[headdie]

As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.

Yeah, right..

Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.

It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.

Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.

But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..

UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear.  You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.

[General Battuta]

As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.

Yeah, right..

Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.

It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.

Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.

But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..

Your arguments have fallen back to 'you're wrong because you're wrong; you are uninformed and mistaken, you are trying to be wrong, you are an expert at being wrong'. As more information about the etiology of the Paris attacks comes out, you find yourself unable to integrate it into your model. Why are the attackers ISIS-trained militants who moved between Europe and the Middle East? Why does it seem like good intelligence work and better border security could have prevented these attacks, just like 9/11?

You don't know. And as we open up the etiology of Daesh itself, the ideological and political drivers that create terrorists and fighters, you find that your model cannot explain either the origins or goals of terrorism. Why is Daesh's high-level rhetoric all about apocalyptic Islam, while its low-level fighters talk about the need for local security and the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq? You don't know.

And there's a good reason why!

Your presence in this thread has been a long, coherent argument as to why terrorism works. You are the ideal terrorist target. A terrorist attack happens, and you reply with, 'well, we should do exactly what the terrorists want: we should escalate, to prevent further attacks. We should do what's necessary in the short run, and deal with the long run later.'

I have a period of history for you to read up on! It is the years 2001-2015. Examine these years. Compare the amount of damage done by terrorist attacks to the amount of damage done by clumsy responses to terrorist attacks.

Then look up the origins of prevalent modern terrorist and radical movements. You will find, at the root of each, a series of compromises and short-term solutions by Western powers: choices to prop up strongmen or topple governments in the name of short-term interest.

The thinking you advocate has dominated for a century. It has failed again and again. But it appeals to you because of the kneejerk emotional need for immediate safety.

[General Battuta]

Terrorist attacks are very ineffective forms of warfare. They cannot meaningfully compromise the target's ability to retaliate.

Terrorist attacks are excellent tools of rhetoric and policy. They can manipulate the target into compromising itself.

It's ironic that, a century later, we're back to 'the bomber always gets through.' You will never prevent every attack. But you can prevent the attacks from achieving their objectives. That's where we are now: the attack has not yet succeeded, but right here you can see people arguing that it should.

And these objectives aren't even concealed! Daesh explains them nakedly, in plain words. But somehow people think 'we should not do what Daesh wants' qualifies as 'the opposite of what should be done.'

[666maslo666]

The thinking you advocate has dominated for a century. It has failed again and again. But it appeals to you because of the kneejerk emotional need for immediate safety.

Quite the opposite. I dont care much about immediate safety. Indeed, as I sad many times, there is probably no way how the west could prevent random freak attacks by a truly determined opponent such as ISIS. Sporadic attacks, such as 9/11, will happen from time to time. So just accept it and move on.

What the West can do is to keep this situation from getting worse over the long term, over decades or more. And spatial separation policy is the key for that.

[General Battuta]

"What the West can do to keep this situation from getting worse over the long term, is to cave to Daesh's demands. That should help."

Like I said, you provide the ideal target. They expend nothing, and they get everything: you voluntarily disarm yourself of all your most powerful tools. If you are, in fact, thinking in the long term, then you realize the long term is already pointed towards your victory.

[666maslo666]

I believe Daesh surely wants open borders so we should do the opposite. At the same time, muslims should be treated reasonably well, tough. So they dont needlessly radicalize. These two things are not in conflict.

But anyway, do you have any other argument rather than "thats what Daesh wants so we dont do it"? Daesh is a crazy apocalyptic cult, letting what Daesh wants define your policy is stupid. Rather you should define it rationally based on what you want. And thats what I am doing.

[The E]

And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it? All these terrorists want us to be more repressive, less liberal, more islamophobic and racist so they can get more recruits, more followers willing to blow themselves up. It's a moral imperative that we do not give them more ammunition for their propaganda war, and we can do that by not taking the bait they're laying out.

[666maslo666]

UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear.  You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.

Lost my post so once again..

It does not matter whether you "react in fear" or are brave. Fear is an emotion that has evolved for a reason and ignoring it may very well be stupid. I dont like this demonization of fear, as if it could never be due to a rational reason. One who ignores real threats in order not to be "fearful" is an idiot.

What matters is whether your reaction is good or bad, not whether it is "based on fear".

And it think pursuing spatial separation policy (including well protected borders and tight immigration policy) is what can greatly reduce both future terrorist attacks on European soil, but also low level islamist violence and ethnic conflicts inside Europe (which while not as serious may be much more widespread). It wont prevent all attacks tough, but I am ont promising that.

[General Battuta]

I believe Daesh surely wants open borders so we should do the opposite. At the same time, muslims should be treated reasonably well, tough. So they dont needlessly radicalize. These two things are not in conflict.

But anyway, do you have any other argument rather than "thats what Daesh wants so we dont do it"? Daesh is a crazy apocalyptic cult, letting what Daesh wants define your policy is stupid. Rather you should define it rationally based on what you want. And thats what I am doing.

Scroll up, read posts. You're quick to throw accusations about ignorance but apparently don't even understand the gap between Daesh theology, the motives of their foreign recruits and operatives, and the motives of their ground-level fighters. You also think Daesh wants open borders, when the stated goal of Daesh is to drive a wedge between moderate Muslims and the West!

Indeed, letting Daesh define your policy is stupid.

The idea that immigrants are a menace and a security risk is a dogwhistle used by the right. Terrorists can be tracked and stopped by law enforcement: this is and always has been true.

You are unable to rationally articulate either the basis or the goals of your argument: even within your own last post you are utterly incoherent! You say, "Daesh wants one thing, so we should do the opposite." Then you say, "but do you have an argument beyond that's what Daesh wants, so we shouldn't do it?" This is doublethink.

Let's go back here:

Yeah, right..

Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.

It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.

Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.

But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..

You go from 'we should do this to prevent regular bloody attacks' to 'well, we can't prevent every attack', to 'spatial separation is the key', to 'well, muslims should be treated well, so they don't needlessly radicalize.'

Which is it? Where are you? The spatial separation argument is foolhardy: the West's policy is not spatially separated from the Middle East, and even if they are not here, we are there. Even if everything we had in the Middle East vanished tomorrow, the effects of our actions would linger in economy, in structure, in memory.

Spatial separation is impossible. The world is too small.

[General Battuta]

Back to clean up later, gotta get some chapters done.

[666maslo666]

And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it?

Nothing much? As I said, letting your policy be defined as "opposite to ISIS" is dumb. ISIS is not a rational enemy.

But as I said, I believe what Daesh truly wants is open borders + increased racism. Both of these are part of their plans. So what we should do, assuming we want to do the opposite of what Daesh wants, is tightly controlled borders + dont be racist.

And that position lies outside of usual left-right dichotomy, which is a tough pill for most ideologues to swallow..

[Bobboau]

What they want is irrelevant. Stop using that as a talking point. Doing the oposite of what they want is just as much letting them dictate our policy as doing what they want. They want oxygen in the atmosphere too, does that mean we should start fixing it out of the air?

[666maslo666]

Spatial separation is impossible. The world is too small.

I dont believe that for a second. It is easily possible. Dont try to tell me a modern developed nation is incapable of protecting its borders and enforcing who gets in and who doesnt.

You are unable to rationally articulate either the basis or the goals of your argument: even within your own last post you are utterly incoherent! You say, "Daesh wants one thing, so we should do the opposite." Then you say, "but do you have an argument beyond that's what Daesh wants, so we shouldn't do it?" This is doublethink.

I am coherent enough, but maybe you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that we should not let Daesh define our policy. But at the same time, that my position is still the opposite of what Daesh really wants. Which is open borders + more racism. My position is the opposite of that.

 

he West's policy is not spatially separated from the Middle East, and even if they are not here, we are there.

That is what I mean. When I say spatial separation, I only mean one way, obviously. We can be there if we want, that is not a threat to us.

[666maslo666]

And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it? All these terrorists want us to be more repressive, less liberal, more islamophobic and racist so they can get more recruits, more followers willing to blow themselves up.

OK, lets say you are right and restricting immigration causes some muslims in Europe to turn to extremism.

Do you really believe that that number will be bigger than the number of extremists prevented by the more strict immigration? I think it will be FAR, FAR lower. Especially in the long run.

[General Battuta]

That is what I mean. When I say spatial separation, I only mean one way, obviously. We can be there if we want, that is not a threat to us.

And you accuse me of naivete!

I have a challenge for you. Read two things.

Read the grievances that drove Al Qaeda to attack the West.

Read this Wikipedia article

When you are done you might be able to form a well-founded thought on this topic.

[headdie]

UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear.  You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.

Lost my post so once again..

It does not matter whether you "react in fear" or are brave. Fear is an emotion that has evolved for a reason and ignoring it may very well be stupid. I dont like this demonization of fear, as if it could never be due to a rational reason. One who ignores real threats in order not to be "fearful" is an idiot.

What matters is whether your reaction is good or bad, not whether it is "based on fear".

And it think pursuing spatial separation policy (including well protected borders and tight immigration policy) is what can greatly reduce both future terrorist attacks on European soil, but also low level islamist violence and ethnic conflicts inside Europe (which while not as serious may be much more widespread). It wont prevent all attacks tough, but I am ont promising that.

I am trying to work out why you are so doggedly holding onto this idea that closing borders to immigrants will in any way change the situation.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, closing the borders to immigrants won't stop terrorists from getting in, they have 2 alternative routes of getting terrorists in which took me seconds to think of.
1) People Smuggling, Europe and the USA have a well documented problems stopping people illegally crossing borders because the problem is too big and it isnt just people piggybacked on legitimate trade.
2) Visitor Visas, be it Tourist, Study, Work or Business visas, these things run upwards of 6 months which is more than enough time to put together and execute and attack

The downside of turning away refugees is that we are no longer building good will amongst the legitimate refugees and do you think they want these people in their number? answer is no because it hurts them to have them there, where do you think a bunch of the intelligence comes from about the attacks we catch? because it isn't all Signals Intel

[666maslo666]

I am trying to work out why you are so doggedly holding onto this idea that closing borders to immigrants will in any way change the situation.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, closing the borders to immigrants won't stop terrorists from getting in, they have 2 alternative routes of getting terrorists in which took me seconds to think of.

Because in the long term, the largest number of terrorists will inevitably come from domestic population. They will attack their own countries, often ones they grew up in. Some terrorists may come from abroad, sure. But when it comes to long term security of Europe, preventing the creation of terrorist recruiting grounds inside the continent is what is truly important.

And the best way to do that is tight immigration control.

Besides, as I said, I do not believe mere tight migration control can radicalize moderate muslims. No normal muslim becomes a terrorist only because of tight immigration laws. Thats not how human mind works.

[666maslo666]

And you accuse me of naivete!

I have a challenge for you. Read two things.

Read the grievances that drove Al Qaeda to attack the West.

Read this Wikipedia article

When you are done you might be able to form a well-founded thought on this topic.

Battuta, one way spatial separation is obviously the best security strategy. It maximizes our ability and minimizes theirs. So it is clear that we should pursue it.

Does it mean there will be no terrorists attacks in the West? No. Nobody can guarantee absolute safety. But we can guarantee reasonable safety, and thats what spatial separation (one way, two way, doesnt matter as long as they cannot easily get to us) will lead to.

Does it mean we must get involved in middle east? No. If we choose to, we can disengage from that conflict. I am not necessarily advocating a strong interventionist policy by saying "one way spatial separation". Just that we will have that ability to be there if we want to.

[Bobboau]

http://www.newsweek.com/defeat-isis-muslims-must-reform-sharia-394942

Interesting because it's in newsweek and not the daily mail.

[Phantom Hoover]

What they want is irrelevant. Stop using that as a talking point. Doing the oposite of what they want is just as much letting them dictate our policy as doing what they want. They want oxygen in the atmosphere too, does that mean we should start fixing it out of the air?

Are you saying that sabotaging the enemy's strategic goals is a bad idea?