Another point of contention with the comparison...

Unless my history/memory is mistaken, the IRA didn't claim to terrorize in the name of Jesus Christ. They terrorized in the name of freedom (even if their idea of it or how to achieve it was warped). They were not bombing in the name of Catholicism, where most of the radical Muslim terrorist attacks most certainly HAVE been in the name of their religion and/or Allah/Mohammad/etc.

I am willing to be wrong, as I haven't studied the IRA conflict in quite some time, but I do not believe they did it based on religion as the current situation is.

jmog;1858420 wrote:Another point of contention with the comparison...

Unless my history/memory is mistaken, the IRA didn't claim to terrorize in the name of Jesus Christ. They terrorized in the name of freedom (even if their idea of it or how to achieve it was warped). They were not bombing in the name of Catholicism, where most of the radical Muslim terrorist attacks most certainly HAVE been in the name of their religion and/or Allah/Mohammad/etc.

I am willing to be wrong, as I haven't studied the IRA conflict in quite some time, but I do not believe they did it based on religion as the current situation is.

No, you're correct. I mentioned earlier that I don't think the motivation has to be relevant, as even not being religiously driven, they were mostly still religiously homogeneous. As such, determining that someone was a member of the IRA was still a reasonable means for determining that they were probably Irish Catholic, even if the 'Catholic' part had nothing to do with their actual cause.

A comparison in this regard would be the Taliban, who while advocates of local religious oppression (of their preference, of course), weren't interested in global domination for Islam and only directed violence outward as a result of perceived interference and occupation. It didn't make them any less terrorists or religiously homogeneous, though, even if the religion was not the motivation for their attack of those outside their own territory.

O-Trap;1858424 wrote:No, you're correct. I mentioned earlier that I don't think the motivation has to be relevant, as even not being religiously driven, they were mostly still religiously homogeneous. As such, determining that someone was a member of the IRA was still a reasonable means for determining that they were probably Irish Catholic, even if the 'Catholic' part had nothing to do with their actual cause.

A comparison in this regard would be the Taliban, who while advocates of local religious oppression (of their preference, of course), weren't interested in global domination for Islam and only directed violence outward as a result of perceived interference and occupation. It didn't make them any less terrorists or religiously homogeneous, though, even if the religion was not the motivation for their attack of those outside their own territory.

I guess I don't see why England wouldn't treat this different when one acts due to territorial dispute (IRA) and the there acts due to religious reasons. That would be a good reason why you "profile" based on religion in one and based on ethnicity in the other would it not? I mean the facts point out exactly why this meme is not really close to being apples to apples.

O-Trap;1858386 wrote:Poland does this how? An entrance survey asking about religious background? You have to run through a sprinkler of pig's blood to get out of the airplane terminal? "Aw shucks. I hoped nobody would ask me that."

Like some Islamic terrorist is going to try to immigrate for the purpose of an attack, but he'll be thwarted by someone asking about his religious beliefs?

Also, the US still has very little terrorism in relation to the population.

I would say the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people in one day, perhaps the largest Islamic terrorist strike ever, would render your statement lame, at best.

jmog;1858427 wrote:I guess I don't see why England wouldn't treat this different when one acts due to territorial dispute (IRA) and the there acts due to religious reasons. That would be a good reason why you "profile" based on religion in one and based on ethnicity in the other would it not? I mean the facts point out exactly why this meme is not really close to being apples to apples.

The parts that are not apples to apples aren't relevant to the point of the meme, though, which is why I think it's applicable with the point it intends to make, but not necessarily with points it doesn't intend to make.

As for the profiling question, I think that if you were the sort to profile, a characteristic shared by all of them would be just as valid a basis, regardless of whether or not it's fundamental to their cause. If they believed that yellow was the best color, but their attacks had nothing to do with the color yellow, you might still profile them based on their value of the color yellow.

But again, the problem is that it's using something too common for the purpose of finding something specific. We could profile based on black hair, too, as it's a pretty common trait in the Middle East. But the problem is that it's a trait shared by too many people who are NOT the intended target of such profiling (ie, "terrorists").

The same with the color yellow. There are too many people who might love the color yellow, but who are not terrorists.

And again, the same with searching for zebras by filtering out mammals.

In the same way, profiling by religious beliefs, particularly when those religious beliefs are held by such a large portion of the world's population, is essentially a fool's errand, not dissimilar to the color yellow example. It's easy to lie about, and it's too common to be effective for weeding out actual danger.

Instead, if we were to use behavioral profiling, I think we'd fare far better, because not only would we be more likely to catch Islamic terrorists, but we'd also be more likely to catch terrorists who are not Islam-based, which would fall through the cracks entirely if we based our profiling on religion (again, assuming we had some way of thwarting just lying about it).

QuakerOats;1858431 wrote:I would say the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people in one day, perhaps the largest Islamic terrorist strike ever, would render your statement lame, at best.

And I would contend that your argumentum ad passiones fallacy in spite of actual hard data renders your statement as not worthy of mention in a conversation involving actual reason.

O-Trap;1858432 wrote:The parts that are not apples to apples aren't relevant to the point of the meme, though, which is why I think it's applicable with the point it intends to make, but not necessarily with points it doesn't intend to make.

As for the profiling question, I think that if you were the sort to profile, a characteristic shared by all of them would be just as valid a basis, regardless of whether or not it's fundamental to their cause. If they believed that yellow was the best color, but their attacks had nothing to do with the color yellow, you might still profile them based on their value of the color yellow.

But again, the problem is that it's using something too common for the purpose of finding something specific. We could profile based on black hair, too, as it's a pretty common trait in the Middle East. But the problem is that it's a trait shared by too many people who are NOT the intended target of such profiling (ie, "terrorists").

The same with the color yellow. There are too many people who might love the color yellow, but who are not terrorists.

And again, the same with searching for zebras by filtering out mammals.

In the same way, profiling by religious beliefs, particularly when those religious beliefs are held by such a large portion of the world's population, is essentially a fool's errand, not dissimilar to the color yellow example. It's easy to lie about, and it's too common to be effective for weeding out actual danger.

Instead, if we were to use behavioral profiling, I think we'd fare far better, because not only would we be more likely to catch Islamic terrorists, but we'd also be more likely to catch terrorists who are not Islam-based, which would fall through the cracks entirely if we based our profiling on religion (again, assuming we had some way of thwarting just lying about it).

But they are important to the meme...

One group is attacking over land, the other is attacking over religion. So it would be more realistic to profile one over land/ethnicity and the other over religion. This is true even if you don't believe that the profiling is correct/just in the first place. They didn't profile the IRA because they were Catholics and therefore they didn't profile Catholics. They did profile Irish because the IRA was Irish...

I am not saying whether or not the profiling in general is correct, but the part that differentiates these two (IRA vs ISIS) is actually why the meme makes no sense and it doesn't apply.

jmog;1858438 wrote:But they are important to the meme...

One group is attacking over land, the other is attacking over religion. So it would be more realistic to profile one over land/ethnicity and the other over religion. This is true even if you don't believe that the profiling is correct/just in the first place. They didn't profile the IRA because they were Catholics and therefore they didn't profile Catholics. They did profile Irish because the IRA was Irish...

I am not saying whether or not the profiling in general is correct, but the part that differentiates these two (IRA vs ISIS) is actually why the meme makes no sense and it doesn't apply.

I understand what you're saying, but again, I'd argue that if one were to profile, using one common denominator that is relevant to the cause isn't inherently more sensible for identification (which I would argue is ultimately the point of profiling) than another common denominator that is not relevant to the cause.

If 100% of the members of an organization believe yellow is the best color, and if 100% of the members of that same organization also have red hair, but they commit acts of terror against organizations whose logos don't include the color yellow, does profiling based on favor for the color yellow produce better results ... again, exclusively for identification ... than profiling based on hair color?

If we're trying to actively combat it, then certainly motive matters.

But if we're merely trying to identify, any common denominator would be equally effective, provided the total sample size is either similar or so large that the difference doesn't really matter.

O-Trap;1858434 wrote:And I would contend that your argumentum ad passiones fallacy in spite of actual hard data renders your statement as not worthy of mention in a conversation involving actual reason.

I submitted hard data: 3,000 killed in one day by terrorists. Please advise the group of a greater Islamic terror hit, regardless of population of the country.

QuakerOats;1858446 wrote:I submitted hard data: 3,000 killed in one day by terrorists. Please advise the group of a greater Islamic terror hit, regardless of population of the country.

Which nation has more terrorism? A nation with one attack that kills 1,000 people or a nation with 20 attacks that kill 40 people on average?

The former had one attack. A large-scale attack, but one attack.

We don't get attacked very often, particularly given our population. The fact that we were the target of the biggest one doesn't mean we get attacked more often.

The one you're referencing was one attack. It took a lot of lives, but the number of lives it took doesn't make it more than one attack. It was one (1).

Tell me. How have we fared since?

The one you're referencing was one attack. It took a lot of lives, but the number of lives it took doesn't make it more than one attack. It was one (1).

Tell me. How have we fared since?

here's a list....
http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/since.html

jmog;1858420 wrote:Another point of contention with the comparison...

Unless my history/memory is mistaken, the IRA didn't claim to terrorize in the name of Jesus Christ.

Nor did they produce videoes yelling praises to their god while sawing off the heads of captured innocents. The level of depravity must be taken into account.

O-Trap;1858452 wrote:Which nation has more terrorism? A nation with one attack that kills 1,000 people or a nation with 20 attacks that kill 40 people on average?

The former had one attack. A large-scale attack, but one attack.

We don't get attacked very often, particularly given our population. The fact that we were the target of the biggest one doesn't mean we get attacked more often.

The one you're referencing was one attack. It took a lot of lives, but the number of lives it took doesn't make it more than one attack. It was one (1).

Tell me. How have we fared since?

So you are more interested in frequency than severity? Is that what we are debating?

HitsRus;1858557 wrote:here's a list....
http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/since.html

Thank you. I appreciate something that engages the true essence of the discussion to counteract terrorism.

Fortunately, the majority of these don't appear to have been successful. After looking through the list, some others don't make mention of the killer's religious affiliations. However, the "4s" mostly seem like they fit.

But for a world power with a population over 320 million, that's a pretty small number of successful attempts.

majorspark;1858590 wrote:Nor did they produce videoes yelling praises to their god while sawing off the heads of captured innocents. The level of depravity must be taken into account.

Depravity must be taken into account regarding how we combat it? I respectfully disagree. Effectiveness of a strategy isn't influenced by how depraved we perceive such an organization to be.

Functionally, terrorists are terrorists. Whether or not they're proficient in using media to air their acts of violence ... or whether they're inclined to do so ... doesn't kill or save one extra life.

In how we think about them as an organization? Sure. ISIS is certainly more clearly in the moral wrong as a movement (though terrorism is always wrong). But a strategy for combating terrorism ought not necessarily change just because we think one group is worse.

QuakerOats;1858700 wrote:So you are more interested in frequency than severity? Is that what we are debating?

The presence of terrorist activity is better reflected by the number of terrorist acts being committed. Not the severity of them.

If we're talking about trying to effectively prevent terrorist attacks, then wouldn't the number of terrorist attacks be the best metric to use to judge any effectiveness?

Severity is worthy of note, and it certainly can show the seriousness of the matter, but being in our feelz because one of them was really severe neither solves anything nor gives a reasonable metric by which to gauge the prevention of terrorist activity.

My point, I suppose, is this: If they had killed 2,000 instead of 3,000 ... would it really have been less of a terrorist attack? Would that change how we ought to approach it? If there were more lives saved in an ER, would that change anything?

I submit that it wouldn't. And I submit that responding to a terrorist attack objectively (which I assert is the best way to solve a problem) means engaging it as a single act and looking at the method and plan used.

Because at the end of the day, whether the attackers on 9/11 killed 30 or 3,000 ... the break in security was the same.

To use an analogy: If I have a hole in my roof that is one foot in diameter, it may be less of a problem in a light sprinkle than it would be in a torrential downpour, but regardless of what weather I get, the hole is the same size. To fix the hole, I have to do the same thing to prevent a sprinkle from getting into my attic as I would to prevent a downpour from getting into my attic.

IIT; Christians trying to take moral superiority when in reality ALL religions are just as bad.

Pretty hilarious to read.

sleeper;1858709 wrote:IIT; Christians trying to take moral superiority when in reality ALL religions are just as bad.

Pretty hilarious to read.

Atheists trying to take moral superiority by painting drastically different people with the same broad brush is a pretty hilarious read, too.

Bad people are bad. When enough of them organize, organizations are bad. If those organizations correspond closely with the entirety of a faith (or even a worldview without a faith), then sure, the faith or worldview is bad.

But one-off extremists don't necessarily define a religious worldview as a whole, particularly when they are the vast minority.

The presence of terrorist activity is better reflected by the number of terrorist acts being committed. Not the severity of them.

I think the level of terrorist activity is better determined by the number of attempts, rather than the success, otherwise you're implying that because law enforcement was able to stop them, no activity occurred.

There is a huge number of radical Islamic terrorist activity as exhibited by the list I posted above. To minimize or normalize this by saying 'we are a big country' is a mistake. I mean, what is the "acceptable number" of attempts 'because we are a big country"?

Atheists trying to take moral superiority by painting drastically different people with the same broad brush is a pretty hilarious read, too.

+1

sleeper;1858709 wrote:IIT; Christians trying to take moral superiority when in reality ALL religions are just as bad.

Pretty hilarious to read.

ITT; the self proclaimed atheist sleeper who says all religion is trash is going out of his way to defend islam.

So, just another day of sleeper contradicting himself.

O-Trap;1858722 wrote:Atheists trying to take moral superiority by painting drastically different people with the same broad brush is a pretty hilarious read, too.

+1, but even funnier when they pick and choose which religion is allowed to bashed and which religion is off limits. At least be consistent, I like to bash them all.

sleeper;1858709 wrote:IIT; Christians trying to take moral superiority when in reality ALL religions are just as bad.

Pretty hilarious to read.

Even the most well known atheist doesnt believe all religions are equally as bad in 2017.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/12/famed-atheist-richard-dawkins-islam-is-the-most-evil-religion-in-the-world/

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

O-Trap;1858707 wrote:The presence of terrorist activity is better reflected by the number of terrorist acts being committed. Not the severity of them.

If we're talking about trying to effectively prevent terrorist attacks, then wouldn't the number of terrorist attacks be the best metric to use to judge any effectiveness?

Severity is worthy of note, and it certainly can show the seriousness of the matter, but being in our feelz because one of them was really severe neither solves anything nor gives a reasonable metric by which to gauge the prevention of terrorist activity.

My point, I suppose, is this: If they had killed 2,000 instead of 3,000 ... would it really have been less of a terrorist attack? Would that change how we ought to approach it? If there were more lives saved in an ER, would that change anything?

I submit that it wouldn't. And I submit that responding to a terrorist attack objectively (which I assert is the best way to solve a problem) means engaging it as a single act and looking at the method and plan used.

Because at the end of the day, whether the attackers on 9/11 killed 30 or 3,000 ... the break in security was the same.

To use an analogy: If I have a hole in my roof that is one foot in diameter, it may be less of a problem in a light sprinkle than it would be in a torrential downpour, but regardless of what weather I get, the hole is the same size. To fix the hole, I have to do the same thing to prevent a sprinkle from getting into my attic as I would to prevent a downpour from getting into my attic.

You agree then, that extreme vetting, among other methods, policies, and procedures, is necessary to reduce frequency and severity.

sleeper;1858709 wrote:IIT; Christians trying to take moral superiority when in reality ALL religions are just as bad.

Pretty hilarious to read.

Proof of your religious bigotry.

like_that;1858762 wrote:+1, but even funnier when they pick and choose which religion is allowed to bashed and which religion is off limits. At least be consistent, I like to bash them all.

Indeed. All deserve bashing, regardless of what sky man they worship. Well, other than The Elder Gods. Not gonna fuck with Nyarlathotep for one second. That dude's legit.

O-Trap;1858704 wrote:Depravity must be taken into account regarding how we combat it? I respectfully disagree. Effectiveness of a strategy isn't influenced by how depraved we perceive such an organization to be.

Accounting for it just means its a line item on the ledger on how it is to be combatted. Its not necessarily a deciding factor. Nor does it have anything to do with effectiveness of strategy. For instance an organization that is so morally bankrupt as to publish their atrocities while conquering major cities and securing enough geography along with the accompanying natural resources to further fund their depravity should be weighed in that balance. Not to mention the security of chemical agents in this particular area. I agree functionally terrorists are terrorists pragmatically that equation does not hold true.

QuakerOats;1858787 wrote:You agree then, that extreme vetting, among other methods, policies, and procedures, is necessary to reduce frequency and severity.

Not based on someone's religious views or the parents to whom they were born as the result of some genetic lottery, no. That's silly and makes even less sense for the US than it would have for the IRA.

Behavioral profiling and visible armed security? Sure. I've got no issue with that at all. It's better security, and the optics are at least comparable.

majorspark;1858905 wrote:Accounting for it just means its a line item on the ledger on how it is to be combatted. Its not necessarily a deciding factor. Nor does it have anything to do with effectiveness of strategy. For instance an organization that is so morally bankrupt as to publish their atrocities while conquering major cities and securing enough geography along with the accompanying natural resources to further fund their depravity should be weighed in that balance. Not to mention the security of chemical agents in this particular area. I agree functionally terrorists are terrorists pragmatically that equation does not hold true.

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're getting at. Would you mind explaining it a different way?