Thanks. (I trust that the HN community is wise enough to discuss about this matter without violence, racism, etc..)
That technology might help. Maybe by sharing the marginalized stories of vulnerable people.
We've tried fear and anger to stop these kind of things, but it's just like a whack-a-mole. Why don't we try empathy and understanding?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IgOVOPLTYI
disclaimer: My heart goes out to all of those touched by needless violence. I in no way endorse violence of any kind, and the perpetrators of such deserve to be caught, tried, and if guilty, locked away for the rest of their lives. That said, those that do overt violence are not the root of the problem. They have (or had) friends and family that could have steered them in a different direction.
Fear does not necessarily follow from empathy. What does follow from more empathy (as I understand) is more care of poor people, more inclusiveness, quicker action to the needy, less warmongering.
edit: Here's a primer on Empathy technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT5X6NIJR88
If this is what everyone thinks it is (but is cautiously tip-toeing around), "extremism" is not specific enough.
I highly recommend this podcast by Sam Harris on this matter: https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/still-sleepwalking-01
An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.
https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832
I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.
[In] 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but 3 cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack.
So it appears that even the FBI says there were 3 over a span of 12 years that were foiled by armed citizens. And that fully one third of them were stopped by citizens without guns.
I would assume that if everybody were armed then, that more than 33 percent would be foiled by armed citizens.
That is of course, if you accept the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be a credible source
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...
It is precisely during tragic times like these that people need to be reminded that an unarmed citizenry is completely vulnerable to armed criminals/terrorists.
Gun control has zero effect on people who don't care about the law.
And many innocent people have just died as a result. Hundreds of families have just been forever changed because of it.
"Now is not the time" = I disagree with the argument.
What actually did reduce the magnitude of the damage caused in the Paris attacks was the kind of intrusive security checks on people entering the Stade de France that are usually rather less popular around here...
In the US, about 13.4% of men are veterans. And 1.4% of women are veterans. So if you're in a theater with a hundred men and a hundred women -- fifteen of those people are competent in the responsible use if firearms AND have proven themselves willing to put their lives on the line for their countrymen.
I'd put money on an overweight, half-blind, ARMED, 60 year old US Marine up against 5 religious zealots with AK-47s any day of the week.
Hell, even those Air Force guys probably know what they're doing :-)
A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surveillance, which supposedly should be able to catch extremists before they act. Sadly, we're still very far from Minority Report's level of accuracy.
Alternatively, we could adopt a more reactive approach which would focus on reducing the gravity of such events rather than trying to prevent them. Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings. This assumes an important "good" to "bad" people ratio (where "good" is defined by the majority and/or by the state).
Basically, live in a society that's xenophobic and armed.
Here we go again...
When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]."
Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a lot of what you're suggesting: fight a dangerous weapon with another dangerous weapon, potentially put bystanders in harm's way, make it even harder to track/identify the good from bad, make it easier to obtain weapons.
The US has more mass killings than any other western nation, yet they also have concealed carry, clearly something isn't working here. Is the solution really "more guns, more guns?"
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...
It excludes mass shootings if the shooters were gang members or robbers, if the victims were in [multiple] private homes, if concealed carry permits weren't handed out like candy in the local area or if the heavily armed guards in place throughout the incident were naval officers or law enforcement officials stationed there to stop shootings....
Trouble is, once you've concluded armed guards were shot because they were "gun free", anywhere where concealed carry isn't commonplace is also "gun free" and mass shootings in private homes don't matter to analysis of gun owners' ability to defend themselves you've probably concluded that rather more than 92% of the US population are in gun free areas...
This should allow you to understand it is a really bad source. I guess that starting from that, it is easy to prove that the numbers you cite are wrong.
All in all, isn't it obvious that only gun-free zones is a better solution that only gun-allowed zones?
What will happen unfortunately is that the surveillance measures will increase exponentially, normal citizens will throw privacy out the window, terror attacks will still happen.
It's the world we live in.
Because there are plenty of places where lots of people have guns but suicide bombings or kidnapping or etc still happen regularly.
And even if these individuals are not strong enough to do something productive technology could at least give them a glimpse of power and belonging in online communities. For example, a person who is busy playing WoW all day won't get to shooting someone in the streets.
What I wrote above is, unfortunately, hugely idealistic. More realistically I see two options for this problem:
1. don't just bomb targets but level the ground. This is of course not something we actually want to do because it would kill many innocent people. Still from an unempathetic point of view: Is killing millions of people now worse than eventually allowing <made up stat>twice as many people to be killed over the comming decades</made up stat>? instead:
2. We have to fucking evolve and acknowledge that they found a bug in our system and "we are the best, democracy rules, those guys are in the wrong - why are they so mean?" as well as a couple of bombs simply don't cut it anymore. Instead, we should come off our high horses and work our ass off to address the (political, cultural, economical) domains OP mentions so that we can leave our current conception of the world behind us and progress to something that serves us better in the coming years. However, this is radical and it is hard to make a society move into this direction as all of us would have to question everything we do. Maybe finding time for teaching refugees your language for free is more important than working longer hours so that you contribute to pushing the GDP. Maybe moderate Muslims should do more to prevent those attacks even though it is neither their fault not their responsibility to do anything about it. Maybe the "average customer" should be more mindful when s/he goes shopping by making sure that s/he doesn't support supply chains which somehow benefit terror supporters. In short, every member of society has to work their ass of to bring some positive change about.
I don't see first option as a viable one, simply because there's currently 1.7 billion Muslims in the world (most of them doesn't support the radicals, but I'm guessing that could change very quickly if their innocent family members get killed during the "levelling of the ground"). It would lead to WWIII.
I think the positive route, along with some smart interventions (i.e. not having borders open to any and all refugees which want to enter Europe, but rather absorbing them at a manageable rate), is the way to go.
I agree "option" wasn't a good way to put it. As to Breivik, I didn't know that he played WoW. You are probably right that games don't offer enough substance/not a positive atmosphere.
The vast majority of terrorist attacks in E.U. countries have for years been perpetrated by separatist organizations> http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-t...
Tight controls will require a more authoritarian government. I for one don't want that but I expect we will get it and the masses will demand it. Yay for neighbours.
I think it's very strange that what we know of common errors of thinking (e.g. logical fallacies, cognitive biases, etc.) have no real place in our pop-, political or common intellectual culture. The fact that we don't use these "checklists" when evaluating ideas directly leads to the spread and rise of intellectually bankrupt ideas, or ways of thinking that make no sense (at best), all over the political spectrum.
Also: Education, equality, social mobility and inclusivity (all known to play their parts in this complex equation).
Short term - allow law abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. This will make life of police much easier and would save lives.
Do people really know this little about what mental illness (in this case psychopathy or schizophrenia) actually is?
I also thought it was widely known that very little is needed for people to be able to act abhorrently towards someone they identify as somehow other than themselves (e.g. sociological out-group, "otherization").
I'm sure that you can debate whether they are sane or not.
A psychologist supports the view that terrorists may be psychopaths when she writes "As we turn now to Islamofascist terrorists, we can begin to see that they meet almost all the criteria listed above for psychopathic traits. They even use the same excuses for their unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their own actions." http://drsanity.blogspot.se/2004/10/psychopathology-of-terro...
Another article supports the idea that terrorists are not mentally ill and furthermore discusses whether terrorists may be depressed: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/06/29/mental-i...
You might be able to establish some sort of link between ruthlessness and "psychopathy". I'd love to hear where schizophrenia enters the picture, though.
While your first link is only a personal blog post, it does present some coherent thought - but even the author states that "terrorists, by and large, do not suffer from psychosis".
There is also the fact that what we think of as psychopathic actions (or stereotypes thereof) are primarily driven by the ego of the perpetrator, as opposed to the alleged ideological motivations of (e.g. islamic) terrorists.
Note that the first article focuses on the common superficialities (their behaviors appears somewhat similar), but says nothing of the cognitive processes at play in practice - the piece is mostly speculation.
By the way, the statements that "the Palestinians have perfected victimhood as a science" (near the end of the article) leads me to take this source with a grain of salt.
The second article is an argument based on a hell of a lot of assumptions (it even admits this), and basically assumes that since the causes of mental illness and terrorism resemble each other they must be connected (or even the same).
My gripe with your initial post is that the assertion is dubious (at best, and not really theoretically supported), and that it:
- Gives a psychologically satisfying explanation as to how "they" can do things like this, that makes it easier for us to see them as something other than us.
- Ends up perpetuating mental health stigma.
- Politicizes psychopathology.
I suggest taking a look at what a professional authority, e.g. APA [0] says about the matter.
That's just to start.
I feel that these events are connected a la V for Vendetta:
[0] In Afghanistan, tie between 9/11 and the war often gets lost
[1] U.S. Weaponry Is Turning Syria Into Proxy War With Russia
[2] Drone Strike in Yemen Hits Wedding Convoy, Killing 11
[3] EU and France deny any change in Syria policy
[4] Collateral Murder (Wikileaks - Iraq)
[5] Italy Arrests ISIS Terrorist Disguised As Refugee
[6] Syria: A human tragedy
[7] Cheney Insists Iraq War Was Worth It Because Of WMD
[8] Who are Isis? A terror group too extreme even for al-Qaida
[9] Charlie Hebdo Shooting
These are random links, I just collected from DDG mind you, nothing well-thought. I could start from the crusades I guess and everything would be equally aligned in my mind.
On a personal note feel terrorized. I was planning a trip to Paris this year. Now, I don't know. The only thing that remains, unfortunately, is fear. We can't see straight anymore.
Obama calls Paris attacks 'outrageous'. Is he willing to stop fueling the war in Syria?
“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” - Ghandi
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Asimov
[0] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/10/world/la-fg-afghanis...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-rus...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/middleeast/drone-str...
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-mideast-crisis-...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
[5] http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/italy-arrests-isis-terrori...
[6] http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2014/03/syri...
[7] http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/29/2853061/cheney-...
[8] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extrem...
- Provoke the west to further attacks on Muslims. Ideally the deaths of Muslims in Muslim lands should include innocents. Drone strikes and bombings are good, because it helps them turn the local people to their side.
- Provoke the west to hatred and bigotry of the greyzone Muslims (moderates) living in the west. Ideally they feel further marginalised and excluded. They need to be turned to fight for the caliphate, or be killed with the rest of the 'kuffār' (western non-believers).
- Provide young impressionable marginalised Muslim male youths with 'heroic' role models. Ghettoes in Paris where the 2005 riots took place are an ideal breeding ground for marginalization. Most are unemployed, have no education and no opportunities.
- Removal of despotic dictators from Muslim lands. Promoting instability, unemployment and isolation improves the chances of additional soldiers to join the fight.
I highly recommend an article called "THE EXTINCTION OF THE GRAYZONE" [1]:
The Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between
one of two choices, they either apostatize and adopt the
kufrī religion propagated by Bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron,
Sarkozy, and Hollande in the name of Islam so as to live
amongst the kuffār without hardship, or they perform hijrah
to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the
crusader governments and citizens.
As the world progresses towards al-Malhamah al-Kubrā, the
option to stand on the sidelines as a mere observer is being
lost. As those with hearts diseased by hypocrisy and bid’ah
are driven towards the camp of kufr, those with a mustard
seed of sincerity and Sunnah are driven towards the camp of
īmān.
Muslims in the crusader countries will find themselves
driven to abandon their homes for a place to live in the
Khilāfah, as the crusaders increase persecution against
Muslims living in Western lands so as to force them into a
tolerable sect of apostasy in the name of “Islam” before
forcing them into blatant Christianity and democracy.
Muslims in the lands ruled by the apostate tawāghīt will
find themselves driven to the wilāyāt of the Islamic State,
as the tawāghīt increase their imprisonment of any Muslim
they think might have a mustard seed of jealousy for his
religion, or lead them to apostatize by working as agents,
soldiers, and puppets serving the banner of the tāghūt.
Mujāhidīn in the lands of jihād will find themselves driven
to join the ranks of the Khilāfah, or forced to wage war
against it on the side of those willing to cooperate with
the munāfiqīn and murtaddīn against the Khilāfah. If they do
not execute these treacherous orders, they will be
considered khawārij by their leaders and face the sword of
“independent” courts infiltrated by the Sufis, the Ikhwān,
and the Salūlī sects.
Eventually, the grayzone will become extinct and there will
be no place for grayish calls and movements. There will only
be the camp of īmān versus the camp of kufr.
The sad thing is that there is no quick fix. We could leave the middle east and stop interfering. It would be a good first step to defusing tensions based on our presence there, but it would simply open the door to ISIS at the moment, leaving a vacuum for them to fill.
If we go full out war, with boots on the ground then we end up joining a fight that we cannot win.
I've heard calls to "nuke them back to the stone age". That's great, but many of them are living amongst us. Paris has had several terrorist attacks and the vast majority of the attacks were French born. The same went for the attacks in London.
Long term we need to add to the grey zone. In fact we need to westernise and have inclusive policies to make sure the marginalized Muslim youth (in fact all disenfranchised youths) are included in society. They need to see that they have a future.
The best thing we can do is to train them and employ them, making them valuable members of society and giving them something to feel proud of.
At the moment, poisonous Mullahs are doing that job a hell of a lot better than we are.
[1] Source: THE EXTINCTION OF THE GRAYZONE: https://archive.is/VE0jj#selection-459.1-463.388