[Philby]

BBC
Suspected suicide bomber shot at Brussels railway station

Belgian soldiers have shot a man suspected of being a would-be suicide bomber at Brussels Central Station, officials say.

He was shot after reportedly setting off a small explosion and no-one else is believed to have been injured.

Prosecutors later said the man had died. They are treating the incident as a terrorist attack.

In March 2016, 32 people were killed in attacks on Brussels claimed by the Islamic State (IS) group.

According to Belgian newspaper La Libre Belgique, quoting prosecutors, the man who was shot was wearing a rucksack and a bomb belt.

Plus more

I have nothing to say. It's beginning to be just that, an other attack. Silly world.

[47 Knucklehead]

It really is getting out of hand.

Thankfully, from what I hear, no one of importance died ... no word on the attacker.

[The Immortal Goon]

These things are going to go endlessly back and forth—rightwing Muslims attacking everyone so that the rightwing Westerners can justify being rightwing; and rightwing Western nutters attacking everyone so that slightly not-as-rightwing people can point out that not just rightwing Muslims are acting like rightwing assholes.

There is a way to stop this.

Communism is the riddle of history solved and it knows itself to be this solution.

[neopagan]

These things are going to go endlessly back and forth—rightwing Muslims attacking everyone so that the rightwing Westerners can justify being rightwing; and rightwing Western nutters attacking everyone so that slightly not-as-rightwing people can point out that not just rightwing Muslims are acting like rightwing assholes.

Since when did Muslims commit acts of holy war to help out Westerners, right, left or otherwise?

[noir]

They brought it upon themselves. This is the result of Euro pro Arab policy since 1973 (oil embargo).

[The Immortal Goon]

Since when did Muslims commit acts of holy war to help out Westerners, right, left or otherwise?

Since the communists reached out to modernize and secularize the Middle East a century ago:

We know that in the East the masses will rise as independent participants, as builders of a new life, because hundreds of millions of the people belong to dependent, underprivileged nations, which until now have been objects of international imperialist policy, and have only existed as material to fertilise capitalist culture and civilisation. And when they talk of handing out mandates for colonies, we know very well that it means handing out mandates for spoliation and plunder-handing out to an insignificant section of the world’s population the right to exploit the majority of the population of the globe. That majority, which up till then had been completely outside the orbit of historical progress, because it could not constitute an independent revolutionary force, ceased, as we know, to play such a passive role at the beginning of the twentieth century.

...Your participation in the international revolution will confront you with a complicated and difficult task, the accomplishment of which will serve as the foundation for our common success, because here the majority of the people for the first time begin to act independently and will be an active factor in the fight to overthrow international imperialism.

Most of the Eastern peoples are in a worse position than the most backward country in Europe-Russia. But in our struggle against feudal survivals and capitalism, we succeeded in uniting the peasants and workers of Russia; and it was because the peasants and workers united against capitalism and feudalism that our victory was so easy. Here contact with the peoples of the East is particularly important, because the majority of the Eastern peoples are typical representatives of the working people-not workers who have passed through the school of capitalist factories, but typical representatives of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval oppression. The Russian revolution showed how the proletarians, after defeating capitalism and uniting with the vast diffuse mass of working peasants, rose up victoriously against medieval oppression. Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international imperialism.

And there's the Middle East, carved up to be under West to be as pliant as possible, under harsh rightwing monarchies chosen by British statesmen.

After that, the US decided it was a good idea to patronize the Muslim Brotherhood. The goal of the CIA specifically:

bring together persons exerting great influence in formulating Muslim opinion in fields such as education, science, law and philosophy and inevitably, therefore, on politics…. Among the various results expected from the colloquium are the impetus and direction that may be given to the Renaissance movement within Islam itself.

And while the US and UK were hunting around trying to find and radicalize the most extreme Muslims as anti-communists (which, naturally, is a logical choice) the communists were trying to do everything possible to patronize the least extreme Muslims and endorse a more secular Islamic world.

Afghanistan in the 1950s, when in the Soviet sphere of influence:



In the 1970s when in a partnership with the USSR:





Nobody is going to claim the Soviet policy was perfect of anything. But compare this with the right-wingers in the US, UK, and France and their funding of extreme right-wing Islamic zealots in the same country:





And who led the efforts?



Gave the biggest Islamic zealots a nuke to counter a secular democracy?

Who encourages these states to take the most radical action?



And so we have, the rightwing in the West now having to deal with the Frankenstein monster that its rightwing did its best to cultivate into its own image...By blaming leftists that have been fighting against this exact thing for century

[The Sabbaticus]

Still peddling the "Muslims are victims" meme, I see. And even quoting a cult site like 'Mother Jones'. (What kind of name is that anyway? ) Strange that you failed to mention the other two (recently thwarted) terror attacks in France (also explosives) and London.

Sikes-Picot drove these murderous innocents to blow themselves up, and not the pan-global persecution complex of self-entitled Islamic brats. It's all Sikes-Picot, guys! These exotic swarthy people have no agency of their own. They'll need the great USSR to induct them into the world of moral responsibility.

[Oxymandias]

@neopagan

Well it helps people like you justify your beliefs however ignorant and disproven they are.

@noir

1. What Euro pro Arab policy are you talking about? You're statement is incoherently stated.

2. Not all Middle Eastern countries embargoed oil from Western nations

3. Apparently it's horrible to want to control your own natural resources that you own. That's like me kicking you out of your house because I want to own your house.

@The Sabbaticus

You do realize that Muslims in some parts of the world are victims, particularly in the Middle East.

This "pan-global persecution complex of self-entitled Islamic brats" wasn't a thing when actual Islamic terrorism started so the idea that liberalism was the cause of Islamic terrorism is stupid. You do realize that Middle East is full of responsible and mature individuals. Given the environment of the Middle East, that's a requirement. In the West you can get away with being immature but in some parts of the Middle East, the warzones, you don't have that luxury.

[The Sabbaticus]

- The Middle East has unsustainable birthrates and expects other countries to deal with the consequences.
- The Middle East (at large) promotes Islamic conservatism and expects other countries to deal with the consequences.
- The Middle East is incapable of sustainably managing natural resources or promote an equitable wealth distribution.

As for the war zones, Syria has been invaded by tens of thousands of jihadist tourists -- mostly young men -- and is the playground of these homicidal Muslims.

[The Immortal Goon]

- The Middle East has unsustainable birthrates and expects other countries to deal with the consequences.
- The Middle East (at large) promotes Islamic conservatism and expects other countries to deal with the consequences.
- The Middle East is incapable of sustainably managing natural resources or promote an equitable wealth distribution.

Is this not what I said, though with historical reason for these things instead of dimly pretending that what happened in front of my face has always happened in front of my face?

Surely you must know that the US/UK and the Soviet Union both did whatever they could to find people in various countries that would support them. Even a rightwinger must admit that this is true.

And who do you suspect the US/UK would find in the Middle East that was most likely to oppose atheists with a plan involving secularization and modernization?

It cannot be that much of a stretch to suggest religious people would be the smart choice here, as it was true virtually everywhere against communism.

Is this really too much to take in?

As for the one link you apparently didn't like, I chose one that wasn't behind a paywall (I have access to some via my work like this). If it makes you feel better, here's one covered by (what I can tell) is a rightwing source:

What is not well known is that the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood to the west was facilitated by the CIA during the Cold War Era as part of an anti-Soviet, anti-Communism initiative during the Eisenhower Administration. The creation of an Islamic Center in Munich, involved an ex-Nazi Turkologist, and former Nazi Muslim veterans from the Soviet Muslim satellites which were captured by advancing German forces during WWII in the Caucasus and Crimea. The CIA funded Hasan al Banna’s son-in-law to advance the MB cause via the World Muslim League. This resulted in an MB beachhead in the US launched from the Munich Islamic Center.

...Despite viewing the West as degenerate, Said Ramadan viewed Soviet Communism as the foremost enemy of Islam. In this he was following the line laid done by the Grand Mufti. As early as 1946, the US War Department observed that the Mufti had informed his followers that Communism violated Koranic doctrine. That made him an influential Muslim anti-Communist. However, the Mufti was viewed as tainted goods by the CIA given his Nazi-past and sojourn in Berlin as Hitler’s house guest during WWII. Ramadan, on the other hand, had so such baggage. The stage was set for an encounter with President Eisenhower at a 1953 Princeton University Islamic Colloquium. Johnson noted:

Abbott Washburn deputy director of the US Information Agency . . . recalled the high priority that Eisenhower gave to religion in his personal life and in geopolitical strategy.

Washburn sent a note to Eisenhower’s psychological warfare whiz, C.D. Jackson. That [the Princeton Islamic Colloquium] might achieve a hoped for result that the Muslims will be impressed with the moral and spiritual strength of America. These individuals can exert a profound and far-reaching impact upon Muslim thinking. Their long-term influence may well outweigh that of the political leaders of their countries.

As articulated in a confidential memo by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, the hope was “this psychological approach might make some important contributions to both short and long term US political objectives in the Moslem area.” The objectives were to “guide and promote the Islamic Renaissance," meaning the MB. (However, the MB had a political rather than a cultural objective.) That led the US government to reach out to US-Saudi oil conglomerate ARAMCO to underwrite the travel grants for this Princeton program. In July 1953, the US Embassy in Cairo invited Ramadan to the 10-day Princeton program. Ramadan and other participants then traveled to Washington for a photo-op with President Eisenhower in the White House. The CIA subsequently did an analysis of Ramadan at the Princeton conference and concluded that “Ramadan seems to be a fascist, interested in . . . power. He did not display many ideas except for those of the [MB].”

[The Sabbaticus]

It's amusing to point out that you consider all your 'forum opponents' to be 'rightwingers'.

As for these humdrum factoids. They've been covered quite extensively all over this board. The historical antecedents are irrelevant and in no way legitimize large scale immigration to Western Europe. Islamic 'victim' brats (of third immigrant generation or otherwise) in Europe invoking Syces-Picot should be dealt with harshly.

The Western world isn't indebted to these cretins. Quite the opposite. The effete masses in the Middle East should recognise their moral superiors.

Muslims make up the bulk of the victims of 'Islamist terror' (read: Muslims butchers), because they adhere to a martial religion. Even yourself acknowledge it in your defence of these poor innocent exotic swarthy people. But you try to pass the blame over to 'right-wingers'. But really, these 'right-wingers' merely redirected the intrinsic destructive forces of these cultures against the Soviets.

The solution that you provide would further prove our claim that Islam is a martial religion. As state enforced atheism is the prescribed remedy.

[The Immortal Goon]

It's amusing to point out that you consider all your 'forum opponents' to be 'rightwingers'.

That's not true. I've thrown down with fellow leftwingers before. I'm not sure why you find this, "amusing," that people on the left and right tend to be opponents on a political discussion board though. Then again, given your taste in culture, it should be no surprise that your ense of humour is unsophisticated.

As for these humdrum factoids. They've been covered quite extensively all over this board. The historical antecedents are irrelevant and in no way legitimize large scale immigration to Western Europe. Islamic 'victim' brats (of third immigrant generation or otherwise) in Europe invoking Syces-Picot should be dealt with harshly.

1. Yet you asked for more sources for these, "humdrum factoids," that have, "been covered quote extensively all over the board."

2. I did not bring up immigration as that is a problem inherent in capitalist exploitation and irrelevant to the myth of the, "clash of cultures," that you are constantly whining about.

3. Syces-Picot Was not the first, nor the latest of the ventures the West had in shaping the Middle East. Your obsession with it is interesting. Why are you focusing so much on this and so little on the Soviets or Americans?

The Western world isn't indebted to these cretins. Quite the opposite.

Obviously not! The Western world would be better off with its masses rising against their masters and seizing the means of production and spreading international socialism. The Western world, en masse, is certainly not served by having to fight the extremists armed, trained, and funded by their same masters.

The effete masses in the Middle East should recognise their moral superiors.

They have been, this is the problem. The US, UK, and France has been feeding the most extreme Muslims to take control of the people of the Middle East until this monstrosity existed. To this day, the West happily funds the Saudi monarchy and endorses their extreme version of Islam.

The people of the Middle East would be better served following the advice of Lenin and Mao instead of your own masters who built this issue in the first place.

Muslims make up the bulk of the victims of 'Islamist terror' (read: Muslims butchers), because they adhere to a martial religion. Even yourself acknowledge it in your defence of these poor innocent exotic swarthy people. But you try to pass the blame over to 'right-wingers'. But really, these 'right-wingers' merely redirected the intrinsic destructive forces of these cultures against the Soviets.

Yes, as an atheist, I think religion is destructive. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, are all idiotic thought problems people use to fight out their problems.

Why you whine constantly about one imaginary sky god being scarier than another imaginary sky god is beyond me though. You don't have to be frightened of people's delusions. It's the people that matter.

The solution that you provide would further prove our claim that Islam is a martial religion. As state enforced atheism is the prescribed remedy.

Why would I refute this claim?

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The Russian revolution must put this demand into effect as a necessary component of political freedom. In this respect, the Russian revolution is in a particularly favourable position, since the revolting officialism of the police-ridden feudal autocracy has called forth discontent, unrest and indignation even among the clergy. However abject, however ignorant Russian Orthodox clergymen may have been, even they have now been awakened by the thunder of the downfall of the old, medieval order in Russia. Even they are joining in the demand for freedom, are protesting against bureaucratic practices and officialism, against the spying for the police imposed on the “servants of God”. We socialists must lend this movement our support, carrying the demands of honest and sincere members of the clergy to their conclusion, making them stick to their words about freedom, demanding that they should resolutely break all ties between religion and the police. Either you are sincere, in which case you must stand for the complete separation of Church and State and of School and Church, for religion to be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair. Or you do not accept these consistent demands for freedom, in which case you evidently are still held captive by the traditions of the inquisition, in which case you evidently still cling to your cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes, in which case you evidently do not believe in the spiritual power of your weapon and continue to take bribes from the state. And in that case the class-conscious workers of all Russia declare merciless war on you.

So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideo logical and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

The issue is that I goup all religion within a theoretical framework that must be addressed accordingly.

You, for some reason, get emotional and frightened when it's Islam instead of some other ridiculous fairy tale.

[The Sabbaticus]

That's not true. I've thrown down with fellow leftwingers before. I'm not sure why you find this, "amusing," that people on the left and right tend to be opponents on a political discussion board though. Then again, given your taste in culture, it should be no surprise that your ense of humour is unsophisticated.

Taste in culture? You're referring to my appetite for schadenfreude?

1. Yet you mocked the source for these, "humdrum factoids," that have, "been covered quote extensively all over the board."

2. I did not bring up immigration as that is a problem inherent in capitalist exploitation and irrelevant to the myth of the, "clash of cultures," that you are constantly whining about.

This discussion wouldn't be held if the swarthy exotic people weren't constantly dominating the news cycle with their 'growing pains' in Western European countries.

3. Syces-Picot Was not the first, nor the latest of the ventures the West had in shaping the Middle East. Your obsession with it is interesting. Why are you focusing so much on this and so little on the Soviets or Americans?

It's all the same. Syces-Picot is iconic for the talking points of these Muslim halfwits.

Obviously not! The Western world would be better off with its masses rising against their masters and seizing the means of production and spreading international socialism. The Western world, en masse, is certainly not served by having to fight the extremists armed, trained, and funded by their same masters.

They have been, this is the problem. The US, UK, and France has been feeding the most extreme Muslims to take control of the people of the Middle East until this monstrosity existed. To this day, the West happily funds the Saudi monarchy and endorses their extreme version of Islam.

The people of the Middle East would be better served following the advice of Lenin and Mao instead of your own masters who built this issue in the first place.


Yes, as an atheist, I think religion is destructive. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, are all idiotic thought problems people use to fight out their problems.

Why you whine constantly about one imaginary sky god being scarier than another imaginary sky god is beyond me though. You don't have to be frightened of people's delusions. It's the people that matter.

Why would I refute this claim?

The issue is that I goup all religion within a theoretical framework that must be addressed accordingly.

You, for some reason, get emotional and frightened when it's Islam instead of some other ridiculous fairy tale.

Agreement found on the point that the Islamic religion is excrement. The rest are irrelevant minutiae.

[The Immortal Goon]

Taste in culture? You're referring to my appetite for schadenfreude?

Just your notoriously terrible taste. And apparent willingness to take things out of context to make yourself feel better.

This discussion wouldn't be held if the swarthy exotic people weren't constantly dominating the news cycle with their 'growing pains' in Western European countries.

Sure it would. It would just be the Africans, the Reds, the Asians, the Germans, the Catholics, the Gauls...

Some people like to piss themselves in panic and fear. They always find a flavour-of-the-month against which they can blubber endlessly about their precious victimhood.

It's all the same. Syces-Picot is iconic for the talking points of these Muslim halfwits.

I realize that for you facts must be very dull; but I assure you Michael Bay movies and reality television have far less to do with reality than history does.

Agreement found on the point that the Islamic religion is excrement. The rest are irrelevant minutiae.

You're pointing at a pile of shit and singling out a bit of corn that you wouldn't put in your mouth.

I'm saying that I wouldn't put any excrement in my mouth.