Brussels Terrorist Attack: ISIS Claims Responsibility

[Artvin]

We didn't occupy Iraq or Afghanistan for long enough, nor did we make largescale efforts to change the culture of the locals.

The US should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

But they sure did change the culture of the locals, inciting them to be led about by a Shiite oligarchy that instigated the rise of ISIS.

Maybe the next dictator America can back is Assad so we don't need to see Syria get even worse?

Yes because Assad is a great leader who didn't escalate his own country into civil war and gas his own people. We love Bashar! We love Bashar! We love Bashar! He will send the Zionist jackals back to New York.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8EwiuTwGSGg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HIDi07qQNZk

[Teemant]

Preventing ISIS fighters returning to Europe is not targeting oridinary muslims. I think that this step would help to combat terrorism a lot.

And how do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't?

Security services know.

[Braberland]

What's the alternative. The Arab spring didn't fix shit, if anything it made it worse. Leaving them to decide their own government doesn't work.
Installing secular dictators doesn't work.
We need to attack the problem at its root.

I don't think the 1848 revolutions did much at the time, either, but it laid the groundwork for change within a decade or so.

The difference is that the 1848 revolutions were aiming for democratic nationstates and non-extremist religion. The Arab Spring is more of an attempt to get the Muslim Brotherhood in power in the Arab world and turn it into one big Caliphate.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What's the alternative. The Arab spring didn't fix shit, if anything it made it worse. Leaving them to decide their own government doesn't work.
Installing secular dictators doesn't work.
We need to attack the problem at its root.

I don't think the 1848 revolutions did much at the time, either, but it laid the groundwork for change within a decade or so.

It didn't. It did fix shit some of the time, like in France and the Netherlands. In Germany, Austria and Russia, the revolutions were abject failures. But like you said, it would lay the groundwork for future, more peaceful and gradual changes in terms of representation and national sovereignty. Russia saw the abolition of serfdom, for instance. Germany would adopt a quite liberal form of government, with a Reichstag and all. As you said, it isn't about the revolutions themselves. It's about the gradual changes that follow.

[Vassenor]

And how do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't?

Security services know.

And how do they know?

And how would it stop home-grown extremism?

[Liriena]

What's the alternative. The Arab spring didn't fix shit, if anything it made it worse. Leaving them to decide their own government doesn't work.
Installing secular dictators doesn't work.
We need to attack the problem at its root.

I don't think the 1848 revolutions did much at the time, either, but it laid the groundwork for change within a decade or so.

Kelinfort has a point. Furthermore, let us not forget how the French Revolution, despite ultimately leading the way for liberal democracy in Europe, had many initial moments of extremism and atrocities, followed by a consul-turned-emperor that was one John Williams away from being the 19th century's Palpatine.

[Uxupox]

Security services know.

And how do they know?

TOP SECRET.

[Ganos Lao]

The US should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

But they sure did change the culture of the locals, inciting them to be led about by a Shiite oligarchy that instigated the rise of ISIS.

Maybe the next dictator America can back is Assad so we don't need to see Syria get even worse?

Yes because Assad is a great leader who didn't escalate his own country into civil war and gas his own people. We love Bashar! We love Bashar! We love Bashar! He will send the Zionist jackals back to New York.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8EwiuTwGSGg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HIDi07qQNZk

You assume I support Assad.

I could care less about him. I just don't trust whoever will take over as his successor will likely be the same old bullshit - a radical Islamist government of some sort. Nor do I trust the United States government and their allies, especially considering how one of their allies is funding an Al-Qaeda aflliated group in Syria.

"Escalate his own country into civil war'

I love how Assad gets blamed for this, though, but none of you are willing to call out al-Maliki with the same fervor. Everywhere I go on the internet, Assad is the villain wihle no one knows the Iraqi Assad.

[Lunalia]

They WANT people to make ordinary Muslims feel targetted. Any method of preventing terrorist attacks that also targets Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism is playing into their hands.

What would you rather have? Occasional terrorist attacks, or frequent terrorist attacks as ALL of the muslims living in a country begin to feel that they have no choice, that if they do nothing things will continue to escalate. What is next? "Muslims cannot use mass transit because some terrorists bombed mass transit"? What are all the Muslims who rely on mass transit to get to their perfectly peaceful, not terroristic jobs, going to do? Become unemployed in an economy that still hasn't quite recovered? Remain unemployed because they can't find any work they can get to without mass transit? Or lash out violently, because they decide that hey, if they're going to be seen to be a terrorist anyway, might as well be a terrorist because at least that way the other terrorists will be on their side.

Preventing ISIS fighters returning to Europe is not targeting oridinary muslims. I think that this step would help to combat terrorism a lot.

Except you're preventing people with family in the countries ISIS is recruiting from from seeing their families. Or maybe even people who went to do some form of relief work. There are probably businesses that are dumb enough to make their employees go on business trips to conflict zones too.

Or who knows, maybe even people who went to join ISIS, decided ISIS was crazy, and want to return home.

All of these people are not terrorists. And members of the latter group, especially... if they were lured in by ISIS's extremely effective social engineering, but then realized that ISIS's promises were lies and tried to leave... barring them from returning to their homes forces them to stay. And again, once they're forced to stay, there's really not much choice for them except to join ISIS, even if they wouldn't have otherwise.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Well, I'd say that observation is inaccurate.

How so? There are plenty who think that's what the Crusaders were all about when the truth is that both sides were quite bad as you've said you profess.

There maybe some who think that but there are others who have the same idea of what happened during the crusades as I do.

The point is, responding to atrocities with more atrocities is a bad idea.

[Salus Maior]

That's fair. I'm not convinced encouraging a moderate islam would work, but its worth a try. (Hasn't so far...)

That's because we haven't been encouraging moderate Islam. In fact, we're actively funding the spread of radical Islam in the form of Wahabism, by funding the main proponent of the ideology. Saudi Arabia.

[Teemant]

Security services know.

And how do they know?

Because they monitor people who go into these areas.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Charging and prosecuting criminals to the full extent of the law, and not a millimetre further. My solution would not involve illegal actions by governments because they're the easy thing to do. Discourage people from going to Syria, arrest them if they have a real intent (as classified by the law and jurisprudence) and if they do go and come back, charge them with an appropriate crime. That's the legal way of going about things.

Putting terrorists to jail would help too when there is no way to stop them from coming back. But they definitely shouldn't be able to come back and act like nothing happened and remain free.

Of course not. You should not allow proven criminals to roam free. But you shouldn't just disallow your citizens from returning to your country. Arresting them and trying them for their crimes, that's the way a liberal democracy deals with the unwanted elements of her society. No other way. We are a 'rechtsstaat', we should not deal in extra-judicial sentencing.

[Ganos Lao]

How so? There are plenty who think that's what the Crusaders were all about when the truth is that both sides were quite bad as you've said you profess.

There maybe some who think that but there are others who have the same idea of what happened during the crusades as I do.

The point is, responding to atrocities with more atrocities is a bad idea.

That's a no shit, Sherlock moment, but sadly it's the "only way" according to most.

I can't blame them, though. Intelligent thought is often taxing at times these days, it'd seem.

[Sanctissima]

Security services know.

And how do they know?

As a rule of thumb, any Muslim male from a Salafist neighbourhood returning from a long trip to Syria should raise some red flags.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And how do they know?

As a rule of thumb, any Muslim male from a Salafist neighbourhood returning from a long trip to Syria should raise some red flags.

How would you know any of these people are Muslim?

[Ganos Lao]

That's fair. I'm not convinced encouraging a moderate islam would work, but its worth a try. (Hasn't so far...)

That's because we haven't been encouraging moderate Islam. In fact, we're actively funding the spread of radical Islam in the form of Wahabism, but funding the main proponent of the ideology. Saudi Arabia.

And we also support the other side of the coin too in Nouri al-Maliki.

Until the former is muzzled and the latter is put on trial, nothing will change in the Middle East. You cannot solve the problem while allowing others to fester.

[Kelinfort]

I don't think the 1848 revolutions did much at the time, either, but it laid the groundwork for change within a decade or so.

The difference is that the 1848 revolutions were aiming for democratic nationstates and non-extremist religion. The Arab Spring is more of an attempt to get the Muslim Brotherhood in power in the Arab world and turn it into one big Caliphate.

Those weren't the aims of all the revolutions. There were anarchists along with some proto-socialists as well.

However, I would argue examples like Tunisia show the people wanted democracy, but are still impatient. It will take time, but by the 2030's or so, we'll see real tangible change across the mid East. Until then, we'd do best to denounce Saudi Arabia, encourage the people of Iran to endorse more democracy, and stomp out ISIL with all the force we have.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not hearing any alternative solutions to the problem frankly, which makes all the people acting hysterical over my suggestion seem silly to me. How else do we solve this problem?

People are "hysterical" because you're proposing a full scale military invasion of the Middle East to "de-Islamify the Middle East" (while not answering my questions about Christianity, etc, mind you) when it was clearly obvious the Iraq War was bad enough when it comes to deploying troops.

But since you want solutions, here's one:

- Put al-Maliki on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
- Muzzle Saudi Arabia's government/religious bodies.
- Vote for someone half decent in the coming US elections.
- Start putting pressure on the Middle East's rulers to shape up or, quite frankly, fuck off. Enough is enough.
- Start thinking outside the box. No more leaping back and forth between far left/far right.
- Start dealing with radical Islamic preachers on the same exact level as Neo-Nazis, etc.
- Sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Stop giving them billions of money in aid.

And so on and so forth.

These are all fine first steps sure. I don't think it would work, but obviously they should be tried first.
Economically isolating the middle east and pressuring them to reform serves both our platforms.

You think it would work.
I don't think it would, but it would weaken them in preparation for the next stage.

[Braberland]

The difference is that the 1848 revolutions were aiming for democratic nationstates and non-extremist religion. The Arab Spring is more of an attempt to get the Muslim Brotherhood in power in the Arab world and turn it into one big Caliphate.

Those weren't the aims of all the revolutions. There were anarchists along with some proto-socialists as well.

However, I would argue examples like Tunisia show the people wanted democracy, but are still impatient. It will take time, but by the 2030's or so, we'll see real tangible change across the mid East. Until then, we'd do best to denounce Saudi Arabia, encourage the people of Iran to endorse more democracy, and stomp out ISIL with all the force we have.

I fear it might all end up like Egypt, where muslim extremists took over and had to be kicked out of office by the more secular part of the military and the population less interested in politics.

And in Tunisia the Muslim Brotherhood almost won the elections. There's a big chance they will win the next ones.

[Artvin]

Yes because Assad is a great leader who didn't escalate his own country into civil war and gas his own people. We love Bashar! We love Bashar! We love Bashar! He will send the Zionist jackals back to New York.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8EwiuTwGSGg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HIDi07qQNZk

You assume I support Assad.

I could care less about him. I just don't trust whoever will take over as his successor will likely be the same old bullshit - a radical Islamist government of some sort. Nor do I trust the United States government and their allies, especially considering how one of their allies is funding an Al-Qaeda aflliated group in Syria.

"Escalate his own country into civil war'

I love how Assad gets blamed for this, though, but none of you are willing to call out al-Maliki with the same fervor. Everywhere I go on the internet, Assad is the villain wihle no one knows the Iraqi Assad.

Evil Zionist Leon Panetta blamed him.

[Ganos Lao]

People are "hysterical" because you're proposing a full scale military invasion of the Middle East to "de-Islamify the Middle East" (while not answering my questions about Christianity, etc, mind you) when it was clearly obvious the Iraq War was bad enough when it comes to deploying troops.

But since you want solutions, here's one:

- Put al-Maliki on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
- Muzzle Saudi Arabia's government/religious bodies.
- Vote for someone half decent in the coming US elections.
- Start putting pressure on the Middle East's rulers to shape up or, quite frankly, fuck off. Enough is enough.
- Start thinking outside the box. No more leaping back and forth between far left/far right.
- Start dealing with radical Islamic preachers on the same exact level as Neo-Nazis, etc.
- Sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Stop giving them billions of money in aid.

And so on and so forth.

These are all fine first steps sure. I don't think it would work, but obviously they should be tried first.
Economically isolating the middle east and pressuring them to reform serves both our platforms.

You think it would work.
I don't think it would, but it would weaken them in preparation for the next stage.

I don't think it would work, really.

I just think it's better than twiddling our thumbs and pretending it's all fine like that meme of the dog in the burning house.

[Sanctissima]

As a rule of thumb, any Muslim male from a Salafist neighbourhood returning from a long trip to Syria should raise some red flags.

How would you know any of these people are Muslim?

Them regularly going to a mosque should be a dead giveaway.

Really, this is the 21st Century, it's not that hard to know. Just check things like their family background, what neighbourhood they live in, where they go to worship, what kind of stuff they post on social media, their ethnicity, facial hair, things like that. If the information isn't known to authorities outright, it's not all that hard to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

[Teemant]

Preventing ISIS fighters returning to Europe is not targeting oridinary muslims. I think that this step would help to combat terrorism a lot.

Except you're preventing people with family in the countries ISIS is recruiting from from seeing their families. Or maybe even people who went to do some form of relief work. There are probably businesses that are dumb enough to make their employees go on business trips to conflict zones too.

Or who knows, maybe even people who went to join ISIS, decided ISIS was crazy, and want to return home.

All of these people are not terrorists. And members of the latter group, especially... if they were lured in by ISIS's extremely effective social engineering, but then realized that ISIS's promises were lies and tried to leave... barring them from returning to their homes forces them to stay. And again, once they're forced to stay, there's really not much choice for them except to join ISIS, even if they wouldn't have otherwise.

I said ISIS fighters not everyone returning. If it is proven that person joined ISIS then there is no reason not to arrest him.
Of course I don't talk about people who do somekind of relief work like helping people in need. I have talked only about ISIS fighters.

But still people should avoid Syria as much as they can and goverment should do everything to prevent people going there.

[Lunalia]

People are "hysterical" because you're proposing a full scale military invasion of the Middle East to "de-Islamify the Middle East" (while not answering my questions about Christianity, etc, mind you) when it was clearly obvious the Iraq War was bad enough when it comes to deploying troops.

But since you want solutions, here's one:

- Put al-Maliki on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
- Muzzle Saudi Arabia's government/religious bodies.
- Vote for someone half decent in the coming US elections.
- Start putting pressure on the Middle East's rulers to shape up or, quite frankly, fuck off. Enough is enough.
- Start thinking outside the box. No more leaping back and forth between far left/far right.
- Start dealing with radical Islamic preachers on the same exact level as Neo-Nazis, etc.
- Sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Stop giving them billions of money in aid.

And so on and so forth.

These are all fine first steps sure. I don't think it would work, but obviously they should be tried first.
Economically isolating the middle east and pressuring them to reform serves both our platforms.

You think it would work.
I don't think it would, but it would weaken them in preparation for the next stage.

Economic isolation isn't going to help. It's much more likely to make ordinary citizens feel that they have to do something violent to preserve their continued quality of life.