European Countries Seek Sweeping New Powers To Curb Terrorism

New submitter cooler-than-ice (3981829) writes with this story from the Washington Post: Belgian leaders on Friday sought sweeping new powers to monitor and punish their citizens for involvement with terrorism, joining France in an effort to rewrite laws just hours after dozens of arrests across Europe offered dramatic evidence of the threats security officials say are facing the continent. From the article: Apart from expanding powers to strip citizenship for dual nationals, Belgian leaders on Friday proposed devoting an additional $348 million to counterterrorism efforts. They also said they wanted the ability to take away identity documents to make it more difficult for people to travel to Syria and elsewhere. ... “As a result of the events in Paris, combined with what happened yesterday in Belgium, the political unanimity is quite great,” said Rik Coolsaet, a terrorism expert at Ghent University. “It is a bit of 9/11 syndrome.” France is also charging forward with attempts to expand government powers to monitor threats — and to punish those who praise or do not readily condemn terrorism. Leaders this week called for new legislation to significantly bolster domestic intelligence agencies.

Comments

Dammit, Europe!

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I was hoping your be the ones to bail us out when the U.S. went full fascist. Alright, New Zealand, all eyes are on you. No pressure!

Re: Dammit, Europe!

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

* You'd.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Action - reaction.

I've noticed that the Al Quai-da, ISIS or whoever want a war with the West. They should be careful what they wish for. And they shouldn't assume they'll be victorious because their god will help them.

They are under the impression that the war is happening and it's with the USA and Western Europe. Where the Al-Quaida pussies can run and hide in a mosque, sleep, get something to eat, jack-off etc ... knowing that the US will not go in. Same for hiding among civilians.

As this BS continues, the fascists are getting more supporters.

And when the fascists get in power, they will start blowing up mosques, killing every last man, woman, child in a village that harbors those people. War in the Middle East will be much different when the actual war with the West happens. That's what those putzes do not get. The Middle East will be flattened and the Muslims will be exterminated - and no one will care this time because it will be considered to be justified: the Muslims are violent animals and have to be put down, after all.

The Nazis are coming back.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

Unlikely. A good deal of the west is more likely to go out with a whimper rather then a bang.

This has happened before. Rome fell under similar circumstances.

The collapse of its national religion, serious economic problems, worn out from war, massive immigration from cultures not loyal to the empire... and lots of corruption.

This is how the West falls.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[rasmusbr]

In case you've been living under a rock for the last 14 years, they already have a war with the West/NATO.

In a somewhat ironic turn of events, Muslim fundamentalists in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Gaza now have an actual real honest-to-science angry skydaddy with winged creatures that shoot fire from the sky.

Of course, this does not really bring us any closer to peace with the Islamists. If anything it probably helps them recruit.

Re: Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

That was only part of it. This rebellion of the peasants concept is countered by examples of societies existing for thousands of years despite their peasantry being quite poor.

It takes more then that to collapse a society.

A society is an arbitrary association of people.

What destroys all societies ultimately is belief. When a nation is not believed in anymore... it ceases to exist. The association breaks down.

So long as people believe the country, nation, empire cannot die.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

That was never the problem with Christianity. Since when did Christians have a hard time killing people? They don't. Thousands of years of war in Europe AFTER the conversion to Christianity make my point rather clearly.

Rather the issue was that it created social disorder because there were a lot of pagans in Rome. All the old buildings, the old gods, the old legends, the old traditions... the whole society was polytheistic.

And some stupid emperor presumed to just change the religion of a culture that went back thousands of years in a day.

For a modern analog, consider the loss of Christianity in the west. Look at all the Christians that get annoyed by that. If you didn't switch from Christianity you'd have those people backing your society. But because you're saying you don't believe in their god they're wavering.

Forget whether you like or don't like religion. it doesn't really matter. The point is belief and politics. Societies themselves are just belief.

Consider the line "God and Country". See that? Things worth killing for. And that is what nations need to remain nations. If people don't believe in them they die.

A foolish belief of many modern politicians as well as the old Romans just before their empire fell was that people just want free stuff. And so long as you give out goodies people will believe.

Expect for that isn't how it works.You can't substitute belief with greed. You do that and the instant it is in your interest to fuck the society over you do it. There is no sacrificing made for a society you do not believe in.

Do you see? Sacrifice. Belief.

Messing about with the gods of a successful society is very dangerous for that society. It is one of the things that killed Rome.

Rome was killed by a lot of things at once. But changing its theistic center was one of them.

The legions marched with Mars in their hearts as well as a dozen other pagan gods and demigods. Some of them were specific to certain legions. A given legion might have their own patron god that watched over them. That legion would sacrifice to that god. They would carry around an alter for that god.

Then you tell them their new god is Christ and that is everyone's god and your old god is outlawed.

The legions of course did not stop worshiping their private gods. They just grew apart from the empire and became more insular.

Belief. Don't underestimate it.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

That would be the United States that has that fire power. Belgium has waffles.

The combined forces of NATO without the US were unable to defeat Yugoslavia. Go back and read/watch the reports from the time. The US stayed out of it until it became pathetically clear that Yugoslavia had fought the combined forces of NATO minus the US to a standstill.

This is an under equipt, backward, vastly out numbered, cold war dystopia... had an equivalent military force to ALL of NATO... minus the US.

Europe is weak. Everyone knows it. Especially the Europeans. Which is why they get upset when military power is held to be relevant in many situation because they haven't got any.

Europe isn't doing to do anything. They only way they're ever going to rearm is if their governments fall. Short of revolutions and the complete collapse of social order... they won't rearm.

And even if they did... the vast majority of them aren't militant. And lacking that, they aren't going to fight for anything.

Their societies were backed up by their nobility that typically was schooled in what was important to sustain a nation. A certain amount of martial prowess was understood to be required to be credible. Then they got rid of their nobles and thought "I know, lets spend all that money on free food"... which seems like a really good idea until you need to fight again.

They can't. It will take them decades to build up a military force. And the biggest barrier is in their minds.

They are at this point, vassel powers of the United States. They are afforded the right to disagree and pay no taxes to the US. But they are utterly dependent on US patronage for their strategic position.

Here a European will likely complain or presume to contradict me. But if such a fool wants to do that, I will wither his argument with the cold light of reality.

I do not say any of this by the way to brag or say the US is amazing even though it demonstrably is amazing. The reason I say this is because Europe has no credible military force. So saying they're going to go attack other countries is absurd.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[UtsuMaster]

Europe may not have 'credible military force' if you define that as conventional arms. Conventional arms are credible insofar as they are effective in interstate wars. Even magically excluding American interests, both British and French nuclear deterrence precludes interstate war in or around the Eurozone. This is why there is so much covert 'insurgency' going on in Ukraine. Open warfare is untenable. At least in Europe, conflict has changed.

European military might did decline significantly - though virtually all non-American carrier groups remain European - yet the EU has a lot of power to do whatever they want. It educates much of the world's elites, it can exert enormous economic pressure, and it has sophisticated and pretty effective security forces. That's what matters most to prevent and mitigate modern transnational crime and internal conflict.

For everything else there is the US, who took over the role of global hegemon. Case in point from your own example: Kosovo was an ethnic conflict and a political mess. It was never a question of 'defeating Yugoslavia'. No one wanted to intervene because playing knight in shining armour in Rwanda did not go very well earlier, and the Balkans are only European on the map anyway, so who cares. Hence, US intervention.

Your example of European weakness is unconvincing, you overestimate the role of conventional military force, and you neglect nuclear and economic strategic imperatives. But, worst of all, militarisation misses the point entirely: religious extremism is not a threat to states at all, and to make this a military issue is to guarantee an unwinnable conflict.

If I knew what the cold light of reality was, I'd say it was not your friend.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

Nuclear arms are overrated outside of WW3 and are largely ineffective offensively unless matched with a conventional force.

The notion that a country doesn't need conventional military forces so long as it has nukes is shown to be fairly laughable when you look at what is happening to Japan versus China.

China is mostly taking whatever it wants and Japan can't really do anything about it. If Japan were invaded by China, then the US is obligated by treaty to retaliate including launching nukes at china. So japan effectively has a large nuclear deterrent. However, that does not allow them to secure their interests... merely prevent a direct invasion of their mainland.

The Russians are currently making fools of the Europeans as we speak by running subs and bombers throughout their territory just to show they can move through european territory with impunity. Were they to try that over the US or China or India or even Israel they'd have their craft intercepted and forced to retreat under military escort or forced down into a US base where release would be contingent on diplomatic agreements.

Nukes are largely irrelevant unless you launch them. And I really doubt the Europeans can credibly launch nukes even in that unlikely event. How many strategic nuclear submarines do they have? Because nukes stationed in any other place are vulnerable to a first strike. If I were the Russians for example or any other hostile power with nukes... and my enemy had no nuclear submarines, I'd prevent a nuclear counter attack by targeting their launch sites first and then follow up with a bombardment of their other military facilities, possibly industrial centers, and who knows maybe just go for full genocide by wiping out all the cities.

Without the strategic submarines your credibility to maintain Mutually Assured Destruction is questionable.

The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.

As to religious extremism not being a threat to states... thousands of years of history raise their eyebrows in puzzlement at that statement.

All nations are nothing but belief. Religion is belief. Ideology is belief. A nation that has its beliefs challenged successfully dies. What killed the Soviet Union? A loss of belief. The West showed the people on the other side of the iron curtain what they were missing and they wondered why they were putting up with a poorer standard of living? A loss of faith killed the Union.

The same thing killed Rome. The same thing really kills every society that falls. If people continue to believe and continue to live then the old system never really dies. It just waits until it can retake power.

This is the big danger of Islam... they believe in something else more then they believe in our way.

If you sit there playing "are too" "is not" with them back and forth they'll always get the last word because you'll get tired before they do. They believe more then you do.

Belief is a very very powerful thing.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[mpe]

I was hoping your be the ones to bail us out when the U.S. went full fascist. Alright, New Zealand, all eyes are on you. No pressure!

Recently New Zealand introduced tougher speeding and drink drive penalties. With the result that road deaths over the Christmas period went up. So probably best not to expect too much of The Beehive. There's also the Megaupload mess to consider.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Yaotzin]

The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.

France and Britain each have 4 ballistic missile subs. Each sub can carry 16 M45/51 (French) or Trident II (UK) missiles, capable of reaching pretty much anywhere on earth.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

Then I cede that point. Those should be capable of providing a credible deterrent of nuclear attack or invasion.

However, that does give them no ability to project power or even use them in self defense in any situation where they're not willing to go to nuclear war.

For example, lets say Argentina attacked the Falklands again and this time did better... The UK is not going to nuke Argentina over the Falklands.

The ability of nuclear weapons to replace conventional forces is over estimated by European leaders. There is a reason Russia, The United States, China, India, and Pakistan all retain large conventional forces.

Consider Russia's position. They are surrounded by countries that would like to nibble little bits off them. Is Russia going to nuclear war to stop some little country from eating some bit of Russian wilderness? Nope.

Consider China... they have many countries on all sides that are potentially hostile. The North Koreans ironically are capable of raids into China and have recently taken to abducting Chinese nationals. Then they have Japan, their territorial expansion ambitions, Vietnam, etc. They Nuclear weapons don't cut it.

Then consider both India and Pakistan. Is either country going to go nuclear over Kashmir? No. Large conventional forces are used to hold the borders secure as well as prevent large incursions from terrorists in the case of India's borders.

I hope you see my point. Now remove the US from NATO. Presume the US is completely neutral in European geopolitics and will not come to the aid of Europe under any circumstances.

I note again, the combined European military forces were stalemated by the Serbs alone. Process that. Not an insult. Just contemplate the significance.

Whether the UK could defend the Falklands again is doubtful.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[UtsuMaster]

My point concerning nuclear deterrence is that it negates full scale war in Europe. This is undeniable insofar as it negates the necessity of having a military capable of fighting a full scale war in Europe. Your point regarding skirmishes, interventions, and other small scale subversions of the international order, however, remains valid.

That said, Europe is supremely unconcerned about North Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and Sino-Japanese grandstanding. Again, for the foreseeable future the role of world police is almost exclusively American. I don't see why Europe would have any issue with that, since American cultural identities and values are quite European-aligned and thus non-threatening. This restricts Europe's area of interest significantly, and further reduces the need for intervention capacity.

Still, you are severely underestimating European power projection. While Putin is 'making fools of Europe' making a show of submarines and fighter jets, Russia's economy has just imploded. Its like bread and circuses, but they're running out of bread. Except for Ukraine, these shows are largely irrelevant to European interests, hence the 'impunity'. If Argentina were to make good of their saber-rattling in the Falklands they'd get a whooping just like last time. The UK has the most active military in Europe because it cooperates with the US so often, in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Apart from the US and Russia, every operational carrier group is European. The UK has two carrier groups. France, Italy, and Spain also have one each. Every other nation has old European handouts for training purposes. The recent intervention in Libya was done mainly with EU assets. Europe is pretty capable of defending its peripheral interests militarily if needed be.

Finally, about beliefs. A nation state is about some sort of national unity, and about some sort of state structure. European countries are particularly resilient because most are pretty strong at both. See Germany, who not only exists after multiple total fuckups, but is doing pretty well. French national unity has survived multiple failed states as well. Likewise, most states that have their ideologies threatened do not 'die', they simply adapt to new belief systems. The regular people, of course, mostly just go about their daily lives regardless.

Rome did indeed fail at transitioning badly enough to 'die', for multiple reasons. The Soviet Union? I'm not so sure it died, considering its still controlled by the same oligarchic elites as before, but with another name and a token democratic process. Russia is not an empire with that many satellites anymore, but neither is France and the UK and they also seem to be doing okay. Adapting to Islam should not be that big of a deal, since most liberal states nowadays are quite secular and multicultural. Sure, Islamic extremism is quite problematic (a civil problem, not a war problem), but Europe has a long history of religious conflict. Usually the state 'wins' and everyone ends more civilised. Hopefully history will repeat itself in this way as well.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

I was never suggesting anyone would go into a full scale war against europe.

I was rather saying that Europe wasn't going to attack anyone else.

Someone else said that europe might get agitated and lash out at the islamic world. I pointed out that won't happen.

So we're not talking about the same things. what is more, i said if the west goes down a good deal of it will go with a whimper rather then a bang. What happens is enough people that don't value french culture basically vote it out of existence? what then?

As to America's role as world police, we're quite tired of that and when we stop filling this roll other nations will fill the void. The old border wars will start. The British Empire suppressed this behavior and the US took up the torch from them.

When the US backs off and we will in the next generation... you are going to see unrest in the world unlike anything that has been seen in centuries. And the US hopefully will just watch.

You might not care about east asia... I suspect the Russians and Turks are more relevant to you. Between the Russians trying to get eastern europe back under their control and the middle east struggling to rebuild the Caliphate... By all means... pretend that Europe is capable of not getting involved.

My nation however is in the Americas. Our little island is quite safe from such nonsense.

As to Europe surviving things... you've never survived massive immigration. That's new. Your old kings and rulers never would have permitted it.

As to the soviets not being dead, it did die. The people running Russia are not the same people that were running it before. Putin would have been nothing under the old soviet system. He never would have held a position of national leadership. And most of the "oligarchs" were likewise nothing before the fall. Quite a few of them were just the first people to figure out how capitalism worked.

I watched a documentary about a fellow that was selling junk off a table in the middle of the snow before the fall. He's a billionaire now.

Keep in mind, I am not rooting for the destruction of your civilization. I am a friend as far as Europe has any friends. I want good things for your society. But your politicians are thinking very short term. Just until the next election. That is dangerous. In fairness our politicians in the US are doing the same thing. The difference is that we're less vulnerable.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[david_thornley]

And, thinking back to the 1982 Falklands war, I remember precisely zero threats or speculations about Britain using its nukes. It only occurred to me years later that, yes, Britain is and was a nuclear power. Nukes are useful in countering threats to national existence, much less useful against lesser threats.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[david_thornley]

Reading some history, I've seen several assessments over the past century that democracies were weak and would fold under pressure. The countries that acted on that belief tended to get stomped. I'm not seeing why the modern evaluations are any better founded.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

Lots of democracies fail, my friend. In fact, they tend to.

The most common and stable governments in history are tyrannies of one description or another.

Note that the celebrated author Orwell once said:
""If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.""

As to democracies being weak in war, it depends really. They are strong so long as they can be cohesive. Undermine the pillars of the republic or even dilute them and they can collapse.

Too many years of lying politicians, too many years of corruption, mix in some bad economics, etc... things can happen. How many Moroccans that want sharia law for example will it take before France cracks?

At some point they might just be able to peacefully vote western values out of existence. What then? Will you stand by democracy as your children are indoctrinated by state law into a faith you do not hold? Will you fight against millions of people that out number you enough to overwhelm you at the ballot box? Will you flee to another country that likely is not far from suffering the same fate?

The best defense the US has against such things is that we have very heavy immigration from south of our border. And those fine people for all their faults are generally Catholic and suffer not a touch of white guilt. In the end, they may be the saviors of western civilization if only because they don't suffer from the same neurotic and self destructive tendencies built up by the more traditionally western populations over the last century.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[david_thornley]

Weak democracies will turn to authoritarian rule in times of stress, yes. Older and stronger democracies will stay democracies in the face of stress (consider the French government during WWI) and will try to restore democracy (consider the French government after WWII) even if an authoritarian government is imposed on them. This is despite lying politicians, corruption, and bad economics, all of which we've had experience with. The democracies I speak of are old, with a strong tradition of democracy.

I'm not aware of any strong democracies that cracked in wartime, other than due to being grossly outmatched or decisively defeated on the battlefield. France fought hard in 1940, and was legitimately defeated in battle. Democracies have backed away from battles in former colonies, which isn't the same thing.

Nor do I see Muslims getting large majorities in these countries, particularly once they start to present a real threat (which they do not currently). Some of the measures you speak of would be completely unconstitutional, and would probably result in a civil war, should it get that far, and I'm betting on Western civilization in any military clash.

Re:Dammit, Europe!

[Karmashock]

The french have one of the weaker democracies. They are on what? The fifth republic? And let us not forget that the only reason they still exist as an independent country at all is because their allies in WW2 bailed them out.

France f'ed up the post WW1 european political and economic and diplomatic situation that my country literally walked away from it all in disgust.

Germany after WW1 for example should not have been subjected to crippling sanctions.

Look at how the US treats countries we defeat. What did we do to Germany after we flattened their cities? What did we do to Japan after we nuked them? Etc.

You do not do what France did. We tried to tell them. The records of our protest are on file.

So I'd rather not talk about the relience of the "great" french republic. It is a vassal power that only exists because stronger allied nations have shielded it from the consequences of its mistakes. There is no reason for example why the French should have lost to the Germans in WW2. They could have won or held the line. All they had to do was take the security situation seriously. They didn't.

The United States has been facing off against global security threats since the end of WW2. We've been in continuous cold war mode ever since with only a very brief period of perhaps 5 years where we thought we could let our guard down. Then 9/11 and we're right back on Red Alert.

We're tired. We're frustrated. We're angry. And being told by the Europeans that did almost nothing during the Cold War that they can hold their own is just absurd.

The nukes aren't going to save you. You need massive spy nets and the ruthlessness to employ them. You think Stalin was kept back with reasonable words? No. Nuclear weapons. Massive air assaults. And thousands upon thousands of daggers in the dark.

There is a reason why to this day the Russians respect the US CIA. Their agents were hunted by our agents and vanished. The secret history. Classified forever.

If Europe presumes to stand... it is going to have to toughen up to levels unseens since the days of their grandfathers if not their great grandfathers. The old metal. If you can dig that up, then you might stand. Absent that... dust in the wind.

Signs and Portents

[Guy From V]

We have exited the steaming waters of the Acheron and now the maelstrom of the Lethe pulls on our prow.

Oh, go right ahead with that

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

...an effort to rewrite laws just hours after dozens of arrests across Europe offered dramatic evidence of the threats security officials say are facing the continent.

'Cause the Patriot Act worked out so well for us.

Never mind worrying about the terrorists winning, it's the fascists who are doing the winning

Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[gurps_npc]

That sounds like a clear abuse of power.

"Yes, you called the terrorists evil, damn, evil S.O.B.S. But you paused before you said evil. Take him away BOYS."

It's bad enough to punish those that use their freedom of speech to praise criminals, but to go that far pushes you beyond the bar of reason and into tyranny.

If we used this in America, I think Obama could arrest the entire cast of Fox News for praising Putin. That is just plain wrong. Fox news should be laughed at, not arrested.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. This comes awfully close to Thought Crime.

What I could understand, though I do struggle with it, is identifying those that appear to approve of terrorism, and keeping an eye on them. But of course that would be abused.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[MightyMartian]

I think an argument can be made for keeping imams known to preach violent jihad under surveillance, much as the FBI probably keeps a close eye on white suppremacist preachers who preach violent overthrow of government and racial violence.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[dryeo]

The crackhead who attacked Parliament was pissed off that he couldn't get a passport and leave the country or even get thrown in jail to clean himself up.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[BarbaraHudson]

The crackhead who attacked Parliament was pissed off that he couldn't get a passport and leave the country or even get thrown in jail to clean himself up.

He didn't want to go to Syria to "get cleaned up."

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[dryeo]

He didn't want to go to Syria at all, rather to Libya.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[BarbaraHudson]

Syria

Born in Montreal, he later lived in Calgary and Vancouver, then went to Ottawa on Oct. 2 to deal with an issue regarding his passport application, Paulson said. Police believe he was hoping to travel to Syria from Ottawa.

Same as the Quebec terrorist:

The Quebec man accused of running down two soldiers, killing one of them, had already had his passport revoked for trying to go to Syria.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[dryeo]

We'll never really know if he was planning on going to Syria or if he really wanted to get clean and being a crackhead he may well not known as well. As for what the police believe, well they're going to parrot the prevailing current meme that all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslim.

Re:Punish those that do not readily condemn?!?!

[BarbaraHudson]

As for what the police believe, well they're going to parrot the prevailing current meme that all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslim.

Congratulations. You win the prize for most ignorant post of the day.BTW - the cop they killed in Paris was Muslim And so was the guy who hid Jews in the freezer in Paris. They're both being hailed as heroes in France and around the world.

Wait, What?

[Bob9113]

France is also charging forward with attempts to expand government powers to monitor threats -- and to punish those who praise or do not readily condemn terrorism.

WTF? R'ing TFA... not a whole lot, but here's a bit more from the article:

France is also charging forward with attempts to expand government powers to monitor threats -- and to punish those who praise or do not readily condemn terrorism. Leaders this week called for new legislation to significantly bolster domestic intelligence agencies.

Another law, a fast-track judicial process for accusations related to terrorism, was on the books as of November but had not been widely used before the Paris attacks. In recent days, however, prosecutors have filled the dockets with more than 100 cases that are speeding through courtrooms. People who have expressed support for the attacks have been sentenced to as much as 15 months in prison.

A top French opposition politician, Eric Ciotti, said this week that the government should withhold social benefits from the parents of children who failed to observe moments of silence in schools.

Re:Wait, What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole recent thing about France being a bastion of freedom of speech has been a lie. Hell, the country won't even let people wear certain (but not all) religious headdress in public places, even when the choice of outfit interferes with nobody else. Trade in various expressions of speech, disgusting as the principles they represent, is illegal - the ban on trade in swastikas is well known, for example.

To say things like, "Fewer people than reported died in the Holocaust," is illegal to merely say in France, even though

i) it's accurate - about 5.1 million people died, not 6 million (still one of the worst genocides in history, which is why it needs to be recorded with utmost accuracy);

ii) it's a straight freedom of speech issue.that a person should be able to spout whatever shit (perhaps as long as their speech isn't part of planning to cause harm).

Indeed, Charlie Hebdo had to face the French legal system various times for its depictions from Catholicism through Israeli policy (and one of its contributors was an explicit, self-confessed anti-semite - a really nasty chap, but still, merely practising freedom of speech).

tl;dr France has no freedom of speech. Everything you are hearing on the news is a lie.

Re:Wait, What?

[reikae]

I wonder if people sentenced for "expressing support for the attacks" includes any vocal critics of surveillance or related government actions. Also punishing those who don't readily condemn terrorism sounds like terrifying thoughtcrime stuff; I hope governments heard me condemning the attacks to my dog so I don't get raided.

Re:Wait, What?

[Slashjones]

Wow, that's a great argument to justify oppression. MLK should've just left the US; what a whiner. Anyone who wants to change anything should just leave the countries they want to change, because the best way to change the countries you want to change is to not interact with them at all and leave hardcore freedom-hating authoritarians such as yourself to run the country.

Re:Wait, What?

[Bob9113]

I hope governments heard me condemning the attacks to my dog so I don't get raided.

I'm sorry, but condemning the attacks to your dog is not considered sufficiently patriotic. You must find at least three people who practice Islam and condemn the attacks to them. For example, "Hey, Muslim guy, apparently you don't know this; terrorism is wrong." Then just ask him if he is planning any terrorist attacks, take down the details if he is, and have him sign your patriotism verification form.

Re:Wait, What?

[robi5]

Maybe still more free than the mean / median / top decile of Muslim religion-states? So whether or not you're right on this point is kind of irrelevant.

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[ThatsMyNick]

Abnormal people realize it too. It just goes to show how governments are neither normal people or abnormal people. Whose line is it, again?

Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the Nazis sought sweeping powerrs to curb terrorism after a building was set on fire. How did that slippery slope work out in the 40s'? Are the 2010's the new 1940s?

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

Re:Nazis

[robi5]

If on one occasion, A preceded B, then A must have caused B and must cause it almost a century later.
If the alternative to your hypothetical B is a definite C, and a definite C is worse than a hypothetical B, while a realised B would be as bad as C, then we should still remain on course for C.

Re:Nazis

[david_thornley]

You seem unaware of what happened with and after the Reichstag fire. Hitler used it to get most civil liberties suspended. In this case, A very definitely caused B in 1933. We have seen similar things happening more recently (the Patriot Act is a good example).

I tried reading your second sentence, and really couldn't understand it.

Re:Stripping citizenship will be popular.

[benjfowler]

Small problem: most of the ingrates and troublemakers who are fighting us, are second and third-generation immigrants.

Stripping Western citizenship from dual nationals could be effective: you only have to see all the satellite dishes and ethnic dress in crap parts of Paris to know where peoples' real loyalty lies. Losing citizenship should help concentrate some minds.

That said, why do we worry so much about making these fifth-columnists stateless? This situation calls for lateral thinking. The Australians have done a beautiful job of shutting down illegal boat arrivals. They kept their pimp hand strong, and made an example out of some "asylum seeking" criminals by sending them to camps in PNG. Now Australians just laugh at the stupid Pakistani opportunists who thought they were going to get a life on Easy Street courtesy of Australian taxpayers, but are now in the jungle, trying (and failing) to white guilt-trip them by munching washing power and razor blades.

Europe will start having to do something similar with both illegal arrivals, and 2nd/3rd generation fifth-columists. Time to make ourselves the master of our own house again.

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[dmbasso]

If by "normal" you mean the normal curve, I guess you're right... probably the majority of the population is ignorant people that can't analyze the facts for themselves. Easier to watch Fox News and hate the other group.

There's nothing irrational ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... about responding to violent threats.

It's irrational not to respond to violent threats.

Re:There's nothing irrational ...

[Slashjones]

But when your response as a supposedly free country is to limit people's freedoms, you have failed to uphold the principles you're supposed to aspire to and have become the enemy of liberty. I'll take freedom over this kind of 'safety.' If they want safety, they have to do it in a way that doesn't violate our freedoms and privacy.

Re:There's nothing irrational ...

[Slashjones]

Having to lower ourself to 'fascist/anti-liberty' tactics to prevent the rise of these parties, might actually save our liberty.

No, I'd rather people keep their freedoms, thanks.

Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens?

[Taco Cowboy]

It's the rogues, the Islamists that they need to go after

Why are they snooping around the non-Islamists?

Why?

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP has a point though, it wasn't jews or buddhists or seventh day adventists executing cartoonists in paris, was it?

Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[Richard_J_N]

Wouldn't it make much more sense to devote some effort and expense to promoting the values of the enlightenment? In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs. Why not actually treat Islam (and Scientology, and Christianity) as the mental equivalent of a public heath hazard, where those who believe need to be helped to overcome it?

I think we make a serious mistake in our public discourse, by considering that:
    violent minority = extremists = misinterpretation of scripture vs. peaceful majority = mainstream = correct interpretation of scripture.

whereas it would be more intellectually honest to consider:
      violent minority = literalists = correct interpretation of scripture vs. peaceful majority = reformists = those who wilfully mis-interpret their scripture.

In other words, while almost all humans (of all faith and of none) are decent, good, tolerant peaceful people, they are decent to the extent that they discard their holy books, not to the extent that they follow them. The holy books themselves are beyond redemption, and should be considered to be "on the side of the devil".

Consider the spectrum of belief: (a)Secular humanist ---- (b) "Moderate" religion ----- (c) Extremist religion.
Position (b) involves belief in gods, prophets, and veneration of "perfect" scriptures. Position (c) is a very small step beyond, namely to actually read those scriptures, already considered perfect, and interpret them the literally, as they are written. So, if we want to prevent Islamic terrorism, the most effective argument is not detailed discussion of which Koranic verse overrides which other one (an argument which the moderates can never win), but instead, to argue for the wholesale abandonment of holy books.

Education, science, secular values, and human rights are the most potent weapon we have against faith, and yet politicians refuse to deploy them! If we took the money from the security services, and put it into schools, I think it would be far more effective.

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs. Why not actually treat Islam (and Scientology, and Christianity) as the mental equivalent of a public heath hazard, where those who believe need to be helped to overcome it?

Should that come to pass then welcome a whole new world where Christian and Scientology driven terrorist organizations are more common than homeowner associations. That in itself does not mean that you are wrong however.

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[Whorhay]

Politicians won't embrace that path until the populace at large is already going that way. To do otherwise would be political suicide. As it stands now most state candidates have to declare some sort of religous belief, and so long as it isn't satanic or athieism then your odds of election aren't hurt. And on the national scale you'd best pick some kind of mainstream chrisitan religion. The only exception I can think of in recent US history would be Rommney, and he didn't win.

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[Richard_J_N]

True in the US, but in Europe, we are already past tipping point: the majority of people now see organised religion as a force for harm.

In the US, the approach might be to apply sanctions to Saudi Arabia etc untill they fix their human rights record - this approach worked on South Africa wrt apartheid.

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[AHuxley]

Wouldn't it make much more sense to devote some effort and expense to promoting the values of the enlightenment?
The CIA did that with modern art.
Modern art was CIA 'weapon' ( 22 October 1995) http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
"the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years."

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[robi5]

> they are decent to the extent that they discard their holy books, not to the extent that they follow them

There is some very humane and peaceful stuff in the New Testament. So you're simplifying to the extent of being wrong.

But I agree with your larger point that hazards to society should be treated as such, because we have one life, one planet etc. so let's do a good amount of risk prevention to protect what's important to us, and good risk prevention starts with earnest analysis of causes and effects - let the statistics talk, and let's apply Bayesian inference - , not some politically correct bullshit. For example, let's not harrass disabled Caucasian people, young Chinese girls etc. on an airport who, based on these superficial data alone, are much less likely to commit terrorist acts than for example males who look like a facebook of terrorists and their support network. Too much PC-ness just causes an unnatural lack of balance to effort spent vs. realised returns. Another way of saying is, if you don't act on Bayesian statistics (e.g. picking search targets on airports) then you just harrass the criminally underrepresented group so that you can righteously claim that your search efforts are uncorrelated to skin color, gender etc. I as a man don't mind if I'm picked out of the line more often than women because I respect society's interest and recognize the utility of using prior probabilities.

Re:Why not promote the Enlightenment instead

[robi5]

> True in the US, but in Europe, we are already past tipping point: the majority of people now see organised religion as a force for harm.

Haha, good one :-) There are countries like the UK where there is strong economic sense to be (pretend to be) religious, if not for something else, to benefit from superior schools while not having to pay for "public" (=private) schools.

Even if what you said were true, it would be a snapshot. Want to guess that families of which religion procreates more? That tipping point is not one-way and may come back purely as a result of clear demographic trends.

Free speech?

[sir-gold]

The Islamist terrorist groups perform attacks in order to limit free speech, and in response, these counties help the terrorists along by limiting speech even further?

Who's side are these guys on anyway?

Re:Free speech?

[CaptainDork]

Not accurate at all.

The editorial cartoons created a lot of stir, which attracts a lot of eyeballs, and therefore money. After the initial thrust by the editors, it became a pissing contest -- a reality show -- that crossed the line of common sense.

Delfeil adds: “I believe that we are fools who took an unnecessary risk. That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation and then one day the provocation turns against us.

“He shouldn’t have done it, but Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012.”

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[Halo1]

... are second and third-generation immigrants ...

France belongs to the French

Germany belongs to the Germans

Sweden belongs to the Swedes

Italy belongs to the Italians

In other words, they are the indigenous for their ancestors, for thousands of years, have settled in that place

And immigrants ? No matter if they are 2nd / 3rd / 4th or whatever generation, once they have decided to harm the indigenous they should be kicked out, immediately !

America belongs to...
Australia belongs to...

Ah, never mind.

Re:To curb terrorism

[benjfowler]

Multiculturalism only works when everyone agrees to the same rules of the road.

The big trouble here, is that a disturbingly large number of Muslims hold opinions that are complete anathema to open and free Western societies. They are only too happy to benefit from the freedoms afforded them; yet, as we've seen in the last week, they despise with every fibre of their being, other people exercising their _own_ rights in a free society.

This hypocrisy is going to tear Western societies apart unless something is done soon. The solutions, as I see them: 1) we let Muslims impose their culture on us; or 2) we impose our own culture while we are still a strong majority -- and then force the minority to pick sides.

Something has to give.

Alternate title

[Barefoot Monkey]

European Countries Using Terrorism to Seek Sweeping New Powers

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[ATMAvatar]

Because terrorism is a red herring, and this looks like a shiny new power they can grab without much hassle from the rabble. Fear is a great vehicle for stripping away liberties. Freedom is *far* more at risk from our own governments than it ever was from terrorists.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[benjfowler]

America is a civil state.

The European countries are ethnic states, have been for thousands of years, and their borders are almost literally written in blood.

While Europe is exceedingly liberal and politically correct in general, it would be 'unwise' indeed, to mistake generosity and kindness for weakness.

Japan and China has the right idea WRT their citizenship law. Germany is also quite strict in comparison to the rest of Europe.

I expect that after the next couple of major terrorist attacks here, the situation will rectify itself...

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[resfilter]

Saying the issue is pretty much totally muslims is like saying "violent pit bull attacks are pretty much totally dogs" or "christian child molesters are pretty much totally christians". Being technically true doesn't mean it's helpful (and doesn't make it less harmful)

WOW! Look at all the comments here!

[fustakrakich]

Chalk up another victory for the terrorists.

Good show everybody! You are all in the process of confirming all that was put forth by the psychologists and scientists in the early 1900s, especially Pavlov. You are all very good subjects.

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[Tontoman]

It isn't always easy to identify Islamists.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[PolygamousRanchKid]

America belongs to...

. . . the rich.

Australia belongs to...

. . . the largest concentration of deadly, poisonous critters and creepy-crawlies on the planet.

Re:To curb terrorism

[benjfowler]

Really? That's news to me.

Show me these vast transplanted colonies of white people all over the Middle East. Oh that's right -- you CAN'T. Because there are none.

Well, there _was_ Algeria, but then the Algerians told the whites living there, 'leave with your bags, or inside one'. And rightly so. They were colonists. Just like the millions of Muslim colonists living in most of the major cities of Western Europe.

The Middle East used to be full of Jews and Christians. No longer. They were all persecuted, raped, robbed, driven out. 95% of the Middle East and North Africa is now Muslim.

Hypocrite much?

Definition, please

[VernonNemitz]

The word "terrorism!" can be mis-used, much like the word "treason!", if it is not formally defined in Law. So, if such a definition has not been codified, the politicians have no business requesting powers to do such things as "punish those who praise or do not readily condemn terrorism" --after all, the person you want to punish might be using a different definition than YOU used (the one YOU used was specifically intended to help you steal political power, see?).

Re:Definition, please

[robi5]

Wishy-washy thing you're saying. Who cares about the 'definition'. These terrorists killed a dozen or two, for political reasons, in Europe, sounds un-vague enough for me and probably another few hundred million EU citizens.

Re: History is repeating itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm? Did you not read the article? What those leaders want to do is give themselves tools to oppress the masses in the name of security.

Your Islamophobia is exactly what those leaders are exploiting. Do you enjoy being used for your own destruction?

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[dmbasso]

No, the OP does not have a point. Why are you focusing on one specific instance? Violence is widespread, and is committed by all kinds of people. Christians of all denominations in the US were quite content with the fact their government torture people (or offshore the task). The loads of innocent people that are killed in drone attacks are also not victims of muslim terrorists.

Religions are stupid and should be extinguished, but the correct way to achieve that goal is through education. With violence you'll only get more violence.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[Halo1]

America is a civil state.

The Americas were, for the most part, colonised by European immigrants that kicked the shit out of the people that already lived there. I really don't see how that's different than what happening now (or is about to happen) in Europe in the mind of many scared/aggressive people. And for the record: I don't hold current day Americans responsible for that, it's not like they got to choose what their forefathers did or did not do, although of historically/societally you do have some kind of responsibility (just like e.g. Belgium has one vis-a-vis its ex-colonies).

The European countries are ethnic states, have been for thousands of years, and their borders are almost literally written in blood.

Ethnic states? Our borders are indeed written in blood (then again, so are many in the Americas), but I doubt there are many "ethnic Belgians" in existence. Or have ever existed, other than one tribe in a distant past that was termed as "the bravest of all Gallic tribes" by Julius Caesar.

While Europe is exceedingly liberal and politically correct in general, it would be 'unwise' indeed, to mistake generosity and kindness for weakness.

The way many people are reacting, it seems they did find a quite weak spot though.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[Halo1]

Australia belongs to...

. . . the largest concentration of deadly, poisonous critters and creepy-crawlies on the planet.

:)

Re: To curb terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

You should take a look at America's outposts in the Middle East and in other places in the world. America doesn't want vast colonies, they want to extract resources for American benefit.

With a touch of military bases. Most of the grunt work is local labor though, run by the America-backed strongmen.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[Trepidity]

Most Italians do not descend from the ancient Italic tribes.

Re:Stripping citizenship will be popular.

[ultranova]

Stripping Western citizenship from dual nationals could be effective: you only have to see all the satellite dishes and ethnic dress in crap parts of Paris to know where peoples' real loyalty lies.

Crimes against fashion don't count as terrorism, bro. Reality TV might, but the viewers are victims, not perpetrators.

Europe will start having to do something similar with both illegal arrivals, and 2nd/3rd generation fifth-columists. Time to make ourselves the master of our own house again.

Who's us? Last time I checked, the people mandating dress codes for minorities or prohibiting listening to subversive foreign radio stations were the enemies.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Trepidity]

Is it really a large number? Here in Scandinavia as far as I can tell there are indeed Muslim extremists, but a quite small number. I work with a number of Muslims in a regular office job, and they are more or less normal people. More religious than the average Scandinavian, but then so are Americans.

And in terms of actual crimes committed, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of terrorism going on here. There have actually been many more people killed by anti-Muslim nativists (like Anders Breivik) than by Muslim terrorists. Meaning that the people trying to "save" us from the Muslims are killing more of us than the Muslims are. In which case I would like to request that they stop trying to "save" us...

The biggest problems are more run-of-the-mill socioeconomic problems. A large number of young people in poor suburbs of Copenhagen and Aarhus end up committing petty crimes or joining street gangs. These are disproportionately immigrants, although it applies to Danes in those areas as well (who join biker gangs, which for some reason in Denmark are very white, and heavily involved in smuggling).

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[fustakrakich]

Mods, please! That was funny, not insightful... If it was serious, it would be troll/flamebait.

Seeing all the support for the typical right wing reaction illustrates very clearly the bit of fascism in everybody. There are no national boundaries there. This feeling is global, natural, animal. Humanity becomes a little less humane.

Be careful what you wish for

[TomGreenhaw]

When you're angry, the media is spreading fear, and citizens are demanding action from their government, its all to easy to swing wildly too far in giving up freedom and privacy. We've had more than a decade of that in the US and it isn't pretty.

We get mad when we hear about the Snowden revelations. We get mad when the government doesn't monitor "known" threats. We get mad when our government doesn't treat captured terrorist killers kindly. You cannot have it both ways.

The best answer is for each citizen to keep their eyes open and report suspicious people to authorities who are properly funded and equipped to handle these things in a responsible way. Come on, can't a gun shop owner selling two assault rifles and 800 rounds of ammo figure out that something other than deer hunting is planned? Why can't communities be prepared to help mentally ill people who have not yet committed felonies?

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

No. I'll just ask that the government respect my liberties. I don't owe any loyalties to a piece of land or a corrupt government, but I will demand that said corrupt government respect my freedoms, even if it is futile.

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[robi5]

> When you're angry, the media is spreading fear, and citizens are demanding action from their government, its all to easy to swing wildly too far in giving up freedom and privacy. We've had more than a decade of that in the US and it isn't pretty.

A lot of us here are in STEM or work with data in some way. How on Earth are you going to prevent shit like this from happening if not by close surveillance? For it is not an individual action but a pattern of individually innocent-looking actions that is predictive of a plot suspicion. With all the liberal whining, let's get real: in the age where even just one (moderately armed) asshole can cause serious damage (e.g. indirectly to freedom of speech), you won't have a real super-duper search warrant until after it's too late. So you are forced to monitor whatever you can to establish patterns among activities that individually aren't suspicious. Just because anger can lead to close surveillance, it does not mean that carefully measured analysis would have lead you somewhere else. Network data analysis 101 welcome to the class of 2015.

Re:To curb terrorism

[mrclevesque]

Don't restrict the idea of an 'imposer' to only colonization by a homogenous large group in the country that is imposed upon. For example, puppet governments, financial and diplomatic support of dictatorships, mercenaries, wars by proxy, military incursions, wars without ground troupes, all the ways to bias elections, secret service's actions, economic or geopolitical interests, etc.

Re:To curb terrorism

[majid_aldo]

troll huh?

- support for israel at the expense of palestenians
- support for dictators of the middle east
- US military outposts scattered over the middle east
- popularity of western culture in the middle east
- not too long ago the whole middle east was colonized!
these are just the major points

my point is the projection of influence and power is basically one way from the West (US) -> middle east. the suggestion that muslims are the ones changing the West is ludicrous compared to this.

Re: To curb terrorism

[benjfowler]

Trade is a positive-sum game, freely entered into by consenting parties.

This is all just bullshit Muslim grievance-mongering, as always.

It's not our problem how they spend their oil money.

What's the alternative? Sell it to the Chinese? Muslims are weird, in that they tolerate abuse from Chinese/Russian dictators that they were never tolerate from the West. I think it boils down to some really deep resentment of white people, because the West are better imperialists than they are (Muslims are also violent, venal imperialists -- they're just really shit at it.)

Or they could just leave their Allah-bestowed black gold in the ground, and starve. That works too.

If we fixed everything else that was wrong in the world, I'm sure that they could consider it an affront that somewhere, a non-Muslim person was breathing the same air as them.

Re:To curb terrorism

[unixisc]

One correction - Gandhi wanted to live together with Muslims, and even after partition, he forced India to not expel the remaining Muslims into the Pakistans. During Hindu-Muslim riots, he'd rush in to prevent Hindus from killing Muzzies, while doing nothing to prevent the latter from killing the former. On top of that, he forced the new Indian government to pay Pakistan Rs 5.5 million to cover the cost of resettling their refugees, despite the fact that India had the same issue which Pakistan was not compensating. Gandhi was a cunt who during his days in South Africa used the term 'Kuffar' to describe South African Blacks - the same term that South African Muzzies used for the same group. On top of that, in 1918, he supported the Ottoman Caliphate, and today would probably be cheering ISIS from the sidelines. Thank $DEITY that India is no longer run by his Congress party, and there are some in the ruling BJP who consider Godse - Gandhi's assassin - a true patriot.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Sesostris III]

The big trouble here, is that a disturbingly large number of Muslims hold opinions that are complete anathema to open and free Western societies.

Then again, this is matched by the disturbingly large number of non-Muslims who make unfounded generalised comments about Muslims!

Re: To curb terrorism

[unixisc]

I agree that the US should eliminate its dependence on Islamic oil, so that the source of funding for jihadi campaigns, gulf sheikhdoms pampering their sheikhs and Islamic regimes acquiring nuclear weapons or all sorts of other weaponry dries up. After all, until the 60s, when oil was discovered, the Muzzies weren't buying up all sorts of property in the West, and aside from the wars on Israel, they weren't anywhere near a threat to the rest of the world as the Soviets were. And despite now 50 years of US $4 trillion being transferred to them, they have not managed to build modern economies based on something else. Look at South Korea, which never had such a transfer of money from the West the way these countries had. Yet today, South Korea is one of the most powerful world economies out there - w/o oil. And yet, the Islamic countries haven't managed to use those trillions of petrodollars to transform their economies into ones dependent on other sources.

As a result, the day we have something (say solar powered cars) that enables everybody to stop buying oil, they'll be back to the poverty levels of Bangladesh. And their cunt-ries won't be 'strategic' any more

Welcome to the Slippery Slope! Enjoy the ride!

[kheldan]

Disclaimer (for benefit of the knee-jerk-reactionaries): I passionately hate Al Qaeda, the so-called 'Islamic State', and all pseudo-religious nutcases who, for some reason, think 'God' (whoever the fuck that is) wants them to cut off people's heads 'for offending the Prophet', throw acid in little girls' faces/kill little girls because they have the audacity to want to go to school/learn to read/learn history/learn to do math/learn in general, and all the rest of the bullshit these fucking assholes are out there doing/condoning/supporting. I think they all desperately need to be brought to justice for their innumerable crimes, no question about it.

..now, that all having been said:
If you don't, for more than a second or two, think that these 'sweeping powers' they want to grab (and make no mistake, it's a power-grab) are going to end up being grossly and indiscriminately mis-used to further political agendas that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism, then you are incredibly, unbelievably naive, because that's exactly, precisely what's going to happen. Euros, you need to clamp down on this shit right now, because once they get this kind of power, they will not let go of it, ever, and they will ironically enough use it to destroy whatever freedom of speech you have in your country. Mark my words.

Re:Welcome to the Slippery Slope! Enjoy the ride!

[robi5]

It may still be the smaller bad, in comparison to not doing anything on the excuse that it incurs the risk (or even the likelihood) of what you talk about. Life is action -> reaction, get used to it. Noone believes that the states won't misuse their powers, but it's naive and insulting of YOU to assume that people don't consider that self-defense and self-preservation has costs. If you think about it, the modern state is way more knowledgeable about you than it was in the medieval or industrial times, credit cards, non-anonymous travel etc., yet I don't think you'd want to go backwards in time...

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[ultranova]

In other words, they are the indigenous for their ancestors, for thousands of years, have settled in that place

Which is impossible for any human being to prove. Or do you have records of all or even most - or even a single one - of your ancestral lines going back to the height of the Roman Empire?

Furthermore, nations are not genetic but memetic. Being French means nothing more and nothing less than that you think of yourself as French. People born in France typically do, as do some of the people who've lived there for a while. That is true even if said people don't agree with every aspect of their nation's culture. You're simply trying to use thinly disguised racism to disqualify the opinions of people you don't agree with.

TL;DR Ein volk, ein reich, ein this bullshit again.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? You're responding about "Muslims" (kind of a diverse group) in an article that has among other things the French government clamping down on free speech rights. A guy was arrested in France for making a damn Facebook post is support of the attacks. This isn't new. Many European countries have double standards with regards to popular, and unpopular speech.

Uhh.. so I 'd say it's not just "Muslims" (quite a broad generalization), that don't hold opinions completely anathema to open and free Western societies. The French government has actually ACTED to suppress spech they don't like.

Strip citizenship for dual nationals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Israelis as well?

Re:Immigrants are natives

[ArmoredDragon]

A lot of muslims are ethnic Persians, which are anything BUT brown. Related: Iran changed its name from Persia in reference to it being the "land of the Aryans" with the Persian word for Aryan transliterating to English as Iranian.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[ArmoredDragon]

Europe has mostly become pacifist as a result of a rise of existentialism, which itself arised from a rejection of extremes (such as communism and fascism) that were highly destructive during WWII (only about 70 years ago, Fascism was considered an example of European governance as a LOT of countries practiced it at the time; not just the Axis powers.)

Though before that, France has somewhat of a history of violently killing people who they believe don't even think the same way as themselves. Take the reign of terror for example.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[cyberchondriac]

Cool! I must be rich!

Re:To curb terrorism

[drinkypoo]

Is it really a large number?

Islam is opposed to the separation of church and state. So you would have to say that every good Muslim is to some degree opposed to western civilization. I don't think I'm alone in understanding that theocracy is evil and must be avoided, that's the founding principle of the country I live in after all.

The biggest problems are more run-of-the-mill socioeconomic problems.

Yes, but those exacerbate problems caused by theocracies (or would-be theocracies — in this case, it varies by region) which depend on ignorance. That's why the Catholics want to interpret the bible for their followers, and want them to come and check in any time they think they understand it on their own, and it's why fundamentalist Islam fears little girls with books. Mind you, they're not alone. We have Christian fundamentalists in this country who feel precisely the same way. Keep them ignorant and pregnant, and in the kitchen. And you can buy wooden furniture and smokeless fireplaces from some of them.

I'm not worried that Obama is going to adopt Sharia or anything, but if you don't think that the Islamic push for theocracy is going to continue to be a sticking point, then I don't think you're thinking. This is an inherent contradiction between Islam and western society, and it cannot be reconciled without either giving up on religious freedom, or throwing away the Quran. They're not allowed to edit it.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[cyberchondriac]

Australia belongs to...

. . . the largest concentration of deadly, poisonous critters and creepy-crawlies on the planet.

And then there's all the marsupials, snakes, and spiders ..... ba dum tish

Because it does not work

[aepervius]

In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs

If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet. But it does not, because you cannot use rationality to convince people (rare exception may happen) that belief they came to in irrational way are wrong. Try thisd : go into a creationist forum and try to argue that radiometric dating works and explain why. Good luck with that. So if we are not even able to get ride of creationism in the west , a domain (natural selection) where there is a lot of supportive and solid science, what chance do you think you have with other irrational belief ? I will tell you what, as soon as the GOP accept as a whole global warming I will give you a smmmmaaal bit of chance.

Re:Because it does not work

[drinkypoo]

In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs

If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet

Educated people are always less religious. Provide more education and religion always fades. It doesn't just go away, because some people just refuse to be educated. But education helps people learn how to ask questions and think, if it's done even vaguely right, and religion can't withstand that.

Re:Because it does not work

[Richard_J_N]

I grant that it doesn't work all the time. But let's at least stop giving "it's my faith" a free pass against criticism, and be done with the faith-schools. Politicians love to think that moderate religion is on their side; it isn't. So they work in the (imho) vain struggle to keep people from moving from position (b) to (c) rather than trying to get them to move from (b) to (a). In epidemiological terms, there are several risk factors for becoming a terrorist... including social exclusion, poverty, grievances against western policy, and religious faith. Why can't we treat faith itself (rather than "perversion of faith") as the risk factor?

Re: 2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANT

[WindBourne]

Umm, you could make an argument that those are the same for both nations

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[Z00L00K]

It was in the 70's, today the whole world is a dream for Nazis...

There's nowhere to hide anymore - the world's too crowded and politicians are corrupt everywhere.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Halo1]

This is an inherent contradiction between Islam and western society, and it cannot be reconciled without either giving up on religious freedom, or throwing away the Quran. They're not allowed to edit it.

And yet there large numbers of moderate muslims that do not feel at all obliged or even inclined to impose the sharia on the rest of the Western country they live in. Maybe they're not real muslims in the eyes of fundamentalists, but why should we take the same view as fundamentalists in this regard while we reject them on all other points?

Re:To curb terrorism

[drinkypoo]

And yet there large numbers of moderate muslims that do not feel at all obliged or even inclined to impose the sharia on the rest of the Western country they live in.

Are you sure? Maybe they don't feel a need to do it by force, but that's not really the whole story, is it? That's far morally superior to those who do, but it's still going to be an unending source of conflict.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Halo1]

And yet there large numbers of moderate muslims that do not feel at all obliged or even inclined to impose the sharia on the rest of the Western country they live in.

Are you sure?

About as sure as you can be from watching documentaries, listening to interviews, reading opinion pieces, talking to people etc.

Maybe they don't feel a need to do it by force, but that's not really the whole story, is it? That's far morally superior to those who do, but it's still going to be an unending source of conflict.

If you are convinced that part of the population has the destruction of a lot of what you hold dear as their secret agenda , then I don't see a possibility besides endless conflict either.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[davester666]

why use different labels for the same thing?

Re:To curb terrorism

[Trepidity]

Islam is opposed to the separation of church and state.

Eh, and so is Christianity generally. So much so that we do not even have separation of church and state in Denmark: the Church of Denmark is the official state church, which is written into the Constitution. There is freedom of conscience and worship, but one religion (Lutheran Protestant Christianity) is officially established, while the others are (according to the Constitution) merely tolerated, allowed to worship as they wish "provided that nothing at variance with good morals or public order shall be taught or done" (section 67).

Of course, in practice the church has lost almost all of its power in a gradual reform process spanning the past few decades. But I don't see this as some bit fundamental disagreement between Christianity and Islam, more a practical issue of which parts of each religion are dominant and what kinds of political power they have. In the current era, the temporal power of Christian theocrats is waning, so they are no longer much of a practical threat. But not because Christianity is doctrinally particularly great. Christian conservatives simply lost the political battle; if some things had turned out differently, they might have won, or at least come to more of a stalemate. But they didn't.

Re:To curb terrorism

[drinkypoo]

If you are convinced that part of the population has the destruction of a lot of what you hold dear as their secret agenda

How it is a secret agenda? It seems pretty out in the open to me.

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[cold fjord]

Freedom is *far* more at risk from our own governments than it ever was from terrorists.

Really? How many newspapers feel free to publish cartoons featuring Mohammed as a character? Is it the government that causes that fear? There has been a recent terrorist attack over this resulting in a dozen deaths, with more threatened. And that isn't the only problem from this vector.

Oxford University Press bans use of pig, sausage or pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
Salafist Muslim Group Forms 'Sharia Police' Patrol in Germany
Anti-gay, anti-alcohol: London's "Sharia patrol"
Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control Of 55 ‘No-Go Zones’ By Muslim Criminal Gangs

Like most problems I'm sure this one will get better by simply ignoring it, or even better, pretending that measures to solve it are the cause of it.

Because terrorism is a red herring, and this looks like a shiny new power they can grab without much hassle from the rabble. Fear is a great vehicle for stripping away liberties.

Fear is a great vehicle? You mean like fear of government, the same governments that provide universal health care in Europe that everyone claims is the very height of civilization? So you can't trust government when it comes to stopping people with a demonstrated and announced desire to poison, shoot, or blow you up, but you can trust them to pump your body full of chemicals, with the power of life or death over you, to decide if you get food or water when you are too sick or weak to take care of yourself? Given the persistent confusion on these points this will probably not end well.

And your .sig? Pay attention to the bold: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Those that pay no heed to their security are unlikely to remain free.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Halo1]

If you are convinced that part of the population has the destruction of a lot of what you hold dear as their secret agenda

How it is a secret agenda? It seems pretty out in the open to me.

Well, I thought that in case of the moderate muslims it could be a secret agenda in your view. In any case, feel free to ignore the "secret" in that sentence.

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[fustakrakich]

So you can't trust government when it comes to stopping people with a demonstrated and announced desire to poison, shoot, or blow you up...

:-) Stopping them? You really are a funny guy! That's why I like you so much. Yes, there we are, 'stopping' the next batch.

Re:Immigrants are natives

[unixisc]

Lot of? Only something like 40 million Muslims worldwide - out of 1.57 billion. Hardly defines it as a race. What could statistically define them would be the population of the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Muslim population of India.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[budgenator]

Well lets see there's only the platypus, the corroboree frog and the birdwing butterfly for poisonous critters, so I'd be much more worried about the venomious critters down-under.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[rtb61]

Kicked out to where exactly? It could be said that your abusive system turned them into criminals so why should other countries be forced to receive them. You created them, your problem, especially 2nd generation on. Once you accept them, they are yours and they become within your society is what you turned them into to, they are you.

Let's just focus upon how you let them in in the first place and learn to accept the consequences of that. Why not just include psychological testing as part of the immigrant or refugee process but once you accept them, they are yours and just as much you as you are. I can understand countries barring those diagnosed as psychopaths and narcissists and that includes tourists, it just makes sense.

Keep in mind you can not just kick them out, unless you mean by that execute them. You must actually send them somewhere and they must be willing to accept them. What do you do when the intended recipient country just says no, you got them, your problem, deal with it.

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[AHuxley]

Why?
Part of collect it all. Bring it out for use in open courts. Everything collected is now more legal. No more parallel construction needed.
All that new data can then be shared with other EU, UK and US beyond the "The Ring of Five" Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Denmark.
The part most nations dont seem to have fully understood is what the GCHQ understood decades ago. Never mention the collection part and people keep on trusting their phones and computer networks.
Now that nations admit they have full mastery of all their internal phones and computer networks interesting people can just revert to more traditional methods of communications.

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[unixisc]

Except that the Fox network is 5% owned by that Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal, and has been as pandering to Muzzies as the rest of them (always adding disclaimers like they are perverting Islam, yada yada yada). GP is right - there have been some 25000 Jihadi attacks (not casualities) since 9/11, and the sooner governments get on the same page as the populace, we may have a chance.

Re:Almost all normal people realise

[unixisc]

There are close to 25000 instances since 9/11, all done by Muzzies. Why do you wanna whitewash that by bringing in red herrings like Christians? And drone attacks are open warfare against terrorists and supporters: by bunching them w/ the others, you just exposed yourself as a supporter of jihad.

Re:To curb terrorism

[robi5]

Blah-blah-blah. Why is it that e.g. the Poilsh can integrate more nicely into the UK society? Maybe because they try, and there are more shared values? Religions teach people things and values that may or may not be compatible with Western values. There is an undeniable pattern between Islam and disrespect for Western values, e.g. secularity (separation of church and state), religious freedom, women's rights, child (girl) education, types of punishments, I could go on and on.Once the demographic processes tip the balance in favor of a Muslim majority, see if it's indeed a 'run-of-the-mill socioeconomic problem' or just the end of the place as you know it, with Sharia law for your grandchildren.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Trepidity]

I don't know what they do in the UK, but Eastern Europeans do not integrate well here. They are pretty notorious for being heavily involved in criminality.

Re:To curb terrorism

[robi5]

That is a pretty damning statistic, I admit. But it would be weird for Western Europeans to limit migration from Eastern Europe, because Western Europe in general, made the mistake of accepting millions of culturally very different immigrants en masse who's values are radically different, and migration from Eastern Europe is the only route to improve demographic balance. So if I were a Western European far right wing politician (which I'm not, not even a sympathizer) then I'd _definitely_ insist on strengthening the immigration flow from Eastern Europe to revitalise the local mainstream population (as the aging Danish society itself can't over-procreate the migrants of multicultural origin).

Re:To curb terrorism

[NewYork]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:To curb terrorism

[ToddInSF]

A series of fear-based statements without anything to back them up.

This isn't about our culture vs. their culture. This is about stupid assholes destroying our culture from within, and making it more like their supposed culture, out of sheer ignorance and fear.

It's idiotic, you're idiotic, what the fuck is wrong with you assholes, do you all have fucking amnesia or something ?

Why can't Govt BAN all

[NewYork]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:Why are they punishing the law abiding citizens

[Altrag]

the same governments that provide universal health care

No. It may strike you as odd, but governments change over time. I have serious suspicions that universal health care was founded based on the kind of fear we're seeing dictate our laws these days. It seems that every law that comes out these days in every country amounts to "give police and/or governments as much power as we can squeeze in on the vague chance that it will be useful, and to hell with any sense of privacy."

And honestly, a lot of those laws would make great sense -- under one condition: That they're not going to be abused. Unfortunately that condition is 100% impossible to fulfill. And in fact its worse than that -- any law with the potential to be abused has a near-100% chance of being abused, and often sooner rather than later. And to really seal the deal, there's usually little to no oversight applied (not that oversight would completely stop abuse -- its still near-100% chance.. just hopefully a lot fewer individual incidents over the same time period.)

essential liberty

I consider presumption of innocence to be a fairly essential liberty in our world, and most of these privacy-invading measures tend to require presumption of guilt (particularly the dragnet-style warrantless data collection measures.)

Of course you can argue when exactly the presumption of guilt takes effect -- most of us consider the moment our data is gathered without our knowledge to be the moment that guilt is presumed.. but you could claim that presumption of guilt is only applied at the moment the data is reviewed, otherwise its just unknown bits that could be anything. That gets back to the potential for abuse though -- if its available, it WILL be abused.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[cavreader]

Huh? Your response is a shocking example of idiocy in action.

Re:To curb terrorism

[Trepidity]

Are the Slavs really more culturally similar than the Arabs, though? They feel at best "equally foreign" to me. Slavs are the eastern fringe of Europe, and Arabs are the southern fringe. They both intertwine with European history while remaining not quite entirely within it. And in the modern era, they are both more religious than the average Scandinavian, which manifests itself in fairly similar ways (the Slavs and Arabs both seem to hate gays). I'm not sure I would really prefer to have Slav neighbor than an Arab neighbor, all things considered. If anything the Slav seems more likely to try to sell my kidney to someone.

Re:2nd/3rd generation of immigrants are IMMIGRANTS

[shutdown -p now]

The European countries are ethnic states, have been for thousands of years

You might want to brush up on your history. Up until 200 years ago or so, there wasn't even such a nationality as "French" or "Spanish". There were Bretons, Catalans etc. And most European states up until then were united not by shared ethnicity, and in many cases not even by shared culture or religion, but by allegiance to the same monarch. It wasn't until the advent of what we now call Romantic nationalism at the end of the 18th century, that ethnicity really began to matter in national politics in a big way.

In fact, the current relatively uniform ethnic composition of European states didn't crystallize until a lot of borders were redrawn after WW1 (e.g. treaty of Trianon), and massive population transfers in the aftermath of WW2. So the current state of affairs is literally 70 years old.

Of course, the notion that just because your ancestor ten generations removed has lived in a political entity with roughly similar borders and/or name two centuries ago, you get some special entitlement in the current political entity in its place, is absurd on its face anyway.

Re: History is repeating itself

[Karmashock]

Incorrect. They're trying to placate the masses so that they can continue business as usual.

Absent a big security upgrade, everyone is going to insist that the immigration get cut back.

The immigration cut will have political consequences for political factions that rely on big support for welfare programs. They require a constant transfer of wealth to sustain power. The only way they can keep their political position is by importing poor people that they can then transfer wealth from the middle class to the poor.

Cynical but true. And not especially different from what happened to Rome.

So being that their political position collapses if they cut off immigration which will reduce their ability to sustain their position through wealth transfers... they are instead telling you that they're going to upgrade security. Which will allow the immigration and the wealth transfers to go on despite many of the people they're importing being actively hostile to the society.

The US has less of a problem mostly because we're importing large numbers of very poor south American Catholics. They've got lots of problems but they don't cut people's throats for their religion or blow up buildings.

Regardless, it all boils down to politicians exploiting a common flaw in both of our political systems. That you can take money from one pocket and give it to another and it isn't classified as vote buying when it quiet obviously is vote buying.

"VOTE FOR ME, I WILL GIVE YOU OTHER PEOPLE"S MONEY!"

And upon that is much of modern western politics based. Which shall ruin us all eventually if it isn't stopped. This exact problem was known to be a fatal flaw from the start. I believe the quote from the time was "the country will be damned the moment the people realize they can just vote themselves more stuff."

Shifting away from fiat currency might help if only by restraining borrowing. But even that wouldn't be enough. We need to make it illegal for people to vote on things they won't be paying for.

For example, if you're not going to pay the tax, you shouldn't be voting on whether it is raised or even exists.

A relatively easy way to do this would be to restructure congress.

The house of representatives can remain the same.

The senate should be changed back to the way it worked before, in that rather then people electing senators directly, you have the state governments appointment them. The whole point of the Senate was to give the state governments themselves a strong hand in federal policy.

And then you create some additional body that has representation linked to the tax rolls in various ways. The way all the chambers of congress interact would have to be hashed out, but the concept I'm laying out is that the power to levey taxes would be restrained somewhat by an additional chamber that gave weighted representation based on tax contributions. In this way, progressive taxes would be levied in so far as the people that they were levied against found them to be reasonable. And it should incline the government to have more flat taxes because if they had too many progressive taxes they'd effectively disenfranchise too much of the country.

The point I am laying out here is of course heresy to socialists and crypto communists... but they're pretty much the problem in the first place... so fuck em'.