Another bombing

[JohnG]

I think the mistake here is thinking this is a religion problem.

 

[Derec]

I think the mistake here is thinking this is a religion problem.

As opposed to what? Nafri problem? Arab problem? Pakistani problem? Afghani problem? Somali problem? One thing they all have in common is their religion: Islam.

 

[Derec]

ISIS has a branch in Algiers, which borders Morocco. It's not inconceivable that some Moroccans get involved somehow.

I doubt a Moroccan would join ISIS due to the Iraq War. For one, ISIS is still hung up on the crusades, and second, they have this idea of a global Islamic caliphate. I.e. they want to conquer territory, including Europe.
The latter is a much more likely reason a Nafri would join.
My point is that unter wants to reduce everything to the 2003 Iraq War, which is very myopic.

 

[untermensche]

The US went over to Iraq for no good reason and disrupted the lives of millions of Muslims.

Morocco is Iraq? There is like 2500 miles between the two countries!

Africa 100 years ago:



The Muslim world has been radicalized by many factors. By an Israeli/Palestinian apartheid state of misery for Muslims that has existed for decades. By the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and the religious state of Iran. And by the massive US violence in Iraq and the aftermath which we are still dealing with.

The Muslim world has been under serious attack for decades.

Yes, right now it has become radicalized as a result. Radical leaders have more power than they would have had if the region were not under constant attack.

In the 50's Iran was secular. Before the US invasion Iraq was secular.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It has radicalized the Muslim world.

The Muslim world was already radicalized. It's just we didn't pay much attention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Muslim world has been radicalized by many factors. By an Israeli/Palestinian apartheid state of misery for Muslims that has existed for decades. By the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and the religious state of Iran. And by the massive US violence in Iraq and the aftermath which we are still dealing with.

The Muslim world has been radicalized by oil money.

The Muslim world has been under serious attack for decades.

The Muslim world has been on the warpath for many, many centuries. It's just for a while they fell far enough behind they didn't have any real way to make war.

 

[untermensche]

It has radicalized the Muslim world.

The Muslim world was already radicalized. It's just we didn't pay much attention.

No it wasn't. In places like Iran and Iraq Muslims were moving towards secular democracies.

Outside interference radicalized both these nations however.

 

[dismal]

The Muslim world was already radicalized. It's just we didn't pay much attention.

No it wasn't. In places like Iran and Iraq Muslims were moving towards secular democracies.

Outside interference radicalized both these nations however.

So, Moroccans are blowing up train stations in Belgium. Got it.

So, back to the topic. I assume as someone who believes Muslims setting off bombs in crowded placed is predictable and inevitable you don't want to take the bet?

 

[JohnG]

I think the mistake here is thinking this is a religion problem.

As opposed to what? Nafri problem? Arab problem? Pakistani problem? Afghani problem? Somali problem? One thing they all have in common is their religion: Islam.

Sorry for the incomplete thought. My thought is that if you put any population in a situation where there is limited opportunity, hope, and a sense of being taken advantage, you'll have uprisings. The only resource for some ME countries appears to be oil, and a whole lot interests trying to wrestle control of it, while the general population are left out.

People within the US don't even trust their own govt, imagine how much mistrust there is in the Mideast for western intervention...and the reality is they should be.

I will say that religion is a nifty tool for unifying the people against a political opponent, but it's not the root of the problem.

 

[dismal]

As opposed to what? Nafri problem? Arab problem? Pakistani problem? Afghani problem? Somali problem? One thing they all have in common is their religion: Islam.

Sorry for the incomplete thought. My thought is that if you put any population in a situation where there is limited opportunity, hope, and a sense of being taken advantage, you'll have uprisings. The only resource for some ME countries appears to be oil, and a whole lot interests trying to wrestle control of it, while the general population are left out.

People within the US don't even trust their own govt, imagine how much mistrust there is in the Mideast for western intervention...and the reality is they should be.

Ok, so this is an explanation as to why Muslims are more likely bomb a crowd in Western Europe/Canada/US than an average person?

 

[JohnG]

Sorry for the incomplete thought. My thought is that if you put any population in a situation where there is limited opportunity, hope, and a sense of being taken advantage, you'll have uprisings. The only resource for some ME countries appears to be oil, and a whole lot interests trying to wrestle control of it, while the general population are left out.

People within the US don't even trust their own govt, imagine how much mistrust there is in the Mideast for western intervention...and the reality is they should be.

Ok, so this is an explanation as to why Muslims are more likely bomb a crowd in Western Europe/Canada/US than an average person?

I added this to my post, which responds to your comment:

I will say that religion is a nifty tool for unifying the people against a political opponent, but it's not the root of the problem.

 

[dismal]

Ok, so this is an explanation as to why Muslims are more likely bomb a crowd in Western Europe/Canada/US than an average person?

I added this to my post, which responds to your comment:

I will say that religion is a nifty tool for unifying the people against a political opponent, but it's not the root of the problem.

Yeah, but it sounds like what you're saying is there is some sort of explainable correlation between "Muslims" and "people who want to bomb us for non-religious reasons".

 

[JohnG]

I added this to my post, which responds to your comment:

I will say that religion is a nifty tool for unifying the people against a political opponent, but it's not the root of the problem.

Yeah, but it sounds like what you're saying is there is some sort of explainable correlation between "Muslims" and "people who want to bomb us for non-religious reasons".

No. I don't think it's a Muslim thing. I think it's it a political problem, and whatever religion is prominent in the oppressed culture, it will become a manifestation of discontentment (to put it mildly)

 

[dismal]

I added this to my post, which responds to your comment:

I will say that religion is a nifty tool for unifying the people against a political opponent, but it's not the root of the problem.

Yeah, but it sounds like what you're saying is there is some sort of explainable correlation between "Muslims" and "people who want to bomb us for non-religious reasons".

No. I don't think it's a Muslim thing. I think it's it a political problem, and whatever religion is prominent in the oppressed culture, it will become a manifestation of discontentment (to put it mildly)

So you're don't think Muslims are more likely to set off a bomb in Western Europe/Canada/US than the average resident?

I'm puzzled why you were going on about stuff like the "Middle East" and "oil" earlier then. These seemed like explanations of why Muslims would be setting off bombs.

 

[JohnG]

I see what you're driving at, I just want to be clear that it's not because people are muslim is why they are radicalized.

People generally dont behave that way when they have a future, a future for their children, and a sense of being secure.

Correlation isnt causation.

 

[blastula]

I see what you're driving at, I just want to be clear that it's not because people are muslim is why they are radicalized.

People generally dont behave that way when they have a future, a future for their children, and a sense of being secure.

Correlation isnt causation.

Jihadists aren't all poor and hopeless. I doubt even a majority are.

 

[TSwizzle]

Brussels Central Station attack suspect was Moroccan

Brussels, Belgium (CNN)A man who detonated a suitcase at Brussels Central Station in a failed terror attack has been identified as a Moroccan national in his 30s, a spokesman for the Belgium prosecutor's office said Wednesday.

Soldiers on patrol at the station shot the man dead as he ran toward them shouting, "Allahu Akbar," spokesman Eric Van Der Sypt said, giving the most detailed account yet from Belgian authorities of what happened Tuesday night.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/europe/brussels-train-station-attack/index.html

Muslims 1, Non-muslims 0.

Not a bombing but team islam gets the credit;

The man who yelled Allahu Akbar' as he stabbed a police officer at a Michigan airport on Wednesday has been identified as Amor Ftouhi, an approximately 50-year-old Canadian man who is originally from Tunisia. Ftouhi repeatedly stabbed Lt. Jeff Neville from behind at Bishop airport near Flint leaving him in serious but stable condition. The attacker was tackled to the ground by fellow police officers.
This afternoon the FBI confirmed it is treating the episode as a terror attack and said Ftouhi also yelled about Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan while he carried out his attack. The agency said he has 'a hatred of the US' and traveled to the US from Canada where he apparently worked as an insurance agent. At an afternoon press conference, an FBI spokesman confirmed that they are investigating the stabbing as an act of terrorism.

DailyMail

A Canadian man eh ? What's that all aboot, eh ? Build a wall I say !!

 

[bilby]

I think the mistake here is thinking this is a religion problem.

As opposed to what? Nafri problem? Arab problem? Pakistani problem? Afghani problem? Somali problem? One thing they all have in common is their religion: Islam.

If only that was the ONLY thing they had in common, then you might have the beginnings of a point to make, or the basis for a useful policy to thwart terrorism by identifying terrorists before they act.

But it's not, and you don't.

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that most terrorists are Muslims, then that makes the exclusion of Muslim immigrants, the profiling of Muslims for searches, and the internment of Muslims for the proactive protection of the rest of the population EXACTLY as well reasoned as would be the exclusion of male immigrants, the profiling of men for searches, and the internment of men for the proactive protection of the rest of the population.

Or are you going to argue that it's not true that most terrorists are men?

Even if EVERY SINGLE terrorist was a Muslim, that would STILL not justify taking any action against Muslims as a whole, because 'all terrorists are Muslims' is NOT synonymous with 'all Muslims are terrorists'. Even if the former were true, it is a useless fact, if our goal is to identify who the next European terrorist might be; It cuts the pool of suspects from an unmanageable 700 million to an unmanageable 40 million. What is the plan, to lock up 40 million people in order to get the half dozen who you wanted?

Would you be in favour of the police rounding up the entire population of Atlanta in order to be sure that they caught the guy who was planning the next armed robbery in that city? It's far more likely to be someone from Atlanta than someone from elsewhere, so by your logic, that's a reasonable approach to take.

 

[laughing dog]

As opposed to what? Nafri problem? Arab problem? Pakistani problem? Afghani problem? Somali problem? One thing they all have in common is their religion: Islam.

If only that was the ONLY thing they had in common, then you might have the beginnings of a point to make, or the basis for a useful policy to thwart terrorism by identifying terrorists before they act.

But it's not, and you don't.

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that most terrorists are Muslims, then that makes the exclusion of Muslim immigrants, the profiling of Muslims for searches, and the internment of Muslims for the proactive protection of the rest of the population EXACTLY as well reasoned as would be the exclusion of male immigrants, the profiling of men for searches, and the internment of men for the proactive protection of the rest of the population.

Or are you going to argue that it's not true that most terrorists are men?

Even if EVERY SINGLE terrorist was a Muslim, that would STILL not justify taking any action against Muslims as a whole, because 'all terrorists are Muslims' is NOT synonymous with 'all Muslims are terrorists'. Even if the former were true, it is a useless fact, if our goal is to identify who the next European terrorist might be; It cuts the pool of suspects from an unmanageable 700 million to an unmanageable 40 million. What is the plan, to lock up 40 million people in order to get the half dozen who you wanted?

Would you be in favour of the police rounding up the entire population of Atlanta in order to be sure that they caught the guy who was planning the next armed robbery in that city? It's far more likely to be someone from Atlanta than someone from elsewhere, so by your logic, that's a reasonable approach to take.

But Muslims are different - they don't deserve to be treated like regular people because someone is afraid of them.

 

[JohnG]

I see what you're driving at, I just want to be clear that it's not because people are muslim is why they are radicalized.

People generally dont behave that way when they have a future, a future for their children, and a sense of being secure.

Correlation isnt causation.

Jihadists aren't all poor and hopeless. I doubt even a majority are.

I admit I haven't read a lot about this, but from what I have read, may take is that a lot of the educated recruits are from areas where their prospects are very low. Recruits from western countries are mostly unskilled and/or uneducated. Also many were children from war-torn areas.