Terror Attack on Train in Belgium Thwarted

[TSwizzle]

Unlucky for gunman's future victims, he'll likely be free to kill before too long rather than dead.

I'm glad they stopped him, but like all sane and moral people, it would not have bothered me in the least had they stopped him with a bullet to the head.

So EVEN IF you could take a criminal into custody alive for trial and justice (and possible additional interrogation leading to info to prevent future events)...EVEN IF you could do this, you think it would be just as good to execute the man without a trial.

That is horrible.

Criminal ? We're not talking about a shoplifter here. This was one of allah's holy warriors on a martyrdom operation to kill as many infidels as possible before punching his ticket to paradise and 72 virgins. Fuck him, if somebody had put a bullet through his skull, so be it. I have no problem with that.

 

[Archimedes]

Before when I said that when you can't run and are faced with a gunman that the answer is to try to take him down I was repeatedly attacked.

I don't believe that for a second. You advocated that people cornered by an armed lunatic should take him down and you were "repeatedly attacked"? I'd ask for a link or evidence of that, but I know you'll ass-pull one of your usual excuses when you refuse to provide references for dodgy claims.

 

[Archimedes]

I would make it a crime for any countryman to travel to an active war zone unless they were a soldier acting in the military.

What about journalists?
Doctors with organisations like the Red Cross or Medecins San Frontieres?
Or any amount of other people you can imagine might have valid reason to travel to an active war zone.


And no, I'm not suggesting the gunman on the train was any of those things. I just think that's a very unnecessarily strict set of laws for who can be in a war zone.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I would make it a crime for any countryman to travel to an active war zone unless they were a soldier acting in the military.

What about journalists?
Doctors with organisations like the Red Cross or Medecins San Frontieres?
Or any amount of other people you can imagine might have valid reason to travel to an active war zone.


And no, I'm not suggesting the gunman on the train was any of those things. I just think that's a very unnecessarily strict set of laws for who can be in a war zone.

Yikes. Have you been watching the news??! Daesh doesn't care much for journalists. To my knowledge, all western journalists have been put to death in Daesh controlled country. I would not allow any civilians into an active war area. At best, they would create a dangerous situation for US soldiers.

 

[Archimedes]

What about journalists?
Doctors with organisations like the Red Cross or Medecins San Frontieres?
Or any amount of other people you can imagine might have valid reason to travel to an active war zone.


And no, I'm not suggesting the gunman on the train was any of those things. I just think that's a very unnecessarily strict set of laws for who can be in a war zone.

Yikes. Have you been watching the news??! Daesh doesn't care much for journalists. To my knowledge, all western journalists have been put to death in Daesh controlled country. I would not allow any civilians into an active war area. At best, they would create a dangerous situation for US soldiers.

Not really directly related to what you said earlier in the thread.

You said you'd make it illegal for anyone who wasn't a serving soldier to travel to an active war zone. and you said that in context of the fact that the gunman responsible for the incident we're talking about had travelled to Syria. Unless I misread you or you really didn't make your point clear, you were advocating that people who weren't soldiers with business to be in the war zone shouldn't be allowed to because the implication is that they might be militants working with or sympathetic with militants in the war in question, e.g. Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Syria/Iraq, etc.

Banning journalists from travelling to ISIS controlled territory in Syria/Iraq because of the danger involved is a much more specific claim not really relevant to the fact that the gunman in the incident in question travelled to Syria, possibly because he trained with or dealt with Islamic militants in the region.

What does banning journalists and doctors from travelling to ISIS controlled regions for their own safety have to do with the guy who tried to shoot up the French train who had travelled to the same region for completely different reasons?

 

[whichphilosophy]

What about journalists?
Doctors with organisations like the Red Cross or Medecins San Frontieres?
Or any amount of other people you can imagine might have valid reason to travel to an active war zone.


And no, I'm not suggesting the gunman on the train was any of those things. I just think that's a very unnecessarily strict set of laws for who can be in a war zone.

Yikes. Have you been watching the news??! Daesh doesn't care much for journalists. To my knowledge, all western journalists have been put to death in Daesh controlled country. I would not allow any civilians into an active war area. At best, they would create a dangerous situation for US soldiers.

Apart from medical professionals and journalists Civilians don't normally travel to war zones. War zones arrive to civilians as imposed by those who create them.

 

[bilby]

I hope so, otherwise it's like that cruise ship where all the employees took off and left the passengers to fend for themselves.

However, I think the larger issue is that the terrorist was "known" to the French police!!? Are the French out of jail space or something? Even if he hasn't broken a law, anyone with terror sympathies who travels to Syria ought to be monitored by someone.

The stories say the man lived in Spain for some years, then traveled to Syria, then back to France. He was on their radar, they just hadn't made a determination yet on him.

France is probably like the US in this. They can't really do anything until he commits a crime. But I do think no one should be allowed back into countries who goes to Syria.

I would make it a crime for any countryman to travel to an active war zone unless they were a soldier acting in the military.

I was about to say that this, and the suggestion at the end of the post to which it is a reply, are the stupidest, most impractical and overly simplistic pieces of moronic idiocy that I have heard in a very long time.

But then I realised that they're not; and now I am depressed.

For fucks sake. Here's an idea - think before you post. Try to think, not of how great your idea is, but of all the myriad ways it could go wrong, backfire, be misused, or cause problems for completely innocent people who are actually working to improve the world, rather than coming up with solutions whose only redeeming factor is that they are easy to state.

Jesus wept. Let's just make it illegal ever to leave your hometown for any reason. That's going to stop the terrorists who want to limit our freedoms dead in their tracks

 

[credoconsolans]

For fucks sake. Here's an idea - think before you post. Try to think, not of how great your idea is, but of all the myriad ways it could go wrong, backfire, be misused, or cause problems for completely innocent people who are actually working to improve the world, rather than coming up with solutions whose only redeeming factor is that they are easy to state.

Jesus wept. Let's just make it illegal ever to leave your hometown for any reason. That's going to stop the terrorists who want to limit our freedoms dead in their tracks

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

 

[Harry Bosch]

For fucks sake. Here's an idea - think before you post. Try to think, not of how great your idea is, but of all the myriad ways it could go wrong, backfire, be misused, or cause problems for completely innocent people who are actually working to improve the world, rather than coming up with solutions whose only redeeming factor is that they are easy to state.

Jesus wept. Let's just make it illegal ever to leave your hometown for any reason. That's going to stop the terrorists who want to limit our freedoms dead in their tracks

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

?? I can see lots of reasons for civilians to travel to war zones in Syria and Iraq. Civilians can improve the conditions in those countries by spreading the gospel, be-heading heathens, raping Yazid's women and girls, and learning how to further spread Jihad.

I'm obviously exaggerating. However, I think that westerners (especially Americans) need to stop meddling the ME. We're not doing very much good. Often times do-gooders end up getting kidnapped. Then rescue attempts put our troops in danger.

 

[bilby]

For fucks sake. Here's an idea - think before you post. Try to think, not of how great your idea is, but of all the myriad ways it could go wrong, backfire, be misused, or cause problems for completely innocent people who are actually working to improve the world, rather than coming up with solutions whose only redeeming factor is that they are easy to state.

Jesus wept. Let's just make it illegal ever to leave your hometown for any reason. That's going to stop the terrorists who want to limit our freedoms dead in their tracks

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

... Therefore they should be made illegal

I see my appeal for people to THINK fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps I should have included an explicit request not to mischaracterise the preceding conversation. Or maybe I need to point out that appeals to "common sense" usually indicate that actual reasons are not available to support a position.

You don't need to appeal to "common sense" unless your argument is purely faith based.

If you can't think of a reason, other than military service, why somebody might travel to a war zone, then that is a failure of your imagination and/or knowledge. It is NOT a justification for making such action illegal.

 

[bilby]

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

?? I can see lots of reasons for civilians to travel to war zones in Syria and Iraq. Civilians can improve the conditions in those countries by spreading the gospel, be-heading heathens, raping Yazid's women and girls, and learning how to further spread Jihad.

I'm obviously exaggerating. However, I think that westerners (especially Americans) need to stop meddling the ME. We're not doing very much good. Often times do-gooders end up getting kidnapped. Then rescue attempts put our troops in danger.

Your lack of imagination is not sufficient grounds to call for anything.

If you don't understand a situation, perhaps you might want to not comment at all - it is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Yes, there are some people who travel to war zones who make things worse and not better. That doesn't imply that ALL civilians who travel to war zones must fall into that category. Nor does it justify your apparent belief that all of Syria is a war zone, or that such zones can be clearly defined and the movement of people to and from them closely monitored.

You idea is stupid and simplistic, not only because it is a bad idea, but also because it would be impossible to implement even if someone was dumb enough to try.

There is so much wrong with this idea, on so many levels, that it is hard to know where to start with a rebuttal. Are you really of the impression that the world is so neat and simple as to render your suggestion practical on any level?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

... Therefore they should be made illegal

I see my appeal for people to THINK fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps I should have included an explicit request not to mischaracterise the preceding conversation. Or maybe I need to point out that appeals to "common sense" usually indicate that actual reasons are not available to support a position.

You don't need to appeal to "common sense" unless your argument is purely faith based.

If you can't think of a reason, other than military service, why somebody might travel to a war zone, then that is a failure of your imagination and/or knowledge. It is NOT a justification for making such action illegal.

You're not reading carefully. I think of many reasons to travel to a foreign country. But most people who "travel" to hot zones (Syria and/or Iraq) are either missionaries or jihadists.

 

[bilby]

... Therefore they should be made illegal

I see my appeal for people to THINK fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps I should have included an explicit request not to mischaracterise the preceding conversation. Or maybe I need to point out that appeals to "common sense" usually indicate that actual reasons are not available to support a position.

You don't need to appeal to "common sense" unless your argument is purely faith based.

If you can't think of a reason, other than military service, why somebody might travel to a war zone, then that is a failure of your imagination and/or knowledge. It is NOT a justification for making such action illegal.

You're not reading carefully. I think of many reasons to travel to a foreign country. But most people who "travel" to hot zones (Syria and/or Iraq) are either missionaries or jihadists.

I am responding to you saying:

I would make it a crime for any countryman to travel to an active war zone unless they were a soldier acting in the military.

Which bit do I need to read more 'carefully' to render this suggestion non-stupid and non-simplistic?

Or by "You're not reading carefully", do you mean "You should read what I meant to write, and not what I actually wrote"? Is this insult attempting to stand in place of an apology or an admission of error on your part? Perhaps "You're not reading carefully" is how you spell "Sorry, I was wrong, it should not be a crime simply to travel to a war zone; a person should need to do something other than merely travel to a particular region before he is criminalised".

Because if that's what you mean, it would be appreciated if you could say it, rather than double down on your error by insulting my reading comprehension.

 

[credoconsolans]

Currently, all airlines do not fly commercial routes to war zones. Wow, imagine all the damage they're doing to not help the world when they don't make themselves flying targets.

The government posts a list of countries with unstable environments with warnings against travel to those areas and tourist agencies and businesses with traveling employees pay a lot of attention to those.

Aside from very few people, like doctors, politicians and journalists, why would any civilian want to go to a war zone? A co-worker left the US to try to get relatives OUT of a war zone, but he never made it closer than several thousand miles to the border because

1) it wasn't safe for him
2) since the infrastructure had collapsed he could do no good and there was no one to help him get his family out
3) and there was no one to rescue HIM if he got in trouble

He exercised common sense. Some things are not do-able for civilians during a war.

... Therefore they should be made illegal

I see my appeal for people to THINK fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps I should have included an explicit request not to mischaracterise the preceding conversation. Or maybe I need to point out that appeals to "common sense" usually indicate that actual reasons are not available to support a position.

You don't need to appeal to "common sense" unless your argument is purely faith based.

If you can't think of a reason, other than military service, why somebody might travel to a war zone, then that is a failure of your imagination and/or knowledge. It is NOT a justification for making such action illegal.

I didn't just say military service. Read it again.

Considering the people who come back from this area include people who are out to murder other people, I think that's plenty good reason. Also another reason is so our military doesn't have to go in and rescue idiots who went into a war zone, got in trouble then cry to our government to come rescue them - which they do and you know it.

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

 

[laughing dog]

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

Yes, I agree. Bilby's post was an example of common sense, yours was not. People go to hot zones for a variety of reasons besides fighting. To help others and to help others get out.

How many times has our military been called on to rescue civilians in the ME hot zones?

 

[credoconsolans]

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

Yes, I agree. Bilby's post was an example of common sense, yours was not. People go to hot zones for a variety of reasons besides fighting. To help others and to help others get out.

How many times has our military been called on to rescue civilians in the ME hot zones?

Didn't read my post either.

Commonsense, not so common anymore.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, I agree. Bilby's post was an example of common sense, yours was not. People go to hot zones for a variety of reasons besides fighting. To help others and to help others get out.

How many times has our military been called on to rescue civilians in the ME hot zones?

Didn't read my post either.

Why should anyone read your posts if you didn't? Or are you making the obviously false inference that I did not read your post.

I noticed you did not answer my question of fact, which suggests you are posting responses out of your ass.

Commonsense, not so common anymore.

Like you could tell.

 

[bilby]

... Therefore they should be made illegal

I see my appeal for people to THINK fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps I should have included an explicit request not to mischaracterise the preceding conversation. Or maybe I need to point out that appeals to "common sense" usually indicate that actual reasons are not available to support a position.

You don't need to appeal to "common sense" unless your argument is purely faith based.

If you can't think of a reason, other than military service, why somebody might travel to a war zone, then that is a failure of your imagination and/or knowledge. It is NOT a justification for making such action illegal.

I didn't just say military service. Read it again.

Considering the people who come back from this area include people who are out to murder other people, I think that's plenty good reason.

Seriously? Roughly what proportion of the entire set of people who have visited Syria since the rise of ISIS do you think are 'out to murder other people'? You don't perhaps think that you are suffering from reporting bias here - the millions of non-murderous Syria visitors tend not to get on the news...

Also another reason is so our military doesn't have to go in and rescue idiots who went into a war zone, got in trouble then cry to our government to come rescue them - which they do and you know it.

Again - in sufficient numbers to warrant banning EVERYONE from going there? Or are you just not seeing the people who don't need rescuing on the news?

"Coming up - people return from Syria having paid and arranged their own travel; Most not suspected of any wrongdoing - More at six!"

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

I wish you were right. Common sense is not a laudable trait, any more than 'faith' is a laudable trait. Sadly, both are very common indeed - despite their lack being lamented by those who claim to have them.

- - - Updated - - -

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

Yes, I agree. Bilby's post was an example of common sense, yours was not. People go to hot zones for a variety of reasons besides fighting. To help others and to help others get out.

How many times has our military been called on to rescue civilians in the ME hot zones?

Please don't accuse me of common sense; I prefer to use evidence and reason, and leave common sense to the amateurs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Commonsense. So few people have it nowadays.

Yes, I agree. Bilby's post was an example of common sense, yours was not. People go to hot zones for a variety of reasons besides fighting. To help others and to help others get out.

How many times has our military been called on to rescue civilians in the ME hot zones?

LD: I don't disagree with you. However, would you agree that a majority of westerners are going to the ME for Jihad or a religious calling? Secondly, would you agree that maybe the west should stop trying to help the ME? I think that we're just making it worse.

 

[zorq]

Someone help me out here. If I'm riding in public transportation, how can I tell the difference between "open carry rights" demonstrators like this guy.



and the guy in the OP?

Are we absolutely certain that there was a difference?