Brussels Zaventem airport rocked by two explosions

[Mayhem]

In many of those regions the teachers are the religious leaders, there is no distinction.
It is true, education is an important factor. But saying religion isn't is rather naive tbh.

I guess its "how serious" someone takes it, but if there is a set moral guide it does not help.
Personally my beef is mostly towards the primitive abrahamic religions, they seem to be the most violent prone.

That´s what i´m saying, the teachers are the religious leaders and therefor it´s percieved as religions fault.

You have many other areas in the world with low education, and non abrahamic religious belief, and you have none of this issues.

Some examples at hand?

[A Dark Knight]

so, is it safe to blame the peaceful moderate muslims yet?

yes, blame people who did nothing

[Calamari]

Exactly how do you plan on determining whether someone is Muslim or not before letting them into the country? Or are we just going to keep out all of the brown people? :/


Me too

Problem is muslims can smile and lie to your face, claim they aren't muslims. Then stab you in the back after you trust them. It's part of their religion to not be held accountable by their god for lying and deceiving non-believers.

[Privs]

It would be no less violent. There would still be nationalists, racial purists and other groups seeking out the 'different' to blame for their problems.

I can claim there is no way to know they would act more violent to cover the lack of religious violence. But from a logically viewpoint. The elimination of beliefs that cannot be proven or disproved, that lead to such acts of violence. Would in fact make the world less violent, because many more of the interactions between people would be based on tangible beliefs and ideals. Real things that can and do happen everyday. Real things that can be disproved and eliminated on the spot. No need for supporting a belief that is proven false.

[Deleted]

It would be no less violent. There would still be nationalists, racial purists and other groups seeking out the 'different' to blame for their problems.

at least people would be fighting and dieing for their country (which I also think is a stupid idea) instead of an imaginary being in the sky (which I think is an even more stupid idea).

[Ghostpanther]

What do you mean with that?

Take a lesson from the chimps in the wild. They can be very violent and territorial, cannibalistic for a variety of reasons not associated with any religion. Man is not much different in that regards. We seem to always find ways to justify our violence on others.

[Kurioxan]

Which is more or less the basis for me wanting to see religious reform on the side of islam - right or wrong, if things continue on like this, people will end up equating muslims and a threat of terrorism, and eventually emotions will run too high, the arguments against that reasoning will simply no longer suffice nor justify the grave reality of the situation, and the current polarization ends up looking like the 'good old days of yore'. Unless the breeding grounds for terrorism are opposed actively and adamantly, by both nations in the middle east and the muslim community in general (which it sadly isn't currently, not in the slightest), in what other manner could this situation end up? We're starting to run out of options, I fear.

Yep, that is the major issue for me.
Its something akin to, i want peace, everyone to live their lives to the fullest, enjoy it, respect each other and there is a long long distance one can go without holding a grudge.
But if things keep going as they are, there is a time when even the most moderate people will start seeing that its simply not worth it, and the easier way is to resort to violence, or keep facing increasing aggression and disruption of their lives. And that will be a sad day, but nothing is being done to prevent it, and if it ever reaches it... I cant blame them.

[Deleted]

Exactly how do you plan on determining whether someone is Muslim or not before letting them into the country? Or are we just going to keep out all of the brown people? :/

Why do people like you always equate Muslim with the color brown? There are Muslims of EVERY color. Pretty sure the 2 peieces of shit that bombed the Boston Marathon were NOT brown.

We could start with banning every single person from the Middle East - then go on to every other predominantly Muslim country in the world. It can be done, but not by people with defeatist attitudes such as yourself. People like you are why things never get done - your first reaction to everything is "we can't". That is the attitude of a complete loser.

[Deleted]

yes, blame people who did nothing

Maybe thats the problem .. they did nothing .

[Mayhem]

Your hatred of America warps your narrative.

You thinking i hate america warps your comprehension.

Osama bin Ladin was exiled from Saudi Arabia for being too religious. His dream was to bring back the Caliphate, but how do you do that? He wound up fighting infidels in Afghanistan and he gained some converts.

But he needed more converts. He picked the largest and toughest group of infidels, the Americans and launched a massive surprise terrorist attack. This victory made Osama seem strong, God was on his side, and many converts flocked to his side, all of a sudden his dream of the Caliphate was made tangible.

ISIS is a continuance of Osama's dream, they've actually recreated the Caliphate.

And that´s nonsense.

[Shibito]

Not all muslims are islamists, but all islamists are terrorists.

[enragedgorilla]

It would be no less violent. There would still be nationalists, racial purists and other groups seeking out the 'different' to blame for their problems.

Second this...humans will always try and find a difference as reason to wipe each other out.
Well, if they are trying to justify it anyway.
SOme just do it.

[Mafic]

The "disbanding the Iraqi army" fable is a half truth.

In the Western world, we have one armed forces, that defend the state. In Middle Eastern dictatorships this is not the case. In Saudi Arabia for example, there is the defense forces, but there is also the "National Guard", which is controlled by the Interior Ministry, and whose personnel are pulled from the ruling Family's tribe and loyal tribes. They are given the best weapons and the best training, and exist to defend the House of Saud and it's rule, not the state.

Iraq was the same.

The "Iraqi Army" has 375,000 troops drawn from all segments of Iraqi Army. They were poorly trained and poorly equipped. The US military generally avoided fighting them, and when they were engaged they normally fled.

The "Iraqi Republican Guard" had 50,000 troops and, like the Saudi National Guard, was drawn from Saddam's tribes and loyal trials in and around Tikrit. They were given the best training and best equipment. The US Military largely destroyed the Iraqi Republican Guard in battle.

The Iraqi "Special Republican Guard" was an elite special warfare unit of 10,000 troops, that engaged in terrorist-like operations during the invasion. They were largely destroyed as well.

So Iraq had 3 different defense levels, with the largest level being mostly just a lot of manpower.

The "disband" order was directed mostly at the remaining Republican Guard formations for which the US-led coalition, under international law, was now legally responsible for. The "Iraqi Army" proper had almost entirely disintegrated by that point, as soldiers took off their uniforms and went home and their equipment and undefended bases/depots were looted. As far as the 375,000 person army was concerned, the disband order was a recognition of reality. As far as the Republican Guard was concerned, most of it's soldiers were dead or prisoners of war, and those that weren't were Saddam's thugs for years, and would be seen as illegitimate.

In many ways, the disbanding of the 375,000 person Army mirrors what happened years later versus ISIS. Iraqis from all walks of life wouldn't fight for Iraq then. And they wouldn't fight for Iraq now.




No. This is a gross exaggeration, perpetuated as a political argument by those who want to create a logical "what goes around comes around fable" about US interventions.

The truth of the matter is elements of Saddam's Republican and Special Republican Guard joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, as did Sunni fundamentalists, after the 2003 invasion and fought for many years. However we're taking a few hundred people, and most of them were dead or quit, by the time the surge successfully ended and Al Qaeda in Iraq Was defeated.

ISIS, which emerged from the ashes of the defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, but is a distinct entity, when it started had a core of around 20 ex-Saddam regime figures, out of a ruling group of around 300 individuals. The degree to which these people are still alive or involved is unknown, but several prominent ex-regime figures have been killed or apprehended in the past two years.

This makes a lot of sense if you think about it for a moment. The Iraq War was already 13 years ago yesterday. If you were a 30 year old soldier then, you're 43 now. If you were a 37 year old oficer, you're 50 now. And you would have had to somehow had to survive 13 years of war.

The bulk of ISIS is people in their 20s and early 30s. They were pre-teens or teenagers when the Iraq War was launched, at best. The "Iraqi Army became ISIS" political myth pretends that people don't age. Well they do. And Saddam's disbanded Army isn't exactly spring chickens any more. Hell I'm 32. I miss the athleticism of my 19 year old self. There's a difference.

Lets just say you are completely wrong.

The hierarchy and top commanders of ISIS are ex Iraqi Army and Iraqi Intelligence specialists. Invading Iraqi was and is still a mistake, because that is how ISIS is such a sophisticated entity. AQ was fighting for months against ISIS until they finally agreed on a loose alliance.

[Notter]

An image taken in August 2014 in Brussels Zaventem airport:



It was done by BDS activists than were blaming Israel in slaughter (while at that same time, Israeli civilians were hiding in shelters and under rockets)

Kind of ironic, no?
I wonder how Belgians would react to such a thing after today..

[Privs]

Second this...humans will always try and find a difference as reason to wipe each other out.
Wel, if they are trying to justify it anyway.
SOme just do it.

I direct you to my previous post at the top of page 40.

[markos82]

Problem is muslims can smile and lie to your face, claim they aren't muslims. Then stab you in the back after you trust them. It's part of their religion to not be held accountable by their god for lying and deceiving non-believers.

Yeah because people and mambers of different religions dont lie, only Muslims....

[Bakis]

So one AK47, one undetonated suidide west/belt and one undetonated (and disabled) stationary bomb as well.
Also extremly easy to get smuggled firearms in Belgium it seems, all the guns from Paris got purchased in Belgium and it is a known problem that the control of smuggled firearms from the Balkans.

This is a huge tragedy but one cant help, at least no I, to be thankful for it not being worse than it already is for reasons I mentioned in previous posts about Belgium's lack of proper intelligence agencies and the above.

Further one does not plan this in 2 days, so any claim it is a response solely based as a revenge for the arrest of Blabla-Jihad something is bogus.

[Kurioxan]

-snip-

and without said religion to back up what they are saying, it would have far less validity and impact on people. Religious faith and belief is one of the major key issues.
To you the religious teachings meant little because more likely than not your entire culture and country is one where religion means little to begin with.

[Jessicka]

I can then turn your very own point around on you. I can claim there is no way to know they would act more violent to cover the lack of religious violence. But from a logically viewpoint. The elimination of beliefs that cannot be proven or disproved, that lead to such acts of violence. Would in fact make the would less violent, because many more of the interactions between people would be based on tangible beliefs and ideals. Real things that can and do happen everyday. Real things that can be disproved and eliminated on the spot. No need for supporting a belief that is proven false.

It would not, because they'd find another reason, usually nationalistic - which is what IS itself draws on in the notion of creating an Islamic State - for unity against an 'enemy'.

Historically wars were resource grabs and expressions of power. Religion has been intermittently a factor as something to call upon for unity, but almost never in the grand scheme of things been the soul reason.

[Bakis]

It was done by BDS activists than were blaming Israel in slaughter (while at that same time, Israeli civilians were hiding in shelters and under rockets)

Kind of ironic, no?
I wonder how Belgians would react to such a thing after today..

Probably react a bit brighter than you since you draw a correlation between their protest and this act of terror.