13/11 Attacks on Paris

[-Cynthia-]

But doesn't a Government have a greater degree of responsibility to look after it's own citizens first above other people? If you want to weigh lives individually in a utilitarian way, then yes, more lives were saved, but it seems broadly intuitive to say that 150 French lives matter more to the French Government than 150 Syrians. I don't know where exactly one would have to draw the line in that kind of moral weighing, but I don't believe it's quite as clear cut as you've made it.

A lot of it probably comes down how much one weighs the potential security risk and economic cost against the value of potentially saving the lives of foreigners. Some politicans are suggesting that they relocate to other Muslim majority countries or even other areas within Syria- this does not seem particularly feasible. If there were safe areas within Syria, you'd think refugees would go there instead of traveling halfway around the world.

Edited November 17, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[dondon151]

Just a few hours ago, I was arguing with someone on that matter. He was saying that the US was also in danger, since if any disguised fighter was to reach US grounds, there was the possibility of him buying weapons there since owning and even buying (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not knowledged on the topic of the second amendment) a weapon in the US is allowed. Ransacking a country from within is much easier than from the outside because you hide where there is a lot of people, and attack without directly declaring war or exposing yourself. I can be wrong, but that's how I would see it.

an approximate reaction of the average US citizen to the states' refusal to accept any more syrian refugees should be

"what syrian refugees?"

the average US citizen would not know that there is a mass diaspora of syrians if the media didn't report on their migration to europe. that's because the US is accepting relatively few syrian refugees to begin with. the probability of a terrorist masquerading as a refugee successfully arriving in the US is extraordinarily low. honestly it is much more likely for an ISIS sympathizer to cross the border via mexico than he is to sneak in as a refugee.

But doesn't a Government have a greater degree of responsibility to look after it's own citizens first above other people? If you want to weigh lives individually in a utilitarian way, then yes, more lives were saved, but it seems broadly intuitive to say that 150 French lives matter more to the French Government than 150 Syrians. I don't know where exactly one would have to draw the line in that kind of moral weighing, but I don't believe it's quite as clear cut as you've made it.

well, the first step is to get someone to admit that yes, one citizen life is worth more than one refugee life. the next step is to pressure him to admit what that exchange rate is. i agree that a government is obligated to protect its citizens, but that protection cannot come at any arbitrary cost.

this is disregarding the fact that most of those refugees are seeking to or will become (proud) citizens of their host nations.

A lot of it probably comes down how much one weighs the potential security risk and economic cost against the value of potentially saving the lives of foreigners. Some politicans are suggesting that they relocate to other Muslim majority countries or even other areas within Syria- this does not seem particularly feasible. If there were safe areas within Syria, you'd think refugees would go there instead of traveling halfway around the world.

i'd like to dispel the myth that accepting refugees involves taking an economic burden. accepting refugees generally yields a long-term economic benefit for the host nation (unless the host nation is like jordan where, like, 20% of its total population consists of refugees).

Edited November 17, 2015 by dondon151

[Irysa]

well, the first step is to get someone to admit that yes, one citizen life is worth more than one refugee life. the next step is to pressure him to admit what that exchange rate is. i agree that a government is obligated to protect its citizens, but that protection cannot come at any arbitrary cost.

this is disregarding the fact that most of those refugees are seeking to or will become citizens of their host nations.

Creating an exchange rate people can agree on seems close to impossible, and thinking about it non-contextually invites an uncomfortable absolution that doesn't seem to work well practically. Remember the old "Poisoned M&M's" feminist thing going around a while ago?

I think rather than focusing on the numbers, it would simply make more sense to make the checks assuredly rigorous. For that purpose, the uninhibited mass migration that has been going on over Europe is severely undermining due process. Whilst it's definitely true that desperate people will resort to desperate measures, and that Western countries should have been taking in refugees beforehand anyway, it still seems unwise to have the loose sort of vetting process that countries like Germany are engaging in right now.

A lot of it probably comes down how much one weighs the potential security risk and economic cost against the value of potentially saving the lives of foreigners. Some politicans are suggesting that they relocate to other Muslim majority countries or even other areas within Syria- this does not seem particularly feasible. If there were safe areas within Syria, you'd think refugees would go there instead of traveling halfway around the world.

Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have taken many refugees, Egypt has taken a fair amount, but states like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain have taken very little, if at all. It certainly makes more sense for them to be given Asylum there if possible. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but you'll notice a lot of those countries are pretty damn rich and have a lot oil, so it leans credence to theries that the reason the international diplomatic community is not pressuring them to take more refugees is tied to maintaining good relations...

Although FWIW, those countries are giving a lot of aid.

EDIT

I would like to share the following articles with you all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

http://pjgoldsmith.com/2015/11/14/why-paris-shows-that-isis-are-losing-and-we-who-maintain-the-greyzone-are-winning/

The following articles make a case for the fact that IS actually wants an all out war with their enemies. They have a belief in a prophecy regarding this. I will quote the relevant portion of the first article.

Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who’d been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.

The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who “Rome” is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely.

After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

“Only God knows” whether the Islamic State’s armies are the ones foretold, Cerantonio said. But he is hopeful. “The Prophet said that one sign of the imminent arrival of the End of Days is that people will for a long while stop talking about the End of Days,” he said. “If you go to the mosques now, you’ll find the preachers are silent about this subject.” On this theory, even setbacks dealt to the Islamic State mean nothing, since God has preordained the near-destruction of his people anyway. The Islamic State has its best and worst days ahead of it.

So in a sense...if we do go all out on them, it's giving them what they want. Make of that what you will.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

Creating an exchange rate people can agree on seems close to impossible, and thinking about it non-contextually invites an uncomfortable absolution that doesn't seem to work well practically. Remember the old "Poisoned M&M's" feminist thing going around a while ago?

my point is to get people to admit to an uncomfortable opinion. valuing citizens over refugees is no different than putting an exchange rate on them. it's easy to deny refugees asylum (when most people in the US have probably never met one) for the ostensible preservation of security; it's not so easy to justify this when basically none of the refugees that the US is admitting are likely to be terrorists.

i mean i live in the state of illinois and i found it patently ridiculous that bruce rauner (our governor) declared that we are no longer accepting refugees when we've only accepted a total of 260 of them.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Irysa]

I don't think the opinion that a government should to value the lives of it's own citizens above the lives of others is a particularly uncomfortable one though? It doesn't seem like it's something most people would have difficulty admiting either.

We could reillustrate the problem by comparing saving the lives of your family/loved ones versus the lives of a bunch of strangers. People will naturally prefer to save the first group if the numbers are equal but it gets very murky as to how many strangers you can add onto the other end of the equation before people will change their choice. Frankly I don't believe the value of individual human lives are weighable in anything resembling an objective number.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

I don't think the opinion that a government should to value the lives of it's own citizens above the lives of others is a particularly uncomfortable one though? It doesn't seem like it's something most people would have difficulty admiting either.

We could reillustrate the problem by comparing saving the lives of your family/loved ones versus the lives of a bunch of strangers. People will naturally prefer to save the first group if the numbers are equal but it gets very murky as to how many strangers you can add onto the other end of the equation before people will change their choice.

i am not asking yes or no; i am asking how many.

[Irysa]

And I'm saying I'm not convinced there's a a definitive ratio to adhere to given I don't believe human lives are weighable in such an objective fashion when considering factors like duty/responsibility to those closer to you/those you have taken on responsibility for. It's almost like asking "how many apples are worth one cow?" Admittedly sort of determinable by the free market but...

That's sort of avoiding the question I realise, but I really don't think theres a "correct" answer to the question, and I certainly don't think I'm qualified to pull a number out of my ass on something like that. The value of the lives of intelligent sentient beings are immeasurable.

I realise this might prompt an answer to a question like "well isn't it worse if someone kills 10 innocents instead of 1 innocent ?" and I'd agree, it is, but that's because the act of killing an innocent (which is wrong) is being multiplied, rather than the fact that 10 innocent lives are neccessarily worth more than 1.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

i don't think that such a definitive ratio exists either, but if you were to go and say that refugees are worth 100 times less than citizens, then i'd wipe my hands with a smug look on my face

because you just made yourself look like a dick

kind of like when life advocated genocide

[Life]

kind of like when life advocated genocide

I also don't see the world as unicorns and rainbows.

You parade around, telling others that their opinions are stupid but you've yet to offer up a solution of your own. Let's hear your own plan.

If you don't have one, then all you've done is convinced me that you have your head up your ass.

[dondon151]

I also don't see the world as unicorns and rainbows.

yeah you see the world as jews and jew-killers

i never claimed that i had a solution lol

i have no obligation to come up with a solution if i point out the stupidity in other solutions. doing the latter in no way commits me to doing the former.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Tetragrammaton]

It's a very complex problem.

You can count it back to the colonization days, or the crusade days.

So many deaths, anger and hate between Middle East, Africa and Europe, Muslims and Christians started from thousand years ago.

I don't think any plan that foresee everything less than 100 years can solve all this problem.

As long as the world leaders and top nations (US, Russia, China and more...) still don't like each other like we see nowadays, such a plan doesn't exist.

Edited November 18, 2015 by hanhnn

[eclipse]

Idiotic paywall aside, I'm damn proud of this dude, even f I didn't vote for him. The reaction in my workplace to this announcement was. . .kinda horrifying, TBH.

In honor of the fact that my local newspaper actually did a good job of reporting something, get your respective teeth away from each other's throats. Work out your differences over PM/IRC/something that isn't public SF, thanks.

It's a very complex problem.

You can count it back to the colonization days, or the crusade days.

So many deaths, anger and hate between Middle East, Africa and Europe, Muslims and Christians started from thousand years ago.

I don't think any plan that foresee everything less than 100 years can solve all this problem.

As long as the world leaders and top nations (US, Russia, China and more...) still don't like each other like we see nowadays, such a plan doesn't exist.

And you're absolutely right.

But even so, it doesn't justify the attacks on anyone (whether it be this incident or a suicide bomb detonated in the middle of Baghdad). Hatred will only breed more hatred.

[Irysa]

So apparently there's a shootout going on down in St Denis right as I post this.

[Magical CC]

It's really hard to monitor every point of interest, from an airport terminal to a power plant to a busy tourist attraction. There's another fight that's entangled with this, and that's the one for privacy. This incident will most likely tip things in favor of those who want more government involvement in monitoring personal communications (among other things).

So while the government might've been able to figure something out if it could've snooped more. . .is that the kind of world that's for the best?

But if your secret bureau think a returnee especially if that guy has just returned from Turkey is not related to the terrorists then they are not doing a very bad job.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Magical CC

[eclipse]

But if you think a returnee especially if that guy has just returned from Turkey is not related to the terrorists then your secret bureau is doing a very bad job.

Hindsight's a bitch, no?

Now imagine the shitstorm if the government arrested this guy after visiting Turkey, but instead of finding out he's a terrorist, they find out he has weird tastes in vacation spots. Then what?

---

More gunfire. Hasn't there already been enough?

[blah the Prussian]

Nah, this gunfire is to arrest one of the perpetrators.

[Magical CC]

Three terrorists were killed, three others were arrested. One woman blew herself with a a suicide belt. We will have to wait for more information.

[Raven]

https://www.rt.com/news/322427-anonymous-isis-twitter-accounts/

anonymous doing work that no government in the world has the balls to touch.

[chococoke]

US states accept syrian refugees only in the hundreds. given that syrian refugees are coming to the US in much smaller quantities and that there is substantially greater physical separation between the US and syria, i must conclude that there is almost zero risk of the US accepting disguised fighters. the reaction of the states to bar acceptance of syrian refugees is remarkably ignorant.

Well, I'm glad you're so confident. How, exactly, did you reach this conclusion?

[Raven]

I'll bet my left nut that members of IS are trying to get into the U.S. under the guise of refugees. Total numbers compared to refugees entering Europe be damned.

[chococoke]

I'll bet my left nut that members of IS are trying to get into the U.S. under the guise of refugees. Total numbers compared to refugees entering Europe be damned.

Exactly my point. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that the U.S. is the place ISIS wants to attack the most. We've been bombing them for close to 18 months now. I've already read reports that refugees inside this country have already "disappeared," which certainly doesn't help the case for more refugees

[Phoenix Wright]

if we consider that the ratio of disguised fighters vs normal refugees is <<1, factor in immense distance, tight security, etc., it's more fair to assume that isis members are not trying to come here as disguised refugees. and that's intuitively how statistics works. the probability of a refugee being a disguised fighter is the baseline, attaching more things to the disguised fighter only decreases the probability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

Edited November 18, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[dondon151]

Well, I'm glad you're so confident. How, exactly, did you reach this conclusion?

i detailed my thought process in the post that you quoted (also phoenix wright articulated it beautifully without being as snarky as i would have been)

i should be the one questioning how you reached your conclusion, not the other way around. as i said before, it would be much easier for ISIS to sneak in fighters via mexico than via refugees.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Raven]

How does one distinguish a terrorist amongst a group of refugees?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Raven

[dondon151]

How does one distinguish a terrorist amongst a group of refugees?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html

most refugees accepted by the US are kids

"but dondon how do you know that they're not child terrorists"

well now you're just being ridiculous

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151