Brussels Attack

At Least 130 Injured and 31 Dead In Brussels Airport, Metro Explosions

French prime minister says: "We are at war."

|

@RumskyOfficial/Twitter

A series of Tuesday morning explosions in Brussels, Belgium, has left more than two dozen dead and many more injured. According to the Associated Press, two explosions ripped through the Brussels airport first, followed by an explosion at a subway station near the E.U. headquarters in Brussels. At least one of the blasts is thought to have been caused by a suicide bomber. 

Belgian authorities are calling all three explosions "terrorist attacks." So far, officials have announced 55 injured and 15 dead in the subway attack and at least one dead in the airport attacks. Update: as of around 10:30 a.m. eastern standard time, the death toll was reported at 31, with at least 187 others wounded. 

The attacks come just a few days after Salah Abdeslam was arrested in Brussels for orchestrating the terrorist attacks in Paris last year. 

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said in a speech: "What we feared has happened, we were hit by blind attacks. … We know there are many dead, many injured … This is a dark moment for our nation. We need calm and solidarity." 

Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared: "We are at war. We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war." 

"This war will be long," added French President Francois Hollande, who said that while the "terrorists struck Brussels… it was Europe that was targeted."

All flights in and out of Brussels have been canceled, all subway stations have been closed, and authorities are telling everyone to remain where they are. 

Update: The New York City Police Department (NYPD) released a statement Tuesday morning saying it is "closely monitoring the situation in Belgium and is in close contact " with the FBI and international law-enforcement agencies. For now, though, the NYPD—which "has deployed additional counterterrorism resources across the city"—is using the Brussels attacks to plead for more federal funding. "These attacks come at a time when the federal government has proposed cutting terrorism funding to New York City by roughly 90 million dollars," the NYPD statement continued. "Any cut in terrorism funding to New York—to what is widely recognized as the nation's top terror target—would be irresponsible." 

Below is AP footage from the Brussels Airport and metro station attacks:

NEXT: Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I bet it was the fucking Methodists.

    1. Everyone should stop worrying about Muslim terrorists, because you’re more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning, or something. And also, RACIST!!!11!!!!!

    2. No, the Amish. It had to be. Of course this is nothing compared to the threat we face from made made global warming.

      1. Look, Suthen, the sea level could rise 10 inches! In the next 100 years! One. Inch. Per. Decade.
        DOOOOOM!!!11!!!!!

        1. There goes half of Bangladesh.

          1. Yeah, the shitty half.

    3. It was the Jews. Everything is the Jews.

      1. Workplace violence. Isolated indecent. Move along.

      2. If Israel is wiped off the face of the earth, I am assured there will be nothing but peace in the world.

        1. +1 Sheldon Richman

      3. Well, duh. The Nazi’s had a perfectly good “final solution” but we just had to butt in and take down Hitler before he could finish. Then the Muslims wouldn’t have any reason to get their panties wadded up, and everyone in the middle east would be living in gum drop houses on lollipop lane, with rainbow farting unicorns as pets. /sarc, obviously

    4. All goodthinking people know that Christians protesting at abortion clinics are a greater threat to Western civilization than Islam, which is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance. This is opposed to Christianity, which is a religion of violence, intolerance, and subjugation of heretics. Remember the Crusades? Remember the Atlanta Olympics?

      To question this truth is badthink and will not be tolerated.

      1. Mohammedans are also coercers of pregnant women–no real difference there. HL Mencken observed that Mohammedans “are not bidden to love their enemies but to smite them, and there are no oppressive rules about distinguishing between foes in arms and innocent bystanders. The Moslem theory is that the latter, if they happen to be true believers, will go straight to Paradise and are thus not to be pitied, and that no calamity can be too great for those who doubt. This view of the matter, I suspect, has had a great deal to do with the superior success of Moslemism wherever it has come into competition with Christianity, say in Africa.”

        You mystics now have your coercive altruism…

        1. Mohammedans are also coercers of pregnant women…

          I’ve never coerced a pregnant woman in any way. I have implored people to avoid murder, however.

        2. I am not a mystic of any sort.

    5. I’m pretty sure Trump supporters did this.

    6. Well… at least their motives were altruistic and religious.

  2. USA: Stay the fuck out of this.

    Which, of course, we won’t.

    1. NATO Article 5?

      1. If that gets invoked, it’s a perfect reason to get the fuck out of NATO. News flash: the Soviet Union is dead. European countries are perfectly able to defend themselves.

        1. Hmm. You know who wanted to the get the US out of NATO?

          1. Khrushchev?

        2. Well sure, NATO became completely irrelevant, pointless, and obsolete as soon as the Soviet Union fell. But like any government bureaucracy, it is self-perpetuating.

          1. I’m sure Latvia is planning to invade France. Poland has already infiltrated England…

            1. I, for one, welcome our new Livonian overlords.

            2. Look, you can’t trust the Latvians while Dr. Doom is running the place.

              1. Doom runs Latveria.

                I bet you think Kangaroos come from Canukistan.

                1. Th..they don’t?

                2. Don’t be ridiculous, everybody knows kangaroos are made up, like drop bears and Eskimos.

          2. “But like any government bureaucracy, it is self-perpetuating.”

            +1 Tennessee Valley Authority

        3. I thought Donald Trump was a bumpkin troglodyte for suggesting we get out of NATO.

          1. No, he’s a troglodyte because he’s a troglodyte. That has no bearing one way or another on rational foreign policy.

          2. Look, Donald Trump is a bumpkin troglodyte no matter what he suggests, even if other politicians have suggested the same and been taken seriously, because TRUUUUMP!!!11!!!!!!
            Understand?

            1. WHYCOME BE THM MEEN 2 TUMP???

        4. France proved they can take care of a Moslem problem in 732.

          1. Of course, it was 760 years from Tours to Grenada, so Europe should have this handled by 2776.

  3. And the end result of this will be a reduction in freedom for everyone. Enjoy.

    1. Sure, as I noted below, look for airport security checks to move to the airport entrance now, and also for security screens and random searches for subways, trains, busses, etc. etc.

      1. It’s bottlenecks all the way down. Wait until this happens at a screening point for a soccer game…

        1. They already tried that one at the start of the Paris attacks.

      2. Obviously you should be searched:
        A) every time you leave your house
        B) every time you get out of the shower
        C) every time you get out of bed
        D) all of the above

        1. go on…

        2. Don’t think that shit isn’t on its way.

      3. Good thing the regressives are “nudging” us out of our cars and onto train platforms where blatting makes more sense.

    2. That’s how terrorists win, which makes the frequency of that outcome all the more depressing.

  4. The Caliphate Junkies strike again.

    I was just watching an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali last night before I went to bed. If more idiots in government took what she had to say seriously, perhaps incidents like this in civilized parts of the world would be less likely to happen.

    Not holding my breath.

    1. But if there were no incidents of this sort it would be difficult to justify the current level of intelligence and security funding. These incidents actually incentivize government. Until these incidents become frequent and deadly enough for people to lose confidence in government.

      1. Until these incidents become frequent and deadly enough for people to lose confidence in government.

        Jesus. I’d hate to see the level of terror attacks that would have to occur to result in THAT.

  5. You knew it was only a matter of time before they hit either the check-in lines or the security lines, as the large numbers of people waiting in these areas make an easy target for mass casualties without having to go through security. Now look for security screening to start at airport entrances rather than at gate access, which will then create another unsecured bottleneck, etc. etc.

    1. I am honestly shocked it took them this long. Not only is it before security, but it is an area where someone dragging a check-on bag isn’t unusual. You don’t have to make your human guided-missile wear a bulky, uncomfortable vest and you’re not limited to the weight and material a person can reasonably be expected to carry. You can load down a rolling bag with 50 pounds of shrapnel and explosives and have the person delivering it wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

      1. It’s such an obvious move, I’m amazed they haven’t done it here in America. The lines just waiting to go through security at a place like Newark Airport are huge, static, and unsecured.

        1. You wouldn’t have to go through check-in so it’s one less place where your delivery boy can get busted or chicken out. They can just go straight from the car to the line. Plus everyone is packed in like sardines and the queuing space is usually contained so you wouldn’t waste a lot of the energy having it go off into open space. You keep it nice and focused in the area where you’re surrounded by people. Do it on a Monday morning at a major airport when all the business travelers or the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays and you can probably shut-down transportation system wide.

          1. Maybe you should quit giving them advice? Jesus.

            1. I feel comfortable in assuming that the monsters who do such things spend enough time dreaming up creative ways to murder people that offhand comments on a blog won’t come up with anything they haven’t already examined.

              1. ^This^

                If some nobodies on a blog comment section can figure this shit out, then I’m pretty sure terrorist assholes can too. I’m shocked it took them this long. Maybe that’s further evidence that we’re (thankfully) dealing with some pretty dim bulbs here.

        2. They haven’t done it in America for one (actually reassuring) reason — they don’t have the foot soldiers with the bomb-making materials and expertise on the ground here. Period. The idea that capable terrorists are here and ready to go but that airport security is preventing them from attacking is laughable. And, yes, I’ve been saying for years that attacking airport security lines has been an obvious next move. 1) you can wheel probably a couple hundreds lbs of explosives into or near a security line in a big suitcase, and 2) it doesn’t even need to be a suicide attack (the bomber could wander away 30 seconds before the blast).

          And how could defend against such an attack without completely FUBARing air travel? It doesn’t even really look possible to me. And pretty much the same goes for the subway.

      2. The IRA was doing this crap with some frequency in the 1960s and 1970s. There’s a sitting US representative that provided the IRA material assistance to the IRA terrorists.

        The Weather Underground occasionally did this sort of crap in the 1970s, and would have more often if their bomb-makers were more competent. There’s a sitting US president who is good buddies with the ringleader of the Weather Underground terrorists.

        Yassar Arafat was reportedly proud of his innovations: the airplane hijacking and the suicide bombing. (His Russian handler kept quite about the fact that the KGB had actually invented the airplane hijacking.)

        Seriously, there’s nothing at all new about terrorist bombings of innocent people. The reason “it took them this long” is that the combination of material resources and willing personnel is in fairly short supply in Europe. It’s just not that great of a risk.

        On the other hand, not many people die from Ebola, either, but only a fool would advocate to increase immigration from African villages suffering from an Ebola outbreak.

        1. Careful pal, you’re perilously close to having your Team Libertarian card punched. Open borders and all, you know.

        2. His Russian handler kept quite about the fact that the KGB had actually invented the airplane hijacking.

          Probably because it wasn’t true.

        3. terrorism is not a disease.

      3. Seriously. It’s such an obvious target. It is really the only time I am nervous when traveling, as I have to deal with the TSA while recognizing that me and the hundreds of people crowded around me are a plump target.

    2. It looks like the subway attack was more successful. Airports tend to be more open and subways are about the most contained spaces available. Psychologically, airports tend to appeal to terrorists but if they wanted to invoke the most casualties given their extremely limited supply of moronic dupes who will carry out the utterly pointless acts of violence, terrorists should target crowded confined spaces.

      1. If the goal had been max deaths, the 911 hijackers would have hit on a Saturday when Michigan and Tennessee were playing at home. 200k sitting targets.

        1. Reason #569 why I no longer exercise my alumni ticket purchase accommodation at the Big House when those red and grey fucks from Ohio come to town

          1. It has nothing to do with terrorist attacks. Admit it. You just got bored watching the Wolverines lose to the Buckeyes uear after year. I don’t blame you.

            1. I include the Suckeyes as yet another form of terrorist immigrants.

        2. 2,996 deaths were attributed to the 911 attacks, the single biggest radical Islamist terrorist act. In contrast, the 2015 Mina stampede killed at least 2,236 Islamic pilgrims. In1990 another 1,426 perished in another stampede. In between, in 6 other incidents of stampeding have claimed another 1,034 lives for a grand total of 4,696.
          Perhaps, radical clerics should be looking after their own.

    3. Hey, they’ve got the recorded message about unsupervised bags running every five minutes, they’ve got it covered.

      1. Do I really have to take my bags with me when I go for a piss during the two hour layover?

  6. There’s no way to defend against these sorts of low scale attacks outside not letting these people in. These are the sorts of attacks Israel has had to face.

    1. Had to?

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/s…..terrorist/

      It is ongoing despite the non-reporting our press is expertly giving us. Take away their bombs, they use guns. Take away their guns, they use knives. Take away their knives, they use rocks. Increase security at check-in, they move to the lobby. Secure the lobby, they move onto the street.

      These are not civilized or reasonable people. This will not end until they are purged from the civilized world.

      1. If this shit starts to become endemic in the U.S., they might end up actually getting purged. People here would go apeshit, and America has the military to seriously fuck shit up. This could end very badly for everyone, including Americans giving up their last vestiges of freedom in exchange for better “security”.

        1. If you look at the tenor of a shitload of the comments on this article (or any article like this on H&R), you’ll note that “purging” seems to be a very popular idea. I’d like some of the purgers to explain how exactly the “purging” would be done. You know, in a way that doesn’t mean TOTAL FUCKING POLICE STATE. But they seem to be just fine with that as long as the scary foreigners will be taken away by Daddy Government.

          1. What if it’s a grassroots purge, though? Yokels in trucks doing drive by shootings of Sikh-owned 7-11s, probably.

          2. They fool themselves into thinking that the Total Fucking Police State would just go away after it dealt with the Muslims.

            1. No, they’re stupider than that. They think the TFPS will leave them alone because they’re not scary foreigners. Yeah, they’re that stupid.

              1. Just like all the law-abiding citizens of Boston were left alone during the search for the Tsarnaev kid. Other than forcibly removing everyone from their homes and conducting random, armed, warrantless searches.

                1. ^This. And “Boston Strong” rolled over for that bullshit.

          3. That’s what’s so scary about this. There are reasonable people in these comments who are otherwise skeptical of government who will accept that for safety. So just imagine how the general public feels and what they’re willing to give up for (the illusion of) safety.

            1. A lot of people in the US govt think Western ranchers or citizens with more than one gun are terrorists.

              1. Not just the US government but a boatload of liberals and foreigners as well.

          4. “But they seem to be just fine with that as long as the scary foreigners will be taken away by Daddy Government.”

            I am not fine with any of this at all. I am simply pointing something out, not advocating anything.

          5. A friend of mine keeps bees. When he works with the bees he wears this beekeeping getup–the hat with the netting, the gloves, the suit. It is very hot, restrictive and uncomfortable.

            But, to work with the bees, he’s got to wear it.

            Until he’s done.

            Then, he takes off the suit, the hat, and the gloves. He’s no longer restricted and uncomfortable. He isn’t required to keep it on forever.

            How about that?

            1. A good analogy.

            2. Yes, because the government always takes off its beekeeping suit after using it. You know, just like government scales back after every expansion, because it’s so responsible.

              If you are actually this stupid, you should seek help immediately, as you are likely to drown in the next rainstorm.

              1. Can anyone think of one example of government ever shutting down or scaling back anything once they have implemented something?

                1. Back in the late 70s, during a Democrat administration, they deregulated trucking and air travel. In the 80s, they deregulated controls on oil during a Republican administration.

                  Other than that, I got nothing.

                  Government will shut down or scale back anything that fails to advance the interests of the ruling elite.

                2. Ellis Island?

                3. First and Second banks of the United States.

                4. The military after WWI.

                5. The big one: the draft. The USA’s instituted & abolished them many times. So have other countries.

                  I can think of loads of other examples, but that one’s so big & glaring it’s pointless to raise any others.

            3. LOL. It’s the state, stupid. The ratchet only goes one way.

            4. You’re really stupid, aren’t you. Does it hurt?

            5. “Can anyone think of one example of government ever shutting down or scaling back anything once they have implemented something?”

              They did end the camps that they threw the Japs in.

              But I really can’t think of anything in my lifetime. I’m sure there’s some examples. They’re just few and far between, and due to the rarity we can generalize that they are unlikely to scale back any “power grab”.

              Of course, we don’t have to curtail the US population to enact a purge… which is what I’m always shocked more people don’t argue for.

              1. we don’t have to curtail the US population to enact a purge

                LOL. How would that work?

                1. Something about ovens and/or glass parking lots I’d guess.

            6. Even if the government scuttles a particular program, it doesn’t reduce the state. They just transfer resources that were being fed into that program. When you increase the size of the state, it stays increased. Especially if you create any new precedents in regard to national security. There will always be another emergency or an “emergency.”

            7. Can anyone think of one example of government ever shutting down or scaling back anything once they have implemented something?

              Slavery?

              The suspension of habeas corpus?

              The Alien and Sedition acts?

              Roosevelts police state idiocies?

              Prohibition?

              The Internment acts?

              Jim Crow?

              Segregation?

              The anti-Asian immigration acts?

              The assault weapons ban?

              Should I keep going? Because it’s a long fucking list.

          6. And now we have an example of the open borders retards throwing a tantrum as its proven the 50the time this year that crossing an imaginary line doesn’t change people. Rather than visit their obviously wrong assumptions about the peacefulness of Muslims, they bitch and moan that the world will end if we even screen put crazy people at the border.

            1. So you admit that crossing an imaginary line doesn’t change people, but you still believe in borders. Interesting.

              1. Logic fail.

            2. obviously wrong assumptions about the peacefulness of Muslims

              In my small town of 1,000 people in central Illinois where I grew up, there was an immigrant Pakistani couple who had 4 children. The father was a doctor (a hemotologist) and the mother was a stay-at-home mom. Their children were good students and all of them ended up going to very prestigious universities including the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics. Their son was my friend in high school. They were Muslims, and they were certainly “peaceful.”

              1. Spend an Easter weekend in E. Dearborn. Take long walks with a Jesus Saves sandwich board.

                1. You know there are more Catholic than Muslim Arabs in the US….but the gap is closing.

              2. They were Muslims, and they were certainly “peaceful.”

                Exactly. Abusus non tollit usum

          7. It wouldn’t be the first purge. The Reconquista was a winner-take-all 700-year purge.

            1. Well, now we have the Re-reconquista.

          8. I’d like some of the purgers to explain how exactly the “purging” would be done.

            Take off and nuke the site from orbit (it’s the only way to be sure). /sarc

            Don’t know, there’s no real solution to this shit. Most of the “purgers” are just talking out of their ass and expressing some (understandable) anger. I doubt very many people have really put that much thought into what it would take to literally “purge” the middle east of terrorist shitheads and/or to close our borders off completely to keep them out. It’s just a bunch of internet “tuff gais” blowing off steam.

            1. I think the general idea is to deport Muslims in Europe and North America back to Muslim countries and to keep them there.

          9. I’d like some of the purgers to explain how exactly the “purging” would be done.

            One at a a time.

            No Gov’t necessary.

        2. If this shit starts to become endemic in the U.S., they might end up actually getting purged.

          The question, “Why does this hardly happen in the US” is the key. We’re not Europe, and the principal way in which we’re different is a strong sense of assimilationism. Muslims here are too busy making money, getting educated, and having fun. We don’t have banlieus.

          1. They are also about 1% of population here compared to about 10% in France and 5% in Germany.

            1. That’s 3.3 million people. US Muslims are, on average, better educated and higher earners that “European” Americans.

              1. And they still commit terrorist attacks.

                1. Who is “they”? Collective guilting is fun, isn’t it?

                  1. Yawn, really? This tired old “Don’t collectivize” game? Doesn’t it get old?

                    1. Don’t collectivize, you inbred backwards yokels!

                    2. Apparently having zero fucking integrity never gets old for you, so…no?

              2. That’s because other than refugees, which are a small part of the US Muslim population, you have to be a skilled worker to get in to the US from a Muslim country.

                It’s the same selection bias that leads people to think that all Chinese and Indians are hardworking and intelligent, because they extrapolate from the people who are able to get into the US. Having been to both countries, I can attest that most of them are stupid and lazy, just like us.

            2. Turning a blind eye to the fact that Muslims commit a very disproportionate amount of terrorism isn’t helping anything. A group who belonged to 1% of the US population killed 3,000 people on just 9/11. Proportionally speaking to pick a big demographic that would be like white males killing 93,000 people in one terrorist attack.

              Cutting through all the PC bullshit you can’t say there’s not a statistical trend here. Yeah, I don’t have a solution but that doesn’t mean some groups of people aren’t more dangerous than others.

    2. not letting these people in

      Some deranged politician is sure to take advantage.

      1. Never let a crisis go to waste, you know.

    3. Except the difference is that in Israel the Palestinians were there all along. The Jewish population of that area was miniscule until after 1945.

      1. Getting expelled by the Romans and then the Ottomans might have a wee bit to do with that…

        “Palestinians were there all along”? Bullshit. Arabs are not autochthonous.

        1. Romans and Ottomans: No argument, but so what? They were invaded and lost.

          “Bullshit…” Bullshit.

          1. They were invaded and lost.

            As did the Palestinians.

          2. Wait, so if we use your argument of “so what? they were invaded and lost” couldn’t we just apply that to the Palestinians? The Israelis have won a few wars over there, and appear to be there to stay, right? The Jewish population there is no longer minuscule, and they are the victors.

            (I’m not opposed to your argument here Tonio, I just think we need to apply it both ways.)

            1. Exactly. Plus, they weren’t settled on Palestinian lands – they tried to move in and start over after being “pressured” out of their ancestral homelands in central and eastern Europe. The remaining Palestinians decided war was preferable to Jews owning a patch of desert and a couple of cities near their farms and are now dealing with the consequences of losing that war.

              Let’s run a thought experiment: the US is turning California into a sovereign country. The local Spanish population wants to set up an independent, Spanish-speaking government over the regions where they make up 70% or more of the population and the US agrees. If Anglo Californians go to war over this decision and abandon their land in Spanish-held territory in anticipation of a glorious Gringo victory that never materializes, why should the rest of the world spend the next 100 years pushing for their grandkids and great-grandkids to be given their land back? Doesn’t the forfeit of one’s holdings usually result from one’s participation in a losing rebellion?

            2. if we use your argument of “so what? they were invaded and lost” couldn’t we just apply that to the Palestinians?

              I’d actually be fine with that:

              “The Jews won, you lost. While it certainly sucks to be on the losing end of a war of conquest, and I can certainly sympathize, still… You lost, get over it and move on. Maybe if your people tried actually doing something productive with their lives instead of turning the areas you still control into a shithole ghetto and whining to the international community about how mean those Jews are you’d actually get somewhere in life.”

              1. Israel and the surrounding Arab countries make it REALLY hard for individual palestinians to “do something productive with their lives”. It’s not as easy as saying “suck it up”.

      2. The situational difference is not what is important. What is important is the common factor.

        Their tactics are always the same: Murder and tear at the fabric of civilization at any cost. See Barbary Pirates, Algerian Rebels, Palestinians, the current Muslim invaders of Europe…etc etc etc. This book has many chapters but the plot of every one of them is the same.

        1. Their tactics are always the same:

          Their “tactic” in the US is to get an education and a good job. DANGER! DANGER!

          1. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend there have no issues with Muslims in America carrying out terrorist attacks.

            1. It is so amazingly minuscule that it’s not even a statistical blip. Muslims aren’t burning cars every day in the NYC suburbs.

              1. Yet people here in the U.S. have already submitted. Comedians won’t make Muslim jokes, papers won’t publish cartoons of the Prophet, etc…

                1. Comedians won’t make Muslim jokes, papers won’t publish cartoons of the Prophet, etc…

                  Assuming that is universally true (it isn’t) is it in response to concerns about reprisal from Muslim-Americans?

      3. I really don’t think Americans want to set a precedent that land belongs to whichever ethnic group inhabited it originally, and must be given back to them even if the current inhabitants had nothing to do with taking it from them.

        1. ^This, this, a thousand times this. And I’m not even sure if the biblical Hebrews were the “original” human habitants of Palestine/Israel.

          1. They werent, even the bible makes that clear.

            They were supposed to clear out* the Canaanites but didnt do the job.

            * wow, I wasnt trying to down play genocide but I did.

            1. Don’t worry. They were just Canaanite dogs.

              1. They were just Canaanite dogs.

                Trespassers on God’s land, according to the Bible.

                Leviticus 25:23

                1. Hey, ace. It’s been a while. I’m on vacation, so I’ve got a little free time if you want to chat. This is totally off topic, but why do you believe Christianity is true? (Maybe it’s necessary to also have some definitions.)

                  1. Wow, complicated question. I’ll give a fairly simple answer:

                    “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” CS Lewis

                    1. Yes, it certainly did come out of left field, but I kinda have a hankering to talk about this kind of thing at the moment (for about an hour), and I figured you might be game as well.

                      Getting back to the issue, do you mean you believe Christianity is true because existence exists?

                    2. I was giving a more general answer. It seems to be the best fit for the evidence available. Things that God said that man had no business knowing (circumcision for health, avoid pork so you don’t get sick, even the seizure demon only being able to be removed by prayer and fasting!).

                      Then the fulfilled prophecy in the book of Daniel, only dated by unbelievers when it is because otherwise it predicted the Persian, Greek, divided Greek, Roman, and Byzantine empires (as well as Christ’s “Kingdom of God”) would be really hard to believe without Divine help. Heck, he even predicted Alexander the Great!

                      On top of that, the 500 who saw Christ alive after he had been killed (negating any real claim of “mass hallucination”), the fact that all of the apostles (save John) we willing to die* without a fight just to tell us that Christ was the Lord, meaning that there is very little question that what they saw made them believe.

                      *They were primary witnesses who didn’t die in a war of conquest, but knew they would likely die just to tell people something!

                      But more than that, the simple facts in my own life, how His Divine word and wisdom has kept me from doing so much evil and given me so much insight into life. Again, the author of Liberty as the one who would not force people to do right, but still allow them to sin (because he doesn’t want outward obedience, but a relationship with you) blows my mind and is again unprecedented.

                    3. Ok. Now we’ve got something concrete. This is my perspective to those points.

                      There doesn’t seem to be any divine knowledge necessary from the examples you gave. Circumcision has been practiced for tens of thousands of years in different cultures in different parts of the globe. Being a cultural practice of ancient Hebrews who defended it as clean doesn’t seem very extraordinary. Also, the benefits/drawbacks of circumcision are still up for debate. I’m not aware of problems with pork that make it noticeably worse than other animals or foods. As for fasting and seizures, the ancient Greeks apparently found that fasting could help mitigate seizures.

                      It is common enough for prophecies to be written after the event they “prophesy” to have its own name, vaticinium ex eventu. There are good reasons to date Daniel well after the events it it reportedly prophesied correctly–the fact that it was not included in the Hebrew canon of prophets closed around 200 BC and that it was not referenced even once by a book from a Jewish scribe around 180 BC that referenced many others. Apparently there are also other reasons. Babylonaian writings and the Book of Mormon also contain vaticinia ex eventu, and I don’t accept them just like I don’t accept those from Daniel. I suspect you may be committing special pleading when you accept Daniel.

                    4. Paul did indeed claim there were 500 people who saw a resurrected Jesus, but I think more than Paul’s claim is needed to overcome the burden of proof.

                      As for the disciples dying, even if true it is not all that extraordinary. However, I am unaware of any credible historical documentation aside from medieval fairy tales about every single disciple dying specifically because they refused to recant their belief in a resurrected Christ. In fact, the earliest document about all of the disciples (Pseudo-Hippolytus “On the Twelve Apostles”) states that several of them died natural deaths. (I do believe the writings of the Bible mentions a few disciple being put to death.) In any case, the claim is that the disciples in a cult claimed extraordinary things and then died for saying those extraordinary things to the end.

                      So, I don’t think these examples take significant steps to indicate the veracity of Christianity.

                    5. Here are some links:

                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Danie — Look at Composition

                      Search: “Liars for Jesus: Does Daniel Predict the Future?” (Provocative, I know.)

                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticinium_ex_eventu

                    6. Also:

                      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0524.htm

                      Search: “Who Would Die for a Lie” (also by Bob Seidenstecker from “Cross Examined”)

                    7. About the disciples dying for their beliefs, I don’t think I expressed it clearly. I mean that, even if true, the disciples (like members of a cult) died for their beliefs in extraordinary things. Cult members say and do crazy things all the time, so it is certainly notable, but not extraordinary.

                      I don’t know if I’ll be able to reply for several hours, but if you want we could continue later this afternoon/evening. How would you respond to what I wrote?

                      Oh, also with Daniel it is referenced by other writings around the middle of 2nd century BC, showing that is was known by that time.

                    8. Cult members say and do crazy things all the time, so it is certainly notable, but not extraordinary.

                      I suppose, just like the “Lord, liar, or lunatic” theorem (which I have yet to see a well reasoned response to), we could look at the disciples as well.

                      They preached and annoyed people until they died. They lived in danger without prosperity until they died one way or another. Now, I don’t see how this is explainable unless:

                      1. They were evil and got off on deceiving people.

                      2. They were nuts. Or

                      3. They believed what they claimed to have seen.

                      The odds of the first 2 seem kinda low to me, right? All of them being evil while giving to the poor and serving their fellow man? Also, while doing these things may look to the world as if they were nuts, it did match up entirely with what they said. Added to this the odds of them all being crazy…

                      Again, I have not given you an exhaustive list of reasons. In fact, I’ve thought of one more that deserves its own post.

                    9. This is about the disciples.

                      Again, the disciples certainly could have believed in a resurrected Jesus or even believed that they saw a resurrected Jesus, but that does not mean it happened, and I don’t think it’s very good evidence that it did. Cult members (even witnesses) say and believe strange things all the time, and sometimes they are killed for them. After all, there are Hindus who report seeing Hindu gurus shape-shifting, levitating, etc. in the modern world. I don’t think these people are liars or lunatics (or that they actually see these things); I think they are simply prone to believing supernatural things and mistakenly believe things that aren’t really the case, as it easily was with Jesus’ disciples and followers especially living in the time that they did. It wouldn’t be surprising if at least some of the disciples, going through the trauma of seeing their leader brutally killed, came to believe that he was resurrected or that they even saw him resurrected. That they would die for these beliefs (which isn’t reliably established apart from Peter and maybe one or two others) isn’t extraordinary either, especially if they believed heaven awaited them for being martyrs.

                    10. (Also about disciples.)

                      Furthermore, there is the possibility of “legend” as well. I don’t mean that the Gospels are certainly complete legend, just that there could easily be exaggeration in the Gospels beyond what the original disciples believed, if the disciples even existed as described in the Gospels. Maybe some of them believed Jesus had been resurrected but didn’t actually think they saw him for themselves. Maybe some of them left Christianity. We don’t know exactly what happened to all of the disciples except for contradictory stories about them. After all, it’s common belief that they all were executed (except for John) for their beliefs, but the earliest document about them doesn’t agree.

                      To claim with a fair level of certainty that all the disciples (except John and Judas) died because they claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus is unwarranted. Even if that was the case, it still wouldn’t be that good of evidence, just as cult members aren’t generally believed and Hindu gurus aren’t generally believed to shape-shift and levitate.

                    11. I don’t mean that the Gospels are certainly complete legend, just that there could easily be exaggeration in the Gospels beyond what the original disciples believed…

                      Considering what Paul and the other Epistle writers wrote on the subject matter (in fact more than what Christ is recorded as saying), you’d have to say that these are likely all added in later as well.

                      the earliest document about them doesn’t agree

                      Thank goodness no-one trust a document just because it’s the oldest! Medicine would be really jacked up…

                      To claim with a fair level of certainty that all the disciples (except John and Judas) died because they claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus is unwarranted.

                      Perhaps, but it’s not like they lived a good life due to what they had preached. Again, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

                    12. but that does not mean it happened, and I don’t think it’s very good evidence that it did.

                      No, it doesn’t mean that it happened. It’s pretty good evidence that rational people who saw what they saw would believe it. After all, it’s not like they actually understood what Christ’s predictions of his death meant.

                      I think they are simply prone to believing supernatural things and mistakenly believe things that aren’t really the case

                      Remember, these disciples apparently thought they saw numerous miracles from the man, even raising the dead (kind of hard to fake), and still thought it ridiculous that someone could raise themselves from the dead.

                      It wouldn’t be surprising if at least some of the disciples, going through the trauma of seeing their leader brutally killed, came to believe that he was resurrected or that they even saw him resurrected.

                      So you wouldn’t be surprised if you saw [fill-in-the-blank Atheist here] after they died? Seems odd. It also seems odd that so many of the disciples saw him at so many different times…

                    13. Remember, these disciples apparently thought they saw numerous miracles from the man, even raising the dead (kind of hard to fake), and still thought it ridiculous that someone could raise themselves from the dead.

                      It also seems odd that so many of the disciples saw him at so many different times…

                      In your responses, you are treating the Gospels as historical fact and are accepting what they say at face value; I don’t see reasons to do such a thing. I don’t think it’s convincing to say that the disciples thought they saw Jesus raise a person from the dead–that could easily be legend through oral story telling until the Gospels were written down. Then again, maybe the disciples did believe things along those lines. I think it’s certainly possibly that some of his followers believed they saw Jesus after he had died.

                      Your argument seems to be: The disciples believed that they saw Jesus after he resurrected.Therefore, the best explanation is that Jesus actually was resurrected.

                      I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think Hindu gurus can levitate or that Imams can perform miracle healings despite what people claim. I don’t think that Jesus actually resurrected either if the evidence given is that some of his followers believed he did and a couple of them were later executed for being Christians. Cult member believe and do crazy things all the time–they sometimes even die for it.

                    14. In your responses, you are treating the Gospels as historical fact and are accepting what they say at face value

                      Actually, I wasn’t, I was leaving it up to you to decide if the things happened. But perfect verbiage aside…

                      I don’t think that Jesus actually resurrected…

                      What would convince you?

                      Cult member believe and do crazy things all the time–they sometimes even die for it.

                      What’s the simplest explanation?

                    15. I’m not interested in the simplest explanation, necessarily, but the explanation that is warranted based on the quality of the evidence. I’m sorry, but saying that a group of people around 2,000 years ago probably believed that their charismatic cult leader resurrected after being dead (and possibly died because of being a member of the cult) does not seem like good enough evidence to warrant belief that that cult leader actually resurrected from the dead (or did miracle healings, or walked on water, etc.).

                      History and even the modern world are filled with supernatural claims and stories. I don’t think Hindu gurus can levitate or that Imams can perform miracle healings, for example.

                      I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, I think you are committing special pleading for your religion, i.e. you’re not being as critical of Christianity as you would be for other claims.

                    16. I’m not interested in the simplest explanation, necessarily, but the explanation that is warranted based on the quality of the evidence.

                      I’m not sure you can take a position other than “there is a God” or “there isn’t a God”. I wouldn’t say what I’m trying to do is “prove” (modern definition) God’s existence, just make it likely, or even the most likely answer.

                      History and even the modern world are filled with supernatural claims and stories.

                      That’s why you try to back them up with other sources, or attack them with other sources.

                      I think you are committing special pleading for your religion…

                      It probably looks that way because I’m doing a better job than most. I’ve kept to things that are special to the Christian “religion”* over other religions.

                      *Calling Christianity a religion is due to convenience more than anything. Christianity is a relationship with God, not a “religion”. The Bible only uses the word 7 times and 6 of those times it’s talking about the word in negative ways.

                    17. It probably looks that way because I’m doing a better job than most. I’ve kept to things that are special to the Christian “religion”* over other religions. (About me saying you are committing special pleading.)

                      No, I think you are committing special pleading because you are accepting Christian claims whereas you would not accept similar claims from other supernatural belief systems.

                    18. No, I think you are committing special pleading because you are accepting Christian claims whereas you would not accept similar claims from other supernatural belief systems.

                      Give an example.

                    19. Some of Jesus’ followers believed they saw him after his death and that he was resurrected. A few of them died for belonging to that religion. For you, the best explanation is that Jesus was in fact resurrected.

                      Although I don’t want to go digging for people who were killed for such things, do you think Hindu gurus can levitate or that none of their closest followers would still claim they saw them levitate even if threatened with execution?

                      Why do you think people disagree about what the Quran means? Is the Quran perfectly written, as though by one author?

                    20. …do you think Hindu gurus can levitate or that none of their closest followers would still claim they saw them levitate even if threatened with execution?

                      Perhaps some would die for it. I don’t think too many would. Also, “levitation” is easy (I’ve had a few illusions explained to me), coming back from the dead after a state execution is hard.

                      Is the Quran perfectly written, as though by one author?

                      If I remember right, it was mostly by the one guy. And no, it’s not perfectly written, and I’ve only used that word once here, and not to describe the Scripture.

                      Also, my point was that the Old and New fit together too well to be by anything other than one author. The Quran wasn’t written in that way, pretty much all at once.

                    21. coming back from the dead after a state execution is hard

                      Search for seeing people after they have died in Google without quotations.

                    22. Well, I think I’ll finish here, ace, since I’ve got to do other things unfortunately. It’s been really enjoyable. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation because I’ve learned more about you and you’ve probably learned more about me. Thanks for engaging.

                      I’ll post this to other responses so you see it easily. So long!

                    23. Mass hallucinations?

                    24. Search for seeing people after they have died in Google without quotations.

                      In mass? Several times in mass?

                    25. Paul did indeed claim there were 500 people who saw a resurrected Jesus, but I think more than Paul’s claim is needed to overcome the burden of proof.

                      Even ignoring Paul (which people love to do for a myriad of reasons) there are are still the Gospels and Acts where he appears to several of his disciples (unnumbered). Again, as we can’t reproduce the theory of “mass hallucinations”, this is hard to explain without actually seeing him, or purposely deceiving us…. so they could die?

                      However, I am unaware of any credible historical documentation aside from medieval fairy tales about every single disciple dying specifically because they refused to recant their belief in a resurrected Christ.

                      Well, obviously they are dead. Fair enough, I was being incorrect when I said all of them died for that save John. My bad. That being said, tradition says (Scripture doesn’t cover most of their deaths) that most of them did die for the faith.

                      Any way you slice it, they didn’t exactly get wealthy or powerful due to their incessant preaching. As Paul said, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

                    26. I think my post above basically relates to this.

                    27. Circumcision has been practiced for tens of thousands of years in different cultures in different parts of the globe.

                      Is there anything to show it prior to the Jews? I’m unaware of it.

                      I’m not aware of problems with pork that make it noticeably worse than other animals or foods.

                      Try under-cooking it sometime. Actually, don’t.

                      -the fact that it was not included in the Hebrew canon of prophets closed around 200 BC and that it was not referenced even once by a book from a Jewish scribe around 180 BC that referenced many others.

                      Even according to Wikipedia: “Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.” That still predates the Roman and Byzantine empires as well as “The Kingdom of God”.

                    28. I read that circumcision has been practice throughout Africa and that it was practiced by Aboriginal peoples as well. It wouldn’t surprising that this Hebrew cultural ritual was defended by the Hebrews in a number of ways.

                      Under-cooking lamb, beef, and other meats are also as bad as under-cooking pork, I believe. And does the Bible talk about cooking pork or give logical reasons as to why it is “unclean”?

                      I don’t understand your response to Daniel. The middle of the 2nd century BC would be about 150 BC, and it is estimated that Daniel was written about 167-165 BC or something like that. So it certainly fits that it would be referenced around 15 years after it was written, while it wasn’t referenced in the centuries before that.

                    29. Under-cooking lamb, beef, and other meats are also as bad as under-cooking pork, I believe.

                      Well, let’s do an experiment then. I’ll eat raw lamb or cow for a week, and you eat raw pork. We’ll see who’s doing better at the end.

                      And does the Bible talk about cooking pork or give logical reasons as to why it is “unclean”?

                      Not really, though that’s actually evidence for it, not against. If you wanted people to do it on faith, you’d just tell them “do A”. If you wanted to give them reasons (such as, for your own health), then you’d do so, if you were a man.

                      I don’t understand your response to Daniel.

                      Even by those who don’t believe, they think it was written no later than 150 BC. Even then it predates the Roman and Byzantine empires, as well as Christ. It predicts them all. So it’s either prophecy or fantastic guessing.

                    30. In part you’re giving me sardonic responses to avoid the issue. As for pork, it’s one of millions of strange religious/cultural rituals that humans engaged in (like flaying one’s penis or only eating with the right hand and wiping your anus with the left hand). It is not a convincing indication of any supernatural authorship.

                      As for Daniel, it almost certainly engaged in vaticinia ex eventu for many of its supposed prophecies. I don’t know what prophecies you refer to about the Roman and Byzantine empires. I don’t think I want to analyze a bunch of Bible verses, so I guess we’ll leave this unsettled for now. I imagine they’re the sort of prophecy where you only realize what they supposedly referring to after an event happens that basically fits the prophecy, in other words, vague.

                    31. As for pork, it’s one of millions of strange religious/cultural rituals that humans engaged in

                      I would guess it would be the first example though (I have not looked it up). People copy things that work, even if they don’t know why. Personally, I love pork…

                      As for Daniel, it almost certainly engaged in vaticinia ex eventu for many of its supposed prophecies.

                      I couldn’t have if it was written before what it claimed to have predicted. That’s my point.

                      I don’t think I want to analyze a bunch of Bible verses…

                      Come now, it’s just getting interesting. Daniel 2:32-33

                    32. Come now, it’s just getting interesting. Daniel 2:32-33

                      Explain. Include dates.

                    33. Explain.

                      Daniel does it in Daniel 2:40-43. The Iron is another kingdom (Rome) that will be divided (Byzantine). This is a natural prediction if you take the other parts to be the Persian and Greek empires (like the unbelievers do).

                      Include dates.

                      Well the Roman Empire was from 27 BC and the Byzantine was from 330 AD…

                    34. The problem with a “prophecy” like this is that it’s only clear if you have your special reading glasses to bolster up the belief system it comes from. This is demonstrated by the fact that even Christians have thought the “prophecy” refers to different empires. One idea is the one you gave, referring to Rome. Others believed there was a reference to the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Byzantine empire. Others said adopted the idea that the fourth empire was the Greek empire, which fits in entirely with the rest of vaticina ex eventu.

                      This is such a tedious thing to do as it is with Muslims who claim prophecies in the Quran.

                      I don’t think this verse in Daniel is sufficient evidence of divine inspiration.

                    35. Well, I think I’ll finish here, ace, since I’ve got to do other things unfortunately. It’s been really enjoyable. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation because I’ve learned more about you and you’ve probably learned more about me. Thanks for engaging.

                      I’ll post this to other responses so you see it easily. So long!

                    36. Others believed there was a reference to the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Byzantine empire.

                      I’m not going to deny that some Christians have a love for the complicated when the simple will do just fine. It seems to me that the “part iron, part clay” would refer to a divided kingdom such as the Roman splitting into the Roman and Byzantine empires, especially as it came directly after the Greek one. Also, claiming that it was the Greek one makes me wonder what the 3rd part of the prophecy was referring to (and that would have been clear if indeed it were written in the 2nd century BC).

                      I don’t think this verse in Daniel is sufficient evidence of divine inspiration.

                      Hopefully you can see why reasonable people would disagree. It does “fit” quite well, no?

                    37. There is another answer I will give you:

                      The fulfilled OT Scripture that Christ fulfilled, 353 according to http://www.accordingtothescrip…..cies.html.

                      Now some would give you that alone as proof but I’ll do you one better.

                      So there was this “Book” (the Old Testament) that was written, by about 35ish authors (or more) spanning centuries. Throughout this collection of books there are these random off-the-wall references to strange things that sometimes make sense in the narrative and sometimes make no sense at all. Anyhow, this “Book” was adopted by the Jews.

                      Onward comes this Jesus guy who does all this weird stuff, acts like one of the main characters in the old Book, but seems not to say “Thus saith the Lord” but “I say to you”… He acts odd and does all this stuff people claim as supernatural…

                      Now, he fulfilled these 353(ish) prophecies, and the easy thing to say would be “they wrote those in later”, but they couldn’t have because the OT is dated before then. You could also say “the Gospel writers made it all up and just fit his life into those prophecies” but you’d be admitting that the 4 writers were the best writers of all time, fitting all those things in together like that.

                      What it looks like happened to me is that the Book was actually written by someone who knew the ending, that God was just using foreshadowing to prove that what would happen later would be his doing.

                      Is there a better explanation?

                    38. First, just look at some of the “prophecies” listed on that site you gave. Let’s look at the very first one from Gen. 3:15. God is talking to the snake in the Garden after it fooled Eve. Here’s verses 14-15:

                      “So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

                      And your website says “Christs heel would be bruised with nails on the cross.” There is no reason to believe this was supposed to be a prophecy but a folk legend that used the snake as an evil character to explain the state of humans on the earth (the banishment from paradise). The antagonistic relationship between serpents and humans is clear, since humans crush snakes heads and snakes bite humans heels. This is one reason why there are still Jewish people because a lot of the “prophecies” put forward were and are desperately reinterpreted to be prophecies.

                    39. You could also say “the Gospel writers made it all up and just fit his life into those prophecies” but you’d be admitting that the 4 writers were the best writers of all time, fitting all those things in together like that.

                      I certainly think different people who told the stories and the ones who eventually wrote the Gospels hunted for anything resembling a prophecy from the Jewish holy books to buttress their story about Jesus. I don’t think they were the best writers of all time. They simply knew a lot about Jewish writings and fit things together where at all possible, even if places that weren’t prophecies in addition to probably creating elements of the Jesus story to fit real or purported prophecies.

                    40. I certainly think different people who told the stories and the ones who eventually wrote the Gospels hunted for anything resembling a prophecy from the Jewish holy books to buttress their story about Jesus.

                      Interesting. So these nobodies from Israel write this continuation of the book, they’re good enough to match all these prophecies and non-prophecies with works that this “Jesus” fellow did, invent all of his teaching, come up with this absolutely mind blowing way to salvation that happens to fit completely with the earlier book, and suffer for it while creating the greatest selling book of all time (that people today still read and believe).

                      Is that the simplest answer?

                    41. I fail to see the unbelievableness of many different people gradually exaggerating and/or creating elements of oral stories over decades that are shoehorned along with original elements into prophecies (real or imagined) from Jewish holy books.

                      It is a simple answer.

                    42. I fail to see the unbelievableness of many different people gradually exaggerating and/or creating elements of oral stories over decades that are shoehorned along with original elements into prophecies (real or imagined) from Jewish holy books.

                      Perhaps it’s due to the studying of the Bible I’ve done throughout my life. It’s fantastically done, throughout the whole thing, logically consistent (with different authors!) and otherwise unprecedented in man’s books.

                      It seems to me that the simplest answer is not several authors, but just the one. That’s one of the reasons I believe.

                    43. It’s fantastically done, throughout the whole thing, logically consistent (with different authors!) and otherwise unprecedented in man’s books.

                      It seems to me that the simplest answer is not several authors, but just the one.

                      I disagree. Imagine a professor wrote a book about human psychology and the most dedicated students of his wanted to read it and understand it. His most dedicated students understand what the book means and they all agree about what the book means. That is a well written book.

                      Now image the same situation but where the most dedicated students disagree vehemently about what it means. They think such different things that even fundamental issues are serious issues of contention. They even fight wars over it.

                      Of course you can see the analogy with the Bible. The Bible’s most dedicated scholars and enthusiasts come to enormously different and mutually exclusive conclusions.

                      What’s the simplest explanation? The Bible was simply written by different people thousands of years ago separated by centuries. The Bible reads perfectly if you read it as a bunch of different writings written by people.

                    44. *Now image the same situation but where the most dedicated students disagree vehemently about what it means. They think such different things that even fundamental issues are serious issues of contention. They even fight wars over it. This is a poorly written book.

                    45. A fair example but it’s missing something. The Bible speaks out about sin, personal, human, sin. People like their sins. It’s hard to give them up. When Christ tells you to “take up your cross and follow”, this isn’t natural. When he tells you to “borrow freely and expect nothing in return” that’s even less natural for some of us.

                      So you see, psychology is easy in comparison as it doesn’t usually require you to change. The Bible always does, and it hurts. Some fight about it*.

                      The Bible’s most dedicated scholars and enthusiasts come to enormously different and mutually exclusive conclusions.

                      It’s easier to stay in sin than to change. Even splitting the church over the small stuff is banned, so those who do come to different conclusions over the little things and split their church over it aren’t actually listening!

                      They even fight wars over it.

                      I’m not sure how many of those wars were actually about the book (right around zero, in my estimation) and more a rallying cry for some political purpose. People misuse beliefs all the time. Why else would Catholic France have fought for the Protestants during the 30 years war?

                      The Bible reads perfectly if you read it as a bunch of different writings written by people.

                      Haven’t I yet given you reason to think otherwise? Again, the prophecy must have been true or really well shoe-horned by a bunch of no-named Hebrews.

                      What could persuade you different?

                    46. Your explanation of the disagreements about the Bible is that people want to sin. I think people disagree about the people for the same reasons they disagree about the Quran or the writings in the Baghavad Gita. They’re simply unclear collections of ancient writings that people try to harmonize and interpret. There are understandably many different, possible interpretations to which people arrive.

                      Why do you think people disagree about the Quran? Is it not because the Quran isn’t a perfect book only written by people.

                    47. *disagree about the Bible for the same reasons they disagree about the Quran or…

                      (Sorry for the slips.)

                    48. Your explanation of the disagreements about the Bible is that people want to sin.

                      Don’t they? I know I do. It’s hard to follow something that tells you to change. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be so many diet books.

                      There are understandably many different, possible interpretations to which people arrive.

                      Which one of these possible interpretations doesn’t lead back to people wanting to sin? To be fair, there’s a lot of sin, so this may be an unfair question.

                      Why do you think people disagree about the Quran?

                      Mainly because:

                      [A] It’s written by man (if I remember right, mostly just by the one guy).

                      [B] It calls on you to do evil things. People want to be popular and also have a conscience.

                    49. Don’t they? I know I do. It’s hard to follow something that tells you to change. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be so many diet books.

                      Most Christianities embrace the change and embrace the concept of human depravity. So human depravity is not a good argument. I think it’s an imperfectly written collection of writings like the Quran. But you come up with a rationalization for your belief system, when it’s clear that both are quite unclear since they have the exact same results.

                      We agree about the Quran, but when it comes to the Bible you are more lenient with it and make excuses for its failings.

                    50. Well, I think I’ll finish here, ace, since I’ve got to do other things unfortunately. It’s been really enjoyable. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation because I’ve learned more about you and you’ve probably learned more about me. Thanks for engaging.

                      I’ll post this to other responses so you see it easily. So long!

                    51. I’m glad I could assist. This was an enjoyable discussion. (I had to go hang out with my wife before bed, that’s why I stopped responding for a while.)

                      God Bless you!

                    52. Well, I think I’ll finish here, ace, since I’ve got to do other things unfortunately. It’s been really enjoyable. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation because I’ve learned more about you and you’ve probably learned more about me. Thanks for engaging.

                      I’ll post this to other responses so you see it easily. So long!

                    53. Most Christianities embrace the change and embrace the concept of human depravity.

                      Human depravity is easy. Personal depravity is something else entirely. Intellectually accepting that you are wrong is difficult enough. Actually changing is really hard. It’s much easier to change the words to mean you don’t. There will also always be those who try to pervert the word, Jeremiah 23:36, Jude 1:4, Galatians 1:7, 2 Peter 3:14-18, etc.

                      But you come up with a rationalization for your belief system, when it’s clear that both are quite unclear since they have the exact same results.

                      Even if I were to accept this as true, it would also apply to your belief system.

                      when it comes to the Bible you are more lenient with it and make excuses for its failings

                      What is the purpose of the Bible? Is it to foster agreement? Didn’t Jesus say that he came to bring division, not peace? Didn’t he say that not all who cry “Lord, Lord” are his? Heck, the more you talk about how divided people are over it, the more it proves either how genius the writers were or how correct Jesus was!

                      The purpose of the Bible was to show the truth of God’s salvation. “Narrow is the gate” and all that.

                    54. There is no reason to believe this was supposed to be a prophecy

                      Precisely true, without the actual fulfillment. This looks like just a “throwaway” line in most books, excepting once it’s been fulfilled, it makes perfect sense. Also, similar to Galatians 3:16, it refers to a singular “he”, not a “they”. Ergo, it’s prophecy that looks like it isn’t. Either the Gospel writers were geniuses, or the one who wrote the story already knew the end.

                    55. ME: “There is no reason to believe this was supposed to be a prophecy.”
                      YOU: “Precisely true, without the actual fulfillment.” … “Ergo, it’s prophecy that looks like it isn’t.”

                      Or, it’s not a prophecy and was taken out of context to make it look like a prophecy to go along with your story. And the person is deluded into thinking it actually was a prophecy. Sort of like John Nash thinking he found all the Soviet messages in newspapers; it turns out there actually weren’t any, but that didn’t stop him from finding them.

                    56. *not “your” story but the writer’s “story”

                    57. Or, it’s not a prophecy and was taken out of context to make it look like a prophecy to go along with your story.

                      That’s certainly possible. But is it the best explanation?

                      At the very least you’ll have to admit that it’s likely the best book ever written, if you were to take a poll on it. I mean, not many best sellers still have people believing it’s true millennia after the “fiction” was written, by several people.

                    58. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Additionally, the Bible has caused innumerable contentions and disagreements about what in blazes it’s supposed to be saying. It fits perfectly that it is a collection of unclear ancient writings simply written by people, which leads to countless different possible harmonizations and interpretations, which people vehemently disagree about.

                    59. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

                      It’s a deductive fallacy, true. It may be inductively true. I mean, the “slippery slope” is technically a fallacy but I even got my philosophy professor to admit it’s almost always right.

                      Additionally, the Bible has caused innumerable contentions and disagreements about what in blazes it’s supposed to be saying.

                      Hell, people can’t even agree that “thou shalt not steal” means don’t steal. I believe you just implied that because the majority believe something doesn’t mean it’s true. So why wouldn’t it fit here? Just because the majority can’t agree doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Truth stands on its own, even if no-one believes it.

                      It fits perfectly that it is a collection of unclear ancient writings simply written by people

                      Only if you believe that the NT writers (I’ll add the rest of it in too) were just fantastically good at shoehorning the prophecies in there and also shoehorning all the OT theology in too…

                      which leads to countless different possible harmonizations and interpretations, which people vehemently disagree about

                      That is true of current physics.

                    60. I believe you just implied that because the majority believe something doesn’t mean it’s true. So why wouldn’t it fit here? Just because the majority can’t agree doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Truth stands on its own, even if no-one believes it.

                      Inapt analogy. I’m not talking about truth, I’m talking about a well-written, clear book. The Bible is not clear which is demonstrated by all the disagreements about fundamental things, just like the Quran and other holy writings. It indicates that the Bible is just another man-made collection of writings without divine inspiration.

                      were just fantastically good at shoehorning the prophecies in there and also shoehorning all the OT theology in too

                      They’re not fantastically good. They clearly grasp for straws in many cases.

                    61. The Bible is not clear which is demonstrated by all the disagreements about fundamental things, just like the Quran and other holy writings.

                      I believe I answered that above. Basically, the Bible predicted that people would misinterpret it for their own evil purposes.

                      They’re not fantastically good. They clearly grasp for straws in many cases.

                      “In many cases” is a bit of a deflection. Some are not as good in your opinion, that doesn’t mean that the rest are bad. Even if you were to ignore 50% of them, that’s still 176 that you can’t.

                    62. Not to make the thread any more complicated, but here are a few other reasons.

                      The Fermi paradox seems quite problematic for the best alternative to a Creator God. There should be aliens but we have no evidence of this. I mean, we’re pumping light and radio waves into space like crazy and the aliens should be, too.

                      As far as I know, the best answer for the fine tuning of the universe other than God is the multiverse theory. So we’re supposed to believe that there are millions (or more) of other universes out there… with no shred of evidence. That seems like it takes more faith than one universe created by a God, no?

                      In fact, one of my favorite answers to this is the Alien design theory (either the aliens made the universe or a computer program that looks like what we call the universe). When I tell people that I agree, just that the “alien” is named God they don’t like the answer that much*.

                      *This is actually pretty close to what I believe. The entire universe is actually inside the “mind of God” and kind of explains why he has the cheat codes to it. Either that, or it’s just a helpful way to think of it (for some people).

            2. I wasnt trying to down play genocide but I did.

              +1 “Final solution to the Canaanite problem.” /some Jewish guy thousands of years ago.

  7. Salafi Islam isn’t our problem! Overthrow Assad! These suicide bombers wouldn’t be doing this if Assad wasn’t there! /sarcasm

    1. We need to be sending more weapons to Assad and to the groups that are supporting him. Also more weapons to the groups that are opposing him. And more weapons to the groups that are neither supporting nor opposing him. Just give everybody in the whole area more weapons and then tell each of them the US is supporting their enemies. The problem ought to sort itself out.

    2. root causez!!111!

  8. Blowback in Maalbeck?

    Too soon?

  9. Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel

    I first read that as “Belgian Prime Minister Charles Martel“.

    1. If that was his name his country wouldn’t be having this issue.

  10. There is a primary today in Arizona and Utah. Trump is expected to do poorly in Utah.

    I wonder….

    1. He is going to give an ‘I told you so’ speech. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins.

    2. Yeah, I suspect that every time something like this happens his poll numbers go up.

  11. Europe better get used to this shit. This horrible shit happens all the time in the Middle East not because of the place, but because of the people. You import the vector, you get the disease. There’s no fixing it short of banning salafism and razing molenbeek.

      1. Speakers are often doused with gasoline and burned to death, or some uncouth desert Sheik opens up on his opponents with a machine gun he had concealed in the belly of a pet sheep. Nationalist martyrs with grenades up the ass mingle with the assembled conferents and suddenly ex- plode, occasioning heavy casualties…. And there was the occasion when President Ra threw the British Prime Minister to the ground and forcibly sodomized him, the spectacle being televised to the entire Arab World. Wild yipes of joy were heard in Stockholm. Interzone has an ordinance forbidding a meeting of Islam Inc. within five miles of the city limits.

    1. Yep when you import millions of people from the middle east you end up importing their pathologys too.

      1. For all the condescension Europe has displayed towards Bush’s “greet us a liberators” philosophy when invading Iraq, they fell for the same nonsense here. The assumption was that new immigrants would see that the European way of life was the best, and quickly assimilate.

  12. Clearly the solution is more immigration.

    1. Immigration is an absolute good. I read it at Reason.

      1. Hey, those people deserve a shot at the good life and this is just the price we pay for progress.

        1. a shot at the good life

          Nice.

          1. Hopefully the good life owns body armor.

            1. [golf clap]

    2. Cytotoxic|5.16.15 @ 3:57PM| block | mute | #

      Immigration has always been good. No country of any kind has been harmed by immigration. You can’t have a free society and strict border control.

      1. Yep we even have Cytotoxic arguing that we should blow them up over in mid-east, but as soon as they come here, they become perfect citizens.

    3. Clearly the solution is more immigration

      Are you talking about Belgium or are you talking about the US? Or are you trying to equate the two, which would be John-level retardation?

      1. What is retarded is believing that there is something magically different about the United States, that makes Muslims more likely to assimilate here then in any other place on Earth.

        1. That’s funny, it always seemed like being pants-shittingly terrified of entire swaths of people was what was retarded.

          1. Really? Like all the pants shitting I see when a cop shoots someone, or when there is a no knock raid?

            1. Right. Outrage over police shootings is the same as your frenetic pants-shitting over all foreigners.

              You’re literally too stupid to carry on a discussion that makes sense.

              1. Do you honestly believe that flaming furthers your often intellectually weak arguments?

        2. Groups that are a smaller percentage of the population generally assimilate better, due to being essentially forced to interact heavily with the surrounding culture. The percentage of Arabs in Europe is comparable to that of Mexicans in the US.

          Also, the US is far less racist and ethnicist than Europe, whatever the Eurotards like to say.

          1. Assimilation is something of a myth here in these United States. People self-select into subcommunities. That ‘melting pot’ theory of immigration was fanciful, at best. We can probably thank our difficult and labyrinthine immigration system for keeping out the lowest common denominator since it was literally designed to keep out the abjectly poor who are the most likely to be radicalized. That, or we can thank an unswimmable ocean whereas Europe has no such luxury. I’d say the geographic boundaries are probably the most likely, personally.

            1. …the abjectly poor who are the most likely to be radicalized.

              Are we sure about this? Groups like AQ and ISIS have plenty of engineers, accountants, doctors. Are there good studies correlating economic status with likelihood of accepting radicalization?

              1. I think you’re comparing apples to oranges when you compare American doctor’s to Doctor’s in ISIS controlled countries. There’s a different set of mental calculus you would need to perform when the ruling class are Muslim extremists. I imagine if you disavow ISIS in a country they control the end result isn’t pleasant for you. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how many Doctor’s have become suicide bombers in the U.S.? I think it’s safe to say zero at the moment.

                1. We don’t have suicide bombers here, BYODB. So far, taking a very broad view of Islamic terrorism, we’ve had a couple of nuts shoot up things. We also have plenty of nuts who shoot up things, who aren’t motivated by Islamic extremism.

                  Also as a group, our US terrorists aren’t very good at the explosives-making thing. San Bernardino’s bombs didn’t go off. The assholes who drove into Times Square, their explosives didn’t go off. The Tsarnaevs made bombs that could have been improved by any chemistry-minded 12 year old. God help us if the Iranians ever decide to get involved.

                  I was just making the point with the doctors/lawyers/engineers that if you look at radicalization in Europe, Palestine, and the States, it’s often not the totally destitute that go pick up a bomb belt. The Chattanooga shooter had a decent technical job at a power plant, IIRC, before he pissed hot, lost it, and decided to go kill some Marines. We already know about the shooters of those who threw them a baby shower. Health inspector ain’t a Wall Street maven, but he’s not living out of a cardboard box, either.

                  1. We don’t have suicide bombers here, BYODB.

                    I don’t see how you can say the people in California are any different than suicide bombers. They attacked innocent people without warning and were happy to die in the process. I don’t see how the fact that they used automatic weapons instead of bombs makes any difference. In fact, the counter terrorism people I know all are more worried about a Mumbei style attack than they are about ordinary suicide bombers.

                    Think about the attack on the school in Russia. Those guys were not suicide bombers and they did a hell of a lot more damage and sowed a hell of a lot more terror than even a series of bombs would have.

                  2. Gray Ghost, I’m curious about how you would define 9/11 in a way other than suicide bombing. Please, be specific. How many Doctor’s were involved in that suicide bombing?

                    1. I’m mainly thinking of Ayman Zawahiri, who was a surgeon before leading AQ.

                      Ziad Jarrah was a dental student, from a well to do family, before he became radicalized and decided to fly into buildings. Mo Atta was trained as an architect. Hani Hanjour was an actual commercial pilot, albeit an unemployed one. The pilots, as distinct from the muscle, of the 9/11 planes came from decent if not wealthy families. They weren’t living in squalor, and they wouldn’t be considered “abjectly poor.” Yet, they were clearly radicalized.

                      John, they had bombs in Beslan. Quite a few of them. Which is one of the reasons why they racked up a couple of hundred dead kids. It’s hard to shoot that many quickly, not so hard to blow them up.

                      I’m surprised the CT guys you’re talking about are worried about Mumbai/Westgate Mall attacks more than bombs. Unlike Indian or Kenyan cops, our cops are at least somewhat trained for active shooters. (And unfortunately get to practice their procedures for real, all too often.) Active shooters are going to end up like the San Berdoo two did. Tracked, pinned down, and killed by cops with rifles.

                      Bombs, OTOH, can be placed in multiple spots, can kill more people than can non-experts with rifles, and allow the escape of the bomber. Not applicable to suicide bombers, of course. Just surprising to me that they’d fear the one much more than the other. Probably helps that, as I’ve written already in the thread, our terrorists suck at bombmaking.

                    2. Well, other than Tim McVeigh, but well, you know. He and Nichols learned from at least one decent teacher.

                    3. It’s difficult for me to parse your information Gray, mostly because you keep combining foreign born nationals that never even attempted to assimilate in with natural born Americans on the fringes of society. I do appreciate the attempt to provide some context, but it’s difficult to tell what your overall point is.

                      The logical conclusion to your post is that you disagree that the poor would be more likely to radicalize, which implies that rational self interest is not a part of Muslim society as a whole. When even the educated and well off are willing to martyr themselves in an act of mass murder, is this not an indicator that they are neither of those things in reality? Or, alternatively, is it merely saying that there are going to be outliers in an otherwise solid assumption that more education and more personal wealth would be bulwarks against extremism in a sane society?

                    4. Oh, and I suppose my last point before I go do some actual work is that my original post was talking about how our existing immigration controls and natural geographic borders were keeping out the most extreme Muslim’s, which was my attempt to explain why we don’t see the same level of violence as the EU. It’s simply a fact that the poor are shunned by existing immigration law, but I suppose that may or may not be a primary factor. I do think the vast ocean between us dissuades the most casual attempts at pulling the same shenanigans they’re getting up to over in the Union. *shrug*

                    5. I’m sorry for any confusion. I too, need to get back to work.

                      My points are mainly these. The United States is qualitatively different that other places where Islamic terrorism exists. The percentage of Musllims in the population is much lower than in either Europe or the Middle East. The vast majority of Muslim citizens in the U.S. do not engage in radical Islamic terrorist activities. They do not support it financially. They do not knowingly provide safety or shelter for those who would commit acts of terror. In as much as there are terrorist acts in the U.S., they are the product of either one or two people, radicalized over the Internet, who largely lack training in explosives manufacturing and employment, intelligence and surveillance activities, guerrilla or urban terrorist operations. The likelihood of their radicalization has little to do with their financial status, though probably is strongly inversely correlated to how well they personally are thriving in their career and personal life.

                      They’re nuts, basically, whose goals are mainly to kill as many people as possible in one attack before they themselves are identified and arrested or killed. It’s tragic when nuts flip out and strike at innocents, but it is not grounds for a remodeling of our criminal justice or police system.

                      Europe is different. More Muslims, more support structures, better trained terrorists. They have something to worry about. The U.S. right now doesn’t.

                      Europe is different

                  3. Oh, and using attempted suicide bombers as an example of how there are no suicide bombers is interesting. I suppose that if their bombs didn’t go off, it doesn’t count somehow? Very interesting opinion you have there.

                2. how many Doctor’s have become suicide bombers in the U.S.?

                  And how many ISIS doctors have become suicide bombers? Probably few to none. For one thing, I would think they’d be far too valuable to ISIS as doctors to waste as suicide bombers.

                3. Well, there’s always Nidal Hassan, who is an MD and a psychiatrist–born in Virginia.

                  Of course, he was grabbed before he could suicide, but he tried.

        3. As OMWC pointed out above, Metal, there is something different about the U.S. when it comes to Muslims. Ours generally assimilate, instances like San Bernardino and Chattanooga notwithstanding. They are encouraged to assimilate, set up businesses, get rich. They aren’t ghetto-ized.

          Now, whether the lower frequency of religious violence here is a function of their much smaller proportion of the population (~0.5% vs 10-25%), or this drive to assimilate, I don’t know.

          1. It is a function of environment, low numbers, and the character of the individuals we let in. Let unveiled individuals in in huge numbers and things will change radically.

            1. Not unveiled…unvetted.

          2. I mostly agree that Muslims seem to assimilate better in this country, but the country you’re describing that encourages people to set up businesses and get rich is sounding less and less familiar. I don’t think we are like Europe at the moment, but I think a lot of our Top Men are trying to get us there. It’s not out of the realm of possibility

  13. something something pants shitting

  14. Trump Foreign Policy Adviser Has Ties to Brutal Lebanese Militia

    Donald Trump has finally announced the names of five of his foreign policy advisers, and at least one member of his new team is sure to raise eyebrows.

    Walid Phares, a Lebanese academic who advised Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012, is one of the five names Trump gave to the Washington Post during a meeting with the paper’s editorial board on Monday.

    1. Given the tepid “has ties” language rather than actually describing the link, I’m assuming it’s something like he rode in a cab whose driver later joined the militia.

      The Post digs deep in their investigative reporting, don’t they? Not deep enough to connect Obama to Bill Ayers and other domestic terrorists, but pretty deep.

  15. And now for another round of “most Muslims are decent law abiding folk, opposing open borders is racist”

    I am sure the vast majority of Muslims are law abiding. Probably less than 5% are radical, and an even smaller number are violent. The problem is that you cannot magically identify all the radicals before they commit, or persuade others to commit, horrors. Immigrants are people we invite to our society, how is choosing who to invite somehow oppressive?

    1. Not helpful, Jar-Jar. No, there is no “magical detection” out there; that’s all in your head. What there is is an identifiable network of radical clerics, radical mosques and radical websites. Possible to actually track this stuff through non-magical means. Really.

      1. Not helpful, Jar-Jar. No, there is no “magical detection” out there;

        Of course there isn’t. And that is the problem. So you either stop letting them in your country at all or you let all of them in and tell your citizens that being terrorized is the price of freedom. Good luck with that Tiger.

        1. I think it’s safe to say there are large numbers of European immigrants who think, ‘I came to Europe to escape these crazy violent fucks and here they are haunting us in our new home.’
          No. No. I must be wrong. Islam is expressed in a gene.

          1. Sure there are. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are a significant minority that feel otherwise and you can’t tell who is who. You just confirmed half of my point.

            Jesus tap Dancing Christ try harder. Are you really this dense?

          2. Then it would stand to reason that at least a small number of the immigrants would be the most militant about hunting down the terrorists for screwing up a good thing, but I see no evidence of that being the case.

            1. Perhaps they’re law abiding enough not to resort to vigilantism. Or maybe they’re just stupid enough to assume that their new state will protect them from the violent shitheads. Who knows.

              1. But they’re not even helping to find the terrorists.

                If, as suggested, all these muslims are moderates who don’t support the jihadis but the jihadis have too much power in Islamic countries for them to speak or act against them safely, then logically, when they get to places where the jihadis power is severely limited these vast masses of moderate muslims should feel free to work with western nations to make sure jihadis don’t gain power.

                But that doesn’t happen.

                Instead, the moderate masses scream for sharia and halal food and blasphemy laws and all the garbage they supposedly fled.

          3. Germans decided that selfishness was a “blood” trait. DNA would not be visualized until 1952, after the Nurenberg trials dealt altruism some severe setbacks.

        2. You might want try reading and comprehending Tonio’s entire comment before responding.

          “What there is is an identifiable network of radical clerics, radical mosques and radical websites. Possible to actually track this stuff through non-magical means.”

          Now, if you want to argue that our government is too stupid and incompetent to be trusted to reliably vet all muslim immigrants, then I’d be more inclined to agree. They are too stupid, so an occasional terrorist will get in no matter what. But the kind of police state that would be required to keep them all out is also a non-starter if one values freedom.

          …you either stop letting them in your country at all or you let all of them in and tell your citizens that being terrorized is the price of freedom.

          But it’s more fun to spout idiotic false dichotomies.

      2. Which only strengthens the case for keeping Muslims out. The identifiable websites and clerics don’t have to immigrate themselves to proselytize to those who have. It is usually the disaffected young who actually blow things up. The radical clerics seem more inclined to persuade others to die for Allah, than to do so themselves.

    2. It is well above 5%. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt alone, there are 220 million Muslims who think anybody who leaves Islam should be executed. American Muslims are moderate and tolerant. Muslims in the rest of the world are absolutely not.

      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0…..ut-sharia/

      1. Of course there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe that the death penalty should be applied to apostate Muslims. That’s orthodox Islam. To say otherwise is to tantamount to a denial of the faith and the perfection of the Quran itself, and therefore such a statement would make one apostate oneself.

    3. I do not doubt mohammedans are deeply ethical, indeed almost Christian in their worship of death. But the ethical values to which I subscribe hold life, thriving, happiness–not death, sacrifice, altruism as the standard of value on which to tell right from wrong or base legislation. Radical, if you look it up, really describes non-hypocrites. Someone warned against ethical systems that required hypocrisy to keep them from becoming lethal…

  16. How’s that “Arab Spring” working out for everyone these days? I sure hope this wasn’t a “refugee”.

  17. My classmate’s mother-in-law makes $56 hourly on the computer . Q She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her check was $3200 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website ,..

    === W?W?W.A?l?p?h?a?-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.C??O??M

  18. I’m not toeing the “refugees are all good” line, but keep in mind that overreaction driven by emotion rather than logic is exactly what these kinds of attacks are designed to produce. I think the Euro refugee policy is batshit insane, but that was true even before these attacks. Knee-jerk stupidity like banning all Muslims from entering or putting Muslim citizens in camps or whatnot would be playing in to the terrorists’ hands. Hopefully this will provoke a reconsideration of the refugee policies, etc., but nothing too crazy in the other direction.

    1. Knee-jerk stupidity like banning all Muslims from entering or putting Muslim citizens in camps

      Putting citizens of whatever ilk in camps is evil and oppressive. Choosing who is welcome to join the society is not. One can oppose opening the border and also oppose any restrictions on those who are already in the society. In fact I do.

  19. But anyone who says we should stop letting Muslims immigrate into the country is THE RACIST. It is different here. We have a right to bear arms, because carrying a concealed handgun is totally going to save you when the nut next to you decides to blow himself up. And besides, what are your individual chances of getting killed? I am sure “shut up and stop shitting your pants and accept that the small chance of getting blown up by a lunatic that your betters insist on letting into the country” is going to make everyone love freedom.

    You want to see the Libertarian moment, there it is right there in Brussels. I guess it is not all ass sex, Mexicans and pot.

    1. We have a right to bear arms, because carrying a concealed handgun is totally going to save you when the nut next to you decides to blow himself up

      FWIW, Sky was reporting that shots were fired and Allah Ackbar heard before one of the blasts at the airport. So maybe one of the airport cops thought something was wrong and tried to interfere.

      Tough situation for the airport cop to be in. Especially since trying to stop a suicide bomber before he goes off, pretty much means dumping the magazine into the back of his head. Hope you’re right and that the guy whose head you’ve just canoed wasn’t just an Arab, looking shaky and wearing a trench coat cause he had the flu.

      1. Allah Ackbar

        c’est un pi?ge!

    2. You’re not a racist if you think people labeled Muslims (as if religion is every single persons reason for existing) shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate, you just aren’t very bright.

      1. Yeah because telling the public it is their duty to die to ensure Muslims have the freedom to immigrate is a sign of intelligence.

        How many other people are supposed to die for your principles?

        1. Your world view has been static your entire life? Fine. I’ll inform you that such is not the case with every other human being because I represent that exception.

    3. You want to see the Libertarian moment, there it is right there in Brussels.

      Oh for fuck’s sake…

      It was bad enough having to put up with progtards screeching about SOMALIA and ROADZ, and now you come with this shit?! What the fuck happened to you? You didn’t used to be this stupid. Does supporting Trump reduce one’s IQ by at least 50 points? Jesus titty-fucking Christ…

      1. Does Libertarianism stand for completely open borders or does it not? And given the state of the world, how does that not translate into what happened in Belgium happening here?

        What is happening in Europe is a total indictment of the Libertarian position on borders.

        1. Does Libertarianism stand for completely open borders or does it not?

          Sure seems like it didn’t used to here. I mean, Postrel and Cavanaugh weren’t for the gigantic Kafka-esque INS bureaucracy, but I don’t remember either of them advocating for 100% “anyone who wants to come to the U.S. can.” IIRC, they were more the ‘tall fences, wide gates’ types.

          I remember the incessant baiting of LoneWhacko, but I don’t recall that this place used to be as Open Borders as it is now. Maybe they were but are more strident about it now? I dunno.

          All that said, Europe’s situation is one hell of a lot different than ours. We don’t have the equivalent of tens of millions of people flooding our country from a much different, far less secular and humanist, culture than our own. Our migrants at least want to work. Not sure the MENA economic migrants in Europe do.

          1. The rabid open borders stance is symptomatic of the gramscian undermining of libertarian private property stances–once, libertopia was to have no ‘public space’, now, it is all public space if the open borders folk are to be taken by what they claim to want.

  20. how are those open borders working out for you Europe. #Trump2016

  21. Does anyone else miss the Cold War and the Soviet Union yet? Suddenly, total nuclear Armageddon doesn’t sound so bad…

  22. Looking at immigrants as a percentage of population in several European countries, I noted that France and Belgium are somewhere around 10%. Some countries like Sweden and Switzerland are around 15% and 30%.
    I just don’t see terrorism being an immigrant problem. I see it as a terrorist cell problem, and I might be for hiring more police to address the terrorist cells, except I know that the added police will instead get caught up with huge mindless dragnets which will affect you and me instead of being directed at the real problem: terrorist cells.
    Getting good intel is hard like math is hard. So they’ll go the easy lazy route.

    1. The problem with a large immigrant population is that, channeling Mao, it provides a sea for the terrorist to swim in. When the Belgians picked up this latest shithead, a few days ago, guys milling around in the village they found him in claimed that other villagers knew where he was while he was on the run: they didn’t dime him out because they sympathized with what he was doing. So, they may not want to strap a bomb on themselves, or make one, but they may not have any compunctions about renting a flat to a guy like that, or just turning the other way if they see something hinky.

      Interestingly, this latest set of bombings may be due to that guy getting picked up. Figure that his cell wanted to accelerate their plans before he ended up telling the authorities who they were and where they could be found.

    2. Getting good intel is hard like math is hard. So they’ll go the easy lazy route.

      So your response to the public amounts to FYTIW. You think Muslims have the human right to come there no matter what. You know that a decent number of them will engage in acts like this and you admit that there is not a damn thing the police can do to stop it.

      1. Whatever human rights exist, exist for Moslems. Natural law applies to everyone.

        The key is to accept that, the design a system around that.

        1. Yes Rob, the key is to accept that people are supposed to die in Muslim terror attacks and then design the system around that. Since it is unlikely ever to affect you, I am sure you love that idea. The people of Europe and the US are likely to take a different view.

          And no one has a right to immigrate anywhere. You are asking people to risk their lives so foreigners can come and shit on their country and terrorize them. Even if you think that is great, you surely have to understand how it is never going to be something anyone but the Libertarian faithful will believe.

          1. “And no one has a right to immigrate anywhere”

            Bullshit. That is entirely up the owner of the land. And the state shouldnt own any beyond the land under the half dozen government buildings.

            People have the right to move to anywhere the current owner is willing to sell/rent/allow them to come to.

            1. Rob, you think they do but that is nothing but an assumption on your part. And it is an assumption few other people share, especially when faced with something like this.

            2. People have the right to move to anywhere the current owner is willing to sell/rent/allow them to come to.

              This is in direct conflict with the aimless border crossing the open borders folks here are advocating. The idea seems to be that if Cytotoxic wants to hire a Mexican, it is the responsibility of everyone to allow Mexicans to wander anywhere they choose so that Cytotoxic can hire them with the least inconvenience.

              Borders and property lines be damned.

        2. Observe: care is taken to leave “a right” completely vague and undefined.
          http://aynrandlexicon.com offers a definition similar to what I was taught at UT.

      2. The police can do something to stop it but they won’t. Not because a policeman is inherently stupid or lazy, but because he works for an institution that rewards laziness and stupidity. Throwing more money at the problem doesn’t solve it.
        Why should any human be held responsible for their incompetence? Why should I be held responsible for the actions of another human being who shares cultural and/or ethnic traits with me?

        1. The police can do something to stop it but they won’t.

          You just admitted intelligence is hard. it is the one smart thing you have said on this thread. There is not a God damned thing police can do to stop it. For every 100 Muslims who appears to be a Jihadist maybe one or two of them will actually do anything. It is impossible to tell which two it will be until it is too late.

          1. It’s never *too late* because radical Islam is not an existential threat to the West. On the contrary, Western thought is an existential threat to the tenets of radical Islam.
            The IRA stopped their bombing campaigns and so will the radical Islamists once their generation dies off.
            Our knowledge of our world has been moving at warp speed. While terrorism from radical Islam is certainly a worry, it is not at the same priority as privacy invasions and other police state apparati and unfortunately, our anti-terrorist teams are terribly fond of police state apparati.

            1. You think something that’s been going on, and going strong, for a few hundred years is about to die out? Interesting. Although I will admit, it seems to actually be going in the reverse direction for the last few decades. Iran was once quite progressive, and that time was within living memory for many people.

    3. Not a problem in Sweden? It’s just lower scale. Lots of rape, theft, assaults, and intimidation. At this point the Swedish government is so submissive, why bother blowing stuff up?

      1. Yes, but in America, we have thousands of predatory serial rapists at our universities and they aren’t from the Middle East.

  23. Eh, violent terrorism just doesn’t have the cache it once used to have. I’m bored. The guys that did this in the 80s were much better at it and, apparently, could get laid. Two cheers for Baader-Meinhof

    1. I’m hoping that Belgium and the EU realize that there’s nothing so bad about this that they can’t make worse with military action, or the loss of personal freedoms and civil rights. A limited government approach here is definitely best.

      Really, it’s just the murder of a few dozen people. It’s not like someone has an unequal distribution of wealth, or something truly horrible.

      1. “I’m hoping Begium and the EU realize that there’s nothing so bad about this that they can’t make worse with military action…”

        Indeed. I’m opposed to large standing armies, undue military commitments, and have an anti-militaristic outlook in general. We’re you here at reason.com around February, 2003 when right-wingers were giving George Bush his one-time -only libertarian get-out-of-jail-free card? Maybe you and I could have talked them out of it.

        1. “I’m opposed to large standing armies, undue military commitments, and…”

          Oh, so now the topic of conversation is you?

          For a collectivist, it’s funny how your favorite subject always turns out to be “I, I, I, me me me, I, I, I, I, me, me, me.”

    2. Yeah, violent terrorism is only TEH AWESOME when it’s done to advance the Communist cause, right comrade!

      1. What ever happened to ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ I wonder. I suppose he’s just not pulling his own weight as a socialist.

  24. So we’ve got the socialist state foundation required for a fascist dictator and a scapegoat. Over/under on how long until Europe is a totalitarian police state? First we’ll get the riots, then the violent uprising, followed by the jackbooted thugs to tamp it down.

    All the while, the socialists here in America will be making excuses and never understand just how their policies lead to totalitarianism.

    1. Maybe. Some European nations seem to have leadership aligned with their population on this issue – Poland and the Czech Republic for instance. They are severely limiting immigration from North Africa and the Middle East and do not seem to have these problems.

      Places like Sweden, Belgium, and Germany are scary because public opinion and their entrenched leadership are so far apart. That’s a dangerous situation.

      1. Yes. Someone like Trump could show up.

      2. So it has nothing to do with Poland and the Bohemians never attacking colonizing and enslaving primitives?

    2. We’ll know when Hollande moves his government to Vichy.

    3. Just think, it all began with a tiny plank in the Communist Manifesto of 1948. Every political party in the exploding world adopted that income tax… except the libertarian party. At least now nobody in those looter satrapies can complain they didn’t get what they voted for.

    4. I’ve joked about fascism and Trump that violently protesting against him and his followers is about the fastest way possible for them to create their own version of the SA. It’s not like Trump’s going to agree to stop talking. And it’s not like his followers are going to stand by and get punched and threatened with rioting. They’re going to arm themselves and defend their leader.

      DOJ is really playing with fire here, if indeed they’re supporting these violent anti-Trump protests like they were supporting some of the BLM protests last year. Someone is importing, feeding, sheltering, transporting, and paying the criminal costs for all of the anti-Trump protesters that block roads and threaten violence.

      1. It’s so weird that you don’t see that the anti-Trump protesters ARE the SA already. The fascist shock troops who come in and shut down the opposition.

        1. They’re not very good at it, Aza. OTOH, they’ve gotten the cops to back off citing or looking crosseyed, at many a black male in Democrat urban strongholds. I still think the crap the Dems were pulling with using Lerner and the IRS to confront Republican grassroots organizations was more effective at suppressing effective political dissent than this BLM mob stuff.

          They did start out in a very scary manner. Remember back, before Occupy, when there was a trend of confronting bankers at their homes with a rent-a-mob? A mob backed a BofA Senior VP into his home, and clambered on his deck, while the banker was busy trying to call the cops. Who of course didn’t do a thing. I thought, “Oh shit. We’ve just started our own version of the Red Guards.” And then nothing else happened. They backed off, instead of progressing to smashing in his front door, carrying off his stuff, etc…

          But really, I was thinking of the whole Trump = Hitler meme, and laughing at the irony that if you want to create an autonomous political figure, with an armed, violent cadre devoted to defending him, threatening him and his supporters with this kind of haphazard mob violence is about the best way to do it.

          1. They’re not very good at shutting down the opposition? They shut down a presidential rally. They’ve made it damned near impossible for any but a fat left opinion to be held–held, not spoken or acted on–on quite a large number of college campuses.

            They routinely destroy the livelihoods of those who think differently. They are quite good at what they do–and will get better at it unless they are stopped.

            Trump, gods help us all, is the only major face speaking out against this right now with any success. Even here most defenses of freedom of speech thought and association are so mealy-mouthed and equivocated as to render them meaningless–or worse, as to make it all too obvious that the writer or commenter actually sides closer to the SJW opinion. The people defending him are defending a moron–but they’re also starting to fight against the pervasive leftist creep into all manner of things.

            I see them less as an SA type than as people who have decided to fight the SA–people who will interrupt the bleating of ‘four legs good–two legs BETTER’ and stop the sheep from taking the herd over the cliff.

            However much I despise Trump, I support them.

  25. The monstrous truth you struggle to evade is that mystical brainwashing–especially mohammedan brainwashing–induces criminal insanity. Just as mothers in Houston may drown their kids, so the faithful may blow up airports and with their mentors be protected because they “didn’t know any better” and “superstitious rejection of reason is constitutionally protected.”

  26. There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.
    There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.
    The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam. There is just the Quran.
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.co…..islam.html

  27. Salah Abdeslam hid out in the Moslem section of Brussels and not one resident reported anything. The police located him by the volume of pizza orders. With that kind of example, who will contest the assertion that Moslem presence in Europe is the forefront of an invasion?

  28. “Paris Massacre May Save Thousands of American Lives”
    RICHARD RIDER?MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016

    One enduring canard about Islam is that “the Sharia terrorists are supported by only a small minority of the Muslim population.” MAYBE a minority, but NOT a SMALL minority. And perhaps not even a minority, period!
    With the capture of the leader of the Paris terrorist attack, it is now apparent that he’s been hidden for months from authorities by family and friends within the Muslim ghetto. Here “ghetto” is defined as a DE FACTO segregated area — segregated more by the desires of resident Muslims than by any government policy.

    Apparently many Muslims knew where this terrorist and his accomplices were hiding, but none came forward to reveal his location. And many Muslims assisted the terrorists.

    How will this save American lives? Well, it might not, if Obama and well-meaning souls succeed in bringing hundreds of thousands of Middle East Muslim refugees to America. (continued)

  29. (continued)
    But we should not let the massacre deaths mean nothing. The attack and subsequent findings are powerful evidence that we should severely restrict ANY further Muslim immigration to the United States in the foreseeable future. And I say this as one who favors MORE, not less, legal immigration to our country — a controversial viewpoint, to put it mildly.

    As I see it, legal immigration has been good for America. But Muslim immigration is clearly folly. They don’t assimilate, and their religion calls for establishing in Islamic society that crushes dissent, freedom and non-believers.
    Yeah, yeah, other religions have similar language in some of their ancient writings, but only the MUSLIM religion still actively pursues this goal –by any means necessary.

    “We will always have Paris” (to remember). Ban any new Muslim immigration to America. Now.

  30. — For a longer, more detailed case for blocking Muslim immigration, visit my blog article on the topic:
    http://riderrants.blogspot.com…..thing.html

  31. It has the tells of a false flag already??
    “Before We Know Much of Anything About Brussels Attack, Encryption Fears Already Invoked”

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..encryption

  32. At Least 130 Injured and 31 Dead In Brussels Airport, Metro Explosions
    French prime minister says: “We are at war.”

    Re the comment from the prime minister of France, he seems to have gotten that right. The remaining question appears to be the following. Will Europe in particular and The West in general fight this war with the intention of winning or will they surrender.

  33. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  34. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.