist would have a field day!

Correct, also the drug dealers, criminals and human traffickers. European legislators now need to learn what a border is and why they are useful.

 

[repoman]

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 5078

View attachment 5079

View attachment 5080

View attachment 5081

This is a joke - right?

 

[angelo]

Why are those who resist mass immigration labelled racists? What has race got to do with anything?

 

[Jokodo]

Can you quote any assertion of yours that stood up to scrutiny? Because I can't think of any.

Examples of where you've been wrong include, but are not limited to:

"70% of Muslims are illiterate" - Absolutely no.

"European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people" - unless you count grabbing their land and resources by force, of course.

In contrary, I can't find a single factual claim of yours that is specific enough to be verifiable and that would stand up to scrutiny. Can you?

Although, to be fair, most of your posts are neither wrong nor right - they're just content free appeals to emotion with not enough substance to verify or falsify anything.
In other words, not even wrong.

It's not a fact that the settlers to the new world built the nation to what it is today? [Scratches head]

It is not a fact that they didn't take anything from the ones who were there before.