Terrorist Attacks In Brussels

[Shiranu]

Here's my issue... how much "Islamic" terrorism did we have before we invaded the Middle East? Before we said, "Alright, the colonial era is over! Enjoy your new countries!" and then a couple decades later said, "lol jk, we are supporting dictators and waging war in your land... but it's totally not colonialism, don't worry!". Before we didn't just "allowed in for cheap labor" Muslim immigrants but rather shipped their lower/working class citizens en mass to rebuild our infrastructure.

We are the one's who brought them here. We are the one's who install violent regimes and overthrow peaceful democracies that have led to generations being raised knowing nothing but violence. We are the one's who bomb their countries and fly drones overhead that murder civilians at appalling rates... and you really think Islam is THE cause of why they hate us? This is not saying they aren't responsible for their actions... it's just saying that we can't act like our governments (and thus us) are the victims.

There were Native American cults (I mean that in the anthropological sense, not the common term) that preached a religious war against the white man... do you think these Native Americans committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. because of their religion as well? Or is it only when it's a group we have a bias against that it MUST be because of their religion and any other possible influence be damned?

[Baruch]

Until 1992, the arrogance of the West was held in check by the Soviet Union.  Back before 1992, the US was prepared to sacrifice 7 billion lives to destroy the Soviet Union ... because that is just how special we are.  Today the plutocracy has gone feral ... they don't think there are any prudent limitations on their over-reach.

[Nonsensei]

Here's my issue... how much "Islamic" terrorism did we have before we invaded the Middle East? Before we said, "Alright, the colonial era is over! Enjoy your new countries!" and then a couple decades later said, "lol jk, we are supporting dictators and waging war in your land... but it's totally not colonialism, don't worry!". Before we didn't just "allowed in for cheap labor" Muslim immigrants but rather shipped their lower/working class citizens en mass to rebuild our infrastructure.

We are the one's who brought them here. We are the one's who install violent regimes and overthrow peaceful democracies that have led to generations being raised knowing nothing but violence. We are the one's who bomb their countries and fly drones overhead that murder civilians at appalling rates... and you really think Islam is THE cause of why they hate us? This is not saying they aren't responsible for their actions... it's just saying that we can't act like our governments (and thus us) are the victims.

There were Native American cults (I mean that in the anthropological sense, not the common term) that preached a religious war against the white man... do you think these Native Americans committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. because of their religion as well? Or is it only when it's a group we have a bias against that it MUST be because of their religion and any other possible influence be damned?

I think it very much is Islam, or their special interpretation of it, that enables things like people blowing themselves up in a restaurant or an airport. I may be reading what you're saying wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to make a case that these people are fighting a rebellion against the West, rather than engaging in acts of terrorism.

My only real problem with this viewpoint is that people who fight in a rebellion do it so that one day they can live in the world they create when they win the rebellion. Blowing yourself up doesn't really fit with that goal. After all you can't enjoy the new world post rebellion if you kill yourself before the rebellion is successful. To be clear, this is very different than risking your life. They aren't risking anything, they are outright throwing their lives away.

It takes fanaticism to do that. You have to believe that by martyring yourself you will receive an eternal reward in paradise. Thats Islam talking. If Islam were removed from this equation, would the conflict end? No, probably not. But the incidences of terrorism would probably drop pretty sharply and certain kinds of terrorism, namely the suicidal ones, would probably disappear.

Its not all or even mostly because of Islam, but Islam isn't helping.

[drunkenshoe]

I may be reading what you're saying wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to make a case that these people are fighting a rebellion against the West, rather than engaging in acts of terrorism.

That's exactly the case. When hundreds of innocent people, children die in PKK suicide bombings here in Turkey it is not 'terrorism' in the West, but a rebellion.

When ISIL bombs somewhere out of the West, it is not terrorism.

My only real problem with this viewpoint is that people who fight in a rebellion do it so that one day they can live in the world they create when they win the rebellion. Blowing yourself up doesn't really fit with that goal. After all you can't enjoy the new world post rebellion if you kill yourself before the rebellion is successful. To be clear, this is very different than risking your life. They aren't risking anything, they are outright throwing their lives away.

It takes fanaticism to do that. You have to believe that by martyring yourself you will receive an eternal reward in paradise. Thats Islam talking. If Islam were removed from this equation, would the conflict end? No, probably not. But the incidences of terrorism would probably drop pretty sharply and certain kinds of terrorism, namely the suicidal ones, would probably disappear.

Suicide bombing is not just a insane kind of attack. It's also a very strategic one if you think rationally rather than religiously what it is and why it is done.

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a 'wall' under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.


Suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorism. Kamikaze fighters in the past, today PKK militants in Turkey ...they all use suicide attacks. Religion is not the case in these ones. Fanaticism doesn't have to be religious. They also use chemicals before attacks. These terrorist do NOT think that they will win a war in their life times. This is not a 'war' fought in battlefield a hundred years ago.


But doesn't matter however we look at it, they are fighting against a bigger and far more powerful side that destroyed them; killed mass amount of their people, created atrocities -this is enough for pushing people to be suicide bombers BEFORE religion- and that is the definition of rebellion.

[Nonsensei]

That's exactly the case. When hundreds of innocent people, children die in PKK suicide bombings here in Turkey it is not 'terrorism' in the West, but a rebellion.

When ISIL bombs somewhere out of the West, it is not terrorism.

Well I'm not sure I agree with that. It is terrorism, and I'm pretty sure that even western media describes it as such and refers to ISIL as a terrorist organization.

Suicide bombing is not just a insane kind of attack. It's also a very strategic one if you think rationally rather than religiously what it is and why it is done.

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a 'wall' under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.

I don't deny that, from the perspective of people ordering the suicide bombings its an effective attack for all the reasons you just mentioned. But to the person actually killing themselves to execute it, its a rather shitty attack since they die in the process. There has to be something that makes it worth it in thier minds. Since, objectively, the immediate goal of every organism is to continue existing there has to be a powerful reason to deny that instinct. In this case, it is the guarantee - the religious guarantee - that sacrificing themselves in an attack will guarantee them a place in heaven. Its not real, of course, but the uneducated poor believe it is.

Suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorism. Kamikaze fighters in the past, today PKK militants in Turkey ...they all use suicide attacks. Religion is not the case in these ones. Fanaticism doesn't have to be religious. They also use chemicals before attacks. These terrorist do NOT think that they will win a war in their life times. This is not a 'war' fought in battlefield a hundred years ago.


But doesn't matter however we look at it, they are fighting against a bigger and far more powerful side that destroyed them; killed mass amount of their people, created atrocities -this is enough for pushing people to be suicide bombers BEFORE religion- and that is the definition of rebellion.

First of all, those Kamikaze attacks actually were religiously inspired. They believed the Emperor was literally the embodiment of god on earth, and they were fanatical enough about it to sacrifice their lives so that the god emperor could not know defeat. When someone blows themselves up to kill a bunch of people there are usually two root causes: mental illness and religious fanaticism. If you dig deep enough you will find religion at the root in most cases, even if its just on a personal level i.e. "I know God will reward me for what I do here today".

Fanaticism can exist outside of religion, of course, but its relatively unusual. Religion is a wonderful source of absurd, insane motivation. Considering what Islam guarantees to martyrs in terms of heavenly rewards, I feel like its a very tough sell to suggest that this is not religiously motivated fanaticism.

As to terrorism vs rebellion, they aren't mutually exclusive. I know rebellion lends them a romantic air, like theyre the innocents trying to fight back against a tyrannical oppressor. Actually looking at the Islamic State and what they do is the fastest way to dispel that illusion. They're victimizing people in their own countries far more frequently than they are attacking the West. It may technically be a rebellion, if you reach for it, but the reality is that they are a bunch of terrorists and their goals are reprehensible. If you want to ignore that in favor of lamenting the ridiculous mistakes the US has made since the turn of the millennium, thats your choice.

Personally I choose not to ignore anything, acknowledging the entire reality. Not just the pieces I'm comfortable with.

[pr126]

R E L I G I O N    O F    P E A C E
E
L
I
G
I
O
N

O
F

P
E
A
C
E

Now
Cue in Pr126

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

President Obama stated that ISIS is not Islamic, therefore this  had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.
We must look elsewhere.

Unless, the President is lying. Why would he do that?

It is also possible that the 99.9999999 % of moderate Muslims have nothing to do with Islam.
Now there is a thought.

[mauricio]

Saying that isis is not islamic is nothing more than politically correct bullshit, so it is to be expected of a world leader like obama. Meanwhile in the real world we understand islamism and jihadism are political movements and religious ideologies. Jihadism is like a live religion. In the sense that it is kind of like judaism in the ancient times when babylon still existed. Judaism then was very much like jihadism now: a religion filled with metaphysics but also very important political ideas about current situations with the current nations and empires. Anyone who is arguing that isis is either just a religious phenomena or just a political one is talking bullshit.

[pr126]

Islam is political ideology (80%) with the religious part (20%) provides the glue, the cohesive force. It also gives the ideology permanence.

The Islamic memeplex
Pay attention to the 26 points in the article.

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C48FArTKtJA#t=170

[Baruch]

I would agree, in general, ignoring any elephants in the room, isn't good analysis.  There are people.  There is politics.  There is religion.  All three are involved, an attempt to simplify by throwing out one or more of these ... is bad analysis.  Everyone agrees that this behavior (terrorists) is bad behavior ... but isn't that just because we aren't on the other side?  To the Germans, Hitler was right.

[drunkenshoe]

Personally I choose not to ignore anything, acknowledging the entire reality. Not just the pieces I'm comfortable with.

What it is that I am ingoring here, Nonsensei? How is that bringing a rational explanation and pointing out a real life reason is ignoring the acions of these pople ? What am I comfortable with exactly about a terrorist organisation killing people around the world? Should I include here that they are also killing people in my country, that my chance to be killed in an ISIL bombing is like 20 times more than yours to fit your understanding? You haven't written one thing that I haven't written dozens of times before in this forum only yours is a religious understanding of religion; ignoring human reality; where there are tons of real life reasons available to cause all this. And your main idea; point of departure is 'drunkenshoe loves blameing 'Americans' for all this'. This is a strawman that makes more than half the people in this forum very comfortable in their conformist views.


1. Someone who is making an objective rational explanation about something based on real life events does not mean they think it is logical or rational thing to do, defend it or means that they see it as a romantic rebellion. NEITHER it means they refuse to acknowledge these people's actions. It just means they are making a rational explanation of it.

2. The function of religion in suicide bombing. You are confusing individual religious fanaticism with belonging to a group with a purpose of fighting against a power against their existence.

a. It is nothing as simplistic as one terrorist individually deciding to blow himself up to go to heaven. If that was the case, they would just blow themselves up randomly to kill people in random places, because as long as they kill infidels they are going to heaven anyway. They wouldn't be an armed organisation making politcial movements on the side; some sort of an army using military strategies. They would just recruit fanatic people, load all of them up with bombs and send them to everywhere possible.

But that's not the case. These people are not blowing themselves up randomly, nor they choose random targets to do it.

Let's think about other terrorists who was claimed to follow and support ISIL; who linked themselves to ISIL by their acts without any communication, training or taking orders.

Boston bombing in the US. Why didn't any of these brothers blow themselves up? They are actually the ones acting with individual religious fanaticism you describe. If you think about it, according to your conclusion of suicide bombing, it is an easy suited duty for them. Dzhokhar learned to make a bomb by himself from scratch, he is not trained by ISIL or any other terrorist organisation. Think about the fanaticism required to to do that. He is making a decision, learning to build a bomb by himself and he targets a marathon. IF he blew himself up he could have killed a hundred people.

But he didn't blow himself up. Because doesn't matter how fanatic he is, he does not belong to a group with a purpose. He is an individual. There is himself first, not a collective identity. A group against everyone has a collective identity and a common purpose.

There is a reason why individual bombers do not blow themselves up, but organised terrorists do. It's about being a group fighting against an enemy; an authority; a power far more stronger than themselves. It's about making themselves real. AND please do not forget that they are using chemcials when it comes to doing the deed itself.

Since, objectively, the immediate goal of every organism is to continue existing there has to be a powerful reason to deny that instinct.

b. The amount of civillians who died in only Afghanistan and Irak is measured by millions. The amount of people who had to leave their homes is 3-4 times of that. Most of them were killed like animals. People are trotured, raped. Their country does not exist anymore as the way they know it. Tell me, can you imagine that your country is invaded and millions of people killed? In the last 70 years there have been 2 attacks on American soil. The so called Pearl Harbour attack and 9/11.

But in your book this is not a powerful reason and nothing but 'drunkenshoe loves blaming Americans'.

You are living in a country where people are allowed to walk away when they shot dead an unarmed person for being a suspicious stranger in their neighbourhood or just tresspassing their property AND you think this is not a powerful reason enough for people who have nothing to give but their lives?  What is that perspective on human nature tells you? That Zimmerman is just an asshole racist and laws are suitable for him to get away? Or a solid cultural perspective that work from one angle only?

If you think none of the existent circumstances are powerful enough for people WHO HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE to blow themselves up against a huge power that already destroyed them, that they cannot fight 'face to face', then EITHER you simply do not see Middle Easterners as human beings wether you are aware of it or not OR you are completely clueless about human nature and reality of Middle EAst.

Also, human beings have been defying that instinct you describe up there since the dawn of their species for many different reason without any particular religious sentiment. The 24 year old Ukranian man didn't have time to think for a good reason when he jumped in front of a speeding car to save two 8 year olds' lives, he just happened to see in that moment. He just did it instinctively. nd he died. what is he thinking in fraction of a second about two kids he saw for the first time in his life? That he is going to go to heaven if he does that? No he didn't. He had nothing to do with religion. See, the formulas don't really work with humans, be it for the 'good' or 'evil'. whatever it is there, human will defy it in some way.

First of all, those Kamikaze attacks actually were religiously inspired. They believed the Emperor was literally the embodiment of god on earth, and they were fanatical enough about it to sacrifice their lives so that the god emperor could not know defeat.

Wrong again. Kamikaze is not some exception related to war and fighting in Japense culture. It has a solid tradition of suicide for honour. Skuppe. (And you know that) It was not just something samurai did to end their lives so they wouldn't break down under torture, BUT also for when they believe they brought to shame themselves. And not just samurai either. It has nothing to do with religious fanaticisim, Japenese culture inherently ACCEPTS the action of ending one's life -of course they will use it in war- while Abrahamic religions absolutely forbid suicide. No, this is not an evidence for your case. Islamic terrorists are not 'commiting suicide' they are killing by killing themselves as a weapon.

(By the way, in Islam the person who commits suicide is not punished by eternal hell. They are not prevented from a religious burial or funeral either. They are supposed as going to hell or heaven according to their deeds in life seperate fom their acts of ending their life, but recieve a punishment for ending their own live before all that.)

(Just some time ago a Japanese aircarft engineer killed himself because a plane he worked on crashed and hundreds of people died. His action wasn't taken as a result of mental illness or depression, but welcomed as his way of redeeming himself in that culture.)

Stop analysing foriegn cultures according to the American Christian norms you grew up with and pushing cubes into circle holes.

When someone blows themselves up to kill a bunch of people there are usually two root causes: mental illness and religious fanaticism. If you dig deep enough you will find religion at the root in most cases, even if its just on a personal level i.e. "I know God will reward me for what I do here today".

What a comformist view. 'When people kill, they are mentaly ill. When they kill with themselves they are religiously ill'. Also catchy, isn't it? Makes a lot of sense... Yeah. No, it doesn't. But it falls perfectly in line with how American society ignores its own domestic issues with violence; gun violence, mass shootings, even the Christian right extremism and their obvious actions, bending backwards and forwards not to define it as domestic terrorism and defining ALL OF THEM one by one as MENTALLY ILL. Mainstream American viewpoint: psyhocpaths, terrorists and mentally ill people are the problem of humanity. Nothing else is there. It's almost like they are falling from the sky ffs. No rational thinking, accepting the history and the real life cause and effect poking in the eye to almost to gauge a pair. It's aaaall madness.  It's aaall in the scripture anyway.


Yeah. NO. It's only burrying your head in the sand and making yourself cosy and comfortable about some 'evil' against 'good' and that's all the story. This is a perfect example of religious thinking. How most of the people -including the most of the atheists- understand the islamic terrorism as some sort of a biblical 'story' shaped right out any Abrahamic bullshit. 'Evil vs Good'. Of course the terminology used is a bit more evolved than that. For example, what was called 'Evil' before is transformed into the 'secular' mentally ill to distant it from the 'Good' masses. But over all the same understanding nonetheless.

[drunkenshoe]

I would agree, in general, ignoring any elephants in the room, isn't good analysis.  There are people.  There is politics.  There is religion.  All three are involved, an attempt to simplify by throwing out one or more of these ... is bad analysis.  Everyone agrees that this behavior (terrorists) is bad behavior ... but isn't that just because we aren't on the other side?  To the Germans, Hitler was right.

My problem is being accused of seeing this as a 'romantic rebellion' -whatever that means for fuck's sakes- because I am making a rational explanation about it.

If there is any simplification of islamic terrorism, it is the Western idea of chucking all this to religious fanatism, mentall illness, scripture and made up madia crisis'.

My side is with civilians. Does not really matter where they are. In a world where military conflict is the biggest industry, there is no difference between an uniformed soldier under a flag getting paid to kill traveling at the other side of the world and a terrorist. That's the ugly truth.

But capitalism has worked, hasn't it? Oh wait...

[Mike Cl]

It seems to me the elephant in the room is the old, old problem of the 'haves vs the have nots'.  From the have side, suicide bombings seem counter intuitive; when you are a have you are not going to want to give that up.  But if you are a have-not, then you have nothing to lose.  Then it is easy.  The haves fight tooth and nail to keep what they have and to increase it and the have-nots fight tooth and nail to get enough to eat and drink to stay alive.  Different perceived needs seen from two different worlds.

And yes, this is a very simplistic view as I have stated it.  But this is an idea that is not talked about much and I see it as one of the driving forces.

[drunkenshoe]

It seems to me the elephant in the room is the old, old problem of the 'haves vs the have nots'.  From the have side, suicide bombings seem counter intuitive; when you are a have you are not going to want to give that up.  But if you are a have-not, then you have nothing to lose.  Then it is easy.  The haves fight tooth and nail to keep what they have and to increase it and the have-nots fight tooth and nail to get enough to eat and drink to stay alive.  Different perceived needs seen from two different worlds.

And yes, this is a very simplistic view as I have stated it.  But this is an idea that is not talked about much and I see it as one of the driving forces.

Indeed. They have nothing to lose. Literally. No country, no people. Nothing. And been there for a long time.

It's not that much of a simplistic view though, Mike. It's a crucial point. The stage of having nothing to lose and reaching a drive to blow yourself up to kill people is exactly the opposite of 'simple'.

Because it is not something that occurs by itself magically by 'religious inspiration': Oh I want to go to heaven, lemme kill me some infidelsss... BOOOM!  Yeah...no.

[Baruch]

I don't see suicide, including suicide military mission ... as religious at all.  So I would have to agree with Shoe on that.  Usually people who have nothing left to lose.  Political ideology also doesn't explain it ... that is what armies do ... and anybody in a military conflict expects that they might get hurt ... but nobody goes in expecting to be killed.  Soldiers are not suicides, even falling on grenade to save a buddy ... one must hope to survive, and some do.