# Brussels now...



## Nag (Mar 23, 2016)

Apparently, blowing yourself up in France is too 2015, so they went on to doing it in Belgium instead this year.

I thought there would already be a thread about it in here, found none, so I made one. I don't even know what to say. This is just awful. 30 dead and counting...

Is this ever going to stop ? I guess, much like my tendencies to dark sarcasm, it's not.


----------



## AndruwX (Mar 23, 2016)

It's not gonna stop. There be always be Muslims, hate and resentment.
I mean, obviously, Islam it's a religion of 1.6 billion where only 20 % aprox. are radical, but think about it: 300.000.000 people wants to kill because you do not believe in their god.

Remember that extremists are always louder than the rest. Also just look at countries where more than the 80 % of the population is Muslim, they are disasters, they don't have any human rights and what you saw yesterday in Brussels happens there every single day. But hey, let's just make "prayers" and hastags on twitter, that sure will help a lot.

It's a lose-lose situation to be honest, this is the modern terrorist problem. Centuries ago were the Christians with the crusades, now it's the Islam. And now some extreme left wing people/newspapers blame the terrorism on the "big empires meddling with foreign affair" ffs, that's just incredibly mental.

It's so complicated that talking about this is just gonna start an infinite discussion about Protecting our countries Vs Acepting refugees.


----------



## Nag (Mar 23, 2016)

Not sure the terrorist attacks have that much in common with the refugees.

The refugees : western countries imposed an embargo on Syria because of political/economic interests. who pays the price ? the people of course. westerners and Syrians.

The terrorists : they're financed by corrupt people with money, not sure if true but many people say it's the Saudi princes. they just use the immigration waves from Syria to infiltrate europe. But they do damage in the middle east as well... 

I just don't think it's possible for these terrorist organizations to reach their goals in today's world. All I see is people dying in vain, chosen randomly, in the name of fundamentalist hatred, for nothing.


----------



## AndruwX (Mar 23, 2016)

Nagash said:


> I just don't think it's possible for these terrorist organizations to reach their goals in today's world. All I see is people dying in vain, chosen randomly, in the name of fundamentalist hatred, for nothing.



Well, they a re inflicting fear in the entire developed world.
It's kinda working.


----------



## Nag (Mar 23, 2016)

AndruwX said:


> Well, they a re inflicting fear in the entire developed world.
> It's kinda working.




Fear ? Nah. People's lives didn't change here. People weren't too scared to go outside, or anything. Literally nothing changed, except more security measures. That, and the victims of course. But no, nothing changed. Ask people if they are afraid of terrorists over here. Most will say they aren't.


----------



## vilk (Mar 23, 2016)

Nagash said:


> Not sure the terrorist attacks have that much in common with the refugees.



The attackers were Belgian. Muslim, but not refugees (or even economic migrants).

I believe that is true for all the ISIS attacks on Europe/San Bernardino?


In view of this information, we should theoretically be more worried about Muslim people already living in the USA/Europe than the people who would come here.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 23, 2016)

Nagash said:


> Fear ? Nah. People's lives didn't change here. People weren't too scared to go outside, or anything. Literally nothing changed, except more security measures. That, and the victims of course. But no, nothing changed. Ask people if they are afraid of terrorists over here. Most will say they aren't.


I don't know, man. For the first 2-3 weeks after the Paris shootings, I had planned a trip to Brussels and some of my friends were afraid something would happen. The atmosphere in the city was somewhat tense at that time too. Fear as in people collectively staying inside though? No.

Amsterdam was less full of cops than I expected today. Some special police units and heavier armed cops at the central station but the city itself didn't show much. The public response seems less shocked than after 9/11 and the '04 Madrid bombings.



vilk said:


> The attackers were Belgian. Muslim, but not refugees (or even economic migrants).
> 
> I believe that is true for all the ISIS attacks on Europe/San Bernardino?


Probably, yes. Populists and nutters love to blame the refugees for this but the majority of attacks are carried out by 'locals'. Guys that have either been born here or came in a legitimate way (to study at university or something like that).


----------



## beyondcosmos (Mar 23, 2016)

What pisses me off the most is that no one is talking about ending the war in Syria and Iraq, but rather how many refugees Europe can take in. Germany sends over 1.6 Billion in arms to Bahrain every year. A lot of that and the aid to other nations ends up getting into the hands of jihadists as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia don't enforce their policy of 'no jihad', and then plenty of civilians encourage it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/w...ia-rebels-despite-a-lack-of-control.html?_r=1

If the NATO nations suddenly gave the U.S. the finger and stopped sending military 'aid' to the Saudis and so on.... the war would be over. If the U.S. did that...... well, maybe the war and the U.S. would be over. It pains me to say this as someone who loves America (the people and land, specifically), but our economy really is reliant on constant warfare.




vilk said:


> The attackers were Belgian. Muslim, but not refugees (or even economic migrants).
> 
> I believe that is true for all the ISIS attacks on Europe/San Bernardino?
> 
> ...



^I agree, but it's important to remember that ISIS is just as much an idea as a body of pissed off Muslims. Plenty of people go from peaceful to radical based off who they're interacting with. One of the Paris attackers was always known to be a peaceful guy--his neighbors believed him to be a genuinely nice person. Then, in mid 2014 and up until the December 2015 attacks, they said he began changing. There was an ex-ISIS German (ethnic German who converted to Islam, joined ISIS in Syria, but noped out when he had a change of heart) who told German police to look into this guy 3 months before the Paris attacks, but no swift action was taken.

â²ISâ² secret police - The trial of Nils D. | Germany | DW.COM | 19.01.2016

There's something going on beneath the whole Refugee Crisis, presence of ethnically-Arab EU Citizens, and the terrorist attacks in Turkey and Europe over the past year. They are all definitely linked, but in a complex way.

tl; dr We could have a perfect world if we work together and get to the bottom of this. God bless you all, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, theist, or whatever.


----------



## celticelk (Mar 23, 2016)

AndruwX said:


> 300.000.000 people wants to kill because you do not believe in their god.



Citation needed.


----------



## celticelk (Mar 23, 2016)

vilk said:


> In view of this information, we should theoretically be more worried about Muslim people already living in the USA/Europe than the people who would come here.



It's a *lot* more efficient to radicalize disaffected Muslims already living inside your target country than it is to try to get already-radical Muslims into the target country legally.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 25, 2016)

beyondcosmos said:


> One of the Paris attackers was always known to be a peaceful guy--his neighbors believed him to be a genuinely nice person. Then, in mid 2014 and up until the December 2015 attacks, they said he began changing. There was an ex-ISIS German (ethnic German who converted to Islam, joined ISIS in Syria, but noped out when he had a change of heart) who told German police to look into this guy 3 months before the Paris attacks, but no swift action was taken.



And one of the attackers was just caught in Brussels just days before the resent attack after he apparently lifed just a few hundred metres from his former flat for months. The most searched after terrorist in Europe. 
People who used to life in that part of Brussels have apparently reported about potential terrorist/ISIS-supporters in that part of the city, nobody cared, instead, they we'e called out as racists. It doesn't help that a country half the size of West Virginia is basically two countries, Flemish region and Walloon region, and the people don't get along at all. And apparently refuse to work together. Just as it doesn't help that every country in Europe seems to have some data about terrorists, potential terrorists, refugees and whatnot, but they can't decide on a common system so they could exchange data. In Germany alone, we have 16 states, and each has (or used to have, I think they're trying to change it, but knowing how quick our politicians work, that's probably going to take at least until 2046. And then they will realise there is no one left who knows how to opperate Windows 3.1) it's own database on refugees which is not compatible with that of the 15 other states. The guy who attacked a police station in Paris on January 1st this year was known to various German authorities under more than half a dozen names. 
We have all these rules, all our data is supposed to be saved somewhere just in case, who we called and when, we must fill forms for each and everything, but the amount of incompetence with which the threat of terrorism is handled is astonishing. And the politicians? They either don't seem to see a problem at all or go full nazi.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 25, 2016)

Nobody ever really asks the question, what is the motive behind these attacks? Politicians, and most people I've seen discussing it, provide two answers. 

1. we are infidels, and their version of Islam commands violence. 

2. that they hate our free society

I propose that neither one of these is the problem. First, at least in America, we should make note that more people have been killed by white christian terrorists then Islamic terrorists. However, considering that there are a lot more angry white people in America then angry Muslims, that almost makes sense. 

I think there is a pretty clear correlation between the destabilization/uptick of violence, and western military adventures in the middle east (going back to the US helping Iran develop their nuclear energy program, and then overthrowing their president). When you take into account that the #1 victim of these wars have been innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians, and that the war that we started completely destroyed most of the infrastructure that had been built in the region since WW2. Many people didn't even know about 9/11, all they knew was that Americans had come to their country and were tearing it to pieces.

People wonder why so many Muslims in that region hate America? Maybe because we destroyed all the progress that's been made in the past 100 years, in a decade. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were educated Saudi nationals, and yet we invaded Iraq, and consider Saudi Arabia our closest ally. 

There isn't really much to wonder why they hate us if you understand the history of the conflict.

Chomsky can explain this better then I can. Please watch the whole clip before accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer. 


So a more likely explanation is: They hate the US support of anti-democratic dictators and self development. You can follow this trend in the Middle East as well as South America and North Africa. If they won't play ball with our business interests, we just change the regime and install someone who will. It doesn't really have much to do with dictators oppressing their people, because if it did we would have ousted the Shah of Iran and the royal family of Saudi Arabia years ago.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 25, 2016)

will_shred said:


> It doesn't really have much to do with dictators oppressing their people, because if it did we would have ousted the Shah of Iran and the royal family of Saudi Arabia years ago.



Or never supported the mudjaheed in Afghanistan or Saddam in the first place. Or not at least tolerated Mubarak and Assad. And now, they continue the same .... in supporting Erdogan in Turkey. A country which has an ongoing civil war against its own people (I'm not saying the PKK are all humble fighters for a good cause, they probably aren't, they'd have reason enough though), doesn't give a .... about human rights, shuts down social media if someone insults their president, shuts down critical newspapers and TV station and replaces them with loyal ones. A country that is said to secretly support ISIS, might have bought oil from them, let their wounded fighters cross the border and get medical care in their hospitals while sabotaging any support for the kurdish troops fighting against ISIS. 
A bit more reason in foreign policy and probably a lot less tolerance against people preaching hate (against people of other religions, beliefs, sex[ual orientation] ect) would probably go a long way. But the more scared the people are, the less they seem to think rationally, the less they think rationally they easier they can be controlled.


----------



## AndruwX (Mar 25, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Citation needed.



I back up that gigantic number, but:

Few Extremists in Islam -- That's a Myth | National Review Online



> The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldnt bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.


----------



## narad (Mar 27, 2016)

will_shred said:


> Chomsky can explain this better then I can. Please watch the whole clip before accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer.



That clip is way more relevant to the al-Qaeda situation of circa ~2001 onward than it is to today's ISIS/ISIL, to which it doesn't have much bearing at all. 

Yes, the west's role in destabilizing the middle east may have created a favorable situation for extremist organizations, and to some extent we may have reaped what we sowed with 9/11 and similar attacks, but going back as far as Wahhabism, these beliefs aren't born from mistreatment -- they're there in religious scripture. If all of Europe converted to peaceful, less extreme interpretations of Islam, bombing us would still fit with the ISIS end-of-days agenda.


----------



## russmuller (Mar 28, 2016)

will_shred said:


> Nobody ever really asks the question, what is the motive behind these attacks? Politicians, and most people I've seen discussing it, provide two answers.
> 
> 1. we are infidels, and their version of Islam commands violence.
> 
> 2. that they hate our free society


You know, when you ask these people why they do what they do, the answers that you get are explicitly religious.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that those answers are overly simplistic and demagogic. I understand that there is a laundry list of grievances that justifiably create animosity among otherwise moderate or secular people in the middle east, and there are certainly people who use Islam to manipulate those feelings others into destructive actions. But the truth is that jihadism is a uniquely Islamic problem because of specific beliefs built in to the faith that compel them to attack non-adherents.


will_shred said:


> I propose that neither one of these is the problem. First, at least in America, we should make note that more people have been killed by white christian terrorists then Islamic terrorists. However, considering that there are a lot more angry white people in America then angry Muslims, that almost makes sense.



I agree that you can make a strong case that America is a terrorist, but I'm not sure what you mean by "white christian terrorists." A significant portion of our military is not white and not Christian. And since the crusades, I'm not sure I can think of significant violence in the middle east motivated BY Christian faith (I may be ignorant, but I'm willing to wager that any examples you can cite will be very few and far between, and pale in comparison to the scope of explicitly Jihadist violence).


will_shred said:


> I think there is a pretty clear correlation between the destabilization/uptick of violence, and western military adventures in the middle east (going back to the US helping Iran develop their nuclear energy program, and then overthrowing their president). When you take into account that the #1 victim of these wars have been innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians, and that the war that we started completely destroyed most of the infrastructure that had been built in the region since WW2. Many people didn't even know about 9/11, all they knew was that Americans had come to their country and were tearing it to pieces.


I think that, while you are entirely valid in pointing these things out, it's still a narrow view of the problem. Yes, the #1 victims of our military exploits of the past 13 years have been Iraqi and Afghani civilians. Do you know who has been the #1 victims of Muslim extremists? Iraqi, Afghani, and Syrian civilians. We freak out over international acts of terrorism, but most of their victims are domestic civilians.

What about western interventionism or capitalist imperialism would compel a secular person to feel justified throwing acid in the faces of young girls for the crime of learning to read? Or kidnapping Yazidi girls to become child-bride rape victims? What about American politics compels a normal person to think that throwing gay people off of rooftops is appropriate behavior? I challenge you to explain that in the absence of Islam and its subset of beliefs about how to treat those who do not adhere to the faith. I don't believe there is a worthwhile distinction between these acts of terror and the recent attacks in Europe, as they are all driven by the caliphate.


will_shred said:


> People wonder why so many Muslims in that region hate America? Maybe because we destroyed all the progress that's been made in the past 100 years, in a decade. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were educated Saudi nationals, and yet we invaded Iraq, and consider Saudi Arabia our closest ally.
> 
> There isn't really much to wonder why they hate us if you understand the history of the conflict.


Look at the treatment of the Tibetans by the Chinese. That's true, brutal oppression, far beyond our incompetent efforts at regime change and nation-building. How many Tibetan suicide bombers have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent people? What other group reliably resorts to the kind of violence we see from Muslim extremists? 

Mind you, these attacks lately have not been on America. What about "America is a big, white, Christian terrorist" can be used as an argument to say that the killing in Paris and Brussels are an understandable retaliation?


will_shred said:


> Chomsky can explain this better then I can. Please watch the whole clip before accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer.
> 
> 
> So a more likely explanation is: They hate the US support of anti-democratic dictators and self development. You can follow this trend in the Middle East as well as South America and North Africa. If they won't play ball with our business interests, we just change the regime and install someone who will. It doesn't really have much to do with dictators oppressing their people, because if it did we would have ousted the Shah of Iran and the royal family of Saudi Arabia years ago.


This explanation falls so short for me on so many levels. That's not to say that some of those points aren't valid or true in some respects, but ISIS is not seeking to establish a democratic state. It's not a movement of the people, by the people, for the people to build themselves a better home. It's a theocracy that feels entitled to abuse and slaughter all who refuse to bow. Their explicit goal is a global caliphate, and I don't think anyone who has studied the situation doubts that al-Baghdadi is a true believer.

I think any explanation of these terror attacks that ignores the religious authorization of violence that's inherent to fundamentalist Islam is more blind to the truth than an explanation that ignores geopolitics.

The types of foreign activities cited as the cause of violence have happened in many other places all around the world and they do not produce the kind of intentional murdering of innocents we see from ISIS. Would you disagree with that? If you do and you've got examples, I'm genuinely interested to learn about them and refine my views.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 28, 2016)

All your points were really good, and it just highlights the complexity of the problem. But terrorism motivated by Christianity with a thread of a similar kind of ultra conservative ideology, is very much a real thing that happens in the US, and shouldn't be swept under the table. 

10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men | Alternet



> *Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012*.
> *The murder of Dr. George Tiller
> **Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting
> **The murder of Dr. John Britton
> ...


Take into account that these crimes were committed in a relatively stable modern society, on US soil. Take evangelical ideology and throw it into the middle of a war zone, and I don't see why you couldn't get something very closely resembling the Taliban. Let's also not forget the reign of terror by the KKK and other white power groups that took place during the better part of the post-slavery era in the name of racial pride and Christian values. When you could be killed and/or severely tortured for such things as, being gay, being black and talking to a white women, being black and talking improperly to a white man, and many other things that start with "being black and..." or "being gay and..." or "being female and...". The KKK unofficially controlled the social code of large parts of the US for a period of our history, much like the Taliban in Afghanistan.



> "Armed guerrilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites."





> Klan violence worked to suppress black voting, and campaign seasons were deadly. More than 2,000 persons were killed, wounded and otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Activities

One might be led to believe that the America today is not the America that committed these kinds of acts, but threads of that driving ideology are still strong in modern conservatism and particularly the old south.


----------



## pwsusi (Mar 28, 2016)

delete


----------



## will_shred (Mar 28, 2016)

I think we can all agree that the way to building a more peaceful, secular, society isn't though bombs. Whether they be strapped to a vest or dropped from a billion dollar drone.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Mar 31, 2016)

ISIS may be a completely different animal in comparison to Al-Qhaeda, the latter being much more concerned with the geopolitical results of Western intervention in the Middle East while ISIS, well, seems to be pushed purely by a desire to avenge the crusades.

However, ISIS probably wouldn't even exist without Western intervention. Besides, while there's this whole califate idea behind it, it's not uncommon for ISIS supporters to justify their existence calling out terrorist attacks carried out by the West. I don't doubt many of them see ISIS as the lesser evil.

The way I see it, although I can't see a peaceful way out of the ISIS conflict, the major problem doesn't seem to be addressed by most Western politicians. What to do _after_ ISIS is halted? Will the West continue to intervene in the Middle East to protect their own interest until a new terrorist group rises? Will it give full support to Israeli terrorist policies?

It's about time we shed some light in the actual root of the problem instead of trying to ban an entire religion or blame starved immigrants.


----------



## narad (Mar 31, 2016)

Sang-Drax said:


> It's about time we shed some light in the actual root of the problem instead of trying to ban an entire religion or blame starved immigrants.



Gross oversimplification. And no one sensible is trying to ban an entire religion or blame starving immigrants. So not a great start towards sensible discussion when using such hyperbole.


----------



## celticelk (Mar 31, 2016)

narad said:


> Gross oversimplification. And no one sensible is trying to ban an entire religion or blame starving immigrants. So not a great start towards sensible discussion when using such hyperbole.



Which means there are an awful lot of insensible people currently taking up space in American political discourse. (Probably European as well, but America's what I'm seeing.) Saying that "no one sensible" takes that position obscures the fact that many people *do* advocate for those solutions.


----------



## vilk (Mar 31, 2016)

I hear comments about the benefit of banning Islam and blaming refugees for terrorism on a regular basis in the United States. In theory, they can see the news, they know that banning Islam is against the constitution, they know that so far terrorists have all been citizens and not refugees... but that doesn't stop them form wanting to ban Islam and spread fear-mongering about Muslim refugees.


----------



## celticelk (Mar 31, 2016)

russmuller said:


> But the truth is that jihadism is a uniquely Islamic problem because of specific beliefs built in to the faith that compel them to attack non-adherents.



But the vast majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists, so obviously the religious element alone is insufficient. Also, saying that "jihadism is a uniquely Islamic problem" is a tautology - it's a specifically Islamic term with no meaning in any other religious context. Radical religiously-motivated violence is certainly *not* unique to Islam, even if the most visible of its current practitioners are Muslims.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Apr 1, 2016)

narad said:


> Gross oversimplification. And no one sensible is trying to ban an entire religion or blame starving immigrants. So not a great start towards sensible discussion when using such hyperbole.





celticelk said:


> Which means there are an awful lot of insensible people currently taking up space in American political discourse. (Probably European as well, but America's what I'm seeing.) Saying that "no one sensible" takes that position obscures the fact that many people *do* advocate for those solutions.





vilk said:


> I hear comments about the benefit of banning Islam and blaming refugees for terrorism on a regular basis in the United States. In theory, they can see the news, they know that banning Islam is against the constitution, they know that so far terrorists have all been citizens and not refugees... but that doesn't stop them form wanting to ban Islam and spread fear-mongering about Muslim refugees.



As Celticelk and vilk pointed out, I was addressing specifically the many insensible figures out there who actually propose that.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Apr 1, 2016)

narad said:


> Gross oversimplification. And no one sensible is trying to ban an entire religion or blame starving immigrants. So not a great start towards sensible discussion when using such hyperbole.


Not sure about the UK, but we have a lot of Geert Wilders voters over here... 

I know more than enough people (including some who I *thought* were capable of reasonable thought) that want alll Muslims gone from Europe because it's ours, our culture is superior, Muslim culture inferior, it doesn't belong here, whatever...

No one sensible? Maybe, but it's a quickly growing number of people.


----------



## narad (Apr 1, 2016)

Yes, there are many ridiculous people who say such things, but I think none of them are participating in this thread right now.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 2, 2016)

celticelk said:


> But the vast majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists, so obviously the religious element alone is insufficient. Also, saying that "jihadism is a uniquely Islamic problem" is a tautology - it's a specifically Islamic term with no meaning in any other religious context. Radical religiously-motivated violence is certainly *not* unique to Islam, even if the most visible of its current practitioners are Muslims.



Sorry, you're right. I should rephrase. A 20-something college graduate gets onto a crowded bus before detonating the explosive belt hidden under his jacket. To which faith do you think he subscribes?

Suicide bombing is almost entirely a product of Islamic terrorists. What other poisoned values and bad ideas motivate this kind of behavior? According to the International Journal of Security in 2007, "More than 95 percent of all suicide bombing attacks conducted worldwide are carried out by Muslim extremists."

So tell me again how this isn't a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. That's not to say that Muslims are the problem, but there are some terrible ideas embedded in the faith that are unique in their ability to produce people willing to blow up innocent people.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Apr 2, 2016)

I think there's a certain glorification of martyrdom in cultures that makes them do it that way. Western terrorists usually want to stay alive so they gtfo before it blows.


----------



## fps (Apr 2, 2016)

AndruwX said:


> It's not gonna stop. There be always be Muslims, hate and resentment.
> I mean, obviously, Islam it's a religion of 1.6 billion where only 20 % aprox. are radical, but think about it: 300.000.000 people wants to kill because you do not believe in their god.



20%? What planet are you living on


----------



## russmuller (Apr 2, 2016)

UnderTheSign said:


> I think there's a certain glorification of martyrdom in cultures that makes them do it that way. Western terrorists usually want to stay alive so they gtfo before it blows.



Yes, because the western terrorists don't usually have a sincere belief that killing themselves in the process will instantly transport them to paradise.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 4, 2016)

russmuller said:


> Sorry, you're right. I should rephrase. A 20-something college graduate gets onto a crowded bus before detonating the explosive belt hidden under his jacket. To which faith do you think he subscribes?
> 
> Suicide bombing is almost entirely a product of Islamic terrorists. What other poisoned values and bad ideas motivate this kind of behavior? According to the International Journal of Security in 2007, "More than 95 percent of all suicide bombing attacks conducted worldwide are carried out by Muslim extremists."
> 
> So tell me again how this isn't a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. That's not to say that Muslims are the problem, but there are some terrible ideas embedded in the faith that are unique in their ability to produce people willing to blow up innocent people.



Correlation is not causation. Suicide bombing is an act of asymmetrical warfare - it's a tactic used when you have no more conventional options to defeat your enemy. Perhaps it's simply that Muslims are disproportionately likely to be in that situation given current and historical circumstances. In any event, "unique" seems to be stretching it - neither the Japanese _kamikaze_ pilots nor the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were Muslim. Read https://aoav.org.uk/2013/a-short-history-of-suicide-bombings/ for a decent history of the phenomenon.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 4, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Correlation is not causation. Suicide bombing is an act of asymmetrical warfare - it's a tactic used when you have no more conventional options to defeat your enemy. Perhaps it's simply that Muslims are disproportionately likely to be in that situation given current and historical circumstances. In any event, "unique" seems to be stretching it - neither the Japanese _kamikaze_ pilots nor the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were Muslim. Read https://aoav.org.uk/2013/a-short-history-of-suicide-bombings/ for a decent history of the phenomenon.



I'm not saying that correlation is causation, but there is strong evidence to show that the ideas of jihadism are unique in their ability to motivate suicidal terrorism. When discussing the rise of suicide attacks by terrorist groups, the Institute for National Security Studies in 2015 said, "_These attacks disproved (once again) the claim that most suicide attacks are perpetrated against foreign occupiers. In fact, only about 3 percent of all suicide attacks were aimed at foreign armies. Most were directed against governmental or military targets or local security forces, or were perpetrated in the context of religious and sectarian rivalry._" Local military and security forces are rarely better equipped than ISIS, and a significant percentage of attacks are directed at civilian and political targets.

Consider this other INJJ finding: "Iraq, which began to suffer from suicide bombings only after the entry of Western forces in 2003, has thus far experienced some 1,500 attacks, most a result of religious and ethnic tensions. Nearly one-half of the suicide bombings in Iraq (45 percent) were directed against the civilian population, primarily in restaurants, markets, and mosques, and at funerals and in funeral tents, while the rest (48 percent) were aimed at security forces and police. A considerable portion of the attacks directed against the civilian population were carried out in areas in which there is a dominant Shiite presence, while bombings against military and governmental targets took place mainly in Sunni-dominated regions."

Now while you may be keen to point out the first clause of that quote, remember that correlation doesn't imply causation. The removal of Saddam as a stabilizing force and our mismanagement of the resulting situation created a power vacuum which these groups have sought to exploit. It's not a last resort against asymmetrical warfare, it's a terror tactic that's used because it is effective. 

I'm not saying that there aren't other factors, but I think you have to be blind to not acknowledge that the religious doctrine of jihad disproportionately motivates people to behave this way. The kamikaze pilots were striking military targets, not killing themselves to blow up civilians. The Tamil Tigers, over decades, didn't rack up as many suicide bombings as we see in a year in the middle east.

Yes, other people have committed suicide bombings. But when you look at the modern world, it's almost entirely coming from Islamic extremists. When you see these people talk about why they do what they do, they tell you explicitly that it's about jihad. It's religious fanaticism. Yes, other things can and have motivated people to do this, but by and large jihadis are the only ones ringing that bell.

I think we've gone thoroughly off the rails (or at least I have). All I'm saying is that I think it's foolish to think that the beliefs of people don't play an important part in how they act.


----------



## will_shred (Apr 12, 2016)

I find this relevant. Chris Hedges interviews two members of Vets for Peace and they discuss how military occupation perpetuates terrorism. I think this is one of his best pieces yet.


----------

