Attacks on Brussles

[Toboe]

35 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Unfortunately, 'conforming to that country's laws' often means being sentenced to death, if you're a gay person who gets outed in a Muslim nation. 

[Big map]

...as an aside, do notice that if you're a gay man and you live in Jamaica, you can be sentenced to 10 years hard labour. 

 

for comparison:

map of predominant religion per country http://worldmap.harvard.edu/data/geonode:wrd_province_religion_qg0

map of religiosity per country: http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-map-world-religions-2012-4?op=1&IR=T

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Toboe

[Crazy Lee]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

 Unfortunately, 'conforming to that country's laws' often means being sentenced to death, if you're a gay person who gets outed in a Muslim nation. 

...as an aside, do notice that if you're a gay man and you live in Jamaica, you can be sentenced to 10 years hard labour. 

 

I meant that if you're in a country and gay marriage and being gay is legal, tough shit, don't care if you're christian or muslim. Deal with it.

As for those countries, for those who are gay I'd say get the fuck out, but I know that's impossible for some.

Before you say it's a Muslim country problem, about half those countries (the ones in latin america, over half the African states) are Christian majorities. India is Hindu, and many of those Southeast asia countries are Buddhist. 

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

I meant that if you're in a country and gay marriage and being gay is legal, tough shit, don't care if you're christian or muslim. Deal with it.

As for those countries, for those who are gay I'd say get the fuck out, but I know that's impossible for some.

Before you say it's a Muslim country problem, about half those countries (the ones in latin america, over half the African states) are Christian majorities. India is Hindu, and many of those Southeast asia countries are Buddhist. 

Agreed; lots of religions treat gay people unfairly. 

[ArielMT]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Hadith demand that apostates are executed. (Sahih al-Bukhari 52:260 83:37)

Some 23 Islamic nations forbid apostasy by law and there is a worrying level of support for killing apostates: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf (page 55). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia Saudi Arabia is one of these countries, where apostasy carries the death sentence. 

So if you are an apostate, and you go to Mecca, you will be killed. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Apostasy_laws_in_2013.SVG

Notice that Indoensia, usually regarded as a 'secular' Islamic nation, will in prison apostates and take their children away.

Thank you for this information, especially what I bolded.  Quotes I found based on your citations: Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 52, Number 260 (first paragraph listed) and Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 83, Number 37 (the wall of text halfway down). (Also, wow, at 1700 pages that's a huge collection!)

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

I was, however, incorrect when I said that infidels would be killed if they went to Mecca. Non-Muslims are diverted on roads and fined, before they can enter Mecca, because the Saudi Government insists that the Koran describes non-Muslims as 'Unclean'.

That sounds about right for them.

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

If you're actually found in the city, as a non-Muslim, the Saudi state warns that the punishment will be 'severe', whatever that means.

Given how the government treats bloggers, it's pretty safe to call "severe" an understatement.

[Gamedog]

5 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Because it isn't.

 

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, Gamedog said:

 

Yeah I've got to agree with Gamedog here; religion is the biggest factor justifying widespread homophobia and horrifying judicial prejudice against gay people in Muslim countries. 

 

[Troj]

Thanks for posting that map.

So, we've got predominantly-Muslim countries, predominantly-Christian countries, one Theravada Buddhist country historically known for being oppressive and shitty, and several countries that are arguably split between animism and one or more monotheisms.

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, Troj said:

Thanks for posting that map.

So, we've got predominantly-Muslim countries, predominantly-Christian countries, one Theravada Buddhist country historically known for being oppressive and shitty, and several countries that are arguably split between animism and one or more monotheisms.

It's interesting if you look at Sudan and Nigeria. Both of these countries are divided in two between Christian and Muslim majority areas, and this is reflected in the severity of their response to homosexuality. 

The South Asian countries which outlaw homosexuality, such as India and Burma, are former British colonies, and in the case of India the anti-homosexuality laws stem from colonial rule (I'm not sure about Burma, but Buddhism does regard homosexuality as impure). Neither India or Burma have enforced these rules in recent years...but some groups of Indians are known for murdering gay family members; there have even been examples of them tricking gay members of their family, who live in the west, to go on 'holiday' to India, where they are buried alive. 

 

[Troj]

Well, and I know comparatively less about Hinduism than I do other religions, but my understanding is that India's current climate of homophobia is mostly the product of Persian and especially, British influences.

I tend to think it's pretty instructive and interesting to look at the cultures that haven't been traditionally homophobic, patriarchal, and/or misogynistic.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

Yeah I've got to agree with Gamedog here; religion is the biggest factor justifying widespread homophobia and horrifying judicial prejudice against gay people in Muslim countries. 

 

Where does religion come from?

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Where does religion come from?

Religion comes from people, and it provides a means by which existing or rare prejudices can be enshrined as divine commands, which promotes those prejudices' proliferation and makes it difficult for religious societies to abandon these prejudices. 

For instance, I'm sure racism has always existed, and some religious sects capitalise on this, by demanding that all outsiders, who are often viewed as sub human, are converted or killed.

Societies unafflicted by such toxic sects often don't retain these prejudices, or at least at much lower levels, so I think it's justified to say religion can be causally involved in creating homophobic judiciaries, thought police and so forth. 

[Gamedog]

3 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Where does religion come from?

Why are gays being hung and thrown off buildings in the Middle East?

[Feelwell]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Religion comes from people, and it provides a means by which existing or rare prejudices can be enshrined as divine commands, which promotes those prejudices' proliferation and makes it difficult for religious societies to abandon these prejudices. 

For instance, I'm sure racism has always existed, and some religious sects capitalise on this, by demanding that all outsiders, who are often viewed as sub human, are converted or killed.

Societies unafflicted by such toxic sects often don't retain these prejudices, or at least at much lower levels, so I think it's justified to say religion can be causally involved in creating homophobic judiciaries, thought police and so forth. 

Religion isn't just used as a reason to justify hate, although that recently has risen to be it's main purpose.

Religion is a manifestation of a need to believe in something bigger, and lend hope. It's a comfort and coping mechanism to explain away things we either don't know, or don't want to know. Now this coping mechanism is often tainted with personal prejudices, compunded with the fact that religion is taught, ensuring these prejudices are spread and adopted. It's become tainted and dirty over the years, but I believe at least some of the religions original aims were pure.

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

Religion isn't just used as a reason to justify hate, although that recently has risen to be it's main purpose.

Religion is a manifestation of a need to believe in something bigger, and lend hope. It's a comfort and coping mechanism to explain away things we either don't know, or don't want to know. Now this coping mechanism is often tainted with personal prejudices, compunded with the fact that religion is taught, ensuring these prejudices are spread and adopted. It's become tainted and dirty over the years, but I believe at least some of the religions original aims were pure.

I'm not sure religion has become tainted 'over the years'; religion has always been this way in some measure or another. Go back to the times of Moses and he was commanding the execution of men women and children for worshiping different gods to him. Go back to the time of Abraham and he was willing to murder his son at God's request. 

Not good stuff. 

[Flake]

On 3/24/2016 at 7:46 PM, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

I don't agree. If it wasn't Islam, these people would find something else to unite over. These acts of violence happen because these people have so much hatred and intolerance that they're willing to do them. It's childish anarchy. Using religion to turn it into a "holy war" is just a way of framing it - it could just as easily have been any other excuse.

If they're using Islam to justify these things, yes that's bad. But religion is open to interpretation, so I blame the people for choosing to interpret it that way.

On 3/24/2016 at 0:18 AM, #00Buck said:

The idea that most Muslims don't agree with this kind of violence is absurd. 

If they disagreed with it they would never set foot in Saudi Arabia let along travel to Mecca which is where it all takes place. 

If I were a Muslim I wouldn't even dream of stepping foot in there. I'd like to think level-headed Muslims would feel the same way, or at least be openly critical of Saudi Arabia.

Your argument is the most convincing I've heard so far. If being a "true Muslim" involves going there and being complicit in all of those things, then that is hard to reconcile.

[Gamedog]

5 hours ago, Flake said:

I don't agree. If it wasn't Islam, these people would find something else to unite over. These acts of violence happen because these people have so much hatred and intolerance that they're willing to do them. It's childish anarchy. Using religion to turn it into a "holy war" is just a way of framing it - it could just as easily have been any other excuse.

If they're using Islam to justify these things, yes that's bad. But religion is open to interpretation, so I blame the people for choosing to interpret it that way.

It literally says in the fucking Quran that homosexuals should be killed. There's only one fucking way you can "interpret" that, lol.

[Saxon]

8 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

It literally says in the fucking Quran that homosexuals should be killed. There's only one fucking way you can "interpret" that, lol.

I know that some Muslims simply deny it's in there at all. I don't bother correcting them, just in case it would change their mind.  

 

[ArielMT]

42 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

It literally says in the fucking Quran that homosexuals should be killed. There's only one fucking way you can "interpret" that, lol.

There is a hadith saying this, which is unfortunately treated for now as authentic by mainstream Islam, but it is not in the Koran.  This is unlike the Bible, which actually does have a verse calling for homosexuals to be killed.

[Gamedog]

57 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

There is a hadith saying this, which is unfortunately treated for now as authentic by mainstream Islam, but it is not in the Koran.  This is unlike the Bible, which actually does have a verse calling for homosexuals to be killed.

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.015

 

The Hadith is just another recording of shit Muhammed allegedly said, and is also used to kill homosexuals.

 

Edit: Leviticus 20:13 is from the Old Testament.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Gamedog

[Thundeere]

It's really a shame. Brussels was on high alert for a good 2 months, then dropped their guard. Prayers out to all of 'em

[Gamedog]

Allah tries to get homos to "repent" by whipping or stoning them, beating them to a pulp

 

Sounds great! Religion of peace!

 

https://islamqa.info/en/38622

[Gamedog]

10 hours ago, 6tails said:

There have been plenty of fatwas saying to instead make the punishment public humiliation as opposed to stoning or whipping, to bring oneself closer to the level of Allah and his mercy and wisdom. While they are non=binding, many live by those as law.

I'm sure Allah cares about how other people feel, he created the most barbaric religion ever, hands down.

meanwhile women are still buried neck deep and pelted with rocks for this and that, men are buried up to their waist because fuck women!

 

"public humiliation" is not "wise". You're still tormenting someone for being gay 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Gamedog

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

33 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

I'm sure Allah cares about how other people feel, he created the most barbaric religion ever, hands off.

Fixed.

[Taikugemu]

Oh my, it's so good to know they give people a chance to stop something they can't control, before killing them.

Truly the religion of peace and wisdom.

[Gamedog]

5 minutes ago, Taikugemu said:

Oh my, it's so good to know they give people a chance to stop something they can't control, before killing them.

Truly the religion of peace and wisdom.

You're just not "wise" enough to understand the Islamic way of thinking

[willow]

to be fair, trying to get homosexuals to repent isn't anything special to Islam. it's just some other groups are a little more hands off about it :u

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

I'm sure Allah cares about how other people feel, he created the most barbaric religion ever, hands down.

While there is a contextual difference between the two now, Allah is just the Arabic word for "God". Whether that refers to the same Christian God or not can be debated, but it wouldn't be a stretch given that they are the same given that both religions started in the Middle East.

[Saxon]

38 minutes ago, willow said:

to be fair, trying to get homosexuals to repent isn't anything special to Islam. it's just some other groups are a little more hands off about it :u

While there is a contextual difference between the two now, Allah is just the Arabic word for "God". Whether that refers to the same Christian God or not can be debated, but it wouldn't be a stretch given that they are the same given that both religions started in the Middle East.

One sacrificed his son, and the other didn't. They are derivations of the same Jewish god, but they're not the same god. 

Kind of like how apes and monkeys are both primates.

[willow]

24 minutes ago, Saxon said:

One sacrificed his son, and the other didn't. They are derivations of the same Jewish god, but they're not the same god. 

Kind of like how apes and monkeys are both primates.

That's true. What I was kind of getting at though is that Allah's an ambiguous term

[ArielMT]

1 hour ago, willow said:

While there is a contextual difference between the two now, Allah is just the Arabic word for "God". Whether that refers to the same Christian God or not can be debated, but it wouldn't be a stretch given that they are the same given that both religions started in the Middle East.

The use of the word "allah" in English is mostly a conservative American's way of othering Muslims.  Arab Christians use "god" when speaking English and "allah" when speaking Arabic to refer to the same thing.  (Sources: [1], [2].)

(Except for Malaysia, which forbids Christians from using the word "allah" even when speaking Arabic.)

[Gamedog]

6 hours ago, willow said:

to be fair, trying to get homosexuals to repent isn't anything special to Islam. it's just some other groups are a little more hands off about it :u

While there is a contextual difference between the two now, Allah is just the Arabic word for "God". Whether that refers to the same Christian God or not can be debated, but it wouldn't be a stretch given that they are the same given that both religions started in the Middle East.

I consider them to be exactly as the religions say, that they're different Gods.
I take the words of Muslims and Christians truthfully and don't "interpret" it this way or that way.

Jewish God, Christian God, Islamic God, all different things.

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, Gamedog said:

I consider them to be exactly as the religions say, that they're different Gods.
I take the words of Muslims and Christians truthfully and don't "interpret" it this way or that way.

Jewish God, Christian God, Islamic God, all different things.

Religious believers are sometimes the worst people to ask though; I've met Christians who insist that their god is not derived from the Jewish god and that Christianity dates further back than Judaism and I've met Muslims who claim their religion is older than Christianity. 

I agree that the gods these people worship are all different; they're variations upon a common theme. 

[Crazy Lee]

On 3/30/2016 at 8:06 PM, 6tails said:

"The Qu'ran says to kill homosexuals"

Man, I spent enough fucking time in prison to have a chance to read the ENTIRETY of the Qu'ran.. Right from their texts and interpretations, the three interpretations:

"004.016
YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

004.017
YUSUF ALI: Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.
PICKTHAL: Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah toward those who do evil in ignorance (and) then turn quickly (in repentance) to Allah. These are they toward whom Allah relenteth. Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise.

004.018
YUSUF ALI: Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.
PICKTHAL: The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom.
SHAKIR: And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement."

I swear, nobody seems to bother reading their own religious texts. Allah demands you try to get them to repent first. Failure to do so goes against his will, wisdom, and mercy.

The first one just says to "punish" two men who are guilty of "lewdness". I guess lewdness could be interpreted as homosexuality. It doesn't specify the punishment, though.

The other two verses are just about repentance and forgiveness, and those who don't repent, or only repent on death. They don't even mention homosexuality.

[Saxon]

Evidently the Belgian police are now on strike. 

[ArielMT]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Evidently the Belgian police are now on strike. 

Wow.  Sounds like they know what government leaders don't: why the attacks should've been prevented but weren't.

[Saxon]

14 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

Wow.  Sounds like they know what government leaders don't: why the attacks should've been prevented but weren't.

The authorities' arguments is correct; scanning people before they enter the terminal just moves the problem from the customs doors to the terminal doors. 

This would not have prevented the attacks. 

Belgium failed to prevent the attacks because they have had historically relaxed attitudes to gun regulation and border controls and were unable to effectively police enclaves such as Molenbeek  which made Belgium an attractive target for terror cells to locate. Belgium's police and intelligence services had such poor relations that the Belgian police had to call British intelligence for information, because their own nation refused to provide it. 

These systemic failings are the explanation. The Belgian police are striking over pointless minutia which would have made no difference; but who is surprised? It's not like the Police want to accept any responsibility; it's easier for them to blame someone else. 

[ArielMT]

37 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The authorities' arguments is correct; scanning people before they enter the terminal just moves the problem from the customs doors to the terminal doors. 

This would not have prevented the attacks. 

Belgium failed to prevent the attacks because they have had historically relaxed attitudes to gun regulation and border controls and were unable to effectively police enclaves such as Molenbeek  which made Belgium an attractive target for terror cells to locate. Belgium's police and intelligence services had such poor relations that the Belgian police had to call British intelligence for information, because their own nation refused to provide it. 

These systemic failings are the explanation. The Belgian police are striking over pointless minutia which would have made no difference; but who is surprised? It's not like the Police want to accept any responsibility; it's easier for them to blame someone else. 

A few articles for the lurkers to expand on these points:

• http://theweek.com/articles/615770/inside-belgiums-jihadi-problem
• http://time.com/4269505/brussels-attacks-security-failure-belgium/

True, moving checkpoints about won't on their own improve the security situation.  The cause is much more multi-faceted and deep-rooted than that, and it looks like you hit most of them.

[Fantasma]

Honestly when it comes to bomb proofing individual places, you can do it with alot of concrete barriers, dividers between the people, reinforced glass, and throw in a sniper for good measure.

What I'm saying is once someone is on site with an operational bomb, the only thing you can do is damage control and even then you can't do much unless you go full military with it. 

I mean you could have individuals enter a blastproof chamber with an xray machine one at a time while the rest of the line is segmented between concrete barriers.... but that's just not practical.

And if you do that, someone will just shove a bunch of fertilizer bombs in a van and park it out front or crash through the airfield gates and get in that way.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Johanna Waya

[Saxon]

I agree with @Johanna Waya bombs aren't stopped by airport security; they are stopped by good intelligence.