Islamist attacks in Brussels

34 people were killed and over 200 wounded in a newest example of Islamic terrorism. Responsibility for the attacks was claimed by the ISIS, a Western-supplied terror group operating in the Middle East and Northern Africa. A suicide bomber struck at Brussels Zaventem airport, followed by a Maelbeek metro station an hour later. Both places were logical terrorist targets due to large number of people typically present at such locations. Both these and earlier Paris attacks were helped by a combination of large number of Muslim refugees and open borders Schengen policy implemented by EU plutocracy.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Islamist attacks in Brussels

  1. I heard there were two very powerful explosions at the airport (second was from security services, it is said). An unused explosive outfit was also found. An hour later the Maelbeek subway, 300 meters from the EC main building, exploded.

    Recent policies played a role: four terrorists, at least, joined the refugee flow to make the attacks in Paris (two exploded themselves). They had nothing to do with France, aside from the explosive desire to kill human beings in France.

    However, the greater problem is much deeper than that, as I have documented in countless essays. The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideoiogy to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia). The Prophet Muhammad explained that, after a tough and long war between Rome and Persia, it was time, the first time in a thousand years, when the Arabs will finally be able to raid the civilized world (the way they used to, before).

    Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.

    Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?

    In the 1930s, American plutocrats, fossil fuel magnates, made an alliance with Ibn Saud, who was in the process of finalizing his acquisition of Arabia by force. The Saud family had, since the 18C, made an alliance with Wahhab, a fanatic Salafist Fundamentalist.

    Islam Fundamentalism had been made unlawful by the Kurd Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, in the 12C. The penalty for preaching it was death.

    Wahhab’s fanaticism gave a religious excuse for the Saudi to use divine violence.

    In the 1930s, the Saudi dictatorship gave an excuse for the oil men to make Saudi Arabia into their thing, no question asked. In 1945, president Roosevelt made the alliance with Ibn Saud official; the Saudis would recycle their profits on Wall Street (and, later, London). (Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was getting Saudi financing and Nazi help.)

    This very profitable system was quickly extended by US special services and the like: the CIA promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Shia in Iran against Prime Minister Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to partly nationailze the big British and American companies in Iran. The CIA armed, financed and excited Ayatollah Khomeini and his subordinates.

    At the same time, the USA pursued Roosevelt’s wilful and dertemined program to eject France (and thus Britain) from all its zones of influence (using the Muslim approach).

    In Pakistan, the CIA pushed the state toward Islamization. Then Pakistani Islamists were used to destabilize Afghanistan where the government was keen to exploit its underground riches in cooperation with France and Russia.

    That was not enough, so on July 3, 1979, president Jimmy carter gave the secret order to the CIA of attacking directly Afghanistan. The CIA and the SIA (Saudi Intelligence Agency) went to find Bin Laden, a young engineer and heir known for his Muslim Fundamentalism. He was put in charge of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with Saudi and American financing. Algerians were also trained to fight there. They went back to Algeria to fight the government there. France more or less intervened discreetly. More than 200,000 were killed… in Algeria alone.

    And so on.

    As Picard says, we are confronted to a mess, a mix between a conspiracy satanic (Pluto!) between fossil fuel Western plutocrats and deeper feudal, and organized crime forces.

    So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from? Famous, but, fundamentally second rate, philosophers in the West. After 1945, many who used to love the Nazis or Soviets a few years earlier, fell in love with all things American. Thus they produced a philosophical system which seduced Washington and Wall Street (when not Moscow). Not that there was a contradiction between Moscow and Washington: when Israel, France and Britain decided to attack Nasser (shortly before supported by the CIA), Moscow and Washington became allies: Moscow invaded Hungary, threatened to atom bomb Paris and London, while the USA threatened the same, and had France and Britain condemned by the UN General Assembly.

    And so on. Those who don’t like the preceding should read the Qur’an first. It’s only 80,000 words

    OK, more on my site later.

    • “Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.”

      Agreed, and it shows. I haven’t read the Qur’an that carefully, but I have done a lot of side research (still ongoing, the article isn’t nearly finished yet). Islam indeed is an ideology against civilization, and I mean civilization, in general. To humanity, it is as great danger as climate changes and GMO food (apparently the notion from Idiocracy – that dumb breed most quickly – is true in case of Islam).

    • “So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from?”

      I think one of the main reasoning behind that (aside from raw hypocrisy, as political figures trying to look wise), is the will to protect ‘muslim’ populations from the hate generated by islamists. They see ‘normal’ people calling themselves ‘muslims’, and terrorists refering to themselves essentially as ‘true muslims’.

      IMHO, there is a real struggle from occidentals to deal whith how ‘muslim’ can mean either being a normal person (normal meaning you could replace ‘muslim’ by other designation without suffering big consequences in social interactions), or it can mean terrorist. The most painfull thing to consider, is that Qu’ran reading indeed leads toward warship, colonisation and mostly abolition of humanity, which would make fundamentalists look more sincere in declaring themselves ‘muslims, whilst people trying to live as everyone else will be uncomfortable with his muslim identity, and will soon pretend that Qu’ran is respectfull of other, Islam means peace, etc, all that being very easily disproven by reading the book…

      But, does that mean that these people are disguised ennemies, secretly whishing for sharia to be forced upon occident?

      Obviously not (ok probably there are some who are like that, but not the most significant part). Actually it seems these people are NOT muslims, by the meaning of someone who follow the path of Allah as decribed in Qu’ran. They are telling to be muslims because… They were always told so!

      One always judge others in reference to himself. Occidental culture has been formed under deep judeo-christian influence. When they consider the notion of ‘religion’, they think about their way of believing. Christianism intends that the believer turns himself toward God – he has to ‘found God’, which means it is HIS will, and the link created with the divinity have an intimate dimention. But Islam ain’t like that. When you’re born in muslim familly, you’re told that:

      -You are muslim.(religion is imposed by authority, at child age)
      -There is only one God and it is Allah. There is only one prophet and it is Muhammad. (Introduction to the Dogma)
      -From now on you have to learn and repeat Qu’ran verses, even if you don’t understand them. (Argumantably an element of brainwashing by repetition / unconditional submition)
      -People not following that path are Evil. (So you’re locked into that path, since any other is wrong)
      -Not believing in that, or even considering the option of having doubts makes you evil too. (Abolition of human capacity of thinking by himself)
      -Doing that -not following islam as imposed by authority- would expose you to consequences, and will expose those close to you too. (Now it become concrete, threatening is used to force islam into the believer by fear. It is mostly true in countries where islam is officialised at state level -Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Pakistan… There are countless exemples where girls -or even young boys- are raped and / or killed under the -unproven- pretext of pretended apostolat / fault against islamic authority commited by the victim or someone relative.)

      All that has an obvious impact: Weather you sincerely ‘believe’ in it or not, you will accept being ‘muslim’ and won’t derogate to the protocol, as it is your very inetrest to do so. Thus you will obey the HUMANS who declared themselves of divine authority.

      When I say most people decribing themselves as muslims are NOT muslims, I really mean it. They are just convinced of it because it’s part of their identity since they were childs, and now they are just trying hard to put all the violent stuff aside and focus on the few ‘beautifull’ parts of Qu’ran, since they are just random people like most of humanity who only whishes to live in peace and prosperate.

      Occidentals are just confused into making it a religion (which they’ve deemed respectable since they were themslves deeply compromised into ‘blind believing’ by christianism -mainly. ‘Credo quia absurdom’ as a long time leitmotiv…) Islam is not a religion though, it is a dogma, and its essence is similar to what is used by sects around the world (strong usage of human authority, threatening, instillation of fear and animosity against ‘ennemies’ -those who are susceptible to drag you away of the sect, leading to high level of communautarism, isolation from ‘the rest of the world’.)

      • “But, does that mean that these people are disguised ennemies, secretly whishing for sharia to be forced upon occident?”

        Many don’t know what is written in Qur’an, and so can be easily radicalized by somebody who *does* know. Radical Islam is the only genuine Islam, everything else is an aberration. Of course, some reject Islam due to ethical principles once they realize what Islam really means, but due to external pressure, most go with the flow.

        So all Muslims are *potential* enemies, but most of them are not actual enemies until they fall into hands of Imam or ISIL’s religious “shepards”. And some of them actually abandon Islam once they realize what it is… but Muslims are still human, and humans are mostly cowards who blindly follow guidance from authority figures and majority around them. And *that* is the problem.

        “When I say most people decribing themselves as muslims are NOT muslims, I really mean it. They are just convinced of it because it’s part of their identity since they were childs, and now they are just trying hard to put all the violent stuff aside and focus on the few ‘beautifull’ parts of Qu’ran, since they are just random people like most of humanity who only whishes to live in peace and prosperate.”

        Issue is, most Muslims don’t even know what is written in Qur’an. And people are not inherently good or evil, they are as they are raised. Humans are, however, inherently idiots. If some authority figure – in Muslim case, Qur’an or Imam – repeats some “truth” (e.g. you must kill nonbelievers) a certain number of times, most people will start to believe it. The only “safe” bet is to get rid of Islam alltogether – unlike Bible’s verses of violence, which are for the most part either close-ended or ambigious, those in Qur’an are open-ended and very much unambigious.

        “Islam is not a religion though, it is a dogma, and its essence is similar to what is used by sects around the world (strong usage of human authority, threatening, instillation of fear and animosity against ‘ennemies’ -those who are susceptible to drag you away of the sect, leading to high level of communautarism, isolation from ‘the rest of the world’.”

        To be fair, Christianity used to be a dogma as well… but it was also far more liable to humanization than Islam is.

    • “Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.”

      Why do you equate “civilisation” per se as the “Roman-Greco West”? Used in this way, “civilisation” becomes simply a loaded word which can be wielded to produce whatever meaning one wants. But didn’t Islamic civilisations exist? Weren’t they, indeed, ahead of Europe for a long time in terms of science?

      “Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?”

      You answered this question, without knowing it, two paragraphs back, when you wrote:

      “The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideoiogy to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia).”

      The key point here is that most people who are Islamophobes (like the people who rally around figures such as Trump and are most taken in by chauvinist calls to “make [add particular nativist identity here] great again”) HAVEN’T “carefully read” the Qur’an and the Hadith, and many of those who have done so are nevertheless apologists for US imperialism (like Sam Harris). They wield their Islamophobia as war propaganda – and this is so even if every single thing they say about Islam is perfectly accurate. Why? Because, in the absence of a strong critique of the opposing fundamentalism (in this case, imperial fundamentalism) and its basic features and historical continuities, to spout denunciations of Islam is the exact same thing as to give succor to imperialists and militarists who are fulfilling an imperialist and militarist agenda regardless of the ideological and religious affiliations of their target populations. You don’t get to choose how imperialists will utilize your denunciations of Islam, no mater how sincere or “fair” you’re being, but you can be sure that they will utilize them and co-opt them. Hence, whether you consciously desire it or not, denunciations of Islam in the absence of a concrete critique of the world situation as it relates to imperialism and national chauvinism is to buttress the latter, and that’s why Islamophobia is indeed, by and large, racism, and white nativist racism at that. Please note that I’m not saying that you’re not cognizant of these things, only that most people who are Islamophobes aren’t, and that this is what facilitates the racist content of Islamophobia as it exists in the world now.

      • Read me more carefully, please. The Prophet mentioned not just the Romans, but the Persians. (He considered only the Romans to be following god, but poorly).

        Your comment reflect the conventional point of view, beyond which I went, by studying the situation carefully.
        That “Arabic science was more advanced” than that of Europe, is much repeated, but a form of racism. Indeed, not everybody inside the Muslim Imperia, the Caliphate(s) was an Arab. Actually “Arabs” were always a small minority.

        Arabic numerals are actually Indian (mostly). The ZERO was created by an Uzbek. It’s all on my site, please don’t despair (I will put links in another comment. Or you can google putting “Patrice Ayme” in front of “zero Uzbek”). More precisely, please read Al-Khwarizmi‘s On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825).

        Many of the “Arab” superior thinkers were… Jewish. In any case the breakthroughs in philosophy and science were made in Europe

        The author, a famous thinker and mathematician was born in Eastern Greater Iran, now called Uzbekistan.

        There are about 100 types of Islam. Some should just be made as unlawful as Nazism. Others should be promoted. Sam Harris is virulently anti-Christian, although not as drastically as I am… I am on his tweeter feed, I see nothing there which looks like racism to me.

        Paradoxically, I know Islam extremely well (I actually baby-sit “Muslim” children on a regular basis, who are sibling-like to my daughter). I think civilization is at war against a type of Islam, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Now it’s the final battle. I have Wahhabiophobia, extreme, or Salafismophobia.

        So we are at war. The Swiss (yes, SWISS!) president, Johann Schneider-Ammann, just said that “WE ARE AT WAR” (“Nous sommes en guerre”). So even Switzerland has come out of its neutrality. 40 nationalities were dead or wounded in Belgium. More than 335 people. Some have lost their legs. Some are burned all over.

        Accused by both the French and the Turks, to have refused to arrest known murderous terrorists, the defense and interior ministers of Belgium have presented their resignations. It was refused.

        BTW, the main slogans of the Islamist State are direct quotes from the Qur’an (for example: “Kill them wherever you meet them!”).

        • “That “Arabic science was more advanced” than that of Europe, is much repeated, but a form of racism.”

          And utterly incorrect at that. In fact, it is Persian and Roman scientists who are responsible for all of Muslim world’s scientific advancements, before they too were forced to convert to Islam. After that, the only scientific advancements by Islamic countries were made through plundering of Greco-Roman and other Western libraries.

      • And one more thing: ALL ideologies are wrong, simply because they are ideologies – different, even slightly different, conditions require different answers, and what is appropriate in one situation is not necessarily appropriate in another, no matter how similar they seem. Liberal fundamentalism can be just as deadly as Nazism – and unfortunately liberal fundamentalism is now rampant, to the point of truth denial (e.g. “Islam is a religion of peace”, “Islam had nothing to do with Bruxelles attacks”).

      • “The Prophet mentioned not just the Romans, but the Persians.”

        Yes, he was at war with particular civilisations; this isn’t the same as “civilisation itself”.

        “That “Arabic science was more advanced” than that of Europe, is much repeated, but a form of racism.”

        Okay, but I was talking about Islam and that state of science in that region of the world compared to Europe at the time.

        “Sam Harris is virulently anti-Christian, although not as drastically as I am… I am on his tweeter feed, I see nothing there which looks like racism to me.”

        That’s because you’re not the one against whom he’s directing racism. You have the luxury of reading Harris’s polemics from a comfortable vantage point. I’m not saying that his words are consciously racist; I’m saying that the objective role of his words is to promote imperialist racism, couched in the convenient motif of our time (“war on terror”). It isn’t enough for him to “also hate Christianity”. The issue isn’t only one about religion, and the stuff that he leaves out of his analysis means that he ends up acting as apologist and spokesperson (and providing an ideological smokescreen) for imperialism.

        “I have Wahhabiophobia, extreme, or Salafismophobia.”

        Fair enough; me too. Except that the very “civilisations” who are professing to be under siege from Islamist terrorism are themselves the primary backers of Wahhabism.

        “BTW, the main slogans of the Islamist State are direct quotes from the Qur’an (for example: “Kill them wherever you meet them!”).”

        Well, lots of things are direct quotes, including those used by Muslims who engaged in humanitarian work.

  2. Kind of relevant:
    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-allies-borrowing-munitions-to-drop-on-isis-as-u-s-1767362416

    Note the costs of PGMs – probably unaffordable in a nation state war.

    There is also the question of what exactly are we hitting if we are not killing ISIS en masse? Far more bombs have been dropped than the highest estimates of ISIS’s total force size. Sure, vacated material like trucks and such add up, but still, that is a lot of bombs for not a lot of enemy dead. The fact is that ground-based forward air controllers are not a major part of this campaign, which degrades the effectiveness of the overall air war greatly. This out-of-whack metric may be a glaring indicator of this well-known and controversial reality.

    What if a larger conflict erupted versus a near peer-state opponent? One where the target list has tens of thousands of coordinates on it? If bombing ISIS wipes out our allies weapons stocks and puts big pressure on the Pentagon’s, then there is a huge hole in the west’s ability to fight a major protracted conflict against a serious foe. The idea that an $100 million-plus F-35 could fly deep into enemy territory just to sling a dumb bomb at a target would be laughable if it weren’t so concerning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s