[666maslo666]

"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation.  I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications.  It's important, and it's very pertinent.  Deal with it.

I can easily dismiss it simply on the fact that it happened in the US, and we are talking about the security situation in Europe, you know?

Implications of 9/11 are not making your case much better, quite the opposite. No event like that has happened since then, despite strong and bloody involvement of the west in the middle east afterwards. We can thus conclude that such big successful attacks by "tourist terrorists with visas" are very rare, even if we strongly provoke them muslims with plentiful bombardment of their countries - something which is a much bigger provocation than simply restricting immigration. If middle eastern muslims didnt go crazy and started joining Al-Quaeda in droves and causing havoc all over Europe after we destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, why should I think something like that would happen if we simply closed borders?

I'm saying that the number of extremists you create by sending refugees back to IS is going to more than make up for the few terrorists you send back with them.

Just to get this over with, I never said we should send refugees, or anyone "back to IS", such a thing would be crazy. We should send them into well protected and well funded refugee camps outside Europe. Deporting economic migrants also means they wont end up in any warzone (they wouldnt be economic migrants if they would). I dont think such a policy would create a lot of islamic extremism in the middle east. You certainly cannot claim that it would lead to more extremism and resulting "terrorist tourists" than the Afghanistan and Iraq bloodbath. If that didnt create a serious threat of tourist terrorists, I dont think what I am proposing will.

Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting.

ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).

[666maslo666]

Meanwhile, all identified terrorists were confirmed to be European nationals on paper, with immigrant backgrounds. Surely they should have integrated by 2 or 3 generation? So much for that notion, lol. As I said, people living inside Europe are the real security threat here, not those far away in middle east.

These attacks are the fruits of creating extremist breeding grounds right inside Europe by open borders policies of the past. Breeding grounds that were again enlarged by a million people this year.

[zookeeper]

People have tried to be reasonable for most of the thread.

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.

The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666.

[Col.Hornet]

Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting.

ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).

I have to disagree here. Even if Assad alongside with Putin, French and other ISIS enemies will crush them in Syria and Iraq it will not be game over. ISIS is not only an organization, land, weapons, terrorists etc. It's an ideal which will prevail in brainwashed minds. If they loose what did they fight for <the Caliphate state of their own> they will go for vengeance. Destroying IS in the Middle East will be half of a victory. The ultimate victory will appear when we will manage to wipe out ISIS from every human being's mind. 

[666maslo666]

Yeah, I agree, while IS as an entity in Syria and Iraq will probably not last long, the idea of Caliphate, an Islamic State in a more general sense, is deeply ingrained in the minds of islamists and will probably resurface again and again some time in the future. Its hard to kill an idea..

[Scotty]

The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666.

And the award for remaining reasonable ought to go to everyone opposing 666maslo666, since he very clearly left reason at the door.

[Bobboau]

Besides, why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.

The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666.

"why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?"
because they are the vast majority of people. You might not change the mind of the one person you are arguing with but you can change the minds of the 99 other people who are watching and not contributing. As of this second there are two registered users and twenty guests.

[FrikgFeek]

"why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?"
because they are the vast majority of people. You might not change the mind of the one person you are arguing with but you can change the minds of the 99 other people who are watching and not contributing. As of this second there are two registered users and twenty guests.

That might be true if there was any real draw for outsiders or people who don't have an account to read off-topic boards, especially threads about recent events that they could get in a thousand other places on the net. The 90% in this case are the people who enjoy FSO or battletech(or whatever else is hosted here) and come to HLP for something they can pretty much only find on HLP.

This thread has a 9 to 1 view-reply ratio, and I'd bet a lot of that comes from people checking their recent unreads and this topping it every time. Compare that to things like the WiH discussion thread(75:1) or any thread about some new test build which often exceed 50:1.

Besides, even if those lurkers are here they don't matter, they'll never give you satisfactory feedback and internet arguments are about making yourself feel better. It's why maslo is so persistent in his wilful ignorance.

[Bobboau]

you don't need feedback you need them to vote for the right candidate or sign the right petition.

[Aesaar]

"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation.  I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications.  It's important, and it's very pertinent.  Deal with it.

I can easily dismiss it simply on the fact that it happened in the US, and we are talking about the security situation in Europe, you know?

Implications of 9/11 are not making your case much better, quite the opposite. No event like that has happened since then, despite strong and bloody involvement of the west in the middle east afterwards. We can thus conclude that such big successful attacks by "tourist terrorists with visas" are very rare, even if we strongly provoke them muslims with plentiful bombardment of their countries - something which is a much bigger provocation than simply restricting immigration. If middle eastern muslims didnt go crazy and started joining Al-Quaeda in droves and causing havoc all over Europe after we destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, why should I think something like that would happen if we simply closed borders?

And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either.  Where are all the terrorists?  Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?

Just to get this over with, I never said we should send refugees, or anyone "back to IS", such a thing would be crazy. We should send them into well protected and well funded refugee camps outside Europe. Deporting economic migrants also means they wont end up in any warzone (they wouldnt be economic migrants if they would). I dont think such a policy would create a lot of islamic extremism in the middle east. You certainly cannot claim that it would lead to more extremism and resulting "terrorist tourists" than the Afghanistan and Iraq bloodbath. If that didnt create a serious threat of tourist terrorists, I dont think what I am proposing will.

Where do you put these camps?  How do you force people to stay in them?  What happens when the terrorists you're so afraid of decide to bomb the entrances to the camps?  Are you then going to start saying that the camps were a bad idea?  In the meantime you've got a bunch of people living in tents, and it's only a matter of time before those camps turn into ghettoes.  Yeah, that won't make anyone feel oppressed.

Brilliant idea.  Doesn't actually address the problem, but that's not important.  It's all about what it feels like it's doing, right?  Far better to keep a bunch of people cooped up in a camp doing nothing than letting them get jobs, educations, and becoming productive members of society.  It's not like IS has its origins in US prison camps or anything.

ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).

The same way Al Qaeda's days were numbered back in 2001, right?

It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow.  Something else will take its place.  Maybe not as an overt army, but the point of terrorist movements is that they're not overt.

Meanwhile, all identified terrorists were confirmed to be European nationals on paper, with immigrant backgrounds. Surely they should have integrated by 2 or 3 generation? So much for that notion, lol. As I said, people living inside Europe are the real security threat here, not those far away in middle east.

These attacks are the fruits of creating extremist breeding grounds right inside Europe by open borders policies of the past. Breeding grounds that were again enlarged by a million people this year.

And 200,000 refugees in Germany without a single attack.  Truly an epidemic, these terrorists.

Seriously, the percentage of immigrants who become terrorists is so laughably small I don't understand how you think stopping immigration will stop anything.  It'd be trivial for them to get tourist visas if they couldn't immigrate, because, again, the number is ****ing tiny.  2 million Muslims in the UK in 2005, and you're prepared to treat all Muslim immigrants as though they were extremists because 4 of them bombed the London subway system.  More than 200,000 Syrian immigrants in Europe, and you're ready to close borders because ~20 of them shot up Paris.  It's completely irrational.

I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering, since Battuta explained all of this to you and he did a better job writing it up, and it still flew over your head.

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.

The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666.

You have no idea how little I care.

[Bobboau]

hope you weren't counting on Hillary to win in 2016 then.

[AdmiralRalwood]

you realize you are pushing him and silent third parties further way from your position with the assertions of racism and the "Deal with it", right?

as opposed to 666maslo666's actual, repeatedly-demonstrated racism

which surely won't push any silent third parties away at all

because it's far more important to care about being called a racist than it is to care about racism

[Aesaar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16/the-islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/

I look forward to 666maslo666 claiming this is sensationalist and invalid without reading it.

[666maslo666]

And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either.  Where are all the terrorists?  Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?

I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..

When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations. Which is a testament to the fact that filtering immigrants actually works.

Where do you put these camps?  How do you force people to stay in them?  What happens when the terrorists you're so afraid of decide to bomb the entrances to the camps?  Are you then going to start saying that the camps were a bad idea?  In the meantime you've got a bunch of people living in tents, and it's only a matter of time before those camps turn into ghettoes.  Yeah, that won't make anyone feel oppressed.

You know these refugee camps already exist, they are just underfunded because we foolishly decided to cut foreign help to them? People wont need force to stay in there if they there funded properly and Schengen borders were properly protected, so there is no incentive to go to Europe.

Far better to keep a bunch of people cooped up in a camp doing nothing than letting them get jobs, educations, and becoming productive members of society.  It's not like IS has its origins in US prison camps or anything.

Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).

And 200,000 refugees in Germany without a single attack.  Truly an epidemic, these terrorists.

We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.

Seriously, the percentage of immigrants who become terrorists is so laughably small I don't understand how you think stopping immigration will stop anything. It'd be trivial for them to get tourist visas if they couldn't immigrate, because, again, the number is ****ing tiny.  2 million Muslims in the UK in 2005, and you're prepared to treat all Muslim immigrants as though they were extremists because 4 of them bombed the London subway system.  More than 200,000 Syrian immigrants in Europe, and you're ready to close borders because ~20 of them shot up Paris.

That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.

[666maslo666]

It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow.  Something else will take its place.

I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.

[The E]

It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow.  Something else will take its place.

I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.

Where do you think these people get their ideas from? Why are all those attacks linked to people who have spent time in training camps in the middle east?

These organizations are the only threat.

[Aesaar]

And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either.  Where are all the terrorists?  Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?

I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..

Holy ****, two people!  Out of 3 million!  Unacceptable percentage!

When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations.

[citation needed]

Or is this another one of your gut feelings?

Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).

All evidence to the contrary, yes.  I agree, all those millions of Muslims living peacefully in the West are clear evidence that Muslims just can't live peacefully in the West.

We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.

Yep, we sure are seeing the effects of that policy.  I mean, there might be one terrorist for every million Muslims.  Way too much of a risk to take.

That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.

You're ready to close borders and deny better lives to hundreds of thousands of people because a combined total of less than 200 people (of a population of ~20 million) have, in the last 15 years, killed less than two thousand people (of a population of 500 million).  And you claim I don't understand statistics.  What the **** is wrong with you?

I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that you're saying this in a thread about an attack orchestrated by Daesh is ****ing amazing.

[666maslo666]

It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow.  Something else will take its place.

I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.

Where do you think these people get their ideas from? Why are all those attacks linked to people who have spent time in training camps in the middle east?

These organizations are the only threat.

They are not all linked to such people, just some of them. Still wont do anything if there are no receptive muslim immigrants to radicalize.

And really, the only source of islamist ideas in Europe is IS / al-Quaeda and similar foreign organizations? All those high % of muslims who believe in killing apostates got their ideas from al-Quaeda and IS, not the culture they grew up in? Thats a very bold assertion you are making. I dont think any organization in the world could have that kind of influence. I think you are just trying to deny that muslim culture could be the problem.

[The E]

IS and Qaeda are the only ones recruiting and actively getting people who can be radicalized to a point where they're actually willing to perform terrorist acts.

And yes, the organizers, the main plotters of this attack, of the Charlie Hebdo one? They're ALL LINKED TO ONE OF THE BIG ORGANIZATIONS. It doesn't matter if they're recruiting local help which has never travelled to Syria. Without the big networks like Daesh or Qaeda, this wouldn't be happening.

But yeah, as Aesaar said, that you're spouting that bull**** in a thread about an attack undeniably orchestrated by the islamic networks is frankly unbelievable.

[Sandwich]

IS and Qaeda are the only ones recruiting and actively getting people who can be radicalized to a point where they're actually willing to perform terrorist acts.

Please qualify that statement, because I have a few dead friends and thousands of injured strangers around these parts that would testify otherwise...