Again - be specific, please. How and why are the politicians feckless and pusillanimous? Nice words, but what do you mean to say by them? How and why do you see populations in Europe as soft and neutered? What strategy do you propose that, apparently, in your eyes would be hard and ... gendered (what's the opposite of neutered)? How is that strategy going to help end terrorism? That's not an official definition of moral relativism. I linked to that article about moral relativism for a reason - one that is quite critical of the various forms of moral relativism. I see, as most people with degrees in the social sciences / natural sciences (have one in each field) some truth, which can objectively measured, in descriptive relativism, but there is a limit to the usefulness of it as a concept if taken to extremes. I am fairly convinced by the arguments coming from the natural science and biology as morals as an evolutionary aspect of social animals. I.e. an internal moral grounding that is beneficial to us from an evolutionary standpoint, which is universal, but hazy. The very contrast to morals being relative. That is not a contradiction in terms, by the way. Much as every other behaviour of humans both our internal programming and external factors make for the final product. It's a feature of how our minds and even bodies - see genetics and epigenetics - evolved for a complex dynamically changing environment. We are able to tell right from wrong, broadly. Additional specifics are cultural and subject to change. It might surprise you - but I am not necessarily against military intervention but just absolutely against it in isolation. We haven't particular come to my suggestions - but I am waiting a bit until I've drawn some of what you think out further, see questions here and there. I've mentioned some in posts above if you read closely. Again, these are nice words, but how do you propose ending a problem WITHOUT researching it and looking at it in great detail? If you don't all you do is guess and do something which may or may not improve things. Even quarantine and surgical procedures require research into the problem first, during and after to make sure what one does makes any sense. So, here, again I'll ask for specifics of what you actually want to happen in concrete terms - nice metaphors aside.

Really interesting stuff. Thanks. It's difficult to predict where this is going. I'm sure this has been covered but is the answer a police-state (which scares the crap out of me) that monitors everything? It feels like we're on an inexorable path toward a 1984 Orwellian society. I suppose we're pretty much there already or perhaps I'm being narcissistic.

I've never felt that Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" has never been more relevant (although there are opinions that suggest it's been taken out of context).

However, if authorities don't use all the powers at their disposal then are they not failing at their responsibility to serve and protect?

That's why I'm particularly interested in your views as someone who has experienced what you have in your neighbourhood.

I don't have the knowledge or intelligence that others on this thread have judging by some posts, so would welcome views just on the security, serve and protect angle. What would people be willing to sacrifice? Is this a struggle that will implode or is it going to lead to hatred on a mass scale perhaps leading to ethnic cleansing within European countries?

Finally, apologies if I've said anything that's offended. Tell me if that's the case - again, I'd like to hear views and opinions.

Bra, I like to have my two cents validated by baseless outcries as much as the next gal, but you're employing a really strange rhetoric and keep raising antiquated political belief systems that you seem to have a beef with as 'hate points', but they don't actually come into play in any particular way here. I imagine a rather similar kind of senseless internet rambling to have irritated and concerned the friends of David S. as well.

Socialism? Marxism?
The people who think that there is a threat from marxism today are wacko right-wing loonies, OK?

Identity politics, really?
http://www.pointandclickbait.com/2016/07/identity-politics-for-gamers/

When Gnostic down there desperately tries to find domestic violence statistics that point at a heap of female perpetrators, but only finds (notable) statistics concerning male victims, my argument comes out well strengthened. Yes, there are female abusers, but on the whole "male victim" still means "son hit by father and/or other male member of the family".

Emotional violence is difficult to quantify, but you're giving the impression that "it's a female thing". But, nope, not even that is true.

I accept your apology though spoken in jest, but without reevaluation, it is in fact worthless.

It takes a special kind of white guilt browbeating and indoctrination during your formative years to even equate the two. Much like it does to equate nationalism with an automatic prelude to the fourth reich. 1) Do you really expect to connect an Iranian (Muslim) individual to the Nazi ideal of "aryan" in the minds of people? Because that's a bit of psy ops that's about as effective as trying to connect the dots between the sanskrit swastika and the one used by the Nazis.
2) Why didn't you also use caps lock on the VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES that police found in his house, since you're so eager to find spurious justifications for his attack?
3) You're being far too authoritative and sticking only to one side of the allegations (the one that favors the narrative you're desperately trying to shield from reality), when there's plenty of contradicting allegations being spun by both sides.

And have you no shame? His name was Ali Daud Sonboly. Do you sleep well at night, convincing yourself you're only obfuscating the truth and spinning unconfirmed allegations as the truth as opposed to outright lying, or is that fair game in your mind, as long as The Narrative is protected?

Also, if the AFD is a Nazi party, Die Linke is the Tscheka. You're not the ones who have a problem integrating. Stop indulging in victim-blaming, it's outright social masochism. Yes, the absurd and hateful entity that allows you to espouse that sort of drek while sucking on the teat of the West and enjoying its comforts. The absurd and hateful entity that brought about the nations the rest of the world seeks to emulate or move to. The absurd and hateful entity that, for all the faults it does have and atrocities it did commit (as did all others, no exception), wrought, established and solidified rule of law, equal citizenship, universal suffrage and separation of power. The absurd and hateful entity that brought about unprecedented comfort, enlightenment, and peace to its civilization, which conversely made it soft and unprepared for the barbarians at the gates and self-loathing moral fifth columnists such as yourself. I'm sure that, in your head, you think you're really showing them Christian bigots what's what, but you're only sinking deeper in the morass of moral relativism and behaving like a teenage atheist who thinks he's smarter than Saint Augustine because he spotted a nasty parable. If you genuinely believe you can equate a belief system that serves as the (unfortunately increasingly less relevant) moral compass for a currently secular civilization with a warlike, expansionist theopolitical system that is starting to hack down your doorstep to ravage and murder you and your kind, then you're too far down the rabbit hole to be saved. You addressed another poster, but I believe the statement you replied to was from me.

As above, you cannot - you absolutely can not - equate the two. It's just not defensible from a statistical standpoint, significant from a global perspective, or relevant from a contemporary outlook. And, what's worse, even if what you're saying were somehow truthful, it makes you look like the guy who vociferously and exclusively tries to raise awareness on white males who beat their wives in some random country (a crime that should most definitely be punished), when he has men stoning and acid-burning their wives a few blocks away from his house, and swearing they'll do the same to all women in your country.

I know how badly Germans have been browbeaten and had guilt imprinted into their consciences throughout their formative years and beyond, but that cannot blind you in the face of demonstrable evidence that is rocking your very society. It's paranoid lunacy to even attempt to claim that there is anything resembling a right-wing threat to the West, and suicidally treasonous that it somehow represents a greater threat that that of Islamic extremism.

Ok, I'll try to make a big summary, only giving points of views from Belgium and France as they're the ones I'm familiar with.

1. The physical security

The 24H / 7 Days a week deployment of armed forces on the streets is seen as useless and costly. In the long run, it's more practical to "adjust" the empowerment (and prerogatives) of the local police forces. The murder of the cops in Magnanville could have been avoided if they had been allowed to keep their guns outside of duty (normally, I think this law has been adapted since then). Likewise, giving more adapted equipment to the local police (bullet-proof vest, guns, etc.) would also be needed as for example, in some no-go zones in France, the local police is not allowed to enter the area when there is an emergency situation until the national police comes as a back-up with their own equipment. There is also a call in France to civilians to do some (non-armed) voluntary work.

=> For politicians, this is the "easiest" problem to deal with.

2. The returnees

Now begins the big debate as the western european moral is to give the "benefif of the doubt" to returnees from Syria. The most common answer is to build up our own Guantanamo and put those returnees there. But naturally, it's a kind of moral/ideological conflict. And even if some kind of new Guantanamo was made, it also brings many questions: "How long should we keep them? Should we free them some day with the risk of them doing an attack? Or should we simply put a bullet in their head? And also, how much would it cost?"

=> A local Guantanamo won't be build in a few months, politicians are reluctant to it and NGO's will fight it.

3. The social causes

This is the big issue of this current wave of terrorism. The terrorist crews in the late 90's were mostly organizations with clear goals and where negociations were possible. Here in this case and as it's well illustrated by the recent duo who killed the priest, we have to deal with common people who can turn into killers without really being in contact with an organization, it's kind of the Über of terrorism where you're your own boss, make a statement video and you're in. So to prevent this we have to look at their commonalities: from muslim background with some criminal tendencies from age 17 to late 30's. Before, those kind of guys would just have a criminal record and say "Fuck France" but now they can possibly turn to terrorism. For secret services and intel, this is a nightmare as you can't follow so many people as ressources are limited and costly. The Home Security services are also realizing that focusing on Internet tracking gives so much data that it can be hard and time-consuming to sort it and get useful conclusions. That's why real people on the terrains are the key to identify delinquents being inclined to turn into extremists. The problem is that it once again goes back to the goodwill of politicians at every level of power as clientelism is king (moreso as the presidential elections are in 2017). This week, there was an interview of Nadia Remadna, a famous mother (from Algerian background) who tries to do some social working in the French suburbs where she basically said: "we screwed up a whole generation with our politics, now the urgency is to work on the 10-years-old children".

=> This subject is very big and is developed in many books with different point of views and that would go way beyond a simple forum like here. The TLDR version is that most people think that the end of the caliphate in Syria won't end Daesh as the leading movement of a generation. No Internet security or Orwellian society could end up a problem which was born and grew up due to politics for many years and which can only be solved by new ways of politics in the long run (or a just plain civil war in the most pessimistic scenario).

Part 1/2

(Apologies in advance for the somewhat terse replies to your well wrought-out points, Mnemon, which I appreciated but can't reproduce in quote blocks, as it'd become too unwieldy to post.)

Indeed it has. But, until it actually realizes said potential to a verifiable, durable degree without regressing into the Middle Ages when the going gets tough, the point stands. Germany was razed to kingdom come, twice, but you don't see Visigoths besieging Rome anymore. Greece was occupied, its population displaced, its economy destroyed, and you don't see stratioti trying to reenact the Battle of Fornovo. Russia should, by all accounts, be a Mad Maxesque snowy wasteland, but you don't see the Kievan Rus' pillaging the Caspian sea shores. This also addresses the informative analysis you posted on Muslim countries that were secular for a while. Not necessarily, as long as you don't give radical minorities tacit support, as the Islamic world does to a far too large degree. About as damaging as being aware of potential disease vectors during an outbreak. You're doing the virtue signalling bit again. We're talking the real world with very real threats that must be dealt with in concrete fashion that might not be ideal - this isn't just an intellectual discussion trying to reach synthesis via thesis and antithesis. ...which, again, is tacitly supported by the majority, to say nothing of the utter inaction of Muslims living in the West. And therein lies the problem, not in the pearl-clutching that that rhetoric provokes. No, it is up to them to prove they're not enemies, by actions, not platitudinous words mouthed off by their leaders who refuse to shake women's hands. To not yield to base, knee-jerk violence in response to suspicion and even prejudice. To police their own and show the nations that took them in that they're truly invested in protecting it as if it were their home. The burden of proof lies on them. That's all well and good for a Michael Crichton thriller, the escalating tension of I-know-what-he-thinks-I-know-but-I-can't-do-what-he-thinks-he-knows-I-know, but it fails to account for two things:
1) Many delusional countries, nations, movements wanted war. It ended badly for them, so it's not necessarily falling into the enemy's trap to engage in it.
2) The West's inaction that the IS is counting on as they make inroads into Europe via the radicalized local communities. Which is why they're terrified of Russia, who they know doesn't feck around. No argument there from me. But that comes after. First, you put out the fire and make sure it doesn't reach you again. Then you start preventing forest fires. Conversely, to argue that everything is complex is intellectual masturbation. Research and reasoning can only get you so far; after a point, you have to actually do something, and it's not always going to be pretty, conciliatory or unanimous, as severe problems entail severe solutions. Which is why we need leaders with stomach for those, not debate-club valedictorians who feel they've won the argument if the other party isn't being civil or engaged in wrongthink. Feckless because of their policies, Merkel being the queen, and pretty much every other leader for being her lapdog (with notable exceptions such as Orbán). The open door immigration policy, as a plain abuse and reinterpretation of the concept of free movement of people in the European Union, is the most treasonous policy to ever have been enacted in the history of the institution. Because of their lack of sense of responsibility to their people, being indifferent to them in favour of this nebulous globalist ideal of an absence of borders and of peaceful/forceful integration of peoples/labor. Because of their utter incompetence in dealing with the most serious threat to Europe for the past 70 years, essentially.

Pusillanimous because they refuse to call the peril by its name and acknowledge it, because they'd rather punish, lock up and censor their own people rather than root out the problem, and because they're more scared of being called the r-word than of seeing the social fabric of their nations torn apart. Because, after the traumatic events of two world wars, Europeans were taught that vigorous measures are to be avoided at all costs, and that nationalism and notions of ethnicity or native identity are evil and dangerous. Given that these mores were indoctrinated into them during an unprecedented time of peace and growing wealth, the natural and inevitable decadence that comes with prosperity coalesced with the largely unopposed rise of critical theory, which resulted in a complete inversion of what actually makes civilizations strong and made Europe into this huge, bloated bull that still has some big-ass horns, but is loath to use them, mostly because it grew too fat and indolent to even move its neck. The opposite of neutered is uncastrated - virile, to take it a step further - as if you, with your excellent grasp of English, didn't know. The fact you can't even acknowledge it (afraid to wound some feminist or egalitarian sensibilities?) is exhibit B of Europe's neutering.

As for what my strategy would be, it's extreme measures for extreme times. Not all of them are tenable in the long-term, but they're most definitely doable for a short and vitally important while:

- An immediate European-wide moratorium on Muslim immigration, travel to and from war-torn areas, a cessation of the open-doors policy, Australian-style sending back of people who arrive via the Mediterranean, and a patrol reinforcement along the borders of non-EU countries, to be determined by a referendum at each member of the European Union. The results will hardly be surprising.
- Immediately revoke the European nationality of any and all individuals frequenting mosques known to be hotbeds of Islamic extremism. Blacklist and deport them as sine qua non extras of shipments of humanitarian aid, as they'll probably have double nationality and family back there anyway. No questions asked and no appeals to be had.
- Adopt Russia's strategy to target the families of European Muslims guilty of engaging in terrorist acts. If a family member committed a terrorist act or frequents a hotbed of Islamic extremism, their asses get blacklisted and deported as well as sine qua non extras of shipments of humanitarian aid, and their European nationalities get revoked. No questions asked and no appeals to be had.
- If you're caught on tape, whether it's a Youtube video or CCTV footage, preaching the conquest of the West and the slaying of the infidel, saying Islam will take over, or that you're "in charge now", as is the case in many urban areas in Britain, Sweden, Belgium, etc., your ass gets blacklisted deported as sine qua non extras of shipments of humanitarian aid, and your European nationality gets revoked. No questions asked and no appeals to be had.
- There is no more "terrorist watch list". As soon as you're on the radar, you get detained. And your ass gets blacklisted and deported as sine qua non extras of shipments of humanitarian aid, and your European nationality gets revoked. No questions asked and no appeals to be had.

Now, while you may (rightly) argue that this might be fuelling IS or swelling its ranks, as it were, these policies accomplish the vital task of rooting out terrorists - potential or otherwise - living among us, and make it plainly clear that there is a zero-tolerance policy on abetting them, even if tacitly or via inaction. This, combined with the moratorium, ensures it's much more difficult for terrorists to actually be physically present to commit their acts. If they want to engage in actual warfare and try to invade, they know they're toast, so the idea is to nip their attrition war via lone wolves and useful idiots.

Part 2/2 Neither was your article, but two can play that game. It doesn't surprise me. For all our disagreements, I can find much common ground in some positions you hold, and am interested in reading your suggestions. I merely oppose what to mine eyes seems to be analysis paralysis. Thanks. I don't propose ending a problem without researching it, only - as above - not to let analysis paralysis keep you from actually doing something, waffling and shuffling your feet because things are "complex". I've outlined my European strategy above.

May I do some corrections?

Kievan Rus, Ukraine, does exactly that now.
Pillaging amber
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/ukraine-amber-mafia-160704101214561.html
Pillaging people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNsWP6wY3jw (on video you can see band of armed people on jihad-mobiles shot someone dead and hiding body into car, version is that it was done over control of cigarette trafficking)

As a person which lives in region with a lot of muslims:
You are making a mistake - inaction doesn't mean support by majority.
Imagine common folks, which works 8 hour a day to feed their families, they return tired... And after some imbecile goes Allah-babah, what they should do? Organize a march? It's hard without leaders(have you ever tried to organize 10-people party? compare this to march, which you need to talk about with government), and it's pointless, because it is just stating obvious things.

What you say, is, basically, "introverts should prove that they are like extroverts". Eastern type of thinking is very far from show-off actions which you expect from people with more western mentality.
You see, many of terrorists are "heroes of wars for freedom of their lands".
EU and US provided asylum to "freedom fighters against evil commies\russians" since bin Laden.
Boston bombing was done by supporter of independent Chechnya.
Latest act by veteran of "Chechen war for independence" was shooting in Istanbul airport. He had numerous arrests in EU, but continued to freely move and wasn't given to Russia for trial.
Muslim radicals are perfect cannon fodder. For example, Kievan Rus has whole batallions of them:
This one from Chechen war vets
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%94%D0%B2%D0%B0

This is about radicalized crimean tartars
http://zygmuntbialas.blog.pl/tag/nazi-batalion-asker/

IBecause crimean tartars are turks, they work in cooperation with turkish nazists Grey wolves (one of them killed russian pilot from destroyed Su)

There is no such strategy in Russia. This thought was said by very blunt regional leader, but doing something like that IRL would cause huge outrage in press with connotation "making islam law above government law".
Israel does it in Palestine, though.

"Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (USDHHS, 2007)."

http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html

Here's a chart from US Department of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment
http://outofthefog.website/relationships-1/2015/12/6/maternal-child-abuse

2014 report

2013 report

2012 report

2011 report

2010 report

2009 report

2008 report

2007 report

2006 report

2005 report

If the facts are wrong, complain to US Department of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment.

you say ok don't be racist, don't discriminate woman but now hillary clinton will be president and she just a tool. if clinton or trump be president i think world war 3 will DEFINITELY start. why can't busta rhymes be president? or r kelly or chaka demus, errol dunkley? they black too

---

Vaina,

This post of yours strikes me as a bit of a non sequitur. If my provocation at the end distracted you that much, then I actually am sorry.

You certainly provide zero context or clarification on the definitions of threat, right-wing, or islamism that 'you saw in sources'. *


That bolded statement is really all the reply I should post. But at the risk of you again accusing me of rambling let's proceed.**

So, you seem upset I mentioned marxism and / or identity politics. This was not intentional provocation on my part.
And you seem to want to both agree and disagree with me about physical violence being a "male thing"?

I note you also attack me for rhetoric, despite applying some weird guilt by association***, making an explicit strawman about marxism being a "threat" (in the context of violent threats we were discussing this is also quite leading) and an implied strawman that emotional violence is only a "female thing".


So, to address a bit what you did post. Regarding the root causes for loss of community and balkanization of our societies. I do see them being in the postmodern regurgitation of what you call "antiquated belief systems" - dressed up in somewhat new clothing. We can have that conversation some other time ****, if you will actually engage it honestly instead of pretending not to understand what is meant. You tend to impose shibboleths of the "let's taboo SJW because it's offensive" kind though. It would also be nice if you would not resort to immediate bad faith assumptions of hate motives. I'll let you know I'm not some hateful ideological warrior, I'm a communicator - or as you might say, a bard. :P But really, fun as this is - I just don't expect any actual introspection on your part on why you react so viscerally to seeing specific taboos disregarded by those that do not share them. Dogma much?

And on the nature of violence and its relation to gender, despite being unclear what exactly your position is, I'll be somewhat more specific on mine. Physical violence tends be be commited by males on other males - this has deep roots in biological competition and is widespread in animals and primates - which as humans we still are. Physical violence commited by females tends to be different, and as gnostic pointed out tends to be more "abusive" - so to speak, by which I mean targeted at clearly weaker individuals. This also has deep biological roots all leading to risk and conflict aversion. Let's leave aside emotional violence even, and tie this back to terrorism. Terrorism is a form of conflict. Females are typically conflict averse - nothing else is required to explain why both terrorism (and war in general) are predominantly male (and young) phenomena. There is nothing in the above about being right wing or left wing and it was precisely your glib assumption or perhaps conscious rhetorical choice to qualify terrorism ideologically that caught my eye originally.

You're an educated individual. You can't be that ignorant of basic anthropology / biology and how they connect to some of these sociological phenomena you find so interesting. Right? Or does your denial of what you perhaps call biological essentialism / biological determinism go that deep?


* for example - islamism is a subset of right-wing in any definition I would consider appropriate - but we both know that's not what you meant originally.

** also because I expect you to just evade addressing the actual point in contention - that being (making it explicit for the public interest) that IMO you are minimizing the importance of islamic terrorism, and doing it intentionally no less. I think somewhat misguidedly rather than maliciously, but anyway - consequentialism you know?

*** this David S. guy is about KKK right? - what's he to me exactly? Were you just trying to be original instead of calling me a nazi outright? Others have called you out on your inflamatory and underhanded equivocation cum character attacks and you sure keep providing examples.

*** I welcome it - why do you think I keep tying most of my pet peeves back explicitly to those deeper or meta levels? I consider the lack of societal self awareness hugely disturbing when it comes to these self destructive impulses that I observe. You are right that I do not mean it when I apologize for male privilege (the assholes commiting the rapes are the ones that should, and that would be not enough justice) - but I am not joking when I say to you or others: I am trying to help you.

I realize that my post still leave some opening what "abuse" is, to make sure these is no doubt, I will list out Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship

Father 15.0%
Father and Nonparent(s) 1.4%
Mother 28.0%
Mother and Nonparent(s) 10.9%
Mother and Father 21.8%
Mother, Father, and Nonparent 2.2%
Total Parents 79.3%

2014 Source

Father Only 12.4%
Father and Nonparent(s) 1.6%
Mother Only 27.7%
Mother and Nonparent(s) 12.5%
Mother and Father 24.6%
Total Parents 78.9%

2013 Source

Father 17.1%
Father and Other 2.1%
Mother 27.1%
Mother and Other 12.5%
Mother and Father 21.2%
Total Parents 80.0%

2012 Source

You can check the rest of the years in the same U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

This is a reality that I am aware of and find deeply saddening. I am of course also aware that as a man I to some extent idealize "the woman", but still...

Anyway, this does not change the fact that most fatalities happen outside of domestic violence contexts. And in those broader, usually criminal environments, it is mainly a "male thing" - which certainly includes terrorism.

Now that ISIL's latest issue (those guys even had even their own magazine??? and how the hell it goes in circulation in our places???) urges their "hidden fighters" to "activate" and start hitting blindly, as well as it declares war against orthodox christians and point the catholics' pope for target, things are going to get messy, or funny... Or both!

And lately, i was both itching and wondering, just where the hell Bartholomew hid his sorry ass in; guy disappeared from news, public appearances, etc! News travel fast, in Turkey!