Vivian on 18/7/2016 at 14:15
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
No. SubJeff said: "you can't say that the attack is linked to IS (or Islam) because there is no proof yet". What I was saying was: this is typical behaviour of apologists. They start discussing details and technicalities. To distract the discussion and make people discuss different topics than the topic at hand (which is an IS attack on random French civilians).
You are literally saying that trying to find out if something is true distracts attention from just going ahead and assuming it is. Do you say stuff like this on purpose? Mr. Science-Doesn't-Need-Statistics?
Sulphur on 18/7/2016 at 15:49
That is apparently exactly what he is saying: letting people let facts get in the way of wielding torches and pitchforks is, in fact, more grounds for wielding said torches and pitchforks.
Gryzemuis on 19/7/2016 at 07:26
Of course. I apologize. The guy was angry at his ex-wife. That's why he killed 84 random people. Got nothing to do with IS or Islam. Happens all the time.
Muzman on 19/7/2016 at 07:59
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Of course. I apologize. The guy was angry at his ex-wife. That's why he killed 84 random people. Got nothing to do with IS or Islam. Happens all the time.
Maybe you are actually 12 and don't remember, but once that was the explanation we would have used (among others).
Did you assume Breivik was an Islamic terrorist? Do you still, and take it that all the other stuff he says is some sort of smokescreen?
What about Bryant? Maybe he was just 15 years ahead of the curve on this stuff?
This is basically the same kind of anti-intellectual hunt for fifth columnists and traitors we saw after 9/11, in essence. Only one kind of proper thought and speech about this issue, all else is apologism and weakness undermining our resolve.
Balls. It's the only way we'll win this and not become our enemies in the process. It's both practically and morally better.
Vivian on 19/7/2016 at 08:32
(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525) It's not as if there aren't recent precedents either. Look Gryz, you might be right, but you might well be wrong. There's not been anything more than circumstantial evidence so far though. If Andreas Lubitz had been called Achmed Al-Muhammad or whatever would you have assumed that was IS as well?
PigLick on 19/7/2016 at 11:44
[video=youtube;Vq7JSic1DtM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7JSic1DtM[/video]
R Soul on 19/7/2016 at 14:19
Something that rarely seems to get mentioned is the effect of drugs. (
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-nice-arrests-idUKKCN0ZX04L) This article suggests the murderer used a variety of drugs, some legal (alcohol, medication), others probably not (depending on French drug laws). I'm aware of the difference between correlation and causation, but a lot of these inexplicable killings are perpetrated by people on drugs (not necessarily at the time, but at least in the recent past). Usually it's a mass shooting in the U.S., so people focus on guns, but I think more needs to be done to find out why people flip out in the first place.
demagogue on 19/7/2016 at 15:00
I'm sure there's heaps of data on it. All manner of personality disorders, history of abuse, economic and social frustration, latching on to twisted ideologies, and then mixing it with substance abuse, and some people just don't deal well with reality whatever the situation.
But even knowing that kind of stuff, how much can the police or state really do? With guns you can have certain clear limits maybe. But with these ambiguous "trigger" categories, there's no telling how to find just that one mix that cracks people and then know where & how to confront it.
Maybe if they're keeping a journal on their plans that gets out or telling people, then you have something solid to work with. It's such a problem because it's such mushy factors and incomplete or worthless data to work with.
Edit. Granted police can do a better or worse job of it, and we definitely want to encourage the better side, maybe some system that can identify red flags and correlate them, so that some names stand out over others. I also don't doubt that getting young people working, off drugs, on medication or getting counseling, etc, will prevent violence in the longrun, more than we could even know.
N'Al on 19/7/2016 at 16:23
I think it's the other way round; when people around you seem to be getting less and less rational, that's the time to be even more rational yourself. Raise the average level of conduct, not lower yourself to it.
Damn, that sounds so inspirational, I should start charging for motivational courses.
Point still stands, though.
nickie on 19/7/2016 at 17:08
Quote Posted by demagogue
But even knowing that kind of stuff, how much can the police or state really do?
I haven't looked for it yet but I'm pretty sure there was some discussion in the UK a little while ago about flagging certain 'situations/people' with mental health problems. I believe it might well have been stymied by privacy issues. I'll see if I can find it.
In the meantime, the (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35360375) UK deradicalisation programme has been running for 10 years or so and I believe something similar is starting in the US. It appears to be successful insofar as each year, the number of people receiving support is increasing. But it is a law since last year that
Quote:
schools, prisons, the NHS, and local authorities have a legal obligation, known as the "Prevent Duty", to spot individuals who might be vulnerable to extremism and radicalisation.
There are obviously problems with this but it's a voluntary programme and of the '4,000 referrals since 2012, only hundreds have agreed to take part.' But you know what they say, prevention is better than cure.
It doesn't say whether those people referred who don't participate go on to some kind of watch list.
