NationStates Jolt Archive

http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/eu-minister-considering-arab-demands

>_>

1) The Danish People's Party sucks.

2) In case you haven't noticed, politicians are moving further and further away from what people think should be done. Indeed, just yesterday I heard a speech by students and politicians. The speeches of the students was almost contrary to that of the politicians.

3) It won't stop people from doing what they want anyway.

The Spanish polls, in the December turn, showed, for the first time, that a 2,90% of people, when asked "Who is the main guilty of the bad things running in the country?", answered: The POLITICIANS.

It happened in December, and nobody has done anything to fix it. So I guess March will indicate a higher level... In these three months we have assisted to the manipulation of a poll by a right-wing radio, an excessive lying in the number of assistants to a public demonstration, a military intromission, and a raise of the ETA bombings...

1. I'm pretty suspicous about the source, this kind of story has been posted twice before and was shown to be false both times.

2. How do the descisions of Denmark (a small, fairly insignificant peninsula) mark the downfall of Europe as a whole?

Didnt we have a near identical thread a few weeks ago but the country in question was Norway? That claim turned out to be crap, I'm betting this one will too.

2. How do the descisions of Denmark (a small, fairly insignificant peninsula) mark the downfall of Europe as a whole?

The same way the actions of South Dakota, a small, fairly insignificant state, mark the downfall of abortion rights in America as a whole.

The same way the actions of South Dakota, a small, fairly insignificant state, mark the downfall of abortion rights in America as a whole.

Apples and oranges. South Dakota is only relevant because it will lead to the SCOTUS reexamining Roe vs. Wade. Denmark has no such power over Europe as a whole.

Sure, and Pope John II will rise from his grave tomorrow at high noon.

Apples and oranges. South Dakota is only relevant because it will lead to the SCOTUS reexamining Roe vs. Wade. Denmark has no such power over Europe as a whole.

People seem to think that since South Dakota wants to get rid of abortion, the entire United States does, and we both know that's patently untrue.

Not to worry lads, I shall take control of this former glorious empire, and mold it in the way it should've be. Just you wait...

Time will tell, sooner or later... Time, will tell...

http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/eu-minister-considering-arab-demands

>_>

If it is true, it will not be the end of Europe, but could be the end of the Euroean Union.

2) In case you haven't noticed, politicians are moving further and further away from what people think should be done. Indeed, just yesterday I heard a speech by students and politicians. The speeches of the students was almost contrary to that of the politicians.

Damn, that sounds just like the Democrats and Repulicans in the US. :eek:

Damn, that sounds just like the Democrats and Repulicans in the US. :eek:

Yeah, I felt somewhat annoyed that the politicians were calling for:
no communication. (they said: we will not negotiate with terrorists, thereby limiting the possibilities for terrorists to express themselves peacefully and effectively forcing terrorists to use violent means... great).
that we should all feel victims of terrorism (I am a mother with four children, so I am a victim of terrorism (translated from spanish)... wtf? no you're not, you are a victim if you are either 1) injured/killed/etc... or 2) afraid

whereas the students were calling for:
Tolerance, understanding and communication. (this does not mean that we will give in to absurd terrorist demands. It does mean that we will let people who are specially trained to communicate with them so that we can understand them and possibly keep them from using violence without using violence to do so. Not everything a terrorist does or says is wrong.)
Refusal of fear. (meaning, let's not let the terrorists win by terrorising us)

and both were calling for:
Refusal of violence. (which is the general attitude anyway. But this meant that the politicians were left without means to deal with terrorism, as they already said no negotiation.)


It would also appear that the politicians present were conservatives.

...SNIP...It would also appear that the politicians present were conservatives.

And it would appear the students who were prestent were (American style) liberals. :eek:

And it would appear the students who were prestent were (American style) liberals. :eek:

Nope, closer to socialist, communists and centrists :D They were europeans after all.

whereas the students were calling for:
Tolerance, understanding and communication. (this does not mean that we will give in to absurd terrorist demands. It does mean that we will let people who are specially trained to communicate with them so that we can understand them and possibly keep them from using violence without using violence to do so. Not everything a terrorist does or says is wrong.)Which, of course, is another way of saying, "If you blow shit up and kill a lot of people we will talk to you." How many fringe groups do you think will start blowing shit up and killing lots of people? Also, they have demands A,B and C. You say, "We'll give you A, we need to think about B and we cant' give you C." To which they reply, "KABLAMMMM" and a whole shit load of people die. Then you say, "Okay we'll give you B, too, but not C." They say, of course, "KABLAAMMMM," because it has worked so well in the past and you say, "Okay, okay, okay. We'll give in to all your demands. From now on we will only express ourselves in ways that you approve of. Cartoons and commentary trashing Jews, Christians Western values will be fine, but we will no longer express any opinons about Islam or the Muslim world. Good strategy. :)

Actually no, it's a way of saying "If you quit blowing shit up, we'll talk to you"

Whereas the politicians were saying "If you quit blowing shit up, we'll ignore you"

remember:
refusal of fear, refusal of violence.

Actually no, it's a way of saying "If you quit blowing shit up, we'll talk to you"

Whereas the politicians were saying "If you quit blowing shit up, we'll ignore you"

remember:
refusal of fear, refusal of violence.
only problem is you don't require them to quit first. What you're really saying is, "If we talk to you will you quit blowing shit up? Please? Pretty please?" What do you think is going tio happen when you talk to them and their demands seem unreasonable even to a bunch of appeasers? Wht if they ask something like, "You must release from prison the heros who bombed the trains in Madrid?" Would you release them? What if you did not?


KablAAAAAAMMMMM!

People seem to think that since South Dakota wants to get rid of abortion, the entire United States does, and we both know that's patently untrue.

It seems that I misunderstood your earlier post and for that I apologise.

only problem is you don't require them to quit first. What you're really saying is, "If we talk to you will you quit blowing shit up? Please? Pretty please?" What do you think is going tio happen when you talk to them and their demands seem unreasonable even to a bunch of appeasers? Wht if they ask something like, "You must release from prison the heros who bombed the trains in Madrid?" Would you release them? What if you did not?


KablAAAAAAMMMMM!

Point is: regardless of how many Kablaams, it changes nothing. Or rather, it must change nothing. We are not victims. Even the dead should not be victims.

We must prove ourselves resilient and strong in the face of their terrorism. Use of violence? let's reject it and if they don't, let us reject them until they do.

But they must have some sort of peaceful means to express themselves, or their violence will be justified.

(what I mean by no violence is: do not lynch mob, do not go amok and don't use the military. Stick to the Rule of Law)

Wouldn't surprise me. We ought to leave the EU ASAP.

Let's see. Some blog quotes a badly written article with several errors in grammar and spelling. The article also uses choice phrases like 'complying with arab demands'. And when it actually quotes something, it talks about limiting freedom of speech when it abridges other people's rights, but spins it to mean we should limit freedom of speech when it may offend someone.

Anyone else need a grain of salt?

I quite like the way this blog completely reinterprets the story in order to have something to file under "dhimmitude".

Actual statement:
Commentator: Why couldn’t you just put the Muhammed-affair to rest?
BFW: Because I don’t think this was a sporadic incidence. I think it was the peak of an iceberg, if you want. It showed a frustration among Moslems. And I think what we have to do is really engage with them, clearly speaking up about our fundamentals but also see where is, so to say, the border of that, the limit of that. And I think the limit of our Freedom of Speech is there where, indeed, the freedom of “the other” starts and where we have to show a responsibility and a respect and also tolerance for each other. But I also see it as a two-way street.

Statement as bolded on the blog:
Commentator: Why couldn’t you just put the Muhammed-affair to rest?
BFW: Because I don’t think this was a sporadic incidence. I think it was the peak of an iceberg, if you want. It showed a frustration among Moslems. And I think what we have to do is really engage with them, clearly speaking up about our fundamentals but also see where is, so to say, the border of that, the limit of that. And I think the limit of our Freedom of Speech is there where, indeed, the freedom of “the other” starts and where we have to show a responsibility and a respect and also tolerance for each other. But I also see it as a two-way street.

See how the focus shifts completely, from something neutral and reasonable to say, to something that sounds like Europe is about to surrender to the evil, smelly hordes?

See how the focus shifts completely, from something neutral and reasonable to say, to something that sounds like Europe is about to surrender to the evil, smelly hordes?
No. :confused: In both its saying that they need to examine how far freedom of expression should go in light of the fact that Muslims are offended.

Having said that, I do question the voracity of this blog. Looks like they are taking some statements made to the press that probably weren't well thought out and were made off the cuff and certainly don't amount to policy statements made after deliberation and vote. This is just some guy answering a question off the top of his head. This isn't a pronouncement from teh EU about a policy shift.

Point is: regardless of how many Kablaams, it changes nothing.Good. As long as nothing changes as a result of kablamms, maybe they will not do it so often. On the other hand if terrorists get what they want I think you'll see a lot more kablaams. Or rather, it must change nothing. We are not victims. Even the dead should not be victims.

We must prove ourselves resilient and strong in the face of their terrorism. Use of violence? let's reject it and if they don't, let us reject them until they do.Exactly. I think that's the plan we have now and pretty much what the conservatives you mentioned were kinda saying.

But they must have some sort of peaceful means to express themselves, or their violence will be justified.They can talk, write, protest, there are a myriad of ways that they can choose to express themselves. Ghandi just stopped eating and had some sit ins and liberated a nation without firing a shot.

(what I mean by no violence is: do not lynch mob, do not go amok and don't use the military. Stick to the Rule of Law)
I agree except that if you are attacked militarily you should respond in kind. What if, say, Iran were to provide explosives to some of these terrorists?

See how the focus shifts completely, from something neutral and reasonable to say, to something that sounds like Europe is about to surrender to the evil, smelly hordes?
Seems to me that it's just a fancy way of saying "We should limit freedom of speech to appease muslims". That's all there is to it. We should not, under any circumstances, comprimise with these people.

Which, of course, is another way of saying, "If you blow shit up and kill a lot of people we will talk to you." How many fringe groups do you think will start blowing shit up and killing lots of people? Also, they have demands A,B and C. You say, "We'll give you A, we need to think about B and we cant' give you C." To which they reply, "KABLAMMMM" and a whole shit load of people die. Then you say, "Okay we'll give you B, too, but not C." They say, of course, "KABLAAMMMM," because it has worked so well in the past and you say, "Okay, okay, okay. We'll give in to all your demands. From now on we will only express ourselves in ways that you approve of. Cartoons and commentary trashing Jews, Christians Western values will be fine, but we will no longer express any opinons about Islam or the Muslim world. Good strategy. :)

That's a rather simple minded view of the morass that is international terrorism, don't you think? I do.

No. :confused: In both its saying that they need to examine how far freedom of expression should go in light of the fact that Muslims are offended.
Offending a person is okay, there is no right not to be offended, and I am just as appalled at the idea that there could be more blasphemy laws (many places in Europe have them already, but they only count for Christianity...).

Nonetheless, freedom always comes with a responsibility. If there is something serious to be said, and you risk offending someone, you should still go ahead.

But I do have a problem with just needlessly offending people. And I believe that was largely what the whole JP-cartoons issue was about. That was largely "I offend heaps of people, just to prove that I can".

Seems to me that it's just a fancy way of saying "We should limit freedom of speech to appease muslims". That's all there is to it. We should not, under any circumstances, comprimise with these people.
You know, everytime you say things like that, you look more and more like a simpleton.

Most of "these people" are just as angry about blanket statements about Muslims (which is the climate that caused the cartoons to even matter) as you would be about derogatory blanket statements about all British people. Some went to protest, yes, but the signs shown in London were an exception, caused by the British government's lack of willingness to investigate LeT in Britain.

In fact, I don't recall protests in France, or in Germany - and both those countries have very large Muslim populations.

You know, everytime you say things like that, you look more and more like a simpleton.

Most of "these people" are just as angry about blanket statements about Muslims (which is the climate that caused the cartoons to even matter) as you would be about derogatory blanket statements about all British people. Some went to protest, yes, but the signs shown in London were an exception, caused by the British government's lack of willingness to investigate LeT in Britain.

In fact, I don't recall protests in France, or in Germany - and both those countries have very large Muslim populations.
I don't care about blanket statements about British people. I can ignore it. These muslims should shut up and stop complaining. The difference is, we've let them in this country (I know you'll be sayng "But some of them are born in the west", but a dog being born in a stable doesn't make it a horse) to better themselves and we've put up with them despite all the crime and cultural destruction that they've rewarded us with. This has shown us to be weak and that's what's responsible for the current climate where muslims feel they can get away with demanding anything. Perhaps if we responded to the protestors by tear gassing and setting police dogs onto them then they might end up questioning just how tolerant of them we're prepared to carry on being.

I don't care about blanket statements about British people. I can ignore it.
So can they, if it wasn't for all those airheads who want to take action based on blanket statements about immigrants and immigrants's children from Muslim countries.

Europe is not finished... The United States publicly condemned the printing of the cartoons. I don't see what the fuss is all about.

So can they, if it wasn't for all those airheads who want to take action based on blanket statements about immigrants and immigrants's children from Muslim countries.
Cry me a river. It's non-muslims that have built this society so it should be the property of non-muslims. If muslims go causing trouble with things like protests to try and make demands for their primitive culture to be treated with kid gloves, it would be so easy to give them a little reminder about who holds the power in the west. I doubt we'd hear much more of them afterwards.

I doubt we'd hear much more of them afterwards.
Yeah, that'll be it. :rolleyes:

That's a rather simple minded view of the morass that is international terrorism, don't you think? I do.
Not at all. Its not a view of the "morass" of international terrorism. Its simply a statement about the possible consequences of dealing with them. The issues behind why people resort to it and what the responses should be are of course very complicated. But wether or not you should sit down and talk with people who commit atrocities in the name of politics or religions I think is quite simple:

-no-

If muslims go causing trouble with things like protests to try and make demands for their primitive culture to be treated with kid gloves, it would be so easy to give them a little reminder about who holds the power in the west.
Actually, I think they shoudl protest. Portesting is a legitimate form of political expression and should be protected. Its when they blow people up and put prices on people's heads for exressing themselves that I'm troubled by.

Yeah, that'll be it. :rolleyes:
A display of force can be a great way of crushing dissent from these primitive savages. Look at the French in October 1961. They used a firm hand to deal with Algerian protests in Paris. After that, I don't think there were any more protests on the streets of France from Algerians.

Actually, I think they shoudl protest. Portesting is a legitimate form of political expression and should be protected. Its when they blow people up and put prices on people's heads for exressing themselves that I'm troubled by.
Sometimes it can be desireable to use excessive force, particularly if you manage to put the entire muslim community in such a state of fear that they're too scared to try making demands in the future.

Offending a person is okay, there is no right not to be offended, and I am just as appalled at the idea that there could be more blasphemy laws (many places in Europe have them already, but they only count for Christianity...).

Nonetheless, freedom always comes with a responsibility. If there is something serious to be said, and you risk offending someone, you should still go ahead.

But I do have a problem with just needlessly offending people. And I believe that was largely what the whole JP-cartoons issue was about. That was largely "I offend heaps of people, just to prove that I can".

Yeah, I don't like it either, but I think you err on the side of free speech and allow it. Freedom isn't perfect, its just better than the alternative and while I realize I'm risking a slippery slope fallacy here, once you decide to protect Muslims from being offended in the press who decides what is serious and what is needless? What if extremist Christians say, "hey, all the Muslims did was fly some planes into some building and blow up some trains and look at what they got. I don't want offensive thinsg to be said about Jesus so maybe I need to kill a bunch of people.

I think in this case it has to be encumbant on Muslims to learn that they have no right not to be offended. It is not encumbent on the West to curtail one of the cornerstones of our culture to protect them from being offended.

A display of force can be a great way of crushing dissent from these primitive savages. Look at the French in October 1961. They used a firm hand to deal with Algerian protests in Paris. After that, I don't think there were any more protests on the streets of France from Algerians.


Sometimes it can be desireable to use excessive force, particularly if you manage to put the entire muslim community in such a state of fear that they're too scared to try making demands in the future.
An donce you've uncorked that genie how do you put it back in the bottle? What if some Christians get outta line? What if you do?

But wether or not you should sit down and talk with people who commit atrocities in the name of politics or religions I think is quite simple:

-no-
That's simplistic again. Islamist Terrorism cannot be defeated. The only thing that can be done is to drain support, and the only way you can do that is by engaging in dialogue.
By the way, does anyone in the US actually use the word "dialogue"? It's very common in the German media, as something desirable, almost the default state of existance. It seems to me that in the US the default state is usually considered to be confrontation.

Look at the French in October 1961. They used a firm hand to deal with Algerian protests in Paris. After that, I don't think there were any more protests on the streets of France from Algerians.
That's bullshit. It solved exactly zero problems the French were having, and they killed many peaceful protestors. Human Rights Groups say it was 240.

And it certainly didn't stop terrorism now, did it? Nor did it stop the Algerians from reaching their goal.

Seems to me that it's just a fancy way of saying "We should limit freedom of speech to appease muslims". That's all there is to it. We should not, under any circumstances, comprimise with these people.

Which is exactly what the politicians were saying.

and opposite to what the students were saying.

Or so it could be implied.

We demand open understanding, tolerance and communication, as opposed to this no communication, no tolerance policy. Why? because it's exactly what breeds terrorism.

An donce you've uncorked that genie how do you put it back in the bottle? What if some Christians get outta line? What if you do?
I believe that it can be done without turning the society into a dictatorship. Police brutality is a long established tradition, even in democracies. There's the civil rights movement in the US, the Algerians in France, anti-capitalist demonstrators in pretty much every western democracy. All of these on numerous occasions have been met with police brutality, and it hasn't made the society go down the slippery slope into dictatorship.

What if extremist Christians say, "hey, all the Muslims did was fly some planes into some building and blow up some trains and look at what they got. I don't want offensive thinsg to be said about Jesus so maybe I need to kill a bunch of people.
Then they get the same treatment as the Muslims should get: The criminals get persecuted, and the rest gets left alone.

I think in this case it has to be encumbant on Muslims to learn that they have no right not to be offended.
Most of them know that. They simply question the reason why it was done.

Not at all. Its not a view of the "morass" of international terrorism. Its simply a statement about the possible consequences of dealing with them. The issues behind why people resort to it and what the responses should be are of course very complicated. But wether or not you should sit down and talk with people who commit atrocities in the name of politics or religions I think is quite simple:

-no-

As long as that's a new to the methods of terrorism (i.e. causing fear, harm and death), then I am with you.

I think though, that it is important that we give these people a chance to express themselves peacefully, so that they do not resort to terrorism. To this end, they should be treated just like any other person trying to express themselves. Therefore, they should have the right to form a political party, to protest and to speak. They should not have the right to bomb, kill, maim or injure and we will ignore them until they stop doing so.

That's simplistic again. Islamist Terrorism cannot be defeated. The only thing that can be done is to drain support, and the only way you can do that is by engaging in dialogue.You are absolutely right. Thank God there are plenty of legitimate venues in the Islamic world through which to open dialogue. You're right about this current administration, though. That's why myself and so many other Americans - I think his approval ratings are lower than 40% now - feel that this adminitsration is the worst in history. He knows nothing about the Muslim world and while I feel we need to deal with them from a position of strength, we need to keep diplomatic channels available all the time and we should have let the inspectors do their jobs and we shoudl have accepted Saddams midnight offer. But if a group demands to be talked to because they are going to behead this church worker they kidnapped or they blow up a train, fuck 'em. Hunt them down and kill them.

As long as that's a new to the methods of terrorism (i.e. causing fear, harm and death), then I am with you.

I think though, that it is important that we give these people a chance to express themselves peacefully, so that they do not resort to terrorism. To this end, they should be treated just like any other person trying to express themselves. Therefore, they should have the right to form a political party, to protest and to speak.They should and they do. They should not have the right to bomb, kill, maim or injure and we will ignore them until they stop doing so.
And that is the situation.

Then they get the same treatment as the Muslims should get: The criminals get persecuted, and the rest gets left alone.

Right... reminds me of the Sydney riots, where the police were told to go soft on muslims who retaliated because... they're muslims.

But if a group demands to be talked to because they are going to behead this church worker they kidnapped or they blow up a train, fuck 'em. Hunt them down and kill them.
I suppose you can reduce it down to that. But I always feel a little bit apprehensive about this "hunt them down" thing, because it implies that you go somewhere else to get them. That's not your job, that's what Interpol is for.

Right... reminds me of the Sydney riots, where the police were told to go soft on muslims who retaliated because... they're muslims.
Never happened.

Never happened.

Yo, I'm living here, I think I know what I see on the news. Besides, how often do we hear about muslims being arrested because of it? None. As opposed to several white protestors.

We'll see you in hell Europe.

I suppose you can reduce it down to that. But I always feel a little bit apprehensive about this "hunt them down" thing, because it implies that you go somewhere else to get them. That's not your job, that's what Interpol is for.

If Interpol is hopeless, we step in.

I suppose you can reduce it down to that. But I always feel a little bit apprehensive about this "hunt them down" thing, because it implies that you go somewhere else to get them. That's not your job, that's what Interpol is for.
Dude, c'mon. Some mother fucker kills hundreds, maybe thousands of your citizens in a terrorist act?


"If that ****** show up in South Asia I want a ****** hidin' in a bowl of rice ready to jump out and pop a cap in his ass."

I believe that it can be done without turning the society into a dictatorship. Police brutality is a long established tradition, even in democracies. There's the civil rights movement in the US, the Algerians in France, anti-capitalist demonstrators in pretty much every western democracy. All of these on numerous occasions have been met with police brutality, and it hasn't made the society go down the slippery slope into dictatorship.
Those methods got defeated by eliminating them, not tolerating them.

Yo, I'm living here, I think I know what I see on the news. Besides, how often do we hear about muslims being arrested because of it? None. As opposed to several white protestors.
"Muslims"? None. Lebanese people? Yes. (Keeping in mind that most Lebanese people in Australia come from the large Christian community in that country).

And if you have seen that on the news, it shouldn't be a problem for you to find me a relevant link saying just that.

If Interpol is hopeless, we step in.
Exactly. It could profit greatly from greater support, both in money, personnel and information. But it already is a huge organisation with connections all around the world.

Dude, c'mon. Some mother fucker kills hundreds, maybe thousands of your citizens in a terrorist act?
And he gets persecuted and charged with the murder of that many citizens, and maybe with incest if that is a crime.

Face it: We have a system of justice that requires a trial. A trial requires that the dude be captured alive.
And most importantly: The guy is not a state! It has absolutely nothing to do with the military! It's an issue for police!

Most of them know that. They simply question the reason why it was done.
Tt doesn't matter and that's the point. We can't start making the distinction. They are free to protest and wriet letters to newspapers and start their own. They are free to form political action commitees and political parties. They are free to lobby. No one is denying them any of that. But there can be no laws protecting them from being offended by the exercising of someon's freedom of expression and retaliating with violence can never be tolerated or rewarded with any kind of politcal legitimacy. When people cross the line and commit murder they need to be treated as terrorists and hunted down and killed if need be, captured if possible. Then they should get a legal trial. If they are found guilty, well, here we'd gas 'em or give them the needle.

"Muslims"? None. Lebanese people? Yes. (Keeping in mind that most Lebanese people in Australia come from the large Christian community in that country).

Sure. I can see Lebanese Christians blowing shit up.

And he gets persecuted and charged with the murder of that many citizens, and maybe with incest if that is a crime.

Face it: We have a system of justice that requires a trial. A trial requires that the dude be captured alive.
And most importantly: The guy is not a state! It has absolutely nothing to do with the military! It's an issue for police!
You're absolutely right unless a state knowingly harbors and shields the people who do it or provides training facilities. To me that's the same as sending out their own army to attack. Other than that, I wouldn't call it a police issue as much as a paramilitary issue. Ain't got time for all that shit. If the dudes want to give themselves up, great. Take them alive. If they don't, kill them. But you do not let an organization like Al Qaeda hide from you anywhere. You go after them and kill them. If you can capture one, great.

But there can be no laws protecting them from being offended by the exercising of someon's freedom of expression and retaliating with violence can never be tolerated or rewarded with any kind of politcal legitimacy.
But they aren't asking for those laws.

The only ones who are are the corrupt secular Arab regimes who want to make themselves look like the great protectors of Islam at home.

Sure. I can see Lebanese Christians blowing shit up.
I can't see any Lebanese people blowing shit up. At least not in Australia.

But you do not let an organization like Al Qaeda hide from you anywhere. You go after them and kill them. If you can capture one, great.
Meh, I firmly believe that we have developed past that barbarism, although my faith in the US regarding that has taken some pretty severe knocks these days.

But they aren't asking for those laws.

The only ones who are are the corrupt secular Arab regimes who want to make themselves look like the great protectors of Islam at home.
well, I tend to disagree that many aren't, but how about we agree that if they do ask for those kinds of restrictions they need to be rebuffed?

I can't see any Lebanese people blowing shit up. At least not in Australia.


Meh, I firmly believe that we have developed past that barbarism, although my faith in the US regarding that has taken some pretty severe knocks these days.
Its not barbarism. These people have the stated purpose that "It is the duty of Muslims everywhere to kill Americans." They have successfully shown that they are capable of and are currently planning the mass murder of Americans and Europeans at every available opportunity. Protecting your citizens against a threat like that is the absolute core of the duty of any government. You cannot allow people who are trying with all their might to acquire nuclear weapons and to acquire chemical and biological weapons and who have killed thousands of European as well as American citizens to be able to plan. You have to go find them and kill them.

well, I tend to disagree that many aren't, but how about we agree that if they do ask for those kinds of restrictions they need to be rebuffed?
Yep.
It's a matter of self-censorship (and I know, that word is supposed to have some sort of negative connotation), about thinking about what you're going to say before you say it. It's not a matter for the lawmakers to think about.

You cannot allow people who are trying with all their might to acquire nuclear weapons and to acquire chemical and biological weapons and who have killed thousands of European as well as American citizens to be able to plan. You have to go find them and kill them.
Or just disrupt their plans.

Or just disrupt their plans.
Sure. But do it by killing and capturing as many as possible. You can't just sit back and retroactively repond to attacks. You need to stop as many people as possible from being able to plan and carry them out. You also need to make sure that the whole world understands the consequences of planning and carrying out mass murder plots for whatever reason.

Sure. But do it by killing and capturing as many as possible. You can't just sit back and retroactively repond to attacks. You need to stop as many people as possible from being able to plan and carry them out.
But you don't have to kill anyone for the sake of killing them.

You also need to make sure that the whole world understands the consequences of planning and carrying out mass murder plots for whatever reason.
You know the martyr culture, right? Why would they care if they might get killed? Indeed, they actually wouldn't mind being martyred.

The deterrance value of killing Islamist terrorists is zero.

But you don't have to kill anyone for the sake of killing them.You're not killing them for the sake of killing them. You are killing them for the sake of stopping them from murdering hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe millions of your people.


You know the martyr culture, right? Why would they care if they might get killed? Indeed, they actually wouldn't mind being martyred.

The deterrance value of killing Islamist terrorists is zero.
Yeah, well I'm not so sure. I think you may be surprised the effect it has on people even in the Islamic world who have goals and aspirations in life.

You're not killing them for the sake of killing them. You are killing them for the sake of stopping them from murdering hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe millions of your people.
For that sake you could also simply disrupt their plans, get the necessary legal documents to get them arrested, and do so. No killing involved.

Yeah, well I'm not so sure. I think you may be surprised the effect it has on people even in the Islamic world who have goals and aspirations in life.
Yeah, but those who consider blowing themselves up, or otherwise joining violent jihad already had their goals and aspirations destroyed by poverty, oppression and violence.

For that sake you could also simply disrupt their plans, get the necessary legal documents to get them arrested, and do so. No killing involved.Fuck that noise. The acts these people claim they are planning don't fall in the normal bounds of crime like, say, shoplifting. People who are seeking to explode nuclear weapons in Europe, the US and other places are a special breed. These are terrorists, and not in the loose sense of the word, that need to be stopped at all costs. We cannot sit back and allow a plot like the London, Madrid or, God forbid another 9/11, which by the way killed more Europeans than London and Madrid combined, to happen. These people needed to be proactively hunted and killed before they cause immeasurable harm, not to just Europeans and Americans, but to Muslims as well.

Yeah, but those who consider blowing themselves up, or otherwise joining violent jihad already had their goals and aspirations destroyed by poverty, oppression and violence.
Teah, well, we can argue about the deterrent effect but its all conjecture. There is no way to show how many terrorist acts were not commited as a result of terrorists getting killed. Suffice it to say that we should do it for the reasons above and if it deterrs people that's a bonus.

Yo, I'm living here, I think I know what I see on the news. Besides, how often do we hear about muslims being arrested because of it? None. As opposed to several white protestors.You know what what you see on the News??

I agree.. That's what You know.

Fuck that noise. The acts these people claim they are planning don't fall in the normal bounds of crime like, say, shoplifting. People who are seeking to explode nuclear weapons in Europe, the US and other places are a special breed. These are terrorists, and not in the loose sense of the word, that need to be stopped at all costs.
All costs? What about dropping a nuke on one hiding in New York?

You are not making a rational argument, you sound like you're just after revenge.

All costs? What about dropping a nuke on one hiding in New York?

You are not making a rational argument, you sound like you're just after revenge.
No, my argument is completely rational. You know that "at all costs" is a rhetorical statement that means you try real hard and not literally "at all costs." Of course you don't drop a nuke in NY to prevent someone blowing up a nuke in NY. You don't drop a nuke at all. But you identify terrorist camps and hit them with cruise missiles and you send special forces into hardened postitions and basically try to find out where they are and when you do you go there and try to kill them or you'll end up drawing up arrest warrents for the terrorists that turned Paris or NY of London or Copenhagen into a smoking hole. How would that feel? Being the police captain that has top draw up a search warrent to find evidence about a person who murdered 2.4 million people? That may sound sensationalistic, but it is the stated purpose of many organizations in the world and with the kinds of people building nukes these days...

How would that feel? Being the police captain that has top draw up a search warrent to find evidence about a person who murdered 2.4 million people?
Why would you be assuming that arrest warrants could only be written after an attack has occured?

It would essentially be just as it is now, except now we bomb a house full of goatherders because we believe that at some point a terrorist may have hidden there, while then we would drive up there with a SWAT team, check and arrest.

Don't you think GSG-9 is better suited to fight terrorism than the 1st Infantry Division?

and arrest.

Don't you think GSG-9 is better suited to fight terrorism than the 1st Infantry Division?
I believe they're both suited to different tasks. To get at the kind of camps and compounds that existed in Afghanistan I think the Marines. To get at an apartment building Saudi Arabia, maybe you go more counterterrorism. Either way, as long as we're finding them and killing them.



Oh, and if we can, capturing them.

The Islamic conference in Sodding-Arabia demanded from Ben Bot, the Dutch foreign minister, to place diffamation of the camel jokey prophet at the same level with diffamation of the queen. He told them they could stuff it. In a more diplomatic manner of course. Whatever the Danes decide it will have no effect on the other countries.

I believe they're both suited to different tasks.
GSG-9 is better at both, and they aren't after killing people. They fired shots exactly four times in 1,500 missions.

The point is that you haven't shown that killing them is necessary, or indeed that it is a better way of dealing with them than interrupting and preventing plans while getting arrest warrants and getting them as you would any other common criminal.

GSG-9 is better at both, and they aren't after killing people. They fired shots exactly four times in 1,500 missions.

GSG-9 only acts domesticly.

GSG-9 only acts domesticly.
Now yes, they used to use loopholes. Today KSK is supposed to do that stuff.

But the point is that small SWAT-like teams can secure and arrest anyone, no killing is needed, and the result will likely be better than if one used a military to do the same thing.

no killing is needed.
Are you sure?

Are you sure?
In some cases, people may get killed. That's an unfortunate fact that comes about when a mission goes wrong.

Ideally a SWAT team secures the place before the criminals even know that they are there. Then most criminals will give themselves up. Now, it is quite possible that Islamist terrorists will not, and for that purpose the team would have to be ready to use force (although non-lethal should be preferred) to protect themselves and any civilians close by.

Nonetheless, the goal of the operation would not be to kill anyone. Killing would thus be a failure. And that is different from the way the problem is currently approached, which seems to be largely based on vile revenge thinking.

GSG-9 is better at both, and they aren't after killing people. They fired shots exactly four times in 1,500 missions.I disagree. I am against this war in Iraq, but I thought Afghanistan was one of the most effective antiterrorist campaigns ever. Too bad we got distracted by a useless war.

The point is that you haven't shown that killing them is necessary, or indeed that it is a better way of dealing with them than interrupting and preventing plans while getting arrest warrants and getting them as you would any other common criminal.No, I haven't shown YOU that. We ain't coming together on this. I think that when you look at the level of atrocity these people have shown themselves to be capable of and that they say they are planning makes this much more than a criminal problem.

I disagree. I am against this war in Iraq, but I thought Afghanistan was one of the most effective antiterrorist campaigns ever. Too bad we got distracted by a useless war.
But the actual successes against terrorism were done by special forces (some would argue that they weren't actually all that successful either), not by the invasion. Which is exactly my point...if you need them, you can use military special forces. But you don't need an army to invade Afghanistan in order to take out a terror camp and arrest whoever is there.

No, I haven't shown YOU that. We ain't coming together on this. I think that when you look at the level of atrocity these people have shown themselves to be capable of and that they say they are planning makes this much more than a criminal problem.
It's mass murder. It's murder * any given number. It's still an issue of the law, and as such there are rules we obey.

*scans through topic*

S'not my problem.