Another terrorist in Belgium

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:40 am

e intercept speeding car and thwart 'attempted terrorist attack'

Belgian police respond Thursday after a man allegedly drove a speeding car toward a crowd in Antwerp.
Belgian police respond Thursday after a man allegedly drove a speeding car toward a crowd in Antwerp.

Riot gun was among cache of weapons found in driver's car, prosecutor's office says.

French President: The driver "was looking to kill people and to cause something dramatic"
(CNN)Belgian police intercepted a car that was speeding toward a busy shopping area and refused to stop, authorities said Thursday.

The car, registered in France, was driving "at a very high speed" in central Antwerp, the Belgian federal prosecutor's office said.
French President Francois Hollande called the incident "an attempted terrorist attack."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/europe/belgium-antwerp-car-intercepted/

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:31 pm

And yet, Belgium is not on Trump's list of countries from which Terrorism emanates, and therefore from which travel should be restricted. Along with Germany, France--and now, apparently, England--Belgium is permitted to infect our continent with its particular terrorist vile.

Whatever else is at issue, this proves that stopping terrorism is not the motive behind Trump's travel restriction. It is a Muslim Ban--a ban on travel based upon religion! No government prohibition may be based upon religion. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:34 pm

If he bans people from countries where there have been terrorist attacks, he'd have to chuck out all American citizens.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:37 pm

Anyway, well done the Belgian police. It's not clear what the motive was, and the driver obviously didn't manage to do any damage or hurt anyone, but they did well to stop them before they did.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:If he bans people from countries where there have been terrorist attacks, he'd have to chuck out all American citizens.

I quite agree. There should be a perimeter established around the American southeast, where KKK terrorism has been on-going since 1860. No person should be allowed to travel from the restricted area without extreme vetting, and then only for a stated purpose and a limited time.

And that, note, would not be based upon religion. It would be based upon good cause!

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:And yet, Belgium is not on Trump's list of countries from which Terrorism emanates, and therefore from which travel should be restricted. Along with Germany, France--and now, apparently, England--Belgium is permitted to infect our continent with its particular terrorist vile.

Whatever else is at issue, this proves that stopping terrorism is not the motive behind Trump's travel restriction. It is a Muslim Ban--a ban on travel based upon religion! No government prohibition may be based upon religion. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Don't be a quim, Quill... the attacker is reported as being of North African origin...!!!

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:And yet, Belgium is not on Trump's list of countries from which Terrorism emanates, and therefore from which travel should be restricted. Along with Germany, France--and now, apparently, England--Belgium is permitted to infect our continent with its particular terrorist vile.

Whatever else is at issue, this proves that stopping terrorism is not the motive behind Trump's travel restriction. It is a Muslim Ban--a ban on travel based upon religion! No government prohibition may be based upon religion. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Don't be a quim, Quill... the attacker is reported as being of North African origin...!!!

Origin, yes. But look where he is at right now. Are we genealogists, concerned about where a terrorists origins are; or, are we concerned about where they are coming from today, and from which airport they might fly out to attack the United States?

The fight against terrorism doesn't need any more dated and hackneyed thinking. It's not the colour of his skin, but the AK-47 in his hands. And it's not about his birth certificate, but what he's doing today. The terrorists are in Belgium, France, Germany and England. Hence, the people who need vetting coming into the US, are those from the airports in those countries.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If he bans people from countries where

there have been terrorist attacks, he'd have to chuck out all American citizens.

I quite agree. There should be a perimeter established around the American southeast, where KKK terrorism has been on-going since 1860. No person should be allowed to travel from the restricted area without extreme vetting, and then only for a stated purpose and a limited time.

And that, note, would not be based upon religion. It would be based upon good cause!

Not to mention everyone from New York, San Bernardino, and Boston. They can all leave the US too.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I quite agree. There should be a perimeter established around the American southeast, where KKK terrorism has been on-going since 1860. No person should be allowed to travel from the restricted area without extreme vetting, and then only for a stated purpose and a limited time.

And that, note, would not be based upon religion. It would be based upon good cause!

Not to mention everyone from New York, San Bernardino, and Boston. They can all leave the US too.

Seriously, how many terrorist incidents have occurred in New York, San Bernardino, and Boston? Whereas it happens with routine regularity in Belgium, France and Germany...and the KKK has not been a stranger to the southeastern US. You need to let go of old wives tales, and focus on what is relevant. The terrorists are in the American south and western Europe.

It reminds me of that old poem:

As you wander on thru life brother,
Whatever be the goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
And not upon the hole!

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Not to mention everyone from New York, San Bernardino, and Boston. They can all leave the US too.

Seriously, how many terrorist incidents have occurred in New York, San Bernardino, and Boston? Whereas it happens with routine regularity in Belgium, France and Germany...and the KKK has not been a stranger to the southeastern US. You need to let go of old wives tales, and focus on what is relevant. The terrorists are in the American south and western Europe.

It reminds me of that old poem:

As you wander on thru life brother,
Whatever be the goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
And not upon the hole!

Well there was a fairly large one in New York, which pretty much eclipsed several other terrorist attacks, don't you think? It wasn't an old wives tale - it did actually happen. Perhaps you were asleep at the time and missed it.

It doesn't seem to matter to you who carried out terrorist attacks, only where they took place, right?

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Seriously, how many terrorist incidents have occurred in New York, San Bernardino, and Boston? Whereas it happens with routine regularity in Belgium, France and Germany...and the KKK has not been a stranger to the southeastern US. You need to let go of old wives tales, and focus on what is relevant. The terrorists are in the American south and western Europe.

It reminds me of that old poem:

As you wander on thru life brother,
Whatever be the goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
And not upon the hole!

Well there was a fairly large one in New York, which pretty much eclipsed several other terrorist attacks, don't you think? It wasn't an old wives tale - it did actually happen. Perhaps you were asleep at the time and missed it.

It doesn't seem to matter to you who carried out terrorist attacks, only where they took place, right?

And where did the terrorists in New York come out of? Why, right out of Hanover, Germany. It's the case that makes my point perfectly.

Keep in mind, we are talking about the minority-president's plan to restrict terrorist travel into the US. It's not what seems "to matter to [me]", but what plan he concocts to keep out terrorists. His plan to ban Muslims is not only unconstitutional, but has no rational basis. The terrorists are coming from western Europe, not the countries he designates.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there was a fairly large one in New York, which pretty much eclipsed several other terrorist attacks, don't you think? It wasn't an old wives tale - it did actually happen. Perhaps you were asleep at the time and missed it.

It doesn't seem to matter to you who carried out terrorist attacks, only where they took place, right?

And where did the terrorists in New York come out of? Why, right out of Hanover, Germany. It's the case that makes my point perfectly.

Keep in mind, we are talking about the minority-president's plan to restrict terrorist travel into the US. It's not what seems "to matter to [me]", but what plan he concocts to keep out terrorists. His plan to ban Muslims is not only unconstitutional, but has no rational basis. The terrorists are coming from western Europe, not the countries he designates.

They weren't German though.

You'd best ban anyone from Northern Ireland by the way.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And where did the terrorists in New York come out of? Why, right out of Hanover, Germany. It's the case that makes my point perfectly.

Keep in mind, we are talking about the minority-president's plan to restrict terrorist travel into the US. It's not what seems "to matter to [me]", but what plan he concocts to keep out terrorists. His plan to ban Muslims is not only unconstitutional, but has no rational basis. The terrorists are coming from western Europe, not the countries he designates.

They weren't German though.

Who cares what nationality or ethnicity they are? The issue is a travel ban. Unless the Trump people are lying, the rationale is to prevent terrorists from traveling into the US. They are restricting travel from certain Muslim countries, ostensibly to curtail movement of terrorists. But the terrorists are not coming from those countries...they're coming from Belgium, Germany and France.

The call it a travel ban to avoid specifying religion. Personally, I don't believe them; I think they are trying to punish people of Muslim persuasion. They only call it a travel ban in order to avoid the patent unconstitutionality of an executive order based on religion.

by nicko Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:58 pm

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims !

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:32 am

nicko wrote:Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims !

See? Right there you reveal your misinformed bias. What do you think the KKK is, a benevolent breakfast program for underprivileged children?

You're excused.

by nicko Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:54 am

Not talking about the KKK, BIT OF A DEFLECTION THERE MATE.

by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:38 pm

Islamist terrorists are committing attacks all over the place... and then there the thousands of attacks that get thwarted...

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:40 pm

nicko wrote:Not talking about the KKK, BIT OF A DEFLECTION THERE MATE.

What are you bleating about, cupcake? Laughing

If this isn't a thread about terrorism, then let's exchange recipes for strawberry chiffon cakes. I would say you are inventing rules as you go along...otherwise known as shifting goals.

Favorite conservative trick. We see it in voter suppression laws in this country. Instead of standing toe-to-toe with the other guy, you change the game.

Be a man, nicko. Meet me on the field of battle instead of running.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Islamist terrorists are committing attacks all over the place... and then there the thousands of attacks that get thwarted...

Terrorism is attention-seeking.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Islamist terrorists are committing attacks all over the place... and then there the thousands of attacks that get thwarted...

Terrorism is attention-seeking.

Quite right Quill. Bunch of attention seekers!

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Terrorism is attention-seeking.

Quite right Quill. Bunch of attention seekers!

I've always maintained that terrorism is messaging, not war.

by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:14 pm

Nobody cares what you think...

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quite right Quill. Bunch of attention seekers!

I've always maintained that terrorism is messaging, not war.

No, its basically and generally murder and attempting to use that murder to incite fear.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nobody cares what you think...

Awww...kitty gotta boo-boo. Razz

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:36 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I've always maintained that terrorism is messaging, not war.

No, its basically and generally murder and attempting to use that murder to incite fear.

Yep...that's means, and that's the message.

by nicko Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:43 pm

Quill, because your more "erudite" than me does not make you more intelligent, it just shows that you have a closed mind that thinks, "I am right, all other opinions are just pissing in the wind.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:44 pm

The press and the Government are giving terrorists what they want aren't they? They're giving them attention. If no terrorist event was talked about, there would be no point in it because hardly anyone would hear about it and so they wouldn't be afraid.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

No, its basically and generally murder and attempting to use that murder to incite fear.

Yep...that's means, and that's the message.

The message is still done through acts of violence

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:58 pm

nicko wrote:Quill, because your more "erudite" than me does not make you more intelligent, it just shows that you have a closed mind that thinks, "I am right, all other opinions are just pissing in the wind.

Not more intelligent, just that I'm onto your tricks. I have made a study of dispute forms. The 'higher rules' game is quite common in procedural forums like legislatures.

It's not uncommon in social forums, particularly the one you used. Who knows what the scope of a thread is, until you see where it goes? It's a meaningless argument, intended simply to foreclose or prevent a subject arbitrarily.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yep...that's means, and that's the message.

The message is still done through acts of violence

Absolutely...that's why they call it terrorism.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

The message is still done through acts of violence

Absolutely...that's why they call it terrorism.

But only if people cower to that fear

The British never do cower though to terrorism

We have faced it far longer than the Americans have

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:15 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Absolutely...that's why they call it terrorism.

But only if people cower to that fear

The British never do cower though to terrorism

We have faced it far longer than the Americans have

Well, it's not a competition. But why do you think Americans covet their guns? Essentially, they live and love their own brand of terrorism all the time.

It's the first option for the KKK, motorcycle gangs, southerners and Rednecks.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But only if people cower to that fear

The British never do cower though to terrorism

We have faced it far longer than the Americans have

Well, it's not a competition. But why do you think Americans covet their guns? Essentially, they live and love their own brand of terrorism all the time.

It's the first option for the KKK, motorcycle gangs, southerners and Rednecks.

The culture they adapted from he native Indians

It then has no connection to terrorism

So if its the first option of the KKK, why are most gun owners, not supporters of the KKK?

What has the above got to do with the British never cowering to fear over far more terrorist attacks?|

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:30 pm

I bet loads of Brits are afraid of terrorism. There are always people who say the Brits aren't of course - usually Government spokespersons who want to stick two fingers up at terrorists.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I bet loads of Brits are afraid of terrorism. There are always people who say the Brits aren't of course - usually Government spokespersons who want to stick two fingers up at terrorists.

Are they?
Why do they then get on with their daily lives?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I bet loads of Brits are afraid of terrorism. There are always people who say the Brits aren't of course - usually Government spokespersons who want to stick two fingers up at terrorists.

Are they?
Why do they then get on with their daily lives?

They don't have much choice do they? That doesn't mean they're not afraid. Besides, people often think it won't happen to them. Those in rural areas won't be afraid of course, or those in little towns.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Are they?
Why do they then get on with their daily lives?

They don't have much choice do they? That doesn't mean they're not afraid. Besides, people often think it won't happen to them. Those in rural areas won't be afraid of course, or those in little towns.

Sorry they dont have much choice?
They have a choice and choose to get on with their lives.
You are talking again balderdash

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:00 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't have much choice do they? That doesn't mean they're not afraid. Besides, people often think it won't happen to them. Those in rural areas won't be afraid of course, or those in little towns.

Sorry they dont have much choice?
They have a choice and choose to get on with their lives.
You are talking again balderdash

They don't have much choice other than to get on with their daily lives - as I said in reply to your previous post. You have now twisted that to suit yourself. Do you think they have a real choice to stop travelling to work, or to give up their jobs so they can stay at home?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry they dont have much choice?
They have a choice and choose to get on with their lives.
You are talking again balderdash

They don't have much choice other than to get on with their daily lives - as I said in reply to your previous post. You have now twisted that to suit yourself. Do you think they have a real choice to stop travelling to work, or to give up their jobs so they can stay at home?

If they are in fear and controlled by fear, they would never be able to get on with their lives would they?
So they are clearly not governed by fear.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:13 pm

Thorin wrote:The culture they adapted from he native Indians

I'm afraid firearms were invented by Europeans. The Native Americans then adapted and acquired them.

Thorin wrote:It then has no connection to terrorism

I disagree. Firearms, like terrorism, is open and obvious intimidation, designed to instill fear and thereby get your way.

Thorin wrote:So if its the first option of the KKK, why are most gun owners, not supporters of the KKK?

Because the two are not directly synonymous. The KKK instills terror by a variety of means, including guns, but also fires (arson) and the most notorious, the hanging noose.

Thorin wrote:What has the above got to do with the British never cowering to fear over far more terrorist attacks?|

Very little...you suggested the competition between British and Americans over which has the stomach for withstanding terrorism:

Thorin wrote:The British never do cower though to terrorism

We have faced it far longer than the Americans have

My point is that Americans have more experience.

Remember, we're not talking about character--of which the British have in great measure--but about experience with terrorism. Americans were born using terrorism, hence their affinity for guns. A firearm is closer to an American, than his horse and saddle. Even in colonial days, an American has his boots and his gun, if nothing else. That explains America's use of firearms in such groups as the KKK and white-supremacist rallies.

by Syl Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:16 pm

I think you would have to be a bit thick not to fear terrorism when its happening in the country you live in.
The 'brave' action is to carry on, living life as you always do, speaking out if you see anything out of the ordinary and being willing to help others if they are being victimised unfairly.

That's the way the ordinary man or women in the street can defeat terrorism.

And I imagine thats the way every one here lives their lives.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:18 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't have much choice other than to get on with their daily lives - as I said in reply to your previous post. You have now twisted that to suit yourself. Do you think they have a real choice to stop travelling to work, or to give up their jobs so they can stay at home?

If they are in fear and controlled by fear, they would never be able to get on with their lives would they?
So they are clearly not governed by fear.

People can be afraid and still go on with their lives you know. I didn't claim they were governed by fear, I said loads are probably afraid.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:18 pm

1) Wrong, by the Chinese. The White European adapted the gun culture off them Quill.

2) Is that why cars are used now more than guns to harm people?

3) Okay, compare the violence of the KKK compared ISIS?

4) The British have stomached more than the US.

Why?

Its been constant in a far smaller area.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

If they are in fear and controlled by fear, they would never be able to get on with their lives would they?
So they are clearly not governed by fear.

People can be afraid and still go on with their lives you know. I didn't claim they were governed by fear, I said loads are probably afraid.

Yes you did

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People can be afraid and still go on with their lives you know. I didn't claim they were governed by fear, I said loads are probably afraid.

Yes you did

I'm glad you agree that I said loads are probably afraid.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes you did

I'm glad you agree that I said loads are probably afraid.

I agree you are mistaken

Why are loads of people still going to work

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm glad you agree that I said loads are probably afraid.

I agree you are mistaken

Why are loads of people still going to work

Because they need to earn a living?

by Original Quill Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:30 pm

Thorin wrote:1) Wrong, by the Chinese. The White European adapted the gun culture off them Quill.

Irrelevant...the American Indians adapted and acquired firearms off the Europeans.

Thorin wrote:2) Is that why cars are used now more than guns to harm people?

Terrorism has been around a lot longer than motor vehicles.

Thorin wrote:3) Okay, compare the violence of the KKK compared ISIS?

A good comparison. They are very much the same.

Thorin wrote:4) The British have stomached more than the US.

Why?

Its been constant in a far smaller area.

Why? Good question. It's your contention. Mine is that Americans are the ones with greater violence in their midst.

The only long-term, culture shaping dispute that I can envision in the UK is with the Irish. For most of history, that has been the Anglo-Saxons making war on the relatively peaceful Gaelic people. The reaction has been rebellion and terror, but both ways.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:1) Wrong, by the Chinese. The White European adapted the gun culture off them Quill.

Irrelevant...the American Indians adapted and acquired firearms off the Europeans.

Thorin wrote:2) Is that why cars are used now more than guns to harm people?

Terrorism has been around a lot longer than motor vehicles.

Thorin wrote:3) Okay, compare the violence of the KKK compared ISIS?

A good comparison. They are very much the same.

Thorin wrote:4) The British have stomached more than the US.

Why?

Its been constant in a far smaller area.

Why? Good question. It's your contention. Mine is that Americans are the ones with greater violence in their midst.

The only long-term, culture shaping dispute that I can envision in the UK is with the Irish. For most of history, that has been the Anglo-Saxons making war on the relatively peaceful Gaelic people. The reaction has been rebellion and terror, but both ways.

I don't recall English civilians going to Ireland and blowing people up.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:44 pm

Did Quill just compare the KKK to ISIS?

For fuck sake

by Sponsored content