off topic The politics of terrorism

[Hank]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an explanation as to why Brussels was targeted?

[BagBoy]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an explanation as to why Brussels was targeted?

 

No ignorance on your part here.  That's a good question.  Why Belgium of all places?

 

Come to think of it, isn't the metro very close to EU HQ?

Edited March 22, 2016 by BagBoy

[PromoTheRobot]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an explanation as to why Brussels was targeted?

Because it has a large Muslim population, and in any population there are those who wish to create chaos.

[TrueBlueGED]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an explanation as to why Brussels was targeted?

The logical assumption is it's related to the capture of the final participant in the Paris attacks.

[josie]

The logical assumption is it's related to the capture of the final participant in the Paris attacks.

Yup. For the curious: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/world/europe/salah-abdeslam-belgium-apartment.html?_r=0

 

I read elsewhere that it is believed this attack was planned but moved up upon the capture of Abdeslam. I'd have to dig to find that link, but food for thought. 

[Hank]

The logical assumption is it's related to the capture of the final participant in the Paris attacks.

Thank you.

[2 minuter för grovbearbetn]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an explanation as to why Brussels was targeted?

 

 

Brussels is the home of NATO as well as the  de facto capital of the European Union.  

 

CNN reporting that Belgium has been behind the curve in intelligence gathering and sharing. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by 2_minutes_4_roughing

[Weave]

A question from the ignorant......

 

Can someone give me a non-partisan description of what a no go zone is?  I didn't realize I was so blissfully ignorant of these things.  I guess that is what happens when you stop watching TV news entirely.

[K-9]

A question from the ignorant......

 

Can someone give me a non-partisan description of what a no go zone is?  I didn't realize I was so blissfully ignorant of these things.  I guess that is what happens when you stop watching TV news entirely.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiRrJf0q9XLAhUJNxQKHQHrD80QFgglMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNo-go_area&usg=AFQjCNFhFgLNgSXw5eVbTy5Jv6RXFRiVrg&sig2=8QoC228MRxc_yeACXsfgXA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.eWE

[Weave]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiRrJf0q9XLAhUJNxQKHQHrD80QFgglMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNo-go_area&usg=AFQjCNFhFgLNgSXw5eVbTy5Jv6RXFRiVrg&sig2=8QoC228MRxc_yeACXsfgXA&bvm=bv.117218890,d.eWE

 

ty

[Eleven]

Thanks for all the snark about the crusades. Yes that was bad but I'm talking about recent and modern times. Abortion doctors and clinic mass shootings. One very recent in Colorado, with a stated Christian motive. Perceived liberal churches targeted such as Charleston, SC and Knoxville Tennessee.

 

The KKK has operated in America for a very long time under a Christian banner, yet all Christians are not blamed for the KKK's actions. That is the equivalent to the extreme Muslim religious element.

 

My question is why are these actions talked about differently and why the blame put on an entire religion? Why the double standard?

 

We're not and never have dropped bombs on Christians and passed/proposed laws against Christians because of the actions of Christian extremists.

 

Thanks for clarifying; I really didn't know what you meant.

 

I do not talk about violent fundamentalist Christians differently, personally.  You can see my comments in the Presidential Politics thread, circa January maybe?  Or maybe December? 

 

And we have attacked such sects, if not with bombs.  Ruby Ridge and Waco would be two examples.  More recently, and without bombs, or even violence, Malheur.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Eleven

[JohnRobertEichel]

I don't think no-go zones are a real thing. I don't know anything about the Pew polls (would love to see what you're talking about though), but I do know that fascism is on the rise in Europe and here, as you note, and I do think terrorism is the reason.

 

Here's the full Pew report from 2013: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

 

I assure you that Islamic no-go zones in Europe are very real and very serious. In the United States? Not so much. The only one of any significance is in Dearborn, Michigan. And that one pales in comparison to what you'll find in the major cities of countries like England, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden.

[SwampD]

A question from the ignorant......

 

Can someone give me a non-partisan description of what a no go zone is?

It's that area in Patterson, NJ with that weird chicken place. Not sure Islam has anything to do with it.

[Thwomp!]

Thanks for clarifying; I really didn't know what you meant.

 

I do not talk about violent fundamentalist Christians differently, personally.  You can see my comments in the Presidential Politics thread, circa January maybe?  Or maybe December? 

 

And we have attacked such sects, if not with bombs.  Ruby Ridge and Waco would be two examples.  More recently, and without bombs, or even violence, Malheur.

There's plenty of fanaticism to go around for many religions. The mass blame is primarily directed at one, however.

 

And personal and political reactions are quite different based on religion including to the examples you provided,so I disagree to that equivalence argument.

[Claude_Verret]

There's plenty of fanaticism to go around for many religions. The mass blame is primarily directed at one, however.

 

And personal and political reactions are quite different based on religion including to the examples you provided,so I disagree to that equivalence argument.

Would you agree that the scope of murderous violence and pervasiveness of fanatical influence with Islamic extremism dwarfs the same from other religious flavors?

[Thwomp!]

Would you agree that the scope of murderous violence and pervasiveness of fanatical influence with Islamic extremism dwarfs the same from other religious flavors?

I would agree that it seems that way. Whether it's a fact or not I'm not sure about.

 

It also doesn't change my main argument of mass blaming based on the fanaticism of a few.

[North Buffalo]

Would you agree that the scope of murderous violence and pervasiveness of fanatical influence with Islamic extremism dwarfs the same from other religious flavors?

At current moment in time, yes, overall in history no, Christianity has a much worse reputation in South America with the conquistadors, the middle ages and the "Holy" Roman Empire. The Crusades being only the tip of the iceberg. Even the expansion of the colonies and its quasi religious attitude towards Native Americans, let alone the Salem Witch trails.

 

Its an inane arguement anyway because religious extremism in any form is usually bad and tends to be about power and fear not actual religion.

Edited March 23, 2016 by North Buffalo

[Claude_Verret]

I would agree that it seems that way. Whether it's a fact or not I'm not sure about.

 

It also doesn't change my main argument of mass blaming based on the fanaticism of a few.

I think that can be turned around to say that the mass blaming of an entire religion can only be laid at the feet of a few groups on the fringes. I think the vast majority of people realize the phrase Islamic extremism by itself implies it's only a small subset of Muslims that are responsible for the huge problem the world at large faces.

[Thwomp!]

I think that can be turned around to say that the mass blaming of an entire religion can only be laid at the feet of a few groups on the fringes. I think the vast majority of people realize the phrase Islamic extremism by itself implies it's only a small subset of Muslims that are responsible for the huge problem the world at large faces.

I would hope so but based on media, politics, real life discussions, and statements in this thread that originally brought me to this discussion, I don't believe this to be the reality.

[Eleven]

There's plenty of fanaticism to go around for many religions. The mass blame is primarily directed at one, however.

 

And personal and political reactions are quite different based on religion including to the examples you provided,so I disagree to that equivalence argument.

 

At the current moment, it's one group that's primarily responsible for the misery, so yeah, that one group is getting the blame.

I think that can be turned around to say that the mass blaming of an entire religion can only be laid at the feet of a few groups on the fringes. I think the vast majority of people realize the phrase Islamic extremism by itself implies it's only a small subset of Muslims that are responsible for the huge problem the world at large faces.

 

Agreed, but what are the leaders of the religion doing about it?  Nothing. 

[Thwomp!]

At the current moment, it's one group that's primarily responsible for the misery, so yeah, that one group is getting the blame.

 

Agreed, but what are the leaders of the religion doing about it?  Nothing.

 

Understood. Your definition of group is much larger than mine.

 

And in addition to the double standard issue I see, why do you think that mainstream religious leaders and what they say will have any effect on fanatics who aren't in the mainstream to begin with?

[Eleven]

Understood. Your definition of group is much larger than mine.

 

And in addition to the double standard issue I see, why do you think that mainstream religious leaders and what they say will have any effect on fanatics who aren't in the mainstream to begin with?

 

I think if you scroll up and look at some of my remarks from yesterday, it might answer your question.

[Thwomp!]

I think if you scroll up and look at some of my remarks from yesterday, it might answer your question.

I read those. They helped bring us to where we are now.

 

I am also going to demand that Christian religious leaders prove that their religion is peaceful the next time a Christian commits mass murder and terrorism based on a warped view of that religion.

[darksabre]

At current moment in time, yes, overall in history no, Christianity has a much worse reputation in South America with the conquistadors, the middle ages and the "Holy" Roman Empire. The Crusades being only the tip of the iceberg. Even the expansion of the colonies and its quasi religious attitude towards Native Americans, let alone the Salem Witch trails.

 

Its an inane arguement anyway because religious extremism in any form is usually bad and tends to be about power and fear not actual religion.

Bingo. The big thing we tend to miss with discussions of terrorism is that we focus on the religious aspect without realizing that it really has nothing to do with the motivation of the terrorist groups or individuals. This current brand of Islamic Extremism, while based on Sunni Islam, really has nothing to do with Islam at all. It has a lot more to do with rejection from and of western society.

 

A lot of people spend time being confused as to why someone born in the US, or someone born in the UK would intentionally leave those places to join an extremist group like ISIS, but it's really not difficult to see what might motivate these people. They're anti-social. They feel that the world they live in has wronged them in some way and they can use hyper-conservative Islam to salve their wounds. 

 

When you look at the numbers of people who practice Islam, hyper-conservative Islam is a very small group of the overall religious base. And of those hyper-conservatives the extremists are an even smaller group. There are fewer people rallying behind the ISIS flag than showed up for Woodstock, and it's not like getting people into the peace and love movement took a whole lot of effort. We shouldn't be surprised, or impressed

 

What we have with ISIS is a highly motivated group of antisocial people using their religion for their own personal gain. The interesting part with ISIS is that it's essentially just practicing a more radical extension of existing governments in the ME. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia used Wahhabism to make itself rich from selling oil to the West. ISIS is simply following suit. Groups attempting to topple existing governments over there is a tale as old as time. There's nothing truly unique about ISIS other than that they've also elected to target the West as well. Western money influences their existing governments and they don't like it. They want Western money for themselves. 

 

I'm honestly only scratching the surface and this comes off as maybe being disjointed, but I think if you're blaming Islam as a whole, you're ignoring everything else that goes into motivating terrorism. 

 

Regarding condemnation by Muslim leaders, I'm not sure who that is being directed at. There are sooooo many different sects of Islam with wide ranging belief systems, some that we don't even know much about. Assad is Alawite (technically Sunni) which is the majority version of Islam in the Syrian govt, but many Sunni Muslims reject the Alawite. Who the hell understands the nuances of that conflict here? I don't. 

 

The sheer scale and diversity of the Muslim faith makes it very difficult to ask "leaders" to do anything. All it shows is a completely lack of understanding of the historical conflicts of the Muslim world, the nuances of which might as well be rocket science to the average Westerner. 

[Eleven]

I read those. They helped bring us to where we are now.

 

I am also going to demand that Christian religious leaders prove that their religion is peaceful the next time a Christian commits mass murder and terrorism based on a warped view of that religion.

 

If these wackos were Catholics or Episcopals, they'd be excommunicated freaking instantly.