Slashdot Mirror


Belgian Raid Kills 2, Said To Avert "Major Terrorist Attacks"

As reported by CNN, Reuters, and other outlets, a raid in the Belgian city of Verviers -- one of several counter-terrorism actions in the country today -- ended in the death of two men, and the capture of a third, who are said to have been planning imminent acts of violence akin to the ones earlier this month in France. From Reuters' coverage: Coming a week after Islamist gunmen killed 17 people in Paris, the incident heightened fears across Europe of young local Muslims returning radicalised from Syria. But prosecutors' spokesman Eric Van Der Sypt said the Belgian probe had been under way before the Jan. 7 attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. ... Describing events in the quiet provincial town just after dark, he said: "The suspects immediately and for several minutes opened fire with military weaponry and handguns on the special units of the federal police before they were neutralised." ... Earlier in the day, prosecutors said they had detained a man in southern Belgium whom they suspected of supplying weaponry to Amedy Coulibaly, killer of four people at a Paris Jewish grocery after the Charlie Hebdo attack. After the violence in Verviers, La Meuse newspaper quoted an unidentified police officer saying: "We've averted a Belgian Charlie Hebdo."

257 comments

  1. And they may have. by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They may have averted their own Charlie Hebdo event, but sadly, the credibility of both sides of the "War on Terror" has been shot to hell -- primarily because of the actions of government which they thought people would take lying down. Most of them have, but even if they aren't in the streets protesting, they'll still roll their eyes and say "yeah, right".

    Let's assume for the moment that this is completely legitimate, and an opportunity for the authorities to win back some respect. If so, they should carry the ensuing trial(s) openly for all to see. "We used surveillance programs to detect X, Y, and Z and couldn't have done it without them because A, B, and C" is exactly the sort of rational argument we'd like to see. If it turns out they did it through traditionally acceptable (like warrants) means, this weakens the argument of being able to do an end run around such procedures. Obviously this would be unwelcome from an authoritarian perspective, but it might win back some trust from those of us who do respect the actions of legitimate and responsible investigators.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:And they may have. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 0

      My question is for all any citizen of any country has given up in liberties in the name of the government to protect them from terrorists has it actually been worth the cost?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    2. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you not notice the part where the third wasn't killed?

    3. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they detail exactly how they catch these guys, future terrorists will pay attention and avoid that for next time.

    4. Re:And they may have. by reikae · · Score: 1

      There was also mention of a third suspect who was in custody, although with injuries so they may be unable to speak as well.

    5. Re:And they may have. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Ask the French. They, unlike a good deal of Europe that followed the rule of the European version of the SCOTUS and canceled the data retention laws, do still have total surveillance.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: And they may have. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Shush, don't bother this guy with facts. You're just making little tears in his comfortable conspiracy-cocoon.

    7. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden: GOVERNMENTS SPY ON YOU
      The World: OMG WHAT THAT IS ILLEGAL AND UNPOSSIBLE AND AAAAAAAAAAAA
      Belgian Government: We just prevented another Charlie Hebdo.
      The World: [citation needed]

    8. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they don't provide any proof of terrorism then they might just as well give up the government and join ISIS.
      What is the point of protection from terrorists if the government can just kill people without providing proof?

    9. Re: And they may have. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, if the next would avoid having (military) weapons then that's a positive start.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Who says there is no proof that will be shared?

      2) Proper warrants were served. While processing one of those warrants, the guys who eventually got killed, as well as the one who was injured and arrested, immediately started shooting like crazy with automatic weapons.

      Also remember that this is not the gun-crazy US. The fact that they had automatic weapons ready to use is a very big sign that they were not exactly you average peace loving citizens.

    11. Re:And they may have. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      We tried that here with the whole Stingray thing. Even though we now know about that tech, it still doesn't help anyone gain any "respect" towards law enforcement. If anything it makes them more untrustworthy as it had to be practicably beaten out of them.

    12. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, as a French, I will tell you: the attacks of last week only happened because of the effective control that exists in France to keep surveillance away from the innocent and the general population. The two first attackers were known to the authorities for joining jihad in Syria; they were sent to jail when they came back and had their phone wiretapped for 3 years after they were reselased. In July 2014, the national commission on phone surveillance disallowed the secret services to continue wiretapping these two, since they had done nothing wrong had just become regular citizen (they are NOT allowed to wiretap without a warrant and they need strong clues on possible terrorist attacks to get one). It wasn only six month later these guys decided to origanize the attacks; few more month of wiretapping warrant and the attacks were prevented (just like they were today in Belgium).

    13. Re:And they may have. by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      The real problem is that these people managed to collect lots of weapons. How did they get these weapons? Why is nobody asking how they got their weapons? What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer? Plus severe punishment for anyone trying to smuggle illegal guns in the country, or selling illegal guns? That would be something that should stop that kind of terrorism, while not affecting any ordinary citizen.

      The problem isn't stopping terrorists. The problem is stopping terrorists without turning the country into a police state.

    14. Re:And they may have. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine?

      No small arms manufacturer would ever directly sell to any French government agency.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuckface, lots of people are asking this question, and the reporting is out there, all you have to do it look.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

      "What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer?"

      Good grief, are you really this stupid? First of all, the law says that these men cannot have guns, espcially fill auto guns. Fat lot of good that law did in this case huh? Get a clue douchebag, people who intend on killing others, be they actual-in-fact mozzie animal terrorists, or be they simple run of the mill criminals, don't really give a shit what the law says, so the acquisition of the firearm is really the least of their crimes. The only real impediment to them getting a gun is getting hold of the money, which in the end isn't that hard for anyone to do anyway.

      That said, all this gun control ends up doing is preventing men of moral character and people who respect the law and the lives of other men, from having firearms that can be used to protect themselves and those around them. If only the CH cartoonists had been carrying in that meeting room! Lives could have been saved, perhaps a lot of them! Wouldn't that have been a wonderul thing? Guns are not evil, they are used by people who want to protect themselves from evildoers, that is not a bad thing, that is a good thing.

      Hey idiot, do you think Obama, who is pro gun control, or Bloomberg who is also (just to name a few) would ever go out in public without armed bodyguards? These men do not hate guns, they just hate it when other free men have guns. Don't you ever think for a second or two why this would be? Why do people who want to prevent gun ownership of the masses, always keep guns around themselves?

      Wow, self preservation, what a concept.

      Fuck you assholes and your mindless knee jerk antigun idiocy. You assholes want only to keep me from having the means to protect myself and my loved ones from other men who might seek to inflict harm on us. That makes me fucking pissed off.

      Asshole.

      Yet another illustration of the fact that legit gun owners must jump through endless hoops and be allowed to defend themselves at the whim of whatever statist entity, but terrorists, criminals, et. al. can pick their stuff up anytime they want, do whatever they want with it, pretty much anywhere they want. Whenever they want. The states love these kinds of events, because they can keep scaring their herds of sheep and pretend to be the ever-vigilant sheepdogs, who just need to pass some more laws and clamp down some more on ordinary schmuck Mundanes like us.

      On the other hand, my sympathy is limited for the vics at the Charlie Hebdo offices; you just canâ(TM)t expect to keep flipping the bird worldwide to a billion hadji bastards and then act all surprised when two of them cruise through your front door firing AKs at you, as you sit there unarmed with your thumb up your ass.

      This and other recent incidents have shown the hadjis that they can get away with it with nearly utter impunity. So it will be interesting when they start kicking it off over here, back in the World, so to speak.

      Youâ(TM)ll excuse me now while I check the local Amtrak station for anyone who might be selling RPGs or sumthin.
      Yet another illustration of the fact that legit gun owners must jump through endless hoops and be allowed to defend themselves at the whim of whatever statist entity, but terrorists, criminals, et. al. can pick their stuff up anytime they want, do whatever they want with it, pretty much anywhere they want. Whenever they want. The states love these kinds of events, because they can keep scaring their herds of sheep and pretend to be the ever-vigilant sheepdogs, who just need to pass some mo

    16. Re:And they may have. by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      You seem to believe that the terrorists bought their assault rifles on Amazon direct from the manufacturer and had them delivered by parcel post.

      As this wasn't in the US, it's not very likely.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:And they may have. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      First of all, the law says that these men cannot have guns, espcially fill auto guns. Fat lot of good that law did in this case huh? Get a clue douchebag, people who intend on killing others, be they actual-in-fact mozzie animal terrorists, or be they simple run of the mill criminals, don't really give a shit what the law says, so the acquisition of the firearm is really the least of their crimes.

      In Britain, it's even harder than in France to acquire guns. The two psychos who killed Lee Rigby had to run him down in a car and use blades.

      You can't stop desperate people murdering other people, but you can certainly make it more difficult for them to commit mass atrocities.

      Do you seriously believe that machine guns and high explosives should be available to buy anonymously off the shelf in a supermarket?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Belgian here. I can't think of any liberties I've given up.

      We are what many would call a "socialistic" state. We don't have an NSA or something that comes remotely close to having that capabilities. We don't have a Patriot Act. We don't have increased expenses towards military or police force. There's very little to no fear mongering.

      Belgian Police stopped a terrorist attack which they investigated using legal means. They killed two suspects that started firing upon police with illegal automatic weapons. The system worked the way it should.

      This is the entire story here. Why is everybody's first reaction here to go completely cynical?

    19. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let me get this straight. Belgian Police is able to avert an actual terrorist attack they investigated legally. Three suspects opened fire and two of them got killed eventually. The third is in custody. And the first reaction of outsiders is to assume they achieved this trough illegal government surveillance and oppression?

      As a Belgian I can't think of anything why the police or national security should "win back some respect" here. Stop assuming things about my country. Stop assuming things altogether.

      This isn't America or the UK. Why does everyone assume that every nation where terrorists get stopped is totalitarian surveillance states?

    20. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you seriously believe that machine guns and high explosives should be available to buy anonymously off the shelf in a supermarket?"

      Of course, I never said any such thing, did I? However, I do believe that any law abiding free citizen should basically be able to buy any firearm they want, yes. Why not? Why should free men be able to arm themselves?

      Oh, yea, like you just said "You can't stop desperate people murdering other people, but you can certainly make it more difficult for them to commit mass atrocities."

      No, you can stop these people, with AK's and with AR-15s, and the like.

      But serious firepower requires serious responsibility, of course. Anonymous purchase, no. But registration and limitations on capacity, features and function? Why? Free men live in a civil society that has laws on actions, for example you cannot take another mans life, of property. These are the things that should be, and for the most part, are illegal. It is not the firearm that takes a life, it is the man.

      And like I pointed out above, France has laws restricting men from having AKs with 30 round mags, full auto capable. That didn't stop them.

      Fuck yes, these CH cartoonists should have been armed. At least they would have had a chance.

      Are you a free man or a slave then tehcyder? Will you use a firearm responsibly, for good deeds or bad? Only you can awnser that, and I can also, knowing the nature of most men, be pretty darn certain you are a man of morals and responsibility. You should be free to arm yourself, as should I.

      An armed society is a polite one.

      The nicest and safest place in my town is the rifle range.

    21. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try troll. Snowden had a shitload of evidence.

    22. Re:And they may have. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Why is everybody's first reaction here to go completely cynical?

      I didn't. I proposed that if everything was done on the level, that they come out and show it to restore public faith. They probably won't, because even saying "we used legal tools -- see, here are our warrants" could have negative consequences for the Police State mentality, even if that mentality does not apply here.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    23. Re:And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they get these weapons?

      They can be smuggled by bus from ex-Jugoslavia. Bus luggage are not X-ray checked, and police will search them only occasionally if someone looks suspicious. To demonstrate this, last year two journalists acting like a tourist couple took some weaponry from Bosnia to Paris and they were not caught.

    24. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey gun nut dipshit, the Charlie Hebdo editor who was killed had an armed police bodyguard... who was killed. The police who were killed outside the Charlie Hebdo office were also armed. In both cases, carrying a gun didn't seem to help...
      Maybe if you weren't so busy jerking off to your assault rifle collection you would have seen these widely reported facts.

  2. Prepare for more by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism. It's an asymmetric war. You can choose to ignore it and the murders, or you can fight it. Staying neutral isn't an option.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Prepare for more by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism.

      By "kept so busy at home" you mean "engaging in productive trade", right?

      Because it certainly wouldn't make any sense to suggest that bombing them, for example, is "keeping them busy" in any materially useful sense, since we have overwhelming empirical data that bombing and any other form of military assault has the primary result of engendering resistance.

      Furthermore, "at home" is Belgium for the people involved in this action, and "at home" was France for the blasphemophobes who murdered the blasphemers of Charlie Hebdo.

      You are right that this is an asymmetric war, but you don't seem aware that that requires tactics very different from bombing or other military action in many cases. Limited military assaults can serve definite purposes, as the case of ISIS shows, but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.

      In fact, there not being a battlefield in any conventional sense was a requirement for winning against the Soviets. Even setting aside the problem of nuclear weapons, if we had met the Soviets on the battlefield we can say with near certainty that the population would have rallied 'round the commisars, and the Soviet Empire would have never fallen.

      As such, our tactical response to Islamists should be primarily--but not exclusively--non-military. It should be economic, political, satirical, even poetical: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...

      It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs. We should be in this for the long haul, and while we should be willing to kill and die now and then, if anyone suggests those should be the primary activities involved, they are simply expressing a profound ignorance of humans, and history, and warfare (both its costs and its effectiveness, which bellicose emotionalists often get wrong.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Prepare for more by reikae · · Score: 1

      I'm curious who you're representing when you say for example "we had" and "our tactical response". Do you mean Christians, or any non-Muslims, or Americans, or something else?

    3. Re:Prepare for more by chipschap · · Score: 2

      I think it's all caused by global warming.

    4. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you totally misunderstood the comment you responded to. The commenter was saying that the terror groups will keep all the other nations (France, US, etc) busy at home responding to terrorist attacks, until those nations get sick of their adventurism in the Middle East. Personally, I doubt that outcome, but either way, you were disagreeing with a phantom argument. Your point about handling it with non-violent responses is good enough on its own though. Sounds more productive than the bombing et al has been.

    5. Re:Prepare for more by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      There is actually a difference between a normal Muslim who has his religion and wants to live his everyday life and an Islamist nutjob hellbent on screwing up the country he lives in.

      To give you an example you might understand, think of it like some everyday Christian vs. the Westboro Baptist loonies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      2015

      IT''S 2015.

      2015

      Think about it. In this age of information, there's a specific religion that murders others out of what they call "blasphemy". In 2015. I can't say Christians were justified in their murders, but holy shit it's far less wrong than doing it now with all the knowledge we have of the universe and our complex societies based on freedom of speech and religion. And you're really equating them to Christians hundreds of years ago. There's not even the slightest probability of Islam reforming, you know why? Because they MURDER reformists. The sects that already exist are there for good. Christianity, while they also had this issue, it devolved really quickly into what we have today: a bunch of fringe denominations that ignore half the bible and only cherrypicks the good things. And let's not forget the very especial parts where they outline God's law and MAN's law (Romans 13:1-7 for instance). All in all, Christianity is far more easy to fit in with civil society. It's the perfect book to cherry pick quotes from since there are so many contradictions.

      Also, while I'm at it, I'll just leave this here. Take it with a grain of salt though.

      From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism):
      In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified, ( http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97 ) in Europe:

      64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
      70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
      83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
      69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10 % sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
      In mainly Muslim countries:

      45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
      61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
      43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
      28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
      69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
      71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

    7. Re:Prepare for more by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.

      It all depends on what kind of battlefield warfare you're willing to fight.

      The TV news friendly, politically popular war where we're real careful about the destruction we cause and the collateral damage and winning hearts and minds is a sure loser.

      Scorched earth total warfare where you ring a population center and utterly bomb it to rubble without any consideration for civilians is winnable. You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.

      The of the firebombing of Tokyo and the A-bomb strikes. The Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man and never surrendering. Once we demonstrated the ability and willingness to just level cities until they capitulated, they capitulated. The alternative was not capitulating and risking the reduction of the Japanese nation to the same footnote status of Carthage.

      How do you think Julius Ceasar won the Gallic campaign? By building roads and schools and promising H1-B visas? You were given an offer to disarm and pledge allegiance to Rome. Your alternative was to have your people killed, your treasure seized and anyone left standing sold into slavery or crucified.

      No, it is not nice in any sense of the word. It is utter brutality and bloodshed. Which is why we should never, ever get into these conflicts unless we're willing to do what successful armies for centuries have done to actually conquer a people.

    8. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And to give you an example you might understand, last week, Islamists killed 2,000 people in Nigeria.

      Remind me, how many people has the Westboro Baptist Church killed?

    9. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly. It wouldn't have happened at 0K.

    10. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I have to agree in this conflict, bombing is too inefficient and costly. A bullet (or several) to the head is much more personal. Still, it was disturbing to hear the Pope speak on the wrong side of this issue. This is the same guy that is issueing an encyclia on global warming. He should probably pray more and talk less. His statements don't seem to be inspired by deep spiritual insight, rather, they seem deeply involved in worldly matters which simply do not inspire me. This is nuts! You've got Popes quitting on God like the last guy. Believe me, we need someone to convince us that eradicating muslims from the planet is wrong, not someone that is fighting with Obama for title of the most traitorous leader of his people! Anyway at least 2 more thug muslims went to heaven today, and that's a win-win as the liberal socialist fucktards say.

    11. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The of the firebombing of Tokyo and the A-bomb strikes. The Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man and never surrendering. Once we demonstrated the ability and willingness to just level cities until they capitulated, they capitulated.

      Not really responding to the overarching point of your post, but the consensus of the allied commanders at the time of the A-bomb attacks was that Japan was ready to surrender very soon, if not immediately, and that if a ground invasion even proved necessary, Japan would fold immediately. It wasn't until much later that the line about Japan fighting to the last man and trillions and bajillions of US casualties was invented whole-cloth, by a desk jockey in no position to know, as retroactive justification, with the number breathlessly increasing every year as the story was repeated.

      The A-bomb was never even about Japan. The sole purpose was to show the Soviets we had the cards, and that we were willing to play them, with the understanding being that they should behave themselves in China better than they did in Europe. We knew the war was already over when we dropped them.

    12. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.

      But to do that in a major (e.g. world) war you need allies. The Nazis were quite brutal but, when the Soviet Union switched from being their ally to their enemy, that really reduced their chances of winning. The Japanese were also quite brutal but when they bombed Pearl Harbor and got the USA off the fence, that really reduced their chances of holding onto the parts of Asia that they had already conquered.

      And then there's the internal "allies" (popular support) that a government needs to maintain a war. Tsar Nicholas II had a pretty good thing going for himself and his family (estimated wealth of $30 billion) but then he insisted on mucking about in WWI and ended up gunned down in a basement with the rest of his family.

      A general trend for countries/empires that have won major wars is that, while they were often brutal to those who opposed them, they were also reasonably nice to those who didn't - they didn't just go around beating up on everyone arbitrarily.

      There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world but only 320 million Americans. There are five Muslims in the world for every one American. It's not clear that there would be any point to an all out war between the all the Muslims of the world and the USA (i.e. both sides would lose far more than they could hope to gain). But it's also far from clear that the USA could win such a war with brutality alone. Most likely other countries would get involved and the outcome would be determined by which side could build the strongest alliances.

    13. Re:Prepare for more by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      And to give you an example you might understand, last week, Islamists killed 2,000 people in Nigeria.

      They live in an impoverished country with little real government to speak of with lots of tribal warfare that may or may not have anything at all to do with religion.

      The Westboro loons live in a country where there is actually strong law enforcement, and the legal system makes it easy to be a real pain in the ass.

    14. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Scorched earth total warfare where you ring a population center and utterly bomb it to rubble without any consideration for civilians is winnable. You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.

      100 percent correct, and unpopular as hell.

      It's like dealing with bullies. at heart, they are cowards, and after making a few examples, thy have a marked tendency to stand down. I would never get into a war that I did not intend to win, and post WW2 history has adequately proven that limited warfare and the unfathomable stupidity of win hearts and minds warfare simply doesn't work - although I believe that the recent longest wars in US history were also a massive corporate welfare project too.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Not really responding to the overarching point of your post, but the consensus of the allied commanders at the time of the A-bomb attacks was that Japan was ready to surrender very soon, if not immediately, and that if a ground invasion even proved necessary, Japan would fold immediately.

      Your point? We did what we did, and they surrendered.

      I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.

      By the way, is consensus truth? The Japanese thought they would demoralize the US by attacking Pearl Harbor. An attack on a possession galvanized us As I recall, there was a certain party that thought that Russia was going to fall quickly, and how did that work out for them?

      Another party was going to get involved in Japan about this time, and seeing what they did to Germany, perhaps you would have found that a superior solution? Would you rather have had Tokyo reduced to the state that Berlin was? It is much fun to Monday morning quarterback. Then we can discard and emphasize as many facts as we like.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's another group to consider, the normal Muslim who has his religion and wants everyone else to be bound by the same rules.

    17. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is actually a difference between a normal Muslim who has his religion and wants to live his everyday life and an Islamist nutjob hellbent on screwing up the country he lives in.

      To give you an example you might understand, think of it like some everyday Christian vs. the Westboro Baptist loonies.

      So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity or didn't convert to their looniness? Very very few Christian terrorists, Northern Irland has some kooks, but otherwise, I wouldn't mind being filled in on the multitudes of Christians bringing down planes, bombing churches, removing peoples heads, or other fun stuff.

      As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

      There is no question that most Muslims are not terrorists. But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim. You just have to decide whether you accept terrorism in the name of religion. You statement makes me believe you do.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Prepare for more by thesupraman · · Score: 0

      So, perhaps then you can explain how the firebombing of dresden worked out so well and got the germans to surrender?

      Moron.

      The Japanese didnt capitulate, their leaders decided to because they didnt want that much of their own blood on their hands.
      Point to the leaders who will be surrendering in the middle east?

      Such efforts have been well studies, and attacking a population results in one thing - giving them stronger resolve.

      Bloodshed has never EVER conquered a people, idiot.

    19. Re:Prepare for more by donaldm · · Score: 1

      It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs. We should be in this for the long haul, and while we should be willing to kill and die now and then, if anyone suggests those should be the primary activities involved, they are simply expressing a profound ignorance of humans, and history, and warfare (both its costs and its effectiveness, which bellicose emotionalists often get wrong.)

      A few years ago I saw an interview with an Imam were he actually said something like the first two sentances.

      In most western societies there is separation between Church and State, hence the reason why Christians had to let go of blasphemophobia however quite a few nasty wars happened before the division was ratified. Even today it is still possible for a Christian to be excommunicated from their church for "blasphemy" although imprisonment, torture and/or capital punishment for this, is not acceptable from a State perspective.

      In most Islamic countries there basically is no separation between Church and State, hence blasphemy and anything counter to what is interpreted in the Quran is predominately dealt with imprisonment or some sort of violence against the perpetrator. Will it take another 500 years before Islam has this separation? If the answer is "yes" then that is an excuse because for better or worse we are all living in the same time frame on this planet.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    20. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany was willing to surrender to the U.S. and British forces... but not the Russians. By the end of 1944, Germany was drowning in their own shit in fear of what the Russians would do to them (for good reason).

      Firebombing works. Ugly as fuck, but it works. Nothing says 'surrender or die' like massive overnight fatalities.

    21. Re:Prepare for more by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world but only 320 million Americans. There are five Muslims in the world for every one American. It's not clear that there would be any point to an all out war between the all the Muslims of the world and the USA (i.e. both sides would lose far more than they could hope to gain). But it's also far from clear that the USA could win such a war with brutality alone. Most likely other countries would get involved and the outcome would be determined by which side could build the strongest alliances.

      Total warfare is an overarching military philosophy, it is not a specific campaign strategy.

      We speak of Islamic extremism, but most generally we experience a particular flavor of Arab-dominated Islamic extremism made possible right now by a handful of weak and failed Arab states, bounded by Lebanon on the North and West, Syria and Northern Iraq in the Center and Yemen in the South. Arab states with functioning governments and effective central control have little problems with jihadis, they are treated as an internal problem.

      Imposing order on these areas would vastly minimize the breeding ground for this kind of terrorism.

    22. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 64% of Muslims in France said violence was never justified. Wow! Only 64% - why such a low number? How many Christians in the United States would not support violence? Got to believe it would better than 64%

    23. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bloodshed has never EVER conquered a people, idiot.

      I wanted to see if this comment looked stupider by itself.

    24. Re:Prepare for more by markass530 · · Score: 1

      " but the consensus of the allied commanders at the time of the A-bomb attacks was that Japan was ready to surrender very soon, if not immediately, and that if a ground invasion even proved necessary, Japan would fold immediately"

      Gotta throw the bullshit flag at that

    25. Re:Prepare for more by markass530 · · Score: 1

      except in both of the christian examples no one gets dead

    26. Re:Prepare for more by markass530 · · Score: 2

      "Northern Irland has some kooks,"

      By that logic I Could say "The Middle east has some kooks, but otherwise"

    27. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim.

      The other day I was pondering the question of "What is a terrorist?". I mean, taken literally, a terrorist would be someone who causes terror. But what terrifies me? In my case, not death, per se. But there are much worse things than the sweet oblivion of death. I've traveled the world and seen desperate poverty up close and personal. The thought of people I care about being trapped in desperate poverty scares me. I do lay awake sometimes in the wee hours of the morning with cold fear in the pit of my stomach wondering whether I'll be able to keep my daughter from falling into poverty. If I were to die of cancer in the next few years, things would be pretty tough for my wife and daughter. But is that terror? And, if so, who is to blame? Why don't we live in world where anyone willing to do an honest days work can easily find work that pays enough to live simply but comfortably?

      But, while it might not literally terrify me, a high probability of being killed would almost certainly concern me. If some small group of people got their hands on weapons that allowed them to kill a billion people in a single attack, and they were clearly intending to kill many billions more unless their demands were met, then I would probably talk things over with my wife and say, "Well, dear, I'm looking at the situation and I'm thinking that there's a good chance we may not survive this so perhaps I should take few days off work so we can have some quality time together before we're killed?" I wouldn't really call such a group "terrorists" but perhaps "concernists" - as they would be a significant cause for concern. Fortunately, though, such groups have yet to exist.

      And what of people just killing each other generally for whatever reason? Well, that happens a lot. And many more die indirectly (e.g. of poverty) as a results of the callous indifference of others. I mean, yeah, pretty much all of it is unfortunate but the causes are all so diverse it's hard to identify any single pattern or cause. Sure, you've got things like 9/11 and the various school shootings in the USA. But then you've got other things like the USA war on Iraq and the resulting rise of ISIL. And then there's always the general background of violent crime.

      You just have to decide whether you accept terrorism in the name of religion.

      So the thing is, that's not really a binary decision. First, you have to try to figure out what that even means. And then you have to look around at all the really bad stuff going on in the world (poverty, disease, and all sorts of violent conflicts) and figure out how much you care about "religious terrorism" relative to everything else. I suppose there are some people out there who are so insanely lucky that they have lived such extremely sheltered lives that Charlie Hedbo type incidents actually seem scary. But there are a lot of people who just shrug at one more little drop in the vast ocean of human misery and wearily get on with their lives.

    28. Re:Prepare for more by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      I was getting ready to tell you that bullshit flag wasn't gonna fly, as I also was under the impression that Japan would have surrendered soon even if the bombs hadn't been dropped. But it seems there's still quite a bit of controversy regarding the point:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

      So your call of bullshit may or may not be correct, but we'll probably never know definitively one way or the other.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    29. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remind me, how many people has the Westboro Baptist Church killed?

      Remind me, how many people has Eric Rudolph killed? How many people has the Lord's Resistance Army killed? How about Anders Breivik?

    30. Re:Prepare for more by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Well spoken sir, and well thought out. I wish I had mod points.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    31. Re:Prepare for more by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The Westboro Baptist people are not even a Church. They are just lawyers trying to provoke people into hitting them or denying them free speech rights so they can sue.
      There is no comparison between them and other Christians. You would be better suited to compare typical Christians to David Koresh. I think you will find the normal to nutjob ratio in Christianity is orders of magnitude higher than in Islam.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    32. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a difference between a normal Muslim who has his religion and wants to live his everyday life and an Islamist nutjob hellbent on screwing up the country he lives in.

      To give you an example you might understand, think of it like some everyday Christian vs. the Westboro Baptist loonies.

      So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity or didn't convert to their looniness? Very very few Christian terrorists, Northern Irland has some kooks, but otherwise, I wouldn't mind being filled in on the multitudes of Christians bringing down planes, bombing churches, removing peoples heads, or other fun stuff.

      As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

      There is no question that most Muslims are not terrorists. But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim. You just have to decide whether you accept terrorism in the name of religion. You statement makes me believe you do.

      Terrorism is a sign of weakness, not of strength. Christians don't do it because they are the ones in power.

    33. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States Military is the largest Christian attack force in the world. Implying Christians aren't pieces of shit means your head is literally inside of your ass.

    34. Re:Prepare for more by sribe · · Score: 1

      Not really responding to the overarching point of your post, but the consensus of the allied commanders at the time of the A-bomb attacks was that Japan was ready to surrender very soon, if not immediately, and that if a ground invasion even proved necessary, Japan would fold immediately.

      Bullshit. After the first bomb the military command was unanimous that they should continue fighting. After the second bomb they were divided. After Stalin declared war on them from the northern front, they surrendered. "Ready to surrender very soon" my ass. It took two atomic bombs, an impending invasion by the US from the south, and an impending invasion from the USSR from the north to convince them to surrender.

    35. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

      Maybe not in recent times, but it was Catholic civilians and mercenaries that went on the Crusades in the middle ages. As well as fighting the muslims they killed many jews in Germany, wiped out the Cathars and slaughtered prodestants - in the name of their religion.

      In many ways some of the muslims and the muslim countries are like middle age europe.

    36. Re:Prepare for more by phorm · · Score: 1

      So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity

      Honestly, given the actions of the WBC, I'm surprised nobody has tried to off their leaders/members.

    37. Re:Prepare for more by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

      Oh, but they would! if you are living in a very very poor country, with no law enforcement and no future, I'm certain that this would breed extremism and of violent sort probably. Whatever the dominant religion there is.

      Trying to portray christianity or some US denominations as somehow peaceful is silly. Just because those religions are operating under a developed society where there is a rule of law (in broad sense), forces them to behave. They would go out of control if given the chance.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    38. Re:Prepare for more by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I agree...it really was Stalin turning on them that did it. Even though the a-bomb was impressive, Japan had 30-50 similar "city leveling attacks" on them per day at that point.

    39. Re:Prepare for more by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "never get into a war that I did not intend to win" I'm not aware of too many countries that purposely engage in wars they intend to loose.

    40. Re:Prepare for more by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      To fill you in: The Lord's Resistance Army

    41. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win a war by ... inflicting massive death and destruction.

      Most likely other countries would get involved and the outcome would be determined by which side could build the strongest alliances.

      Imposing order on these areas would vastly minimize the breeding ground for this kind of terrorism.

      If I understand your context, by "imposing order" you mean "inflicting massive death and destruction" and by "this kind of terrorism" you mean a few people being killed occasionally in European countries. Neither of us has a crystal ball to predict the future with perfect accuracy but I really don't see how such a disproportionate response could avoid damaging alliances and creating new enemies.

      There's a lot of big countries out there in the world (e.g the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India, China) that are mostly just sitting on the fence at the moment. They don't have any special love for the USA but they'll mostly cooperate as long as it's in their own best interest. And then there the predominantly Muslim countries of Pakistan with nukes and Indonesia with a big population - Pakistan's population isn't small either. Even if inflicting massive death and destruction on the Middle East did mean that there'd be a few less people killed in Europe (and that's debatable), and leaving aside the humanitarian issues, it's not clear that it's worth the risk of the escalation into a world war.

    42. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2% of all terrorist attacks in Europe are done by Muslim extremists. That means 98% were done by others.
      Your belief that "most terrorists are Muslims" is utterly wrong if you look at the cold hard facts.

      Source: http://nieuws.marokko.nl/35466/slechts-2-aanslagen-in-westen-gepleegd-door-moslims/s/00660666edc094b8b3f1db5a8bc09ab5/
      (sorry for the language, it's in Dutch)

    43. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and this week the UN investigation into atrocities in CAR determined that Christians had carried out ethnic cleansing of thousands of muslims there in 2014.

      What exactly is your point? That we should cherry pick individual atrocities and use those to paint a group with a shared characteristic as all being guilty of this atrocity?

      Did you know that yesterday some male ISIS members killed tens of people? These ISIS members are men, so all men are obviously terrorists.

      Did you know that last week three French people committed acts of terrorism? Obviously all French people are terrorists.

      The LRA killed thousands of people in recent years and they're Christian. All Christians must be mass murderers.

      Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is, because your logic seems to head down the path of clear absurdity, and yet, when it comes to using muslims as your particular chosen group, you don't see the absurdity in question.

      This should, if you had any comprehension of logic, act to highlight to you that you have a problem- a problem that is in the same category as racism, sexism, and so forth, that you believe a specific trait means it's okay to blame a whole group, even though the majority of that group bear no relationship to what you're implying they're guilty of.

      But I fear that your failure to make a logically coherent argument in the first place means that you'll completely miss this, that you'll somehow believe your argument is correct but my statements above that are clearly absurd, even though they have the exact same logical path as your argument.

    44. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States military is the secular armed forces of a secular government. Denying that means your head is literally inside of your ass.

    45. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wouldn't mind being filled in on the multitudes of Christians bringing down planes, bombing churches, removing peoples heads, or other fun stuff."

      Christians ethnically cleansing muslims in CAR, the LRA carrying out massacres in other parts of Africa, Serb Orthodox killing tens of thousands of muslims in the Yugoslav wars at the end of the 90s and Russian Orthodox still killing many people in the Caucasus. Mexican Cartels carrying out mass beheadings and bombings using Christianity as their justification just as ISIS uses Islam (there's a reason the Knights Templar cartel is called the Knights Templar - a dark ages Christian crusader group).

      Honestly. It's not hard to find examples both in recent history and ongoing. You've just got to look beyond Murdoch's media and similar and start reading other sources that aren't wholly ethnocentrically focussed on what are largely just Anglo-American problems.

      "As far as I know"

      There's your problem. You obviously just don't know very much about this topic given that the examples above aren't exactly that hidden away from public view.

      So I hope you enjoy being filled in, you said you wouldn't mind. Though I get the distinct impression most people making the arguments of ignorance that you have would actually prefer to wallow in their islamophobic ignorance, so please forgive me if I'm skeptical that you meant what you said.

    46. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask anyone who didn't bow to Chinghis Khan, burger-flipping idiot.

    47. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "never get into a war that I did not intend to win" I'm not aware of too many countries that purposely engage in wars they intend to loose.

      Losing is not the same as not winning. Sometimes governments just want to prolong conflicts (see: Vietnam War) so that contractors can sell weapons to both sides, even they lose some soldiers in the process.

    48. Re:Prepare for more by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      but most generally we experience a particular flavor of Arab-dominated Islamic extremism

      So... Boko Haram in Nigeria is Arab-dominated? Huh.

    49. Re:Prepare for more by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.

      Though only after US inflicted crippling economic sanctions on them. I'm not a US basher, but large powers (US, Russia) tend to act like school bullies.. they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack". Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.

      By the way, is consensus truth? The Japanese thought they would demoralize the US by attacking Pearl Harbor. An attack on a possession galvanized us As I recall, there was a certain party that thought that Russia was going to fall quickly, and how did that work out for them?

      Japanese military planning wasn't thinking so much about demoralizing the US, they were thinking about defanging the US. If the carriers had been at port, the war in the pacific would have been different. No amount of battleships could have won the ocean for the allies, you needed carriers for that.

      No carriers = Midway taken easily No carriers = Hawaii vulnerable (easily) No carriers = mainland US vulnerable (to a degree, mainly coastal areas) Yamamoto knew Japan could not win a war of attrition against the US industry, but had he been lucky with the carriers, he could have won years to conquer areas and build up the japanese navy, and perhaps negotiate a peace (which is where the demoralization would have come to effect).

    50. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, are the Christians in radicalized enough to not react against perceived wrongs? Or are they, the two greatreligons, poking each other in the eye to see who will start a war. Eric is still out there, calling for crusades to eliminate anyone not of his faith, you have security companies, weapons companies, etc, wanting more business, would they not torment fear of the other? Profit, the great war maker.

    51. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no question that most Muslims are not terrorists. But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim.

      This is an extraordinary claim. I would like to see it supported by any evidence.

    52. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that any worse then the Vatican? Or the TV evangelist, or fox news?

    53. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity or didn't convert to their looniness? Very very few Christian terrorists, Northern Irland has some kooks, but otherwise, I wouldn't mind being filled in on the multitudes of Christians bringing down planes, bombing churches, removing peoples heads, or other fun stuff.

      You could start by looking at the recent wars in the Balkans, the far right in Eastern Europe who are predominantly religious, or Uganda, where people serve life sentences for being homosexual. Google "eat da poo poo" for a sample of this insanity.

      Srebrenica alone was larger than the most recent tragic and idiotic Boko Haram massacre.

    54. Re: Prepare for more by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Only 64% of Muslims in France said violence was never justified. Wow! Only 64% - why such a low number? How many Christians in the United States would not support violence? Got to believe it would better than 64%

      If you asked a sample of Americans whether violence was never justified to defend themslelves, I imagine a lot less than 64% would agree.

      It depends on what question you ask, and how you ask it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:Prepare for more by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The only unequivocal point is that they did surrender. If they had truly believed in fighting until the last Japanese person died in a ditch, they would have.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:Prepare for more by sribe · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only unequivocal point is that they did surrender. If they had truly believed in fighting until the last Japanese person died in a ditch, they would have.

      No, it is not the only unequivocal point. There are records of the high command's meetings.

    57. Re:Prepare for more by HBI · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, let's be clear about something here. Hirohito was not an absolute ruler, but he had a lot of clout and the people in the Japanese council were eager to spare him the task of making decisions. Also, they feared for their own status after a surrender. It is of note that ultimately, he was the one who announced to the Japanese people that it was time to lay down their arms. So he did have authority and could have chosen to wield it at any time. It is clear that the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima shocked the Japanese, but only the second strike at Nagasaki caused them to sue for peace. In this, both the ruling clique and Hirohito himself can be blamed for sitting on their asses and letting their people get firebombed (whether conventionally or atomically) for too long.

      That said, the bombs came along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Korea...never forget that that happened almost simultaneously. Truman's decision to drop bombs when he did was partially politically motivated inasmuch as there was an imminent plan for the Soviets to invade Hokkaido, the most northerly Japanese home island. This would have entitled the Soviets to an occupation zone in Tokyo and Japan, and we might have spoken later of "communist North Japan" and "South Japan".

      Then, there was the lack of desire to let MacArthur wrap himself in glory in the invasion of Japan itself. Never mind the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of casualties expected.

      It was important to the US for Japan to surrender exactly when Japan did, and no later. The answer is never as simple and black and white as we would like.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    58. Re:Prepare for more by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      The troubles were almost entirely a secular conflict, their religions weren't a significant contributing factor. One side wanted a united Ireland, the other didn't, that was the main bone of contention.

    59. Re:Prepare for more by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      After doing some research, I simply don't know when Japan would have surrendered under other circumstances.

      By the summer of 1945, the Japanese Navy, in some respects the most powerful in the world in early 1942, had been destroyed. Japan had been blockaded, cutting off most raw materials. The ferries carrying coal from the northmost main island to the industrial centers had been sunk, so the economy was collapsing.. The Japanese Army had been bled white, and had lost against any real Western Allied attack for over a year, longer than that against the US and Australia. The Western Allies had defeated Nazi Germany and were redeploying their main forces against Japan.

      Under these circumstances, there were advocates of surrender, but they were getting nowhere. The Army and Navy had a stranglehold on government, and they were determined to resist. The original Japanese strategy against the US was to let the US waste their resources fighting through Japanese defenses until they decided it wasn't worth it, and that strategy was still in effect. The Japanese were making provisions to make the expected invasion of the southernmost main island extremely bloody, and (as we found after the war) the US plans for that invasion were basically what the Japanese expected. The US Navy was losing ships at a steady rate.

      We dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, and the Japanese knew perfectly well what the bomb was, having had a couple of atomic bomb projects themselves (one Army and one Navy). They correctly deduced that it would be a long time before we would have another U-235 gun bomb. Nothing changed. The Soviets attacked. Nothing.

      Then we dropped another one on Nagasaki, of a different sort. The Japanese physicists had thought this impossible, not having considered a plutonium implosion bomb. They had no reason to offer why we wouldn't have a lot more of them fairly quickly. (In fact, the next one was mostly ready to go, and the production lines were ramping up.) There was no reason we couldn't destroy Japan methodically, city by city. The Soviet offensive in Manchuria proceeded inexorably, although I don't know what the Japanese government knew when.

      Sound like a good time to surrender? The Emperor took an unconstitutional initiative towards surrender. The advocates of surrender didn't know what would happen; Anami, the Minister of War, could effectively veto any surrender, and he gave no indication of what he thought. The Emperor recorded a surrender announcement. In it, he mentioned two things about the war: that there was a new and most cruel bomb, and that other than that things had not developed necessarily to the advantage of Japan.

      So, the Emperor had decided, Japan was clearly in a completely hopeless situation, so you'd assume the surrender would go ahead, right? In fact, there were several attempts by lower-ranking people to stop the surrender, including an invasion of the Imperial Palace, and the burning of a government minister's home. (Anami eventually made an oblique comment that appeared to condone the surrender, then committed ritual suicide.)

      What would convince Anami to allow surrender? What would prevent a coup by junior officers determined to continue the war? (The Japanese junior officer corps was high undisciplined in some ways, having kicked off the invasion of China proper without restraint from Tokyo.) Except for the historical process, which I know led to Japan's surrender, I simply don't know. Since I don't know, I have a great deal of doubt about any claim that Japan would have surrendered under X conditions.

      What would happen if the surrender was delayed? The postwar Air Force study concluded that Japan would have surrendered in late Fall if not earlier, and for all I know they may be right. Japan currently occupied a whole lot of China and Indochina (by then, what is now Malaysia and Indonesia would have been liberated). There were hundreds of millions of civilians there, and they were starving. Because the surre

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Prepare for more by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      It's plausible that Japan surrendered because the Soviets attacked, but I really haven't seen evidence for it. The evidence that it was because of the Nagasaki bombing is inconclusive, but it appears stronger than the Stalin explanation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Prepare for more by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The evidence that Germany was willing to surrender to the West is scanty. Hitler certainly wasn't. The German Army kept fighting hard and loyally through February 1945, and I'm talking about fighting against the Western Allies here. In March, the West took about ten thousand prisoners a day, thirty thousand in April, and in May the Germans were almost completely demoralized.

      Nor was Dresden as singular as it's often presented. It was an unusually successful raid, but the number of deaths was greatly inflated for propaganda purposes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:Prepare for more by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thing is, we're not fighting against a government. If we were, we'd just go ahead and win. No Muslim fighting force is anywhere near a match for the US military.

      We're fighting against an unfortunately large number of fanatics. Behind the fanatics are a considerably larger number of people who are willing to support them but aren't going to get involved, and a larger number who think the fanatics are doing the right thing, and so forth.

      When we kill the fanatics, we're probably making progress. When we kill innocents, we get more people turning more towards the fanatics, including turning into murderous fanatics themselves.

      Short of genocide (which would have its own problems), the long-term solution is to defuse the hostilities and get the populations involved to turn more against the fanatics.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re:Prepare for more by tlambert · · Score: 2

      I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.

      Though only after US inflicted crippling economic sanctions on them. I'm not a US basher, but large powers (US, Russia) tend to act like school bullies.. they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack".

      Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.

      And by "crippling economic sanctions", you mean we stopped selling them scrap steel for them to use in pursuit of their war on China, where they were attempting to seize territory so that, among other things, they had the ability to mine to produce their own steel.

      They were kind of expansionist, empire-building, belligerent asses at the time. A conflict was inevitable, even if we'd enabled them to take China, other areas in Asia, and the Philippines.

    64. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "Northern Irland has some kooks,"

      By that logic I Could say "The Middle east has some kooks, but otherwise"

      By your assessment of my logic logic, a bunch of Catholics and protestants were the ones who flew jets into the World trade center.

      As I understand it, it was some other folks wasn't it? Was it Westboro Baptist? Was it the Billy Graham crusade.? Was it the Catholic pope?

      I thinnk all religion is a festering pile of batshit, but last time I checked, it was some other folks pulling all this stuff, and pulling it all over the world, and pulling it wherever they settled.

      How do I know this? They told us so.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    65. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The troubles were almost entirely a secular conflict, their religions weren't a significant contributing factor. One side wanted a united Ireland, the other didn't, that was the main bone of contention.

      I agree. I just wanted to bring them up before some apologist did. In general, it was a local uprising, secular in nature, and they were not flying airplanes into skyscrapers, and praising Allah while they did so

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    66. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      > As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

      Maybe not in recent times, but it was Catholic civilians and mercenaries that went on the Crusades in the middle ages.

      But that isn't who is doing this, so there is no point in trying to justify present day muslim terrorists by ancient Christian asshattery.

      Isn't even my argument, especially since I have a Christopher HItchens level of animosity toward all religions. I can just read the news headlines without even delving into possibly skewed stories - then figure out who is doing what.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    67. Re: Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, it depends on the question. After all, suicide bombers are not defending themselves.

    68. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity

      Honestly, given the actions of the WBC, I'm surprised nobody has tried to off their leaders/members.

      Very true. I personally like the way the comic-con people have dealt with them:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Ridicule. It's hard to hurt people who are laughing at you. So the WBC weirdies left.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    69. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Trying to portray christianity or some US denominations as somehow peaceful is silly. Just because those religions are operating under a developed society where there is a rule of law (in broad sense), forces them to behave. They would go out of control if given the chance.

      I'm not trying to portray Christians as peaceful.

      I am trying to portray them as not the ones doing this shit.

      Are you saying that none of the worldwide terror is being done by muslims? It's someone else? Then who is it? I would love to know, because they keep praising Allah as they kill themslves or others?

      Do you figure we should investigate the Hari Krishnas, because it might be them flying planes into skyscrapers?

      Or do you just want to let them continue to murder people ( perhaps in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - I might have misheard?)

      Or do you want the world converted to their form of religion (Maybe they want us to worship that turtle at the bottom)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    70. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "never get into a war that I did not intend to win" I'm not aware of too many countries that purposely engage in wars they intend to loose.

      How did Vietnam work out? Or Iraq? Korea was a wash. Two losses and a tie. We'll see about Afghanistan soon.

      No one gets in a war in order to lose - except in "The Mouse That Roared". But th e concept of limited war doesn't work, except for the folks making the ammo.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    71. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack". Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.

      Bitch, please. Tell us all about the reasons the US had sanctions. And I love your complete justification for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The big bad bullies in 'murica simply forced them to. We essentially attacked ourselves.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    72. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There is no question that most Muslims are not terrorists. But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim.

      This is an extraordinary claim. I would like to see it supported by any evidence.

      http://www.thereligionofpeace....

      Even if you don't think stoning women is a terrorist act, just one of religious obligation, this is an interesting list.

      And that is where the discrepancy lies. Some folks think that killing wimminfolk for adultry is a just thing, commanded by god. I don't.

      But I answered you, and this gets off topic. You apparently do not believe that the attacks that the attackers themselves claim are done in the name of Allah - these people are not muslims? Then who are they?

      This is the answer I have not gotten, while everyone tries to change the subject.

      I'll put it down below, and I want it answered. Then you can try to turn the topic into my punctuation.

      Who are doing these attacks? Plain and simple, Who flew the planes into the WTC? Who killed the people in France? Who is IS, Who is Al Quieda?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    73. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Thing is, we're not fighting against a government. If we were, we'd just go ahead and win. No Muslim fighting force is anywhere near a match for the US military.

      Very true

      We're fighting against an unfortunately large number of fanatics. Behind the fanatics are a considerably larger number of people who are willing to support them but aren't going to get involved, and a larger number who think the fanatics are doing the right thing, and so forth.

      That tacit approval is the key.

      Without getting into the politics of Iraq, which was a family feud between the Husseins, and the Bushes, if we took a look at Afghanistan, we had the sympathy of the world at that timewe could have put the machinery in place, givein the "government" a little nudge, like a week to hand over Bin Laden, then tear the country a new asshole if they didn't hand him over.

      The hearts and minds thing? Crikeys! They hate us. Some times they form temporary alliances, but in the end, they don't like us at all. Showing them why they should leave us alone will work a lot better. The alternative is never-ending war somewhat similar to the Isreali/Palestinian business, which we are now hip deep in the big muddy

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    74. Re:Prepare for more by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When was the last time the USA had a president (i.e. commander in chief of the armed forces) who was not a Christian? Let's broaden that: when was the last time the USA had a President who did not feel the need to use the fact that he was a Christian in the election to be elected. JFK made the news just by being a different kind of Christian to the other Presidents!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    75. Re:Prepare for more by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      War is the terror of the rich.
      Terror is the war of the poor.

      That's basically it. The main reason Christians don't blow themselves up is that they don't have to. They get what they want anyway.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    76. Re:Prepare for more by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Show me one Presidental candidate that doesn't end his speech with "and God bless" (or similar rubbish) and I show you one that won't even survive the early primaries.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    77. Re:Prepare for more by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Laughter is the enemy of fanaticism. Because, well, there is very little difference between a fanatic and a lunatic.

      And clowns are funny!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    78. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Religion of Peace kills more than that every fucking year, in many cases every month.

    79. Re:Prepare for more by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack". Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.

      Bitch, please. Tell us all about the reasons the US had sanctions. And I love your complete justification for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The big bad bullies in 'murica simply forced them to. We essentially attacked ourselves.

      Sigh.. it's not quite that simple. I do agree that Japan was waging a war on China that was brutal and the sanctions imposed clearly were meant to curb japanese agresssion. But they also put Japan's back to the wall, effectively saying "fight, or surrender" and the Japanese just weren't that good on surrender. The diplomatic core should have made that point so clear that Pearl Harbor would not have come as a surprise.

      And yes, sometimes America tends to be a bully whose own dogs bite him back. Remember those guys called the Taliban? Or Saddam Hussein? Remember who armed and supported those people? Yep, America.

    80. Re: Prepare for more by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Many are - they just see "themselves" as being more than them, but encompassing their community, or their particular brand of religion or culture. I'm not supporting their actions, merely trying to point something out.

    81. Re:Prepare for more by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It started out as a secular conflict, with interesting things like the (to some) father of Irish Republicanism being a protestant, but it quickly degraded into sectarian violence, especially after the British seemed to go out of their way to bolster the protestant population at the expense of the Catholics. The troubles were more to do with social grievances (anti-Catholic gerrymandering, lack of access to jobs & housing, detention without trial used overwhelmingly on Catholics, etc.) than Irish republicanism - the republicanism was a means to an end to stop the British from meddling with the Catholic population, and eventually became the banner under which the anti-British fought. The unionists then bolstered their position in order to maintain their standard of living and the discriminatory institutions which enabled and protected it, and every ounce of success on one side lead to an increase of activity on the other. The split was massively down religious lines, and the scars which still exist attest to that.

    82. Re:Prepare for more by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism isn't defined as "Something Ol Olsoc doesn't like" - it's the use, or threat, of force against a people in order to coerce their politics. Stoning women is clearly not terrorism, just a barbaric practice long since gone from Christianity.

      Just because some terrorists are Muslim doesn't mean they all are, or even most of them are, as you stated above. You are ignoring all the terrorism from other religions, either on purpose or by accident, and then getting confused when people point that out to you. That doesn't make you look very rational, but almost as if you are looking for any excuse to blame Muslims and Islam...

    83. Re:Prepare for more by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Although the split was along religious lines, they may as well have been wearing football jerseys for all the difference it would have made despite the fiery rhetoric handed down by the likes of Paisley and company.

      Territorial dispute, cultural dispute, these could well describe the troubles, but a religious dispute? I mean they weren't arguing about differing interpretations of passages in the bible.

      The origins of the troubles can be traced right back to the Plantations initiated by Queen Elizabeth, which were a deliberate and systematic out programme of uprooting the locals and "planting" fanatical Scottish border reavers on their land, which could arguably be called religiously motivated insofar as the Queen was head of the Church of England, but really it's been plain old fashioned colonial politics from day one.

    84. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Terrorism isn't defined as "Something Ol Olsoc doesn't like" - it's the use, or threat, of force against a people in order to coerce their politics. Stoning women is clearly not terrorism, just a barbaric practice long since gone from Christianity.

      I guess it depends on whether you are the person getting stoned, or the one stoning the person because its "the thing God wants you to do".

      You are ignoring all the terrorism from other religions, either on purpose or by accident, and then getting confused when people point that out to you.

      No confusion here. You're justifying islamic terrorism on the basis that some other groups have engaged in it.

      So Bullshit. Remember the old joke about the guy looking under a streetlamp for his keys when he actually lost them somewhere else - his excuse - "The light is better here". It might be, but you won't find them unless you look where they are, not some hypothetical good place to look

      So tell me. Do you figure we should look at the Shining Path and what they are doing in this case? How about the Irish Republican Army? Maybe they were involved. The Communist Party of the Philippines? You know they might be framing the peaceful.

      Any truly religion independent approach would mean that we have to avoid profiling. I suggest we look into the part that the Ku Klux Klan has in this. Christians to a man, and since some Christians have been terrorists - this is looking pretty suspicious, don't you think?

      Aftyer all, if we look at islamic people as possible terroism suspects, we are profiling correct? I mean it is the religion of peace, then we'd be looking in the wrong place, right? Nothing to see here!

      Here is a listing of Terrorist organizations (US State Department)

      Anything in common with most of them?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      Oh wait - I know, I know! Since religion has nothing to do with this, maybe it's Christopher Hitchens risen form the grave, and wreaking all this havoc. I knew we could blame it on atheists if we tried hard enough.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. I am Honey Trap Hebdo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's all it takes to capture them uncivilised lot, i say make more noise and publish more free-speech depiction of the terrorists and Mohamed.

  4. How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems like ISIS has effectively declared war on the US and Europe. How many attacks like the ones in France, and how many thwarted attacks like the ones discussed here, will it take before we decide to load up and actually take them out? This is different than the last two Iraq wars, and different than Afghanistan. Does anyone know what we are actually waiting for? Is it because there is no oil, or not enough public outrage? Are we waiting for another catastrophic attack to justify our actions? Why are we not taking them out now?

    1. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing I don't get - why is the West - Europe and Americas - allowing anybody to come in from ISIS lands, like Iraq or Syria? I don't have a problem w/ wannabe Jihadis taking the next flight to Baghdad, and then making their way to the frontlines in Raqqa. Let them go there, fight or do whatever ISIS asks them to do, and leave it to them.

      Only thing - when they do leave for that region, take down their names and make sure that their trip is just one way. Impound their passports, cancel their citizenship/visas and make it impossible for them to legally re-enter the West. After all, they either are or embraced Islam, and decided that jihad is what they want to do. Fair enough - so let them go to the battlegrounds in Iraq or Syria where they can fight for their dear caliphate, or do whatever their Arab bosses ask them to do. If they wanna kill other Muslims b'cos they are not the same type as them, that's their problem. Let them all slug it out and determine who represents the true Islam.

      Just prevent them from ever returning, and you won't have the issue of jihad terror in the West.

    2. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They go to first to Turkey and from there to Syria, Turkey does not stamp their passports or check them on the borders with Syria, so no one knows for sure if they have been to Turkey or Syria.

    3. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Europe is doing the same Chamberlain-esque tactics that they did when Germany rose to power in the 1930s. However, instead of land, it is "maybe, we shouldn't 'blasphemy'", which is turning into "maybe we need to pass laws punishing those to speak bad about Islam or else we get bombed". Europe has done nothing to stop ISIS, and in fact has condoned, if not starting to actively recognize IS as a sovereign state.

      Well, not all of Europe. France has had the willpower to stabilize Libya and try to do something in the Middle East while the rest of the continent has been happy to surrender to the religious zealots. France also has had the gumption to say "no" to burqas. Of course, this is why France gets targeted. People may joke about "surrender monkeys", but they step forward while the rest of Europe kneels. Some of the Scandinavian nations refuse to have minarets put up and resist having another foreign violent culture overrun them.

      I am not surprised that IS's propaganda showed Europe under their flag in two years. Hell, it seems that the continent, except for a few holdout nations, will happily cede them the caliphate... just like how Czechoslovakia became Germany's.

    4. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't letting people travel to Syria it is letting them return which shouldn't be that hard to stop. Everytime I return to the US after traveling abroad my passport is heavily scrutinized. And that scrutiny has been applied since well before 9/11. I say just let all the crazies travel to the middle east to live in their glorious Caliphate. Offer reduced airfare to speed them on their way. Stop all bombing missions or other military counterinsurgency missions and let the Caliphate get established. When the population density reaches a certain limit declare the entire area as a free fire test range open to any country on the planet with a bloated missile inventory. We can start by lobbing in a few modern relatively clean tactical nukes to get the ball rolling. Russia, China, US, and any European countries who can muster up the nerve. They can even offer to embed any bleeding heart reporters requesting access by strapping their asses to a cruise missile so they can get a real good look at the situation. Terrorism exists because of an appalling lack of spine by every government on the planet who could have nipped this nonsense in the bud years ago. Those preaching love and understanding and rabidly attacking anyone who dares suggest solving the problem with overwhelming force are just as much to blame for terrorism as those carrying out the indiscriminate violence against the largests groups of unarmed people they can find.There is no such thing as a clean war. Innocents have died in every single war ever fought on the planet. If you cannot distinguish between those who intentionally attack unarmed civilians from those who do everything in their power to avoid killing unarmed civilians when attacking an enemy than you are also part of the problem.

    5. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Why are we not taking them out now?

      Even in endless war, we have to recharge the coffers every so often. Since we are not in any immediate threat of survival as a country, we must wait a while before the next war.

      Remember, normal wars used to require rationing, and other belt tighting, and things like buying "war bonds" in order to cut down on public demand. In endless warfare, you pass on the costs and blame to the next 80-10 year cycle.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Okay, then let them go to Turkey, but cut off all return traffic from Turkey to the West.

    7. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Actually, any bleeding heart reporter who wants to can go there, and get beheaded by ISIS. That too ain't a problem

    8. Re:How many attacks will it take? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 0

      One thing I don't get - why is the West - Europe and Americas - continuing to poke their noses into other countries' business? Yes, terrorists need to be stopped - but how about we just stop creating terrorists? If the US and other countries hadn't been massively interfering in Middle East politics for decades, propping up dictators in the name of Big Oil, causing wars, and doing all sorts of other shitty things, do you really think even the batshit-craziest of Muslims would be so upset about some cartoons that they'd come to our countries to commit suicide just so they could kill us? I sincerely doubt it. No, we went out of our way repeatedly to make enemies in the Middle East long before Charlie Hebdo added one more insult to a long list of grievous injuries.

      Have you ever read Frank Herbert's 'Dune'? The Fremen are an object lesson in what happens when people with an extreme religious streak whom you've oppressed for a long time finally acquire the wherewithal to fight back. And interestingly enough, Fremen culture was clearly modelled on Middle Eastern cultures.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    9. Re:How many attacks will it take? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "we have to reload the coffins every so often." FTFY

    10. Re:How many attacks will it take? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Seems like ISIS has effectively declared war on the US and Europe. How many attacks like the ones in France, and how many thwarted attacks like the ones discussed here, will it take before we decide to load up and actually take them out? This is different than the last two Iraq wars, and different than Afghanistan. Does anyone know what we are actually waiting for? Is it because there is no oil, or not enough public outrage? Are we waiting for another catastrophic attack to justify our actions? Why are we not taking them out now?

      And then you wonder why they hate you.

    11. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The West is naive to think that they can control these monsters. First of all young Muslims have no idea of freedom from childhood, grow in large families without hope of any job or money and easily brainwashed. So, instead of rushing to help the refuges, let the Muslim world take care of them. Why are they not helping these people. Most uneducated middle eastern people just want food and shelter and be left alone. They like to be controlled so freedom does not mean anything to them. So, if some one goes out to join Jihadis, expel or deport all the relatives and never allow them to return. Also, just like Pakistan, create a separate court – Military type tribunal to try jihadis, drug lords, Mafia and gangs and do not allow the money making lawyers to waste money and time. Allow only highly qualified engineers, doctors over the age of 35 with families to immigrate. Get them under oath that they will respect our political system but can practice their religion in their homes. Saudi Arabia does not allow other religion to be practices explicitly. So, we need to be more pragmatic and cannot talk about our fundamental rights. Once the immigration and deportation from Europe starts, most law abiding Muslims will live in peace and contribute to the socity. Europe should start deporting fanatics and mullahs and allow only government employees, doctors and engineers to be readmitted. Let the middle eastern countries find their own solution. Ebola or famine who helps these people? We, so let us be pragmatic. US should have citizens, immigrants, non-violent illegals and enemies of the West.

    12. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are having troubles in making that into a law so that it also allows our own citizens to go fight for neighboring countries when the need arises. I know we have had ukrainian double citizens go home to fight for their country. And we see no reason to forbid their return. We are also ok with our citizens being mercanaries, just like US is. You have civilians killing people in far away countries for money and then returning home. That's basically like working as a contract killer, but for some reason it's ok.

    13. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well that would require removing Turkey form the EU with that whole freedom of movement thing

      --
      Time to offend someone
    14. Re:How many attacks will it take? by delt0r · · Score: 2

      Then you go through Greece into Turkey to where ever you want to go. It is not that difficult to travel in and out of a the EU without passports.It is just inconvenient.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    15. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turkey is not a member of the EU.

    16. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, I suggested making it one way. They can go to Turkey and then into Syria, but don't allow them to come back to the West. Whether it's via Turkey or anywhere else. I don't think Greece has very friendly relations w/ Turkey, so they're not gonna allow Muzzies to return to the West via Athens.

    17. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Allow only highly qualified engineers, doctors over the age of 35 with families to immigrate. Get them under oath that they will respect our political system but can practice their religion in their homes.

      Don't allow even that. Remember Mike Habash, a Pali VP of Engineering at Intel? He had the best life a Muzzie could hope for, and yet, he attempted to go to Afghanistan to fight alongside al Qaeda. So don't get suckered into the idea that just b'cos someone has a PhD or otherwise a genius that he won't be a Jihadi. There is little co-relation b/w the 2.

    18. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That's what I said. Allow them to leave, but don't allow them to return. Even Ukrainians - if you wanna allow them to go to the Donbass to fight the Russians, why allow them to come back? But even that can be done on a case by case basis - if Ukrainian militias aren't attempting to make France into another Ukraine, there is no problem in them coming back. But Muslim fighters who come back are out to make France a part of the caliphate, which is why they should not be allowed to return

    19. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Define 'you'!!! I for one know why they hate us. B'cos they are Muzzies and we ain't.

    20. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they would. The reason Muslims are rabid about cartoons, movies or whatever about Mohammed is that that's what Islam teaches them. In their countries, it's never done. Problem is that they want to spread the Islamic laws of their countries to the West, where they immigrate. Which is why Muslim immigration to the West needs to be not just ended, but reversed.

    21. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called globalization. Isolationism was proven to end poorly by WWs 1 and 2. You have a terribly simplistic world view if you think terrorists are created just because the West 'poked their noses' in somewhere. As far as going to whack ISIS, iirc Iraq actually asked us to come back and finish up.

      massively interfering in Middle East politics for decades

      I think it's actually well over 2000 years. Note that is far longer than the US has been around.

      batshit-craziest of Muslims would be so upset about some cartoons that they'd come to our countries to commit suicide

      Seems like most of them suicide against other people in their own country over reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the West. I think the West is actually somewhat of a sideshow for many of them.

      Yes I read Dune. I enjoyed much of it. But it's a book, not a history lesson from the future. Don't take it too seriously. I don't even want to think what would happen if people took random stuff they read in a book too seriously.

    22. Re:How many attacks will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe has done nothing to stop ISIS

      Several European countries are actively fighting against ISIS and have been for a while.

  5. BAU by benjfowler · · Score: 0

    If brown idiots shooting people for some stupid moon god happens often enough, will we become inured enough to it, that terror ceases to be 'terrifying', and merely becomes a law-and-order/public nuisance issue?

    I do think people lose perspective, and don't understand risk at all. There are likely more people who die from lightning strikes than terrorism.

    1. Re:BAU by slashmydots · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not if they get a nuke. Since Islam is an incredibly violent, sexist, evil false religion (source cited: the Quran) it should simply be outlawed everywhere. I don't give a fuck about religious freedom. All that does is allow Scientology to exist.

    2. Re:BAU by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Since Islam is an incredibly violent, sexist, evil false religion (source cited: the Quran) it should simply be outlawed everywhere. I don't give a fuck about religious freedom. All that does is allow Scientology to exist.

      As long as you're not going to stop there, and you're willing to keep on and get all the YHWH-worshipping religions in one swell foop, I'm right beside you. They're all sexist now, whatever the original intent of any of them might have been, and that alone is reason enough to sweep them off the board even if being guilt-based weren't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:BAU by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      evil false religion (source cited: the Quran)

      Out of curiosity, what would you consider a "true" (not false) religion?

      And by not giving "a fuck about religious freedom," what exactly are you advocating? The thought police?

    4. Re:BAU by ShopMgr · · Score: 2

      You nuke a city, we nuke a city. I say we start with Mecca. Three times a day, you can kneel, bow, and remember - for 10,000 years.

    5. Re:BAU by shadowrat · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, what would you consider a "true" (not false) religion?

      I've been told there are some sects of buddhism that believe we can't possibly know any metaphysical crap and just need to focus on the here and now. i'm paraphrasing, but that sounds like a pretty rational basis to start with.

    6. Re:BAU by umafuckit · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you're singling out Islam. It's no more false a religion than any other, since they're all just made up by people and not "true" in any meaningful sense. Religions are often pretty sexist, certainly both Judaism and Christianity can be, so Islam is no exception there (even though it can be on the nastier end). Religions in general have a tendency to violence, as they creates a strong sense of righteousness in their believers. Christianity has been pretty damn violent and oppressive in the past. Saying that an established religion should be outlawed just isn't helpful and doesn't display an understanding of the situation we have.

      I agree that Islam can be violent. I also disagree with people who say that the fanatics have "twisted" Islam into something violent and aren't true Muslims. As far as the fanatics are concerned, they are true Muslims. Given that there's no absolute truth in religion, since it's all just made up, it seems to me that anyone can claim anything they like. So the peaceful Muslims can legitimately say that their religion is about peace and the crazy bastards can legitimately say that it's about killing heretical non-believers. They're both right because these belief systems are incoherent, self-contradictory messes. In the end all organised religion is about power, whether wielded in peace or in anger.

    7. Re:BAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is there the fanatical demand that the GP not 'stop there'? When you have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Taoists and others causing terror and other law & order problems, THEN it will make sense equating them with the others. Charlie Hebdo, for instance, insulted the 3 major religions, but did their staff ever get threatened, much less killed, by any Christian or Jewish fanatics? It was only the Muslims who threatened them and carried it out. Where are the Jewish or Catholic ghettos in Paris, which are no go zones for French police? Where are the churches or synagogues that instruct their sheeple on how to carry out a terror attack for $DEITY? Given all the events of the last 2 weeks, people are quite justified in directing their rage at just Muslims, and not other religious groups

    8. Re:BAU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I've been told there are some sects of buddhism that believe we can't possibly know any metaphysical crap and just need to focus on the here and now. i'm paraphrasing, but that sounds like a pretty rational basis to start with.

      I'm not certain I'd even call that a religion.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:BAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a pretty good reason for Islam to be singled out. There have been close to 25,000 terror attacks since 9/11. It's the reason security clearances thru airports now involve removing shoes, belts, coats and putting them in baggage trays. Which other religious group has carried out relentless campaigns of terror and intimidation worldwide? When was the last time Jews flew planes into skyscrapers? When was the last time Christians issued death threats against newspapers or cartoonists? When was the last time Hindus went off on a religious war to Nepal, planning to return to the West to carry out terror attacks? When was the last time Buddhists made any part of any city ghettos that the city's police couldn't enter? But each of the above has been done by Muslims, and throughout the world - whether it's Jihadi attacks by Abu Sayyaf in Philippines, to last weeks rampage in Paris.

      It's one thing for a group of people to simply believe in an imaginary leader. It's quite another to try and make the imagined diktats of that leader the law for everybody, regardless of whether they believe in it or not.

    10. Re:BAU by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'm not Buddhist, but Buddhism itself doesn't have a deity. So even atheists can be comfortable w/ that one

    11. Re:BAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand what you're saying, but nuking Mecca, even if justified to us by a nuclear attack on a western city, would ensure that this shit will never end for the next 10,000 years.

      Mecca is not a strategic city. Destroying it would clearly be meant to twist a knife in all muslim's sides and would work for that purpose. Including all the Muslims that are currently living in Western nations.

    12. Re:BAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been close to 25,000 terror attacks since 9/11.

      Well, UNICEF claims that about 25,000 children die of poverty every single day.

      Now, we could quibble about which sets of numbers are more greatly exaggerated - yours or mine. But it should be overwhelmingly clear that these "terror attacks" that you are so worked up about are just one teeny-tiny little drop in the vast ocean of human misery that pervades this messed up world.

    13. Re:BAU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why is there the fanatical demand that the GP not 'stop there'? When you have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Taoists and others causing terror and other law & order problems, THEN it will make sense equating them with the others.

      I explicitly said the other YHWH-worshipping religions. So we can eliminate "Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Taoists and others" from your list, since that only includes Islamics, Christians, Jews, and their splinter sects. Your ignorance is spectacular, willful or not. And yes, we continue to see ongoing terrorism by all three of these religions. Most of the christian terrorism is Catholic, but they're still a kind of Christian, so it still counts. I'm not even talking about the inquisition here, although IMO that's still a valid reason to abolish their religion, since they proved they were insufficiently mature to handle the responsibility of being able to tell people what to do. Their whole religion is based on fear and guilt! The catholics are terrorizing their own believers. If you don't think that makes the world a worse place, you're not thinking. Guilt is one of the most powerful motivators we have, and its results are typically negative. But we also occasionally see a honest-to-God Christian right-wingnut terror attack, basically all the terror attacks by white people are by religious white people who always cite their faith as a factor if they bother to make an excuse at all.

      TL;DR: You are disingenuous and/or a total fucking moron when you suggest that my call to abolish "all the YHWH-worshipping religions" slights "Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Taoists and others". No, just Muslims, Christians and Christian sects, and Jews. Get it straight, coward. Then run back to mama and hide behind her skirts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:BAU by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      It's the reason security clearances thru airports now involve removing shoes, belts, coats and putting them in baggage trays.

      Wrong. The reason we have to do that crap is to give the appearance of actually doing something instead of actually doing something. Add in that we are told that these actions are necessary for our protection and it makes people accustomed to hearing that so that other things (NSA domestic spying, terror watch lists, no fly lists, border checks not at the border, FISA court) also seem acceptable. This gives people like my mother the false sense of security and she will parrot lines like "if you have nothing to hide", and "if it stops even one terrorist" while telling people how great these programs are and she really didn't give up anything of value.

      What has prevented another 9/11 even was 2 things, installing locking hardened cockpit doors, and the fact that if some terrorist tries to hijack a plane they will quickly become a red smear on the carpet with their remains stuffed into a airplane toilet. There are plenty of soft targets and anyone could build a bomb or take a semi auto hand gun into an airport security line and law waste to a large number of people but they don't. The simple fact that we don't see daily terrorist attacks tells me that there really aren't that many terrorists or that the ones that do exist are so phenomenally dumb that I am surprised they don't choke on their own tongues. Reality tells me that is it likely both as the few that are caught are so dumb that I find it hard to believe that they managed to find food without help. Take the latest one in the US with the guy wanted to go shoot up the US capitol. How hard is it to buy a firearm and not get noticed in the US. If you have a criminal record or might be being watched, should be assumed if you are planning a terrorist plot, go fucking buy one off Craig's list or out of the newspaper classified from a private seller. Also 600 rounds of ammo isn't much, at deer camp we call that just getting warmed up and will usually go through close to 2000 round putting holes in cans or other things that aren't deer.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  6. Next thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey we better raid this torrent site, they might be sharing some bad caricatures."

  7. God loves.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dead faggots.

  8. I hope they suffered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope their last minutes on earth were terrifying, and painful. And that as they began to black out from the blood loss and pain, they realised that all that awaited them on the other side was nothing. Nothing at all. Forever.

  9. But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm.

  10. I'm going to chose to ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idOHr3r1Qi4

  11. They've had that long. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs.

    They've *had* hundreds of years. What makes you think another hundred years will change anything?

    Christians started tolerating "blaphemy" after they rose to power, and after they got their story straight to the point where they could face academic introspection, and after secular authority was predominantly in charge of the society in which they lived.

    1. Re:They've had that long. by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting fact.

      When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
      Guess how old Islam is?

      Religions age about a 1000 time slower than people.

      You start out young and idealistic, and you try to convert people peacefully. Then you get all angsty in your teenage years and try to force people to believe your way is the right way. Then you slowly mature into adult hood.

      Read the old testament to learn what the jews did in their first 2000 years.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:They've had that long. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting fact.

      When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
      Guess how old Islam is?

      I kind of think it doesn't matter; all you are really saying is that they don't learn from mistakes by watching the people on the road in front of them. They have an example of how to go from being violent to being non-violent, and they are unwilling to follow that example. That's a choice, not them lacking a working example, as Christianity did when they were stumbling around trying to find a road forward. I don't think the situation is comparable, and it's certainly not comparable on time scale, just because both of them are religions.

    3. Re:They've had that long. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      so, around the year 2300 we should expect this to taper off?

    4. Re:They've had that long. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Religions, civilizations, people, they all go through the same stages of life.

      You start off young and starry-eyed. Then you go through your teenage years of rebellion and angst. And then you set off discovering what you want. Then you go do the things you want to do. If you screwed up and your results didn't match your expectations, you go through mid-life crisis. And finally, you sit back and shake your head at all the other younger versions doing the same thing.

      Religions are about 500 years to 7 human years. Civilizations are around 100 years to 7 human years.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:They've had that long. by muecksteiner · · Score: 1

      You start out young and idealistic, and you try to convert people peacefully.

      Interesting idea. Except this is not quite what happened with Islam. You might want to read up on the historical development of that particular religion.

      Hint: the whole "spread it with sword and fire" thing was not just a phrase from the sales brochure. They actually took that fairly seriously from day 1 onwards.

    6. Re:They've had that long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean when they were repelling Muslim invaders?

      P.S. If you want to see "hyper violence" in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:They've had that long. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      And yet when Christianity was in it's dark ages, and islam and the arbors saved their history guess how old islam was?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:They've had that long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, since Islam caused the dark ages and never did find a library they couldn't burn, I don't think they should get much credit for missing a few books here and there.

    9. Re:They've had that long. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Muslims didn't take "spread it with sword and fire" seriously from day 1 onwards. There were long periods in which they were very tolerant of other religions. They had a tax for nonbelievers, but that was a whole lot nicer than most of Christendom towards nonbelievers at the time. (I've been told that the tax was less than what Muslims were expected to give, but I'm not personally sure of that. Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, so it could well be.)

      Arab Muslims did not seem to be this fanatical early in the 20th Century. This extremist fanaticism looks to be a fairly recent (and very unwelcome) development.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:They've had that long. by muecksteiner · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: "spread it with sword and fire" was literally from day 1 onwards - take a look at some history books that don't only gloss over the early days of Islam.

      You are right that they did relax somewhat later on, once power in the newly conquered territories had been stabilised the hard way. Note that I said "somewhat", though: the inferior treatment of unbelievers did not only take the form of extra taxes: they were fundamentally second class citizens. Their testimony was not worth as much as that of a Muslim in court (if it was allowed at all), they were only allowed to own certain amounts of property (if that), could not intermarry with Muslims, and were more harshly punished for any transgressions - in particular, if the transgression had been inflicted on a Muslim.

      This treatment was actually to a large part responsible for the "brain deflation" suffered by the Islamic empires the centuries after their establishment. After the very violent initial phase, religious minorities were treated sort of bearably - but not in a way that was really tenable in the long run. In the long run, lots of smart unbelievers converted, if only to save themselves the sort of hassle that their parents had to endure. And if there is one Achilles heel to actual Islamic culture (at least the old school version of it), it is that it is very poor at science and learning: once the old scientist caste of the Hellenistic culture they had taken over had converted, their technological and scientific edge evaporated over the space of only two generations or so.

      Most of the fabled science of early Islamic empires was done by the people who had been doing science before the Muslim conquests: Hellenistic men of learning, i.e. unbelievers who were taken over from the old system. Quite a number of them converted, and had a quite reasonable working environment for their day and age. However, the supply of new scientists dried up after that: universities that actually teach people to think critically are not really wanted in a warrior religion that demands total obedience of its followers.

      If you think that I am exaggerating, take a look at the atrocious performance of pretty much all higher education institutions in the Arab (!) Muslim world. I am emphasising "Arab Muslim" here, as the newfound Muslim conservativism you mention is most prevalent there. There are some Islamic states, like for instance Malaysia, that have functioning educational systems, and universities. But the cultural make-up of Malaysian society is fairly different from classical Muslim Arab culture.

    11. Re:They've had that long. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I agree that the sword and fire stuff was in place from Day 1, but not that it was continuous since then. There have been periods of more or less toleration, and in many times you were better off as a Christian in Muslim lands than as a Muslim in Christian lands.

      The Islamic Golden Age (which was an enlightened period) is normally considered to have lasted from 786 to 1258, which seems rather long to base it on converts, and some of the notables seem to have distinctly Arabic names.

      I'm going to suggest that a lot of failures of Arab culture are probably a result of centuries of essentially colonial rule, and that the Ottomans were not particularly enlightened colonial masters.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:They've had that long. by muecksteiner · · Score: 1

      It's actually a lot more subtle and complex than either of us has said so far.

      For instance, the Arabic sounding names of some of the notables of the Islamic Golden Age were just "noms de plume": they actually were not Muslims, but found it easier to work under an Arab-sounding pseudonym. But this only applied to some of them - there were plenty of actual Muslim scholars in that era. The initial focal points of learning were Hellenistic, but I was oversimplifying things when I said that the science of the era was only Hellenistic, and did not carry over to the actual Muslim part of the population.

      However, two things seem to be noticeable even so: first, the Arab-Muslim world did not succeed in developing systematic institutions of higher learning. Those universities that were founded dealt mostly with theology, and not so much with actual science. The brilliant scientists of the Golden Age were, by and large, not associated with them, and worked independently. And second, Islam itself changed at some point, and took the Golden Age with it: while in the beginning it was more tolerant of critical thinking, it somehow warped to turn its back on science:

      http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4...

      The effect of the colonial rule of the Ottomans is a difficult point: technically, they saw themselves as the successors of the caliphs, and as the centre of the Muslim world. So they tried to continue this tradition, but how and why this did not have the desired effect is a long story in itself.

  12. This is news for geeks? by cyberspittle · · Score: 0

    I prefer technology

  13. False Flag by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I jut have to point out that this happened in Australia. 16 men were picked up for exactly this same reason and then let go without charge. As it turns out the very day before wikileaks data revealed that NSW police were using spyware, an illegal technique as it is the same as domestic spying.

    In the media frenzy that followed the politicians whipped the masses into a frenzy on one hand saying "we're all gonna die", then "everybody stay calm" and at the right moment introduced legislation that made the illegal techniques, legal.

    I have to wonder if the same thing is happening here to the Belgian people. I am no fan of Islam and it's plethora of human rights violations however, any salient person can observe the governments using Islam to tighten their grip on ordinary people's freedoms.

    Unfortunately since objective media doesn't exist anymore those who care can see the persistent slide to a police state world emerging with horror replete with the knowledge that dead men cannot be bought before a court of inquiry.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:False Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Relax, the whole circus is just an exercise to prepare the population in case there comes a time where democracy may not be an option and where the differences of life quality between the very rich ruling classes and the poor majority is to hight to allow open dissension.
      just the big guys just running some tests, checking how far they can get with their new fancy techs toys and supercomputers

    2. Re:False Flag by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Islamic terrorists in Belgium? Surely it cannot be:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

      I guess you also missed the part where they fired back at the Belgian police using automatic weapons.

    3. Re:False Flag by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I jut have to point out that this happened in Australia. 16 men were picked up for exactly this same reason and then let go without charge. As it turns out the very day before wikileaks data revealed that NSW police were using spyware, an illegal technique as it is the same as domestic spying.

      This really did happen, the person who tried to mod this down is a complete idiot.

      Of the 16 arrested, 15 were released without charge on the same day. The 16th received a misdemeanour weapons charge (unsecured weapons) and released the following day.

      If these people were really dangerous terrorists, why were they released within hours of being arrested?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:False Flag by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately since objective media doesn't exist anymore...

      Don't kid yourself. It never did. Just read some of the BS reports during WWII, and then check what we now believe to be true.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:False Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Belgium, they use Finware. Not only used by government, but also by insurance companies and detectives etc..

  14. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Two dead terrorists ought to be enough for anybody" - Ralph Macchio (The Karate Kid, Part III)

  15. He's missing from the nuthouse by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2

    And I don't know if he is commenting on events in the news.

    Or perhaps he is commenting on a movie he saw.

    He clearly has quite an imagination. He should be a writer!

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  16. Atheist Rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BAN Halal and Kosher food. They only cause problems in our civilised society, they should go back to their holy land and destroy each other over there. Please leave the West. Please fuck off!

  17. It's called deportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was a piece on NPR yesterday while I was driving home and the French guy they were interviewing was saying that their secret service people knew of about 5000 people who had gone to Syria and become radicalized and had fought and trained over there and have since returned. He then went on to complain about the level of surveillance it took to keep and eye on that many people, and on and on he went. I just don't get it. Call me stupid but if you know who they are and they're radicalized and especially if they are an immigrant, why don't you simply revoke their passport, put em on a plane back to Syria and call it a day?

    Why would France or any other country not take these steps? If they were fully naturalized citizens I can see there being some other steps necessary but honestly even in this country with it's anti-terror laws if someone goes overseas to fight and be trained then they are immediately considered an enemy combatant and subject to detention. At least for the ones you have credible evidence and intelligence on. Someone gets convicted of trying to recruit for IS or AQ and they let em go? Seriously kick em out!

    1. Re:It's called deportation by unixisc · · Score: 2

      THIS!!! Just like I mentioned above. In fact, even deportation wouldn't be necessary: in a lot of cases, you have Muzzie fighters wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS. I say - let them. Just note who they are, and impound their passports, so that they can't return. Same goes for Western converts to Islam who wanna join the Jihad. Send them all one way, but just cut off all return traffic from the entire region. That way, you won't have to bother. Then amongst those who remain and are causing problems, do a variety of things - from deportation to persecution.

      It's worth noting that a lot of these Jihad campaigners who are there in the West have death sentences on them even from Islamic countries, like Jordan or Saudi Arabia. That's why they are there, and St. We-Won't-Tolerate-The-Death-Penalty Europeans refuse to extradite them back. Well, if that's gonna be their attitude, don't say that they didn't invite it upon themselves.

    2. Re:It's called deportation by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      This is more complicated than you think. A lot of them either are French citizens natural from Algeria, or some other former French colony in Africa, or even 2nd generation immigrants who were born in France from Muslim parents. Some probably are having a hard time finding work and then they join these fundamentalist mosques and get convinced to go fight in Syria for ISIS. Then they come back and do terrorist acts in France or whatever.

      The French feel they have a kind of debt to these people since they left their colony in Algeria. A lot of them originally worked for the French government and couldn't stay back at home when it became independent. Of course that doesn't give them a right to kill people off but that's the background on this.

    3. Re:It's called deportation by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's harder, but that's where the laws need to evolve. The old school laws said that if you are born in place X, you automatically belong there. But today, you have people whose loyalties are clearly elsewhere, and the laws should recognize that. These 2 brothers didn't think of themselves as Frenchmen: they saw themselves as Muslim first and last. And they weren't an asterisk: a huge percentage of the Muslim populations in the West consider their first loyalty as being towards Islam, and are dedicated to subverting the West and all it stands for. The governments in the West need to recognize that, and factor that into new laws regarding citizenship as well as residency. And deport everyone who wants to subvert the place and make it a part of the caliphate.

      France and Algeria - well, Algeria became independent in 1962 - more than 50 years ago. All or most of the Algerians who colluded w/ the French colonialists are dead. Those who remained in France ought to have been assimilated, but that didn't happen. But now, since the result of that has become those people hating the country that they ostensibly belong to, the GP is right - France, and other Western countries should re-write their laws to make deportation of such people easier. Let them go to any Muslim country they like - it needn't be Algeria. They can go to Turkey & then Syria, Iraq, join Hizbullah if they are Shiites, go to Pakistan or Afghanistan - a whole lot of alternatives.

    4. Re: It's called deportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple, if there are not more deaths people will never change the law to revoke their nationality. Most of EU (if not all) countries have no death penalty and jihadists actually recruit in jail.

      It isn't uncommon for French people to serve only part of their jail sentence. One of the French terrorist was actually arrested in the past for trying to help a jihadist to escape prison and served only part of his sentence.

      In Europe people believe that you should give a chance to prisoners.

      I think it's unfortunately not suited to these types of crime, I would be in favour of the death penalty as we have not enough resources to imprison them for life.

    5. Re:It's called deportation by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 1

      I don't know who was this "French guy" you heard, but according to french officials there is about 1200 french fighters in Syria with ISIS or other groups, and a little less than 200 who came back to France.
      Furthermore, most -- if not all -- of them are french citizens and nothing can be done to prevent them to come back home -- not because of french laws but because of international laws : no country can force another country to keep one of its nationals. All that could be done is sending them to jail in France but currently, as they have broken no french law, all that can be done is to keep an eye on them.

    6. Re:It's called deportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't work in the US. It's very difficult to give up your US citizenship. The US can refuse to let you do it because they'd rather tax you wherever you are in the world.

    7. Re:It's called deportation by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you make a bunch of guesses, and come to the conclusion that creating a bunch of stateless Muslims who are trained and experienced in weaponry is the best idea? You're not too good at this whole thinkin' thing are you? The fact you keep using unhelpful terms like "Muzzies" shows you really don't give a rat's ass about the people you are talking about, and care only about the labels you have clumsily applied to them, like colourful sprites in some RPG you play in your spare time.

      A country can't deport someone who is a citizen of their country and no other, something which will be quite common in the group you are talking about. You can hand-wave that away, but that simply belies your fear and naivety. You are so desperate to do something you can't even considering thinking about this problem with the requisite diligence, either through lacking ability, or simply not realising that when discussing the lives of millions (the majority of whom are entirely innocent) it behooves you to use rational thought, lest you fall into some Nietzsche-esque abyss, and become as bad as the worst of the people you are condemning.

      Perhaps look at the shameful French practice of marginalising poor Muslim families, and the repercussions of said attitude, just for a start - you glossed over that point with suspicious ease...

      Those brothers were the asterisk, and that you think otherwise speaks more of your brazen desire to condemn than it does of French Muslims, or any Muslim for that matter.

  18. the more people killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more crises averted.

    It's The American Way.

  19. Major? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like Charlie Whosit major? We are so weak and pathetic. What was the toll? 10? 15? More people probably choked and died eating fast food that day. And thousands march supposedly to defend "freedom of speech" at the same time their leaders/legislators wish to take as much of it away as possible.

    Oh did anybody march in Nigeria this week? Last month? How many world "leaders" showed up there? More died as a result of terrorism there in the past month than probably in the past five years (if not quite a bit more) in Europe.

    Terrorism as existed for ages. To get wound up and bent out of shape the way people do now over a handful of deaths is insane and contributes to the continuation of the attacks.. If this is the best that Al or Bob Qaeda and ISIS can manage can't we all just give it a freakin rest? It is one thing to feel some sorrow for the families of those kiled but quite another for whole societies to change their principals and ways of life.

    1. Re: Major? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos to you good sir, it's amazing to see all these fearful simpletons bitching and moaning on slashdot

    2. Re:Major? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      When will people understand that death due to an accident that was nobody's fault is different than premeditated murder or someone who would not have otherwise died? Yes, terrorism deserves to be focused on more than accidentally choking on a Big Mac.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  20. Syria! by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Get them all free tickets to that great Muslim garbage disposal called Syria. Give them guns and send them out to shoot other islamofacists and be shot themselves. Win-win!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Syria! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      That's what Saudi Arabia did; "export" the extreme views so those people will be too busy fighting elsewhere and not them.

  21. How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that what we're asking? How could this all happen? Why did those kids become radical jihadists? Do we have to be afraid of Islam now? Is there going to be another threat to the Occident from the Turkish raiders like in 1600s and 1700s? Should we kick all Muslims out? Or put them in camps to give them a chance to concentrate better? And anti-Islam organizations are forming already. In Germany, PEGIDA formed. Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (it does work as an acronym in German, but PEATIOTW simply has no ring to it). And every right wing nutjob party left and right jumped up and cried that THEY are the REAL pegidiots. And everyone is wondering just why this all happens and what we can do now.

    Why, what, how?

    It's actually quite simple. And it's no wonder that it started in France. Europe has had a lot of immigration from Arab and Maghreb countries. Middle Europe more from Turkey, France more from North Africa. And those immigrants have two things in common: They're mostly Muslim, and they're treated like shit in the countries they went to. They were dumped into ghettos ... sorry, into certain areas that are suitable for them to settle in "so they can be among themselves", got shitty jobs nobody else wanted to do, get inferior payment to "good native" citizens, are looked down upon ... in a nutshell, they're second class citizens. If that.

    But, well, they didn't complain. As odd as it may sound, they didn't think this was wrong. They came here because, well, the situation at home was not too great and they were needed as workers. Yes, really. Back when most of these people came there was actually a shortage of laborers. People who'd clean our floors, empty our waste baskets, cleaned our yards and did all the other petty crap nobody wanted to do for the pennies offered. They were actually content with it, they looked back at their former home country and could at least say, hey, it's better than that shit! And our kids will one day be living here and they'll have it better. They were mostly accepting it with the prospect that their kids will be French/German/Austrian/Danish/Dutch/Belgian/yougettheidea, and then they'll no longer be second class but they'll be one of "the good natives". And while usually religious, they were hardly what we today would consider fundamentalists. They were Muslims, often quite devout, but not out to preach or even kill the Infidels.

    Well, time went on and the second generation came to be. They were born "here". They had no real ties to their parents' native country except that they'd maybe remember having family there, maybe even going there to visit Grandfather and Grandmother, along with the others that stayed. For the US people here, think of it as if your forefathers once came from Europe, say, after WW2, and you're visiting those relatives. Yes, sure, you remember that your family has ties there. But you feel like you're from the US, don't you? Well, these people feel like they should be French/German/..., but they cannot. To the French/German/... they're still "the African" and "the Turk". They're not "one of us". They're still "one of them". They still get only the crappy homes, can only get the crappy job, can still just get shitty payment and are still looked down as second class citizens.

    And that's something that's hard to digest. Because the message is clear: You'll never be one of us. That you're born here means jack. You're still the African to us. You're still the Turk to us. You're still second class. You will never belong here. And you can't even hope that your kids will.

    Now, for a moment think how you'd feel if the country you call home considers you "inferior" and a good portion of the people would just love to "send you back home", to a country you have no ties at all to. With a good chance that you don't even speak the language properly, if at all.

    You might understand that this does breed some contempt. And you

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How could this all happen? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're wrong if you think they cannot get jobs because of some ethnic connotation. Much like the blacks in America a lot of them do not have an education and do not want an education. For whatever reason none of these problems happen with Asians even though they aren't Europeans either. Guess why.

    2. Re:How could this all happen? by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could you please let me know which Govt Department I go to in France to apply for the location I am allowed to live in?
      I seem to be having trouble finding it - hell - last time I was there I just lived where I damn well wanted to and could afford..
      Lucky I wasnt tracked down, I assume the penalty for living in the wrong place ispretty damn severe!

      Oh, sorry, you mean you were talking figuratively, not literally? or some BS excuse like that?
      Do you realise that the rhetoric you are spouting here is almost EXACTLY from the playbook of pre-soviet communism?
      Didnt work out too well then either, for those who believed it.. unless you consider life under stalinist russia, or maoist
      china to have worked out well for minorities (and I DO suggest you go and find out what did happen to them..).

      In the end there is a certainly small percentge of ALL populations who will take up any excuse to do bad things.
      They are (some of) the rapists, the murderers, the arsonists, you get the idea...
      These particular ones just grabbed on a different excuse for their actions. Its not the voices in their heads, its not because
      society forced them to, its not to compensate for what their parents did to them, its to 'avenge their religion', and its about
      as BS as the other reasons - but these kinds of people will always find a reason.

      THAT is the important thing to remember. This is no more 'Islam' than the crusaders were 'Christian' (even less so as it is not
      state sponsored). It is the scumm of humanity doing what they have always done.

      And, unfrotunately, there is no law you can pass, no restructions you can place, no force you can empower to stop it.
      the best you can do is EDUCATE PEOPLE, and stop assuming that every nasty little arsehole is actually a wonderful
      person who just needs love and support to help them bloom. Some of them are just nasty little arseholes.

    3. Re:How could this all happen? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Taa-daa! Here it is folks, the left-wing justification of terrorism for their friends, the Islamists. Oh wait, Obama himself said they weren't real Muslims. So forget what I said. And the fact that he deliberately snubbed the free speech march in France.

      "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
      -- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:How could this all happen? by markass530 · · Score: 1

      ". Much like the blacks in America a lot of them do not have an education and do not want an education. "

      Really?

    5. Re: How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah explain why some cultures like the ones from Asian countries always relatively succeed wherever they emigrate and others are always staying in the lower incomes. No matter what hardships blowing up people is wrong, they were not stealing or dealing drugs, they were blowing heads off.

    6. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, really. Don't fucking kid yourself.

      When Black people talk about the struggle of getting out of the ghetto, finding a job, going to school, what the fuck do you think that means? That they're surrounded by supportive people who want to see them succeed in life?

      Get real.

    7. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Most of these terrorists are just brainwashed by extreme radicals using religion to gather the masses so they can gain power. It would have worked just as well with the flying spagetthi monster... Religion is in these cases just a means to an end.

    8. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an example and you can do your own wiki reading from links here. Disclaimer, living in Belgium, but lots of family in Paris.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue

    9. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did you ever immigrate to a country with a different skincolor and culture?

      Oh, never? Guess you don't know what you're talking about then?

    10. Re: How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the Netherlands (north of Belgium). As I type this, I can hear prayer blaring from a mosque nearby. We have lots of immigrants from Turkey and Marocco, but there are also Asians, and people from Surinam and even some Caribbean islands (former colonies).

      You could say that I am curious about other cultures, I find just hanging with Dutch people boring. Now for some stereotyping: Asians here work hard and don't complain. People from Surinam and the Caribbean can be a bit 'ghetto' and lazy, but I had lots of good times in their company.

      The stereotypical Maroccan guys though: I can't stand them. It seems like they can't get any attention in a positive way, but desperately want "respect" so they act like obnoxious assholes to get negative attention. They treat (especially Dutch) women like shit.

      Negative attention is indeed what Islamists got by using violence. They got me interested enough to learn about their religion. Far from a religion of peace, their prophet Mohammed basically was a brutal war criminal. When you read the Koran, you find that IS can legitimately say that they are just acting in the example of the great prophet in Syria. Online you can find many Dutch "Muslems" glorifying ISIS. There was even a rally of Islamic State sympathizers waving ISIS flags in The Hague. The look on their faces was that of a stupid annoying kid doing something crappy while knowing he's getting away with it.

      They seem to think they can get respect through intimidation. That is indeed what Mohammed was all about. Instead of gaining my respect, I just got more disgusted. I don't see a clear solution, but I do see Islam as a big part of the problem.

    11. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as a white Belgian born here and so on, I'll reply.

      That's not entirely correct. Most of us have no problem if someone is colored. Most of us do have a problem if foreigners come to our country, do not respect our laws, do not work and do not want to learn our language! 20 years ago, many Belgians of foreign origin refused to talk our language. Nice integration! This has changed a lot and I really like the fact that this new generation does speak our language, even our dialects. This is offcourse also because they had more friends on school that talked the dialect.

      I work with an engineer that has roots in Morocco. Fine guy, hired immediatly. If you *want* to have a job, obbey the law and talk our language, we will welcome anyone with open arms.

    12. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, really.

      What? You didn't bother to make a point, either.

    13. Re:How could this all happen? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Could you please let me know which Govt Department I go to in France to apply for the location I am allowed to live in?
      I seem to be having trouble finding it - hell - last time I was there I just lived where I damn well wanted to and could afford..

      The word 'afford' is key here. If all you can afford is the lowest-rent housing, then that's where you end up. That's how many large European cities ended up with immigrant ghettos.

    14. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's how it was in the US too. Waves of immigrants, German, Polish, Irish, Jewish, Italian, etc., were each treated like poop when they first got here- including by the previous group to arrive. The difference, and this is key and is noted in other nearby posts, was that these groups mostly integrated with the society they moved to. They didn't try to take a chunk of wherever they settled and make it a small enclave of where they were from. Yes there are 'Little XYZ' places in many locations, but they are not like the isolationist enclaves that are in Europe. Now in the US even first generation immigrants are fully welcomed, because they are willing to integrate. I have friends from China, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, and a few other countries. This is typical in the area I live in. First generation in the US, all of them. Is this possible in Europe?

      So it is apparent that the blame is shared on both sides- the immigrants that refuse to adapt, and the Europeans who refuse to accept people from other countries. This divide strengthens and increases itself. Your solution is in the right direction except you can not ignore the fanatics. Groups are often defined by their edges. The fanatics need to be addressed immediately, just as those who have integrated should be included and held up as a positive example.

    15. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So... Black people and people from the middle east are inherently evil and criminal, right? Yeah, that makes heaps of sense.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, no, I am not talking figuratively. I'm quite literal here. You may of course settle somewhere else ... if you have the money to. If you don't, well, you get to squat wherever the government damn well pleases. And believe me, it sure ain't going to be in the high class area.

      Now, immigrants, unless they come because some corporation pretty much groveled behind them on their knees because they're the best of the best in their field, usually don't come to a country with their bags overflowing with money. So what happens is that they get stuffed into some "projects" at the outskirts of the town. And there survival is a daily job. Education may be a good idea but that's not their concern. It should be, but isn't. Worse, those that are stuck there and can't get out will not look kindly upon those that try to succeed in doing just that. For reference, think back to your school days and how the smart kids and those that wanted to learn were the prime picking targets for the dimwitted bully who wanted to drag them down to their level 'cause they couldn't stomach that someone will escape the hell.

      In such an environment, it's hard to thrive as someone who wants to "make it". Demanding to educate the people is a noble effort, but a lost one when education is anathema to those that "rule" those areas.

      First of all we have to stop creating such ghettos and break these areas up. Peer pressure goes way beyond school yards, ethnic groups have it, too. Try to be non-Mormon in Salt Lake City. Sure, you can get by, but it's just easier to be "one of them". And in that case you'd probably only be ignored and occasionally badgered to join the cult.

      Education is a good idea, but first you have to break open these ghettos.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Justification? No. Not even close. It's an explanation. Not more.

      In case you don't know the difference, justification includes a part that says why it's ok to do that. It's not. It only explains why it got to this.

      I also offered a solution to it. But I can tell that you're not really willing to consider it. The usual "I don't want to change, I want THEM to change". Quite well known, just has one flaw: You cannot make someone else change.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The Islam is no religion of peace, maybe we can stuff that nonsense finally and get to the part where we find a solution. It never was and if you see when and how it came to be, it's quite logical that it ain't and can't be.

      The same is true for nearly every other religion out there. That old tome that Christians consider holy, that Old Testament... well, it's also not really all love and compassion, ya know? Ok, we have Jesus and his whole "other cheek" and "love your enemy" hippie teachings, but he didn't invalidate all the old, angry god stuff. And to make things even more interesting, all those bible loonies who "accepted Jesus as their savior" are usually quite fond of the old tome and don't really use that "other cheek" offering stuff a lot... but that's not the scope now.

      So why can people consider them "Christian" and not go on a killing spree among those that ain't? For the same reason nearly all Muslims don't: They understood that since the inception of that old book a few centuries passed and we got smarter as people. We found ways to communicate and to solve our differences among us with laws and compromise rather than club and torch.

      If you want to know what it would look like if people took those old books and acted upon them, look no further than Israel and Palestine. You want that? Well, neither do most Muslims.

      Islam is not a religion of prayers, puppies and hugs. Ok, prayers ... yeah, but that's it. You'll get that information from Muslims too if you ask them (and they dare to tell you in this time and age, that is). But what religion really is one of "peace"? Even Buddhism is one full of passive aggressiveness.

      The Islamist nutjobs have now learned that we don't ignore and brush them aside anymore if they use violence. A religion as a justification works great because you can claim some higher power wants you, and it's kinda hard to bomb that power out of existence or arrest it. It would work just as well with a Christian god (and history shows that it did), it would just be a LOT harder today because every halfway important Christian leader would never justify it, knowing he'd have far more to lose than to gain from something like this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I can second your sentiment and until recently I thought like you do. And some parts I still agree absolutely with: If you come to a country, learn the fuckin' language! I can understand that you've been here half a year and lack communication skills, but when I see people who have been here for 10+ years and STILL can't even ask for directions, I get angry. And out government sure ain't helping with offering forms in various languages and even translators. And while I can see it in court (because everyone should have the right to a fair trial no matter his roots and language skill), that they have that shit now at the social office really makes my piss boil. If you want money from the country for nothing, at least learn the fucking language enough, it's in YOUR interest.

      But I cannot anymore agree with the job part. Because I know now what various people earn and it does hurt to see that people with an immigration background work more and harder for an on average inferior income. It just ain't fair. Now, one could argue that they simply don't negotiate well (really? The stereotype would say they grew up in a bazaar, ain't it?), but when you see the same happen at huge corporations that hire at an allegedly "fixed" rate with allegedly no negotiation room, at least for their "normal" workers (read: engineers), and you see an immigrant worker do the same work at the same level of education with more experience and working longer hours for 30% lower wages, you know that it just ain't working out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It is probably different in Europe. Europe, aside from some special cases, does not have a big immigration history. Immigration is a fairly new concept for most Europeans where people from abroad came as "foreign workers" only since about the 1960s. That's not really a long time. And only very, very recently there has been an influx from Africa. Until the 1990, it was (outside of France) very rare to ever meet a black guy on the street.

      It sure is an education process that both sides have to find a solution for. Together. Not in the way that was attempted to do until now, i.e. a solution on either side of the fence without even talking to the other one or, worse, a political solution that neither locals nor immigrants really want or accept. A dialogue has to be found because one thing is certain: Second generation immigrants are no longer immigrants. They were born here, speak the local language better than the one of their original country (if they speak the latter at all) and they feel like they should belong here. They will not go away. So we better find a solution to make them feel like their country IS their country, or they will sooner or later join those nutjobs that want to turn it into THEIR country. Which will invariably lead to more "natives" join the pegidiots, fearing that exactly this would happen and the table would turn, i.e. that they would then be the "foreigners".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:How could this all happen? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but remember that Europe includes the UK, which has had a long, long history of immigration, and your description doesn't really apply.

    22. Re:How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I meant that there are very few countries in Europe where immigrants not only represent a sizable portion of the population but also the leading culture. The cultures of the US and Europe are not too different. Well, duh, the leading culture of the US is carried by people whose forefathers came from Europe. It's fairly easy to integrate into a culture that is essentially already your own.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:How could this all happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's isn't what he said.

  22. Attention all would-be terrorists: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Choose now:

    * Keep planning your terror and plan to be killed, possibly before you can execute your plans.

    * Go to ground and wait for things to cool off.

    If you make the 2nd choice, then later you can choose
    * To pursue terrorism, bearing in mind you may get caught/killed before you can carry out your plans
    or
    * Give up on terrorism and keep a low-enough profile that nobody who is after you for what you've done or planned in the past will find you.

    Bottom line:
    How badly do you want to live, and
    Are you willing to take action when the "heat is on" likely leading to your actions becoming utter failures.

  23. Genetic Selection at Work... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that if you took a population and forbid explicit graphic representations depiction certain forms of art hundreds of generations you could actually cause a change of genetics, a fundamental alteration of the brains of the core members of that group which would result in the loss appreciation and sense of humor related to these types of illustrations. Individuals within this group might have a great deal of difficulty understanding that other cultures highly value cartoons. Selective breeding is a very interesting tool whether in the hands of man or Mother Nature. Evolution works, intentionally and sometimes not so intentionally. Be very careful what you inadvertently select for while aiming for your goals. World wars have been caused by lesser things.

    1. Re:Genetic Selection at Work... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Figuring a generation conservatively as 20 years, a hundred generations would be two thousand years. This puts us well before Muhammed. Since there hasn't been a strict banning of graphic images since him, I see no reason to think Muslims (a religious, not a racial group) would be changed by evolution like that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Genetic Selection at Work... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Yes. Generally such restrictions come into the culture slowly. I'm assuming, with some knowledge of these cultures, that these restrictions were likely pre-startup. Many of the aspects that are adopted by a religion actually originated long before it, sometimes thousands of years before it, as adaptation to local conditions. While you and I don't see a reason for that in this case there may have been some other intertribal strife that had caused that. And besides, 1,400 years is close enough.

      The bigger point, which you're missing with the arguing over generational counting, is that such a change could cause different cultures to fail to understand each other on a very fundamental level. Lets not quibble over a few generations but rather try and think about why and how something occurs so we can better understand it and solve the problems of cross cultural misunderstanding.

  24. To think, I used to be incredibly liberal by WarSpiteX · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only 900,000 to go in Belgium.

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
  25. Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After the carnage of World War II, Europe used to be a place where people, no matter if they are truly civilized or not, tried to behave with civility
     
    ... until the Europeans decided to "diverse" their society by importing the Islamists in

    With the Islamists came the bombings and killings and mayhems and intimidation and you know what the so-called 'European Leaders' wanna do ?

    Import even more Islamists into Europe !

    As though the cure for a cancer patient is to put even more cancerous cells inside the body

    Sooner or later Europe gonna be overwhelmed by the Islamists

    Sooner or later National Cathedrals will be replaced by National Mosque

    No more bikini, no more women's rights, no more diversity, for all must kow-tow to Allah, or have their heads cut off

    Congratulations, Europeans, for you have brought the troubles all onto yourselves !

    1. Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by hooiberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have already municipal offices with separate counters for men and for women. Swimming pools and fitness centers with women-only-days (but men still have to pay the same for membership, while they are allowed less entry). Ha, even a swimming pool with separate dress booths for: men without children, women without children, men with sons, men with daughters, women with sons, women with daughters. And cases of violence of non-muslims against muslims is considered a terrible hate crime, but violence of muslims against non-muslims is considered fairly normal... Fortunately, the last politicians who have grown up in our hippie days are retiring, and hopefully we will have a more realistic outlook on politics in the years to come. Our left wing parties are growing smaller and smaller every election. There is hope.

    2. Re: Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bs. Red army faction, brown skinned? How about the Irish brigades bombing england? How about the skin heads in the 80's. The black hand groups, the.... Ad infinitum...wrong premises. More like poor people, murders, for a cause. Who paid their way? What were they organized against? Or for?

    3. Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Even given the arbitrary cut off of WW2 you have had ETA, the PIRA, the Balkan conflict and many others.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, the last politicians who have grown up in our hippie days are retiring, and hopefully we will have a more realistic outlook on politics in the years to come. Our left wing parties are growing smaller and smaller every election. There is hope.

      Sieg fucking Heil.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re: Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete and utter bollocks.

    6. Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by hooiberg · · Score: 1

      So you would for example agree on our law, that when a family of two adults and two children come to our country, they get the equivalent of 3000 USD unemployment benefits, and when they leave our country to migrate back to their country of origin, they keep these benefits, not scaled down to local prices?

    7. Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by hooiberg · · Score: 1

      Every, to quote you, "fucking", month.

  26. Grr by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    reverting bad mod

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  27. supports need for intelligence sevices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Articles are reporting connection between these individuals and terrorists in unstable countries. Folks on Slashdot have assailed governments intelligence programs for the last year and a half. This story supports that these lawful services are needed to protect societies.

  28. Cut it off at the source, Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I say cut it off at the source. The fundamentalist puritanical practices can be traced back to Saudi Arabia. If you read the history of the House of Saud you will see that the got where they are by doing exactly what ISIS is doing. Enslaving people, cutting off people's heads and basically getting where they were by the sword. If it weren't for all that oil money they'd be just another tribe in the middle east, but all that oil money gave them what they needed to spread their radical version of Islam far and wide through funding madrasses and various other institutions world wide. Is it any wonder that most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? ISIS, Al Qeada, etc. can all trace their roots back to Saudi Arabia.

    Here's an excerpt from Frontline on what Saudi Arabia is teaching their young people.

  29. Prepare for less by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    It seems there are not many candidate for suicide or life prison, even within jihadists. Now law enforcement fight back, I am not sure we will see waves of terrorists engaging SWAT-like units.

  30. Oh boy. It's starting. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    If you are not With the Regime, you are Against the Regime.

    Write an insightful blog? Speak too loudly at the local cafe? Hell, post something on Slashdot...

    Boom! Now you can be shot down in cold blood and the government can spin any story it wants because everybody will believe it sight unseen.

    Welcome to yesterday. Which of your neighbors do you think needs to be killed in the middle of the night for holding anti-government views? (You know, for thinking things like, government ministers shouldn't rape children at so-called "Pink Ballets".)

    Good luck, friends.

    1. Re:Oh boy. It's starting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bible allows men to rape young girls, they must marry them and never divorce them however.

      Deuteronomy 22 28-29.

      In the western world that is only for the elites, if anyone, the rest of the men get to enjoy feminism.

  31. HELL YEAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KILL THEM! YEAH!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
    Yeah!

  32. Come On by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    They live in an impoverished country with little real government to speak of with lots of tribal warfare that may or may not have anything at all to do with religion.

    That is unbelievable whitewashing bullshit of what happened, and you dishonor the 2000+ dead with your sickening lies/ignorance.

    Boko Haram has stated openly they are an Islamic group and are trying to form an ISIS like African Caliphate . What more do you need to see the truth?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Come On by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Boko Haram has stated openly they are an Islamic group and are trying to form an ISIS like African Caliphate . What more do you need to see the truth?

      Have a look at http://www.cfr.org/nigeria/bok... . Yes, Boko Haram is a very violent and abhorrent group (or rather a set of groups) right now, but they weren't always like that. Their current actions also have little or nothing to do with Islam (a bit like how "spreading democracy" had little to do with the Iraq war). At the same time, the Nigerian "Joint Task Force" of Nigerian police, army and private security forces (primarily funded by oil companies) is regularly accused of "summary executions, use of excessive force, and widespread arrests of suspected extremists, many based on little or no evidence" (words of the US Department of State, not mine) in the Niger delta (where Boko Haram is active). The paragraph in which that sentence appears also sketches the situation after 2009 (when Boko Haram became violent) quite well.

      The JTF has been active since 2003 though, and some people directly argue (albeit in a mess of many missing/broken links that make it hard to check several argued points) that they basically made Boko Haram into what it is today with the objective of being able to justify the use of excessive force against them.

      I still have to read up more on it from different sources, but from what I've read until now it seems that really has very little to do with Islam. It's just the banner they use due to their origins, just like we in the West (not just the US) justify almost all of our actions with "helping democracy", "supporting human rights", "increasing free trade" etc, even when that banner doesn't cover the actions at all. In many cases, it's mainly a cultural reference to something that the people involved (on the "aggressor's" side) can identify with as "good" or that they can relate to.

      --
      Donate free food here
  33. Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Slobadan, you so adorable.

  34. Islamism is a Cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am tired of the way governments and everybody pussyfooting around the issue trying to be PC and accepting. These are not people who are here to integrate with our countries, or even to take advantage of what we have to offer. They are here to replace our way of life with Sharia law.

    When you identify a cancer in your body, you do everything you can to eradicate it before it kills the host. Islam is a Cancer which needs to be eradicated as aggressively as any cancer of the body. Their numbers are growing around the world and our own kindness and tolerance is going to make it impossible to go back very quickly.

    This is not a racist issue! People try to compare it with racism against blacks, or the Holocaust against the Jews. But this is a war against a people who are infiltrating us to destroy us from within. Yes, there are many good and kind Muslims in the world, but their religious leaders are not. When is the last time you heard a member of Muslim society of any power aggressively condemn an act of terrorism? It doesn't happen because the terrorists in their mind are helping to move towards a world under sharia law.

    Wake up and fight back.

  35. And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two of them were killed when they opened fire against the police. One was actually not killed, and will appear in trial.

  36. What is an "Islamist"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that different to a "muslim"? LOL

    How stupid do the Jewish media think we are?

  37. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop posting those news about terror, people die daily so what? Stick to the tech news you bunch of idiots (I hope you are not brainwashed already)

  38. Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations, you sound just like German propaganda from the 1930s. Comparing other people to cancer, very nice. You may want to use "vermin" too. Vermin and rat metaphors seemed to work well in the 1930s.

  39. Remember by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    OK, the whole scenario is a bit far fetched, however this is how it would play out, and their is historical precedent.

    1) The USA has by far the largest, most powerful, most advanced, most strategic, military forces in the world. The next two in line Russia and China, are also not all that dominated by Muslims. When you start to look down the list, you got to go WAY down the list to find Muslim dominated countries with advanced military might. So in a strictly conventional war, it is really no contest.

    However, as recent history has shown, it isn't entire nations, but radicalized groups... but of course we are talking entire populations, but whatever....

    2) Only two nuclear weapons were ever used in war. They were used for basically one reason. The reports on what the estimated casualty rate of American soldiers varied but it was in the range of 500,000 to 1 million troops dead to invade Japan. A politician then weighed how unpopular it would be to order 1 million american citizens to their death VS incinerating a couple hundred thousands enemy civilians in a far off land. Obliviously, they went with Plan B, and that was just on the off chance that it MIGHT work. If you think that the US is incapable of making that exact same decision again, if faced with similar circumstances, particularly when the enemy lacks a response or anyway to deliver it, then you would be wrong. If you want to see how fast the moderates are in exposing and eradicating the radicalized components of that society, it wouldn't take long.

    So you are right, anything like that would be unpopular as hell. However it only has to be less unpopular than the alternative for it to happen.

  40. Tell me about it, I woke up at 5 am by a raid! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 2

    Wednesday at 5:00 AM, I woke up, in Antwerpen by the sound of a bomb. First they tried to get through the window of the neighbours, but they couldn't push their window-rollers up. They tried to ram my (armorized burglar-proof) door once as well. After, they rammed 2 ports and a few doors for more than 12 times in order to arrest someone who wasn't even officially living there. When going outside to check what was going on, as it sounded a war has started, I saw two armed masked men which were anything but friendly.

    Never have seen this before like this and never woke up that fast, but with a barrel of a gun right in front of me when opening my front-door to see what was going on.

    Tomorrow they will be having the military protecting Antwerpen. Happy happy, joy joy ..

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  41. WITNESS SUPRESSION by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    They must be killed - judge, jury, executioner - before they can reveal that "Charlie" was a Gladio.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  42. Re:obama cares..... by david999 · · Score: 0

    Kerry will go on tour of these countries with James Taylor and give all a great big hug and sing a song or two.
    Drudge today: KERRY GOES TO PARIS...
    ‘A big hug’...
    Brings James Taylor to Serenade French With ‘You’ve Got a Friend’...