5 ms·

Indeed. It seems to be the prevalent opinion among European counter-terrorism experts that the most effective policies are: - Bringing more eyes and ears in th

Indeed. It seems to be the prevalent opinion among European counter-terrorism experts that the most effective policies are: - Bringing more eyes and ears in the form of social workers and community policemen in problematic neighborhoods. - Provide better education/work opportunities for immigrants. - Better cooperation between municipalities and Muslim organisations/mosques. - Deradicalization programs. Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.). France has been doing pretty much the opposite, investing money in surveillance and special forces instead. Belgium has kind of ignored problems.

lgieron 11y ago
What are 'deradicalization programs'? I'd say if some people (i.e. some imams) are semi-openly calling for destruction of France, they should just be banished from the country.
- gambiting 11y ago
  Some of them are French citizens with no other nationality - you cannot "banish" them, the only thing you could maybe do is put them in prison, but putting people in prison for speech you don't like is a dangerous avenue.
  - lgieron 11y ago
    That's of course debatable, but for me it's more dangerous to have them free disseminating warmongering propaganda.
    - lgieron 11y ago
      Wondering why did I get a downvote? Isn't what I said just a valid opinion, on a matter of philosophical (i.e. irresolvable) differences? Edit: getting more downvotes, without any of the downvoters caring to justify them so far, so I can only speculate as for the reasons behind them. I'm wondering if the downvoters (I'm guessing from the USA) are aware that my views are already a law in many of the liberal democracies of Europe? There are laws which put you in jail for saying certain things, and they are enforced (there are people who are doing time just for saying things).
gerbilly 11y ago
>problematic neighborhoods. That's part of the problem right there that people segregate into enclaves and have little contact with each other's communities.
- creshal 11y ago
  Indeed, but we can't dissolve them overnight. Getting people the support needed to move out of their ghettos is a good step, though.
sjg007 11y ago
Here's a weird idea. What about cutting benefits and forcing people to get jobs? Would it prevent terrorism? If everyone is too busy working??
- creshal 11y ago
  Sure, just let me grab a sack full of jobs off my jobs tree.
- adrianN 11y ago
  Not feeding the poor has historically a great track record for preventing unrest...
  - sjg007 11y ago
    So America has a great prison system and no benefits. Most immigrants work... No real terrorism to speak of outside the lone wolfs. Bad? Good?
    - krapp 11y ago
      Could be worse. Could be a lot better.
    - creshal 11y ago
      The US don't have terrorist groups, but crime rates in general are comparatively high.
zo1 11y ago
>"Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.)." Meanwhile, people are dying. That is exactly how some people see it, and exactly how I see it. I'm not emotional, I'm logical, and I expect government to protect us from evil individuals/groups. Arguably, it's not there to foster some sort of "long-term" sustainable co-existence between different cultures. First, you establish security and root out potential problem groups. And once that's happened, and you have almost non-existent danger to the local populace, then you can start worrying about integration and grey-goals such as "peaceful coexistence" and "de-radicalization". And I don't say that as a means to single-out immigrants, or foreign groups. This reasoning should apply just as much to dangerous elements that are within, and part of society currently.

lgieron 11y ago

What are 'deradicalization programs'? I'd say if some people (i.e. some imams) are semi-openly calling for destruction of France, they should just be banished from the country.

gambiting 11y ago
Some of them are French citizens with no other nationality - you cannot "banish" them, the only thing you could maybe do is put them in prison, but putting people in prison for speech you don't like is a dangerous avenue.
- lgieron 11y ago
  That's of course debatable, but for me it's more dangerous to have them free disseminating warmongering propaganda.
  - lgieron 11y ago
    Wondering why did I get a downvote? Isn't what I said just a valid opinion, on a matter of philosophical (i.e. irresolvable) differences? Edit: getting more downvotes, without any of the downvoters caring to justify them so far, so I can only speculate as for the reasons behind them. I'm wondering if the downvoters (I'm guessing from the USA) are aware that my views are already a law in many of the liberal democracies of Europe? There are laws which put you in jail for saying certain things, and they are enforced (there are people who are doing time just for saying things).

gerbilly 11y ago

>problematic neighborhoods. That's part of the problem right there that people segregate into enclaves and have little contact with each other's communities.

creshal 11y ago
Indeed, but we can't dissolve them overnight. Getting people the support needed to move out of their ghettos is a good step, though.

sjg007 11y ago

Here's a weird idea. What about cutting benefits and forcing people to get jobs? Would it prevent terrorism? If everyone is too busy working??

creshal 11y ago
Sure, just let me grab a sack full of jobs off my jobs tree.
adrianN 11y ago
Not feeding the poor has historically a great track record for preventing unrest...
- sjg007 11y ago
  So America has a great prison system and no benefits. Most immigrants work... No real terrorism to speak of outside the lone wolfs. Bad? Good?
  - krapp 11y ago
    Could be worse. Could be a lot better.
  - creshal 11y ago
    The US don't have terrorist groups, but crime rates in general are comparatively high.

zo1 11y ago

>"Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.)." Meanwhile, people are dying. That is exactly how some people see it, and exactly how I see it. I'm not emotional, I'm logical, and I expect government to protect us from evil individuals/groups. Arguably, it's not there to foster some sort of "long-term" sustainable co-existence between different cultures. First, you establish security and root out potential problem groups. And once that's happened, and you have almost non-existent danger to the local populace, then you can start worrying about integration and grey-goals such as "peaceful coexistence" and "de-radicalization". And I don't say that as a means to single-out immigrants, or foreign groups. This reasoning should apply just as much to dangerous elements that are within, and part of society currently.