Brussels Attack

The Trump-Cruz (and Clinton) Police State Is Already Alive in France

But does it work? And should we import it to the United States? No and no.

|

Cagle.com

In the wake of the Brussels attacks by jihadists linked to ISIS, leaders in Europe and the United States are making new calls for all sorts of jacked-up policing and surveillance of…everything and everyone.

GOP presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has said, "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." (As Scott Shackford noted, the New York Police Department tried exactly that and it was double failure: It alienated people and didn't uncover radicals).

At Bloomberg View, Eli Lake adroitly points out that the sort of proposals pushed by Cruz, Donald Trump, and in an earlier iteration of her protean self, Hillary Clinton, are already at work in France. Do they work and are they relevant or adaptable to American needs and mores? The short answer to these questions is no.

France, explains Lake, has been in a state of emergency since the Paris attacks last year and Francois Hollande oversees "a policy to monitor thousands of Muslim citizens even if they had no specific ties to terrorist groups" a "law to allow the police to search the homes of suspected terrorists without a warrant and to place terror suspects under house arrest without a court order." (In most European countries—and certainly France—the left is often hawkish and reflexively dismissive of civil liberties, especially for immigrants.)

Just listen to Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister. Earlier this month, I asked him at a speech at George Washington University how many French citizens his government was now tracking. He responded, "We are monitoring several thousand people, individuals, not all of them are necessarily terrorists."

Cagle.com

Not all of them terrorists! That should be worrying to say the least. The United Kingdom is doing similar things as well (it has a long history of suspending civil liberties in the wake of real and potential terrorist violence, dating back at least in current form to the 1970s, when the IRA was blowing stuff up on a regular basis). Like Reason's Shackford, Lake notes that the NYPD's attempt to do something along these lines with Muslim neighborhoods didn't yield results, other than pissing off the very people you would want to cooperate if in fact there is a problem.

And Lake drives home an essential point that often goes missing in discussions of European responses to terrorism: America does a far better job of assimilating not just immigrants but the children of immigrants.

The Muslim community here is far more integrated into society than many Muslims in European countries. As Seamus Hughes, a former U.S. National Counterterrorism Center official and deputy director of George Washington University's program on countering extremism, told me Tuesday, there have not been many examples of Muslim groups sprouting up in the U.S. that openly call for violence. What's more, Hughes said, among the 84 individuals arrested in connection to the Islamic State, there is no common profile, other than that they tend to be younger men. "In the United States, communities don't radicalize, individuals do," he said.

Sounding like terorrism realists such as John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, Lake argues that terrorism is ultimately more of a crime-style problem and not something that will ever be fully eradicated. It can only be contained and minimized. 

The response in France, Belgium and the U.K. to violent jihad is nonetheless a cautionary tale. When advanced democracies are terrorized, our freedoms are often the first casualty….Policing "Muslim neighborhoods" or preventing Muslim immigration will not prevent terrorist attacks…. As Europe is now learning, to delegate the war on terror to the police is not the end of war, but rather the beginning of a police state.  

Read the full article.

Reason's coverage of responses to the Paris attacks is worth reading through, especially as it highlights how quick politicians here were to chuck any pretense of due process and civil liberties out the window.

That's collected here.

Advertisement

NEXT: California Republicans to Enjoy Brief, Fleeting Moment of Relevance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”

    This is a pretty odd statement. For one thing, I’m pretty sure police are already empowered to patrol neighborhoods regardless of the religions of the people who live there. What is involved in “securing” a neighborhood? I can’t think of a way to interpret that that isn’t either scary and unconstitutional or no different from the status quo.

    1. That’s the thing. If the police want to play COINOPS, then we shouldn’t be surprised if the neighborhood denizens decide to play the part of insurgents.

      1. For government, making the problem worse counts as a success.

        1. Not a success. It means you weren’t doing enough of whatever it was that made the problem worse.

          1. Letting in more islamites ?

    2. He was specifically referring to what the NYPD did a few years ago. They had plain clothes officers sit in public areas and observe Muslim mosques and businesses that could have links to radical Islamic groups. It is basically monitoring likely spots of radicalization for suspicious activity to preempt home grown attacks.

      http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..hborhoods/

      1. Well that, and radicalizing people themselves, or through their informers, to make themselves look productive. That’s all they were doing.

      2. So they lurk around public areas looking for…what, exactly? It seems like this is only likely to catch the very stupidest of terrorists, since very few people announce their intentions to commit crimes in public. And the “successes” that the Federalist article cites are such weak sauce they ought to be embarrassed. Not to mention that I’m surprised that a bunch of libertarians are actually believing police claims about their successes; police are notorious for saying stuff like “an officer happened to notice ______” when the truth was that they had an informant who tipped them off but they don’t want to admit that openly.

        1. So they lurk around public areas looking for…what, exactly?

          Um, free donuts, coffee, and other meals?

      3. Right. Like I said, police are already empowered to monitor whatever neighborhoods they want.

    3. “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”

      Wouldn’t it just be simpler to throw them into the camps?

      1. There won’t be any room after they throw all the libertarians in there.

        1. Hey! They can get their own camps! We were there first!

        2. I think there’ll be room.

          1. It’ll be extremely tiny camps to stay green.

        3. Are there more libertarians or Muslims in the US? I think there are something like 3 million muslims. If we extrapolate from teh 1% of votes that the LP gets (which probably isn’t valid, but what are you going to do?) to the whole population, then there are about 3 million libertarians too.

          1. Yea but I bet at least some of those Muslims are also libertarians. At least one or two, right?

            1. Or, “they’re theocrats, they’re jihadists, they’re terrorists, and some, I assume, have a healthy respect for property rights, the free market, and the NAP”

            2. One or two may be about it.

              Islam means “Submission’. So right there that’s not very libertarian.

              And their holy book is full of a lot of ‘do nots’ and things that are forbidden. I don’t think it’s big on the rights of the individual.

              1. Ill take “Monothiesm” for 100 Alex

      2. Yeah, it would be simpler to throw them into the camps but they’d probably just break out and some other law enforcement agency would hire them.

  2. “preventing Muslim immigration will not prevent terrorist attacks”

    I don’t know how you can say this. If there hadn’t been Muslim immigration to Belgium and France, would they be more or less likely to suffer terrorist attacks?

    Mark Steyn pointed out that the terrorism afflicting Western Europe hasn’t hit Eastern Europe at all, with the exception of Russia, which is the only Eastern European country with a sizable Muslim minority.

    And this isn’t me arguing ‘all Muslims are potential terrorists’ or anything moronic like that, it’s just me pointing out that in 2016 the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslims, so if there were fewer large Muslim communities, there’d be far fewer terrorist attacks.

    Plus, Eli Lake’s article is absurd since he’s basically arguing we should go fight the War on Terror vigorously in the Middle East while not doing anything domestically about the problem, which is a terrible idea and would just bring us back to the mistakes of the Bush Administration.

    1. “Prevent” doesn’t mean “make less likely.”

      1. If I’m trying to ‘prevent plane crashes’ it means I’m trying to make plane crashes less likely since there will always be some plane crashes.

        1. It’s a bit of an ambiguous statement. Does “prevent attacks” mean that no attacks will happen, or that some attacks that would otherwise happen will be prevented? And if it is the latter, there is no way to know whether it has succeeded or not since we can’t know what would have happened. I guess you could do some kind of statistical analysis, but when you are talking about such rare events, that doesn’t tell you much.

    2. Are they Muslims though?

      It’s hard to re-educate people about Islam when they knew almost nothing to begin with. In what may be the most representative event depicting the nature of these new Islamist extremists, two British Muslims, both 22, purchased copies of Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies in August 2014 just before they boarded a plane on the first leg of their trip to join ISIS fighters in Syria.

      1. The fervor of new converts. Doesn’t mean they aren’t “really” converts.

      2. “Terrorists are not real Muslims” is a perfect example of the delusional arguments I keep hearing in favor of collectivizing people and letting them in wholesale.

        *Hint for the stupid: People are individuals. They have to be measured as individuals. A common factor in terror attacks is Islam. This doesnt mean every saracen is a violent extremist just that we have to look at them harder. Vet them on an individual basis and let the good ones in, keep the bad ones out.

        1. “Terrorists are not real Muslims” is a perfect example of the delusional arguments I keep hearing

          Good thing Hugh didn’t make that argument then.

          1. “Good thing Hugh didn’t make that argument then.”

            That’s 100% the argument that Hugh made, since he said ‘are they Muslims’ and then posted a link implying they are not Muslims.

            1. But the argument wasn’t “terrorists aren’t real Muslims” it was “some specific people we know joined ISIS had to buy Islam for Dummies.” Like, there was a supporting fact other than “Islam is a religion of peace therefore terrorists aren’t real Muslims.”

              1. Then what does that argument purport to suggest? That some of these fanatic converts don’t yet have a thorough grounding in Islamic theology? Ok, and….?

                1. They’re not converts. They’re “Muslim” from birth, in the sense that a bunch of people here are “Christian” and know nothing about their alleged religion. That’s literally all it said.

                  1. And Hugh prefaced the link by saying ‘But are they Muslims?’ He was specifically implying they aren’t really Muslims because that question has no other meaning.

        2. How do you keep the bad ones out when by and large they are native-born European nationals?

          1. Trips to Syria seem to be a common theme with these guys.

            1. Who knew it was such a draw!

        3. Vet them on an individual basis and let the good ones in, keep the bad ones out.

          That won’t work with a religion which has core tenets in favor of religious violence and conquest. You can’t predict which believers will suddenly start believing more fervently and become violent.

          And look at the experience of France: the Muslims who came in in the ’50s and ’60s were no trouble, as far as I know. It’s their grandkids who are radicalized. How do you vet future descendants?

          1. You could always become an anti-natalist like me. But then you might not be so happy with Christians either.

          2. You can’t predict which believers will suddenly start believing more fervently and become violent.

            And that doesn’t just apply to muslims. You never know when someone is going to get a revelation, miracle or vision. You never know when someone is going to claim to be a prophet, buddha, messiah or whatevs.

            1. It’s probably just a coincidence that the actual manifestations of these possibilities skew the way they do, right?

          3. Forced sterilization to emigrate?

          4. Radicalized in large part because of anti-assimilation policies by France.

            A problem which hasn’t existed in the U.S.

      3. That’s Newsweek-level derp right there. So they’re only Muslims if they pass a purity test? But all tea partiers are evangelical Christians.

      4. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a classically trained Islamic religious scholar and every Sunni religious school says that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adultery. Islamic violence is absolutely supported by just about every major Islamic school, with the exception of some splinter sects like the Ahmadiyya (who are very moderate) and mystics like the Sufi. Most Muslims don’t listen to those schools enough to wind up supporting stoning adulterers, but the high levels of Islamic jurisprudence support this stuff.

        And yes, they are Muslims. I didn’t say they were all good Muslims. If a Christian doesn’t know shit about the Bible but shoots up an abortion clinic, he still did it because he’s Christian. You don’t need to read Das Kapital to be a Marxist terrorist.

        1. I’m normally on board with the position that people can claim whatever identity they want, but it’s not clear to me how someone committing a crime in the name of some identity leads to the conclusion that other people who claim that identity should be subject to additional scrutiny.

          I mean, that’s how we end up with cops gunning down black people here in Ameri…ah, Irish.

          1. “but it’s not clear to me how someone committing a crime in the name of some identity leads to the conclusion that other people who claim that identity should be subject to additional scrutiny.”

            I don’t think Muslims who aren’t terrorists deserve additional scrutiny. I’m pointing out that it’s a blatant lie to say that Islamic immigration and terrorism are not related. Of course they’re related. You can still support letting the refugees in by pointing out that terrorism still kills very few people, but it’s totally dishonest to pretend there’s no link between terrorism and size of the Islamic population.

            1. This is why I struggle with the black-and-white libertarians on immigration. As libertarians, we should (right?) believe in some (extraordinarily limited) role of government. And if one of those roles isn’t to keep us safe (again, reasonable people may disagree, and obviously the idiotic wars we wage would not fit the bill), then why have a government at all?

              On the other hand, I find most of the reactions to Muslims to be over the top nonsense. It’s like people can’t seem to see that we can recognize that many of these people are trying to kill us, and use small, reasonable measures to decide who can come here and who can’t. If you’ve been hanging out in North African camps honing your bomb-building skills for the past year, I’m cool with saying, “stay the fuck out.”

              1. I think it’s primarily because they have no idea where any of these people came from or what they’ve been up to and, like all of mankind, lying comes pretty naturally.

                This is literally why they want these people on Facebook and using smart phones. It’s because otherwise they have no idea if you’re who you say you are, if you’re from where you say you’re from, or anything else concrete about you. It’s a storybook as far as they know but everyone pretends like, since it’s the government, they must somehow the answer to questions that are difficult if not outright impossible to answer in many cases.

                “Oh, you say you’re Bosnian and that all records that prove that were lost in a bombing? Sounds legit to me!” *rubber stamp* Welcome to America, Refugee!

          2. In the name of an identity, or in the name of a set of ideas? What exactly is the big difference between people who murder or smash up Jewish shops or commit genocide and other atrocities because they read the Koran and are fighting to avenge slights to (or for the dominance of) their community, or people do that because they read Mein Kamph and fight to avenge slights to (or for the dominance of) their community?

            I mean, if the Nazis won, several centuries on a majority of people who are born into Nazism might not really take the philosophy very seriously, but the ideas are still the same, and it’s a lot easier for genuine Nazism to re-emerge in a such a society than in one where it didn’t exist in the first place. And even if not all the people are shit, the ideas are irredeemably shit (and dangerous) and people should be shamed into abandoning them.

      5. Which football club jerseys were they wearing?

        1. *puts on Dutch jersey and begins singing ‘The Wilhelmus’*

    3. From a cost-benefit analysis, it is very difficult for me to see how we gain from having a substantial Muslim community of immigrants with all of the attendant problems of such when the only benefits provided by this community are a marginal and mildly positive effect on the economy.

      1. There’s this thing. It’s called morality. It’s not about “what do we gain”. It’s about “what is morally correct” and “what is in the service of liberty”. Freedom of movement is about liberty. Understand now, utilitarian?

        1. Morality is not a suicide pact. Neither is libertarianism.

          1. So is the constitution not a suicide pact? You’d ridicule someone saying it about the constitution, but say it without irony about morality. You are utilitarian scum. You have zero principles.

            1. It’s idiotic to take one libertarian principle (free movement) and use it to trump every other libertarian principle. It’s not “utilitarian” to want to stop anti-libertarians from changing your society for the worse.

              1. It’s idiotic to take one libertarian principle (free movement) and use it to trump every other libertarian principle.

                This exact same argument can and has been applied to the gun control debate.

              2. Seems pretty damn utilitarian to me. You seem to accept that freedom of movement is a libertarian principle and argue for restricting it based entirely on the utility of doing so. How is that not a textbook example of utilitarian morality?

                1. In this case, “free movement” means “Western societies flooded with Muslims who, as a matter of their religion, disagree with basically all other libertarian values and are a big risk for terrorism.” Sometimes principles come into conflict, and one must yield for the others. I think the freedom of movement ideal, as it applies to immigration, injures other libertarian values, because it means more welfare spending, less social trust and cohesion, and more government surveillance, among other things. So I don’t think it’s “utilitarianism” to protect many libertarian values by limiting one of them.

            2. I love it how some people around here seem to believe that the Bill of Rights somehow applies to the entire world. Even those parts of it that would use the entire original document to wipe their ass.

              Shall I take this to mean that you are intensely Christian and believe these rights flow from God himself? I’ll read that as a yes, and that you plan on signing up to become a missionary into Syria.

          2. Morality is not a suicide pact.

            What does this even mean? Does it mean something other than, “I should never have to die to do the right thing”?

            1. It means it’s idiotic to consider it “morality” to allow immigration by people who will (directly or indirectly) take your rights away. That might be Islamic morality, but it’s not libertarian morality.

              1. So should I also consider it idiotic to consider it “morality” to allow my neighbors to have children, who will grow up to steal from me and vote to take my rights away?

                1. No, you have to allow your neighbors that right, but you are under no obligation, and would be foolish to, subsidize bringing in new neighbors from foreign cultures who are highly likely to have kids who want to not just take your rights away, but possibly kill you, because that’s what their holy book tells them to do.

          3. Morality is not a suicide pact.

            It seems that pants-shitting, is.

            Name one liberty that you aren’t willing to sacrifice to fend off the brown horde.

            1. Free speech, the right to bear arms, many more. But screw the “liberty” of foreign enemies to bring more of their anti-liberty religion into my society.

              And I don’t care what color they are. I care about their religion and culture, and the religion of Islam sucks, as do all Muslim cultures. As Brussels just discovered.

        2. There’s this thing. It’s called morality.

          If the immigrants agree with you on the morality, you’ll be right. If they don’t, you’re way wrong.

          1. “The immigrants” are a whole shitload of individuals. That seems to be a concept you can’t grasp.

            1. and enough of these individuals have no qualms about morality that they cast a light of doubt on others like them. I realize some folks think profiling is wrong or evil, but when certain things arise from a specific set of circumstances and characteristics, ignoring those circumstances and characteristics seems self-defeating.

              1. and enough of these individuals have no qualms about morality that they cast a light of doubt on others like them.

                Again. This makes them exactly like all my neighbors.

                1. if you live in Dearborn, maybe. Otherwise, not so much. The stark reality is that these incidents are carried out by a specific group of people. For some reason, it’s a reality some in the commentariat are intent on ignoring.

                  1. Otherwise, not so much.

                    Really? Most of my neighbors are okay with stealing. Most of them are okay with throwing people in cages for using drugs. Many of them will call the police if they see a kid left in a car alone for five minutes. They send their own children to prison every day, after maiming a large percentage of them as infants for cosmetic reasons. Sounds like they have a lot of qualms about morality, right.

                    1. Most of my neighbors are okay with stealing. Most of them are okay with throwing people in cages for using drugs. Many of them will call the police if they see a kid left in a car alone for five minutes.

                      sounds like you’re projecting a belief system on your neighbors while accusing people of doing the same with Muslims. No one here has said all Muslims are terrorists, but noticing that spectacular terror attacks are carried by Muslims is, well, noticing reality.

                    2. sounds like you’re projecting a belief system on your neighbors while accusing people of doing the same with Muslims.

                      Yes, it’s called “me pointing out that you are hypocrites.”

                    3. Yes, it’s called “me pointing out that you are hypocrites.”

                      no, it’s just you projecting. You claim things about your neighbors on belief and supposition; what some Muslims are doing is actually happening.

                    4. You claim things about your neighbors on belief and supposition; what some Muslims are doing is actually happening.

                      The state is actually happening. The drug war is actually happening. Are you arguing that no Americans support these things?

                      And I can see with my own eyes that my neighbors have children.

                2. Again. This makes them exactly like all my neighbors.

                  And you want more of what you don’t like?

                  1. And you want more of what you don’t like?

                    I don’t, but my morality prevents me from killing and/or sterilizing them all, so. And you guys don’t usually advocate that, which seems weird.

                    1. my morality prevents me from killing and/or sterilizing them all,

                      and who here has suggested that either of these things be done en masse to Muslims?

                    2. So then do you advocate deporting them instead?

                    3. So then do you advocate deporting them instead?

                      and where did I say that? Other than nowhere. This is exactly what I mean about you projecting belief and supposition on anyone not in lockstep with you. Noticing that there is a connection between Islam and terrorism is not groundbreaking stuff.

                    4. You’re obviously in favor of options preventing Muslims from immigrating. So why aren’t you in favor of options that would prevent other unfavorable groups from growing in number in your own society or polity?

                    5. You’re obviously in favor of options preventing Muslims from immigrating.

                      “Obviously” based on what? You are making a lot of assumptions here that are not supported by the evidence. I think Islamic terrorism is a problem; that doesn’t mean demanding wholesale round-ups or mass deportation or carpet bombing.

                      There is a problem out there and pretending otherwise is foolish. Solutions are a different matter. Call me on things I actually say that you find out of line, not on things you imagine me saying.

            2. Every member of the SS was an individual. That doesn’t mean we can’t come to some common sense conclusions about what they believe collectively.

              1. That doesn’t mean we can’t come to some common sense conclusions about what they believe collectively.

                sort of like we do about, say, LEOs on occasion.

              2. So all Muslims are like the SS?

                You are a fucking collectivist idiot scumbag. You’re too stupid to waste time with any further.

                1. where did he say Muslims are like the SS? Oh, that’s right; nowhere. And again, collective assumptions about various groups are made here all the time, accompanied by ritual head-nodding. But that must be different.

                2. Epi, stop shitting your pants and think about what “collectivizing” means. If I say “libertarians believe in liberty,” I am not “collectivizing” libertarians. I’m simply pointing out, in an admittedly generalized way, what members of one group believe. It’s what defines people as ideological groups: common beliefs.

                  What defines Muslims is following Islam. It’s a specific religion with specific beliefs, whether or not each and every individual Muslim practices 100% of it 100% of the time. (Same as with Christians, libertarians, etc.) And the unpleasant fact is that the specific beliefs of Islam are often 100% antithetical to libertarianism. Separation of church and state? Not in Islam. Freedom of religion? Nope: death for apostasy. Freedom of speech? Nope: death for criticizing Muhammad. Civil rights for gays? Nope. Equal rights for women? Nope. Etc.

                  The analogy of Muslims with the SS is simply to say that membership in an ideological group means some degree of explicit agreement with the beliefs of that group. It would be absurd to say that we can’t make some generalized judgments about SS members based on their group membership. Same with Christians, Muslims, and libertarians.

                  I’ve noticed that you have no trouble “collectivizing” cops based on the bad ones. Your particular blindness here is to ignore the ideological/political aspects of Islam that are antithetical to liberty.

              3. Every member of the SS was an individual. That doesn’t mean we can’t come to some common sense conclusions about what they believe collectively.

                You’ll look pretty sharp with those lightning bolt pins on your lapels, PSF.

                That has to be one of the stupider things you’ve ever uttered. A national police force, deputized to brutally enforce the political will of the party, is exactly the same as a pan-ethnic religious population, born into their respective cultures.

                1. JW, I never said they were “exactly the same.” See my response to Epi above.

            3. You seem capable of conceiving that you don’t share the same morality as a shitload of individuals known as “Progressives”. So why then do you conceive that you do share the same morality with a shitload of individuals known as “Middle East Muslim Immigrants”?

              1. You fucking blithering idiot, I don’t share the same morality with 99.9% of people.

                Including you. If I were the same kind of scum as you, I’d just as readily have you prevented from having freedom of movement because you sure as fuck don’t share my morality.

                I know this is too hard for you to grasp, because it’s not retarded and that’s the water you swim in, but Nicole has already been making this very point about your own neighbors. Try and fathom it.

                1. Hey, now you’re name-calling just like joe! And you move the goalposts just like he does.

                  If we were strictly talking about freedom of movement, you’d be 100% correct. But we’re talking about government-assisted movement, not freedom of movement.

                  You’re basically saying you’re OK with importing more socialists. Because of some belief in freedom of movement, even if it is government-assisted movement. I’m never going to grasp contradictory beliefs.

                  I don’t support the immigrant police state Trump/Cruz are espousing, nor do I support government-enabled movement. They’re both welfare programs.

                  1. But we’re talking about government-assisted movement, not freedom of movement.

                    This comments thread does not seem to be limited to discussions of government-sponsored refugees.

                    1. I avoided using the term “government-SPONSORED” because the enabling often occurs after arrival.

                      This is the #1 reason I am against the Trump/Cruz stance – they are doing ZERO to dismantle the welfare programs (and I consider public schools a welfare program) that attract people, and actually call for an increase in another welfare program (homeland security) to combat the ills of other welfare programs. I don’t blame Trump and Cruz personally, it’s been the American m.o. for over 100 years regardless of political affiliation.

        3. And here’s were we differ…

          I would prefer not to indulge in the morality the Belgians and French are currently enjoying.

        4. Even the utilitarian argument made here is wrong. Average income and educational achievement of US Muslims is significantly higher than the overall national average.

          1. “Average income and educational achievement of US Muslims is significantly higher than the overall national average.”

            Because we have been somewhat selective in who we let in. This is not true in muslim countries and will cease being true here if we let them in wholesale.

            1. Exactly. They’re rigged measurements. One could also argue that the one’s we DO get are sometimes the biggest beneficiaries of their homeland’s welfare programs.

              1. And those averages would be even higher if we weren’t taking in Somali refugees, about half of whom (IIRC) are on welfare.

        5. If it’s immoral to have an immigration policy, then you’re right — that’s where the discussion ends.

          I don’t believe that it is a priori a matter of immorality to have an immigration policy, and neither do the vast majority of people (including most libertarians). Hell, seeing as how most open border folk have caveats when it comes to communicable disease or prior criminal records, I’d say that applies to them as well. Those who believe otherwise have done a terrible job of communicating why an immigration policy short of dismantling borders would be immoral. Why wouldn’t I treat you the same way that I treat a street preacher declaring that I’ll burn in hell for not going to his church? You’re essentially doing the same thing by declaring me immoral without telling me why that’s the case and giving me the chance to disagree with you rationally.

        6. Expecting morality from government is like expecting justice from the courts. Impossible. The courts have to be strictly held to the law and government as a whole strictly to the interests of the citizenry.

          Moral is for you and I.

        7. Freedom of movement is about liberty.

          It’s about taking liberty with other people’s property. There is no such thing as freedom of movement outside of frontiers. Within the scope of property and stolen “public” property, freedom of movement exists as a subset of ‘freedom to contract’. If you don’t have my permission to enter my property, then you obviously don’t have a right to enter my property.

          To say that you have a right to freedom of movement implies that you have a right to the property of others, or a natural right to the stolen property of others in the case of stolen property.

          1. If you don’t have my permission to enter my property, then you obviously don’t have a right to enter my property.

            But if you do have my permission to enter my property, then you do have a right to do so. It’s just like any other right. You have the right to free movement until it infringes on someone else’s rights.

            The argument you make is irrelevant to the immigration question, I think. It applies equally to US citizens or anyone else.

            1. But if you do have my permission to enter my property, then you do have a right to do so. It’s just like any other right. You have the right to free movement until it infringes on someone else’s rights.

              That’s what I just said. Free movement is, outside of unowned frontier, a contractual right not a natural right.

              The argument you make is irrelevant to the immigration question, I think. It applies equally to US citizens or anyone else.

              It’s not irrelevant to immigration when the open borders advocates are claiming that any immigration restrictions whatsoever amounts to an affront on someone’s natural right to freedom of movement. If someone is going to predicate their preferred policy on a natural right that doesn’t exist, it’s entirely appropriate to assert that their preferred policy is invalid on those grounds. Go ahead and argue for open borders, but don’t tell me someone’s natural rights are being violated if they can’t immigrate to some given location.

      2. That’s actually been the reasoning used to oppose immigration since . . . forever.

        That covers everyone from Chinese railroad workers to Mexican day laborers to Syrian infiltrators.

        1. It also covers my neighbors and their kids.

          1. Did those breeder scumbags not shovel their sidewalk to your liking?

      3. To what community does that not apply?

        1. The Anabaptists seem pretty peaceful of late.

          Less glibly, I’d say that most any society that broadly accepts liberalism (or at least isolationism from others if not liberalism) is likely to either benefit or not harm me, in ways that are not true of illiberal and expansionist communities and societies. That seems like it’d be Classical Liberalism 101.

          1. The Anabaptists seem pretty peaceful of late.

            And what does that do for me?

            I’d say that most any society that broadly accepts liberalism (or at least isolationism from others if not liberalism) is likely to either benefit or not harm me

            “either benefit or not harm” doesn’t seem like much of a gain.

      4. “From a cost-benefit analysis, it is very difficult for me to see how we gain from having a substantial Muslim community of immigrants with all of the attendant problems of such when the only benefits provided by this community are a marginal and mildly positive effect on the economy.”

        Replace “Muslim” with “Jews” or “Irish” or “Germans” and you can channel racists through the past couple centuries in America! Play at home now, kids!

    4. in 2016 the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslims

      It’s not so different in the East either.

      1. yet for some reason, noticing that is treated as societal heresy.

    5. Mark Steyn pointed out that the terrorism afflicting Western Europe hasn’t hit Eastern Europe at allyet.

      Fixed that for him.

      1. Mark Steyn pointed out that the terrorism afflicting Western Europe hasn’t hit Eastern Europe

        Huh? What did Steyn think Beslan was, chopped liver?

        1. Sorry, that should have been a quote.

        2. He excluded Russia, which has a large Islamic minority. The Beslan attack was Islamist. His point was about the correlation between size of the Islamic population and terrorism.

      2. Does Steyn point out that Eastern Europe probably has fewer welfare systems (since they collapsed!) than Western Europe?

    6. it’s just me pointing out that in 2016 the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslims, so if there were fewer large Muslim communities, there’d be far fewer terrorist attacks.

      This also assumes that radical Islamic terrorism isn’t crowding out other potential types of terrorism. It’s not clear to me why we shouldn’t think other groups will step into the breach if radical Islamic terrorism were severely curtailed.

      1. Wait, what? Why would one type of terrorism stop other types of terrorists from being terrorists? India has all kinds of terrorists, including both Muslim and Communist terrorist organizations.

        1. I didn’t say it would stop other terrorists from being terrorists, but it could stop other political groups from choosing terror as a tactic. If the tactics of terrorism are associated strongly with your ideological enemies, will you be less likely to use it? I don’t see why that’s an unreasonable hypothesis. But if Islamic terror became less frequent, it might become a more attractive tactic for other groups.

          1. So these hypothetical people would be willing to explode random people if only the Muslims weren’t giving it such a bad name?

            1. Yeah. Why not? It’s not like they haven’t done it before. But why would you start now when an attack happens and everyone assumes it’s ISIS?

              1. people don’t just assume it’s ISIS; ISIS comes along to claim responsibility.

          2. I’m about 100% positive that one group that has made the ideological leap to “violence is okay to effectuate our goals” is not going to suddenly walk that back just because they see a second group utilizing the same tactic.

            1. What if the former group hasn’t yet made that leap? And terrorism is only one kind of violence.

              1. The only options I see would be 1) participation in the political process, 2) appeasement by the host society, and 3) deterrence. It seems to me that prior to crossing the political violence Rubicon the disaffected group has rejected 1 and the host society has rejected 2. That leaves the group not crossing over only because they fear for their physical safety or freedom (3). If we have a shit time of convincing people not to murder one another over a street corner through the use of draconian mandatory minimums, I just don’t see there being an effect on a group motivated through some shared, overarching ideology, much less one that seems to embrace death as reward.

        2. You know, when you get to the airport and the damn thing is already blown up. Very frustrating.

      2. Because Islam has a doctrinal, explicit goal of establishing a worldwide theocratic dictatorship. How many other terrorist groups have that goal?

        1. Is establishing a worldwide theocratic dictatorship the only end to which terrorism could be a means?

          1. No, but when terrorists have that goal, and the backing of scores of millions of people, I take it far more seriously than terrorism done for much smaller goals.

            1. I’m sure the victims of ETA-backed violence all have peace knowing that the smaller goal of Basque independence means that they died from hug-bombs instead of really dangerous ones.

              1. Nationalist terrorist groups, like the IRA, ETA, or Tamil Tigers, are inherently limited in scope. Their goals are geographical in nature and their attacks are almost always limited to the territory they’re fighting over. The IRA attacked Northern Ireland and the UK, the ETA attacks Spain, the Tamils attacked Sri Lanka and India. Doesn’t make them any less dangerous in those particular countries, but it does mean that other countries have little to worry about with them. The nature of the threat is very different.

                1. I get that, but the point of terror is to cripple society by making you afraid to go out and live your life. If I have to worry that any car or trash can I walk by in northern Spain might explode on any given day, that’s a more direct and realistic threat than “al Qaeda got a bomb off once in 2004 and killed 191 people.”

                  And just because each of those groups is limited in scope it’s surprising how many of them there are. How many Americans even realize there’s a Corsican Independence terrorist organization (Fronte di Liberazione Naziunale Corsu)?

        2. They also have a concept called “Hijra” which is conquest through immigration.

          Basically flooding into a country, breeding like crazy, gradually gaining power and implementing Islamic Law. So much easier when the host country has a welfare state to subsidize breeding.

          http://www.americanthinker.com…..hijra.html

          1. Drake is correct. As I’ve said before, the terrorist Muslims/innocent Muslims distinction is just Islam’s version of bad cop/good cop.

          2. Eh, this always struck me as borderline conspiracy. Sure, there are probably some Muslims who do that but out of the millions who are migrating and have migrated it is probably a fairly small number compared to economic migrants.

            1. It is also exactly how Islam spread through much of North Africa in the 700’s.

              1. Early Islam in the 700s was effectively the religion of a marauding set of armies and raiding bands, and non-combatants in one very small and isolated region of the world. That is not true today.

                (Counterpoint: Byzantines in the 1300s did import a good number of Turks as mercenaries to fight civil wars, Slavs and to populate depopulated parts of Thrace, and these Turks absolutely did turn on them. But if the provable examples we have to fish out for this phenomena are basically all from the Dark and Middle Ages, it’s probably a sign that it’s not a contemporary phenomena.)

            2. You can do good cop/bad cop without every good cop knowing that he’s in on the trick.

          3. Basically flooding into a country, breeding like crazy, gradually gaining power and implementing Islamic Law. So much easier when the host country has a welfare state to subsidize breeding.

            Too late. The fucking Micks and Wops already did that.

            1. They did that. Luckily we did not have a welfare state then. They decided to work their way out of the ghettos (or gentrify them), and assimilate. Helps that Catholicism turned out to be compatible with American values.

              1. And yet, they gave us the welfare state. Funny that.

                1. I thought it was the Germans who gave us the welfare state, with their 19th century union agitation.

                2. They did, to some extent, help give us the welfare state. Now, what will millions of Muslims help give us, do you think…?

              2. Your white hood has a little dirt on it.

        3. By the numbers it seems like separatism (be it individual, regional or state) is the biggest driver of violence in Europe through at least 2013.

          It warms my heart to know that Italian anarchists are still rolling like it’s the 19th century and trying to assassinate people.

        4. How many other terrorist groups have that goal?

          I would say most of them, just in different words.

      3. There are lots of train stations and airports. I doubt there’s any crowding out.

        1. But there are only so many angry young men who are susceptible to radicalization.

          1. Yeah, and not all of them are Muslims. Why would Islamic terrorism crowd out terrorist attacks that would otherwise be occurring from people who aren’t Muslims? It’s not like all the ethnic Flemish people and Walloons are converting to Islam in order to do this and would have just found some other cause otherwise.

            1. Because the people who might otherwise commit terrorist acts are ideologically opposed to Islamic extremism and thus associate the tactic with their enemies.

              Because the people who might otherwise commit terrorist acts believe their value will be subverted by general societal associations between terrorism and Islamic extremism.

              1. “I’d love to blow these people up, but I disagree so strongly with Islamic extremism that I’m not going to.”

                “I’m just going to sit here mulling over my grievances until the Muslims stop blowing people up and society can associate the dead people with me, rather than them. Then, it’s game on.”

                It strikes me as about as likely as that someone intent on murder will turn away at the sight of a “no guns” sign.

                1. The value of non-Muslim terror attacks is diminished because it doesn’t fit the established news paradigm and gets much less reporting than Muslim initiated terror attacks.

                  Also when you have someone like Anders Brevik shooting people up with weird claims about a Christian state people write him off as a nut instead of an ideological actor, but if you have a nut who does the same thing about the Muslim state people lose their shit over it and show it as an example of Muslim conspiracy to take over Europe.

                  The numbers also bear out. Separatist violence in Europe seems to have been somewhat in decline as Islamic terror has sucked all of the air out of the room.

                  1. These type of attacks don’t get reporting until someone claims responsibility?

                    Are there many examples of the type of relatively sophisticated and organized terrorist attacks carried out by these Muslims that are being somewhat ignored because they weren’t carried out by Muslims?

                    1. I’m sure they get reported on locally, and it may even get a blurb in passing in the American news, but CNN/Fox et al go into overdrive whenever there’s mooslims involved. Break out the experts on psychology and policy specialists etc.

                      Were you aware that 2011 was a particularly rough year for people in northern Spain thanks to a ton of ETA violence or was the last time you heard anything about terrorist violence in Spain the 2004 Madrid bombing by al Qaeda?

                    2. The ETA killed fewer than 1000 people over a 50 year time frame and most of those deaths occurred early in the insurgency. Due to the Madrid train bombing, Islamic terrorists have killed more Spaniards since 2000 than the ETA has.

                    3. Great? That’s a fact out of context. The ETA disavowed violent means to accomplish its goals in 2011 after a) being falsely accused of the Madrid bombing and b) escalating violence in Spain from I think 2006 to 2011. At some point they decided that a campaign of terror wasn’t getting them what they wanted, which is more likely to support Nicole’s contention than not.

                  2. Shut up jesse, there are people here who don’t like to use their imagination.

                    1. This doesn’t require imagination. It requires not defining frequency or intensity of terrorist activity by how often it shows up on CNN.

                      News orgs necessarily have to ask themselves “will American audiences care?” and if it’s a domestic separatist squabble playing out the answer is resoundingly no. But tales of a looming Islamic jihad is pornographic in how much it titillates American audiences so news orgs turn it up to 11.

              2. Terrorists are such gentlemen! It’s all ‘after you old chap’ and ‘I’ll wait for my turn’.
                None of this undignified piling on. That just wouldn’t be cricket.

          2. Are you positing that there just aren’t enough potential terrorists to go around?

      4. terrorist attacks in the west

        It’s always intellectually honest to lump Europe and the US together, right?

        1. “It’s always intellectually honest to lump Europe and the US together, right?”

          The West is a common term used to represent shared culture between Europe, Canada, Australia, America and a few other countries. I didn’t invent the political term, so take it up with Poli. Sci professors.

          I don’t know what your complaint is here, other than trying to be snarky to avoid the actual point.

          1. I don’t know what your complaint is here

            That it is beyond stupid to lump together an immigration-based assimilationist culture with the traditional ethnocentrism and nationalism of Europe. But since you hate black and brown people, I understand your confusion.

            1. “But since you hate black and brown people, I understand your confusion.”

              LOL, you’re pretty retarded. I said “And this isn’t me arguing ‘all Muslims are potential terrorists’ or anything moronic like that, it’s just me pointing out that in 2016 the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslims” which doesn’t strike me as a particularly bigoted statement so much as a fact based statement.

              “That it is beyond stupid to lump together an immigration-based assimilationist culture with the traditional ethnocentrism and nationalism of Europe”

              Weird. I thought the article I was responding to was specifically about the issue of the European response to terrorism. They sure do mention a lot of European countries given that it apparently had nothing to do with Europe.

            2. so noticing that “the West” has some common values means hating black and brown people? Really? My family is from one of the Mediterranean countries; it is stupid simple to pass for many variations of brown people, from Hispanic to Middle Eastern and the European variety. Not Hindu, though; never been mistaken for one of them but they are less ambiguous as far as ethnic groups go.

              1. so noticing that “the West” has some common values means hating black and brown people? Really?

                While The West works as a convenient way of defining shared heritage, it’s a weak term to use when describing something where the US and EU have had radically different policies and radically different results from those policies. Making OMWC’s throw-away joke about Irish’s racism the point of rebuttal seems…lame.

                1. “Making OMWC’s throw-away joke about Irish’s racism the point of rebuttal seems…lame.”

                  It’s not a joke. OMWC actually seems to think I’m a racist and is pretty nasty every time he disagrees with me.

                  And in the US Muslims (who are actually usually very moderate by global standards) are only 1% of the population and still carry out an outsize proportion of terrorist attacks. They’re 1% of the population, but even if you don’t count 9/11, something like half the terrorist fatalities in the US since 2001 are committed by Islamic terrorists.

                  My point that Islamic terrorism is the main terror threat in ‘the West’ is true because it includes every Western country, including the US, Canada, and Australia who have all dealt with Islamic terror.

                2. Making OMWC’s throw-away joke about Irish’s racism the point of rebuttal seems…lame.

                  repetition of a particular talking point might cause a rational person to ask if it’s a joke. If the best we have to offer a different viewpoint is “you must hate the blacks and browns” THAT is lame.

                  1. I’m sure all the times people reference Nicole being the worst, Epi being the gayest gay monster or Warty being a time traveling serial rapist leads you to believe that those are not jokes either.

                    1. then you should talk to Irish. He’s missing the humor, too. And each of the others has embraced the things you point.

                    2. STEVE SMITH NOT AWARE OF ANY JOKES!?!

            3. Incidentally, I’ve frequently said on this very board that American Muslims tend to be very moderate compared to European Muslims and I attacked Trump’s ‘BAN THE MUSLIMS’ idea by pointing out that Pakistani Muslims are actually one of the largest immigrant doctor populations and that our country would be worse off if they weren’t here.

              It’s funny how you think I hate all Muslims because I say ‘Islamic terrorism is the main source of terrorism on planet Earth right now’ but you ignore everything I say that doesn’t fit your dipshit narrative based on your precious little feel feels.

              If we were living in 1970 I’d be talking more about Marxist terrorism, but we’re not.

              1. Huh, all this time I thought we were pretending Irish was racist but it turns out OMWC knew he was truly a closet racist all along. He’s probably Tulpa too.

        2. We see a difference between the US and Europe, but ISIS doesn’t really

          1. Really? Huh.

            1. There’s no need to play dumb about it. If you’re unaware that ISIS and their ilk look at western European civilization as a common enemy, then you haven’t bothered to learn even the most rudimentary aspects of world affairs.

      5. I had no idea Terrorism was a zero sum game!

        This means that now, all we need to do is create a Department of Terrorism which will be charged with spreading Terror abroad. Then, necessarily, terrorism against -us- will decline.

        Why did no one think of this before?!

    7. There seems an odd desire to ignore reality, to pretend that one’s eyes and ears are lying to them. What society has been improved by the mass influx of Muslims? Certainly none in Europe. And didn’t Mark Steyn get sued in Canada for uttering malicious truths about Islam?

      The US is so large that it takes time for a critical mass of immigrants to have an impact. We see with the Hispanics as they number in the tens of millions, both legal and otherwise. The fact is that every time one of these incidents occurs, absolutely no one is surprised by the demographic involved in the attack.

      1. “What society has been improved by the mass influx of Muslims? Certainly none in Europe.”

        Just as a history nerd, I’m gonna say the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, who offered free religion, free land, and minor titles to whatever Muslim Tatar wanted to immigrate into Lithuania. In exchange, the “Lipka Tatars” gave military support to Lithuania and turned the tide of at least one battle against Teutonic Order aggression against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

        I’ll also say the Sephardi population, the Spanish Jews, who had what they refer to as the “Golden Age” under Muslim conquest of Spain. Spain was a lot better under the Cordoba Caliphate then the alternative, as every Sephardi is aware of. With Muslims the Sephardi community had a Golden Age. Without Muslims they had an inquisition.

        1. ^ I agree with this. I’d much rather have lived in an Islamic society in 1100 AD than a Christian society.

          That’s because, at the time, Western Europeans were savage lunatics who even the Byzantines thought were barbarians, despite sharing a somewhat common religion.

          1. The Byzantines were a fun Empire!! You gotta appreciate a society so filled with political schemers that the Emperor only trusted foreign barbarians, IE the Varangian Guard, to protect him, because he so distrusted native Greeks. XD

            1. The Byzantines are also interesting because they were around so long that their culture went through major shifts over time. I have a book on them that includes pictures of armor they used from the time of the split in the Roman Empire up until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and their ways of dressing became more and more Middle Eastern as time went on because they actually traded more with the Arabs than with Christians to the West.

              They were masterful cultural appropriators.

              1. In fairness, this probably had something to do with Western Europe being a shithole with very little of value in the way of finished goods to trade in the first place until the High Middle Ages (by which time the Byzantines couldn’t afford much of anything and basically had to grant any trade concession to Venice and Genoa).

                Another interesting detail: mosque architecture (though not art) borrows largely from indigenous Christian and Byzantine traditions. Culturally speaking (though not ideologically), early Arab empires and the Byzantine empire were incredibly similar. It is incredible how many lucky breaks the Byzantines got over the centuries, considering how much better the Arabs (and later the Turks) were at governing and at fighting.

                1. “It is incredible how many lucky breaks the Byzantines got over the centuries, considering how much better the Arabs (and later the Turks) were at governing and at fighting.”

                  It’s always been my understanding that the reason the Byzantines managed to hold on so long was because of how easily defensible Constantinople was. It was placed under siege a number of times over the course of the centuries before it finally fell, and no one could take it. The walls were impenetrable until better siege equipment came along and they used to drag chains across the inlet so you couldn’t besiege them by boat.

                  The Muslims who eventually managed to take Constantinople did so with a ridiculous scheme where they dragged boats overland on logs and managed to get them inside the chains.

                  1. Also the cannons. Don’t forget the Ottoman Cannons. They did a wonderful job against those previously-impenetrable walls!!

                  2. It’s always been my understanding that the reason the Byzantines managed to hold on so long was because of how easily defensible Constantinople was

                    I was thinking more in the sense of expansion into Asia Minor. Justinian, the Macedonian dynasty, the Alexiad — hell, even the Laskarid dynasty’s fairly sizeable empire — were all very impressive considering how absolutely amazing the Arabs were at fighting and governing. A Byzantine soldier who killed an enemy in combat was, per the Orthodox Church, supposed to do 2 years’ penance before receiving the sacraments again; the Byzantines could very well have ended up just like the Sassanid empire, especially after the Battle of the Masts.

        2. so, the exceptions prove the rule?

          Without Muslims they had an inquisition.
          How’s that working out for Jews today?

          1. “Exceptions”

            I’m not sure I’d call several Muslim nations controlling parts of Spain for EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS an “exception”, nor would I call the entirety of the Tatars who allied with other European powers frequently an “exception”. Nor would I call the Turkish Sultan who accepted the Sephardi as refugees after the Spanish issued the Alhambra Declaration and who threatened any vassal with death if they mistreated the Jews an exception.

            For the Visigoths, Sephardi, Lithuanians, Poles, and Slavs, these populations were very much beneficial.

          2. “How’s that working out for Jews today?”
            The Sephardi?? They ended up in Turkey, because the Spanish kicked them out and Sultan Bayezid II thought they would benefit the Ottomans by coming to Constantinople, so he oversaw saving them from being murdered by Spaniards and brought them to Constantinople. At the beginning of the 20th century the Turkish Sephardi numbered around 200,000, though a lot of them were in land that ended up a part of the Christian Balkan States after the Ottoman Empire was carved up. More Sephardi were brought into Turkey to escape the Holocaust. There was some strife for the Sephardi in the 40’s, when the Turks tried levying a “wealth tax” against non-Muslims, but the law was vastly unpopular and repealed in 1950 by a party that ran on the platform of abolishing the wealth tax.

            There is today instances of antisemitism in Turkey, vastly increasing and many Sephardi are now leaving for Israel. Antisemitism started building up in the early 2000’s but aliyah (immigration to Israel) remained low until around 2010, and it is now increasing as Sephardi citizens say they no longer feel safe there.

            So, overall, I think they’ve fared quite well, at least until recently. It’s got it’s rough patches, but a lot of people would never have been born without Bayezid II saving their ancestors from the Spaniards.

      2. Oh, and the Crimean Tatars and the Golden Horde in Europe served as allies to other European societies in several occasions.

    8. About the same, for France, given the French terrorists self-stated motives.

      Not sure what the Belgian’s motives are.

    9. The guerilla must move among the people as the fish through the sea (or something close to that). Say what you will about Mao, the man knew a thing or two about directing a successful insurgency. Without the large immigrant populations of Europe, wouldn’t it be far more difficult for the terrorists to operate?

      Not impossible, of course, but why make it easier for them?

  3. Sounding like terorrism realists such as John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, Lake argues that terrorism is ultimately more of a crime-style problem and not something that will ever be fully eradicated. It can only be contained and minimized.

    But that doesn’t give politicians an excuse to grant themselves and their law enforcement cronies absurd amounts of power. So…that’s not the narrative. The narrative is “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS YOU GIVE US MORE POWER”. In other words, “please shit your pants, especially over foreigners, so that you’ll give up your liberties”.

    And just look at all the pants-shitters who are obliging them.

    1. Like people have never shit their pants over crime.

      1. Oh, of course. But that would be “please shit your pants, especially over drugs and drug users, so that you’ll give up your liberties”.

        And just look at all the pants-shitters who obliged them.

        1. I DARE’D to say no, and look at me now…

    2. Was the IRA “solved” as a crime-style problem?

      1. The I.R.A. mostly just likes to split itself into ever smaller pieces.

  4. Just had this discussion with a friend of mine. This violence is impossible to stop. Only two things happen when you go down the road of security theater: you move the target around and you grow the police state.

    Ending this particular threat would require the complete annihilation of an ideology and any person who has ties to it. This is not possible unless you start rounding up millions (a billion?) innocent people.

    Stopping the threat at the border before it gets here is also not possible without a police state. No matter what your border security looks like, someone will get through or will start from the inside, thus generating outcries for a tighter security apparatus within the state.

    The only thing that can be done is for free people to arm themselves and be prepared to use those weapons. This won’t stop the violence, but it would allow them to remain free of the police state that is creeping over everyone.

    1. Are Poland and the Czech Republic police states? Because from where I stand, they’ve both lost less civil liberties *and* less lives to Islamic terrorism than we have over in the Land of the Free (and certainly less than places like France).

      1. Just because they haven’t yet doesn’t mean they won’t. You just illustrated the point. They’ve lost fewer lives to Islamic terrorism, therefore the outcry for more security hasn’t occurred.

        1. See, this seems like a very simple conditional probability thing that libertarians on this board just refuse to get.

          How likely is a yearly terror attack worldwide?

          Is that probability the same, or higher than the probability of a yearly terrorist attack in a country that prohibits Muslim immigration?

          So if your security state is more likely to kick into high gear with every terrorist attack, doesn’t it stand to reason that a nation with less Muslim immigrants is less likely to have its security state propped up in both the short and long run (assuming the same level of effectiveness that they currently enjoy at keeping Muslim immigrants out)?

          1. You’re actually exactly right. What you’re failing to understand is that once you’ve secured the border, you’ve created a checkpoint that is essentially the same as a large airport security terminal. They’ll start blowing themselves up there. Simultaneously, they’ll be infiltrating it from the inside and blowing themselves up regardless of what your border controls look like (unless you have North Korea-like control on your communications, also a police state). Once that begins happening, you’ll start hearing the calls for tighter security, and thus a police state.

            And it will happen, unless you go back to the first solution that is commonly heard, which is to wipe them out completely (also not possible).

            1. Any low-probability event repeated over an infinite time interval will essentially have a 100% chance of happening, yes.

              However, context matters. As awful as it is for anyone to die in a terror attack, military and border security dying isn’t the type of tragedy that makes people demand internal curtailments of civil liberties. They get paid to die if need be in the course of their duties, and an attack on a border checkpoint will make the logical response to improve our checkpoints rather than to institute a program of mass surveillance. This is not what terrorists are interested in, and so long as there are softer targets they will direct their efforts towards those targets instead. Why steal the bike behind the gate when someone left the keys to their BMW on the hood of their car?

              I will again point out that Poland and the Czech Republic have fared well for exactly this reason — this despite Poland being heavily involved in Iraq and with Afghanistan in recent years.

              1. ISIS is already working around borders via social media. Their social media campaign is working extremely well and as they grow it will only get better. Your reliance on physical security is mitigated by cyber warfare. If you want to advocate for more government control of the electronic frontier, you’re not going to receive a warm welcome here about that either.

                Just because it’s happening very little in those countries doesn’t mean it won’t. They are small targets that don’t make the media as well as places like Germany, Belgium, and France. ISIS and radical Islam are growing, not shrinking. Their social media campaign has proven that it can radicalize at least a small number of people without ever actually physically meeting them. More attacks will lead to better recruiting, which will lead to more countries being attacked. They can’t hit them all simultaneously, so they’re picking out the soft targets that will have the biggest impact. Eventually, once those no longer have an effect or they’ve fallen completely, they’ll move on to the next target.

                This attack is a perfect illustration of that. Airport security created a harder target, but a chokepoint. They hit the chokepoint. Once they harden that they’ll hit the next easy target. Once the large countries in Europe become police states, they’ll hit the countries that look softer, like Poland and the Czech Republic.

                Your borders are irrelevant to them.

                1. That’s speculation. So far, it hasn’t happened — despite there being more motivation to attack a place like Poland than somewhere like Belgium, considering the foreign policy of the two.

                  If the data changes, then so much the better and we can discuss the failure of border controls. For now, it seems that Eastern Europe has made the wise decision and has spared their population from what happened in Cologne and the like.

                  1. It’s not speculation. It is happening right in front of you. These large scale attacks were much more spread out, but as they are becoming more successful, recruitment goes up. Reality is disproving you in front of your very eyes and you refuse to recognize it.

                2. ^Listen to this guy; he gets 4th Gen warfare^

                  1. ‘This guy’ being Mustang.

              2. Furthermore, you don’t really think that if a country were under siege at its borders there wouldn’t be a corresponding internal threat? You think they would just let the borders get assaulted continuously and everyone else would just go about their lives? Fuck it, those guys volunteered to die, so we’ll just keep putting bodies on the walls until the bad man goes away. There surely won’t be any calls to do the first thing I mentioned, which is to reach out and annihilate the threat at the borders.

                What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

            2. What you are describing is a whole lot less likely than what we are seeing actually happening in France and Belgium right now – where they have big Muslim neighborhoods to hide and recruit.

              The other form of low-level terrorism / intimidation we are witnessing in Sweden and Germany is not possible without numerous Muslim residents. Rapes, violent assaults, the street level intimidation requires numbers.

          2. I’m going to take your comment another step. Let’s say that fewer Muslim migrants means fewer Muslim terrorists (I accept this premise). Wouldn’t a smaller Muslim population in general mean fewer Muslims that are less likely to be radicalized? Maybe we should consider rounding them up and shipping them off to reduce the chances?

            I don’t personally find that acceptable (for moral and historical reasons) and am perfectly willing to defend that principle with my life (I have faced life or death situations).

            You might find that an acceptable thing to do, but history has proven that the rest of the world doesn’t take kindly to mass round-ups.

            Hitler.

            1. I give it less than a decade before it starts happening in some parts of Europe.

              Ironically, it already happened many times. Spain, Greece, Sicily – all gave the Muslims a choice of converting or leaving after they won their independence from Muslim rulers. Seems crazy they would let them back in less than 2 centuries after Greek independence.

        2. Isn’t it possible that those countries have smaller populations of Muslims from which potential terrorists can emerge in the first place?

          1. Nevermind, you guys already hashed this out. This is what I get for waiting 5 minutes before posting.

    2. I heartily agree with you there Mustang.

  5. Stupid fuckers let the wolf in the door and are now trying to figure out how to fortify the inside of their house. Our home is going to turn into a prison.

    Genius.

    Speaking of geniuses, who is going to vote for the felonious, treasonous, lying, warmongering, cold blooded bitch for president to keep from voting for a republican?

    1. Yes they were stupid – they jailed their own people for speaking out against the Muslim influx under ‘hate speech’ laws. They are starting to wise up, albeit slowly. They are trying to figure out where to draw the line, not realizing that there can be none. I’d vote for the cold blooded bitch over Cruz/Trump, but would prefer Johnson, at least from what I know about him.

  6. there have not been many examples of Muslim groups sprouting up in the U.S. that openly call for violence.

    Our government hasn’t been at it as long as European governments have. Give us time.

  7. Under France’s Secular Caliphate (‘laicite’) they criminalize speech and religion. This kind of witch hunt / war is the inevitable result. It will end badly for them. We are ending the drug war (albeit slowly). They must end their war against speech and freedom. The main problem is law enforcement – who will they run around after when there are no more drug dealers and ‘terrists’?

  8. What’s more, Hughes said, among the 84 individuals arrested in connection to the Islamic State, there is no common profile, other than that they tend to be younger men. “

    “Muslim” is the word missing between ‘younger’ and ‘men’ in that sentence.

    But to dust off a chestnut from the George W. Bush presidency, it’s also true that it’s better to fight terrorists over there than over here.

    preventing Muslim immigration will not prevent terrorist attacks.

    Good lord, man, the cognitive dissonance here is enough to fry a turkey.

  9. Islam is a dangerous ideology. But guess what? Most Muslims are not Islamic. Just like most “Christians” don’t follow the teachings of Jesus. France is not a Christian country, it is a secular caliphate and their ideology is far more dangerous than Islam could hope to be. They (and we) kill far more Muslims than the reverse. Jesus would of course be horrified by our hypocrisy, but we can justify it easily: “They’re mekkin me so skerred, we gotta kill em all!”

    Most of the terrorists are just petty criminals who are seeking larger capers. It’s easy enough to root them out and have a safe stream of immigration into this country. That is exactly what we need – so that they can learn about freedom and export it back to their own countries. All the hysteria and panic is just a deflection from our own home grown terrorism problem – the religion of ‘mental illness’ that kills far more people.

    1. Islam is a dangerous ideology.

      You would say that, wouldn’t you, Ol’ One-Eye?

      1. You would say that, wouldn’t you, Ol’ One-Eye?

        What does he have to do with it?

    2. I like the cut of your gib.

    3. So easy that it’s never been done, anywhere?

  10. If coercion and force are to be the instruments of security, those things have to be applied without limits in order to be effective. Just look at any dictatorial regime be it Iraq, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China….take your pick. Yes, absolute power works if it is truly absolute. There weren’t many [if any] terrorists blowing things up in those times and places because the secret police were omnipresent as well as all powerful, and there was no free press to report on it regardless. When the State is absolute, there is no “public” opinion or presence, but you sure do get results. Your freedom for security, any one? Of course everyone who runs afoul of such an entity gets the boot, in all its manifestations.

    Half-assed measures to “contain” neighborhoods are just that; political rhetoric in a democratic and still mostly free world that will do little more than piss people off and work in the favor or radicals.

    The radical Islamist does not give a shit how we live our lives; they are using the most effective tactics available to influence our governments and get them out of the Middle East, so they can more easily impart their version on their respective countries. A 9/11 every year or two, or a number of lesser attacks on a regular basis, and nothing will be off limits. In that sense the Constitution is little more than a historical artifact. My point being that assuming it will “never happen here” only serves to help it happen here.

    1. Completely wrong – those regimes had tons of terrorist activities. For example, many German soldiers were killed on German soil by German dissidents. “Half measures availed us nothing” – this was the cry of the Nazis. Yes it might happen here, but the chances are worse if we persecute the Muslim minority and force them to revert to their destructive ideologies. And if we persist in our own ‘white supremacy’ and war mongering and witch hunts. Instead we must return to traditional American values of freedom of speech and religion and assembly. Fortunately the founding fathers understood this, and made it really difficult to rescind these freedoms, though the scaremongers are giving them a run for their money. As Ben Franklin said, “A people that gives up freedom for security deserves neither.”

      1. ‘For example, many German soldiers were killed on German soil by German dissidents.’
        Citation please.

        1. Idiot.

          “Hitler made a much shorter speech than usual and left the hall 13 minutes before the bomb went off, killing eight people.”

          1. That’s it? That’s your example of many German soldiers being killed by German dissidents, eight!

      2. Not sure what you are claiming is “completely wrong;” you even usurped my reference to trading liberty for security [assuming you actually read my comment]. My point, which I thought I spelled out by saying “my point is…” is that we can neither ignore this issue nor react as a semi-authoritarian to combat it [as that gains political points more than any real outcome]; sufficient police work and resources are necessary to identify, track, and apprehend terrorists in our midst, if we are to remain a free country. If left unchecked violence will force the hand toward tyranny, just as over reacting will invoke authoritarianism.

        Yes, authoritarian governments are truly effective at suppressing dissent; when those who protest face the reality of being, literally, thrown up against the wall, courage takes a holiday; a really long sabbatical from pissing and moaning about how bad the government is.

        That is the reason we balance security and freedom. And like most everyone else on this thread, I value my freedoms as life itself, and do not want any more government, or control, than is absolutely necessary. And I do not take that as some God given assurance that will never be squandered.

    2. Absolute power is only absolutely effective if you redefine the terms to favor the absolutists.

      An authoritarian police state doesn’t end terrorism. It supplants other terrorists and obtains a monopoly on terrorism.

      1. And, once again, if you do nothing to address, limit, and prosecute terrorist violence it will reach a point where enough good citizens will be sufficiently scared shit-less to usher in just such a State of Terror. Yes, they will trade their freedom for security; they just have to be sufficiently insecure to do that. And big government will naturally oblige.

        Couching oneself in snarky aphorisms and pretending to be broad minded, smarter than thou and above this fray will not suffice as a defense against that.

        1. Did you even bother reading what I said?

          You don’t get security. You get a different brand of terrorism.

        2. if you do nothing

          We did something. It’s called the Second Amendment. It’s been around for over 200 years.

  11. Mark Zuckerberg is cozying up to the Europeans in restricting ‘hate speech’ on Facebook and Twitter is doing the same thing (with its ‘Security Staff’ Council). According to this report he admits that: “Facebook didn’t do enough until recently to police hate speech on the social media site in Germany”. I suspect that the tech giants are being extorted by law enforcement: if you don’t restrict speech then we’ll loose the terrists on you. Fortunately at least Apple isn’t giving in to the pressure.

    1. Mark Zuckerberg is Fidel Castro in flip-flops.

  12. “The Muslim community here is far more integrated into society than many Muslims in European countries.”

    I would go further and posit that it makes a difference which country your Muslims are coming from. Germany’s are mostly Turkish. They’re pretty well-integrated – relative to France, at least – and are not prone to blowing shit up. France’s are mostly from northern Africa. UK’s are mostly from Pakistan.

    1. And how many. One or two Muslim families in a town – they’ll probably be assimilated in a generation. Turn the whole town into a Muslim ghetto, it will never happen.

    2. ‘UK’s are mostly from Pakistan.’
      Fortunately for the UK, Pakistan is a beacon of peace and tolerance.

  13. There’s a lot of bullying going on this thread, and if it continues I’m going to write the Koch brothers to demand they ban comments on this site.

    1. You know who else banned comments from bullies?

    2. They should put out one of their sappy newspaper ads, decrying the division in this community.

    3. Shut up Crusty or I’ll chalk ‘Trump 2016’ all over the thread.

      1. *cowers and looks for safe space*

        /Emory

  14. In the thread, we have the novel theories that:

    *Islamic terror may not actually be committed by Muslims
    *Terrorism is like Soviet bread lines and Muslim terrorism being eliminated won’t actually reduce terrorism (perhaps to be replaced in the terrorism docket by breeder terrorists? IDK)
    *Morality RE: immigration doesn’t need to be explained, but immorality from the heathen will nonetheless be shrilly denounced
    *Islamic communities are just like my current neighbors, in that they both want to oppress me by… having children? The details on this one are a little sketchy

    What a wonder that people on this board aren’t stumbling over themselves to get on the open borders bandwagon.

    1. Its symptoms of the cognitive dissonance when the open borders crowd, the anything government does is wrong brigade plus the not wanting to get blown up == pants shitting committee start discussing terror attacks.

    2. You forgot to note all the scared little children that think the police state they want will never be turned against them.

      1. I suppose those exist, but I thought we were talking about border security (which currently does exist and is implemented — no police state required) as opposed to mass surveillance of Muslim citizens and the like.

        1. “no police state required”

          Required, no. Existent, yes. You can be stopped by CBP within 100 miles of any border.

          1. Man, that really chaps my ass, that one does.

            *glares at judiciary*

      2. SF, for the record, I don’t want a police state. We have plenty of that already.

        It is possible to minimize terror attacks without totalitarianism. Just being circumspect about who you invite in will do a lot.

        And if anyone thinks immigration control is some sort of tyranny, they are shitting their pants.

        1. I don’t think immigration control is tyranny either, but the level of fear of Muslims–all Muslims–that the children on this thread have is exactly what leads to more police state. And they think because they only what the police going after the bad brown people that it will be OK.

          1. The “beekeeper suit” analogy the other day was breathtaking.

          2. Yeah, gee, why be afraid of “all Muslims” just because, oh, maybe only 10% or 19% or 25% or 38% of them believe in religious violence? E.g.:

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad (64% disagree).

            Pew Research (2011): 1 in 10 native-born Muslim-Americans have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (43% disagree)

      3. You forgot to note all the scared little children that think the police state they want will never be turned against them.

        that seems pretty silly, particularly since it *already has*

      4. It should be evident at this point that the police state is already pretty thick with those who, for whatever reason, are collaborators with the enemies of the West. I’d be less shocked by a concerted police-state attack against “Islamophobes” than one against Muslims.

  15. Erm, why is Clinton listed as an afterthought in the headline? I fear her police state just as much as any other.

  16. In summary we will just get used to the occasional terror attack because Trump and Cruz are bad and we are moral.

    I’m going long on candles and sidewalk chalk.

  17. “In most European countries?and certainly France?the left is often hawkish and reflexively dismissive of civil liberties, especially for immigrants.”

    Unlike in America where the left is often hawkish and pays lip service to civil liberties, especially for immigrants, while being reflexively dismissive of civil liberties when actual legislation or executive orders are being implemented.

  18. Actually, the best answer is keeping Muslims out. Let those who want more Muslims live in the Molenbeeks of the world, and let their daughters, sisters, and wives find out what young Muslim men think of infidel women insufficiently covered. We do need some degree of surveillance of Muslim communities. But libertarians want more Muslims to create more Rotherhams and more Colognes and more Saint Pauls — and they don’t want to do anything about those anti-Western elements among them. Who cares if anti-Jewish hate crimes spike along with the rapes?

    1. Actually, the best answer is promoting self-defense and the private ownership and use of arms

      FTFY.

      WTF is wrong with you people?

      Are you fucking libertarians or aren’t you?

      1. Not every libertarian is an anarchist. Some of us want a government to do a few things, like keep people from blowing us up.

        1. How about helping to clean your pants after you shit them?

  19. The more Cruz talks the less I like him.

  20. What took the wind out of IRA sails was being ridiculed along with their equally radical protestant adversaries by the likes of Monty Python. Christians radical to the point of National Socialism (like Ted) and their Saracen playmates need third-party ridicule to make their fanatical foibles so clearly evident to their colleagues, companions and children that they are chuckled into the dustbin of history.

  21. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  22. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  23. Your family and earn. Start bringing $45 per hr just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously. ZXZC Start here?.its new site please avoid spammer….

    — W?W?W.P?a?y?a?b?i?l?i?t?y?7?0.C??O??M

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.ReportMax90.com

  25. William . I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  26. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  27. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.