• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Explosions at the Brussels Airport

WOe5JqL.png
 
Great read and from Piers Morgan no less. Would love for some of the board members so opposed to Trump to respond to the questions Mr Morgan poses at the end of the article.

Yes, he is so wrong.

Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

The U.S. border is already incredibly tight to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria. Building a wall along our southern border will only serve to keep out people seeking a better life, not people trying to do Americans harm.

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He wouldn't be that baffled if he knew jack-shit about foreign policy. From a Guardian article following the Paris attacks:

"Molenbeek – one of Brussels’ 19 districts– has a population of about 100,000, with around 30% of foreign nationality and more than 40% with foreign roots. Unemployment is higher than 25%, with youth unemployment even higher. Young inhabitants, often with Muslim backgrounds, do not get the same chances in the labour or housing market, and testify how in their everyday lives they are confronted with racism. They have the perfect profile to be prone to radicalisation."

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.
Is he so wrong?

See above. Illegal immigrants aren't who we need to be worried about and xenophobia throughout Europe helped create the radical islam mess they are dealing with now.

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.
Is he so wrong?

He's right on that. This has been true for the last twenty years though.

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I'm just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they're not reporting it, they're absolutely not reporting it and that's a big problem.’
Is he so wrong?

He's not so wrong but displays a poor understanding of why non-radical muslims in Molenbeek didn't report Salah Abdeslam. It's likely the same reasons non-criminal people who live in high crime neighborhoods don't report crime: Fear of retaliation, fear of being treated as a suspect themselves, lack of trust in the authorities, not wanting bite the hand that feeds them, etc.
 
We need to send them back into the stone age, then retreat into an uncomfortable American isolationism for a decade. Wipe those mother fuckers out
 
We need to send them back into the stone age, then retreat into an uncomfortable American isolationism for a decade. Wipe those mother fuckers out

That is not a parody or tongue in cheek. Wipe those animals off the planet. And if there is collateral damage, may God have mercy on our souls.
 
That is not a parody or tongue in cheek. Wipe those animals off the planet. And if there is collateral damage, may God have mercy on our souls.

This is pretty much the attitude of the people who attacked Brussels today.

Serious question: How is an American political leader calling for the murder of terrorists' families (most of whom are innocent civilians) any different than a Muslim leader calling for jihad?

There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world. Even if 1% are currently radical muslims (a very liberal estimate) that's still a ton of potential recruits for groups like ISIS. "Wiping those animals off the planet" will not only be unsuccessful, it will likely lead to radicalization of far more than 1% of the muslim population.

This isn't a problem we can bomb our way out of, in fact the days of being able to use our sheer military might to accomplish foreign policy objectives have long since passed.
 
"most of whom are innocent civilians"
This is a very naive statement. Trump never said family members should be killed. He did state he felt the family members of terrorists (in particular the 911 terrorists) knew about the planned terrorist attack and should also be held accountable for the atrocity. Perhaps you disagree?
 
"most of whom are innocent civilians"
This is a very naive statement. Trump never said family members should be killed. He did state he felt the family members of terrorists (in particular the 911 terrorists) knew about the planned terrorist attack and should also be held accountable for the atrocity. Perhaps you disagree?

He literally said their family members should be killed. Let's not argue over facts. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/


"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.O
 
"The U.S. border is already incredibly tight to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria. Building a wall along our southern border will only serve to keep out people seeking a better life, not people trying to do Americans harm. "

Most Americams are not against people seeking a better life. However, there are laws and illegal entry into our country should not be tolerated. There are legal means to "seeking a better life". As a sovereign nation, we should decide who we allow to enter our country and it should be based upon our needs and our goals as a nation. You seem to desire to allow any individual to immigrate no matter the effect on our country. Many of us feel immigratiion should be a net positive for both the individual and our nation.
 
He literally said their family members should be killed. Let's not argue over facts. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/


"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.O
I stand corrected on the killing. However, 107 is very naive to state the family members are innocent civilians. What would you do with these "innocent civilians" if they were found to have had prior knowledge of planned mass killings?
 
I stand corrected on the killing. However, 107 is very naive to state the family members are innocent civilians. What would you do with these "innocent civilians" if they were found to have had prior knowledge of planned mass killings?

I was wrong, but I will argue I was right anyways.
 
"The U.S. border is already incredibly tight to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria. Building a wall along our southern border will only serve to keep out people seeking a better life, not people trying to do Americans harm. "

Most Americams are not against people seeking a better life. However, there are laws and illegal entry into our country should not be tolerated. There are legal means to "seeking a better life". As a sovereign nation, we should decide who we allow to enter our country and it should be based upon our needs and our goals as a nation. You seem to desire to allow any individual to immigrate no matter the effect on our country. Many of us feel immigratiion should be a net positive for both the individual and our nation.

I agree. I happen to think one of our goals as a nation is to vigorously protect the unalienable rights of man, whether they be a native born American or not. Reasonable people can disagree on what our immigration policy should look like. Ultimately though, it is completely irrelevant to the fight against ISIS.
 
I stand corrected on the killing. However, 107 is very naive to state the family members are innocent civilians. What would you do with these "innocent civilians" if they were found to have had prior knowledge of planned mass killings?

I'm not an expert on International Law, but if merely having prior knowledge would constitute a violation of international law I would prosecute such violation.
 
We need to send them back into the stone age, then retreat into an uncomfortable American isolationism for a decade. Wipe those mother fuckers out

I'm not sure they are ready for the promotion.
 
My guess is 100,000+ when you factor in Iraq, Syria, and all the terrorist attacks they've inspired. This says there have been "at least" 18,802 civilians killed over the past two years in Iraq.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-death-toll-18-800-killed-iraq-2-years-u-n499426
I would expect at least double that amount in Syria, maybe more. And then you've got all the soldiers they've killed- they were kicking Assad's ass until the Russians showed up. And then factor in the terrorist attacks in other countries. I think they killed around 80 Kurds in one bombing in Turkey. And you had what, around 120 killed in Paris? And then all the mass killings in Libya and Tunisia. But maybe that estimate is way too high.

i assume this estimate doesn't account for deaths caused by the migrations?
 
Back
Top