March 21st Jihad attack on Brussels

This story is breaking so hard I can't even find shit on it.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/22/two-loud-explosions-heard-at-brussels-airport-5766899/

Attackers were shouting islamic shit and then people died. Belgium YES!

 

[NeverHappened]

My experience IRL is that everyone around is indifferent. It's difficult to be the only one to care because we are social creatures. It's probably more of a United States thing since terrorism has been less dramatic recently. Young adults literally can't remember 9-11. I could describe the presidential election as the forces of mobilized indifference and general frustration clashing among a sea of stagnate indifference.

In Europe, it's a bit more personal. Ideals are being challenge. It's a part of a core identity.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

I.S has once again issues threats against the UK promising "worse than Brussels" (after promising worse than Paris previously).

Meanwhile, in Raqqa, I.S militants are supposedly handing out sweets to celebrate the Brussels attack.

 

[XYZpdq]

That's how I felt at first, but then you see pictures like this

and read about how they might need amputations due to shrapnel, how they suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns to their hands, faces and heads, and then it becomes hard to stay cold about it.

The one of the left was at the Boston Marathon finish line when the attack happened, and he was down the block of the Bataclan when the terrorists started shooting. And now after dodging terrorist twice already, he's disfigured, maybe amputated, at 19. On his way back home after being away doing humanitarian work and community service to help his fellow man.

Hard to stay indifferent.

Jeez. Is he related to the Japanese guy who survived Hiroshima and went home to Nagasaki?

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lecht-a-day-after-isis-bombings-a6947506.html

Seems they captured the Paris Bomb Maker.

 

[friedshrimp]

Now they've upped the security in every airport in Europe and have commented that it'd be better to not travel to Europe in these weeks. And I think the British Prime Minister has commented that the big wigs at Europe have ignored this issue "long enough". But, you know, words are just words.

It's really depressing to live in such a state of control and fear.

 

[AnOminous]

Enforcing a ban on people entering your country for their beliefs is impossible, and downright Orwellian.

More importantly, it's impractical. It's very easy simply to lie about your beliefs.

However, when beliefs become actions, then this is generally manifest in someone's record.

I don't think we should be letting people into the country from countries that hate our guts without knowing something specific about that person and their history. We generally do inquire into that with some specificity especially when accepting immigrants from certain countries. For instance, Nigerian immigrants are subject to more intense scrutiny precisely because the main thing that country exports is scams and frauds. (Fun fact: Nigerian immigrants are among the most highly educated immigrants, partly because the selectivity against immigrants from Africa means hopefuls need to bring more to the table to justify getting in.)

A nation simply has a lower level of obligation to non-citizens attempting to enter, and a responsibility to citizens to protect them from undesirables. This justifies excluding or (preferably) being much more selective in allowing entry by those there is cause to believe are more likely than others to be a menace once they arrive. Discriminating in this manner against actual citizens would, of course, be unconstitutional.

Obviously, dumb rules like "no Muslims at all" are fucking ridiculous. Whether or not it's a good idea, there are tons of Muslims who legitimately own businesses or do business in the United States with domestic businesses and you can't just exclude fucking everyone.

However, Paris and Brussels show the inevitable results of a reckless "just let everyone in" policy.

 

[Linako 2.0]

t it'd be better to not travel to Europe in these weeks.

If I could, I would.

 

[Male Idiot]

What exactly do people mean and want when they say they want to stop Islam? That's too vague to mean anything tangible. Stop Islamic terror? Islam as a whole? Muslim immigration?
@Internet War Criminal @Male Idiot I really want to hear your ideas

Stop all three, as they are all related like metastatic cancer.

The best thing would be simply keeping them walled in the Middle east, with any and all military force if needed, until they learn to act like civilised human beings.
No need to police their internal affairs, let them work it all out for themselves as long as they don't attack anybody else.
Lets face it, the US has been trying to do the PC/humane "give the arabs democracy" and it did not work, so all internal intervention the west makes just makes them angrier at us.
Let them sort it out and kick them down if they bite us. They will eventually realise that they have to behave, or they can stay at barbarism while the rest of the world advances in technology and thus they won't be a threat any longer.

I know civil liberties, democracy and all are fun and dandy, but they aren't worth the lives of my people, nor other europeans. I would rather live in a military dictatorship than have my family butchered by islam fanatics.
I would prefer not to, but sometimes we don't get a happy ending, this is not a big cartoon, no matter what Dobson and Chris chan believe.
How many need to die until we realise that there are more important things than these values? First Paris, now this. What is next? London? Berlin?
Corpses don't appreciate freedom nor democracy, so keeping lofty ideals at the cost of dying out is not a pragmatic thing to do.

Flooding Europe with hordes of antisemitic, mysoginistic, homophobic and rapey cultists will only end in blood. In ours, or theirs.

I'm sorry if that comes off as selfish or orwellian, but sometimes you just can't sit down and reason with people.
Sometimes you need to stop them with force, because they won't listen to reason. There is no reasoning with a rabid animal, nor a jihadist.
Not understand this is why the liberal parties are going down and nationalists are going up.
Yeah, there are some muslims that are most likely not jihadists, but the jihadist to peaceful ratio is simply so bad that we can't take chances.

 

[Null]

 

[Cosmos]

Holy shit, someone give Faisal a hundred dollar bill.

For real though, only when we acknowledge the Islamic part of Islamic terrorism can we finally start to take measures to confront it. The threads are pretty easy to trace back; Saudi Arabia has been exporting Wahhabi extremism for decades now, setting up mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) in foreign countries. At these institutions, Wahhabists preach a literalist, extremist, and hate-filled version of Islam that usually ends up overtaking the native version of Islam. Nearly all Islamist terrorist organizations today follow Wahhabist principles. The best way to decrease Islamic terrorism is getting rid of Wahhabist fucks and spreading a more peaceful and tolerant version of Islam instead.

But no, every time Islamic terrorism happens politicians and other important people trip over themselves to announce that Islam had nothing to do with it, that terrorism has no religion, that Islam is perfect and in no way inspires terrorism even though terrorists literally quote the Quran to justify themselves. Imagine a Christian terrorist quoting the Bible and loudly announcing that they're doing what they're doing for Jesus right before they blow themselves up in a crowd... and then having politicians and members of the media immediately fall all over themselves in their rush to say that Christianity had nothing to do with the terrorist's motives. Islam is literally the only religious/political ideology that gets this treatment.

 

[*Asterisk*]

What I love about lines like this is how it completely ignores that the same types of people responsible for terrorist attacks both in the West and Mid-East actively supported foreign intervention when it was against liberals, socialists, republicans, or secularists. The Iranian mullahs were enthusiastic supporters of the '53 coup, and opposed the Shah because he was too liberal for their liking. The Mujahideen were happy to have the support of the West when they were fighting the Soviets, not because of Soviet brutality, but because of their opposition to secularism. Bashar al-Assad's brutal massacre of reformists and liberals with the full backing of the Russian military draw no complaints from the al-Bagdahdis, and their only opposition to his violence comes from Syria not being an Islamist state rather than it being a fascist state.

They've always been counter-revolutionaries. They've always been opposed to freedom. And all their legitimate grievances are used only as tools to advance their own brand of Orwellian/religious terror.

 

[CWCissey]

Holy shit, someone give Faisal a hundred dollar bill.

For real though, only when we acknowledge the Islamic part of Islamic terrorism can we finally start to take measures to confront it. The threads are pretty easy to trace back; Saudi Arabia has been exporting Wahhabi extremism for decades now, setting up mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) in foreign countries. At these institutions, Wahhabists preach a literalist, extremist, and hate-filled version of Islam that usually ends up overtaking the native version of Islam. Nearly all Islamist terrorist organizations today follow Wahhabist principles. The best way to decrease Islamic terrorism is getting rid of Wahhabist fucks and spreading a more peaceful and tolerant version of Islam instead.

But no, every time Islamic terrorism happens politicians and other important people trip over themselves to announce that Islam had nothing to do with it, that terrorism has no religion, that Islam is perfect and in no way inspires terrorism even though terrorists literally quote the Quran to justify themselves. Imagine a Christian terrorist quoting the Bible and loudly announcing that they're doing what they're doing for Jesus right before they blow themselves up in a crowd... and then having politicians and members of the media immediately fall all over themselves in their rush to say that Christianity had nothing to do with the terrorist's motives. Islam is literally the only religious/political ideology that gets this treatment.

It's telling when Tony fucking Blair of all people is now saying the West is too easily guilted. The guy who pretty much created that sense of guilt in the UK!

 

[AnOminous]

Saudi Arabia

Until you get people to realize this one country is the primary exporter of Wahhabist bullshit and insanity, nothing will be done.

And the people who should be doing it our in our government.

And they all make lots of money from Saudi Arabian oil.

But let's keep carpet bombing poor people instead.

 

[Internet War Criminal]

What I love about lines like this is how it completely ignores that the same types of people responsible for terrorist attacks both in the West and Mid-East actively supported foreign intervention when it was against liberals, socialists, republicans, or secularists. The Iranian mullahs were enthusiastic supporters of the '53 coup, and opposed the Shah because he was too liberal for their liking. The Mujahideen were happy to have the support of the West when they were fighting the Soviets, not because of Soviet brutality, but because of their opposition to secularism. Bashar al-Assad's brutal massacre of reformists and liberals with the full backing of the Russian military draw no complaints from the al-Bagdahdis, and their only opposition to his violence comes from Syria not being an Islamist state rather than it being a fascist state.

They've always been counter-revolutionaries. They've always been opposed to freedom. And all their legitimate grievances are used only as tools to advance their own brand of Orwellian/religious terror.

It's especially hilarious when it's framed into an anti-Imperialist slant. 'We're only trying to undo the evils of Western Imperialism and colonialism!'

Now of course, gullible/useful idiots in the West actually buy this, but the reality is that there is not a single religion or ideology that, at its core, is as rooted in Imperialism as Islam is. The entire history of Islam is an history of various empires trying to conquer each others, and all those around them. The only reason Erdogan is nominally opposed to ISIS is because he wants to re-establish Ottoman domination. The only reason Iran opposes them is because they believe they should be the ones in control of the Islamic empire. So on and so forth for every group or Islamic country out there.

It's religiously mandated, it's an intricate part of their ideology and at the center of what needs to happen in order for their end of days to start.

Until you get people to realize this one country is the primary exporter of Wahhabist bullshit and insanity, nothing will be done.

Yes and no. There is no denying that Wahhabism is one of the ideology/driving force behind Sunni terrorism (and there are plenty of Shiite terrorists to go around as well). However, while they provided and to this day, still provide, the fuel of Islamic extremism for many, the architect of modern Islamic terrorism is not Saudi Arabia, but Egypt. More specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Banna and Qutb are the true architects of modern Terrorism and most of the problems that affect the West. Wahhabists tend to concentrate on the Muslim world first, while taking over the rest of the world afterwards. The Muslim Brotherhood has a much more global vision, and their organization is basically behind the creation of almost all major Islamic terror groups that exist to this day. Whether ideologically, with resources or directly, they all supported and helped them.

Stopping Saudi Arabia's export of Wahhabism is not enough. As long as the Muslim Brotherhood is, so will Islamic terrorism.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Stopping Saudi Arabia's export of Wahhabism is not enough. As long as the Muslim Brotherhood is, so will Islamic terrorism.

The muslim brotherhood is not extremely influential anymore and is often seen as being controlled by Erdogan. They are enemies of ISIS and significantly less influential. Probably what needs to be done is for the world to adopt nuclear power so that Saudi Arabia loses its influence

 

[Internet War Criminal]

They are not enemies of ISIS they are the ones who allowed them to set up shop in the Sinai and collaborating with them. Al-Sissi has been cracking down on them as a result

 

[CWCissey]

The muslim brotherhood is not extremely influential anymore and is often seen as being controlled by Erdogan. They are enemies of ISIS and significantly less influential. Probably what needs to be done is for the world to adopt nuclear power so that Saudi Arabia loses its influence

Or just get cracking on fusion power. CERN is apparently pretty close and looking to have a prototype running in France by 2020.

 

[Cosmos]

Yes and no. There is no denying that Wahhabism is one of the ideology/driving force behind Sunni terrorism (and there are plenty of Shiite terrorists to go around as well). However, while they provided and to this day, still provide, the fuel of Islamic extremism for many, the architect of modern Islamic terrorism is not Saudi Arabia, but Egypt. More specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Banna and Qutb are the true architects of modern Terrorism and most of the problems that affect the West. Wahhabists tend to concentrate on the Muslim world first, while taking over the rest of the world afterwards. The Muslim Brotherhood has a much more global vision, and their organization is basically behind the creation of almost all major Islamic terror groups that exist to this day. Whether ideologically, with resources or directly, they all supported and helped them.

Stopping Saudi Arabia's export of Wahhabism is not enough. As long as the Muslim Brotherhood is, so will Islamic terrorism.

Yep, the Muslim Brotherhood is a huge problem. Actually, all Islamist organizations need to go. Islamism, aka political Islam, wants to destroy the separation between church/mosque and state and form a society that's completely dominated by Islam. They believe that everything from commerce and taxes to the justice system and personal hygiene should be dictated by sharia law. They show complete contempt for secularism, democracy, multiculturalism, and manmade laws.

The scary thing is that a huge percentage of the so-called "moderate majority" of Muslims actually want this. Islamist organizations aren't going to go away when huge numbers of Muslims want them around. Again, this is why we need to address Islam's problems instead of pretending that it's exactly the same as Christianity or Buddhism and has just been "hijacked." Political ambition has been an integral part of Islam since Muhammad founded it, and it's that ambition to control everything which feeds Islamic terrorism.

 

[The Great Chandler]

Actually I don't really have an opinion on refugees. But regarding terrorism and extremisim, I like to think that it's more of a non-religious tendency considering the fact that they allow children to take part in such atrocities which even sounds wrong for Muslim standards.

 

[JU 199]

Yep, the Muslim Brotherhood is a huge problem. Actually, all Islamist organizations need to go. Islamism, aka political Islam, wants to destroy the separation between church/mosque and state and form a society that's completely dominated by Islam. They believe that everything from commerce and taxes to the justice system and personal hygiene should be dictated by sharia law. They show complete contempt for secularism, democracy, multiculturalism, and manmade laws.

The scary thing is that a huge percentage of the so-called "moderate majority" of Muslims actually want this.

Isn't there polling showing evangelicals want similar things in terms of religious integration into state matters?