Another terrorist attack in France

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-15-2016, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take securities, but taking liberties sounds better until the Devil's at the door.

If someone wants to commit mass murder there is little you or I, or the police will be able to do about.   I certainly don't want my liberties restricted because of something you can't prevent in the first place.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 04:36 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm not on Facebook.

Yelp, you know the first step you got to take. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 04:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: If someone wants to commit mass murder there is little you or I, or the police will be able to do about.   I certainly don't want my liberties restricted because of something you can't prevent in the first place.

So you are saying increase security woud not reduce the chance of terror attack? 

[Benton]

(07-15-2016, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might be reaching here and speaking in absolutes to try to prove a point. Would we agree that Muslim immigration is limited in Japan and those that do come must accept a high degree of assimilation?

Eh, I think the words in the article were pretty clear. It was written with erroneous info to say that "...Japan is “a country without Muslims”."

If your take from "...Japan is “a country without Muslims”" or "Japan is practically closed to Muslims" is that the author wasn't saying Japan is a country that excludes Muslims, then I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

But to your question, no, I wouldn't agree. As I've said in other posts, there are a lot of reasons why there are few Muslims in Japan. One of the biggest is that they allow few immigrants from anywhere. They do not accept dual citizenship. They do not accept many people who do not have some form of relative already in Japan (so, for many, you're talking about limiting it to people in Asia).

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/25/national/politics-diplomacy/japans-immigration-policy-rift-widens-population-decline-forces-need-foreign-workers/

Quote:But many conservative politicians, including Abe, are reluctant to ease immigration rules, particularly for unskilled foreign workers, apparently fearing social and economic tensions that could arise from the introduction of different ethnic groups.

During Tuesday’s news conference, Ishiba emphasized that wages and working conditions for non-Japanese workers should be equal to those for normal citizens.
“We shouldn’t expect foreigners to do jobs that Japanese people are reluctant to do,” Ishiba said.
“We should implement measures to remove as many obstacles as possible for foreigners working in Japan, including those related to languages and customs,” he said.

Muslims are no more or less limited than Christians, Buddhists, and others who do not speak the language or have the job qualifications necessary for employment, or the other restrictions (which, from everything I've read and people I've met, don't include anything about being Muslim).

So, no, I wouldn't agree they're restrictive about Muslims, but I would agree Japan is restrictive about all immigrants.

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2016, 03:44 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I don't live in a state of irrational fear either.  Being armed and avoiding places that prevent me from being armed is not irrational fear as much as it is prudence.

Why do you feel the need to be armed if not the fear of needing your firearm? How reasonable is it to assume you will need your firearm in your everyday life? I know it is not reasonable to assume such a thing in mine. Thus it would be irrational for me to fear that I would need a firearm in my daily life.

(07-15-2016, 03:44 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Since you are so brave, just walk down the streets of Chicago waving money around.  Do you think yourself brave or foolish if you did that?

Bravery is not necessarily the absence of fear, but overcoming it. That being said, it would not be irrational to have fear of something happening if you displayed large sums of cash in a high crime area. It is, however, irrational for me to fear needing my firearm while grocery shopping at my usual store, going to church, going out to dinner at my favorite restaurant, etc.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-15-2016, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are saying increase security woud not reduce the chance of terror attack? 

Nope.  But I will say that it seems that more have not been prevented than have been.

[Belsnickel]

Those that say an end to religion would solve things like this, they wouldn't. Humans have a natural tendency to group together with those like us. And we tend to use those groups to divide us. If it wasn't belief in a higher power that was being used as an excuse it would be something else.

This story is older than religion, our countries, our cultures, all of it. It happens in other members of the great apes, which means it is so inherent in us it goes beyond anything we have created. It's just that what we have created makes it that much worse.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 05:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I think the words in the article were pretty clear. It was written with erroneous info to say that "...Japan is “a country without Muslims”."

If your take from "...Japan is “a country without Muslims”" or "Japan is practically closed to Muslims" is that the author wasn't saying Japan is a country that excludes Muslims, then I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

But to your question, no, I wouldn't agree. As I've said in other posts, there are a lot of reasons why there are few Muslims in Japan. One of the biggest is that they allow few immigrants from anywhere. They do not accept dual citizenship. They do not accept many people who do not have some form of relative already in Japan (so, for many, you're talking about limiting it to people in Asia).

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/25/national/politics-diplomacy/japans-immigration-policy-rift-widens-population-decline-forces-need-foreign-workers/



Muslims are no more or less limited than Christians, Buddhists, and others who do not speak the language or have the job qualifications necessary for employment, or the other restrictions (which, from everything I've read and people I've met, don't include anything about being Muslim).

So, no, I wouldn't agree they're restrictive about Muslims, but I would agree Japan is restrictive about all immigrants.

If you consider a quote that includes the modifier "practically" to illustrate exclude (to shut or keep out; prevent the entrance of); that is your choice.

I asked you was immigration of Muslims limited in Japan, you somehow tried to make that a "no" because all immigration is limited. 

Did I ask were they more limited?

You are trying real hard to find a way to say no. You didn't answer the assimilation question so I'll try one last time:

Does Japan restrict (notice I'm not saying exclude nor did the article I quoted) Immigration?

Does Japan require strict assimilation to those they do allow?

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2016, 05:18 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Nope.  But I will say that it seems that more have not been prevented than have been.

I disagree. Mostly because those that are prevented are things we never hear about. They are foiled by operatives whose names we will never know, who put themselves out there to gather intelligence and apprehend potential terrorists every day. I can say with near absolute certainty that more of these types of things have been prevented than have occurred because of these people.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 05:18 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Nope.  But I will say that it seems that more have not been prevented than have been.

Of course it "seems" that way; as you do not know about many that are stopped. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-15-2016, 05:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. Mostly because those that aren't prevented are things we never hear about. They are foiled by operatives whose names we will never know, who put themselves out there to gather intelligence and apprehend potential terrorists every day. I can say with near absolute certainty that more of these types of things have been prevented than have occurred because of these people.

I don't know about that.  I'm not going to try to go tit for tat with out statistics.  But in a free society there is almost nothing that can be done about some crazies that don't advertise their intentions.  Still I'd rather live in a free society.    Also it seems like any government that does actually manage to foil an attack, plasters it across the media trying to reassure us that they can prevent it from happening.  I'd still rather keep my liberties.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 05:35 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I don't know about that.  I'm not going to try to go tit for tat with out statistics.  But in a free society there is almost nothing that can be done about some crazies that don't advertise their intentions.  Still I'd rather live in a free society.    Also it seems like any government that does actually manage to foil an attack, plasters it across the media trying to reassure us that they can prevent it from happening.  I'd still rather keep my liberties.

What do you consider advertise? Posting a notice in the newspaper?

Those that are foiled do "advertise"; it just takes added security measures to discover this advertisement.  

[Benton]

(07-15-2016, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you consider a quote that includes the modifier "practically" to illustrate exclude (to shut or keep out; prevent the entrance of); that is your choice.

 

Well, if you're talking definitions...

prac·ti·cal·ly/ˈpraktək(ə)lē/

adverb

1. virtually; almost.
2. in a practical manner.
   

And then "As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”."

Then, yeah, I'm seeing some similarities there between the author calling it 'practically (virtually, almost) a country without Muslims,' "a country without Muslims" and "excluding Muslims." I honestly don't understand your point unless you're just being obtuse for the hell of it or you don't understand that using 3,000 words to say they're 'almost without Muslims by choice' is summed up by three words: they exclude Muslims.

Which is misleading.

mis·lead/misˈlēd/

verb

1. cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.
   

Quote:I asked you was immigration of Muslims limited in Japan, you somehow tried to make that a "no" because all immigration is limited. 

Your question — and the article cited to support it — are misleading.

All immigration is limited. It's not secular.

Quote:Did I ask were they more limited?

in·fer/inˈfər/

verb

1. deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
   

Quote:You are trying real hard to find a way to say no.

No.

See, I can say that easily.

Quote:You didn't answer the assimilation question so I'll try one last time:

I answered your question. You disagree with the answer.

Quote:Does Japan restrict (notice I'm not saying exclude nor did the article I quoted) Immigration?

Different question. The answer to that one is yes.

Quote:Does Japan require strict assimilation to those they do allow?

That's not question that lends itself to a clear answer. I would say they don't accommodate non-Japanese. If you can navigate the country on your own, you'll do ok. If you depend on the society for employment, communication, resources... then you probably won't.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2016, 05:46 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, if you're talking definitions...

prac·ti·cal·ly/ˈpraktək(ə)lē/

adverb

1. virtually; almost.
2. in a practical manner.
   

And then "As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”."

Then, yeah, I'm seeing some similarities there between the author calling it 'practically (virtually, almost) a country without Muslims,' "a country without Muslims" and "excluding Muslims." I honestly don't understand your point unless you're just being obtuse for the hell of it or you don't understand that using 3,000 words to say they're 'almost without Muslims by choice' is summed up by three words: they exclude Muslims.

Which is misleading.

mis·lead/misˈlēd/

verb

1. cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.
   

Your question — and the article cited to support it — are misleading.

All immigration is limited. It's not secular.



in·fer/inˈfər/

verb

1. deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
   

No.

See, I can say that easily.



I answered your question. You disagree with the answer.



Different question. The answer to that one is yes.



That's not question that lends itself to a clear answer. I would say they don't accommodate non-Japanese. If you can navigate the country on your own, you'll do ok. If you depend on the society for employment, communication, resources... then you probably won't.

Never mind.

[NATI BENGALS]

Sadly, there really is nothing you can do about a random shitbag who has an intent on commiting mass murder.

The internet makes it worse than it ever was. The crazy loner can go read all types of shit twisting their brain and making them think stuff they never would have. Giving them sick ideas or motivation that in previous generations was much easier muted.

This is the reality of the information age. And until neighborly community interaction picks back up, with people policing their own, disconnected humans with sick intentions will continue to cause problems.

[Brownshoe]

Ban all trucks.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-16-2016, 03:09 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Ban all trucks.

There will be explosives rammed up a horse's ass.

[Brownshoe]

(07-16-2016, 03:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There will be explosives rammed up a horse's ass.

People will always find a way to kill as many as they can if that's their goal. It doesn't matter if it's an explosive from cleaning supplies or a truck. There are just evil people out there.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-15-2016, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do you consider advertise? Posting a notice in the newspaper?

Those that are foiled do "advertise"; it just takes added security measures to discover this advertisement.  

And that's my point.  The ones that are caught, are because they advertised their intentions in some manner.  At any rate I don't think that banning anyone of a certain religion, race, or nationality is the answer.  As I understand it the vetting process for anyone to immigrate to this country is roughly two years.  I would think that should be plenty of time to clear someone.  I'm not ready throw whole populations under the bus. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-15-2016, 05:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why do you feel the need to be armed if not the fear of needing your firearm? How reasonable is it to assume you will need your firearm in your everyday life? I know it is not reasonable to assume such a thing in mine. Thus it would be irrational for me to fear that I would need a firearm in my daily life.


Bravery is not necessarily the absence of fear, but overcoming it. That being said, it would not be irrational to have fear of something happening if you displayed large sums of cash in a high crime area. It is, however, irrational for me to fear needing my firearm while grocery shopping at my usual store, going to church, going out to dinner at my favorite restaurant, etc.

Ever hear the expression "I would rather have something and never need it, than need it and not have it."?

Pretty much the same principle.  I have been in situations where I was glad to have my firearm, of course that was when I was deployed and we were ambushed.

In my everyday life, no, I have not had the need.  However remember Luby's, remember the testimony of one Suzanna Gratia Hupp?  Yeah, she had a gun, but due to the legislation and her being a good law abiding citizen she left it in her vehicle.  Then in her everyday life, found herself wishing that just that once she had broken the law and kept her pistol on her.  She wished she had it even though she didn't think she would ever need it.

The question you must answer for yourself is "When can a terrorist attack occur?"