In addition to the lives lost in these attacks, what makes me just as sad is that this is probably going to push more people towards leaders like Donald Trump who'll take advantage of the fear/anger this creates.
That's precisely the goal. The very best response to attacks like these would be to simply treat them as ordinary crimes but that's never going to fly in the current political climate. And so we escalate. The end-state of this is civil war, and if it keeps going for a while we'll have a re-run of the Yugoslavian wars without the added benefit of a nicely segregated population so that it can be stopped.
The kind of language I hear around me from otherwise intelligent people is extremely worrying.
I was a bit angry at the French (amongst other) government response toward the Paris attacks. Lack of wisdom and fluff sign of strength. And as you said, it giving them the credit they're asking for. We're here discussing on a website, what else can we do ? is the invisible flow of emotion flowing up to countries head too heavy ?
It will, and in fact that's probably the goal of the attacks. If Muslims feel unsafe in Europe, it supports ISIS's image of itself as an Islamic state that is a safe haven for Muslims (even if this is nonsense).
Honestly, I despise Donald Trump, but in the same time I am very anti-establishment because in my country we've taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants for many years and we're only 9.x million citizens.
I have sympathy with people who are angry, as I am, with the lack of good leadership from at least the leaders in my country, the lack of security and action is astonishing.
I do not live in the US, but I can guess the people who vote for Trump feels kind of the same way I feel about the politicians in my country.
Whilst I agree with you that a posse mentality is a dangerous thing, a PC agenda run amock is equally so.
Abdeslam (the last terrorist from the france attacks) was arrested in Belgium 3 days ago and upon his removal from the area, youths gathered chanting his name and throwing bottles at the police combis. The national media chose not to cover this for the same reasons you laid out and it has caused a bit of a furore in Belgium.
The distinction between racism and the fight against bad ideas (religious extremism) is often blurred by both the extreme right and the left.
That argument is naive at best. These kids have smartphones, internet, and full access to state funded education to the university level. Yet we still have seen a large departure to Syria.
There is a concerted effort to indoctrinate these youths, and criticism against anything islam is not allowing this debate to be held.
which realistically only 50% graduate from. Very naive to assume, that's not at all state funded educations fault. As if indoctrination wasn't part of that as well in the first place.
> criticism against anything islam is not allowing this debate to be held.
Where do you get the 50% figure? Most don't even attempt university.
Also not quite sure I understand the argument against state funded education. Pretty much everyone in Belgium has a state funded education, myself included.
That's 50% of the university students, obviously, rough estimate.
The implicit statement that it is the students' fault, when their education goes wrong, implies that our educational system is otherwise perfect. I challenged that, not for the monetary aspect.
When you travel to some relatively remote places like Nepal, where it takes a couple of hours for kids to get to their school (if they have a school nearby at all), you very quickly understand that anyone who was born or lives in western countries has a hope for the future.
Why are Muslims not taking to the streets in protest against these attacks in the same manner they do when people draw cartoon drawings of their prophet? This is a problem the Muslim community needs to solve.
Probably for much the same reasons that non-muslims aren't taking to the streets; ISIS are hardly likely to stop this campaign because of a protest march.
That's a strawman. Nobody intelligent is claiming that. The claim is that the ones that follow this jihad ideology and islamic supremacism are too many to reasonably expect to control without starting a civil war. They are a quite large contingent of muslims as a whole and a very large (certainly 20-30% but probably far more) of muslim youth.
Rather than dismissing things as "strawmen," it would help if you clearly elucidate your claims before you make (what appear to be) broad brush statements, e.g. "Muslims took to the streets", "What are we supposed to think?".
Your original post comes across as prototypical "us vs. them", "we are the good guys" blather. Yes, murder and violence are indefensible, but otherization does nothing to work towards deeper understanding of the causes/issues at play.
Breivik's motivation were not sourced from Christian literature, whereas suicide bomber's are (from Koran and Hadith). Young Christians are not leaving home to join the Christian State of Iraq and Syria.
You can see the distinction, surely? Islam creates space and justification for these actions in a way that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity does not. It's a difficult to swallow pill yet it's true.
Source: Am an ex-muslim and generally interested in this phenomenon.
If you look at the history of Europe the bible was a center piece in many wars. You can use any of the religious books to rally people up to fight against the non-believer.
But my point is the current terrorist attacks in Paris are committed by people who got discarded by society with no purpose in life
and they found a group who gave them a place where they felt needed and respected.
> You can use any of the religious books to rally people up to fight against the non-believer.
Some books are much better at this than others. And while I don't believe the bible was that prevalent in the wars of the past, even if it was, that was centuries ago. We've cast aside such foolish things yet live in a world where many people have not.
And that's our problem.
On your second paragraph - that's exactly why an ideology that can transform a person from a citizen into a terrorist because they feel marginalized needs to be addressed. There's a whole lot of marginalized people across our globe.
People are dropping from uni's to go join ISIS.
The guy who perpetrated the san bernardino attacks was a born in the US and was a government worker, his wife was from a fairly influential family.
The Boston bombings were committed by 2 fairly normal teenagers that weren't in any form of distress.
Bin Laden was part of one of the most richest families in Saudi Arabia.
While it's true that many disfranchised individuals turn extremist it's also true that just as many of those who do are very privileged.
People don't decide to join ISIS because they are poor, the do so because they are influenced to do it in a very methodical and well financed way.
Plus I don't think you really want to make this association. Breivik was a (neo-)Nazi (e.g. [1]). If anything he supports the argument that ideology leads to terrorism (it is baffling to me that anyone would ever think it doesn't). I don't think anyone is making the argument that there is only a single violent ideology on this planet.
But I find it weird that to make your point you'd draw attention to the association between terror and ideologies. Because then you'd very quickly arrive at the obvious question : per ideology, how much terror, and at what point do we take action ? Per ideology, how much terror is something the above graph can help with.
When the planner of the Paris attacks was arrested yesterday, immediately ~200 muslims assembled and attacked the police and the press. How much more direct can an expression of support for terrorism get ? When the police arrest a terrorist, immediately the surrounding muslim youth attacks ... Apparently it's not a problem at all to find hundreds of people willing to commit violence in support of terror in the muslims that just happen to be out on the street in a small suburb of Brussels.
Not a single one protested the violence (although that I understand : in Brussels you won't get beaten up, or worse, for excusing or even supporting terror. The opposite stance gets you branded racist in the best case).
There are numerous places in Brussels where the tension between the police and the new "locals" is very close to the flashpoint. And to be frank, Brussels is positively peaceful compared to Paris and Rotterdam. I do not have direct experience of how it is in other cities, but I doubt these cities are the only ones. Antwerp, where I live, is also rapidly becoming a flashpoint and has been the site of muslim terror attacks against Jews. Tellingly, lots of Jews are leaving.
And let's get one thing straight. Brussels is loaded to the brim with minorities. From the black community from Congo to Lebanese and Iraqi Christian refugees, all have communities. Whilst these communities aren't without problems, there is only one community that constantly commits violence on everyone surrounding them. From "youth" randomly attacking whoever is stupid enough to get on the metro alone (and I'm a man, any woman knows that you can't take the metro alone anymore. 5 years ago, not a problem). I just want to say : it's not just these attacks, in fact, that's the least of the problems.
Not to mention that once again fear will be the great motivator to open up the debate about 'prohibiting encryption' and 'regulating bitcoin' and the likes.
I believe we would be far better of to not acknowledge whatever 'terrorist' organisation or group might have been behind this by spouting out '<terrorist organisation X> has taken credit for the attacks in Brussels' in the media. Yet we all know this is what will happen. Also the religion aspect will be brought in again because the organisation acts because of their beliefs. Hate will be harvested on both ends. We could possibly lose a bit of freedom, sit out and wait for the next attack.
It's grotesque to divert attention and create the narrative that the real tragedy here is not the ever-increasing number of victims of a sickening ideology, but the fact that the reaction to these events (as if fear and anger are inappropriate emotions to an attack) will drive people to a politician you oppose. If people voting for Trump makes you "just as sad" as people getting blown up, there is something seriously wrong with you.
US can go to war in many places for many reasons. Not always good or fully justified ones too. Some leaders are more likely to jump to such scenarios than others.
So while it's comparison between one specific act and years of political decisions, I don't think there's got to be anything wrong with OP for such comparison. Electing a terrible leader of a powerful country can cause many more people getting blown up than we've heard of today.
If I said I'm worried about people voting for politicians that will facilitate the spread of islam in Europe, I'd get downvoted for it in this progressive echo chamber. The US has engaged in useless conflicts both with democratic and republican presidents at the helm. The notion that Trump could and would start deadly wars on his own accord is highly speculative, bordering on baseless propaganda, and moot at this point. I don't have a dog in the fight since I'm not from the US, but it's appalling how pervasive and slanderous the American left is (perhaps my perspective is skewed through the internet, maybe the American right has no significant online presence). People getting killed in Belgium is not a chance for you to inject some US presidential campaign bullshit.
I might downvote you for that, yes - if you said you were worried that people voting for politicians would facilitate the spread of terrorism in Europe, that would be an entirely understandable point of view.
The fear of Trump is based on what we've learned from history: charismatic leaders, sowing discord and tension, talking about building walls to separate and contain people, trying to rid a country of certain races and religions, have caused the utmost tragedy in recent times. Trump is the one injecting US presidential campaign bullshit into this issue, and that must be countered.
>The reaction ensures even more innocent people will die.
What reaction and how will it kill innocent people? Be concrete. You are speaking of a vague hypothetical as if it were a fact.
>And this time, the blood will be on our part.
I know it's trendy to be self-loathing, but I would rather have blood on my hands than someone else having my blood on their hands. An innocent civilian dying due to coalition forces' attempt to combat terrorists is not the same as a civilian being killed by said terrorists.
What use is raising the terrorism alert level after an attack has occurred? Doesn't it sort of fulfill the terrorists' wishes by inflicting economic damage well beyond the physical attack?
Though I've been a number of people hypothesise this was a "rushed job" following the earlier arrests as the noose was tightening around the cell and they didn't want to be caught having done nothing.
There's some people saying there was an explosion at Schuman station, but actually the only confirmed thing I could find about it was a picture of people evacuating via Schuman, because they were already underground. (https://twitter.com/evanlamos/status/712194836649082880)
You're right. People who grow up in a society feeling outcast are more likely to try and destroy it, unsurprisingly. Look at history's revolutionaries and troublemakers.
Oh, wait, I think you were trying to say that we should use racial profiling without spelling it out. Oh.
That you think fear of appearing racist is stopping people telling the truth here is telling.
We know why terrorism happens. We've known this for an awfully long time. We don't need unscientific nonsense about how brown people are magically terrorists.
Science frequently comes up with inconvenient answers. But you might find that the science here is inconvenient towards your position, not others'.
> That you think fear of appearing racist is stopping people telling the truth here is telling.
I don't get this. My impression that the fear of being labeled racists makes people censor themselves is not something I only hear others saying but also the press specifically censors the ethnicity of wrongdoers because it might appear to be justification for racism.
> We know why terrorism happens. We've known this for an awfully long time.
I'm not so sure about that one. In any case, the fact that we still suffer from terrorism speaks its own language.
> We don't need unscientific nonsense about how brown people are magically terrorists.
I totally agree on that we don't need unscientific explanations. I call for the opposite. Ridiculing a point I never made doesn't help.
> Science frequently comes up with inconvenient answers. But you might find that the science here is inconvenient towards your position, not others'.
My position on this topic is in many parts neutral, because I'm happy to admit that I don't know all the facts nor do I understand the whole picture thoroughly. Thats why I wish for more investigation.
> In any case, the fact that we still suffer from terrorism speaks its own language.
Knowing why something happens doesn't mean it stops happening. First, some problems aren't easily solved. Second, there is not the will to solve some of them. Climate change is an example of this.
>> People who grow up in a society feeling outcast are more likely to try and destroy it, unsurprisingly. Look at history's revolutionaries and troublemakers.
But it does not apply equally to all cultures(with muslims relatively extreme in that regard). The jews, for example we're badly treated for decades, with relatively little terrorism. The people of Tibet under china are also, quite peaceful.
This is a strong indicator that socialization has a strong influence in what makes people become terrorists.
We see one of the memes that have a positive correlation with terrorism very clearly; it's islam.
People have reflexive denial when one points this out. You can spot this when they don't react to your arguments in a logical manner.
If we finally accepted that islam is among other things a facist authoritarian political ideology, then we could eventually say "no" to Saudi Arabia building and controlling mosques in our countries.
I wonder why people internalized political correctness as if it were a totalitarian ideology.
I always take issue with the "become terrorist" line of thinking. What's saying there's a personal progression with an associated change of state? It might be more helpful to view these as events, brought upon by a continuous influence; the specifics of who acts out or why matter little when you consider the consequences, what matters could be to identify what environmental conditions are exploited to influence people towards these positions and affect that.
This isn't intended as a defense for the choices or judgements of any party involved, I just wonder why we collectively cling to the notion of 'turning evil'.
Pretty much any form of social-building construct is/has been construed as a fascist authoritarian political ideology, so how about abstracting that part of the debate and focusing on who's using which of these ideological tools? Your argument could be made about the US, does that mean you equate both organisations?
Their differences may lie more in the intentions of the deciders than in the methods each use to advance their agendas.
All parties have different means and unkown goals in so making informed guesses as to the why of it all seems a bit futile.
> This is a strong indicator that socialization has a strong influence in what makes people become terrorists.
You appear to be ignoring the socialisation that happens before radicalisation.
> We see one of the memes that have a positive correlation with terrorism very clearly; it's islam.
You appear to be ignoring other forms of radicalisation.
If I point to department stores that have been fire-bombed by animal rights extremists and then say "Vegetarianism is a radical extremist ideology" I hope people would point out my error.
If I point to the bombings of abortion clinics and death threats made to doctors; and the promotion of violence against the child by some Christian extremists and I say "Christianity is a radical extremist ideology, driven by a brutal paternalism" I hope people would point out my error.
It's weird that HN fails so hard the "All boobaks are red; are all red things boobaks?" thing that we expect 11 year olds to understand.
The counterpoint to this is that conventional wisdom follows sterotypes, and by playing into these sterotypes each group named above adds a little truth to what you call errors
The thing that makes the claim regarding vegetarianism wrong but correct with regards to islam is that the foundational book of islam portraits a mass murderer as an idol. Furthermore it proclaims totalitarian authority in some political matters. Ever heard of sharia courts?
That sets islam apart from vegetarianism, which we also expect a 11 year old to understand.
In fact, I also see similiar dangerous tendencies in christianity. However, these days it leads to comparatively few problems when compared to islam and thus doesn't need as much attention.
This is completely Europe's and Belgium's fault. ISIS is what it is and is always going to be like that. Sick human killing animals.
In Brussels, in France, in Sweden there are multiple problem areas which are crowded by ISIS supporters and the governments are not doing anything so it's no wonder these attacks keep on happening all the time.
Europe must make all kinds of radical islam completely illegal and send these people for the rest of their lives to Guantanamo Bay, Siberia, prisons etc. If that's not going to happen soon Europe is permanently lost.
You cannot ban the way people think anymore than you can ban the tide. What is of paramount importance is that the immediate reaction is to stymie religious fundamentalism and not to play into the hands of terrorists by prejudicing entire creeds.
I fear the biggest losers here will be the people caught up in the refugee crisis. Are 'we' going to panic?
I'm not going to panic no matter what happens but when I look around me people are becoming more and more afraid and that's a dangerous thing. The new generation of demagogues in Europe is opening bottles of Champagne in private every time an attack like this happens while in public they are feigning anger and sadness.
From the transport security point of view, this will be interesting to follow. As I understand it, all explosions happened in public areas. While metro stations have always been exposed, the airport-related security mostly involves not getting dangerous materials to the gates. Attacking the publicly accessible areas is not new, but can't be easily prevented.
I don't think it can be prevented at all. Every prevention mechanism you would come up with would create a new concentration of people a little bit further upstream, which automatically presents a new target in an unsecured area.
We did get big bollards and no car access to terminals after (if I remember correctly) decades ago someone drove a van into the airport entrance. I wouldn't be surprised by more sniffing dogs in by the entrance now.
Of course you can't prevent these attacks. But some ideas are not bad and I doubt there's no discussion about new options after today.
88 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadThe kind of language I hear around me from otherwise intelligent people is extremely worrying.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/1200...
I have sympathy with people who are angry, as I am, with the lack of good leadership from at least the leaders in my country, the lack of security and action is astonishing.
I do not live in the US, but I can guess the people who vote for Trump feels kind of the same way I feel about the politicians in my country.
Abdeslam (the last terrorist from the france attacks) was arrested in Belgium 3 days ago and upon his removal from the area, youths gathered chanting his name and throwing bottles at the police combis. The national media chose not to cover this for the same reasons you laid out and it has caused a bit of a furore in Belgium.
The distinction between racism and the fight against bad ideas (religious extremism) is often blurred by both the extreme right and the left.
- http://www.brusselnieuws.be/nl/nieuws/jongeren-gooiden-stene...
- http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/de-marokkaanse-gemeenschap-moe...
There is a concerted effort to indoctrinate these youths, and criticism against anything islam is not allowing this debate to be held.
See this article "Remove the Saudi influence from our mosques" http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/regio/brussel/1.2507974 written by a female politician of Moroccan descent.
which realistically only 50% graduate from. Very naive to assume, that's not at all state funded educations fault. As if indoctrination wasn't part of that as well in the first place.
> criticism against anything islam is not allowing this debate to be held.
wat?
Also not quite sure I understand the argument against state funded education. Pretty much everyone in Belgium has a state funded education, myself included.
That's 50% of the university students, obviously, rough estimate.
The implicit statement that it is the students' fault, when their education goes wrong, implies that our educational system is otherwise perfect. I challenged that, not for the monetary aspect.
In Denmark, at the time of the cartoons controversy, there was also a group of Muslims on the other side, whose leader was elected to Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Muslims_in_Denmark
http://www.brusselnieuws.be/nl/nieuws/jongeren-gooiden-stene...
And then this happens. What are we supposed to think ?
Assuming all Muslims are ideologically the same, and that Muslims monolithically defend this sort of behavior is an asinine assumption.
Your original post comes across as prototypical "us vs. them", "we are the good guys" blather. Yes, murder and violence are indefensible, but otherization does nothing to work towards deeper understanding of the causes/issues at play.
Plenty of Hacker News users claim it all the time, unfortunately.
Religion has no part in this its only a vehicle as is Christianity. The real picture is much bigger and more complex.
And please look behind the media curtain as other have pointed out you have the internet on your hands you can get all the sources you need.
You can see the distinction, surely? Islam creates space and justification for these actions in a way that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity does not. It's a difficult to swallow pill yet it's true.
Source: Am an ex-muslim and generally interested in this phenomenon.
But my point is the current terrorist attacks in Paris are committed by people who got discarded by society with no purpose in life and they found a group who gave them a place where they felt needed and respected.
Brevik is a Nazi and he is not Christian
Some books are much better at this than others. And while I don't believe the bible was that prevalent in the wars of the past, even if it was, that was centuries ago. We've cast aside such foolish things yet live in a world where many people have not.
And that's our problem.
On your second paragraph - that's exactly why an ideology that can transform a person from a citizen into a terrorist because they feel marginalized needs to be addressed. There's a whole lot of marginalized people across our globe.
While it's true that many disfranchised individuals turn extremist it's also true that just as many of those who do are very privileged. People don't decide to join ISIS because they are poor, the do so because they are influenced to do it in a very methodical and well financed way.
Credit to you; that's not an easy (or particularly safe) path to walk.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7620355
It is literally unsafe to abandon Islam.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=islam%2C%20terror%2C...
Draw your own conclusion.
Plus I don't think you really want to make this association. Breivik was a (neo-)Nazi (e.g. [1]). If anything he supports the argument that ideology leads to terrorism (it is baffling to me that anyone would ever think it doesn't). I don't think anyone is making the argument that there is only a single violent ideology on this planet.
But I find it weird that to make your point you'd draw attention to the association between terror and ideologies. Because then you'd very quickly arrive at the obvious question : per ideology, how much terror, and at what point do we take action ? Per ideology, how much terror is something the above graph can help with.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-breivi...
Not a single one protested the violence (although that I understand : in Brussels you won't get beaten up, or worse, for excusing or even supporting terror. The opposite stance gets you branded racist in the best case).
There are numerous places in Brussels where the tension between the police and the new "locals" is very close to the flashpoint. And to be frank, Brussels is positively peaceful compared to Paris and Rotterdam. I do not have direct experience of how it is in other cities, but I doubt these cities are the only ones. Antwerp, where I live, is also rapidly becoming a flashpoint and has been the site of muslim terror attacks against Jews. Tellingly, lots of Jews are leaving.
And let's get one thing straight. Brussels is loaded to the brim with minorities. From the black community from Congo to Lebanese and Iraqi Christian refugees, all have communities. Whilst these communities aren't without problems, there is only one community that constantly commits violence on everyone surrounding them. From "youth" randomly attacking whoever is stupid enough to get on the metro alone (and I'm a man, any woman knows that you can't take the metro alone anymore. 5 years ago, not a problem). I just want to say : it's not just these attacks, in fact, that's the least of the problems.
I believe we would be far better of to not acknowledge whatever 'terrorist' organisation or group might have been behind this by spouting out '<terrorist organisation X> has taken credit for the attacks in Brussels' in the media. Yet we all know this is what will happen. Also the religion aspect will be brought in again because the organisation acts because of their beliefs. Hate will be harvested on both ends. We could possibly lose a bit of freedom, sit out and wait for the next attack.
So while it's comparison between one specific act and years of political decisions, I don't think there's got to be anything wrong with OP for such comparison. Electing a terrible leader of a powerful country can cause many more people getting blown up than we've heard of today.
The fear of Trump is based on what we've learned from history: charismatic leaders, sowing discord and tension, talking about building walls to separate and contain people, trying to rid a country of certain races and religions, have caused the utmost tragedy in recent times. Trump is the one injecting US presidential campaign bullshit into this issue, and that must be countered.
Reacting to this tragedy with organised hatred only creates a new, far worse tragedy.
What reaction and how will it kill innocent people? Be concrete. You are speaking of a vague hypothetical as if it were a fact.
>And this time, the blood will be on our part.
I know it's trendy to be self-loathing, but I would rather have blood on my hands than someone else having my blood on their hands. An innocent civilian dying due to coalition forces' attempt to combat terrorists is not the same as a civilian being killed by said terrorists.
There were two explosions at around 08:00 (07:00 GMT) at Zaventem airport as people queued to check in
Belgian broadcaster VRT says at least 13 people were killed and 35 were wounded at the airport
Shots were heard before the explosions, which appear to have struck near the American Airlines and Brussels Airline check in desk
Some time later there was also a blast at Maalbeek metro station, very close to the city's main European Union buildings
The Belgian government has raised the terror alert level to 4 across the country, the highest level
Behaviour is determined by what you start with into life and what you learn during your life, that is genes and socialization.
Now, if you take a birds eye view on the situation it comes clear to me that on both axis there are strong correlations among these terrorists.
Realizing facts helps solving problems.
Oh, wait, I think you were trying to say that we should use racial profiling without spelling it out. Oh.
It's sad that one even has to ask for such an approach. In most cases it's undisputedly the only senseable one.
You can't work scientifically if your fear of being labeled racist guides and censors you.
We know why terrorism happens. We've known this for an awfully long time. We don't need unscientific nonsense about how brown people are magically terrorists.
Science frequently comes up with inconvenient answers. But you might find that the science here is inconvenient towards your position, not others'.
I don't get this. My impression that the fear of being labeled racists makes people censor themselves is not something I only hear others saying but also the press specifically censors the ethnicity of wrongdoers because it might appear to be justification for racism.
> We know why terrorism happens. We've known this for an awfully long time.
I'm not so sure about that one. In any case, the fact that we still suffer from terrorism speaks its own language.
> We don't need unscientific nonsense about how brown people are magically terrorists.
I totally agree on that we don't need unscientific explanations. I call for the opposite. Ridiculing a point I never made doesn't help.
> Science frequently comes up with inconvenient answers. But you might find that the science here is inconvenient towards your position, not others'.
My position on this topic is in many parts neutral, because I'm happy to admit that I don't know all the facts nor do I understand the whole picture thoroughly. Thats why I wish for more investigation.
Your last sentence baffles me.
Knowing why something happens doesn't mean it stops happening. First, some problems aren't easily solved. Second, there is not the will to solve some of them. Climate change is an example of this.
But it does not apply equally to all cultures(with muslims relatively extreme in that regard). The jews, for example we're badly treated for decades, with relatively little terrorism. The people of Tibet under china are also, quite peaceful.
I mean, look at the reason you have to take your shoes off every time you fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
We see one of the memes that have a positive correlation with terrorism very clearly; it's islam.
People have reflexive denial when one points this out. You can spot this when they don't react to your arguments in a logical manner.
If we finally accepted that islam is among other things a facist authoritarian political ideology, then we could eventually say "no" to Saudi Arabia building and controlling mosques in our countries.
I wonder why people internalized political correctness as if it were a totalitarian ideology.
This isn't intended as a defense for the choices or judgements of any party involved, I just wonder why we collectively cling to the notion of 'turning evil'.
Pretty much any form of social-building construct is/has been construed as a fascist authoritarian political ideology, so how about abstracting that part of the debate and focusing on who's using which of these ideological tools? Your argument could be made about the US, does that mean you equate both organisations? Their differences may lie more in the intentions of the deciders than in the methods each use to advance their agendas. All parties have different means and unkown goals in so making informed guesses as to the why of it all seems a bit futile.
You appear to be ignoring the socialisation that happens before radicalisation.
> We see one of the memes that have a positive correlation with terrorism very clearly; it's islam.
You appear to be ignoring other forms of radicalisation.
If I point to department stores that have been fire-bombed by animal rights extremists and then say "Vegetarianism is a radical extremist ideology" I hope people would point out my error.
If I point to the bombings of abortion clinics and death threats made to doctors; and the promotion of violence against the child by some Christian extremists and I say "Christianity is a radical extremist ideology, driven by a brutal paternalism" I hope people would point out my error.
It's weird that HN fails so hard the "All boobaks are red; are all red things boobaks?" thing that we expect 11 year olds to understand.
That sets islam apart from vegetarianism, which we also expect a 11 year old to understand.
In fact, I also see similiar dangerous tendencies in christianity. However, these days it leads to comparatively few problems when compared to islam and thus doesn't need as much attention.
In Brussels, in France, in Sweden there are multiple problem areas which are crowded by ISIS supporters and the governments are not doing anything so it's no wonder these attacks keep on happening all the time.
Europe must make all kinds of radical islam completely illegal and send these people for the rest of their lives to Guantanamo Bay, Siberia, prisons etc. If that's not going to happen soon Europe is permanently lost.
Please.
I fear the biggest losers here will be the people caught up in the refugee crisis. Are 'we' going to panic?
I'm not going to panic no matter what happens but when I look around me people are becoming more and more afraid and that's a dangerous thing. The new generation of demagogues in Europe is opening bottles of Champagne in private every time an attack like this happens while in public they are feigning anger and sadness.
Of course you can't prevent these attacks. But some ideas are not bad and I doubt there's no discussion about new options after today.