Terrorist Attack In Brussels Airport and Metro Station: At Least 34 Dead (mirror.co.uk) 1011
SomeoneFromBelgium writes: This morning there was a double bomb explosion in Brussels, Belgium. In the National Airport entrance hall an estimated 13 people were killed by a big explosion; around the same time another bomb exploded in Metro station 'Maalbeek,' close to the financial district, killing an estimated 10 persons.
Note: story updates bump this figure ot at least 34 deaths. Reader jones_supa adds Shots were fired and Arabic shouted before the blasts,
suggesting a terrorist attack. Video and images on social media showed smoke rising from an airport building and shattered windows. Confused and shocked passengers fled the terminal to safety as they were evacuated by armed police. Footage showed rubbish littered across the floor. All traffic from and to the airport has been suspended. The airport is monitoring the situation closely and will deliver further announcements in Twitter. Update: 03/22 13:06 GMT by T : According to the New York Times and other sources, at least one of the explosions was set off by a suicide bomber. Slate has an actively updating stream of updates about the attack, too.
It is not a justification for more surveillance. (Score:5, Insightful)
More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic. Any one of us is still far more likely to die in a number of ways that we have long accepted as risks which are ultimately unavoidable if we want to sustain our way of life. We can't stop driving just because people die in road accidents, and we can't stop being free just because people die in terrorist attacks. If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.
You insensitive clod, we need phone decryption to spy on law-abiding citizen, not terrorists!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And lets just stop being PC about all this...and get serious.
The time for profiling has come. Let's face it, this attack has all the markings of another horrible, malicious attack by those damned radica
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your point, but can you point to the last time that a baptist blew themselves up?
Suicide bombing has long been used.
The Chinese suicide squads during the 1911 revolution and again during the second Sino-Japanese war.
Another famous example us the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2.
Hell, even the Germans did it during the battle of Berlin.
In all those cases, one group was at war with the target group.
You cannot deny that Radical Islamic terrorist are at war with you. You are their enemy. Do you think that because you have nothing against them that they dont want you dead?
Sure, we have our brand of crazies who see the US government as a target. The uni-bomber for example.
But when was the last time that one of these guys went to a mall or shopping center and detonated a vest to blow up women and children?
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're serious about this they've already won.
Ponder on that for a minute.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
They should all be rounded up and deported aboard container ships to the Middle East.
Has it never occurred to you that most immigrants from the Middle East are in your (and my) fine country precisely because they don't like murderous regimes, suicide bombs, and countries which don't respect human rights? Or is that too obvious?
Every Muslin has blood on their hands.
Oh, wait, I see what you're saying. Yeah, lightweight cotton is evil. Death's too good for it, I say.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
I abolutely agree with the above... We don't need our freedom to be restricted because of occasional terrorist attacks. If we allow that then they win, we lose. And as stated above, a lot more people die on the road each day, and nobody cares..
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. There's no evidence that it's a peaceful religion. It has never been a peaceful religion, and it won't be until it is reformed or destroyed.
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam is as peaceful as christianity and judaism.
Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god
You are an Idiot!
Great work mentioning two that went through reforms.
*5 stars. Would laugh at stupid comment again*
But on a more serious note: The god they believe in has zero to do with anything. But thanks for playing.
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan (Score:5, Informative)
Central to Christianity is that Jesus WAS God. He is part of the trinity: God, Son, Holy Spirit. Three in one. God made flesh on the Earth.
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ.
Give me a single quote by Jesus Christ, telling his people to "Kill infidels" or its equivalent. Just one.
People kill. Some religions promote killing, others do not. Religions that promote killing ("Smite them in the neck" ) are not peaceful. Those that promote peace ("Turn the other cheek") do not.
Moral equivocation is why you cannot distinguish the difference between Islam and Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism).
And yes, all religions have followers that committed horrible crimes, even atheism has, It doesn't excuse it or make them morally equivalent,
But here is a test, pee in a cup with a crucifix (or bible or ...) and see what happens. Pee on a Koran, and see what happens. Go ahead, I dare you. One would be called "art" and the other "Racist bigotry", morally equivalent ... right?
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:5, Informative)
Not Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) but God himself says it repeatedly:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-
Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in
13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known),
14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,
15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.
There are also New Testament passages cited as justification to kill non-believers, e.g.
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Be honest- there are plenty of Christians who would love to kill non-believers if they thought they could get away with it (like they did for centuries before the modern era). Mod me down all you like- you know it's true (and you'll just be proving my point).
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Luke 19:27 is a parable. It wasn't a command given to his believers.
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right. But the rest is always to be taken literally, right? It's the "literal WORD OF GOD", right? lol
-
The other two are NOT Jesus commands to his followers either.
Umm, but Jesus is God, isn't he? That's what your bible says, over and over. That's what all the preachers and priests say. Are they wrong, or are you?
-
Be honest, there are plenty of Atheists who would kill religious people if given a chance.
Sure, I'll be honest- I've never known an atheist who says he or she would like to "kill religious people", not one. We would be happy if religion died and took all of its hatred and bigotry with it, but no atheist I know has ever said they'd like to kill religious people.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.
Remember that, next time you're being groped by a TSA agent.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Funny)
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious??? Oh sure, someone will say "but what about the vulnerability of the pre-airport security screening queue?" Well, obviously we just need a queue before that. It's queues all the way down. Just keep this between us though -- if the terrorists discover our methods, the terrorists win.
Ban encryption 2016!
Re: (Score:3)
This pre-airport security - is what they actually had in the Kiev Borispol airport when I've been there a year ago. Not fun at all.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious???
I think they have that. At least... I got groped in a bar last Thursday, and I assumed it was part of a security screening.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
I read the summary of this, and my thought was - "I'm shocked it took this long to happen" - That said, I am surprised they just went for the entrance hall and not the security lines.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
I run the IT for an organisation that I am not going to link to here because we're already having trouble dealing with the load today. We're based out of the International Press Center, a small tower behind the Berlaymont that also houses the local branches of Bloomberg and the BBC. Half of us (including myself) go through Maelbeek every day since it's the stop before Schuman, the other half come from the other direction. I was in the subway before the one that blew up; I heard the thump and saw the smoke from Maelbeek as I was getting out of the subway at Schuman; I assumed it was an electrical fire or something and went on to work. We are still on "lock down" in our tower, some of the journalists have been here since 6:00AM and nobody in the building has anything to eat.
You won't see many pictures of this in main stream media, but this is what happened to the subway that was bombed [twimg.com]. The cars in the Brussels subway are arranged with blocks of four seats on either side of a central aisle. There is a door and standing space between each set of 8 seats. The blocks are very solid and designed to protect the passengers in them in the event of a subway crash. During rush hour the seats are full and you usually have about twice as many people standing in the open space. In the picture you can see that the bomb went off in the middle of one of these blocks of eight. I can just about guarantee that those seats were full, so we know where half the subway dead came from right there. It looks like the block of seats just behind that block held together (to the right of the image), even though the shifted some, so I would suppose that those people in that set of 8 survived. It looks like the areas between the explosion row and the surviving row and the explosion row and the bulkhead to the left of the image were not very survivable. I guess it would depend on how much shrapnel was in the bomb and how many bodies were shielding you.
I go into this detail because I want to make a point: the terrorist will always get through. We cannot get around this situation with more security. There will always be places where people are forced to congregate and you can't secure them. We can't even get people to buy tickets reliably in the subway; forget about frisking everybody with bulky clothes who rides the subway. True, you can't bomb an airliner anymore, but you sure as hell can bomb the new bottleneck at airport security. Yet the PM of France is already calling for greater intelligence cooperation, which we all know is a euphemism for greater surveillance.
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Very well said, and stay safe.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
I've long said that it wouldn't be long before terrorists blew themselves up before the security checkpoint. I figured they would do it on line for security during a busy day, but the check-in line was (in hindsight) another target likely to cause maximum casualties with minimal risk of being stopped. Are they going to move the checkpoints to the airport entrances now? (Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.) Then the attacks will just happen in the inevitable line leading up to the checkpoint. That's the main trouble with TSA-style checkpoints: No matter where you place them, there's always another target.
Of course, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Worldwide, there were 32,727 terrorism related fatalities in 2014 (the most recent statistic I could find). This is out of about 7 billion people, so your risk of being killed by a terrorist was about 0.0005%. Even if we doubled the terrorism fatalities (perhaps to account for other deaths weren't labeled as terrorism but might be stretched to fall under that), we'd only get to a 0.001% risk.
Obviously, living in different areas of the world gives you a greater or lower risk. If you live in Iraq, you likely have a higher risk than if you live in Smalltown, Kansas. However, you have a far greater risk of dying in a car accident (1.25 million deaths worldwide in 2013, or a 0.02% risk) than by terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
How did we ever fly safely before we got groped and fondled?
Oh, I know: We still had our carry-on luggage screened. Like, forever. Which would have stopped this kind of attack against a plane.
If you want to strawman, at least use one that can catch fire.
Re: (Score:3)
How did we ever fly safely before we got groped and fondled?
Oh, I know: We still had our carry-on luggage screened. Like, forever. Which would have stopped this kind of attack against a plane.
If you want to strawman, at least use one that can catch fire.
Errm, does a suicide-west count as carry-on luggage? Can it be detected by "groping"?
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Informative)
It was not pocket knives but "carpet knives". No idea what the correct english term is. And yes it will work again and again.
A flight captain and his co pilot need nerves of steel to listen to the screams of the stewardesses in the cabin and not react on the demands of he hijackers.
I wish you that you are never in a situation like that.
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:4, Insightful)
This exactly.
You have 300 passengers and usually about 3-6 hijackers. If only 2 percent of the people think "Fuck it, I'm dead anyway if those asshats get what they want, I risk it", you are already the majority.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me tell you how it is on the A'dam airport. No matter how much security you have there is a moment when after check-in the travelers go through the passport/screening control. In order to make it "safer" passengers from 20-30 check in lines go through the same passport control.
So, you walk through the airport's door [completely unguarded] and within 20 paces you are in the middle of THOUSANDS of people waiting for the passport control. If you are quick it would take about 3-5 seconds to rush in and detonate yourself...even if there were fully armed guards you can do it....so you need a control point before the control point before the control point...
That is why someone above was joking about "it's queues all the way down". Complete security is an impossibility, therefore no amount of money spent and restrictions placed will help you. Never. There will always be gatherings of people that cannot be secured [school, disco, cafes, church, hospital, company building, sport events ...the list is endless]....we cannot give up all those activities and we cannot make them 100% secure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
Yes, because putting a lock on your door and having a criminal break in your house anyway is EXACTLY the same as leaving your door wide open with a big sign in your front yard reading "Free cash and valuables inside!"
I mean, are you seriously arguing that because an odd terrorist might get in anyway, that we should just say "fuck it" and open the borders up to invite them in? Because, if that's what you're saying, I want you to call your mother up and tell her that she raised a dumb fuckwad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, Baader Meinhof.
Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider this: the IRA used to ring ahead of time to warn people to get out because they had planted a bomb there.
They wanted to scare people and blow shit up, sure. But they wanted to AVOID killing people (including themselves).
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Beware your own logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The logic of a united Ireland is as reasonable as the USA conquering Canada. Whilst this was the intention of US foreign policy at one time, the US has grown out of it. The concept of accepting the settled that have emerged as a result of colonialism is a fraught one, but it has worked better in Africa, and until recently the Middle East, than the alternative of fighting it out.
The issue of 'oppression' is of course more complex, though blaming the 'English' shows a lack of knowledge, given that Ulster Protestants are mainly of Scottish origin, as indicated by the prevalence of Presbyterianism as the main churches. In retrospect it's obvious that the Catholics were being oppressed; but that was hard for everyone to admit at the time. We've got to the point now where a really messy constitution is up and running that has begun to build trust, but the situation is still on a knife edge.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
Here's just France and there were several 'of significance' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah 0 to 8 killed in a year since the 1970s, until the MUSLIM TERRORISTS killed 20 in Jan 2015, 130 in November 2015, and now this
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
I could [wikipedia.org] think of [wikipedia.org] a few [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.
Because Europe stopped the Islamic hordes at the gates of Vienna centuries ago. They are now back and have flooded Europe, which has welcomed them with open arms. They have not changed. The do not assimilate. They reproduce far more quickly then the native populations. This is only the beginning.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
No, we've had border controls for a very short time, since the WW1.
It's not 1950 anymore, people move around and the economy depends on it. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans (including me) live in one country and work in another. The temporary border controls between Denmark and Sweden causes huge problems, and does not solve any anything. All these terrorists have valid passports.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Informative)
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
1) Border controls don't do anything to stop people already in the borders from doing harm.
2) Explosives are available in the UK, the same as in Belgium, France and every other country in the world - and if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them - they're going to do it.
Let's say you have border controls between country X and country Y. At any given time, there will be some number of people from each of those countries standing in a line waiting to get home - and thus are a target.
3) You could keep the EU and have border controls anyway (but see point 2 above)
Conclusion: Your anti-EU rant is not really applicable here.
Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No one is willing to say it (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct. We should not need to give up our way of life because a subset of the population is hell bent on destroying it.
The problem is the radicals are willing to take radical action to achieve their ends, but western society does not have the political stomach to take the actions needed to solve the issues.
Make no mistake. These terrorist acts will only continue and with greater frequency.
You simply cannot have that many radicals in a population and expect nothing to happen.
You must either..
A. Remove or restrict freedom of moment and Freedom in General
B. Remove the factors which contribute to a person becoming radicalized
C. Remove that portion of the population which is most likely to become radicalized.
D. Ignore the issue and live with constant threat of terrorist attacks.
I know that in the west do not want to appear intolerant and to a large extent we must tolerate some things we do not personally agree with.
But not things which are not compatible with western core beliefs.
We are not at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islam is however at war with us. Unless we fight back, we are going to lose.
Re:No one is willing to say it (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islam is however at war with us.
Radical Islam is the snake. "Regular" Islam is the grass.
Unless we fight back, we are going to lose.
Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.
Re:No one is willing to say it (Score:4, Insightful)
Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.
This statement literally means nothing. "Everything without sufficient buoyancy sinks." Well, no shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, people die of _something_. And since we have virtually wiped out infection diseases, cancer and heart diseases are the main remaining causes of death.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably Muslim extremists. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know of course, that means you're racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Probably Muslim extremists. (Score:4, Insightful)
but my initial suspicion is that it was Muslim extremists
Hush, you fool! You'll be called a racist if you say that out loud.
Re: (Score:3)
So soon after the arrest of the Paris suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps anti-terror agencies could take a page from the narcotics police, where they may routinely quietly arrest a suspect to gain intel on his suppliers and customers.
Re:So soon after the arrest of the Paris suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This guy was talking [wsj.com] and the press was reporting his cooperation.
Religious fundamentalists (Score:3, Interesting)
Making God Proud Since ... well, forever.
Honestly? Islam needs to schism the way the Church did so that the crazies that are left are easily identified, and the moderates who don't think of violence in any practical way have their own IslamV2.0
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Informative)
Making God Proud Since ... well, forever.
Honestly? Islam needs to schism the way the Church did so that the crazies that are left are easily identified, and the moderates who don't think of violence in any practical way have their own IslamV2.0
Facepalm. You are aware that the schism in Islam happened just a few decades after it was founded? Shiites vs. Sunnites? The conflict that still cause much more deaths than terrorism against non-Muslims? No?
Well, go on then.
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:4, Insightful)
No, GP is right, Islam needs a schism between moderate and fundamentalist. Both Shia and Sunni are fundamentalist movements. A moderate Islam would be neither Shia nor Sunni.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really think this is about cartoons, you can just as well claim that the Iraq war was about WMDs and spreading democracy (and that Western democracy is a real problem for the rest of the world).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, not about cartoons maybe, but Christians certainly shoot and blow other people up based on: skin color, some cartoonish fantasy that a single fertilized cell is a human being, etc.
Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble (Score:5, Insightful)
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
Yeah, it's always "only some Christians but all Muslims", isn't it?
Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe we have Catholics, Lutheran protestants, a small amount of Calvinists, and then the Orthodox church in Eastern Europe. Those can all be denominated under the name of Christians, but as far as I know we do not have any of them running around killing people under the guise of pro-life. That really seems to be a US-only problem.
Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:take effective action instead of security theat (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who doesn't have this kind of broblem ? Israel.
I don't know. Ask the Palestinians in Israel and they might tell you they have a very big terrorism problem.
Re:take effective action instead of security theat (Score:5, Informative)
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament, and there are no laws restricting their freedom of religion. Now, bounce over just a few dozen miles and if you're Jewish or Christian, not only do you have zero rights it's perfectly OK to kill you. Yeah, that's really equivalent!
PS: Israelis are also people of Palestine (the Roman name for the land where Israel was at the time the Romans ruled itl). You don't mean "Palestinians" as there are plenty of them living legally and without problem within Israel. The converse though, Israelis/Jews (also Palestinian) living in Palestine, is not common at all.
We won't win war on terror (Score:5, Insightful)
The man sounds on target to me.
We won't win war on terror: Former French PM [cnbc.com]
" Europe is taking the wrong approach to fighting terrorism, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has told CNBC.
Speaking immediately after a series of explosions rocked the Belgian capital of Brussels, de Villepin said that they were "tragic events" but added that Europe should be showing that it is sticking to its rule of law and can only "reduce" the threat of terrorism.
"I do believe that our strategy should be very different than the one it is. Much less a military approach than a political approach, trying to find solutions in the Middle East and we are far from doing that," he said."
Re:We won't win war on terror (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you handle the culturally/religiously driven self-motivated lack of engagement?
"We want to engage more, but your society is full of things that are forbidden by our religion. Your women are immodest, your media is full of blasphemous imagery, your employers will not change their business practices to allow us unimpeded practice of our religion. We can't live as our religion says we should unless you change your culture to accommodate our beliefs. Therefore we find comfort in our own neighborhoods where we can live in greater accordance with our beliefs."
Basically, there is a lot of self-segregation going on and a certain resentment that the host country won't change to accommodate their religious beliefs. This seems to end up leading to a perception of discrimination and probably harms second and further generation offspring who might otherwise more easily assimilate.
Not again (Score:3)
How many of our freedoms have these terrorists killed already?
Re:Not again (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedoms are not taken away by terrorists. They are taken away by power-hungry politicians who see opportunity to do so when a terrorist event happens. Get your facts straight.
Re: (Score:3)
Here it comes (Score:4, Insightful)
Islam is a Problem (Score:5, Informative)
When 40% of Muslims living in Britain want Sharia Law (Sharia Law includes death for those who insult Islam)
When 25% of all Muslims living in Britain support the 7/7 attacks
When a majority of Muslims support death sentences for those who leave the faith.
Then it is obvious that Islam has a real problem and is a real threat to the civilized world.
I know this isn't PC, but multiculturalism should not extend to cultures that want to commit violence against others. The quicker we realize this, the quicker we can stop the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people in these discussions miss the most blatant whitewashing of calling mainstream islam "moderate". It is far from moderate. If it were a political party, or a "social club" (like the KKK), it would probably be outlawed in most European countries.
But religious christians fear that if they allow one religion to be scrutinized and held accountable, their religion will be next.
Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's time to ban ALL religions?
Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
How about we start with Islam, and then see if we need to keep going?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Stopping terrorism means stopping Islam.
Oh totally. But we can't stop there, because there should be no half measures. We need to ban Christianity because look at what happened in Colorado with that Planned Parenthood. Terrorism. Also, we need to ban Atheism because the "dark knight" guy in Aurora was an Atheist.....I bet that's where he got the ideas. See, if only the non-violent Christians and non-violent Atheists had done something to prevent this type of terrorism, it'd be OK. But, they don't stop it, so we need to ban their philosophies as well. So glad someone had the courage to say it.
/bitter sarcasm
Seriously, how in the fuck is this moderated as "Insightful". You sir, are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Stopping terrorism means stopping Islam.
Oh totally. But we can't stop there, because there should be no half measures. We need to ban Christianity because look at what happened in Colorado with that Planned Parenthood. Terrorism. Also, we need to ban Atheism because the "dark knight" guy in Aurora was an Atheist.....I bet that's where he got the ideas. See, if only the non-violent Christians and non-violent Atheists had done something to prevent this type of terrorism, it'd be OK. But, they don't stop it, so we need to ban their philosophies as well. So glad someone had the courage to say it. /bitter sarcasm
Seriously, how in the fuck is this moderated as "Insightful". You sir, are an idiot.
Technically speaking, the GP is right: nowadays the only countries that are terrorism-free are the ones without a significant pious Sunni Muslim population. Notice how there is no terrorism in Japan, South Korea or even Kazakhstan - I put Kazakhstan there on purpose, because it has a significant Muslim population, but they are by and large secular. China has no terrorism problem except in Xinjiang which has a significant Sunni Muslims population.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace Islam with religion and you have a deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that many of the problems are associated with Islam, but there is the counterfactual argument that holds that states like Indonesia and Malaysia while having large Muslim populations don't seem to have much of a terrorism base and contribute very little to the problem of Islamic terrorism.
It really seems to be a problem associated with the Islam spanning North Africa to the Middle East, so it would seem that there's an Arabic political and cultural element to it that combines with Islam and makes it
Re:why is this on slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well incidents of terrorism in western cities doesn't occur every day.
The fact that the group most likely behind it is the most web-wise terrorist group that has ever existed should be of at least a little bit of interest to us here.
You you think you live in isolation? What happens in Brussels won't have effects in the rest of the world? You think that various world leaders are not going to use this as an excuse to bring in more monitoring, loss of rights? If not, let me know where you live, I'd like to move there.
I passed through the metro station where the bomb went off 30 minutes before hand. My wife, only 15 minutes. Either of us could have been caught if the timing had been different.
All public transport in Brussels has been stopped. Taxis are impossible to find - but the streets out of Brussels are mostly blocked, so cars aren't very good anyway. I have no way of getting home, except a very long walk for many hours. Sucks to be me, but sucks more for the people in the train that was behind mine.
Ok, here's an IT angle for you:
The mobile phone network stopped working just after the attacks. The Belgian government recommended people to use social media to communicate. Facebook added a 'I have not been blow up' button (or something like that, I don't use Facebook).
Re:why is this on slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.
What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe because Slashdot used to be a tech site ?
It was "news for nerds, stuff that matters". It's had politics and other non-tech stuff since forever.
Re:why is this on slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
this is the first page i still read in the morning, and i havent heard yet. i have friends in Brussels, thankfully they are all ok, but still. i appreciate the occasional major story. its not like its new either, they posted about 9/11 as well and that was 15 years ago
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
please STFU about your pathetic metal penis extensions... It's time for political correctness to be thrown into the trash can and for the mass deportations of Muslims from Europe... or a Final Solution in 20 years time.
Wow. I've got to hand it to you: A lot of posts on the internet start with "guns are bad", but not a lot of them end with "but Nazis are good".
Please STFU about your pathetic mental penis extensions.
Re: (Score:3)
Monotheistic Theo-Fascist mass-murdering Psycho-Cults - I'm just so fed up of them.
Katholics, Protestants, Muslim, Jewish orthodox ... abrahamic book & revelation religions are all the same at variing points in history: Wacko genocide-advocating psycho-cults that have been around for too long. We've always done better whenever we've condemned them to their temples and curbed their power as much as possible.
Fascists will always find some way to blame Christians for fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We didn't occupy Afghanistan when some of their guests flew airplanes into our buildings. We even gave them the opportunity to turn the miscreants over and avoid military action.
As far as Iraq is concerned, Saddam should have known better than to try and go around US oil companies and sell directly to the EU, China and all. And accept payment in Euros instead of dollars. Who does he think runs the world economy anyway?