PDA

View Full Version : Terrorist Attacks in Brussels


Kimon
03-22-2016, 06:48 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869254

Two explosions hit Zaventem airport at about 07:00 GMT, and another struck Maelbeek metro station an hour later.
The government has not confirmed casualty numbers. Brussels transport officials say 15 died at Maelbeek and media say up to 13 died at the airport.
Belgium has now raised its terror threat to its highest level.
The attacks come four days after Salah Abdeslam, the main fugitive in the Paris attacks, was seized in Brussels.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 06:49 AM
Disgusting and sad. Isn't the 400 days of rain they get each year enough for the Belgians?

Kimon
03-22-2016, 06:57 AM
Disgusting and sad.

Agreed, but unfortunately, it's working. Right wing reactionaries are popping up everywhere, feeding off the fear and anger that these types of events are producing. This will also further politicize the question of the refugees, and almost certainly end any chance of really salvaging Schengen.

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 09:02 AM
Isn't the victim count a lot lower than you'd expect? Or is it just me?

Isabel
03-22-2016, 09:35 AM
The victem count is rising. It's now 34.

There are many more heavy wounded.

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 10:04 AM
The victem count is rising. It's now 34.

There are many more heavy wounded.

Dead and injured together just over a hundred right? From an attack on an airport. You'd expect a lot more than that.

Terez
03-22-2016, 10:07 AM
Dead and injured together just over a hundred right? From an attack on an airport. You'd expect a lot more than that.
This depends entirely on what sort of explosives were used and how strategically they were placed.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 10:26 AM
Dead and injured together just over a hundred right? From an attack on an airport. You'd expect a lot more than that.

Its like the Boston Marathon bombing...depending on the type of bomb used, there's like a ton of injured by shrapnel type of wounds but not as many killed as you'd expect. Ironically, a heavy crowd can almost muffle an explosion under certain circumstances.

Terez
03-22-2016, 10:29 AM
Further reading suggests it was weak explosives because they were strategically placed - people ran from the first blast to get out, and ran right into the second blast.

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 10:32 AM
Further reading suggests it was weak explosives because they were strategically placed - people ran from the first blast to get out, and ran right into the second blast.

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

Smart planning...not exactly graduate level but still a step beyond a single device.

Southpaw2012
03-22-2016, 10:37 AM
Immediately after we killed Jihadi John, Paris was attacked. Immediately after Belgium captured the leader of the Paris attacks, Belgium was attacked. Not sure if coincidental or a reaction.

Brita
03-22-2016, 10:40 AM
I would lean towards direct retaliation.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 10:40 AM
Immediately after we killed Jihadi John, Paris was attacked. Immediately after Belgium captured the leader of the Paris attacks, Belgium was attacked. Not sure if coincidental or a reaction.

I would guess with about a 90% certainty that these are reactionary attacks to the capture. And I think 90% is a low end figure.

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 10:40 AM
Further reading suggests it was weak explosives because they were strategically placed - people ran from the first blast to get out, and ran right into the second blast.

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

And the thing there is that they shouldn't even if they did it. They have already established their terrorist credentials so creating rumors of a separate organization possibly allied to their cause would be a much more effective move.

Terez
03-22-2016, 10:55 AM
And the thing there is that they shouldn't even if they did it. They have already established their terrorist credentials so creating rumors of a separate organization possibly allied to their cause would be a much more effective move.
Meh, ISIS has adopted the Al Qaeda strategy of loose organization because independent cells that don't have to wait on orders from above are more difficult for law enforcement to uncover definitively.

GonzoTheGreat
03-22-2016, 11:00 AM
And the thing there is that they shouldn't even if they did it. They have already established their terrorist credentials so creating rumors of a separate organization possibly allied to their cause would be a much more effective move.
Why?
Al Qaeda got such an allied organisation, but now that ally (ISIS) is totally eclipsing Al Qaeada. I don't think ISIS wants that to happen to them as well.

Isabel
03-22-2016, 11:29 AM
Dead and injured together just over a hundred right? From an attack on an airport. You'd expect a lot more than that.

no unfortunately there were more, 34 deads and 240 injured.

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 11:29 AM
Why?
Al Qaeda got such an allied organisation, but now that ally (ISIS) is totally eclipsing Al Qaeada. I don't think ISIS wants that to happen to them as well.

Do they want to be on the top of their side or do they want to take the other down? If they used to different names in claiming responsibility and other ways to create false trails, they'd multiply the terror effect and inspire other terror groups to join in on spreading the chaos. As a result the anti-muslim sentiments go up and that is taken out on the kind of muslims the terrorists see as traitors to the cause. Those "traitors" become unwilling martyrs and recruitment goes up. See where this is going?

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 11:32 AM
no unfortunately there were more, 34 deads and 240 injured.

Much closer to what I was expecting pessimistic cynic that I am. Just goes to show you should never trust the first report.

Isabel
03-22-2016, 11:37 AM
Much closer to what I was expecting pessimistic cynic that I am. Just goes to show you should never trust the first report.

yeah, there were a lot of wounded. so i guess a lot of people died later.

Kimon
03-22-2016, 11:43 AM
Do they want to be on the top of their side or do they want to take the other down? If they used to different names in claiming responsibility and other ways to create false trails, they'd multiply the terror effect and inspire other terror groups to join in on spreading the chaos. As a result the anti-muslim sentiments go up and that is taken out on the kind of muslims the terrorists see as traitors to the cause. Those "traitors" become unwilling martyrs and recruitment goes up. See where this is going?

They want the credit, and in their eyes, the prestige of being the one that is hurting the West so that they can continue to be viewed as the Caliphate. They need to take credit, so as to ensure that all eyes, both friend and foe, are drawn to them. The publicity and the notoriety is the oxygen that is feeding the flame. But they want it to be one flame, theirs. Not many flames. This is propaganda. To not take credit would render it useless.

Nazbaque
03-22-2016, 11:58 AM
They want the credit, and in their eyes, the prestige of being the one that is hurting the West so that they can continue to be viewed as the Caliphate. They need to take credit, so as to ensure that all eyes, both friend and foe, are drawn to them. The publicity and the notoriety is the oxygen that is feeding the flame. But they want it to be one flame, theirs. Not many flames. This is propaganda. To not take credit would render it useless.

And this means basically that in the long term they're much less of a threat than they could be.

GonzoTheGreat
03-22-2016, 12:44 PM
And this means basically that in the long term they're much less of a threat than they could be.
Obviously. Now, how do we convince the rest of the world that the most dangerous thing about ISIS is not what they do, but how we react to that?

Southpaw2012
03-22-2016, 03:06 PM
Meh, ISIS has adopted the Al Qaeda strategy of loose organization because independent cells that don't have to wait on orders from above are more difficult for law enforcement to uncover definitively.

A friend I have who worked for the government said that the difference between AQ and ISIS is that AQ usually awaits their orders from leadership while ISIS is loose and random.

Davian93
03-22-2016, 05:59 PM
A friend I have who worked for the government said that the difference between AQ and ISIS is that AQ usually awaits their orders from leadership while ISIS is loose and random.

That is actually fairly inaccurate at this point. We degraded AQ's capabilities significantly after 9/11 to the point where they became heavily decentralized overall. While they don't tend to use this sort of suicide attack (more a tactic of more fanatical groups like Hamas and ISIS), they have regularly had attacks purely from their various quasi-independent cells. As far as the rest, it does have some parts of truth to it. Think of AQ as more of the college educated strategic goal terrorist while ISIS is that angry drunk HS dropout that picks on targets of opportunity at the local bar.

The biggest key with this sort of decentralization with both groups as we degrade their leadership infrastructure is that its really hard to pick up on communications when there isn't any communication. You can't eavesdrop on a conversation that doesnt happen. The whole "ISIS inspired" attacks we see along the lines of the previous AQ inspired ones falls into that category. The bottom line is that you simply cannot track all the suspected extremists. So, after the fact, it looks crystal clear that we should have tracked people like the boston marathon bombers...but in reality, they were probably part of a group of 1000 random potential extremists just in that part of New England. FBI doesnt have that ability and if you look at it from an Intelligence challenge, NSA could monitor that level of traffic BUT, there's the human element of actually parsing through it and correctly identifying the real threats from the random BS and harmless banter.

To put it in laymen terms, imagine trying to put together a 5000 piece crossword puzzle but you don't know what the final image is and you likely only have 2000 of the 5000 pieces. Oh, and you have to do it in a week at most. That's basically what being a Counter-Terrorism Analyst is like. Oh, and the puzzle changes all the time and there are really 3 dozen different puzzles and all of the pieces are interchanged.

Its a fascinating line of work and I enjoyed it immensely when I did it but its massively stressful and a lot harder than anyone could ever imagine.

Southpaw2012
03-22-2016, 09:40 PM
That is actually fairly inaccurate at this point. We degraded AQ's capabilities significantly after 9/11 to the point where they became heavily decentralized overall. While they don't tend to use this sort of suicide attack (more a tactic of more fanatical groups like Hamas and ISIS), they have regularly had attacks purely from their various quasi-independent cells. As far as the rest, it does have some parts of truth to it. Think of AQ as more of the college educated strategic goal terrorist while ISIS is that angry drunk HS dropout that picks on targets of opportunity at the local bar.

The biggest key with this sort of decentralization with both groups as we degrade their leadership infrastructure is that its really hard to pick up on communications when there isn't any communication. You can't eavesdrop on a conversation that doesnt happen. The whole "ISIS inspired" attacks we see along the lines of the previous AQ inspired ones falls into that category. The bottom line is that you simply cannot track all the suspected extremists. So, after the fact, it looks crystal clear that we should have tracked people like the boston marathon bombers...but in reality, they were probably part of a group of 1000 random potential extremists just in that part of New England. FBI doesnt have that ability and if you look at it from an Intelligence challenge, NSA could monitor that level of traffic BUT, there's the human element of actually parsing through it and correctly identifying the real threats from the random BS and harmless banter.

To put it in laymen terms, imagine trying to put together a 5000 piece crossword puzzle but you don't know what the final image is and you likely only have 2000 of the 5000 pieces. Oh, and you have to do it in a week at most. That's basically what being a Counter-Terrorism Analyst is like. Oh, and the puzzle changes all the time and there are really 3 dozen different puzzles and all of the pieces are interchanged.

Its a fascinating line of work and I enjoyed it immensely when I did it but its massively stressful and a lot harder than anyone could ever imagine.


Yeah, this guy was in the FBI and did surveillance against them, but it was a year or two ago. I can't even imagine having to do that. You were a CTA?

What this guy said was basically what you state, that ISIS is comprised of a bunch of angry losers who are out to make a name for themselves. Even though the leadership at the top is Islam inspired (Quaran chapter 9), most of the henchmen are rag tag nobodies out to cause chaos, which makes it tougher to detect at times.

Southpaw2012
03-22-2016, 11:45 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/europes-fear-of-islamophobia-led-directly-to-the-belgium-attacks/


Whether you agree with the opinion piece or not, the overall idea is accurate. The politically correct West needs to eliminate the term "Islamophobe." Regardless of the perfect world some people think we live in, this is a serious issue that needs to be tackled head on by admitting that traditional Islam is the problem, and that since it's origin it has been based on violence. We must acknowledge that standing up to Islam DOES NOT mean that we label all Muslims terrorists or that all Muslims worship traditional Islam that calls for violence and destruction, because they don't. We need to tackle traditional Islam in a way that brings forth change. Unfortunately, as with much else that goes on into today's sick, politically correct culture, even trying to discuss it gets someone labeled an "Islamophobe," so until that changes, this violence will continue.

Terez
03-22-2016, 11:55 PM
If you fear Islam then you are an Islamophobe. And any Abrahamic religion is based on violence. How many Christians in the US see our meddling in the ME as part of some kind of Holy War, rather than what it is?

The decentralization strategy of Al Qaeda was a concern for intelligence analysts and law enforcement long before ISIS existed. Yes, that strategy came about because of our focus on decapitation, but its strategic value was recognized almost immediately, by them and by us. It makes it more difficult for them to pull off more attacks like 9/11 but these smaller attacks can add up quickly.

Southpaw2012
03-23-2016, 12:45 AM
If you fear Islam then you are an Islamophobe. And any Abrahamic religion is based on violence. How many Christians in the US see our meddling in the ME as part of some kind of Holy War, rather than what it is?

The decentralization strategy of Al Qaeda was a concern for intelligence analysts and law enforcement long before ISIS existed. Yes, that strategy came about because of our focus on decapitation, but its strategic value was recognized almost immediately, by them and by us. It makes it more difficult for them to pull off more attacks like 9/11 but these smaller attacks can add up quickly.

Again, you are missing the point of Christianity. Many liberals and non-Christians don't understand this. Christianity underwent a change with the coming of Jesus. Jesus never preached violence; never called for violence; never advocated for violence. Jesus is who Christians follow. Now, Muhammed is who Muslims follow. Muhammed did not preach peace at the end, but called for the death of those who did not support. Islam has NOT changed. The Catholic Church abused it's powers, but it was the men who ran the church who abused the powers and did not correctly apply the doctrine of Christianity.

Give me a source of a legitimate Christian who calls for the takeover of the ME based on what the New Testament says. Specifically. Like quotes Jesus as to why we should conquer the ME, and how he believed there should be a Holy war against Muslims. You won't find it. Christians are declaring it a Holy War because ISIS, an Islamic group, is committing genocide against Christians. If that isn't war I don't know what is. It took two years for the Obama administration to wake up to that. There hasn't been a rampaging Christian army trying to take over the ME in the name of Jesus, has there? The Crusades was against the rampaging Muslims. And I don't fear Islam, though people should. The word Islamophobe needs to be banned along with other offensive words. Islam is what is causing this violence, and that is 100% fact and more people will suffer if we don't attack that directly. Again, study the origins of Islam, specifically Quran chapter 9 and the preachings of Muhammed near the end. That is what ISIS follows. They are legitimate Islam. However, many good Muslims do not follow what Muhammed became, and have changed. That is what must occur all over the world.

Terez
03-23-2016, 01:13 AM
Again, you are missing the point of Christianity.
No, I'm not. I was raised in Christianity and we were serious about it. I know all about Christianity. I also know all about Christian eschatology and the way Christians ignore the whole Jesus thing when it suits them.

I can't believe you're talking about banning words.

The Unreasoner
03-23-2016, 01:21 AM
Again, you are missing the point of Christianity. Many liberals and non-Christians don't understand this. Christianity underwent a change with the coming of Jesus. Jesus never preached violence; never called for violence; never advocated for violence. Jesus is who Christians follow. Now, Muhammed is who Muslims follow. Muhammed did not preach peace at the end, but called for the death of those who did not support. Islam has NOT changed. The Catholic Church abused it's powers, but it was the men who ran the church who abused the powers and did not correctly apply the doctrine of Christianity.

Give me a source of a legitimate Christian who calls for the takeover of the ME based on what the New Testament says. Specifically. Like quotes Jesus as to why we should conquer the ME, and how he believed there should be a Holy war against Muslims. You won't find it. Christians are declaring it a Holy War because ISIS, an Islamic group, is committing genocide against Christians. If that isn't war I don't know what is. It took two years for the Obama administration to wake up to that. There hasn't been a rampaging Christian army trying to take over the ME in the name of Jesus, has there? The Crusades was against the rampaging Muslims. And I don't fear Islam, though people should. The word Islamophobe needs to be banned along with other offensive words. Islam is what is causing this violence, and that is 100% fact and more people will suffer if we don't attack that directly. Again, study the origins of Islam, specifically Quran chapter 9 and the preachings of Muhammed near the end. That is what ISIS follows. They are legitimate Islam. However, many good Muslims do not follow what Muhammed became, and have changed. That is what must occur all over the world.
You are so fucking stupid. Also, calling the perverted batshit nonsense Ted Cruz and his ilk believe 'Christian' is offensive to real Christians. Should I take the word 'Christian' from their tongues?

Also, Jesus is the Messiah of Islam as well as Christianity. Jussayin.

Nazbaque
03-23-2016, 04:51 AM
Again, you are missing the point of Christianity. Many liberals and non-Christians don't understand this. Christianity underwent a change with the coming of Jesus. Jesus never preached violence; never called for violence; never advocated for violence. Jesus is who Christians follow. Now, Muhammed is who Muslims follow. Muhammed did not preach peace at the end, but called for the death of those who did not support. Islam has NOT changed. The Catholic Church abused it's powers, but it was the men who ran the church who abused the powers and did not correctly apply the doctrine of Christianity.

Give me a source of a legitimate Christian who calls for the takeover of the ME based on what the New Testament says. Specifically. Like quotes Jesus as to why we should conquer the ME, and how he believed there should be a Holy war against Muslims. You won't find it. Christians are declaring it a Holy War because ISIS, an Islamic group, is committing genocide against Christians. If that isn't war I don't know what is. It took two years for the Obama administration to wake up to that. There hasn't been a rampaging Christian army trying to take over the ME in the name of Jesus, has there? The Crusades was against the rampaging Muslims. And I don't fear Islam, though people should. The word Islamophobe needs to be banned along with other offensive words. Islam is what is causing this violence, and that is 100% fact and more people will suffer if we don't attack that directly. Again, study the origins of Islam, specifically Quran chapter 9 and the preachings of Muhammed near the end. That is what ISIS follows. They are legitimate Islam. However, many good Muslims do not follow what Muhammed became, and have changed. That is what must occur all over the world.

And this is basically why you are a racist. And another word for "racist" is "shallow". Shallow people are shallow because they are too lazy to truly think and that is in the long run why racism is wrong.

GonzoTheGreat
03-23-2016, 04:57 AM
Give me a source of a legitimate Christian who calls for the takeover of the ME based on what the New Testament says.George W. Bush, who explicitly called his conquest of Iraq a crusade.

Davian93
03-23-2016, 08:51 AM
Yeah, this guy was in the FBI and did surveillance against them, but it was a year or two ago. I can't even imagine having to do that. You were a CTA?

What this guy said was basically what you state, that ISIS is comprised of a bunch of angry losers who are out to make a name for themselves. Even though the leadership at the top is Islam inspired (Quaran chapter 9), most of the henchmen are rag tag nobodies out to cause chaos, which makes it tougher to detect at times.

Yes, for 5-6 years actually. Worked for DHS as well as AFOSI.

His assessment is quite accurate as of a year ago before we started destroying their leadership.

There was a whole bit about 18 months ago when AQ in Iraq and AQ in Arabian Peninsula basically disowned ISIS because of that mentality and their "lack of standards" on recruiting. Think of AQ as more like old school Aes Sedai whereas ISIS would take anyone along the lines of Egwene's reforms.

Davian93
03-23-2016, 08:57 AM
Christianity underwent a change with the coming of Jesus. Jesus never preached violence; never called for violence; never advocated for violence. Jesus is who Christians follow.

To be fair, a lot of so-called Christians tend to ignore the actual red words in the bible and focus more on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. They also tend to cherry pick parts of the Old Testament that supports their personal biases. Southern Baptists are notorious for this as are lots of other protestant sects. Catholics basically came up with their own mythology and de facto idol worship (call it veneration all you want, its more idolatry than anything). If all Christians actually followed the teachings and examples of Christ in the Gospels, the world would be a much different place.

I think you make a false assumption when you think many of the board members here are not intimately familiar with Christian teachings and the religion itself.

Davian93
03-23-2016, 09:11 AM
The Crusades was against the rampaging Muslims.

Um...not quite. For one, Jerusalem "fell" to that evil Muslim hoard in 638 CE. The 1st Crusade wasn't called until 1095. Even if you went by the Seljuk Turks conquest in 1073, that was also a full generation prior to the 1st crusade.

Scholars will and can debate the rationale and impetus behind the 1st crusade but it wasn't solely or even mostly a religious drive to liberate the Holy Land. A big part of it came down to population pressures in Western Europe, a desire for a lot of 2nd and 3rd sons to get lands/titles for themselves, a desire for the Roman Pope to expand his influence at the expense of the Orthodox church, a desire for the Byzantine emperor to use the western Christians as a way to blunt Seljuk aggression (a plan that worked quite well short-term but ultimately led to the downfall of his empire that started with the sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade) as well as simple trade routes (those Venetians and Genoans merchants weren't supporting the crusades out of religious piety by any means).

After the Arab conquest, travel to Jerusalem was basically considered safe (for that time period) and there was a treaty between the Muslims and Christians to allow pilgrimage...a treaty that lasted for over 4 centuries. Yes, there were attacks on pilgrims by Muslims just as there would have been attacks on Muslims by Christians in that era (and there were once Christian kingdoms were established after the 1st crusade...pilgrims make nice juicy and fairly wealthy targets for your local brigand). As far as conquests go, the initial conquest was Jerusalem in 638 was pretty bloodless and not nearly the absolute massacre that the 1099 conquest by those devout Christian pilgrims was.

Its really hard to say it was a direct response to any Muslim aggression given the myriad of factors that went into it and the actual motivations of the key individuals involved...none of which really included that.

Terez
03-23-2016, 09:28 AM
Yes, for 5-6 years actually. Worked for DHS as well as AFOSI.

His assessment is quite accurate as of a year ago before we started destroying their leadership.
Are you saying we started destroying Al Qaeda leadership a year ago? Seems to me like we've been doing that for over a decade?

Edit: here's a NYT article from 2 years ago about how ISIS was basically a culmination of the decentralization of Al Qaeda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/sunday-review/the-franchising-of-al-qaeda.html

Ivhon
03-23-2016, 09:34 AM
Ill say this nicely, Southpaw. You make the mistake of comparing "legitimate" Christians with "illegitimate" Muslims. You disavow all violent, dominant Christians - and the scripture they use to justify their violence - as illegitimate. As you should. However, you do not afford Islam the same latitude.

This is classic ingroup-outgroup bias. Ingroups are heterogeneous. We recognize individuality and diversity within our ingroup. Outgroups are homogeneous. They are all the same. Therefore, when a Christian does something horrific, (s)he is insane, not a Christian, not representative of the group, etc. When a Muslim does something horrific, it is because the whole group thinks and behaves that way.

This dynamic plays within all ingroups (which are subjective). So you can, depending on who you are, substitute black, hispanic, gay, women, jewish, asian, white, atheist, men, etc.

We all have a tendency to do this (myself included). It is difficult, but not impossible to overcome.

Davian93
03-23-2016, 09:51 AM
Are you saying we started destroying Al Qaeda leadership a year ago? Seems to me like we've been doing that for over a decade?

Edit: here's a NYT article from 2 years ago about how ISIS was basically a culmination of the decentralization of Al Qaeda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/sunday-review/the-franchising-of-al-qaeda.html

No, I was solely referring to ISIS when we ramped up our bombing campaign. We destroyed much of AQ's leadership back right after 9/11.

Southpaw2012
03-23-2016, 10:29 AM
To be fair, a lot of so-called Christians tend to ignore the actual red words in the bible and focus more on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. They also tend to cherry pick parts of the Old Testament that supports their personal biases. Southern Baptists are notorious for this as are lots of other protestant sects. Catholics basically came up with their own mythology and de facto idol worship (call it veneration all you want, its more idolatry than anything). If all Christians actually followed the teachings and examples of Christ in the Gospels, the world would be a much different place.

I think you make a false assumption when you think many of the board members here are not intimately familiar with Christian teachings and the religion itself.


You're right, the world would be a much better place if people followed the Christian teachings as they are meant to be followed. And that's the key difference between Christianity and Islam. ISIS, in particular, iis successfully following the key teachings of Islam, and that is what is causing the terror. If people were following Jesus's teachings to the core, it wouldn't lead them to blow up mosques or conquer the ME.

In no way am I calling Christians perfect. What I am saying is that to say Christianity and Islam the same is both inaccurate and dangerous, because they are not.

It always amazes me that liberals viciously attack Christian bakers and florists for refusing to provide homosexuals with their desired product, claiming that Christians are homophobic, but then turn a blind eye to violence the Islam calls for. I'm not saying you all have done that, but the Democratic Party is guilty of this. Whether or not you agree with religious liberty, denying a product because of the belief that same-sex marriage is wrong and blowing up 300 people are completely different things on completely different levels.

Southpaw2012
03-23-2016, 10:34 AM
Ill say this nicely, Southpaw. You make the mistake of comparing "legitimate" Christians with "illegitimate" Muslims. You disavow all violent, dominant Christians - and the scripture they use to justify their violence - as illegitimate. As you should. However, you do not afford Islam the same latitude.

This is classic ingroup-outgroup bias. Ingroups are heterogeneous. We recognize individuality and diversity within our ingroup. Outgroups are homogeneous. They are all the same. Therefore, when a Christian does something horrific, (s)he is insane, not a Christian, not representative of the group, etc. When a Muslim does something horrific, it is because the whole group thinks and behaves that way.

This dynamic plays within all ingroups (which are subjective). So you can, depending on who you are, substitute black, hispanic, gay, women, jewish, asian, white, atheist, men, etc.

We all have a tendency to do this (myself included). It is difficult, but not impossible to overcome.


I'm not denying that Christians are violent. There are some very violent people who label themselves Christian (falsely) who need to be held accountable. Usually, however, even though they are Christian, they don't point to some teaching of Jesus and say, "Jesus said, ..... kill the infidels, so that's what I did." You might have some delusional Christian who points to some passage in Exodus or whatever, but I'm specifically talking about Christ, and who Christians follow. As for Muslims, they follow Muhammed, who turned incredibly violent. Study his history. Go read some works by Nabeel Qureshi who is a convert after he went and studied the history in depth. When Jesus died, Christians were hunted down and killed. When Muhammed was around and died, Muslims went and killed. ISIS is continuing that track. Fortunately, there are many Muslims who have split off and live very peaceful lives, and they should not be abused. All I'm saying is it's dangerous and ignorant to ignore what is going on in Islam and somehow link Christianity into it, because until a Christian army begins to conquer in the name of Christ, there's no need to link them.

And look, I don't blame the Democratic Party for coming out and defending Muslims. Republicans do that as well, and need to do a better job of it. But to come out and say that this in no way represents Islam is completely and 100% wrong.

GonzoTheGreat
03-23-2016, 10:57 AM
I'm not denying that Christians are violent. There are some very violent people who label themselves Christian (falsely) who need to be held accountable. Usually, however, even though they are Christian, they don't point to some teaching of Jesus and say, "Jesus said, ..... kill the infidels, so that's what I did." You might have some delusional Christian who points to some passage in Exodus or whatever, but I'm specifically talking about Christ, and who Christians follow.
Matthew|10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew|10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew|10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Doesn't sound very peaceful, this.

Matthew|26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Makes one wonder why the disciples were carrying around swords, if Jesus was such a convincing pacifist.

Luke|22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Still not very pacifistic.

All in all: if Christianity were as peaceful as you suggest, then all American churches would be constantly railing against the 2nd Amendment. Do they do so, or do they show by their silence on this issue that violence is a goal of Christianity?

Terez
03-23-2016, 12:58 PM
Jesus is the Hebrew God in the flesh according to Christian teachings. You can't separate him from that no matter how many internal contradictions the New Testament creates. And besides, even if you buy that separation (I don't, especially considering the way modern Christians buy into the Holy War aspects of the New Testament), isn't Judaism just as inherently violent as Islam? But Israel is our best bud, right? You know they're not Christians, right?

Davian93
03-23-2016, 01:35 PM
Viewing Islam as a monolithic entity where they all follow the same teachings is about as accurate as doing the same with even just American Protestant Sects. I would imagine that Southern Baptists and Episcopalians would take issue with that and that's not even getting into what the Methodists, non-denominational evangelicals, Lutherans would think...let alone the LDS church and its various off-shoots (of which mainstream protestants don't even consider "Christian"). Of course, Baptists feel the same way about Catholics for the most part. And that still ignores the hundreds of other sects and offshoots of Orthodox churches we have just in the US.

There is no Islamic Pope handing out rules of "This is what it means to be a good Muslim". The teachings of Muhammad can be interpreted in a ton of different ways depending on which Imam, Mufti,Ayatollah, etc. is doing the teaching/interpreting. Its impossible to read the Koran and pull a passage out of context and say "See, they are inherently violent and theirs is a religion of violence". Especially when you can do the exact same thing even with the red words in a Christian Bible (as Gonzo did so easily just using the Gospels).

Davian93
03-23-2016, 01:38 PM
Jesus is the Hebrew God in the flesh according to Christian teachings. You can't separate him from that no matter how many internal contradictions the New Testament creates. And besides, even if you buy that separation (I don't, especially considering the way modern Christians buy into the Holy War aspects of the New Testament), isn't Judaism just as inherently violent as Islam? But Israel is our best bud, right? You know they're not Christians, right?

Yeah but if we don't support Isreal, how can we ensure that the End Times will come in our lifetime? Don't you want to be raptured, T? We must support Israel just for that purpose if no other.

I wonder how the search for the Red Heifer is coming so we can get on with rebuilding the Temple and getting it properly consecrated.

The Unreasoner
03-23-2016, 02:20 PM
I wonder how the search for the Red Heifer is coming so we can get on with rebuilding the Temple and getting it properly consecrated.

Is tbat a real thing? Or is this a South Park reference?

Southpaw2012
03-23-2016, 02:30 PM
Matthew|10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew|10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew|10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Doesn't sound very peaceful, this.

Matthew|26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Makes one wonder why the disciples were carrying around swords, if Jesus was such a convincing pacifist.

Luke|22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Still not very pacifistic.

All in all: if Christianity were as peaceful as you suggest, then all American churches would be constantly railing against the 2nd Amendment. Do they do so, or do they show by their silence on this issue that violence is a goal of Christianity?



The Second Amendment isn't about violence, so not sure what you are talking about.

As for your Biblical quotes, not a single one you posted calls for going out and killing non-believers, so again....

Also, read beyond Matthew 26:51 and see Jesus's reaction. Tells him to put away the sword for those who commit violence will die by it. I don't think many would disagree with that wise and reasonable assumption.

@Davian look at Muhammed's life from beginning to end, and see how he started and where he ended up with regards to violence.

@Terez I am aware Israel isnt Christian. Also, Jews aren't going out and slaughtering hundreds to thousands of people a month, so no, I wouldn't say it's as violent. I think if people closely analyzed the violence in the Old Testament, it's much different than what Islam calls for. But again, for Christianity, it's about the New Testament and what came from Jesus.

Yes, many Christians call what's going on now a Holy War. Why? Because an Islamic army is wiping out Christians all over the world because they are Christian. Liberals can ignore that all they want, but it's fact.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/23/former-islamic-extremist-says-this-is-the-first-thing-u-s-must-do-but-has-refused-to-do-under-obama-to-defeat-radical-islam/

Kimon
03-23-2016, 04:30 PM
The Second Amendment isn't about violence, so not sure what you are talking about.


This is dependent upon one's point of view. Guns facilitate violence, and the availability of guns, especially semi-automatic guns, allows for the mass shootings to take place on a more devastating scale than would in a country where guns were scarce. A man with a knife is quite capable of violence, but in a somewhat more limited degree than a man with a semi-automatic rifle. This isn't as simple as merely a call for the right to defend yourself, it's also the question of why the state can't still place certain limits on the ability of individuals to acquire such dangerous weapons so as to defend its citizens from violent individuals. Heller undercut the state's ability to continue to protect its citizenry against the worst elements within society.

As for these various religious issues, all religions can be used for good or for evil. This was and is true of all three of the monotheistic religions, indeed history has abundantly demonstrated that monotheism is far less capable of syncretism and coexistence with other religions than their polytheistic cousins.

Davian93
03-23-2016, 05:43 PM
Is tbat a real thing? Or is this a South Park reference?

That SP episode is actually a parody based on the actual requirement to find a red heifer without blemish born in the Holy Land...and it is a real thing that some Christians believe is necessary for the 3rd Temple to be rebuilt and then consecrated.

I know, crazy.

Kimon
03-23-2016, 06:05 PM
That SP episode is actually a parody based on the actual requirement to find a red heifer without blemish born in the Holy Land...and it is a real thing that some Christians believe is necessary for the 3rd Temple to be rebuilt and then consecrated.

I know, crazy.

Ritual animal sacrifices with particular requirements for coloring is actually pretty common. Aeneas, for instance, had to find a pure white sow nursing 30 piglets. I'm not familiar with red much from the Greek or Roman world, but they usually preferred male animals for male divinities, female for female, and white animals for Olympians, black animals for chthonic (underworld).

Frenzy
03-24-2016, 12:58 AM
if nothing else, Brussels means Southpaw can conveniently ignore the standing questions he's refusing to answer.

Nazbaque
03-24-2016, 02:35 AM
if nothing else, Brussels means Southpaw can conveniently ignore the standing questions he's refusing to answer.

Well he is an evangelist. Ignoring anything and everything inconvinient is a reflex for him.

GonzoTheGreat
03-24-2016, 04:35 AM
The Second Amendment isn't about violence, so not sure what you are talking about.]All right, you got me there. Obviously, the guns all those Americans carry are just as ceremonial as the blunt daggers which Sikhs carry as an item of faith. Not a single one of those American guns could fire an actual bullet. After all, if they could, then they would be tools aimed at enabling violence, since the only reason for shooting a bullet into another human is violence.

I wonder how I could have possibly missed the fact that all those hundreds of millions of American guns are fakes.

SomeOneElse
03-24-2016, 02:08 PM
the only belgians' fault was to allow uncontrolled Islam and places like Molenbeek where muslims could in fact do what they want paying no attention to local laws or traditions. With that in mind, it was only a matter of time to see attacks like ones discussed here. In fact, if terrorists were a bit smarter they could do way more and I don't see how EU could stop them at the moment since most of them are not newcomers and they have local citizenship. One scaring thing is that Belgium had announced high level of risk 3 months ago or so which obviously shows they were aware about something going on still they couldn't stop it.

Anyway I don't share the opinion about Europe not being able to handle the situation at all, although this point of view is widely spread in Russia, I think it will only require some time to adapt and sadly will be connected with more losses. The thing Europeans should realize is that muslims need to be controlled, be they in Syria, Libya or Europe. No one could argue that, if Kaddafi was still around and Assad had the same capabilities, these attacks in Brussels and Paris would be less likely to happen. Now EU will be forced to deal with this instead of delegating it to local countries.
Viewing Islam as a monolithic entity where they all follow the same teachings is about as accurate as doing the same with even just American Protestant Sects. I would imagine that Southern Baptists and Episcopalians would take issue with that and that's not even getting into what the Methodists, non-denominational evangelicals, Lutherans would think...let alone the LDS church and its various off-shoots
no offence, but these names probably make sense only in America and for some religion experts. I don't think any one any where else cares about them, while Sunni Islam is almost the same everywhere. Yes, there are other sects (shias, suffi etc) but there's mainstream Isalm and ISIS fits well into most of its paradigms. And the fact there are some sects you don't even know about changes something, but very little.

Nazbaque
03-24-2016, 02:12 PM
the only belgians' fault was to allow uncontrolled Islam and places like Molenbeek where muslims could in fact do what they want paying no attention to local laws or traditions. With that in mind, it was only a matter of time to see attacks like ones discussed here. In fact, if terrorists were a bit smarter they could do way more and I don't see how EU could stop them at the moment since most of them are not newcomers and they have local citizenship. One scaring thing is that Belgium had announced high level of risk 3 months ago or so which obviously shows they were aware about something going on still they couldn't stop it.

Anyway I don't share the opinion about Europe not being able to handle the situation at all, although this point of view is widely spread in Russia, I think it will only require some time to adapt and sadly will be connected with more losses. The thing Europeans should realize is that muslims need to be controlled, be they in Syria, Libya or Europe. No one could argue that, if Kaddafi was still around and Assad had the same capabilities, these attacks in Brussels and Paris would be less likely to happen. Now EU will be forced to deal with this instead of delegating it to local countries.

So you advocate the police state approach?

SomeOneElse
03-24-2016, 02:19 PM
So you advocate the police state approach?
Only when there is no alternative. Europe offered them an outstanding level of freedom and life which most people in the world can only dream about, but you see what they paid with. So I guess this approach didn't work.

If you just examine every country/place where muslims are found (any considerable number of them) you can see there is a dictator regime or terrorist movements rising up.

Nazbaque
03-24-2016, 02:35 PM
Only when there is no alternative. Europe offered them an outstanding level of freedom and life which most people in the world can only dream about, but you see what they paid with. So I guess this approach didn't work.

If you just examine every country/place where muslims are found (any considerable number of them) you can see there is a dictator regime or terrorist movements rising up.

You are working from the assumption that the middleground would be somekind of utopia. It is impossible to please everybody and for great many people displeasure leads to violence. The problem isn't that they are muslims. It isn't even that they are extremists. It's that they are human beings. We are only fit to live with one another when we've learned a measure of self control and that self control happens to demand that we let the less disciplined live as well. The irony is quite delicious.

The Unreasoner
03-24-2016, 04:07 PM
Your belief that 'wherever there are uncontrolled Muslims, there are terrorist movements' is obviously false. Look at America. Sure, we had some asshole in San Bernadino shoot some people, but something like that happens every Tuesday. No one believes American Muslims are any more dangerous than the average American. Statistically, they might even be less dangerous. Despite the (substantial number of) Southpaws in the US, American Muslims are reasonably well integrated. We do large scale assimilation better than anyone else (and far better than most of Europe). There was a well-executed effort to promote moderate Islam and general tolerance after 9/11.

Of course, the DHS is also better funded than its Belgian counterpart.

Davian93
03-24-2016, 07:39 PM
no offence, but these names probably make sense only in America and for some religion experts. I don't think any one any where else cares about them, while Sunni Islam is almost the same everywhere. Yes, there are other sects (shias, suffi etc) but there's mainstream Isalm and ISIS fits well into most of its paradigms. And the fact there are some sects you don't even know about changes something, but very little.

Thank you for exposing your utter ignorance on the subject and illustrating yet not example of Ivhon's point earlier about internal and external viewpoints.

SomeOneElse
03-25-2016, 02:18 AM
Your belief that 'wherever there are uncontrolled Muslims, there are terrorist movements' is obviously false. Look at America. ... American Muslims are reasonably well integrated. We do large scale assimilation better than anyone else (and far better than most of Europe). There was a well-executed effort to promote moderate Islam and general tolerance after 9/11.What you describe is exactly what I call "controlled Islam".

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2016, 04:25 AM
no offence, but these names probably make sense only in America and for some religion experts.And in Europe, and other places where people pay any attention at all to anything apart from what their own village priest orders them to believe.

I don't think any one any where else cares about them, while Sunni Islam is almost the same everywhere.That is a lie, or a mistake based on a lot of avoidable ignorance.
Sunni Islam in Indonesia has lots of influences from the Hinduism that used to be dominant in that part of the world, Sunni Islam in Morocco has virtually no Hindu influences. Sunni Islam in eastern Africa often has female genital mutilation (FGM) as part of its belief system, Sunni Islam in Turkey doesn't approve of FGM.
It is one particular Sunni sect which is a big problem; and that sect happens to be adhered to by a lot of oil sheiks from the Arabian peninsula. So they have been spending billions of dollars of oil money over the course of decades to spread this particular interpretation of Islam over the whole world, and that's what explains the current appeal of Al Qaeda and the like.

Yes, there are other sects (shias, suffi etc) but there's mainstream Isalm and ISIS fits well into most of its paradigms. And the fact there are some sects you don't even know about changes something, but very little.
It means that it is proven that the problem is not Islam, but one specific interpretation of Islam. Which means that it isn't necessary to kill or convert all Muslims; all that is required is to educate them and to allow them the freedom to argue about all the contradictions in their faith.
And, on top of that: to make sure that they can't police each other when it comes to enforcing certain interpretations over others. It is this group pressure which is the source of the big problems with religion, and only individualism can help to counteract that.

SomeOneElse
03-25-2016, 05:37 AM
It means that it is proven that the problem is not Islam, but one specific interpretation of Islam.

Yes, with an addition that this interpretation is a dominating one and it is the closest to the "clear Islam" (the ideology formed by Mohammad and his first followers). I've said there are lots of other "interpretations" but, since their followers currently don't create threats comparable to ISIS, they are not part of the problem.
And in Europe, and other places

No, not even a chance. Just compare their political/ideological/etc influence to the one traditional catholic church head by the Pope has and you're done. These groups may be interesting to study for religion experts or just to those who want to know more about Christianity, but nothing more.
The same goes for all minor sects of Islam.

Sunni Islam in Indonesia has lots of influences from the Hinduism that used to be dominant in that part of the worldIslam, like most religions, doesn't allow such influences. Those who follow that sort of Islam are a separate sect and they won't be recognized by other Sunnis. To be honest, I don't see any point in mentioning them here since no one could argue Islam as well as any other religion is not monolithic (especially after seeing the current Shia vs Sunni conflict).
Muslim countries of Southeast Asia are just another evidence of what I say here. They don't have uncontrolled Islam, like most relatively stable countries with dominating muslim population, and their "Islam" has little to do with traditional one. Most hard core sunnis will name them disbelievers.
Sunni Islam in eastern Africa often has female genital mutilation (FGM) as part of its belief system, Sunni Islam in Turkey doesn't approve of FGM.
FGM has no direct source in Quran. And Islam is not the only source of evil in our world.
Which means that it isn't necessary to kill or convert all Muslims;Yes, that would be a terrible idea.
all that is required is to educate them and to allow them the freedom to argue about all the contradictions in their faith.But this idea (last part of it particularly) is even more terrible. Currently in Iraq and Syria and several other places they already "argue" about these contradictions. I think all that Europe should require from them is to follow local laws, just like locals do. They shouldn't be allowed to form isolated communities based of their religion and to practice certain things incompatible with these laws. And, if any of them couldn't see themselves integrated to the european society, they are free to move to any other place where they can have Sharia law and endless religious discussions.

Davian93
03-25-2016, 06:30 AM
Just compare their political/ideological/etc influence to the one traditional catholic church head by the Pope has and you're done

Personally, I cant think of any religious Christian wars that have occurred in Europe's history...other than the recent Irish troubles, the entire Reformation period to include the 30 Years War, the Religious Wars in France, etc etc. Then there's the existence of the Church of England...which some would say has had just a little bit of political and ideological influence on England and later all of the UK. Some might argue here...just MIGHT that the Orthodox Church has had a little bit of influence on Russia over the years...to the point of it being one of Lenin's overiding focuses to overthrow its power structure completely due to its ridiculous amount of influence there. Even Putin now trys to use the Church to help solidify his own rule...because he recognizes the power it has on certain conservative portions of Russia's population.

And that's not even getting into Lutheranism and Calvinism which both had much larger and much more lasting effects in Europe than they have in the US. Many of the political boundaries in Europe are the direct result of religious issues contained completely within the bounds of the supposed Christian faith.

So, again, to ignore that Islam has very similar religious differences despite your utter ignorance of that reality is just silly. Just because we pretty much only ever hear about Wahhabist teaching due to their association with ISIS & Al Qaida and to the overarching Sunni/Shia conflict (which is one of dozens of fracture points) doesnt make it accurate.

Davian93
03-25-2016, 06:33 AM
Islam, like most religions, doesn't allow such influences

Sure it doesnt...just like Christianity doesnt either and it didnt simply co-opt local pagan practices to bring casual believers into the fold in much the same way as every single religion before it and just like Islam does now.

But then you probably actually believe that Christ was born on Christmas Day and that Easter is also a purely Christian holiday with no pagan overtones. .

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2016, 09:45 AM
Personally, I cant think of any religious Christian wars that have occurred in Europe's history...other than the recent Irish troubles, the entire Reformation period to include the 30 Years War, the Religious Wars in France, etc etc. Then there's the existence of the Church of England...which some would say has had just a little bit of political and ideological influence on England and later all of the UK. Some might argue here...just MIGHT that the Orthodox Church has had a little bit of influence on Russia over the years...to the point of it being one of Lenin's overiding focuses to overthrow its power structure completely due to its ridiculous amount of influence there. Even Putin now trys to use the Church to help solidify his own rule...because he recognizes the power it has on certain conservative portions of Russia's population.
Happily, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox got along swimmingly, otherwise there might've been some kind of war between Croatia and Serbia when Yugoslavia fell apart.

Davian93
03-25-2016, 09:54 AM
Happily, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox got along swimmingly, otherwise there might've been some kind of war between Croatia and Serbia when Yugoslavia fell apart.

I cant think of any issues at all between Orthodox and Catholic...AT ALL.


And those Croats and Serbs were just confused...they were both trying to contain the monolithic Muslim hoard in Bosnia and simply ran into each other instead.

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2016, 11:21 AM
And those Croats and Serbs were just confused...they were both trying to contain the monolithic Muslim hoard in Bosnia and simply ran into each other instead.
Which, admittedly, might have been a bit more admirable if they'd been aiming at a horde.

Davian93
03-25-2016, 11:48 AM
Which, admittedly, might have been a bit more admirable if they'd been aiming at a horde.

well what would you call 8000 unarmed men and boys?

Nazbaque
03-25-2016, 12:12 PM
well what would you call 8000 unarmed men and boys?

Badly in need of bathing?

Ivhon
03-25-2016, 12:32 PM
well what would you call 8000 unarmed men and boys?

Aristotle's wet dream?

Nazbaque
03-25-2016, 12:55 PM
Aristotle's wet dream?

Well as the song says he was a bugger for the bottle. It doesn't count if you do it drunk.

GonzoTheGreat
03-26-2016, 04:34 AM
However, SomeOneElse is correct that if you ignore the fact that Christianity has proven to be capable of just as much violence and just as many atrocities as Islam is, then Christianity would seem to be a lot better. I do not know why one should ignore this fact, but if you do, then the difference is indeed striking.

Ozymandias
03-29-2016, 03:42 PM
However, SomeOneElse is correct that if you ignore the fact that Christianity has proven to be capable of just as much violence and just as many atrocities as Islam is, then Christianity would seem to be a lot better. I do not know why one should ignore this fact, but if you do, then the difference is indeed striking.

I mean, imagine if people were willing to ascribe the moniker of "terrorist" to all the Christian people who run around shooting up schools and movie theaters and public spaces in the United States?! If you are Muslim, you are a terrorist. If you're Christian, you're just mentally ill.

Ozymandias
03-29-2016, 03:54 PM
The Crusades was against the rampaging Muslims. And I don't fear Islam, though people should.

Actually, the Crusades were NOT against "rampaging Muslims". More than 500 years elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem to the Umayyads and the Byzantine call for aid. So to act like it was some sort of knee jerk (relatively speaking) reaction to Christian holy places being threatened is ridiculous. The fact that most Crusades also included the wholesale slaughter of European Jews is only gravy. Additionally, the Fourth Crusade was just the sacking of Constantinople, one of the major episcopal sees. And more than that, we don't even acknowledge the many other Crusades, such as those against pagans in the Baltic, or other Christians the Pope didn't like in Southwestern France.

And I happen to agree with you on the second point. I do fear Islam, and I think most people should (that being said I also fear Christianity, which is hardly better). And more and more, the "Western" world is waking up to the fact that these aren't crazy people pursuing limited political aims; they are aiming for the extermination of an entire way of life. Multiculturalism, a state with nominally equal rights, freedom of the press - these are all things which Islam as a whole seems to actively protest. One can claim there is a silent majority that doesn't agree, but that might even be worse. For better or worse, this is the new normal. The sooner folks realize that, the better.

Nazbaque
03-29-2016, 04:22 PM
So you still can't control your fear Ozy.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-30-2016, 01:05 AM
And more than that, we don't even acknowledge the many other Crusades, such as those against pagans in the Baltic, or other Christians the Pope didn't like in Southwestern France.

uh. that's wrong. They are acknowledged, studied, dissected, reassembled, conspiracy theories made and unmade and remade and so on. They're just not as widely romanticised in fiction/popular culture as, say Richard the Lionheart - the king who bankrupted and abandoned his country to go partying in the Mediterranean, leaving his brother John with the unenviable task of trying to re-fill the state treasury. Then again, if not for Lionheart and the actions that John (thought he) had to take, Magna Carta probably wouldn't have happened... And I must confess, I do like the principles of due process and that the state can't just appropriate random property whenever it wants to.

The Cathar Crusades are becoming more and more popular in Western fiction (see for example Kate Mosse), it's a good source of consipiracy theory; pretty much on par with Templar conspiracies but harder to debunk because most people don't know the actual facts as well as the Templar facts are known. The Baltic crusades are largely forgotten, true. Well, not in the Baltics obviously. I'm always quite surprised when the Germans/Dutch (=Diets-speaking people, at the time) from the Cologne area have no idea they enslaved a whole bunch of white people in the North-East some 800 years ago; and that the Balts stayed enslaved for the next 650 years.

GonzoTheGreat
03-30-2016, 03:34 AM
I'm always quite surprised when the Germans/Dutch (=Diets-speaking people, at the time) from the Cologne area have no idea they enslaved a whole bunch of white people in the North-East some 800 years ago; and that the Balts stayed enslaved for the next 650 years.
But if they hadn't wanted to be slaves they wouldn't have called themselves Slaves, would they? :confused:

yks 6nnetu hing
03-30-2016, 04:38 AM
But if they hadn't wanted to be slaves they wouldn't have called themselves Slaves, would they? :confused:

ok, 2 points on this:

1) that's actually where the word "slave" comes from. Slavic people = slaves (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave).

2) Balts are not Slavic, no matter what the Russian propaganda says. It's called Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language tree for a reason, you know. Just because both Sanskrit and English are Indo-European languages does not mean that they're particularly similar nowadays. Estonians and Finns are neither Baltic nor Slavic either. You know, linguistically speaking. Genetically speaking, there's been rather a lot of mingling. More than a little of it due to the "good old" right of the first night (i.e. that the owner could claim the wedding night of any female slave). I myself am part Swedish, part Polish and part German from my mother's side. From my father's side there's probably some Russian blood, but I don't know 100% for sure. Both my grandfathers are from the islands, which were the last remaining Viking areas in Europe, so you know... the population there probably raided and brought home pretty maidens from goodness knows where (although likely suspects are Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany)

GonzoTheGreat
03-30-2016, 05:16 AM
1) that's actually where the word "slave" comes from. Slavic people = slaves (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave).That, I must admit, was my point too.

Both my grandfathers are from the islands, which were the last remaining Viking areas in Europe, so you know... the population there probably raided and brought home pretty maidens from goodness knows where (although likely suspects are Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany)Quite possibly some Russian too, and maybe even a Greek maiden or two (from Constantinople, where Vikings used to be the emperor's bodyguard for a long time). Probably not Irish; those tended to end up in Iceland instead. Maidens had quite adventurous lives in those days.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-30-2016, 06:12 AM
Quite possibly some Russian too, and maybe even a Greek maiden or two (from Constantinople, where Vikings used to be the emperor's bodyguard for a long time). Probably not Irish; those tended to end up in Iceland instead. Maidens had quite adventurous lives in those days.*

*not entirely by choice though. Although, I'm reminded of this archaeological study of a Danish woman who appears to have originally come from what is now Southern Germany, and according to strontium analysis seems to have traveled a LOT (http://humanities.ku.dk/news/2015/the_bronze_age_egtved_girl_was_not_danish/) during her last year of life.

As for my own ancestry, eh. Maybe. The one that's close enough to matter is my great-grandmother, she was either Swedish or half-Swedish. Her mother-tongue was Swedish, in any case. All the other links go a couple of centuries further into the past.

Ozymandias
03-30-2016, 05:40 PM
uh. that's wrong. They are acknowledged, studied, dissected, reassembled, conspiracy theories made and unmade and remade and so on.

I apologize, that is the language I should have used. I didn't mean to imply no one knows about them/acknowledges them, just that if you ask the average person about "the Crusades" they think about the First or Third Crusade in Jerusalem. Not the Sacking of Constantinople, nor the abortive Crusades in Egypt, and certainly not the Baltic Crusades or the Albigensian Crusades.

Ozymandias
03-30-2016, 05:54 PM
So you still can't control your fear Ozy.

Nope. The knowledge that I am a target for no other reason than that I refuse to subordinate my intelligence and free will to the incoherent fantasies of a long-dead narcoleptic terrifies me.

If I don't like Donald Trump, I know to stay away from his rallies for fear of being beaten up. That's a controllable fear, because Trump's thugs aren't walking into my home with a bomb while I'm on the premises.

Islamic fascists are threatening that. And there isn't a thing I can do to stop it. It's totally out of my control. That should terrify everyone.

Davian93
03-30-2016, 06:13 PM
You're much, much, much more likely to get hit by a car and die than die in a terrorist attack...so the fear might be a bit overblown.

Nazbaque
03-30-2016, 06:23 PM
Nope. The knowledge that I am a target for no other reason than that I refuse to subordinate my intelligence and free will to the incoherent fantasies of a long-dead narcoleptic terrifies me.

If I don't like Donald Trump, I know to stay away from his rallies for fear of being beaten up. That's a controllable fear, because Trump's thugs aren't walking into my home with a bomb while I'm on the premises.

Islamic fascists are threatening that. And there isn't a thing I can do to stop it. It's totally out of my control. That should terrify everyone.

But that's not the point now is it. It's not about what you fear but how you act as the result of fear. If you can control yourself inspite of fear then you are brave, if you can't you're a coward.

Based on that post you are very much lacking in control and thus a coward. If you weren't you'd see quite a few logical flaws in those fears.

On some level you just can't accept the fact that they are human beings too.

Ozymandias
04-08-2016, 08:15 AM
You're much, much, much more likely to get hit by a car and die than die in a terrorist attack...so the fear might be a bit overblown.

Of course. Given how much I like the ocean I'm probably more likely to be eaten by a shark (though... I definitely don't have statistics on this, except watching a lot of terribly awesome SyFy "Ghost Shark" movies lately).

That isn't my point. The car accident is a random act of the world we live in. The vast majority of car-related deaths are accidental; the victim wasn't targeted for any specific reason. Terrorism is the worst of both; its very pointed in where it targets and totally indiscriminate in who is hurt. It means living in a relatively open, free society makes you a target irrespective of your beliefs.

Ozymandias
04-08-2016, 08:25 AM
But that's not the point now is it. It's not about what you fear but how you act as the result of fear. If you can control yourself inspite of fear then you are brave, if you can't you're a coward.

Well, given that I'm not out in the streets shooting up madrassas, I'd say I'm controlling myself just fine.

One of the wonderful things about living in a democratic, secularist, pluralistic society like the United States (or Western Europe) is that I have the ability to express my thoughts, nominally without fear of reprisal.

There are a lot of levels of control. If you mean that I'm not willing to muzzle myself from voicing an accurate but perhaps uncomfortable truth, then fine, I'm not in control. But to my mind, a lack of control would be me offering money to kill mullahs or imams, or someone else who represents a worldview different than mine. I'm not... so maybe, just maybe, I'm in a bit more control than you think. Its the other side that we have to worry about, because its the other side that thinks that their actions have divine sanction. If you haven't noticed, people throughout history (and regardless of denomination) have done some pretty horrific things in the name of god.

Based on that post you are very much lacking in control and thus a coward. If you weren't you'd see quite a few logical flaws in those fears.

Tell it to Salman Rushdie. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The exercise of free speech makes you a target for assassination. That is the most basic principle of our society, and it is being attacked at its root by extremists who are being offered blood money, or official sanction, for the murder of someone who writes a book.

On some level you just can't accept the fact that they are human beings too.

I'm... not sure where you're getting this? I fully understand they're human beings. If they weren't, there would be no issue. But fanatical Islamic fascists are susceptible to the same bigotries and idiocies as all of us. The difference is, to them, I am not allowed to hold an opposing view.

Nazbaque
04-08-2016, 10:09 AM
Well, given that I'm not out in the streets shooting up madrassas, I'd say I'm controlling myself just fine.
If you actually wish to do that, then I suppose I should be glad that you are controlling the urge, but you having such an urge is quite disturbing. If you don't have the inclination what exactly is being controlled?
One of the wonderful things about living in a democratic, secularist, pluralistic society like the United States (or Western Europe) is that I have the ability to express my thoughts, nominally without fear of reprisal.
Ability? Not really any more so than in other parts of the world. Legal right? Might be a point if the unofficial weren't far more important than the official.
There are a lot of levels of control. If you mean that I'm not willing to muzzle myself from voicing an accurate but perhaps uncomfortable truth, then fine, I'm not in control. But to my mind, a lack of control would be me offering money to kill mullahs or imams, or someone else who represents a worldview different than mine. I'm not... so maybe, just maybe, I'm in a bit more control than you think. Its the other side that we have to worry about, because its the other side that thinks that their actions have divine sanction. If you haven't noticed, people throughout history (and regardless of denomination) have done some pretty horrific things in the name of god.
Ah so the problem is your lack of understanding the concept of control.
Tell it to Salman Rushdie. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The exercise of free speech makes you a target for assassination. That is the most basic principle of our society, and it is being attacked at its root by extremists who are being offered blood money, or official sanction, for the murder of someone who writes a book.
So because there are people for whom such fears have a cause they suddenly apply to everyone else?
I'm... not sure where you're getting this? I fully understand they're human beings. If they weren't, there would be no issue. But fanatical Islamic fascists are susceptible to the same bigotries and idiocies as all of us. The difference is, to them, I am not allowed to hold an opposing view.
And so we always come to this same point Ozy. You do not understand what a human being is. This incidentally is obvious from your entire post. Don't you ever watch the people around you and wonder about them? Why they do what they do? If they do things that you don't, is that wrong? If you do something they wouldn't, is that wrong? If you do the same things with different methods, is one of you wrong? If you are doing the exact same things, could one of you have wrong reasons for doing it? The questions keep piling up and all too often I find you trying to force somekind of short cut to the answers. This is a great shame for if you honestly contemplated other peoples' motives you might eventually contemplate your own and learn from the closest example what it means to be human.

Davian93
04-08-2016, 11:04 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36000407

Key suspect in Paris and Brussels attacks arrested.

GonzoTheGreat
04-08-2016, 11:48 AM
Bush did it very differently. He didn't bother arresting suspects; he just invaded Iraq. What good could the European approach possibly do, compared to that standard?

Ozymandias
04-09-2016, 11:11 AM
If you actually wish to do that, then I suppose I should be glad that you are controlling the urge, but you having such an urge is quite disturbing. If you don't have the inclination what exactly is being controlled?

You tell me. You're position is that I'm not in control of myself or my fear. Mine is that in the scheme of things, if all I'm doing is venting on an internet forum (and being quite restrained, especially by the standards of the internet), then there isn't much cause to think I'm acting irrationally. You don't have to look very far to see people who take far more inappropriate, even violent, actions when they are upset or scared.

Ability? Not really any more so than in other parts of the world. Legal right? Might be a point if the unofficial weren't far more important than the official.

Perhaps I should have said I have the ability to express myself without fear of state-sponsored reprisal. I don't think there is a single country in the world with a higher degree of freedom of speech than the US.

Ah so the problem is your lack of understanding the concept of control.

Perhaps the issue is that you don't understand the nuance of varying degrees of control

So because there are people for whom such fears have a cause they suddenly apply to everyone else?

YES! I am not Salman Rushdie (or am I?!?!), but the entire point I'm making is there is effectively nothing, except prodigious literary talent and critical exposure, that separates me from him. All he was guilty of was writing a fictional novel that made the fairly innocuous claim that perhaps the Quran was not divinely inspired.

He is persecuted, and has a state sponsored blood price on his head, for no other reason than he wrote a piece of creative fiction. That is a threat to everything I hold dear in life, and I imagine what you value as well; freedom of thought and speech, the ability to think critically and to innovate, the right to wonder at the world.

So yeah, you've hit precisely on my point, though I don't think you'll ever come round to my way of thinking. I am scared because there is VERY broad class of people who think that the attacks on Jyllands-Posten was justified. That they (or, by extension, I) cannot write a fucking comic strip without fear of being blown to pieces is ridiculous. That is the exact kind of thing that should be feared. If you point a gun at my head and ask for my wallet, I have a choice. I have a method by which to mitigate the danger to my person. Even if the violence is for some senseless reason, at least it is a danger I can face, can accept and deal with, and steel myself for. To live every second of every day, knowing that it is possible to be torn into bloody bits by shrapnel from some IED that was detonated merely because I live in a society that values freedom of conscience? There is no way to accept that; one must either ignore it (as you've chosen, and as I mostly do on a practical basis) or go insane.

And so we always come to this same point Ozy. You do not understand what a human being is. This incidentally is obvious from your entire post. Don't you ever watch the people around you and wonder about them? Why they do what they do? If they do things that you don't, is that wrong? If you do something they wouldn't, is that wrong? If you do the same things with different methods, is one of you wrong? If you are doing the exact same things, could one of you have wrong reasons for doing it? The questions keep piling up and all too often I find you trying to force somekind of short cut to the answers. This is a great shame for if you honestly contemplated other peoples' motives you might eventually contemplate your own and learn from the closest example what it means to be human.

With all due respect, it sounds like I've done quite a bit more thinking about it than you have. And your attempts at moral relativism are foolish. If I drive 29 miles an hour to get to the market and you drive 30, neither of us is "wrong", and certainly not in the macro ethical sense we're discussing.

But if someone claims the right to police my speech and (theoretically) even my thoughts, and does so at the point of a gun or the blast radius of a bomb, then yes, one of us is wrong and one is not. My fear of senseless violence against my person, and my condemnation of those who would use such methods to enforce their philosophies and fantasies on me, is NOT MORALLY EQUAL to the person who thinks they have the right to dictate to me what to believe. Even if they don't actually use violence against me, the very idea that they have such a right is essentially more morally repugnant than my assertion that I have a right to freedom of conscience.

And this is all to the extent that we should even take the argument of "do you even know what it means to be human" seriously and not as some weird straw man. I understand the motivations of fanatic Islamic fascists as well as any other third party can. Poverty, the perception that "the West" is responsible, an inability to control one's destiny in any meaningful way, a lack of social/political/economic opportunities... to the extent that I didn't grow up poor in Saudi Arabia, I can understand the root causes that lead to men and women turning to violence. But two important distinctions need to be appended on. Firstly, this disaffection and anger is being directed outward in explicitly religious terms. Maybe that is the only language which these folks have to express their complaints at the world. Doesn't change the simple fact that for them, as for Christians 1,000 years ago, the language of violence is religious in nature. And second, on that topic, however bad your life may be, you do not have the right to take it out on me or anyone else by way of violence.

So yeah... I think I've done a sight more honest and critical examination of my own beliefs, and how they intersect with others' and the world at large, than you give me credit for. Perhaps even more than you have. I just came to the conclusion that I value my right to believe what I wish in the privacy of my own home more than I value the right of the religious to police my speech and thought so as to avoid being "offended".

Kimon
04-09-2016, 01:15 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36000407

Key suspect in Paris and Brussels attacks arrested.

Abrini has also admitted being the man in the hat in the videos from the airport.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36005709

He is one of six men arrested in Brussels on Friday. Four have been charged with terror offences.

The other suspects charged on Saturday were named as Osama K, Herve BN, and Bilal EM.
They are all accused of "participating in terrorist acts'' linked to the Brussels bombings. Two other people arrested on Friday have been released.
Osama K, identified in media reports as Swedish national Osama Krayem, was the man seen with the suicide bomber at Malbeek metro station just before the attack on 22 March, investigators say.

Osama K is believed to have entered Greece from Syria with migrants last year, using a fake Syrian passport. Prosecutors believe he was driven from Germany to Belgium by Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam in October.
Herve BM, described as a Rwandan national, and Bilal EM are both suspected of having offered assistance to Abrini and Osama K.

GonzoTheGreat
04-10-2016, 02:56 AM
... the standards of the internet ...Standards of the Internet?
Citation needed, I would say.

Abrini has also admitted being the man in the hat in the videos from the airport.
Has the hat been found?

Ozymandias
04-11-2016, 09:07 PM
Standards of the Internet?
Citation needed, I would say.


Well my spelling and grammar are both within the bounds of reason, and I can claim that my opinions require more than a hashtag and 140 characters to express, so I think that puts me in the 95th percentile or so right off the bat.

GonzoTheGreat
04-12-2016, 03:09 AM
Well my spelling and grammar are both within the bounds of reason, and I can claim that my opinions require more than a hashtag and 140 characters to express, so I think that puts me in the 95th percentile or so right off the bat.
None of which even suggests that the Internet has any standards whatsoever. So you still need to back up that particular slander.

Ozymandias
04-12-2016, 08:39 PM
None of which even suggests that the Internet has any standards whatsoever. So you still need to back up that particular slander.

Then I suppose it depends on your definition of "standards." Since the term is, in all situations, relative to something else, it is technically impossible to quantify any "standard." That being said, I generally assume the population around here to be reasonable, so I made the perhaps hasty assumption that when faced with a truth so obvious that it hardly bore mentioning, it would be accepted in that vein. Apparently not.

Since it would be literally impossible to determine the veracity of my claim objectively, you'll have to take my word for it.

GonzoTheGreat
04-13-2016, 03:07 AM
Since it would be literally impossible to determine the veracity of my claim objectively, you'll have to take my word for it.
Since that seems to work for Trump each and every time, I suppose we'll have to accept it from you too. Annoying, this, that any kind of scepticism is now politically incorrect.

To get back to the terrorists that are the nominal subject of this thread: is it a good or a bad thing that in Belgium the main approach seems to be based on letting the police do its job, rather than declaring war on some more or less nebulous entity?

Ozymandias
04-21-2016, 10:41 AM
Since that seems to work for Trump each and every time, I suppose we'll have to accept it from you too. Annoying, this, that any kind of scepticism is now politically incorrect.

Well Trump is making claims that are demonstrably false. Or at least to which there is objective evidence to contradict him.

To get back to the terrorists that are the nominal subject of this thread: is it a good or a bad thing that in Belgium the main approach seems to be based on letting the police do its job, rather than declaring war on some more or less nebulous entity?

Well to segue away from that for a second, what good would it do to declare war? I assume you bring it up for the purpose of contrasting it with the desired response of many Americans against ISIS. However, the United States has a legitimate case to make at being able to influence the course of the war in Syria and throughout the Islamic world in general. Belgium really doesn't. So what other option is there? There are housing complexes in New York City with a greater population than the entire Belgian armed forces.

GonzoTheGreat
04-21-2016, 11:44 AM
Belgium could invoke the NATO mutual defence clause. That'd put the US Army on their side, and most housing complexes don't have that kind of pull.