2015 November 14 Saturday
Counterterrorism And More Security Can Not Solve Terrorism
One hears a lot about intelligence failures in stopping terrorists. Most of this amounts to political points scoring. It is not constructive. It is not honest or competent. We can't detect every attempted terrorist attack no matter how hard our security agencies try. Unless every bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, bus, car, office, tennis court, computer, and a large number of other places are bugged and every single human conversation is listened to by artificially intelligent computers lots of terrorist attack planning will take place undetected. Even if we wanted our governments to do extremely invasive monitoring they couldn't monitor us with sufficient invasiveness. The governments lack the staffing, AI computers, and monitoring equipment sensitive enough to pull off the needed level of monitoring.
John Schindler explains:
The number of “watchable” suspects, meaning potential terrorists who need monitoring by the security services, in France alone exceeds 5,000, according to Paris. “We’re overwhelmed, and it’s getting worse daily,” was how a senior French intelligence official explained his situation to me recently.
Those are 5,000+ that French security services know about. The problem will get bigger as the Muslim population grows in France, Belgium, Germany, and other European countries. We will see more attacks.
We have a fundamental problem with security: We need people to be civilized. We can not entirely impose security from above. No state security apparatus or local law enforcement agency can substitute for the need for a civilized populace. If even one one hundredth of one percent of the population decides they want to be terrorists we will get attacked many times.
This is why distributions matter. Some liberal-minded people point to many Muslims they know and say "they don't want anyone to be terrorists" and they can be correct the vast majority of the time. That doesn't prove that Islam does not cause terrorism and it does not get us out of the problem with having terrorists whose motivations are caused by their Muslim beliefs.
To understand the problem with Islamic terrorism we need to look at the distribution if effects of Islam on what people believe, support, and do. Consider: It takes an outlier to go on a suicidal killing rampage. A much larger number of Muslims support terrorism in their stated beliefs than actually provide material assistance to terrorists. The ones who provide assistance is a larger set than the ones who carry out attacks. Out of those who will carry out attacks an even smaller number will do suicide attacks. So those suicide attackers are an indication of a much larger number of people who are embracing beliefs that make the attacks possible. They are part of a distribution and not simple isolated outliers.
Since I do not want to live in a society where even 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 want to commit terrorism I object to political elite and media elite rhetoric that asserts that Islamic terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Islam. These attackers are not random outliers who embrace a heresy. They are within the normal range of what we can expect from Muslim believers. Muslims are far overrepresented among the ranks of terrorists in countries around the world. The West has a problem with Muslim terrorism and so do the Muslim countries. I'd prefer to isolate the problem in Muslim countries until such a time (assuming this ever happens) when Islam goes thru the kind of reformation that makes terrorism cease to occur at higher frequency in Muslim countries.
By Randall Parker at 2015 November 14 05:36 PM
I share your concerns, but what can we say about homegrown mass killers in the U.S.? Certainly there are fewer of them per capita (even by SES strata).
There shouldn't be any *need* to keep digging just for some "John Lennon - Imagine" reasons but can we at least quantify the expected friction?
I'd say we should also be realistic about the expected trajectory of a refugee cohort. How many will be disgruntled by all the microaggressions, one or two years (or generations) down the road?
It's a noble aspiration to take a flying chance on the project as Merkel and friends are. But mightn't we simulate, or project, or extrapolate, just in case it turns out to be a foreseeable tragedy?
I share your "I don't want" but I also accept the right of my fellow citizens to decide, eyes open, on controllable, moderate risks to the community, even on an invite-the-world / rescue-the-world impulse.
What's disturbing to me is that they don't seem to have their eyes open and they seem to be collectively (by emergent intra-tribal status-striving incentives) attempting to suppress the information needed for an honest bit of collective altruism. If there is such a thing.
I'd also point out that Islamic terrorism doesn't appear to be a linear function of the number of Muslims you've got around. Judging how Muslims will act when they become a significant fraction of the population when your only experience with them is as a tiny, tiny minority, (Under 1% in the US, but the present administration aims to change that.) is like judging how a few kilos of U235 will act based on the behavior of a milligram sample.
The worse parts of their culture are emergent, when convictions which run contrary to the foundations of Western civilization are mutually reinforced instead of being suppressed due to being surrounded by people holding the contrary views. Take Dearborn, for example, where Christian protesters get stoned, and the police have attempted to impose Islamic curfews: Only about 30% Muslim.
Between 15-64 years 27 000 000 Germans are male.
We can assume that for 15-32 the numbers would be 13.5 million.
If Germany adds 1 million 90% male migrants that is 10% of this groups demographic and if they had 10 million by 2020 that's over half.
This would change the sex ratio for this demographic from 1.04 to 1.11 and 1.71 respectively for this age group.
1.11 is almost the same as China's and India's and 1.71 is worse than China's and India's sex ratios.
1.71 means there will be almost 2 men for every one women in this age group, and that is supposed to be fine?!?!
The media goes into consternations and theorising over how China's sex ratios and India's sex ratios cause unrest in their populations and they don't even make a peep about this?!?!
That just goes to show the media's cards. Nothing they say is true.
Redpill people about this sex ratio and the scientific studies surrounding it.
Maybe start a hashtag abou the #Barebranches theory of gender ratios.
"What happens to a society that has too many men? In this provocative book, Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer argue that, historically, high male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence. "
The main reason counterterrorism and more security cannot solve the terrorism problem in the long run is not the influx of Muslim immigrants will include radicalized individuals, the real problem is the future acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by the terrorists. This "acquisition" phenomenon will happen within a few decades, and at that precise moment 9/11 will look like a kindergarten fight.
The thing that worries me is that when weapons of mass destruction are smuggled into the Western world by the Islamic radicals, this will force the Western countries to fully invade the Middle East, to lure the Western armies into the territory of the Islamists, who want to trigger the Armageddon war in the Middle East that their religious texts predicted.
A diffuse invasion of the entire Middle East, would cost a lot of blood and treasure, and _many_ millions of people might die in this global guerrilla war.
Nicolo Machiavelli pointed out centuries ago that an assassin who doesn't care what happens to himself is very difficult to stop. In these horrible attacks, the perps are almost always killed; it's what they expect. So while more security is important, it won't really fix the problem as long as there are people around who want to die for the glorious cause. The solution begins with stopping the influx of Muslims. A good second step would be getting rid of the ones already in the West.
>>the real problem is the future acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by the terrorists.
An Islamic, quasi-terrorist state is already in possession of over 100 nuclear weapons: Pakistan. Pakistan is one coup d'etat away from becoming a full blown wahabi state.
>>An Islamic, quasi-terrorist state is already in possession of over 100 nuclear weapons: Pakistan. Pakistan is one coup d'etat away >>from becoming a full blown wahabi state.
Pakistan not only has 100 nukes, but it also has the know-how and infrastructure to build thousands. As we speak, the Islamic State is already opening schools in Pakistan, to indoctrinate them for global Jihad. And yes, China had given the initial nuclear know-how and help to Pakistan as a counterweight to its then rival India, but currently China has its own embryonic Jihad problem with its Muslim minority, and it will pay for what it did in Pakistan. So much for the legendary high IQ of Chinese people.
Europe and Islam have been in conflict for over 1300 years. During nearly all of this period Europeans enjoyed a strong numerical advantage. However this is no longer the case. Today Moslem populations adjacent to Europe are much larger relative to the population of Europe than ever before. The Moslem population is also much younger.
Currently much of Europe is being rapidly overrun by the Moslem onslaught. The future of the West appears bleak.
And they are planning to transform Buckingham Palace into a mosque:
"We have a fundamental problem with security: We need people to be civilized. We can not entirely impose security from above."
Anarcho-tyranny. In practice it means racism and oppression against whites. The problem isn't the radicals and criminals who "aren't civilized", it's the white majority that is. The security the state is providing whites is the security of the concentration camp and the grave. The state is literally running a program of extermination against them, mostly through racist colonialism, and it is precisely because whites cooperate in this so-called security that they are suffering and dying. 130 in Paris, half a million dead whites from suicidal behavior in America. All the rape, maiming, murder, and ethnic cleansing. That's the "security" law-abiding whites are helping to impose on themselves.
We need to ban all forms of religious practice and indoctrination.
I don'think that Buddhism is a threat to society.
"We need to ban all forms of religious practice and indoctrination."
They tried that. Communism, which murdered 100 million, was worse than any religious ideology.
The stark realist approach is to understand that humans will have religion, no matter what. The best you can do is steer them toward better ones and away from the most destructive ones (Marxism, Islam, SJW-activism.)
>> "They tried that. Communism, which murdered 100 million, was worse than any religious ideology."
Citing communism as a counterexample is not sufficient to discredit the need to crack down on bigotry.
Even half a century after WW II, Mein Kampf and most of the Nazi literature is forbidden in Germany, just as the preaching of Nazi ideology. More than 50 % of the Qur'an is about non-Muslims and how to deal with them, and it is written very oppressively, so that if the Islamic State is misinterpreting the text, the misinterpretation seems to be in the other 51 % of the book. Maybe you can say that socialism was poorly intepreted in Russia and China as opposed to Scandinavian countries, but the classical Islam is very rigid, and if you want to reform Islam, then the book needs to be re-written and the Muslim clerics must be regulated by the EU governments: in other words, a true crackdown is in order. As we speak, many of the Muslim immigrants who are NOT religious are saying that it is a good idea to impose the Sharia Law in Europe (because it will give them a political and social advantage, making them superior.)
I think Wolf-Dog is right. I don't think anybody can be as sure as Dan (neither can Dan himself) on whether humans will always have religion. Maybe in the future there could be some sort of spirituality, but a more human one and less metaphysical. Making predictions like that are really no kind of any business whatsoever, just like all predictions praying that the Roman Empire would never fall or that the Catholic Churc will never cease to exist. Just useless mantras. Separation religion and state accoplished much in keeping beliefs in the privacy of peoples heads. Although there seems to be a regress even in Western societies. Very dangerous I think, because nutcases (which are many) claim to know what God wants.