3 ms·

Please don't partially quote me as it alters the meaning: > is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised The last part

by junto 11y ago

Please don't partially quote me as it alters the meaning: > is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised The last part of that is important. I'm talked about targeted surveillance.

aw3c2 11y ago
Every person has the potential to be radicalised. You are suggesting surveillance to target thoughtcrime.
- mercer 11y ago
  While I agree that everyone has that potential in theory, it is much more likely for radicalization to occur among certain groups, third-generation muslim immigrants in particular. And perhaps in a broader sense targeting people in particular socio-economic groups might also be useful (jobless, young, low education,etc.). The way I see it, targeted surveillance of these at-risk groups should be possible, and specifically in relation to terrorism or extremism in general it might even be effective. There are volumes of studies on how radicalization occurs, or how cults work, and what problems are caused by jobless young men disconnected from society around them (both by upbringing and through various forms of racism/classism, hidden or otherwise). The process is not exactly mysterious. That said, I get the impression that there's a huge gap between what researchers know about these processes, and how this is used by police, 'neighborhood watchers', and schools, and possibly even intelligence agencies. I'll also add that regardless of how effective targeted surveillance might be, on a 'gut' level I feel uncomfortable with this scenario and would not be in favor of it. I can't quite articulate why at this point, but personally I'd still prefer not significantly changing our way of life over the, so far, infrequent terrorist attacks. Perhaps the best answer is to simply not let it phase us and continue with life. Most other solutions feel like (partly) playing into the hands of terrorists. But I don't think that's a realistic option, sadly, and perhaps it's easy for me to say these things without having felt the effects of such terrorist attacks personally.
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored. It's one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability. I see two scary implementations of such a process 1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed. 2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons. In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms. In the end the system won't be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
You choice of wording suggests a different meaning from what, I hope, you intended. You say "all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" - this sounds very much like "all Muslims ... have the potential to be radicalised". Hopefully, what you actually mean is "monitor any Muslim with the potential to be radicalised" - i.e. monitor a tiny number of Muslims, not all of them!
- punee 11y ago
  That's incorrect. "all muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" is the subset of muslims who have the potential to be radicalised. Your comment would have been valid if he/she had written "all muslims living in Europe, who have the potential to be radicalised." Yes, syntax matters. The HN crowd ought to know. ;)
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    I know that, literally, that's the meaning of what they wrote. But this is an emotive issue. Anyone reading it quickly can easily misunderstand the intent; judging by the downvotes, many did. It would be wise, in such a case, to be as unambiguous as possible.
berntb 11y ago
Most of my Muslim friends are not particularly religious. But they can't really discuss that in the company from "the old country", both because of social problems and because it might be physically dangerous. I heard a Muslim girl say that her boyfriend had to change religion because her relatives back home would get problems otherwise... In Europe we are getting areas where immigrants live, so this will be conserved to a large part between generations. My point is -- many of the children of my secular friends will grow up with social input which might end up making (even) them radicalized. This is a big problem, which the Muslim community better solve before a bad backlash starts. :-(
tomp 11y ago
I was quoting the relevant part. Or rather, the irrelevant part. I don't see why only Muslims that have the potential to be radicalized should be monitored.
- mercer 11y ago
  Because so far it's primarily been radicalized muslims that have been involved in acts of terrorism?
  - cromulent 11y ago
    Is that right? I would have said the Irish. According to Wikipedia, over 10000 bombings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You ignore the long history of terrorist actions in Europe, with some animal rights groups, some left wing groups, some extreme right wing individuals, some nationalist / separatist groups, etc etc.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      In France there's even this group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comit%C3%A9_R%C3%A9gional_d%27Action_Viticole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comit%C3%A9_R%C3%A9gional_d%27... Comité régional d'action viticole (CRAV, Regional Committee for Viticultural Action), or sometimes Comité d'action viticole (CAV, Committee for Viticultural Action) is a French group of radical wine producers. It has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks including dynamiting grocery stores, a winery, the agriculture ministry offices in two cities, burning a car at another, hijacking a tanker, and destroying large quantities of non-French wine.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    No it hasn't.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
Please note: Radicalization is not a unique trait to Islam or even religion. Also see: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Ted Kaczynski. (American examples because that's what I'm most familiar with) It makes no sense whatsoever to concentrate on Muslims over every other group on the planet. And no, it isn't more likely for radicalization to occur among Muslims.

by junto 11y ago

aw3c2 11y ago

Every person has the potential to be radicalised. You are suggesting surveillance to target thoughtcrime.

mercer 11y ago
While I agree that everyone has that potential in theory, it is much more likely for radicalization to occur among certain groups, third-generation muslim immigrants in particular. And perhaps in a broader sense targeting people in particular socio-economic groups might also be useful (jobless, young, low education,etc.). The way I see it, targeted surveillance of these at-risk groups should be possible, and specifically in relation to terrorism or extremism in general it might even be effective. There are volumes of studies on how radicalization occurs, or how cults work, and what problems are caused by jobless young men disconnected from society around them (both by upbringing and through various forms of racism/classism, hidden or otherwise). The process is not exactly mysterious. That said, I get the impression that there's a huge gap between what researchers know about these processes, and how this is used by police, 'neighborhood watchers', and schools, and possibly even intelligence agencies. I'll also add that regardless of how effective targeted surveillance might be, on a 'gut' level I feel uncomfortable with this scenario and would not be in favor of it. I can't quite articulate why at this point, but personally I'd still prefer not significantly changing our way of life over the, so far, infrequent terrorist attacks. Perhaps the best answer is to simply not let it phase us and continue with life. Most other solutions feel like (partly) playing into the hands of terrorists. But I don't think that's a realistic option, sadly, and perhaps it's easy for me to say these things without having felt the effects of such terrorist attacks personally.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored. It's one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability. I see two scary implementations of such a process 1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed. 2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons. In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms. In the end the system won't be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

You choice of wording suggests a different meaning from what, I hope, you intended. You say "all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" - this sounds very much like "all Muslims ... have the potential to be radicalised". Hopefully, what you actually mean is "monitor any Muslim with the potential to be radicalised" - i.e. monitor a tiny number of Muslims, not all of them!

punee 11y ago
That's incorrect. "all muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised" is the subset of muslims who have the potential to be radicalised. Your comment would have been valid if he/she had written "all muslims living in Europe, who have the potential to be radicalised." Yes, syntax matters. The HN crowd ought to know. ;)
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  I know that, literally, that's the meaning of what they wrote. But this is an emotive issue. Anyone reading it quickly can easily misunderstand the intent; judging by the downvotes, many did. It would be wise, in such a case, to be as unambiguous as possible.

berntb 11y ago

Most of my Muslim friends are not particularly religious. But they can't really discuss that in the company from "the old country", both because of social problems and because it might be physically dangerous. I heard a Muslim girl say that her boyfriend had to change religion because her relatives back home would get problems otherwise... In Europe we are getting areas where immigrants live, so this will be conserved to a large part between generations. My point is -- many of the children of my secular friends will grow up with social input which might end up making (even) them radicalized. This is a big problem, which the Muslim community better solve before a bad backlash starts. :-(

tomp 11y ago

I was quoting the relevant part. Or rather, the irrelevant part. I don't see why only Muslims that have the potential to be radicalized should be monitored.

mercer 11y ago
Because so far it's primarily been radicalized muslims that have been involved in acts of terrorism?
- cromulent 11y ago
  Is that right? I would have said the Irish. According to Wikipedia, over 10000 bombings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No...
- DanBC 11y ago
  You ignore the long history of terrorist actions in Europe, with some animal rights groups, some left wing groups, some extreme right wing individuals, some nationalist / separatist groups, etc etc.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    In France there's even this group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comit%C3%A9_R%C3%A9gional_d%27Action_Viticole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comit%C3%A9_R%C3%A9gional_d%27... Comité régional d'action viticole (CRAV, Regional Committee for Viticultural Action), or sometimes Comité d'action viticole (CAV, Committee for Viticultural Action) is a French group of radical wine producers. It has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks including dynamiting grocery stores, a winery, the agriculture ministry offices in two cities, burning a car at another, hijacking a tanker, and destroying large quantities of non-French wine.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  No it hasn't.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

Please note: Radicalization is not a unique trait to Islam or even religion. Also see: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Ted Kaczynski. (American examples because that's what I'm most familiar with) It makes no sense whatsoever to concentrate on Muslims over every other group on the planet. And no, it isn't more likely for radicalization to occur among Muslims.