I'm not from SA, clearly indicated below my avatar, so yeah your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

You have no idea why these attacks occurred, you're a Bigot and incredibly ignorant.

Muslims blowing themselves up marginalises Muslims! These are not Middle easterners! How dense are you? I am in no way saying every Muslim is a a terrorist, don't confuse that, but to deny Islam is the problem really is stupidity on the highest level.

Mental gymnastics, my foot. I've maintained the same position from the outset.

I suggest you look up the definitions of explanation and excuse.

I have provided an explanation. This does not justify these atrocities. That does not mitigate it. They're by no means acceptable. Those who co-ordinated them should feel the full force of the law.

This airport attack is, more or less, the moral equivalent of when the United States launches a drone strike, fully aware of the probability of high civilian casualties, and a bunch of kids die.

That's in no way acceptable. Those responsible should be court-martialled, stand trial for war crimes and go to prison.

Neither the airport attack nor a drone strike which kill innocent civilians can be excused. I have never excused either. Can they be explained?

Yes. There are, usually, explanations for both. The explanation for the airport attack is probably that they're responding to Western atrocities (e.g. drone strikes) and that the individuals who carry out the attacks may have been made to feel like second-class citizens in their own country (MARGINALISATION!!!!).

The explanation for the drone strike is likely that a key player for ISIS was in the building, he had a lot of American blood on his hands and they wanted to take him out. They just weren't too fussed about the collateral damage.

Neither of those explanations justify or excuse those two terrible crimes against humanity. They explain it.

The mental gymnastics you took for that reply is impressive.

There is never a justification for the mindless killing of innocent people. The fact that you are trying to somehow justify it is incredible. By burying your head in the sand, you are part of the problem.

Terrorism isn't exclusive to religion or to a certain religion. It permeates ideologies: from anarchists and fundamentalist Muslims, leftist and conservative groups, ethnic groups to religious groups. The vast majority of terrorism over history has been politically-motivated. If you have a social/political/economic system where an impassioned minority have, according to them, been repressed then they, if they have access to weaponry, will most likely indulge in terrorist or anti-state activities.

ISIL however is different. They have a political motive that is intrinsically linked to their religious motive: the introduction of a Salafist, Sharia Law enforced caliphate. Why they exist IMO has more to do with recent geo-political movements and actions in the Middle East more so than the religion itself (although of course they draw inspiration from its darker passages). The poor socio-economic status of that area, coupled with the decades long series of Western intervention and the radicalization of Islamic sects have created a perfect storm for a group like ISIL to sprout up.

I'm doing a political science course at uni on global terrorism and simply stating Islam as the root cause or problem is simply illogical and untrue, there are many factors involved.

You misread what I wrote - I said "If it was something inherent to the religion itself, why did it develop in the 1990s?" I am saying that they developed in the 1990s. I was asking why then, as opposed to any other time in history. You are arguing my point by saying "Al Qaeda did develop in the 90s". My point is that it is not just religion in a vacuum.

Hamas and the Fatah hate each other, and have been opposed to each other for long periods. Especially back in the 1980s. It was only in 2003 that any reference to religion was in the PLO charter. I certainly would agree that Hamas is driven by religious ideology. But Hamas was only founded in 1987, so they obviously were not involved in the plane hijacking etc that occurred earlier on.

Obviously the individual members of the PLO may be muslim, but that is because Palestinians are muslim. The point is that islam was not their driving ideology for most of their history (especially while Arafat was alive. Their driving ideology was pan-arab nationalism and "anti-Zionism" (in their words).

Couple of points to consider:

- Muslims in the middle east have been the victims of IS terrorism. I would estimate in large numbers too. My only point in raising that is to respond to those making massive generalisations about muslim belief.
- I do agree that stating that religion has nothing to do with what is happening is ridiculous. But I don't think many people actually argue that. All that is being argued is that extrapolating the beliefs and actions of terrorists to everyone who has the same religion is ridiculous and inaccurate.
- For comparison, I recommend people read up on the Anarchist Terror movement and 'propaganda of the deed' in the late 1800s/early 1900s. The similarities in terms of generalised govt crackdowns creating more terrorists, and fearmongering about foreigners suspected of being anarchists is very interesting. Obviously the case of Sacco & Vanzetti is interesting too.
- Are people aware of IS's openly stated strategy in Europe? Their goal is to provoke a societal and govt crackdown in Europe, in the hope of driving European born muslims into their arms to commit more atrocities.

So everyone talking about stopping muslim migration, and deporting muslims etc, realise that you are actually doing exactly what IS is wanting you to do.

You're not funny. Give up.

immediate halt to islamic immigrants
strict vetting of all islamists in europe
all military aged men not accompanied by family deported
families found to be harbouring terrrorist sympathisers deported
wait til theyre back in the mid east
nuke those cunts

I disagree and this is the equivalent of those who bury their head in the sand.
Terrorism wont go away by pretending it doesnt exist.

Its pretty obvious why terrorism is growing in places like Belgium and France. You have an environment that fosters its growth. Mass immigration from a culture that refuses to and cannot assimilate with western values.

No go zones, whole suburbs that police are afraid to visit on a regular basis.

Something needs to be done, something needs to change.

Pay your respects

Grieve for the innocents lost

Continue to live your life as normal

Really that's all we can do as individuals to combat Terrorism. Aim of these attacks is to spread fear and divide us.

MMM in Melbourne, talking about youth unemployment and lack of integration of immigrants as reasons contributing to the attacks. If that's the case, go integrate somewhere else :)

Ignore Socawho too. My first post in this thread alludes to this, but he's just trying to get a reaction out of me and anyone else that will bite.

Feel sorry for those that have posted reasonable arguments but with such an emotional topic people feel the need to abuse and stifle discussion.

Ignore Socawho too. My first post in this thread alludes to this, but he's just trying to get a reaction out of me and anyone else that will bite.

Feel sorry for those that have posted reasonable arguments but with such an emotional topic people feel the need to abuse and stifle discussion.

the same ones that say it is isnt a muslim problem and say reiterate the same bs that its a lone wolf attack or works of a single madman

Edited by Socawho: 23/3/2016 05:27:13 PM

How, in any way, is anyone saying that condemning the bombings makes you a bigot? Ridiculous comment.

Ignore 433, most of his post content is pulled directly of /r/conservative /r/The_Donald and various other similar subreddits.

Edited by mcjules: 23/3/2016 04:59:25 PM

How, in any way, is anyone saying that condemning the bombings makes you a bigot? Ridiculous comment.

so that makes everyone a bigot who condemns the bombings then.
well if that be the case then im proud to be called a bigot

Ignore 433, most of his post content is pulled directly of /r/conservative /r/The_Donald and various other similar subreddits.

Edited by mcjules: 23/3/2016 04:59:25 PM

What a load of old cobblers.

This comment on Oliver's show was specifically about the calls from Republicans in the US to not accept any Syrian refugees.

Certified refugees are far different than the uncontrolled mass movement of people happening in Europe.

Secondly, the suspects haven't even been identified yet. They may well be Belgian born, not refugees.

Well at least we all know the form by now. This morning Islamist suicide-bombers struck one of the few European capitals they haven’t previously hit in a mass-casualty terrorist attack.

The standard response now goes as follows. First the body parts of innocent people are flung across airport check-ins or underground trains. Briefly there is some shock. On social media the sentimentalists await the arrival of this atrocity’s cutesy hashtag or motif and hope it will tide them over until the piano man arrives at the scene of the attack to sing ‘Imagine there’s no countries’. Meantime someone will hopefully have said something which a lot of people can condemn as ‘inappropriate’. I see that the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson was this morning’s Twitter miscreant, foolish enough to say in the wake of the Brussels attack that the EU might not make us very safe. One may agree or disagree with this sentiment, but Ms Pearson should have known that the only acceptable thing to do after a suicide bomber detonates beside the European Commission is to acclaim the Commission as one of the few entities able to keep us safe.

We will shortly move to the next phase, which is to find a good news story amid the rubble. Anything will do, but best of all is a Muslim good news story. After Paris it was swiftly reported that one of the suicide bombers at Stade de France had been turned away by a brave Muslim security guard. The story whizzed around the world before anyone could check whether it was true. It wasn’t. But people needed it to be. Not because Muslims don’t do good deeds, but because in the wake of any Islamist terrorist attack people need people opposed to the bombers to be Muslim and the bombers themselves not to be Muslim. Then the good Muslim can represent Islam while the bad Muslims can be said to have nothing to do with it.

Subscribe from £1 per week
Soon we will move to the next phase, during which broadcast media will ask questions that address no major points. So in the UK the government’s Communications Data Bill will get quite a lot of mentions. We will probably also have another round of the old discussion about Control Orders versus TPIMs. This will most likely be first raised by a Labour politician hoping to look tough. Everywhere on the media people will start to talk of ‘radicalisation’ as though it is something you can get from the water, and experts will claim insight into the ‘paths to extremism’. Nicky Morgan will announce that the Prevent agenda should be extended to encompass pre-kindergarten. A year later she will close some Quaker-run nursery.

Meanwhile other people will change the subject over to the question of Belgium’s unacceptably interventionist foreign policy. Others will get onto Israel-Palestine. At around the same time the Corbynite-wing of the Labour party will get onto their favourite subject which is not dead bodies in airports but people who have been looked at meanly on a bus while wearing a headscarf. By at least tomorrow the story of a savage ‘backlash’ (consisting mainly of stares and horrible things written on social media) will be being talked-up by all mainstream Muslim leaders. By Thursday no one will be talking about the victims.

Meanwhile Twitter will reprise some version of the post-Sydney ‘I’ll ride with you’ meme (based on a fib) or the ‘You ain’t no Muslim, bruv’ which was shouted during December’s Leytonstone attack by a non-Muslim and briefly acclaimed by everyone from the Prime Minister down as one of the finest expressions ever of the English spirit and language.

This is how it goes in Europe now. Everything barely worth saying will be said endlessly. And the only things that are worth saying won’t be said. What are those things? Among other things the fact that we are living with the consequences of an immigration and ‘integration’ fantasy which should have been abandoned years ago. Instead our governments have kept pretending that the weakening of Europe’s external borders and the erosion of its internal borders happening at the same time as one of the largest population replacement exercises in history could have no tangible effects on our continent’s future. They pretend that Britain will always be Britain, France will always be France, Sweden will always be Sweden and Belgium will always be Belgium.

But perhaps we do learn some things. Albeit silently. A decade ago, after every attack, the pundits used to point to places where mass immigration, integration and open borders were meant to have worked. After London people said ‘What can we learn from France’. After Paris they said ‘What can we learn from the Swedish model.’ Nobody cites Sweden anymore. In fact nobody looks to anyone else’s model anymore. Because all of the ‘models’ failed. So here we are – stuck with a problem our politicians have given us and to which they have no answers. Perhaps all this pointless chatter is just what people do to distract themselves before they have to face up to that fact.