Yep, resources, increased numbers working in intelligence, man hours, co-opertain between states.
There's no way that relatively small numbers of people intent on wreaking havoc should be in a position to avoid detection in any European state.

Loylz wrote:
y va marquer wrote:

I would not say that the men who murdered 132 people in Paris on Friday are "nut jobs" - that too absolves them of responsibility.
They were not insane, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Just a word yves, wasn't meant literally. Could use fucking cunts instead.

I call them mass murderers.

[size=medium][font=Arial]Loylz
What I didn't agree with is people having to speak out as if they are somehow responsible for what these nut jobs do. As if they have to prove they don't believe in these actions if they don't. I know you didn't say that but this is a line that's repeated often enough. 

I agree it's good that people in places of influence need to speak out about these people and their actions but it's not the responsibility of the common people. 
 I'm not so sure anyone who believes that these guys represent what Islam is about can be convinced otherwise by people speaking out. ...Once people develop these biases it's very hard to get them to ignore any preconceived ideas and think objectively. People generally pick and choose what information they read and take in to those views and facts that reaffirm what they already believed and anything that says the opposite is brushed aside.
[/font][/size]

[size=medium][font=Arial]There is the source of confusion: It is really not about how muslims are perceived (they will be harshly treated by most no matter what we do, unfortunately) - it's not about "having to" do this or that. It is about what they can contribute. It is about their unique position here, perhaps the only ones with any hope (as remote as it may be) to influence the extremists. Those people in places of influence should speak out not for the sake of Good PR to the muslims, not to absolve themselves in the eyes of the Europeans (or west). It is to make sure, as much as possible, that no moral grey area is left for such Fanatics to think they can wear this phony islamic martyr robe.
Interesting bits in that NewYorker piece, as indeed other sources, always point at "fragile", desperate and ready to adopt a serious identity shift at some crucial stage. People do have the ability to cling to whatever, ultimately, but it does seem like some moral foundation, some support, is always needed there. They tend to get it from the loud lunatics who know just how to sneak and lure them, brainwash them (Imams in prisons; great Arab warriors in "romantic" revolutionary set ups, etc.). There's a parallel story in need there, and it better be good, as it asks them to do extreme things: they give them the moral background, they give them targets, which "make it real", they give them an awesome tool in hate, which propels them to do "great things" - things which in their earlier miserable life they couldn't dream of doing.
[/font][/size]
[size=medium][font=Arial]
Muslim majority, and perhaps mainly muslim leaders, can let these poisonous haters know they are not respected, they are not representing any muslim - in fact they are just as much the enemies of islam as they are anybody else's. Sure, it won't do the job with everyone, but a firm "you're anti muslim" message could help shake their moral foundation.
[/font][/size]
[size=medium][font=Arial]As for the other worries - people's bias, etc. - well, it's like you say. I guess (not that this is why I suggest this) a very clear message, and a strong islamic norm ostracizing these extreme groups could also help relax other tensions (but I agree with you this doesn't amount to "a duty to speak out").[/font][/size]

Edit: geez, dunno what happened with this post, can't get it to just look normal...

Kel Varnsen wrote:
Loylz wrote:

So there are 300m odd Muslims running around the world dreaming about (and actually) plotting an attack. Sounds legit.

Boring straw man... Anyway, start here: 
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Good read that, Kel, but I find the study leaves several things unanswered in your claim that 20 percent of Muslims are radicalized. Firstly, there is no data from Muslims living in, admittedly loosely used, 'the western world'; my thinking, based on my own experience, is that most Muslims in 'the western world' are NOT radicalized at all. Secondly, more than half of the people in the survey who say they favor sharia law as the law of the land think that it should only be applied to Muslims. Again, to me, that doesn't quite go with the rhetoric often being used these days of 'Muslims want to bomb the shit our of everyone and impose their religion on us all'.

Burnsy, ^^ great post that.

Loylz wrote:
yuv wrote:

 I tried hard to figure which part you think is "nonsense", particularly as you quote the end note, and in your text virtually repeat what I said earlier...
anyway, if it is (I took that from a later post of yours) about "painting 1.2 Bn" in certain colors, that's definitely not what I was doing (read my post, I'm not going to repeat it). 
If you took the end note as a testament of culpability, then that's wrong again. The point is that they are the only ones in place to influence trends within islam, and actions (like ones you mention yourself, by key islamic figures) seeking to denounce violence etc., are absolutely vital at this time. Even if only a fraction of muslims are radical, and a fraction of the radicals actively turn to violence, they all have an environment - one which could support or object, embrace or ostracize.
These are not simple times, and the challenges ahead are anything but easy. Pretty soon the PC talk will be over, and some tough decisions will have to be taken. We've seen how ugly it could get for muslims in America, which doesn't have anything near the amount and range of muslims as in Europe. Things could get way uglier in Europe if we're not careful, and yes, I do believe muslims can help cool that wave of hostility and suspicion (without "painting" them, blaming them, or any such).

Yuv, I was only responding to that last end note. Don't disagree with anything you said otherwise. Unfortunately I think you're right. Things probably will get worse on both sides with more resentment being shown towards Muslims after actions like the other night and more becoming disillusioned and having their heads turned by these people. 

What I didn't agree with is people having to speak out as if they are somehow responsible for what these nut jobs do. As if they have to prove they don't believe in these actions if they don't. I know you didn't say that but this is a line that's repeated often enough. 

People have free will commit whatever crimes they want but the responsibility for those actions should rest solely on their shoulders. I agree it's good that people in places of influence need to speak out about these people and their actions but it's not the responsibility of the common people. 

Then again with the resources available and the amount of information that is easily accessible with a bit of research to anyone who's bothered, I'm not so sure anyone who believes that these guys represent what Islam is about can be convinced otherwise by people speaking out. 

Once people develop these biases it's very hard to get them to ignore any preconceived ideas and think objectively. People generally pick and choose what information they read and take in to those views and facts that reaffirm what they already believed and anything that says the opposite is brushed aside.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

So 25% of muslims don't reject suicide bombings. Thanks for making my point. Your last sentence makes no sense btw.

The biggest problem with that is that there is a difference between not rejecting suicide bombings and supporting them. You choosing to add the votes of people who abstain from answering or who give neutral answers to those who support these actions is disingenuous. In the same way one could argue that less than 10% of Muslims support suicide bombings. But that wouldn't suit your agenda would it?

There is some confusion regarding concepts here. All jihadists (basically those who use violence against civilians) are islamists, but not all islamists are jihadists. They are all radicalised though and combined they are about 20% of the Muslim community. Based on the responses to different questions in various polls, 20% is actually a moderate estimate. 

Btw, the large majority of muslims are normal people just doing normal stuff. But it is disingenuous to say that extremism and fundamentalism isn't a big problem within Islam atm. Something most moderate muslims also seem to accept these days.

Not rejecting something is not the same as agreeing to something though. For instance, I'm generally against having someone's balls cut off, but in some cases I think it would be appropriate. Thus, I'm not completely rejecting it.

y va marquer wrote:

Yep, resources, increased numbers working in intelligence, man hours, co-opertain between states.
There's no way that relatively small numbers of people intent on wreaking havoc should be in a position to avoid detection in any European state.

I think it's the exact opposite. 500 million people live in Europe and until large scale brainwave scanning is possible I don't think you can prevent tragedies like these, you might as well try to prevent all crime. You're also opening the door to more government surveillance which can and 100% will be abused for other purposes.
If you want to reduce the chance (there will always be a risk) use those resources and increased man hours to prevent the cause of either happening in the first place. If you're responsible for thousands of deaths, regardless of how far it is from your doorstep, you will create ripples which inevitably will reach other places.

jones wrote:
y va marquer wrote:

Yep, resources, increased numbers working in intelligence, man hours, co-opertain between states.
There's no way that relatively small numbers of people intent on wreaking havoc should be in a position to avoid detection in any European state.

I think it's the exact opposite. 500 million people live in Europe and until large scale brainwave scanning is possible I don't think you can prevent tragedies like these, you might as well try to prevent all crime. You're also opening the door to more government surveillance which can and 100% will be abused for other purposes.
If you want to reduce the chance (there will always be a risk) use those resources and increased man hours to prevent the cause of either happening in the first place. If you're responsible for thousands of deaths, regardless of how far it is from your doorstep, you will create ripples which inevitably will reach other places.

I agree, and I'm very nervous of the knock on effect of any potential legislation to increase surveillance and suspension of basic rights as a result of the European equivalent of the Patriots Act.  

I didn't say that preventing all such attacks would be possible but there is certainly so much more that can be done to limit the frequency and scale.

I reject the suggestion that these murderers and potential murderers can be dissuaded from murder simply by France and her allies withdrawing from foreign territories and immediately calling a halt to all milatary intervention.

I also reject the notion that these killers acted as they did on Friday out of some sense of anger at France's involvement in the bombing campaign against ISIS.
I said it in my original post, to me these men are nothing more than common killers, murderers who hate humanity, impotent cowards.
Trying to somehow relieve them of some of the responsibilty for their actions by insinuating they were provoked is abhorrent to me.

Why link themselves to a cause if that's the case? Why not be a line wolf?

Provoked? what about brainwashed?

These people are 100% responsible nonetheless, but surely you could try to see as deep as you can - nobody has unlimited free will, no one can control the circumstances in which they are born, raised, etc. Patterns of nurturing, passing and activating ideas and actions can be traced, and perhaps thus aid to track and cut some of these chains. What do you make of those prison/poison preachers  - they don't go around shooting or carrying explosives - no responsibility on them? many times they are the most culpable figure in the story.

y va marquer wrote:

I didn't say that preventing all such attacks would be possible but there is certainly so much more that can be done to limit the frequency and scale.

And I'm claiming the opposite. I don't think for a second that a couple hundred extra men working in French intelligence agencies would do anything to significantly lower the chances of shit like this happening, and there are lots of studies corroborating this point.

I reject the suggestion that these murderers and potential murderers can be dissuaded from murder simply by France and her allies withdrawing from foreign territories and immediately calling a halt to all milatary intervention.

I never said anything about France withdrawing from anywhere. I'm saying it is way too short sighted and naive to look at this event in isolation.

I also reject the notion that these killers acted as they did on Friday out of some sense of anger at France's involvement in the bombing campaign against ISIS.
I said it in my original post, to me these men are nothing more than common killers, murderers who hate humanity, impotent cowards.
Trying to somehow relieve them of some of the responsibilty for their actions by insinuating they were provoked is abhorrent to me.

I didn't absolve anyone of their responsibility for anything and I would appreciate if you stopped implying that I am. These men are anything but common killers, they were carrying suicide vests meaning none of them even entertained the notion of surviving after killing as many as possible. There are two options of handling this issue, one being to just direct all of our (well-deserved) contempt to the murderers and call for more surveillance, the other is trying to understand how such a catastrophe could happen in the first place.

You could have hundreds of plain clothes cops in every public space and there still would be crimes happening because you'll never be able to catch all criminals before they commit their crime. It makes much more sense to prevent the creation of the criminal in the first place as no motive more often than not means no crime.

signals intelligence only goes so far. every day, the FBI gets hundreds of tips about potential threats. there simply isnt enough time in the day to track down all leads and tips, which is why these things happen. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but collecting more data is only 1 part of a problem that has like 15 different aspects. in the drone papers, they indicated that it basically took many months to gather intelligence, vet the intelligence with people on the ground, develop a plan, and then execute an actual drone strike.

in many ways, the inefficiencies in signals intelligence are what is holding the process back. and yet, it is the most advanced it has ever been at any point in history.

From the few details released on the first murderer to be identified by the police there is nothing so far to suggest that there was anything in his background that drove him unwillingly, or trance like, to heading off on a Friday evening with explosives strapped to his chest and an automatic weapon in his hands.
If he became radicalised then it was of his own choosing.
It was his choice to accept those beliefs.

There are millions of people born into far worse and far more deprived backgrounds who do not resort to mass murder on a Friday evening.

Short term solutions: Dry up IS money sources. Take back the oil wells. Infiltrate , infiltrate, infiltrate.

Ironically it's the US that gave the money, weapons and training in the first place...