Terrorist attack thread

[Johnny Drama]

Oh I got no clue what she looked like but it's fair to say she'd probably wanna fuck our Persian buddy enough that she'd let him shit in her mouth and that makes her a good sport in my books.

[PappyTron]

I prefer slightly more...demure women myself, but whatever gets you going, Johnny.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, PappyTron said:

 

If one is helping too little and is being criticised for it, and forgive me for asking this because my English isn't so good, is that not the same as stating that we need to help more? I mean "we" gets used for multiple different uses here, and gets switched around when convenient, but "we" = "society", collectively, because you keep saying things like "We caused the problems that they are running away from", which is clearly Europe as a whole. If you are only talking about Norway, then why are you telling Lio that the attack on her country this week is her own fault and that "we" must all learn from Belgium's mistakes in order to help better in future?

Honestly, the above is like the time Rick James told an interviewer that he'd never jumped on Eddie Murphy's couch before proudly saying that he jumped on Eddie Murphy's couch two seconds later, all in the same sentence. Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

- I haven't criticised anyone (except my own country, and maybe a few Middle Eastern countries) for helping too little.

- I have never told Lio that the attack on her country is her (country's) own fault. I could leave it at that, as another false statement from you, but I will take the time to clarify: I have told her that A LOT of the problems they are having with integration (we were talking about the ghetto in Molenbeek, Muslims helping extremists, and so on) is Belgium's own fault. Not all. A lot. And not terror attacks. Integration. This ties in with the ongoing discussion back then about both immigrants and host country having to work together where each have a responsibility for making sure the immigrants are integrated (just look at the discussion with Johnny Drama a few posts later, and a post after that where I stated it explicitly again in a reply to Shades: "Of course, the fault of terrorism always lies with the terroris[ts]"). So I have never said that the terrorist attacks were Belgium's fault. And if you somehow misunderstood what we were talking about, and interpreteted what I said as blaming Belgium for the terrorist attacks, why do you then keep harping on this when I have stated a few times now that I never said Belgium was to blame for the terrorist attacks? This is a brilliant example of you misunderstanding something that is said and then cling to your erroneous interpretation even in the face of clarification a long time after because, well, otherwise you would have to accept being wrong in the first place.

- We must all learn from past failures in immigration and integration because I assume we (every country) will continue with immigration.

 

[Johnny Drama]

Had to. Continue on.

[PappyTron]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

- I haven't criticised anyone (except my own country, and maybe a few Middle Eastern countries) for helping too little.

- I have never told Lio that the attack on her country is her (country's) own fault. I could leave it at that, as another false statement from you, but I will take the time to clarify: I have told her that A LOT of the problems they are having with integration (we were talking about the ghetto in Molenbeek, Muslims helping extremists, and so on) is Belgium's own fault. Not all. A lot. And not terror attacks. Integration. This ties in with the ongoing discussion back then about both immigrants and host country having to work together where each have a responsibility for making sure the immigrants are integrated (just look at the discussion with Johnny Drama a few posts later, and a post after that where I stated it explicitly again in a reply to Shades: "Of course, the fault of terrorism always lies with the terroris[ts]"). So I have never said that the terrorist attacks were Belgium's fault. And if you somehow misunderstood what we were talking about, and interpreteted what I said as blaming Belgium for the terrorist attacks, why do you then keep harping on this when I have stated a few times now that I never said Belgium was to blame for the terrorist attacks? This is a brilliant example of you misunderstanding something that is said and then cling to your erroneous interpretation even in the face of clarification a long time after because, well, otherwise you would have to accept being wrong in the first place.

- We must all learn from past failures in immigration and integration because I assume we (every country) will continue with immigration.

 

You said to JeanGenie (well, Lio):

"But noone is saying that. What I am saying is that Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes. Well, we have all failed to various degrees. We have been naive, we have been trustworthhy, we have been blind. We must learn and improve."

In English, we call that victim blaming. You are blaming the terrorist attacks on Belgium this past week on Belgium's "failures" in cultural and religious integration of recent Muslim immigrants; that is the same, in English of saying "the terrorist attacks are Belgium's fault". Do you seek to tell me that my grasp of English is not sufficient to tell you of what the words you use mean to a native English speaker? Do you not trust me when I tell you that it is evident that you clearly believe that what you are saying is different to how your words actually read? If we were talking in Norwegian then feel free to tell me that my actual use of words is not the same as my intended use of words.

You stated that "We created the situation that they are running from, so we must do more to help", did you not? Is that the Norwegian "we" or the European "we"? I'll assume the latter, in which case you then stated that "we" need to do more, which is the same as saying that "we" are not doing enough.

because, well, otherwise you would have to accept being wrong in the first place.

What gives you the vaguest impression that I care enough to refuse to accept that I am wrong simply so I don't have to apologise for getting what you were saying wrong? You have a very strange view of the interest in which you think I take on people's opinions. Like I said, if I am wrong then I shall say so, but MB, Lio, JeanGenie and I must all have poor grasps of English because we all believed that you were saying the same thing; maybe your mastery of the English language is simply so Swiftian that we are but pupils and you are the teacher. SoulMonster; Norwegian, but never wrong.

No matter. If you are now claiming that you have always meant the near opposite of the words that you typed out then I shall take you at that opinion and no more.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

You said to JeanGenie (well, Lio):

"But noone is saying that. What I am saying is that Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes. Well, we have all failed to various degrees. We have been naive, we have been trustworthhy, we have been blind. We must learn and improve."

In English, we call that victim blaming. You are blaming the terrorist attacks on Belgium this past week on Belgium's "failures" in cultural and religious integration of recent Muslim immigrants; that is the same, in English of saying "the terrorist attacks are Belgium's fault". Do you seek to tell me that my grasp of English is not sufficient to tell you of what the words you use mean to a native English speaker? Do you not trust me when I tell you that it is evident that you clearly believe that what you are saying is different to how your words actually read? If we were talking in Norwegian then feel free to tell me that my actual use of words is not the same as my intended use of words.

You stated that "We created the situation that they are running from, so we must do more to help", did you not? Is that the Norwegian "we" or the European "we"? I'll assume the latter, in which case you then stated that "we" need to do more, which is the same as saying that "we" are not doing enough.

What gives you the vaguest impression that I care enough to refuse to accept that I am wrong simply so I don't have to apologise for getting what you were saying wrong? You have a very strange view of the interest in which you think I take on people's opinions. Like I said, if I am wrong then I shall say so, but MB, Lio, JeanGenie and I must all have poor grasps of English because we all believed that you were saying the same thing; maybe your mastery of the English language is simply so Swiftian that we are but pupils and you are the teacher. SoulMonster; Norwegian, but never wrong.

No matter. If you are now claiming that you have always meant the near opposite of the words that you typed out then I shall take you at that opinion and no more.

You are confusing (partly) blaming Belgium for failed integration leading to the emergence of domestic terrorists and blaming Belgium for the actual terrorist attacks. One can blame someone for not doing enough to prevent terrorism to grow yet at the same time put all blame for the actual terrorist attacks (which is the further down the chain of cause and effect) entirely on the perpetrators.

Yes, I believe we should do more, as Europeans or just fellow human beings, but not necessarily that Belgium or Sweden should do more, or any other specific country (except Norway and, possibly, some Middle Eastern countries). So when I say that "we" should do more that isn't a critique of any individual country, but of us as a whole, or the net effect of what we are achieving. Some countries are obviously doing more than enough, which I have stated explicitly numerous times, including probably Belgium and Sweden. Some are obviously not...

I am not comfortable offering any explanations as to why a few guys here took my criticism of Belgium's integration as blaming them for the terrorist attacks, despite me explicitly stating I did NOT blame them for the terrorist attacks right thereafter, except to say that this is a hot subject and then we are more apt to be bit rash. I don't think it has anything to do with English, though, since I was rather explicit at times: "[... ] the fault of terrorism always lies with the terroris[ts]". People who continue to claim I blame Belgium for the attacks -- and by now I don't think that is anyone but you, Pappy -- either haven't read my posts, have selective memory, or deliberately reject parts of what I write to not accept they were wrong :/.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by SoulMonster

[PappyTron]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You are confusing (partly) blaming Belgium for failed integration leading to the emergence of domestic terrorists and blaming Belgium for the actual terrorist attacks. One can blame someone for not doing enough to prevent terrorism to grow yet at the same time put all blame for the actual terrorist attacks (which is the further down the chain of cause and effect) entirely on the perpetrators. This is the butterfly effect in, uhm, effect.

Yes, I believe we should do more, as Europeans or just fellow human beings, but not necessarily that Belgium or Sweden should do more, or any other specific country (except Norway and, possibly, some Middle Eastern countries). So when I say that "we" should do more that isn't a critique of any individual country, but of us as a whole, or the net effect of what we are achieving. Some countries are obviously doing more than enough, which I have stated explicitly numerous times, including probably Belgium and Sweden. Some are obviously not...

I am not comfortable offering any explanations as to why a few guys here took my criticism of Belgium's integration as blaming them for the terrorist attacks, despite me explicitly stating I did NOT blame them for the terrorist attacks right thereafter, except to say that this is a hot subject and then we are more apt to be bit rash. I don't think it has anything to do with English, though, since I was rather explicit at times: "[... ] the fault of terrorism always lies with the terroris[ts]". People who continue to claim I blame Belgium for the attacks -- and by now I don't think that is anyone but you, Pappy -- either haven't read my posts, have selective memory, or deliberately reject parts of what I write to not accept they were wrong :/.

 

 

You are saying that the situation which causes people, in Belgium, to have radical ideas and then act upon them, are mainly Belgium's fault for their lack of integration, et al. Whilst it is of course the person who commits the act who is to blame, you are also blaming Belgium by extension. You are saying, in effect "This woman was raped and whilst that is the attacker's fault, she did create the situation by wearing skimpy clothing, getting drunk and walking through the park".

I am not comfortable offering any explanations as to why a few guys here took my criticism

I offered you the only possible solution; we must all lack the basic grasp of English needed to read your posts correctly. We couldn't possibly have construed your posts to mean one thing whilst you meant another, and independently, no less, because the English misunderstanding over linguistic meaning is on your part not ours. That is simply beyond the realms of possibility.

People who continue to claim I blame Belgium for the attacks

Again, as pointed out to you, you say multiple things which are at odds which each other (my victim blaming example, above). As stated, if you are claiming to mean one thing only then you need to learn that the other things you have said, to a native English speaker such as myself, do not read as such, even if you later clarify your intent. But no, you don't even have the humility to say "Oh, I didn't realise that some of what I said could come across as different to what I meant, Pappy", instead choosing to make snide comments about how I must either have selective memory, poor comprehension or that I simply don't want to say that I am wrong. I can truly only genuflect at your perspicacious understanding of my mother tongue; I truly hope that one day I can possess such an equal mastery of it.

In summation; nobody is saying that you are completely wrong about everything that you have said; simply saying that if your intended meaning on certain subjects is A) then you need to be aware that the meaning of said posts comes across as B). Obviously though that is all our collective fault for reading what you said incorrectly, because not a one of us has your flawless knowledge of English.

 

PS - No, a couple of Germans giving a similar opinion on German immigration is no different than asking a couple of Muslims and claiming that they speak for all. Germany is a large country with huge cultural diversity and someone from Bavaria does not speak for a Sorb from Saxony or someone from North Frisia.

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

You are saying that the situation which causes people, in Belgium, to have radical ideas and then act upon them, are mainly Belgium's fault for their lack of integration, et al. Whilst it is of course the person who commits the act who is to blame, you are also blaming Belgium by extension. You are saying, in effect "This woman was raped and whilst that is the attacker's fault, she did create the situation by wearing skimpy clothing, getting drunk and walking through the park".

I offered you the only possible solution; we must all lack the basic grasp of English needed to read your posts correctly. We couldn't possibly have construed your posts to mean one thing whilst you meant another, and independently, no less, because the English misunderstanding over linguistic meaning is on your part not ours. That is simply beyond the realms of possibility.

I only blame Belgium for failing at integration. I blame the terrorists, and no one else, for the terrorism. This has to do with causation, foreseeability, etc, and is also the legal reasoning for responsibility, i.e. Proximate Cause rule used to determine legal liability. Likewise, I would blame a girl for wearing skimpy clothes (not that I think that is something to be blamed for), but only the rapist for the rape. Sure, if Belgian anti-terror policy hadn't been so inept at what they do, this terror may have been prevented. But I don't blame anyone who intends to prevent terror, and fail, for the terror itself, only for the failing, for the reasons stated. Nor do I blame the butterfly for the hurricane (to exaggerate causation). That is why Jambon, and other high-deputy people in Belgium, now resign from their positions, not because they are at blame for the terror, but because they are at blame for not doing their job properly (which ultimately became a component in causing the terror).

I don't think that is the only possible solution...

 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by SoulMonster
typo and added a comment on the butterfly effect

[Apollo]

7 hours ago, PappyTron said:

You said to JeanGenie (well, Lio):

"But noone is saying that. What I am saying is that Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes. Well, we have all failed to various degrees. We have been naive, we have been trustworthhy, we have been blind. We must learn and improve."

In English, we call that victim blaming. You are blaming the terrorist attacks on Belgium this past week on Belgium's "failures" in cultural and religious integration of recent Muslim immigrants; that is the same, in English of saying "the terrorist attacks are Belgium's fault". Do you seek to tell me that my grasp of English is not sufficient to tell you of what the words you use mean to a native English speaker? Do you not trust me when I tell you that it is evident that you clearly believe that what you are saying is different to how your words actually read? If we were talking in Norwegian then feel free to tell me that my actual use of words is not the same as my intended use of words.

You stated that "We created the situation that they are running from, so we must do more to help", did you not? Is that the Norwegian "we" or the European "we"? I'll assume the latter, in which case you then stated that "we" need to do more, which is the same as saying that "we" are not doing enough.

 

 

What gives you the vaguest impression that I care enough to refuse to accept that I am wrong simply so I don't have to apologise for getting what you were saying wrong? You have a very strange view of the interest in which you think I take on people's opinions. Like I said, if I am wrong then I shall say so, but MB, Lio, JeanGenie and I must all have poor grasps of English because we all believed that you were saying the same thing; maybe your mastery of the English language is simply so Swiftian that we are but pupils and you are the teacher. SoulMonster; Norwegian, but never wrong.

No matter. If you are now claiming that you have always meant the near opposite of the words that you typed out then I shall take you at that opinion and no more.

Lol. This is why it's hard to have a civilized debate with Soulmonster. The best thing you can do is just realize he is the smartest person on the forum and be thankful he is here to educate the rest of. 

[Apollo]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Likewise, I would blame a girl for wearing skimpy clothes (not that I think that is something to be blamed for), but only the rapist for the rape. 

Wow. So what are you "blaming" the girl for then? 

You are 100% attaching part of the blame of being raped to the victim with that statement. 

Your other analogies actually make a bit of sense. But you should probably edit that rape part out of your post as it makes you look pretty bad.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

Wow. So what are you "blaming" the girl for then? 

You are 100% attaching part of the blame of being raped to the victim with that statement. 

Your other analogies actually make a bit of sense. But you should probably edit that rape part out of your post as it makes you look pretty bad.

What? I am not blaiming the girl for anything. It was Pappy equating me explaining that Belgium is partly to blame for the bad integration to those that blame girls for being raped just because they wear skimpy clothing. I find the analogy absurd. No more are Belgium to blame for what terrorists do than girls are for being attacked and raped. I solely put the blame for the terror on the terrorists and the rape on the rapists.

That doesn't mean Belgium couldn't have prevented the attacks through better police work, less immigration, etc, just that I personally don't find them morally or legally responsible for the terrorist attacks. I do criticise them for bad integration though, which might be unfortunate timing of me just after the terrorist attacks, and possibly not in good style, but I honestly didn't think it would hurt anyone's feelings and was spurred on by the numerous newspapers articles that discuss Belgia's failed anti-terror work.

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

Lol. This is why it's hard to have a civilized debate with Soulmonster. The best thing you can do is just realize he is the smartest person on the forum and be thankful he is here to educate the rest of. 

Please don't end a sentence with a preposition, Apollo.

Edited March 28, 2016 by SoulMonster
Merging

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Another attack in Pakistan. An amusement park was attacked on Easter Sunday because they were Christians. So many dead and wounded. The Taliban claims it did it.

So much hate because people are of a different religion.

This hate goes back thousands of years and I doubt it'll ever stop.

Jesus preached tolerance and it's so sad no one remembers that especially on Easter Sunday.

This world is so doomed.

[wasted]

The problem is middle east countries/islam can't solve their own problems. Look at the 10-20 year wars they have over religious or geographic differences. And they hold grudges and act on beliefs. 

So what are the odds they will be able to solve problems in europe or the west with people of middle eastern origin. Zero. They have no solutions. To solve the problem of safety for western citizens we might have to be way less liberal and hopeful. 

But on top of that all actions are political. So to stop a certain group of terrorists, round these guys up misses the point that they are just poor people forced into this, maybe there's a leader but really he's just acting on the docterine of an almost middle class fundamentalists/politians/business men who disagree with American foreign policy. They act In their own interests. It's not chance, not a mysterious virus religion that infects people. It's deliberate. So the west supports one group or country and not the other. So we get bombed for helping the wrong side. My guess is that fundamentalists are afraid of losing their way of life, and hence those leaders losing power and wealth so they wage a bootleg war, whatever they can muster. ISIS is basically like a criminal syndicate like the mafia. But that doesn't mean the west won't pursue it's ultimate goal to the end (world domination) and never really explain why this is happening because no government can get elected on this. It's a hard sell in the cold light of day. It's easier to sell as evil or demonize a religion or country than actually get people to admit we want to control the world. The ordinary person doesn't care or know, they just like cross fit and craft beer. But somewhere in the back our minds we know what's happening it just suits us not to notice and how would we know for sure? I'm just saying I know. This is what it is. 

[Bumblefeet]

The way I see it is that through globalisation and the information age we live with social media and constant updates, the religious/cultural/linguistic/... borders that used to exist are now constantly under attack and the core principles of most of these antiquated belief systems require constant adjusting if they are to survive the future, both in the West as well as the East. Globally I think it is hard to deny that the West offers more freedom, tolerance and rights to people. Is it perfect? No, but it champions dialogue and discussion as well as gradual change whereas the East is more hardcore in its principles and beliefs, and it still takes conflicts and wars to bring about change in some ---thankfully not all- of its countries. That is the sad reality.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Bumblefeet

[wasted]

We see ourselves as tolerate but really we have been sweeping across the world seizing control. Some areas are happy with a compromise. The American empire has been spreading. Liberal democracies are our solution. But it's not unsurprising that there are pockets that aren't just ready for Hooters and Mtv. 

I guess a war in the age of globisation means you have the enemy living in your country. There are almost no countries. Just ideologies. The war will be online. 

But it does look like a solution is to bring back borders. Not everyone wants to mingle. 

I guess the question is is it a evil regime/ideology or just the product of our own rush to dominance.

I believe they want something. Not the destruction of the west. That's what the leaders tell the soldiers before they go into battle. But really they want to remain in power and wealth. 

It's really hard to take over the world without upsetting anyone.  

[gunsguy]

Not "terrorism" but this is interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35923820

Hijacker photo man Ben Innes explains Egyptair plane snap

[Słash]

Yeah I saw this a few mins ago too, He seems like an old dude with problems, he is not the typical terrorist type, I wonder what could have been the reason behind his motive, that belt was fake too. 

[JeanGenie]

@PappyTron I can only speak for myself but you summed up my opinion regarding this topic very well. Except that Im a guy, other than that you've been spot on.

 

[Len Cnut]

15 minutes ago, JeanGenie said:

@PappyTron I can only speak for myself but you summed up my opinion regarding this topic very well. Except that Im a guy, other than that you've been spot on.

 

I got the guy bit right, i demand some love

[JeanGenie]

45 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

I got the guy bit right, i demand some love

Len, yee knaa tha Ah love yee. 

[PappyTron]

2 hours ago, JeanGenie said:

@PappyTron I can only speak for myself but you summed up my opinion regarding this topic very well. Except that Im a guy, other than that you've been spot on.

 

Thank you, Genie. That means a lot.

Sorry about the girl thing; kept mixing up Lio in there.

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, JeanGenie said:

Len, yee knaa tha Ah love yee. 

Thank you, i think everyone does on some level

[DieselDaisy]

Ahh, I see Pappy has got himself embroiled in a Soul Monster debate! We've all been there!

Most Islamic terrorism is actually directed at other Muslims (Shias and those not obeying Sharia law, etc), so the idea that most Muslims secretly applaud these terrorist incidents is clearly bunk.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Most Islamic terrorism is actually directed at other Muslims (Shias and those not obeying Sharia law, etc), so the idea that most Muslims secretly applaud these terrorist incidents is clearly bunk.

That is a good point. Another is that Muslims are like most humans and would generally object to the killing of innocents. But this is all still irrelevant all the time JeanGenie wasn't talking about Muslims in general but just some he knows.

[Axl owns dexter]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Ahh, I see Pappy has got himself embroiled in a Soul Monster debate! We've all been there!

Most Islamic terrorism is actually directed at other Muslims (Shias and those not obeying Sharia law, etc), so the idea that most Muslims secretly applaud these terrorist incidents is clearly bunk.

But is that because most of proximity? Most Muslims live in areas surrounded by other Muslims. If 300 millions Muslims were imported to the West you would start to see the scales tip in the number of muslims vs non-muslims killed.