News Terrorist Attack In Paris

[Ronin]

@The Albatross, and that's just fine. I come from a very different experience and view on many issues, the UN have been basically life saving for me, and it's good we have the liberty to exchange opinions in peace, I appreciate that.

 

[The Albatross]

Works for me. Up to this point I had no issue with "refugee" policy nor the 1 million plus that are already here so I would be hardly "Islamophobic" and yeah have peeps in my circle who are followers of Islam as well. I do though question after 5 years of civil war, why the spike in the migration and why the disparity in demographic when the statistics don't match up with the self identified nation of origin.

So far as this discussion goes, nobody seems to have an answer or even want to address it which is my point exactly and why this particular program should be put on hold.

 

[Ronin]

why the disparity in demographic when the statistics don't match up with the self identified nation of origin.

Oh I see it. You're basically asking for whom it's a convenient camouflage and who's profiting off it and for which reasons.

I'm not even sure we have that answer though. Or, if anyone here did, that they'd be at liberty to discuss it.

 

[The Albatross]

... so let Congress put it on hold, under scrutiny and let our current administration respond until the answers present themselves.

 

[The Albatross]

Slept on this and woke up in the middle of the night with two words to describe what I think about the situation ideologically that is bothersome for me: pathological altruism. I think I view the open boarders people to be "pathologically altruistic" and that it poses a risk economically as well as the safety and welfare of lawful citizens.

 

[Anarchy]

Not looking to pick a fight, just to insert some methodological individualism.

One of the most basic requirements for humans to get along together peacefully, is having an accepted and understood convention for who has control over the things which only one person can use at a time.

The most basic of these are our individual human bodies and minds.

Even if we use the imaginary construct of a garden of Eden, or the mythical medieval land of Cockayne, where all material goods are available just by wishing for them... Don't worry, I'm not a utopian, it's just a tool of thought.

We each still have only one body and one mind of our own. These are necessarily limited in what they can do simultaneously, and there are potentially many conflicting claims, which cannot be satisfied simultaneously.

We can imagine that a certain lady called Angelina, would likely find herself with subject to more claims than for example going for a quiet walk on the beach...

What convention could avoid conflict from arising?

"We" could all reach agreement for a plan, for what " we" will do with "our" bodies... We could, but my goodness it would take some considerable time to find that agreement.

Some one or some group could be elected to plan for everyone, what they should do and when.

Someone could simply appoint themselves, or their gang, to tell everyone else what to do and when.

Or each individual could do whatever the hell they wanted - so long as that didn't conflict with the equal right of every other individual to do the same.

Which of those is most likely to facilitate peaceful cooperation?

Bring those into a more realistic world, where almost all useful things are scarce, and take considerable effort to wrest from nature.

The first two, communism and democracy (which is also a form of communism and dictatorship) lead to the tragedy of the commons. Who vacuums out,washes and polishes the works pool car?

The third, dictatorship, inevitably leads to violent coercion.

The final one, can, through a process described by John Locke, of mixing our ideas and toil with something that was previously un owned, leads to private property. Here again though, we may need to defend our claims against someone who does not accept them.

That recognition of a claim depends on others to recognise it, in no way implies that the claim is communal.

That I might contract with other people to help me defend a claim, or to help mediate or arbitrate a dispute, in no way implies a need for a monopoly to perform these services.

Such an argument for monopoly, is analogous to the argument, that as we all [at least up to the present moment] had to have a biological father, we must all have the same father.

Continued

 

[Anarchy]

What would justice look like?

Some individuals have murdered some other individuals.

To put the number of 100 in context, American cops kill on average about three Americans a day. So its about what the blue costumed agents of the biggest and most violent gang in America kill in a month, every month, on their home turf. There's little mention of that, or of the toll elsewhere from dronings, aerial bombing etc.

With a homicide

There is an identifiable victim

And there was a perpetrator, perhaps with others who were complicit in varying degrees.

We're not short of nuts who'll claim to have done something, just look at all the claimants to have worn the furry suit in a well known and very shakey film that supposedly shows a bigfoot! Apparently the same thing happens with other events, including homicides.

Assuming that complicity in a homicide can be proven to a reasonable standard, whether balance of probability, or beyond reasonable doubt, then by all means, go after that individual.

What seems to be getting aired here. And I'm not picking on any individual,

Is collective guilt, and collective punishment.

There are some yawning gaps in that process.

Even assuming that this was a "real" terrorist act, rather than a bunch of dumb patsies in a false flag, or a provocateur lead entrapment sting that was allowed to go too far ( check the UK guardian newspaper for coverage of entrapment of Muslim youths by provocateur cops in America)

Any investigation is at a very early stage
Due process has not taken place.


Then complicity is only by certain individuals.

The complicity is not by nationality
It is not racial
It is not by religion
It is not by blood
It is not by sex
It is not by age.

Collective reprisal, is the territory of Lenin, Stalin and that little democratically elected guy with the narrow mustache...

 

[Anarchy]

Leading on from the methodological individualism post.

"We" don't have to do anything.

If anyone wants to use their own resources to help, then they are welcome to do so.

" helping " with other people's resources, fails the "picking pockets and breaking legs" test set by Jefferson.

Coming to our country, or crossing our borders, assumes a common, rather than individual ownership.

If someone wants to deal with someone else in a consensual manner, whether to rent, sell, lend, employ... What business is it of a third party to stop them?

Different country, or accross the line down the middle of the street. They're both equally arbitrary boundaries.

At what point does a possibility of danger from a person I want to deal with, justify a third party directly threatening me?

Since when and by what logic are my body and mind (so long as im not denying others equal freedom of choice withtheir minds and bodies) and their extensions in terms of property, subject to communal or dictatorship control and claims?

 

[Friday]

So its about what the blue costumed agents of the biggest and most violent gang in America kill in a month, every month, on their home turf. There's little mention of that, or of the toll elsewhere from dronings, aerial bombing etc.

For very good reason. Once our police officers start bombing public places? Or derelicting their their duty to run toward every single instance of terror? Then they would rate becoming part of the discussion of terrorists and bombings as a source of problems. Our police are not the Guardai of the Troubles. Nor, anymore I believe, are yours. And neither of our modern police forces are the Gestapo of times past, or the Polizia in certain Latin countries in times present... In league with or in outright competition against the cartels -to include open fighting in the streets; army police cartels gangs in a 2-4 way battle with citizens caught in the middle. Much less the so-called police in Iraq & Afghanistan who run the gamut between outright incompetence & corruption, to the armed thugs & private armies of whomever is wealthiest or scariest in easy travel distance.

If you want to drag police into a discussion about terrorist assaults in the west? And you don't want to focus on the thousands of first responders putting in double, triple, quad shifts... Working themselves to exhaustion, underfunded and under resourced... Both to prevent and in the wake of these assaults? Or the ones targeted by secondary devices aimed directly at them in the wake of an initial terror assault like has become common practice in Israel? In order to slow & outright prevent their assisting victims as well as decimate those who do run toward instead of away from these vicious assaults?

You wanna target police? How about you focus on the ones that make the Gestapo & Gardai of years past look like pussy cats ; the so called "police" inside of terrorist spawning nations and dictatorial regimes (which is a damn big part of what is & has been causing refugee influx all over the West), or the recruitment ploys of having terrorist organizations being the only police behind barricades in terrorist controlled districts even in nations trying to get rid of them? Ones who are actively part of the ongoing problem.

& leave your John Wayne & Elliot Ness fantasies about our police the f*ck up out of it.

 

[Ed Norton]

Why do the police enter every discussion?

 

[Anarchy]

Why do the police enter every discussion?

Unfortunately theyre where the boot rubber of state sector violence meets human faces.

I contrasted the rate at which American police kill, to the death toll in Paris. The American cops death toll number is about 12 Paris attacks a year.

Hi Friday,
The legal precident set in the case of Joe Lozito against the NYPD, shows that American police have no legal obligation to protect citizens.

That many individuals in the police do protect individuals, is to their credit as individuals, not to the credit of the institution.

By contrast, the example of prosecution of citizens in Huntsville Alabama, for not coming to the aid of a cop trying to subdue someone
And the burden of proof falling onto those accused citizens

Shows a marked inequality.

In summary the american state has no legal obligation to protect citizens, citizens by contrast do have a legal obligation to serve and protect the state.

Regarding state complicity in terror attacks, Gladio, is well established history. The line of command was shown to have come from NATO headquarters. Main influence on that was DC and its vassal in London.

Operation north woods is alleged to have been proposed by the us joint chiefs of staff, and turned down by JFK

In subsequent events, is there any better evidence ( as opposed to prejudice) for excluding state actors from suspicion, than there is evidence for blaming middle Eastern organisations?

If we simply ask the question of cui bono?

Who stands to gain?

Then certainly state sector actors, and their cronies, would seem to have potential motives.

 

[Ed Norton]

But this particular thread is about terrorism in Paris/ISIS/Terrorism.