Bomb attacks on Brussels airport [Archive]

Husar

03-22-2016, 13:43

Nobody could see this comming, big lol to that. It is what is. If you didn't see it comming I really don't know where to begin. I am shocked nor surprised. Just hoping nobody does something stupid to people who have nothing to do with it.

another one just went of, have a nice day. No reports on casualties atm

Glad you liked the sarcasm, but "I am shocked nor surprised." makes no sense grammatically.
As for doing something stupid to people who have nothing or little to do with 'it', isn't that what just happened?

And to be clear, that would be to have security checks outside the airport in such a way that people are not piled up for easy pickings with a bomb-vest.

And how would one do that?

Nobody on an airplane was injured and the measures which have been implemented safely secured the goals of why they were implemented.

Must be a relief for the people who got bombed waiting for an airplane today.

Belgians should be ashamed. They weren't tolerant enough and faield to integrate these poor, repressed migrants.

Indeed, the French revolution showed us that every underclass will snap eventually and do horrible things.

Shaka_Khan

03-22-2016, 13:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg

Fragony

03-22-2016, 13:53

Yes it does makes sense grammatically Hussie; I am [not] shocked [and neither am I] surprised. So shocked nor surprised it is. Got nothing more important to say

edit, yep, looks like returnees from Syria (not comfirmed) did it, just a question why can they come back after they joined IS and got training there. Are we insane.

Well yes

Snowhobbit

03-22-2016, 14:08

And how would one do that?

Must be a relief for the people who got bombed waiting for an airplane today.

By forming an orderly queue with staffers making sure that people are not crowding up. I thought Germans knew how to queue, do I have to further explain the concept? Then you simply conduct security checks before people are allowed inside, you know, look for bombs, guns, knives etc. Not sure what was hard to understand, could you elaborate?

You're so cool with your slick sarcasm criticizing security laws which do not greatly infringe on civil rights and afford us a fairly large amount of safety on our flights. If you want to prevent terror attacks outside of the flights then you have to put other measures to use. Don't blame your home insurance when your car on the street was set on fire. Surely you are able to understand this?

Husar

03-22-2016, 14:11

Yes it does makes sense grammatically Hussie; I am [not] shocked [and neither am I] surprised. So shocked nor surprised it is. Got nothing more important to say

I am neither shocked nor surprised.

That way it makes sense, but you wrote that you are shocked, which can be confusing when we are talking about a terror attack.

http://thewritepractice.com/how-to-use-either-neither-or-and-nor-correctly/

“I fear man nor beast!” Jay proclaimed as Frank stared at the python coiled on the branch over his head. (Wrong.)

“I fear neither man nor beast!” Jay proclaimed as Frank stared at the python coiled on the branch over his head. (Right!)

By forming an orderly queue with staffers making sure that people are not crowding up. I thought Germans knew how to queue, do I have to further explain the concept? Then you simply conduct security checks before people are allowed inside, you know, look for bombs, guns, knives etc. Not sure what was hard to understand, could you elaborate?

And then we'll be surprised if someone blows up the new security queue, killing 20 people?
The English know how to queue, never heard that about Germans.

Fragony

03-22-2016, 14:39

No Hussie as I wrote it is perfectly fine, what you write isn't, neither in combination with nor is a double negative. If you want to be a grammar-nazi at least be good at it.

anyways, don't know if it's connected but some stuff is going on here as well. A supposed hostage situation and a few false alarms.

Snowhobbit

03-22-2016, 14:54

And then we'll be surprised if someone blows up the new security queue, killing 20 people?
The English know how to queue, never heard that about Germans.

Given how explosions work, unless they use different bombs, the effect will not be as lethal. And the ceiling won't fall down on the people in the airport. Of course this also needs to be matched with more resources and possibly tools for our intelligence services and improved intelligence sharing through Europe.
Oh, ordnung is not a German notion? It certainly is up here.

Fragony

03-22-2016, 15:00

Viewers discretion, this isn't very pleasant to watch, I don't think it's too much but it's not up to me to decide

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/03/schokkende_aftermath_beelden_zaventem.html

wooly_mammoth

03-22-2016, 16:46

Husar

03-22-2016, 17:02

When I returned from Russia I went through a security check the instant I set foot inside their airport, which repeated once more just like in eu airports before going to the gate. It's great to hear that good honest law-abiding Belgians can waltz into an airport while carrying fragmentation bombs and assault rifles.

Or into a metro station, a train station, a bus station, a taxi stand, a hotel, a shopping mall, a park, ...

It's interesting how you complain about the airport security when more people died and got hurt in the metro station.

Snowhobbit

03-22-2016, 17:13

Or into a metro station, a train station, a bus station, a taxi stand, a hotel, a shopping mall, a park, ...

It's interesting how you complain about the airport security when more people died and got hurt in the metro station.

Are we complaining or pointing out what improvements can be made? Speaking of which, if you do it Delhi style then you'd have security checks at the metro also, though those can get more crowded very easily. Would you care to guess why the metro had more deaths? Could it be because the explosions were in a smaller area and more force was thus applied where the bomb blast struck? Which again goes to show that a check outside (or right inside if it is cold as hell like in Russia) can significantly reduce the risk and damage of terror attacks.

Why exactly do you not want to make it harder to blow people up?

wooly_mammoth

03-22-2016, 17:16

Husar

03-22-2016, 17:33

Either circumstance is appalling. Of course the fundamental problem is not the nonexistence of that added security check (the point was that it can work without any real issues and can help avoid something like this), but rather the fact that the same kind of people keep murdering rampantly in largely the same areas and the governments that should be doing something about it appear to be unable to cope with it.

I think unwilling is more likely. Security services seem to be starved of finances and troublemakers are not reigned in anymore as they used to be. I prefer a peaceful approach to problem solving as most should be aware here, but if you have chronic troublemakers I'd step up the game and stop them with far more force than is legally allowed nowadays.
That does not mean throw all muslims out or racially cleanse the country, but as I said earlier, why were the people who rioted over the arrest of a terrorist not rounded up and arrested for a start?

Fragony

03-22-2016, 17:43

These are the moments where you count to ten Hussie, it's horrible what happened no doubt. But it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Very high on my wtfdidyouexpect-list all this

Husar

03-22-2016, 17:50

These are the moments where you count to ten Hussie, it's horrible what happened no doubt. But it shouldn't really come as a surprise.

I didn't say I'm surprised and I've said before that we should be much harsher with people who think we are a victim culture. I just don't agree with blaming everyone who wears a hijab, building walls everywhere and having more and more controls of everyone. Fight the terror and not the citizens. Proper police investigation that catches them before they get to blow anyone up is much better than reducing the number of people who get blown up. Sadly this kind of investigative work is really lacking in some countries here, much easier to plaster airports with security and pretend everything is fine now.

And then you have these people who say each country should do its own thing and then a Belgian moves to Paris and after he blew up a lot of people the Belgians tell the French "oh yeah, he was definitely a suspect, we knew that for a while!". Yeah well, let's just cooperate only on a business level, nothing that could go wrong.

Fragony

03-22-2016, 18:00

I didn't say I'm surprised and I've said before that we should be much harsher with people who think we are a victim culture. I just don't agree with blaming everyone who wears a hijab, building walls everywhere and having more and more controls of everyone. Fight the terror and not the citizens. Proper police investigation that catches them before they get to blow anyone up is much better than reducing the number of people who get blown up. Sadly this kind of investigative work is really lacking in some countries here, much easier to plaster airports with security and pretend everything is fine now.

And then you have these people who say each country should do its own thing and then a Belgian moves to Paris and after he blew up a lot of people the Belgians tell the French "oh yeah, he was definitely a suspect, we knew that for a while!". Yeah well, let's just cooperate only on a business level, nothing that could go wrong.

Cursed with genuinly good intentions, musn't resonate all that well with reality sometimes ;)

Snowhobbit

03-22-2016, 18:01

I think unwilling is more likely. Security services seem to be starved of finances and troublemakers are not reigned in anymore as they used to be. I prefer a peaceful approach to problem solving as most should be aware here, but if you have chronic troublemakers I'd step up the game and stop them with far more force than is legally allowed nowadays.
That does not mean throw all muslims out or racially cleanse the country, but as I said earlier, why were the people who rioted over the arrest of a terrorist not rounded up and arrested for a start?

I'm curious, what do you mean by "far more force than is legally allowed nowadays"? Torture is generally proven to be a very bad way of gathering information. I'm sure there is some law in Belgium about support for terrorism etc that could be applied, or if not then written pronto. I've not read any news about riots after the arrest of the terrorist the other day, could you link some news article or suchlike?

Of course catching them before they strike is better than minimizing the causalities and nothing else. But doing both reduces human suffering and keeps the citizenry safer than otherwise at what to me seems like a very reasonable price.

Husar

03-22-2016, 18:10

Cursed with genuinly good intentions, musn't resonate all that well with reality sometimes ;)

Because reality is all black and white?

I'm curious, what do you mean by "far more force than is legally allowed nowadays"? Torture is generally proven to be a very bad way of gathering information.

No, I'm talking about things such as no-go-zones where "police can't go". What's so hard about sending a few men in with backup nearby to lure out the troublemakers, record them on video and then hunt them down with the backup? Beat them or shoot them if necessary, but just cowering in the police station because you're afraid to go outside or hurt someone is hardly a solution. There was a story in a respectable newspaper where a victim identified the family that stole all the wedding gowns from her store and when she called police they didn't do anything because the entire family of perpetrators "is probably armed". Well, go away and come back with more men, then surround and arrest, if they shoot back, kill them. I have little patience for this kind of excuse. We have all kinds of special forces to deal with such situations but then we let these people exploit us even when we know exactly what is going on. That's a political and policing issue.
There is such a thing as being too hard on crime, but also being too soft. It's especially perverse when robbers and murderers get away with it while the government runs TV ads about how downloading a movie can lead to you getting raped in jail...

Fragony

03-22-2016, 18:20

Because reality is all black and white?

Wouldn't that be nice.

Snowhobbit

03-22-2016, 18:32

No, I'm talking about things such as no-go-zones where "police can't go". What's so hard about sending a few men in with backup nearby to lure out the troublemakers, record them on video and then hunt them down with the backup? Beat them or shoot them if necessary, but just cowering in the police station because you're afraid to go outside or hurt someone is hardly a solution. There was a story in a respectable newspaper where a victim identified the family that stole all the wedding gowns from her store and when she called police they didn't do anything because the entire family of perpetrators "is probably armed". Well, go away and come back with more men, then surround and arrest, if they shoot back, kill them. I have little patience for this kind of excuse. We have all kinds of special forces to deal with such situations but then we let these people exploit us even when we know exactly what is going on. That's a political and policing issue.
There is such a thing as being too hard on crime, but also being too soft. It's especially perverse when robbers and murderers get away with it while the government runs TV ads about how downloading a movie can lead to you getting raped in jail...

We have the same issue in Sweden, is it a German issue as well? Obviously yes, the answer should be to crack down. Though given the risk to the poor police officers in that little bait action, I personally would prefer a larger show of force with full on riot-police and possibly army assistance if the situation calls for that. To my knowledge the police have a right to use lethal force if they are forced to in order to defend themselves or someone else, hopefully less violent resolutions than killings on a grand scale can be used though. Such as subduing with gas, water cannons etc. But if needs must then needs must. We've had a lot of issues all of a sudden with women safety being threatened in a way which has not happened for over 800 years, and a plains clothes policewoman trailed by a bunch of big strong colleagues would go a long way towards catching the assholes who don't understand they're not in the Arab world anymore.

Did you see the 60 minutes Australia report last Sunday? Very telling of the police status in that area. The man in the wheelchair should get a fricken medal though.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-22-2016, 19:19

This is not something that I wanted as a part of Holy Week. More people to add to my prayers and fewer people who can focus on life's joys.

All very sad.

edyzmedieval

03-23-2016, 00:21

Are our Belgian Orgahs safe?

Shaka_Khan

03-23-2016, 04:32

LeftEyeNine might be in Belgium now.

Fragony

03-23-2016, 05:33

Not in Brussels don't worry

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 07:32

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/terroristerna-hade-fler-sprangladdningar/

In Swedish press apparently the airport bombers had plans for even bigger explosions, but they could not fit all of their luggage into the taxi. Thank God they did not get the bigger taxi that they had ordered, or the death tole might be multiples higher. Two of the five suitcases were left where they took the taxi and have now been taken in by the police, and with only two bombs out of five detonating this could have been a whole lot worse. Even taking into account that the second bomb was placed where people would be running. Meanwhile in Delhi they wouldn't even have been able to get to the airport parking lot.

Towards the end of the article it is made clear that a trio of would be terrorists were arrested in Germany after having fled Belgium. The arrests were made possible thanks to anonymous tips, in true Fragony style, should we guess the religion of the people who gave the tip? Given that there was no international warrant for these guys and nobody knew their faces, it would have to be someone close to them...

Fragony

03-23-2016, 08:48

Am I a trademark now lol. Tips probably were from Absesalam who was at the Paris massacre. All in all this attack is a bit of a fail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6dxjxq4Fw

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 09:14

Am I a trademark now lol. Tips probably were from Absesalam who was at the Paris massacre. All in all this attack is a bit of a fail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6dxjxq4Fw

So while in isolation from the outside world he had very intimate knowledge of their whereabouts? If it was Abdesalam then they would not have been arrested yesterday but earlier. But go on, you can keep on hating the Muslims, we all know that is what you do best.

Fragony

03-23-2016, 09:23

So while in isolation from the outside world he had very intimate knowledge of their whereabouts? If it was Abdesalam then they would not have been arrested yesterday but earlier. But go on, you can keep on hating the Muslims, we all know that is what you do best.

Oh sigh, Abdesalam wanted to exchange knowledge of upcomming attacks because he didn't want to get deported to France. Attacks have been prevented all over Europe. And yeah I hate muslims I'll tell fuck off

Are you one of those who think it's inconceivable (princess bride tune) that IS sends troops to Europe and radicals infest homegrowns, tickle me if you want to make me laugh

I don't hate muslims I just hate islam (look up what the word means for me please)

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 09:41

Oh sigh, Abdesalam wanted to exchange knowledge of upcomming attacks because he didn't want to get deported to France. Attacks have been prevented all over Europe. And yeah I hate muslims I'll tell fuck off

Are you one of those who think it's inconceivable (princess bride tune) that IS sends troops to Europe and radicals infest homegrowns, tickle me if you want to make me laugh

I don't hate muslims I just hate islam
Of course he did, but somehow I don't think part of the attack plan is to run away like rats from a sinking ship. Attacks are prevented regularly, these guys are most likely somehow connected to the broader network that planned the attacks yesterday and the Paris November strike.

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 11:11

Keeping to the topic, the third bombman and supposedly chief bomb-maker of ISIS has just been arrested! Good job! :2thumbsup:

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 13:17

From the BBC livefeed:

A suspect arrested in Brussels this morning was not Najim Laachraoui, thought to be one of three men in a CCTV image taken before the Zaventem airport attack, some Belgian media are now saying

The newspaper, DH, which first reported the story, says the man detained earlier on Wednesday in the Anderlecht district had been misidentified.

Police and prosecutors have not commented on the reports and are due to hold a news conference within the next hour.

The press conference has now been held and the third bomb-man is unfortunately still on the run.
My most humble and sincere apologies to everyone who reads the thread for posting news updates and not letting Fragony spew his hatred all over the thread, I am truly honestly sorry for sharing information on the attacks and the aftermath, as well as discussing ways to prevent this directly and indirectly. :dizzy2:

Husar

03-23-2016, 13:56

Obviously there is not much more to be discussed about islamist terror attacks unless someone wants to volunteer and argue that they're justified or a good thing for his arms sales?

Volunteers?

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 14:01

Obviously there is not much more to be discussed about islamist terror attacks unless someone wants to volunteer and argue that they're justified or a good thing for his arms sales?

Volunteers?

Well it is still possible to discuss further developments to the stories as well as various ways of preventing further attacks like this.

I just read that the suit-case bombs were full of small metal objects, which is why there are so many injured, their limbs have been taken off or shredded. Fortunately it seems that the bombs exploded around knee level on the trolleys, if they had been chest-high the death-toll might be in the hundreds instead. I suppose we should count the small blessings we get.

Gilrandir

03-23-2016, 14:01

No Hussie as I wrote it is perfectly fine, what you write isn't, neither in combination with nor is a double negative. If you want to be a grammar-nazi at least be good at it.

Husar is perfectly right. Neither nor is not a double negation but a paired preposition, so what he says about its usage is correct.

Now on topic: what was Russian officials' reaction to the latest events in Brussels
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/22/russian-politicians-offer-condolences-and-some-ugly-hot-takes-after-brussels-bombings/

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 14:04

Husar is perfectly right. Neither nor is not a double negation but a paired preposition, so what he says about its usage is correct.

Now on topic: what Zhirinovsky thinks of the latest events in Brussels and in Europe generally
http://newsme.com.ua/en/world/3340494/

The English in that article is a bit lacking so it is hard to get the exact message of what he is trying to say. But he seems to be saying it is good for Russia that civilians in Europe are being killed by terrorists? That is a disgusting thing to say, and he is head of the Duma, which I presume means he is the Speaker? Not sure why such a person got that position, maybe it is not as important in Russia? At least Putin clearly condemned it, hopefully the meeting the Kerry will produce some results or future actions to be undertaken.

Fragony

03-23-2016, 14:06

Gilrandir

03-23-2016, 14:58

The English in that article is a bit lacking so it is hard to get the exact message of what he is trying to say. But he seems to be saying it is good for Russia that civilians in Europe are being killed by terrorists? That is a disgusting thing to say, and he is head of the Duma, which I presume means he is the Speaker? Not sure why such a person got that position, maybe it is not as important in Russia? At least Putin clearly condemned it, hopefully the meeting the Kerry will produce some results or future actions to be undertaken.

I linked another article with a better command of English and a greater gamut of opinions from Russia's top officials. Yet it doesn't cancel what Zhirinovsky said. And some correction: Znirinovsky is an ex-speaker of Duma (was one in 2010-11). They say he proclaims openly what Putin thinks but is too cautious to spill out.

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 15:21

I linked another article with a better command of English and a greater gamut of opinions from Russia's top officials. Yet it doesn't cancel what Zhirinovsky said. And some correction: Znirinovsky is an ex-speaker of Duma (was one in 2010-11). They say he proclaims openly what Putin thinks but is too cautious to spill out.

Was my estimation of what Zhirinovsky said correct? And who are they?

Scoring cheap domestic points on a foreign tragedy is sadly all too common, and can especially be expected of a Russia which has decided to try to reclaim its former super-power status. Fortunately there are more sane and level-headed politicians, such as the Moscow Mayor and Mr Putin himself. Taking a broader view, more international cooperation against terrorism is needed to stop the mindless violence which strikes all over the world. Russia, Asian countries and not the least the Arab world which is the main financier of this madness.

Also since Russia managed to get NATO on topic, does anyone think Belgium will invoke Article 5 same as France did?

Strike For The South

03-23-2016, 15:22

integrate harder.

Husar

03-23-2016, 17:09

integrate harder.

They said on the radio that in France, Germany and a few other countries it is indeed so that a lot of people radicalize due to their bad circumstances, living in the banlieus or what they're called. On the other hand in the UK being a radical islamist is the new punk, where bored rich kids want to rebel against their parents.
In countries like Iraq, where muslims were integrated much better, it does not look better though. It is a poorer country however compared to France or Belgium.

Germany has so far had 12 attempts at an attack since 2001, 11 of which were prevented by the police, partially due to cooperation with other countries, specifically the US. The one that was not prevented was a failure I think. But that is where I'd begin in order to stop it, give the police the means to stop them before they happen instead of trying to stop people from gathering or something like that.

The soft factors that you mention also count. If our country is more loveable, it will be harder for radicals to tell children that it isn't. :7gardener:

Fragony

03-23-2016, 17:22

Or be like the Vizegrat-countries and just don't let islam in. There is no islamic terrorism if there is no islam

Husar

03-23-2016, 18:24

Or be like the Vizegrat-countries and just don't let islam in. There is no islamic terrorism if there is no islam

Define islam.

Answers in new thread, please! - Beskar

Pannonian

03-23-2016, 18:26

They said on the radio that in France, Germany and a few other countries it is indeed so that a lot of people radicalize due to their bad circumstances, living in the banlieus or what they're called. On the other hand in the UK being a radical islamist is the new punk, where bored rich kids want to rebel against their parents.
In countries like Iraq, where muslims were integrated much better, it does not look better though. It is a poorer country however compared to France or Belgium.

Germany has so far had 12 attempts at an attack since 2001, 11 of which were prevented by the police, partially due to cooperation with other countries, specifically the US. The one that was not prevented was a failure I think. But that is where I'd begin in order to stop it, give the police the means to stop them before they happen instead of trying to stop people from gathering or something like that.

The soft factors that you mention also count. If our country is more loveable, it will be harder for radicals to tell children that it isn't. :7gardener:

Let's see if the Belgian attackers were second generation.

Snowhobbit

03-23-2016, 18:32

Let's see if the Belgian attackers were second generation.

The ones identified so far have been second generation immigrants with roots from north Africa originally.

Beskar

03-23-2016, 18:39

Keep personal attacks to a minimum. This is not debate user thread, it is one devoted to some appalling attacks in Belgium. Violence is never good.

Edit: I deleted 25 posts. If this happens again, I am giving everyone involved a time-out.

Brenus

03-23-2016, 20:33

"They said on the radio that in France, Germany and a few other countries it is indeed so that a lot of people radicalize due to their bad circumstances, living in the banlieus or what they're called" What THEY say is simply not true.
First of all, not many radicalised, reason why the terrorists came from Belgium. Can I remind here that France has (had?) the biggest number of "Muslims", most of them atheists anyway.
Khaled Kelkal, the first of the home grown Muslim killer was a student at Lyon III La Doua, in Sciences... Boualen Benasaid was a sport teacher. The 2 thugs involved in this attack of Charlie Hebdo were indeed drugs dealers, but their brother and sister, raised in the same background are successful in their chosen carriers.
This is the usual story. The criminals choose to go for a ideology based on slavery, murder and racism. It is not due to social backgrounds or I would have done the same. So my brothers, sisters and family. I heard this on the BBC this morning. Made my blood boiling. Stop trying to find excuse. They decide to kill people and put bomb in dreaming of free virgins because they are looser, for the ones blowing themselves. The ones making money in selling oil to Turkey are all alive, and live well.
I lived in banlieux, so all my friends. It is not great, but it is cheap rent, and you can move from it. They are not ghetto, only if self inflicted. Not that life is rosy and tender, but it is not SOWETO.

Husar

03-23-2016, 21:15

Stop trying to find excuse.

What excuse? Who said poverty is an excuse for murder?
Stop making things up.

Greyblades

03-24-2016, 01:01

So I read that the belgium police asked a Teacher to stop tweeting after he reported that his muslim students cheered the brussels attack (http://pamelageller.com/2016/03/teacher-tweets-muslim-students-cheered-brussels.html/).

https://i.imgur.com/px1mbcB.png

I'm not sure what to make of it, the proof (https://twitter.com/IvarMol/status/712220187488083968) is on twitter (https://twitter.com/IvarMol/status/712281264519299073) but it's just one guy's word, and a very ambiguous word at that.

I cant read dutch and google translate is as useful as ever, can anyone give a proper translation? I think I'm missing something because of the language barrier.

Kralizec

03-24-2016, 01:27

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 07:41

It says "How can you teach when there are muslim kids in your class applauding?"

The guy in question isn't a teacher in the usual sense though - he's a yoga instructor. He says his tweets were inspired by some facebook comments he saw from muslim kids.

So.. He extrapolates from facebook (which may well be a fake post) that his students are clapping while they are not, and thus he cannot teach and needs to spread hatred against minority groups? Shouldn't yoga instructors have enough "inner peace" to not mix internet rumors with actual reality? If there were actual people in his class applauding I'm sure there are ways more efficient than Twitter to get them to stop...

Fragony

03-24-2016, 07:57

There have been more of these incidents (cheering, applauding) but most kids didn't know how serious it was at the time, bit of a nothing

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 08:05

There have been more of these incidents (cheering, applauding) but most kids didn't know how serious it was at the time, bit of a nothing

But are people such delicate flowers that reading about it on Facebook causes them to hallucinate it happening in their class? I do not think that people are so afraid of confrontation that they will not tell them off to their face but go crying on Twitter instead.

Fragony

03-24-2016, 08:26

But are people such delicate flowers that reading about it on Facebook causes them to hallucinate it happening in their class? I do not think that people are so afraid of confrontation that they will not tell them off to their face but go crying on Twitter instead.

Police was right to ask him not to post these things, at least for a while. Many wounded will still die, after amazement comes anger

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 08:33

Police was right to ask him not to post these things, at least for a while. Many wounded will still die, after amazement comes anger

Yep, it is never a good time to call for hate and anger against minority groups. When a sub-group of that minority group commits horrific crimes is an especially bad time. If anyone gets injured because of these tweets I hope the guy gets charged for incitement to *insert whatever happened*.

Brenus

03-24-2016, 08:37

"What excuse? Who said poverty is an excuse for murder? Stop making things up." Where did you mentioned poverty? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Poverty, feelings of exclusion/humiliation, lack of future, alienation are reasons for "radicalisation". I went through this as a late teenager/young adult. But I didn't choose to go for a pro-slavery, racist, xenophobe, discriminatory ideology. I went political then I joined the army, where all this anger and streams of violence were used, channelled and finally rested. I am still political, leftist, as I still remember these years and the absolute injustice of the social determination.
But, these criminals never went political. They went petty criminals, most of them (the ones we speak about, not the Bourgeois ones) choosing always the easiest way. Even their final choice was to rely not on the effort of an ascesis, a study of the Holly texts and their interpretation, but a short cut: Killings and suicide to reach a God and the rewards...

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 08:51

Fragony

03-24-2016, 09:09

Trying to find out why someone does something is not the same as trying to excuse that behaviour. A key factor in preventing these things in the future is to stop the radicalization that happens, and to do that we have to figure out why it happens. For example why it did not happen with you or your family but it happened with these men who have mostly blown themselves up.

You seem to assume that we are not dealling with a fully-fledged ideoligy, and of course social-economic are also a factor but wouldn't be what I would be looking. People have the tendency to think that everybody thinks like they do themselves, follow the same reasonings. You don't have to disregard social-economic factors to acknowledge an ideoligy.

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 09:19

You seem to assume that we are not dealling with a fully-fledged ideoligy, and of course social-economic are also a factor but wouldn't be what I would be looking. People have the tendency to think that everybody thinks like they do themselves, follow the same reasonings. You don't have to disregard social-economic factors to acknowledge an ideoligy.

I'm fully aware that these people are driven by a violent ideology, but the question is why they sign on to that. They are not born murders etc, and it is key that we figure out how to stop the recruitment. Like I posted before, stop Saudi-funded mosques is one thing, but we also have to look at the individuals. I know that in UK there are programs where youth leaders and Imams work together to stop these kids and lead them to better thoughts before it goes too far. Likely a much cheaper and effective way than highly expensive security measures (which might be needed and justified also).

Fragony

03-24-2016, 09:34

I'm fully aware that these people are driven by a violent ideology, but the question is why they sign on to that. They are not born murders etc, and it is key that we figure out how to stop the recruitment. Like I posted before, stop Saudi-funded mosques is one thing, but we also have to look at the individuals. I know that in UK there are programs where youth leaders and Imams work together to stop these kids and lead them to better thoughts before it goes too far. Likely a much cheaper and effective way than highly expensive security measures (which might be needed and justified also).

Works for some. But I am ok with things like this happening from time to time. We should learn from the Mossad and take out dangerous people imho

Husar

03-24-2016, 11:09

Works for some. But I am ok with things like this happening from time to time. We should learn from the Mossad and take out dangerous people imho

Drone strikes in our cities?

Fragony

03-24-2016, 11:31

Drone strikes in our cities?

We are training eagles to take out drones, not kidding. But that apart, I think that high-profile should be seen as agents of something that's hostile. Why should assymatrical warfare exist only in hotspots, seems old-fashioned to me. And I already agree with every objection you have against it in advance so don't bother

Husar

03-24-2016, 12:34

Why should assymatrical warfare exist only in hotspots, seems old-fashioned to me.

Why should we turn our countries into war zones if there is no need to do so? Seems silly to me.

Fragony

03-24-2016, 13:11

Why should we turn our countries into war zones if there is no need to do so? Seems silly to me.

Not warzones, just assasinating key figures

Kralizec

03-24-2016, 14:22

Trying to find out why someone does something is not the same as trying to excuse that behaviour. A key factor in preventing these things in the future is to stop the radicalization that happens, and to do that we have to figure out why it happens. For example why it did not happen with you or your family but it happened with these men who have mostly blown themselves up.

You're right of course, cause =/= justification.

Since Charlie Hebdo it's been commonly known that many islamist terrorists have had criminal careers before they became religious thugs. I'd be interested in knowing more about the psychology behind such "conversions". Maybe at some level these people are aware that their violent behaviour is bad. And they're receptive to an ideology that says violence isn't bad at all, at least not when directed against the "other". That they don't need to feel guilty about whatever they did in the past, because the only people who matter are "true muslims".

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 14:28

You're right of course, cause =/= justification.

Since Charlie Hebdo it's been commonly known that many islamist terrorists have had criminal careers before they became religious thugs. I'd be interested in knowing more about the psychology behind such "conversions". Maybe at some level these people are aware that their violent behaviour is bad. And they're receptive to an ideology that says violence isn't bad at all, at least not when directed against the "other". That they don't need to feel guilty about whatever they did in the past, because the only people who matter are "true muslims".

I think in the case of criminals it is more about seeing redemption and salvation, an easy way out of hell and into heaven, with the love and respect of their peers and idols. They are of course also excellent targets, already having shown willingness to use violence to get what they want.

Add to that feeling even more outside of society than most of their neighbours, and the forgiving of past sins and promise of heaven might be very appealing to the right person.

Fragony

03-24-2016, 15:08

Once read the term atonement by proxy, was not in this context though. What everybody says about anyone probably applies for some. But it's a much easier licence to kill

Husar

03-24-2016, 15:11

Not warzones, just assasinating key figures

How would one go about that?
Make a law that says the government can assassinate citizens if the government thinks they are a threat to society?
And how do we assassinate the key figures we don't even know about?
And if we already know about them, why don't we just arrest them as that would not require any changes whatsoever?
And doesn't that already happen all the time?

Fragony

03-24-2016, 15:37

How would one go about that?
Make a law that says the government can assassinate citizens if the government thinks they are a threat to society?
And how do we assassinate the key figures we don't even know about?
And if we already know about them, why don't we just arrest them as that would not require any changes whatsoever?
And doesn't that already happen all the time?

Told you I would agree with your objections, you are right on all

Gilrandir

03-24-2016, 16:11

Was my estimation of what Zhirinovsky said correct? And who are they?

Scoring cheap domestic points on a foreign tragedy is sadly all too common, and can especially be expected of a Russia which has decided to try to reclaim its former super-power status. Fortunately there are more sane and level-headed politicians, such as the Moscow Mayor and Mr Putin himself.

If you are really interested in Zhirinovsky you can avail yourself of the opportunities internet provides. He is like a revved up version of Trump. But to completely disregard his looney ideas and statements would be wrong. Putin tolerates him to have him as a contrast to himself as if saying: "See what nutjobs may come to power if I step down?" Plus Zhirinovsky's statements and escapades serve as a kind of probing action - to see how the public would react and whether it is worth to proceed in this direction.

Taking a broader view, more international cooperation against terrorism is needed to stop the mindless violence which strikes all over the world. Russia, Asian countries and not the least the Arab world which is the main financier of this madness.

You are deeply mistaken if you believe that Europe can put a halter on terrorism WIHTHIN the EU if it enlists the help of any outsiders, still less of Russia. No one can deal with terrorism in Europe except Europe itself.

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 16:57

If you are really interested in Zhirinovsky you can avail yourself of the opportunities internet provides. He is like a revved up version of Trump. But to completely disregard his looney ideas and statements would be wrong. Putin tolerates him to have him as a contrast to himself as if saying: "See what nutjobs may come to power if I step down?" Plus Zhirinovsky's statements and escapades serve as a kind of probing action - to see how the public would react and whether it is worth to proceed in this direction.

You are deeply mistaken if you believe that Europe can put a halter on terrorism WIHTHIN the EU if it enlists the help of any outsiders, still less of Russia. No one can deal with terrorism in Europe except Europe itself.

No thanks all the same, I read about enough crazies just keeping up with politics which actually impacts my life, don't follow Trump nonsense either.

Oh? And here I thought terror networks were international things which different intelligence agencies can all gather Intel on, that occasionally Russia bombed them a couple of weeks ago, and that with the loss of a passenger jet Russia might be motivated to hate ISIS on a personal level. But you are of course right, terrorism is exclusively a European issue and will forever only be a European issue.

Pannonian

03-24-2016, 17:22

If you are really interested in Zhirinovsky you can avail yourself of the opportunities internet provides. He is like a revved up version of Trump. But to completely disregard his looney ideas and statements would be wrong. Putin tolerates him to have him as a contrast to himself as if saying: "See what nutjobs may come to power if I step down?" Plus Zhirinovsky's statements and escapades serve as a kind of probing action - to see how the public would react and whether it is worth to proceed in this direction.

You are deeply mistaken if you believe that Europe can put a halter on terrorism WIHTHIN the EU if it enlists the help of any outsiders, still less of Russia. No one can deal with terrorism in Europe except Europe itself.

The main problem is that the problematic culture vigorously maintains a link with the outside version, and holds the outside version as the purer form to be aspired to. While the outside version progressively becomes crazier and crazier. It has a somewhat naive view of how things may be resolved, but Pratchett's Thud! is an accurate portrayal of the problem as it exists in the UK, and is probably recognisable to other European countries as well.

Gilrandir

03-24-2016, 17:55

Oh? And here I thought terror networks were international things which different intelligence agencies can all gather Intel on, that occasionally Russia bombed them a couple of weeks ago, and that with the loss of a passenger jet Russia might be motivated to hate ISIS on a personal level. But you are of course right, terrorism is exclusively a European issue and will forever only be a European issue.

I never claimed terrorism was exclusively a European issue. I said that those terroristic attacks that happened in Europe are performed by the EU citizens, so dealing with them is what European countries should learn to do. If you think that Russia can help to sort things out in Muslim suburbs of European capitals then :shrug: Or do you mean that Russia can order its tame European terrorists to stop bombings in exchange for concessions in Ukraine or elsewhere? :inquisitive:

Snowhobbit

03-24-2016, 19:53

I never claimed terrorism was exclusively a European issue. I said that those terroristic attacks that happened in Europe are performed by the EU citizens, so dealing with them is what European countries should learn to do. If you think that Russia can help to sort things out in Muslim suburbs of European capitals then :shrug: Or do you mean that Russia can order its tame European terrorists to stop bombings in exchange for concessions in Ukraine or elsewhere? :inquisitive:

It is my understanding the the FSB (or whatever it is they are called now, formerly KGB) is a somewhat large and well-funded organization with experience on dealing with terrorism. There might be both lessons to learn (such as don't gas a hostage scene and not tell the medical respondents what you use), information gathered on targets or terror cells, etc, etc. Not to mention that I believe they were in Syria recently dropping bombs? I presume Russian bombs can also kill terrorists. I do not believe that Europe should engage in concessions for Crimea in turn for our own needs. But I do believe that terrorism is a global problem and that it requires global cooperation to be stamped out as the threat it is today, worldwide.

Fragony

03-25-2016, 08:01

Snowhobbit

03-25-2016, 09:21

Just for musing, you find the terrorist who was involved. In his safehouse you find explosives, weapons and detonaters.

You A, understand that safehouses are used by multiple persons.
You B, don't understand that and think questioning for an hour is sufficient.

Guess what option the Belgium police picked

Just for musing, Fragony finds a story on a bungled up government action.

Will he A, provide a source for the screw-up.
Will he B, not provide a source, if called on it claim that since it is from unreliable blogs nobody will believe it anyway, and then proceed to discuss the story as the gospel of truth it is.

You add a lot of interesting things to thread, it would be cool if you could source them. Still waiting on info about those 6 billion Euros to Turkey being used to fund their arms industry.

Fragony

03-25-2016, 09:43

http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-terror-attacks-questioned-salah-abdeslam-for-only-one-hour-before-terror-attacks/

There are more screwups, one big clusterfuck

Snowhobbit

03-25-2016, 10:44

http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-terror-attacks-questioned-salah-abdeslam-for-only-one-hour-before-terror-attacks/

There are more screwups, one big clusterfuck

Yeah, Belgium makes everyone else look like professionals. Thanks for the article, it was a good read mostly confirming things read elsewhere about their lack of coordination.

Yesugey

03-25-2016, 12:20

Just for musing, Fragony finds a story on a bungled up government action.

Will he A, provide a source for the screw-up.
Will he B, not provide a source, if called on it claim that since it is from unreliable blogs nobody will believe it anyway, and then proceed to discuss the story as the gospel of truth it is.

You add a lot of interesting things to thread, it would be cool if you could source them. Still waiting on info about those 6 billion Euros to Turkey being used to fund their arms industry.

What's bad if Turkey uses the money for it's arms industry?

I am Turkish, that's how it caught my attention that you talk like Turkey doesn't have weapons now, and may use the money to buy some Kalashnikov's and Uzi's.

(Not trying do defend something because it's m country, just found it kind of hillarious :D)

Snowhobbit

03-25-2016, 12:38

What's bad if Turkey uses the money for it's arms industry?

I am Turkish, that's how it caught my attention that you talk like Turkey doesn't have weapons now, and may use the money to buy some Kalashnikov's and Uzi's.

(Not trying do defend something because it's m country, just found it kind of hillarious :D)

Well, since you are from Turkey I'm sure this has escaped your notice. Your country is run by a would be dictator madman who likes to kill and blow up his own people. In Europe we generally view this as "bad" and thus it would not be good if our money funded murder sprees. I've read your posts before, you pretty much only defend something if your country does it.

Money which is supposed to be used to improve life in the refugee camps is best used there, not murdering your own citizens.

Yesugey

03-25-2016, 12:58

Well, since you are from Turkey I'm sure this has escaped your notice. Your country is run by a would be dictator madman who likes to kill and blow up his own people. In Europe we generally view this as "bad" and thus it would not be good if our money funded murder sprees. I've read your posts before, you pretty much only defend something if your country does it.

Money which is supposed to be used to improve life in the refugee camps is best used there, not murdering your own citizens.

You didn't answered my question at all.

Turkey is ruled by a mad idiot but he doesn't blow up people. (Actually he is incapable of it)
In Europe you only view blowing up European people as "bad", and support terrorism directly if it blows up others. (Poor Belgium was chosen as the heart of it, which made it vulnerable.)

And as you can read from my posts, I would defend anything "when" my country does it. I am so evil, don't bother deny anything.

But again, these all are not related with my question. I already know what you think. "Turkey is ISIS, oh my God terrorists at Belgium killed Europeans this time, how evil is this!!" bla bla bla...

So forget all about it. My question is:

Turkey already has hundreds of aircraft and tanks, about to produce it's national tank and helicopter. Turkey might even have several atomic bombs left from cold war. How do you think few million more Euros makes a difference?.. It's kind of hillarious :D

Snowhobbit

03-25-2016, 13:18

You didn't answered my question at all.

Turkey is ruled by a mad idiot but he doesn't blow up people. (Actually he is incapable of it)
In Europe you only view blowing up European people as "bad", and support terrorism directly if it blows up others. (Poor Belgium was chosen as the heart of it, which made it vulnerable.)

And as you can read from my posts, I would defend anything "when" my country does it. I am so evil, don't bother deny anything.

But again, these all are not related with my question. I already know what you think. "Turkey is ISIS, oh my God terrorists at Belgium killed Europeans this time, how evil is this!!" bla bla bla...

So forget all about it. My question is:

Turkey already has hundreds of aircraft and tanks, about to produce it's national tank and helicopter. Turkey might even have several atomic bombs left from cold war. How do you think few million more Euros makes a difference?.. It's kind of hillarious :D

That is fun maths they teach in Turkey. 6 billion does not equal a few million.
Did he whisper lovingly in your ear that he could never hurt anyone?

Your nationalistic drivel makes it quite clear what you think of the government campaigns against the untermensch, have you also taken up the government practice of arguing using strawmen? You are a very sad reflection of a large share of the Turkish electorate.

I love the insinuation that you'd use nukes internally on your own civilian population, you're way too cool for school bro.

Yesugey

03-25-2016, 13:37

That is fun maths they teach in Turkey. 6 billion does not equal a few million.
Did he whisper lovingly in your ear that he could never hurt anyone?

Your nationalistic drivel makes it quite clear what you think of the government campaigns against the untermensch, have you also taken up the government practice of arguing using strawmen? You are a very sad reflection of a large share of the Turkish electorate.

I love the insinuation that you'd use nukes internally on your own civilian population, you're way too cool for school bro.

Nah, Erdogan is an idiot that religion might stop terrorists. He realized it's wrong, but it's far too late.

Yes, I am so really evil, thinking to nuke "my own people", bla bla bla.. (excellent straw man from you too, completely irrelevant)

But, my question stills the same:

Ok lets say Turkey get 60 billion more. What will it gonna do, but 3000 more aircraft? It has one of the largest armies in UN, but your argument is "Oh my God what if they buy weapons with the money?"...

You see I am ok with all your accusations of me being "Evil, satanic worshipper, terrorist child killer"..

At least you can accept your argument is hillarious :/

Snowhobbit

03-25-2016, 13:40

Nah, Erdogan is an idiot that religion might stop terrorists. He realized it's wrong, but it's far too late.

Yes, I am so really evil, thinking to nuke "my own people", bla bla bla.. (excellent straw man from you too, completely irrelevant)

But, my question stills the same:

Ok lets say Turkey get 60 billion more. What will it gonna do, but 3000 more aircraft? It has one of the largest armies in UN, but your argument is "Oh my God what if they buy weapons with the money?"...

You see I am ok with all your accusations of me being "Evil, satanic worshipper, terrorist child killer"..

At least you can accept your argument is hillarious :/

Kindly apply glasses and coffee and read the post again before attempting to explain. You are the one talking about using nukes on your own people, not me. Go go Turkey!

Yes, not killing children is very very amusing. It is hilarious!

Yesugey

03-25-2016, 14:06

Kindly apply glasses and coffee and read the post again before attempting to explain. You are the one talking about using nukes on your own people, not me. Go go Turkey!

Yes, not killing children is very very amusing. It is hilarious!

Nah... You see, I like realistic nationalism. "Other side kills children, bombs nukes to his people, oh how innocent and brave our side is.."

I like evil people more than people who acts evil but doesn't even realize.

I have to declare you won the argument, since you used "killing children, evil dictator, nuking own people" enough times. :D

Fragony

03-25-2016, 14:40

billions not millions, but Turkey's role is shady to say the least

Gilrandir

03-25-2016, 18:48

But I do believe that terrorism is a global problem and that it requires global cooperation to be stamped out as the threat it is today, worldwide.
Unless some parties to the process are interested in attacks to go on. And as Zhirinovsky admitted, Russia is the one which benefits from what terrorists do in Europe. Why should Russia wish to cooperate in putting an end to it? It would engage in lip service and smoke screens to try to bargain what it can.

a completely inoffensive name

03-26-2016, 05:27

The answer of course, is more unchecked immigration.

Fragony

03-26-2016, 10:01

Kinda freaky, in Belgium a guard of a nuclear plant was found murdered in his house and his security-pass was stolen. ( and is blocked now). You can't just blow up a nuclear powerplant, terrorist may be twisted but they are not that dumb. Anti-nuclear activists making the most out of the current situation perhaps? Gut says this has nothing to do with Brussels

edit, Gutt was right it seems, got to love instinct

Brenus

03-26-2016, 10:04

"And as Zhirinovsky admitted" And what is his official job in the Russian Government exactly? Probably a very important one as you always refer to him... Can you tell us?

Gilrandir

03-26-2016, 15:01

"And as Zhirinovsky admitted" And what is his official job in the Russian Government exactly? Probably a very important one as you always refer to him... Can you tell us?

He is a member of the State Council of Russian Federation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Council_(Russia)

The State Council considers issues of particular importance to the state, such as the development of governmental institutions, economic and social reforms and other objects affecting the public as a whole.

Moreover, he is the head of a faction in Duma.

However minute those positions may seem to you, Zhirinovsky is a very conspicuous figure in Russian politics. As I said, he voices ideas, which are too "radical" (to put it mildly), for the Kremlin to see how people would swallow them.

Anyway, it is worth tracing what he says. You never tire to bring up Svoboda, Azov (and their leaders) or the Le Pens and warn of the danger of nazism. Why don't you ever speak of their counterparts in Russia and play down their influence?

Lizardo

04-03-2016, 19:05

,.....

Tuuvi

04-05-2016, 06:19

So Charlie Hebdo published this piece (https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/) on the Brussels bombing. Apparently not being able to criticize Muslims for practicing their religion is partially what led to the Brussels bombing. Which is pretty silly in my opinion, I don't see how telling a Muslim woman to her face that you don't like her veil is supposed to stop terrorists from blowing people up.

Lizardo

04-05-2016, 17:09

Oh the CHEEK!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8x4AWKD_z0

What do you expect from Charlie Hebdo they were left high and dry by the media the media should of published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on mass! I guees al the brave ones were killed in the terror attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wvupzcfFa8

Papewaio

04-07-2016, 02:50

Pannonian

04-07-2016, 03:58

Well when we stopped Catholics from wearing a veil the IRA stopped blowing up people... /s

In Northern Ireland it tended to be the men who wore veils. And both sides wore it as a fashion accessory. They even painted murals of blokes wearing veils.

Gilrandir

04-07-2016, 09:50

In Northern Ireland it tended to be the men who wore veils. And both sides wore it as a fashion accessory. They even painted murals of blokes wearing veils.

See what happens in some parts of the UK if you allow men in other parts to wear skirts.

Brenus

04-07-2016, 19:34

"Apparently not being able to criticize Muslims for practicing their religion is partially what led to the Brussels bombing" Apparently we didn't read the same paper.
What is describe here is the slow process when honest and hard working people, without bad intentions, open the way to the terrorists (I disagree about Tarik Ramadan, but that is my opinion). The "meant no harm" thingy, well describes by T Pratchett, the "they got a point" sentence.
You can see it with the debate on the Burka or on the new Muslim "fashion". You can be against the bikini (for which no one was ever stoned to death because no wearing it) but you can't be against the burka (for which lot were stoned to death because no wearing it enough). The same who told you that it is only fashion so no big deal will happily claim someone racism and islamophobic (mixing two notions) if one is against it, adapting following the aim Burka being just a piece of cloth or a religious imperative.
This attitude (I summarized) lead to the silence about Islam, and gave the field to the ones who dare advertising the Islamic Bath Suit (Birkini) as the Modest one, meaning the ones not wearing it immodest. This silence allowed the most extremist to be seen as having a point, and the same who were enraged by the burning of a Koran are actually silent by the burning of the Christian Coptic holly books by the Islamic Fanatics of ISIL. They fear to be seen as Islamophobic.
What Charlie is describing is the fear induced by the fear to be accused of racism, bigotry and so on. It worked. No much in France, so France paid the price. But look how many attacks are directed to Charlie. Even if the journalists who were the soul of the satyric newspaper are dead, being the victims of the fanatic criminals, what left is actually under attack at every pretext.
And yes, Charlie attacks,and will attack all religions, because they are atheists.

Lizardo

04-07-2016, 19:46

But how! they backed down and basically accepted Islamic blasphemy laws they haven't drawn Mohammed since the attacks. Their picking on the wrong religion, 99.56% of terrorist suicide bomb attacks are commited by Muslims and justified by Islam. Did christians attack Charlie Hebdo? Why the attacks on christianity and judaism?

Brenus

04-08-2016, 06:56

"Did christians attack Charlie Hebdo?" Yes. Fire bombs.

"they backed down and basically accepted Islamic blasphemy laws they haven't drawn Mohammed since the attacks" First, the real Charlie is dead. In this, the terrorists have won. Fear is still there, but more importantly, the team who took over is not made from the same background of atheist militancy, anti-militarism, tree-hogger and Amnesty International and green-peace activists.
Most of the Charlie's critics when accusing the news-paper of racism had no little knowledge of them that they just charged to the wrong direction. It didn't matter really as the aim was to make the victims the responsible of their murders, and the killers just victims of misunderstandings. It worked.
Why attacks on Christianity and Judaism? Because they are religions. They are revealed truth and their Holly books are as well toxic, so are their teaching (gender inequality, fascination for death, insane symbolism, etc). These 2 other religions are as irrational than the 3rd one, are as potentially lethal, as History showed when they had the power to do so.
They are picking religions as ideologies, as irrational believes...

In French, but it is what all is about.
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/Zineb-El-Rhazoui-une-femme-en-danger-939881

This woman is/was the companion of one of the journalist. Muslim background, Moroccan, and a in danger, heavily protected by the police because fanatics still want to kill her, because she doesn't submit. Not married and pregnant, not wearing the veil and talking, contesting, evil thinker she is.

Lizardo

04-08-2016, 15:03

The media hung 'em up to dry the European Media should've really published the cartoons on mass in defiance and solidarity, I guess the brave most outspoken employees died in the massacre, Europe will keep burying its head in the sand when it comes to Islam, keep importing country shopping migrants, Europe has been demoralised and it's just a matter of time until Western Europe and it's values are erased.

Second coming of Hitler when? lol

Brenus

04-09-2016, 08:32

"Second coming of Hitler when? lol" Not funny. However, for history sake!!!! Hitler allied with Muslims extremists as both were anti-Semitic. Muslims provide at least 3 SS divisions (Handchar (Bosnian/Croat), Kama (Bosnian/Croat), Skanderberg (Albanian), to which you can add the Free Arabian Legion.

Gilrandir

04-09-2016, 13:20

And yes, Charlie attacks,and will attack all religions, because they are atheists.

As the implementation of the tenets of "militant atheism" in the USSR shows, atheism =/= tolerance =/= violence-free. So atheism is not very different from other ideologies when it is put to practice on the state level.

Brenus

04-09-2016, 18:19

Gilrandir

04-10-2016, 06:25

"As the implementation of the tenets of "militant atheism" in the USSR shows, atheism =/= tolerance =/= violence-free. So atheism is not very different from other ideologies when it is put to practice on the state level.":laugh4::laugh4: Comparing a dying magazine to USSR :laugh4::laugh4:
I don't compare anything. I just want to say that ANY ideology when it becomes a guideline for a nation is likely to produce violence when the country is run by a totalitarian system. So there is no reason to be especially proud of being an atheist thinking that it is exempt from this rule of the thumb.

Atheism is not an ideology, by the way. :laugh4::laugh4:

As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR.

USSR was a dictatorship, so implemented the usual tools of dictatorship. I did remind you that more communists were killed than priests of all religions, so can we deduct from this USSR was anti-communist?

Communists were never killed on the ground theat they were communists. On the contrary, they were killed because they were said to have betrayed the ideals of communism or their party or their people.
Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people". To say nothing of the destruction of churches which had great historical and cultural value.

Brenus

04-10-2016, 10:31

"Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people"" Nope. It was because they were part of a political system opposing the regime.
"As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR." Nope. Give me the Holly Book or a book specifically showing universally recognised tenets of atheism, a set of belief and rites, laws to follow to be at good atheist, rewards and punishments included, and then you can claim atheism to be a religion or a ideology. Until then...
Atheism is different to be Communist. It was an add-on, use as political tool to be used against the reactionary priests who sided for the Autocracy and was an active movement against the Regime.
"Communists were never killed on the ground threat they were communists" They were killed to be the wrong type of communist, to be as the Priest agent of reactionary movement against the regime.
You claim the Priest were killed because they were religious, but you deny your system of analyse to the Communists. So what the common part in the killing? Ah, yes, they were against the Regime. So, if the Regime can't qualify as anti-communist, it can't be qualify as anti-religious, so your claim that atheism has something to do with the killing (the Communists were atheist, most of them) is dismissed.The motive was not, as you pretend, because the Priests were part of the Opium dispensers (which, I remind you, is a wrong interpretation of Marx's meaning, as opium was seen by him -as shown in the full sentence- as pain killer), but like the first Communists, were parts of a political opposition to the regime.
So, you can try to drag again militant atheism (as you qualify it) as the same level than religions that actually order the killing of unfaithful, relapse, agnostics, atheists and others followers of others religions, you know you are wrong. Not that will prevent you to do so...

Gilrandir

04-10-2016, 12:38

"Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people"" Nope. It was because they were part of a political system opposing the regime.

Not neccessarily. In the first years of the Soviet regime religion (as well as other elements of the old regime) was considered to be useless and even dangerous system of beliefs that lied to people about their place and role in the world. That is why even the meekest priest could be killed just on the pretext he was an unneccessary element of the bygone times. Although (or perhaps therefore) there were priests that opposed the new regime and were killed for that.

"As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR." Nope. Give me the Holly Book or a book specifically showing universally recognised tenets of atheism, a set of belief and rites, laws to follow to be at good atheist, rewards and punishments included, and then you can claim atheism to be a religion or a ideology. Until then...
Atheism is different to be Communist. It was an add-on, use as political tool to be used against the reactionary priests who sided for the Autocracy and was an active movement against the Regime.

This is what I said - a PART of communist ideology. But used not only against the "guilty" priests. Starting from the kindergarten children were taught that there is no God and religion is deception. Is isn't it an kind of ideology if if is PROPAGATED OFFICIALLY? And as a part of communist ideology it was termed scientific atheism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism#Lenin

So, you can try to drag again militant atheism (as you qualify it) as the same level than religions that actually order the killing of unfaithful, relapse, agnostics, atheists and others followers of others religions, you know you are wrong.

http://portall.zp.ua/video/militant-atheism-in-the-ussr-voinstvujushhijj-ateizm-v-sssr/id-wmxteHtFTVx.html, where:

According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church. The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions. Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities. They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies. Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services. Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated. Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings. For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities. Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules. By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries. In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Before the Russian Revolution, there were more than fifty thousand Russian Orthodox clergymen, by 1939, there were no more than three to four hundred left. In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith. According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, 61,000,000 people were killed under the Communism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Due to the militant atheistic campaigns against Judaism, the religion was inaccessible to its followers; most Soviet Jews focused on a national identity, which fueled a mass dissident movement. Marxist-Leninist militant atheism resulted in the administrative elimination of the clergy, the housing of atheist museums where churches had once stood, the sending of many religious people to prisons and concentration camps, a continuous stream of propaganda, and the imposing of atheism through education (and forced re-education through torture at various prisons). Specifically, by 1941, 40,000 Christian churches and 25,000 Muslim mosques had been closed down and converted into schools, cinemas, clubs, warehouses and grain stores, or Museums of Scientific Atheism.

And also in:
http://tubethe.com/watch/kaIoNe5SOFU/militant-atheism-and-communism.html

Brenus

04-10-2016, 20:35

"According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church": So, I will disagree with this specialist, as his base is just utterly wrong, as atheism is not religion. Atheism does not link a creature and a creator, and in order to back-up his claim, he is obliged creating a equivalence between a Political Party and a Church. Still missing the Holy books, mind you.
By the way, the text you provide is not a proof, just the opinion on why the Churches were destroyed and Religions banned, not facts. The persistent use of vocabulary such as"militant atheism" and "indoctrinated (not educated, indoctrinated) with atheism and antireligious teachings" give you a clue of the why.
It is as usual fraud by association. From Michael Sherlock: "False Analogy Fallacy:
This fallacy depends upon the existence of an often minor analogous factor, in this case, the belief in god versus a lack of belief in god, god being the analogous component, and extrapolating from this minor analogy, conditions that are alleged to affect both positions, when the truth of the matter happens to be, the two (religion and atheism) are not analogous at all.
For apologists to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Atheism, although encompassing varying degrees of disbelief, is not a system of beliefs, but an unsystematic absence of god-belief, that is all. It has no doctrines, traditions and most importantly, no beliefs. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour."
He said it better than I do.

"In the first years of the Soviet regime religion (as well as other elements of the old regime) was considered to be useless and even dangerous system of beliefs that lied to people about their place and role in the world." Agree with this. All useless and opponents were killed, so nothing to do with religions, but "just" usual tools of oppressors and dictators... Killing the useless was unfortunately not only in Communist and Nazi ideologies, eugenic did took its toll as well, including the political ones.

"Part of the ideology": Even so, the author decided that the oppressive part of the regime, the fact that Churches are objectives political enemies of the regime are pushed away without too much trouble. His motives are his, not to me to dwell in them.

In the text you linked, you have one sentence which in fact tells it all: "Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity." Not because Lenin was atheist, but because religions were not only tools but part of the threats against the regime. And to be fair, he was quite right on this assessment.

"Is isn't it an kind of ideology if if is PROPAGATED OFFICIALLY?" So is history which is part of how to built a National Identity. However, none will pretend that history is the equivalent of a religion or an ideology (of course, history is part of an ideology). Even if teachers, schools and books might offer similarities...:laugh4:. Sorry, can't resist.

Gilrandir

04-11-2016, 11:26

So, I will disagree with this specialist, as his base is just utterly wrong, as atheism is not religion.

With all due respect to you as a layman in this sphere, I would side with the specialist on the issue.

For once you missed his point: atheism was FUNCTIONING like a religion in the USSR, so I'll venture to post an excerpt again:

According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church.

Then, I believe Berman has more awareness of the subject and I doubt if you have read much of what Lenin said about religion.

Still missing the Holy books, mind you.

The function of those was performed by the works of Marx/Engels/Lenin. They were considered to be the ultimate authority when you wanted to prove something (much as the Bible is for Christians). You know, ALL the dissertations defended in the USSR were to contain quotations from Lenin (can't wager on the other two) and the works by Lenin were to be given first in the list of references. Citing Lenin looked especially ridiculous for dissertations in physics or chemistry and the lists of references in all dissertations looked very bizarre, since they were given not in alphabetical order, but started with L (Lenin's works) and they came those with A through Z (in Russian from A to Я).

By the way, the text you provide is not a proof, just the opinion on why the Churches were destroyed and Religions banned, not facts. The persistent use of vocabulary such as"militant atheism" and "indoctrinated (not educated, indoctrinated) with atheism and antireligious teachings" give you a clue of the why.

You are fully entitled to your opinion, but I fully agree with the one expressed in the links.

However, none will pretend that history is the equivalent of a religion or an ideology (of course, history is part of an ideology).
And religion/atheism as well.

Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements):
http://ulpressa.ru/2016/01/21/snimali-shlyapyi-i-krestilis-fotootchet-s-tseremonii-vozlozheniya-tsvetov-k-pamyatniku-v-i-lenina/

It is not the USSR, it is modern Russia, but seeing the age of worshippers it is easy to assume they are the indomitable survivors of the Soviet regime.

This is to show how similar to religion the Soviet ideology has become.

Brenus

04-11-2016, 18:19

"Then, I believe Berman has more awareness of the subject and I doubt if you have read much of what Lenin said about religion." You believe what you want indeed...
But when a specialist is so obviously wrong, I can't stop to think he is completely wrong.
Note that he didn't, at any moment, even try prove his point. Pre-supposed, then after showing "facts" and used of vocabulary to re-enforce his "facts" as in "for example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism". Convert. Not convince, by a religious term of convert. "militant atheism was the official religion" is what he wrote, doesn't leave a lot to interpretation and then, as said, he tried to backed it up in implicating the Communist party as Church...
"Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements)" So are the parades to commemorate all events... Check for 11/11 and others tragedies...
"This is to show how similar to religion the Soviet ideology has become" It just show how far you ready to push to try to back-up your argument...:laugh4:

Gilrandir

04-12-2016, 10:53

You believe what you want indeed...
But when a specialist is so obviously wrong, I can't stop to think he is completely wrong.
Note that he didn't, at any moment, even try prove his point. Pre-supposed, then after showing "facts" and used of vocabulary to re-enforce his "facts" as in "for example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism". Convert. Not convince, by a religious term of convert. "militant atheism was the official religion" is what he wrote, doesn't leave a lot to interpretation and then, as said, he tried to backed it up in implicating the Communist party as Church...

You are misinterpreting what he said. But I will not say (as is your wont): You don't have a clue.

Don't you think that the short piece by Berman I linked to is not the only work of his on the subject? I believe he has more arguments to offer if you want any. As for the term militant atheism which you seem to hear for the first time, it was not his coinage. It has been in use since the revolution of 1917, although in the late USSR it was dropped for scientific atheism as it seemed too violent for "the peaceful policies and methods" of the then Soviet Union.

So, I trust more to those who have studied the subject more deeply and systematically and to my awareness of the subject as a person who lived in the USSR for 20 years than to the opinion of a "random guy on the internet" (don't remember whose quote it is).

"Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements)" So are the parades to commemorate all events...

Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state. It is as incompatible as giving a nazi salute at a commemoration of holocaust victims.

Brenus

04-12-2016, 18:19

"As for the term militant atheism which you seem to hear for the first time, it was not his coinage." Wrong again. But your "specialist" made a massive mistake in connecting making atheism a religion. So, I doubt of his analyse(s) which are at least biased.
These are his words: "militant atheism was the official religion". As atheism can't be a religion by definition, he had to build a analogy, to fabricate a bridge, reason why he involves the communist Party in it. Reason why I involved the
"random guy on the internet": You should have read the quote: It was about the attempt from religious to made atheism a religion...
Not because I need someone to analyse a text so biased that it is a piece of art, but because I find his text much better than mine.

As the work of your specialist, I admit I never read it. I went for French Specialists at my times...

"Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state" Really? 2 solutions; Some might think he wasn't so much against religions, or, some might think because he was against religions, he is in big need to save his soul. Whatever the reasons, I still don't understand why you bring this in the actual exchange...

Fragony

04-12-2016, 20:37

How can atheism not be a religion, isn't rejection an acknoweledgment

Brenus

04-13-2016, 07:21

"How can atheism not be a religion, isn't rejection an acknoweledgment" By the definition of religion itself: A religion is the link between the creator and the creature. Do not mix a system of believes and religion. You can believe in unicorns. This doesn't make unicorns divine, so your belief is not a religion. You can believe in some kind of philosophies or political platforms, this doesn't make these religions.
Atheism is not a rejection, it is a lack of belief in Gods/divine.
Religions are codified by texts, injections, rules, punishments and rewards. Religions are linked, included into mythology, supernatural, providing a outside explanation for natural events.
Atheism has none of this.
If you say that atheism is a religion, you can as well say that a non-smoker is a smoker who doesn't smoke, a monk a sex-addict who doesn't have sex, or, to quote Bill Maher, abstinence being a sexual position/activity.

Fragony

04-13-2016, 07:59

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 08:19

Let me put it this way, why does a word that means you aren't religious even exist. I am not religious but I would never call myself an atheist, I just don't care what some believe in. There is a hidden hostility in that word, a need to break it down.

Agnostic=I don't know and so choose not to give judgement either way
Atheist= I see no proof and thus choose to refuse the assertion that there is a god.

There's not necessarily any hostility in either position, though the more hostile people tend to choose Atheism, since they are more assertive usually.

Fragony

04-13-2016, 08:37

Agnostic=I don't know and so choose not to give judgement either way
Atheist= I see no proof and thus choose to refuse the assertion that there is a god.

There's not necessarily any hostility in either position, though the more hostile people tend to choose Atheism, since they are more assertive usually.

Why reject something you don't believe in? It just isn't necesarry and comes close to just bullying for my tastes. A question I would like ask to those who insist on being atheists, why do you even care? What do you have to prove in the first place? Valid questions imho

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 09:11

Why reject something you don't believe in? It just isn't necesarry and comes close to just bullying for my tastes. A question I would like ask to those who insist on being atheists, why do you even care? What do you have to prove in the first place? Valid questions imho

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder? Or do you feel that in the absence of evidence for extraordinary claims we must reject those claims? "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a great way to justify most things, but it is not really an honest way of arguing.

Me myself I am agnostic, I'm just trying to show to you why atheists are not by definition bullies. Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

Husar

04-13-2016, 10:15

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder?
[...]
Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

I'd say you have to prove the goat thing before we have to do or deny anything. Why would Fragony have to deny something you can't even prove exists?

I believe the word atheist exists because around the time it came up it was simply a reality that 90% or more of the people were religious and being religious was considered normal. So the ones who did not want to be religious anymore needed a term to set themselves apart from the norm. Nowadays it seems like atheism is closer to being the norm, but I don't think it really is yet if you look at who identifies as atheist in polls and the likes. See this map for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#/media/File:Europe_No_Belief_enhanced_2010.png

To me it looks like France is almost alone beyond the 50% atheists mark.

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 10:21

I'd say you have to prove the goat thing before we have to do or deny anything. Why would Fragony have to deny something you can't even prove exists?

Do you believe in the Thunder God who will slay you lest he be given a goat in offering on Sunday? Will you slay a goat in sacrifice on Sunday? Either way come Sunday we will know your stance on the matter.

Husar

04-13-2016, 10:43

Do you believe in the Thunder God who will slay you lest he be given a goat in offering on Sunday? Will you slay a goat in sacrifice on Sunday? Either way come Sunday we will know your stance on the matter.

Why Sunday and not Thursday?

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 10:45

Why Sunday and not Thursday?

You shall not question the word of the Thunder God or he will smite you. ;)

Gilrandir

04-13-2016, 11:32

But your "specialist" made a massive mistake in connecting making atheism a religion.These are his words: "militant atheism was the official religion". As atheism can't be a religion by definition, he had to build a analogy, to fabricate a bridge, reason why he involves the communist Party in it.

Once again - it was called a religion not in meaning 1 or 2, but rather in meaning 3:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\

Simple Definition of religion

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

"Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state" Really? 2 solutions; Some might think he wasn't so much against religions, or, some might think because he was against religions, he is in big need to save his soul. Whatever the reasons, I still don't understand why you bring this in the actual exchange...
To show that the leader of the Soviet country (both long dead and still alive) was often imparted with a divine nature worth worshipping. And his effigies and monuments seemed a proper place to expose it.

Fragony

04-13-2016, 11:39

Do you reject the belief that we must sacrifice a goat every Sunday or we'll be struck down by the great God of thunder? Or do you feel that in the absence of evidence for extraordinary claims we must reject those claims? "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a great way to justify most things, but it is not really an honest way of arguing.

Me myself I am agnostic, I'm just trying to show to you why atheists are not by definition bullies. Unless you are a bully for not believing we have to sacrifice goats every Sunday.

I just don't understand why someone calls himself an atheist if be simply isn't religious. It's like an anarchist voting for an apolitical-party

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 11:57

I just don't understand why someone calls himself an atheist if be simply isn't religious. It's like an anarchist voting for an apolitical-party

I thought I had explained that above? Could you re-read it for me and try to help me solve why you do not understand what an atheist is?

Fragony

04-13-2016, 12:25

I thought I had explained that above? Could you re-read it for me and try to help me solve why you do not understand what an atheist is?

I just don't understand why someone who is not religious calls himself an atheist instead of just disregarding religions, Calling yourself an atheist is giving religion more credit than they are worth imho. I don't need to call myself an atheist I simply disregard religion.

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 12:43

I just don't understand why someone who is not religious calls himself an atheist instead of just disregarding religions, Calling yourself an atheist is giving religion more credit than they are worth imho. I don't need to call myself an atheist I simply disregard religion.

Because that someone does not believe in any god, unlike you and me who throw our arms into the air and say "Don't know, don't care".

Fragony

04-13-2016, 13:27

Because that someone does not believe in any god, unlike you and me who throw our arms into the air and say "Don't know, don't care".

But can you see the ambigious it is, considering yourself to be an atheist is having an ideoligy yourself in the end as it's basicly making a point out of it. You don't have to be anti-religious to not be religious, and that is where it sometimes goes wrong as people who insist on being atheists can be just as evangelitically minded, and I see that as an act of hostility

Snowhobbit

04-13-2016, 14:05

But can you see the ambigious it is, considering yourself to be an atheist is having an ideoligy yourself in the end as it's basicly making a point out of it. You don't have to be anti-religious to not be religious, and that is where it sometimes goes wrong as people who insist on being atheists can be just as evangelitically minded, and I see that as an act of hostility

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

Gilrandir

04-13-2016, 15:15

As the work of your specialist, I admit I never read it. I went for French Specialists at my times...

This is no great drawback. But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin).

Fragony

04-13-2016, 15:51

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

I am bad at making a point because it's never anything more than something that doesn'seem to be quit right to me. Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own. There is an ambigiouty to that imho, why take something serious that you don't? I can not shake the feeling that there is a certain need to rediculise people who are religious. I redicule them as well but why are we doing that really, it's no competition

Brenus

04-13-2016, 19:06

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" :laugh4: So many of them, but no thank you. I like to have my own analyse. And the 2 are separated, I am atheist, I am Marxist in how to analyse facts, I am not a atheist Marxist or a Marxist atheist, as you choose. I was atheist much earlier than to be Marxist... And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

"Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own" No. Calling myself an atheist is just telling I don't believe in God(s). Period. No ideology in this, just a simple fact. I don't believe in God(s).

Gilrandir

04-14-2016, 10:55

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

This is what I've been trying to say.

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" :laugh4: So many of them, but no thank you.

Lenin is not just one of them. To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin.

And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

Then you can't claim to be a marxist. Analysing is the way of working with facts, not the system of views/ideology that marxism is. It is like calling someone a Christian because he likes the metaphors Christ used in his speeches.

Fragony

04-14-2016, 11:13

Marxism is a believe in an invetable outcome, facts don't really matter as they are nothing but an indication of what might happen later. That's a rather radical thought for historians who insist there is nothing to learn from history, or predict

Brenus

04-14-2016, 19:31

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

"To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin." Probably, but I was never really interested in the exercise. Facts are better, apparently, the USSR constitution was one of the best, was just not applied. So, speeches and books.... In my mind, Lenin was the guy who opened the door to Stalin (and Trotsky was not better). The Soviets killed the Revolution... But this is not based on knowledge, more on feelings backed-up by history of the Russian Revolution at university...

What you have to understand is, as French, we have our own socialist and anarchist thinkers and theoreticians. We don't really so heavily on others experience, and Marx stays what he was, a theorist who first explored history to try to explain how societies work. In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history. Of course, Marx being a man of the XIX century, was not aware of some facts, as sociology, demography and anthropology can now deliver. He was convinced the revolution would come from industrialised countries when in fact, both successful revolutions came from 2 countries deep in peasantry and politically unaware, Russia and China.

Gilrandir

04-15-2016, 13:30

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

I read some, but more saw it related or interpreted by Lenin.

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

Once you broach a metaphor you may expand it. This is what the author did trying to explain the idelogy in the USSR.

In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history.
Taking a fact and trying to explain other facts by referring to it is called logics. You can apply it without being a marxist.

Brenus

04-16-2016, 09:06

"You can apply it without being a marxist." Yes, you can. Ok, if you insist, I am not a marxist. However, I do apply the marxist's methods, going from facts and reading them from "historical" point. I oppose the "shock of civilisation" bits, and explain (or try) by more geo-political interests than ideological, in Ukraine, Kosovo or in Syria.
However, I do recognise Marxism's failure to take in account aspects of humanity.

Gilrandir

04-17-2016, 07:01

I oppose the "shock of civilisation" bits, and explain (or try) by more geo-political interests than ideological, in Ukraine, Kosovo or in Syria.

Geopolitics goes hand in hand with ideology. Or vice versa.

Fragony

04-17-2016, 08:14

Geopolitics doesn't really has anything to do with it, Marx thought that socialism in a society was inavitable after a hungry society.

Gilrandir

04-17-2016, 12:32

Geopolitics doesn't really has anything to do with it, Marx thought that socialism in a society was inavitable after a hungry society.

I don't mean Marx's views and geopolitics. I mean ideology adopted at a state level often influences a course the country takes, like the ideological background for Crusades. Or political considerations may result in adopting some ideology, like converting Kievan Rus to Christianity in 988.

Fragony

04-17-2016, 17:18

I don't mean Marx's views and geopolitics. I mean ideology adopted at a state level often influences a course the country takes, like the ideological background for Crusades. Or political considerations may result in adopting some ideology, like converting Kievan Rus to Christianity in 988.

Things are always really complicated (the crusades especially, the first especially), what I mean is that Marx was a philopher rather than a political theorisf some take him for, the term marxism is often used wrongly nowadays, words evolve of course, machivellian, sadism racism take your pick, marxism is an evolved word as well.

Gilrandir

04-18-2016, 10:29

Things are always really complicated (the crusades especially, the first especially), what I mean is that Marx was a philopher rather than a political theorisf some take him for, the term marxism is often used wrongly nowadays, words evolve of course, machivellian, sadism racism take your pick, marxism is an evolved word as well.

Marx's "philosophy" (with Lenin's amendments) was made into an ideology that guided a sixth part of the Earth's area (and the allied states) for seventy years. It surely influenced geopolitics.

Fragony

04-18-2016, 11:05

Marx's "philosophy" (with Lenin's amendments) was made into an ideology that guided a sixth part of the Earth's area (and the allied states) for seventy years. It surely influenced geopolitics.

In the same way that the Marquis de Sade could have plunged the world into world where sexual satisfication of any kind would be acceptable just for the sake of just doing whatever you want just because you want to, whatever you desire. How influencial was Marxism really on a global scale? Where things went really wrong they didn't really need him to tell them how things should be done. Geopolitics can be ruled out imho, in the end Marx was just someone with some radical ideas but they were never anything more than a prediction of how things could go.

Gilrandir

04-18-2016, 11:25

In the same way that the Marquis de Sade could have plunged the world into world where sexual satisfication of any kind would be acceptable just for the sake of just doing whatever you want just because you want to, whatever you desire.

If Sadism was proclaimed a state ideology anywhere we would surely see a lot of queer things happenning in world politics.

How influencial was Marxism really on a global scale? Where things went really wrong they didn't really need him to tell them how things should be done. Geopolitics can be ruled out imho, in the end Marx was just someone with some radical ideas but they were never anything more than a prediction of how things could go.

Marxism with the spinoff by Lenin as the official ideology of the USSR (it was termed Marxism-Leninism) was the key factor determining the world geopolitics in the 20th century. But as any ideology that became a practice, it has some (sometimes many) differences with what was said (and intended) by its founder. Like Jesus never said anything (or commanded) about Crusades, yet it was his name that crusaders sported on their t-shirts, so to say.