Another terract in Europe this time in Brussels

[KeepTalking]

Lib logic:

A dozen people killed by a white guy with a gun: "Fucking gun nuts! He was probably a rightwing Christian, too! We need bans, right now!"

A dozen people killed by islamic terrorists with bombs: "Well, we don't know this had anything to do with religion. Besides, islam is a religion of peace it's gonna be kind of hard to ban bombs, because they are already fucking banned!"

FIFY

 

[bilby]

That's as many people as die in a fortnight on Belgian roads.

It's all very exciting for the media, and tragic for the families of the victims; but the appropriate response (if you are not a Belgian policeman or soldier) is the same as it is to the road traffic deaths in Belgium. It's not worth a moment of our time to think about it; and by doing so, we encourage repetition of this crap.

Let the cops find and arrest the guilty. Let the public carry on as though nothing happened - that's the most effective defence possible.

Yes, the important thing now is people realize that blowing up an airport and killing 30+ people is just not that big of a deal.

It really isn't.

Certainly it is not worth changing a single policy, or modifying one's personal habits and behaviours over.

Unless you are a cop on anti-terrorism duty; a victim; or family/close friend of a victim, it is not a big deal. It's a non-event - nothing about it should be allowed to have any effect on your life whatsoever.

 

[bilby]

Islam is a religion (of submission, not peace!) and not a race.

What, really, does this retributory terrorism have to do with religion?

"Retributory"? Retribution for what exactly? Europe is bending over backwards to appease Muslims these days.
And terrorism is often motivated by religion, and in our modern day mostly Islam. Brussels attacks, Paris attacks, London attacks, Bombay attacks, Bali attacks, Madrid attacks and 9/11, among many others, all committed by Islamic terrorists.

It is extremely like the IRA response to English imperialism.

It is for one much, much worse than what IRA was up to, and secondly it was also motivated by religion. IRA was Catholic and they were fighting against Protestants.

How is it any worse than what the IRA was up to?

Shit, the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing nearly bankrupted Lloyds of London, due to the massive insurance payouts; The IRA killed about 1,800 people during the 'Troubles'.

Is it somehow worse to be killed by Muslims than by Christians? Do Muslim explosives do more damage somehow?

The only thing that is 'worse' is the public response - instead of keeping calm and carrying on, we see panic, knee-jerk politics that strip citizens of their liberty, and support for loonies like Donald Drumpf.

 

[arkirk]

Islam is a religion (of submission, not peace!) and not a race.

What, really, does this retributory terrorism have to do with religion?

"Retributory"? Retribution for what exactly? Europe is bending over backwards to appease Muslims these days.
And terrorism is often motivated by religion, and in our modern day mostly Islam. Brussels attacks, Paris attacks, London attacks, Bombay attacks, Bali attacks, Madrid attacks and 9/11, among many others, all committed by Islamic terrorists.

It is extremely like the IRA response to English imperialism.

It is for one much, much worse than what IRA was up to, and secondly it was also motivated by religion. IRA was Catholic and they were fighting against Protestants.

Derec: Your response just shows how ignorant you are. What this terrorism is a response to is something that has been going on for nearly a century full tilt in the Middle East. It takes a lot of retribution to satisfy whole generations of people from there who desire revenge for something done either to them or to some of their relatives. This terrorism is NOT something that is primarily a matter of religion. It is more a matter of coming from the same lands that have been exploited for many decades by Europe for its hydrocarbon wealth. Juan Gonzales wrote about a parallel problem in the Western Hemisphere and called it "The Harvest of Empire." You do have a point that it is high time for Europe to stop its continuing attempts to dominate this area for its oil. But it will take a time for some of the retributive attitudes to die down. I am sure there are all sorts of hate groups there that will persist...especially in the face of the Israeli siezure of Arab lands and the most inhuman treatment of Arabs. This continues thanks to the likes of Netanyahu. Israel makes no pretense these days that it is their intention to starve the Gazans and drive the Arabs from the west bank eventually and govern the whole thing as a Jewish state.

Why has this been allowed to go on for more than half a century? Because people like you seem unable to assess the actions of the IDF as prime causes of conflict. Whenever you ally yourself with forces of aggression, domination, and exploitation, you leave yourself the possibilities that somebody will feel justified in killing, injuring, or otherwise hurting you. Our leadership needs to change course relative to oil...and then wait for about twenty years for most of the vendetta yankee haters to pass on. What you are not understanding is when something is so deeply ingrained in a people (exploitation and the supportive domination for that for the Europeans and Americans, and revenge, religious and otherwise for the Arabs) it takes an immensely patient leadership constantly pressing for peace to bring about peace. Firebrands like Trump, "pragmatic bullies" like Obama and Hillary, and the French leadership so completely sold on revenge and killing...just means like the title of an old Rod Stewart song...Act 20.

What is required is understanding that fixing our problems will require patiently magnanimous leadership supported by people in our countries who genuinely desire to live in peace. The motive for international relations must take on the character of desire to help and quit being a quest for profits at the expense of the rest of the world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet EU is intent on importing millions and millions of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa in addition to all the Muslims that already immigrated there in the last several decades.
Can you think of a more suicidal policy than that?

The racist one is scoring up pretty heavily on deaths so far, isn't it? What, really, does this retributory terrorism have to do with religion? It is extremely like the IRA response to English imperialism.

Except it isn't. Despite repeated attempts to portray it as such it's not due to western actions, but rather because of Islamists who pour billions into encouraging such violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If violence could be shown to lead to positive outcomes generally then there might be some argument for it's use. I see no evidence of this in the last 70 years.

But violence that accomplishes absolutely nothing cannot be justified in any way.

This is recognized as a depraved act by everyone.

The only difference is a conclusion about the roots.

Some claim that "religion" is somehow to blame. There are no grievances and nothing beyond religion has led to this.

But I claim the root causes are massive acts of violence; US attack and decade long occupation of Iraq, and State violence by the government of Syria.

Religion is merely a way humans can be mobilized, like "patriotism".

Except you keep forgetting the reality that IS didn't start in Iraq. Rather, it's part of the Sunni/Shia battle that's been going on for ages, the west might have made it easier for them but it was Qatari money that caused it.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS is about as religious as Scientologists.

It really a shame that W opened this Pandora's Box. An ever-giving legacy.

Why is it that when a madman with a gun kills 12 people, the right-wing demands reverence to the 2nd Amendment. A few people are killed in a terror attack and all of a sudden the remaining 9 amendments can be thrown out the window?

They're following a pretty hard-line version of Islam. Why do you say they aren't religious???

 

[untermensche]

Except you keep forgetting the reality that IS didn't start in Iraq. Rather, it's part of the Sunni/Shia battle that's been going on for ages, the west might have made it easier for them but it was Qatari money that caused it.

ISIS was NOTHING until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people supplied it with trained military leadership, weapons, and cash from oil sales.

Without the US terrorist attack of Iraq there is no bombing in Paris, no capture of the criminal involved, and no bombing in Brussels.

There is no action by ISIS that anybody ever hears of.

 

[Derec]

Derec: Your response just shows how ignorant you are. What this terrorism is a response to is something that has been going on for nearly a century full tilt in the Middle East.

Shit has been going on in the Middle East for thousands of years.

It takes a lot of retribution to satisfy whole generations of people from there who desire revenge for something done either to them or to some of their relatives.

What in particular was done to these terrorists?

This terrorism is NOT something that is primarily a matter of religion.

Of course it is. They are doing it for a particular interpretation of Islam. It is naive to think this has nothing to do with religion.

It is more a matter of coming from the same lands that have been exploited for many decades by Europe for its hydrocarbon wealth.

Exploited by Europe? Really? So it is not Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis etc. who are making most of the money from hydrocarbons there?
Take Saudi Arabia. In the 1930s European and American geologists found oil there, first at Dammam in whose vicinity Saudi Aramco is still located. Saudis at the time had neither the know-how nor capital to develop their oil reserves so they gave concessions and what became Arab American Oil Company (Aramco) in the 40s.
What's wrong with a partnership like that?
In the 1970s Saudi government bought Aramco out and thus it became Saudi Aramco. But they still use outside companies. The difference between Saudis and Venezuelans is that the former pay their contractors.
Again, how are these lands "exploited by Europe"? The Saudis (and other oil rich states) have profited handsomely. Is there a problem that American and European companies also made profits? Is that somehow bad? Should all foreign investment anywhere be banned or is Middle East some sort of special case?

Juan Gonzales wrote about a parallel problem in the Western Hemisphere and called it "The Harvest of Empire."

So not about Middle East at all.

You do have a point that it is high time for Europe to stop its continuing attempts to dominate this area for its oil.

Again you with the silly idea that Europe is "dominating" this area for its oil. Where is that notion coming from?

But it will take a time for some of the retributive attitudes to die down. I am sure there are all sorts of hate groups there that will persist...

Justifying terrorism I see.

especially in the face of the Israeli siezure of Arab lands and the most inhuman treatment of Arabs.

Hamas et al would say that all of Israel is seized "Arab lands". Do you agree with that? And Israeli Arabs enjoy more freedoms than Arabs in any Arabic country. Unless they decide to knife innocent Israelis of course.

This continues thanks to the likes of Netanyahu. Israel makes no pretense these days that it is their intention to starve the Gazans and drive the Arabs from the west bank eventually and govern the whole thing as a Jewish state.

Israel disengaged from Gaza 11 years ago. They even left intact greenhouses behind. Had Gaza embraced peace they could have been prosperous and safe by now. But instead they chose war, terrorism and, of course, overpopulation.

Why has this been allowed to go on for more than half a century? Because people like you seem unable to assess the actions of the IDF as prime causes of conflict.

Actions of the terrorists are the prime causes of conflict.

Whenever you ally yourself with forces of aggression, domination, and exploitation, you leave yourself the possibilities that somebody will feel justified in killing, injuring, or otherwise hurting you. Our leadership needs to change course relative to oil...and then wait for about twenty years for most of the vendetta yankee haters to pass on. What you are not understanding is when something is so deeply ingrained in a people (exploitation and the supportive domination for that for the Europeans and Americans, and revenge, religious and otherwise for the Arabs) it takes an immensely patient leadership constantly pressing for peace to bring about peace. Firebrands like Trump, "pragmatic bullies" like Obama and Hillary, and the French leadership so completely sold on revenge and killing...just means like the title of an old Rod Stewart song...Act 20.

I see a lot of victim blaming here, as well as irrational hatred of Israel, some nonsense about oil that I refuted above. Nothing remotely useful in your ramblings I'm afraid.

What is required is understanding that fixing our problems will require patiently magnanimous leadership supported by people in our countries who genuinely desire to live in peace. The motive for international relations must take on the character of desire to help and quit being a quest for profits at the expense of the rest of the world.

So, appeasing terrorists is your solution?

 

[Derec]

How is it any worse than what the IRA was up to?

Body counts for one.

Shit, the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing nearly bankrupted Lloyds of London, due to the massive insurance payouts; The IRA killed about 1,800 people during the 'Troubles'.

There was one fatality at Bishopsgate. One. And that is your go-to example. Compare that to death toll of any Islamic terrorist attack of recent years. There is simply no comparison.
1800 dead during the entirety of the "Troubles". And how many of those were combatants vs. innocent victims? And that's half of the number Islamists killed on 9/11.

Is it somehow worse to be killed by Muslims than by Christians? Do Muslim explosives do more damage somehow?

Well these Muslim explosives surely did much more damage than the Catholic explosives at Bishopsgate.

The only thing that is 'worse' is the public response - instead of keeping calm and carrying on, we see panic, knee-jerk politics that strip citizens of their liberty, and support for loonies like Donald Drumpf.

Yeah, that's the only thing that's worse. Keep dreaming!

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Except you keep forgetting the reality that IS didn't start in Iraq. Rather, it's part of the Sunni/Shia battle that's been going on for ages, the west might have made it easier for them but it was Qatari money that caused it.

ISIS was NOTHING until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people supplied it with trained military leadership, weapons, and cash from oil sales.

Without the US terrorist attack of Iraq there is no bombing in Paris, no capture of the criminal involved, and no bombing in Brussels.

There is no action by ISIS that anybody ever hears of.

No one's saying otherwise.

Specifically, it happened when Dubbya disbanded the entire in-place Iraqi government and military because they were Baathist. Now we reap the shit garden of that decision.

So good. We all agree.

The question is what to do about it now?

The ultimate and long-term answer is to get our petroleum use down to a level that makes ME oil completely unneeded. But what to do in the short term?

The U.S. and Europe cannot and will not just say they're sorry for everything and abandon the ME. It's not possible right now. So maybe the answer is that there is no short term answer except vigilance and prevention.

But even then, with the amount of Muslims that Europe has allowed to flood into its borders, they may have created a situation that's going to haunt them for generations. Utterly abandoning all business with the ME may not even be enough for them.

Whatever. We'll all be long dead before this is over.

 

[Derec]

ISIS is about as religious as Scientologists.

I don't know about Scientologists but ISIS is pretty damn religious, into that 7th century "old time religion" version of Islam.

It really a shame that W opened this Pandora's Box. An ever-giving legacy.

Speaking of W, he was also insistent Islam was a "religion of peace" and had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists.

Why is it that when a madman with a gun kills 12 people, the right-wing demands reverence to the 2nd Amendment. A few people are killed in a terror attack and all of a sudden the remaining 9 amendments can be thrown out the window?

Who is demanding the other 9 amendments be defenestrated?

 

[Derec]

So the label ISIS gives itself is proof that ISIS and ISLAM are the same thing?

They are not the same thing. The latter is a religion, the former a terrorist organization embracing that religion and using it as their guiding principle.

Is it possible to believe this?

Formulated as you did above? Perhaps, but it would be very silly.

The leaders of ISIS exploit Islam and Muslims. And Western aggression.

Do you have any evidence they are not true Islamic believers?

Just as GW Bush exploited 911, patriotism and Americans.

Yes, W is just like ISIS. He even blew up an airport in Brussels. Oh wait!

 

[repoman]

Except you keep forgetting the reality that IS didn't start in Iraq. Rather, it's part of the Sunni/Shia battle that's been going on for ages, the west might have made it easier for them but it was Qatari money that caused it.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS is about as religious as Scientologists.

It really a shame that W opened this Pandora's Box. An ever-giving legacy.

Why is it that when a madman with a gun kills 12 people, the right-wing demands reverence to the 2nd Amendment. A few people are killed in a terror attack and all of a sudden the remaining 9 amendments can be thrown out the window?

They're following a pretty hard-line version of Islam. Why do you say they aren't religious???

Because he is a having libtard moment.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't interfere with other people's lives. However since the unelected Eu councils wiped out our borders this policy has worked as a Trojan Horse to bus in a few radicals in to Europe and out of Europe to and from ISIS and other fanatical groups.
However those in favour of swamping Europe with economic migrants term border security as racist.

 

[barbos]

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't interfere with other people's lives.

That's not very reassuring.
51% is majority, would you be OK if 49% of muslims were not peaceful?

However since the unelected Eu councils wiped out our borders this policy has worked as a Trojan Horse to bus in a few radicals in to Europe and out of Europe to and from ISIS and other fanatical groups.
However those in favour of swamping Europe with economic migrants term border security as racist.

I doubt better border control would have made any difference. Muslims have been present in Europe for a long time.
Current crisis is a result of EU/NATO meddling in ME without much thinking.

 

[bigfield]

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't interfere with other people's lives. However since the unelected Eu councils wiped out our borders this policy has worked as a Trojan Horse to bus in a few radicals in to Europe and out of Europe to and from ISIS and other fanatical groups.
However those in favour of swamping Europe with economic migrants term border security as racist.

Which country did the bombers come from?

 

[faded_Glory]

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't interfere with other people's lives. However since the unelected Eu councils wiped out our borders this policy has worked as a Trojan Horse to bus in a few radicals in to Europe and out of Europe to and from ISIS and other fanatical groups.
However those in favour of swamping Europe with economic migrants term border security as racist.

The EU has not abolished its outer borders. If anything, the migrant crisis shows that it is virtually impossible to seal borders when large numbers of people are determined to get across. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell if someone is a radicalised Muslim intent on terrorism by just inspecting their passport. How can you keep out radicalised Muslims who want to enter through legitimate means, as tourists or business travellers?

By the way, the Schengen agreement on abolishment of internal borders was originally not even initiated by the EU. Then, before it became EU law it was ratified by the EU member states as part of the Amsterdam treaty. Ratification included two referenda and 13 decisions by national parliaments. To say that 'unelected EU councils wiped out borders' is hyperbolic nonsense. And if with 'our' you mean British, this isn't even wrong, because the UK has opted out of Schengen.

 

[barbos]

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't interfere with other people's lives. However since the unelected Eu councils wiped out our borders this policy has worked as a Trojan Horse to bus in a few radicals in to Europe and out of Europe to and from ISIS and other fanatical groups.
However those in favour of swamping Europe with economic migrants term border security as racist.

Which country did the bombers come from?

They seem to be belgian, not sure if they were born there.
Also, it seems that they were in a hurry because authorities were close to arresting them. It could have been worse if they had more time.

 

[untermensche]

ISIS was NOTHING until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people supplied it with trained military leadership, weapons, and cash from oil sales.

Without the US terrorist attack of Iraq there is no bombing in Paris, no capture of the criminal involved, and no bombing in Brussels.

There is no action by ISIS that anybody ever hears of.

No one's saying otherwise....

No, some are claiming otherwise, specifically the person I was addressing.

 

[bilby]

Body counts for one.

Shit, the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing nearly bankrupted Lloyds of London, due to the massive insurance payouts; The IRA killed about 1,800 people during the 'Troubles'.

There was one fatality at Bishopsgate. One. And that is your go-to example. Compare that to death toll of any Islamic terrorist attack of recent years. There is simply no comparison.
1800 dead during the entirety of the "Troubles". And how many of those were combatants vs. innocent victims? And that's half of the number Islamists killed on 9/11.

Is it somehow worse to be killed by Muslims than by Christians? Do Muslim explosives do more damage somehow?

Well these Muslim explosives surely did much more damage than the Catholic explosives at Bishopsgate.

The only thing that is 'worse' is the public response - instead of keeping calm and carrying on, we see panic, knee-jerk politics that strip citizens of their liberty, and support for loonies like Donald Drumpf.

Yeah, that's the only thing that's worse. Keep dreaming!

Source.

Terrorism in Europe can only be said to be getting 'worse' if you mean the terrorists are no longer as good at killing people as they used to be.