Slashdot Mirror


EU Set To Crack Down On Bitcoin and Anonymous Payments After Paris Attack (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Home affairs ministers from the European Union are set to gather in Brussels for crisis talks in the wake of the Paris attacks, and a crackdown on Bitcoin, pre-paid credit card and other forms of 'anonymous' online payments are on the agenda. From the article: "According to draft conclusions of the meeting, European interior and justice ministers will urge the European Commission (the EU executive arm) to propose measures to strengthen the controls of non-banking payment methods. These include electronic/anonymous payments, virtual currencies and the transfers of gold and precious metals by pre-paid cards."

275 comments

  1. How effective is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective, and I can understand bitcoin as it can move large amounts of money, however I don't get pre-paid cards? Do they want traceability when people use these items when using a VPN?

    1. Re:How effective is this by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole point of Bitcoin is that it cannot be regulated by a central authority. I fail to see how the EU intends to "crackdown on Bitcoin." How exactly do they think they are going to stop peer-to-peer transactions?

    2. Re:How effective is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably want to close down exchanges.

    3. Re:How effective is this by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Didn't you read the article? With crack! (ie by smoking quite a lot of it. It will work as well as most of the rest of their anti-money laundering policies).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:How effective is this by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Actually this is one of the few times I broke with tradition and read TFA. All it has to say is they're going "to propose measures to strengthen the controls of non-banking payment methods." Whatever the hell that means.

    5. Re:How effective is this by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      Actually this is one of the few times I broke with tradition and read TFA. All it has to say is they're going "to propose measures to strengthen the controls of non-banking payment methods." Whatever the hell that means.

      It means the bureaucrats are still thinking about what to do, but the reporters need a quote for the morning edition. Slow news day. The real news is probably still under surveillance, under interrogation or under attack.

    6. Re:How effective is this by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective

      Based on what? Have there been any successful financial actions against terrorists, ever? I know the US Treasury likes to claim there has, but whenever you look at the details you discover that by "terrorist" they meant something like "someone wiring money to Cuba or Iran". Not actual terrorists of the kind that blow themselves up.

      The blunt reality is that terrorism is very cheap. The entire cost of 9/11 came under the $10,000 reporting threshold for cash transactions.

      The idea that you can attack terrorism through finance doesn't make much sense. It just has too little to do with money.

    7. Re:How effective is this by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They can't. But they can stop legitimate businesses accepting bitcoin - just criminalise doing so, or apply regulations that impossible to comply with. That'll mean bitcoin remains the domain only of the underground economy, which renders it a lot less useful to criminals - what's the point of selling drugs for bitcoin if all you can buy are more drugs?

    8. Re:How effective is this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you sell drugs for BTC, then you can buy sex slaves or illegal weapons or other illegal stuff also. Alternately, you can find an exchange where BTC are legal and transactions need not be reported and change it there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re: How effective is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides drugs and fake dollars, web hosting and other such services seams to be the main illegal trade on that market

      Guns are there but there are very little interest in them.

      The sex slave trade are totally nonexistent online.

  2. Because it already is by ziggystarsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it already is. And killing people with guns and bombs is something you want to prevent instead of penalizing it after it happens. For this you need the ability to predict what will happen. Such ability is gained from observing the current state of the world (because you cannot observe the future), and drawing inferences from these observations. The more you observe, the more predictive power you gain. Large-scale organized activities (like organized crime or organized terrorism) usually require monetary support, thus observation of monetary transfers gives valuable information about the existence of organized structures, which in turn improves prediction about terroristic (or criminal) activity.

    1. Re: Because it already is by jovius · · Score: 2

      Specifically, tracking the inequality of
      the wealth distribution more carefully will provide plenty of information to prevent negative consequences of the system, and to undermine the power of individuals who use the system to advance their own interest.

      That is, if humanity is the center of the proposition.

    2. Re:Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Specious argument. This is merely an opportunity to advance the statist agenda.

    3. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They have always wanted to do X. They just wait for Y to come along and getting X done is easier.

      Let no tragedy go to waste.

    4. Re:Because it already is by gox · · Score: 2

      You are trying to control the *totality* if the body in order to extinguish the symptoms instead of going after the cause.

      Actually, one could argue that this tendency has caused the whole mess to begin with. Instead of going after wealth inequality and economic restrictions, they went on to create more inequality and more restrictions.

      The case at hand is even more advanced, since digital currencies have not been used by terrorists. They could help with economic restrictions though, which I'm guessing you wouldn't like at all.

    5. Re:Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorists use banks and SMS quite often and the intelligence community have been unable to use that data to prevent terrorism.

      Having the relevant data hasn't been able to prevent any terrorism, why would having more data prevent terrorism.

    6. Re:Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People that use terrorism to advance their agenda are implicitly complicit. It's not only a moral statement but they give the terrorists the focus that they wanted and therefore encourage more terrorism.

      And no it is not a "statist" agenda. It is about money and funding. "Cracking down" means "spending more money on". And spending more money on something means that someone gets paid.

    7. Re:Because it already is by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To be fair, they have attempted to pretend they thwarted other attacks.

      They also claim the data is used to attack organised clime. There is no evidence of success there either.

      In fact, there is considerable evidence that they have no idea how to use the data in any meaningful way. Perhaps they should hire the people targetting online adverts to manage the data. Oh, wait ...

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    8. Re: Because it already is by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those who employ violence most readily to terrorize is and achieve their goals care not one bit about income inequality. They are interested only in serving their leaders who either believe their cause will result in a new Earth under their rule, or only want took subjugate all others.

      Do you not know this yet? Listen to them.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re:Because it already is by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Troll

      You think a new currency will cure income inequality? That's almost funny.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Because it already is by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Because it already is.

      You don't say! And how is that working out for you?

      And killing people with guns and bombs is something you want to prevent instead of penalizing it after it happens.

      You can do that even better by turning countries into police states or fascist dictatorships. Is that what you're going to advocate next?

      The more you observe, the more predictive power you gain.

      No, sorry, in practice that's not true: more information only gains you "predictive power" if you have the resources to process it. In the case of anti-terrorism efforts, that means having the people to follow up on it, and short of turning all of Europe into a STASI operation, those resources are not there and won't be there. Even if you did that, it's still doubtful that you'd be able to prevent a lot of these attacks: these attacks seem to be not centrally organized, they are cheap, and the people engaging in them are not going to conform to banking or encryption laws any more than they are going to conform to gun control laws or laws against killing people.

      Even if it were true, it's the wrong question to ask. The question isn't "does it improve our ability to fight terrorism", but "does it improve our ability to fight terrorism enough to justify the massive intrusion into personal liberties", and it does not. Tragic as the death of 129 people is, it is a miniscule cause of death compared to others, and there is little justification on expending a lot of resources on preventing such deaths.

    11. Re: Because it already is by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "We made the mistake of letting in barbarians. Fix that mistake, deport the barbarians and we can keep our freedoms."

      Mod parent up. The object of terrorist activity is to change your target society into the rights-free, fun-free hellhole you came from. Large western cities are exactly the kind of places they hate the most. People at concerts, in hotels and clubs, crowding in to restaurants - terrorists want to arrange things so that nobody will do such things again.

      Instead of cowering behind our security agencies and letting terrorists impose Sharia on us by default, do as many Dresdens as it takes to convince them that we can and will kill them all faster than they can kill us.

      The teror scenario is unfolding in Mali right now as we speak. There is no amount of domestic spying and security in target countries that will fix this.

    12. Re:Because it already is by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clue: suicide bombers really don't give a damn how much money they have in the bank, or how big their mansion is.

      You (and others) harp on "wealth inequality" as if it 'solving' it were some sort of panacea. It's not. The source for this mess is far more ideological than economic. You could make everyone equally wealthy tomorrow morning at 9am sharp, and it wouldn't change a thing as far as these folks are concerned.

      Militant Islam doesn't really give a shit about wealth, except for the type and quantity of armaments that can be purchased with it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      "Take away freedoms of innocent people living here - in the name of freedom!"

      FTFY.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    14. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the most conflict ridden areas are the ones with resources, and the ones where the super powers have played their game. There has not been a natural nation forming process there since at least well in the 19th century.

    15. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did you get modded up? The object of terrorism is to instill fear and to dispirit the targets, it is NOT to remove rights from people. That's absurd. You probably believe the "try hate our freedoms" yarn. Islamic terrorists may dislike what other cultures do with their freedoms, but nobody hates anyone because they have freedoms. The real reason they dislike and are trying to fight against the west is because of the effect western cultures has had on them and their countries directly over time. You don't see them trying to blow up hindus or buddhists because of their different ideologies or the rights and freedoms their cultures have which differ from theirs. They don't feel that their cultures, values, and nations have been trodden over by them so they're not so eager to go to war with them.

      Large western cities are where these terrorists want to target the most because they are highly visible, not because they "hate" them more than other areas with ideologies they don't like.

      There are good arguments for and against use of force and various responses to this situation, but basing them on shallow, ignorant BS beliefs about the other side won't lead to any reasonable argument, just emotional ones. Which maybe is what both the terrorists and the politicians looking to use this as an excuse to see even more into everybody's private lives want.

      Politicians and governments taking these things and using them as an excuse for extending their power is reprehensible in any case and does, indeed, effect our society in a much more substantial way than actual terrorist attacks do in the long run.

    16. Re:Because it already is by crow_t_robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people that these militant madrasas draw in and use as suicide bombers are disaffected, powerless and exceptionally poor youth that have nothing else in this world to turn to or options for education, fulfilling employment and other avenues for growth.

    17. Re:Because it already is by gox · · Score: 2

      I said it could help with economic restrictions, which is a natural consequence of the argument made against it. I specifically refrained from talking about its effects on inequality, since it depends on which school of economics you favor.

    18. Re: Because it already is by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://hinduexistence.org/category/attack-upon-hindus-by-muslims/

      https://www.rt.com/news/buddhist-temples-torched-bangladesh-342/

      And yes, these types of attacks have led to wars where Hindus and Buddhist (monks!) are now attacking Muslims back.

      Muslims attack all non-Muslims and their goal, as your parent post stated is to turn every country on earth into a Muslim hellhole.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    19. Re: Because it already is by CaptainDork · · Score: 2, Informative

      How did you get modded up?

      Your other shit was TL;DR, but I can help with this part.

      When you have mod points, a heretofore not seen little box appears at the bottom of each comment.

      You click on the down arrow associated with mod options, select one, and click on it.

      You will be notified when you have mod points.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:Because it already is by gox · · Score: 1

      Militant Islam doesn't really give a shit about wealth

      Militant Islam, and any sort of extremism really, not only feed off of, but also depend on hopelessness. The entire structure exists because there are an enormous number of people who are forcefully deprived of all means to find meaning.

      Lack of reach, both socially and economically is the primary culprit. But you also have those who have suffered for decades without the feeling of any sort of power. So it is not really surprising to see them cling to an implausible but overwhelming promise of eternal well being.

    21. Re: Because it already is by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Yes, and the most conflict ridden areas are the ones with resources, or the ones where the super powers have played their game. There has not been a natural nation forming process there since at least well in the 19th century.

      FTFY.

      Many conflicted areas have nothing but tyrants.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are not Islamic State, or another global terrorist group. You might as well argue that Buddhist are violent, because of how they treat the Rohingya in Myanmar.

    23. Re:Because it already is by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes. And poverty (i.e., wealth inequality) is one part of this. Social inequality is perhaps even more important. I don't even have a clue as to how to address that, since the social inequality I'm talking about includes, e.g., high school kids excluded from all the social cliques.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the 72 virgins they get have nothing to do with it. They're terrorists because they're Muslim... it's their religion, dummy.

    25. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Standard power rhetorics. Ridicule when you know that you have no arguments.

      It's simple macroeconomics. To have large artificial income inequality you must monopolize money and share it as you see fit.

      With an alternative to your monopoly you can no longer maintain a system where your friends get all the money.

      Fortunately Americans gave so much money to the military industrial complex that they have a true division of power between them and their central bank. Europeans have no such thing so we have greater income inequality.

    26. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. There is a strong correlation between crop failure in the middle east and the rise in violence. Has happened many times in history. It's not about money but about real world resources like food. Doesn't matter if you have piles of gold when there are no food.

      Money often is a functional solution but people will not sell their food if it means they will be starving. When that happens your money is worthless.

    27. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That they don't care about income inequality is the one redeeming feature in this description. The rest of the description fits governments perfectly.

    28. Re: Because it already is by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Buddhists are not all peace-loving types who will never harm another under no circumstances. We're not a homogeneous group with the same universal beliefs. I am a Buddhist. I often carry a firearm. (I'd hate to use it but I will. It's frequently unloaded, actually. It's trivially easy to load.) We're not all vegetarians who will run out and set ourselves on fire if we're being oppressed. It generally takes a bit to get us pissed off (that's pretty universal, we're a pragmatic lot) but we can and will retaliate. See, for example, the various martial arts forms that have come from monasteries. Those arts were not perfected to amuse tourists and make bad B movies.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re: Because it already is by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your support.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    30. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who employ violence the most to achieve their goals are very much concerned with income inequality. Specifically they are interested in promoting and preserving it as much as possible to the benefit of the rich and well connected.

      No, I'm not defending or excusing terrorists. Not one bit. Despite what the media would like to have you believe, both sides in a disagreement can be wrong

    31. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, a other muslim apologist getting moded up by the ignorant 'progressive' crowd. How typical.. "The religion is not the problem!", "Islam mean peace and love", "Politician and terrorist are abusing the pure faith of peaceful worshipper", "We need more Islam to counter islamist terrorist!".

      I use to believe that crap, but not any more. The longer we tolerate Islam the less peoples will believe it and eventually the West will wake up. It will end horribly because of peoples like you that let the crisis grow that big. We could have avert the inevitable by stopping importing more Muslim immigrant and deporting the bigot we have already. This would have preserve peace. Muslim apologist, like you, that object to simple solution that preserve life and respect individuals are making the upcoming genocide inevitable. Fuck you.

      This is your future. If you support that future just say so; I am sure there will be room for you in the boat deporting all these sick fuck to Saudi Arabia.

    32. Re: Because it already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do Buddhist have a holy book that is the verbatim word of the only true God which advocate the murder of polytheist, infidel and atheist? Do thye all get mad if you criticise this book for being intolerant and promoting hatred?

      Yeah that what I thought. Buddhism are the the problem, Islam is. Stop being a Muslim apologist.

    33. Re: Because it already is by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIUC, crop failures are more closely associated with rebellions against the local government than terrorism. I don't feel great certainty about this, though, and there is certainly some overlap.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:Because it already is by ziggystarsky · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read my comment, you will notice that it does not contain any appraisal. Certainly, there are intricate trade-offs involved in coming up with a good policy.

      What I wanted to state is the following: Exercising the existing laws that prohibit killing and bombing people is of no use if you want to prevent terrorism. Terrorists do not care about the punishment when they blow themselves up in the end anyway. Thus you need prevention, and prevention only works when you have information.

    35. Re:Because it already is by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If you carefully read my comment, you will notice that it does not contain any appraisal.

      Of course it does: "And killing people with guns and bombs is something you want to prevent instead of penalizing it after it happens." That's not just a statement of existing policy, it's a preference.

      Thus you need prevention, and prevention only works when you have information.

      Of course you need some information for prevention; that is a trivial observation. What you actually said is:

      The more you observe, the more predictive power you gain. Large-scale organized activities (like organized crime or organized terrorism) usually require monetary support, thus observation of monetary transfers gives valuable information about the existence of organized structures, which in turn improves prediction about terroristic (or criminal) activity.

      That is, you made a specific assertion about what information (transfer of money) and policy is needed for homicide and terrorism prevent, and it is wrong on two accounts. First, increasing the amount of information beyond a certain point overwhelms police and anti-terrorism efforts. Second, the kind of terrorism we have experienced does not require large amounts of money.

      Terrorists do not care about the punishment when they blow themselves up in the end anyway

      I might point out another inconsistency in your argument, namely that in your argument you talk about "organized crime or organized terrorism", and people engaging in organized crime most certainly do care about punishment, because they are in it for the money. What that shows is that you really aren't even trying to make a consistent argument about terrorism prevention; instead, you already have decided, perhaps subconsciously, that you want a STASI-like police force to make you feel safe, and then you try to come up with rationalizations for it.

      Certainly, there are intricate trade-offs involved in coming up with a good policy.

      Those are meaningless weasel words. You turned a specific (and incorrect) argument about the need for massive surveillance of financial transactions for the prevention of terrorism into "well, we need to make intricate tradeoffs". Bullshit.

      In addition, your statement also suggests a fundamentally incorrect underlying assumption, namely that we need a "policy" at all to deal with either homicide or terrorism and suggests that that policy needs to be coercive. We could deal with preventing both homicides and terrorism through private means, for example institutions similar to credit reporting agencies, mortgage insurance, self-defense, and private security companies. In addition, people could give up financial information voluntarily to another private party of their choice, instead of being coerced to give it up to the government, in return for services.

  3. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just how many terrorists are using this again? Oh, right, that doesn't actually matter...

    1. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the contrary...terrorists use bitcoin.. anonymous credit cards..,,

      ... forks... headphones... desks.... homes.... and everything non-terrorists do.

      I continue to be amazed how after every terrorists attack people are inch by inch people give away more of their rights, which is not the same thing as fighting terrorism. It seems to be a power grab by politicians under the pretext of fighting terrorism. What's really sad is that Republicans and Democrat leadership, that both claim to be defenders of freedoms, are doing it.

      Benjamin Franklin — 'Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.'

  4. Um... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, and what about cash?

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry, cash will soon be phased out. For your convenience, of course

    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because handing someone cash while under surveillance is something that provides useful intelligence information.

    3. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, and what about cash?

      Cash? What, who still uses cash? Yes, cash is the dominant payment method for consumers in the UK (48% cash vs 24% debit cards vs 6% credit cards - May 2015 article), France, Germany, and Spain. Some news articles state it is the most common payment method in Europe, which is why you have seen over the last year or so pushes for more point card programs as an attend to track buying. Customers are not tracked as easily as they are in the states.

      This indirectly reminds me of the other attack on privacy with those using the Paris attack as an excuse to remove encryption, despite the culprits using normal encrypted text messages.

    4. Re:Um... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Requires physical transfers, transfers through a banking system (which the government has a lot of control over), or a trusted third party (who can be arrested if they're funding terrorists). All of these have their weaknesses.

    5. Re:Um... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      There's been a move for some time to put RFIDs with UUIDs on them in all EU banknotes.

    6. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is coming.

      They are just working the "problem" methodically, taking out all the obvious cash alternatives first.

    7. Re:Um... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      put RFIDs with UUIDs on them in all EU banknotes.

      Why? They have machine readable serial numbers already.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    8. Re:Um... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Because someone can point a very portable RFID reader at a pile of tagged notes and get all the serial numbers, number of notes of each type and total value of the notes in a few seconds vs. having to put them into fairly neat bundles and then drop them into a hopper of a fairly bulky machine that then runs them through a scanner one at a time, albeit at high speed, to read the serial numbers. It would also be very easy to have RFID readers in cash registers and other places that could automatically provide notification if someone was trying to use a known stolen note to pay for something, not to mention feeding more data into the panopticon of course...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    9. Re:Um... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      ...or you could just deprecate physical currency entirely which would not only save the government a lot of money, it would make it pretty hard for someone to rob you without leaving a fairly obvious trail.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    10. Re:Um... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmm...

      So, could I use that same device (or a pirate copy) to figure out what's in a man's wallet? That would make it much easier to decide who to mug (do they still use that word?)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Um... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Unless the wallet was shielded (you can already get such things because of a similar scenario with contactless credit/debit cards), then absolutely. There are certainly reasons why this could be a good idea, but also lots of opportunities for it to be abused unless suitable precautions are taken - nothing new there, really.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    12. Re:Um... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Are those numbers by currency unit or by transaction? I probably do about as many transactions in cash as by card (though contactless is reducing that quickly), but they're all very low value. I'll easily spend more in one card transaction than I will in a couple of weeks of cash transactions (I'm in the UK).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Um... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Because someone can point a very portable RFID reader at a pile of tagged notes and get all the serial numbers, number of notes of each type and total value of the notes in a few second

      Not without raising the price of the bills quite a lot. Reading a few distinct RFID tags in a small box is one task, reading 100 distinct RFID's out of a stacked box of paper is still well beyond the limit of any RFID technology. And they can be magnetically obliterated trivially. (nd get all the serial numbers, number of notes of each type and total value of the notes in a few second)

      Putting an RFID reader where a money sorter passes individual bills might be effective in reading the bills casually, but RFID tags are still fragile. They don't take bending or folding well, and a great deal of money gets folded a great deal in normal handling. RFID tags also remain expensive: Adding $0.25 to the cost of making each bill would upset the US or EU mints quite a lot.

    14. Re:Um... by goarilla · · Score: 2

      Don't we need a (small) black/grey economy ? Think about all the corner cases for which you might not want to leave a trail behind:
      - buying nuts from that odd lady on the farmer's market with the exotic nut tree
      - giving money as a present to your daughter, son
      - kid's paperoutes.
      - buying sextoys to spice up the relationship.
      - buying generic medicines accross borders because prices are actually affordable there.
      - donating to the homeless and less privileged.

      Not all things that are illegal should be.

    15. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear in some corners of Europe it's already happened.

      Someone was telling me after going on a student exchange program that they were unable to buy a back of chewing cum cash.

    16. Re: Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up, sheeple!

    17. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe still has the €500 note. Maybe they should get rid of everything about a €2 coin to thwart terrorist payments? Then Omar won't be cummin.

    18. Re: Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your autocorrect changes "gum" to "cum"? Lol. I cunt understand ho that would happen?

    19. Re:Um... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, though, it is convenient. Much more so than cash. I don't want to have to regularly go and get a bunch of new physical items to pay people with.

    20. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the fact that they can skim some money off of both the consumer and the business while at it.

    21. Re:Um... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      - buying nuts from that odd lady on the farmer's market with the exotic nut tree
      She might be in need of a card reader.

      - giving money as a present to your daughter, son
      Trivial, already done with reloadable cards

      - kid's paperoutes.
      Um, pay in advance like reasonable people do.

      - buying sextoys to spice up the relationship.
      The shop will be listed on your statement 'dry cleaning'. Or something innocuous, maybe a charity.

      - buying generic medicines accross borders because prices are actually affordable there.
      You're doing this with cash now?

      - donating to the homeless and less privileged.
      Putting cash in their cup is not necessarily the best way to help them, but a Square account would change their lives. Or donating to an organized charity. Or giving them a gift card for food. You know, being intentional.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re:Um... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Which would attract the attention of other better organized thieves with three-letter names.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    23. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently spent a week in Japan. Not once did I use my credit card. Everything was cash. And, I saw the same thing from the locals.

    24. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She will never learn how to use the card reader.

      Reloadable cards have fees, I don't want some bank skimming money from my kids allowance.

      You ever think about tipping the kid?

      It will still show up in the database as adult toys

      What would you do it with?

      How does a square account help someone with no access to the internet.

      You sir are an idiot.

    25. Re:Um... by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      I suspect the politicians and bankers dream about doing that but realise that if they did it all at once they would piss off the general public too much.

      So instead they play the long game. They do not issue larger banknotes to keep up with inflation (and in the case of the US they actually stopped issuing existing denominations). They put in place reporting requirements for large cash transactions which again they don't update to keep up with inflation.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    26. Re:Um... by goarilla · · Score: 1

      - buying nuts from that odd lady on the farmer's market with the exotic nut tree She might be in need of a card reader.

      And a "business bank account" and a computer and ...

      Putting cash in their cup is not necessarily the best way to help them, but a Square account would change their lives. Or donating to an organized charity. Or giving them a gift card for food. You know, being intentional.

      I'm not sure if dictating what they should do is more helpful.
      And as someone who has experienced first hand what banks do when a family defaults on their debts, I can't ever trust them.
      So I do want cash available, always !

    27. Re:Um... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, though, it is convenient. Much more so than cash. I don't want to have to regularly go and get a bunch of new physical items to pay people with.

      Wow...that sounds a bit lazy.

      It takes me all of about 5 -10 min out of my way max to hit the ATM when I need more cash. I tend to take out a bit over $200 every 5 days or so....it takes no time at all.

      I love cash, it keeps me honest when I see how much I'm physically spending....rather than with abstraction of money with CC's or the like.

      Just like in the casino...the chips abstract you from how much you are really wagering and losing....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:Um... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Um, and what about cash?

      You beat me to it - I was about to ask the same. Since 9/11, a new word got known by the US authorities - 'havala' - meaning cash only transactions of huge amounts. It is common in India when black money needs to be spread around, but it is a simple and favorite way for Jihadis to operate. They are more likely to use this rather than Bitcoin, Paypal or anything else.

    29. Re:Um... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But if they are already under surveillance, using bitcoin or cash won't make much of a difference. What they are buying will/won't be known regardless of the payment system they use.

      If anything, it's a lot easier to split the cash and get what they want. It's only the big ticket items where paying in cash would trigger alarms (like buying a safehouse) where that would be high risk

    30. Re:Um... by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cash is already phased out.

      Take $12,000 out of your bank. Oh, that's right. You can't. They don't have that much. You have to call ahead.

      Okay, you have your $12,000. Now drive through Tennessee with it. What's that? You got pulled over for "drugs" and all the cash was seized?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    31. Re:Um... by Arnold+Reinhold · · Score: 2

      Cash is already phased out. Take $12,000 out of your bank. Oh, that's right. You can't. They don't have that much. You have to call ahead. ...

      That may be true for law abiding citizens, but consider the drug trade. The people who grow opium in Afgahanistan or refine heroin in Columbia want to get paid from the cash sales to users in the U.S. and Europe. That mean a net outflow of funds from industrialized nations to third world countries to pay for the drugs. All international terrorists have to do is pay the suppliers in Afghanistan, Columbia etc. and have their agents collect cash from dealer networks inside the U.S. and Europe, maybe offering a discount relative to other ways of getting cash out. The cash itself does not have to move far at all, certainly not across borders. Given the huge scale of international drug trafficking, only a tiny diversion of its cash flow is required to keep local terrorist cells comfortably in business.

    32. Re: Um... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      She will never learn how to use the card reader.
      You are no longer her customer, or she will learn. Farmers markets around here are rife with internet and Square users.

      Reloadable cards have fees, I don't want some bank skimming money from my kids allowance.
      I can find you a reloadable without fees.

      You ever think about tipping the kid?
      If the system doesn't allow what, the system is deficient. PS, my type as a paper carrier barely covered my bad debts.

      It will still show up in the database as adult toys
      What database? The ones I deal with at my work don't show that data.

      What would you do it with?
      My mom does it with her debit card.

      How does a square account help someone with no access to the internet.
      Again, they are not in the market for non cash, and that's a choice today. Cost benefit analysis.

      You sir are an idiot.

      You, sir, are locked in your argument.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    33. Re:Um... by SScorpio · · Score: 2

      Japan was a cash based society, but that's currently changing.

      Things are switching over to payments via a cell phone, if you went to Japan in the past few years I'd be extremely shocked that you didn't see people paying via mobile rather than cash.

    34. Re:Um... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Ummm ... so that when you move around with money they can record it even if they don't get to see it?

      Basically cash ceases to be anonymous.

      Walk into an airport ... OK, Jane Doe is carrying the following bills and didn't declare them. Or later on when those bills end up in the pocket of a known drug dealer, you get arrested.

      The RFID allows them to know how much money and which specific bills you have without giving you a vote in the process.

      It's every surveillance supporter's wet dream, because it can be automated, cross referenced, and be done without you knowing about it.

      Why? Good god ... have you not been paying attention for the last 15 or 20 years?

      You need to get your paranoia up to a healthy level for the world you live in. Because stuff which used to be fiction is now commonplace. And pretty much every government on the planet wants to do this stuff now.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    35. Re:Um... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      - donating to the homeless and less privileged.
      Putting cash in their cup is not necessarily the best way to help them, but a Square account would change their lives. Or donating to an organized charity. Or giving them a gift card for food. You know, being intentional.

      So the less control they have, the better off they'll be? Do you, by any chance, work in Brussels?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    36. Re:Um... by idji · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the US doesn't have notes larger than 100$. It is certainly not for your convenience.

    37. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the last time I was in Burma, their highest denomination was worth about $0.80 USD. Vehicle purchases were made with literal sacks of money.

    38. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure you mean ColOmbia, not ColUmbia. Or did you mean the shitty college has something to do with nation-states and drugs?

    39. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because someone can point a very portable RFID reader at a pile of tagged notes and get all the serial numbers, number of notes of each type and total value of the notes in a few second

      Not without raising the price of the bills quite a lot. Reading a few distinct RFID tags in a small box is one task, reading 100 distinct RFID's out of a stacked box of paper is still well beyond the limit of any RFID technology. And they can be magnetically obliterated trivially. (nd get all the serial numbers, number of notes of each type and total value of the notes in a few second)

      Putting an RFID reader where a money sorter passes individual bills might be effective in reading the bills casually, but RFID tags are still fragile. They don't take bending or folding well, and a great deal of money gets folded a great deal in normal handling. RFID tags also remain expensive: Adding $0.25 to the cost of making each bill would upset the US or EU mints quite a lot.

      Not sure about Euro Notes, but US bills already have a small "anti-counterfeit" strip in them. This is made of a metallic alloy, and if you get enough of them together you'll set off a metal detector. They also show up very clearly on an x-ray, even though the rest of the note doesn't.
      The government isn't concerned about tracking every last bill, they mostly just want to be able to more easily spot large groups of notes. And it has less to do with countering theft or fraud, and more about wanting to make sure you aren't shipping money in/out of a country without paying the proper taxes on it.

      As for the original "what about cash" question... it's physical and needs to be exchanged physically.

    40. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, and what about cash?

      Cash can be seized. Bank accounts can be frozen. To seize bitcoin you need to get the wallet, and then transfer it to another wallet which you can be sure isn't backed-up anywhere else. It's pretty trivial to destroy (or encrypt) a wallet so that the authorities can't easily or quickly seize the funds, and if you have an accomplice somewhere with a copy, they can move the funds out before Law Enforcement can lock down the money.

      Also, since cash is physical it's harder to transfer without some sort of in-person meeting.

    41. Re:Um... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm holding out for an RFID chip to be embedded in the forehead or right hand that replaces all other methods to transfer money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re: Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, typical poorophobia to believe that because they haven't been given enough money they shouldn't be trusted with any. Claiming bullshit like they would only waste it on drugs, like rich people do.

    43. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody gives a fuck how you spell it. Go fuck yourself if you're too fucking stupid to know what the fuck he means, loser.

    44. Re: Um... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Find me a prepaid card without fees, then. I want it to avoid exposing my bank account to dubious gas-machine readers that might have been tampered with when I need gas to get home or I don't, and storing one with $50 loaded on it in the glove box does me no good if six months later the fees have reduced my balance to $5.

    45. Re: Um... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Try Bluebird

      Hopefully the mobile site didn't mung this.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    46. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just as easily lose track of spending money with cash as I can by card, the difference being is that with card I check my statement and see where I spent my money.

    47. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, THOSE people are protected because pretty much all drug regions of the world are controlled by CIA. Goes back at least to the Vietnam War. Current US troops protect the opium fields for CIA distribution.

      Remember Iran-Contra? Remember Gary Webb? All were eventually shown to be TRUE conspiracy theories: the CIA really did control the cocaine and crack business. They really did bring it in on CIA planes that could bypass customs and DEA. They really did target poor black neighborhoods.

    48. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fingerprints will be required for these questionable types of transactions.

  5. and so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... the terrorists win again.

  6. Whatever reason they claim, by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not because bitcoin payments are anonymous or enable terrorists. Because they're not and they don't.

    1. Re:Whatever reason they claim, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin payments are not part of the international banking system.

      The international banking system cannot exist and fleece off its cut if people move to use other methods for payments.

      So Bitcoin must die in a fire. Banksters cannot allow it to exist, at least as conveniently usable currency "for the common man".

    2. Re:Whatever reason they claim, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxation. Not a single transaction will ccur within the EU that's not audited via database and subsequently validated as taxed.

      Government is the supreme thief!

    3. Re:Whatever reason they claim, by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      This is my theory as well.

      It really seems like every tragedy is now just a political tool like any other to push a particular agenda.

      "We have been trying to find a way to get rid of this thing and this tragedy provides perfect political cover..."

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  7. If they can move guns around without being noticed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they can move cash around too.

  8. Meanwhile, on the black market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get a great 60% deal on a few million gallons of ISIS petrol... (sorry, cash or bank transfer only).

  9. No way these attacks are not a way to remove by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    rights and implement more population control laws. Every time this happens we need to lose some rights and freedoms.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  10. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the way the criminals pay each other. To you bleeding heart liberals, it's that it hides the process, and has nothing to do with the 'coin'.

  11. An excuse by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective, and I can understand bitcoin as it can move large amounts of money, however I don't get pre-paid cards? Do they want traceability when people use these items when using a VPN?

    It's money laundering. The terrorism is in part an excuse, but realistically a massive portion of the criminal economy runs on cash. If you have a way to turn cash into transmittable currency, you have easy money laundering and untraceable transactions.

    We appreciate our privacy, but there are *billions* of dollars of illegal transactions because cash exists and is largely untraced. Any sane government would want to crack down on cash transactions up to the point where it starts hurting their own economy in a serious way.

    1. Re: An excuse by easyTree · · Score: 2

      Governent makes all untaxable activity illegal.

    2. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's money laundering. The terrorism is in part an excuse, but realistically a massive portion of the criminal economy runs on cash. If you have a way to turn cash into transmittable currency, you have easy money laundering and untraceable transactions.

      We appreciate our privacy, but there are *billions* of dollars of illegal transactions because cash exists and is largely untraced. Any sane government would want to crack down on cash transactions up to the point where it starts hurting their own economy in a serious way.

      If you think that large scale money laundering happens via cash you are crazy. Bank notes are just too big. Think more about huge oil transactions and international transfers. This is about control and power. Bitcoin isn't a good way to do anonymous transfers because all transactions are published and mixing anonymisers are ineffective but it is a good way to avoid currency conversion fees. The answer to a crackdown on Bitcoin is to move to more anonymous altcoins which, unfortunately, might actually be useful for money laundering.

    3. Re: An excuse by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      "Government makes all untaxable activity illegal."

      At the request of the central banks. The IRS and CRA are little more than collection agencies for the banksters.

      Money As Debt

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    4. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it's not. Money laundering is something completely different. If you want to turn cash into transmittable currency bitcoin is a terrible ida, which is why most criminals use other methods, like art auctions where you can make clean bank transactions and pay taxes which IS money laundering.

      So? Why would every sane government do that? It looks completely insane. There are no sane argument presented that from any perspective makes cracking this sane. The argument used is that unregulated money can create to much unemployment and therefore hurt the rich, which has no basis in reality and therefore still not sane. But that's what they write in their school textbooks and public documents, even if it was debunked decades ago.

      Reports from the US and the EU has shown a massive increase in employment. Unregulated trade is stated as the main reason for this and the financial elite are panicking over this.

    5. Re: An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's why banks are illegal.

    6. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because cash exists and is largely untraced

      Why do you think cash is untraced? You know that all bills have unique serial numbers, right? Do you think ATMs and banks are unaware of this feature? Do you think they somehow fail to connect those numbers with your ID and forward the information to the NSA? You know that the first thing retailers do every night is return all the money they collect to the bank, right? So, pretty-much, the only transactions that cash makes anonymous are the shady ones that the government should be tracking. Don't delude yourself--cash is far from anonymous.

    7. Re:An excuse by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The answer to a crackdown on Bitcoin is to move to more anonymous altcoins which, unfortunately, might actually be useful for money laundering.

      But which altcoins have sufficient transactions volumes to equal Bitcoin without being suspicious and with amounts big enough to be useful to the terrorists? I can't imagine them trading one million U.S. dollars worth of Earthcoins, somebody's going to notice...

    8. Re:An excuse by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      because cash exists and is largely untraced

      Why do you think cash is untraced? You know that all bills have unique serial numbers, right? Do you think ATMs and banks are unaware of this feature? Do you think they somehow fail to connect those numbers with your ID and forward the information to the NSA? You know that the first thing retailers do every night is return all the money they collect to the bank, right? So, pretty-much, the only transactions that cash makes anonymous are the shady ones that the government should be tracking. Don't delude yourself--cash is far from anonymous.

      It's not fully anonymous, but I don't believe the serial numbers are all being tracked yet. If they were the government would be much better at a lot of things like making people actually pay spousal support and charging taxes on the billions in cash-only jobs that people take to avoid paying spousal support, for example.

    9. Re: An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art and other objects of value are used for payment in most volume black market trade. You arrange an auction and sell something at a loss and the buyer can sell at a taxable profit. Payment received. Very hard to detect or prove even if it's fully on record.

    10. Re: An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You watch way too many movies.

    11. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is the worst possible way to launder money. The only reason terrorists would look at bitcoin is for the unmediated nature of transfers, but they have networks that already have this feature without the paper trail. I'm not buying it.

  12. How Would That Help? by mentil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These include electronic/anonymous payments, virtual currencies and the transfers of gold and precious metals by pre-paid cards.

    Two problems here. Electronic payments can transfer from anything to anything else, meaning two accounts both external to the EU; the EU's rules would never touch that transaction. The payment can then be introduced into the EU if someone wanted to (and honestly it would never need to). It's the old trick of "abstract until it's legal."

    Second is that there's no point in only restricting cards that represent 'precious metals', since it represents a denomination that's indirectly backed by the metal. A card could just as conveniently represent the same value in base metals, or blue chip stocks, or frozen concentrated orange juice. Limiting prepaid card value to 500Euro or something should suffice.

    That said I don't see how any of that would've prevented the Paris attacks or allowed the accomplices to be found out after the fact. Wallet cash could've covered transportation, food and lodging; and the guns (probably the largest expense) were smuggled into the country anyhow. The total cost was probably less than 50k Euros, almost all of which was probably paid in cash to criminals who weren't going to try and trace their payment even if it were traceable (demanding cash because they don't want to be traced themselves). I don't know the details of the case though. All I see is politicians trying to push through a EU PATRIOT ACT.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:How Would That Help? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      OK, so how about offering some good, constructive and effective ideas to deal with the problem? As far as I can see, with the problems we are facing: terrorism, unsustainable growth, climate change etc - we don't have the option of not making any sacrifices at all. All we have is a choice of which sacrifices, and the time may run out on that as well. ISIS, Boko Haram and other vermin will only multiply, unless we actively stop them, and if we don't find a better way, we will end up with WWIII in some form, no doubt about that. So let's hear your realistic suggestions.

      Compaining, ranting and raving are all part of a good debate, I suppose, but at some point, if it doesn't turn into constructive plans, it becomes nothing but whining. I feel we have passed that point some time ago.

    2. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the existing economic system allows anonymous payments to be reintroduced into the system, then that's the key issue, not what form of anonymous payment is used. I don't think anonymous transfers of money should be illegal, however.
      'Terror funding' is a red herring, a dozen men willing to die can go on knifing sprees for a similar effect, at a cost approaching $0. If they were buying surplus B-52s and dropping black-market MOABs on crowds of people then terror funding might be an issue, but every major terror attack in a western country since 9/11 so far has been very cheap stuff that a single middle-class individual could finance.
      ISIS will probably implode, the mass excommunication of Muslims is going to bite them in the ass eventually. And everyone nearby is fighting them since they basically declared war on everyone. Boko Haram is just reactionaries trying to keep women ignorant to maintain the traditional patriarchy, the official members of the group are a miniscule portion of the culture which share their views, so 'fighting them' will look alot like 'killing all the men'.

    3. Re:How Would That Help? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      OK, so how about offering some good, constructive and effective ideas to deal with the problem? As far as I can see, with the problems we are facing: terrorism, unsustainable growth, climate change etc - we don't have the option of not making any sacrifices at all.

      So, why should I offer ideas to deal with someone else's problems thousands of miles away?

      I should also note that I disagree with your list of insurmountable problems.

      That said...

      As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...

      Climate change is easy to deal with - issue licenses (and money, if needed), to build a nuclear power plant to replace every coal plant on the planet. Then issue more licenses (and money) as needed to allow replacement of gasoline burning automobiles with Teslas for everyone.

      Unsustainable growth? How about just raising everyone's standard of living to match the EU/USA? Both of those places are negative population growth absent immigration. And all the evidence shows that the best way to slow population growth is to make people prosperous enough that they don't need to crank out babies to make ends meet.

      Easy to do? Not really. It'll take a century to sort out the prosperity thing, more or less. The Nukes are a 20 year solution, but could be started tomorrow if we were willing to pay the price (seems to me that half the DoD's budget would cover the costs for the Western Hemisphere, but the EU would have to come up with the money for the Eastern Hemisphere). The guns? Change a few laws, and deal....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Start up the concentration camps, and start making muslim concentrate.

    5. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...

      The homicide rate with guns in the USA shows the difficulty. The idea that an "armed society is a politie society" was explored by Robert Heinlein in a number of his stories. In real life, the frequency of domestic violence and of violent neighborhood brawls remains so high that the deaths from household violence far outnumber those which might be saved by making personal firearms widely available.

      Your other suggestions have similar difficulties. "Raising everyone's standard of living" requires steps, like educating women and reducing the gross disparities between ruling elites and grinding poverty, and birth control to prevent simply creating more starving poor, with profound social and religious consequences that are often resisted by those currently in power.

    6. Re:How Would That Help? by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...

      If what you fear is getting shot, by a terrorist or anyone else, then it's worth pointing out that that's much much less likely in a society where no one has weapons except the bad guys (and the state, though I suspect many don't make that distinction).

      If what you fear is a cataclysmic situation where it makes sense for everyone to be armed at very short notice, then the ongoing cost of gun ownership may be acceptable.

    7. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...

      The homicide rate with guns in the USA shows the difficulty. The idea that an "armed society is a politie society" was explored by Robert Heinlein in a number of his stories. In real life, the frequency of domestic violence and of violent neighborhood brawls remains so high that the deaths from household violence far outnumber those which might be saved by making personal firearms widely available.

      Your other suggestions have similar difficulties. "Raising everyone's standard of living" requires steps, like educating women and reducing the gross disparities between ruling elites and grinding poverty, and birth control to prevent simply creating more starving poor, with profound social and religious consequences that are often resisted by those currently in power.

      Most of the "homocide rate" as you call it, is black on black violence.

      Nobody cares about that, especial blacks. Try to stop it, and they get all pissed off at the police, refuse to say what they witnessed, etc. They use it for an opportunity for a go-fund-me campaign instead.

      The only time there's any outrage with "gun violence" as you call it (btw, there is a lot less of it than there was even a few years ago) is when it's politically expedient for the press to work for some agenda for some politician. Otherwise, silence. I bet you already forgot about that black guy that shot the reporter on live TV because he was a) insane and b) a racist loon.

      Everybody expects blacks to be violent, including YOU. I assert, that you are a racist as a result. You stand idly by while one race wipes itself out.

    8. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two problems here.

      These are "problems" only from the point of view of anti-terrorism efforts, but these laws are useless against terrorism anyway. What these laws are for are mostly to extend the power of banks (by eliminating cheap competition) and police (by letting them go on fishing expeditions through your data).

      The total cost was probably less than 50k Euros, almost all of which was probably paid in cash to criminals

      Precisely. And they weren't going to comply with reporting requirements either.

    9. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      OK, so how about offering some good, constructive and effective ideas to deal with the problem? As far as I can see, with the problems we are facing: terrorism, unsustainable growth, climate change etc

      You presume incorrectly that there is "a problem". Terrorism is a negligible cause of death. In fact, violent death as a whole keeps decreasing.

      - we don't have the option of not making any sacrifices at all

      Who is this "we" you are speaking of? If you want to make sacrifices in order to deal with your fear of "terrorism, unsustainable growth, climate change", make them. It's simple. You can address these "problems" (such as they are) simply and effectively by moving and changing how you live.

      What you are actually saying is that you want other people to make sacrifices in order to subsidize your current, preferred lifestyle, which somehow involves an irrational fear of a bunch of things.

    10. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      The homicide rate with guns in the USA shows the difficulty. The idea that an "armed society is a politie society" was explored by Robert Heinlein in a number of his stories. In real life, the frequency of domestic violence and of violent neighborhood brawls remains so high that the deaths from household violence far outnumber those which might be saved by making personal firearms widely available.

      There is a wide range of household gun ownership among US states (from 10% to 60%) and no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Other statistics show similar results. The fact is that homicide rate in a large population simply doesn't have anything to do with rate of gun ownership, let alone rate of legal gun ownership. Furthermore, gun control has never been shown to be an effective measure of reducing homicide rates.

      For some reason, people like you are obsessed with a policy objective ("outlaw guns") and then fabricate reasons to support it. You need to reflect on why that is.

    11. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Islamic terrorism kicking us in the nuts and our own governments' response is to slap us in the face, I expect we'll see social upheavals and radical societal reforms before any sort of WW3 scenario.

      As for sacrifice, how about we sacrifice the foolish idea that life can be made into completely safe proposition. It never has been and it never will be. This goal of total safety is leading us to create a hell on earth that is just as miserable as any caliphate.

    12. Re:How Would That Help? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If what you fear is getting shot, by a terrorist or anyone else, then it's worth pointing out that that's much much less likely in a society where no one has weapons except the bad guys (and the state, though I suspect many don't make that distinction).

      If what you fear is a cataclysmic situation where it makes sense for everyone to be armed at very short notice, then the ongoing cost of gun ownership may be acceptable.

      Please note that France has strict gun control laws and that from the news over the past couple of weeks hundreds of weapons(guns?) were confiscated by police while investigating the Paris attacks. Hmmm, seems like France being a victim multiple times over kind of makes the opposite point.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The homicide rate with guns in the USA shows the difficulty. The idea that an "armed society is a politie society" was explored by Robert Heinlein in a number of his stories. In real life, the frequency of domestic violence and of violent neighborhood brawls remains so high

      In USA, but not in Switzerland.

      There are many rigged graphs floating around Facebook from clickbait site vox.com that include gun suicides in a graph they try to make you think is homicides. Suicides are so numerous they drown out the signal of actual gun "violence" by a huge margin. The goal of the deception is to convince people gun access should be limited because "why don't you value life," or something. If you remove cops, accidents, and suicides, the actual homicide that remains after undoing the mislabelling shows, "USA is extremely violent compared to all countries except Mexico." Passing out guns to everyone in any other country doesn't seem to increase homicide much. You then have to go back and make a different argument, that discouraging suicide by limiting gun availability (a) is moral (Japan would disagree. To some, blocking suicide is disgusting, or akin to torture.), (b) is balanced against democratic-preservation value of 2nd amendment, Heinlein's speculation, and whatever other arguments "gun nuts" make, which is going to be pretty hard because the arguments are not terrible even without the deception on the other side.

    14. Re:How Would That Help? by PPH · · Score: 1

      OK, so how about offering some good, constructive and effective ideas to deal with the problem?

      I wonder how many people would have been killed in the Bataclan theatre if 10% or even 5% of the audience were (legally) carrying concealed weapons?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:How Would That Help? by phayes · · Score: 1

      As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...

      One of the immediate changes the French Government has made was to change the law on off-duty police to be allowed to carry their weapons. Up to now, any off duty cop found with his pistol would have been thrown off the force & faced criminal charges. The cop shot outside a café & the police couple shot in the Bataclan pushed Flamby (our name for our ineffectual president) into changing this.

      Concealed carry by normal people? I doubt that could ever happen here absent another revolution.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    16. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have to do SOMETHING even if it's the wrong thing!"

    17. Re:How Would That Help? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      An armed society is not a polite society. It's a society in which the people who are very good with the standard weapons can freely act like assholes, and everybody else has to be polite to the point of obsequiousness. Having guns around also makes suicide easy and effective, and we generally want to avoid it being easy to do impulsively.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:How Would That Help? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people would have been accidentally shot, shot because they "looked like a terr'ist", or used a gun to commit suicide there would be if 10% of the population carried guns normally.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:How Would That Help? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people would have been accidentally shot, shot because they "looked like a terr'ist",

      Probably less than 89. The most accidental shots would be one CW carrier shooting another because he/she was carrying a gun. And since that's a risk people choose to take, not as bad as shooting innocent bystanders.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      http://ajph.aphapublications.o..., an American Journal of Public Health study, which finds a very direct correlation, and stacks of similar studies in their references.. The state by state results can be obscured by many factors, such as the age or income of the state populations, so it can be difficult to ensure that homicide rates can be strongly linked to homicide. But they seem to have done their homework. And the homicide rates in Europe and other gun controlled parts of the world are notably lower than the US, with reasonably good correlation with levels of gun control.

      Part of the key to understanding the gun control claims and "refutations" is to watch the language very carefully. The claim that "states with the tightest gun control laws have the highest crime rates" tends to reverse cause and effect. The higher crime rates happen from poverty, racism, gangs, and other social problems, and the tighter gun control goes hand in hand with trying to _control_ those. So the statistics can be quite confusing unless one spends time correlating the other factors.

    21. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Please excuse me, I had a bit of trouble when adding the URL for the article summary. It's at http://ajph.aphapublications.o... .

    22. Re:How Would That Help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, people like you are obsessed with a guns ("guns don't kill people") and then fabricate reasons to support them. You really need to reflect on why that is.

    23. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Part of the key to understanding the gun control claims and "refutations" is to watch the language very carefully.

      I don't have rely "the language", I looked at the data myself: there is no correlation. What that tells you is that if gun control has any effect, it can't be a large one.

      And the homicide rates in Europe and other gun controlled parts of the world are notably lower than the US, with reasonably good correlation with levels of gun control.

      It's hard to quantify gun control, but if you look at the rate of gun ownership vs the homicide rate, there is no correlation. There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, but that's mostly because people commit suicide with guns when guns are available.

      The state by state results can be obscured by many factors, such as the age or income of the state populations, so it can be difficult to ensure that homicide rates can be strongly linked to homicide.

      Yeah, I think you put your finger on it: the authors wanted to "ensure" that homicide rates "can be linked to" gun ownership, and they massaged the data until they got that result.

      In any case, even if everything they did were valid, all it would tell you is that "all things being equal", gun control would reduce homicide rates. But given that in the real world all things are not equal, gun control could still be completely ineffective, or even harmful. That is, you can't combine correlations in the way the authors implicitly assume when they try to draw conclusions about gun violence; it is statistically invalid.

      The higher crime rates happen from poverty, racism, gangs, and other social problems, and the tighter gun control goes hand in hand with trying to _control_ those.

      Again, that kind of reasoning tells you that gun control is obviously not effective, and that these other factors need to be addressed.

      In fact, from a political point of view, one might argue that gun control laws, low legal gun ownership, and high homicide rates are all caused by the same common factor, namely progressive and/or Democratic government (and I would add racism and poverty to the list of effects of progressivism as well).

      Of course, none of this even amounts to a political argument. Politically, whether you decide to off your neighbor with your gun has no bearing on my interest or right to own a gun. That is, reducing homicide rates at any cost should not be the goal of government. East Germany had very low rates of gun violence and tough gun control laws, but you wouldn't have wanted to live there.

    24. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Of course, none of this even amounts to a political argument.

      Of course it does. Even very strange concepts are the source of political arguments.

      > That is, reducing homicide rates at any cost should not be the goal of government.

      At any cost, no. But reducing homicides is _definitely_ one of the roles of government. Failure to do so is a reason why governments fall.

      > Politically, whether you decide to off your neighbor with your gun has no bearing on my interest or right to own a gun.

      And of course it does. The _risks_ of gun ownership are why societies make laws about it. What those laws should be are a matter of considerable political argument.

    25. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Of course it does. Even very strange concepts are the source of political arguments.

      I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: Of course, none of this even amounts to a valid political argument.

      At any cost, no. But reducing homicides is _definitely_ one of the roles of government.

      I must have missed that part of the US Constitution.

      And of course it does. The _risks_ of gun ownership are why societies make laws about it.

      Well, if gun ownership is not about rights but about expediency, why not outlaw gun ownership for African Americans? If gun control is effective, then that would cut the US murder rate in half. Of course, that would be a racist policy, but for progressives and Democrats, it's all about improving society statistically, isn't it?

      In fact, the underlying problem with your reasoning is that you even think that there is something like "the" risks. Risk is an inherently subjective quantity: it depends fundamentally on the state of knowledge of the observer. Making policy based on risk estimates (or probabilities in general) is inherently unjust and is not compatible with a free society.

    26. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      >> At any cost, no. But reducing homicides is _definitely_ one of the roles of government.

      > I must have missed that part of the US Constitution.

      The constitution is about means, not purposes. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are more clearly defined as goals in the Declaration of Independence, which has fascinating notes about what a government is supposed to do, not merely about how to do it. The famous Second Amendment was created to prevent that goal from preventing the existence of local militias.

      > Making policy based on risk estimates (or probabilities in general) is inherently unjust and is not compatible with a free society.

      Oh, my. I can't possibly sum up the irrationality of your analyses any better than this.

    27. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The constitution is about means, not purposes.

      The US Constitution is about a set of enumerated powers. I don't see any of the enumerated powers that would allow the US government to intervene in society to "reduce the risk of homicides".

      which has fascinating notes about what a government is supposed to do

      The Declaration of Independence is quite clear: government ought to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are negative rights.

      Perhaps you are referring to the "laying of foundations" and "organization" in order to "most likely [effect] safety and happiness". It is your error to interpret such a phrase as an authorization for the government to take away individual liberties of law abiding citizen in order to reduce perceived risks. In fact, history and experience shows us that those kinds of policies end up doing the opposite. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is neither law, nor is it a statement of perfect principles of government (neither, for that matter is the US Constitution).

      Oh, my. I can't possibly sum up the irrationality of your analyses any better than this.

      It isn't my "analysis" that is irrational. Rather, we disagree on the nature of government: you believe government ought to be rational, whereas I believe it ought to secure liberty. There are two things you don't seem to realize. First, those two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously: you can't have a society that is governed rationally and that simultaneously is free. Second, even if rational government were desirable, it couldn't be realized in practice; the more rational you attempt to make government, the more corrupt it becomes.

    28. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > It is your error to interpret such a phrase as an authorization for the government to take away individual liberties of law abiding citizen in order to reduce perceived risks

      It's part of how the laws get created. "Law abiding" takes on fascinating meaning when the laws infringe on those "individual liberties", and the grounds for the law are challenged. Whether you believe that individual liberty is the ultimate goal of government, the legislature, the courts, the government, and most of civilized history does not. It's one of _several_ goals of most governments, and a laudable one, but not an absolute goal.

      > First, those two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously: you can't have a society that is governed rationally and that simultaneously is free. Second, even if rational government were desirable, it couldn't be realized in practice; the more rational you attempt to make government, the more corrupt it becomes.

      Perfection isn't possible. _Anything_ taken to excess becomes corrupt. It's why governments change and respond to the people who make them up, whether peacefully or on occasion violently. And it's why they attempt to balance the rights of individuals against the safety of others: it's historically one of the clearest reasons for law and governmental intervention. Gun laws, zoning laws for hazardous businesses, fences around railroads, and eminent domain used to confiscate land in flood zones and erect dams are all classic examples of government doing exactly that.

    29. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      "Law abiding" takes on fascinating meaning

      We're not talking about any kind of circular meaning of "law abiding", we are talking about gun control in the US and whether there is any justification to limit the right and ability of (currently) law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. And I'm saying that until someone has actually caused harm to someone else, there is no justification for government to restrict their ownership of guns.

      Perfection isn't possible

      I'm not advocating "perfection". We're talking about two guiding principles of government: liberty and common welfare. I'm saying you have to make a choice between the two; you can't say that you are for both, because they are in conflict. That doesn't mean that any government based on either principle necessarily fails to completely deliver on the other. In fact, to the contrary: governments that adopt individual liberty as their guiding principle also deliver the most common welfare. Governments that adopt the common welfare as their primary principle deliver neither liberty nor common welfare, because they descend into corruption and tyranny.

      it's historically one of the clearest reasons for law and governmental intervention. Gun laws, zoning laws for hazardous businesses, fences around railroads, and eminent domain used to confiscate land in flood zones and erect dams are all classic examples of government doing exactly that.

      Most of the West used to operate on a much more libertarian model, with most services provided privately, property owners making decisions for their own property, and almost all decisions being made locally in "political" units smaller than my HOA. To use that history as justification for the kind of all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all federal legislation you envision is ludicrous.

      In different words, there is no reason why some gun collector in Arcata, CA, should have to register his guns with the federal government just because permanently jobless black teenagers in Detroit, MI, keep killing each other with guns. The idea that a single gun policy is appropriate to both locations is ridiculous.

    30. Re:How Would That Help? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > The US Constitution is about a set of enumerated powers. I don't see any of the enumerated powers that would allow the US government to intervene in society to "reduce the risk of homicides"

      Please re-read the "preamble" of the constitution. Quoted below::

              “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      I see at least three phrases that easily include "reducing the risk of homicides", especially the one about "insure domestic Tranquility".

    31. Re:How Would That Help? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      First of all, the Preamble does not grant enumerated powers, so they are only a statement of intent. In addition, terms like "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare" refer to peace and welfare at the state level, not at the individual level.

      But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Preamble actually said "We want government to reduce the number of homicides". What would the complete meaning of the 2A in that context be? It wouldn't be "We want government to reduce the number of homicides, therefore we give government the power to limit gun ownership." To the contrary, a complete reading would be "We want government to reduce the number of homicides, therefore we explicitly prohibit government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms." So, even if your reading of the Preamble were correct, it would mean something entirely different from what you are suggesting.

      The general meaning of the Preamble and the Constitution is really more like:

      In order for a bunch of states to live peacefully together and preserve the ability of the people to live freely and pursue their own dreams and goals, we recognize that government must be limited, lest it become tyrannical and corrupt. Therefore, we institute a form of limited government, government that has only the following powers ...

      That is, the Constitution is effectively saying we limit the power of government because that is the best way of making people safe and prosperous.

      Now, I won't pretend that this was unanimous. The discussion between people wanting a strong federal government that runs the country, and people who want individual liberty, went on back then as well. Much of the somewhat muddled phrasing is due to political compromises between these groups. The Bill of Rights is also somewhat ambiguous in that regard: the Anti-Federalists saw it as a means to ensure that at least some rights would never be taken away, while the Federalists may have seen it as a political strategy to get people to believe that rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights were somehow less important. Overall, though, the US ended up with a Constitution that strongly leaned towards limited government and individual rights, and it has served the US very well. European style rational and paternalistic government, government rooted in enumerated individual rights, has done poorly in comparison.

  13. Close the f'ing borders already! by johannesg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Let's see, what might be a good way to stop foreigners from killing our citizens... Ah yes: DO NOT LET THEM INTO THE COUNTRY.

    It's so easy, so simple... And so utterly without benefit to the ruling class. Arguments we've heard so far include "...but there are many here already so it won't help". Well, KICK THOSE OUT, then. Europe is unique in that we apparently cannot kick anybody out of our countries. Other countries certainly have no problem getting rid of undesirables - why can't we?

    We don't want muslims. We've had 40 years to get to know muslims and by know we are entitled to an opinion about them. Muslims are trouble. Muslims make constant unreasonable demands. Muslims want us to become muslim, and our countries to be ruled by islam - and WE DON'T.

    "But you are bombing Syria!" That's like saying we should be punished for bad behaviour, and we should do nothing to stop the punishment from happening. Not just that: the choice to bomb Syria was made by the same politicians that now want the punishment to continue! Which sounds a lot like "I did something bad and now you all have to suffer for it". Let's face it: we are at war. The war was started around 700 with the muslim invasion of Spain, and continues until today. We have EVERY RIGHT to defend ourselves and our countries, and we have EVERY RIGHT to deport who we don't want here.

    "But when we close the borders we must also stop all trade!" That's a truly sad argument. We don't want muslims. Trade can continue fine. Any politician that doesn't understand that should be removed from office because anyone with the understanding and IQ of a sea cucumber really shouldn't be ruling anything, never mind an entire country.

    "But..." No. Fuck you. This is about survival, and we are not obliged by any historical context or event to cease striving for our own survival.

    1. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, banksters need more warm bodies to "stimulate the economy" and further inflate the debt balloon. Muslims are the top men at breeding uncontrollably, so they are preferred. So what if Islam is bit medieval, Banksters do not care. All they care about is that we accommodate the new warm bodies and run up more debt while doing so.

      Killing non-bank transactions - and eventually cash too, it is coming but it can't happen before all other non-bank alternatives have been marginalized or killed - doing that has nothing to do with terrorism or security or whatever. It has everything to do with Banksters fearing that their debt ponzi crashes down as the masses pull out of the system and instead do business using other means.

      Making sure absolutely every transaction is traceable to a name is just a good way to sell it to idiot politicians without having to resort to bribes and other ugly methods. Clueless politicians are are ripe for anything that gives the appearance of saving the people from the terrorists - and remember kids, terrorists have nothing to do with Islam and nothing to do with refugees / asylum seekers and nothing to do with proxy wars in middle east, they are just terrorists and we need to do various things to "save us from the terrorists" that in reality have nothing to do with it.

    2. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you stopped and thought for a minute about who the immigrants are fleeing from?

      Hint: It's the terrorists you are impying them being part of. They are actually not the same, even though they are all brown people. I know, tough concept.

      The way to solve Islam's incompatibility with modern western society is to weaken the stigma associated with criticizing other people's religion. Teach them in school how stupid it is to believe in the invisible man in the sky and recite magical formulas to appease him. What do you expect when children are indoctrinated weekly in quran school and there is never an opposing opinion offered.

    3. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by joppeknol · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are aware of that most victims of ISIS are moslem? Even if we don't let the new immigrants in Europe, we still have the old ones, their children and grandchildren to deal with.

      I'm actually quite impressed that you know every muslim. Really? By name?

      So you don't want to let them enter Europe. So what's the alternative? Shoot them? Let them drown in the Mediterranean Sea? Let them starve and freeze to death? You can shout that most of them are young men. Still, there are a lot women, children and babies among them.

      I'm not even claiming that we should allow them to enter Europe. I just take offence at the idea that a (or any) solution is 'simple'. The fact that so many people find the parent's post informative, saddens me.

    4. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by 4im · · Score: 2

      Sure, close the borders. A fine example right now is the one between France and Luxembourg, passed each day but tens of thousands of commuters who live in France but work in Luxembourg. What was already bad logistics, prone to accidents and thereby traffic jams, is now a nightmare each morning and evening. No, that nightmare won't be helped by those people moving, as there isn't anywhere near sufficient housing available, and prices are already at levels comparable to inner city London or Paris. The Schengen treaty (signed in Luxembourg, very close to the french and german borders) was done for a reason, and it's for good reason that most concerned countries want to uphold it.

      While we're at it, it's already been proven that immigration benefits the economy. You also shouldn't conflate muslims and these (homegrown!) terrorists, who just have no religion.

    5. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, let me say that as a fellow Euro-zone member I don't agree with your racist tirade. Also,

      That's like saying we should be punished for bad behaviour, and we should do nothing to stop the punishment from happening.

      Yes...you SHOULD be punished for bad behaviour. That's what the justice and prisons are for, no?

      The war was started around 700 with the muslim invasion of Spain, and continues until today. We have EVERY RIGHT to defend ourselves and our countries,

      Oh man..sorry I was taking you seriously at first because then you follow up with

      This is about survival, and we are not obliged by any historical context or event to cease striving for our own survival.

      So you think bad behaviour should go unpunished and you think that historical context is good to feed your hatred by you shouldn't live off of historical context to judge your survival, but you're using your historical context to guide that decision...I think from your previous posts you are Swiss, which seems to be the most racist country in europe right now.

      Many of your previous posts are racist rants against the muslims. You are a scared and sad little man. I hope you don't hurt anyone.

    6. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's utter bullcrap and extremely racist to proclaim 'muslims are the bad guys', you know?
      I live in a muslim community. I'm an atheist myself but none of my friends looks upon me as a lesser human or someone to either be converted or killed.
      It's sad that the press has you so riled up that you proclaim 'muslims are bad, m'kay'.
      You're a twisted and paranoid individual and you might not realise it but when you talk like that you sound very much like an extremist evil muslim.

    7. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "We don't want muslims. We've had 40 years to get to know muslims and by know we are entitled to an opinion about them."

      No one is going to admit this. No one is ALLOWED to admit this. Political correctness is going to lead western civilization to ruin.

    8. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Have you stopped and thought for a minute about who the immigrants are fleeing from?

      >Hint: It's the terrorists you are impying them being part of. They are actually not the same, even though they are all brown people. I know, tough concept.

      Yes, the same terrorists that they raised in their country by just a simple modification of their beliefs and the absence of a totalitarian system that suppressed them. So, they carry the seed of their destruction within them and the next generations will act accordingly. Highway to hell...

    9. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is "we"? Surely you don't represent the entire native EU population.
      Else here in Holland, the PVV (Geert Wilders), which is THE party sharing your viewpoint, would have majority vote.
      I for one, being native born white germanic non-religious descent etc.etc.., have more problems with black-white thinking control freaks like you, than the average muslim on the street. The former is a symptom of our society rotting from the inside, instead of the latter responding to that.

    10. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, what might be a good way to stop foreigners from killing our citizens

      At least four of the attackers in Paris were French.

      Other countries certainly have no problem getting rid of undesirables - why can't we?

      First: due process. It is in fact quite possible to deport asylum seekers, holders of temporary or permanent residence permits (after revoking said permits) etc., but it's not as simple or quick as the government issuing an order one morning and the police coming by, handcuffing you, and putting you on the next plane out of the country before the day is done.

      Second: equality before the law. Why is the above important? We don't divide people into "us" and "them" and then only afford legal protections to "us". In fact personally I'd not want to live in a state that can arbitrarily declare that basic legal protections and constitutional rights do not apply to a certain group.

      Third: other nations doing bad things doesn't mean we've got a free pass to do the same with impunity. We have our standards, and we must hold ourselves to these standards, regardless what others do. We don't deliberately target civilians in armed conflicts to inspire terror. We don't torture. And we don't bypass our own legal processes and standards, even for bad people.

      We don't want muslims. We've had 40 years to get to know muslims and by know we are entitled to an opinion about them.

      Speak for yourself.

      Don't hide between what "we" want or do or say, you're only speaking for yourself. Come right out and say "I don't want muslims". Or are you a coward who's afraid to voice his own opinion, and must instead pretend that it's not really his?

      Furthermore, you're conflating many different things: "muslims" (a designation based on religious beliefs) and "foreigners" (based on nationality and ethnicity), and "terrorist" (based on crime). In fact even "foreigner" is ambiguous: is someone who was born in Turkey and then immigrated to Norway and became a citizen a foreigner? What about a Swede who did the same? What about a Swede who immigrated to Norway but did not become a Norwegian citizen?

      And note that neither implies any of the others. Anders Breivik was a terrorist, but not a muslim or a foreigner. The guy who runs the kebap shop down the street from where I work is a muslim, and may be a foreigner (I don't know his citizenship status), but he's not a terrorist. My best friend is a foreigner, but not a muslim or a terrorist. And so on. So are you unable to tell these apart? Or are you conflating them on purpose?

      This is about survival, and we are not obliged by any historical context or event to cease striving for our own survival.

      Hey, don't let facts get in the way of your racism, eh?

      And since I mentioned Breivik above, I've got to say that what you're saying here is eerily reminiscent of what he wrote before going on his murderous spree.

    11. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but we cannot carry the risks associated with their decision to come to Europe illegally. So yes, they can drown and freeze for all I care. When that starts happening on a large scale and Europe kicks the "well, since you're already here" attitude, they will stop coming.

    12. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The idea is to secure the Schengen borders, i.e. not the borders inside of Schengen.

      It's been proven that immigration benefits the economy if it is immigration from inside EU or Europe. You can hardly say that there is any benefit to having 30% unemployment rates and high criminality among immigrants.

    13. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      Talking about France, yes, we could close the borders, it may be beneficial or it may not but it won't solve your "Muslim" problem. And that is if we could call terrorists who follow the most twisted interpretation of Islam imaginable "Muslims".

      Many French immigrants and Muslims in particular are actually French citizens born in the country from naturalized parents. So where do you want to kick them out to? If the goal is to stop them, then it is too late. And just to let you know, when they entered the country, they represented a much needed workforce for the rebuild following WW2.

      Don't give up to the fallacy that Islam is the problem. The problem is that the middle east is a prime location for proxy wars and it happens that Islam is the dominant religion there. Should them have been Christians, Jews or even Buddhists that it wouldn't have been different.

    14. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least four of the attackers in Paris were French.

      No, they were descendants of muslim immigrants. That's not French to me.

      Furthermore, you're conflating many different things: "muslims" (a designation based on religious beliefs) and "foreigners" (based on nationality and ethnicity), and "terrorist" (based on crime). In fact even "foreigner" is ambiguous: is someone who was born in Turkey and then immigrated to Norway and became a citizen a foreigner?

      There is clearly a strong relation between "terrorist" and "muslim". I'm not saying that all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are muslim.

      Hey, don't let facts get in the way of your racism, eh?

      Islam is not a race.

    15. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      It would be much better if people would stop calling anti-muslim bigotry "racism". It implies that to be muslim you have to be one particular skin colour, which is ironically just reinforcing a racist attitude and the giving undeserved coherence to the idea that the answer to an extremist islam threat is to throw all brown people out of the country.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    16. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Islam is not a race (so no one can be racist for not liking it). It's a very dangerous ideology. And yes, I have read large portions of Quran.

    17. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > You are aware of that most victims of ISIS are moslem?

      This is literally only because they can only reach other Muslims. Give them a gun to your head and they'll fire it- if you are a "crusader", then they'll smile while they do it. Their literature exhorts anyone to kill "crusaders".

      Isis kills their neighbors. For now, that's Muslims- not that this is really any comfort.

    18. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      The problem is that the middle east is a prime location for proxy wars and it happens that Islam is the dominant religion there.

      No, it's not a case of "it happens that Islam", because these wars are waged in the name of Islam. Hey, even imams in Europe preach hatred against others.

    19. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Even if we don't let the new immigrants in Europe, we still have the old ones, their children and grandchildren to deal with.

      Some of the old ones may not even have been regarded as immigrants at the time. IIRC, Algeria was considered part of France for about 125 years until Algeria achieved independence in the early 1960s.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do not care if people are brown, black, yellow or green martian.

      I do care if people publicly worship an evil political cult that is hell bent on world domination while masquerading as "just another religion" and being openly hostile against all the other religions.

      I care when said people barge in and expect us to pay for their living so they can sit in home unemployed and breed more people who worship the same evil political cult.

      Brown people who pay for their own living by working and do not worship evil cults or expect others to adjust to their medieval culture and religion are fine by me.

      Sadly their quota among the brown people I've seen is alarmingly low, so low that it is basically a rounding error. Primarily due to the whole "pay their own living", but also secondarily due to their adherence to their own cultural values that include such sweet things like forcing females to wear scarfs (or, even worse, burkas) and actively looking down at all the "nonbelievers", while repeatedly demonstrating that yes, lying to said "nonbelievers" is perfectly fine by their culture.

      Considering these facts, blocking all Brown people by default from entering seems prudent. Any who fall into that rounding error that actually are employable, work and pay their own living can apply for immigration visa like any normal non-EU citizen trying to immigrate to the EU.

    21. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France is already a lost cause. Germany is probably at the tipping point, as is Sweden. UK is also pretty bad, tho there I believe that the number of non-Muslim immigrants may actually help.

      Rest of the EU countries should fence in these countries and let them self-destruct as they creep over the "more than 50% of population is Muslims because we went full retard on the political correctness" and we start to see fun things like Muslim political parties in governments.

    22. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, closing down the French borders will not solve the muslim problem in France. But at least the EU should have enough respect and not force many other countries (that luckily have almost no muslims) to accept them based on quotas. If the West feels that they should accept hundreds of thousands of immigrants of (frequently) unknown origin, intentions and motivations, then it's fine with me. But don't force it upon the East.

    23. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least four of the attackers in Paris were French.

      No, they were descendants of muslim immigrants. That's not French to me.

      OK, how many generations do you require?

    24. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they forsake this religion of hate and violence. Publishing Quran would actually be illegal in most European countries, if it weren't treated specially as a religious book.

    25. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ISIS wants: disaffected populations to recruit from.

      What your tirade supports: disaffected populations to recruit from.

      Conclusion: you work for ISIS.

    26. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by mrsam · · Score: 1

      Europe is unique in that we apparently cannot kick anybody out of our countries. Other countries certainly have no problem getting rid of undesirables - why can't we?

      I just choked on my morning cup of tea. You really think the US of A has no problem kicking out the hordes of illegal invaders, out of its borders?

      That, I got to see.

      Maybe if The Donald actually pulls it off, and wins a year from now. Even then, it's not guaranteed, unless the congressional Republicans also find where they misplaced their balls, and actually decide to stand for something.

    27. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, because there is Islam A (shia) and Islam B (sunni) who seem to be bent on whacking each other senseless over some ancient historical squabble related to the lineage of Mohammed. Also obviously local leaders exploit this for their own hunger of power and wealth.

      This issue alone combined with their shared belief that all "nonbelievers" are second class people should be a good enough reason to keep ALL of them out of civilized countries. Yet politicians seem hell bent on importing them without any regard as to which faction they belong to. All because... gotta stimulate the economy, gotta keep the debt ponzi rolling for a bit longer.

    28. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Jahta · · Score: 2

      Don't give up to the fallacy that Islam is the problem. The problem is that the middle east is a prime location for proxy wars and it happens that Islam is the dominant religion there. Should them have been Christians, Jews or even Buddhists that it wouldn't have been different.

      This is exactly right. Over the last couple of centuries Britain and France (particularly) and latterly the US have ridden roughshod over national sovereignty and human rights in the middle east whenever it suited their political or economic purposes. People who wonder why there is so much anti-western feeling in the region need to read up on the history. If it was themselves and their families on the receiving end they would likely feel exactly the same way.

    29. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But don't force it upon the East.

      I might have misunderstood you but if you're from a (former) Eastern European country that has joined the EU, you're an extreme hypocrite if you complain at the mandatory refugee quotas. Western European EU members have supported your economies tremendously. Furthermore, huge numbers of workers have emigrated from Eastern Europe to Western Europe to get a higher salary and standard of living - not for humanitarian reasons (as was the case before the Soviet Union collapsed and people from Eastern Europe fled for genuine humanitarian reasons). Thus you now have to accept some of the burden and the quotas don't only factor the population size in each country but also economic variables (GDP, employment rate etc.) so whilst no system is perfectly fair, it isn't some extremely unjust forcing.

      That said, I definitely think the EU has taken far too many refugees and the EU's outer border seems to have more holes than Swiss cheese which is unacceptable. The EU should do a lot more to prevent mass immigration - impose no-fly zones and whatever else to make it safer for people to stay in the conflict zones. And of course solve the conflicts, which of course is a very, very tall order. Additionally, it's despicable how the oil rich Gulf states don't take any refugees even though their cultures are a lot more compatible. Our dependence on their oil of course means that our means to force them are limited. And yes, they should indeed be forced.

    30. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by 4im · · Score: 2

      The idea is to secure the Schengen borders, i.e. not the borders inside of Schengen.

      It's been proven that immigration benefits the economy if it is immigration from inside EU or Europe. You can hardly say that there is any benefit to having 30% unemployment rates and high criminality among immigrants.

      For your first point: well, France has closed all borders, including inside of Schengen. We'll see how long it will last, as it does have nasty repercussions (so much for "they won't change our values, our way of life").

      For your second point: according to german economists, the current immigration wave is good for the german economy. Also, german police has confirmed the criminality rate is no higher with the immigrants than with the general population - adding that there's been quite a wave of extreme-right-style crimes against facilities for asylum seekers. And as to unemployment: you are aware that asylum seekers have to have their papers through before being allowed to get a job?

    31. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      > Have you stopped and thought for a minute about who the immigrants are fleeing from?

      >Hint: It's the terrorists you are impying them being part of. They are actually not the same, even though they are all brown people. I know, tough concept.

      Yes, the same terrorists that they raised in their country by just a simple modification of their beliefs and the absence of a totalitarian system that suppressed them. So, they carry the seed of their destruction within them and the next generations will act accordingly. Highway to hell...

      Example A: Tsarnaev brothers

    32. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It's utter bullcrap and extremely racist to proclaim 'muslims are the bad guys', you know? I live in a muslim community. I'm an atheist myself but none of my friends looks upon me as a lesser human or someone to either be converted or killed. It's sad that the press has you so riled up that you proclaim 'muslims are bad, m'kay'. You're a twisted and paranoid individual and you might not realise it but when you talk like that you sound very much like an extremist evil muslim.

      Your ideas would have some merit if you knew what the word "racist" means.

    33. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't be moderated down for this post if schools taught history. Here is a quote from someone who understands European history from 90 to 70 years ago:

      "Everyone, including the migrants, had better hope that the anti-immigration hard right takes power soon, because if the nationalists don't, the ultra-nationalists will."

      There is a bloodbath coming, maybe in 5, or 10 or 20 years. It isn't inevitable. We could stop it today, if we wanted to. A peaceful solution now would prevent a final solution tomorrow.

    34. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't give up to the fallacy that Islam is the problem. The problem is that the middle east is a prime location for proxy wars and it happens that Islam is the dominant religion there. Should them have been Christians, Jews or even Buddhists that it wouldn't have been different.

      Sorry, islam is the problem. See below. And, you assertion that buddists and Christians would do this stuff is a flat out bold faced lie. Yes, we all know there were abortion bombings, but when was the last time christians sawed off someone's head, burned them alive, threw them off a building because they were homosexuals? Do christians take sex slaves? Beat their wives, separate their females because they are dirty and mutilate their female children? For muzzies, that was _last_week_ if not today. You are going to have to dig around for a while to find cases of other religions doing that, and when you do find them, it'll be a few, and far between and a long time ago.

      1400 Year Secret

      What the West Needs to Know

      The Myth that Radicals are a Minority in islam

    35. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McVeigh was blowback from Waco. He was pissed Reno murdered a bunch of people

    36. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you

    37. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is unique in that we apparently cannot kick anybody out of our countries. Other countries certainly have no problem getting rid of undesirables - why can't we?

      I just choked on my morning cup of tea. You really think the US of A has no problem kicking out the hordes of illegal invaders, out of its borders?

      That, I got to see.

      Maybe if The Donald actually pulls it off, and wins a year from now. Even then, it's not guaranteed, unless the congressional Republicans also find where they misplaced their balls, and actually decide to stand for something.

      Choke all you like. All the USA needs is political will.
      In case you don't know, much of Europe is hamstrung by the ECHR. I'll drop this here in case you've forgotten:

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/abu-hamza-found-guilty-terrorism-charges
      It took years and millions of £ of taxpayers money to finally get rid of him.

    38. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's utter bullcrap and extremely racist to proclaim 'muslims are the bad guys', you know?"

      Considering being a Muslim is a RELIGION and there is only the human RACE, your ideas of racism belong right the fuck back on Tumblr with the rest of the ill-educated scientifically-illiterate SJW retards.

      Fitting Captcha: Deport

    39. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Over the last couple of centuries Britain and France (particularly) and latterly the US have ridden roughshod over national sovereignty and human rights in the middle east whenever it suited their political or economic purposes.

      Do you imagine the MIddle East had liberal democracies before the US and Europe came in and destroyed it? The Middle East has been a totalitarian shithole for a long, long time. It never had "human rights" in the Western sense. And the whole point of many of these Islamic movements is to get rid of "national sovereignty" and restore an Islamic empire. And creating that Islamic empire isn't for the good of humanity, it is to take revenge for the fact that Europe successfully defended itself and kicked out the first few Islamic empires.

      Now, I disapprove of the US and European governments meddling in the Middle East. It is clearly not very effective, it is very costly, and it just riles up the people who live there. But the West does not bear any moral responsibility for the plight of the people in the Middle East, and it isn't our responsibility to ensure that they have "national sovereignty and human rights". In fact, the Middle East probably has achieved more "national sovereignty and human rights" with US and European meddling than without, it's just that the price we are paying for it is too high for us.

    40. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is clearly a strong relation between "terrorist" and "muslim". I'm not saying that all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are muslim.

      I took the time to actually look for an answer to this question. Here it is:

      "Letâ(TM)s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent. [...]"

      "Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. [...]"

      Of course, as I'm sure you'll immediately point out, this neglects to include muslim-perpetrated terrorist attacks outside Europe and the USA, such as in Iraq etc. On the other hand it also neglects to include any other terrorist attack outside Europe and the USA, such as those perpetrated by hindus in the area of the Indian/Pakistani border. Barring actual statistics I would thus avoid claims along the lines of "the data we don't have supports MY story".

      What's more, I myself am more interested in (read: concerned about) terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA anyway. And the picture appears to be clear there: most terrorists are not, in fact, muslims.

      No, they were descendants of muslim immigrants. That's not French to me.

      That's you, then. To me, "muslim" and "French" are independent traits. You can be one, or the other, or both, or none.

      Also: would you also argue that people of jewish descent can never be Germans unless and until they reject judaism?

    41. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't want to let them enter Europe. So what's the alternative? Shoot them? Let them drown in the Mediterranean Sea? Let them starve and freeze to death?

      Not only would I be cool with that but I'd buy a front row seat to watch it happen. Fuck. Every. Single. One. Of. Them

    42. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Jahta · · Score: 1

      Over the last couple of centuries Britain and France (particularly) and latterly the US have ridden roughshod over national sovereignty and human rights in the middle east whenever it suited their political or economic purposes.

      Do you imagine the MIddle East had liberal democracies before the US and Europe came in and destroyed it? The Middle East has been a totalitarian shithole for a long, long time. It never had "human rights" in the Western sense. And the whole point of many of these Islamic movements is to get rid of "national sovereignty" and restore an Islamic empire. And creating that Islamic empire isn't for the good of humanity, it is to take revenge for the fact that Europe successfully defended itself and kicked out the first few Islamic empires.

      Now, I disapprove of the US and European governments meddling in the Middle East. It is clearly not very effective, it is very costly, and it just riles up the people who live there. But the West does not bear any moral responsibility for the plight of the people in the Middle East, and it isn't our responsibility to ensure that they have "national sovereignty and human rights". In fact, the Middle East probably has achieved more "national sovereignty and human rights" with US and European meddling than without, it's just that the price we are paying for it is too high for us.

      You've just proved my point. The West has a history of supporting repressive regimes (like Saudi Arabia) because it's "good for business". The West talk a good game when it comes to democracy in the middle east but in reality they only want "friendly" regimes in place. They say they want free elections, but when there is one and the people use their votes to elect the "wrong" party there's suddenly a coup to restore the status-quo. Here's a recent article in this very topic from the BBC; Does the West want democracy in the Middle East? - BBC News.

    43. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you imagine the MIddle East had liberal democracies before the US and Europe came in and destroyed it?

      To be fair, Iran did have a liberal democracy for a while there. Then UK and US overthrew it in favor of an autocrat. Just saying.

    44. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only after they prepare and ravenously consume escargot will they be French. Escargot is NOT halal, by the way.

    45. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware of that most victims of ISIS are moslem? Even if we don't let the new immigrants in Europe, we still have the old ones, their children and grandchildren to deal with.

      I'm actually quite impressed that you know every muslim. Really? By name?

      So you don't want to let them enter Europe. So what's the alternative? Shoot them? Let them drown in the Mediterranean Sea? Let them starve and freeze to death? You can shout that most of them are young men. Still, there are a lot women, children and babies among them.

      I'm not even claiming that we should allow them to enter Europe. I just take offence at the idea that a (or any) solution is 'simple'. The fact that so many people find the parent's post informative, saddens me.

      ok, stop for a second, pull out a dictionary... with me?? ok..

      It is spelled "M U S L I M" not Moselem.

      I see this redneck spelling mistake everywhere and it takes away from your ability to make your point because, regardless how lucid your points are, you have people sitting out there in internet land, reading your treatise on terrorism and they hit your misspelled word and you get written off.. like you were an idiot making any other point other than what you are making.

      I am not a grammar or spelling nazi, It is just that that one is easily correctable if you would just do a google search..

    46. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the political will arrives, it will be because the nationalists have asserted themselves. Nationalist is the opposite of internationalist. The infrastructure that the internationalists have been using to fuck the west for the last 70 years will fade away, at least the parts that aren't actively exploded.

    47. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > And that is if we could call terrorists who follow the most twisted interpretation of Islam imaginable "Muslims".

      Can you point out how they are not Muslims? Moderate Muslims think these guys are absolutely nuts, but could you point me to any evidence for a widespread belief among moderate Muslims that Islamists are not Islamic?

    48. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      As I was saying, I do believe that we should let Middle Easter countries elect whoever they want to and govern themselves however they want to. But don't kid yourself: they will be much worse off for it. The reason not to intervene is not because it helps them, but because it's cheaper and less risky for us.

      Furthermore, if they elect "the wrong party" and end up threatening us, we still have to do something. If it isn't a coup, then that means military and economic containment from the outside. Think North Korea.

      What we can't do is turn other nations into thriving democracies from the outside; democracy is something the people of a country need to desire themselves and grow into culturally. Note that "democracy" doesn't simply mean "majority rule" or "rule by popular will"; the Nazis were popularly elected, but they weren't democratic.

    49. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a brown atheist and child of christian parents it's hard for me to separate this from racism when I'm often the recipient of anti-muslim bigotry.

    50. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refugees are not allowed to work. It's no wonder they would try to find the country with best benefits rather than stay in regions already strained by over-taxed programs. Let people have jobs. It's pretty straightforward and can have huge long term benefits for a region.

    51. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Actually, what I imagine is that if we stayed out of the Middle East, then the Shiites would be fighting the Sunnis more than they currently are. Meanwhile, we would find reasons to fight amongst ourselves also. In other words, more Catholic vs. Protestant stuff like the IRA and ETA and probably more white supremacist terrorism like the KKK, Skin Heads and all that. The best way to eliminate infighting is to find a common enemy. In other words redefine who is in and who is out.

    52. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And if they were Pastafarians instead of Muslims they'd wage wars in the name of the FSM, and priests wearing colanders would be preaching hatred against others. The religion doesn't really matter, it's the people espousing that religion.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Christianity used to be a very dangerous ideology. The ideology hasn't really changed, but Christians in general did. Read large portions of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) with the same attention to finding dangerous ideology.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is literally only because they can only reach other Muslims.

      I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been in a medically-induced coma for the past couple of weeks.

    55. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Their origin is based on sectarian Sunni vs Shia conflict. ISIS doesn't really even care about Western religions, we are all just infidels to them. Other muslims are considered apostates though, and worthy only of death. When they caputure a city ISIS give Xians the options of convert, pay, or leave. Shia muslims are only permitted to die.

    56. Re:Close the f'ing borders already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electing someone democratically isn't the same as "having a liberal democracy". Liberal democracies can't be overthrown by a CIA agent with a small slush fund.

  14. Abolish cash by LQ · · Score: 0

    The Bank of England chief economist recently argued that if we needed negative interest rates cash might have to be abolished. Add a security angle and it might yet happen.

  15. Prepaid phone SIM by 4im · · Score: 1

    They certainly are cracking down on prepaid phone SIMs, where the owner of the phone isn't identified. Apparently Belgium and Luxembourg were the only EU countries left which still had them, but they are phasing them out quicker (now!) than was planned. Apparently, there were just too many shenanigans done with them.

    I'm less sure about prepaid credit cards, we've got one of those in the household, but I didn't hear anything yet about them being phased out. They were offered as one means to limit losses in case of fraud (e.g. online payments where details would get out; this actually makes sense), and customers are identified in this case. Also, such transfers go by clearing services, so I should think these can easily be tracked (on court order at least, if not by espionage).

    Are there such prepaid credit (well, actually debit I guess) cards where users are not identified?

    1. Re:Prepaid phone SIM by tlambert · · Score: 2

      They certainly are cracking down on prepaid phone SIMs, where the owner of the phone isn't identified.

      So the criminal have to go back to killing people for their cell phones? Good to know...

    2. Re:Prepaid phone SIM by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

      They certainly are cracking down on prepaid phone SIMs, where the owner of the phone isn't identified. Apparently Belgium and Luxembourg were the only EU countries left which still had them

      That is certainly false. A lot of "eastern block" countries still have them like Romania, Czech Republic, I think Bulgaria. If you think they aren't "EU enough" there's also the UK (and probably Ireland) - where you don't even have mandatory ID card.

      And even with registration go on german ebay (Germany has mandatory registration since before 9/11!) and you can buy preregistered cards by 10-pack, 100, sometimes 500 and 1000.

    3. Re:Prepaid phone SIM by 4im · · Score: 1

      They certainly are cracking down on prepaid phone SIMs, where the owner of the phone isn't identified. Apparently Belgium and Luxembourg were the only EU countries left which still had them

      That is certainly false. A lot of "eastern block" countries still have them like Romania, Czech Republic, I think Bulgaria. If you think they aren't "EU enough" there's also the UK (and probably Ireland) - where you don't even have mandatory ID card.

      And even with registration go on german ebay (Germany has mandatory registration since before 9/11!) and you can buy preregistered cards by 10-pack, 100, sometimes 500 and 1000.

      Well, that points out the fine quality of our local media reports then... </sarcasm>

    4. Re:Prepaid phone SIM by LubosD · · Score: 1

      Then again, you can always properly register your SIM (in your "terrorist name") and then use encrypted VoIP. Hey, even unencrypted VoIP is a difficult problem for many authorities.

  16. Freedom by louic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So to defend against attacks on our freedom we take away that freedom? Politicians have totally lost the plot.

    1. Re:Freedom by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might not have been around when the Patriot Act was a whole thing. But yeah.

    2. Re:Freedom by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "We're not going to let those terrorists destroy freedom! We'll destroy it first, and deny them their victory!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. Please, forbid cars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because they can be used to transport AK-47's and even (horrors!) perpetrate suicide car bombings.

    At least this would have some side benefits (cleaner cities), as opposed to banning everything somehow related with privacy.

    The sad truth is that we as democracies have elected those incompetent bastards into power. The blame's on us.

    1. Re:Please, forbid cars! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      This, a thousand times, this!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Please, forbid cars! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Better get the trains, planes, buses, taxis, pedicabs, and backpacks while you are at it....

    3. Re:Please, forbid cars! by mentil · · Score: 1

      Better car bombings than horse bombings. Won't someone please think of the horses?!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:Please, forbid cars! by gox · · Score: 1

      To be perfectly clear, cars *would* be banned if they weren't so widely used already.

      The sad truth is, democracy is yet another method to herd people into working towards goals set by oligarchs.

      Yes, "we" could have elected some other people, but "we" do not and would not.

    5. Re:Please, forbid cars! by IRGlover · · Score: 1

      Bomb dogs are a much greater threat than horses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Please, forbid cars! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Yes, "we" could have elected some other people, but "we" do not and would not.

      By "we", you are, of course, referring to Siemens and Diebold, et al, right?

  18. staged event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    paris event was a staged event. you know that right?

    1. Re:staged event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the Eagles of Death Metal?

      Yeah, we are aware they sold tickets to their stages event. Like, on a stage. And everything.

  19. Haha die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking Euroscum ... listen, this shit is all karma for colonialism. This is your payment for ruining this world, enjoy eating it assholes.

    Here's hoping the attacks and deaths continue, you and ISIS deserve each other.

    Fucktards. Seriously, die off and do the world a favour.

    1. Re:Haha die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...he posts from his computer.

  20. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people than have not realized yet that the EU are also terrorists and that the people they terrorized are their own citizens will eventually. They are just scum, just like the towelheads

  21. draft conclusions? by pahles · · Score: 1

    So TFA is from the 19th, the meeting is on the 20th, and they already have draft conclusions? Why meet?

    --
    Sig?
    1. Re:draft conclusions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To rubberstamp the "conclusions" handed down by the unelected banksters from behind the curtain.

  22. Cut off ISIS oil sales by ACE209 · · Score: 1

    More effective would be to go against the middlemen who buy oil from ISIS for half the market value and then make a nice profit by reselling it on the open market.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

    Unless those middlemen are too big to fail and we can't do anything, of course.

    --
    "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    1. Re:Cut off ISIS oil sales by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      More effective would be to go against the middlemen who buy oil from ISIS for half the market value and then make a nice profit by reselling it on the open market.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

      Unless those middlemen are too big to fail and we can't do anything, of course.

      They haven't stopped the middlemen because they use bitcoin to buy ISIS' oil. That's why they *must* ban bitcoin and other alt-currencies, with cash next up on the chopping-block. /sarc

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Cut off ISIS oil sales by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Why dont they just add "oil infrastructure" to the list of targets they are taking out in the IS controlled territory? Drop a few bombs on whatever infrastructure IS are using get their oil out to these middlemen. If IS cant get the oil out, they wont be able to sell it and will be cut off from a big source of financing.

    3. Re:Cut off ISIS oil sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then how would we get their oil?

    4. Re:Cut off ISIS oil sales by jonwil · · Score: 1

      We dont need the ISIS oil, crude oil prices are at record lows and there is more than enough supply from all the many many other places we can get oil from.

      And if you do it right (e.g. covert ops and precision attacks rather than large scale bombing) you can take out the infrastructure and stopping the exports without harming the oil wells directly.

  23. Hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi

  24. Prepaid "burner" cards and phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with the prepaid model is that there is no "credit check" per se. Anyone can give a cashier 25$ in cash and walk out the door with a prepaid sim or prepaid credit card. The banks and wireless company love this model because it means they get a much higher cut up front, and there is no risk to them.

    However.... ever go read the Terms of service on the back of prepaid cards? There are three basic reasons why people buy prepaid products:
    1) They do not have credit or they are not in the country legally
    2) They do not have a bank, and they need to deal with an entity that doesn't take cash
    3) International travelers who don't want to be raked over the coals for using their domestic card or phone.

    The exchange rate that credit cards and paypal offer is often worse than a bank rate, and the bank rates are often worse than dedicated forex trading merchants.

    Plastic gift cards (specifically merchant cards like Best Buy, Amazon) where you can buy any product with them are another form of black-market/grey-market currency. People get paid in gift cards for doing illicit things, because there is no connection between the person paying for the card, and the person receiving the card. Since gift cards are "region locked" as well, that also makes most cards useless for international money laundering... except Apple, Amazon and prepaid credit/debit cards, since these can be used to buy from US stores and still ship to foreign addresses.

    1. Re:Prepaid "burner" cards and phones? by PPH · · Score: 1

      There are three basic reasons why people buy prepaid products:

      4) Traveling to a site to evaluate it for potential business expansion. Or meeting with a new supplier or customer. And I don't want my competitors buying my credit card and/or cell phone data to see what I'm up to. Or politicians leaning on me for a payoff to get the building permits.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  25. Useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those articles are frankly pointless. They will do what they want and there's nothing we can do about it. What use is writing about them? To whine? To rage? It will change nothing. Write to your "representatives" if you will, the only result you will ever get is getting on a watchlist.

  26. I haven't heard any reports that bitcoins... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...were used to support the attack. But, hey, never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

  27. anonymous payments, not Anonymous payments by Theovon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because apparently Anonymous is on our side in this case.

    1. Re:anonymous payments, not Anonymous payments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous has always been on the side speaking truth to power. And they did declare war on ISIS this week.

    2. Re:anonymous payments, not Anonymous payments by Theovon · · Score: 1

      But apparently their overzealousness is causing some trouble with law enforcement monitoring terrorists.

  28. Sure Bitcoin is the root of all evel... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    Too bad there's this thing called CASH, which is just as anonymous as Bitcoin. I feel for law enforcement's need, but I also have a right to go to the store and buy some gum and a soda and not have it tracked.

    The way things are going these days, I'm waiting for the FBI and Interpol pre-crime divisions to be spun up any day now.

    1. Re:Sure Bitcoin is the root of all evel... by craigminah · · Score: 1

      It's a little harder to process cash transactions globally...possible but slower and more cumbersome.

  29. Coincenter Response by Canth7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Coincenter, a firm established to help guide policy creation with regard to crypto currencies, has a excellent response. https://coincenter.org/2015/11...

    1. Re:Coincenter Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincenter, a firm established to help guide policy creation with regard to crypto currencies, has a excellent response.

      https://coincenter.org/2015/11...

      Doesn't matter the governments of the world aren't listening.

    2. Re:Coincenter Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for sharing

  30. Bitcoin: A bit counter productive by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand that cutting of the money supply for terrorist is very effective, and I can understand bitcoin as it can move large amounts of money

    Also, you need to understand that the main keypoint of bitcoin: is that it's distributed.
    Bitcoin protocol advantage isn't that you can move these large amounts of money anonymously.
    Bitcoin protocol advantage is that it's only the poeple involved that get to make the call, there's no central authority.

    This lack of central authority is done by the distribution. Every single transaction is broadcast to the whole network, and is stored into the blockchain: a huge virtual ledger of which every single node in the network has local copy. That's far from anonymous. That's publicly broadcast.

    The bitcoin protocol still provides pseudonymity. In the blockchain, transaction aren't stored together with some username/identity. There is none as there's no central authority with which to register. Instead in the blockchain, transaction are signed with cryptographic key. And each user's wallet generates constantly new cryptographic keys specific to this user.

    For an individual, it might not be easy to track every single such use of cryptographic key, in order to be able to trace a "money trail" between 2 users on the network.
    But for a government, even more for an entity as the whole european union, that's well within their capability of "Big Data" analysis.

    Much more easy to track than plain cash: with plain cash, you only get to read the serial number when the ATM handle out the money at one end of the chain, and when the deposit machine gets the cash back later. Any transaction that has happened in between is left to the imagination of the detective.
    Whereas with bitcoin, it's as if every single movement of cash note was publicly broadcast. Be it when the cash changes hands (e.g.: an actual transaction between a merchant and a seller) or simply changes pocket (metaphorically symbolising the constant stream of generated crypto key as part as the normal function of a wallet).
    A single individual might not follow it.
    But a government could at least do the tracking, alghouth they can't block it (that's the whole point of the "no central authority").

    Also, law is still law, and all the law against money laundering still apply against any institution that handles money. No matter if the money is plain cash, or credit cards or, in this case a weird protocole with no central authority.
    BTC exchange, payment processor, etc. all requires user registration, and all require all the other procedures in place against laundering.

    Simply, the transactions happening bitcoin will happen without any control from 3rd party (just like cash changing hands, although better traceable, as mentionned above).
    Unlike transaction with credit card and central payment processor like Pay-pal, where the Visa, MasterCard or Paypal companies are able to freeze accounts and reverse transactions.

    Bitcoin protocole still offers advantage for the average citizen: absence of monopoly.
    (mainly the main advantage of cash, except that it also works online.
    or the main advantage of SEPA payment, except that it works anywhere in the world, not only between european bank account supporting the protocol and a faster speed being minute to hours instead of next-day to days)

    Meaning:
    - freedom to chose one provider and interact as long as everbody else supports the same protocole.
    - not a single company being jury judge and executionner (like with credit card companies and charge-backs), but instead enabling complexe multi-party scheme, were seller and buyer can freely agree before hand on a 3rd party arbiter (a role that the various consumer associations and certification groups in europe would be happy to play)
    - not being at the whim of Visa/MasterCard freezing acount. Currently it's not possible to use a Credit Card to pay anything that they don't like.
    (e.g.: you can't donate money to whistleblower. Wiki

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  31. Ridiculous! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not crack down on government corruption, banking fraud and pedophile rings instead? Something effective that would actually make a difference in the world...

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:Ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck sake. Pedophile rings simply don't exist in any shape or form that is a threat. They represent about as much risk as terrorists. That is, none at all.

      If you want to focus resources on crime we should be looking at domestic violence and police governance. Both things that you are reasonably likely to encounter in your lifetime.

    2. Re:Ridiculous! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      "Pedophile rings simply don't exist in any shape or form that is a threat"

      Do some research.

      Blackmail is one of the most heavily relied on tools for manipulation with respect to people in positions of power and authority. Many, MANY politicians and prominent businessmen are compromised via pedophilia/sexual deviation.

      Secret societies (ladders to power) often use sexual deviation to bond and manipulate their members. For example, Skull & Bones members at Yale (Bush family, John Kerry) undergo an initiation ritual in which they are required to lay naked in a coffin and masturbate while recounting their sexual history to other members. Freemasonry's Master Mason level initiation ritual requires the initiate to engage in oral sex with other members. Higher levels require more sexual deviation, which for members means more 'benefits' and for the leaders it means more control over the individual; usually in the form of blackmail. This is why it is very rare to find whistleblowers in these types of organizations.

      The reason that pedo rings continue to exist is because there are so many powerful people involved who are protecting each other - police, judges, lawyers, businessmen, doctors, priests, etc.

      Every first-world country is infested with pedophile rings:

      For example:

      USA - Franklin Cover-Up
      Canada - Cornwall 'Clan' pedo ring
      UK - Westminster pedo ring
      Australia - Perth pedo ring
      Belgium - Mark Dutroux cover-up

      .. just to name a few.

      Conspiracy of Silence is an excellent documentary on the subject.

      Shine a light onto these pedophile rings and the power structure of the ruling elite will fall like stacked cards.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  32. remember cash doesn't kill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    remember cash doesn't kill people. muslims do

  33. This is a bad move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going all Nazi in response to an act of terrorism only screws up your freedom.

    I would know because I have lived it.. in 2001. I lived in NY on 9-11 and was all for using technology to keep us safe.. but you can't infringe on rights to privacy. You end up with a corrupt government and a police state.

    limiting cryptocurrencies is a waste of time too, there is nothing you can do about it.. and doing things about it does not help in the way you think it will.

  34. Typical Liberal Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists are bad. Terrorists do X. Therefore, X is bad.

    The liberal demoncrap "mind" cannot recognize the logical fallacy that has taken place in the above. Because they are too busy hating you and your freedoms.

  35. Vet Us by transfire · · Score: 1

    Oh, I have a better idea. How about we each pay a $100 to get a mark on our forehead or hand to mark us as vetted by the state, proving we are not potential terrorists. That'll make it easy to tell the good guys from the baddies. And it will generate lots of revenue for the state. Win win!

    1. Re:Vet Us by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And predicted by a 2000-year-old book...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Vet Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's $85. TSA Pre-check.

  36. terrorists celebrating the additional publicity by lkcl · · Score: 1

    wow, man. terrorists love the chaos and publicity that they receive. they love the reactions, the outrage, the responses that they get, because they don't need to do anything other than kill a few people, and the rest of the damage people - and governments - do *to themselves*. trying to "crack down" on anonymous payments all in the name of "terrorism"... it's amazing. i look forward to a time when people - and governments - understand that terrorising *ourselves* with the knee-jerk after-reactions often does far more lasting damage than the actual atrocities carried out by the killers.

  37. Remember this ? by SinisterEVIL · · Score: 1
  38. Banks, they need their cut! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The society collapses if the banking lobby at Brussels can't convince the Parliament to enact as much support for maximum banking fees at every turn!! The horrors of free market and commerce shall not prevent us from enriching our mercantilist backbones of society!

  39. Governments that fund and support ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to crack down on something? How about cracking down on the governments who created, and now support, train, supply, and provide intelligence to the so called Islamic State?

    Here's a list to get started with: The United States, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France (yes, France) and Qatar.

  40. terrorists are expensive by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    The terrorist blowing himself up needed running "free education schools" called madarsas for years, shortlisting, sending of feelers, recruitment, brainwashing, training, tools, transportation. All this while staying in places with corrupt government officials, Mafia like entities, and other money extractors who if not paid well can spoil the plans.

    All this is done by extremely smart individuals who expect the evils money buys - political power, influence, creature comforts, security, probably women.

    A terrorist blowing himself costs millions of dollars.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  41. Anatomy of HATE; by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Anatomy of HATE;
    If you're not from my caste/religion, you're non-human to me;
    https://wh.gov/iyhMK
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...