Deaths, injuries after reports of explosion at Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena

[Dave28282]

Kad said: "Since qolbinau and Dave are so fond of mocking the idea of coming together after an attack like Manchester, and mocking "religion of peace" (a phrase used in this thread only by people mockingly, by the way), and write it off as doing nothing to prevent such attacks...

...what exactly are you proposing as a practical solution? What is going to stop terrorists in the immediate future, exactly? There are already hundreds of thousands of people who have sworn allegiance to ISIS,."

 

We are not mocking that idea, we just say that it is sweet but has nothing to do with the cause.

There is no immediate solution. These brainwashed people are a result of years of planting seeds in their mind, which started as young kids.

Colbinau mentions a whole list of things that could be done, so that maybe in 100 years the new generations will slowly come to their senses.

 

 

 

[Kad]

How? How do you educate people in the Middle East, in different cultures in general? Cultures with entirely different social mores and values than you? Countries without infrastructure to support high-quality education or leaders who share your ideas?

How is this not colonialism?  How is it not a missionary system?

Or do you propose that this is like a herd immunity? If so, how is that supported at all in human history?

[Jane2]

Dave said "Some people may be easier influenced by indoctrination than others. Also, events in (later) life can teach you things, change your though process and wake up a person."

I agree with this point, as I was touching on it in my post about indoctrination. If your mind has developed while living life, you learn right from wrong.

[Dave28282]

Mister Matt said: "My identity is going to be someone who is finished with this ridiculous conversation."

Good. At least something you say is based on actual life experience. And as Kdogg36 beautifully says: "There are more non-religious people than ever, and certainly many more progressive religious people than there were in the past, which indicates that there may be some hope."

We are on the right path.

[Dave28282]

Kad said: "How? How do you educate people in the Middle East, in different cultures in general? Cultures with entirely different social mores and values than you? "

I can name a whole list of suicide bombers who lived in the UK and the USA, going to normal schools. Something in their life-lessons went wrong.

 

[brdlwyr]

Just curious, why do you have a list of suicide bombers? 

[Dave28282]

Everyone has. Except the ostrich with the head in the sand and the goldfish with a 5 second memory.

[Kad]

Dave28282 said: "Kad said: "How? How do you educate people in the Middle East, in different cultures in general? Cultures with entirely different social mores and values than you? "

I can name a whole list of suicide bombers who lived in the UK and the USA, going to normal schools. Something in their life-lessons went wrong."

That doesn't answer my question, which pertains to people elsewhere.  

And again, how do you implement this agenda, even in the UK and the USA? The USA is huge and every state is different and cultural values vary greatly even regionally. There is no consensus even on how money should be spent, let alone how people should be educated.

What will happen to people who resist, and people will resist as you are implementing values that they do not hold?

You are assuming a rationality on the part of humanity that does not exist.
 

[Dave28282]

I agree that it's difficult, but knowledge is power. I feel that children must be exposed to much more information about all religions and with much more critical thinking, from various angles, about life and any aspect of it.

For a start we could change laws which make school provide this lessons (about the whole lists posted earlier). Show people that life goes beyond any religion.

"What will happen to people who resist, and people will resist as you are implementing values that they do not hold?"

We are not implementing values, we are teaching them to watch and learn about all values. Only then one can make a well considered choice. The fear of an open mind will eventually disappear if people are not raised narrow-minded.

In a case like this, everyone acts surprised that the bomber did his crime in the name of Allah, while the seeds planted for his conviction that Allah is almighty were planted long ago by his parents when he was a kid. That became his truth, his identity. From there it's only a small step to argue if Allah wants him to do something good or bad, as long as the boy thinks that's what Allah wants, it's true in his mind. Because Allah is almighty, that was taught as a kid and that's what he chanted in the streets months before the attack. We need to make people aware about how minds are formed, what is the cause of this, think from all sides and think critically from a young age.

The first thing every country has to do is to separate state and church.

[javero]

I'm certainly going to regret taking the bait but I'd like for Dave28282  & qolbinau to prescribe a remedy for the street gangs like MS13, Bloods, and Crips whose members plague many neighborhoods in the US including my own.  MS 13 has become so emboldened as to extort money from legitimate Latino businesses in the area for protection from a rival gang.  And all of the street gangs utilize local businesses, including banks, to launder money.  It's my understanding that none of the more prominent US street gangs compel members of the clique to chant "allahu akbar" while doing their dastardly deeds.  So, absent any obvious religious indoctrination, why are street gangs so effective at recruitment and what can the parents of pre-teens and teens do to steer their children away from gangbanging?

MS-13 extorting businesses in DC suburb: Police chief

[Liza's Headband]

Kill the gangbangers, kill the terrorists.  It's that simple. 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Oh, that's all we have to do? You wouldn't have guessed that based on the fact that the US has been at perpetual war for over 15 years and still terrorism exists. 

[qolbinau]

Mister Matt said: "Bingo!  "We want to do the exact OPPOSITE of indoctrination.  We want people to think like us and do things our way because we're obviously smarter and better than they are.  We'll present them with OUR 'facts' and either naturally or eventually, they will see things our way.  
 

"

Mister Matt, I can't help but feel there is something very sinister about your response here - and it just leads me to again wonder what your affiliation with religion is. When you say 'facts' you are obviously questioning the truth and legitimacy of what such education what entail - such education would involve non-biased religious education (including the positive and negative outcomes of religion - and information about ALL religions), critical thinking (i.e., an argument is a conclusion supported by premises. What makes a an argument convincing or not), and science (biology - particularly evolution etc.). Thankfully we already have some of these aspects, which hopefully explains to me why religious beliefs in Western countries does seem to be becoming more and more obscure. It would definitely not involve sitting people down and telling them there is no God etc. - all the education would be supported by science or evidence. If you even begin to question the legitimacy of this I just have to shake my head - you are basically saying that giving people a wide education is indoctrination. Very, very sinister. 

Will reply to your post Kad in a second - I think you have a good point.

[qolbinau]

Kad said: "Since qolbinau and Dave are so fond of mocking the idea of coming together after an attack like Manchester, and mocking "religion of peace" (a phrase used in this thread only by people mockingly, by the way), and write it off as doing nothing to prevent such attacks...

...what exactly are you proposing as a practical solution? Because "get rid of religion!" is not practical. It is at best a thought experiment to propose getting rid of beliefs that have been entrenched in human society for thousands of years.  What is going to stop terrorists in the immediate future, exactly? There are already hundreds of thousands of people who have sworn allegiance to ISIS, who fight for that ideology on the ground in the Middle East and elsewhere (to say nothing of the other extreme believers in other religions). It is literally tearing countries apart and you want everyone to do... what, exactly? What do you think we should be doing with these people who exist in large numbers now, who pose an immediate threat?

Some of the terrorists, the ones carrying out attacks on their home soils, it should be mentioned, are educated individuals, people who have gone to university and hold or were pursuing degrees in science and engineering.

 

 

 

"

It's true - we do need something more immediate in the short-term. I suppose I think a lot will come down to intelligence and security - being able to identify and prevent radicalised individuals from committing their acts. Now, what does this involve and what would be different to the way we are doing it now? I suppose these would be unpopular opinions, but if we think about a continuum from 'personal freedom' to government control/intervention I'd wish public attitudes would shift a little so we could accept a little bit less 'personal freedom' for the greater good of security (I personally see my personal freedom a lot less important than the lives of the people who have died or been injured in attacks such as 9/11, Manchester, Paris x2, Nice etc). Now, we of course have to tread carefully and ensure the systems are set up in a way that allows for whistle blowing should it be abused. But I would like our security agencies to have:

* Much more power to intercept communications such as telephone, sms, internet-based communication, social media etc. Obviously the radicalised individuals are likely communicating using channels that we have the technology to (but not political power or public will) to intercept

* Given that radicalised individuals are likely to be within the Islamic community, there does need to be a particular focus on intelligence and interception here. And I would compel the public to not react with a false idea that this means that people are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists - far from it. But because we know the religious beliefs of radicalised individuals are not randomly distributed across religions (by definition) we can significantly reduce the resources and increase the predictive power if we focus intelligence efforts in this community. We are wasting our limited resources if we are targeting demographics (e.g., with intelligence or security checks) that are highly unlikely to be an issue. Now, we are probably all thinking about the words to describe what this is. I'm not going to say them. But before someone might react very strongly - please do consider that this does not come from a perspective of 'racism' or unwarranted discrimination but simply taking advantage of the empirical and scientific fact that certain demographic groups are more likely to contain the radicalised individuals than other groups.

 
 

[A Director]

 

“There is no inverse relationship between freedom and security. Less of one does not lead to more of the other. People with no rights are not safe from terrorist attack.” 
? Molly Ivins

[A Director]

" Many a time freedom has been rolled back - and always for the same sorry reason: fear."  Molly Ivins

[javero]

World’s deadliest gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) begins to infiltrate Australia

There are fears the gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13, is already here with their graffiti tags spotted around NSW. The gang could be under a different guise and is going by the names “Tiny Devils” and “SPS-13” in Adelaide.

It is understood they’ve been targeting Australia to tap into the booming (and lucrative) drug market here.

More at the link above.

[songanddanceman2]

Yet nobody is really talking about the fact that the US and other western countries are funding Saudi Arabia and they are funding terrorists. That's the first big way it could be stopped.

[kdogg36]

qolbinau said: "I suppose these would be unpopular opinions, but if we think about a continuum from 'personal freedom' to government control/intervention"

You've lost my support entirely here. The amount of freedom or privacy I'm willing to give up because of a small group of assholes is precisely zero.

Even if I thought it would keep us safer, which I don't really think, my answer would be the same: I'll keep every ounce of my freedom and accept the risks of living in the real world.

Every so often I hear someone propose something like putting ignition locks on every car to prevent drunk driving. You know what? It would be just a minor annoyance, it would almost certainly work, and drunk driving is a much bigger problem than terrorism. But I'm not willing to accept it. And if I'm not willing to accept even a slight loss of liberty to prevent three 9/11s worth of deaths every year, I'm sure as **** not willing to accept it in the face of a much more trivial threat.

 

[qolbinau]

I definitely am sympathetic to counterarguments about this issue because what I describe is definitely closer to what might be seen as a Dystopian Orwellian future than at present. I suppose I'll just say a couple of things about it. The first is that (and I know this may sound obvious) - we already accept, advocate and/or support for policies in the societies we live in to limit our freedoms. For example, we are already forbidden from engaging in certain behaviours (e.g., through legislation), consuming things (e.g., illegal drugs or consuming alcohol in an establishment if they perceive we have had too much - or alcohol at all if we are below a certain age). We walk into an airport today and have ever inch of our body scanned and feedback provided to others about whether we therefore have anything on our person (though of course these 'full body scanners' were not uncontroversial). We are forced to give up some of our income to the state or face imprisonment. In certain places we are only free to own and use firearms in certain conditions.

So I guess the question is not whether we should "keep every ounce of our freedom" or not - because we already don't have it. The question is how much freedom we think is acceptable or not. We do have the technology now to scan and analyse large amounts of unstructured (textual) data automatically and very quickly. What I imagine is, like a full body scanner that operates to the end users as a 'black box' - only providing feedback when needed - the technology operates unobtrusively and only provides feedback about potential security issues when something is detected (and this could span beyond terrorism, of course). Of course, there are so many issues here it is hard to even start. For example, how will the public respond to this (probably not well - at least initially), what will be done with the system does give an alert? Will the technology be good enough to have enough specificity and sensitivity to prevent a sufficiently large amount of false positives and false negatives? How transparent would we be to the public about how it works and what it is looking for (to prevent evasion). 

I suppose I don't necessarily see much risk to 'personal freedom' except than perhaps an icky feeling that someone is always watching. Maybe there is a way to compromise/have a better balance so the power bestowed and technology isn't so intrusive (I mean, we already have compromises right now - the USA can, will and does intercept communications and 'spy' on people. But the legal conditions required to do this, I believe, are high). But yes, as I said I am absolutely sympathetic and can understand opposition to this.

I can tell we do have fundamentally different perspectives here because the idea of an ignition lock for drunk drivers sounds like a good idea to me. 


 

[kdogg36]

qolbinau said: "I can tell we do have fundamentally different perspectives here because the idea of an ignition lock for drunk drivers sounds like a good idea to me."

Just to be clear, the notion I'm objecting to is the idea of putting ignition locks on all cars. I have no problem with making such locks a condition of probation for those convicted of a crime. Based on your paraphrase, I'm not sure I was clear about what I was opposing.

But, yes, we come from different perspectives, I'm quite sure. In fact, I oppose pretty much all the examples you list of existing limitations on freedom.

[qolbinau]

I think you write very clearly so I did have that understanding, it was my post perhaps that wasn't clear. If I think about freedoms around driving we already do have restrictions to ensure that [at least in Aus] 1. We are able to safely drive the car (e.g., licensing, insurance, medical checks above a certain age etc.), and 2. The cars are safe to drive (e.g., legislation around car safety features of new cars, car mechanical inspections). To me, forcing all cars to have some kind of breathalyser ignition lock that would help ensure number 1 is held up seems like a good idea to me given the large amount of people that are killed or injured from drink driving (particularly because it likely could affect others, not just the drunk driver). The compromise in freedom (count from 1 to 10 in a hopefully conveniently placed position) each time one drives to me seems trivial in comparison to the thousands of people that die each year from it (and yes, in much greater numbers than terrorism that it does seem like a greater priority). 

If this won't sit well with the public, are there compromises? For example, a mandatory condition to breathalise before a car will start - but the car will still drive regardless of whether the driver is over the limit or not. Or even more mildly, a mandatory condition for all new cars to be sold with breathalisers built-in but it is completely up to the driver whether they want to use it or not. I see very clearly with these three conditions an inverse relationship between freedom and safety.

Similarly, I would support legislation to do things like put fingerprint scanners on guns etc., which while compromising freedom will hopefully increase safety (e.g., reducing accidents).

Maybe there is a way to compromise having more powers in intercepting communication so that it is not as 1984-esque as I describe, but still more powerful than the current legislation. 

[kdogg36]

qolbinau said: "Maybe there is a way to compromise having more powers in intercepting communication so that it is not as 1984-esque as I describe, but still more powerful than the current legislation."

A lot of us in the US, including me, think that current government snooping is already far too broad, with the NSA collecting all cell phone metadata and such. As I said, I'll keep my privacy and take the risks of living in a world with some real dangers (though fewer than in previous decades, if you check the statistics).

On the other issues you bring up, I'll just note that I'm pretty much on the opposite side of things across the board. :)

[ErikJ972]

songanddanceman2 said: "Yet nobody is really talking about the fact that the US and other western countries are funding Saudi Arabia and they are funding terrorists. That's the first big way it could be stopped."

This. And drone bombing weddings doesn't help either.

And qolbinau is giving exactly the reaction ISIS wants when they carry out these attacks. Well played qolbinau!

[Liza's Headband]

Sadly, many of your fellow democrat friends have forgotten that President Obama was responsible for more civilian causalities in the Middle East than the previous two presidents combined (amazing to learn, I know). The drone strike program saw a major expansion under Obama, and it is believed this program alone was responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 innocents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

[ErikJ972]

Ugh you're just as smug as Q.

1. I'm not a democrat.

2. I've posted about Obama and drones several times on this very board.