Terror attack in Barcelona

[HoonDing]

WOW, apparently the cop was a woman too. Meaning no 70 virgins for the jihadis.

[smjjames]

Looks like the animosity between Spanish and Catalan officials (and general animosity between the two) may have contributed to the Spanish terror cell not being caught earlier. Not saying that it was THE reason why, but as we've seen in other cases in Europe (Belgium comes to mind) where authorities weren't really cooperating with each other as far as intel goes, the lack of cooperation between authorities can definetly cause problems.

[Agiel]

Barcelona reminds us there is no 'end' to terrorism

by Tom Nichols

 

Spain has suffered its worst terror attack in over a decade, and as usual, too many Americans are rushing to draw the wrong conclusions from another European tragedy. There were immediate comparisons in the media with the incident days earlier in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a white supremacist plowed into a crowd, despite the fact that car attacks have been used by European terrorists for years. For his part, President Trump, after sending a tweet in which he offered his condolences, sent his usual admonitions about stopping Islamic terrorism by “whatever means necessary” and castigated Democrats and judges for refusing to “give us back our protective rights” (whatever that means).

 

The Barcelona horror, however, should not be a call to imaginary arms, but a sobering reminder of the limits democracies face when trying to prevent terrorist attacks. Americans should remind themselves of three realities in the wake of the Barcelona attack. First, no matter what sort of muscular rhetoric Trump or other leaders deploy, there is no way to eliminate these kinds of low-technology terror attacks. Good police and intelligence work can prevent some of them, and inventive barriers can shift their location. But Western societies are open societies, and short of turning ourselves into prison camps — which our enemies would gladly see us do — there is no way to stop someone from driving a car into other human beings or stabbing people at will.

 

The reality is that terrorist organizations like ISIS have shifted away from lavish Al Qaeda style operations like 9/11 or the synchronized bombing of multiple passenger aircraft precisely because they are so difficult. The results are spectacular, but these kinds of assaults require a great deal of planning, investment, time — and at least a modicum of skill among the terrorists. The Barcelona attack, by comparison, required a 17-year-old and a van. (The terrorists in Spain also intended to include explosives in the plan, but some of their comrades accidentally blew themselves up, testimony to their ability to inflict heavy casualties by more ordinary means, despite their incompetence.)

 

 

Second, we live in a globalized world where the movement of people is now less important than the movement of ideas. At least two of the Barcelona terrorists were Spanish citizens, which is line with similar attacks carried out by native-born citizens in the United States and Europe. Stopping jihadis at the border is a comforting thought, but it’s not much of a solution when young men who are already citizens of Western nations by birth can self-radicalize by spending enough time on the internet or making short trips to other countries.

 

Finally, we need to stop lumping all forms of public violence under the blanket term of “terrorism.” Comparisons to Charlottesville or other attacks by individual men with a history of violence and instability (such as the mayhem created by sniper Micah Johnson in Dallas, would-be assassin James Hodgkinson in Alexandria, and mass killer Omar Mateen in Orlando) are pointless. Barcelona and other terror attacks are the handiwork of networked conspirators engaged in ongoing operations against civilians and their governments.

 

Of course, these networks seek out lonely and isolated men, a fishing expedition at which ISIS in particular has become especially adept. And we must investigate why these alienated young men kill, often in horrific attacks against their schools or their communities. But not all mass killers are terrorists, and if we default to the methods of counterterrorism to deal with people better understood as deranged losers, we will overreact and spread ourselves so thin that we will needlessly place ourselves in more danger from actual terrorist networks.

 

Terrorism is a method, and extremists fighting an asymmetrical war against the far greater capacity of governments will never stop using it. There is no “end” or solution to this problem. Struggles with such groups will always be a protracted conflict requiring fortitude and realistic expectations about our own security in a free society. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will stop searching for a sudden and magical victory, and the more wisely we will husband our resources for what is inevitably a long and grinding fight.

 

Call it cold, calculating mathematical logic, but I really only see this as a continuation of attacks on civil society conducted by aimless losers that date back for at least two centuries (within living memory in Europe includes the Red Brigade of Italy kidnapping and executing a Prime Minister, the Baader-Meinhof Gang robbing banks, taking airliners hostage, and bombing airbases, and the IRA dropping time bombs into London dustbins).

Edited August 20, 2017 by Agiel

[Obsidian sucks]

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

[teknoman2]

WOW, seems the Spanish cop who shot 4 terrorists dipped his bullets in pig's blood beforehand.

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same

[teknoman2]

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

and to think that up to 100 years ago (end of WW1) there was open war for religion between europeans and muslims, with the later attempting time and again to conquer and convert europe. they just took a break after WW1 and now are back for more

[213374U]

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

 

Funny that, considering that we've owned territory in the Maghreb for more than a century and have had exactly zero problems with Islam itself (mind, Morocco's king is a reactionary ****, but his ambitions are territorial rather than religious or cultural) until Dubya & friends started turning the ME into a shooting range and Terrorists-R-Us franchises started popping up like mushrooms.

 

Funny, too, considering that we've had way more deaths from separatist Basque terrorism than from jihadis, so I guess Basques and Spaniards have never and will never be able to coexist. Or something along those lines.

 

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your grandstanding...

[Blarghagh]

Saying 'it'll never work' reflects much more positively on the speaker than the underlying truth of 'i'd rather kill them than try'. Makes you sound much less like the people you blame.

[redneckdevil]

Saying 'it'll never work' reflects much more positively on the speaker than the underlying truth of 'i'd rather kill them than try'. Makes you sound much less like the people you blame.

To be fair, America has had Christianity for how long and the influence hasn't exactly been great has it? Have we've had more harm than good come from it?

[Hurlshort]

That's just the thing, you could have made the same statement about Protestants and Catholics a number of centuries ago. There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, we'd better hope we can find a way to co-exist.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Hurlshot

[redneckdevil]

I was saying that about Protestants, Catholics, Lutheran, etc.

As a southern Baptist, I dare say Christianity isn't compatible as well as Islam and any religious faith that's built on pushing their agenda on everyone else instead of being a self choice to only effect you.

Ask the homosexuals who has been their opponent for equal rights.

Ask the Indians about what happens when u help religious settlers.

The abortion clinics that were getting blown up.

Ask the scientists who has been their main opponent in learning.

Etc etc.

There is a way to coexist with 1.8 billion Muslims, it's the same way I get along with the ones I know, courtesy and respect in a 2 way street fashion. Don't push ur BS on me or judge me on me and I won't push my BS or judge you simply on which fairy tale we ourselves chose to believe.

Separate religion from government and knowledge and start frowning upon people who push religion onto others and stay firm on that and I think that'd be the best course of action.

 

Because u could spin it and say there's billions of Christian's in the world so we gotta figure out how to coexist....doesn't have the same ring does it? The correct answer to that question is **** the ones who wanna push that BS on me right? That should go for anyone.

Edited August 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[teknoman2]

Saying 'it'll never work' reflects much more positively on the speaker than the underlying truth of 'i'd rather kill them than try'. Makes you sound much less like the people you blame.

kill them no, but if they want to live their lives with a medieval mentality, they should do it in their homelands instead of coming here and expecting us to bend the rules for the sake of their culture

[Hurlshort]

 

Saying 'it'll never work' reflects much more positively on the speaker than the underlying truth of 'i'd rather kill them than try'. Makes you sound much less like the people you blame.

kill them no, but if they want to live their lives with a medieval mentality, they should do it in their homelands instead of coming here and expecting us to bend the rules for the sake of their culture

 

 

A lot of this comes down to economics as much as culture. That is why so many of these extremists are often second generation immigrants that have been radicalized. They are vulnerable BECAUSE they lack a real understanding of their culture and they feel disenfranchised in their Western home country.

[Blarghagh]

Okay, fine, just 'remove from the equation in a non-specific way'.

[smjjames]

 

WOW, seems the Spanish cop who shot 4 terrorists dipped his bullets in pig's blood beforehand.

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same

 

 

And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death.

Edited August 20, 2017 by smjjames

[Darkpriest]

 

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

 

Funny that, considering that we've owned territory in the Maghreb for more than a century and have had exactly zero problems with Islam itself (mind, Morocco's king is a reactionary ****, but his ambitions are territorial rather than religious or cultural) until Dubya & friends started turning the ME into a shooting range and Terrorists-R-Us franchises started popping up like mushrooms.

 

Funny, too, considering that we've had way more deaths from separatist Basque terrorism than from jihadis, so I guess Basques and Spaniards have never and will never be able to coexist. Or something along those lines.

 

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your grandstanding...

 

 

Had to be really cool to live under muslim rule of the Moors. I guess they can rename that region to Al-Andalus, right? What could go wrong with that, just a name after all, right?

[Zoraptor]

At that time the muslims were far, far more progressive than the spaniards who replaced them. That's why there were so many jews for Izzy and Freddy to expel.

 

They also can't rename it to al-Andalus as... there's already an Andalusia region in Spain- both ultimately derive from 'Vandal' though Andalusia region is obviously after al Andalus chronologically.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Hurlshort]

Wait, are you implying that the Spanish Inquisition wasn't as fun as Monty Python made it out to be? Heretic!

[213374U]

 

 

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

 

Funny that, considering that we've owned territory in the Maghreb for more than a century and have had exactly zero problems with Islam itself (mind, Morocco's king is a reactionary ****, but his ambitions are territorial rather than religious or cultural) until Dubya & friends started turning the ME into a shooting range and Terrorists-R-Us franchises started popping up like mushrooms.

 

Funny, too, considering that we've had way more deaths from separatist Basque terrorism than from jihadis, so I guess Basques and Spaniards have never and will never be able to coexist. Or something along those lines.

 

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your grandstanding...

 

 

Had to be really cool to live under muslim rule of the Moors. I guess they can rename that region to Al-Andalus, right? What could go wrong with that, just a name after all, right?

 

**** are you even talking about. You trippin'?

Edited August 21, 2017 by 213374U

[Obsidian sucks]

 

Islam and Western values have never, and will never be able to co exist, Spaniards should understand this better than anyone. 

 

Funny that, considering that we've owned territory in the Maghreb for more than a century and have had exactly zero problems with Islam itself (mind, Morocco's king is a reactionary ****, but his ambitions are territorial rather than religious or cultural) until Dubya & friends started turning the ME into a shooting range and Terrorists-R-Us franchises started popping up like mushrooms.

 

Funny, too, considering that we've had way more deaths from separatist Basque terrorism than from jihadis, so I guess Basques and Spaniards have never and will never be able to coexist. Or something along those lines.

 

But hey, don't let me get in the way of your grandstanding...

 

 

Is there a point in there somewhere?

 

Western society is based off a separation between church and state, which is based off Jesus' teaching about giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars. Islam for better or worse does not have that distinction. My statement is a simple statement of fact, one side or the other has to betray their beliefs in order to co exist under the same government. 

[Zoraptor]

While islam does not make that distinction there are plenty of muslims who want to keep politics and religion at least semi separate, and plenty of christians who'd happily have the ten commandments or Leviticus- except that bit about not eating bacon or seafood, just the gay bashing and other convenient bits- as the ultimate law. Historically there was also very little practical separation of church and state up until the reformation in christian nations, and it often continued well past then. After all, the English reformation was basically Henry VIII throwing a tantrum because he couldn't divorce Catherine and making himself head of the church and state at the same time- technically, Queen Liz is still both now.

 

It really doesn't help at all when the west actively promotes the 'Saudi vision' of the middle east and at very very least tacitly supports the Saudi vision of islam which is based on literal 7th century thinking and islamic absolutism (chaperoned by the Guardians of Mecca, the Hashemites Sauds, of course). There might be a realpolitik point to the west letting the Saudis asterisk around in the middle east since they're inept yet spend money like few others, but they let their ideology pollute their own countries as well which is far more difficult to understand. And if there's one thing the Sauds have done genuinely well at it's insinuating their stone age philosophy everywhere there are muslims, but their one point of competence is a disaster for everyone else involved.

[teknoman2]

 

 

WOW, seems the Spanish cop who shot 4 terrorists dipped his bullets in pig's blood beforehand.

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same

 

 

And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death.

 

capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell

in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell.

take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin

 

anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture.

so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law?

our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice?

our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom?

our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above.

so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays?

social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

Edited August 21, 2017 by teknoman2

[213374U]

Is there a point in there somewhere?

 

 

 

Western society is based off a separation between church and state, which is based off Jesus' teaching about giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars. Islam for better or worse does not have that distinction. My statement is a simple statement of fact, one side or the other has to betray their beliefs in order to co exist under the same government.

 

Uh huh. It used to be that Catholics weren't tolerated in England because of their implicit allegiance to the Pope, who was a foreign head of state, and this conflicted with classical liberal notions that prescribed that toleration be predicated on submission to the local magistrate in all matters non-religious. Somehow, Catholics live just fine in England nowadays, and nobody has "betrayed their beliefs".

 

The "render unto caesar" bit is no doubt a useful modern interpretation of a possibly apocryphal anecdote about a guy who may or may not have existed more than 2,000 years ago, so Catholics can be convinced that fire and brimstone isn't necessarily what awaits them if they accept that someone other than the Pope can give them a ticket for jaywalking. Of course, it's completely impossible to fashion a similar loophole within all of Islam because... reasons.

 

But please please, tell me more about how XYZ will "never be".

[Hurlshort]

capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell

 

 

 

in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell.

take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin

 

anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture.

so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law?

our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice?

our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom?

our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above.

so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays?

social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

 

 

A lot of your examples seem to imply that there is one set law for both the Islamic world and the Western world. They vary tremendously all over the place. 

 

edit: To elaborate, I'd say society constantly has to push for progress, no matter what the dominant religion is. The idea that western society has protected the rights of gay people is a fairly new one. Heck, you don't have to go back very far to find a time in Western society where women and children had few rights.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Hurlshot

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

WOW, seems the Spanish cop who shot 4 terrorists dipped his bullets in pig's blood beforehand.

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same

 

 

And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death.

 

capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell

in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell.

take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin

 

anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture.

so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law?

our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice?

our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom?

our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above.

so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays?

social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

 

 " feed them pork every day " ....     

 

What a  truly terrible punishment..can you imagine you had to accept one of these tortues, which one praytell would you choose?

 

1. Parts of your body covered with boiling oil
2. To be stretched on a Rack
3. To have hot coals poured on your back
4. To eat a bacon and egg sandwich

 

Such choices.....such choices