Brussels now...

[Nag]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

^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.

′IS′ 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]

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

Citation needed.

 

[celticelk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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?

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]

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
The Centennial Olympic Park bombing
The murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts
Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010.
The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984
Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995

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]

delete

 

[will_shred]

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]

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.