The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Savonarola]

Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.

That caught my eye as well.  What is the advantage for the government to do that?  Also legally what would happen to these now stateless people? 

(Just general questions, not directed at Yi specifically.)

[Berkut]

Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it).  Who cares what you find tedious?  Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us?  If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences.  You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.

The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.

Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".

So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.

A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.

Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.

You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."

Now THIS is sophistry!

If one were to *define* grumbler as being a human being wearing a red shirt and drinking diet pepsi, and in fact the human being in question only wears blue and drinks milk or lemonade, then in fact we would absolutely conclude that "grumbler" as you defined him does not exist.

And in fact, when it comes to Gods, their attributes are very much the definition of what they are - to say that "allah" exists, but he never chatted with Mohammed is not saying that he exists (in the fashion that Muslims consider him to exist) at all. That is one of the characteristics that define the being that they are talking about.

So your argument is just terrible - it is an attempt to define away the very characteristics that believers consider to define the deity they claim to have faith in, that they claim to worship, that they claim defines their own behavior.

"Grumbler" is just a convenient label we attach to an actual physical person I have very good evidence actually exists. If me and you are talking, and I tell you about this guy grumbler I know, and you say "Hey, I know grumbler too! She is a good friend of my sisters!" I would reasonably conclude that in fact the grumbler you are talking about and the grumbler I am talking about are not in fact the same person, even if they happen to share an identifier.

[Syt]

Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:

http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/arkansas-governor-says-his-state-opposes-settling-syrian-refugees/

Multiple Republican Governors Say They Oppose the Entry of Syrian Refugees

A growing number of Republican governors have said they oppose the entry of Syrian refugees into their states in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas announced on Twitter on Monday that he opposed settling refugees from Syria in his state. Here is his full statement.

As Governor I will oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas.

Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts said Monday morning that he opposed letting Syrian refugees into the state until the federal government decided how to deal with them.

"No, I'm not interested in accepting refugees from Syria," he told reporters at the Statehouse. "I'm going to set the bar really high," he said. "My view on this is that the safety and security of the people of the commonwealth of Mass is my highest priority."

He said he had had no conversations yet with federal officials, but added: "We would have to be very cautious about accepting folks without knowing a lot more about what the federal government's plan looks like and how it would actually be implemented and executed on."

Mayor Martin J. Walsh of Boston, a Democrat, who was standing next to Mr. Baker as they emerged from a legislative hearing, agreed with his approach.

"I stand with the governor," the mayor said, adding, "we would have to see the vetting process."

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas released a letter on Monday addressed to President Obama, saying that Texas "will not accept any refugees from Syria" because of security concerns. "And I urge you, as president, to halt your plans to allow Syrians to be resettled anywhere in the United States."

The Obama administration has said that it intends to allow up to 10,000 refugees from Syria into the country.

Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi said that he vowed to do "everything humanly possible" to block refugees from entering his state.

Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement on Monday that all state agencies will immediately suspend resettlement of refugees from Syria. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a candidate for president, issued an executive order "to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Louisiana."

In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder said on Sunday that the state would freeze its efforts to accept refugees until the Department of Homeland Security reviews its security procedures.

In a statement on Sunday, Gov. Robert Bentley announced he was refusing the relocation of Syrian refugees to Alabama. A Syrian passport was found near the body of one of the attackers in Paris.

"After full consideration of this weekend's attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program," he said. "As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way."

Whether governors have the authority to block refugees is not clear.

John Barcanic, the executive director of World Relief Chicago, a refugee resettlement agency, said in an interview that governors are typically not involved with the resettlement process.

"My hunch is that they don't have the power to stop it," he said. "It's the Department of State who decides whether we'll take certain kinds of refugees. Once somebody is in the country, I'm fairly certain that a governor doesn't have the ability to stop somebody from living in their state simply because of their race."

[Valmy]

I can see calling for some careful vetting but blocking all refugees seems a little unreasonable. LOL at Jindal being a 'candidate for President'.

And here I thought 10,000 was embarrassingly low.

[Savonarola]

Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:

I was surprised (and disappointed) that Snyder put the freeze on given how many refugees from the Middle East Michigan has accepted over the years.

Although maybe I should be concerned that Ernst Blofeld Rick Scott didn't.  Who knows what villainous scheme he has planned?

[The Minsky Moment]

On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.

Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists.  The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions.  Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect.  The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god.   Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god.  As to the latter, the believers are in fundamental agreement with each other and in disagreement with those who reject the concept.  A successful argument against them would require directly taking on the belief in the single omnipotent creator god concept.

[grumbler]

Sure there is. Of course it would be a long tedious theological response that would be as pointless as your entire point but there does exist such a response.

How... persuasive.

[DGuller]

It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.

Imagine an infinite variety of grumblers?    I'd rather not.

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown?  Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?

You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.

It's not like Iraq where we unseated a well-established governing structure, systematically dismantled the state, and replaced it with nothing.  The state has already ceased to exist in the ISIS occupied areas and Assad has shown little interest or ability to reconstruct it.  Replacing one anarchic mess with a somewhat less nasty anarchic mess would be a net gain.

[KRonn]

I wouldn't mind taking some refugees but how would the vetting of refugees even be accomplished? I could see if they were refugees that for the most part we wouldn't find any threatening ideology from, such as the Viet Namese who came here after South Vietnam fell. There's no Syrian government to reference to know who the people are, plus the turmoil and changes there would seem to render inaccurate most info they would have on their citizens. I assume there are other processes to vett people, but how reliable are they?

[Eddie Teach]

On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.

Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists.  The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions.  Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect.  The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god.   Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god.  As to the latter, the believers are in fundamental agreement with each other and in disagreement with those who reject the concept.  A successful argument against them would require directly taking on the belief in the single omnipotent creator god concept.

That is very well put.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439

Maybe the should call the operation "Charles Martell"

[alfred russel]

It's not like Iraq where we unseated a well-established governing structure, systematically dismantled the state, and replaced it with nothing.

Replaced it with nothing? I guess you didn't see the org chart of the Iraqi military that Hans posted many years ago.

[KRonn]

Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439

Maybe the should call the operation "Charles Martell"

Well, there is actually an ISIS physical state to target, territory, banks, taxes, infrastructure, economy unlike previously with radical groups who exist without such trappings.

[Eddie Teach]

It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.

Imagine an infinite variety of grumblers?    I'd rather not.

Age can not wither him, but his infinite variety has gotten pretty stale.