Paris Terror Attacks

[Buorhann]

I stopped at "The "West" deserves it" bit.

 

Nobody deserves being taken hostage and killed, dumbass.

[Lu Xun]

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/03/353538166/france-helps-u-s-fight-isis-in-iraq-but-not-syria

 

Oh hey. Looks like France did arm Syrian rebels, so this is a type of blowback. Condolences to the victims, I suppose.

 

@ Buorhann: This is the type of thinking that got the United States into Iraq and Afghanistan, and expended a trillion dollars as well as substantial political capital into those wars, leaving the United States vulnerable to nibbling by the Chinese and the Russians. And as mentioned before, this entire business is awfully sanctimonious, when it comes to global politics killing innocent people is often the name of the game. We just get upset when it happens to us instead of them.

 

Obama defined his foreign policy as something negative "don't do stupid things", but the Arab Spring business was distinctly stupid, with only Tunisia looking as though it came out well. Of course I agree that ISIS needs to be rolled into a carpet and beaten to death, but it was a mistake to allow ISIS to establish itself in Iraq and Syria in the first place.

 

That said, my main point was torn apart by the fact that France did arm Syrian rebels in an attempt to overthrow Assad. With the article, I like the line best where the alternatives are bloodthirsty terrorists and a bloodthirsty dictator... unlike the West, which does its own fair share of killing? Get rid of ISIS, minimize foreign interventions because the blowback in terrorist attacks and refugees isn't worth it, and I take my leave of this thread.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Inst

[Asierith]

Yes, we've created and not not solved a problem in the middle east, but no, that does not mean the death of innocents is justified. I assure you, if it happened to you you would not, when injured, think 'Oh well. I guess I had it coming'. Religion isn't inherently wrong - the problem is that Islam did not go through an enlightenment like most of Christianity, where  the practices that are non - human or downright evil are stopped. If you oat Saudi Arabia, the discrimination against women and converters is horrific. I am not saying that all Muslims are bad - they're not (I have plenty of Muslim friends). Most are equally upset and threatened by these extremists, but the contradictory nature of the religion which hasn't been cleared up leads to this. It is like Christianity when we in the west used it as a means and reason to subjugate indigenous populations.

 

My thoughts and prayers to any who lost their lives in this attack, and the families who know their members are dead or fear it.

[Moreau]

.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Moreau III

[Crosslan]

I shall fly the French flag in honor of our brothers and sisters taken too soon.  To those affected, the world mourns with you.  To the forces of France, good hunting ladies and gentlemen.

[Nadir Aminu]

#PrayforParis

I have changed my flag to France and I have gotten rid of my nation description and I changed it to #PrayforParis.

[Edsel]

First of all there is something called fighting for your country against foreign invaders. Second using the Ottoman Empire as some sort of positive example of Muslims is just wow. Third Muslims were in Spain before the Catholics? Not sure if you are being merely ignorant or duplicitous there by trying to get across a falsity as true, but the Visgoths they defeated to occupy Spain were Christians. Forth... everyone who kills people like this is a "right-wing extremist"? What poppycock, come now. 

 

I believe almost virtually every single sentence there of your's could be challenged for it's errors. Don't call others ignorant when in your attempt to pass yourself off as holy than thou you commit such errors. 

 

This is ridiculous. Did you even read what I wrote? 1. I already said that the current regime in Syria lead by Bashar al Assad indiscriminately kills Syrian people. Why would the refugees want to fight for them? And the only other people they could fight for are ISIS and rebel groups allied with ISIS. 2. My point was that Muslims have lived I Europe for a long time. Many Muslims have lived in the Balkans for centuries, and In other parts of Europe for quite a long time. 3. Not everyone who kills is a right-wing extremist, but most of the time they are. There are left-wing terrorist, but they are very rare. My point was that Fundamentalist Christians and xenophobic/Neo-Fascist people often commit acts of violence and terrorism, not only Muslims.

[Ekejen Luish]

All flags in Rekishstein will be lowered to half mast for the rest of the Rekish Year.

 

Also (OOC), the World Trade Center with France's colors glowing on the top:

[Ekejen Luish]

Of course, red white and blue is a popular flag color:

• Australia
• Austria
• Bermuda
• British Virgin Islands
• Cambodia
• Chile
• Cook Islands
• Costa Rica
• Cuba
• Croatia
• Czech Republic
• Dominican Republic
• Falkland Islands
• Faroe Islands
• Fiji
• France
• Iceland
• Laos
• Liberia
• Luxemborg
• Montserrat
• Nepal
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Korea
• Norway
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Puerto Rico
• Russia
• Samoa
• Serbia
• Slovakia
• Taiwan (Republic of China)
• Thailand
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

[Peter Quill]

 

Of course, red white and blue is a popular flag color:

• Australia
• Austria
• Bermuda
• British Virgin Islands
• Cambodia
• Chile
• Cook Islands
• Costa Rica
• Cuba
• Croatia
• Czech Republic
• Dominican Republic
• Falkland Islands
• Faroe Islands
• Fiji
• France
• Iceland
• Laos
• Liberia
• Luxemborg
• Montserrat
• Nepal
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Korea
• Norway
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Puerto Rico
• Russia
• Samoa
• Serbia
• Slovakia
• Taiwan (Republic of China)
• Thailand
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

 

You missed the Philippines.

[Ekejen Luish]

You missed the Philippines.

No, the Philippines has yellow in their flag. I am only including quite specifically red white and blue flags. Otherwise I'd have the Philippines, South Korea, and a bunch of other nations.

[Rozalia]

But it also says to NOT do that.

The Quran is an interesting book, it's very contradictory.

 

That is why a new sect of Islam (reform) must occur. Parts of Islam must be discarded. 

 

This is ridiculous. Did you even read what I wrote? 1. I already said that the current regime in Syria lead by Bashar al Assad indiscriminately kills Syrian people. Why would the refugees want to fight for them? And the only other people they could fight for are ISIS and rebel groups allied with ISIS. 2. My point was that Muslims have lived I Europe for a long time. Many Muslims have lived in the Balkans for centuries, and In other parts of Europe for quite a long time. 3. Not everyone who kills is a right-wing extremist, but most of the time they are. There are left-wing terrorist, but they are very rare. My point was that Fundamentalist Christians and xenophobic/Neo-Fascist people often commit acts of violence and terrorism, not only Muslims.

 

1: Propaganda, Syria's army kills civilians yes but as collateral in crossfires and such, their aim is not to kill civilians. ISIS kills civilians for simply being of a different religion, and even if they are the same if they do not kowtow to them. You can by all means see Assad as a monster if you wish, but ISIS are complete monsters with no redeeming traits.

 

2: Not longer than the Christians which what you were trying to trick people into thinking which is why you purposely used Catholics, and besides their living in Europe was not peaceful anyway so your point falls flat.

 

3: The Quran has wings now? Well I suppose they do say it contains a political/law system, but Sharia is left wing? Sorry but religious nut job is religious nut job to me. They have very "right wing" social beliefs so please do explain how they are left wing (like those idiots even care about politics, get real now). Your talk of fascism is a complete distraction and a laughable one at that because do you know who people will turn to as "normal politics" are shown up as the worthless entities that they are? Fascism and nationalism that you likely think is one and the same (they ain't). I get you've been programmed to hate fascism but I certainly haven't, and if fascism is the way to fix things than fascism should reign. 

[Asierith]

Am flying the French Flag...

 

#PrayForParis

[Edsel]

 

That is why a new sect of Islam (reform) must occur. Parts of Islam must be discarded. 

 

 

1: Propaganda, Syria's army kills civilians yes but as collateral in crossfires and such, their aim is not to kill civilians. ISIS kills civilians for simply being of a different religion, and even if they are the same if they do not kowtow to them. You can by all means see Assad as a monster if you wish, but ISIS are complete monsters with no redeeming traits.

 

2: Not longer than the Christians which what you were trying to trick people into thinking which is why you purposely used Catholics, and besides their living in Europe was not peaceful anyway so your point falls flat.

 

3: The Quran has wings now? Well I suppose they do say it contains a political/law system, but Sharia is left wing? Sorry but religious nut job is religious nut job to me. They have very "right wing" social beliefs so please do explain how they are left wing (like those idiots even care about politics, get real now). Your talk of fascism is a complete distraction and a laughable one at that because do you know who people will turn to as "normal politics" are shown up as the worthless entities that they are? Fascism and nationalism that you likely think is one and the same (they ain't). I get you've been programmed to hate fascism but I certainly haven't, and if fascism is the way to fix things than fascism should reign. 

 

1. Bashar al-Assad is an oppressive dictator. Regardless of that fact Syrian refugees can't stay in Syria. Do you want to live in Syria right now? A lot of Syrians just don't like Bashar al-Assad and don't want to fight for his army.

 

2. Whatever, Muslims should still be allowed to immigrate to Europe, regardless of how long Muslims have lived in Europe.

 

3. Most beliefs in Islam are right-wing. I did not say that they were left-wing. My point was that right-wing extremist commit acts of terrorism regardless of their religion. Extreme right-wing Muslims, Christians, and extremely xenophobic people all sometimes commit acts of terror because of their hateful beliefs.

Edited November 14, 2015 by EdtheGreen

[Rozalia]

1. Bashar al-Assad is an oppressive dictator. Regardless of that fact Syrian refugees can't stay in Syria. Do you want to live in Syria right now? A lot of Syrians just don't like Bashar al-Assad and don't want to fight for his army.

 

2. Whatever, Muslims should still be allowed to immigrate to Europe, regardless of how long Muslims have lived in Europe.

 

3. Most beliefs in Islam are right-wing. I did not say that they were left-wing. My point was that right-wing extremist commit acts of terrorism regardless of their religion. Extreme right-wing Muslims, Christians, and extremely xenophobic people all sometimes commit acts of terror because of their hateful beliefs.

 

1: Stop being so programmed. I'm not Syrian so no I can't say I'd want to be in Syria right now no. However were I to have been born and brought up in Syria I'd have wanted to do my duty and fight those invading fanatics ISIS. You put petty things like not liking the government aside when you're fighting a war that if lost will result in a genocide (of your people definitely if you're a minority). 

Besides, Assad is a far lot less oppressive than ISIS are so... pointless point is pointless.

 

2: So your statement was pointless. That isn't specifically a Muslim thing, immigration must be tackled. 

 

3: So this is the right wing's fault? What will it take to make you blame Islam for it's lack of reform?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Rozalia

[Nadir Aminu]

 

That is why a new sect of Islam (reform) must occur. Parts of Islam must be discarded.

 

Exactly. Even though I consider the sect of Islam in Khevin Sunni, it actually is different-very different than Sunni Islam.

[Edsel]

1: Stop being so programmed. I'm not Syrian so no I can't say I'd want to be in Syria right now no. However were I to have been born and brought up in Syria I'd have wanted to do my duty and fight those invading fanatics ISIS. You put petty things like not liking the government aside when you're fighting a war that if lost will result in a genocide (of your people definitely if you're a minority). 

Besides, Assad is a far lot less oppressive than ISIS are so... pointless point is pointless.

 

2: So your statement was pointless. That isn't specifically a Muslim thing, immigration must be tackled. 

 

3: So this is the right wing's fault? What will it take to make you blame Islam for it's lack of reform?

 

1. You say that you would want to fight against ISIS if you were a Syrian, but I doubt you would actually do that if you were in that situation. It is easy for you to say that you would fight for a regime that you dislike to prevent another regime that you hate from taking over you country. Most people are not willing to die fighting for an oppressive regime. Also, most Syrians are probably more worried about their family dying or starving than fighting against ISIS. Therefore, they move out of the country. Why would you commit suicide trying to fight ISIS when you could get a better life somewhere else? Also, Syrians don't choose to be born in Syria. Why should they have to fight against ISIS while you don't?

 

2. People should be allowed to immigrate to wherever they please because they do not choose where they are born.

 

3. The attack is the fault of religious fundamentalism within Islam, but an attack like this could have been executed by any right-wing extremist group, including fundamentalist Christians, extreme xenophobes/racists.

[Rozalia]

1. You say that you would want to fight against ISIS if you were a Syrian, but I doubt you would actually do that if you were in that situation. It is easy for you to say that you would fight for a regime that you dislike to prevent another regime that you hate from taking over you country. Most people are not willing to die fighting for an oppressive regime. Also, most Syrians are probably more worried about their family dying or starving than fighting against ISIS. Therefore, they move out of the country. Why would you commit suicide trying to fight ISIS when you could get a better life somewhere else? Also, Syrians don't choose to be born in Syria. Why should they have to fight against ISIS while you don't?

 

2. People should be allowed to immigrate to wherever they please because they do not choose where they are born.

 

3. The attack is the fault of religious fundamentalism within Islam, but an attack like this could have been executed by any right-wing extremist group, including fundamentalist Christians, extreme xenophobes/racists.

 

1: You're one of those "we want a world with no borders, no nationstates, live in peace man" guys aren't you? World doesn't work like that. Who are you to doubt I'd fight in the hypothetical situation? I'm a nationalist and if my supposed Syrian version was also one then of course I'd fight for Syria. Selfish then is what you're saying those saintly refugees are. Instead of fighting to protect their people from foreign butchers, they run. Let me ask you a question, when the Germans were fighting Britain in world war 2 would it have been perfectly fine for British soldiers and civilians to just desert and flee to Canada/America? In Russia should the people have just fled elsewhere instead of fighting the Germans? Should the Chinese have fled westward instead of opposing the Japanese? That what you do when evil that wants to massacre your people is put in front of you? You run and leave those who don't to die?

 

All this isn't a "civil war" like you (having been programmed) present it either. The "moderates" are fanatics themselves for the most part, bought and paid by the west. ISIS are a foreign element as I doubt even you would say otherwise. 

 

2: Nonsense, drivel pushed by those who want cheap labour (right) or that want to feel good about how holier than thou they are (left), or even both. People don't just move and we're all happy campers. You transplant millions of a foreign group of people and there will be trouble, there will be violence, and so on. Foreign groups should be allowed to immigrate yes... but for the good of society, citizens, immigrants themselves, and the country their numbers must be much lower then they are now.

 

3: You speak as if those things aren't and haven't been tackled. Fascism that you have referred to in your posts has been figuratively beaten as the most evil thing ever into the minds of children for many decades, something I doubt you have a problem with. Christianity's power on these matters has been broken for a long time too. Islam needs reform, and in it's current state breeds these fanatics with relative ease. We can't do anything about Muslims in Asia/Africa (except you know not letting any and all in), but we can for sure reform those who were born and grew up in Europe. As far as I'm concerned it's either we do acts like that (which you find disagreeable) or eventually someone who will simply deport/kill them all comes to power. Which would you prefer?

[Spite]

Right and left wing is a useless descriptor of something like this. Islam is a conservative religion and it adheres to conservative values on issues like women and the family. It originates from a part of the world that is tribal in nature, and the people who live in the West who follow that religion often (but not always) have a culture which is partly tribal. This means that muslims can often be seen as a "unified" group, which makes them quite scary to people not in that group. However for the most part Muslims aren't unified and even across the Sunni world there are vastly different practices in say, Indonesia to say, Nigeria. Muslims who sit in coffee shops smoking shisha pipes in Hamstead in London have little in common with Muslims hiding in caves in Pakistan.

 

The knee-jerk "let's go back to fascism" response is understandable, but if you sit and think for a few minutes, you'll realise it's not the answer. Fascism is a kind of neo-tribalism that basically advocates uniting the nation-state in support of a nationalist, authoritarian government. That implies the persecution of minorities, abolition of a host of human and civil rights, and the end to liberty and democracy. In other words, making our countries into the same sort of horrible place that they are trying to create.

 

Fascism is divisive and cruel, and it would exacerbate the problem not remove it. I'm not saying "multiculturalism" is the answer, and certainly in Europe the countries which have been the most successful (in my opinion) at integrating Muslims are the ones that are both welcoming and have a strong sense of national identity. A recent poll in the UK showed that 95% of Muslims felt a loyalty to Britain- higher than the actual population average. Imagine if we then imposed some sort of fascist state- that figure would go down very quickly!

 

 

tl;dr - fascism is not a way to defend Western values, it is a fast track to destroying them.

[Crust]

I have no doubt that a lot of journalists did claim that.  I did not say journalist.  I said professional.

 

Journalists who are experts within terrorism. And also actual professional experts on terrorists claimed Utöya was Al Qaida. Almost everyone was spouting it as a fact because someone heard someone yell in arabic, or someone saw an al quida flag, and a bunch of other things that pop up in a time of crisis. A lot of news papers and channels jump on any sorta claim, without giving how valid the claim is, and all it does is spread rumours and misinformation. It's always a bad idea to spread any kinda information that hasn't been confirmed by several, highly trustworthy sources, especially within the first 24 hours, because of this exact reason.

[Edsel]

1: You're one of those "we want a world with no borders, no nationstates, live in peace man" guys aren't you? World doesn't work like that. Who are you to doubt I'd fight in the hypothetical situation? I'm a nationalist and if my supposed Syrian version was also one then of course I'd fight for Syria. Selfish then is what you're saying those saintly refugees are. Instead of fighting to protect their people from foreign butchers, they run. Let me ask you a question, when the Germans were fighting Britain in world war 2 would it have been perfectly fine for British soldiers and civilians to just desert and flee to Canada/America? In Russia should the people have just fled elsewhere instead of fighting the Germans? Should the Chinese have fled westward instead of opposing the Japanese? That what you do when evil that wants to massacre your people is put in front of you? You run and leave those who don't to die?

 

All this isn't a "civil war" like you (having been programmed) present it either. The "moderates" are fanatics themselves for the most part, bought and paid by the west. ISIS are a foreign element as I doubt even you would say otherwise.

 

2: Nonsense, drivel pushed by those who want cheap labour (right) or that want to feel good about how holier than thou they are (left), or even both. People don't just move and we're all happy campers. You transplant millions of a foreign group of people and there will be trouble, there will be violence, and so on. Foreign groups should be allowed to immigrate yes... but for the good of society, citizens, immigrants themselves, and the country their numbers must be much lower then they are now.

 

3: You speak as if those things aren't and haven't been tackled. Fascism that you have referred to in your posts has been figuratively beaten as the most evil thing ever into the minds of children for many decades, something I doubt you have a problem with. Christianity's power on these matters has been broken for a long time too. Islam needs reform, and in it's current state breeds these fanatics with relative ease. We can't do anything about Muslims in Asia/Africa (except you know not letting any and all in), but we can for sure reform those who were born and grew up in Europe. As far as I'm concerned it's either we do acts like that (which you find disagreeable) or eventually someone who will simply deport/kill them all comes to power. Which would you prefer?

1. I would not consider myself a "world without borders" person. Obviously we need borders to know who owns what and to know where which nation's laws apply/don't apply. I don't think that it's bad to stop violent criminals from immigrating to your country, but people without a criminal record should be allowed to live in whatever country the would like.

 

I think that your examples with the Chinese, Russians, and Brits leaving their countries are not comparable to what is happening in Syria. Many people in the UK moved to the contryside to avoid being bombed by the Germans. China and Russia are also much larger than Syria so the people in those countries could have just moved to another city away from the fighting. I'm sure that people left the cities when they were being bombed. I don't think that Syrians are selfish because they don't what to live in the middle of a warzone.

 

2. I don't think that I am holier than other people. I just think that people should be allowed to immigrate where they want because it doesn't cause any harm, and if I want to live in Canada or The Netherlands, I would want to be able to do so. A lot the problems that people say are caused immigration are just caused by people being xenophobic. If everyone was accepting of eachother their wouldn't be violence between the immigrants and the natives.

 

3. OK, so maybe I don't know exactly what fascism is, but what I meant was a xenophobic, ultranationalist groups of people. Also, There are many crazy, radical Christians. There are Christians that hate all atheists, Muslims, etc. There are Christians who beat up homosexuals because homosexuality is contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some christians that bomb mosques or attacks Sikhs because they mistake them for Muslims. There are many wonderful, friendly Christians, but there are also many terrible ones. It is the same for Muslims. The problem is not that these religions exsist, but that people take religious texts like the Bible and Quaran literally.

Edited November 14, 2015 by EdtheGreen

[Vosunda]

1. I would not consider myself a "world without borders" person. Obviously we need borders to know who owns what and to know where which nation's laws apply/don't apply. I don't think that it's bad to stop violent criminals from immigrating to your country, but people without a criminal record should be allowed to live in whatever country the would like.

 

I think that your examples with the Chinese, Russians, and Brits leaving their countries are not comparable to what is happening in Syria. Many people in the UK moved to the contryside to avoid being bombed by the Germans. China and Russia are also much larger than Syria so the people in those countries could have just moved to another city away from the fighting. I'm sure that people left the cities when they were being bombed. I don't think that Syrians are selfish because they don't what to live in the middle of a warzone.

 

2. I don't think that I am holier than other people. I just think that people should be allowed to immigrate where they want because it doesn't cause any harm, and if I want to live in Canada or The Netherlands, I would want to be able to do so. A lot the problems that people say are caused immigration are just caused by people being xenophobic. If everyone was accepting of eachother their wouldn't be violence between the immigrants and the natives.

 

3. OK, so maybe I don't know exactly what fascism is, but what I meant was a xenophobic, ultranationalist groups of people. Also, There are many crazy, radical Christians. There are Christians that hate all atheists, Muslims, etc. There are Christians who beat up homosexuals because homosexuality is contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some christians that bomb mosques or attacks Sikhs because they mistake them for Muslims. There are many wonderful, friendly Christians, but there are also many terrible ones. It is the same for Muslims. The problem is not that these religions exsist, but that people take religious texts like the Bible and Quaran literally.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

 

Count how many of these are by Islamic State/Other Islamist groups. And count how many are by Christians.

 

Also, kom je uit Vlaanderen?

[LordRahl2]

Journalists who are experts within terrorism. And also actual professional experts on terrorists claimed Utöya was Al Qaida. Almost everyone was spouting it as a fact because someone heard someone yell in arabic, or someone saw an al quida flag, and a bunch of other things that pop up in a time of crisis. A lot of news papers and channels jump on any sorta claim, without giving how valid the claim is, and all it does is spread rumours and misinformation. It's always a bad idea to spread any kinda information that hasn't been confirmed by several, highly trustworthy sources, especially within the first 24 hours, because of this exact reason.

Journalists and experts tend to be mutually exclusive terms. If you find a large amount of sources that you consume are jumping to conclusions then you should reevaluate what you are watching/reading.

 

Almost everyone was not spouting it. I do not remember many actual experts in countrrterrorims making that leap at all really. Maybe whatever sources you consume were. However, the events and the availible data was far different and nothimg I saw jumped to that conclusion.

 

It is good to analyze the information available - true. However, when the evidence is clear then there is no artificial time horion that requires you to wait prior to making a facts based assesment as I did.

[Crust]

Journalists and experts tend to be mutually exclusive terms. If you find a large amount of sources that you consume are jumping to conclusions then you should reevaluate what you are watching/reading.

 

Almost everyone was not spouting it. I do not remember many actual experts in countrrterrorims making that leap at all really. Maybe whatever sources you consume were. However, the events and the availible data was far different and nothimg I saw jumped to that conclusion.

 

It is good to analyze the information available - true. However, when the evidence is clear then there is no artificial time horion that requires you to wait prior to making a facts based assesment as I did.

 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/benjamin-doherty/how-clueless-terrorism-expert-set-media-suspicion-muslims-after-oslo-horror

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-norway-terrorist-attack-news-without-facts-experts-on-jihad-and-muslim-terrorism/25761

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/07/a_ridiculous_rapid_response.html

 

Most major news outlets, both in Sweden, the U.S and international ones, had experts saying that the facts were clear; Al Qaida or a similar islamic group was behind the terrorist attack. I don't know where you were when this shit happened but I was literally watching BBC news, where they were claiming that an Al Qaida group might be behind it.

 

How could you possibly come up with overwhelming proof and evidence that a certain group was behind it when 1. The authorities in charge of finding out who did it haven't yet come to a conclusion. 2. None of the people in charge of the attack has been arrested as of yet (as far as we know). 3. It hasn't been 24 hours since the attacks happened.

 

How do you know the evidence is clear? All I've seen write as of yet is just assumptions and guesses. Earlier you wrote that it can't have been something in the styles of Breivik, but that doesn't automatically prove that it was ISIS. Just because your claim seems logical and rational does not ever turn said claim in to evidence. And it's only in hindsight that we can look at all the facts and say "oh this is the logical conclusion we should make from this all", a.k.a when all the evidence have been found.

[Edsel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

 

Count how many of these are by Islamic State/Other Islamist groups. And count how many are by Christians.

 

Also, kom je uit Vlaanderen?

There is a lot of bias involving what is and what is not considered a terrorist attack. There are many killings and shootings that are racially motivated, motivated by xenophobia, or Islamiphobia that are not considered terrorism because white Christians commit the crimes.

 

Also, many predominantly Muslim countries don't have very old, established governments, or they are transitioning fron an autocracy/oiligrachy to a democracy. The US, England, and France were also very violent during their revolutions and civil wars.

 

Often, groups of people are considered terrorists because they are fighting against an established government, a nation allied to the US or Nato, or because they are Muslim.

 

In the United States, most of the terrorist attacks are commited by non-Muslim right-wing terrorists.

 

Sorry, I don't speak Flemish. I just think that Flanders is a beautiful place with a beautiful language, culture, art, and architecture.

Edited November 14, 2015 by EdtheGreen