AndrewK is quite right to point out that it's no more practical to throw money at the domestic "war on terror" than it is to throw money at the war on intestinal infection if we're trying to actually save lives rather than merely assuage outrage.

The question is: why should we throw away more money to fund "security theatrics" in the west when the actual safety it provides is increasingly marginal and there are far more cost effective ways to save lives which are currently underfunded? Why is stopping terrorism related death more important than stopping obesity related death? (hint: emotion)

Closing down mosques and banning Qur'ans in the west is a steep price to pay to try and end terrorism, and aside from being a terrible strategy to begin with (obvious reasons), it may come back to bite other religions in the future (obvious reasons). I know politicians would love to convince you that TSA agents groping your children and the NSA spending tax money to invade your privacy using every possible covert means available has something to do with protecting your freedom; or that spending money on the military is required to stop terrorists from blowing you up, but in truth it amounts to less than the boost in actual safety you would get from purchasing an emergency medical kit or attending a driving safety class. — VagabondSpectre

This is merely one long, hamfisted straw man, assuming you had me in mind when you wrote it.

domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms — andrewk

What on earth. No it's not.

What action would you like taken, and what is the threshold criterion that must be met for such action, so that we can work out what other countries it should be applied to. — andrewk

Now see, either you exist in an echo chamber or you haven't read what I've said. This question has basically already been answered twice:

I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.

The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.

-

You mentioned genocide earlier. You could pick a particular definition of genocide and use that as the centre of a criterion. I am interested to see what that criterion will be, and whether it also mandates military intervention in those other non-Islamic trouble spots I mentioned. — andrewk

So I'll take this as your wanting me to expand on the answers I've already given. You should have simply asked that.

The UN has declared that ISIS has committed genocide against the Yazidis. The US is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which obligates signatories to protect and to punish in the event of its occurrence. It does not require military intervention, but this is often the only available means of carrying out this obligation. In Syria, the only way we could have protected the Yazidis and the only way we can now punish those responsible for the genocide perpetrated against them is military intervention against ISIS. Moreover, the EU, the UK, the US, and Canada have officially recognized the murder of Christians by ISIS in the region as genocide. It also stands to reason that for it to end, the perpetrators must be punished, which again would involve military intervention.

Either your position is changing, from a focus on Western victims of violence to a focus on victims in places like Syria, or it has been like that all along but that was not clear. — andrewk

I've focused on both. The topic is Islamic terrorism, which has drifted to foreign policy.

That position is prima facie more reasonable to me than one about heightening domestic anti-terrorist activities — andrewk

I mentioned that Western governments should shut down mosques that breed terrorists, try those suspected of plotting terrorist activities for treason, and force the Gulf Arab states to take more refugees. I forget the page number, but that is what I said. What, if anything, do you find disagreeable about these suggestions? Notice I said nothing about curtailing freedom.

What would you like to be sufficient conditions for the US to intervene militarily in another country, and what form would you like that intervention to take? — andrewk

The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.

How does this apply to countries like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and Congo? — andrewk

How does what apply? Both US and international law apply to them too, wherever relevant. You'd have to be more specific about each individual case for me to comment any further.

Yes, I agree and appreciate your comments on that subject. Your attempted jabs at conservatism I'm less enamored with, as they are ironically neither well-intentioned nor well informed. C'est la vie, though. I'll just put it down as one of your little eccentricities.

Nobody who defends the current state of gun ownership in the USA has the slightest scintilla of credibility on any questions of violence, in my book. — Wayfarer

Yeah, and I imagine most gun owners don't defend said state either.

If you want to argue that more money and loss of freedom — andrewk

How absurd. No, andrew, I'm not in favor of wasting money or the curtailment of freedom.

By "not doing enough" I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.

What are you talking about? I thought we already went over how there are many different kinds of conservative. I'm one kind. There are others with whom I would vehemently disagree.

I don't think that saying that deaths on account of illnesses and road accidents, and deaths on account of terrorism, is a fair reflection of the kind of problem that terrorism represents. One major point about deaths caused by terrorism, is that those deaths are the consequence of deliberate intent to kill, which neither road deaths nor natural deaths are. — Wayfarer

Hallelujah, someone gets it.

I agree that the US, in particular, has massively over-reacted to the actual threat of terrorism, and furthermore that the US attitude towards guns, and the NRA, pose a far higher risk of actual violent death, than does Islamic terrorism, on US soil. But none of that means that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to peace and safety everywhere it appears. — Wayfarer

I completely disagree with the gun comments but your last point is well said.

Good god man.

Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths? — andrewk

For the millionth time, the major difference between fatalities due to terrorism and those due to accidents is the motive involved, or lack thereof. No one is for road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths. There may be disagreements over how to handle these problems, but there isn't any grand conspiracy by the government to deliberately cause these deaths. Terrorists, on the other hand, are in favor of murder. They explicitly desire your death as well as your culture and civilization's ruin. That's the difference.

I've responded to them.

Capitalize the letter I.

lower speed limits, mandate collision avoidance systems in all cars, introduce vulnerable road user laws like in Europe, require driver re-licensing at least triennially, make activities like mobile phone use while driving result in immediate loss of licence. — andrewk

Excepting the avoidance systems, which I would let the private sector handle, none of these require much money, and they sound like good ideas to me. Thus, we don't have to stop fighting terrorists.

But no, we couldn't do that could we, because being allowed to drive your own car however you want is the American dream. — andrewk

If this is supposed to insinuate that I'm opposed to new car technology, then I can tell you I'm not. I don't give much of a crap about cars. The ripping up of all the inner city trolley systems was a horrible mistake, in my opinion.

My recollection is that you made some statement purported to be a reason, it was challenged and shown to be no reason at all, and you didn't even attempt rebut that challenge. It was too many pages ago to find, but if you want to do that and try to recycle it, go for it. — andrewk

Read what I've said. It's not hard.

No one except you is disputing the numbers — WhiskeyWhiskers

In and of themselves? No, I was talking about the scare-mongering narrative you tried peddling. But I think you knew that are now being pedantic.

Can you explain what makes intentions matter more than the actual relative ineffectiveness of terrorism when compared with other, more dangerous causes of death that we aren't even comparably concerned about in our day to day lives? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I already did. If you don't nip terrorism in the bud, then you are taking a massive risk, for if terrorists do acquire the means to better achieve their ends, they will not hesitate to make use of them.

Surely all deaths of normal citizens are equally bad. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, if I die in a mudslide, do we hold the mud morally responsible? Of course not. Deliberately murdering someone is worse than mere fatal, unintended accidents for the reason that it is immoral, unlike the latter.

So another question is, why is the latter a bigger problem than the former, even though homicides are just as intentional as terrorist murders? — WhiskeyWhiskers

The difference between homicide and terrorism is that in the former case, more often than not the perpetrator only intends to kill a single person who is already known to him or her: a drug deal goes bad and one side murders the other, a husband finds out his wife has cheated on him and kills her in a rage, etc. Islamic terrorists, on he other hand, are hellbent on creating a worldwide theocratic state and will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way. The drug dealer and spurned lover don't know or care about you, but the terrorist does. You are their target. The difference could not be more stark.

I'd also like to hear which side of the gun ownership/2nd amendment debate you fall on, just in case you're secretly a massive hypocrite across these two issues. — WhiskeyWhiskers

What do you mean by "side?" I wish to uphold the US Constitution, which includes the second amendment.

Here's some more evidence — WhiskeyWhiskers

You mean "numbers," I already said I'm not going to play the numbers game.

If you took that as a smear, that says more about how you view conservatives than about how I do — WhiskeyWhiskers

Oh don't kid yourself. It was an outright smear and you know it.

It's a fairly well known fact that conservative minds have a more in-group/out-group mentality (this is why nationalism and tribalism occur more on the right, and the lefts 'openness to experience' renders them less sceptical of out-group individuals) — WhiskeyWhiskers

The extremes on both left and right can display nationalism and tribalism. Currently, the left's identity politics is far more tribal than traditional conservatism. Conservatives care mostly about values, not the people who hold them. Naturally, when they defend things like "Western values," "British values" and so on this gets construed as being racial, but it's not. The alt-right is tribal, but they're not the sole voice on the right and are in fact taking a page out of the leftist identitarian's playbook.

cool-headed risk-analysis that implores people to regain some perspective when thinking about the risk of terrorism to them and their families. But you choose to overlook all that just because terrorists have bad intentions? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What exactly do you take to be my position? I sense you have been operating under a straw man. I am not saying that some ISIS fighter poses the same statistical risk as innumerable other ways in which one could die. But I am saying he poses more of an existential and civilizational risk than a great many other things. You may not care about preserving civilization, but I do.

Who the fuck doesn't like "women taking up space?" What an asinine, nonsensical thing to say.

Here ya go:

Sure, why not.

Your face is sad. How bout that.

So, the origin of the project was not anti-capitalist. The folks who put it there are all about capitalism. On the other hand — Bitter Crank

Maybe so, but this is what it has become; a rallying cry for the occupy potheads and the like.

and many other tragedies that Western governments continue to neglect simply because they don't make as exciting news copy as terrorism does — andrewk

"So many tragedies?" Like what? I'm sure they exist, but let's think here. These "Western countries" are the freest, safest, most prosperous at present and in the history of the planet. Compared to some imaginary utopia we could think of, naturally, they fall short and are far from perfect. That being said, I have already explained why terrorism merits more attention in solving, so I don't know what else to say to you.

Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths? — andrewk

I gave you the reason.

You know it's not simple. If it were simple it would have been done. — andrewk

But solving "road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths," is simple, right? Just go tell your elected representative, "hey, could you stop murdering 30k people a year, kthxbye," and I'm sure he'll think, "gee, he may have a point, let's not murder 30k people, fellow representatives!" And voila, problem solved.

In the case of ISIS, they are a pathetic force of about 5000 guys who came to power because the West chose not to leave any peacekeeping forces in Iraq, which historically have always been necessary to help countries transition from dictatorships to functioning democracies. One bomb, the MOAB, just recently destroyed 2% of their total forces. It would be a cakewalk taking them out. We don't, not because it would be difficult, but because the West is interested in realpoliticking.

I'm sure in your mind you just said something clever, but I'm afraid I don't know what it is.

But the sheer magnitude of the loss of life of 30,000 people — WhiskeyWhiskers

The article made it clear to me that this statistic is itself likely to be baseless fear-mongering that "manipulates our emotions and sells papers/gets clicks." So you ought to take a look at why you're taken in by a story like that but sneer at stories about terrorism.

Do you agree? I don't see how you couldn't without at the same time admitting your objectivity is compromised. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, because those statistics are probably bullshit. Again, the article, if you chose to read it, helpfully presents both sides and the "government murders 30k" narrative was pretty well deflated as hyperbolic nonsense.

especially if they're a minority and you're a conservative, and if the media keeps the enemy constantly in mind — WhiskeyWhiskers

Wow, an unnecessary and rank smear against conservatives.

Do you think the ontological of the Bull provides the power behind the "Fearless Girl". — Cavacava

The what now?

I'm with the bull. To hell with the girl. She represents more of that silly feminist, social justice, anti-capitalist nonsense that will do and change absolutely nothing but will make people feel good about themselves. "Fearless" my ass.

The rise of ISIS is a consequence of the US and her allies pulling out of Iraq in 2012. After almost every major war the US has fought, we have left behind a substantial peacekeeping force. Such forces still exist today in Germany, Japan, and Korea, for example. But Obama foolishly decided to completely pull out of Iraq, which left a vacuum for ISIS and others to fill.

Yes. The toppling of Saddam's regime was one of the swiftest military operations in history, made all the more remarkable given the tiny number of allied casualties and the fact that Iraq had the fourth most powerful military in the world at the time.

(1) You use the words 'This is why', as if the sentence logically follows from what went before it. But it doesn't. The only conclusions that follow from what you wrote are 'don't give terrorists planes'. It seems to me that the West's governments have been pretty successful on that front over the last ten years or so. — andrewk

Taking away their ability to use planes and the like just postpones having to actually solve the problem, much like taking away the Ring from Sauron. He's still going to be evil and pursue evil ends whether he has the full means at his disposal to achieve those ends or not. If there's blood flowing downstream in a river, your first reaction should not be to pour some decontaminates in the water. You ought to go to the source of the problem.

The question is, how do you plan to do that? I'm sure the West's security organisations would love to hear your ideas. — andrewk

There are a number of things the West could do. Force or pay the Gulf Arab states to accept refugees, instead of Europe. Shut down mosques that preach hatred and violence. France has recently begun to do this, but this needs to happen across the board. Along with that, cut off foreign funding coming from places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who pay for imams to come and preach in those mosques. Terrorist sympathizers should be tried for treason and booted out of Western countries if found guilty. Finally, you could simply cut off the snake's head by destroying ISIS. No more fake "red lines" and pretending like we're doing something. A relatively small Western force could knock both them and Assad out relatively quickly.

But it gave no plausible reasons — andrewk

Yes, I did. In fact, I italicized the reason.

Can you make an even halfway plausible case that radical Muslims are likely to overthrow the governments of Western countries — andrewk

I don't think this is likely. What's not unlikely, because it's already happened, is that radical Muslims will murder citizens in Western countries en masse.

Intentions matter, so it's not primarily a numbers game. Right now, the threat of theocratic Islam is of far greater concern than so-called "austerity" measures because of the intentions of those involved. The only thing stopping Islamic terrorists from murdering far more people than they have is the means at their disposal to do so. Give a terrorist a knife and he will plan to slit the infidel's throat. Give him a gun and he will plan to go on a shooting rampage. Give him a truck and he will plan to run people over. Give him a plane and he will plan to fly it into important buildings. Give him a nuclear bomb and he will plan to drop it on a city, perhaps your city. The intentions are precisely the same in each scenario, only the outcomes are different. This is why they must be extirpated post haste, and I find it astonishing that it even needs to be said that a government cutting funding for a program is not at all equivalent to Islamic terrorists murdering people.

Remember too that there are no final solutions in life, only trade-offs. Cutting a program may lead to good thing X but exacerbate or cause bad thing Y. Likewise, not cutting a program may lead to good thing A but exacerbate or cause bad thing B. There is no Deus ex machina to make everything right. Elected officials make decisions by weighing costs and benefits, consulting the available evidence, and taking into consideration the views of the electorate. They don't sit around, like Islamic theocrats do, thinking about how they can murder people. Good grief.

>:O (Y)

I identify with it, but I don't attend it. I conduct a solitary, self-maintained meditation practice which is guided by those principles. If I lived in San Fransisco, I think I would probably attend the SFZC. But, I realised when I started to practice meditation, it's religious in the sense that you have to adopt an attitude of unconditional commitment to it - you 'sit with no idea of gaining something' was the way it was described to me. So if you're engaged in that kind of training, then it's 'religous' in that sense. — Wayfarer

Alright, fair enough. But now I would question your labeling yourself a Buddhist. You could just be a meditator, which is fine, but that's not what makes one a Buddhist.

That entails living by principles and standards, but it's nothing like the Nicene Creed. — Wayfarer

Yeah, maybe, but there are certain bedrock principles you have to believe in order to be a Buddhist.

So, do you suggest I ought to cut off contact with them? Not go to their funerals? You think we have nothing in common, becuase of what we believe? You think that a person who practices Buddhism should simply regard Christians as delusional? Would that be preferable in your opinion? — Wayfarer

No to all of that, except the second to last question. You can go to a Christian funeral or marry a person of another religion or recognize that religions have some things in common all without thinking that every religion teaches one and the same truth in different ways or is fully in possession of the truth. As for the second to last question, the Buddhist would indeed regard the Christian as delusional to the extent that certain beliefs found in Christianity but not in Buddhism are hindrances to realizing nibbana.

Not generally a fan of College Humor, but this is on the money.

So I have no hesitation in describing myself as spiritual but not religious — Wayfarer

But you're not being quite honest here, for you have said on numerous occasions that you identify with a particular Japanese school of Buddhism. The "spiritual but not religious" people don't do "organized religion," but you're clearly an adherent of an organized religion. Feel free to correct me.

but I also don't believe that any single religion has a monopoly on the truth — Wayfarer

That isn't the issue. One could believe this and yet still be part of a particular religion, as you do in fact.

My beliefs are syncretic - I don't see any choice, in a global and pluralistic culture such as the one we live in — Wayfarer

So you're a relativist? Why would you let contingent cultural prejudices determine what's true for you? Just because we know more about different religions than in the past doesn't mean they all have to be transmogrified into one giant universalist system. Nor is it impolite to suggest that only one religion is true, its similarities with other religions notwithstanding. Ironically, universalism amounts to a religion for one person, the person doing the transmogrifying, in that he is not limited by any particular scriptural canon or doctrinal authority when choosing what beliefs and practices to accept and embody. But this is just narcissism pretending to be religion, which fails to take seriously the robust and mutually exclusive truth claims of different religions. I simply don't understand the paternalistic-sounding desire to "unite" the world religions based on shared characteristics.

I suppose you might be proof of Ronald Knox's quip that the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious. I'm guilty of this as well, but I have increasingly found that the Burger King "have it your way" approach to religion is malignantly useless. It leaves one just as isolated and crestfallen as if one had done nothing at all. This is true of me at least.

"Spiritual but not religious" is one of those almost meaningless phrases lots of millennials like to use to describe themselves, which basically means that they don't formally belong to any religious tradition, owing to a distrust of authority and institutions, but still maintain certain vague beliefs about the transcendent while expropriating various practices historically associated with a religious tradition. I would say it's related to Ietsism and moralistic therapeutic deism.

Also, there's no ability to delete posts you've made? Just now for example, I made a brief comment but then saw that someone else basically said the same thing, and I saw there was no option to delete.

Not bad. I like the part that begins at 5:50.

but I really think materialism has passed its heyday, and is on the wane — Wayfarer

A somewhat surprising claim. Why do you think this? It shows no signs of abating to me. All the traditional forms of religion that foster the perennial philosophy you speak of are hemorrhaging like mad, and I really don't think there's any other way for such a philosophy to thrive than in traditional institutions (or at least thrive in any healthy or robust sense).

Angela Merkel - the new Leader of the Free World — andrewk

Where's my vomit bag....

moderate Muslims — andrewk

Define. And please tell me where they are.

I'm not going to argue with you — GreyScorpio

And yet you are. Irony abounds with you.

mirza ghulam ahmad. I'm sure jihadists don't think highly of either. — Benkei

Neither do most Muslims. You just referenced the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. Most Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims, and it is illegal to be one in many Islamic countries.

My "indirect bashing of the West and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" senses are tingling:

but mainly a long way from here, in those benighted heathen countries where they know no better, in the hope that our enlightened attitude will flow through the bombs and devastation — unenlightened

And yet they're pouring into Europe by the millions and by the thousands into the US and Canada as we speak. Funny, that. You'd think they'd want to go somewhere else, given our opinion of them as "ignorant, benighted heathens" and our reputation as the Great Satan. Your nasty little comment falls apart as soon as we ask who is dropping the bombs and creating the devastation from which the legitimate refugees and immigrants are escaping.

As an example of Reformist interpretation: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198 — Benkei

From the website: "The Prophet did not tell his followers to do anything other than what was reviled in the Qur'an." A delicious Freudian slip.

it is only an observation that so far the process (assimilation of foreign elements and discontentment with that) has been peaceful on the larger scale — Mariner

I'm not so sure about that. I suppose it depends on how large the scale is. Muslim immigrant populations are disproportionately responsible for crime across Europe, given their percentage of the population. Thousands of them have joined ISIS. They have staged violent protests. ISIS inspired lone wolves have committed some of the most horrendous terrorist attacks in recent memory. If you look at Pew polling of European Muslims, disconcertingly large percentages of them hold views antithetical to modern Western values. Child brides and forced marriages are phenomena that exist solely within these communities. The list goes on.

This shift is occurring through peaceful, democratic means — Mariner

Not really. There are majorities in the UK and Europe that want less immigration. The elites don't care, though, because they aren't affected by it.