Author Topic: Syrian Refugees  (Read 26894 times)

teacherwithamustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2015, 01:29:20 PM »
I have no problem with the US doing their part to fix the situation.  I am really upset with the Rich Muslim countries and their refusal to accept Syrian Refugees.  Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE have all accepted 0 Syrian's, and the reason they give is the risk of terrorism.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #51 on: November 25, 2015, 08:38:01 AM »
The more accurate answer is that they are also countries dominated by families that have done their own fair share of supporting Sunni extremist groups whether it be Al Qaeda or what is now ISIS.

Goldielocks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4036
  • Location: BC
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2015, 06:44:34 PM »
The more accurate answer is that they are also countries dominated by families that have done their own fair share of supporting Sunni extremist groups whether it be Al Qaeda or what is now ISIS.
Ah, well. If they will take more Somalians,  will take more Syrians!

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Location: NoVa
    • Chart prepping
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2015, 06:54:38 AM »
I have zero concerns accepting refugees.  It is the right thing to do, especially for our country.  The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized.  We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.

We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.

We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.
Check out my blog.  Early retirement from a military perspective.

http://chartprepping.com

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #54 on: November 26, 2015, 10:35:44 AM »
I have zero concerns accepting refugees.  It is the right thing to do, especially for our country.  The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized.  We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.

We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.

We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.

In France and other parts of Europe it sounds like long-term prospects for refugees and their families are worse than in the U.S. France already has many foreign born refugees and their families living there, and apparently their lives aren't too rosy. Unemployment is high. Prospects for integrating into French society sound like they're low compared to the U.S.

I totally agree with you that we need to figure out why children of refugees and other immigrants to Western countries are becoming radicalized and what we can do to stop it. It may not be the whole story, but I'll bet improving job prospects for children of refugees would be a step in the right direction...

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #55 on: November 26, 2015, 05:32:01 PM »
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.

How many will you be inviting into your home?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 25245
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2015, 01:36:29 AM »

I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.

How many will you be inviting into your home?

I would invite any and all of them, and gladly pay my taxes to support wherever they're staying.

And if I were in that situation, fleeing a country, I'd be very grateful for anyone willing to take me in, and recognizing me as a human being.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

rockstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Northeast
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2015, 04:41:59 AM »

I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.

How many will you be inviting into your home?

My husband and I have discussed it and would be willing to house as many people as we could. We don't have much space but it's probably still better than wherever they're living now.

Exhale

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2015, 06:43:22 PM »

I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.

How many will you be inviting into your home?

I would invite any and all of them, and gladly pay my taxes to support wherever they're staying.

And if I were in that situation, fleeing a country, I'd be very grateful for anyone willing to take me in, and recognizing me as a human being.

+1

deborah

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5651
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #59 on: November 27, 2015, 09:40:13 PM »
I was in Turkey in April/May/June. There are Syrian refugees everywhere there. I saw several Syrian refugee camps. I saw Syrian families and Syrian children sleeping in the streets. Turkey has 2 million of them, in a country of 43 million. Turkey is a third world country, yet they are giving Syrian refugees free schooling and free health care. Like the Canadian who responded, I live in a country which is taking more Syrian refugees than the US, and has less than a fifth of the US population.



astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #60 on: November 27, 2015, 10:14:12 PM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.

Flyingkea

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2725
  • Location: Australia
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2015, 10:30:26 PM »
I have zero concerns accepting refugees.  It is the right thing to do, especially for our country.  The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized.  We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.

We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.

We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.

I read a really good piece about this and the theory was:
Refuges being accepted where moderates, so not overtly religious. But they were living in communities of other refuges/like minded people so did not really become part of the the greater community ie continued to speak their own language, kept up their customs.
Their children on the orher hand, felt like they hadn't really become part of this country, and their religion became important to them due to lacking a feeling of community, this makes them vulnerable to radicalisation.

I'll see if I can dig up the post.
A kiwi in the land down-under, with 2 beautiful boys in her life.
Navigating through turbulence and toddlerhood

brainfart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2015, 06:33:51 AM »
> Turkey has 2 million of them, in a country of 43 million.

Lebanon: 1.2 million, population 5.8 millions, including half a million Palestinians
Jordan: 1.4 million plus another two million Palestinians, population about 8 million (including refugees!)

brainfart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2015, 06:43:54 AM »
> Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants

In the US, a nation based on immigration, that's certainly true. The number of native American Indian terrorists seem to be rather small from the outside.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2015, 09:52:23 AM »
European integration of refugees has always been a problem for several reasons:

1) They are considered "other" to a certain degree and are not an accepted part of French society.  This encourages communities to be insular rather than integrated.
2) Unemployment is high and they have to compete with labor moving freely in from eastern Eurozone countries. 
3) Youth unemployment is incredibly high and even worse for non-citizens
4) A strong safety net makes sure they won't starve, but it also feeds resentment over their situation and frees up lots of time. 

The above is a recipe for youth radicalization no matter what country.  The US does a better job in integrating immigrants than most European countries.  In part because we've been doing it as a matter of course since our inception.  We have very little issue with multi-generational insularism.

Now as for that whole "I don't my neighbor to be ISIS" shtick....

Your neighbor won't be ISIS.  Your neighbor had to go through multiple interviews from multiple agencies including the UN and the State Department.  Your neighbor had to get fingerprinted and have those fingerprints run against domestic and foreign criminal databases.  Your neighbor had to supply references, background, contacts and their history for the last ten years.  Your neighbor went through a 2-3 year vetting process before coming here.  Your neighbor isn't ISIS. 

Now that angry white guy across the street who screams about how the country is being ruined by [insert weekly outrage target here].  He's the one to keep an eye on

UnleashHell

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Location: Florida
  • climbing out of a dark hole
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2015, 08:22:47 AM »
When I was a kid Catholic extremists used to regularly blow people up in Northern Ireland. Just because there were some Catholic terrorists in Ireland fighting against what they believed was an illegal occupation by Great Britain, didn't mean that Catholics everywhere were terrorists.

Similarly, just because Protestant extremists / terrorists carried out sick atrocities against catholic communities in Northern Ireland doesn't mean all Protestants are terrorists!

I get your point and don't agree with the atrocities carried out by the IRA but wanted to add that it took two to tango in Northern Ireland....the Protestant terrorist members of the UVF/UDA/LVF groups are not without blood on their hands.

One half my family has roots as catholics in NI. The other half has roots as Prods in Dublins.

There are still some on each side who can't/won't understand why we abhor the violence of both sides. They still think only one side is right.
_____________
JTF 96

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2015, 08:28:27 AM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now? 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2015, 08:40:53 AM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?

Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true.  It's about what feels good to think. 
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2015, 09:11:16 AM »
The idea that a terrorist would wait 18-24 months and subject themselves to 9 kinds of scrutiny plus tracking once they enter the country to enter the U.S. instead of flying to a neighboring country and walking in is...uninformed.

Rules keep only the rule followers out.  I shop in the back of the store instead of the front, turns out the only thing keeping you out of the back is that sign that says you can't go back there.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2015, 11:10:00 AM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?

Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true.  It's about what feels good to think.

To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants.  None of them are Native American.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2015, 11:11:28 AM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?

Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true.  It's about what feels good to think.

To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants.  None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2015, 11:20:18 AM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?

Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true.  It's about what feels good to think.

To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants.  None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.

Of course not. We all know white people aren't immigrants.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2015, 12:05:50 PM »
I'd accept some refugees.

But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.

Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me.  No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors.  Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern?  I'd be concerned for our safety.

But most refugees I think are probably okay.

Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).

To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem.  Accepting is one thing, integrating is another.  Like organ transplant.  Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept.  It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis.  You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?

Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true.  It's about what feels good to think.

To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants.  None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.

Of course not. We all know white people aren't immigrants.

This thread is rife with mental illness.  A guy makes a point about not wanting to import more terrorists and it causes our resident leftists to go incoherent.  I hope your ivory towers hold up.
Again, Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  You think we need to import our terrorists?  They are born and bred here.  His statement was inaccurate, which is what we were saying.  I deal in reality, how about you start?

http://www.vice.com/read/why-are-so-many-mass-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2015, 12:22:01 PM »
But since white people were all immigrants to North America, his point is accidentally valid.  :P

clarkevii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Dallas TX
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2015, 08:14:39 PM »
The female shooter was from Pakistan. She was not a native North American.

brainfart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2015, 11:21:33 PM »
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.

Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2015, 08:35:46 AM »
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.

Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.

The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire.  But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment.  We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese.  These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language.  Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.

That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right.  Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance.  Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it. 


What it boils down to is if you genuinely believe that this nation can be a City on a Hill like Reagan discussed in his Farewell Address:

Quote
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
 

If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2015, 11:00:10 AM »

The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire.  But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment.  We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese.  These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language.  Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.

That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right.  Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance.  Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it. 

If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.

I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help.  But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.

To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans.  If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US. 

But that's 1940s, life was different then.  As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan.  Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.  They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is). 

There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now.  It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before.  A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents.  They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time.  It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well.  The influences you expose yourself shape one's views.  Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2015, 11:07:55 AM »

The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire.  But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment.  We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese.  These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language.  Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.

That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right.  Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance.  Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it. 

If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.

I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help.  But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.

To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans.  If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US. 

But that's 1940s, life was different then.  As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan.  Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.  They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is). 

There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now.  It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before.  A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents.  They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time.  It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well.  The influences you expose yourself shape one's views.  Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
I was under the impression mass shootings have gone up since 2005/2006, not so recent and definitely within Bush's presidency.  And I am also pretty sure they have looked the races of the majority of mass shooting and middle eastern was not the majority.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2738
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2015, 11:13:39 AM »
There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.





beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2738
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2015, 11:15:37 AM »
And to put this into perspective:


gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2015, 11:20:34 AM »
1.  I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?

2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret. 

3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common.  I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2738
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2015, 11:23:42 AM »
Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.

While I don't fully agree with this characterization of the media, I agree that the media is why people often misperceive the actual risk of different events.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2015, 11:26:08 AM »
1.  I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?

2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret. 

3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common.  I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. 

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2015, 11:29:09 AM »

The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire.  But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment.  We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese.  These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language.  Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.

That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right.  Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance.  Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it. 

If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.

I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help.  But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.

To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans.  If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US. 

But that's 1940s, life was different then.  As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan.  Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.  They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is). 

There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now.  It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before.  A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents.  They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time.  It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well.  The influences you expose yourself shape one's views.  Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
I was under the impression mass shootings have gone up since 2005/2006, not so recent and definitely within Bush's presidency.  And I am also pretty sure they have looked the races of the majority of mass shooting and middle eastern was not the majority.

I meant in terms of Internet and big picture.  I'm young, maybe you are too lol but I mean like since WWII.  There's overlap yeah but I'm talking that a lot of shootings committed by Muslims have a pretty similar motive, jihad, for Islam, or oppression of Muslims.  Fort Hood, Times Square, Boston Marathon, 9/11, now San Bernardinho  (terror or not, relevant b/c of motive or lives lost).  This thread is on Syrian/Muslim refugees so I stuck w/that demographic. A separate thread on gun violence would have to be made for your other perps (white, blacks, latinos, asians)

Could also be news coverage too.  Some incidents make better shock headlines than others.  Generally more blood, more dead is better news than less dead.  Some "jihadists" didn't end up getting to do much so are looked over. 

Indeed, double checking I have a point.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadist_extremism_in_the_United_States

Internet is an accelerant for radicalization; US mass media too plays a role in trying to enhance Islamic jihad, strike fear into Americans, inspire new radicals, educate them on details of how to plan and avoid mistakes like previous attackers because it's always been in the mass news interest to fan flames, not put them out.   That's why I like PBS better, more analytical vs sensational. Also easier to learn how to build a weapon today than before.  And weapons technology also maybe a factor.


My main point is that Japanese internment vs today's discussion on what do w/Syrian/Muslim refugees cannot be compared.  The eras in those times are too different and the fuel for radicalization wasn't there in WWII like today.  Principally because of technology.  It's not a valid analogy that some use.  A scientist would say it's not a valid comparison because there aren't enough controls or too many variables and differences that you cannot equate Japanese-Americans to today's Muslim refugees.  No scientist would say that's a valid comparison and hence that analogy is grossly incorrect.

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2015, 11:39:00 AM »
Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.

While I don't fully agree with this characterization of the media, I agree that the media is why people often misperceive the actual risk of different events.

My view on the media comes from my closely following Tyler Clementi's suicide.  There was so much misinformation, falsification, fiction being spread about the details of that incident, and the comments and misinformation and outrage being spread, I realized that the media was all about blowing up events to make money, to scare and provide misinformation to make money. I guess Treyvon Martin was another one. Why Walter Scott didn't get more outrage or publicity than other incidents...idk.  I guess the black community there did a good job of cooling heads down (I'm guessing the media wasn't all too happy, they'd much rather have Ferguson or Baltimore)

Other examples include Fox News after Charlie Hebdo about those fictional no-go zones and the subsequent apology.

Or the Yahoo News article on that 26 yr old millionaire and the later retraction. 

Or Mohammed Islam making millions off trading.  Even when we doubted and knew it was hoax, the media tried to continue spinning it. 

Another Mustachian commented on media's power and it is very powerful.  Fiction overwrites fact, emotionally charged articles and delivery of news trumps accuracy and level-headed thinking.

UVA Rolling Stone and rape.
So yeah, I feel pretty pissed about my choices for news.  PBS, maybe ProPublica.  Not much else. There's no ethics in journalism these days cause it's too time consuming and if followed is less clickbait and less $$.

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Age: 35
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2015, 11:45:25 AM »
1.  I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?

2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret. 

3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common.  I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.

My mistake, thank you for the correction.

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2015, 11:45:50 AM »
There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.




Sorry beltim.  I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly.  But I have to draw inaccuracies here. 

In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for.  There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.

Media could be misperceiving. 

Your 2nd post is about murders in general.  I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too.  And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future?  What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer?  Charlie Hebdo?  Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing?  Mali Hotel attack?  British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack?  Kenya school attack?  Pakistan school massacre attack?  Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks.  And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing.  Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.

And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase?  W/9/11 being the outlier?

Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism.  The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more.  Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (white perps maybe as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.

Also what defines terrorism I don't know.  Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001?  There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also using to fool some others.  Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point.  Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about.  Size of attack, intended scope, also matter.  We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling.  Did you include data on attacks foiled? What about effects of gun control?  Has that been a positive? Maybe...

There needs to be more impartial data analysis but so many industries, interests have a foot and leg in this that there's bound to be manipulation of data to push some agenda.

I'm not claiming to have good data or anything.  I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions.  I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work.  That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 12:06:13 PM by astvilla »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2015, 12:05:59 PM »
There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.




Sorry beltim.  I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly.  But I have to draw inaccuracies here. 

In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for.  There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.

Media could be misperceiving. 

Your 2nd post is about murders in general.  I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too.  And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future?  What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer?  Charlie Hebdo?  Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing?  Mali Hotel attack?  British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack?  Kenya school attack?  Pakistan school massacre attack?  Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks.  And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing.  Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.

And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase?  W/9/11 being the outlier?

Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism.  The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more.  Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.

Also what defines terrorism I don't know.  Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001?  There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also fooling some others.  Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point.  Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about.  Size of attack, intended scope, also matter.  We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling.  Did you include data on attacks foiled?

I'm not claiming to have good data or anything.  I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions.  I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work.  That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
That is because you are more likely to be shot from a white extremists not a Muslim.  So no, your statement "ther forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s" is not true.
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2015, 12:19:44 PM »
There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.




Sorry beltim.  I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly.  But I have to draw inaccuracies here. 

In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for.  There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.

Media could be misperceiving. 

Your 2nd post is about murders in general.  I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too.  And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future?  What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer?  Charlie Hebdo?  Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing?  Mali Hotel attack?  British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack?  Kenya school attack?  Pakistan school massacre attack?  Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks.  And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing.  Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.

And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase?  W/9/11 being the outlier?

Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism.  The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more.  Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.

Also what defines terrorism I don't know.  Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001?  There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also fooling some others.  Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point.  Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about.  Size of attack, intended scope, also matter.  We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling.  Did you include data on attacks foiled?

I'm not claiming to have good data or anything.  I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions.  I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work.  That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
That is because you are more likely to be shot from a white extremists not a Muslim.  So no, your statement "ther forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s" is not true.
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

Thank you for conveniently ignoring my other points.  There have been a lot more foiling and FBI investigations on muslim terrorists (spying/wiretapping mosques, monitoring Muslims) and I remember reading NYT reports on undercover agents catching Muslim extremists.  Is that a possible reason for whites committing more terroristic acts?  We should start monitoring and profiling all white people now too yeah? (being sarcastic here...but maybe monitoring/surveillance can work?)  Although I'm pro-Snowden so I'm trying to marry the 2.

Plus that's only the US!  What about the rest of the world? Like France?  Or Africa or Asia? (honestly no one here could give 1 cent about them).  Or the Middle East (yes there are many bombings and Muslims killing each other there too!)  But we don't care about them.  Terrorism isn't just limited to the US, world ain't just us.  Last I checked, a lot of countries were targeted by Muslim terrorists. And several cases had Westerners in those countries (Mali, Kenya, US Embassy, Bali, Russia, Mumbai hotel, Pakistan hotel, Saudi hotel, (i'm playing off Zero Dark Thirty, double check me on that etc)

This only strengthens my argument that the media is hell bent on trying to start a war over people who aren't as much a threat.  By downplaying the atrocities by whites and exploding the atrocities by Muslims.  By downplaying the atrocities by blacks and exploding the atrocities by white officers.  The media is in it for $$ and if it fits the agenda/narrative of special interests who have a stake in wanting war, violence, or fear, then why blindly trust the media?  Of course the piece you cite brings some degree of calm, but that's not the tenor being struck in the Presidential debates.  We're being seriously misled and we need more objective, level headed, investigative journalism and people need to pay attention to that more.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 12:25:18 PM by astvilla »

brainfart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2015, 03:10:16 PM »
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.

Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.

The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire.  But I'll assume the person is being serious

The poor spelling and punctuation are caused by being a non-native English speaker.
OF COURSE that was satire. What a sad world we're in if that isn't obvious.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2015, 01:17:51 AM »
I generally agree with the point about media sensationalism.

However, I think the analogy about Japanese internment and possible Muslim internment today is completely valid.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now.  All the rest doesn't matter.  Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong.

Anyone arguing there could be any justification whatsoever is just plain wrong.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2015, 10:01:25 AM »
I generally agree with the point about media sensationalism.

However, I think the analogy about Japanese internment and possible Muslim internment today is completely valid.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now.  All the rest doesn't matter.  Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong.

Anyone arguing there could be any justification whatsoever is just plain wrong.

+1

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2738
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2015, 10:15:22 AM »
There is also the Internet.  It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.

Sorry beltim.  I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly.

Thanks!  I try to always have data-supported posts.  With that in mind, let's look at the rest of your comments:

Quote
But I have to draw inaccuracies here. 
In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for.  There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.

The graphs do include 9/11.  I mean, it's not included in the first because the first shows deaths in Western Europe.  It's included in the second as an event, but that chart doesn't show number of deaths.  There aren't citations because this sort of data is everywhere - I just picked a few relevant ones from Google searches.


Quote
Your 2nd post is about murders in general.  I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too. 

My point is that the actual dangers of terrorism are orders of magnitude lower than other types of risks.  I didn't do a good job explaining this, but my thinking is that:
1) Violent crime is rare
2) Violent crime due to terrorism is a tiny fraction of overall violent crime
3) Any trends in terrorism seems to be down over the last few decades
4) Because of 2, any trend in terrorism doesn't really change the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime

Quote
And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future?  What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer?  Charlie Hebdo?  Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing?  Mali Hotel attack?  British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack?  Kenya school attack?  Pakistan school massacre attack?  Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks. 

You're able to list these because they're recent and because:
Quote
And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing. 
It would be just as easy to list terrorist attacks that occurred in the 80s.

Quote
And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase?  W/9/11 being the outlier?

Possibly.  But the overall death rate is also lower (with 9/11 again being the outlier).

Quote
Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism.  The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more.  Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (white perps maybe as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.

I don't really care the religion of who commits crime.  Knowing someone's religion isn't predictive of whether or not they'll commit a violent crime, so why should I care?

Focusing on terrorism committed by Muslims just ignores that people of other religions have also committed terrorism.

Quote
I'm not claiming to have good data or anything.  I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions.  I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work.  That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.

PKFFW perfectly addressed this: "Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong."

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #94 on: December 05, 2015, 07:09:56 PM »
Quote
Thanks!  I try to always have data-supported posts.  With that in mind, let's look at the rest of your comments:

No probs, always enjoyed your posts on other topics.  So allow me to try and question some of your points :)

Quote
The graphs do include 9/11.  I mean, it's not included in the first because the first shows deaths in Western Europe.  It's included in the second as an event, but that chart doesn't show number of deaths.  There aren't citations because this sort of data is everywhere - I just picked a few relevant ones from Google searches.

I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report.  Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field..  And the graphs can still be debated.  I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.

Quote
My point is that the actual dangers of terrorism are orders of magnitude lower than other types of risks.  I didn't do a good job explaining this, but my thinking is that:
1) Violent crime is rare
2) Violent crime due to terrorism is a tiny fraction of overall violent crime
3) Any trends in terrorism seems to be down over the last few decades
4) Because of 2, any trend in terrorism doesn't really change the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime

100% agree except 3 can be explained by multiple reasons as I'll mention.  I'm not trying to overblow terrorism and the times article you linked briefly alludes to the point that lesser known, smaller scale incidents have occurred that don't garner attention.  And the choice of what makes good sensationalism isn't your typical crime of passion, murder, robbery, etc.  But people who live in communities that are safe, and who can only experience violence through what the media says, will feel what the media says is dangerous, IS dangerous.  But there are those who say they are more fearful of bad neighborhoods, accidents, drinking & driving, drugs, etc and which they should.

Violent crime is rare depending on who you ask.  Those in violent neighborhoods say they are more afraid of neighborhoods than jihadists, and that's sensible.  Mustachians are likely to have enough $$ and education that we can avoid that. 

Quote
You're able to list these because they're recent and because:

Forgive me but I can only remember events that I have been alive for.  But I'm not sure how much citing the past does about future trends.  Past doesn't predict future right?  ISIS and its structure is a new phenomenon to us.  The world is different than what it was before.  Comparisons can't be made because tactics change and evolve.  What worked before doesn't always work later. I only know Waco and Kent State.  But otherwise in my history books, I don't know of any noteworthy shootings/mass murders/terrorism that occurred.  When I ask older people they don't think its the same, they think it's more violent today.

If there are any Mustachians here who are 60-70 years old w/sharp memory and able to compare/contrast and provide insight that'd be great...I just don't think you'll find many

Quote
And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing. 

It would be just as easy to list terrorist attacks that occurred in the 80s.

There was no CNN back in the 70s/80s.  Older people tell me there were no copycat crimes like today where people are "inspired" by Columbine or V Tech or 9/11.  Media inspires future attackers by showing the fear they could instill in people through clamoring for people like Trump.  And if there are attacks in the 80s, please list them, their scope, motivations, and have a clear definition between what terrorism is versus maybe riots, gang shootings, and so on.  The media is designed to make the world be more chaotic.  This was discussed in the other threads in MMM forums.  "Fear Fear Fear!"  "Ad Ad Ad!" repeat.  It doesn't matter to people if there was an increase or not, it matters if it feels like they're in danger and that there is fear all around. To breed distrust, racism, etc. 
Quote

Possibly.  But the overall death rate is also lower (with 9/11 again being the outlier).

Terrorism isn't about just death but fear and intimidation.  Would you say people are more afraid today than before?  What role does media and technology have in enhancing the fear of terrorists? I can and have seen HD high quality pictures of real sick brutality by ISIS (immolations, beheadings) and that Asian woman getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia for sticking a broomstick up a kid's butt or something...(I wouldn't recommend viewing to others)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

If you look, and this is probably incomplete but tell me, what is the major group involved?  What's a common thread?

Plus there's nothing saying that better medicine is saving lives that would've been lost cases decades ago.  Or if this is an issue of gun control and easy access to info on how to wreck carnage compared to 80s when it was harder w/less information to enable those ideas to become reality.  You have to think of ways to poke holes in this argument and saying "Oh decrease in deaths/incidents" isn't a reason to not worry about terrorism.  It's what terrorism can do for our politics, actions, and potential war that's the problem.  Plus the media tells us what to worry because people are sheep.

And how do you know that less terrorism isn't because of better law enforcement and surveillance w/a lot of focus on Muslims?  Like the wiretapping of Mosques w/Fed and NYPD? Or better investigations (your link provided)? Maybe they focused more on Muslims so it lessened what impact they could've had.  Less terrorism isn't necessarily less people committing acts, could be better prevention.  I've read a number of articles over the years about enforcement and undercover agents trapping wannabe terrorists in the name of Islam.  I don't see that type of enforcement on white extremists or at least any publicity, if there is data on the number of terrorist incidents foiled or prevented similar to the wiki link I provide, that would be interesting to have (You gotta think, not be drone to media, too bad I aint smart tho so I'm pretty limited, is why I'm here, learn from you guys)

Quote
I don't really care the religion of who commits crime.  Knowing someone's religion isn't predictive of whether or not they'll commit a violent crime, so why should I care?

Focusing on terrorism committed by Muslims just ignores that people of other religions have also committed terrorism.

This point could be disproven.  It actually is in the very source you cited  so I'm not sure you even looked at the full numbers.  If Muslims commit or (attempt) terrorism that is above the normal % for a particular group, then you could infer that Islam can be a factor that influences future terroristic acts.  Muslims as a whole in the US are a very small segment.  But they maybe (I don't have hard data but your graphs don't show which is a point of debate) have also attempted more acts of terrorism as a % for their group. 

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

Any statistician will immediately say the news article you cited that based its conclusion on the link above as completely erroneous (this is one of my chief complaints about yellow journalism). 
First, 45 by jihadists, 48 by white extremists.  If the sample size or size of population from which those groups come from was the same then it's NOT statistically significant! 
Now you know where I'm going next...there are 2.7 million Muslim Americans and 240ish million Whites (different years so I couldn't pick but you get the point).  As a sheer %, I'm gonna go and guess Muslims are more likely as a % to become jihadists and commit acts of terrorism and this is supported by the data you (not me) provided.  If you can find data on the population of Jihadists versus White extremists even being the same...still not significant.  If there were more jihadists than white extremists by a factor of 100, then you'd be right.  I'm gonna guess the chance of that is low but I don't have that data.

Example:  if I compared a drug A to a control treatment's mortality rate and drug A killed 148 people and placebo killed 151, hey not much difference, placebo is worse right?!  But if my sample size for those tested in drug A was 1000 and those in placebo 100,000, now it's a totally different story right?!  Sample size is important, in clinical trials, %'s, not absolute whole numbers and counting, is what matters.  This is Statistics 000.  Not meaning to insult you, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean lol.  This is a principle reason why I don't trust journalists.  They aren't qualified experts to speak on important issues.  They will twist and only glance and be reckless in analysis to support the interests of themselves and their readers for sake of sensationalism to get more revenue.  There's Yellow Journalism everywhere in varying degrees and mixes of fact, exaggeration, and fiction. So there's a big potential flaw in your source that undermines your argument.

Technically then, religion does matter in terms of terrorism.

Quote
PKFFW perfectly addressed this: "Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong."

I'd agree w/this 99% of the time.  Again posters like to put words in my mouth.  I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.

First, before Japanese were interned, there wasn't any real incident of Japanese Americans attacking American civilians prior to entrance to WWII.  If there was, it must've been so irrelevant to the nations' psyche that it literally meant nothing that it doesn't show up in any history textbook.  Japan wasn't at war w/America prior to America's entrance.  They were at war in Asia (not USA).  There was no track record of nationalistic Japanese Americans screaming "Banzai" and murdering American civilians, was there?  And bombs were pretty big back then.  And weapons not as powerful.  And no internet to train anyone on how to destroy.  And no internet to inspire Japanese to take arms against America.

(interestingly, Japanese-Americans took internment as a way to prove their loyalty and go above and beyond, almost a perverse, opposite, beneficial effect in America's war effort that endures today as an inspiration, just an observation, not saying it's good)

Muslims, OTOH, have a pretty decent (and exaggerated to an extent) track record of hating, killing Westerners and us Americans.  They've made that clear 14 years ago.  So it's completely natural and evolutionary to be wary of previous threats and draw connections.  If we didn't have that instinct, we'd be extinct.  It would be even scarier in a way if we weren't.  Then there's social media recruiting that is available now that wasn't around during WWII.  That means anyone can be a threat.  Even whites or blacks that convert to Islam and join ISIS (which has happened).  And it doesn't have to be on American soil like it wasn't in Kenya, Mali, Tunisia, Indonesia, Phillippines, Middle East, France, UK, Spain, Australia.

You cannot use the analogy of Japanese-Americans to support or oppose rounding up Muslims, it just doesn't work.  Interning is wrong, but not because it was wrong to do that to Japanese, it's just not the smart path.  It's also the hardest path sadly. 

The big concern about Syrian refugees is the mix of religion, potential lack of integration (as shown in Europe) and welfare (not knowing language, unskilled, inability to read/write, mostly young single men, lack of fingerprinting, tracking, screening which we do in the US). 

Violence has a detoxifying effect for any radical.  It restores pride in them (how they see it, not us), after being or feeling oppressed. Accept refugees only if you're gonna make serious efforts to try and integrate but know that there will always be a huge potential security risk and is that risk worth it?  So screening is important.

I agree w/you that in the grand scheme, we shouldn't worry about Syrian refugees and overall crime/terror they might bring.  Overall, it's ridiculously small.  Sure as a % they likely are to commit more acts that are defined as terrorism but also they don't drink (positive), do illicit drugs (positive), abort children and lack of family planning perhaps due to religion (idk), hate homosexuals (ask Muslims in Europe and there are some (idk the number) you'll get very conservative opinions) and are more in line w/RP philosophy (not good).  So there's a lot of things potentially can't agree on.  Is all this potential toxic mix something to worry?  W/proper screening I don't think so, what we see in Europe, probably a big worry.  Sure 500,000 aint a lot, but 0.1% is still 500 baddies you have to chase and devote resources to hunt and catch.  And then they become domestic and then radicalized like French youths (marginalized, degraded, poor self-esteem, wandering, lost).  Not a lot, but enough to shut down France, scare people, and forced or compelled to retaliate and get drawn into a conflict.  bin Laden made very good notes on dragging the US into conflict (he understood this very well and was pretty smart) though I hate to say it.

Overall numbers, deaths, isn't what we should fear, but it's the fear their acts can potentially bring that is important.  This isn't stats where we can throw outliers away; NSA/Uncle Sam know this.  Because even one outlier, can completely throw us off course (like 9/11).  Honestly, San Bernadinho isn't that big a deal.  We're so used to shootings the shock and fear it had is pretty blah now.  It would be more shocking, fearful, if terrorists attacked and killed large numbers of Americans in an unforeseen, unconventional method that exposes a weakness in our security measures and spaces that we once took to be completely safe.  And it only takes 1.  That's the fear of terrorism and why people are so afraid they are acting irrationally. Which distracts us from the more important goals of climate change, space exploration, food security, income/wealth inequality, etc.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2015, 11:20:27 PM by astvilla »

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2015, 09:02:28 PM »
I'd agree w/this 99% of the time.  Again posters like to put words in my mouth.  I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.

snipped because all the rest is meaningless
The analogy is not to suggest the two examples are exactly the same in all ways.

The analogy is to illustrate that locking up innocent people for dumb ass reasons out of fear of "them" is just plain wrong.  No ifs, ands or buts.

It was wrong for innocent Japanese Americans in WW2 and it would be now for Innocent Muslims.

The fact you can't seem to see that is very telling.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2015, 10:25:00 PM »

I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.

I have met genuine refugees in my home country. They crossed the border to the first safe country. The refugees who want to come to the US (or, say, Germany), will cross the borders of several safe countries on the way. To me, they are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants and should be evaluated and admitted (or refused) as such.

Is that what you would want for yourself? If your country collapsed into mindless and terrifying violence, if your neighborhood was regularly bombed and roaming terrorists were randomly killing your neighbors, and you managed to get at least some of your family out by giving up everything you'd worked for and leaving behind everyone you knew (including no doubt many relatives), and you had risked your own and your kids' lives on some rubber raft across the Aegean, would you be ok with sentencing your kids to grow up in a country where they were technically safe (no bombs, no roaming terrorists) but despised and radically unwelcome?

Like, say, Hungary where the authorities left thousands of families to sleep outside for weeks in a train station with no help at all and ordered trains not to let them on even though they had tickets? Where cops and civilians alike have beaten and/or robbed refugees, and even tripped or kicked refugees who were carrying small children? So you could pretty much be sure that even getting the most menial job and the crappest apartment would be a major trial and not necessarily successful, and that your kids--if they could even get into public schools--would be bullied for most of their childhoods?

Or would you walk another few hundred miles to get to Austria or Germany, where people were literally waiting with welcome signs and bags of food on the train station platforms?

Which would you pick for yourself?

Why would you pick something else for others, then?

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2015, 11:07:39 PM »
I'd agree w/this 99% of the time.  Again posters like to put words in my mouth.  I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.

snipped because all the rest is meaningless


The fact you can't seem to see that is very telling.

Snipped because the rest is meaningless.

The fact you don't read and like to troll is very telling. I don't have to listen to someone who doesn't bother reading.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2015, 11:13:08 PM by astvilla »

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #98 on: December 06, 2015, 02:14:38 AM »
Snipped because the rest is meaningless.

The fact you don't read and like to troll is very telling. I don't have to listen to someone who doesn't bother reading.
Of course, because you don't like what is written the only possible explanation is that the other person must be trolling.

I did read what you posted.

In a nut shell and to paraphrase you claimed you thought internment of innocents was wrong but then went on to list all the reasons why this time it would be different and apparently natural for people (other people, not you of course) to want to intern innocent Muslims.  You tried to dress it up with evolutionary traits to make connections and see threats and the internet being used to radicalise all and sundry and you even bizarrely claimed that the innocent Japanese who were interned saw it as some sort of badge of honour and way to prove themselves.

As I said, it was all pretty meaningless.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2738
Re: Syrian Refugees
« Reply #99 on: December 06, 2015, 10:36:21 AM »
I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report.  Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field..  And the graphs can still be debated.  I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.

Of course not.  But that's not what I was doing.  I was countering one specific point:

It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.

And, I'll repeat myself:
Quote
NO.  This is WRONG.  This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.

There's plenty of data to show that this is wrong - there has been no spike in attacks in the last few years.  I don't know why you think this data doesn't exist or is fishy.  Here, if you really want to do research, buy this book:
http://berkshirepublishing.com/product.aspx?projid=60