= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on [Link] Op-Ed on Brussels Attacks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
Why, you look at what France and other European countries did. We know that whatever they did led to Paris and Brussels. Do you think they radicalized the Muslims by heavy-handed patrolling of Muslim neighbourhoods and being generally oppressive toward them? Or did the European policy involve averting their eyes and issuing proclamations about how Muslims should feel welcome (the term "appeasement" isn't terribly popular)?
And I suppose other countries that treat terrorists more harshly never experienced suicide bombings?
But just saying that would not be getting to the meat of your point. The question to ask is not whether what they did led to Paris and Brussels, but whether if doing something different would have prevented Paris and Brussels, or led to Berlin, Milan, and other prominent cities being bombed.
As always, I'm ready to update my beliefs, and if you can show that me sufficient proof that a heavy police presence would be more optimal than not for the sake of decreasing the resources flowing to ISIS and its ability to do suicide bombings, I'll be happy to update.
Paris isn't excatly a European city that did a good job at trying to integrate it's Muslim populations. Even before the terrorist attacks there were riots in Paris's suburbs. France is also one of the countries that did the most surveillance.
Correlation / Causation?
Evidence.
But do note that the OP explicitly asserts causation between police presence and radicalization.