politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This morning’s Brussels attacks are a terrible tragedy not

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Words are always inadequate to describe our sense of outrage at these attacks.

Or indeed our sense of sorrow at the suffering of people today, those who have lost people they loved, those who have family and friends injured.

Well said - both of you.

AndrewD said:

MaxPB said:

Honestly it is on days like these I am glad that Dave is our PM and how well he has handled the immigration crisis. The move to take 20,000 directly from the camps and not take any that crossed into our borders illegally is one of the single best decisions he has made as PM. I just imagine that PM Ed would have opened our borders and welcomed in 400,000 migrants with little to no checks done on their authenticity or the threat they pose to the country.

In twenty years time, Germany will have a dozen Molenbeeks. We might too if we let them come here.

Er.... we have harboured enough Islamist terrorists of our own. There is a reason why the French coined the name "Londonistan" some time ago. Our security services may have been - relatively - successful but there are plenty of people going to Syria from here, mosques which have been used to harbour terrorists and their sympathizers and plenty of Islamist ideologists here and plenty of others who are seeking to disrupt the government's attempts to counter extremism.

@Fenster said this on the last thread: "If any European govt is even 1% complicit in allowing people who want to do us harm to reside on our streets unchallenged then that is wrong, regardless of cultural difficulties. Given what I read, the suspicion is that the Belgian authorities have been too soft, and too in fear of causing offence to a minority population, to have properly tackled the problem in their capital.

That's a dereliction of duty I'm afraid and it is perfectly reasonable for liberal people (like me) to raise their concerns about it."

The same could be said about our government over the years. One good thing about Cameron is that he does see the issue and is trying to tackle it. I do not feel the same about the Labour party.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

We do know whose side Khan is on. Obviously, his opponents will seek to portray him as sympathetic to terrorists because he is a Moslem, but nothing he has ever said or done indicates that he supports jihadi violence or the aims of jihadis. It's less clear with Corbyn, of course, and that is a serious problem for Labour.

So he supported Babar Ahmed and CAGE for no reason then? He hired someone who said the murder of Lee Rigby was a hoax, why? He has taken on two staffers from the Lutfur Rahman campaign who is linked to Islamists and vote rigging for what reason?

Personally I think he is most likely an idiot with poor quality background checks, but there is a chance that he does harbour some level of sympathy or support for terrorists, I can't rule it out.

I can. I am absolutely certain he does not support ISIS or its aims in any way, shape or form.

JWisemann said:

CarlottaVance said:

JWisemann said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

Cameron's activities in Syria and Libya have been immensely damaging to our security.

As damaging as Blair in Iraq?

About the same. Islamic state wouldn't have territory in Iraq without Blair, it wouldnt ehave territory in Libya without Cameron.

I guess you like me opposed both interventions which have made ISIS possible.

Not many PB Tories will be able to sat that presumably.

FrankBooth said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

RE: Wales and the Yougov poll
With Labour polling of 31%, it is so low on, I assume, unadjusted weightings post GE2015, there is room for a further drop of circa 2% within these numbers. There must be a tipping point below which Labour lose sheds loads of seats. Does any one have an idea where that is?

The Tories and laid are still averaging 10 points behind though. Unlike in Scotland there isn't a single alternative that people will move towards.

Laid Cymru. Nice typo. And a vote-winning manifesto.

Well, maybe not with the sheep....

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

We do know whose side Khan is on. Obviously, his opponents will seek to portray him as sympathetic to terrorists because he is a Moslem, but nothing he has ever said or done indicates that he supports jihadi violence or the aims of jihadis. It's less clear with Corbyn, of course, and that is a serious problem for Labour.

So he supported Babar Ahmed and CAGE for no reason then? He hired someone who said the murder of Lee Rigby was a hoax, why? He has taken on two staffers from the Lutfur Rahman campaign who is linked to Islamists and vote rigging for what reason?

Personally I think he is most likely an idiot with poor quality background checks, but there is a chance that he does harbour some level of sympathy or support for terrorists, I can't rule it out.

I can. I am absolutely certain he does not support ISIS or its aims in any way, shape or form.

Based on the evidence, I can't. He is most probably just an idiot, as I said, but I can't rule it out. His actions aren't those of a completely innocent man.

As for the betting/election aspect, there is no doubt that anything which puts terrorism into focus hurts Sadiq and helps Zac. His "sniggering" was pretty disgusting.

NZ lose both their set batsmen with 4 to go. Probably cost them 15 runs or so. And maybe the match of course.

Number Cruncher
Welsh Election Study (Senedd list):

CON 22 (=)
LAB 31 (=)
LIB 5 (+1)
UKIP 14 (-4)
GRN 4 (+1)
PC 22 (+3)

11th-18th
N=1,452
YouGov fieldwork

watford30 said:

JWisemann said:

CarlottaVance said:

JWisemann said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

Cameron's activities in Syria and Libya have been immensely damaging to our security.

As damaging as Blair in Iraq?

About the same. Islamic state wouldn't have territory in Iraq without Blair, it wouldnt ehave territory in Libya without Cameron.

Chicken and egg. Would Islamic State even exist without Blair starting his war?

If the Iraq War hadn't happened, it is reasonable to assume that Saddam would have stayed in power until the Arab Spring. At that point, he may have faced an uprising, although this would more likely be from the Shias and the Kurds. We probably wouldn't have seen IS in its current form (it could have still arisen in Syria) but the region would probably still be highly unstable.

Eye-witness from #brusselsairport airport: after the first explosion people ran to get out, but in direction of second blast.

watford30 said:

Chicken and egg. Would Islamic State even exist without Blair starting his war?

Seeing as they predate the Iraq War, yes is the answer.

JWisemann said:

CarlottaVance said:

JWisemann said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

Cameron's activities in Syria and Libya have been immensely damaging to our security.

As damaging as Blair in Iraq?

About the same. Islamic state wouldn't have territory in Iraq without Blair, it wouldnt ehave territory in Libya without Cameron.

I seem to recollect that Cameron went into Libya to protect a large number of people in a town from being attacked and killed as opposed to going in looking for WMD on the back of a dodgy dossier?

Perhaps I am misremembering?

runnymede said:

I can. I am absolutely certain he does not support ISIS or its aims in any way, shape or form.

Perhaps he is just the Charles Parnell de nos jours

No, he's a Moslem who should have been a lot more careful about his vetting procedures. It may lose him the election.

RodCrosby said:

Bomb was round the corner from the European Commission.

I hope the European Commission heard the explosion, it may put some sense in to them that policies have consequences.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

Potentially in poor taste, but sadly relevant to betting and politics

@theobertram: According to ComRes, Sadiq trails Zac by 7 pts on "keeping London safe from terrorist attacks" https://t.co/r7SnFTiw6j

As a Zac campaigner I didn't want to point this out, but with the polls already narrowing the race is on. The "Corbyn's man" attack is really going to come into play now, I expect the next literature to include Corbyn's views on shoot to kill and having a cup of tea with ISIS.

Do people really think the Mayor actually has any powers over "keeping Londoners safe" (or indeed powers over anything apart from transport or housing)?

When you don't know who's side the mayor is on, ours or the terrorists, it's important. With Corbyn's views on ISIS and Sadiq's dodgy links to convicted terrorist supporters and organisations this is very relevant to a city like London where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real.

We do know whose side Khan is on. Obviously, his opponents will seek to portray him as sympathetic to terrorists because he is a Moslem, but nothing he has ever said or done indicates that he supports jihadi violence or the aims of jihadis. It's less clear with Corbyn, of course, and that is a serious problem for Labour.

So he supported Babar Ahmed and CAGE for no reason then? He hired someone who said the murder of Lee Rigby was a hoax, why? He has taken on two staffers from the Lutfur Rahman campaign who is linked to Islamists and vote rigging for what reason?

Personally I think he is most likely an idiot with poor quality background checks, but there is a chance that he does harbour some level of sympathy or support for terrorists, I can't rule it out.

I can. I am absolutely certain he does not support ISIS or its aims in any way, shape or form.

Re: Sadiq Khan. Yes but he seems to condone people who do.

There's an old saying, show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are.

Sky Breaking
IS claim responsibility

Cyclefree said:

AndrewD said:

MaxPB said:

Honestly it is on days like these I am glad that Dave is our PM and how well he has handled the immigration crisis. The move to take 20,000 directly from the camps and not take any that crossed into our borders illegally is one of the single best decisions he has made as PM. I just imagine that PM Ed would have opened our borders and welcomed in 400,000 migrants with little to no checks done on their authenticity or the threat they pose to the country.

In twenty years time, Germany will have a dozen Molenbeeks. We might too if we let them come here.

Er.... we have harboured enough Islamist terrorists of our own. There is a reason why the French coined the name "Londonistan" some time ago. Our security services may have been - relatively - successful but there are plenty of people going to Syria from here, mosques which have been used to harbour terrorists and their sympathizers and plenty of Islamist ideologists here and plenty of others who are seeking to disrupt the government's attempts to counter extremism.

Yes, we have a huge problem with home-grown jihadis and are almost certainly a net exporter of them. We can't deal with that problem with border controls. The 7/7 bombers came from Luton iirc.

That said, obviously we don't want more such people to come here. Also, where I think the border may be critical is in preventing the import of a nuclear weapon. Nuclear terrorism seems inevitable to me and London is surely the most attractive target in Europe. We should try to make sure it is also the hardest to attack.

'It started decades beforehand'

In it's latest incarnation, perhaps. But in fact this is just the latest cycle in a series that started in the 7th century.

MP_SE said:

Odds on Remain have shortened. I have built up a disgustingly large position on Remain. I have grown less confident over the past week or so. I think Leave could do it based on events, likelihood of voting, turnout, etc. Although 3 months is a long time so who knows what else may happen.

I should have put lengthened.

The odds on Remain are now 1/2.

Wanderer said:

Yes, we have a huge problem with home-grown jihadis and are almost certainly a net exporter of them. We can't deal with that problem with border controls. The 7/7 bombers came from Luton iirc.

Via Luton, not from there -- Luton is where they caught a train on their way down from Leeds.

Patrick said:

'This morning's Brussels attacks are a terrible tragedy not something on which to make a political point' - M.Smithson.

'Europe must stand together against terror' - D.Cameron

Are you suggesting we shouldn't stand together against terror?

RodCrosby said:

Kay Burley reporting it was the American Airlines desk and a Starbucks that were targeted.

American Airlines have said they were not targeted.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, I said nowt t'thee.

Edited extra bit: not sure if it's still true, but some years ago I had, apparently, no accent whatsoever. When I was at university (in Leeds) a lady from the south asked where I was from, wondering if I were from Surrey or Kent or suchlike. I was quite amused.

I've dropped back into full Yorkshire accent mode.

Which means I drop the c-bomb every time I say the word 'can't'

Patrick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Patrick said:

'This morning's Brussels attacks are a terrible tragedy not something on which to make a political point' - M.Smithson.

'Europe must stand together against terror' - D.Cameron

Are you suggesting we shouldn't stand together against terror?

Lord you are a tit sometimes Richard. You don't think in the heat of a bitterly contested EU referendum campaign that saying 'Europe must stand together against terror' is just a tiny teeny bit of a 'political point'? The whole world should stand up against Islam. But that's not quite what Dave said. He was, err, making a political point out of the tragedy.

Don't be stupid. You can't process this in the lens of the referendum. What would Dave be saying if this had happened without the referendum. Exactly the same thing. "We must stand together with Europe to extinguish terrorism". It would be no different.

MaxPB said:

Patrick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Patrick said:

'This morning's Brussels attacks are a terrible tragedy not something on which to make a political point' - M.Smithson.

'Europe must stand together against terror' - D.Cameron

Are you suggesting we shouldn't stand together against terror?

Lord you are a tit sometimes Richard. You don't think in the heat of a bitterly contested EU referendum campaign that saying 'Europe must stand together against terror' is just a tiny teeny bit of a 'political point'? The whole world should stand up against Islam. But that's not quite what Dave said. He was, err, making a political point out of the tragedy.

Don't be stupid. You can't process this in the lens of the referendum. What would Dave be saying if this had happened without the referendum. Exactly the same thing. "We must stand together with Europe to extinguish terrorism". It would be no different.

But funnily enough 5 politicians on 5-live being interviewed one after the other used the same phrase. Once is happenstance....

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, I said nowt t'thee.

Edited extra bit: not sure if it's still true, but some years ago I had, apparently, no accent whatsoever. When I was at university (in Leeds) a lady from the south asked where I was from, wondering if I were from Surrey or Kent or suchlike. I was quite amused.

I used to work with a guy from Newcastle. A colleague told him that he had ventured up to the north of England. Upon being asked where, he replied Birmingham.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Rob Ford, former Toronto mayor, dies aged 46

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/rob-ford-dies-cancer-former-toronto-mayor

Kind of hard not to like him. A human being.

RIP.

Patrick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Patrick said:

'This morning's Brussels attacks are a terrible tragedy not something on which to make a political point' - M.Smithson.

'Europe must stand together against terror' - D.Cameron

Are you suggesting we shouldn't stand together against terror?

Lord you are a tit sometimes Richard. You don't think in the heat of a bitterly contested EU referendum campaign that saying 'Europe must stand together against terror' is just a tiny teeny bit of a 'political point'? The whole world should stand up against Islam. But that's not quite what Dave said. He was, err, making a political point out of the tragedy.

He really wasn't. Politicians ALWAYS say things like that when atrocities such as this occur. He said similar things about Tunisia and San Bernadino. He'll say similar things about any future atrocities which our friends and allies suffer. Politicians around the world have been saying similar things about the Brussels attacks.

Normally sensible people seem to have lost reason over the EU referendum, and most especially about Cameron's position in the referendum. The psychology of it is fascinating to watch.

The MSM conveniently ignored the Belgian Police who were pelted with rocks by gangs of muslim youths when they moved in to arrest the Paris murderer.
No go zones, we have them here too, although the government Police and MSM will bend over backwards to deny it.
Its a slow creeping Islamic invasion of the West, governments have to stop this or its over for all of them.
People are not going to put up with this, and will turn away from their own governments in droves.
The religion of Peace false mantra is being peddled by no more than a few thousand Lefty fools after all, not many others are falling for that anymore.
Europe will pull to the Dictatorship model, like it always does as a result, of fear.
It will become simply a matter of self preservation.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, I said nowt t'thee.

Edited extra bit: not sure if it's still true, but some years ago I had, apparently, no accent whatsoever. When I was at university (in Leeds) a lady from the south asked where I was from, wondering if I were from Surrey or Kent or suchlike. I was quite amused.

I've dropped back into full Yorkshire accent mode.

Which means I drop the c-bomb every time I say the word 'can't'

Surely its the word couldn't that is the C word.

But i am from Derbyshire so I bow to your superior knowledge on such matters

Cyclefree said:

Islamic extremism did not start in 2003. It started decades beforehand. It has its roots in Islam - it may not define Islam but it has its roots in it - and has been developed by Islamist ideologues such as Hassan-al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the former from the 1920s and the latter in the 1950s. The ideological roots of IS come from many sources but it is Western egoism and historical illiteracy to think that it is our fault that such an ideology has developed in the Islamic world.

As if Muslims were incapable of behaving save as forced by others.

Muslims are not children. They are as capable of making moral choices as anyone else. They are as capable of choosing good or evil. They should not be excused from the choices that they make. And, sadly, some of them have chosen evil. As we see in Brussels today - and have seen here and in Madrid and Paris and Copenhagen and Tunisia and Egypt and in countless places in the Middle East.

Let's reserve our pity for the victims, the many victims, of these evil choices. And stop making the victims guilty of or responsible for what their murderers chose to do.

Tories and Blairites didn't invent wahabi and salafist extremism but they've done a very good job of aiding and abetting its proponents at every turn over the last half a century. A revolting history that of course doesn't fit in with the Orwellian inner worlds of the PB Tories. For any Tory turn to around and complain about Corbyn's eminently sensible approaches takes that uniquely Conservative blend of chutzpah and blinkered ignorance to extremes.

As an outer, I have to say this afternoon has not been PB's finest hour. I think people need to forget about the referendum for a few days.

Mr. Owls, Mr. Eagles cannot be trusted as a Yorkshireman. He's a member of Lancashire cricket club...

Mr. Wanderer, they were from Beeston. Not sure, but I think that's a less pleasant area of Leeds (or possibly outside it).

Mr. SE, I trust your Geordie friend informed him Birmingham is in the south?

GarethoftheVale2 said:

As an outer, I have to say this afternoon has not been PB's finest hour. I think people need to forget about the referendum for a few days.

Good idea. In any case we're going to drive ourselves bonkers (insofar as we are currently sane) if we talk about nothing else for 3 months.

Mr. Palmer, I wouldn't worry. In under two weeks it's the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Mr. Eagles, your feeble justification for treachery convinces no-one.

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

Plato_Says said:

IIRC from the full article, Plaid are 1% ahead of Tories on list seats.

Worth reading the entrails.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

RE: Wales and the Yougov poll
With Labour polling of 31%, it is so low on, I assume, unadjusted weightings post GE2015, there is room for a further drop of circa 2% within these numbers. There must be a tipping point below which Labour lose sheds loads of seats. Does any one have an idea where that is?

Wales has been very gradually shifting against Labour, relative to the rest of the country, since 1970. There was a shift back to Labour in 1987, and 1992, probably due to having a Welsh leader, but then the pro-Conservative shift resumed, in relative terms. 11 Welsh seats is a very strong Conservative result, by historical standards. They beat that in 1983, with 14 seats, but that was when the party led by 16% nationally.

I suspect that could be an unintended consequence of Devolution in that Labour has remained in charge at Cardiff ever since the Assembly was formed.When things go wrong the Devolved Govt is blamed everybit as much as the Westminster Govt.

I think entrenching a Labour Govt was very much the intended consequence -carving out a fiefdom to endlessly rule. Ironically the Wales was always in Scotland's wake on Devolution and it's probably worked far more to "plan" for Labour in Wales than in Scotland, where from a Labour perspective it's gone seriously pear shaped of course.

That said, Labour has done well with its leaders in Wales, Alun, Rhodri, and Carwyn have all been "up to the job" and most of the Islington tendency head banging doesn't seem to sit well here. However, they are also lucky that the opposition to Labour is much more split than in Scotland at present (obviously) and there seems nigh on no realistic electoral maths that does not involve Labour in some way shape or form forming all or part of the Govt after the elections in May. A Plaid/Lib (if any left), Tory/Ukip tie up is fanciful, and given Labour at worst are going to end up in the mid 20's of seats and 31 is a majority they will be quite a bloc to overcome if not inside Govt.

A big issue here is the M4 relief motorway around Newport with Labour (officially with the odd rebel) and the Tories (gung ho for it) in support and Plaid having big reservations about "the south east being favoured" (sound familiar?). All depends on if the Labour + Libs = 31 (prob not), or what price Plaid would charge for support. Otherwise a minority Govt?

On topic. Clearly Brussels event appalling. Sympathy order of the day to all victims.

Looking for a minute at German politics. Interesting to note that the grand coalition is down to 55% in the polls. That compares to a joint 67.2% in the last election.

The FDP have been consistently scoring above 5% as well, but I find it hard to believe they would get involved in any coalition after the election given how badly they got wiped out last time.

55% in a grand coalition would not be very stable given it is a left/right coalition.

SeanT said:

AndrewD said:

MaxPB said:

Cyclefree said:

Islamic extremism did not start in 2003. It started decades beforehand. It has its roots in Islam - it may not define Islam but it has its roots in it - and has been developed by Islamist ideologues such as Hassan-al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the former from the 1920s and the latter in the 1950s. The ideological roots of IS come from many sources but it is Western egoism and historical illiteracy to think that it is our fault that such an ideology has developed in the Islamic world.

As if Muslims were incapable of behaving save as forced by others.

Muslims are not children. They are as capable of making moral choices as anyone else. They are as capable of choosing good or evil. They should not be excused from the choices that they make. And, sadly, some of them have chosen evil. As we see in Brussels today - and have seen here and in Madrid and Paris and Copenhagen and Tunisia and Egypt and in countless places in the Middle East.

Let's reserve our pity for the victims, the many victims, of these evil choices. And stop making the victims guilty of or responsible for what their murderers chose to do.

I would say it started even earlier than that. Look at the Muslim invasions of India and the same "convert or die" tactics used.

Mohammed himself authorised his followers to kill poets that criticised him. He endorsed taking sex slaves from the women of conquered tribes. He backed vicious punishments for theft and adultery. He had sex with a child of nine. In its origin it is a terrible system of beliefs. Perhaps you can try to have a moderate Islam, but it would be similar to developing moderate fascism. There will always be the temptation to shift to the historic hardline form.

I read on a website recently that in terms of global population at the time, the greatest death toll of humanity was caused by the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Africa and Europe from 620-750AD.

Bigger than WW1, WW2, anything in China, etc

I'd find the link but I'm too depressed by stuff (not Brussels). Hah.

Wasn't the introduction of European diseases into the Americas worse? Possibly 10 million or so killed within a couple of generations - at a time the global population was ~500m.

dr_spyn said:

BBC reporter mentioned last week, that one of the satellite vans was wrecked by local children. Perhaps he should have offered them money when they asked "mind your van"?

In the mid-1990s I knew a couple of BT engineers. Apparently BT would employ young lads ("trainees") whose job was to sit in vans whilst men were working in rough areas. Apparently an engineer would climb a telegraph pole, then local lads would go and steal equipment from the back of the van, before the engineer could get down. The lads generally deterred this, until it turned out a couple of them were involved with the gangs ...

MaxPB said:

Looking for a minute at German politics. Interesting to note that the grand coalition is down to 55% in the polls. That compares to a joint 67.2% in the last election.

The FDP have been consistently scoring above 5% as well, but I find it hard to believe they would get involved in any coalition after the election given how badly they got wiped out last time.

55% in a grand coalition would not be very stable given it is a left/right coalition.

FDP have been in coalitions with the SPD than later with the CDU/CSU which lasted for many years. In fact they have only been out of power for a few years between 1949 and 1987. They have always been in danger of dropping below the 5% but tended to rise above it as an election approached (until recently). In 2013 they scored 4.8% and got no representatives as the threshold is 5%.
Germany is used to coalitions and the situation shouldn't be compared to this country.

Rod Liddle takes no prisoners

It was only a matter of time before Brussels got the suicide-bomb allahu akbar treatment, as the Belgians knew full well. Part of the city – especially Molenbeek – is a cesspit of Islamic extremism. The authorities have been content to let such areas fester and until recently the police were noticeable by their absence.

...From Lille in the south, via Brussels, Antwerp, The Hague all the way to Rotterdam, whole towns and suburbs have Muslim populations in excess of 40 per cent. Political parties which have opposed this colonisation (such as Vlaams Belang) are excluded from government and denied airtime.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/brussels-has-become-a-hotbed-of-islamic-extremism/