-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:50:48 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Paris
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Paris  (Read 59625 times)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: November 18, 2015, 09:12:33 AM »

Here's an excellent solution (along with a fantastic analysis) being suggested:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #151 on: November 18, 2015, 09:22:50 AM »

Great article! Never looked at it that way! Cool
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: November 18, 2015, 09:27:37 AM »

Here's an excellent solution (along with a fantastic analysis) being suggested:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis
hmmm. I'm really not a supporter of nationalism and I can understand the Turkish government's mistrust of the PKK.
To fend off attacks, I will state now that I'm also not a supporter of the Turkish historical or current-day policies toward the Kurds.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: November 18, 2015, 09:42:16 AM »

hmmm. I'm really not a supporter of nationalism and I can understand the Turkish government's mistrust of the PKK.

OK, but I would assume that Turkey is mistrustful of the PKK for a whole different set of reasons than your own - it is part and parcel to their overall fight against popular movements in the country.

Many agree, including Graeber in this article, that the PKK have shifted goals. As Florian Wilde has argued, following "a phase of critical self-reflection," the PKK "abandoned demands for an independent state, advocating a form of “democratic confederalism” in its place. This confederalism would, in practice, mean an association of local democratic structures of self-organisation and self-governance within the existing states."

You can read more on that here: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-kurdish-question-the-pkk-and-the-tasks-of-the-radical-left/
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: November 18, 2015, 09:49:24 AM »

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.

Haha, just stepping back in briefly to mention that you are both backing up the point I made the other day that America (and other collective countries) already have their own share of homicidal madmen and that running the risk of importing more is just dumb.
As you were,
MB over and out.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: November 18, 2015, 09:57:03 AM »

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.

Haha, just stepping back in briefly to mention that you are both backing up the point I made the other day that America (and other collective countries) already have their own share of homicidal madmen and that running the risk of importing more is just dumb.
As you were,
MB over and out.

In that case do you also advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: November 18, 2015, 10:00:58 AM »

How does that question hold any relevance to what I posted?
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: November 18, 2015, 10:04:28 AM »

How does that question hold any relevance to what I posted?

Because you suggest we shouldn't let anybody into the country because they pose a possible threat. But when you consider that domestic terror is an issue, then anyone moving to your own town could be a possible threat. So, do you advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 10:08:55 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #158 on: November 18, 2015, 10:22:01 AM »

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees. 

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats. 

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: November 18, 2015, 10:23:01 AM »

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees.  

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats.  



Then I will put the same question to you, do you advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?

And on top of it, I'll ask another question: are you in favour of gun control?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 10:24:21 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: November 18, 2015, 10:28:18 AM »

How does that question hold any relevance to what I posted?

Because you suggest we shouldn't let anybody into the country because they pose a possible threat. But when you consider that domestic terror is an issue, then anyone moving to your own town could be a possible threat. So, do you advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?

I can't believe I'm even entertaining this question but........ other then the overwhelming difference in logisitics between stopping people from entering a country and stopping people already in a country from moving around it (why don't you just post "should we ban people from walking from one street to another?"), people native to their country have certain rights/freedoms we are not under any obligation to grant to others from a different country.
Of course the guy moving in next door to me could be a potential axe murderer, just because we don't have the power to prevent everything bad from ever happening does not mean we shouldn't take pre-emptive action when it's available to us.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: November 18, 2015, 10:32:41 AM »

How does that question hold any relevance to what I posted?

Because you suggest we shouldn't let anybody into the country because they pose a possible threat. But when you consider that domestic terror is an issue, then anyone moving to your own town could be a possible threat. So, do you advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?

I can't believe I'm even entertaining this question but........ other then the overwhelming difference in logisitics between stopping people from entering a country and stopping people already in a country from moving around it (why don't you just post "should we ban people from walking from one street to another?"), people native to their country have certain rights/freedoms we are not under any obligation to grant to others from a different country.
Of course the guy moving in next door to me could be a potential axe murderer, just because we don't have the power to prevent everything bad from ever happening does not mean we shouldn't take pre-emptive action when it's available to us.

OK, but I'm talking hypothetically. Let's say logistics for both were equal and you have all the power in the world so what people have and have not a right to doesn't matter -- would you be in favour of this policy?

And are you reaffirming my point I made yesterday which you ignored which was that some actions have predictable consequences and therefore we have an obligation to put an end to the actions that we know will have negative consequences?
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #162 on: November 18, 2015, 10:33:57 AM »

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees.  

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats.  



Then I will put the same question to you, do you advocate bans on people moving from one state to another or from one city to another? If not, what is the difference?

And on top of it, I'll ask another question: are you in favour of gun control?

I don't mind people moving from one state to another as long as they're tax paying US citizens.  These people don't fall under either category.  

And I don't favor gun control laws because it's been proven time and time again that the criminals will still find ways to get their hands on guns.  

But, that's a totally different argument that's already been debated on another thread.  
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: November 18, 2015, 10:41:32 AM »

I don't mind people moving from one state to another as long as they're tax paying US citizens.  These people don't fall under either category.  

So in other words this is not a question of safety nor does it have to do with what happened in Paris.

Quote
And I don't favor gun control laws because it's been proven time and time again that the criminals will still find ways to get their hands on guns.  

It actually has not been proven that but let's pretend it has - does it not follow in your head that terrorists will find a way commit crimes against the country regardless of what the laws are? What's the difference in logic for you?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: November 18, 2015, 10:42:19 AM »

hmmm. I'm really not a supporter of nationalism and I can understand the Turkish government's mistrust of the PKK.

OK, but I would assume that Turkey is mistrustful of the PKK for a whole different set of reasons than your own - it is part and parcel to their overall fight against popular movements in the country.

Many agree, including Graeber in this article, that the PKK have shifted goals. As Florian Wilde has argued, following "a phase of critical self-reflection," the PKK "abandoned demands for an independent state, advocating a form of “democratic confederalism” in its place. This confederalism would, in practice, mean an association of local democratic structures of self-organisation and self-governance within the existing states."

You can read more on that here: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-kurdish-question-the-pkk-and-the-tasks-of-the-radical-left/
Yeah, but self-organization and self-governance within the existing states" is still a threat to existing states. I am not a fan of the current Turkish government by any means, but I'd expect that any Turkish government would be uneasy with a subset of having a separate right to self-organize.
I'm not against local self-organization, but not along nationalistic lines. That's just an invitation to discrimination, suppression and nonstop war.
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: November 18, 2015, 10:44:09 AM »


And are you reaffirming my point I made yesterday which you ignored which was that some actions have predictable consequences and therefore we have an obligation to put an end to the actions that we know will have negative consequences?

I'm more worried about our nations obligation to keep it citizens out of harm's way. As I've stated already, the tensions in the Middle East can't be fixed. Leave well alone and let them carry on murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: November 18, 2015, 10:47:25 AM »

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.

Haha, just stepping back in briefly to mention that you are both backing up the point I made the other day that America (and other collective countries) already have their own share of homicidal madmen and that running the risk of importing more is just dumb.
As you were,
MB over and out.
Um, no... that's not how it went. How it went was that I pointed out that the US already has its share of homicidal madmen and you said your thing about importing more being bad (which, within context implies that allowing Muslims to immigrate, which you earlier stated your opposition to, beginning this discussion in the first place) and I pointed out that, as Muslims commit intentional homicide less than Americans, the density of homicidal madmen would be decreased by Muslim immigration, at which point you changed focus because it was obvious the line you were taking made no sense.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #167 on: November 18, 2015, 10:47:45 AM »

I don't mind people moving from one state to another as long as they're tax paying US citizens.  These people don't fall under either category.  

So in other words this is not a question of safety nor does it have to do with what happened in Paris.

Quote
And I don't favor gun control laws because it's been proven time and time again that the criminals will still find ways to get their hands on guns.  

It actually has not been proven that but let's pretend it has - does it not follow in your head that terrorists will find a way commit crimes against the country regardless of what the laws are? What's the difference in logic for you?

You and I obviously have philosophical differences, so this argument is pretty pointless.  

US Citizens moving from state to state is in no way related to Syrian refugees.  And, since the refugees do pose a possible threat, it is 100% a safety issue.  

Of course terrorists can find ways to commit crimes against a country.  9/11/01 is the best example of that.  But, why in the world would we want to make it easier for them?  

So, CSM, I'd say that we'll just have to agree to disagree.  
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: November 18, 2015, 10:48:46 AM »

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees.  

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats.  


Read my most recent post.
ETA: Sorry, that was too curt.
It's not right (in terms of ethics and statistics) to generalize to all Syrians based on a few. And in the US, we have a long history of struggling toward equal treatment under the law. I'm not interested in taking a backward step.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 10:51:19 AM by Emily » Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: November 18, 2015, 10:53:26 AM »

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.

Haha, just stepping back in briefly to mention that you are both backing up the point I made the other day that America (and other collective countries) already have their own share of homicidal madmen and that running the risk of importing more is just dumb.
As you were,
MB over and out.
Um, no... that's not how it went. How it went was that I pointed out that the US already has its share of homicidal madmen and you said your thing about importing more being bad (which, within context implies that allowing Muslims to immigrate, which you earlier stated your opposition to, beginning this discussion in the first place) and I pointed out that, as Muslims commit intentional homicide less than Americans, the density of homicidal madmen would be decreased by Muslim immigration, at which point you changed focus because it was obvious the line you were taking made no sense.

It makes perfect sense. KDS twigged to what I posted right away, you seem baffingly unable to do so.
Let me make it nice and simple for you.
Madmen + more madmen = bad.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: November 18, 2015, 10:56:30 AM »


And are you reaffirming my point I made yesterday which you ignored which was that some actions have predictable consequences and therefore we have an obligation to put an end to the actions that we know will have negative consequences?

I'm more worried about our nations obligation to keep it citizens out of harm's way. As I've stated already, the tensions in the Middle East can't be fixed. Leave well alone and let them carry on murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries.
Do you have any support for this assertion?
Europeans have murdered more of both each other and of non-Europeans by far during recorded history.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #171 on: November 18, 2015, 10:58:50 AM »

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees.  

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats.  


Read my most recent post.
ETA: Sorry, that was too curt.
It's not right (in terms of ethics and statistics) to generalize to all Syrians based on a few. And in the US, we have a long history of struggling toward equal treatment under the law. I'm not interested in taking a backward step.

Sorry, Emily, you and I will also have to agree to disagree. 

I don't see looking out for our nation's safety as taking a step back, but a step forward.  Maybe this is the first step of the United States finally taking care of its own.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: November 18, 2015, 10:59:16 AM »

I'm more worried about our nations obligation to keep it citizens out of harm's way

In that case, are you in favour of ceasing policies that are increasing the threat of terror?

Quote
As I've stated already, the tensions in the Middle East can't be fixed.

On this thread I have given a mountain of evidence from the FBI, leading counter-terrorist experts, and the US Department of Defense which demonstrates that that statement is false. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Quote
Leave well alone and let them carry on murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries.

There have been many periods of peaceful secularism in the Middle East incidentally, which the Western world opposed and actively destroyed by dismantling those governments, often through funding fundamentalists, and in certain cases installing radical fundamentalist dictatorships in their place.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 12:11:22 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: November 18, 2015, 11:00:44 AM »

This is probably the article The Captain is referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Here's a quote:

"A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."

Interesting. If we apply the solutions proffered by some on this board, we should start rounding up and deporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists. Who's that guy with the ranch in Nevada? He should be deported today.

Haha, just stepping back in briefly to mention that you are both backing up the point I made the other day that America (and other collective countries) already have their own share of homicidal madmen and that running the risk of importing more is just dumb.
As you were,
MB over and out.
Um, no... that's not how it went. How it went was that I pointed out that the US already has its share of homicidal madmen and you said your thing about importing more being bad (which, within context implies that allowing Muslims to immigrate, which you earlier stated your opposition to, beginning this discussion in the first place) and I pointed out that, as Muslims commit intentional homicide less than Americans, the density of homicidal madmen would be decreased by Muslim immigration, at which point you changed focus because it was obvious the line you were taking made no sense.

It makes perfect sense. KDS twigged to what I posted right away, you seem baffingly unable to do so.
Let me make it nice and simple for you.
Madmen + more madmen = bad.
Yes, but what can't get absorbed here is that Syrians have shown themselves to be less homicidal than Americans.
Again Less Homicidal (Syrians) + More Homicidal (Americans) = Lesser density of homicidal,
Please... please please don't pretend again that you don't understand that basic equation.
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: November 18, 2015, 11:01:13 AM »


And are you reaffirming my point I made yesterday which you ignored which was that some actions have predictable consequences and therefore we have an obligation to put an end to the actions that we know will have negative consequences?

I'm more worried about our nations obligation to keep it citizens out of harm's way. As I've stated already, the tensions in the Middle East can't be fixed. Leave well alone and let them carry on murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries.
Do you have any support for this assertion?
Europeans have murdered more of both each other and of non-Europeans by far during recorded history.

Another history lesson and again not relevant to the fact that Islamic madmen are currently killing Westerners.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.799 seconds with 21 queries.