(July 17, 2016 at 9:27 am)LastPoet Wrote: I have seen reports that the guy emptied hos personal bank account and gave it to the family. And according to his brother 100k wasn't the kind of money he had.

Similar to Omar Mateen who was the shooter of the Islamic terrorist attack on the gay night club.

He sold his house (worth $165k) for $100 to his brother in law while other things were going on like his wife driving him around the area to help scope the night club out.

(July 17, 2016 at 9:34 am)abaris Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 9:04 am)paulpablo Wrote: I said "or by similar security measures", exile, anything that gets them out of the country.  

Exile? OK, where to?

I haven't sat down at my desk and planned out what I'd do with terrorists in Paris down to every detail this morning.

I'm pointing out that your idea of security being at its tightest it can be when you have immigrants convicted of violent crimes including wife beating and French residents who are convicted terrorists living in the capital city is an underestimation on what security being at its tightest can be. In my opinion.

If you have one violent criminal who could have been deported and it could have possibly stopped the truck attack by Muhammad, and you have another situation where convicted terrorists are living in the capital city, is it really that controversial to say there could be ways to make security tighter?

Efficient police states are often able to reduce the level of terrorism in the area it controls. It does so by imposing other forms of genuine terror on major parts of the civil society that for historic reasons are not called terrorism.

(July 17, 2016 at 10:12 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Efficient police states are often able to reduce the level of terrorism in the area it controls.  It does so by imposing other forms of genuine terror on major parts of the civil society that for historic reasons are not called terrorism.

I think that's jumping from one extreme to the other.


I don't think a police state needs to be enforced in order to prevent immigrants convicted of violent crimes including wife beating living in France and convicted terrorists living in the capital city of France.

I don't think the people of citizens of France would mind if there was a law deporting convicted violent immigrants and I don't think it would require a police state. The same goes for exiling convicted terrorists or some other kind of punishment.

If terrorism gets redefined to mean something less extreme and people are exiled for this reason then yes that could result in a police state, but these terrorists were convicted of breaking people out of jail, trying to go fight in Syria and were known to intelligence services.

They weren't just saying bad things about Jews, or acting a bit suspicious.

(July 17, 2016 at 10:02 am)paulpablo Wrote: I haven't sat down at my desk and planned out what I'd do with terrorists in Paris down to every detail this morning.

Yes, I don't either. But I know about due process when it comes to citizens. So, point stands. You can't prevent an attack like that. Using a truck or some other civilian vehicle against soft targets.

You want Russia and China to smack France around?? Or the US? As always you seem a little confused. Trust me, as a Muslim, you don't want to see what the Russians or Chinese are going to do the Muslim world if they were as involved in the middle east like the US is.

Of course what's worse then all three is what Muslims do to each other. Muslims are by far the number one victims of Islamic terrorism.

Muslims can be arrested and jailed in China  for wearing beards, although China is admittedly still only second to the Islamic state in the number of annual executions.   But Good luck to Islam if China becomes strong enough to smack the US around.

The day we become like China, terrorism will be the least of our problems.

(July 17, 2016 at 11:56 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: You want Russia and China to smack France around?? Or the US? As always you seem a little confused. Trust me, as a Muslim, you don't want to see what the Russians or Chinese are going to do the Muslim world if they were as involved in the middle east like the US is.

Of course what's worse then all three is what Muslims do to each other. Muslims are by far the number one victims of Islamic terrorism.

It depends on which way you look at it. If we are talking about Shi'as and Yazidis, then I am in agreement. Sh'ia muslims make up a very small percentage of Islam as a whole, and to be honest, it looks like Sunni Islam wants, for an end goal that is, a 100% conversion to their version of Islam. Further to your comment about Russia and China, there is continuing slavery over there (China) with the most vulnerable groups being Tajiks and Shi'as.

(July 17, 2016 at 10:21 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 10:12 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Efficient police states are often able to reduce the level of terrorism in the area it controls.  It does so by imposing other forms of genuine terror on major parts of the civil society that for historic reasons are not called terrorism.

I think that's jumping from one extreme to the other.


I don't think a police state needs to be enforced in order to prevent immigrants convicted of violent crimes including wife beating living in France and convicted terrorists living in the capital city of France.

I don't think the people of citizens of France would mind if there was a law deporting convicted violent immigrants and I don't think it would require a police state. The same goes for exiling convicted terrorists or some other kind of punishment.

If terrorism gets redefined to mean something less extreme and people are exiled for this reason then yes that could result in a police state, but these terrorists were convicted of breaking people out of jail, trying to go fight in Syria and were known to intelligence services.

They weren't just saying bad things about Jews, or acting a bit suspicious.

The trouble with that, of course, is that breaking people out of jail and trying to go fight in Syria are not terrorist acts, per se.

Boru