Paris attacks 13-11-15

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Twitter removes #StopIslam from trending, but allows this radicalized muslims post up?

Disgusting denial going on from the leftists all over the social space

Correct translation:

Tweet 1: How are you supposed to continue teaching in your class if muslim children are applauding [the attacks]? #attacks #Zaventem

Tweet 2: 3 [Dutch] police officers on my front door because of my tweet this morning. Asking to not do it again. #Brussels #attacks #Zaventem

 

[Magnar of Skagos]

36 minutes ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

Twitter removes #StopIslam from trending, but allows this radicalized muslims post up?

Disgusting denial going on from the leftists all over the social space

Correct translation:

Tweet 1: How are you supposed to continue teaching in your class if muslim children are applauding [the attacks]? #attacks #Zaventem

Tweet 2: 3 [Dutch] police officers on my front door because of my tweet this morning. Asking to not do it again. #Brussels #attacks #Zaventem

 

The level of language policing that is going on recently is becoming frightening. I don't even want to think about what it is going to be like 4 or 5 years from now. Twitter deleting #StopIslam when it allowed #KillAllMen and similar hashtags to trend? Police trying to silence people for simply pointing out that people are applauding acts of violence?

What the hell is going on?

[Seli]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But what is the ultimate end state of this supposed goal of theirs? A religious war between the West and Islam? If so, so be it. It's not like it hasn't been going on for 1400 years already.

There can be only one winner of such a conflict. As the stronger power by far, we are remarkably terrified of this eventuality. Maybe it is time for it to come and be done with.

The number of 'western christians' that have died in this conflict pales compared to the amount who were killed in our religious wars since the reformation. And oh miracle, former arch enemies can easily work together these days.

And of course the number of people dying as a result of terrorism here in the west is orders of magnitude lower than those killed by tobacco, alcohol, air quality, or for the US guns. And those are all deaths we seem happy to accept as a price for maintaining our societies and culture. 

[Hans Gruber]

The simplest way to stop people with this stupid ideology would be to send an ICBM into IS controlled territory every time there's a terrorist attack.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

This might decrease the prevalence of such attacks, but it will not eliminate them.

I'll wait for you to explain what will eliminate them, then.

9 hours ago, Tijgy said:

The problem is people do not dare to speak against certain issues inside the muslim community because they would be named a racist from the moment they dare to talk.

But people, including Muslims, speak against these issues all the time. Sometimes they are named racist, more often they are not. Sometimes that label is being accurately applied, because those people are in fact racists, using genuine concerns to promote a racist agenda. Sometimes it isn't, but that doesn't stop people. Far from it. The media is daily full of people criticising the Muslim community. For something that people 'dare not' do, there's a never-ending stream of people doing it.

This myth that people are sitting at home terrified of speaking out in case they're called a nasty name is, frankly, nonsense.

8 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Scot A - This appears to be a Far Right site, and therefore a certain level of tubthumping must be expected, but regardless of that, what Merkel is quoted as saying here, or strongly implying, has been documented elsewhere on the 'Net:

No, it hasn't. Not anywhere that actually prints the truth, anyway. Merkel has never done any such thing.

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'll wait for you to explain what will eliminate them, then.

I already did that. See the bottom of this post.

[The Killer Snark]

Seli - What religious wars since the Reformation? The last religious war the West was involved with was the Crusades, and that only came about because of the war that Islam was already conducting against Middle Eastern Christians. If you're talking about the Reconquista, that only came about as a retaliation against political power held by the Moors in Spain centuries after their militarised conquest. The Moors attempted to take over Europe over centuries. Following the Reformation, Christianity waged Holy War against no-one. Christianity is a religion that has been abused here and there by statist interests, but at root it is a pacifist ideology and thus on opposite sides with Islam, and I can say that for a certainty as someone who has read from cover to cover the Old and New Testaments and the Koran.

Note: I am not tarring all Muslims. I am basing the above upon actual, as opposed to misinterpreted history, and a comparison based across religious texts.

Note: I am also ignoring the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics because they are not germane to the conversation. The number of Christians killed in these conflicts is dwarfed by the amount of Muslims killed by each other in internecine strife for similar (ultimately territorial) reasons over the course of two thousand years.

 

 

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I already did that. See the bottom of this post.

Yeah, you really didn't, I'm afraid. Reducing poverty is fine and will certainly reduce such attacks but this is in any case rather included in treating Muslims equally with any other members of society, which you've already said will not eliminate attacks. Even if you for some reason think it's a different thing, you offer no argument as to why it would be more effective than treating Muslims equally.

Repression, on the other hand, has been shown repeatedly not to reduce but to increase attacks. Talking about the reconquista, a completely different thing, doesn't disprove that any more than talking about the price of apples would.

[Hereward]

9 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Hereward - You realise that Angela Merkel threatened potential miltary action against European countries that refused to tow the line with her open borders quotas. The reason so many radicals among the current generation of Muslims in the UK exist is because of EU interference in the deportation of Abu Hamza, and other people like him who our authorities have always kept records on.

 

No, she really didn't, and Germany has no deployable military anyway. On the second point, no it didn't. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

[baxus]

11 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well think about it. What would the response be if a nuclear device was detonated in a major European city? And then the question becomes: Why would that response be any less justified after what has already happened in Paris and Brussels?

Is it because a couple of hundred deaths are somehow still acceptable?

Nuclear device is not easy to obtain and use and would definitely need major support from some country. And let's not forget that would be the act of war, not terrorism. Even if we were to debate this possible scenario in this thread, rules of war would apply to such conflict and genocide would definitely count as war crime.

11 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Repression often works.  Just ask the native Americans, for example.

Why am I not surprised that's the first thing to pop to your mind?

And, as already stated, that was not repression that was genocide. The difference is not that hard to comprehend, and you should try to do so if you're hoping to be taken seriously in discussions such as this one.

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are two ways that I can think of. The first one is unproven and I don't know the specifics of how this could be done, but if one could somehow restructure society to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the poverty and hopelessness of the lower classes and come up with an ideology that renders something like Islam unnecessary, in principle you could end it.

The second one is obvious and it stems from the fact that, when applied properly and in sufficient quantities, repression most certainly does do the job. Remember, much of Western Europe was once ruled by Muslims. The descendants of Charles Martel et al can play the ancient game and they start from a far superior position than their ancestors did. Of course, it would mean the utter end of the values the ruling elites of Europe have been promulgating since the end of WWII, but it's a proven, reliable method.

First of all, much of Western Europe was never ruled by Muslims. The only parts of Western Europe that Muslims had a significant power in are today's Spain and Portugal, from where they were forcibly removed so long ago that that particular method can't be translated to modern days neither on moral nor military grounds.

And even if we do, for the sake of argument, agree that Muslims did rule much of Western Europe and add that they did repress people under their rule and that they don't rule any of those parts now, it would prove that repression doesn't work.  

10 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

We can restrict this to taking care of Islamists inside Europe. That's a far smaller amount of people than the whole Muslim population of Europe. And, well, no need to be as bloodthirsty.

Just banning any preacher/imam who ever studied in Saudi Arabia from entering the EU, and expelling all those who have, would be a start. Then, rounding up every jihadi thug who comes back from Syria, Somalia and a few similar places and jailing them for good would also considerably reduce the number of skilled agents. Sure, left to their own devices, local thugs can do harm, but they haven't the experience of people coming back from ISIS-land, nor the determination.

I mean, it's not hard of thinking of a few ways to reduce the risks. It would require political leaders to be useful and stop being the incompetent buffoons who couldn't even rule their countries if everything was fine and sunny... (and EU leaders have shown how abysmally mediocre they were in the last 15 months).

You either have no idea about European history or even world history or you don't really want to bring arguments into discussion. Or all three, for that matter. No other explanation comes to mind for a post this simplified and ignorant.

And you are talking about violating basic human rights here. You would ban someone from entering most of a continent just because they studied in a certain country?

As for rounding up "jihadi thugs", that would do no good, The point is to prevent young Muslims from seeing joining IS as something good or as their duty, not to wait until they do it and then punish them.

10 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

All that says is that you view current European values as more important than the lives of those who are killed by Islamic terrorism. And of course, I would not choose the Native American example. We need not view our only options as being at the most extreme ends of the spectrum imaginable.

Some European values and laws have to go, in my view. Because they make you weak and vulnerable to an enemy that laughs at those values. But that by no means equates to "concentration camps and exterminations", as some absurdly try to argue.

But a "fit in or f**k off" approach to immigrants, followed by some robust enforcement of that attitude would be a good first step. Followed by a harsh response to those who try to use violence to resist that approach.

Soon those who don't like it in this new Europe will leave of their own accord. And those who remain will of necessity be of the "fit in" variety.

We have another clueless one, here.

Muslims didn't just come to Europe in the past decade or two. There have been Muslims living in Europe well before America was discovered, for one thing. Quite a few Muslim countries were parts of colonial empires too. What do you think, why are there so many Algerians, Moroccans and such in France? Why are there so many Hindus and Pakistanis in UK? Did you think about that?

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Good treatment of Muslims in Western countries decreases their recruitment from those countries. Good relations between the West and Muslim countries strengthens the hand of the Muslim countries fighting IS on the ground. Good treatment of Muslims by the West removes one of the main propaganda weapons that reduces the increasing internal dissent in their territory.

The reverse of each of these points is also true.

Why else are they carrying out these attacks?

They're extraordinarily easy to alter. Just treat Muslims with the same dignity and respect as every other citizen of your country. Job done.

By all means investigate terrorist threats vigorously, but remember that the target is terrorism, not Islam.

Retaliation is not a threat. It's the goal.

This is basically what needs to be done. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done.

Just this morning I've read an article in which a Belgian minister says:

"We are talking about third and fourth generation of immigrants, those who were born in Belgium, even their parents were born in Belgium and they are still open to it (radical islamic teachings). That's not normal"

Now, bear in mind that I'm translating from Serbian so that something could be lost in translation, but still there are so many things wrong in that sentence.

How can one be an immigrant after three or four generations? Is it because they are desperately clinging to their culture? Is it because they are not treated with the same dignity and respect? Or is it both? It's as if everyone is trying to shift the blame to the other group and that's just not working out.

10 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

By the way, I'm not sure people see how there's quite patronizing and insulting speech on both sides of the discussion is.

Really, what does the "Oh, it's not entirely their fault, Western societies are guilty as well, that's why they're acting out" stance truly mean, what does it look like, specially to the millions of Western Muslims who live quiet lifes without causing trouble to other people? Because that smells a lot like "Oh, it's not really their fault, they don't truly have agency, they're Muslims after all, they can't helpt it but be violent in such a situation", which is a prejudice usually more clearly expressed by far-right / anti-Muslim people but seems to be equally hold by people on the other side, just under a different disguise.

That might not be the intent, but it surely looks like that from the outside.

Well, as difficult as it may be to grasp from the language used to misguide you, the part about Western societies being guilty as well means that Western societies are guilty as well. Shocking, I know!

Western European countries have exploited and conquered most of the known world at one time or another, with USA joining in as soon as it could. Centuries of western countries' actions left those other countries in a horrible state with huge parts of their populations struggling with poverty, famine, disease, lack of education etc. And when some from those countries tried to make a better life for themselves in those Western countries, they faced discrimination.

9 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Hereward - You realise that Angela Merkel threatened potential miltary action against European countries that refused to tow the line with her open borders quotas. The reason so many radicals among the current generation of Muslims in the UK exist is because of EU interference in the deportation of Abu Hamza, and other people like him who our authorities have always kept records on.

Tijgy -  I take it you've read today's Independent editorial. They tacitly blamed the Brussels attacks on the very same thing, implying that if the increasingly marginalised Belgian people had been more open to the radicals the radicals would have felt less marginalised in a society they currently hold so much sway in that there are armed police protecting Belgians in the streets.

You realize that Angela Merkel never threatened potential military action against anyone? Germany threatening military action would cause quite a stir all over Europe, believe me.

13 minutes ago, Hans Gruber said:

The simplest way to stop people with this stupid ideology would be to send an ICBM into IS controlled territory every time there's a terrorist attack.

You accuse people of having stupid ideology AND propose this solution in the same sentence? The irony of that one surely doesn't escape you?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

8 hours ago, Hrokkan of Skagos said:

The level of language policing that is going on recently is becoming frightening. I don't even want to think about what it is going to be like 4 or 5 years from now. Twitter deleting #StopIslam when it allowed #KillAllMen and similar hashtags to trend? Police trying to silence people for simply pointing out that people are applauding acts of violence?

What the hell is going on?

This is what happens when leftist repressiveness thrives. I guess Winston Churchill said it the best

"The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists".

[Lyanna Stark]

10 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Tijgy -  I take it you've read today's Independent editorial. They tacitly blamed the Brussels attacks on the very same thing, implying that if the increasingly marginalised Belgian people had been more open to the radicals the radicals would have felt less marginalised in a society they currently hold so much sway in that there are armed police protecting Belgians in the streets.

The article from the Guardian I read on my way to work this morning was actually very critical of the poor integration, poor organisation within the police, that it was understaffed and not enough had been done to coordinate efforts and to catch the culprits. I am uncertain how you ended up at your conclusion that left leaning media is somehow arguing that we should all hug a terrorist as some sort of panacea.

Not to mention that political point scoring on the backs of a tragedy of this scale is really in poor taste.

Also: just like not everything you hear on TV is true, not everything you read on right-wing extremist pages (or any extremist page, for that matter) is true. This may come as somewhat of a surprise.

 

EDIT: also, more left-leaning media being critical of how this was handled, and certainly not recommending cuddling with extremists.

 

8 hours ago, Hrokkan of Skagos said:

The level of language policing that is going on recently is becoming frightening. I don't even want to think about what it is going to be like 4 or 5 years from now. Twitter deleting #StopIslam when it allowed #KillAllMen and similar hashtags to trend? Police trying to silence people for simply pointing out that people are applauding acts of violence?

What the hell is going on?

You mean there is a problem with policing hate speech on social media? Who would have thought? Twitter and Facebook are cesspits of idiocy with random things being deleted all the time, while hate speech, threats of violence and murder get to stay. This is a huge problem, but it is not a new problem, and a separate one from the one discussed in this thread. I would suggest opening up a new thread to discuss the poor enforcing of rules on social media platforms.

[Gears of the Beast]

CCTV footage of the the initial detonation in the airport. 

[HexMachina]

One of the attackers may have been arrested;

Brussels attacks: Airport bombing suspect 'arrested'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35879236 

(the article says there is no confirmation yet)

[Hereward]

56 minutes ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

This is what happens when leftist repressiveness thrives. I guess Winston Churchill said it the best

"The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists".

Except of course, he never said that. It's an invention of the far right. Even the BNP has now accepted it's an invention and removed the quote from its website. Nice company you're keeping.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, Seli said:

The number of 'western christians' that have died in this conflict pales compared to the amount who were killed in our religious wars since the reformation. And oh miracle, former arch enemies can easily work together these days.

And of course the number of people dying as a result of terrorism here in the west is orders of magnitude lower than those killed by tobacco, alcohol, air quality, or for the US guns. And those are all deaths we seem happy to accept as a price for maintaining our societies and culture. 

Seli,

Intent matters in my opinion.  Intentionally causing people's deaths is worse than death occuring as a by product of other factors that you list.  As such people react more strongly to intentionally seting out to kill people than the reductionist argument you offer above would imply.

[Tijgy]

I am speaking about Flemish media and Flemish politicians? Are they no of them islam critic? Not really. But I do still remember the fact a convicted jihadist could just say everything wanted on the public broadcast without the interviewer raised many critical questions. And I am not really sure what English media has to do with informing the Flemish and French-speaking community. Our general public is informed and the general opinion is formed by our own media. 

And like I said one of the reasons of Molenbeek is the laxity by its socialist major who was originally actually anti-immigration, ... until he could immigrations could be a source for votes. This whole situation is created by the blindness by our own politicians and they are at fault. 

And it is here also said some media kept silent about those young people in Molenbeek hailing Abdeslam and luckily our MP spoke against it. What did just happen in Cologne? 

And it is indeed the truth that a part of it is to blame on the fact that Belgium as a community/society do no exist. You have a Flemish community and a French-speaking one whose separation even became bigger after our country structure was created with regions, communities, ... were created (with ironically the goal to keep the peace, to give the Flemish autonomy, to protect the economy of Wallonia, ... and the reason why the state structure is fucked up because it is based on compromises both communities gave to each other in peaceful way)

And this whole structure create the fact two communities are responsible for handle the cultural aspects, education, ... and who are of course partly present in Brussels. So the muslim community do probably not see a main culture with which they can integrate. And this goes back to the fact Brussels was during last century became more french (especially the elite) and less Flemish. 

I am not really fan of hearing how own police, federal prosecutors, ... did something wrong. They work a lot. It is not their fault they are limited by the fact they do not get any money or even less money because there is just no money anymore. While Flanders is not poor, Wallonia kind of is and Brussels is one of the poorest regions in the EU.

[The Killer Snark]

Hereward - The BNP is not a Far Right party, but I didn;t come here to split hairs, but to agree with you on this one.The quote appears to be an adaptation of something said by Louisiana Governor Huey Long, What Churchill did say was, "A pacifier is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And I still stand by my assertion that this is exactly what European politicians and the European media have been doing. I myself refused to use the #StopIslam hashtag on Twitter because it's the equivalent of blaming all white Westerners for Apartheid or the plantations in the Secessionist States. My own standpoint is that instead of campaigning to ban people's rights to a religion or ideology, it's up to everyone, including the relevant communities, to push it towards reform.

[Hans Gruber]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

 

You accuse people of having stupid ideology AND propose this solution in the same sentence? The irony of that one surely doesn't escape you?

The problem with the Liberal luvvies of Western Europe is they can't comprehend that by wanting to open a dialogue with these people, it won't solve anything, it's also hilarious that people want to stick up for them in the same way they have protested against acts of sexism, homophobia etc in the past, even though the Islam ideology goes completely against these things. The fact is Islam and the Western lifestyle don't mix, if they can't adapt to live in Western Countries then they should leave them for one that is more in line with their own beliefs, in the same vein Western Countries shouldn't interfere in their affairs either.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hans,

So, "kill em all and let God sort them out"?  How will that do any thing but create more radicals among those on the fence?