Slashdot Mirror
Terrorist Attack In Brussels Airport and Metro Station: At Least 34 Dead (mirror.co.uk)
SomeoneFromBelgium writes: This morning there was a double bomb explosion in Brussels, Belgium. In the National Airport entrance hall an estimated 13 people were killed by a big explosion; around the same time another bomb exploded in Metro station 'Maalbeek,' close to the financial district, killing an estimated 10 persons.
Note: story updates bump this figure ot at least 34 deaths. Reader jones_supa adds Shots were fired and Arabic shouted before the blasts,
suggesting a terrorist attack. Video and images on social media showed smoke rising from an airport building and shattered windows. Confused and shocked passengers fled the terminal to safety as they were evacuated by armed police. Footage showed rubbish littered across the floor. All traffic from and to the airport has been suspended. The airport is monitoring the situation closely and will deliver further announcements in Twitter. Update: 03/22 13:06 GMT by T : According to the New York Times and other sources, at least one of the explosions was set off by a suicide bomber. Slate has an actively updating stream of updates about the attack, too.
More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic. Any one of us is still far more likely to die in a number of ways that we have long accepted as risks which are ultimately unavoidable if we want to sustain our way of life. We can't stop driving just because people die in road accidents, and we can't stop being free just because people die in terrorist attacks. If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.
We need to do a proper investigation to really understand who did what and why, but my initial suspicion is that it was Muslim extremists, likely related to the ISIS terrorists that operate in the Middle East.
In the wake of the terror attacks, there are already complaints about security failures at European airports. Because the attacks were committed outside of secure areas, there's already talk about extending security farther out. Of course, anything that's not secured is potentially a soft target. Taken to the extreme, this could mean searching anyone upon leaving their homes. This is impractical and these additional security measures won't stop terrorism. They don't address the real issue. Yet I fear these measures are coming, and will extend the reach of surveillance while further eroding privacy.
If you want to stop terrorism, you must identify the issue, and then directly address that issue. A disproportionate amount of attacks are committed by Muslims. The typical response is that most Muslims aren't violent. While that's true, the moderate followers of Islam enable the extremists Muslims to carry out their actions. This has been elegantly stated by Sam Harris, a brilliant neurologist. Instead of being politically correct, it's important to confront the real issue. And that issue is Islam.
Stopping terrorism means stopping Islam. It's not bigoted because being Muslim is a choice. Being Arab or Persian is out of the control of a person. Belief in a fairy tale like the Muslim religion is a choice and a dangerous one. We wouldn't take belief in Zeus seriously in the present day, so why defend Islam? We would be better off extending surveillance and profiling to Muslims. Better still would be to altogether ban Islam. In order to be secure, the root cause of the problems must be addressed. That root cause is Islam, which must be banned.
He is now laughing in Hungary....
Perhaps anti-terror agencies could take a page from the narcotics police, where they may routinely quietly arrest a suspect to gain intel on his suppliers and customers.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Making God Proud Since ... well, forever.
Honestly? Islam needs to schism the way the Church did so that the crazies that are left are easily identified, and the moderates who don't think of violence in any practical way have their own IslamV2.0
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I'll believe it when the Christians, Buddhists, and Jews start repeatedly shooting people and blowing themselves up because someone drew a fucking cartoon.
If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.
You insensitive clod, we need phone decryption to spy on law-abiding citizen, not terrorists!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Of course! Saudi Wahabists are everywhere, rescuing kittens and feeding the homeless, while the PLO and Daesh are busy singing Kumbaya.
Regardless of who did what, this sucks. Keeping Belgium in my thoughts today....
If encryption was illegal!
I wish I had mod points; and that everyone who will later post could see the wisdom here.
So, I wonder who did it? I mean, what could their background be? Personally, I'm guessing it was cis-gender hetero-normative straight middle class white males. It certainly couldn't be anyone of the muslim faith or anything, right?! Naaah. Never!
Mod parent +1.
I live close by, the attacks are disgusting, all schools are closed (with children inside), there is almost no transport available.
Yet I see no reason for this to be on Slashdot.
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
The man sounds on target to me.
We won't win war on terror: Former French PM
" Europe is taking the wrong approach to fighting terrorism, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has told CNBC.
Speaking immediately after a series of explosions rocked the Belgian capital of Brussels, de Villepin said that they were "tragic events" but added that Europe should be showing that it is sticking to its rule of law and can only "reduce" the threat of terrorism.
"I do believe that our strategy should be very different than the one it is. Much less a military approach than a political approach, trying to find solutions in the Middle East and we are far from doing that," he said."
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If you really think this is about cartoons, you can just as well claim that the Iraq war was about WMDs and spreading democracy (and that Western democracy is a real problem for the rest of the world).
Donate free food here
I abolutely agree with the above... We don't need our freedom to be restricted because of occasional terrorist attacks. If we allow that then they win, we lose. And as stated above, a lot more people die on the road each day, and nobody cares..
Nah, just increased copyright protection. I bet they used the same networks file sharers use to steal profits directly from the RIAA. Best approach is just shut down anything that can be used illegally, like the internet and public roads.
On a more serious note, my sympathy to those affected. I really don't have a good answer to prevent these tragedies but don't see reducing the rights of common citizens as helping any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As authoritarian and unpolished he is, it seems that his absence of political correctness was more of a business like saying they way it is.
I have heard that he wanted to weaken encryption so that it would be easier to break in to the phones, but that could probably be attributable to the technical ignorance of a 70 year old dude, all used to the old school paper, handshake and a smile business style.
I think he will get popularity boost.
generally i agree with you that MOST non tech stuff doesnt belong. but some of us dont bother checking other pages to often, and when an event like this takes place i dont mind it being posted.
this is the first page i still read in the morning, and i havent heard yet. i have friends in Brussels, thankfully they are all ok, but still. i appreciate the occasional major story. its not like its new either, they posted about 9/11 as well and that was 15 years ago
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Monotheistic Theo-Fascist mass-murdering Psycho-Cults - I'm just so fed up of them.
Katholics, Protestants, Muslim, Jewish orthodox ... abrahamic book & revelation religions are all the same at variing points in history: Wacko genocide-advocating psycho-cults that have been around for too long. We've always done better whenever we've condemned them to their temples and curbed their power as much as possible.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You know who doesn't have this kind of broblem ?
Israel.
Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.
Remember that, next time you're being groped by a TSA agent.
No sig today...
Has it already been 15 years? Wow. Seems like it was just yesterday..... And the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before....
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
please STFU about your pathetic metal penis extensions... It's time for political correctness to be thrown into the trash can and for the mass deportations of Muslims from Europe... or a Final Solution in 20 years time.
Wow. I've got to hand it to you: A lot of posts on the internet start with "guns are bad", but not a lot of them end with "but Nazis are good".
Please STFU about your pathetic mental penis extensions.
This was predicted weeks ago! The period 22 March to 1 May is a period of blood sacrifice to evil gods. Beware!
You know who doesn't have this kind of broblem ? Israel.
I don't know. Ask the Palestinians in Israel and they might tell you they have a very big terrorism problem.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Well, not about cartoons maybe, but Christians certainly shoot and blow other people up based on: skin color, some cartoonish fantasy that a single fertilized cell is a human being, etc.
Calculate the Probability of Permutations
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
And lets just stop being PC about all this...and get serious.
The time for profiling has come. Let's face it, this attack has all the markings of another horrible, malicious attack by those damned radical Baptist terrorists.
It has all the signs....open your eyes people, we KNOW where and who the real threat is.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well incidents of terrorism in western cities doesn't occur every day.
The fact that the group most likely behind it is the most web-wise terrorist group that has ever existed should be of at least a little bit of interest to us here.
You you think you live in isolation? What happens in Brussels won't have effects in the rest of the world? You think that various world leaders are not going to use this as an excuse to bring in more monitoring, loss of rights? If not, let me know where you live, I'd like to move there.
I passed through the metro station where the bomb went off 30 minutes before hand. My wife, only 15 minutes. Either of us could have been caught if the timing had been different.
All public transport in Brussels has been stopped. Taxis are impossible to find - but the streets out of Brussels are mostly blocked, so cars aren't very good anyway. I have no way of getting home, except a very long walk for many hours. Sucks to be me, but sucks more for the people in the train that was behind mine.
Ok, here's an IT angle for you:
The mobile phone network stopped working just after the attacks. The Belgian government recommended people to use social media to communicate. Facebook added a 'I have not been blow up' button (or something like that, I don't use Facebook).
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
Yeah, it's always "only some Christians but all Muslims", isn't it?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How many of our freedoms have these terrorists killed already?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious??? Oh sure, someone will say "but what about the vulnerability of the pre-airport security screening queue?" Well, obviously we just need a queue before that. It's queues all the way down. Just keep this between us though -- if the terrorists discover our methods, the terrorists win.
Ban encryption 2016!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This pre-airport security - is what they actually had in the Kiev Borispol airport when I've been there a year ago. Not fun at all.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.
A quick calculation shows it takes a total of about 2 days for that many Americans to die from gun related homicides. According to cancer.org there are about 596,690 cancer deaths a year, so cancer does that many in just under an hour.
While I agree with you re: no more mass surveillance, let's be clear: terrorism isn't like car accidents, at all. It's not a random event that just happens. It's the end result of conscious human decision-making to murder as many innocent civilians as possible and to scare the shit out of everyone so their very way of life is affected. It's isn't neutral, natural happenstance; it's the deliberate conducting of the worst kind of evil. And because it's the result of human decision-making -- meaning, someone is actually *deciding* to kill these innocent people -- it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal." That's what those evil fuckers want, and we cannot let them win.
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.
What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
30 years of "Irish Troubles" says "Christians" are just as bad. The Catholics seem to think they can confess, say a few "Hail Mary's" and they're absolved.
From day one, we've fought the Muslims, sending crusades to the Middle East to slaughter them and put them down. Not just the Muslims though: ask the Estonians how they felt about being "Christian-ised" by the Teutonic Knights. Ask the people of S. American and Africa about European missionaries. Perhaps the behaviour of these terrorists is a reaction to the way Christians always treated them. Ironic given the Romans used to throw Christians to the lions.
And that may be why the two explosions only killed 34 people, rather than twenty times as many on two typical passenger flights.
Indeed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Probably those evil Christian or Buddhist terrorists again
How long until we hear how the Belgian police could not anticipate and prevent this attack because the attackers used data encryption? Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
It's the worst possible timing too. Those terrorists really know how to hurt us long term, making sure their actions harm us for decades to come.
The UK will immediately use this as justification for the Snooper's Charter, and France already gave up a lot of its freedoms after the Paris attacks. Billions and billions of Euros will be pissed away on ineffective security, our technology and competitiveness will be damaged by ill considered rules on encryption and data access.
This might even help push the UK out of the EU, causing unknowable economic damage that has knock on effects for health and education over many decades.
I only wonder if they planned it this way, or if it's just blind luck.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In Europe we have Catholics, Lutheran protestants, a small amount of Calvinists, and then the Orthodox church in Eastern Europe. Those can all be denominated under the name of Christians, but as far as I know we do not have any of them running around killing people under the guise of pro-life. That really seems to be a US-only problem.
I'll believe it when the Christians, Buddhists, and Jews start repeatedly shooting people and blowing themselves up because someone drew a fucking cartoon.
I'd believe it only when western countries stop turning the middle east to ruble and the attacks continued... until then, it seems to me that western citizens are like a school yard bully who beats up the kid with lots of lunch money, then when the kid fights back, while getting his ass kicked, the bully goes around saying "see!! SEE!! i TOLD YOU HE WAS THE BAD GUY!!!" (with the kids lunch money in his pockets of course)
Oh wait, someone chose to kill other people...the tool doesn't matter.
Obama is a lame Islamic duck & Merkel is complicit in packing unknown Middle Eastern people into their countries. It is sick. Citizens will vote for politicians to protect them in ALL coming elections. The days of the appologists for "immigrants" is over.
There was a nice comic about pre-security last summer after the Thalys train shooting. (In French, but self-explanatory.)
No, not more surveillance. We simply have to deal with the muslim problem once and for all, a final solution. Kick them all out or intern those who can't be removed. Normal people won't have to suffer for the actions of the believers in this particular fairy tale.
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Those going on about the single fertilized cells at least don't blow up entirely unrelated random victims.
OTOH, the islamists give me the impression that they feel justified to blow up any group of people for not being entirely comprised of true believers.
It has all the signs....open your eyes people, we KNOW where and who the real threat is.
What does Trump have to do with this attack?
....said Jesus. The more they bomb us, the more we will love them! Hugs for terrorists.
I'll believe it when the Christians, Buddhists, and Jews start repeatedly shooting people and blowing themselves up because someone drew a fucking cartoon.
Was Timothy McVeigh any better because he didn't blow himself up? Eric Rudolph? Robert Doggart because he got caught before acting? Robert Lewis Dear because he identified his problems without reference to a cartoon? Wade Michael Page shot himself, is that close enough to count? What about the likes of Anders Behring Breivik? Would you consider him a problem? He didn't reference a cartoon, is that your standard? Is Aum Shinrikyo less of a problem since they've used biological and chemical attacks rather than bombs? Was the Voluntary Army Unit for Punishing Traitors better since they didn't blow themselves up?
Also, do you really think you couldn't make people upset enough with you to threaten violence if you drew a cartoon that mocked Jesus?
Just the implication that you don't want to celebrate Christmas is enough for some to go a little nutsy. Andres Serrano has certainly received death threats, as has Chris Ofili.
So, considering all of this, is your focus TRULY on one singular religion, or perhaps you can see more problems elsewhere?
And have you considered the overall world homicide picture? These terrorist attacks get all the attention, but as singular events, are they as significant a problem as other, less easily noticed, problems that are more diffuse?
Well, people die of _something_. And since we have virtually wiped out infection diseases, cancer and heart diseases are the main remaining causes of death.
Be sure not to call them Muslim terrorists. That would be racist.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
My local paper has news stories about three different shootings in my area that happened yesterday. Eh. Shit happens. People are crazy. No way to prevent all of it.
I don't respond to AC's.
They're just stiring the pot.
Babtistophobia and other forms of Christianophobia have been getting worse every year.
Stop the bigotry.
Stop hiding behind the fake pretenses that you care about making the world a better place.
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.
> vast majority of history
No, we've had border controls for a very short time, since the WW1.
It's not 1950 anymore, people move around and the economy depends on it. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans (including me) live in one country and work in another. The temporary border controls between Denmark and Sweden causes huge problems, and does not solve any anything. All these terrorists have valid passports.
What are you? Some kind of unamerican, commutard, misogynerd, islamo-terrorist, white-cis-male, Trump-o-Bernie, evangelical pinko libertard, Nazi hipster feminist MRA, Snowden tweeting, Tea Party anti-war protesting video gamer? American must stand united against our foes!
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Pre-airport security (to be completed in sequence):
1. background checks on the traveller and his/her family, running at least 5 generations ago
2. full inspection of financial status of said traveller
3. a period of quarantine, prior to the departure, of no less than 48 hours in a special, army controlled facility, where the traveller is remain incommunicado
The point is that a free society has certain vulnerabilities which cannot be avoided without negating the fundamental values that make it a free society. Being vulnerable like that is "a cost of doing business", so to speak. You probably know that in retail a certain percentage of "shrinkage" is unavoidable. Shoplifting is not an accident. It is a conscious act, but that doesn't mean you can stop it without incurring a cost that is not worth incurring. We try to reduce it, but ultimately we deal with the fact that we are better off with shoplifting being possible than with the measures it would take to eliminate it.
Than again, millions of millions of people died in wars between countries in Europe that were only possible because there was no institution like the EU, there was barely any peaceful period in Europe before the EU *ever*, and if the EU is abandoned, there will be a new war give or take 50-100 years max.
Well, not about cartoons maybe, but Christians certainly shoot and blow other people up based on: skin color, some cartoonish fantasy that a single fertilized cell is a human being, etc.
So how do you define what a human being is? Because Planned Parenthood and their subsidiaries have been pushing this nonsense that a living baby that can feel pain and other emotions isn't even alive. I wonder when the far-left will be called out on their antiscientific trash like creationists have been?
Well, the culprits have not yet been identified and nobody has claimed responsibility yet, so how can we know whether the terrorists were muslims?
We should ban all religion. This whole "my God is better than your God" dick-measuring contests is what gets everyone killed. Get rid of religion and you take away 99% of all reasons people want to kill each other.
We've had religion for tens of thousands of years, and, there's no documented proof of any god. It's a myth. Stop it, grow up, and take your first steps as a real person from under the shadow of "god made me do it".
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Those going on about the single fertilized cells at least don't blow up entirely unrelated random victims.
Yeah, everybody at the Centennial Olympic Park was an abortion provider, ESPECIALLY Alice Hawthorne. Her Hot Dog and Ice Cream Parlor was clearly a front for Planned Parenthood.
Whilst I would agree with the initial kneejerk reaction of "throw em all out", by the time the politicians are brave enough to face up to the problem, the islamists will multiply and will hold a significant percentage of the vote. They will keep pushing their agenda and then soon, if nothing is done, Europe will have a full on civil war in its hands.
The real time to do something(or anything at all really) about this is to drop the curtain of tollerance coddling this crazy cult and really examine what can be done about it.
I'd personally suggest allowing immigrants from Islamic nations into Europe if they renounce islam and agree to be athiest. Then disallow the construction of (additional)mosques and perhaps even tear down the current ones.
Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.
Do you really think that if they'd been able to waltz the same explosives and guns onto passenger jets, instead, that they'd have hesitated for a moment to turn those dozens of deaths into hundreds? WTF.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Dey Durka Durr?
Could you, perhaps, let your hobby-horse for just one second while people finish picking up body parts? You're discussing airline safety as people are jumping out the windows of the WTC.
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
Yes, because putting a lock on your door and having a criminal break in your house anyway is EXACTLY the same as leaving your door wide open with a big sign in your front yard reading "Free cash and valuables inside!"
I mean, are you seriously arguing that because an odd terrorist might get in anyway, that we should just say "fuck it" and open the borders up to invite them in? Because, if that's what you're saying, I want you to call your mother up and tell her that she raised a dumb fuckwad.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Everyone who's ever used their brain already knew this. There will always be concentrations of people somewhere. The airport was a convenient terror target right now in Brussels because of the start of the easter holidays and the peak in travel that goes with it, and possibly because it's close to Molenbeek which seems to have the largest concentration of IS sympathisers in Europe.
Um, Irish Republican Army ring any bells?
Monstar L
Various headlines I saw this morning:
Explosions at Airport and Subway Leave 'Numerous' Dead in Brussels
New York Times
At least 28 killed in terror attacks at Brussels airport, Metro station
Fox News
Brussels Airport and Metro Explosions Kill at Least 16: Officials
NBCNews.com
Brussels explosions: Many dead in airport and metro terror attacks
BBC News
Left wing media just can't let themselves use the "T" word.
"More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day."
The difference is that highway accidents are not associated with a million rabid insurgents who admit upfront to wanting to kill Europeans.
Not all Muslims but a larger percentage. In fact, almost half of all British Muslims want Sharia Law which includes death for blasphemy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Twenty-five percent of British Muslims and One-Third of young Muslims in Britain support the 7/7 bombings:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together%20-%20jan%2007.pdf
And I cannot find the link, but world-wide a MAJORITY of Muslims support death for those who insult Islam.
But, yes, continue to put your head in the sand about Islam being a dangerous cult.
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
Here's just France and there were several 'of significance' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?
You must be new here
these bronze age freaks need to go, ALL of them!
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
That's what we want from you whenever a story about Wayland pops up. You need to stop sucking the Xorg cock.
You are correct. We should not need to give up our way of life because a subset of the population is hell bent on destroying it.
The problem is the radicals are willing to take radical action to achieve their ends, but western society does not have the political stomach to take the actions needed to solve the issues.
Make no mistake. These terrorist acts will only continue and with greater frequency.
You simply cannot have that many radicals in a population and expect nothing to happen.
You must either..
A. Remove or restrict freedom of moment and Freedom in General
B. Remove the factors which contribute to a person becoming radicalized
C. Remove that portion of the population which is most likely to become radicalized.
D. Ignore the issue and live with constant threat of terrorist attacks.
I know that in the west do not want to appear intolerant and to a large extent we must tolerate some things we do not personally agree with.
But not things which are not compatible with western core beliefs.
We are not at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islam is however at war with us. Unless we fight back, we are going to lose.
Funny it's you gun haters who are always obsessing about supposed sexual connotations. Such topics do not come up among those of us who enjoy exercising our 2A rights.
You are right that guns would not have been very successful at stopping a surprise suicide bomber or three. But as there were reports of shooting as well. Armed citizens could have helped react there as well. But they are less common at airports because most people go to airports to travel and that requires locking up ones gun.
As to your claim about political correctness: You would punish millions of peaceful law abiding people based on the acts of a very small minority of the faith. a minority that twists the faith well beyond it's teachings in order to justify murder of innocent civilians. Of people who are for the most part not by definition Infidels (Christians and Jews are not infidels, but Children of the Book, slightly misguided followers of Allah who deserve a lesser status but are not infidels to be killed.) You would punish millions for the crimes of a few. Of course you would. You've already indicated via your overly sexual connotations of gun ownership that you wish to punish millions of peaceful law abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a very small minority of gun owners.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
1) Border controls don't do anything to stop people already in the borders from doing harm.
2) Explosives are available in the UK, the same as in Belgium, France and every other country in the world - and if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them - they're going to do it.
Let's say you have border controls between country X and country Y. At any given time, there will be some number of people from each of those countries standing in a line waiting to get home - and thus are a target.
3) You could keep the EU and have border controls anyway (but see point 2 above)
Conclusion: Your anti-EU rant is not really applicable here.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Tell that to the 224 people who died when Metrojet Flight 9268 was bombed by someone who did get past security.
I mean really... this one totally sucks so far.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
OK, so how does Japan survive without becoming a 3rd world country? How about Australia? Wouldn't their border controls cause chaos?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Really, RAF, RARA, IRA had no chance at all?
Lockerbie, 1988. Directly attributable to lax border security, though, so you do have a point about strict border controls.
However, in this case it may be too alte for Belgium. Islamic terrorism has become domestic terrorism to them. Brussels is essentially in the frontzone of the war on IS. This is very likely a retaliation for Belgian security forces capturing a terrorist a few days ago, also in Brussels.
How did we ever fly safely before we got groped and fondled?
Oh, I know: We still had our carry-on luggage screened. Like, forever. Which would have stopped this kind of attack against a plane.
If you want to strawman, at least use one that can catch fire.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
Should the US states of New York and New Jersey have border controls too? How about Oregon and Washington? How about the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Because, to a certain extent, that's the equivalent you're asking for.
The notion of "countries" is what the EU Schengen 'experiment' is trying to get away from, and moving towards the equivalent of (American) states.
Whether that experiment works out, and whether its worth it or a a good idea, is another matter entirely of course.
Who is killing "us"? I haven't been killed and, I suspect, neither have you.
When 40% of Muslims living in Britain want Sharia Law (Sharia Law includes death for those who insult Islam)
When 25% of all Muslims living in Britain support the 7/7 attacks
When a majority of Muslims support death sentences for those who leave the faith.
Then it is obvious that Islam has a real problem and is a real threat to the civilized world.
I know this isn't PC, but multiculturalism should not extend to cultures that want to commit violence against others. The quicker we realize this, the quicker we can stop the problem.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Heres the thing: MY daughter and her school has just come back from Europe yesterday. Our school board had issues with the students going to Paris due to the recent terrorist attacks there, so the itinerary was changed so that they were only to be at the airport. Arrangements were made to instead go to Belgium. Then at last minute plans were changed to go to Amsterdam instead. Someone knew something 2 weeks ago and somehow our school board knew? Seems too much like a coincidence to me. Or we just got lucky I don't know, just glad my kid is home safe.
My god ... you have a short memory
The Bologna massacre (Italian: strage di Bologna) was a terrorist bombing of the Central Station at Bologna, Italy, on the morning of 2 August 1980, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 200. The attack was carried by the neo-fascist terrorist organization Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (which always denied any involvement); other theories have been proposed, especially in correlation with the strategy of tension.
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Funny, if you google "Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s." you get this: http://qz.com/558597/charted-t... (tl;dr: terrorism has been decreasing in Europe since the 70s, except for a peak in 2004 (Madrid bombings) and 2015 (Paris)). We've had Basques, IRA, Palestinians, extreme-left in Germany and France, extreme right in Italy... maybe you weren't paying attention at the time, but the current wave of terrorism is nothing new here, sadly.
It is not a justification for more surveillance.
While it certainly is *not* a justification for more surveillance, it should serve as a wake-up call to naive-but-well-intending Europeans that the right to protect oneself might have been a little important, after all..
That's exactly why we need pre-airport security screening! How is this not obvious???
I think they have that. At least... I got groped in a bar last Thursday, and I assumed it was part of a security screening.
I could think of a few.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
That speaks more of your memory rather than history, and also that we did not look across borders that much at that time into other countries' problems. There were plenty of terrorist attacks, although they were not called that. They were just called attacks, or bombings. Ireland (IRA), Spain (ETA) and Germany (RAF) are but some examples.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
"No." Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.
Slashdot has been dying slowly for years in case you hadn't noticed. Time to get back to focusing on what what its roots were: tech. Pandering to J. Random Luser will be the end of Slashdot for sure.
How did we ever fly safely before we got groped and fondled?
Oh, I know: We still had our carry-on luggage screened. Like, forever. Which would have stopped this kind of attack against a plane.
If you want to strawman, at least use one that can catch fire.
Errm, does a suicide-west count as carry-on luggage? Can it be detected by "groping"?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I don't know if you are playing stupid or didn't get the sarcasm, but Israel is probably the country with most deaths from terrorist attacks per capita in the world.
If such a list existed, Japan would probably be the on the bottom. Most people in Japan are atheist/agnostic, there are not many muslims in Japan as a percentage of the population, plus its an island with good border controls.
I'd attempt to explain the dichotomy of causation vs correlation but it's quite clear I'd be wasting my time; there's a certain "cognitive threshold" and I'm afraid you don't fall within range..
Also, Baader Meinhof.
These people were killed by bombs. I don't think a personal firearm would have helped them if that's what you were implying.
Excellent rebuttal! I Kid, I kid; it was so desperate and incompetent, I nearly laughed out loud. :)
I understand your point, but can you point to the last time that a baptist blew themselves up?
Suicide bombing has long been used.
The Chinese suicide squads during the 1911 revolution and again during the second Sino-Japanese war.
Another famous example us the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2.
Hell, even the Germans did it during the battle of Berlin.
In all those cases, one group was at war with the target group.
You cannot deny that Radical Islamic terrorist are at war with you. You are their enemy. Do you think that because you have nothing against them that they dont want you dead?
Sure, we have our brand of crazies who see the US government as a target. The uni-bomber for example.
But when was the last time that one of these guys went to a mall or shopping center and detonated a vest to blow up women and children?
What do you call a man with a hotel on his head?
Normal Tebbit.
The IRA in Britain, the RAF/Baader-Meinhof Group in Germany, and the ETA in France and Spain are just three of many major terrorist groups who committed wide ranging atrocities in Europe between WW2 and the late 90s. The IRA even managed to kill several members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, maiming many others including her right hand man Norman Tebbit (hence the above joke, popular in school yards throughout the UK after it happened), in one bombing in the mid-eighties. What Western Governments have the Islamic terrorists tried to wipe out?
Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.
Stop being scared of these cretins.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
Well, Germany had the RAF,
Italy the Red brigades,
The UK the IRA and friends.
Spain and Greece didn't need terrorists, as they had dictatorships.
The Netherlands had the RMS related troubles.
But we did have border controls in those times. Guess it didn't really matter
Religion of pieces strike again!
As just a minor reminder of history, the first Crusade was an organized reinforcement of a nation being overrun by Muslim invaders. It got rather weird and often indefensible in the later "crusades." (Ah, the "Children's Crusade" when a man who claimed to be a prophet gathered up a small army of untrained children to march on Jerusalem....and then lead them to a slaver for a significant profit.)
Also, the Inquisition was a purging of heretics among those who identified as representatives of the Catholic Church. Many crimes were committed by local rulers under the excuse of the inquisition, but those were not actually orders from Rome, those were attempts to remove "problematic" locals while letting someone else take the backlash. (The standard Inquisition treatment of witches, druids, protestants, and others was to make them sign a paper declaring that they do not represent the Catholic Church and should not be mistaken for Catholic clergy. The response to people who taught different doctrine and insisted that they were Catholic clergy was notably more unpleasant.)
this is the first page i still read in the morning, and i havent heard yet. i have friends in Brussels, thankfully they are all ok, but still. i appreciate the occasional major story. its not like its new either, they posted about 9/11 as well and that was 15 years ago
The only reason 9/11 was on Slashdot was because most other websites (like cnn.com) were not handling the traffic.
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.
You have just stated the precise opposite of the opinion of politicians/ruling class. They are using this to further their careers and to acquire more power. I believe they are doing so completely cynically, knowing that terrorism is not an existential threat.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
As soon as the citizen leaves his or her place of residence, he or she should be securely groped at the gender appropriate places and ways. That way the terrorists can't possibly win. Oh wait, installing a distributed network of bomb detectors and cameras for every single apartment house shouldn't be a problem. Just add the installation to the legal requirements of the housing companies to implement.
Not only are you incorrect, but this incorrect assertion confuses correlation with causation.
-Turkey
The IRA restricted their attacks to one political goal in one national region. This is a worldwide organization consisting of tens of thousands of radicals.
Because the IRA attacks were not significant, right? And the Rote Armee Fraktion never managed to kill anyone, right? How about ETA? They were so harmless, right?
No no no, it's all the fault of the EU and the muslims. Without the Schengen agreement and muslim immigration everything would be just perfect, wouldn't it?
* For the sarcasm-impaired: this post is sarcastic.
entropy happens
luckily we don't have to rely on your obviously faulty memory
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.
A quick calculation shows it takes a total of about 2 days for that many Americans to die from gun related homicides. According to cancer.org there are about 596,690 cancer deaths a year, so cancer does that many in just under an hour.
And if you look at the details on those "studies" you may find that those "gun related homicides" include Police Officers shooting armed robbers, attempted murders, etc... If it starts with a "study"...look into the actual details of the study, who administered said study, and who has what to gain by fudging the numbers.
"a more intelligent union" LOL
The EU is solving the demographic decline of the members states by replacing it's white civilized population by barbarous brown peoples. As if there is any chance that this won't end in genocide. So intelligent. Much unification. Wow.
Consider this: the IRA used to ring ahead of time to warn people to get out because they had planted a bomb there.
They wanted to scare people and blow shit up, sure. But they wanted to AVOID killing people (including themselves).
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I read the summary of this, and my thought was - "I'm shocked it took this long to happen" - That said, I am surprised they just went for the entrance hall and not the security lines.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Why didn't you link the huge number of bombs that have been found and attacks prevented? Wouldn't it be trivial to show how effective it is? ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Absolutely. Not much, other than the regular bombings by the ETA in Spain, the IRA in the UK and the RAF in Germany, and once a plane falling on Lockerbie, Scotland, killing hundreds in one go, various train hijackings in The Netherlands, all the airplane hijackings across the globe... that just from the top of my head. There may be more but half of that period you ask for I didn't exist.
christ, not this bollocks about the troubles being a religious conflict again. It wasn't and isn't. It might have been in the 17th century but the modern crap was all about tribes. Us v Themmins. No one was fighting over the concept of the pope being gods representative on earth or the doctrine of transubstantiation. It was all about conflicting nationalism, Brits against Irish. I should know, I've lived here for all of my 38 years.
Also, don't forget that the majority of the security "upgrades" that were standardized after 9/11 (such as only ticketed passengers past security) were proven ineffective by 9/11 - the measures were already in place at the particular departure airports!
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Well, Christians don't have a holy book that tells them to slay the infidels and take their women and treasure. Islam does. Do we still not know this in two thousand fucking sixteen?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
AND spreading falsehoods about genocide-advocating
Wrong.
Sorry, pal. It's there. In those books. It is right in there, in the books that these people (you?) claim to be "Gods word":
Kill the others, burn witches, sell your daughters as sex-slaves, sacrifice your kid when the voices in your head tell you (or, by extension, some priest). Kill the unbelievers. And so on.
It is all there. Denying what is blatantly obvious shows that you are in pathological denial, as are countless other "moderate" believers.
It's a simple fact: People of faith are, in the sense of the word and actually, people who are willing to believe something without evidence or even - as I've just proven - with complete and total evidence to the contrary.
Take your bronce-age myths and cults and go back to where they came from. Or do your thing in private. But stop posining our children with this crap and stop society and the brotherhood of man from moving on.
God didn't make man. Man made many gods. And as he is, they are ficle, dumb, flip-floppy and thow temper-tantrums every once in a while, killing innocent people and unbelievers in the crossfire between religious fanatic nutbags. History is very clear about this and any educated grown-up can see the truth. If you can't, I don't trust your judgement on this issue, sorry.
There is not one good thing a religious person can do that an unbeliever can't. ... Gential mutilation, sucide bombing, justifiaction of slavery, suppression of women, genocide, etc. pp. Christians, Muslims, the whole lot. Tribal psycho-cults out of control and in dire need of modern enlightenment.
Vis-a-vis there are countless evil things that only religious people can do. Especially the abrahamic revelation over thought crowd that I so harshly called out in my comment above.
And spare me with hitler and stalin. Given, they weren't abrahamic, but their crusades were deeply rooted in fascism born out of european christian faith, pagan blood and honor myths and russion orthodox religous zarism respectively. Same bullshit, different brand. Listen to Himmlers Posener Speeches if you want to get a taste of it.
And consider stepping away from any formalised religion or religious oranisation that claims to know it all. It makes you look silly at best. Just some friendly advice.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
So there was 'drastically less terrorism' and you know this because you can't think of any? Holy shit.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.
What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?
Well, maybe because Slashdot used to be a tech site ? (with the exception of 9/11 because all other news sites were not handling their massive web visitors)
We used to get news about hackers doing really nice tricks with hardware or software, about kernel releases, driver updates, mp3 or decss legal stuff, SCO vs IBM, space elevators, etcetera... ;-)
Now get off my lawn
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
No. Even simpler than that. Just not let the Muslims board aircrafts. Leave them with their camels and goats in the Middle East. Problem solved. Get every last of them out of Europe and the things would square away.
I like seeing stories like this here because occasionally, there is good discussion and analysis on Slashdot. If you don't want to see this story here, move along to the next story.
-Turkey
We never did — passenger airplanes have always been a very attractive target for terrorists, because even a small explosion inside one would kill everyone aboard. Horrible death too, I might add — for the majority aboard, who survive the initial explosion without any injuries...
I do not like TSA, their groping and their confiscations of pocket-knives, etc, and I think it was an utter folly for Congress and Bush to nationalize airport security in 2001, but the GP made it sound like security is useless and that was just wrong.
What are you talking about? The "insightful" Joce640k did say, there is no need for airport security, because these explosions happened outside of the "sterile area"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Meanwhile you've got this completely off-topic comment bitching about the fact that there HASN'T (at the time) been any coverage of this. No wonder Slashdot is turning into a shit pile... nobody can fucking agree on what should be posted on here.
The sad truth is that pre-airport security screening is sometimes necessary and it does work. Please read about how they do the security screening in the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. I had to pass through five (our four, I don't remember that precisely) security screenings to board an airplane. One to enter the bus to the airport, another on the road to the airport, and a couple more inside the airport itself. In each screening the queues were progressively larger.
entropy happens
Baptiphobe. I hope you lose your job.
This is very likely a retaliation for Belgian security forces capturing a terrorist a few days ago, also in Brussels.
Every time this is said and every time IS claim it, it needs to be mocked. They are making bombs and they plan to set them off. "Retaliation" does not come into it when you're already intent on fucking blowing people up.
Think those bombs got made before Abdesalam's arrest, or after? I know which my money is on.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Wasn't that John?
As far as I'm concerned, Christians and the Jews don't deserve to be even mentioned in the same sentence as Buddhism (and let's face it; in addition to tgeir unimpressive track records, they both claim to worship the same petty, jealous - i.e. evil - deity that the Islam does).
Yeah but he doesn't like the EU. So there wasn't any terrorism. EU = bad. EU = more terrorism. You see?
Start with the conclusion. Work backwards. So much less cognitive dissonance that way.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What suicide vest? You know something about the attacks we don't know yet?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lots of typos notwithstanding...
the only BS here is your ignorant bigotry.
and apparently you've never heard dominionists, even though one is running for president right now, or the Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes, or folks like the Dearborn shooter.
seriously, the filter is strong with you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The 9/11 attacks on board were carried out by pocket knives. That attack is a classic trojan-horse attack: It works once. It will NEVER EVER again IN HISTORY work out. You would not even change anything about airport security after 9/11 and ensure for eternity that THIS PARTICULAR kind of attack will never ever succeed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Donald is that you?
so that terrorists don't hurt the buildings but the people stuck out side of them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I run the IT for an organisation that I am not going to link to here because we're already having trouble dealing with the load today. We're based out of the International Press Center, a small tower behind the Berlaymont that also houses the local branches of Bloomberg and the BBC. Half of us (including myself) go through Maelbeek every day since it's the stop before Schuman, the other half come from the other direction. I was in the subway before the one that blew up; I heard the thump and saw the smoke from Maelbeek as I was getting out of the subway at Schuman; I assumed it was an electrical fire or something and went on to work. We are still on "lock down" in our tower, some of the journalists have been here since 6:00AM and nobody in the building has anything to eat.
You won't see many pictures of this in main stream media, but this is what happened to the subway that was bombed. The cars in the Brussels subway are arranged with blocks of four seats on either side of a central aisle. There is a door and standing space between each set of 8 seats. The blocks are very solid and designed to protect the passengers in them in the event of a subway crash. During rush hour the seats are full and you usually have about twice as many people standing in the open space. In the picture you can see that the bomb went off in the middle of one of these blocks of eight. I can just about guarantee that those seats were full, so we know where half the subway dead came from right there. It looks like the block of seats just behind that block held together (to the right of the image), even though the shifted some, so I would suppose that those people in that set of 8 survived. It looks like the areas between the explosion row and the surviving row and the explosion row and the bulkhead to the left of the image were not very survivable. I guess it would depend on how much shrapnel was in the bomb and how many bodies were shielding you.
I go into this detail because I want to make a point: the terrorist will always get through. We cannot get around this situation with more security. There will always be places where people are forced to congregate and you can't secure them. We can't even get people to buy tickets reliably in the subway; forget about frisking everybody with bulky clothes who rides the subway. True, you can't bomb an airliner anymore, but you sure as hell can bomb the new bottleneck at airport security. Yet the PM of France is already calling for greater intelligence cooperation, which we all know is a euphemism for greater surveillance.
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Our petty tribalism is, in my opinion, the main reason why our species won't survive the short to medium term. But everyone is quite united in agreeing, we have to focus on the differences and downplay the similarities. Because we like it that way.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I'd say he reckons his anti-EU rant is applicable everywhere.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Can't we get back to the 80's when it was all about, "my kid plays D&D, he might be a Satanist."
Every terrorist bombing outside of an airplane — including the two in TFA — would've been an airplane bombing without airport security. Simply because airplanes offer a very high "reward" — a small bomb going off at high altitude will kill everyone aboard. The security goons balance that high reward with high risk for would-be attackers.
I do call them goons, because in their zeal they confiscate innocuous items like pocket knives, and make disrespectful demands (like removals of shoes) without even an attempt to apologize. For many of them the power goes to their heads leading to condescension and contempt towards passengers — the problem made worse in 2001, when they all became federal employees and unionized.
But they are not useless, and any attempt to say that they are should be contested...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And the Red Army Faction, Red Brigades, Basque separatists, etc.
No, the ones raping children are christian priests
I've long said that it wouldn't be long before terrorists blew themselves up before the security checkpoint. I figured they would do it on line for security during a busy day, but the check-in line was (in hindsight) another target likely to cause maximum casualties with minimal risk of being stopped. Are they going to move the checkpoints to the airport entrances now? (Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.) Then the attacks will just happen in the inevitable line leading up to the checkpoint. That's the main trouble with TSA-style checkpoints: No matter where you place them, there's always another target.
Of course, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Worldwide, there were 32,727 terrorism related fatalities in 2014 (the most recent statistic I could find). This is out of about 7 billion people, so your risk of being killed by a terrorist was about 0.0005%. Even if we doubled the terrorism fatalities (perhaps to account for other deaths weren't labeled as terrorism but might be stretched to fall under that), we'd only get to a 0.001% risk.
Obviously, living in different areas of the world gives you a greater or lower risk. If you live in Iraq, you likely have a higher risk than if you live in Smalltown, Kansas. However, you have a far greater risk of dying in a car accident (1.25 million deaths worldwide in 2013, or a 0.02% risk) than by terrorist.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
how often did they attack outside Ireland?
Rational and efficient...where have I heard that before...oh, right as a justification for fascism.
If this system is so great, why can't it be democratically enacted. Because the people won't agree, amirite? To hell with this "representative government" nonsense, that's for the Americans and other foreign barbarians. The Council of Alphas knows what's best for Eurasia, I mean Europe. Two legs good, four legs better.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
[...] infection diseases, cancer and heart diseases are the main remaining causes of death.
We have no control over these. We also try to prevent them as much as we can.
Brown racists and bigots murdering European however are OUR fault. WE let these barbarians inside for false 'humanitarian' ideologies that they obviously do no share. They see openness, tolerance and compassion as a weakness, and they are right. But they should be afraid, we gazed 6 million Jews with 1930's technologies according to the propaganda. 1.7 billion Muslim will be nothing for the cloud optimized internet of thing death camps of 2020. #MakeEuropeGreatAgain
Also, were you comparing Muslim to infection diseases like AIDS?
The only 9/11 security "upgrade" that actually improved security were locked, reinforced cockpit doors. Apart from that, we could go back to pre-911 levels of security and have no measurable increase in terrorism risk.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Tebbit is alive and well. His wife was permanently disabled by the bomb and many people died.
No, the arrest didn't make them any more determined to kill innocent people. If any thing, it only caused them to expedite the plans they already had out of fear they would soon be discovered when the arrested terrorists ratted on them.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Sometimes they did that, often they didn't. There are numerous cases where no call was made. In particular they pretty much never phoned in a warning if the principle targets of the bombing were connected to the UK government, be they soldiers, politicians, or sometimes even more minor officials. This was regardless of whether others were likely to get killed.
Some others, like the Birmingham Pub Bombings, they never even accepted responsibility for (until after the conflict), apparently seeing them as a way to promote fear without wanting the blame.
Still others the bomb warning was misleading or incomplete. In the Warrington bombings, for example, they claimed a bomb was planted at a particular store in the city center. They made a second call warning of a bomb but with no indication of where it was, not even mentioning a city. They had, in fact, planted two in Warrington, one that was near to that store fitting the first call's description, and one 100 yards away, in an area likely to be filled with evacuated civilians.
Sometimes the IRA wanted to avoid killing "civilians" (not people, just civilians), but more often than not, they were happy to kill them. And the calls were made for all kinds of reasons, including just wanting the UK government to take the blame when civilians inevitably ended up murdered.
The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
yeah 0 to 8 killed in a year since the 1970s, until the MUSLIM TERRORISTS killed 20 in Jan 2015, 130 in November 2015, and now this
They also do it for bags in Manila.
War is about money and power, not religion. Religion (also nationalism) is often used as a motivator for soldiers on the ground, but the people who are pulling the strings and benefiting from the war couldn't give a crap as long as they get their money and/or power. It has been this way since the beginning of time.
The crusades were the results of failings in the feudal systems. Taxing serfs who have nothing to give isn't going to give you enough money to pay your army and protect the wealth you have acquired so far from your equally greedy neighbors. Sending your army off to some foreign land to loot and pillage will. Bonus because your soldiers are killing evil Muslims (or German jews that happen to be right on the way.)
As far as S. America and Africa, the missionaries had their agenda (convert the people to their religion) which happened to nicely augment the agenda of the imperialist leaders of various European nations sending various explorers and conquerors to gain more territory and wealth for their empire. The religious aspect here just made the people easier to control.
The Christians only stopped being in the news in the UK every day killing each other for being the wrong flavour of Christian when some time around 2001 the citizens of New York suddenly decided that funding terrorism wasn't cool anymore.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
One year ago, a copilot used that feature to keep the pilot out of the cockpit while flying a full passenger airplane into a mountain to commit suicide.
nonsense, the science of warfare has pushed forward human progress like nothing else
gun deaths by savages in inner cities being somehow a different thing than a muslim terrorist savage shooting someone?
we had border control in the 19th century, people had to come in through legal port of immigration
The UK called. They want to remind you of a period called "The Troubles".
Oh wait, who is on line two? Munich, Germany? They are calling about the Munich massacre.
Now there's line three lighting up. Oh it's Italy. Something about terrorists killing a former prime minister.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Another example is the US invading various middle-eastern countries to try to control the oil there and using freedom/democracy as a way to whip up popular support for the war. At the end of the day, US oil companies make bank and line the pockets of the politicians who started the war in the first place.
If you're serious about this they've already won.
Ponder on that for a minute.
Yes, that's why the US is rarely victim to terrorist attacks, because there are border fences and guards at the edge of every single state, oh wait no it doesn't. It's also why 7/7 happened in the UK, and why the IRA regularly bombed the UK mainland through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, because the UK had no border controls with the rest of Europe... oh wait, yes it did.
Oh wait. You're just using fear to push your xenophobic anti-European agenda as usual aren't you? Go away, Slashdot hates people who use politics of fear to push tangential political agendas in the wake of terrorist attacks. God only knows enough vile has been spewed at successive US governments for doing exactly that.
Nice try, but really, we've had the politics of fear here since 9/11, and it's really not been popular. Next you'll be telling us we should have more surveillance because of this terrorist act and that that would solve it all too.
Nope, the First Crusade was a concocted story so that the Pope, ostensible leader of Christianity, would have an excuse for asking all the secular feudal lords to advance his agenda.
In fact, the ruler of the alleged territory, such as it was ruled, was the Byzantine Emperor who had no real relationship with the Papacy, and obviously the Bishop of Rome wanted to change that. The Seljuk Turks, as it were, conquered as many Muslim cities, both Arabic and Persian, as Christian or Byzantine ones, and the Crusaders themselves butchered the inhabitants of Jerusalem indiscriminately anyway. Whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian.
But do go ahead and believe it wasn't as bad as any of the rest.
Often
yeah 0 to 8 killed in a year since the 1970s, until the MUSLIM TERRORISTS killed 20 in Jan 2015, 130 in November 2015, and now this
And that has...what to do with border controls exactly?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Was it a rebuttal or a serious question? Your post has helped nobody. Please explain why these countries are different if you want to make a valuable contribution to the conversation.
They eliminated most of the bombings, now they have hundreds of stabbings.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A suicide-west. Is that you, Pavel Andreievich?
That's a very dangerous idea. The religion you characterize tongue-in-cheek as a "peaceful religion" IS inherently a peaceful religion that has been co-opted and perverted by a small subset of radicals. Remember, people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ. 100 years from now . . . Maybe it'll be Buddhism? Who knows. But to paint every person who follows Islam with a wide brush is patently unfair and extremely dangerous.
No, he's saying it'll not make a blind bit of difference. And he's right. It won't. You think IS*'s terrorists sneak across borders with AK-47s strapped to their backs, minutes before they blow up airports? Most of them seem to be homegrown FFS. Intra-european border controls will have as much affect on home grown terrorists as they did on the IRA or RAF or ETA.
Is it a good idea to strengthen intra-European borders anyway? Hell if I know, probably not. But should it be done solely for the purpose of preventing terrorism? No, it's a complete waste of time because it won't have any affect whatsoever.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, maybe because Slashdot used to be a tech site ?
It was "news for nerds, stuff that matters". It's had politics and other non-tech stuff since forever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
False equivalences.
How many deaths due to road accidents are intentional? Not intentional due to road or vehicle design, but due to driver or other individuals actions?
How many road accidents (or other daily risks) can be assigned a motivation that can be stated simply as hate?
Terrorist attacks are nothing like road accidents, or even food choices.
Sadly, warning against the loss of civil ;liberties in Europe seems a bit belated. Europe, even before the EU, has been surrendering such liberties as they had before much too easily (IMHO).
America cannot follow that path. It will not lead to safety.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If we are going to survive the 21st century as a species, it will be because we have defeated religion. Conversely, Ted Cruz as president would probably accelerate our demise.
Yeah, fighting terrorism is a waste of time. Best to just give up and not try, huh?
This is the attitude of modern Europe. This is what has become of western culture. "It's too hard to fight them. Fuck it, let's just give up and invite them in."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
And more than 60 people die by homicide over average per day. Many more get injured or traumatized for the rest of their live. The answer is not surveillance. The airport and surroundings are the most watched environments in any country, including security camera's, dogs, scanners, searching every person, metal detectors, explosive detectors, ... you name, it is done near airports. Yet the terrorists succeed in killing and injuring multiple people.
Just stop minimizing the effect these actions have on the society. I was stuck in a traffic jam for hours and decided to just park my car in the grass near the service lane and go back to the civilized world on foot and take a taxi home. This is the 4th time in two weeks I don't get to work. This is not just an average accident. This is organized crime, even worse, this is hatred towards the western world that is organized in a symbolic attack on the hearth of the European governmental institutions.
I hate this 'you have a higher change to die in an accident' kind of nonsense. I drive safely, my chance to die in an accidents has dropped with a few 100%. I have to commute to Brussels everyday. The chance to be struck or just hindered by a terrorist attack is really high. This is the 7th time in 1 year and 2 months I don't manage to get to work by the acts of terrorism. That's way higher then being hindered or struck by a car accident (1 time I was half an hour late because of an accident in 6 years).
I've given up on the good all 'Muslims are peaceful people, only a minority are terrorist'. What I've witnessed last Friday when the most wanted terrorist was caught, only 1.5 km from where I work was mind boggling. Hundreds of Muslims on the street to protest against the police, the state and non Muslims in general. Yes, the majority did only use the right of free speech. But all of them supported terrorism. Now when 200 to 300 man choose to become vocal and even throw rocks at the police, you know there are many more who support them but didn't dare to make the step in public. These are 'brave' men and women to dare to confront heavily armored special police forces. It might be a minority of the 1 million Muslims in my country (10% of the total population!!!!), but thousands maybe 10 thousands support Jihad or at least don't mind Jihad. You don't hear the vast majority of moderate Muslims. The last time we heard them was when they protested against the fact that they were not allowed to slaughter sheep in open street. They called it racism to not be allowed to do their ritual killing. Political correct didn't know what to do. Animals have rights too on their agenda. What a nightmare. Luckily the Muslims under the PC supported the poor Muslims with their urge to slaughter sheep.
Political correctness has fail really hard. Yesterday there was a left wing think tank that called to lift the security treat level. The 'so called terrorist', but in reality 'a victim of the white male society' had been caught. It was time to undo the harm done to the poor Muslims in Molenbeek. We had to apologize to them and prepare funds to subsidize their cultural events, mosques and schools. We should all hug them and comfort them for the injustice done to them. They simply 'forgot' about the festivities going on in Molenbeek after the Charly Habdo and Bataclan attacks.
Only one day later this happens. And it isn't even that nobody saw this coming. But anyone who warns about potential terrorist attacks gets 'burned at the stakes', they commit political or journalist suicide.
The political correct look down and keep preaching "but, but Islam is peace, those people where not Muslim because Muslims don't do this". The biggest winners are again the anti European, anti foreigners, extreme right wing parties. And that saddens me a lot. I'm a convinced European. I want a strong Europe with open internal borders. But not a Europe with a naive political correct leadership that always has to look up to big brother US when something bad happens at
News is reporting one of the blasts at the airport was a suicide vest. The other was a suitcase.
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
Yeah, it's always "only some Christians but all Muslims", isn't it?
It absolutely is NOT all Muslims - terrorism and suicide bombers are something very much foreign to Shia Muslims. It is almost exclusively Sunni Muslims who engage in terrorism.
We should stop labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists and be a bit more discriminating.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I know, right? Fucking people, not agreeing on stuff. Its a fucking disgrace!
[Bill Clinton] Damn, I thought that said "I have not been blown". Better not click that button after all
why do we have rules about how to drive? Just because we have accidents we cant take away people's free will to drive the way they want. They have been driving where they want for thousands of years. Ban driving rules.
The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable
LOL! Yeah right. Much better to be oppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
This is the reason I cannot look at news anymore. I can't get anywhere without hearing your soundbites.
No blocking muslims will not help. Building big walls ill not help. At most you may fire someone. You have a good brain after all.
Wow, that's as many people killed as one school shooting in America!
+1000 Informative. Thank you. From Portland, Oregon. You're in my thoughts and prayers today. Please take care and be safe.
The roads near airports will need to be rebuild. May this can push that I-190 rebuild with new ramps along so that the US-12/45 traffic can get rid of the loops and there is big checkpoint area. May even need to move the blue line (it needs to go past the airport)
According to David Wood, there are three stages of Islamic Jihad (posted at YouTube as
Title: "Three Stages of Jihad"
Author: Acts17Apologetics
Date: January 1, 2012
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw
View count: 413,130
)
Stage 1: Stealth Jihad
Stage 2: Defensive Jihad
Stage 3: Offensive Jihad.
1) Stealth Jihad.
Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=2m46s): When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can't possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are commanded to promote "peace" with non-Muslims and to preach a message of " tolerance". For instance, when Mohammed and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca, they criticized the beliefs of the polytheists, but they did so peacefully. The revelations Mohammed received during this time proclaimed a future judgement from believers; Allah will ONE Day punish those who reject Mohammed , but in the mean time, to each his own, "Live and let live; co-exist":
Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=3m44s) Muslims in the West point to passages like this as evidence that Islam is inherently peaceful. But we know from Muslim sources that while Mohammed was calling for religious tolerance in Mecca, he was already planning to conquer the world in the name of Allah. He even tried to lure Pagans to Islam by promising them victory over the non-Arabs.
Wood: (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=4m57s ) "Think about this for a moment. Mohammed is walking around Mecca calling for peace and tolerance. But behind closed doors, he tells the entourage, join me and we'll rule over the non-Arabs, Jews, Christians, Persians, etc. These groups aren't attacking Mohammed at all and he's already planning to conquer them. What does he need in order to subjugate the non-Muslims? He needs an army. And so he asks his tribe to convert to Islam. Now how many times have we seen Muslim groups in the world today calling for tolerance in public, but saying something very different in private? It goes back to Mohammed.
Wood: ([https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=5m34s] One of the key features of Stage One is "taqiya" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya ): concealing Islam's true intentions in order to protect the Muslim community. This was eventually made explicit in Sura 3:28 :
Wood (https://youtu.be/ERou_Q5l9Gw?t=6m2s) : "Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims unless they are outnumbered and they feel like they are in danger from a stronger advers
These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.
Yes, but: There is a massive difference between accidental death and murder. We kind of accept road deaths because while we strive to make roads and cars as secure as possible, we understand there is a risk remaining.
If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.
Everyone with three working brain cells knows that surveillance and new laws the whole security theatre is not, never has been and never will be the answer. I've posted many times here and elsewhere that security check points at airpoints are bullshit, terrorists will just put bombs in the crowds in front. What happened today was very close to that, and I've been saying it for years, it was only a matter of time until even the dumbest terrorist has the same idea.
But if you advocate sitting still and just accepting the risk, you are stupid as well, because one of the fundamental requirements of a free society is that it can defend itself against its enemies. That includes the Bushs and the Merkels from within and the Bin Ladens and Daesh from without.
Our society fails that because it has become too open. If you let everyone in, bad people will be among them. If you can't define what your society is, you don't have one. If you cannot see a difference between "us" and "them" then maybe you are in utopia, and maybe you are just an idiot, because "they" see this difference. While our politicians and other professional idiots repeat the "nothing to do with islam, not all muslims are like this" mantra, and fight tooth and nail against people saying "these people we don't want in our society", the Islamists know with absolute precision and certainty who "we" and "they" are.
When you are in a fight with someone who wants to hurt you, you don't stop and ask him why he is so angry or whether his mother didn't love him or the poor guy just lost his job and drank a little much. You defend yourself, you hit back, until he is no longer a threat and then you can sit back and ask "wtf was that all about?".
Islam is the enemy of a free society, just like christianity was the enemy of free society until enlightenment and humanism won and defanged it. It's still a PITA but the times of crusades and inquisitions are over, not because they grew up from within, but because outside pressure forced the church to adapt, or die.
The same needs to happen to Islam. Become civilized, abandon all that sharia and jihad shit, or face extinction.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Didn't the crusades effectively start when the Byzantine empire got their butts collectively handed to them by INVADING Turks at which point Comnenus started frantically requesting help from the Pope circa 11th century iirc? That in turn got calls for effectively the first 4 armies of the crusades(built up mostly of commoners from western europe) that marched across byzantium including what we now call Turkey, Syria, etc... I mean, it keeps going from there, but that is the gist of it right?
Whatever the monster of the crusades eventually became(like destroying or enslaving anyone not considered "christian" by the 13th century), it WAS initially a defensive measure against constant invasions of muslim armies into byzantium and the rest of western europe. Most of the area known as Bizantium was christian and had been for some time(Byzantium started by the greeks and eventually and taken by the romans). Even most of North Africa was considered "christian" until the muslims overtook most of it by the 8th century. Up until then it was christian for what...a good 7-800 years?
The temporary border controls between Denmark and Sweden does solve the problem of new potential terrorists getting Swedish passports.
What is needed is a revision of all permanent residency permits and citizenships given the last 20 years to get rid of most of the terrorists who has a swedish passport at the moment.
And to your point, "the terrorist will always get through," I am on public transportation right now. There's no way anyone would ever implement screening for every passenger that gets on a bus. I'm on a bus. Someone could get on with a suicide vest and I'd never know it. Hell, someone could drive by with a car bomb. I don't let these things bother me because then is sit in my house all day -- which someone could bomb. You're never 100% immune from the whims of another person. You just deal with it and live your life, making your decisions with the understanding of the possible consequences and the realistic chances thereof.
Yes, all devout Muslims, just look at the teachings and example of their prophet.
So once 1,3 million people die in terrorist attacks a year we're allowed to care?
The difference between an attack and an accident is night and day.
> any other modern religion
Don't use modern and religion in the same sentence without a negative, please.
Indeed but the standard operating procedure of always having two people in the cockpit at all times that would likely have prevented this incident was already practised by other airlines.
You are forgetting another effective security measure that happened after 9/11. Now people are willing to turn a hijacker/terrorist on a plane into a grease smear on the already sticky airplane carpet instead of sitting by and getting to fly to Cuba as the hijacker demands one million dollars or what ever they use to do.
Time to offend someone
What an enormous load of bollocks. Cars do not conspire to kill us. The 'kill-rate' of cars is a function of safety-measures and stupidity-statistics. The kill-rate of terrorists, on the other hand, without throwing everything that you have at it, is potentially infinite (or, the amount of people on the planet).
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I'll just leave this here, sorry it isn't the obligatory xkcd.
Time to offend someone
The time for profiling has come. Let's face it, this attack has all the markings of another horrible, malicious attack by those damned radical Baptist terrorists.
Yup You're right.
I don't respond to AC's.
The un-PC truth is that these attacks are a consequence of years of 'enlightened' immigration policies. These policies stoked Western countries with potentially explosive Islamic true-believers, which were then detonated courtesy of the just plain stupid misdirected wars waged under G.W. Bush in response to Bin Laden and 9/11. I doubt there is any definitive solution now, and we will be plagued by these attacks for many, many years to come.
No it's not. There's no evidence that it's a peaceful religion. It has never been a peaceful religion, and it won't be until it is reformed or destroyed.
These people were killed by bombs. I don't think a personal firearm would have helped them if that's what you were implying.
There are reports that a Kalashnikov-type rifle was found at the scene of one of the airport bombs and that shots were fired immediately before the bomb went off. However, you are correct: it's a lot faster to shout out "Allahu akbar" and push a button than it is to unholster a pistol. And even if you were to draw your weapon in time, unless you get an immediate headshot chances are the bomber would still have time to trigger his bomber. And this doesn't even consider the possibility of a deadman switch or a remote trigger backup (which has been known to be employed by ISIS and other terror groups in case the bomber gets taken out (quite possible in vehicle-borne explosives) or the bomber gets cold feet/is coerced into undertaking the bombing (more likely to be used with children).
In fact, as a gun owner myself, I would say Europe's relative lack of terror attacks can be attributed in part to the lower levels of gun ownership in Europe. In the US access to fully automatic weapons is very restrictive so we tend to have smaller, but more frequent attacks carried out using semiautomatic rifles and handguns (San Bernardino, recruitment center attacks, Ft. Hood). It seems that fully automatic rifles are easier (not necessarily easy, however) to acquire in Europe, which lends itself to fewer but higher casualty attacks such as in Paris.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Such a great sig.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yeah, but Islam is a peaceful religion so it was entirely unnecessary.
Hey dipshit. This guy killed three people because he thought they might have parked in a visitor's parking space. Sounds like there's a stupid white guy problem.
I don't respond to AC's.
Show me a single bombing or even a single terrorist attack that the TSA prevented.
Let me tell you how it is on the A'dam airport. No matter how much security you have there is a moment when after check-in the travelers go through the passport/screening control. In order to make it "safer" passengers from 20-30 check in lines go through the same passport control.
So, you walk through the airport's door [completely unguarded] and within 20 paces you are in the middle of THOUSANDS of people waiting for the passport control. If you are quick it would take about 3-5 seconds to rush in and detonate yourself...even if there were fully armed guards you can do it....so you need a control point before the control point before the control point...
That is why someone above was joking about "it's queues all the way down". Complete security is an impossibility, therefore no amount of money spent and restrictions placed will help you. Never. There will always be gatherings of people that cannot be secured [school, disco, cafes, church, hospital, company building, sport events ...the list is endless]....we cannot give up all those activities and we cannot make them 100% secure.
Uh oh...another one in denial.
"Oh no...there's nothing wrong with me...I'm just exercising my ahhh right...mmmm..yes....oh...rights...yeah...yeah baby...show me those fucking rights...mmmmm...2nd amendment.....ohhh....I've got a stiffy....mmmm....ahhh...so hard.....jam it in baby, that's right.....clip goes in there, just like that....work that bolt you dirty little bitch....you like that, don't you ?....nasty little whore....you need a good clean you dirty tart.....look at you......you want me to field strip you, don't you ?....you're begging for it you sexy little 5.56 whore....ohhhh...ohhhhhhh...ohhhhhhhhhhh"
But hey, sure thing champ....nothing wrong with you at all. We believe you. :)
He should have said international terrorism. Border controls being the topic and all.
The Belgian news is calling it a kamikaze, I've not heard anything about a "vest" but I could have missed it. Now they did use nails to enhance the damage and the wounded number has grown above 200.
Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.
Because Europe stopped the Islamic hordes at the gates of Vienna centuries ago. They are now back and have flooded Europe, which has welcomed them with open arms. They have not changed. The do not assimilate. They reproduce far more quickly then the native populations. This is only the beginning.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Not really, AIDS is much harder to cure than getting rid of muslims is.
Border controls were the topic.
It's about Europe. Donald Tusk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... perhaps?
Breivik
Islam is as peaceful as christianity and judaism.
Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god
You are an Idiot!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal."
As it stands, we have thrown away rights and accepted terrorist attacks as being normal.
Unless you are comfortable with the vitrification of large portions of the middle-east and millions of innocents killed, those two goals of yours are mutually exclusive.
What did that have to do with Baptists?
This would be a better argument if those first Crusaders didn't slaughter the inhabitants of the lands they invaded, whatever their historical religion. So you can't even pretend it was the later ones that went bad.
And the settlement of Christians in North Africa, while not perhaps under the auspices of something like the Crusades, was not in itself necessarily peaceful. Not that the Romans were peaceful before hand, though their relations with Carthage were at least mutually hostile. But as much as the Christians want to portray themselves as martyrs, but the fact is, their own hands were not clean.
Prune the tree.
I know that you're kidding but at the same time it really highlights for me how some groups are more equal than others.
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Very well said, and stay safe.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, you could go *entirely* back to pre-9/11 levels of security, including unlocked, unreinforced cockpit doors, and there would be no measurable increase in terrorism risk. The 9/11 attacks will never work again; if anyone tried it, they would be physically torn limb-from-limb by the passengers. This was proven when the 4th plane went down, and also on subsequent attempted attacks where passengers physically attacked the terrorists.
Nothing actually has to change to prevent another 9/11-style attack. Passengers have taken care of that themselves. It's just like the other poster here said: it was a classic Trojan-horse style attack. It'll never work again, because no one is dumb enough to fall for it again.
Other types of attacks are still possible, so we do still need screenings for those, and locked, reinforced cockpit doors just make good sense (someone could still get in there and do a lot of damage before the passengers rip them to shreds), but the metal detectors and luggage xraying we did before is really sufficient.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160306/22252833817/cockpits-phone-encryption-tradeoffs-probabilities.shtml
In Thailand you have "security screening" in ever damn shopping mall.
You get screened when you enter the airports car parking house ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is a massive difference between accidental death and murder.
This "flaw" in the analogy has been brought up a couple of times. It's an invalid counterpoint, because it makes an invalid assumption: That intentional acts can be controlled while accidents cannot. I have given a counterexample in another comment already. Shoplifting is intentional, but a certain amount of shoplifting is generally accepted as a cost of doing business, because eliminating shoplifting would kill the business. To eliminate terrorism, we would have to turn our society into the equivalent of Bentham's Panopticon. But of course you know what the Panopticon is, don't you? It's a prison. We can not eliminate (the possibility of) road deaths without driving. We can not eliminate (the possibility of) shoplifting without closing the shop. We can not eliminate (the possibility of) terrorism without giving up our freedom. Far fewer people die from terrorism than from many other risks. To suggest that nevertheless we need to crack down hard on terrorism and therefore must accept further erosion of our liberties and more surveillance is an abuse of the people who died today and does the terrorist's work. It is an approach that is incompatible with the very freedoms that terrorists want to take from us.
Don't worry you'll be hearing him going on about how it vindicates his attacks on Muslims, how America needs to kick them all out etc soon enough.
But what does it have to do with ... ah wait ... it's mentioning twitter. so i guess it's all right then.
Because it is "stuff that matters". And discussions on /. are not the same as on other news sites. When you post here that banning encryption is not the right answer, people nod and mod you down for stating the obvious.
It's good to have a discussion with "your" crowd. And it fucking does matter. Brussels might be half a world away for the american crowd, but I, for example, was actually on my way to my local airport to take a flight to that very Brussels, that very airport, when I heard the news. I know the area that was bombed, I've seen it many times when I passed by on my way to the security checks.
It matters, because it affects a lot of us directly or indirectly, and because of the consequences such as politician dumbheads calling for more surveillance and so on.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Someone knows how to repeat the narrative handed down from their masters in the ivory towers. I'm sure that'll get you a pat on the head before the boot goes up your ass.
(such as only ticketed passengers past security) ...
That always was standard. No idea in what back yard country you live though
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Can we send the catholic terrorists who have been killing Europeans for decades over there as well, or do you only have a problem with terrorism if the perpetrator is someone who looks different from you.
Not only that, but there's a decent chance it'll push the UK more towards the Brexit - border controls already being a somewhat popular reason for leaving the EU anyway.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.
Drone strikes are not in the news everyday because they don't kill people that are "one of us". Many of them are carried out by Christians though, and by a nation that's one under God or some such.. They hit many innocent civilians too, and often they don't even even know who exactly they've hit. Their number of killed innocent bystanders are reduced by classifying every killed "military-aged male" as an "enemy killed in action". They also hit hospitals, and then just administratively sanction the people that were responsible for it rather than prosecuting them for war crimes.
We turn a blind eye to regimes creating situations that lead to all of the above (thinking they can suppress it before it gets out of hand, and then failing spectacularly), and next join in the narrative that this is just another bunch of insane Muslims that turned violent for no obvious reason. We selectively attack/try to topple regimes if we don't like them, all in the name of human rights but in practice caring little or not at all about the actual human rights of the people in the country at the receiving side of the bombs.
If you read a bit more on any site that goes a bit deeper than "the news of the day", you can find plenty more things. The fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity (except for possibly in case of Bush Jr), is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The origin of these acts is not religion, it's just an easily used argument with which people can identify (and the fact that the US self-identifies as a Christian nation is of course abused by IS to claim this is in fact Christian-inspired violence, just like you are doing above w.r.t. Islam). In the West we generally use democracy and human rights as justifications with the same goals, and with just as little relevance.
Or, in the words of the inimitable Juice Rap News:
And for the record: I count Western Europe pretty much as culpable in all of this as the US, it's not like we ever really took a stand against this (on the contrary, we often join in the context of NATO operations).
Donate free food here
The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable.
Twat.
It was not pocket knives but "carpet knives". No idea what the correct english term is. And yes it will work again and again.
A flight captain and his co pilot need nerves of steel to listen to the screams of the stewardesses in the cabin and not react on the demands of he hijackers.
I wish you that you are never in a situation like that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They have security on the way into Ataturk airport in Turkey as well. I can appreciate why they feel the need, but frankly I'm just surprised there aren't body scanners at just about every public venue by now. How the fuck did we become so chicken shit in the west that we through out so much of what made our society great because of a few fanatics.
I don't know about that these days. The terrorist can certainly kill more people if they get a bomb on a plane, but all the media reports about it happen after the fact and without very much distressing photos and video being shown because everything gets destroyed with the plane.
Compare that to this mornings attack, far less casualties but video from inside the building, video of people running for their lives outside the building, video of armed troops being deployed outside the PM's residence. etc all within 15 minutes of the first detonation.
Aren't those sort of images being displayed everywhere what terrorists want?
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
If you're going to claim that we could never fly safely then I'd love to see your evidence. As far as I can tell flying has been by some margin the safest form of long distance transport for decades. If flying counts as unsafe to you then driving would seem insane to you.
That's right - 34 people are dead, 170+ wounded, and a major European city is in utter chaos, but that shouldn't stop us from making this about our pet political gripe of the day.
Oh Slashdot, never change.
Even without that his assertion that without open borders Europe was free from terrorism is incredibly laughable. There has actually been far less terrorism in Europe since open borders, though that's frankly because borders open or not have had no impact on reducing terrorism and other factors (like the end of the cold war) have had a far bigger impact. 9/11 in itself made the business of terrorism a whole lot harder - no one wants to hijack an airliner now simply to make a political statement since the stakes changed for passengers from sit quietly and you'll eventually be let go, to sit quietly and we'll fly you into a building - passengers wont just sit there and not rise up against the hijackers now when they know that everyone dying is a highly likely outcome.
If he really believes that between WW2 and the late 90s there were no major terrorist attacks in Europe then his obviously far too ignorant to be even engaging in such a discussion. Even outside of the IRA there was Black September (Munich), there was Spain being hit by ETA, and folks like Carlos the Jackal, along with many Mafia terrorism incidents in Italy and countless smaller separatist groups carrying out fairly major attacks. You have to have largely lived under a rock to not know this as so much of it has reached common conciousness such as the iconic scenes of the SAS at the Iranian Embassy Siege in London, or the film, Munich, or any countless number of other TV shows, films, or documentaries about these sorts of incidents.
But I don't believe he's that ignorant, frankly he's doing exactly what everyone here complains about politicians doing - he's using the aftermath of a terrorist attack to use the politics of fear to push a political agenda that's entirely irrelevant to to the attack (namely, he wants dismemberment of the EU and thinks a terrorist attack is a good opportunity to push that agenda). The politics of fear has as much legitimacy in pushing this kind of agenda as it does being used by governments to push for more mass surveillance etc.
Even if the IRA did phone in all the time, which as you rightly point out, they most definitely didn't, I still struggle to see how that makes it not terrorism anyway, or acceptable terrorism, or however else he wishes to justify it. Hundreds still died to people carrying out attacks often against civilian targets to push a political and religious agenda in the exact same way today's attackers presumably (presumably because I'm assuming they're with ISIS or at least pushing their agenda) have.
1) Border controls don't do anything to stop people already in the borders from doing harm.
Yes they do. They allow you to start kicking people out. Without border patrols, the people you kick out can come right back in.
2) Explosives are available in the UK, the same as in Belgium, France and every other country in the world - and if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them - they're going to do it.
That's right, but if it's just some random "someone" doing it, it's a different situation. If they're not part of a larger, organized group, then what did they accomplish? Killing a few people. On the other hand, terrorist groups manipulate governments and populations with their attacks. They have goals.
Look at the plight of free speech for instance... you have people in the US, which is much stronger on free speech than Europe already, saying that the dude in Florida shouldn't burn Korans because it might provoke terrorist attacks abroad. WTF? That conversation simply doesn't happen when some random idiot blows himself up. Meanwhile in Europe you have many many people justifying their positions based on terrorism... did you not hear arguments such as "we have to accept refugees, because ISIS wants us to NOT accept refugees, thus justifying attacks against us?"
So don't pretend there's no difference between the two situations.
He incited it. He, and the rest of the Reoublicans, want more attacks.
Then you're an ignorant fool who doesn't appreciate how uninformed they are. The IRA, ETA (Basque Nationalists), The Munich Olympics...
Making the the "new normal" is not what the Terrorist want. What they want is to disrupt the economy by scaring people into not traveling and to illicit a over reaction. Just like the 9/11 attacks the US spent a trillion dollars and trashed the bill of rights in response, and all we got for it was an even bigger Islamic fundamentalist group killing innocents.
Dude where's the Mt Dew.
Also I cast magic missiles
Time to offend someone
Remember, people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ.
Give me a single quote by Jesus Christ, telling his people to "Kill infidels" or its equivalent. Just one.
People kill. Some religions promote killing, others do not. Religions that promote killing ("Smite them in the neck" ) are not peaceful. Those that promote peace ("Turn the other cheek") do not.
Moral equivocation is why you cannot distinguish the difference between Islam and Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism).
And yes, all religions have followers that committed horrible crimes, even atheism has, It doesn't excuse it or make them morally equivalent,
But here is a test, pee in a cup with a crucifix (or bible or ...) and see what happens. Pee on a Koran, and see what happens. Go ahead, I dare you. One would be called "art" and the other "Racist bigotry", morally equivalent ... right?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They do tend to respond with almost gleeful political platitudes (read: bullshit) as if each terrorist attack somehow validates their inane right-wing beliefs. Never let a good tragedy go unexploited.
"Stuff that matters". This matters.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I'm not sure what could be worse than everyone being flown into a tall building: "Let us in or we'll kill the passengers in a different way!"
Actually, 911 proved you don't need bombs on planes. But 911 was the last time passengers will be passive against an active terrorist. Air Marshals haven't stopped a single active hijacker, but passengers have.
Guess what, we're still thinking about past security failures, not the next one.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The problem with you fucktard is that you don't grasp: there is no terrorism
The idiots blowing bombs in Europe or where ever are the losers of a society we created.
We are at WAR! For fuck sake grasp it. We are at war. We are killing them, their wives their kids their grandparents.
As long as we bomb them, or support corrupt regimes that hold people as slaves, they will attack us.
If you would live in those countries and had any guts, you would do exactly the same they do.
We are lucky that only one of a million has the guts to live 10 years in europe as a sleeper and finally goes boom undetected.
If someone with my "knowledge" would be behind those "terrorists" you would bomb the regimes of Saudi Arabia etc. out of existence ... because that would be my demand: Remove all totalitarian corrupt regimes from the planet at once.
Anyone who cares about "terrorism" and has a glimpse of a clue could kill thousands every day with the most simplest attacks. Not even bombs involved.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The kill-rate of terrorists, on the other hand, without throwing everything that you have at it, is potentially infinite
If we throw everything we have at them, they have everything they wanted.
Actually,no. Its statistically safer to live in afghanistan than the USA, and until recently it was also safer living in Iraq.
Americans are notoriously bad at understanding the actual dangers of living in the US as opposed to more advanced nations. Shit, they're gunning each other down by the tens of thousands anually in murica.
I don't know how this is in Belgium, but I just read an article that most people in my country (The Netherlands) are now atheists. In fact, there are more atheists than all religious people combined. Christianity is losing members very fast here.
Not Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) but God himself says it repeatedly:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-
Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in
13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known),
14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,
15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.
There are also New Testament passages cited as justification to kill non-believers, e.g.
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Be honest- there are plenty of Christians who would love to kill non-believers if they thought they could get away with it (like they did for centuries before the modern era). Mod me down all you like- you know it's true (and you'll just be proving my point).
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
intentional acts can be controlled while accidents cannot.
I made no such assumption. On the contrary, I expect from the government and the car companies and everyone else involved to do their best to reduce the accident rate.
We can not eliminate (the possibility of) terrorism without giving up our freedom.
So we should give up and take it up the butt like a man? Sorry, no.
Running a shop and car driving are bad analogies because they both involve people voluntarily engaging in an inherently risky activity, and intentionally accepting that risk. If I get into my car, I know that driving is not 100% safe.
When I get into a plane, I likewise accept that there's a small risk involved. I accept that risk, because it is so small.
But nobody signed up for the risk of being bombed. It is not inherent in the activities that are at risk.
We should not accept this risk as a "cost of doing business" because it is not.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And the passengers will just sit and wait while the hijackers threaten the lot of them with fucking knives???
Germany was terrorized by the Royal Air Force, UK by individual retirement accounts, and the Netherlands by Richard M Stallman?
Too many TLAs.
So, what is the rational here? You mean, stop doing cancer research, because people are dying of cancer anyway? Or, don't try to avoid terrorist attacks because they are insignificants compare to cancer?
Achille Talon
Hop!
And how many Muslims do you know?
Border controls seem to work pretty well for Israel... Likewise a policy of profiling.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, there is a lot of difference between both, but not for the deads. The gun deaths are mostly due to gang wars and are not targetting civilians, while terrorist attacks are high profile events targetting as much civilians as possible.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Gordon Bennett, you'd think Mooooooooooooooooslims in Europe are something new. When I lived in Oxford in the 1980s many major neighborhoods had huge Pakistani immigrant populations (they were the Syrian refugees of their day.)
There are no "Islamic hordes". There are just people trying to flee a terrible situation. And Islamic terrorists, trying one bombing at a time to persuade governments (and easily scared voters) to hand those refugees back to areas controlled by those terrorists.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Can we bury this tiresome horseshit please? The IRA were proper terrorists. They didn't always use coded warnings, the warnings they left were often darkly comically vague (and resulted in deaths) and they did deliberately kill people. Stop romanticising them (and in so doing, diminishing the massive achievement that the current peace process represents).
Well get fucking, then. What are you waiting for?
A woman? Well, in your case, that could be a long wait...
Eat the rich.
They aren't connected to anybody, so they have built-in border controls, you complete and utter moron.
Killing others and taking their stuff? Since when did anybody need a Holy book to do that?
Especially not the Koran, just ask the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English. Then you can ask the Huns, the Romans, the Greeks, the Celts, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs.
Oh please. The world is a lot smaller now thanks to faster and cheaper travel and far better communications, not to mention trade. Even well before the EU, there were various trade agreements and such between European nations. Abandoning the EU isn't suddenly going to make Germany want to go to war with France again (in fact, if the EU were abandoned, it'd probably be replaced with something resembling it in many ways and still including the major western economies in some kind of trade agreement). The problems in Europe today are caused by people, both inside and outside Europe, who are culturally not European and hate western culture.
Oooo, the boogeyman is coming to get you!
Just noting that you won't get a coherent response to this because there aren't any that stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
You really don't see how your excessive use of profanity doesn't help your argument?
That the actions of some muslim terrorists do not embody the actions of all muslims?
That your post getting (Score:5, Insightful) is a symptom of societal cancer?
That's like saying you had a barrel of apples, saw a rotten one on the ground next to the barrel, and thus concluded "all apples are FUCKING poisonous SHIT!"
" The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
The logic of a united Ireland is as reasonable as the USA conquering Canada. Whilst this was the intention of US foreign policy at one time, the US has grown out of it. The concept of accepting the settled that have emerged as a result of colonialism is a fraught one, but it has worked better in Africa, and until recently the Middle East, than the alternative of fighting it out.
The issue of 'oppression' is of course more complex, though blaming the 'English' shows a lack of knowledge, given that Ulster Protestants are mainly of Scottish origin, as indicated by the prevalence of Presbyterianism as the main churches. In retrospect it's obvious that the Catholics were being oppressed; but that was hard for everyone to admit at the time. We've got to the point now where a really messy constitution is up and running that has begun to build trust, but the situation is still on a knife edge.
(News for nerds)v(Stuff that matters).
There's a big difference. Those shootings in your area probably involved very small numbers of people, and were targeted. Usually, in the US, shootings occur between criminals (such as turf wars or drug deals gone bad), or because of some kind of relationship conflict (domestic violence). Occasionally, we get a "mass shooting" like Columbine where some nuts try to kill a bunch of people, and that is directly comparable to terrorism, but the others just aren't. If you avoid criminal gangs and violent spouses, you generally won't have a problem.
Over in Europe, it's probably better than here, except for the Muslim terrorists, since they don't have such easy access to firearms. You never heard about Columbine-style shootings over there, and domestic violence generally doesn't involve guns, and they don't seem to have the drug trafficking problems we have. So if they got rid of Muslim terrorists, they'd probably have the most peaceful society on Earth.
Luke 19:27 is a parable. It wasn't a command given to his believers.
The other two are NOT Jesus commands to his followers either.
Be honest, there are plenty of Atheists who would kill religious people if given a chance. I've have had the pleasure of speaking to a number of them personally.
I don't need to mod you down.I don't need to mod you anything. The fact that you had to strain at gnats to try to make your point shows you for who you really are. Enjoy your smug ignorance.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But nobody signed up for the risk of being bombed. It is not inherent in the activities that are at risk.
It is inherent to not living in a Panopticon. A society that values its freedom cannot eliminate all risks.
Flying back to the States out of Ben Gurion Airport was an interesting experience. About a mile from the terminal we were stopped at a Godfather-style toll booth. Four soldiers surrounded the car holding automatic weapons while a fifth stuck a mirror on a long handle under the car to look for, I assume, explosives. Then, while walking in the airport terminal door we were intercepted and interviewed by another heavily armed soldier, who recorded the brief contents of the conversation. This guy would have shot anyone shady before they even set foot in the terminal or got anywhere near the queues. We were interviewed multiple times again during the check-in process and it was obvious that the Israelis were comparing notes, looking for discrepancies in our stories, nervous reactions, or other suspicious behaviors. That's human intelligence, and it works, along with profiling, which the Israelis also do.
That's not really an argument.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The time for profiling has come.
Yes, well, make sure to start with the institutions that finance and arm them. Otherwise you're wagging the dog, attacking the wrong crowd. Open your eyes indeed!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm an American. Our population is being replaced with Mexicans, not Muslims.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Whoever marked this Insightful is an idiot.
Islam believes that Mohammad came afterward as a follow-up to Christ. So Islam has its roots in Christianity.
I'll say again: Islam is a peaceful religion at its roots. People have perverted it to be something it's not. Just like those in the Crusades did to Christianity.
"We've had religion for tens of thousands of years, and, there's no documented proof of any god. It's a myth." The best documented evidence is the Resurrection, which the church celebrates on Sunday. People have tried to disprove it - and tend to end up convinced it happened. A good example is 'Who Moved the Stone' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Always with the numbers game...
Ask the one important question, who is paying these people, who is selling the weapons to them? Sorry, two questions.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We've had peace for 70 years! There will never, ever be another war, ever again!
Now where I have I heard this sort of naivete before?
There's about a million new ones in the past 8 months. And what is new is the ethnic Germans' 1.6 and falling birthrate.
And you know about all the Pakistanis in London advocating for Sharia law right? And the Rotherham sex abuse plague?
It's just numbers, man. Demographics. The result is the same. In 100 years Europe will be a caliphate, and there will be a monument to the brave martyrs who gave their lives for Allah in Brussels, and another in Paris. St. Peter's will make a lovely mosque. Have to smash and burn all that art that's not squiggles and squares, though.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
We were never safe from terrorism on an airplane.
Yes, planes are much safer from other dangers (such as traffic accidents), but they are, nonetheless, a terrorist magnet.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Islam is as peaceful as christianity and judaism.
Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god
You are an Idiot!
Great work mentioning two that went through reforms.
*5 stars. Would laugh at stupid comment again*
But on a more serious note: The god they believe in has zero to do with anything. But thanks for playing.
Clearly this proves we need more laws banning the illegitimate use of explosives.
Islam is as peaceful as christianity and judaism.
No, it's not. Instead of repeating what people tell you do some actual homework so that you are not an ignorant fool.
Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god
No, they don't believe in the same god. Same request about correcting your ignorance, because you really don't seem to be very bright at all.
You are an Idiot!
Ahh, the old "I'm mentally deficient" argument. You have proved my believe in your intellectual capacity..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Don't worry you'll be hearing him going on about how it vindicates his attacks on Muslims, how America needs to kick them all out etc soon enough.
Every Muslin has blood on their hands. They should all be rounded up and deported aboard container ships to the Middle East. There are no innocents amongst these murderous creatures.
Yes they do. They allow you to start kicking people out. Without border patrols, the people you kick out can come right back in.
Show me a terrorist attack committed by someone with an invalid passport.
There's a million refugees in a supernation of 350 million people as a result of one specific national collapse in the far east, and you want to extrapolate that to... what exactly?
In 100 years, Europe will still be majority Christian, even using your own twisted figures. Syria doesn't have an infinite supply of refugees, and the German birthrate is hardly representative of the entirety of Europe.
Calm down.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The Shadow of the Vulture is fiction.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You don't get it. Our bigoted friends here all believe that terrorism = Muslim, Arab, Palestinian. All the other bombers and killers are just misunderstood.
And in the meantime, the gangster financiers are stashing away bags of money, mostly tax free. Nobody dares to notice them. Ah well, surveillance and imprisonment it will be for the unfortunate.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yes, but Tebbit was nonetheless buried under the rubble of the Brighton Hotel. He survived, almost unscathed (he has a limp) because the mattress somehow ended up over him.
He was, at the time, the most famous public figure directly hurt by the accident, and I remember his return to Parliament being a significant occasion as a result.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The difference is that passengers are now more likely to get involved. Prior to 9/11, the standard response was to sit and wait, enjoy your flight to Cuba/Iran/Libya and let the negotiators sort things out. Now that turning the plane into a weapon is an option, passengers have nothing to loose by tackling, throwing hot coffee etc at the hijackers. The effectiveness of this style of attack didn't even last through 9/11 when passengers on flight 93 decided to storm the cockpit when they heard what had happened to the other planes
Central to Christianity is that Jesus WAS God. He is part of the trinity: God, Son, Holy Spirit. Three in one. God made flesh on the Earth.
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
who is selling the weapons to them?
Are you being sarcastic? The explosives necessary to injure hundreds of people can be procured/produced with over-the-counter materials from any home improvement store and perhaps a side visit to the kitchen department at any department store. The materials needed can be had for the cost of a few pizzas, and the expertise needed can be had at any time, for free online. Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What do you mean by "this" ?
OP isn't claiming the Brussels attacks are about cartoons, he mentioned them as an example of how stupid it is to say Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, etc.
As a citizen of EU. I don't see why our freedoms could be taken away from us? [..] Open tEh concentration camps
I'm not sure whether to highlight the irony or ask if you're German.
The terrorism in that troubled land is not religious, it is a fight for land. And must I remind you that Christians form a significant minority of the Palestinians?
Historically, the main organization attacking Israel was the PLO, which is pretty much secular. More recently, though, terrorist attacks are made by Hamas (which is indeed Islamic in character) and by "lone wolves", which don't seem to have religious motivation.
Oh, you were not interested in facts, just in insulting Islam? Carry on, then.
entropy happens
Like Ft. Hood?
Sure, great video for them. But how does that compare to, say, a fully loaded airliner crashing into downtown Detroit as it's approaching the airport there? But for a few mis-steps on deploying/using an explosive meant to accomplish that, that's exactly what we'd have seen. Far more destruction and flaming death than the two bombs used this morning. But now much harder to attempt, for obvious reasons.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Are you just trying to start arguments? I ask because:
1. You originally claimed there was little terrorism in Europe between WW-II and the 1990s (something, to be honest, I'm increasingly finding it hard to believe anyone actually would think, or at least state as fact without checking.)
2. When called out, you, in one set of threads, changed the subject to concerns about Muslim refugees, and in the other, when (lots of us) mentioned the IRA, defended the IRA as being opposed to killing people.
3. When I pointed out your defense of the IRA was misplaced, you take the only comment in the entire thing that suggested any aspect at all of the IRA might have been slightly good, and disagree with it. (BTW, the government of Eire isn't that bad, really. And I believe Protestants aren't discriminated against down there, FWIW.)
It seems an odd strategy, like you're looking for things to argue about, rather than trying to have a discussion about the future of European security and civil rights.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yes they do. They allow you to start kicking people out. Without border patrols, the people you kick out can come right back in.
If we were kicking anyone out this might make a difference...but we're not actually kicking anyone out so adding borders does not have any effect other than to annoy those of us who like traveling between countries here.
That's right, but if it's just some random "someone" doing it, it's a different situation. If they're not part of a larger, organized group, then what did they accomplish? Killing a few people. On the other hand, terrorist groups manipulate governments and populations with their attacks. They have goals.
Look at the plight of free speech for instance... you have people in the US, which is much stronger on free speech than Europe already, saying that the dude in Florida shouldn't burn Korans because it might provoke terrorist attacks abroad. WTF? That conversation simply doesn't happen when some random idiot blows himself up. Meanwhile in Europe you have many many people justifying their positions based on terrorism... did you not hear arguments such as "we have to accept refugees, because ISIS wants us to NOT accept refugees, thus justifying attacks against us?"
The terrorist attacks are like Anonymous attacks in that they are sometimes well coordinated and sometimes done by incompetent loners.
Daesh (I use this title because it's an insult to them and I do not wish to grant them their wish to be called a state) has goals but so what? There are always going to be stupid people who will say stupid things (as those you are referencing) even without anyone blowing anything up. And to answer your question - no, I have not actually heard anyone at all basing their position based on terrorism, other than to be more against Daesh than ever.
While I feel bad for the families of those who have been killed or wounded, the reality is that Daesh have managed to kill fewer people outside of the middle east than die in car crashes here in a month - which is why I do not perceive Daesh's ability to do war against us here to be substantial enough to justify any significant changes in the way that I live my life (i.e. being willing to put up with more security theater that isn't useful for stopping Daesh anyway).
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Nothing GP said is incorrect. Whining about filters and "ignorant bigotry" is all you've got left, and it's utter garbage. Nobody cares about these baseless accusations anymore. It's not bigotry or racism or Islamophobia or whatever "bad word of the day" to list the widespread problems in the Muslim world, and if you think it is, that's your issue.
Keep saying there's no person-with-head terrorist problem.
I'll believe it when the headless start repeatedly shooting people and blowing themselves up because someone drew a fucking cartoon.
The problem is that people who do not understand conditional probability think that a reasonable response to terrorists that claim to be Moslem is to hassle everyone that is a Moslem, when that really just means they will drown us in false positives. There is such a small population of terrorists that the criterion of "Moselm" by itself is in no way sufficient to build a useful forensic profile.
I abolutely agree with the above... We don't need our freedom to be restricted because of occasional terrorist attacks. If we allow that then they win, we lose. And as stated above, a lot more people die on the road each day, and nobody cares..
Horse Shit......if this happened to you or a loved one of yours, you would lawyer up in a heartbeat and sue anyone and everyone associated with that airport or subway. Your lawyer would be bitching "They should have been more thorough, they should have done this, they should have done that....bla bla bla"..
Give me a freakin' break!
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Weird. I have heard "rational" and "efficient" as adjectives referring to capitalism, people, and organizations. It's uncanny. It's almost like rationality and efficiency were good and desirable qualities.
Which, I guess, is why you went straight for Hitler.
Functioning democracy is a requirement for joining the EU. On top of being controlled by democratically elected governments, the EU itself holds its own elections. And of course the decision to seek EU membership in the first place is itself typically subject to public referendum.
Since you can't possibly believe your own bullshit, mind telling us what your real beef with the EU is?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Exactly! Have you tried following the thread before stating irrelevant crap?
The claim was that the open border policy of EU made it possible for terrorists to do attacks. But that isn't true - since WW II there have been terrorist attacks in United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany and even Sweden (as a small example) while border control was in use.
The thing is that terrorism isn't new and it have never been under control (not even in the Soviet union where there were border controls inside the country!). /Megol
What have changed is the goals of the current wave of terrorism - it isn't about propaganda anymore, it is an attempt to split Muslims against everyone else in order to gain power. Indiscriminate killing of innocents is an excellent way to do that.
The Christians only stopped being in the news in the UK every day killing each other for being the wrong flavour of Christian when some time around 2001 the citizens of New York suddenly decided that funding terrorism wasn't cool anymore.
How many IRA bombers were heard crying out God is great? How many IRA reps declared their war a holy war?
You are pretty falsely trying attribute a religious element to a group that really doesn't deserve it. What's more, is the context is in contrast to multiple global Islamic jihadist organizations who very openly declare they are on a mission from God and waging a war against ALL who don't share their exact form of faith.
With "this" I indeed referred to the Brussels attacks, but it equally applies to the whole rhetoric about how Islam lies at the basis of all of this terrorism. I've discussed this more extensively in another comment.
Or, as implied by my comment above: this terrorism is as much inspired by Islam as US drone strikes and bombing doctors-without-borders hospitals is inspired by Western democracy ("one nation under God" and all that jazz). Even more explicitly: I don't see either Islam or Western democracy as causally linked to the atrocities committed by either group, even if they all (purportedly or genuinely) identify with one of them.
Donate free food here
I don't know what your point is. I didn't say anything about passports, just border security.
Do you think valid passports are magic and allow immediate entry? There are thousands of valid passports issued in regions of Syria controlled by ISIS... guess what... I don't think those people should be let in, despite their valid passports.
You understand that the OP are talking about EU transforming to something closer to the US, right? I don't see where you get the idea of Fascism or the removal of the democratic principle. Neither of that is stated nor implied in the OP...
Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.
It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.
What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?
Well, speaking of pathetic bleating, perhaps we can be thankful that the Republitards are not on here screaming about how this is all Obama's fault. Probably because they failed at making him a one term president and they can do nothing more to hurt his presidency so they finally shut the fuck up about all this "Thanks Obama!" bull shit. I will preemptively say if Trump gets the presidency, this is his fault by default because reasons.
"I don't think equating a (consensual) United Ireland with an invasion of Canada is a reasonable one."
Oh please. The people of Ulster voted many times to indicate that they didn't want to be forced into Eire. The fact that a minority did want it doesn't make a difference; they were a minority. Which is why unless you were proposing an Ireland wide referendum, it wouldn't even appear to be consensual
Which is where the parallel with the US and Canada is entirely applicable; if a referendum held across the US and Canada produced a result in favour of unification, even if Canada voted against, would you regard that as 'consensual'? And I remind you that the US government DID try to invade Canada...
Personally I'd be happy to dump Ulster into Eire - but the British have made a promise not to force that into happening. Americans, having no sense of history and so being late into both WWI and WWII are... not well placed to understand this concept.
I'll believe it when the Christians, Buddhists, and Jews start repeatedly shooting people and blowing themselves up because someone drew a fucking cartoon.
So what?
Even if 99% of the Muslims were terrorists, the other 1% would still have the right to live in respect and freedom.
Nope, there's plenty of big money behind it. You only refuse to acknowledge the role your great bickering empires play in this. And you usefully spread their bigoted propaganda to keep the game going.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If anyone is "kicked out" they will be kicked out of the EU. External borders still exist you know...
Indeed. And there is the little additional problem that more surveillance, more extreme police powers, more erosion of freedoms, more security-theater, etc. will not actually do anything about this problem. At all. The means that are being presented to the public for "fighting terrorism" do no such thing and are being pushed by the most dishonest and despicable of liars that have an entirely different agenda. These people are as much enemies of freedom as these terrorists, and they are worse because they try to destroy free society from within.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Unmentioned is ETA, the Basque terror organization active between 1968 and 2002 that committed 3,300 terror attacks killing 952 people and injuring 3,300. That's 34 years of murders and bombings... Anarchists are still sending letter bombs in Europe, as they did in the United States in the early 1900s. In 1919 they sent 36 dynamite letter bombs to prominent americans and the next year carried out the Wall Street bombing which killed 30 people. Bin Laden and al Qaeda undoubtedly got the idea for attacking the twin towers from Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing. Lots more examples... So no, Islamic radicals did not invent terrorism.
go ahead and browse one of the topics listed in the main nav if you don't want to see huge breaking international news occasionally. that's what they're there for
What attacks? He wants a temporary ban on immigration. You know, the same exact thing that France did after 130 people were slaughtered in Paris. Is France now a hard-line conservative nation full of racists scared of poor women and children? No, they're a nation that's trying to defend its citizens.
Several, but I don't need to know any to know that they kill people all over the world in the name of Islam every day.
I'm calm. Wait until they hit about 10% of the population. That's when things get fun.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
How many people did Mohammad kill? Did he lead an army?
This attack vector was predicted by Bruce Schneier and others since all this Airport Security Theather was established, i.e. long ago, as it is really, really obvious.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Whaa...? Capitalism is disorganized and does whatever the hell it wants without asking anyone first. Rational? Something like 90% of companies go out of business in the first year and should have never been founded. And who mentioned Hitler? Since Godwin's Law has been repealed this year and you can freely compare whoever you want to Hitler, even in the pages of the most sacred liberal media, I suppose you went right for the throat. And yes, the EU does not like voting by the people. I can't really understand where you haven't picked this up before.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament, and there are no laws restricting their freedom of religion. Now, bounce over just a few dozen miles and if you're Jewish or Christian, not only do you have zero rights it's perfectly OK to kill you. Yeah, that's really equivalent!
PS: Israelis are also people of Palestine (the Roman name for the land where Israel was at the time the Romans ruled itl). You don't mean "Palestinians" as there are plenty of them living legally and without problem within Israel. The converse though, Israelis/Jews (also Palestinian) living in Palestine, is not common at all.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
15-20 years late...
And it still doesn't stop anybody.
Really? How about Numbers 31:07-17 (King James version):
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If you go back in history far enough, you'll likely find that most religions have an era of stupidity where followers of said religions committed all sorts of atrocities in the name of some Deity.
Islam really doesn't differ much from Old Testament Christianity. Same stupidity, different point in time.
This is going to sound terrible I know but it's just my open thoughts on the matter at hand.
I'm going to pick on Islam here, but the same ideas can be applied to any violent religion these days.
If you're unable to differentiate between normal and radical followers, we'll forever be seeing news broadcasts about some idiot that blew themselves up or gunned down a mall taking a whole bunch of folks with them. They thrive in the politically correct environment we have setup at the moment. That being we want to prevent the zealots from getting in, but not offend anyone :|
It potentially offensive to ban everyone, but since we're incapable of figuring out which ones are which, we really may not have a choice. Unless you enjoy watching idiots blow themselves ( and everyone around them ) up on the news periodically.
Of course, this also assumes the other Governments of the world WANT to stop such silliness. They'll decry my statement as baseless and sheer nonsense, but everyone understands nothing gets police / surveillance state laws signed faster than an environment of fear. Terrorism is basically a blank check for the government. It's not something they'll give up easily.
However, back on subject:
An analogy would be the food industry. If a hundred folks get sick or die from eating something, we go through a recall to pull all of that particular food item off the shelves so no further harm can come from it. ( same for many other industries ) We can't identify which ones specifically are bad, so we pull them all just to be on the safe side. This, in turn, puts pressure on the company who makes the product to do a better job inspecting their products prior to distribution.
I would think that by doing the same to a group of folks who identify with a certain radical religion, it would put pressure on those countries to weed out their own bad apples, so to speak. Otherwise, with no consequences, the countries who harbor such extremists could care less if their citizens roam the world blowing shit up at random. When asked about it, they simply respond "Islam is a religion of peace" :|
Perhaps we if close the borders to all of Islam until they get with the program, they might pull their head out of the sand and help deal with the problem.
So the billions of Muslims kill people every day? Can't be many people left on the planet if that where true.
No, it is more like a due to a few hundred million rabid drivers that risk their fellow human beings lives in order to get somewhere a few seconds faster. How that is supposed to be an improvement is beyond me.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Might have added a few more victims if some injured idiots had started shooting at shadows though...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Where in the New Testament does it command Christians to kill, rape, lie to further the religion?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
False equivalences.
How many deaths due to road accidents are intentional?
All of them. They are not targeted, but that around this number of people gets killed every day in the roads is an accepted effect of the technology used. Incidentally, the ones killed now where not targeted individually either.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If we were kicking anyone out this might make a difference...but we're not actually kicking anyone out so adding borders does not have any effect other than to annoy those of us who like traveling between countries here.
Agreed, but borders is a prerequisite. You can't complain that we're not kicking people out therefore we don't need borders, when we don't actually have well controlled borders to begin with. That logic doesn't work.
The terrorist attacks are like Anonymous attacks in that they are sometimes well coordinated and sometimes done by incompetent loners.
Even the loners are doing it for some ideology or in the name of some group, even if they're not actually part of it. The San Bernardino terrorists, afaik, were not "part" of ISIS, but the woman declared her allegiance to ISIS before they did it.
no, I have not actually heard anyone at all basing their position based on terrorism, other than to be more against Daesh than ever.
You must not read much news. I've seen it in every major newspaper, both in articles and in the comment section. Here's just one of many examples of what I said above: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The entire line of reasoning is idiotic... you make decisions based on what's best for you, not some psychoanalysis of your enemy and what they want or don't want.
While I feel bad for the families of those who have been killed or wounded, the reality is that Daesh have managed to kill fewer people outside of the middle east than die in car crashes here in a month
More people die in car crashes than lots of stuff. Yet we regulate lots and lots of other stuff. Now unless you're going around saying "I'm not willing to put up with the inconveniences of food safety regulations just to save a handful of people from food poisoning, when CAR CRASHES kill so many more" then you're being awfully hypocritical.
Your argument is also very short-sighted... we already do a hell of a lot to fight against terrorism right now. We have multiple government agencies, civilian and military, dealing with terrorist groups and state sponsors. I think it's pretty remarkable, and no accident, that a wealthy terrorist group like ISIS hasn't gotten their hands on some nuclear bombs when there are suppliers from the former USSR, Pakistan, North Korea, and so on.
which is why I do not perceive Daesh's ability to do war against us here to be substantial enough to justify any significant changes in the way that I live my life (i.e. being willing to put up with more security theater that isn't useful for stopping Daesh anyway).
I agree about security theater, in the instances where it is theater, but let me ask you this. If you're not Muslim, and even if you are but you're not like a hardcore radical, how would it significantly change your life if we went around shutting down radical mosques, deporting every Muslim who ever said "Yes I would welcome sharia law in [some Western country]" or "Yes I support the death penalty for apostasy", refusing all refugees and immigrants from areas with strong ISIS influence, and so on? Seems like it would have absolutely no effect on most people, including Muslims.
Just a reminder: the Old Testament is still part of the bible. Those books are full of God commanding the Israelites to kill their enemies. A prime example would be the genocide of the Canaanites: God commanded them to kill all of the Canaanites, but the Israelis took the women and children as concubines/slaves. God was then angry at them for not having slaughtered the women and children. That is only one example, and there are many.
You can argue that the Old Testament is no longer valid, but then you also have to throw out the ten commandments, the garden of eden, and almost everything used in the gay-marriage debates. You also have to question why those passages are still part of modern Christianity's holy book.
It is also silly to paint Christianity as a religion of pease, and Islam as one of war. Both from historical points (the Crusades being an easy example) and from general numbers: there are 2.75 million muslims living in the U.S. now, and 1.6 billion in the world. If Islam really was a religion of war, you would expect total chaos. But since we don't see that, it is a much more reasonable interpretation that these extremists don't represent the religion.
Well, Christians don't have a holy book that tells them to slay the infidels and take their women and treasure. Islam does.
I'm the last person to give credence to this notion of moral equivalence between religious beliefs. However, if you read Numbers and Deuteronomy you'll find that the Christians do indeed have a holy book that tells them to slay infidels and take their women and treasure. If you are interested in looking it up, start with Numbers, chapter 31.
What we need is better education everywhere in the world. It could help people to open their eyes and see just how ridiculous all religion is.
Not Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) but God himself says it repeatedly:
Within the first sentence this person has become completely discredited. No mainstream historian will support any claim that Jesus never existed. There's just too much documentation ( Jewish, Roman, and various others ) that Jesus was a real person who really existed.
Here's an Old Testament one for you :D
Leviticus 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
Granted, it's Old Testament but, in my opinion, Islam is pretty similar to Old Testament Christianity anyway. They never really evolved to the kinder / gentler version like everyone else did. They're all still fire and brimstone.
Back then the sensible thing to do was to deescalate and cooperate with the hijackers. Plan hijacking went along the lines of hijacking, then trading the passengers for someone in jail. 9/11 changed this.
No pilot on this planet would open that door. Even if 300 people behind him died.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
Couldn't agree more. Europeans don't have problems with each other. However, Europeans do have a common problem with elements coming from outside the EU. It's simply a fact that right now Islamic terrorism is the biggest problem even if all religions and cultures have had violent periods in the past. The outer border of the EU is the one that needs monitoring and of course genuine refugees need help but ideally without importing them en masse - after all, they would prefer to live in peace where they come from.
This exactly.
You have 300 passengers and usually about 3-6 hijackers. If only 2 percent of the people think "Fuck it, I'm dead anyway if those asshats get what they want, I risk it", you are already the majority.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Load up airplanes with some kind of knock out gas. If anything goes wrong, the pilot, safely sealed in the cockpit, floods the entire passenger section. There should also always be an air marshal and a supply of gas masks in the cockpit too.
Everyone but those in the cockpit are rendered unconscious, the marshal(s) don masks and shackle or kill the attackers and the plane lands safely at the nearest airport or airstrip.
The US should use the same ROE when dealing with today's Radical Muslim terrorist groups that they used on Japan, Italy, Germany, and any other country who were contemplating attacks on the allies both during and after WW2. And the US put an abrupt end to Japanese Kamikaze attacks while Japan, Italy, and Germany got complete government make overs. The tactics being used against radical terrorists today guarantee that the violence will never end. So the question becomes are you willing to kill 100,000 people in a month to totally annihilate every suspected radical terrorists or are you going to pick option number 2 where millions are killed and driven from their homes for the next 20 years? Maybe you would like a diplomatic solution where everyone agrees to every demand the head choppers and women beaters ask for knowing full well that any armistice will be used by the terrorists to rearm, recruit more cannon fodder and continue causing havoc around the world?
Give me a single quote by Jesus Christ, telling his people to "Kill infidels" or its equivalent. Just one.
Not Jesus himself, but there are such quotes in the bible:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/
But you can just choose what to hear, since for every argument in the bible you can find the counter argument.
The bible contradicts itself a lot of times, as shown in this funny youtube vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
Religious people are intolerant. Period.
That is the equivalent of a "death penalty", not a command to kill everyone.
There are two parts to that command that make it a civil crime, "in the land", meaning people in other places weren't expected to behave that way, and "all the congregation", meaning it was a jointly responsible. People who didn't want to be part of the community were free to leave.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand. After all, we "lock people up" in jails, something that is not found in the bible. They might consider that cruel but you're okay with it. ;-)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They are just not the same. I know that we should be 'worried' more about dying in a car crash but that's not the point. We treat murder differently because if it is not held to a higher/highest standard of scrutiny, society breaks down.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Your comment is just feelgood bullshit. Why? You don't propose a solution. "but we need to deal with them as a problem", you write. What does that even mean?
And your car analogy, that one is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. Few things are as regularized as cars and driving them. You need a license to drive them, the driving process is heavily regulated, you need to adhere to physical requirements (be sober and healthy), there are road side cameras monitoring you and fining you if you break the law. Not to mention the requirements car manufacturers have to live with.
All your words "feel good", but hold no meaning. It's just bullshit. The victims deserves more.
Drone strikes are not in the news everyday because they don't kill people that are "one of us".
Pretty sure drone strikes are in the news every day, actually... either actual news of a drone strike, or someone talking about drone strikes in general. For instance here's one today http://www.kuna.net.kw/Article...
Their number of killed innocent bystanders are reduced by classifying every killed "military-aged male" as an "enemy killed in action".
And the number of innocent bystanders is increased when people come along and remove the weapons they were carrying.
They also hit hospitals, and then just administratively sanction the people that were responsible for it rather than prosecuting them for war crimes.
It's not a war crime.
The fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity (except for possibly in case of Bush Jr), is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Well that's fine as far as you're concerned, but does anybody else care about your concerns? To many others the fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity is of critical importance.
and the fact that the US self-identifies as a Christian nation is of course abused by IS to claim this is in fact Christian-inspired violence, just like you are doing above w.r.t. Islam
That's not "just like" others are doing. Nobody is saying that all crimes committed by Muslims are inspired by Islam. But there are crimes that are obviously inspired by Islam and committed by Muslims. That's a big difference.
In the West we generally use democracy and human rights as justifications with the same goals, and with just as little relevance.
That's true, but still you're talking about a different scale of morality here. No Christians are suicide-bombing mosques in the name of human rights. But Muslims are suicide-bombing Western targets in the name of Islam. You still don't have an answer for that except to simply declare it irrelevant as far as you're concerned, and that's not an acceptable answer for others.
A flight captain and his co pilot need nerves of steel to listen to the screams of the stewardesses in the cabin and not react on the demands of he hijackers.
And they have them now, thanks to the knowledge that if they give in to the demands of the hijackers, they'll have 100x the number of horrible deaths on their hands.
And even if the pilots completely caved, a plane full of passengers knowing that they're liable to be flown into a building in a few minutes know they have nothing to lose attempting to take the aircraft back.
Whaa...? Capitalism is disorganized and does whatever the hell it wants without asking anyone first.
That doesn't make it non-rational or non-efficient.
Rational? Something like 90% of companies go out of business in the first year and should have never been founded.
Yes, that is part of its rationale for efficiency. Part of the chaos theory approach.
You should read more about capitalism, apparently you're out of touch.
> One would be called "art" and the other "Racist bigotry", morally equivalent ... right?
Actually no. One would be called art, some would call it disgusting and then we'd move on. The other would cause outbreaks of violence and some guy might show up on your doorstep and shoot you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
Granted, it's Old Testament but, in my opinion, Islam is pretty similar to Old Testament Christianity anyway
The statement utterly proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Christianity didn't exist, by definition, in the Old Testament. The New Testament is teachings and events with Christ on Earth and afterward. So "Granted, it's Old Testament" invalidates your statement and "Old Testament Christianity" proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
Lol. Another shining example of European liberal guilt and self-hatred.
"There are only terrorists because WE created them" If it hadn't been for us evil white Europeans, the world would be all unicorns and daisies. "We're the ones to blame for these bombings, not the people committing them!" Fucking pathetic. Sometimes I think modern Europeans actually WANT to be bombed. They sure as shit don't seem even remotely concerned about actually saving their culture or people.
Jeebus, I'm glad my grandfather isn't alive to see this sad shit. No way would he have bothered storming Normandy if he had know Europeans were going to commit suicide only a few generations later--inviting in their own demise out of some sad sense of white liberal guilt.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
NO NO the solution is obviously to get rid of the TSA bottleneck so everyone can swiftly disperse to safer areas. Then not so many will be killed by bombs in a packed sheep^H^H^H^H^Hwaiting area.
I don't know what your point is. I didn't say anything about passports, just border security.
Do you think valid passports are magic and allow immediate entry? There are thousands of valid passports issued in regions of Syria controlled by ISIS... guess what... I don't think those people should be let in, despite their valid passports.
What I'm saying is that no terrorist attacks are committed by people who are or who have in the past attempted to be kicked out of the country. Many terrorist attacks are committed by home grown citizens, but an even larger number are committed by people who don't come from within the EU in the first place as you could just as easily deport people.
Borders don't help one iota in this scenario.
What good does that do? Over 1 in 5 people are Muslim. Treat them poorly and it will only create blowback down the road. Your fishing with way too big a net.
Now yeah, it works for Israel because they're a lot smaller. And they're not afraid to be an authoritarian, constitution-less apartheid state because they know big brother Sam has their back.
Don't think I'm just being PC here: there are just more useful indicators of radicalization than skin-tone and headwear. Also, threats can come from all directions, not just those you know about.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
No true Scotsman...
Yeah, fighting terrorism is a waste of time.
Given that during the last decade terrorism in Europe has managed to kill the equivalent of a couple days' worth of car accidents....
Yes, my idea is that there's no ground to over-react and do something stupid like closing up the borders, or ban cryptography, etc.
The police forces in Europe *do* their work. They manage to get things done, and their are progressively increasing their collaboration and coordinating better to be more efficient. They aren't 100% perfect, but they do their job.
That's definitely not a ground to fuck up all the treaty opening the border that have given rise to a unified market which has had some positive impact on the European economy. /. readers know that these happen at an alarming rate as of lately)
That's definitely not a ground to suppress the only technology that we have to protect normal citizen like us against data leaks, mass account data breaches, identity thefts, inappropriate snooping, etc. (and frequent
That's definitely not a ground to make the life worse for those who are trying to flee the attrocities of war to europe.
Etc.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...and I say this as someone who:
- used to eat every other day at "Petit Cambodge" when visiting friends in Paris.
- has a friend living accross the street and taking the metro at Maelbeck every day to get to her work
- go to this same metro station every time I visit her and we make daily trips around
In other way, it could have been me or one of my closest.
But that won't suddenly cause me to give up my freedoms or my own data's security, or fuck up the lifestyle of thousand of people, just to have a small sense of false security.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
http://www.venganza.org/
Remember, people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ.
Give me a single quote by Jesus Christ, telling his people to "Kill infidels" or its equivalent. Just one.
Show me where I said Jesus commanded anyone to kill. Just one quote. I never said it. I did say that people have killed in the name of Jesus Christ, which is a true statement. Event: the Crusades, which is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it. I hope you can see the difference.
The old covenant was superceded by the new when Jesus came, symbolized by the ripping of the temple veil.
"More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day."
Yes, but we're already well on the way to addressing that with surveillance. We've got red light cameras, intersection cameras, speed cameras, number plate readers, sobriety checkpoints, cameras to enforce car pooling, cars that phone the police automatically, in car computers that report your driving to your insurance company...
Those books are full of God commanding the Israelites to kill their enemies.
It was a different time. Jesus never commanded to kill.
You can argue that the Old Testament is no longer valid, but then you also have to throw out the ten commandments, the garden of eden, and almost everything used in the gay-marriage debates. You also have to question why those passages are still part of modern Christianity's holy book.
The 10 Commandments were replaced by "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." I don't use anything in the Old Testament for gay marriage debates. The Old Testament is there for historical reference and because the prophets told of a savior coming.
It is also silly to paint Christianity as a religion of pease, and Islam as one of war.
Both are inherently religions of peace. They have been perverted over the years by different groups of people. But they are both inherently religions of peace.
Consider this: the IRA used to ring ahead of time to warn people to get out because they had planted a bomb there.
"And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control" -- Pink Floyd.
Most people in Japan are atheist/agnostic
Lots of people in Japan are boudhists or shinto.
The peculiarities is that these religions aren't exclusive (none of them has the "there can only be one god, all the other believers are infidels" mentality of monotheist religions, such as the abrahamic ones like Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Some japanese are even *both* budhists *and* shinto, and that isn't weird at all.
If such a list existed, Japan would probably be the on the bottom. {...} there are not many muslims in Japan as a percentage of the population, plus its an island with good border controls.
..but Japan has it's own crop of religious crazies, all 100% homegrown with no need to import them from abroad.
At least Japan has strict gun laws, and not many guns in circulation. So in case some random nut decide to go on rampage - or in case of any other form of impulsive crime - there's less chance that the nut will grab a gun and start shooting around.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Illiterate boob. You don't advocate FOR something. You advocate something. Do you favor FOR free beer? Do you play FOR the piano? Sorry, this shit gets my goat but good. Language skills have gone downhill during my lifetime faster than an airliner bombed by Islamist extremist swine.
It still doesn't prevent another Breivik, the shitbag from Norway.
I have serious questions with "Preventable".
Some Belgian numbers:
3 kids = 512 Euro a month
No job whatsoever: from 555 Euro a month to 1111 a month
School is almost free and of outstanding quality
Health insurance: almost free
Housing - social programs + muslim buy houses by borrowing money from "friends" (no interests levied)
Somehow muslim don't feel welcome in our culture?
Tell that to the 224 people who died when Metrojet Flight 9268 was bombed by someone who did get past security.
I did some searching and there's no evidence a bomb "got past security". It looks like it was likely an inside job. Feeling up my cock like happened on my last flight would not have prevented this.
It is not. Unlike Christianity, which leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar", Islam prescribes in detail, how the State must operate. And whereas Judaism discourages proselytizing, Islam compels followers to spread the religion world-wide — at the point of a weapon, if need be.
The reasonably peaceful Muslim societies are the ones, where the native language is far from the original Arabic and the faithful thus get their dose of scripture through clergy. Those able to read it themselves can easily become radicalized...
Wow, what an insightful way to end any argument...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Jesus, God, Spirit - they all look the same to me.
Those Irishmen aren't driven by their religion, but rather by their nationalism. A rather different sentiment...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I disagree. When you estimate the damage and the threat, they are very much the same. When you estimate guilt of those responsible, they are also the same. Only when you look at motivation do they become different: In one case it is religious fanaticism, in the other it is greed.
Incidentally, the reason "murder" is treated differently is that it targets specific individuals. (Well, that was the original idea, these days political aspects have made things muddy and stupid...)
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yeah, fighting terrorism is a waste of time. Best to just give up and not try, huh?
This is the attitude of modern Europe. This is what has become of western culture. "It's too hard to fight them. Fuck it, let's just give up and invite them in."
I see it differently. The cost of fighting terrorism (even assuming you could achieve total success) is greater than the cost of the terrorism itself, so simply letting terrorism continue unchecked leads to better outcomes. It's a pragmatic approach that is incompatible with an idealistic one. I understand if you prefer an idealistic approach, where terrorism must be fought no matter the cost, on principle, but that's not objectively any more valid than the pragmatic approach.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Oh, and in one case it is a tragedy that repeats itself every day, in the other case it is an exceptionally rare event. Take your pick which is more of a problem.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You fail the challenge as posed. The Abrahamic God is the same being in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God does not define Christianity. Jesus does. Christianity only EXISTED beginning with the time of Jesus. It is named AFTER Jesus Christ.
As you point out, none of that Old Testament stuff is attributable to Jesus. The Old Testament is basically shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and yes, you will find a lot of violence in it. But after that they differ. Christianity has Jesus advocating love. Islam has Mohammed advocating hate, retribution, and violence. Judaism has the Talmud, and so far as I know you don't find hate, retribution, and violence there.
If you think Christianity has any substantial basis for violence and hate toward non-Christians, you are a bloody idiot.
Can you clarify? Personally, I thought GP brought up a valid point. Do you disagree that Japan and Australia have strong border controls, or is there something else that you disagree with? Without being more specific, your post doesn't seem likely to move the conversation along in any meaningful way.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal."
You seem to be advocating for increased anti-terrorism efforts, nearly independent of cost. You draw the line at "rights", but what about actual financial cost? Are you saying that we civilized people have a moral obligation to combat terrorism, even if the cost of doing so is greater than the actual cost of terrorism? If so, can you offer a rational argument in support of this position?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
That's a pretty pathetic rebuttal.
This.
Sorry. That is a blatant lie. Jesus Christ advocated love. Mohammed advocated hate and retribution. You can't have even a nodding aquaintance with the two and say that. Yes, they share basics from before that period, including violent leadings, but they diverged fundamentally beginning with that period.
Extremely dangerous to upset the "peaceful Muslims"?
Yes, and pre-pre-screening. And pre-pre-pre-screening. Hell, let's screen EVERYBODY every day!
No. It is a horrible example. The First Crusade was a campaign to liberate their lands from foreign invaders. I don't know why you people use it as an example of Christian aggression when it was the Muslims that attacked and invaded.
Hey, at least racists are picking up dictionaries and thesauruses these days and sound eloquent in their racism.
My answer is summarised in the second paragraph of my other answer to you. Apart from, more or less once more, stating that I honestly cannot think of a single reason why blowing up people by abusing the justification of democracy is somehow on a different scale of morality that doing the same in the name of a religion (any religion), I'm not sure what else to say. Well, maybe that it's true that in our generally more secularised Western world, aggressors focus on different arguments that resonate better with the public here (democracy rather than Christianity).
To be clear: I was not trying to prove that Christianity is worse or as bad as Islam or something like that. The answer to that would be (IMO, but of course the "others" you called upon to reinforce your rebuttal won't care about that either) "mu". Just like democracy is not better or worse than either in this context. They're all just tools used to play a particular public's opinion in this context, and to appease one or other conscience. I just wanted to give an example of how, today, Christians (note that the OP talked about Christians, not Christianity) are in fact still committing atrocities, and even explicitly against Muslims (née terrorists). Who cares about what's written on the bombs, or what the drone operators yell when they press the fire button on their joystick, when the justification behind it is rotten to the core anyway? I doubt it matters to the people at the receiving end, scales of morality be damned.
Regarding the innocent bystanders: I was only talking about numbers released by the US army. They themselves, in their own (secret until leaked) statistics, admit they basically have no idea about who is an innocent bystander and who isn't, so they just count everyone they possibly can as an enemy combattant. You and your morality will hopefully see that there is an issue as far as morality is concerned if you keep bombing people in the full knowledge that you don't have even the slightest idea how many innocents you are killing (not even afterwards), and moreover are appeasing the conscience of whoever feels the need by claiming that pretty much everyone you kill was in fact a combatant. Those bombs might as well be recruitment pamphlets for IS (and in fact, they act exactly like that). John Oliver explained all about the insanity of the drone strikes quite well, too.
Finally, drone strikes most certainly are not in the daily news here in Belgium, unlike news about IS attacks. In fact, it's been quite some time since I read anything about drone strikes on the news site of our public broadcaster (even if they pride themselves on their holistic, neutral reporting, and are definitely not US apologists or anything like that).
Donate free food here
Yes, remain calm. Nothing to fear. No bombs went off. No caliphate. Relax. It isn't happening. You're being a bigot. Stay calm. It isn't happening. They just want peace. Relax. You're a racist. Relax.
Neither was your post.
I cannot decide which is more shameful: A) The act of terrorism and all of the death caused or B) The act of pretending radical islam is not at war with western culture (leftist hawkish western culture, that is) or C) Moderating or hiding this post because you disagree with B or C.
I mentioned this incident to my very liberal west coast girlfriend this morning and she immediately did not want to talk about it because 'I don't share your beliefs on the matter'. I inquired, "which beliefs? the one that radical Islam wants to kill Americans indiscriminately?".
So I am still standing by my position and that of Donald Trump and that of every president before when in a time of war suggested that we stifle the flow of immigrants from nations at war with us.
It is worth mentioning that ISIS/ISIL is NOT a nation. They have no borders and whether or not any world leaders recognize them they have no claim to any borders. In fact they aren't even so much a movement as they are a radical ideological group. This is a stateless entity waging a holy war against the entire non-hardline-stone-age-muslim world.
And the muslims that I do know here? Are they denouncing ISIL/ISIS? sparingly 'maybe'. They don't bring it up and they don't talk about it. If Racheal Maddow says that Donald Trump is a racist one of them is very quick to send me a link. If ISIL blows up an airport, I get links to how 9/11 was an inside job. Suggesting that it is immoral that the left and elite like to send what is largely increasingly impoverished middle and poor class white southern children into non-congressionally-declared-wars and then demonize them as racists and bigots when these same people suggest that they don't want to be at war or that the washington elite criminals are invoking, provoking, and continuing these wars with shoulder shrugs and 'what difference does it make', this individual says "you can't talk about not being at war now that big bad ISIS is at large."
Well I'm sorry to all of the non radical hardline muslims but I disagree with your .8% of the US population and the brainwashed leftists. It is time we do like we did the Japanese in WWII times. F the left.
If you want to tour the Middle East, you only need to go as far as Western Europe.
No, they are dead. Trump.
I like that you are ignoring that American Christians are absolutely trying to establish a Christian nation. Christians aren't blowing people up here, instead they are trying to prevent people from being granted personal freedoms because of the only part of the Old Testament they don't ignore.
Every Muslin has blood on their hands. They should all be rounded up and deported aboard container ships to the Middle East. There are no innocents amongst these murderous creatures.
These terrorists are no more Muslim than Timothy McVeigh was Christian.
But I'm sure you conveniently forgot that almost every popular religion has its own extremists. Have a look at Genesis 3:16. Used by Christian extremists to justify abuse of women.
The airport in Istanbul DOES have pre-airport screening, and no in-airport screening.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
This is a very important fact that needs to be repeated often. The God of Islam and Christianity are direct opposites and it's evident in how Christians and Muslims practice their religion. While there are many Christians that are flawed... I'd much rather have western 'Judeo-Christian" styled society than a Sharia Muslim styled society any day.
Which killed my officemate's GF at the time.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
[screed that equates a relatively small number of Islamic fundamentalists with the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who practice the Muslim religion]
Here is a quote from the introduction of the 2005 book Devil's Game: How the US unleashed fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss:
The United States played not with Islam -- that is, the religion, the traditional, organized system of belief of hundreds of millions -- but with Islamism. Unlike the faith, with fourteen centuries of history behind it, Islamism is of a more recent vintage. It is a political creed with its origins in the late nineteenth century, a militant, all-encompassing philosophy whose tenets would appear foreign or heretical to most of the Muslims of earlier ages and that still appear so to many educated Muslims today. Whether it is called pan-Islam, or Islamic fundamentalism, or political Islam, it is an altogether different creature from the spiritual interpretation of Muslim life as contained in the Five Pillars of Islam. It is, in fact, a perversion of that religious faith. That is the mutant ideology that the United States encouraged, supported, organized, or funded. It is the same one variously represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, by Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, by Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox Wahhabism, by Hamas and Hezbollah, by the Afghan jihadis, and by Osama bin Laden.
As others have said, while some people who claim to be Muslims attack innocent civilians, so do some people who claim to follow other faiths or claim to have no faith. Generalizing to the larger group of all Muslims is extremely counter-productive (unless you goal is to increase the number of and ferocity of attacks against innocent civilians in the West). The mechanism for how fear-based anti-Muslim screeds in the West fuel fundamentalist attacks against the West was explained in the Adam Curtis documentary series The Power of Nightmares.
In addition, while nothing can justify attacks against innocent civilians anywhere in the world -- regardless of the race, nationality, or religion of the attackers or the victims -- by ignoring the causes of the attacks, by disavowing any responsibility for our own actions, and by instead opting for a fear-based knee-jerk emotional reaction, we only make the situation worse, not better.
Fear is the mind-killer. Often the purpose of attacks against innocent civilians is to instill fear and terror. If we drop our reasoning ability and indulge ourselves in these emotions then we are feeding the cycle of violence, reprisals, and incriminations. Over-generalizations, collective blame, xenophobia, and ignoring the obvious consequences of our own actions just fan the flames of conflict. They do nothing to quell it.
If you consider the people who perpetrated these attacks to be you enemy then know your enemy! Certainly avoid aiding and abetting them by reacting exactly how they want you to react! Blaming, attacking, or murdering other innocents just because they share a country, a religion, or a family with people who are responsible for the attacks fuels the conflict. The problem is not that group-A is mostly bad and group-B is mostly good by comparison. The problem is attacking, killing, and even blaming innocent people. This is happening on both sides of the conflict. For example, blaming Iraq for the 9/11 attacks led to the war on Iraq that killed over one hundred thousand innocent civilians and led to the destabilization of the entire area, the rise of ISIS and the massive refuge crisis. Absolving ourselves of any responsibility for the obvious consequences of our actions and instead continuing on the same path of blaming and punishing more innocent people will continue to have the same disastrous consequences.
You have a choice. You can either keep feeding the conflict or you can work to stop it. Even if your fear-based beliefs were correct and they are somehow morally worse than us then it is even more incumbent on us to stop the conflict instead of feeding it.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
And lets just stop being PC about all this...and get serious.
The time for profiling has come. Let's face it, this attack has all the markings of another horrible, malicious attack by those damned radical Baptist terrorists.
It has all the signs....open your eyes people, we KNOW where and who the real threat is.
Erm. I dont think that word means what you think it means.
We already use profiling, profiling is just matching a set of parameters and looking for pasterns. What we dont do is instantly lock up and surveil anyone with the wrong skin colour or might believe in the wrong sky faerie.. Aside with being incredibly wasteful in resources, it only leads down a dark path to the point where everyone is surveiled and watched for any activity the authorities do not like.
The problem with profiling is, we're always looking for the parameters of the last attack. Also the problem authorities currently face is the hostility of certain neighbourhoods. Anyone who grew up in the bad part of town knows that everyone knows who's doing bad stuff but you keep your mouth shut because that's how you survived there. If you tell the cops about the local drug dealer, he finds out and pays you a visit. No-one likes tattle-tales. Now if you put every brown person under an authoritarian microscope, this situation gets worse. Informants are the only real way to stop the next attack because they'll hit anywhere. Lock down all the airports and train stations, they'll just hit a bus or a ferry... or the theatre or a fucking Tesco.
Do you really want a world where you need to be interrogated to the nth degree to buy a litre of milk... and have it cost $14 because of the cost of securing us so you can feel safe from the brown people. If anything, we need to be less racist and xenophobic to allow people to come forward because dollars to doughnuts someone knew about these people and didn't come forward because they have to fucking come home at night.
It has all the signs....open your eyes people, we KNOW where and who the real threat is.
Yes, the racists and ultra nationalists who would love to turn our respective nations into a police state.
The big winner out of terrorism has always been authoritarians. 80 years ago, it was a fire at the Reichstag. Now it's the media driven spectre of terrorism.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
While I agree with you re: no more mass surveillance, let's be clear: terrorism isn't like car accidents, at all. It's not a random event that just happens. It's the end result of conscious human decision-making to murder as many innocent civilians as possible and to scare the shit out of everyone so their very way of life is affected. It's isn't neutral, natural happenstance; it's the deliberate conducting of the worst kind of evil. And because it's the result of human decision-making -- meaning, someone is actually *deciding* to kill these innocent people -- it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal." That's what those evil fuckers want, and we cannot let them win.
Well, car-accidents are also an end-result of human decision making. So what are you saying?
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Matthew 10:34-36
Um, Irish Republican Army ring any bells?
Or Lockerbie.
Or Baader-Meinhof.
Or Anders Breivik,
Seems Europe has quite a long history with terror.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
What did that have to do with Baptists?
Well,it was a white guy committing a crime against Muslim people, so it must have been a Christian/Baptist who did it! Wait, it wasn't?!?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Luke 19:27 is a parable. It wasn't a command given to his believers.
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right. But the rest is always to be taken literally, right? It's the "literal WORD OF GOD", right? lol
-
The other two are NOT Jesus commands to his followers either.
Umm, but Jesus is God, isn't he? That's what your bible says, over and over. That's what all the preachers and priests say. Are they wrong, or are you?
-
Be honest, there are plenty of Atheists who would kill religious people if given a chance.
Sure, I'll be honest- I've never known an atheist who says he or she would like to "kill religious people", not one. We would be happy if religion died and took all of its hatred and bigotry with it, but no atheist I know has ever said they'd like to kill religious people.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The Old Testament is basically shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and yes, you will find a lot of violence in it.
Well, in my experience, saying that the Old Testament is "shared" by Islam is a bit of a stretch. Yes, the Koran does have some nice things to say about Taurat, Zabur, and Injil (Torah, Psalms, and Gospels, respectively), but the reverence that Muslims show for these scriptures is mostly just lip service. I have yet to find a Muslim who would actually willingly read these scriptures. Typically they will tell you that these scriptures have been corrupted, hence the reason that Mohammed had to come to straighten the rest of us benighted souls out. But if you ask them which parts of these scriptures is corrupted they will quickly become upset and flustered. At least that is my experience.
Beyond that, there are so many other errors in your comment that I scarcely know where to begin.
Conclusion: be careful about calling others idiots until you are sure you have your own facts straight.
What are you without tribalism? No nation, no family, no home. Just die off already and let us 'racist' go forward with civilisation.
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament,
You mean like her ? She was suspended from the Knesset for saying the kidnappers of 3 Israeli teenagers were just "desperate". Look into the Israeli settlements, that continue growing to this day and run contrary both to international law and agreements made by the Israeli government. Just remember, being anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-Semitic. You are allowed to say that Israel bears some responsibility for the current state of affairs in Israel/
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Really? I just see nationalism as a different way of dividing people into us and them.
This is Brussels airport, the lines at security are very short or non-existent most of the time.
int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
To be fair, the tsa checkpoint isn't to make the airport more secure or to prevent casualties in or near the airport, it is to stop plane hijacking, plain and simple. The crowding of people and the inevitable blowing up of them is a side effect of a successful campaign to stop hijacking. Take that for what you will.
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right.
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable
.
Yeah, because that is MY interpretation of what "tell them a parable" means. Golly gee, forgive me for saying it is a parable, when it says it right there. How silly of me. I should have known better!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If you want something really eye-opening, consider this:
- Average human lifetime is about 700,000 hours (80 years)
- Take a middle-of-the-road wage of about $25/hr
- A person that works 24/7 from birth till death would make about $17 million in their lifetime using the above numbers
- Total cost of the US wars precipitated by terrorism is currently over $6 trillion or so
Thus, the US government has squandered 353,000 lifetimes (2,246,000 if they work a normal schedule for 50 years) worth of resources on those worthless wars, because "terrorism!!1!"
You cannot deny that Radical Islamic terrorist are at war with you. You are their enemy. Do you think that because you have nothing against them that they dont want you dead?
Sadly the use of the word Radical before the word Islamic and the use of the word terrorist after the word Islamic is redundant. Being a Radical Islamic terrorist isn't a fringe condition in the Muslim world, it's a goal to achieve. Remember the Dracula learned Cruelty as an art form from being a hostage of the Muslim sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed II.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Load up airplanes with some kind of knock out gas. If anything goes wrong, the pilot, safely sealed in the cockpit, floods the entire passenger section. There should also always be an air marshal and a supply of gas masks in the cockpit too.
Everyone but those in the cockpit are rendered unconscious, the marshal(s) don masks and shackle or kill the attackers and the plane lands safely at the nearest airport or airstrip.
This was tried during the Moscow theater hostage crisis with results that were...ummm...how shall I say?...somewhat "mixed".
In killing perhaps or in field surgery, what else comes to mind?
Nothing I think.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I put salt on my porridge and I'm not even Scottish, so there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Muslims I know are just as horrified as anyone at these attacks. And on top of that they know people will question their beliefs and humanity, so they are victims as welll.
I don't judge all Catholics by the plethora of pedophiles in their clergy and the systemic protection of same all the way up to the Vatican. And I don't judge Muslims by the rabid dogs that pretend to be part of that religion either.
And if you do, I think you are a douchebag, but that is a judgement based only on you individually, and not whatever groups you may ostensibly belong to.
and France already gave up a lot of its freedoms after the Paris attacks. ... except for restrictions of huge gatherings of people and more military on the streets and police: nothing has changed at all.
Actually they did not
Hotels are cheaper in Paris, if you mean that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
> Not Jesus (who almost certainly never existed)
And right here we know that you're crazy. Never mind that we have lots of books written about the man within living memory, even using the crazy latest-possible dating where they somehow got Coptic translations of a work schlepped to remote areas as soon as the scribe's pen stopped moving.
Never mind that Paul (then Saul) interacted with the existing community of followers who actually knew Jesus. None of that counts as "evidence" if you plug your ears and move the goal posts every time an older fragment of text is discovered.
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament
So if the hate crimes of Israel arent about religion... then its about what... race?
I agree. It is.
"His name was James Damore."
Ever ask why God wanted them to kill the Canaanites?
The reason was because of what the canaanites were doing, their practices. Look them up if you like.
"As of this moment, we are all dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives. This we do gladly, for we are Jem'Hadar. Remember: victory is life."
I'm on a plane with hijackers, that's my battle speech. Gone are the days of "Wait til they fly us to somewhere and then the plane is raided by the local army".
Stop with the conspiracies.
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
On the top of my mind :
Period ?
It seems that fully automatic rifles are easier (not necessarily easy, however) to acquire in Europe, which lends itself to fewer but higher casualty attacks such as in Paris.
Actually they are not easier to acquire. They get smuggled into the country via war zones. Ordinary rifles, military weapons with full automatic "removed", are not even available in weapon shops
None of the "terrorists" owned any weapon legally.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You need to be more specific. Are we talking hot, cold, or in the pot nine days old?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Indeed. People killed as a result of nationalism are on average 37% less dead than those killed on religious grounds. Fact.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
Obviously never heard of the Red Army Faction. This is your chance to start having Bader-Meinhof moments.
Why bother with all that shit? Just cast a magic spell or something.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have a few Muslim friends and work with many others, none of which agree with any of the violence that the Jihadist have embraced. These Jihadist are no different than our Westboro Baptist Church people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church) or the KKK. The only difference is they are a minority in a country that won't tolerate violence.
Most of the Muslims that join these violent groups lived in war thorn regions. If our heavily trained war heroes come back with PTST after 2-3 years of service, imagine how bad it would be for kids raised into adulthood within the same setting.
The Muslims I know are some of the most gentle people I've met and seeing them get tossed into the same bowl as the 0.01% of extremists pisses me off.
The time for profiling has come.
This is Slashdot. With the possible exception of you, we understand the base rate fallacy.
Besides, Schneier says it's bad, and I'm too scared to argue with him.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Certainly more mixed than the gas and air were.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They should all be rounded up and deported aboard container ships to the Middle East.
Has it never occurred to you that most immigrants from the Middle East are in your (and my) fine country precisely because they don't like murderous regimes, suicide bombs, and countries which don't respect human rights? Or is that too obvious?
Every Muslin has blood on their hands.
Oh, wait, I see what you're saying. Yeah, lightweight cotton is evil. Death's too good for it, I say.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So all Muslims are to blame for every death in the name of Islam. Gotcha.
What do you categorize the crusades as? Some of the later crusades were meant to eliminate variations of the same religion. Starting to sound familiar isn't it?
You know, the same exact thing that France did after 130 people were slaughtered in Paris.
To be fair, they banned the wearing of burqas long before that...
Is France now a hard-line conservative nation full of racists scared of poor women and children?
...but I wouldn't go quite that far.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It was not pocket knives but "carpet knives". No idea what the correct english term is
If I recall correctly they were "craft knives", often known in England as "Stanley" (a popular brand) knives, but the key thing is they were made entirely of plastic, and so undetectable by the metal detectors of the time. I've seen them on sale here ... they're "disposable", meant for short-term use (but good for long enough to threaten a stewardess). I think (hope) the scanners these days can detect a hard blade by the acuteness of its edge, no matter what it's made of.
If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
I warned you about this fire ball casting and summoning of demons, especially that female hotty, did I not?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For suitably "in the same country" values of "close". While you're here, fatty, will you be voting for Trump or Sanders?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Luke 19:27 is a parable. It wasn't a command given to his believers.
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right. But the rest is always to be taken literally, right? It's the "literal WORD OF GOD", right? lol
-
I won't insult you by presuming you are stupid, so you must be intending to be deliberately hateful here then. There's nothing here about 'convenience' to declaring your quote part of a parable. The quote you gave is preceded in Luke 19:11 with While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable...
The other two are NOT Jesus commands to his followers either.
Umm, but Jesus is God, isn't he? That's what your bible says, over and over. That's what all the preachers and priests say. Are they wrong, or are you?
-
Be honest, there are plenty of Atheists who would kill religious people if given a chance.
Sure, I'll be honest- I've never known an atheist who says he or she would like to "kill religious people", not one. We would be happy if religion died and took all of its hatred and bigotry with it, but no atheist I know has ever said they'd like to kill religious people.
I'm not exactly qualified to defend points of theology, but by about 6-7 years of age I had already heard the answer to your misrepresentation. I again am fairly confident you are not ignorant of this, but are simply wishing to continue to be hateful.
The old testament is more the less the foundation of Judaism. The people who follow it having been schismed back when Christ came and those insisting on adhering to the old testament had Christ nailed to a cross. Those following Christ's teachings became known instead as Christians and gathered Christ's teachings into what is the new testament.
At least half of what got Christ killed was claiming that the stone everyone interpretation of the old testament was WRONG. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone being one of his more important statements. The underlying theology Christian's today take from this being that if you want to abide by any of the Old Testament death to sinner's stuff, you start with yourself. The "proper" Christian message being everyone deserves to die, but Christ died for everyone so follow him to be free.
Maybe this is more succinctly observed by pointing to the overwhelming lack of modern day Christian's looking to wage a holy war against all heretics.
...or Baader-Meinhof? Rome Airport, 1973? Rapido 904 in 1984? Hofstad Network? London subway? Madrid train?
I know USAians don't pay much attention to what goes on in the rest of the world, but really?
How's your German?
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Do you have any idea how often bombs go off there? This is news not because it doesn't happen fairly often, it just doesn't normally happen in Belgium.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
How often do bombs go off in crowded areas in Israel? It's a lot less than one would expect when every country surrounding you refuses to even admit you have the right to exist, let alone live peaceably.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Even when there was boarder controls. It was fairly easy to avoid them. In Austria for example a wall all the way through the mountains? Yea right. When i would ski in Switzerland the ski area was in both France and Switzerland. again good luck putting up that boarder.
Borders around land joined countries are a lot like locks on a house. They keep honest people honest. Nothing more.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
The un-PC truth is that these attacks are a consequence of years of 'enlightened' immigration policies.
The truth is that a very large number of factors led to the situation we're in, and singling out one misses the big picture, and sounds an awful lot like trying to avoid responsibility. These attacks are also a consequence of botched decolonisation, the fallout from the Sykes-Picot agreement, and superpower meddling.
Ultimately, though, the situation we are in was inevitable. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ensured that WW3 would not happen because everyone would die and everyone's country would be uninhabitable. In retrospect, that left an obvious evolutionary niche for a group which had no country and didn't fear death.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Many more than just her. And if you read the Koran, check out Sura 5:20 to 5:21. The land of Israel was given to the Jews. They try to live peaceably amongst their neighbors, but when your neighbors even refuse you have the right to live (let alone exist as a nation), it's hard to survive. But then, you equate settlements with murder - so we already know your sense of right and wrong is incredibly skewed...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed
Prophet of the same God. Most Jewish don't reserve even that role for Jesus.
Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Monotheistic God, recognition of the Abrahamic tradition and the role of Jesus all point to strong, shared roots with both the Judaism and Christianity. The denying of the God's incarnate part only suggest that the Islam is not a Christian sect. There have been (Christian) sects during the history that deny, or change Jesus's and event God's role and the Trinity teaching which was agreed by a committee, by the way.
Islam can be interpreted the ultimate and one of the oldest SJW organization, with the core of the first supporters having a strong representation from the tribeless.
What I'm saying is that no terrorist attacks are committed by people who are or who have in the past attempted to be kicked out of the country.
That's true, but I'm not saying border security is the only thing we need to do in the fight against terrorism. It's a prerequisite for other steps though, such as kicking out radicals.
Why do you think that knowing someones name tells you anything about that person. Or what country their passport is from? You can be born and live in the EU all your life and not be a EU citizen. Even to the 3rd generation or more. It is weird. these are a few barely out of their teens dipshits with a suicidal tendencies. Marginalizing them will not improve the situation. Talking them down just mite.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
It is also silly to paint Christianity as a religion of pease, and Islam as one of war. Both from historical points (the Crusades being an easy example) and from general numbers: there are 2.75 million muslims living in the U.S. now, and 1.6 billion in the world. If Islam really was a religion of war, you would expect total chaos. But since we don't see that, it is a much more reasonable interpretation that these extremists don't represent the religion.
How about from the POV of the impact on our lives in the world today? You know, the metric that kind matters the most.
The ugly "christian" violence between catholic and protestant is historical. The violence between Shia(60+ million in Iran alone) and Sunni(30 million in Saudi Arabia alone) is happening today. It's actually one of the largest drivers of the violence in Syria, which quite obviously ties straight back to the events in Brussels.
The ugly "christian" violence of the crusades is historical. The notion of Islamic Jihad is happening today. It's a mantra held to be masses of Muslims across the Middle East directly resulting in the violence attributed to Al Qaida, TTP, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Shabab, ISIS, Boko Haram and on and on.
Your crocodile tears for the victims of the crusades are revealed as just that by your callus use of their deaths to abdicate the guilt of those killing people today.
Hate crimes of Israel? What are those? Care to list some? According to pretty much of the rest of the Middle East, Israel shouldn't even exist. Never mind that Allah gave Israel to the Jews. I guess if Israel trying to exist is a hate crime, then the terrorism from Islam and ISIS in general is way beyond hate crimes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One of the only real effective security measure after 9/11 was to reinforce cockpit doors to prevent forced entry. Almost everything done on the ground was just theater of the off, off, 20 zip codes removed from Broadway type.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Most people know lots of stuff that you don't know.
Mohammed advocated hate and retribution.
Or, to put it another way, Mohammed advocated social reform and liberation, with a heavy dose of justice and mercy.
Nobody is saying that Mohammed was a sandle-wearing peacenik hippie like Jesus. But whether he was ultimately good or bad largely depends which side you were on. Bad for the despotic regimes which previously controlled the Arabian Peninsula, certainly...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I don't need to know any Americans to know that they kill people all over the world in the name of freedom and democracy every day.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The original byline was "News For Nerds--Stuff That Matters". Guess you weren't around back then.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
[...] Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) [...]
Sigh.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
With a 95% failure rate they are worse than useless (including missing things like ACME level fake bombs) ; they are an added expense and cause of frustration with no provable positive results. Most of the big cases of prevented airplane attacks (in the US) in the past decade were from external agency investigations (FBI/Police/etc..) or from observant fellow passengers.
Some level of security screening is required but the TSA just takes away monies that could be spent on effective security measures and instead puts it towards ineffective personnel and even more ineffective fancy equipment.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Apart from, more or less once more, stating that I honestly cannot think of a single reason why blowing up people by abusing the justification of democracy is somehow on a different scale of morality that doing the same in the name of a religion (any religion), I'm not sure what else to say.
I wasn't referring to democracy vs caliphate, but simply that if we take both groups somewhat at their word, one is better than the other. The guy who purposely bombs churches is worse than the guy who accidentally bombs a hospital. That's human nature.. we take into account motive, not just outcome.
Now if you get into weird conspiracy theories that when the US bombed that hospital, they actually did it on purpose.. then we're no longer engaging in rational discourse. There's no evidence for it.
Just like democracy is not better or worse than either in this context. They're all just tools used to play a particular public's opinion in this context, and to appease one or other conscience.
I disagree. I'm not a moral relativist. Modern Western democracy is far superior to an Islamic state of any kind, from democracy (Turkey) or caliphate (ISIS).
I agree that spreading democracy to Muslim countries is not possible, in hindsight, but still it stands that the world would be a better place if Bush/Obama had succeeded. The world would be a worse place if ISIS succeeded.
For the calm cometh when red, and white, and black, and pale approach to peas is our profession.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Putting really big spaces between all of your paragraphs to fluff it up and make it bigger does not increase the "insightfulness" of your post. Nor does it increase readability as I'm sure your retort will be. As a matter of fact, it makes the post look more like a useless wall of text. I don't think I made it past the third paragraph. You're just pandering.
I have no dog in this fight, but you are confusing the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures, including Deuteronomy and Leviticus and the passages you cite above) with the New Testament (the teachings of Jesus per his disciples, including the Gospel of Luke). Yes, the Old Testament God was a rather ornery fellow who did have a habit of smiting people, but he's very different than Jesus (e.g., he's worshiped by the Jews, who don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God). The New Testament is generally called the Word of Jesus, but yeah, it's more accurately acknowledged to have been written by people he taught than by Jesus himself. Case in point: Luke. But if you want to get at what Jesus actually said, it's more correct to look towards the New Testament than the Old Testament, which predates Christianity and Christ.
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
Are yo from germany ?
Awww did somebody make fun of wittle petry's god? You get butt hurt over the dumbest shit while ranting like a radical conservative xstian over shit that you need have no concern over. Typical.
You fucking idiot. Do you even remember oklahoma city or were you not born yet?
So your example WAS a religiously motivated terrorist act, that DID kill women and children.
The solution is to BAN RELIGION. Religion promotes intolerance, cultist behaviours, submission to authority and many other horrible prey's on civilization. It's a refuge of the stupid, the weak and the feeble minded. All of which can be easily manipulated to serve an architects causes. One religion isn't better than any other. The truth is they are all capable of extreme violence because if you believe that a magical being talks to you, or that there is a life after this one, YOU ARE FUCKED IN THE HEAD, and should be getting medical help for clearly delusional behaviour.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Not comparing apples to apples, dude. Mohammad should be compared to god/jehova/yaweh. Jesus was new testament which is where the message changed. Old god was just a hateful, vengeful, and spiteful as Moham. Have you even read deuteronomy? And shit, poor Job got a whole book named for him after god decided to be a dick and have him eaten by a whale! You need to go read.
But terrorism scales well (in frequency, in severity and spatially) and also it's not just regrettable consequence of as yet unsuperseded technology like human drivers, but the very purpose of action is causing mass death and destroying Europe and Western values. So I'm in favor of stomping out these assholes whatever it takes, and once it's done work, we can go back all very liberals and unsupervised again.
Define "standard." When I grew up I met my dad many times at the airport gate as he arrived home from business trips. Saw my brothers off to Europe at the gate -- and arriving back too. Had people meet me. 1970s/1980s. PDX.
If you cannot take all the literature available and add 1+1+1 and not get 3, then you need to quit your job. I don't want you engineering anything that might end up in my home. That is the same damned god and you know it. Sons of Abraham and all that.
You think the purpose of ISIS is to cause mass surveillance and profiling? Nah, none of these two things are at fundamental odds with Western values, comparatively. Letting a foreign culture mass immigrate, outbreed, resent, never integrate and moreover, mass murder and terrorize Europeans and in general, try to push Europe under Sharia law *is* at fundamental odds with Western values.
Derry was renamed Londonderry for a reason - that a lot of Londoners ended up there. Incidentally British = Welsh, English and Scottish, so the statement 'the British' sent the Scots is... incoherent.
> Not Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) but God himself says it
Jesus almost certainly never existed, but you take God's existence for granted? Btw. the GP said Jesus. Probably for a reason. For Christianty is not just the Old Testament; the Old Testament is the context and the New Testament is the main course.
Um, actually I think your rebuttal is the pathetic one. The AC had a valid point about stereotyping and you just hand waved it away. You know you're being racist but you just don't care. You're even proud of it.
How many people have the westboro baptist church and the KKK killed in the last 30 years?
Besides discounting Jesus on the basis that he 'almost certainly never existed' but taking God for granted, these quotes deal with deserters of the religion. To be honest I'm less concerned with Muslims blowing up ex-Muslims-turned-Jews/Christians than Muslims blowing up everybody else in general, if not for something else, because it's a smaller set, and Muslims aren't leaving behind their religion in droves for Christianity or Judaism.
> the Old Testament is still part of the bible. Those books are full of God commanding the Israelites to kill their enemies.
Interesting piece of knowledge, however Christians aren't Israelites AFAICT... Also as obvious from the quotes, the punishment 'ought to' be meted out on deserters of religion rather than those who were never believers. Whereas Muslims are kindly asked by religious text to kill everybody else.
Sure, but those are the Muslims you know. How many Muslims worldwide do you think support capital punishment for apostasy or blasphemy? The answer is at least hundreds of millions. How many catholic priests are pedophiles? Several hundred? How many Muslim girls have been forced into marriage as children? Your attempt at comparison fails miserably.
Lol why is the need for queueing obvious? Air travel sucks. Maybe one reason it sucks is that it's one of those bottlenecked things with poorly managed logistics, that actually weren't designed for current paranoid operations anyway. Fscking eliminate the queues by.... proper resource management? Oh no, God forbid you can get from A to B without feeling like a cow...Queues are NOT some inherent part of travel, it's caused by mismanaged logistics.
Um hmm. What about the other points you forgot to address? Still straining to see the gnats before you click submit?
I don't understand how you can state those facts and then come to your conclusion. How many attacks on Israeli's are perpetrated by Palestinian Christians, or more broadly by Arab Christians? Christians make up about 2% of the Palestinian population. Are they responsible for 2% of the attacks on Israelis? No.
Yeah we'll have to get used to such things in Europe as well. Sure beats the current, single-level choke point system, which is ineffective anyway as shown unmistakably.
H2O
Who failed what? Jesus isn't responsible? Didn't you post elsewhere here that god= Jesus= holy ghost? Is this one of those instances where the good stuff is good god's fault and the bad stuff is satan's?
No need. GP just pointed out the possibility that some explosives, or components of explosives to be assembled on the airplane, may be carried on the body rather than in the carry-on luggage. Plain and simple.
Emphasis is on distance. All such statistics are distorted as one uses miles as the baseline. Don't forget that flying is not only safer per mile, it also enables millions to rack up amazing distances.
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Mohammed was not the best Prophet, his importance in Islam comes from him being the last Prophet (according to most sects). It could even be argued that in Islam that Jesus is more important, as Muslims also believe that he will be the one to return on the Day of Judgement and defeat the False Messiah.
The divinity of Jesus was debated often in early Christianity, until 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea (arguably the debate continued afterwards as well). Also, there are many non-Catholic sects today that reject the idea of the Trinity. Your argument that they don't share common roots because of the belief in the divinity of Jesus, or the Trinity, is ignorant of the history of both Religions.
Jews also don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, so would you say that Christianity doesn't have roots in Judaism by the same token?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Don't take queues and buffered-up hundreds of people for granted. Would you buy groceries at a place where you'd need to queue for hours, among thousands of others? No. We don't accept shit conditions for certain things and we accept them for others. With sufficient technology it'll be possible to perform safety checks while the passenger is walking (ambient cameras, detectors etc.) and the manual groping part can be done on escalators etc. in transit. So in theory, all the time you spend at the airport is spent on the time just walking straight to your plane. It's a logistics problem. The Arabs will teach us some good logistics in no time.
Nah, the problem is that they go for the obvious target: NYC, DC, Paris, Brussels... if instead of this, they wreak havoc and kill everyone in a random English village, or contaminate the water system of a random Czech or German town, then _everybody_ would feel threatened, because it could happen anywhere the next time. There would be quite a general response unlike what happened after Paris.
Unlike the nerves of steel it would require to deliberately fly the plane into a skyscraper?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You fail the challenge as posed. The Abrahamic God is the same being in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God does not define Christianity. Jesus does. Christianity only EXISTED beginning with the time of Jesus. It is named AFTER Jesus Christ.
What I hear when you prattle on about this magical bullshit: "Blah blah blah blah blah"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yeah, except remember when this happened?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I have no dog in this fight, but you are confusing the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures, including Deuteronomy and Leviticus and the passages you cite above) with the New Testament
Oh, you mean God 2.0, the one with all the bug fixes?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Point of historic fact, Jesus most likely did exist. Obviously he wasn't the son of an imaginary being born to a virgin and able to perform miracles, but there are reliable Roman records of him. Particularly of his prosecution and crucifixion.
The Bible has a lot of really awful stuff in it, but at least Christians are willing to do the doublethink necessary to ignore some of it. The Koran is the literal word of God, every word a command, a guide to living. And God is pretty short sighted for an immortal, omnipotent being, and strangely inconsistent. His choice of an illiterate guy to dictate to is kinda dubious too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It absolutely was not the standard. I grew up in New York (unless you consider the US a back yard country) and my father would often go on business trips. My mother and I would accompany him to the gate, and watch the plane leave through the window. When we went to pick him up, we would wait at the gate and greet him right as he left the plane.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Jesus almost certainly never existed, but you take God's existence for granted?
Fuck no, they're both fairy tales for the simple-minded.
-
Btw. the GP said Jesus. Probably for a reason. For Christianty is not just the Old Testament; the Old Testament is the context and the New Testament is the main course.
Old Testament, New Testament, they're both nothing more than a collection of toxic fairy tales written by ignorant Bronze Age sheep herders, most of whom never traveled more than 10 miles from the spot they were born.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
> Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.
The airport check-in is obsolete, I always have the boarding pass electronically before even arriving at the airport. The current flow of humans on airports isn't necessity; it's logistics. Overcrowded airports and wide open spaces are currently the norm but this can change. The problem is that mass city transport can't change easily. Think of London's busiest tube stations and railway stations in peak hours, it's literally thousands of people canned together at any given moment.
I think you are thinking of cylons with your fear mongering rant. You could say the same thing about any ethnic group ever.
The white hordes invaded north america.
The african hordes invaded Neanderthal europe.
The spanish hordes invaded south america.
One persons horde is another persons crusader, until we are all pleasantly mixed race in a few hundred years.
Then it can be the mixed race hordes invading other mix raced hordes, and really that's what it is now anyways. .
Hopefully you can see how it's stupid to be racist as a "pure" race simply does not exist.
Now if you said "all religion should be abolished" then I might agree with you. But chances are, as with most racists, you have your own religion to prostitute.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Throw out the ten commandments? How will we live if we are all coveting our neighbour's oxen?!
God seems kinda bad at writing insightful, widely applicable and timeless rules.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Besides discounting Jesus on the basis that he 'almost certainly never existed' but taking God for granted
I take neither of them for granted because neither of them ever existed. The entire story is a load of utter bullshit from beginning to end.
-
these quotes deal with deserters of the religion.
So what?
-
To be honest I'm less concerned with Muslims blowing up ex-Muslims-turned-Jews/Christians than Muslims blowing up everybody else in general, if not for something else, because it's a smaller set, and Muslims aren't leaving behind their religion in droves for Christianity or Judaism.
Again, it means nothing. It's all a load of bullshit, and Jews and Christians killed loads of people back when they could get away with it. The followers of Islam never really grew out of it for whatever reason so they're still beheading people for all sorts of imagined "crimes" against "god".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I agree, but the argument was related to religious text. Not everybody must believe in religion to give rise to terrorism. A minority is enough. Here, specifically, this minority is Muslim. The discussion we're participating started with the question of which religions encourage 'killing the infidel' to what extent. Again, you and I and billions may agree on religions being fairy tales, but there is a single, specific religion whose followers are quite consistently the ones blowing up others who are not followers of that religion, and incidentally, this given religion has quite specific instructions in their text for doing so. Correlation is not causation but still the p value would show significance...
There were 5 crusades, all AFTER target of these crusades were sources of attack on Europe. Can you remind me how many women and children were enslaved/slaughtered before crusades began? Can you remind me who attacked these european kingdoms? Or would these historic facts undermine your belief system of a "religion of peace" and other muslims "be horrified". How about we all remember that Q'ran actually states that it is muslim DUTY to lie to infidels to gain their trust before caliphate will be established and slaughter of "non-believers" may begin?
How was Muhammad called? "The great deceiver" or something like that?
Has anyone posting pro-islam actually has read q'ran?
How can you compare christianity to islam if christian will tell you: you will go to hell if you abandon God. Muslim will not bother - just slip your throat. Yes that is the punishment for leaving islam death.
Now all of you here go educate yourselves, because I'm tired of reading arguments of two uneducated sides.
It is the same conclusion that you would get to if you were not so angry.
Let me give you an example that is more removed from your passions, so that you can evaluate it impartially: take two examples of terrorist attacks: the shooting at Planned Parenthod and Birmingham pub bombings. Both were terrorist acts committed by Christians; but first one is Christian terrorism, and the second one is not. Why? The first one was committed by a (self-stated) Christian, for a (self-stated) Christian goal: stop abortions. The second one was committed by a secular organisation (the IRA) for a secular goal: free Northern Ireland.
Now, breath deeply, and see if you can grasp the distinction between
1 - the Islamic State, which is a (self-stated) Islamic organization, that commits terrorist attacks for a (self-stated) Islamic goal: establish a caliphate in the Middle East.
2 - the PLO, which is a secular organisation that commits terrorist attacks for a secular goal: take back the land that Israel occupied.
entropy happens
Knives don't work any more. Everyone assumes hijackers could be planning a suicide attack so will stop at nothing to prevent them gaining control of the aircraft.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Again, it means nothing. It's all a load of bullshit, and Jews and Christians killed loads of people back when they could get away with it. The followers of Islam never really grew out of it for whatever reason so they're still beheading people for all sorts of imagined "crimes" against "god".
Yeah, quite a weird, backward thing. The trouble is, fewer and fewer idiot fanatics can do more and more damage. How do you control them? Make Islam illegal on a global scale, implemented via a global police state? Or individual monitoring of most aspects of most people's lives? The planet is getting smaller due to tech and getting more populous due to overbreeding so something has to give. Maybe religious freedom?
Point of historic fact, Jesus most likely did exist.
Educate yourself. He never existed, he's an amalgam of previous "holy" figures.
Many mythologies have a Christ like character whose story is set around the same pattern. Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld had a very similar life story and the ancient Egyptians celebrated his ‘passion’ with gusto. Osiris’ son, Horus was born to a virgin in a cave with a star overhead. He was visited by shepherds and gods. Horus was said to be the ‘light of the world’. He started to become active aged about 30 and many miracles were attributed to him that also appear in the gospels including walking on water and letting the blind see again.
There is not a single mention of Jesus in ANY records or dispatches back to Rome (surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Not one single word.
There is not a single mention in writing about him from the time he supposedly existed, nor is there any other shred of evidence. Not one carving, sculpture, drawing, poem, song, nothing- not a single line written ANYWHERE from ANYONE during the time he supposedly existed.
It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus. The historical evidence is overwhelming—the Jesus of the Bible never existed.
Even the earliest full account of Jesus in the Bible, the Gospel of Mark, is admitted by the Catholic Church to date to at least A.D. 70, a full 40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. (Mark makes reference to an event that happened around A.D. 70, so it could not have been written any earlier. Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170, a full 140 years after the alleged event, since no one makes any reference to a Gospel of Mark, or any other Gospel, prior to this time.)
Face it...he never existed. There's more evidence for unicorns than there is for Jesus.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The point was about Luke 19 being used as a commandment by Jesus to slay people in his name. If you read the context of which it is written, it's obvious that this interpretation is a falsehood - it's a lie. The other points were not being contested but that doesn't imply that they are accurate interpretations, it just means it wasn't contested.
Wrong question. Has the current border security arrangement been an overall net benefit or has it made things worse for us? Would being outside the EU have protected the victims?
It's looking like most, if not all the people involved in today's crimes were born in the EU so border controls would have made little difference.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Intra-european border controls will have as much affect on home grown terrorists as they did on the IRA or RAF or ETA.
Don't forget that not all European nations made the mistake of letting in millions of people with a background in militant religion and difficulty of integration. If you close borders, its not like Polish etc. folks will go on and blow themselves up. It'll be contained by countries which already decided to turn themselves Muslim by letting in millions and letting nature take place, immigrating and breeding the original population out of existence (UK, France, Germany, I guess Belgium, and more recently Sweden, Denmark..). Statistically peaceful Muslim migrants come in, work hard... child, grandchild takes identity in their toxic religion and blow up the very people that welcomed their families.
You do understand that Israel has Muslims in their government right? There have been Arabs in the Knesset since the beginning. Furthermore, about 21% of Israel proper (not Palestine or the contested territories) is Muslim.
Israel does not treat Muslims badly or poorly. They treat threats poorly and the majority of them can be identified as Muslim but the religion itself or people of the religion is not the primary target. For instance, Israel gave the Kurds weapons for their own defence when the US was contemplating how little involved we could be.
Muslim is ancillary to the claim of apartheid too. If there wasn't a large threat from the Palestinian population, the Palestinians would largely be treated like Arabs living within Israel.
So wait, are you saying the security works or not? Also, that flight was leaving Egypt and heading for Russia, and wouldn't be subject to TSA rules.
Honestly, someone probably just bribed one of the security personnel at the airport to look the other way.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Time will tell.
My prediction is that western countries with high immigration, from MENA countries, such as Sweden will be on the brink of civil war within 25 years, while countries which have had restrictive immigration policies will be quite stable.
Yes, the Roman empire was also powerful yet it was game over... now the issue is that Western Europe has become quite amenable to Sharia law, what with the fact that most newborns in a decade or two will be Muslim even as far East as Austria. The average French etc. feel more affinity and empathy toward their Islamic brethren from South of the Mediterranean than toward Hungarians, Romanians or Polish, they're used to them more. They're getting the payback of a backward medieval age populace. Democracy is such that majority vote decides on parliament, government or president, so Muslims after a couple of decades of already inevitable demography can simply vote Sharia law in power. I predict indigenous Western Europeans will buy property and land in Eastern Europe in droves, unless they're too geriatric for it or can establish private high-security pockets not unlike in South Africa.
Your argument seems to be that valuing our liberty over our safety is the same thing as "giving up and inviting terrorists in". What are the terrorists goals exactly? They are to crumble our society. If our society is based on freedom and liberty, then taking away those things is giving up.
The way we fight them is we show them that fear will not make us change who we are and what we stand for. You are the one who is saying it's too hard.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Again, you and I and billions may agree on religions being fairy tales, but there is a single, specific religion whose followers are quite consistently the ones blowing up others who are not followers of that religion, and incidentally, this given religion has quite specific instructions in their text for doing so.
Yes, no argument there, at least in this present day. "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas", as someone else has observed.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Has it never occurred to you that most immigrants from the Middle East are in your (and my) fine country precisely because they don't like murderous regimes, suicide bombs, and countries which don't respect human rights? Or is that too obvious?
So.. cowards basically, right?
Why would we want to admit able-bodied adults who have shown an unwillingness to aid in the common defense of their fellow citizens?
Ok smarty pants how would you go about banning religion? Keeping in mind the slightest perceived insult against some ones religion results in morons putting on their suicide belts and running into a crowd and detonating. Religion is just a time tested way of firing up the mob to unleash violence with out any uncomfortable questions being asked. The higher the fervor the better. Then the Internet comes along providing terrorist groups with their very own Facebook page to spread their messages of hate and destruction while using Twitter for all their international communication needs. The top people in ISIS or any other similar group are after the same thing every other world leader is after, power and money. Defending and spreading their religion probably doesn't even rank in the top 5 reasons they do what they do.
he trouble is, fewer and fewer idiot fanatics can do more and more damage. How do you control them?
There is no way to control them. The only thing that will put a damper on extremists motivated by crazy-ass religious delusions is for religion to find its rightful place in the dustbin of history.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Aside from the loco crazies blowing themselves up, sounds a lot like the U.S. and illegals from Mexico and the surging Hispanic population. Wall and border controls? check. Flooding the country anyway? check. Don't "assimilate"? mostly, nope..check. Fuck like bunnies? check. Catholic bunnies, even.
The God of the old testament and the new testament was the same God whose person had not changed. What did change was the way he interacted with his chosen people. The rules/laws/terms of the old testament was always intended to be a foreshadowing of a different time in the future - a work in progress that would be completed in the future. As God is perfect, he cannot stand with imperfection and imperfection is exactly what he encountered while in the presence of his first chosen bride - the nation of Israel. The hundreds of rules that he gave to Israel (which includes the punishments of death) existed so that it was possible for him to live with Israel but these laws were not his final objective - they merely covered Israel's flaws enough to allow God to live with Israel.
God's objective in his master plan was with the expression of Jesus; the completion of his work was with the sacrifice of Jesus; Jesus was the person who the laws of Israel were foreshadowing. When Jesus was sacrificed as the perfect sacrifice of a human life, the old rules that applied only to Israel had been fulfilled and Israel's marriage to God had ended. 40 years later, God ended the moon and the earth of Israel - the second temple and the rules that were bound to the temple.
God's objective isn't to have people killed, God's objective is to bring his kingdom to prosperity through service of one another.
No, not the same God. For the God of Christianity IS Jesus. They are one and the same. Part of the trinity. Islam denies there is a trinity. Thus the two Gods - Jehovah and Allah - cannot be the same. In fact, in Islam proclaiming the trinity is considered heresy since it is in direct contradiction of the Koran, and thus you can be executed for stating there is a trinity.
Allah commands his followers to kill unbelievers if they do not convert, and to rape, pillage, plunder and lie to unbelievers. Pretty different than the message of Jehovah handed down by Jesus, isn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Looks like a lost cause. Pretty impossible to see how democracies - where the majority can vote in whatever - will not lead to Sharia Law, given that demographic processes point to more Muslim births than indigenous births for many W-European countries within a decade or two; shift in voting population bound to follow. So, conceivably in our life times, Sharia law will be adopted. It doesn't even need majority; the same way political parties pander to the retired population, they'll try to attract the liking of those who'd rather live a Northern African lifestyle in wealthy Europe rather than give up their medieval thinking. More and more concessions will be given. Heck, it already started in small ways, by schools in Denmark(?) no longer offering the local staple, pork, lest they offend the recently welcomed.
Some of UK's reasons for promoting Brexit are ridiculous, too: they have a problem with immigration from Eastern Europe. It's weird that they welcome the masses of the World yet are concerned about the Polish, when this is the last straw of hope of balancing out an ever more Muslim demography. There'll be a turning of the tables when English people want to live among like folks and buy real estate East of the border of the Caliphate of Western Europe (i.e. East of the Germany/Austria border).
Jimmy over there is a long-time member of the KKK. He's never lynched anyone, or burned a cross on anyone's front lawn. He's just not like some of those bad apple KKK members. So, I hope you'll treat him with respect and invite him over for supper. You'd better not paint him with the same brush just because he's a voluntary member of a group which is known to commit heinous crimes, no sir.
The French has more solidarity with the Moroccan etc. than with the Polish etc. because they used to possess them for a while, glued their language around and let in masses of Muslims. The UK already has 30-40% of the city dwellers as people with background of Muslim and/or Arabic culture, yet they want to show the fig to the Poles, Hungarians, Romanians with whom the overlap in terms of European values and lifestyle is greater. The Flemish and Vallons live in tension under the same roof. The German, Austrian and Swiss look down on Eastern Europeans and doesn't socialize with them even though E-Europe is in large part genetically and culturally close to Germany/Austria, due to Germans settling en masse over the course of time, Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Some of the luckiest, most economically powerful countries are already absent from the integration (Switzerland, Norway, Brexit) or at least avoid common currency like the plague (DK, UK, SE). Due to mishandling economics and not supporting economic convergence well enough, even the newer EU members shy away from the Euro ( CZ, PL, HU) because they can't bear the risk of yet another global or European economic crisis where they can't devalue their own currency. 20% of Switzerland is of non-European origin, yet they don't just let in French or Czech to live there with equal rights to the Swiss.
Last, there's no such thing as European border control. What's the deal with that? Would be kind of obvious.
That's great, but the PLO covenant was altered in 1998, to state that Israel had a right to exist, and it removed the sections calling for armed struggle against Israel and language referring to them as fascist aggressors. Hamas and the PIJ, on the other hand are more religious, and they have been responsible for most of the attacks since. But considering that 99% of Palestinians are Muslim, it cannot be ignored and should be linked with their willingness to engage in terrorism. Regardless if Islam is the motivating factor, the claim is that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Adherents to Islam are responsible for the vast majority of deaths by terrorism in the world today. To a significant portion of Muslims, killing the innocent to achieve political or religious gaols is perfectly acceptable and is often cheered and rewarded. Trying to equate Christian terrorism to Islamic terrorism doesn't work. Muslims kill orders of magnitude more people than Christian terrorists. But again you are trying to limit the discussion to terrorism, when I originally made the claim that Islam is not a religion of peace. What percentage of Muslims think that capital punishment is appropriate punishment for Apostasy or Blasphemy? Even if it's only 5% (it's much higher than that) that represents 80 million people worldwide. You can say it's only a small minority, but a small minority (it's actually a sizable minority) of 1.6 billion people is a lot of people.
Islam is not an ethnicity, fool. That's as stupid as calling anti-christian people like yourself racist. It's not a stereotype. It's reality. Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the world today. There aren't billions of Muslims in the world. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. And if 20% of them are radicalized, that equates to 212 million people. That's not a number that can be ignored, nor should it be.
Old Testament? GTFO, you lose.
For the God of Christianity IS Jesus.
Today it is so. A long time ago, things were more fluid and people not so sure. The current interpretations and executions of messages are not very relevant for the considerations of early history of the religions and their constructions and interactions.
Hey, you're the one that cited the scriptures. One would hope you can tell the difference between a Christian and a Jew.
Hate crimes of Israel?
That whole imprisonment of an entire generation of indigenous people comes to mind.
"His name was James Damore."
Wow . . . I guess Wikipedia is dead fucking wrong then, as well as all of the career religious academics cited in the link below. Better get started updating:
"The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11][12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
From an agnostic . . . some of you atheists are as bad as the religious fundamentalists. Your above statements are absolute bullshit and contradicted by well-cited and accepted historical FACTS.
According to pretty much of the rest of the Middle East, Israel shouldn't even exist.
According to Zionism, this Israel shouldn't event exist.
"A land without people for a people without land." didn't mean "push the owners off, kill them whenever they get uppity about it, settle"
Passengers know what the end-game of terrorists on planes is, now; knives are useless, if enough of the passengers are willing to attempt to take the terrorists down.
So.. cowards basically, right?
If that makes you feel better, sure. My question still stands.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Enjoy the peak atheism in Netherlands while you can. For the child-bearing habit is much stronger among your fellow Muslim citizenry. They'll eclipse the native population and there goes the nice atheistic trend, giving way to Sharia law.
Nope, there's plenty of big money behind it.
Which doesn't change the fact that making a nail bomb is (as has been demonstrated repeatedly) a painless home-brew process.
You only refuse to acknowledge the role your great bickering empires play in this.
Really? So, western powers are bickering with each other, and what ... angry Muslims decide to kill themselves while attempting to murder as many transit passengers as possible to get everyone to settle down and be nice? Are you even listening to yourself?
And you usefully spread their bigoted propaganda to keep the game going.
Really. Which propaganda have I just spread, and in which way is anything I've said bigoted? Be specific, instead of trying to distract by casting vague hand-waving ad hominem aspersions.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Lol how cruelly difficult you make it to them. Renounce their religion? Their scripture tells them to lie, beg and cheat to get past such obstacles, only to cling on to their beliefs ever more strongly. It also doesn't deal with the fact that major cities are already past 30% muslim. A better solution is to aggressively persecute religious teaching of violent religions and put in prison, if needed, a large fraction of population if they disobey. Even then it's pretty leaky and yields backlash for a while, but full-on brainwashing children with non-fundamentalist, secular education will address the root cause.
The converse though, Israelis/Jews (also Palestinian) living in Palestine, is not common at all.
That's because the Palestinian territories are not their country and they shouldn't be there unless invited.
Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the world today.
In the Middle East where they mostly kill other Muslims that might be true. In the West however, that is miles away from the truth.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/n...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.vocativ.com/news/25...
These articles do a pretty good job of citing sources.
Not that I think this will change your opinion though. Your dumb assumption of 20% of all Muslims being radicalized shows that you don't care about terrorism and just want to demonize Muslims. If 212 million people where crazy terrorist radicals the world would be on fire now as opposed to the safest it's been in god only knows how long.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
They don't need to blow themselves up. Rich white killers have firearms and markmanship training. It's more precise.
These terrorists are no more Muslim than Timothy McVeigh was Christian.
I think it's fair to say that it's possible to be Muslim, or Christian, or American, without living up to the ideals that this embodies. It kind of makes sense on an abstract level, because if perfection were a requirement, they wouldn't be "ideals".
It's possible to be a Muslim and in favour of killing innocent people, even though this goes against what Islam explicitly stands for, because "Muslim" has a fairly well-understood definition (anyone who publicly pronounces the shahadah) which doesn't include "must respect the lives of innocent people". It's definition that ISIS ignores, incidentally; they think that a lot of undeniably Islamic groups are apostates.
Similarly, "American" or "US citizen" has a well-understood definition that doesn't include "must be anti-torture and pro-privacy".
Interestingly, "Christian" is the odd one out, because there is no well-understood definition of "Christian", because Christianity is in practice understood in terms of "the Church". If you define "Christian" as "any person whose practices and beliefs conforms to a group which is part of the ecumenical Christian communion", then Southern Baptists are not Christian. Make of that what you will.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Pretty much.
When Islam has its renaissance moment and drags itself out of the dark ages like Christianity did, THEN they can play in our sandbox.
Pacifism is great until a bunch of people run in with Kalashnikovs screaming "allah akbar".
Your question is a bit presumptuous. The popular term right now is "economic migrant" because it would appear that they're migrating not because they fear for their lives, but more so because they see an opportunity to relocate to a wealthier nation with the hopes of attaining some of that wealth. That's why they're so desperate to get to countries that offer more in the way of benefits. Then there are the unknown quantity of migrants who are actually jihadists that seek entry to countries that otherwise wouldn't allow them in. At least one of the attacks in the most recent Paris attacks came in via Greece as a refugee. Greece said as much, they couldn't verify the guy's documentation because he claimed to be from an area that has no effective government to confirm his papers. Then there's the non-terrorist violent criminals that enter and end up raping the women in the guest country. That's not exactly respectful of human rights either. Something is seriously wrong if your country is telling you not to go outside alone or at night because it's too dangerous because of *reasons*.
I don't agree with the other person's "blood on their hands " or "no innocents" comments, but there are very good reasons to deny immigration and to send back people that have already entered.
I didn't say they were legal (or less illegal) than they were in the US. But you are right, they get smuggled in through war zones of which several are right on the edges of the EU. And if getting a fully automatic weapon is not much more difficult than getting a semi automatic one, why not go for the full auto? In the US, if you were planning to commit an act of terror, it's not worth the risk to steal a machine gun from a gun club/private owner or try to buy/smuggle one in from Mexico. Especially when perfectly usable semi auto rifles are legally purchasable. And I say this as someone who owns an AR-15 style rifle.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Well, here we are folks! I'm reading an 0.43% divergence from my worldline and falling by the week. Let's hope Dr. Stein's theoretical work was wildly inaccurate.
Oh, my god. I'm back. I'm home. All this time. We finally, really did it. YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
You know the routine. Riots in 2018 and 2019. FEMA concentration camps. I was never too sure what had happened in Europe since the government had full control of the media by 2023 when I was/will be accepted into the Michigan Institute of Technology.
We've been communicating with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia over ham radio. The bombs fell everywhere on that day of wrath.
paid actors, in American greenbacks. Who the hell wants Rubles? Beats working in the brick yards, wouldn't you agree? But you go ahead and keep strokin' your Muslim thing there. They are the flavor of the month, after all. Monkey see monkey do. You all should listen to yourselves. Bunch of bloody parrots you are. Playing both sides, letting the Saudis and Israel be the middlemen, hardly provides the plausible deniability you crave.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Your question is a bit presumptuous.
I'm basing it on all of the Muslim immigrants that I happen to know personally. It's about two dozen, from various countries, with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and the former Sudan being the most common.
The most common reason that I hear from people who weren't actually fleeing for their lives (Iraq and Sudan in particular) was some variation on "I gave up hope that things would change". These people would probably be thought of by many as "economic migrants", but they would almost certainly tell you "well, yes, that's only a small part of it".
Economists like explaining things in terms of wealth because that's relatively easy to measure.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Food preservation, metallurgy, cryptography, electronics, the internet, space flight, telecommunication satellites... Face it, if it wasn't for our 'tribalism' would would still live in mud hut like Africans peoples.
Nothing come to your mind because you are an ignorant globalist that seek to destroy diversity by replacing all the whites with browns. Not all civilisation are the same, not all culture are the same, not all races are the same. Some are better than others; It take lot of courage to admit this truth.
border controls has to do with keeping out undesirables (degenerate muslim savages which is about half of the whole at least) from parts of the world that harbor and promote pedophiles, rapists, molesters, murderers, thieves, enslavers that use "holy text" as justification for what they do. opening the floodgates out of some misplaced humanitarianism is leading to tragedy in europe.
nah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
looks like mostly Ireland with some England thrown in (their sworn enemies)
a local conflict, not like these crazed muslims spreading their evil far and wide
Allah's Koran was revealed to Mohammed, not Jesus. I think that sets the ranking for prophets as Mohammed at the top. And I would be curious which Christian sect actually denies the trinity.
And Christianity has its roots in Judaism, but because the message is that Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish prophecies and free people from the constraints of Jewish faith (Jesus was a Jew after all). Supercede, so to speak. It has the roots - but it's not the same all as Christianity supercedes and renders irrelevant Jewish faith. The Old Testament is used more for simple wisdom and background through which to better understand the New Testament.
Christians are not bound by the Old Testament, but by the New Testament; remember, when asked by the Pharisee which was the greatest commandment (an obvious trap for Jesus to choose one of the original 10), he answered "to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself" - a command that doesn't exist in the Old Testament at all.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please refer to the Koran, Sura 5:20-21. When you find a Muslim who would agree that the land of Palestine belongs to Israel, we can talk about who should have what, historically. Israelis didn't kick out Muslims or Christians (in fact, they're welcomed and are part of the Parliament); it did, however, decide to NOT let back in all of those who left voluntarily when the UN (remember them?) created the entire modern nation of Israel.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And I would be curious which Christian sect actually denies the trinity.
Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity.
The statement that Jesus almost certainly never existed is wrong. Jesus not existing is a hypothesis, and one that's far from certain. Religions and myths usually have some truth in their origins. Take Star Trek, for example, where the Greek Gods are explained as being aliens who landed on Earth. The lack of contemporary evidence for the historical Jesus is not uncommon. There's virtually no contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great, either. Even many leaders from that time period aren't well supported by contemporary evidence. It's likely there was a historical Jesus, though the nature of Jesus is a matter of faith.
About interpretations of the Bible, there's great variation in them. Catholics believe that Jesus literally turned bread and wine into his body and blood, and this happens again in the mass. A good portion of Protestants believe bread and wine is symbolic and not literal. Christians believe Isaiah 53 describes a suffering servant that foretells Jesus. Jews believe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is the Kingdom of Israel.
It's believed that after the Resurrection of Jesus, he spent 40 days preparing the Apostles to go out into the world. However, the Gospels only record a few stories about Jesus appearing during that time and virtually nothing of what he taught. Very little is directly written about perhaps the most important time in Jesus' ministry. It would make sense that Jesus' teaching was recorded elsewhere in the New Testament, written in other early Christian documents many of which may not have survived, and shared orally with other Christians. Simply repeating a few passages of the Bible without regard for context and tradition is disingenuous.
By the way, the same is true of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. However, they also have Hadith, which record other things about the life and teaching of Mohammed. Belief in the Qur'an is universal, but Hadith are not. Some Muslims ignore Hadith altogether. Other Muslims believe some Hadith but not others. This has a big impact on how they conduct themselves.
You have to consider whether violence represents something literal or spiritual. The Christian book of Revelation is incredibly violent. But that violence is spiritual, taking place in Heaven, a battle between good and evil. It is not in any way promoting violence on Earth.
The commands of Jesus are a new covenant, and can supersede anything in the Old Testament. Jesus commanded things like love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, and turn the other cheek. Those supersede any Old Testament command to engage in violence.
Finally, one need not believe in supernatural beings to promote violence. The Church of Satan is atheistic; they reject the existence of any god. Consider these commands from LaVeyan Satanism in the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. They include, "If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy" and, "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." These views are rejected by humanists but it cannot be denied that some atheist teachings are no better than any supposed teaching by a supernatural being.
Do you always deliberately mischaracterize what people say?
Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than Mohammed is. He is considered by Muslims to be one of the most high ranked and beloved prophets of God.
Islam claims to supersede and render irrelevant aspects of Judaism and Christianity. It is identical to the argument you are making.
Some Christian sects that deny the Trinity: Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostals, the Seventh Day Church of God, Unitarian Universalist Christians, United Church of God, and The Shepherd's Chapel.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Oh, I get it now. The choice of currency is a sign of who's doing the paying? You do actually understand the utility of US currency pretty much anyplace in the world, don't you? Yeah, you do. It definitely annoys you, that's obvious. Get over it. Or do something to make your own currency more valuable so YOU can be the one that ISIS fighters work for (cuz, yeah, they work for whoever happened to print the currency being used ... right, gotcha).
Yes, medieval-minded theocratic thugs who swear the Koran is why they burn down schools and shoot teachers in front of their students, that's the flavor of the week. Why? Because that stuff actually happens. Do YOU do that? Do your neighbors? No? That's why you're not the flavor of the month. Start acting like a barbarian and you can get some of the same attention. Lop the heads off of a village full of people because you don't like how they interpret a fairy tale, and you can get a piece too. What the hell is your point, exactly?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The checkpoints will be placed far enough away from infrastructure to ensure operations can continue to secure a profit as soon as possible. I assure you.
I like how you confirm all those old stories about you religious fanatics not letting facts get in the way of your own demagoguery. You folks are an interesting bunch, denying the sky is blue, and the proof only makes you dig in your heels. You're a classic textbook case.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Calling me a fool doesn't negate the fact that you and people like you treat Islam as a race and the act racist about it. Which Muslims are good Muslims are bad? Doesn't matter to you- you've already decided to deport them ALL. that's racist buddy.
OH SNAP! You pwnd his ass!
Every. Single. God. Damn. Time.
Someone posts this nonsense comparison terrorism to traffic accidents. But traffic accidents are accidents, not deliberate plots.
I should hope the people posting this drivel understand that the Nazis ran a terror campaign of their own in both Germany and Austria (possible other countries with German minorities). The chancellor of Austria was assassinated.
Eventually, the Nazis took over Germany, Austria, and other countries. The death toll from the Holocaust was eleven million or higher.
If the radical Islamic groups cause mass uprisings in Europe, the death toll would be in the low tens of thousands in the least.
And how many people did the Muslims that that guy knows kill? The answer is probably zero. You're terrible at this debate thing and you're STILL being racist.
Do you always reply to a substantiated rebuttal with nonsense?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
lot more people die on the road each day, and nobody cares..
That's not correct - governments spend billions on policing, licensing, registering vehicles and drivers, installing traffic cameras, not to mention the army of public servants continuously reviewing safety standards, regulations and road black spots.
The God of the Bible commands the same things and there are accounts of these punishments handed out to the heathens. I think the reason people perceive Jesus to be warm and fuzzy is because Christianity would be abhorrent otherwise. Most Christians don't follow the Bible (and how can they when it is inconsistent and contradictory), they simply pick and choose what suits them.
Jesus stated that the law and the prophets would NOT be abolished, he was here to fulfill them. Unless Jesus override any biblical laws from the OT, they stand today.
There was drastically less terrorism. I can't really think of any significant Europe terrorist attacks between WW2 and the late 90s.
What are you, twenty? Even ignoring the Left, Right and separatist terrorism, there was even more Islamic terror back then. All the "terrorism sponsoring" by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi happened back then.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day."
The difference is that highway accidents are not associated with a million rabid insurgents who admit upfront to wanting to kill Europeans.
Nope, they are associated with tens of millions of rabid people who can't drive.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Where in the New Testament does it command Christians to kill, rape, lie to further the religion?
True Christians also believe in the Old Testament.Where do you think Muhammed got those ideas from?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How often do bombs go off in crowded areas in Israel?
Yeah. That's why the latest round of terrorism in Israel are attacks with kitchen knifes. If you don't count the mistreatment of the Palestinians as terrorism.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.
Yeah, it's always "only some Christians but all Muslims", isn't it?
It absolutely is NOT all Muslims - terrorism and suicide bombers are something very much foreign to Shia Muslims. It is almost exclusively Sunni Muslims who engage in terrorism.
We should stop labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists and be a bit more discriminating.
Errm. No. Iran is 100% Shi'a, and well-known for "state-sponsored" terrorism. Hezbollah is 100% Shi'a.
If you had claimed Ahmadiyya, you would have had a chance. But wait - they aren't True Muslim, right?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The Belgian news is calling it a kamikaze
So they flew a plane into the airport?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What suicide vest? You know something about the attacks we don't know yet?
The fact that you are trying to change the subject from your generalist claim about fondling and groping vs. carry-on luggage screening to the specific attacks is noted.
The fact that they were committed before any fondling and groping and carry-on luggage screening took place just shows how fucking dumb that switch was.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Well, Christians don't have a holy book that tells them to slay the infidels and take their women and treasure. Islam does. Do we still not know this in two thousand fucking sixteen?
So Christians just do that for fun and profet (pun intended).
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.
Yes, because putting a lock on your door and having a criminal break in your house anyway is EXACTLY the same as leaving your door wide open with a big sign in your front yard reading "Free cash and valuables inside!"
Gee, I suggest you lock yourself up in your home and let your children kill you. You know, to make the whole analogy to home-grown terrorism complete.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
And you are STILL STILL STIIIIIIL being a racist.
As just a minor reminder of history, the first Crusade was an organized reinforcement of a nation being overrun by Muslim invaders.
Just as a reminder: most people killed by Christians in the Crusades weren't Muslims.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Don't give me that "Christians would never do that" shit. Christians constantly are in the news for shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children or setting fire to crowded movie theatres showing "The Last Temptation of Christ" - but they are rarely identified as "Christians". That's my fucking point, you idiot.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The point still stands.
And really, it's not like Mexicans are that much different to you guys. Maybe it's time you learnt to appreciate the siesta :-)
Eat the rich.
You do understand that England is outside Ireland?
So your solution is to give our governments unlimited power and make a few new "Ermaechtigungsgesetze". Like the one in Germany 1933? It was an important steps that ultimately lead to your grandfather having to storm Normandy.
Regarding the hospital bombing: you don't need conspiracy theories, you only have to read the ever changing statements put out by the US military in the wake of the attack (from "mistake" to "it was a Taliban hideout from which US troops were attacked" to "mistake" again, and everything in between), combined with the facts that e.g. the attacks continued for 30 minutes after Doctors without Borders got into contact with US military officials, and that only the hospital was hit within the compound.
I think I also finally understand why I'm not getting the point that I wanted to make across to you: you seem to genuinely believe that Bush reason for invading Iraq was "spreading democracy". I naively assumed that pretty much everyone by now understood that was not a goal at all (probably caught in a similar trap as you earlier due to the "many others" that I regularly talk to, read and hear).
I was not in any way talking about moral relativism or about what social form is superior to another or not. Given my (yes, my) assumption that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with democracy and that democracy was just a pretext (ab)used to mobilise public support for committing atrocities, I was trying to point out that this is no different to (ab)using Islam for exactly the same purpose. You seem to argue in favour of take everyone's justifications for committing atrocities mostly at face value.
You may also want to watch The Rise of ISIS by NPR frontline for some background on how the ISIS mess started starting from Al-Qaeda and the Iraq war. If you replace Sunni/Shia with Hutu/Tutsi in the story about the power struggles and repression of certain groups, you get something that's very close to the Hutu/Tutsi situation in Rwanda and (to some lesser extent) Congo. And if you want background about how Al Qaeda started (it's much more complex than "the US gave some weapons to some Afghans to fight the Russians"), you may want to watch the excellent BBC documentary Bitter Lake.
Donate free food here
Where's the source to support the figures ? Sounds unlikely.
Hi, writing from Brussels here.
This is exactly what is happening now.
At train stations, people are only let in in small groups at a time.
In front of the stations, enormous crowds are waiting to be let in.
I'm not a security expert, but I have to wonder how this is an improvement.
Then you just don't know the "right" people, I've met tons of moronic atheists (not to be confused with all atheists) who are literally screaming for all Muslims to be put down. Like you I wouldn't mind if religion dissapeared overnight, but i very much doubt much would change. Stupid people will act stupid no matter their religion
True, but I was focused on security measures taken by the government/airlines. This was a change of the response of passengers involved in a hijacking was directly related to that changed expectation of what a hijacking involved. Keep this new passenger attitude and the locked cabin doors. Roll back the rest of the 911 "security enhancements" and we'll be just as safe as we are with the security enhancements.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The white hordes invaded north america.
And see what happened to the Native Americans because they didn't stop them. You know with these demographic shifts over a century or two the ethnic germans or the ethnic french will be killed off, right? Already a quarter of teenagers in France are muslim. You're sitting here gleeful over this genocide...doesn't that make you the racist, not me?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
In Europe it was always the standard.
After 9/11 nothing really changed.
Even countries like Greece had strict security checks on airports where you could walk from the wood into the area without a fence. Kavala comes to mind.
So yes, USA seems to be a back yard country ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I was stationed in Germany from 1974-1978 and more changes in alert status were from terrorist groups like Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction and German Autumn events, then anything the Soviets did. Provisional Irish Republican Army was responsible for almost non-stop terrorist actions in Britain, Munich massacre, the Pan Am Flight 103 or Lockerbie bombing.
It wasn't a matter of no "significant Europe terrorist attacks" as much as there were so many they lost there significance. When the Soviet Empire Crumbled in economic collapse from trying to keep up with Reagan's military buildup in America, the Communist/Socialist revolutionaries lost their funding and logistics support; during the hiatus you just forgot how thing were. No worrys though, Muslims are filling the vacuum.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Agreed, but borders is a prerequisite. You can't complain that we're not kicking people out therefore we don't need borders, when we don't actually have well controlled borders to begin with. That logic doesn't work.
I disagree - you are trying to use reverse logic for this. To take this in the abstract: If you have a piece of land somewhere in the forest that you are not throwing anyone out of, then you do not need a fence around it. So unless and until we are actually throwing people out (which is by far more difficult than having a border as the people in question tend to have papers that allow them to be here) then there is no use for the border.
Even the loners are doing it for some ideology or in the name of some group, even if they're not actually part of it. The San Bernardino terrorists, afaik, were not "part" of ISIS, but the woman declared her allegiance to ISIS before they did it.
Well yes...and?
You must not read much news. I've seen it in every major newspaper, both in articles and in the comment section. Here's just one of many examples of what I said above: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The entire line of reasoning is idiotic... you make decisions based on what's best for you, not some psychoanalysis of your enemy and what they want or don't want.
I can see your point with this but I suspect it is more people who want to allow refugee migrants in that are trying to use any argument they can to change public opinion - including "The enemy of our enemy is our friend".
More people die in car crashes than lots of stuff. Yet we regulate lots and lots of other stuff. Now unless you're going around saying "I'm not willing to put up with the inconveniences of food safety regulations just to save a handful of people from food poisoning, when CAR CRASHES kill so many more" then you're being awfully hypocritical.
Your argument is also very short-sighted... we already do a hell of a lot to fight against terrorism right now. We have multiple government agencies, civilian and military, dealing with terrorist groups and state sponsors. I think it's pretty remarkable, and no accident, that a wealthy terrorist group like ISIS hasn't gotten their hands on some nuclear bombs when there are suppliers from the former USSR, Pakistan, North Korea, and so on.
You are right: - we do do a hell of a lot to fight terrorism right now and I think that it's enough, if not more than enough (witness the uselessness of TSA checks).
I am not saying "do not do food safety checks" - I am saying "do not take every grain of rice of every shipment from every country and examine it for lead content" because at some point a line needs to be drawn saying "We are not willing to let go of more of our freedom in the name of a bit of perceived [temporary] safety". I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin of course but here it stands true. We are doing, in my opinion, quite enough against the real level of danger that Daesh (and whatever one-offs associate themselves with Daesh) present - relatively not much - and I am not willing to continue to give the state (states in fact as this is more than one country) more and more and more power out of fear of something that has zero (to some number of decimal points) possibility of actually harming anyone that I know.
I agree about security theater, in the instances where it is theater, but let me ask you this. If you're not Muslim, and even if you are but you're not like a hardcore radical, how would it significantly change your life if we went around shutting down radical mosques, deporting every Muslim who ever said "Yes I would welcome sharia law in [some Western country]" or "Yes I support the death penalty for apostasy", refusing all refugees and immigrants from areas with strong
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I have to disappoint you.
My business cards are made from metal.
They never triggered the "walk through" scanner nor the ordinary luggage scanning thing.
They are not "sharp" but I could use them as throwing stars or kill one by cutting his throat.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sorry. That is a blatant lie.
No it is not. And you are an idiot.
Jesus Christ advocated love.
Yes he did. But he did not found a religion. So what is his relation to Mohamed? None obviously.
Mohammed advocated hate and retribution. ... so: what is the difference?
Like Christians and Jews do
You should not accuse one about lying and "lying yourself" if you simply have no knowledge about the matter.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Islam compels followers to spread the religion world-wide
No it does not. It is spreading the religion to "heathens" just like the Christians do.
Judaism does not, as you need to be born a jew to be a jew ... well you can convert ... but you are not considered a real jew then.
Those able to read it themselves can easily become radicalized...
Wow, and that can not happen to Christians? Why?
'You are an Idiot!'
Wow, what an insightful way to end any argument...
Not insightful, but fitting.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I lost you after the 'lol'
What exactly do you want to say?
What has 'guilt' or 'Liberalism' to do with the topic? And who the fuck is Jeebus? Your god? You swear with the name of your god ... wow ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Makes nice heroic stories, does it not?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
True Christians know that Jesus freed them from the Old Testament rules, and that the Old Testament is simply the backdrop to be used to further understand the New Testament. Further, where in the Old Testament does it command Jews to kill, rape, and like to further their religion? Yes, those things happened but were contrary to the law, and were almost always followed by a hard downfall... It's one thing to do, it's another to be commanded to do it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god
No, they don't believe in the same god.
Yes they do believe in the same god!
Did I mention you are an idiot?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But on a more serious note: The god they believe in has zero to do with anything. But thanks for playing.
That is exactly what I want to say.
They don't attack us because they are of the "wrong religion" but because we are their enemies.
If I bombed your daughter and half your family on a wedding and half the family of the broom, too: you would hate me and most people even if "Christians" would want revenge.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The bible quotes would be relevant if there were enough people who followed them to become a global problem today. But there isn't.
And a problem with another religion doesn't somehow discredit claims of a problem with another. This is a classic tu quoque fallacy.
playmoney.me - The free alternative to paper board game play money
When has anyone requested phone decryption against anyone not the target of a warrant? When has any "law abiding citizen" been the target of a warrant to decrypt their phone?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
First of all, thank you for quietly accepting my point about Koran prescribing world-wide Theocracy as the only acceptable shape of government (with Caliph at the top). You could've been more explicit about it, but for a fellow, who casually calls his opponents names, this is not bad.
Koran urges the faithful to convert the heathens by force if necessary.
Although Christians have done the same, there is nothing in Christian scripture about it. So it is possible to be a good Christian without converting "heathens" at gun point. The same can not be said about Islam.
Because Christian scripture, once again, asks the followers to "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — and not apply their faith to sæcular matters. Christians haven't always heeded that, obviously, but the fact remains — they aren't compelled to it by the faith. Unlike Muslims.
That said, it could, I suppose, happen to Christians too. It just hasn't happened to them in a looong while for some reason. And "poverty" or some other inequality — Illiberals' favorite excuse — are not the reasons. These and previous attackers were all from well off families, many either born or raised in the fithy-rich West. Having attended European universities, they had perfectly prosperous and fulfilling lives ahead of them, but chose to become terrorists instead.
The only things, that make them different from neighbors, are: a) slightly darker skin; b) religion. Which trait, in your opinion, is more likely to account for their evil?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hum, according to Wikipedia about 93% of the Palestinians are Muslims and 6% are Christians. And it is true that most of the recent attacks are made by Hamas and other organisations, which are more religious than the PLO. But I still hesitate in classifying their attacks as Islamic terrorism, as their goal is largely secular.
About the other point, of whether "Islam is a religion of peace", I'd like to point out that the vast majority of the victims of Islamic terrorism are also Muslims. But apart from the insults, I think your point is largely correct, that the Muslim world today is much more violent than the Christian world. The interesting question is, why?
I don't think this has much to do with religion. I think the true reasons are cultural and economic. Remember that 500 years ago Christians were just as bad. What were the Crusades, if not Christian jihad? And the sectarian wars in Europe between catholics and protestants? They look very similar to me to the wars being sunnis and shias. And the Inquisition? That was pretty much death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy.
The difference is that Christians have largely grew up out of these barbaric ways, and today overwhelmingly consider these to be embarrassing episodes of their history, while Muslims have gone the opposite way, going from being a (for that time) sophisticated and peaceful society to one where this barbarism has significant support (I'd like to point out that Muslims that actually support this religious violence are far from being the majority, but there are enough that support it for it to happen). Why?
entropy happens
The Royal Air Force? I know they bombed the shit out of Germany in WW2, but terrorists? Really?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No it does not. It is spreading the religion to "heathens"
Koran urges the faithful to convert the heathens by force if necessary.
You seem not to realize: Christians and Jews and Yezidi and if you want I google for the other Abrahmic religions: are not heathens.
The only things, that make them different from neighbors, are: a) slightly darker skin; b) religion. Which trait, in your opinion, is more likely to account for their evil?
The traits:
a) they are poor and have nothing to lose
b) someone killed their family
Your middle part was just nonsense.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What most People refuse to realise is
the World Trade Center was the World Trade Center,
the Pentagon was the major forces supplier to NATO,
SHAPE is Headquarters in Brussels; this is an attack not on a country but our modern way of life.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Just to be clear, here, you're saying that the videos produced by the people who proudly state that things like ending the education of girls are really (let me guess here) actually ... what? ... CIA productions? Which juvenile conspiracy theory are you currently subscribed to? So the Taliban, Boko Haram, Daesh ... these are all fictional contrivances, and all of their brutality and slaughter is manufactured by third parties? Do tell. Please include all the details you've imagined, so we can better understand your particular type of delusion.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Which of the facts I stated are you trying to question with the above rhetorical question?
Whatever. The point was, Catholicism has nothing to do with the terrorism mentioned by N1AK above.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If I quote Deuteronomy, you will say but that is OT, and no longer relevant.
So here is an NT quote:
Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
True or not, this is not relevant. The point was, Muslims are compelled by their faith to actively spread it — including, even if not always, by violence. This makes Islam worse (to an objective observer) than Christianity or Judaism.
That may be true about people in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is decidedly not true about the terrorists in the West. Even Washington Post agrees. Najim Laachraoui — the maker of the Paris and Brussels bombs — immigrated from Morocco, grew up in Belgium and graduated a university. He was well off and his family was safely in Europe. The two homicide bombers also grew up in the rich Brussels (with all the "safety net" of a European country). Like millions of others, they had criminal records, but no prior ties to terrorism — no one in their family were killed. They got radicalized by something — but poverty is not it.
The San Bernardino murderers were also wealthy Americans. Tsarnaev brothers moved to the US at young age, but weren't poor. They did immigrate from a war-torn region, but had no one in their immediate family killed — and, if anyone was, it was not by the US.
So, your attempts to blame poverty and desire to avenge family thoroughly debunked, you are left with the two choices I gave you before: a) skin color; b) religion.
The grace, with which you surrender your positions, continues to astound. It seems, we are done here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nope, the ammo and blood is real, and your thirst for more will always bring your war a little closer to home, to roost as it is. And it is your tax dollars at work financing and arming and motivating these people. Obviously you remain in denial over that because you "have to". Eh, doesn't matter. The reaction is typical, reproducible in and out of the lab. I just like seeing it first hand in black and white out in public. It's a thing. There's a natural 'beauty' to it. Just gotta stay out of your crossfire.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Are you sure that it isn't aliens, calling the shots? Or is that in a different one of your narratives? Because I'm a little foggy on just what it is that you think whoever the plurally vague "your" is that you're waving your hands about is doing to raise young men in Wahhabist mosques. How (please, for once, make an attempt to actually talk substance and specifics) are the ambiguous "your" dictating the precepts and call to action that is emanating from the toxic corners of that culture? Provide a solid, specific example of how whoever it is that you think is the "your" is actually directing the minds and actions of, for example, the three guys that walked into the Brussels airport yesterday to kill people. Specifically. Can't be specific? That's because it's hard to connect your comic-book-level fantasy to reality when you have to explain how it actually works. But give it a try, since your purpose is to amuse rather than enlighten.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Are you sure that it isn't aliens, calling the shots?
Nah, just your little generals with a common cause acting out their desires. You seem to enjoy and maybe benefit from playing along. It's all good.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Wow . . . I guess Wikipedia is dead fucking wrong then, as well as all of the career religious academics cited in the link below.
Wikipedia is known for error and often limited when it comes to controversial subjects.
But...
Your above statements are absolute bullshit and contradicted by well-cited and accepted historical FACTS.
Your claims about the content of that article don't rise to the level which you present them.
Or this other one.
One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus, like that of the historicity of King Arthur, is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence.[3] Like many genuinely historical figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to AD 59, who discusses his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later. Historians interested in the historicity of Jesus are confronted by discussing the nature of these historic records and the intention and points of view of their authors.[4][5]
I mean, really, if you're going to cite Wikipedia, you could look a bit further.
Maybe it was too complex. I will try to simplify my previous post. The ammo and blood are real.The fraud is in the emperor's narrative that you parrot. In your submissive appeal to authority you take it at face value and disparage all challenges. What is also real is your faith.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hey, you're the one that cited the scriptures. One would hope you can tell the difference between a Christian and a Jew.
I can, but when it comes fundamentalism it's often a distinction without a difference.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
As AC wrote below your post:
----------------
Your claims about the content of that article don't rise to the level which you present them.
Or this other one
One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus, like that of the historicity of King Arthur, is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence.[3] Like many genuinely historical figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to AD 59, who discusses his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later. Historians interested in the historicity of Jesus are confronted by discussing the nature of these historic records and the intention and points of view of their authors.[4][5]
I mean, really, if you're going to cite Wikipedia, you could look a bit further.
----------------
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The bible quotes would be relevant if there were enough people who followed them to become a global problem today. But there isn't.
Yes, the key word being "today".
Christians happily put loads of "non-believers" to death on a whim back when they could get away with it, and many still pine for those days. Most of the prominent theocratic cranks alive now would be perfectly fine with returning to those days. I could list a dozen right now that would love to see civilization fall back to where they could put people to the sword as a matter of "faith in their beliefs" or for the non-existent crime of "blasphemy". Just channel-surf on Sunday morning and you'll find gobs of them.
Yesterday it was Christianity doing it, today it's Islam. Tomorrow it'll be Scientology or some other crackpot religion.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
And yes, all religions have followers that committed horrible crimes, even atheism has, It doesn't excuse it or make them morally equivalent,
Well the Christians sure killed a lot of Native Americans when they got here and killed in the name of their God. The Catholics still have in their laws that if a heathen cannot be saved then they should be "Cleansed" (killed). Even Prez George Bushy sent troops in the name of God to kill in Iraq.
Christians do love to kill in the name of God also.
It doesn't really matter about religion as much as the fact of when a country sends troops in an area to kill the Natives you leave kin behind. These kin folk now are out to kill you for killing their family. You have made enemies for generations to come. You kill a person's wife, Mother, or children then they are out to kill you for the rest of their life. They then tell the next generation of your crimes and then those want to kill you.
You know if we had bombed Iraq with bread instead of cluster bombs maybe we wouldn't be here. Or maybe if we had chosen the target of the country where the terrorist were actually from (Saudia Arabia) then maybe we wouldn't be here either.
You do realize, right, that you are still avoiding any sort of specificity? You refer to "the fraud," but then carefully avoid explaining why our understanding of the actions of groups like Daesh or the Taliban is fraudulent? So: when Daesh rolls into town and shoots a bunch of people and throws them into a ditch because they are insufficiently in keeping with their world view, and then they explain that that's exactly what they did and why they did it and publish that explanation on numerous jihaddi-friendly web outlets which part is the fraud? Did the fake the murders? Are they lying about their world view? Be specific. Not that you will - you'll just wave your hands again and mutter something non-specific in order to deflect.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Told you before, nobody works for free. You seem to have trouble comprehending this. Being obtuse is obviously a dominant trait of yours. You are doing no less than projecting your own fanaticism in your silly rage against the "other".
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Much of the Islamic world, as in Victorian England, gives low status and rights to women, tolerates high rates of childhood sexual abuse of both girls and boys, and suppresses sexual enjoyment. These conditions provide fertile breeding ground for terrorism.
in a survey it was found men want sex not food.muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all inhibitions.they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.
In a survey it was found men want sex not food.muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all Inhibitions.-..they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with gosts and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food and you want it every hour..this will cure you of the jeehad bullshit.it will give you a reason to live instead of wanting to die for non existent 72 virgins...cause when your dead you are dead..dead ...DEAD.
in a survey it was found men want sex not food.muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all inhibitions.-..they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with gosts and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food.
In a survey it was found men want sex not food.muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all inhibitions.-..they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with gosts and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food and you want it every hour..this will cure you of the jeehad bullshit.it will give you a reason to live instead of wanting to die for non existent 72 virgins...cause when your dead you are dead..dead ...DEAD.
In a survey it was found men want sex not food.muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all Inhibitions.-..they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with gosts and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food and you want it every hour..this will cure you of the jeehad bullshit.it will give you a reason to live instead of wanting to die for non existent 72 virgins...cause when your dead you are dead..dead ...DEAD.
In a survey it was found men want sex not food.
muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all Inhibitions.-..
they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour....this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with goats and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food and you want it every hour..this will cure you of the jeehad bullshit.it will give you a reason to live instead of wanting to die for non existent 72 virgins...cause when your dead you are dead..dead ...DEAD.
One difference is that (most) Christians see suicide as a mortal sin. So you can't go to heaven if you do it. That kinda precludes Baptist suicide bombers. Who would want to risk an Eternity of Damnation just to make a political point? But there have been plenty of "Christian" non-suicide bombers, even in recent memory. The Troubles ring a bell? That conflict was killing innocent people in terrorist attacks even into the 90s, including 29 civilians in August of 1998. I know Wikipedia says it wasn't a religious conflict, but I don't know of anybody who believes that.
I see you covered the murder, rape, pillaging, and wife stealing. Don't forget all the torture! The Old Testament is frightening. It's strange that modern Judaism isn't the most violent religion out there. It's like they've forgotten the God of Abraham was one mean SOB. He even persuaded one of His main prophets to murder his own son. That's pretty fucked up.
Are you completely sure that the current terrorists are driven by religion rather than nationalism? ISIS is trying to establish a nation state, for example. It's hard to tell the difference, and it doesn't help to label Christian terrorists as nationalists and Muslim terrorists as religious fanatics.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh look! More vague non-specifics! Who said Daesh fighters work for free? What does that have to do with your vague inferences about them somehow working for "the generals" you so sniffingly dislike? You seem obsessed with avoiding ANY possibility that groups like Daesh actually do the things they do or mean the things they say. What's your vested interest in attempting to portray them as something else? Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
*warning -- slippery slope logical fallacy ahead*
Four soldiers surrounded the car holding automatic weapons ... we were intercepted and interviewed by another heavily armed soldier
Yeah! That's what I want. Fuckin armed police checking every goddam car. Why wait until they approach the airport. Let's just go house to house and check every car in every driveway. Why stop there? Let's just storm everybody's house too! We should anal probe babies while we're at it. Cain't never be too safe!
In a survey it was found men want sex not food.
muslim women need to be trained in hardcore sex including oral sex and to lose all Inhibitions.-..they should wear miniskirts and stockings..do mouth to mouth deep kissing...and deep throating..
they should have sex in the kitchen,on the stairs,on the dining table..even in a burkha bin liner...they should be having sex with their sex starved muslim men every hour... .this will drain the muslim men from their sexual frustration and all the jeehad bullshit...this is the solution to muslim terrorism..train muslim women to be whores and not cooks.this will stop muslim men from doing it with gosts and yearning for 72 virgin bullshit...
so start training your frigid repressed wife in proper sex today...tell her you want sex not food and you want it every hour..this will cure you of the jeehad bullshit.it will give you a reason to live instead of wanting to die for non existent 72 virgins...cause when your dead you are dead..dead ...DEAD.
TELL EVERY MUSLIM TO START FUCKING WOMEN AND STOP KILLING.OK?
The biggest problem with the immigrants from the Middle East (in particular) is that they came to the different country but continue to live like back at home and don't want to integrate into the society. By doing that that they are turning the country that accepted them into the one from which they were happy to escape. The good life they take for granted in the new country is there precisely because of the different values and culture.
Immigration is hard but the main reason they came is because they don't want to live like that anymore, so it is time to make a choice. You can't live like in Middle East and expect any other outcome than in the Middle East. I am not saying that they should forget who they are, but should seriously think about their new identity and if it is compatible with host culture and values.
no it's not, Judaism and Christianity share a god, but Islam takes the progression of Judaism into Christianity and then shoots it off into a separate religion, you can't denounce Jesus as the son of God and then claim the same God as your own because you've already denounced him as your savoir/God.
in that way Judaism is no longer the same God either if you want to be pedantic.
so technically, s.petry is correct.
"Mohammed advocated hate and retribution. ... so: what is the difference?"
Like Christians and Jews do
you're conflating the followers of a belief with the head of one?
Islam compels followers to spread the religion world-wide
No it does not. It is spreading the religion to "heathens" just like the Christians do.
Judaism does not, as you need to be born a jew to be a jew ... well you can convert ... but you are not considered a real jew then.
you have it confused a bit, christians are heathens too, we are just saved, if anyone considers the people who don't follow their word heathens it's the jew and muslims?
it sounds like you just like to argue semantics but don't really understand it all yourself?
+1
If we start ignoring all of our constitutional rights because of terrorism, then what are we fighting for at that point?
Specifics have no effect on a fanatic. In fact, it only results in increased fanaticism. You confirm that with every post. The general idea is good enough. You simply side with your own ideologues to maintain a "superior" position and to curry favor with your superiors. It would be weird if you didn't.
Just so you know, Daesh wouldn't exist without your support. The world thanks you.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're doing it wrong. Just run a MD5 hash on all these gods and see if they are the same.
It does. Which provides more motivation for passengers to resist ("we're going to die anyway, so might as well die as heroes") on top of the justification for passengers who were going to resist anyway ("we're going to die anyway, so doesn't matter if they kill 6 more people as retaliation for my attempt at fighting them").
Here is the most comprehensive terrorism database in the world. Why dont you use it and enlighten yourself. Islamic terrorism kills more people than any other type.
Rand Terrorism Database
Or you can just rely on the huffington post.
No, we treat Islam like you treat Christianity,
Do you always reply to a substantiated rebuttal with nonsense?
You substantiated nothing. It's interesting that Muslims make up 0.9% of the US population but according to your first link, they are responsible for 6% of the terrorism in America. And this data only goes from 1980 through 2005. I'm sure if you looked at the number of deaths caused by Islamic terrorism in America, rather than the number of incidents, They would probably be above 50%. Thanks for proving my point. Your second link is left-wing drivel, and has been ignored. And your third link barely rises above the level of clickbait. There is no information on criteria or methodology, and it just refers to huffingtonpost for most of it's links.
Josephus, the most credible historian of the time, doesn't mention Jesus even once. There are a few phrases that might refer to him in his writings, but are considered to be late additions by a Christian editor, and not the words of Josephus at all.
sounds fair.
Most international Islamic terrorists are middle class, if not from wealthy families. They are college educated. The problem is that they have been indoctrinated much like you want all people to be.
Mohammad was a warlord who led an army that raped, pillaged, and murdered those who would not follow. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
... time to do some virtue signalling! All SJWs have already left their starting positions. DId you know that most middle-eastern countries were Christian at one stage? Eventually they were "converteed" - South and middle Europe to follow shortly.
Does this guy know and WBC or KKK members? No. If he wants to equate Islam to WBC and the KKK, we will view all groups as a whole.
Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than Mohammed is. He is considered by Muslims to be one of the most high ranked and beloved prophets of God.
but a prophet none the less, not God in the flesh which is what Christianity believes, to deny this one thing makes it impossible for Christianity to be the root of Islam.
It would be the same as saying "there was no Jewish God, but Christianity has it's roots in Judaism."
What I hear when you prattle on
"Blah blah blah blah blah"
Old Testament, New Testament, they're both nothing more than a collection of toxic fairy tales written by ignorant Bronze Age sheep herders, most of whom never traveled more than 10 miles from the spot they were born.
Amazing how the bible is full of scientific principles and truths that simple sheep herders had know way to know was true back then, nor how all of those independent herders collaborated and had the same exact info.
weird.
It's like they've forgotten the God of Abraham was one mean SOB. He even persuaded one of His main prophets to murder his own son. That's pretty fucked up.
Yes, the God of Abraham was like a sleep-deprived meth addict with anger control issues. Kill 'em all, plunder and pillage, etc etc. And talk about a control freak, that dude set the standard. Don't eat this, don't eat that, here's how you're allowed to cut your hair, take a poop, till your crops, etc etc etc.
And yeah, the whole "murder your own son to prove you're my buddy" is about THE most fucked up thing imaginable. A god that would make such a demand is worthy of contempt, not worship.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Even if you had 1 percent radicalized you would have millions of radicals. Hell If 0.01% of them were radicalized youa re dealing with 160 THOUSAND radicals.
You need to remember too that 0.01% is way small to the number of radicals their are. I would guess at least 0.25% at the very least which gives you 40 MILLION that you have to worry about.
Quit trying to paint everyone as racist (Muslim is not a race anyways) and confront the fact that there are MILLIONS that would dance in your blood.
Muslim is NOT A RACE.
Maybe if you knew what the words spilling out of your mouth meant you would be able to put together a coherent argument.
So what you're saying is that you are intellectually incapable of actually talking substance. I get it. You don't want to let go of your vague innuendo and pointless hand-waving, because that would mean admitting that you don't really have a point to make, and that you're just trying to excuse away the behavior of a culture of murderers. It's not even worth pondering why you support their behavior, because they (and thus by extension, you) are fundamentally irrational. But your delusional references to things like "your superiors" help to illustrate how desperate you are to distract. Have fun in your fantasy world, but please abstain from doing anything dangerous, like voting in elections.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Well, I can't vouch for all the groups you're referring to, but AFAIK ETA in France at least never committed atrocities...
Iparretarrak went for armed struggle for a few years, but no innocent were harmed.
Does he say to kill infidels in that passage, or are you interpreting it, perhaps incorrectly.
The religion of Peace, with an exhibition of just how peaceful it is.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
you have it confused a bit, christians are heathens too, we are just saved, if anyone considers the people who don't follow their word heathens it's the jew and muslims?
it sounds like you just like to argue semantics but don't really understand it all yourself?
Christians and Jews ans Yesits are so called "book religions" or descendants of Abraham. So: they are not heathens or infidels.
You Sir, should simply get a clue. Especially if you claim to be religious and seem not to know anything about three of the 4 world dominating religions. Ah well, cut the Jews out and make it 2 of the 3 instead.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Amazing how the bible is full of scientific principles and truths that simple sheep herders had know way to know was true back then, nor how all of those independent herders collaborated and had the same exact info.
Lol, name a few if you can.
At the same time, why don't you explain some of the failed prophecies in the bible or some of the blatant mistakes or some of the stuff that's just plain wrong. I'll get you started:
1) The bible states clearly that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, but in reality the city is alive and well. God explicitly states that Nebuchadnezzar would completely sack and destroy the city of Tyre and that Tyre's land would never be built upon again. However, this never occurred. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later, Tyre still exists.
2) Lev. 11:6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Except neither hares or rabbits "chew their cud". Ask any biologist or look it up on Google.
3) The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24).
In the first, God created humans (male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals.
In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmeet for Adam.
Which version of this fairy tale is right?
4) When did God divide light from darkness? Was it on the first day of creation, or on the fourth day? Genesis contradicts itself:
Genesis 1:4-5
God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
OR....
Genesis 1:16-19 ... to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Context. Most of those "other gods" required human sacrifices, especially Baal and Moloch which required child sacrifices. If someone is enticing you to offer children as human sacrifices, I'm ok with the death penalty. If a whole town is so morally corrupt that no stands up to oppose the human sacrifice of children, I think you can justify wiping out the whole town.
In this context , the death penalty wasn't something to hush competing religions. It was to stop the evil that those religions were doing. Remember the context.
No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.
Note to non UK readers - the above post appears to be motivated by a partisan position in our referendum on continued EU membership.
Whether reinstating internal border controls will prevent such attacks is an open question. Strange that internal border controls within the US for example does not seem to be suggested as an appropriate response to terrorism on US soil.
And as for leaving the EU, well, I think that the aims of the terrorists include the break up of the EU and further disruption of a thus fragmented set of European countries. So to break up the EU as a response to these attacks is handing them one of their objectives on a plate and encouraging them to carry on with more attacks.
And I would be curious which Christian sect actually denies the trinity.
Enjoy for a start.
In german legal jargon there is the term "allgemeines Lebensrisiko" - the risk of being alive. But it doesn't include terrorist attacks, because they are not in the same class as being hit by lightning bolts or getting your basement flooded because once in a century there's really heay rain.
My profession is IT security. I very good understand that there's no 100% perfect security. But I also understand that everyone saying "we can do nothing" is too lazy and/or incompetent to do something.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No we don't. We treat them as people that voluntarily belong to a religion that preaches and encourages violence against the innocent.
The biggest problem with the immigrants from the Middle East (in particular) is that they came to the different country but continue to live like back at home and don't want to integrate into the society.
I've seen that complaint about people from Italy, people from Italy, Jewish people from Eastern Europe, and people from Ireland. Admittedly, some of this I had to go to some very old books/newspapers to see the complaint...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yeah, you might want to look into that whole Abraham and Haggar thing -- also Islam's end-times story borrows heavily from John's Revelation.
Probably the largest difference between Islam, Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity is looking for a meta-physical kingdom -- while the others are interested in physical land.
Overall I must agree with the late Anthony Flew that Islam is the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab Imperialism. We in the west just don't want to face the fact that both violent and non-violent Islam is engaged in asymmetric warfare. Whether by simple population growth or fear or actual violence the end-game is global dominance. I think there was some hope that induction to western culture would help moderate this, but they have 1500 years of proving they are moderation resistant.
The problem for the US is how to address a religion that seeks to replace its host with another form of government without abolishing freedom of religion or becoming (if we aren't already) a police state.
Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about.
1. The existence of Jesus as a person is referenced historically (the writings of Josephus being the popular starting point)
2. The Old Testament you may accuse the Jews of following -- however the followers of Christ are specifically instructed not to repay evil for evil but instead (somehow) "resist not evil", "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", etc.
3. The reference in Luke was a.) a parable and b.) referring to what God would do with his enemies at the end of the world.
Probably most overlooked is God's claim to revenge exclusively. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord". Christians have no call to go to war on God's behalf (despite what the Church of England told to its Greek and Hebrew illiterate populace to go Crusading) -- in fact they really shouldn't be defending themselves at all!
Sure, I'll be honest- I've never known an atheist who says he or she would like to "kill religious people", not one.
I suppose that's probably true, since you're probably not old enough to have known a few famous persons who not only said it should be done -- they did it:
Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il
Militant atheism has a quantitative history of success of killing millions of religious people, though I'm relieved you are not acquainted with any of them!
History has a tendency to repeat itself, it's just odd when the names don't change.
Culture of murderers that you arm and finance. Eh whatever, thanks for the fish and keep on strokin'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Central to Christianity is that Jesus WAS God. He is part of the trinity: God, Son, Holy Spirit. Three in one. God made flesh on the Earth.
Not true. There have been, and continue to be, many different versions of Christianity over the centuries, and these different versions have had many different ideas regarding the status of Jesus.
Let me guess: you were too busy with your technical courses to take "soft" courses, such as courses in the history of Western Civilization, or comparative religious thought, and you haven't bothered to do anything along those lines since leaving college.
Or perhaps you just consider anybody with different ideas to be heretics?
The difference between Islam and Judaism (the Old Testament, in Christian terms) is purely one of location and scale. In Judaism anything is justified -- including genocide -- in securing a 300 x 100 mile piece of desert just off the Mediterranean sea. Like Judaism, Islam also allows any means to secure its rightful domain. However with Islam the rightful domain is all domains -- the world.
The world is also the goal of Christianity "go into all the world and tell the good report [that man and God are reconciled]". It's important to note the with Christianity "the Kingdom of God is within you" -- something more akin to Buddhism. In any case, the Kingdom is expected to arrive from heaven -- and it is not constructed on earth by force (this item particularly frustrated the first followers of Jesus, as you may see if you read their separate testimonies). So Christianity is instructed to give witness to enlightenment and secure a metaphysical domain (souls) with hopes of an eventual physical kingdom (heaven comes to earth) at which time earth is secured by Angelic hordes not by men.
However Islam accomplishes its conquests as laid out in the Koran by these basic stages: 1. In any given populace, if Muslims are weak (less than the majority) they are to be friendly and peaceful ("I have my religion, you have yours") increasing their population by peaceful conversion and physical population. 2. Once they have parity, they may defend themselves from attack (what constitutes an attack is hazy as whether this is physical or rhetorical (insulting the prophet, etc)). 3. Once they have the balance of power, they are to attack: killing anyone who does no confess their god and pay a tax to not be killed. IMO, this amounts to a type of asymmetric warfare, and with 1,500 year history of successes large and small -- it would appear this method may be somewhat resistant to "moderation"
The Crusades may well have been England's method to deal with Ottoman expansionism via Islam. However they were working with a populace that was generally illiterate -- and somewhat less knowledgeable of Hebrew and Greek -- justifying the State's crusade would have been a rather simple task. Probably using the portions of the Bible specific to the Jews and conveniently overlooking "love your neighbor as yourself" and "pray for your enemies" that are to distinguish the follower of the sayings of Christ.
The ideology of the source documents of Christianity were in flat contradiction with the Church of England and others demands to wage war on behalf of God, indeed this is a role God has reserved to Himself: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord". Again, this is differentiated from Judaism which has (based on its limits in the Torah) tolerate nothing less than total war. Islam may exist peacefully, but its source documents demand something more.
Since 1971 OPEC is bullied to sell Crude Oil exclusively in US dollars resulting in friction between Islam and the West;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
Casteism
Don't forget that not all European nations made the mistake of letting in millions of people with a background in militant religion and difficulty of integration.
Um, when did we do that? And how is it relevant to the terrorist attack in Brussels?
If you close borders, its not like Polish etc. folks will go on and blow themselves up.
Why not? It has happened plenty of times in the past. The vast majority of post-WW2 terrorism in Europe was home-grown.
It'll be contained by countries which already decided to turn themselves Muslim by letting in millions and letting nature take place, immigrating and breeding the original population out of existence (UK, France, Germany, I guess Belgium, and more recently Sweden, Denmark..).
None of those countries have 'decided to turn themselves Muslim'. Nor is the originial population of those countries (as far as such a thing exists after millennia of migrations across, to and from Europe) being bred out of existence.
Statistically peaceful Muslim migrants come in, work hard... child, grandchild takes identity in their toxic religion and blow up the very people that welcomed their families.
Your point being?
Are you being sarcastic or are you honestly not aware that terrorism was very common in large parts of Europe during that period?
looks like mostly Ireland with some England thrown in (their sworn enemies)
Most where in the UK.
a local conflict, not like these crazed muslims spreading their evil far and wide
Tuesdays attacks where in the home town of the people who did it.
Can slashdot IP-block the assholes who keep posting this shit on every single story?
Europeans have that "right" already. There is just no known way of accomplishing it.
So the ten commandments are out?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That's not a difference, but a similarity.
once again I have to remind you that the bible compels both jews and Christians to ALSO use violence if necessary to spread their word.
someone who's actually read both the bible and the quran (something you should try sometime) actually tallied it up.
there are ~330 violent exhortation in the Quran... and ~840 of them in the Bible. .
( http://www.skepticsannotatedbi... )
Both of which pale compared to the number of verse detailing love of one another and taking care of eath other.
And once again you patently ignore that marginalized peoples, forever being told to "go home", even when they are home being native born, being told they are evil (by people like you), are an almost natural source of extremism. you ostracize them from your society long enough, why should you be surprised that they become radicalized? you feed the very violence you claim to abhor with your every bigoted statement.
You are now, and forever, an ignornant bigot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
ya that's totally why Irishmen were fighting Irishmen and the primary difference between them was Protestant vs Catholic.
fing idiot.
a "true" Christian (I can play no true Scotsman too!) wouldn't just say what you just said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I [Jesus] have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
"Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19
As for your other statements:
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves" (Deuteronomy 20:14).
"He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. . . . He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD’s Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since." 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately" (Numbers 31:18).
it helps to have actually read the bible before saying it doesn't say certain things
wow your Christian education is seriously lacking.
even with a belief in the trinity (catholics and the majority of protestants), they don't actually worship Jesus, and Jesus is not God. God is God, Jesus is his son. The trinity is "One God in Three Persons", but the head is still God.
And that God is the God of Abraham.
And both Jews and Muslims worship "the God of Abraham".
It's why they're called the 3 Abrahamic religions you twit!"
found the bigot
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I see the bigots have mod points today.
the above post is in no way flamebait.
but the ones calling for the destruction of an entire religion (and its 1 billion followers) most definitely are.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
are you really completely ignorant of all the actions the Israeli government has taken against the Palestinians over the years?
its getting so even the Israeli citizenry is finally begins to say enough is enough.
JFC you really are ignorant.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You do understand that their enemy was England right? You know part of the same british isles? So you know a local conflict.
Did they start bombing continental Europe? North America? Asia? Whats that, NO?!?! Then it was a localized conflict.
No, you found the realist.
It's true, he does not explicitly say to "kill infidels". The GP argued that some religions "promote peace" and others "promote killing", while implying that Christianity is one of the the former. Christ himself says that he has not come to earth to promote peace, but rather the opposite.
Which interpretation is correct, and on what authority? Holy books are full of contradictions and general unpleasantness and adherents will attempt to hand wave away these things by claiming that "you're interpreting it incorrectly". Many Christians will insist on a strict literal interpretation until it no longer suits their ends.
The point is that the above passage is a direct quote from Christ himself. In Matthew 10, he's not speaking in parables, but directly to the apostles, commanding them to go out into the world to spread his message. It directly contradicts any claims that Christ's mission is to "promote peace".
Being completely honest. I'm bored with terrorist fiction.
Here's to hoping 'the machine' of reality creating these fictional stories can develop something new and more intellectually engaging than this rubbish!
Why? Profiling isn't an inherently bad thing, used correctly it is just an efficient way of reducing the size of the haystack in which you are looking for your needle.
Just repeating your assertion, then insulting the person who disagrees with you isn't the way to win an argument. It's the way to make yourself look like an idiot.
They are not the same god, because there isn't an actual god they all believe in. All gods are a creation of man (rather than the other way round), therefore the gods religious people believe in are based on the depictions in their religious texts and other teachings they may receive. The religious texts between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all different. Yes Christianity is based on Judaism, but the teachings of its extra content change their god significantly. And Islam did crib significant parts of its backstory from Judaism and Christianity, but also changed it and added its own bits to suit what the person/people writing (or perhaps dictating in this case) it wanted.
Now, do you care to use reasoned arguments to refute the point that those religions don't believe in the same god?
there are ~330 violent exhortation in the Quran... and ~840 of them in the Bible.
The Bible is approximately 800,000 words in (in English) and the Quran is approximately 165,000 word long (in English), that makes the Bible almost 5 times longer than the Quran, so per word the Quran is much more violent.
What I find curious is that you feel compelled to point out that Jesus didn't exist, then you go on to say you are quoting God instead. I can be as sure as I can be about anything that the god of the Bible doesn't exist and never has, but I can't be that certain about Jesus.
I am changing the subject? Who brought up the suicide vests in the first place?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, except that really wasn't terrorism either.
I am changing the subject? Who brought up the suicide vests in the first place?
So you admit defeat by confirming you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
No, do you admit trying to derail the discussion with a constant change of subject so no meaningful discussion can take place?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's what we tend to call a "Trojan horse attack". It was a great concept for one single time. It gained a lot of fame and everyone knows about it, so a repeat attempt will fail due to it being easily thwarted and everyone knows the concept.
Worked once. Will never work again. Ever. In history.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hero? I wouldn't want to be a hero.
I'd want to have a fighting chance to survive. Screw being a hero, but if that asshat reaches the cockpit I'm dead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
IIRC they were not even carried into the planes by the hijackers but left there by accomplices that belong to the ground crew.
And I guess I need not tell you that those ground crews still have a lot of stuff that could easily be used as a weapon, simply because they need it to do their work. So the whole security theater would not have changed jack shit even if we had it in place before 9/11.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, do you admit trying to derail the discussion with a constant change of subject so no meaningful discussion can take place?
Gee, what a nitpicking dick you are. A nitpicking dick who first changed subject - nobody was talking about being groped and fondled before you did.
But most importantly of course: you were wrong. And don't like to be shown wrong. Fuck off and die.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Wait, are we talking about Jihadi John or John the Baptist? I'm not good at religion...
Ezekiel 23:20