What is politics of toleration?

[dimreepr]

Politicians can’t do anything without causing harm to its citizens; BTW at what point does your allegiance stop? Is it family/friends, current location, nation, national alliances and in the case of an alien threat, the Earth?

 

The point of tolerance is to accept what you don’t like, not fear it.

 

 

To further illustrate, by getting out of bed I risk death and by staying in bed death is inevitable; life is for living (and not living in fear), and just accepting/tolerating what you can’t change and helping those in need, makes that life worth living (BTW cowering in the corner is no different to staying in bed).

Can you define final quantity of refugees?

 

 

Can you define the moment of your death?

 

Why fear what you can’t possibly know?

 

Why risk living in limbo because you hate/fear too much?

[swansont]

The politicians can't accept the refugees without harm for citizens. Therefore they have no right to do it. Earlier recieving of earlier refugees caused the suffering of the refugees in Europe.

Oh, baloney. There are areas in Europe whose population would decrease if not for immigration. Dying out is harmful to the citizens who are left. Politicians are indeed empowered to let immigrants in, at least in my country.

 

Besides, we're all immigrants if you look back far enough, so this is hypocrisy.

 

If you have only sight data then the person should be stoped on a border.

What's the difference here between a tourist and a refugee?

[StringJunky]

Besides, we're all immigrants if you look back far enough, so this is hypocrisy.

Yes, I think only the Africans are truly indigenous.

[iNow]

What's the difference here between a tourist and a refugee?

Refugees take fewer selfies, duh!

[DimaMazin]

Oh, baloney. There are areas in Europe whose population would decrease if not for immigration. Dying out is harmful to the citizens who are left. Politicians are indeed empowered to let immigrants in, at least in my country.

 

Besides, we're all immigrants if you look back far enough, so this is hypocrisy.

 

What's the difference here between a tourist and a refugee?

That is complete nonsence . Europe has enough quantity of people for increase of population,but not sufficient quantity of resources. Islamic terrorism reduces and destroys all. War of refugees against local people causes war of local people against refugees.Europeans don't need the war therefore they don't need the refugees.

[Delta1212]

That is complete nonsence . Europe has enough quantity of people for increase of population,but not sufficient quantity of resources. Islamic terrorism reduces and destroys all. War of refugees against local people causes war of local people against refugees.Europeans don't need the war therefore they don't need the refugees.

Europe has enough people, but those people on average aren't having children at even replacement rates. The birthdate in many European countries is low enough that without immigration the population would be shrinking.

[DimaMazin]

 

Can you define the moment of your death?

 

Why fear what you can’t possibly know?

 

Why risk living in limbo because you hate/fear too much?

Ask your government. They don't want to accept the refugees.And I don't think you would be glad.

Europe has enough people, but those people on average aren't having children at even replacement rates. The birthdate in many European countries is low enough that without immigration the population would be shrinking.

Scientific level of development is more important than senseless increase of population. Europe has enough quantity of unemployed.

[Strange]

That is complete nonsence . Europe has enough quantity of people for increase of population,but not sufficient quantity of resources. Islamic terrorism reduces and destroys all. War of refugees against local people causes war of local people against refugees.Europeans don't need the war therefore they don't need the refugees.

 

Islamic terrorists and refugees are not the same thing. Do you know of any examples of refugees waging ware against local people?

[dimreepr]

Ask your government. They don't want to accept the refugees.And I don't think you would be glad.

 

 

I like to think my morals do not include “I’m alright jack”; do you not understand, they’re ordinary people that have been forced to leave the comfort of their home, to sleep in a field and beg for food, from people, like you, who’d rather they’d just piss-off back home to stare down the barrel of a gun.

[swansont]

That is complete nonsence . Europe has enough quantity of people for increase of population,but not sufficient quantity of resources. Islamic terrorism reduces and destroys all. War of refugees against local people causes war of local people against refugees.Europeans don't need the war therefore they don't need the refugees.

 

 

Well, no. You can have your own beliefs (odious or not), but not your own facts.

 

Germany's fertility rate is 1.4 children. England's has risen recently but is still 1.9 — and the rise is because of immigrants, who tend to have more children (at least the first generation of them do)

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1611979/britain-defies-europes-falling-fertility-rate

 

Here's a map. Fertility rates below 2.1 mean the population will fall. There are only a few regions in Europe where it's above 2.1

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5822795/1/

[Willie71]

I suppose some think we should turn these people away:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaN-kUucF4

 

Because they are just migrating from here:

 

 

I personally think we have an obligation as HUMAN BEINGS to not turn our backs on the suffering we created.

[Bells]

 

 

Yes, really. Your statement wasn't just shutting down the systems, it was immediately shutting down the systems.

 

You're in charge and hear an explosion. Now, how do you immediately know it was a terrorist attack, vs some other problem? There will be a span of time it takes to gather the information you need. In the early part of any event like this, information is typically spotty and unreliable. If it's gunfire, you might not even be close enough to hear it — reports will have to get to you. You may go into lockdown mode, and not be able to get word out even when you do confirm what's going on. Once you can communicate, you have to get that information with other people, and they have to act.

 

Immediate shutdown is simply not possible.

I would expect within the first 10-15 minutes at least. What we saw in Belgium was that all was shut down after 2 hours from the first attack.

 

 

Because doing so would merely amplify the attack. Doing so would allow any idiot with a firecracker to realize an overblown response due solely to our complicity and over-reaction.

 

 

It was clearly not a firecracker. There is a vast difference between a firecracker and 2 large explosions in quick succession..

 

The evacuation of the airport was ongoing while the train system was still running from the airport. So at a wild guess, I think they knew it wasn't a firecracker.

 

 

 

People need to stop shitting their pants and start being smart. It's called terrorism for a reason. Their aim is to inspire terror and cause us to defeat ourselves from within by abandoning our values and rationality.

 

Don't let them.

 

The authorities need to start heeding warnings of impending attacks a bit better.

 

The security services knew, with a high degree of certainty, that attacks were planned in the very near future for the airport and, apparently, for the subway as well.

Despite the advance warning, the intelligence and security preparedness in Brussels, where most of the European Union agencies are located, was limited in its scope and insufficient for the severity and immediacy of the alert.

-------------------------------------

Abdeslam's arrest was apparently the trigger for Tuesday's attacks, due to the concern in ISIS that he might give information about the planned attacks under interrogation, particularly in the light of reports that he was cooperating with his captors.

The testimony of the detained terrorist, alongside other intelligence information, part of which concerned ISIS operations in Syria, should have resulted in much more stringent security preparedness in crowded public places in Brussels, along with a heightened search for the cell. [Source]

 

It is important to stop the arriving and arriving danger. We lose and lose people to reconvince tolerant people.

Well there needs to be better screening, because at present, there is very little screening and services made available for refugees entering Europe, but that is beside the point and does not really have anything to do with this discussion or thread topic. Leaving them in little tents in the cold just creates a breeding ground for radicalisation.

 

Having said that, there is no evidence to suggest that the terrorists involved in Belgium or even Paris were refugees. They were born and bred and radicalised in those respective countries. They were not refugees.

 

Belgium is in a particularly difficult place, since they have a very high percentage of Muslim fighters returning from fighting in Syria and Iraq. Plus the fact that many of the Muslim youth in the country are open and susceptible to radicalisation, due to lack of access to employment and education for them and with a higher than normal imprison rate, they are literally rape for picking for radicalisation. Radical Islamists target and prey on the weak. It is why radicalisation in prisons is so high, as we saw in Paris, where so many of the terrorists who struck there were radicalised during prison stints.

 

Desperate young men and women, with little prospect of employment, who do not have great access to education, who are over-represented in the criminal justice system are the ones being radicalised. The terrorists aren't flooding into Europe. They lived there already and they were recruited in Europe. Improving services and access to better education and employment prospects, improving their living standards will probably go a long long way in reducing the numbers being radicalised. Intolerance and bigotry will only drive these desperate youth towards the radical preachers who are telling them that everyone else hates them.

[dimreepr]

I personally think we have an obligation as HUMAN BEINGS to not turn our backs on the suffering we created.

 

 

I completely agree on both counts but there is another reason:

 

http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/international_refugee_law.php

 

 

The Definition of a Refugee

International legal protection of refugees centres on a person meeting the criteria for refugee status as laid down in the1951 Refugee Convention. Under Article 1(A)2, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:

“...owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

Thus, according to this provision, refugees are defined by three basic characteristics:

• they are outside their country of origin or outside the country of their former habitual residence;
• they are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted; and
• the persecution feared is based on at least one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

It is important to stress that the term “asylum seekers” refers to persons, who have applied for asylum, but whose refugee status has not yet been determined.

 

 

 

I can't help thinking our, so called, civilisation is slipping more than a little...

[iNow]

It was clearly not a firecracker. There is a vast difference between a firecracker and 2 large explosions in quick succession..

 

The evacuation of the airport was ongoing while the train system was still running from the airport. So at a wild guess, I think they knew it wasn't a firecracker.

Whether intentionally or not, you appear to have completely missed my point, which (as I think is obvious to most readers) was not to suggest that there were firecrackers involved in the recent Brussels attack.

[Bells]

Whether intentionally or not, you appear to have completely missed my point, which (as I think is obvious to most readers) was not to suggest that there were firecrackers involved in the recent Brussels attack.

Oh I understood your point. It seems clear that you missed my point that there is a vast difference between a major explosion that leaves bodies in its wake and structural damage and an idiot with a firecracker. To wit, the effects of the explosion were (and are) immediate. Had it been a firecracker, there would not have been such obvious destruction. Ergo, someone using a firecracker to try to prompt a response from emergency personnel and say, shutting down things like transport and evacuating buildings, would clearly not have the same effect or response because of a) the lack of dead and injured people on the ground which is usually very apparent when a large explosion occurs and b) the absolute lack of structural damage which is also very apparent immediately. Hence why it is so quickly and immediately possible to determine the difference between a firecracker and a bomb or say, a gas explosion.

 

Unless of course you think immediate evacuation and shutting down of very public areas like transport hubs in the aftermath of an explosion or bombing is an overblown response or over-reaction? I would like to imagine that was a poor choice of words on your part.

 

The fact that they immediately evacuated the airport indicated that they knew it was an explosion (and not, say, an idiot with a firecracker). So it defies logic that in evacuating the airport, it took them that long to stop the trains from reaching the airport to begin with, trains that would have been carrying more people into a situation that was still developing and fluid and could have further endangered lives, especially when one considers that there were still explosives in the building. In other words, they were evacuating the airport and people were even being rushed onto the tarmac away from the airport building, while still allowing trains to run into the airport, trains that were carrying passengers. So they were effectively evacuating out one door, while allowing more people in in the other door. Does this make sense to you? Because it does not to me. They knew immediately that it was a large explosion and not, to use your example, a firecracker. There was severe structural damage and numerous bodies lying dead or injured. They immediately evacuated the whole building. And yet, the trains were still running into the building. This doesn't make sense to me.

 

Coupled with the fact that they had been warned for quite a while, before the event, that there was an active threat against the airport and their train system, it was a pretty sure bet that the two large explosions in the departure lounge was not accidental or a joke by a jerk with a firecracker. So it does raise my eyebrows to consider that knowing of the immediate threat to the airport and the train system, that after explosions went off at the airport and they had an hour to determine it was a bomb and that perhaps, just perhaps, the warnings they had received were real, that they did not take precautionary measures and shut down the train system and public transport systems just in case. Worse still, after the bomb exploded in the Metro station, just as they were warned about, an hour after the bombs went off at the airport, it still took them over an hour to shut down the transport system.

 

To put it bluntly, they knew there was an attack imminent. They had arrested and detained one known attacker. They found bomb making material. They did not up security in the buildings and for the systems they had received direct and fairly specific warnings about. They did not shut down the train system even after the first bombings occurred, despite knowing the train system was also a target. They allowed that to run for another hour, and when the second bomb went off at the Metro station, as warned about, it still took them over an hour after that to stop the trains.

 

Understand my point now?

[iNow]

You seem to want to help the terrorists realize their aim of inspiring terror. I'm simply arguing that we ought to strive to avoid emotional overreaction.

 

Unless of course you think immediate evacuation and shutting down of very public areas like transport hubs in the aftermath of an explosion or bombing is an overblown response or over-reaction?

Details matter, but as a general rule yes, I do think that's a bit of an overreaction.

 

it defies logic that in evacuating the airport, it took them that long to stop the trains from reaching the airport to begin with, trains that would have been carrying more people into a situation that was still developing and fluid and could have further endangered lives, especially when one considers that there were still explosives in the building. In other words, they were evacuating the airport and people were even being rushed onto the tarmac away from the airport building, while still allowing trains to run into the airport, trains that were carrying passengers. So they were effectively evacuating out one door, while allowing more people in in the other door. Does this make sense to you?

I'm pretty impressed by the rapidness and coordination of the response, myself.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks/brussels-attacks-timeline-events-belgian-capital-n544221

7:55 a.m. (2:55 a.m. ET): Surveillance footage shows three suspected attackers exiting a taxi and pushing luggage trolleys through Brussels Airport. Surveillance captured images of the three suspects.

 

7:58 a.m. (2:58 a.m. ET): Gunfire reportedly heard in the departures terminal followed by an explosion. As passengers started running, a second blast erupted just 10 seconds later.

 

One of the attackers, identified by his fingerprints and killed in the explosions, was named Ibrahim El Bakraoui. A second attacker known to have died in the blasts has not yet been identified.

 

A third suspect, wearing a light-colored jacket and a hat, is believed to have fled the airport. He left a large bag. Just before the bomb squad arrived, this bag exploded due to the instability of the explosives.

 

8:20 a.m. (3:20 a.m. ET): With the rescue operation underway, Belgian authorities stopped rail transport to the airport and closed roads.

Worse still, after the bomb exploded in the Metro station, just as they were warned about, an hour after the bombs went off at the airport, it still took them over an hour to shut down the transport system. (snip) They allowed that to run for another hour,

Recommend you check your facts and calm down a bit.

 

See above. It was actually within about 20 minutes, not "over an hour."

Edited March 25, 2016 by iNow

[Bells]

You seem to want to help the terrorists realize their aim of inspiring terror. I'm simply arguing that we ought to strive to avoid emotional overreaction.

 

 

And I am simply arguing that when a direct threat is made to a building or organisation or system, then precautionary measures need to be put in place. None were.

 

 

Details matter, but as a general rule yes, I do think that's a bit of an overreaction.

 

 

A bomb goes off and you think evacuating the building was "a bit of an overreaction"?

 

Or do you think taking precautionary measures after receiving direct threats is an overreaction?

 

Keep in mind, they were able to stroll through the airport with multiple bombs undetected, along with their guns. This is after a direct threat was made to the airport itself and they knew that something was going to happen after they found bomb making material. It's as though they had 1 + 1 = 5, so they just ignored everything inbetween and carried on as normal. When threats are made, they need to be investigated and yes, precautions need to be implemented. It's not about creating terror in the population. It's about trying to ensure the safety of the population. Ask anyone who survived that bomb what they would find more terrifying. A stronger police and security presence at the airport, checking everyone who entered and going through metal detectors because of a credible threat, or having a bomb blow up, killing and injuring dozens of people.

 

The reaction to the threats, the warnings that the people returning from Syria and fighting for ISIS posed a threat, and these individuals were even named and at least one was deported from another country and they were warned of who he was, who he had fought for and his expertise, and they ignored it, the discovery of bomb making material in conjunction with those threats and even the bombs going off in the airport was damning. As you say, details do matter. It's what happens when they ignored all the details that is the worry and concern.

 

 

I'm pretty impressed by the rapidness and coordination of the response, myself.

 

 

 

Really? I thought you found the reaction to it to be an overreaction.

 

I have to wonder though, if they had heeded the warnings they received and intelligence they received, if any would have had to die at the Metro station. Instead, they allowed the trains to continue to run, despite the threats and warnings, despite one attack having taken place. I think their reactions to the threats and warnings, or more to the point, their lack of action in the face of those threats and warnings, deserves greater scrutiny. Obviously you disagree and that is fine.

To each their own.

 

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks/brussels-attacks-timeline-events-belgian-capital-n544221

 

Recommend you check your facts and calm down a bit.

 

See above. It was actually within about 20 minutes, not "over an hour."

 

 

Yep, and then scroll down your own article. What is astonishing is that as this was taking place and in the immediate aftermath of the bombs going off at the airport, people were still arriving by train and car for a fair while before they blocked off access. I cannot even begin to imagine who that would have impeded rescue vehicles from accessing the area in that time. Worse still, they did not know if there would be more and they were trying to evacuate the building, but people were still able to arrive there for that length of time afterwards.

 

The French Government in France had the time to hold an emergency meeting before the authorities shut down the whole transport system in Belgium.

 

As I had noted and quoted and linked in previous posts in this thread, they did not shut down the whole network until 10:00am, 2 hours after the initial attack at the airport.

 

Even after the bomb went off in the train at the Metro station, it took them over 15 minutes to shut down the Metro system and station itself. The whole transport network was not shut down until 10:00am.

 

Do you know what is scarier in the link you posted. The Belgium authorities did not boost security around its nuclear power plants until 11:25am. And this is despite warnings, threats and known jihadists returning to Belgium after being deported from other countries for for being suspected terrorists who had been fighting with ISIS. Worse still, they were on the US terror watch list and the Belgians did nothing..

 

The taxi driver who drove them to the airport had a better reaction time.

 

And it gets worse..

 

Despite the discovery of detonators, weapons, and Abdeslam’s fingerprints in a safe house days earlier and growing evidence that the Brussels terror network was stronger than previously understood, law enforcement officials only briefly questioned Abdeslam because he was still recovering from surgery after being shot in the leg during his apprehension, according to a senior Belgian security official, who asked for anonymity to speak about the investigation.

“He seemed very tired and he had been operated on the day before,” the official said, adding that law enforcement officials did not question him again before Tuesday.

“They were not thinking about the possibilities of what happened on Tuesday morning,” said a second source with knowledge of the process.

Attorney Sven Mary, who represents Abdeslam, confirmed to POLITICO that prosecutors had spoken only briefly with his client between his arrest and the time of the attacks.

“Once. Yes,” Mary said Thursday outside the court where he attended a pre-trial hearing related to the Abdeslam case.

Thierry Werts, a spokesman for the Belgian federal prosecutor, declined to comment.

----------------------------------

Even as officials warned publicly over the weekend that further attacks were possible, Belgian authorities decided not to raise the terror alert to its highest level — as they did several days after the Paris attacks — because they said they had no evidence that another strike was imminent.

“We can only warn our citizens on the basis of concrete information and plans,” said Peter Mertens, spokesman for the interior ministry’s crisis center. “In this case, we didn’t have enough to raise it to 4. Our services didn’t know about this attack. We didn’t have precise information on the preparation of an attack.”

 

And this is despite direct threats having been received about an imminent attack on the airport and also the rail system... Despite the discovery of bomb making equipment, they did nothing. They didn't even increase security in the places that had received direct threats.. They questioned him for about an hour and did not ask him anything about the discovery of the bomb making equipment.. I know, you consider even the prospect of raising security to be an emotional overreaction, but I don't. They stuffed up.

 

It's no wonder the Belgian authorities and Government ministers are handing in their resignations..

[iNow]

A bomb goes off and you think evacuating the building was "a bit of an overreaction"?

That's not even close to what I said. I really have no interest continuing the discussion with you if you insist on being intellectually dishonest.

 

I have to wonder though, if they had heeded the warnings they received and intelligence they received, if any would have had to die at the Metro station. Instead, they allowed the trains to continue to run, despite the threats and warnings, despite one attack having taken place.

And what about bus stations, and taxi queues, and museums, and parks, and shopping centers, and cafes, and schools, and any of the countless many other places where people gather in large numbers and where threats like these are received every day?

 

Yes, there were credible threats. Yes, more could've been done proactively.

 

No, none of this has anything to do with the actual point I'm making about the importance of keeping cool collected heads in the aftermath and avoiding emotional overreaction driven by little more than our reptilian brains and baser instincts.

[Bells]

 

That's not even close to what I said. I really have no interest continuing the discussion with you if you insist on being intellectually dishonest.

 

Oh? Perhaps you should go back and read exactly what you said and how you worded your response.

 

Here is what I said:

 

 

 

Unless of course you think immediate evacuation and shutting down of very public areas like transport hubs in the aftermath of an explosion or bombing is an overblown response or over-reaction?

 

 

This was your response:

 

 

Details matter, but as a general rule yes, I do think that's a bit of an overreaction.

 

So which was the overreaction? The evacuation? Or the shutting down of transport hubs and shutting the airport down?

 

Just so we are clear.

 

And if you wish to discuss intellectual dishonesty, you should look at how you cut out the bottom part of the 'timetable of events', which clearly supported my comments about how it took 2 hours from the airport attacks before they shut down all transportation systems and started to close the roads. I made the comments here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94076-what-is-politics-of-toleration/?p=912320 which also included a link to the timetable of events as they occurred.

 

And here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94076-what-is-politics-of-toleration/page-2#entry912527

 

Now, Sir, in your previous post to me, you said that it took 20 minutes instead of 2 hours. It took 20 minutes to shut down the trains arriving to the airport after the bomb went off at the airport. Which I had also commented on and then remarked that it took them 2 hours to shut down the whole system. To wit, you misrepresented what I actually said because you made it seem as though I was talking about it taking 2 hours to shut down the trains to the airport when I had clearly remarked twice, with supporting links, that it took them 2 hours to shut down the whole transport system and network. Talk about not even being close to what I had said.

 

And what about bus stations, and taxi queues, and museums, and parks, and shopping centers, and cafes, and schools, and any of the countless many other places where people gather in large numbers and where threats like these are received every day?

 

 

What about them?

 

They were not detailed in the threats issued. The threats were against the airport and the train system. The threats were made against the airport and train system, they captured one terrorist and did not even ask him about any of the bomb making equipment they had found in residences that contained his DNA and fingerprints, nor what was in his immediate vicinity upon capture. Despite threats having been received and warnings of an imminent attack on the airport and transport system that included the railways.

 

 

Yes, there were credible threats. Yes, more could've been done proactively.

No, none of this has anything to do with the actual point I'm making about the importance of keeping cool collected heads in the aftermath and avoiding emotional overreaction driven by little more than our reptilian brains and baser instincts.

 

 

If people are incapable of recognising, discussing and fixing what is clearly broken in the intelligence community in Belgium and Europe, then more people will die. If you think identifying obvious weaknesses, and these weaknesses have been noted for a while now, since the first attacks in Paris and since they have consistently failed to keep track of returning Jihadists, despite warnings from other countries of the dangers these people posed to Belgium and Europe, is an 'emotional overreaction driven by little more than our reptilian brains and baser instincts', then I suggest you drive your car at high speed without wearing a seatbelt, because taking such precautions could also be seen as an emotional overreaction being driven by fear of dying in a motor vehicle accident. Jokes aside, and I mean that in the sense that I would suggest you not drive your car at high speed, nor would I ever recommend you not wear a seatbelt, there has been a distinct lack of security or notice of the dangers returning Jihadists posed in Belgium.

 

Cooler heads and a less emotive response could have been had by taking the threats seriously, especially in light of the fact they found bomb making equipment in the lead up to the capture of a known bomber and terrorist. Instead, they did nothing. Other countries have been commenting on Belgium's lack of response to these threats for a while now. They have provided them with enough intelligence which could very well have resulted in these latest attacks being much less successful. But they did little to nothing about the warnings they have received, the intelligence they have received or the direct threats they did receive which specifically targeted what was bombed.

 

As a lawyer and a former prosecutor, if such a case came in front of me, I could tear it to shreds and it needs to be torn to shreds. Because the manner in which the authorities downplayed any threats and tried to carry on as though no threat was made or existed, cost people their lives and will do so again in the future. This could have been prevented or lessened. The only saving grace they had was that the 3rd bomb at the airport did not explode and that the biggest bomb did not fit in the taxi.

 

I am absolutely appalled that it took them so long to even beef up security at their nuclear power plants after the attacks took place.

 

As I asked and which you did not respond to. As a civilian and a member of the public, what would cause more panic? Metal detectors and increased security at places that have received direct threats and after bomb making material and clear indication that something was going to happen? Or having a bomb go off resulting in much greater disruption to people's lives, not to mention multiple death and injuries and then go 'oops, would've, could've, should've'?

 

Personally, I would pick the increased security. But that's just me. But apparently this makes me the kind of person who is responding to my corpus amygdaloideum and baser instincts from the most primitive part of my brain stem and I am obviously being overly emotional about it [you can insert the giant eyeroll here if you wish]. My main issue with this subject is not so much the response of the authorities in the aftermath of the bombing as it is in the events leading up to this, from years ago.

 

What we have in the aftermath, as always happens, is the pitchforks and burning torches aimed directly at Muslims, while completely disregarding the failures of the intelligence system, not to mention the failures of the Government in addressing what leads young Muslim men to becoming radicalised in the first place. They ignored all of the warning signs and they ignored how their policies and the legal system unfairly targeted Muslims, leading to a much higher rate of Muslims feeling like they no longer have a place in Belgium, which in turn led to so many of their youth then going to fight for Jihadists in Syria and Iraq. The signs were evident for years. And they did nothing to alleviate the problems they faced, with the lack of access to employment and education of Muslims in the country, which led to absolute poverty for the majority of Muslims in the country, and then of course we have bans on the hijab and other Muslim clothing, and threats and bans on halal meats.. The over-representation of Muslims in the criminal justice system and the radicalisation of Muslim youth that occurred right in their faces. There is a reason why Belgium has so many fighters going to join Jihadists. The writing was on the wall for a long time.

 

Instead of focusing on 'what is the politics of toleration', we should instead be looking at the result of intolerance in many parts of Europe and elsewhere. The fault of this lies in the policies in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, which turned Muslims into second class citizens and where their rights were infringed upon and their rights to practice their religious belief were infringed upon. Cooler heads would prevail if these pertinent issues were addressed. Failure to address it, along with the failure to respond to threats, will eventually lead to terrorist attacks. But hey, I best be quiet because this might be my 'reptilian brain' responding..

 

 

 

[iNow]

Right then. Okay.

[Bells]

Right then. Okay.

 

We shall respectfully disagree then.

 

But hey, at least I finally managed to address the OP in the final paragraphs..

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Hey! Deep breaths, please. Let's focus on the arguments and avoid making things personal.

 

And report this if you want to respond to it, but don't bring it up in the thread.

[DimaMazin]

 

Islamic terrorists and refugees are not the same thing. Do you know of any examples of refugees waging ware against local people?

Islamic citizens make attacks. Do you think the islamic refugees will be citizens never?

[Strange]

Islamic citizens make attacks. Do you think the islamic refugees will be citizens never?

 

Do you really think that all Islamic people want to attack you?

 

Again, how do you decide who to let in and who to stop?

[DimaMazin]

What happens to refugees that have no home, for example they are fleeing from war, stopped at the border, lets say on a beach after arriving in in a boat. Leave them on the beach indefinitely?

They have no home in Belgium. Do you think Belgium is warmer than Greece or Turkey?