Bombings In Brussels

[VaporTrail]

Alright, I will try and be as level-headed as I can and take time to read my whole point. First, Islamic terrorism is a threat to society and I can understand the concern. Europe in particular faces the harsh reality of being a true European Union with open borders and terrorism. It's absolutely true that a small, vocal minority of Muslim people perpetuate all the hate violence and bad stuff like today.

 

I work with 100s of Muslim people on a monthly basis for various things. This is a true story, I actually personally knew a man who became radicalized and was caught attempting to fuel himself into ISIS. At this ratio, 1% or so of my personal experiences represents a bad group of people. The other majority of Muslims are people I see volunteering their time, condemning terrorist attacks, and generally making our campus a better place. I can understand the disdain for Muslims because they use violence at levels we simply can't comprehend. The pictures we see of gore and violence are jarring, and I get that. But, it's simply a misnomer that Muslim people are always the root of terrorism by its definition. This article goes into great detail about it: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

 

If we're using the logic of banning all people who fall under a group of people committing terrorism, then what about right-wing extremists?: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/30/3725562/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extemist-than-by-muslim-terrorists/.

 

My point is here is to critically think about the problem. If we as a nation ban people from coming (which is impossible to control), that's only going to get people on the fence madder and go to radicalization. The solution isn't flowers and love and no one thinks it is, but what I've said all along is shit just takes time. It's widely known ISIS is struggling financially and recruitment is going down. More and more leaders are condemning these groups and fighting against them. However, short of nuking the whole country and starting a world war time is a factor in the argument. Yes, I get it that sucks to say and people will likely perish before the problem is solved. But it's the harsh reality, and isolating a billion people in the process isn't the solution. It's hard but it's the solution that actually will see long-term results.

 

Again, no one is saying that all Muslims are bad. Your comparison to domestic terrorism is off the mark, too. The lunatics who marched on the National Parks Service in Oregon are already being monitored heavily by the FBI. Now, when you try to compare that to Islamic terrorists in the US - yes, they're being watched by FBI and CIA. Why would you willingly let in more people from a demographic where they're more likely to be radicalized when you could largely prevent it by banning people from Islamic nations from entering the country?

 

 

 

If we as a nation ban people from coming (which is impossible to control)

 

Not really impossible at all. Racial profiling and looking at their travel history would likely be sufficient.

 

 

 

, that's only going to get people on the fence madder and go to radicalization.

 

Not letting them come to our country is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Please. We're blowing up civilians probably daily with our drone program. Sure they can add a line saying "they banned us from coming to the US" to their recruitment videos, but how much of a difference do you honestly think that will make? They're already blowing shit up.

[Clevfan4life]

When the explosions went off in Brussels, did you think it was white guys who did it?

 

did you think it was a white person that shot up that private Christian school in Norway and killed 69 people? oh wait it was a white person never mind. Just as an fyi, the bataclan attacks killed 89 people, and that was a bunch of mooslms.

[LogicIsForSquares]

 

did you think it was a white person that shot up that private Christian school in Norway and killed 69 people? oh wait it was a white person never mind. Just as an fyi, the bataclan attacks killed 89 people, and that was a bunch of mooslms.

One event as opposed to what seems like a monthly occurrence.

[jrb12711]

When patterns appear, you can pretty much make a strong educated guess on the culprit behind an event.

 

You're right, you can make an educated guess that this type of event is Islamic terrorism. But I can also make an educated guess that when a school/abortion clinic/workplace gets shot up it was a crazy white person, how is that any different? Just because one uses bombs and the other a gun it's somehow an entirely different story? The only different is one is a white guy and one is a Muslim.

 

 

Again, no one is saying that all Muslims are bad. Your comparison to domestic terrorism is off the mark, too. The lunatics who marched on the National Parks Service in Oregon are already being monitored heavily by the FBI. Now, when you try to compare that to Islamic terrorists in the US - yes, they're being watched by FBI and CIA. Why would you willingly let in more people from a demographic where they're more likely to be radicalized when you could largely prevent it by banning people from Islamic nations from entering the country?

 

 

Not really impossible at all. Racial profiling and looking at their travel history would likely be sufficient.

 

What percentage is "more likely?". Also, it's quite obvious your opinion when a bunch of white guys who commit domestic terrorism are "lunatics". Right, totally different!

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-takeover-oregon-debate-meaning-of-terrorist/

 

I can't speak for European policies as I'm not versed in that. But the idea that people we let refugees into this country without heavily vetting them already is just, simply put, wrong:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/paris-attack-refugee-visa-waiver/

 

If a refugee crosses off ALL those boxes and still gets by as a terrorist that's more an embarrassment to government policy than anything else. Of course, that's one piece of the puzzle and Visa waiver programs are still a way to gain entry to the US easily. But here's my question, going back to my original point in all this. We know objectively that Islamic inspired terrorist attacks are far from the biggest threat to terrorism in the United States. We know that crazy white people have killed a lot more people in terrorist manners. We know that thousands and thousands of Muslim people come to the United States and live normal lives and are good citizens.

 

Do you honestly want a country who racially profiles a group of people based on an misnomer of their actual threat? In that regard, where does that stop? Why, knowing that right-wing extremists are are more dangerous to society, should they not be profiled more heavily? Hell, they are already in the country if anything by this logic we should start with them and deny them rights. This type of scenario is the start of nearly every sci-fi movie gone wrong.

[bbedward]

There's some obvious problems.

 

Like a few days ago when Abdeslam was captured in a predominately Muslim neighborhood and the police were getting things thrown at them and yelled at while they arrested him.

 

The problems in some of these countries are definitely worse than they appear.

[WalterWhite]

Well, this Brussels tourism video as absolutely backfired (look at the comment section)

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7hvXeOAKw&feature=youtu.be&a

[LogicIsForSquares]

There's some obvious problems.

 

Like a few days ago when Abdeslam was captured in a predominately Muslim neighborhood and the police were getting things thrown at them and yelled at while they arrested him.

 

The problems in some of these countries are definitely worse than they appear.

Moderate Islam just means they won't commit the act but nod approvingly while the other guy does it.

[VaporTrail]

 

You're right, you can make an educated guess that this type of event is Islamic terrorism. But I can also make an educated guess that when a school/abortion clinic/workplace gets shot up it was a crazy white person, how is that any different? Just because one uses bombs and the other a gun it's somehow an entirely different story? The only different is one is a white guy and one is a Muslim.

 

 

 

What percentage is "more likely?". Also, it's quite obvious your opinion when a bunch of white guys who commit domestic terrorism are "lunatics". Right, totally different!

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-takeover-oregon-debate-meaning-of-terrorist/

 

I can't speak for European policies as I'm not versed in that. But the idea that people we let refugees into this country without heavily vetting them already is just, simply put, wrong:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/paris-attack-refugee-visa-waiver/

 

If a refugee crosses off ALL those boxes and still gets by as a terrorist that's more an embarrassment to government policy than anything else. Of course, that's one piece of the puzzle and Visa waiver programs are still a way to gain entry to the US easily. But here's my question, going back to my original point in all this. We know objectively that Islamic inspired terrorist attacks are far from the biggest threat to terrorism in the United States. We know that crazy white people have killed a lot more people in terrorist manners. We know that thousands and thousands of Muslim people come to the United States and live normal lives and are good citizens.

 

I agree with you in that the Oregon lunatics were domestic terrorists, but you're missing my point about why the comparison to domestic and Islamic terrorists isn't a good one. In both cases, they should be monitored. The difference is that the domestic terrorists are already here. It's not like we can deport them or keep them from entering the country. We do have that option for suspected Islamic terrorists who may be trying to enter the country, however, with a blanket temporary ban on people from Islamic nations.

 

Do you honestly want a country who racially profiles a group of people based on an misnomer of their actual threat? In that regard, where does that stop? Why, knowing that right-wing extremists are are more dangerous to society, should they not be profiled more heavily?

 

I understand completely that a minority of Muslims are the ones conducting the attacks. I get that it's an inconvenience to the majority who are peaceful, but the safety of American lives is more important to me than the feelings of foreigners.

 

Hell, they are already in the country if anything by this logic we should start with them and deny them rights.

 

You're the only one saying that, and it's a slippery slope argument.

 

This type of scenario is the start of nearly every sci-fi movie gone wrong.

 

And what about all the sci-fi movies where the higher ups ignore all the obvious signs because they are worried about their image?

[bbedward]

Ted Cruz implies the attack in Brussels has something to do with Trump saying we need to be less involved with NATO

 

http://clashdaily.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-blames-donald-trump-for-brussels-terrorist-attack/

 

What a delusional snake

[Clevfan4life]

One event as opposed to what seems like a monthly occurrence.

 

and back in the 80's it was seemingly a monthly occurrence for an IRA bombing.Fundamentalism knows no race or creed. Wasn't the Norway guy some kind of white supremacist Nazi or something?

[Pumpkin Eater]

Wtf is your point? The attacks were a response to the arrest of a fucking terrorist. Are white guys blowing shit up because protesters cancelled the trump rally in Chicago?

[gftChris]

This endless tit-for-tat, 'well white people can be terrorists too' back and forth is just stupid and tiring. You can condemn radical islamic terrorism while recognising that domestic terrorism for other religions or no religion is a threat to civilised life as well.

[OldBrownsFan]

Obama's problem is he cannot say those words, "Islamic Radical Terrorism". In that sense our president can't even get to first base in fighting Islamic radical terrorism as he refuses to call them out.

[gftChris]

Obama's problem is he cannot say those words, "Islamic Radical Terrorism". In that sense our president can't even get to first base in fighting Islamic radical terrorism as he refuses to call them out.

It doesn't matter what you call them. Some republicans are more concerned with what something's called than finding an actual solution to the problem.

[jrb12711]

This endless tit-for-tat, 'well white people can be terrorists too' back and forth is just stupid and tiring. You can condemn radical islamic terrorism while recognising that domestic terrorism for other religions or no religion is a threat to civilised life as well.

 

you can, but people rarely do. I wouldn't argue the point at all if people actually felt that way..

[MLD Woody]

This endless tit-for-tat, 'well white people can be terrorists too' back and forth is just stupid and tiring. You can condemn radical islamic terrorism while recognising that domestic terrorism for other religions or no religion is a threat to civilised life as well.

I think the point is being made because, while what you said is true, we're only talking about banning one religion /people

[MLD Woody]

Obama's problem is he cannot say those words, "Islamic Radical Terrorism". In that sense our president can't even get to first base in fighting Islamic radical terrorism as he refuses to call them out.

And we have some here that refuse to understand the enemy. Just ban 'em and kill 'em. That's much worse

[gftChris]

And we have some here that refuse to understand the enemy. Just ban 'em and kill 'em. That's much worse

That approach is like trying to remove the weeds from your driveway with a pair of scissors.

 

(no, I'm not advocating using chemical weapons against all muslims - I feel compelled to add that, and isn't that a little bit sad for this board)

[The Cysko Kid]

And we have some here that refuse to understand the enemy. Just ban 'em and kill 'em. That's much worse

You forgot "ooga Booga scary brown people"

[Westside Steve]

Sorry folks, did anyone in his actual right mind, not talking about Walter, Advocate killing all the Muslims except in Woody's fevered brain? Or did someone advocated taking steps to more closely monitor them and even stop in and out privileges until the situation or better and hand?

 

I might have missed something so feel free to enlighten me.

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

 

and back in the 80's it was seemingly a monthly occurrence for an IRA bombing.Fundamentalism knows no race or creed. Wasn't the Norway guy some kind of white supremacist Nazi or something?

If we were currently in the 80s, it would be relevant to bring up the Troubles.

 

Norway guy was a Nazi.

[calfoxwc]

Posted Today, 12:47 PM

Sorry folks, did anyone in his actual right mind, not talking about Walter, Advocate killing all the Muslims except in Woody's fevered brain? Or did someone advocated taking steps to more closely monitor them and even stop in and out privileges until the situation or better and hand?

I might have missed something so feel free to enlighten me.

WSS

******************************************

Nobody. It's Woody dreaming of gallantly fighting windmills again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[bbedward]

 

and back in the 80's it was seemingly a monthly occurrence for an IRA bombing.Fundamentalism knows no race or creed. Wasn't the Norway guy some kind of white supremacist Nazi or something?

 

The IRA was a bit different because they just wanted an independent republic. They just happened to believe that terrorism was a good way to achieve that goal.

 

The islamic extremist groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. have the ultimate goal of global caliphate, final war against all the non-believers, armageddon, etc. For the "jihadis" their war will never end until they die.

 

Not saying crazy people aren't everywhere - or Christians haven't been crazy. The extreme muslims have existed for hundreds of years - they're just fucking with the western world now largely thanks to dozens of years of failed foreign policy.

[jrb12711]

Sorry folks, did anyone in his actual right mind, not talking about Walter, Advocate killing all the Muslims except in Woody's fevered brain? Or did someone advocated taking steps to more closely monitor them and even stop in and out privileges until the situation or better and hand?

 

I might have missed something so feel free to enlighten me.

 

WSS

 

My comment was spurred literally by people advocating racial profiling, so yes that actually was advocated, happened and is visible in this thread.

 

I'm honestly really questioning the reading level of people on this board and that isn't some shrewd joke. It's right in front of you, and I quoted it..

[calfoxwc]

???

[MLD Woody]

That approach is like trying to remove the weeds from your driveway with a pair of scissors.

 

(no, I'm not advocating using chemical weapons against all muslims - I feel compelled to add that, and isn't that a little bit sad for this board)

(sad, but expected).

 

 

I'm not saying hugs and rainbows. I'm not saying bomb indiscriminately and kill terrorist families. Like everything else in life, this isn't black and white.

 

Understand the enemy. Will carpet bombing ISIS stop Islamic terrorism? Will banning Muslims from this country help the situation?

 

 

I'm completely against a ban based on religious views. That seems pretty damn unAmerican.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

My comment was spurred literally by people advocating racial profiling, so yes that actually was advocated, happened and is visible in this thread.

 

I'm honestly really questioning the reading level of people on this board and that isn't some shrewd joke. It's right in front of you, and I quoted it..

So racial profiling = kill all of "x"

[calfoxwc]

If we're talking about a ban on all Muslims, until they can be properly vetted,

that they are not extremist/terrorist Muslims,

 

of course I support that. Profile them, it's tough to tell the difference, without

a background check.

 

I thought libs LOVED background checks. They think every single American gun

owner is a possible murderer.....

 

why all this antipathy about the fact that the terrorists claiming to be "Muslims"

need to be vetted out of the possibility of getting into our country?

 

Why isn't "any Muslim" a possible terrorist on immigrating here?

[jrb12711]

So racial profiling = kill all of "x"

No, Racial Profiling is advocating, and I quote with errors, "Or did someone advocated taking steps to more closely monitor them and even stop in and out privileges until the situation is better in hand"

 

Geeeezus Christ..

[Westside Steve]

 

No, Racial Profiling is advocating, and I quote with errors, "Or did someone advocated taking steps to more closely monitor them and even stop in and out privileges until the situation or better and hand"

 

Geeeezus Christ..

Sorry, until the situation is better in hand. So that was your gripe? Really?

 

Because that was Trump's stance if I'm not mistaken.

 

WSS