[Terez]

This is starting to feel like the new normal, hence the topic title. I thought about just necromancing the Paris thread, but...

Over 100 injured at Brussels airport; more than 30 dead

There are at least 3 Americans among the injured, Mormon missionaries from Utah, which is having its presidential caucuses today.

[cauthon]

For more information, see the reddit threads:

- https://www.reddit.c...ve/wmk50bsm9vt3
- https://www.reddit.c...cks_megathread/

[Andorion]

Right. Here we are again.

These topics depress, upset and anger me. But I have a few things to say. I might upset some people. I have said a few of these things in the Paris thread before


Issues and Angles

1. The Economic/logistical/geopolitical Angle: I think it is a good bet that a major portion of terrorism is funded out of oil money. An alternative energy regime is not only good for the planet, it will, at least in the medium term cut funding to the terrorists. Also states in the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan are actively funding/training or ignoring the training and planning of terrorists. This needs to be acted upon and hopefully neutralized through a mixture of financial measures and diplomatic pressure. Also the European immigration issue needs to sorted out. I genuinely don't understand why people have trouble accepting that ISIS would take advantage of the chaos and try to sneak people in.

2. The Social/cultural/ideological Angle: ISIS made one thing clear. Radicalization of young Muslims in the West is possible, and dangerous. Implementing racist policies will only increase the persecution complex. Radicalization often happens as young people are confused/disillusioned about life and crave a direction or commitment. The economic crisis, falling employment and harder living conditions may contribute. This battle against radicalization needs to be fought at the grassroots. Moderate, sensible religious leaders need to be encouraged and given a voice.Alternative ideological forms of Islam(they exist) need to be publicised

3. The Middle East in Particular I genuinely don't know how to tackle this. Iraq and Syria are in shambles. Western intervention has historically only made things worse. But if not stabilized this area will only continue to be a font of problems in the future

4. Unpopular opinion. Islam has problems. Serious ones. I am not going to go into theology but its a bit pointless to deny that portions of the Koran and associated Islamic canon have elements that are genuinely repulsive. Thing is, this is not unique. I am an Indian, and my society is littered with super-serious problems - caste system and discrimination, inequality of women and associated atrocities, the persistence of a semi-medieval mindset that causes corruption and inhibits rational socio-economic functions. But my society, at least parts of it, has shown an intention and ability to adopt Western values and ideals, while many Islamic societies have not.

Now, the question can immediately be asked, why must everybody integrate with Western ideals? My answer, (and this is coming from an Indian who has studied history and colonialism and all the Imperial evils) is that in the last 2 centuries, the West has articulated certain principles like Rule of Law, Freedom of speech and conscience, social equality which, I feel are integral to a better future for humanity. I am NOT saying the West has been able to fully implement these ideals(If it had, the world would be a better place), but at least in most democratic countries these ideals comprise the goal of state and society.

Have no other societies arrived at these ideas? I am not saying that, but now, in the 21st century, these ideals are manifest most in the West, which is why I think we should aspire to adopt and internalize them.

And I am arguing, over the last 4-5 decades Islamic societies and communities, have on the whole gone in an entirely different direction. This is something that is a often a topic of discussion in my peer group. Most societies revise traditional values and customs, but to me it seems they don't really want to. Those who do are called moderates, or enlightened. But it goes without saying that a faith composed in the 7th Century Arabian desert by nomads will need to be substantially changed to suit modern life.

So this is what I think is the crux of it. The West can do much from the aspects I mentioned, but there needs to be a fundamental change in the psyche of Islam
Without that, I see no hope


Note: I have written this while being profoundly mentally tired and rather bitter. I am sure I have generalized in a few areas. Please argue and discuss. I will reply later.

[Gorefest]

Well, if it isn't Islam, it will be some other ideology. These issues will never cease as long as some people have lots and others have little. The West may be enlightened, it is also the frontrunner of capitalism which keeps worldwide inequities in place and supports corrupt regimes to feed the money machine. People focus a lot on the 'problem of Islam', but really if you take it away there would be something else to fill the gap. It's an excuse, not a motive.

[Andorion]

Gorefest, on 22 March 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

Well, if it isn't Islam, it will be some other ideology. These issues will never cease as long as some people have lots and others have little. The West may be enlightened, it is also the frontrunner of capitalism which keeps worldwide inequities in place and supports corrupt regimes to feed the money machine. People focus a lot on the 'problem of Islam', but really if you take it away there would be something else to fill the gap. It's an excuse, not a motive.

The West is responsible for a huge chunk of the problems. No denying that. Not even going to try. Capitalism is unsustainable both from an ecological as well as a socio-economic perspective.

Thing is, what many don't realize, a huge portion of Islamic violence is directed inside. Say a person no longer wants to follow Islam. In an Islamic society he will be a victim of violence. Women are the absolute worst sufferers. They can be tortured, raped, killed with impunity by religious law. I know of no other society that literally, judicially punishes a rape victim for adultery.

Things like this need to be reformed and changed. But there is precious little will

I read somewhere that an atheist might have trouble getting jobs in the more Christian orthodox parts of the US. In Bangladesh, my neighbour, atheists are hacked to death in broad daylight.

The problems caused by the West are not sufficient to excuse this. A significant chunk of India problems can be traced back to the British Empire. Indians are not going to suicide bomb the British because of this.

The worst thing the West did to the Middle East was to play politics for oil with no regard for the consequences. We are reaping the Whirlwind now. Destabilizing republics like Iran to put the Shah in, playing favourites in the Iran Iraq war, there are so many more examples. But there is no changing the past. Armed Western intervention and occupation will not work. But building healthy integrated Muslim communities in the West where reform is not a taboo topic can help

[QuickTidal]

I think Andorion makes a massive point with the notion of funding.

We can literally solve (or be on the road to solving) two huge global issues (terrorism and climate change) with one blow by removing our dependence on oil as much as it is. Like I said in another thread, this can't be done all at once and needs to be gradual so that economies don't collapse under the weight...but enacting one will suffocate the other and starve the terrorist funding. It's not perfect, but it speaks to the fact that the issues are not unrelated, and one really can help to stem the other in major ways. Do places like SA have enough money to last indefinitely? Nope. Not if the oil revenue from the globe dries up.

There will likely always be those who look to strike terror into others...but I think there are certainly things we can do as a global society to combat the level of terror that is currently in effect around the world. And one of those is definitely removing/minimizing our dependence on middle east oil.

[Macros]

Education.

On all sides. I think a fair chunk of the west really have little idea what is going on over in the middle east, both on the ground and in peoples heads, beyond the scare mongering or cover ups that Murdoch feeds them, and there's a ,lack of interest in discovering anything beyond what mass media feeds them. It's so easy to blame the crazy *insert current terrorist threats perceived ideaological and/or religious believers here* and bury your head in the sand as to why things are the way they are, how bigotry and narrow mindedness in ones own country, can now be reflected around the world in minutes, and the repercussions dealt out from afar.

Also (in my head) I wonder how much your average on the street radicalised muslim actually knows of the Koran and other scriptures, are they constantly battered with the fun bits about killing the infidel and getting your virgins? Is it the same dogmatic tripe that was fed to christians heading on their crusade that it wasn't a sin to kill the enemy of god?

I would love someone to sit down and make a video, with dubs in all languages, explaining religion is a crock, and if we trace many of them back, their origin stories are either directly tied to each other, or suspiciously similar.
And force everyone in the world to watch it.

[Gorefest]

Didn't they already try something like that with Zeitgeist?

[Grief]

Andorion, on 22 March 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

The problems caused by the West are not sufficient to excuse this. A significant chunk of India problems can be traced back to the British Empire. Indians are not going to suicide bomb the British because of this.

I think there may be an important distinction between problems which are percieved as having a historical Western root (that can be "traced back") and problems in which the West is seen as having an ongoing role (though it's more nuanced than this, and I don't want to suggest that the present day West doesn't cause ongoing problems in plenty of places ouside of the middle east). If we're going to make colonial comparisons, there are of course cases where a significant amount of anti-colonial violence was involved in decolonization. I wonder if present day India a particularly apt comparison here?

My point here isn't to equate terrorism with anti-colonial independence movements, but more to explore the drawing of that link (which is suggested to me by the comparison you've raised) in the first place. People did violently attack various Imperial powers, and I wouldn't say this is generally seen as monstrously illegitimate.

Your post suggests it's good that Indians won't bomb the British over problems that can be "traced back" to the Empire (and as a Brit, I'd be inclined to agree). However, I think there's a risk here of just putting these problems 'in the past'. Framing it this way seems to suggest that it's wrong to take violent actions because the issues are historical; it doesn't really account for people who see them as ongoing. Which I think makes the colonial comparison a bit of an ineffective way of condemning terrorism (it seems to make the justifiability of violence depend upon the time-frame rather than anything else). I'm not sure that comparisons placing terrorism in the same ball-park as anti-colonial violence (which I think is invited by colonial comparisons) are useful for arguing against terrorism in the first place.

[Gorefest]

Can't be retribution, it takes too much planning to pull off on such short notice. This was going to happen anyway at some point, but the arrest probably forced their hand sooner. Perhaps they thought that Abdeslam was going to spill the beans.

[Grief]

I've removed a few posts because this is a discussion board thread, and because Terez has created the thread as a discussion of terrorism generally, so I felt some posts weren't really contributing on-topic.

Terrorist attacks are very upsetting, and I'm certainly not going to prohbit people from mentioning that they're upset by them. However, posts should also contribute to the discussion, and follow the guidelines for the discussion board. For posts just about the attacks being depressing, please use the Groove thread, which is more suitable for that.

Thanks,

-Grief.

[Andorion]

Grief, on 22 March 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 March 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

The problems caused by the West are not sufficient to excuse this. A significant chunk of India problems can be traced back to the British Empire. Indians are not going to suicide bomb the British because of this.

I think there may be an important distinction between problems which are percieved as having a historical Western root (that can be "traced back") and problems in which the West is seen as having an ongoing role (though it's more nuanced than this, and I don't want to suggest that the present day West doesn't cause ongoing problems in plenty of places ouside of the middle east). If we're going to make colonial comparisons, there are of course cases where a significant amount of anti-colonial violence was involved in decolonization. I wonder if present day India a particularly apt comparison here?

My point here isn't to equate terrorism with anti-colonial independence movements, but more to explore the drawing of that link (which is suggested to me by the comparison you've raised) in the first place. People did violently attack various Imperial powers, and I wouldn't say this is generally seen as monstrously illegitimate.

Your post suggests it's good that Indians won't bomb the British over problems that can be "traced back" to the Empire (and as a Brit, I'd be inclined to agree). However, I think there's a risk here of just putting these problems 'in the past'. Framing it this way seems to suggest that it's wrong to take violent actions because the issues are historical; it doesn't really account for people who see them as ongoing. Which I think makes the colonial comparison a bit of an ineffective way of condemning terrorism (it seems to make the justifiability of violence depend upon the time-frame rather than anything else). I'm not sure that comparisons placing terrorism in the same ball-park as anti-colonial violence (which I think is invited by colonial comparisons) are useful for arguing against terrorism in the first place.

You make a good point and raise an important question.

Regarding colonial violence, I am going to stick to India, since that is what I know best

There were essentially 2 brands of violence. One was born in the 1890-1910 period and had its ideological roots in what we call "revivalism" which involved the "revival" of classical 'Indian'(read Hindu) culture and values. Obviously this was a nationalistic and chauvinistic exercise and it included the evocation of a lost Golden Age of Indian supremacy which never really existed.

The second brand was born post 1917 and was heavily inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and had a more Socialistic ideology.

These movements were sporadically active both in time and in space. Very heavily between 1905-1910, moderately between 1910-1925, very heavily between 1925-1933.

In terms of success and impact, these movements were failures. A handful of British officers were killed, some of them extremely oppressive, some of them in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The value of these movements lay in inspiration. The general mass of the population was strongly behind the Gandhian Satyagraha movements which millions in a non violent cause. While Gandhi never supported the violent revolutionaries, to most people they were examples of great individual bravery, sacrifice and heroism.

Now, the main difference I find between these movements and the current Islamic movements is one of scope of hatred. By the late 19th Century, the exact mechanisms of colonial exploitation had been figured out by Indians and colonial administration was being regarded as exploitative and racist. By the 20s the consensus was the Britain needed to leave India for the good of the country.

But, and this is extremely important, most leaders never took this hatred of colonialism and transmuted it into this broader hatred of the West. Many, in fact most of the national leaders were Western educated and while Gandhi had his own peculiar brand of Anarchism as a possible economic future for India, most leaders felt that an integration of Western and Indian values, including Western socialistic ideas were necessary for the long term benefit of the country. This attitude prevailed and continued after independence.

I am not saying that this attitude of rather limited opposition is unproblematic. But it did serve to shape broad Indian attitudes to the West.

Regarding the question of past problems vs ongoing problems, yes certain Western policies definitely hurt India seriously. To take an example the continued US program of military aid to Pakistan. Those F 16s Obama agreed to will probably be facing the Indian border. A huge portion of US aid is channelled into better equipping and training anti-Indian Islamic terrorists. We were dealing with Islamic terrorism since the early 90s. So US policies translate into an existential threat for India. This is a very simple issue which most people understand. If we responded to this in the terms of the Islamic ideologues, the Indian government would be taking hostile measures and private citizens would be bombing US embassies.

Leave aside the West. Take Pakistan. Out terrible twin, separated at a traumatic birth. Nobody will deny there is very real hatred between the two countries. Yet, most often, this hatred stays at an abstract level. Last week, my city hosted the Pakistani cricket team as part of the World T20 championship. It had the usual electric atmosphere that India-Pakistan games have, and yet there was no atmosphere of violence

So what I am trying to say is, that even when hatred exists, the ways of responding to, and expressing that hatred are very different. The Middle East has been screwed over by the West. The West toppled their democracies for oil(Iran), or delegitimised them by supporting the creation of Israel (Iraq, Jordan)
The onus of guilt is on the West. But this should not translate to mass attacks on innocent civilians. And this is where both the ideological and the financial aspect comes in.

The ideology of fundamentalist Islam basically preaches mindless violence and offers paradise in return. There is no long term view here, It cannot by definition be constructive. And unfortunately, due to certain financial exercises by countries like Saudi Arabia, this is the ideology that is getting publicised. SA is funding the education of radical Imams and Mullahs and sending them into mosques across the world. This the crucial intersectional point between ideology and finance and IMO the lynchpin of the movement. This is where governments have to act. Muslim communities need to be integrated where the preaching of such violence is immediately illegitimate, and simultaneously a dis investment from oil and a targeted campaign against these dubious bank accounts to cut off the cash flow. ISIS went on the backfoot in Iraq whent he US started targeting their financial and logistical resources.

[Terez]

Grief, on 22 March 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 March 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

The problems caused by the West are not sufficient to excuse this. A significant chunk of India problems can be traced back to the British Empire. Indians are not going to suicide bomb the British because of this.

I think there may be an important distinction between problems which are perceived as having a historical Western root (that can be "traced back") and problems in which the West is seen as having an ongoing role (though it's more nuanced than this, and I don't want to suggest that the present day West doesn't cause ongoing problems in plenty of places outside of the middle east). If we're going to make colonial comparisons, there are of course cases where a significant amount of anti-colonial violence was involved in decolonization. I wonder if present day India a particularly apt comparison here?

My point here isn't to equate terrorism with anti-colonial independence movements, but more to explore the drawing of that link (which is suggested to me by the comparison you've raised) in the first place. People did violently attack various Imperial powers, and I wouldn't say this is generally seen as monstrously illegitimate.

Your post suggests it's good that Indians won't bomb the British over problems that can be "traced back" to the Empire (and as a Brit, I'd be inclined to agree). However, I think there's a risk here of just putting these problems 'in the past'. Framing it this way seems to suggest that it's wrong to take violent actions because the issues are historical; it doesn't really account for people who see them as ongoing. Which I think makes the colonial comparison a bit of an ineffective way of condemning terrorism (it seems to make the justifiability of violence depend upon the time-frame rather than anything else). I'm not sure that comparisons placing terrorism in the same ball-park as anti-colonial violence (which I think is invited by colonial comparisons) are useful for arguing against terrorism in the first place.

The 'ongoing' nature of colonialism is a major concern in the US regarding the legacy of slavery, which was a sort of internal colonialism. We brought the colony here and put it to work for us and created a racial caste system to justify it which, in many significant forms, persists today. See the ongoing Ferguson thread, just for one example. See Trump for another. It's a very common argument for Republicans, even those who hate Trump, to remind us (and specifically African-Americans) that slavery is in the past and we need to get over it; they fail to appreciate the ways in which the legacy of slavery is ongoing. But our meddling in the ME goes much further.

Grief, on 22 March 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

I've removed a few posts because this is a discussion board thread, and because Terez has created the thread as a discussion of terrorism generally, so I felt some posts weren't really contributing on-topic.

Terrorist attacks are very upsetting, and I'm certainly not going to prohbit people from mentioning that they're upset by them. However, posts should also contribute to the discussion, and follow the guidelines for the discussion board. For posts just about the attacks being depressing, please use the Groove thread, which is more suitable for that.

Thanks,

-Grief.

Since my name was mentioned, I figured I'd weigh in: I feel like emotional responses to this kind of thing are appropriate even in the DB. But that's just me.

[EmperorMagus]

The points brought up earlier in the thread about how to stop these threats have all been very good points, but they all concern issues that would take decades to change. The current generation of marginalized and poor Muslims who have turned to fundamentalism exist, and I see no way of solving the issue in the short term.

What can (and will probably) change in the short term is the west's policies regarding Muslim countries and western Muslim citizens. I am sad to say that I can easily see internment camps for Muslims in Trump's America, and I'm even more sad to say that the Trump's appeal to xenophobic sentiments is going to become more powerful every time there is a terrorist incident.

So, the question becomes, how will Islamic fundamentalism affect Western politics and policies?
It will apparently strengthen white supremacist nationalistic sentiments that had been slowly moving out of mainstream culture into the peripheral parts of society. It has already done it's magic in the French and German provincial elections and the UKIP got a ridiculous percentage of votes in the UK.

[Tapper]

EmperorMagus, on 23 March 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

The points brought up earlier in the thread about how to stop these threats have all been very good points, but they all concern issues that would take decades to change. The current generation of marginalized and poor Muslims who have turned to fundamentalism exist, and I see no way of solving the issue in the short term.

What can (and will probably) change in the short term is the west's policies regarding Muslim countries and western Muslim citizens. I am sad to say that I can easily see internment camps for Muslims in Trump's America, and I'm even more sad to say that the Trump's appeal to xenophobic sentiments is going to become more powerful every time there is a terrorist incident.

So, the question becomes, how will Islamic fundamentalism affect Western politics and policies?
It will apparently strengthen white supremacist nationalistic sentiments that had been slowly moving out of mainstream culture into the peripheral parts of society. It has already done it's magic in the French and German provincial elections and the UKIP got a ridiculous percentage of votes in the UK.

The xenophobic sentiments surround the migrant crisis in Europe as well. Anti-EU politicians use this angle for scaremongering (terrorists will get in with refugees, close the borders!), which forces right and centre parties to harden their stance in response to the demand by the(ir) electorate. This in turn causes society to protest (sometimes violently) against the influx of refugees, but also causes demands to stop spending money and thought on the Middle Eastern crisis apart from turning refugees away.
In addition, ethnic and religious minorities that have been in the West for generations, sometimes with integration issues, get lumped into the general xenophobia - which in turn makes the least satisfied amongst them easy recruits for terrorists. Terrorism by state citizens is primarily a social issue, not a religious one, imho.

[Mezla PigDog]

Tapper, on 23 March 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

In addition, ethnic and religious minorities that have been in the West for generations, sometimes with integration issues, get lumped into the general xenophobia - which in turn makes the least satisfied amongst them easy recruits for terrorists. Terrorism by state citizens is primarily a social issue, not a religious one, imho.

This sums up my opinion on the particular problem with the recent attacks. The perpetrators are all EU citizens. The only link with the migrant crisis is whether it is giving them an opportunity to sneak back in after being trained and further radicalised after joining ISIS in Syria. Each time they have finished profiling attackers from the London tube bombings, Paris and I expect Brussels as well as the "lone wolf" types they always have the same background - western born, poor, badly educated, petty criminals who found religion and the radical elements gave them a purpose. They are your average losers whose hook is radical Islam. So to me the local answer is education and local policies to prevent radicalisation of disenfranchised youths in Western "ghettos". You don't find middle class European Muslims blowing themselves up because they aren't idiots and they have better things to do.

The bigger issue of radical Islam and ISIS is so complex that the mind boggles and the growing influence out of the Middle East and into Africa is depressing. I don't think the world has the stomach, the leaders or the open mindedness to deal with it and the people who will suffer the most are the ones who live in the territories where it is prevalent. On the whole though I just don't believe that people are inherently evil (stupid yes) and ISIS ideology in particular just can't sustain itself in the long term. I do wish we could separate it from the Islam debate though - they are murderers, rapists and war mongering shits. I read an interesting article about how the coalition air strikes may have broken the back of their oil supply from Iraq which has destabilised their economy. Local fighters get a much smaller salary than the Western ones and apparently the local guys (ex-Iraq revolutionary guards etc) had to take a pay cut. Nobody hangs around if they can't feed themselves or their family. If we can get the bottom to fall out of their economy then we will be onto something although I expect the local people who have no way to argue with them will be the ones who suffer the worst in the long term. Basically as a Western European I will happily take my chance going about my business on our streets, trains and airports compared to living in Raqqa or Mosul.

[Tsundoku]

Please remind me why we deal with these people? Why are we not devoting hundreds of billions toward making ourselves independent from oil so we can tell these savages to just fuck off?

Oh, that's right, because those who would make the decisions to do such a thing are all bought and paid for by corporations whose short-term profits are based on dealing with these turds.

http://www.news.com....8106049e922aff1

Interesting that IS and KSA punishments are essentially the same. Gee, I wonder where IS gets most of it's support? And exactly who is it that has been exporting hate preachers all over the world for the last 30 years? Hmmmm ...

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 25 March 2016 - 05:28 AM

[Tsundoku]

I know this thread is about terrorism "in the West" but maybe we should broaden our focus since we're still so much safer than other parts of the world.

http://www.news.com....8b07e802a053653

It's like it has become background noise, and this attitude scares and depresses me. I only read this one because it mentioned a public park and was horrified to find the attacker deliberately hit the softest of targets - women and kids in a park on a holiday.

It sometimes makes me hope there actually is a God ... and a Hell.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 28 March 2016 - 03:26 AM

[EmperorMagus]

Briar King, on 28 March 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

Any group claim it yet?

Pakistani Taliban.

Guardian

[Terez]

Tsundoku, on 28 March 2016 - 03:17 AM, said:

I know this thread is about terrorism "in the West" but maybe we should broaden our focus since we're still so much safer than other parts of the world.

The topic was meant to be a commentary on and a reminder of the double standard, i.e. the fact that we are so much more affected by terrorism in the "West" (which is a misnomer largely because it includes y'all). Tragedies anywhere in the modern First World, including Japan but not so much China and Russia and Eastern Europe. Definitely nowhere in south Asia or Africa or South America. It's a mess, our cultural hierarchy of give-a-fuck, and that's kind of the point of Terrorism in the West. Not to condone violence of any kind, but it varies from country to "Western" country how clean our own hands are in this mess. So I welcome discussion of terrorism of all kinds and in all places, but I felt the need to create an umbrella thread for these so-special incidences in our Western safe havens, because it's starting to become an ongoing thing.