Brussels Terrorist Attack: ISIS Claims Responsibility

[The Isolationist State Of Islam]

That'd be a technical violation of the first amendment. Also, how will they know who is ISIS? How do we know it won't just make the situation worse?


I state again, using that logic Belgium would have to pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide.

All I know is that this rot, ISIS, has been left to grow for some goddamned reason. It needs to be cleansed.

Why would the people trust the very governments that caused ISIS to bring stability to the region?

[Fartsniffage]

Not really. It was just that everyone else had far more sense. 200,000 troops between the US and the UK, 2,300 from everyone else in the world. Once we'd already fucked things up then the rest of the world decided to get involved to try to mitigate the problem that we created.

Why should they have to? We're the ones who fucked the region up.

So would you support Belgium paying reparations to Rwanda?

Probably not. Belgium is no longer involved in foreign interventions. It would have no salutary effect on the current government. The US and the UK still seem to think that playing abroad is a good idea.

[Saint Jade IV]

No. Being more likely to be convicted of a crime is not the same thing as being more likely to commit crime. The reasoning does not work, unless you can prove that Moroccans actually commit more crimes than non-Moroccans, and that it is not a bias in policing or courts that results in a higher conviction rate. Which you can't.

You're just repeating yourself now. You just keep saying and saying that it could easily be court bias. And I keep explaining to you how I get around that problem entirely. My argument is about committing crimes, not convictions, and I've already explained how I can establish that Moroccans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes than the general population without needing to make use of potentially biased conviction rates.

No you haven't. Show me studies indicating that Moroccans commit more crimes, that eliminate the factors of greater police focus resulting in non-Morrocans simply not being arrested for crimes. Show me the studies accounting for court bias. Show me the studies that simply demonstrate criminal activity, not arrest rates or conviction rates that show that Morrocans ACTUALLY commit more crimes.

All you have said is that poverty and disadvantage make you more likely to commit crimes, and that Moroccans are disproportionately drawn from these communities. You have not provided one shred of evidence to support this assertion, or to refute the claim I have made that it rather makes one more likely to be convicted of crimes.

[Robert Bork]

You're just repeating yourself now. You just keep saying and saying that it could easily be court bias. And I keep explaining to you how I get around that problem entirely. My argument is about committing crimes, not convictions, and I've already explained how I can establish that Moroccans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes than the general population without needing to make use of potentially biased conviction rates.

No you haven't. Show me studies indicating that Moroccans commit more crimes, that eliminate the factors of greater police focus resulting in non-Morrocans simply not being arrested for crimes. Show me the studies accounting for court bias. Show me the studies that simply demonstrate criminal activity, not arrest rates or conviction rates that show that Morrocans ACTUALLY commit more crimes.

All you have said is that poverty and disadvantage make you more likely to commit crimes, and that Moroccans are disproportionately drawn from these communities. You have not provided one shred of evidence to support this assertion, or to refute the claim I have made that it rather makes one more likely to be convicted of crimes.

^^Broken record^^

[The Isolationist State Of Islam]

So would you support Belgium paying reparations to Rwanda?

Probably not. Belgium is no longer involved in foreign interventions. It would have no salutary effect on the current government. The US and the UK still seem to think that playing abroad is a good idea.

So you're holding the US, and UK to a higher standard? I suppose my argument against paying reparations to European nations for terrorist attacks, is that that money could be better spent on humanitarian aid.

[Fartsniffage]

Probably not. Belgium is no longer involved in foreign interventions. It would have no salutary effect on the current government. The US and the UK still seem to think that playing abroad is a good idea.

So you're holding the US, and UK to a higher standard? I suppose my argument against paying reparations to European nations for terrorist attacks, is that that money could be better spent on humanitarian aid.

I'm holding the US and the UK to the standard that if you fuck something up then you have to fix it. The US and the UK don't get to claim that they don't know how much damage can be done by getting involved in regional wars because they saw the fallout from the end of colonialism. And yet they still seem to be getting involved where they shouldn't be.

[Geilinor]

So would you support Belgium paying reparations to Rwanda?

Probably not. Belgium is no longer involved in foreign interventions. It would have no salutary effect on the current government. The US and the UK still seem to think that playing abroad is a good idea.

Belgium is carrying out air strikes in Iraq right now. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-claims-responsibility-for-brussels-attacks-explosions-bombings-at-airport-and-maalbeek-maelbeek-a6946136.html

[The Isolationist State Of Islam]

So you're holding the US, and UK to a higher standard? I suppose my argument against paying reparations to European nations for terrorist attacks, is that that money could be better spent on humanitarian aid.

I'm holding the US and the UK to the standard that if you fuck something up then you have to fix it. The US and the UK don't get to claim that they don't know how much damage can be done by getting involved in regional wars because they saw the fallout from the end of colonialism. And yet they still seem to be getting involved where they shouldn't be.

However just about every nation is Europe is bombing ISIS right now, including Belgium. I will admit that the US has probably fucked up the most, but you have only seen a small amount of reparations paid in Africa. Also, I would rather see money being spent to help Syrians who can't help themselves, than Belgium who can very well rebuild what was damaged (Not including the lives of those lost).

[Fartsniffage]

Probably not. Belgium is no longer involved in foreign interventions. It would have no salutary effect on the current government. The US and the UK still seem to think that playing abroad is a good idea.

Belgium is carrying out air strikes in Iraq right now. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-claims-responsibility-for-brussels-attacks-explosions-bombings-at-airport-and-maalbeek-maelbeek-a6946136.html

Yes, trying to fix what other people broke....

[Great Nilfgaard]

ISIS is laughing at us. Whenever they strike, people wrap themselves around in feel good messages and empty mementos to peace or conciliation rather than confront the reality of our society being at war.

These attacks will continue like clockwork, with each happening as soon as the previous wounds began to fade, until such a time as people begin to open their eyes and realize victory can never be achieved by hashtags and likes.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

ISIS is laughing at us. Whenever they strike, people wrap themselves around in feel good messages and empty mementos to peace or conciliation rather than confront the reality of our society being at war.

These attacks will continue like clockwork, with each happening as soon as the previous wounds began to fade, until such a time as people begin to open their eyes and realize victory can never be achieved by hashtags and likes.

Tag us in, bro.

[Vassenor]

ISIS is laughing at us. Whenever they strike, people wrap themselves around in feel good messages and empty mementos to peace or conciliation rather than confront the reality of our society being at war.

These attacks will continue like clockwork, with each happening as soon as the previous wounds began to fade, until such a time as people begin to open their eyes and realize victory can never be achieved by hashtags and likes.

Or they spout xenophobic crap which only serves to drive more people into ISIS' clutches.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

ISIS is laughing at us. Whenever they strike, people wrap themselves around in feel good messages and empty mementos to peace or conciliation rather than confront the reality of our society being at war.

These attacks will continue like clockwork, with each happening as soon as the previous wounds began to fade, until such a time as people begin to open their eyes and realize victory can never be achieved by hashtags and likes.

Or they spout xenophobic crap which only serves to drive more people into ISIS' clutches.

Well at the end of the day, this is a Muslim problem, it would seem that in this day and age that there is a perception among those especially in the civilised World that yes, 'not ALL muslims are terrorists', but 'all terrorists seem to be MUSLIMS'. I mean to be fair that's not strictly true, however it's percieved to be true, which is a problem. It's causing a rise in anti-Islamic sentiment around the unislamic World, this in turn desensitises people from images of dead Syrian children since the World is quietly thinking that they deserve it and that by dying, less Muslims will exist in the World. This causes ISIS to gain propaganda material against the civilised World maintaining their strangle hold on the territory they hold and thus allowing them to plan and carry out more attacks. And round the cycle goes. (Please note that this is an extremely summarised view, as I understand there are a ton more factors involved)

[Libertine States of America]

Well, we all know how this is going to end: One side makes good points, the other side blows the threat of terrorism out of proportion, right-wing parties exploit tragedy to gain power. It's all fucking predictable.

People on both sides can and have made good points. For instance, many of the people saying that there is a massive issue with fundamentalism in Islam are some of the ones we could consider "right wing".

Except I didn't say people, I said parties.

[Republic of Coldwater]

All of this was due to an overly aggressive US foreign policy in the 90s, which began a chain effect that spurred Islamic terror and resulted in terrorist attacks every few months. Bomb strategic assets of ISIS and rid them of any funding and support, and without that support, they will get nowhere. Meanwhile, the US and the west shouldn't try to overthrow relatively moderate dictators in the Middle East, for terror groups like ISIS would take over and use the power vacuum as a base for the activities.

[Ganos Lao]

All of this was due to an overly aggressive US foreign policy in the 90s, which began a chain effect that spurred Islamic terror and resulted in terrorist attacks every few months.

The whole "can't make anti-Soviet omelettes without cracking a few Third World eggs" strategy biting them in the ass.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

All of this was due to an overly aggressive US foreign policy in the 90s, which began a chain effect that spurred Islamic terror and resulted in terrorist attacks every few months. Bomb strategic assets of ISIS and rid them of any funding and support, and without that support, they will get nowhere. Meanwhile, the US and the west shouldn't try to overthrow relatively moderate dictators in the Middle East, for terror groups like ISIS would take over and use the power vacuum as a base for the activities.

Nah, I'd say it began with the Iraq Invasion of 2003, because that was what essentially ended a relatively secular dictatorship which killed it's own citizens and thus could be assumed to have killed the mothers of the unborn terrorists which currently make up quite a bit of the armed forces of ISIS.
I mean if Hussein were still alive today, sure probably thousands if not millions more Iraqis would be dead, since they were initiating a fully fledged genocide policy, however ISIS wouldn't exist, the lesser evil is probably definitely Hussein.

[Daffyflippingduck]

Yeah, totally, it's really up in the air as to who could of perpetrated this attack. The list of likely terrorist is so vast and diverse these days.

Didn't you read the rest of my post? We already know how cool and funny you are. No need to continue reminding us.

Don't forget, I was also right.

Silly leftist, with your silly impulse to try and absolve islam.

[Thiefs County]

Fuck Islam.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Fuck (Wahabi, Salafi, and to some degree Sufi) Islam.

There fixed.

[Thiefs County]

Fuck (Wahabi, Salafi, and to some degree Sufi) Islam.

There fixed.

No, Fuck Islam.

[Uxupox]

All of this was due to an overly aggressive US foreign policy in the 90s, which began a chain effect that spurred Islamic terror and resulted in terrorist attacks every few months. Bomb strategic assets of ISIS and rid them of any funding and support, and without that support, they will get nowhere. Meanwhile, the US and the west shouldn't try to overthrow relatively moderate dictators in the Middle East, for terror groups like ISIS would take over and use the power vacuum as a base for the activities.

Nah, I'd say it began with the Iraq Invasion of 2003, because that was what essentially ended a relatively secular dictatorship which killed it's own citizens and thus could be assumed to have killed the mothers of the unborn terrorists which currently make up quite a bit of the armed forces of ISIS.
I mean if Hussein were still alive today, sure probably thousands if not millions more Iraqis would be dead, since they were initiating a fully fledged genocide policy, however ISIS wouldn't exist, the lesser evil is probably definitely Hussein.

Would have he tried to invade somebody else though?

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Nah, I'd say it began with the Iraq Invasion of 2003, because that was what essentially ended a relatively secular dictatorship which killed it's own citizens and thus could be assumed to have killed the mothers of the unborn terrorists which currently make up quite a bit of the armed forces of ISIS.
I mean if Hussein were still alive today, sure probably thousands if not millions more Iraqis would be dead, since they were initiating a fully fledged genocide policy, however ISIS wouldn't exist, the lesser evil is probably definitely Hussein.

Would have he tried to invade somebody else though?

It would probably be another majority Muslim country, so the civilised World wouldn't really care that much, keep in mind 9/11 had happened relatively recently, also the whole 'Palestinians celebrating the attacks' thing would still be fresh in the minds of many civilised people.

[Thiefs County]

And fuck all these faggots saying this is a result of our policies.

It probably was a revenge attack for the arrest made the other day, but what the fuck are we meant to do? These people cannot co-exist with civilisation. More attacks will be made, more civilians will die and some of us may even lose people close to us. Make no mistake, we are at war. But it isn't a war we will lose.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

There fixed.

No, Fuck Islam.

We can't be that general, what about the Shias? (I mean sure 1979, but they're fight against ISIS seems to be leading them to reconciliation with the civilised World.)