blonde poker forum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503928/Two-explosions-heard-Brussels-Airport.html


Muslim terrorist killing more innocent people yet again 😔

Looks like possibly 17 dead. Very sad, RIP.

Metro station now as well.  Morons planted the bombs though.

Was in Brussels a couple of weeks ago staying in the same district as that metro station. Awful developments...

Horrible stuff. I was in Brussels at the end of last year, a truly lovely place with lovely people. I must say the security didn't seem great at the time.

I fear London is next. I think we may start having security check in outside of airport buildings in the future.

The terrorists are winning.

The terrorists are killing people still, but that is a long way from winning anything.  Given the likelihood they are dead, then it is safe to assume these particular terrorists have lost. 

I'm referring to disrupting our way of life, not a tally of who is winning based on headcount.

I worry about the tube.  I mean there is no security whatsoever and more people.  Why bother with an airport?

Oh come on, you were going way over the top when you said they were winning.  Our way of life is going to be the same as it was before.  The chances of anybody in the West getting killed by a terrorist attack are still absolutely minuscule.   Get a grip.

Again, you are talking about headcount, I am talking about this changing the way we deal with this going forward. There was only one shoe bomber but we all have to take our shoes off at aiports.

Anyway, this is probably going to derail into a pointless debate. I might be overreacting.

They might not be "winning" as such, but they are proving themselves capable of executing atrocities on a pretty regular basis so if they are aiming to create fear then that is certainly working.

I wouldn't count disruption as 'winning' - creating fear would, but an illustrative example would be that provisional figures for Paris tourism shows that visitor numbers continued to go up in 2015 despite the attack. I would have thought that suggests they're a long way from winning.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#Attacks_involving_violence_or_serious_threat_to_life
Comparing decades I think suggests we're really not doing that badly at the moment.

Is it really creating fear though? I was living in London when the 7/7 attacks occured and after that happened people just went about their business as usual - there was obviously shock at first but very few people changed their daily lives as a result (some people were certainly wary of travelling on the Tube but I didn't notice the carriages getting any less busy)

Of course, back then we didn't have Facebook/Twitter for people to tell everyone how scared they were - that's what's changed now, a few people say they're scared and this gets retweeted and magnified and the impression is given that we're all a bunch of scaredy cats now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper)

lolTrump

We have to remember that they are killing people because they are terrorists, not because they are Muslims.

That's not strictly true with ISIS-inspired terrorists, as ISIS are an organisation explictly acting in the name of Islam, so these guys being Muslim is part of the reason that they carry out the attacks, it's not just a coincidence.

Whilst I agree it is important not to tar people with a broad brush, I don't think you can just ignore the Islam connection.  Whatever bonkers fringe strand of the religion they are devoted to it is clearly a problem and we can't bury our head in the sand?

A more correct construction then might be

We have to remember that they are killing people because they are muslim terrorists, not because they are Muslims.

It's a bit clunky - but the point still stays roughly the same

True but the point is they are a minority subset of a large religion.

The problem is how readily so many people conflate an idea (Islam) with the people who believe it (Muslims). We should be able to critique an idea without alienating the people who subscribe to it. Unfortunately you get racists on one end assuming all muslims are terrorists, and you get apologists on the other trying to censor people from debating this topic by falsely labelling critical voices as racists. We must be able to have honest discussions about where these bad ideas are coming from, how can we win this 'war on terror' if cant even discuss it without walking on eggshells?

This quote sums it up better than I could by Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz - "No idea is above scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity".

Spot on mate  :)up

So do we view these actions as Islamic or Un-Islamic?  I am sure the majority of Muslims view them as the latter.  I think it is important this is recognised.  If their actions are Un-Islamic then are we using the right label when we call them Muslim terrorists?   

Martyrdom is a tenet of Islam so looking at it from a literal interpretation, yes these actions are Islamic. However, very few people from any religion literally follow it to the word, the same goes for Hindus, Christians, Jews etc etc. I personally wouldn't call them muslim terrorists for that reason. I'd call them Islamist terrorists or Jihadists. Islamist (not to be confused with Islamic) being the people who want to spread Islam politically, Jihadist being those that do it in a violent way.

I'm no scholar but pretty certain suicide and killing innocent people isn't following Islam to the word

Suicide and killing innocent people is not, but the promise of paradise if you die killing the enemies of Islam are in both the quran and the hadith. Obviously this in itself is an issue of interpretation of who those enemies of Islam are, one which the vast majority of muslims would agree these poor people in Belgium were not.

Deuteronomy 2:33-34
"The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors."

The Bible certainly seems to support the odd bit of killing when it comes to God's enemies as well.

Fair comment Barry.

For comparison 70 people will be killed on European roads today, tomorrow and everyday forward.

I know which will get more media coverage.

If #Brussels feared a terrorist attack, why was its airport security so lax? http://bit.ly/1UKYMW9 

Can't we just call them terrorists? 

Ultimately that is what they are.  I see no reason why we need to tag them as anything other. 

i find it bizarre that you won't allow any link between the terrorists and Islam.  They specifically kill people in the name of their religion so to not to even mention it at risk of offending someone is bonkers. 

Daft.  Why was there any media coverage of the twin towers attack.  After all more people die of cancer in a year.

Do they though? 

How many Muslims do you know that would subscribe to that idea. 

Is their killing people in the name of their religion akin to our Christian governments murdering folk in the name of national security the same thing?

It's not that I am not allowing links, I don't see it as necessary.  It just leads to more Islamaphobia in my eyes. 

I take your point that we risk the dumb in our society blaming all Muslims for it.  But the vast majority understand that this is an extremist element and in no way representative of the majority.  Surely you agree that the terrorists "think" they are doing it in the name of religion even if they are misguided?  What other Muslims think isn't really relevant in regard to the terrorists themselves considering it a religious quest.  I think the link is necessary if people are to understand the problem of radicalisation.

My face book is littered with comments from people who I wouldn't have ordinarily classed as racist or stupid but reading through the comments there is a hatred of all things Muslim and that has breached into other races because they "look the same".  If your surrounded with people who can engage in an intelligent debate then I think its fair enough to look at the religious angle.   

Additionally, I grew up in Ireland which has its own problems with bigotry, racism and terrorism.   I was a Roman Catholic and I hailed from a nationalist family and when the IRA were bombing we were targeted by racists who thought we were a legitimate target for retribution despite our family being appalled when civilians were killed.   

There can be absolutely no excuse for what has happened in Belgium today or Paris in November.  But blaming a religion isn't going to help matters.   We need the progressive Muslims to stand up to these nutters, but they face retribution if they come out and decry this rogue element.   We should not be trying to antagonize the Muslim community we should be looking for their support in overcoming the issue.   Blaming their religion won't allow for that to happen. 

Too often we live in a bubble and don't appreciate what is going on outside that bubble and our news sources don't help in my view. 

Completely agree that the only way this stops is via reform from the Muslim community itself. They are the biggest victims of terrorism after all.

But you are contradicting yourself here, you are saying blaming their religion doesn't help, yet you also acknowledge that if they speak out about the rogue element they face retribution, which is surely a problem of the religion? Not trying to trip you up here, but how can the peaceful majority stand up to these nutters as you put it, if criticism of the religion is not allowed?

If you are in some areas of Syria and Iraq, there may be retribution if you speak out, but that simply isn't the case in the majority of Muslim areas.  That is simply because in the vast majority of Muslim areas these people are rightly seen as a disgrace to their claimed religion.  And in those areas in Syria and Iraq where you can't speak out, it isn't people's internal beliefs that stop them speaking out, it is the fact there is a possibility they will be killed for doing so.

That's actually the point I was (very clumsily) trying to make. The fact that they can't speak out in some parts of the world is a problem of the religion that needs to be discussed. Not saying we should force the people in those areas to speak out so candidly, but in areas that have secular, liberal, values, we should speak out on their behalf, because we can.

Fair enough mate.  Good post and I take this onboard.

Very unsure about this part. Remember that half of all people are of below average intelligence.

Also in the Muslim community there are many who don't speak or read English and their news sources may promote a different view of what is happpening to what ours do.   Indeed, some would say that is key recruiting ground.   That is why we need a progressive element to stand up and be counted.  The answer is most definitely not the state sponsored former Jihadist who has been on Question Time on a few occasions.   

Directly?  They have committed these attrocities as they have joined a gang of psychopaths.  It is easy to find passages in religious books that say stupid things, you can find similar stuff in the bible as shown above. 

It is important to also read the overall message of the book.

http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-mercy-of-allah-god/ (http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-mercy-of-allah-god/)

Whoever kills an innocent human being it shall be as if he has killed all mankind

Limitless is your Lord in his mercy.  God almighty is full of love and kindness to his creation

Muslim scholars around the World have warned of the non Islamic ideology of ISIS

Etc.

If I wanted to know what were the important parts of being christian, I wouldn't approach the biggest fundamentalist fuckwit I could find and ask him.  I'd approach those who are more educated and living normal lives.   These people will tell you that these people are not following the religion of Islam, but instead cherry picking small parts of the Quran that suit their purpose. 

I don't follow any religion, but it seems "Gods" get a bad press some times.

So at what point do the British and Americans stop becoming terrorists? 

It is silly to look at dictionary definitions and then try and change the context.   

Bombing Syria clearly hasn't defeated these terrorist cells so would that be an act of terrorism? 

I know plenty of Muslims who are devout and are at Mosque daily, not one of them would take the preachings of the quran as literally as these nutters claim to be doing.   One of my mate claims his Jihad is against drink/drugs and gambling.  I no of not one time he has attempted or plotted to create havoc in a pub or casino. 

The religion does not directly cause these attacks. Nobody reads the Quran and turns into a homicidal maniac. Billions of Muslims have been exposed to it without them doing anything violent as a result, just as most people read the Bible etc.

What happens is disenfranchised young men get groomed by charismatic leaders of politically motivated groups like ISIS. The suicide bombers tend to have the exact same psychological profile as the nut jobs who do mass shootings in schools in America.

Where Islam is relevant is that it is the playbook used to both groom people for and dictate the nature of the attacks. The promise of paradise, the celebration of martyrdom etc. The other big difference between Islam and other extremist interpretations of religion is that most other religions have been through a period of reform, Islam has not in most parts of the world, in fact there are still many countries that have Shariah law. So while these attacks ultimately are political, there is a massive religious component to the politics.

It's for these reasons that we have the unenviable task of not letting racists further disenfranchise the peaceful majority, but we cannot bury our head in the sand and say it has nothing to do with the religion. The religion is being used to recruit, so we have to acknowledge where these bad ideas are coming from, in order to present better ideas to those people most likely to fall into these bad circles. IMO the only way this happens is if we help progressive muslims reform the religion, as PokerBroker has suggested.

did you see this?

is this as one sided as it sounds or does ryanair have a point here?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504435/Ryanair-asks-Britons-6-000-fly-home-Brussels.html

The Daily Mail and Ryan Air in a thread about religion? Throw in Thatcher and Martin Lewis somehow and we might have a Blondepoker-armageddon.

I may be strange, but i am not stupid.

get clicking.

I'm not a huge fan of Ryanair but I don't see that they have done anything wrong here?

If you book with Ryanair you know it isn't flexible. £200 each to book a flight the same day isn't bad.

+1

I hate to miss an opportunity to get a dig at O'Liary as well. 

Of course Ryanair has a point.  They need to look after the customers from the bombed airport first.  The Foreign office still deems it a safe place to travel to.  Surely this lot can sit tight for a couple of days and then come home.  If that isn't their choice then the airline gives surrender monkeys the option of changing flights for £200.  I just don't see an issue here.  In the wake of the 7/7 attacks I wasn't on the blower to the daily mail complaining about how worried my folks would be if I was forced to remain in London.  Yeah, I know people have died, but my mum might worry a bit if I don't come home.

Though, to be fair I'd happily pay the £200 to avoid speaking to the daily mail. 

Is that what you wanted Tighty?

That's a great post DaveShoelace. However surely religion isn't the only thing to blame? If you don't have unstable environments extremism doesn't come to the fore. Western meddling/foreign policy in this instance is the main reason ISIS are what they are today. I'm aware the politics of the region is complicated but is there any reason why we can't put more pressure on our own governments to start leaving the Middle East the hell alone?

On a slight tangent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35895416

As in previous incidents, the security services knew these men were dangerous and did nothing.

The blood of the victims is in part on their hands.

I believe that is mostly always the case but the security services also have a mandate of what they can and can't do.  I am not advocating extending fwiw for reasons that muckthenuts pointed out.   

We should be engaged in changing behaviours and that starts at the top of Govt.   

The blood of many are on the hands of the security services, not just the innocent victims in Belgium.   

That English fella confirmed dead, must be tragic for his family after him texting he was safe.