By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: more bombings in Brussels
sorry to be the bearer of bad news but i thought some of you might like to know this
Brussels attacks: Third explosion reported at metro station as airport rocked by deadly blasts
By
ninemsn
At least 13 people have been killed and dozens more injured as twin explosions ripped through Brussels airport during the morning rush hour.
A third explosion at Maelbeek metro station, situated in the very heart of the city near European Union headquarters, has been reported barely half an hour after the apparent attack on the airport.
WATCH NOW
March 22, 2016: Video purportedly filmed outside a Brussels’ metro station shows a plume of smoking emerging from the entrance.
The city's terror alert has been raised to its maximum level.
Some passengers are believed to still be inside the airport terminal, while the city's entire metro system has been shut down.
Though death toll currently sits at 13, with around 35 injured, the situation is fluid and that number will almost certainly change; earlier fire crews reported that several people had been killed at Zaventem Airport.
Video taken at the scene shows crowds of panicked people fleeing a terminal as plumes of smoke rise into the morning air.
One witness speaking to the BBC said a relatively small explosion was followed by another much larger one; the blasts are believed to have happened in or around the departure hall, possibly near the American Airlines desk.
Had a bit of an argument with the wife, since being killed by lightning is still(?) a bigger threat than dying from terrorism. In the end, I acknowledge that Europe is getting a bit more dangerous, but she admitted that we are dozens of times more likely to be targeted by right wing extremists than by muslim fundamentalists.
My biggest worry is still that we might crash the car. It's probably on my mind because I'm taking driving lessons.
iWolf:
I'm sure it is statistically true that lightning kills more, I'll trust you on this, but lightning doesn't usually kill a few dozen people waiting for a plane or having a coffee. It's called terrorism for a reason. On a side note, i recently read a few statistical stories. These are average per year according to the articles on the interwebs: 30 people die from vending machines, 50 from sharks, 1500 from coconuts and Chinese interwebs said 5000 in car crashes in Guangzhou. Appears to be safer bleeding in the water than on the beach.
ScotsAlan:
Good post coin. I won't upvote, because that would be wrong. Agree with you 100%.
coineineagh:
Lightning also kills random innocent people for being in the wrong plave at the wrong time. But per victim, we spend thousands of times more on terror 'prevention', which is hardly as effective as lightning rods. I'm in favour of John Oliver's plan, when he looks at Donald Trump's plan of building a wall. Why not buy a luxury waffle iron for every citizen? Make waffles, not wars.
jetfire9000:
Slanted argument. It's pretty simple to avoid a lightning strike - stay out of a flat field in a thunderstorm. Don't go underneath the only tree there. Same logic could be applied to terrorists of course, avoid terrorists and you won't be in harms way. But that is nearly laughable. We scratch our heads at those tourists that go to North Korea, or go to the Middle East in unstable times to prove a point, and end up running into trouble. Now in Western Europe however, even if you're doing nothing wrong you can possibly become a victim. You can avoid lightning, but after a massive and unvetted flow of migration, how do you avoid a terrorist?
Secondly, I'm not sure about the statistics taken into account in that argument - but I would imagine that lightning strikes are benefiting heavily from being spread out over a large pool of data. Lightning happens everywhere, but rarely kill people anywhere. Terrorism however is different, it only happens somewhere ( it is more focused in some countries than others. The Bahamas don't have terror, whereas they have lightning strikes.) Furthermore, when it does happen, it is very likely to inflict causalities, unlike lightning strikes. Your second sentence is evidence to this, that "Europe is becoming less safe" eluding to terrorism being something that can experience a rather quick and unpredictable, and localized uptick.
Of course, back to the first argument, it is possible to control it - adapt anti terrorist policies. This is possibly the main reason why terrorism has been low - it has been held low by manmade controls (immigration policies, intelligence gathering) But when those controls are let loose, it is likely that terrorism will increase. This is why it is absolutely worth to spend money on controlling it. The question isn't "why" it is "How to do it" instead. That's a moot point for Europe though, because its a bit too late for that now for many Western European countries. It's not too late for America, though. Trump 2016, in other words.
Terrorism isn't a flare up from random weather oddities, it is calculated and planned, subject to human emotions, which means it can experience drastic variations. Weather can experience variations too, but we have to wait until global warming fully sets in for that to happen. Also, it is still predictable in a sense (We've detected an incoming blah blah blah, stay indoors everybody) Whereas in regards to terrorism, we are merely reactive (We have heard bombs going off, stay in doors everybody).
As a side note, it will be interesting to see if you can make the same argument a year or two later.
coineineagh:
A long diatribe to disqualify my comparison. Nevertheless, I remain less worried about terrorism than car accidents and even lightning. Which is 'wrong', because the media has gone to great lengths to get me riled uo about it. Terrorism, not road accidents or lightning. Furthermore, the lightning rod analogy points out that although there is an effective method to protect against lightning, preventive measures against terrorism have equal chance of attracting more danger. It is more productive to worry about, and invest in, prevention of road accidents and lightning strikes. 'Fighting' terrorism is like shouting at a storm: youwaste energy, become a target, and it will pass by regardless of what you do.
jetfire9000:
A long diatribe to disqualify my question. Nevertheless, I remain less worried about terrorism than car accidents and even lightning. Which is 'wrong', because the media has gone to great lengths to get me riled uo about it. Terrorism, not road accidents or lightning. Furthermore, the lightning rod analogy points out that although there is an effective method to protect against lightning,preventative fighting of terrorism has an equal chance of attracting more danger It is more productive to worry about, and invest in, prevention of road accidents and lightning strikes. 'Fighting' terrorism is like shouting at a storm: you waste energy, become a target, and it will pass by regardless of what you do.
Bolded some of your quotes to make my response more convenient.
Number 1) Referring to something as a "long diatribe" says nothing about its truthfulness. However, if it did indeed disqualify your viewpoint, then it accomplished the objective.
Number 2) Using "fighting" to codify the argument is a clever attempt but I would like to remind that I did not use any such word. I said controlling terrorism, which is not the same as fighting terrorism. I see little use of fighting terrorism in the sense of "fighting" is understood, unless it is to apprehend suspects on the loose. But as for controlling, there is a great benefit - such as screening immigrants at the borders or turning the massive flows back. That is more effective than allowing unknown people in and having to fight the bad ones. Putin has stabilized Syria for the West, we should take advantage of this opportunity. On a side note, stability should be stressed instead of regime change - that would help control the spread of terrorism remarkably. Bleeding heart liberals or Neocons (both with special interest groups in their heart) may disagree, but it would.
3) Preventing road accidents or lightning strikes are useful too, these aren't mutually exclusive.
coineineagh:
Terrorism is used by governments to curtail citizens' rights. It's an excuse to discriminate, arrest without charge, spy, seize funds and even torture. It serves them more than any alleged cause. Though there may be real terrorist acts, some are state-engineered false flag operations, and others are groups that were created and sponsored by states. A recent video of a captured ISIS base showed supplies from eastern Europe, guns and money from Saudi Arabia, and a probable link to the Clinton Foundation. By supporting terror stories, you help the establishment "control terrorists". Meaning us; nothing is a bigger terror threat to the establishment status quo than free people with clear minds and citizens' rights. It's a war against us. Although western establishments go about it more covertly than China, the result is the same. If you sing with the choir, you are essentially collaborating against your own people's freedom.
jetfire9000:
When I speak of controlling terrorism, I do not in any stretch mean getting involved militarily abroad. "Fighting terrorism" has been worn out, as it has become obvious that forcing governments to change regimes is what creates destabilizing conflict in the first place. This ideology of democracy spreading, of intervention - a liberal idealistic foreign policy broadly endorsed by the left and the right - doesn't work anymore because public opinion isn't supporting it. An overly liberal foreign policy is disaster. And an overly liberal domestic policy can be equally bad. If your country opens its doors to everybody - well, considering the recent scenario, you get the picture. In other words, controls need to be enabled. Borders exist for a reason, Europe is being reminded of that. Good luck trying to convince people turn a blind eye to those attacks too. It's just my hunch, but it is too late for the Europeans to play nice. They've got a security issue on their hands. So long as governments are suspicious of people in their borders, loosening surveillance measures is not going to happen. Not a coincidence that the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. In short, I'm thinking that we are living in an era where any interventionism is becoming extremely unpalatable to citizenry of many countries, and isolationism is looking ever more palatable.
coineineagh:
Interventionism and regime change is a covert intelligence phenomenon that existed before the term terrorism was invented. Yes, people are tired of the terror threat, but media still manages to convince people like you that the real issue is USA's aggressive foreign policy, rather than the war of misinformation it is waging against its own people. They are 2 different phenomena on 2 different fronts. By believing this is a foreign policy issue, you are comforted by the far-from-home aspect, and conclude that you can do little about it. This isn't far from home: Terrorism stories are state-sponsored, and directed at you. As for closing borders and going for isolationism, what will that achieve? Cheap labour shortages? Reduced foreign trade? Local people going back to hating each other because there are no more foreigners to hate? Don't get me wrong: I dislike Kurds and Syrians because they are aggressive countryside nongs, and they will create many problems. But if any of them end up hurting me, I'm sure it's because they're a violent nong-bu-dong, not a terrorist. Nongs are ignorant, not extremist.
jetfire9000:
1. Interventionism and regime change is a covert intelligence phenomenon that existed before the term terrorism was invented.
2. media still manages to convince people like you that the real issue is USA's aggressive foreign policy , rather than war of misinformation on its own people.
As for closing borders and going for isolationism, what will that achieve? Cheap labour shortages? Reduced foreign trade? Local people going back to hating each other because there are no more foreigners to hate? Don't get me wrong: I dislike Kurds and Syrians because they are aggressive countryside nongs, and they will create many problems. But if any of them end up hurting me, I'm sure it's because they're a violent nong-bu-dong, not a terrorist. Nongs are ignorant, not extremist.
Terminologies and the phenomena they seek to describe is a deep, deep philosophical subject that I don't wish to entertain here. Not sure if I understand the argument you are making with the relation between the history of "Regime change" and the lack of a terminology for terrorism, but I seem to understand your argument taking a Post-Modernist philosophical stance of "Social construction" - That we have constructed the concept of terrorism in our own minds (or the media, whatever), and its existence is due to us creating that in our own narratives - entirely subjective, not objective. I prefer a naturalistic view that argues that there is an objective reality out there, and it has a (not necessarily simple) cause and effect relationship.
Despite the lack of terminology, terrorism could be argued to have existed for a long time. That's beyond the point though, lets argue modern times since that's what we're talking about. Globalization did not create terrorism, but it did greatly enable and facilitate the plausibility of international terrorism to work. Globalization is an increasing amount of "Interconnectedness" that we have experienced ever since industrializing - which has brought the observable effects of uncontrolled flows of money, weapons, ideas, and people across borders. These increased linkages between formerly desolate places of the world have strengthened the capacity for insurgencies, militaries, terrorism, whichever terminologies we choose.
Let us simply consider that the flow of information brought on by tech change: It's relatively easy to access information on explosives, it's easy for weapons to pop up somewhere, and we can even use 3-D printing now for some dangerous things. That's globalization and the technological revolution.
In a macro context, the effect is that "power has been diffused to an extent" and the the "monopoly on the capacity for violence from the state" is no longer completely centralized - It can become inherent in certain groups of people and movements, too. If you think that terrorism is a total non-issue, then that's simply absurd considering the vast technological changes and advancements in travel which I just argued have served to weaken borders and distances between people. I'm not arguing that everybody needs to be separate - the takeaway here is that borders need to be screened more carefully and foreign policies should be aimed at stabilizing middle eastern states instead of toppling them. That is a distinctly foreign policy issue.
Now, whatever the root cause of Islamic extremism is (backlash to militaristic presence, as you say the media has convinced us) or whether it is based off of fanatical religious doctrine, that doesn't matter much as much to people concerned with domestic affairs - it only matters that we keep them out of our country. Increased protection is protectionist, but it is not protectionism by itself. Likewise I fail to see how we are reliant on foreign workers for cheap wages (Even so, those workers wouldn't need to be sourced from the middle east at any rate) - The cheap labor argument for any country that hasn't just experienced an infrastructure crippling war (like post-war Germany) is simply an age old corporatist excuse serving to keep easy profits going to the corporations.
coineineagh:
Our technolohical and social advancement has also increased the risks of road accidents and lightning strikes, because people travel more, and high-rise structures attract lightning. I can only reiterate that we shouldn't be wasting time, energy and resources on an obviosus media distraction if it continually undermines our safety and freedom in favour of governments. There are lots more ways we can improve our safety effectively. But they don't make for such exciting debates, debates which are in part interesting because they single people out. If I reasoned that women or black people were a major cause of road accidents or even lightning strikes, don't pretend I wouldn't have your full attention. It isn't the threat that makes it interesting; it's the controversy. You may think I'm being silly, but in a generation, your child will laugh at you for having been gullible enough to believe in the terrorism boogeyman.
My Internet is 'snail backwards...', so I'm not sure about other news coverage.
Only American press coverage on Yahoo: 28 dead the latest number at the Airport and Metro.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/22/multiple-injuries-reported-after...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reported-explosions-at-brussels-airport-in-b...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/mar/22/brussels-airport-explo...
11.19am GMT 11:19
The Eiffel Tower is to be lit up in the colours of the Belgian flag as a mark of solidarity, writes Oliver Milne.
Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris, tweeted: “In solidarity with the people of Brussels, tonight Paris will light the Eiffel Tower in the colours of the Belgian flag.”
— Anne Hidalgo (@Anne_Hidalgo) March 22, 2016
En solidarité avec les Bruxellois, #Paris illuminera ce soir @LaTourEiffel aux couleurs du drapeau belge. #NousSommesUnis
RT with video and pics:
https://www.rt.com/news/336519-explosions-hit-brussels-airport/
Brussels police have told Sputnik that Zaventem’s great hall was targeted in the blast, but they couldn’t confirm the number of the victims in the attack.
“There was an explosion, but we cannot say more," a police spokesperson said.
A suicide bomber was responsible for one of the blasts, Belgian broadcaster VRT said. Three suicide belts packed with explosives have been found at the Brussels airport by police, local TV reported.
It doesn't load.....
Reports suggest that one of the explosions took place near the American Airlines check-in desk. A government source confirmed to VRT broadcaster that it was an attack, while Anke Fransen, spokeswoman for Brussels Airport, said there were multiple injuries. "We can confirm that there have been two explosions in the departure hall. We called the emergency services on the ground – they [are] now provid[ing] first aid to the injured."
Niels Caignau, flight watcher at Swissport, told Radio 1 that he heard an explosion at around 8:00 a.m. local time.
"The windows outside the departure hall are completely shattered. Many people have run out with tears in [their] eyes. We were advised to stay indoors."
So which bunch of wankers did this? What was their reason?
icnif77:
Suicide bomber-s....because main culprit of Paris attack was caught few days ago in Bruxelles.
Paris suspect 'worth weight in gold' to police: lawyer
Reuters via Yahoo! News20 hours ago
By Jan Strupczewski and Julia Fioretti BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The only suspected participant in Nov. 13 Paris attacks to be captured alive has been cooperating with police investigators and is "worth...
RiriRiri:
Yeah, and this wanker was living in a Muslim ghetto about 100m away from his last known residence.
That sums it all up about perfectly.
iWolf:
What the fuck is wrong with those dickheads? (Rhetorical question if you like)
RiriRiri:
What is wrong? They're teenagers uneducated by absent parents thriving in a very permissive environment (as opposed to what they would have known back home). They have been taught no sets of value and have probably had no steady family framework throughout their childhood. Lost teenagers make perfect recruits for any purpose so long as you promise them a direction and flatter their immature egos.
Now there's maybe sometimes a bit of race or religious determinism, whites have a tendency of ending up as pathetic political rallies disrupters whereas arabs/muslims can end up blowing shit. In the end it's really the same kind of stupid with the same roots.
icnif77:
That's how they operate: PLO grades.....
Lucky, if that's it. Nobody in EU believes, there's only 'one cell'....
iWolf:
Having a crap upbringing is hardly an excuse for murderous stunts like this.
icnif77:
See this with maps of the area:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12200878/Brussels-explosions-Everything-we-know-so-far-at-11am-on-Tuesday-morning.html
right in the heart of the EU, the nationalist will have a field day with this. someone please get these educated elites to understand that multicultural melting pots take a long time and people are going to suffer if you put the plan on high volume fast track steroids. innocents suffering to prove tolerance, what a bunch of horseshit.
my apologies in advance that my country america has no backbone anymore and we created this flood of problems for our allies in europe, perhaps we will grow a spine in the future, being nice in foreign policy never ends well, only the ruthless survive and the apathetic smile have no shame and take a vacation to cuba.
There's no reason for it to stop happening over and over again. I haven't seen any of the traitors in charge all over Europe being voted/kicked out, I haven't seen any of those psychopaths running the EU being put to trial along with their masters. I haven't seen anyone calling the utter bullshit out of what is really ISIS aka Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.
Nothing has been done since last November, and nothing had been done in November either since January, except aforementioned psychopaths have been opening the floodgates of low IQ, unneeded, unvetted muslim illegal immigrants on everyone's money.
So tell me why exactly wouldn't it happen over and over and over again? I mean I'd love to say "the people in charge have some answering to do" but the truth is they don't. They are shameless traitors who have no intention of giving a shit and have proven so times and times over and will keep leaving everyone in danger.
Had a bit of an argument with the wife, since being killed by lightning is still(?) a bigger threat than dying from terrorism. In the end, I acknowledge that Europe is getting a bit more dangerous, but she admitted that we are dozens of times more likely to be targeted by right wing extremists than by muslim fundamentalists.
My biggest worry is still that we might crash the car. It's probably on my mind because I'm taking driving lessons.
iWolf:
I'm sure it is statistically true that lightning kills more, I'll trust you on this, but lightning doesn't usually kill a few dozen people waiting for a plane or having a coffee. It's called terrorism for a reason. On a side note, i recently read a few statistical stories. These are average per year according to the articles on the interwebs: 30 people die from vending machines, 50 from sharks, 1500 from coconuts and Chinese interwebs said 5000 in car crashes in Guangzhou. Appears to be safer bleeding in the water than on the beach.
ScotsAlan:
Good post coin. I won't upvote, because that would be wrong. Agree with you 100%.
coineineagh:
Lightning also kills random innocent people for being in the wrong plave at the wrong time. But per victim, we spend thousands of times more on terror 'prevention', which is hardly as effective as lightning rods. I'm in favour of John Oliver's plan, when he looks at Donald Trump's plan of building a wall. Why not buy a luxury waffle iron for every citizen? Make waffles, not wars.
jetfire9000:
Slanted argument. It's pretty simple to avoid a lightning strike - stay out of a flat field in a thunderstorm. Don't go underneath the only tree there. Same logic could be applied to terrorists of course, avoid terrorists and you won't be in harms way. But that is nearly laughable. We scratch our heads at those tourists that go to North Korea, or go to the Middle East in unstable times to prove a point, and end up running into trouble. Now in Western Europe however, even if you're doing nothing wrong you can possibly become a victim. You can avoid lightning, but after a massive and unvetted flow of migration, how do you avoid a terrorist?
Secondly, I'm not sure about the statistics taken into account in that argument - but I would imagine that lightning strikes are benefiting heavily from being spread out over a large pool of data. Lightning happens everywhere, but rarely kill people anywhere. Terrorism however is different, it only happens somewhere ( it is more focused in some countries than others. The Bahamas don't have terror, whereas they have lightning strikes.) Furthermore, when it does happen, it is very likely to inflict causalities, unlike lightning strikes. Your second sentence is evidence to this, that "Europe is becoming less safe" eluding to terrorism being something that can experience a rather quick and unpredictable, and localized uptick.
Of course, back to the first argument, it is possible to control it - adapt anti terrorist policies. This is possibly the main reason why terrorism has been low - it has been held low by manmade controls (immigration policies, intelligence gathering) But when those controls are let loose, it is likely that terrorism will increase. This is why it is absolutely worth to spend money on controlling it. The question isn't "why" it is "How to do it" instead. That's a moot point for Europe though, because its a bit too late for that now for many Western European countries. It's not too late for America, though. Trump 2016, in other words.
Terrorism isn't a flare up from random weather oddities, it is calculated and planned, subject to human emotions, which means it can experience drastic variations. Weather can experience variations too, but we have to wait until global warming fully sets in for that to happen. Also, it is still predictable in a sense (We've detected an incoming blah blah blah, stay indoors everybody) Whereas in regards to terrorism, we are merely reactive (We have heard bombs going off, stay in doors everybody).
As a side note, it will be interesting to see if you can make the same argument a year or two later.
coineineagh:
A long diatribe to disqualify my comparison. Nevertheless, I remain less worried about terrorism than car accidents and even lightning. Which is 'wrong', because the media has gone to great lengths to get me riled uo about it. Terrorism, not road accidents or lightning. Furthermore, the lightning rod analogy points out that although there is an effective method to protect against lightning, preventive measures against terrorism have equal chance of attracting more danger. It is more productive to worry about, and invest in, prevention of road accidents and lightning strikes. 'Fighting' terrorism is like shouting at a storm: youwaste energy, become a target, and it will pass by regardless of what you do.
jetfire9000:
A long diatribe to disqualify my question. Nevertheless, I remain less worried about terrorism than car accidents and even lightning. Which is 'wrong', because the media has gone to great lengths to get me riled uo about it. Terrorism, not road accidents or lightning. Furthermore, the lightning rod analogy points out that although there is an effective method to protect against lightning,preventative fighting of terrorism has an equal chance of attracting more danger It is more productive to worry about, and invest in, prevention of road accidents and lightning strikes. 'Fighting' terrorism is like shouting at a storm: you waste energy, become a target, and it will pass by regardless of what you do.
Bolded some of your quotes to make my response more convenient.
Number 1) Referring to something as a "long diatribe" says nothing about its truthfulness. However, if it did indeed disqualify your viewpoint, then it accomplished the objective.
Number 2) Using "fighting" to codify the argument is a clever attempt but I would like to remind that I did not use any such word. I said controlling terrorism, which is not the same as fighting terrorism. I see little use of fighting terrorism in the sense of "fighting" is understood, unless it is to apprehend suspects on the loose. But as for controlling, there is a great benefit - such as screening immigrants at the borders or turning the massive flows back. That is more effective than allowing unknown people in and having to fight the bad ones. Putin has stabilized Syria for the West, we should take advantage of this opportunity. On a side note, stability should be stressed instead of regime change - that would help control the spread of terrorism remarkably. Bleeding heart liberals or Neocons (both with special interest groups in their heart) may disagree, but it would.
3) Preventing road accidents or lightning strikes are useful too, these aren't mutually exclusive.
coineineagh:
Terrorism is used by governments to curtail citizens' rights. It's an excuse to discriminate, arrest without charge, spy, seize funds and even torture. It serves them more than any alleged cause. Though there may be real terrorist acts, some are state-engineered false flag operations, and others are groups that were created and sponsored by states. A recent video of a captured ISIS base showed supplies from eastern Europe, guns and money from Saudi Arabia, and a probable link to the Clinton Foundation. By supporting terror stories, you help the establishment "control terrorists". Meaning us; nothing is a bigger terror threat to the establishment status quo than free people with clear minds and citizens' rights. It's a war against us. Although western establishments go about it more covertly than China, the result is the same. If you sing with the choir, you are essentially collaborating against your own people's freedom.
jetfire9000:
When I speak of controlling terrorism, I do not in any stretch mean getting involved militarily abroad. "Fighting terrorism" has been worn out, as it has become obvious that forcing governments to change regimes is what creates destabilizing conflict in the first place. This ideology of democracy spreading, of intervention - a liberal idealistic foreign policy broadly endorsed by the left and the right - doesn't work anymore because public opinion isn't supporting it. An overly liberal foreign policy is disaster. And an overly liberal domestic policy can be equally bad. If your country opens its doors to everybody - well, considering the recent scenario, you get the picture. In other words, controls need to be enabled. Borders exist for a reason, Europe is being reminded of that. Good luck trying to convince people turn a blind eye to those attacks too. It's just my hunch, but it is too late for the Europeans to play nice. They've got a security issue on their hands. So long as governments are suspicious of people in their borders, loosening surveillance measures is not going to happen. Not a coincidence that the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. In short, I'm thinking that we are living in an era where any interventionism is becoming extremely unpalatable to citizenry of many countries, and isolationism is looking ever more palatable.
coineineagh:
Interventionism and regime change is a covert intelligence phenomenon that existed before the term terrorism was invented. Yes, people are tired of the terror threat, but media still manages to convince people like you that the real issue is USA's aggressive foreign policy, rather than the war of misinformation it is waging against its own people. They are 2 different phenomena on 2 different fronts. By believing this is a foreign policy issue, you are comforted by the far-from-home aspect, and conclude that you can do little about it. This isn't far from home: Terrorism stories are state-sponsored, and directed at you. As for closing borders and going for isolationism, what will that achieve? Cheap labour shortages? Reduced foreign trade? Local people going back to hating each other because there are no more foreigners to hate? Don't get me wrong: I dislike Kurds and Syrians because they are aggressive countryside nongs, and they will create many problems. But if any of them end up hurting me, I'm sure it's because they're a violent nong-bu-dong, not a terrorist. Nongs are ignorant, not extremist.
jetfire9000:
1. Interventionism and regime change is a covert intelligence phenomenon that existed before the term terrorism was invented.
2. media still manages to convince people like you that the real issue is USA's aggressive foreign policy , rather than war of misinformation on its own people.
As for closing borders and going for isolationism, what will that achieve? Cheap labour shortages? Reduced foreign trade? Local people going back to hating each other because there are no more foreigners to hate? Don't get me wrong: I dislike Kurds and Syrians because they are aggressive countryside nongs, and they will create many problems. But if any of them end up hurting me, I'm sure it's because they're a violent nong-bu-dong, not a terrorist. Nongs are ignorant, not extremist.
Terminologies and the phenomena they seek to describe is a deep, deep philosophical subject that I don't wish to entertain here. Not sure if I understand the argument you are making with the relation between the history of "Regime change" and the lack of a terminology for terrorism, but I seem to understand your argument taking a Post-Modernist philosophical stance of "Social construction" - That we have constructed the concept of terrorism in our own minds (or the media, whatever), and its existence is due to us creating that in our own narratives - entirely subjective, not objective. I prefer a naturalistic view that argues that there is an objective reality out there, and it has a (not necessarily simple) cause and effect relationship.
Despite the lack of terminology, terrorism could be argued to have existed for a long time. That's beyond the point though, lets argue modern times since that's what we're talking about. Globalization did not create terrorism, but it did greatly enable and facilitate the plausibility of international terrorism to work. Globalization is an increasing amount of "Interconnectedness" that we have experienced ever since industrializing - which has brought the observable effects of uncontrolled flows of money, weapons, ideas, and people across borders. These increased linkages between formerly desolate places of the world have strengthened the capacity for insurgencies, militaries, terrorism, whichever terminologies we choose.
Let us simply consider that the flow of information brought on by tech change: It's relatively easy to access information on explosives, it's easy for weapons to pop up somewhere, and we can even use 3-D printing now for some dangerous things. That's globalization and the technological revolution.
In a macro context, the effect is that "power has been diffused to an extent" and the the "monopoly on the capacity for violence from the state" is no longer completely centralized - It can become inherent in certain groups of people and movements, too. If you think that terrorism is a total non-issue, then that's simply absurd considering the vast technological changes and advancements in travel which I just argued have served to weaken borders and distances between people. I'm not arguing that everybody needs to be separate - the takeaway here is that borders need to be screened more carefully and foreign policies should be aimed at stabilizing middle eastern states instead of toppling them. That is a distinctly foreign policy issue.
Now, whatever the root cause of Islamic extremism is (backlash to militaristic presence, as you say the media has convinced us) or whether it is based off of fanatical religious doctrine, that doesn't matter much as much to people concerned with domestic affairs - it only matters that we keep them out of our country. Increased protection is protectionist, but it is not protectionism by itself. Likewise I fail to see how we are reliant on foreign workers for cheap wages (Even so, those workers wouldn't need to be sourced from the middle east at any rate) - The cheap labor argument for any country that hasn't just experienced an infrastructure crippling war (like post-war Germany) is simply an age old corporatist excuse serving to keep easy profits going to the corporations.
coineineagh:
Our technolohical and social advancement has also increased the risks of road accidents and lightning strikes, because people travel more, and high-rise structures attract lightning. I can only reiterate that we shouldn't be wasting time, energy and resources on an obviosus media distraction if it continually undermines our safety and freedom in favour of governments. There are lots more ways we can improve our safety effectively. But they don't make for such exciting debates, debates which are in part interesting because they single people out. If I reasoned that women or black people were a major cause of road accidents or even lightning strikes, don't pretend I wouldn't have your full attention. It isn't the threat that makes it interesting; it's the controversy. You may think I'm being silly, but in a generation, your child will laugh at you for having been gullible enough to believe in the terrorism boogeyman.
What is 'mess'?
Greek Border Desperation: 2 Refugees Self-Immolate Over 'Concentration Camp' Conditions
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/22/2016 - 20:20
Just days after Greek Interior Minister Panagiotis Kouroumplis compared the nation's refugee camps to WW2 concentration camps, saying "I wouldn’t hesitate to say that this is a modern Dachau," KeepTalkingGreece reports two men poured gasoline on their clothes and set them on fire on Tuesday morning to protest the appalling conditions at Idomeni camp and the closure of the borders.
icnif77:
"Sorry For Brussels"
Presented without comment other than to say that the boy pictured below is among thousands of Mid-East refugees stranded in the Idomeni camps near the Macedonian border that have been described as "a modern Dachau."
comment:
NOTaREALmerican
No worries, we've got the place targetted with our drones.
Note: if you kill somebody with VERY expensive weapons it's NOT terrorism. That's spreading freedum-n-democracy.
On Wednesday, Matthew Doyle boasted on Twitter about stopping a Muslim woman in the street and challenging her to explain the Brussels attacks.
“I asked her to explain Brussels,” he wrote. “She said ‘Nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.”
In response, Doyle was mocked incessantly on Twitter.
“Confronted a ginger person yesterday. Asked him to explain Ed Sheeran. Said nothing to me,” one person wrote in response.
“I confronted a person with a guitar and asked them to explain Coldplay,” another wrote.
My question is: were the twitter-mockers ecc members?
https://gma.yahoo.com/2nd-suspect-now-sought-brussels-subway-bombing-100...
Video: '6 more arrested in Bruxelles for questioning and both suicide brothers had been spying on top Belgium nuclear scientist ......10h video recording of scientist recovered.....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-24/brussels-suicide-bombers-plante...
Brussels Suicide Bombers Planted Hidden Camera At Home Of Top Belgium Nuclear Official
As the chaos surrounding the coordinated suicide attacks on Belgium unfolded on Tuesday morning, ... employees: “...people who are not strictly necessary on site can leave.” #Tihange nuclear ... police and army presence certainly seemed to suggest that the threat to Belgium’s crumbling nuclear ...
Story - Tyler Durden - 03/24/2016 - 11:10 - 248 comments
