sir_eccles

I suspect Trump will win AZ quite handily. I decided to stay independent and not reregister. My wife is voting Dem, I think leaning Bernie.

zargof

AZ is probably going to Clinton, as the large Latino population favours her. I agree he definitely needs a win, as the slim chance he has gets much slimmer if he doesn't start cutting into Clinton's lead significantly starting now.

Oakvillian

I find the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canadian) hysteria over these bombings rather bizarre. After the Parisian attacks last November, people I know who live there said that Paris seemed to settle down to normality quite quickly, apart from a somewhat enhanced police presence and an air of vigilance about the place. The same happened in London after the July 2005 bombs - sure, it was a long hike home that evening, and a bit of a hassle to get into the office (I worked near Victoria at the time) for the next couple of days, but the nature of the European mindset in these circumstances is very much an "if we let them see we're rattled, they've beaten us" sort of thing. I can absolutely see Belgium following the same route: this will change very little in the day to day lives of Bruxellois (if that's a word...).

Meanwhile, folks on this side of the Atlantic - and, it must be said, most vocally the Republican candidates, are falling over each other to spout the sort of rhetoric that can only inflame passions and lead to increased violence. Why can't they leave bloody well alone? Or at least let the local authorities deal with the situation without trying to escalate the whole thing into some sort of pan-galactic plot against the American Way.

zargof

I totally agree But the fact is that fear-mongering gets votes. There does seem to be a disconnect in the fact that the same people who hate the gubmint interfering in their lives, also want the gubmint to keep them safe.

SultanOfSwing

As has been mentioned earlier by Sir Eccles - this is the kind of response that ISIS wants. The North American response to the attacks will show that they are working and will likely result in more. After all, what population is easier to radicalize - one that is accepted by their adopted communities or one that is ostracized and persecuted by it?

By and large, Europeans seem to understand this (outliers/posters in one of the 1,000,000 EU related threads in TiO notwithstanding). The American response is very different.

scrubbedexpat099

ISIS are the new boys in town but this has been going on for a VERY long time.

sir_eccles

538 quantified it as a 7% uptick for Trump after the Paris attacks.

(there's a conspiracy theory for you!)

SultanOfSwing

Same shit, different name. Carry out acts like this in order to provoke the general public into marginalizing and discriminating against (in extreme cases) the Muslim population at large - resulting in a wider base from which to radicalize and recruit new members. Self-perpetuating if done right.

We need to break the cycle by tempering our response and trying to find lasting solutions by dealing with these organizations at the source, rather than the typical ham-fisted American approach of carpet bomb now and ask questions later. And they wonder why they are not exactly widely trusted or even liked worldwide.

scrubbedexpat099

Brussels is in Belgium, not America.

Not sure their Air Force is big enough to carpet bomb anybody?

SultanOfSwing

I wasn't specifically referring to Belgium as a single incident but the debacle (and arguably failure) that has been the 'war on terror' as a whole. This is just one branch of the tree but it's a standard tactic to poke the allies of your major target with a stick.

scrubbedexpat099

Paris?

SultanOfSwing

Yes, France is an ally, too.

It's a way of provoking a Western (i.e. led by the US) response without taking the mind bogglingly stupid risk of actually carrying out another terrorist act on US soil. At least that's what the cynic in me says anyway.

We (the West, whatever you want to call it) can't rise to the bait though. We need to surgically and definitively remove ISIS and their ilk from the cloth of the world, but not at the expense of the wider Muslim population as a whole. This will require a fully cooperative international effort as well. Basically the countries who are all supposed to be on the same side are going to have to stop all the stupid in-fighting, put on their big boy undies and emulate what our grandfathers did 75 years ago.

scrubbedexpat099

77 years ago? I think you have been in Murica too long.

So like removing the Nazi's from Germany?

SultanOfSwing

I said 75 as a rounded number, not for mathematical accuracy - the fact that led to 1941 was mere coincidence. I suppose I should have said 71, since that's when the war finished and the deed was, so to speak, done.

It's hard to split hairs when you're as bald as I am.

Not really, since the Nazis weren't an actual threat to anyone who wasn't Jewish or a Slav. ISIS are really more of an international threat at this time than they were in, say 1937.

Really all I'm getting at is that the whole ISIS/the wider Islamic world equivalency is disingenuous and shouldn't be encouraged or perpetuated but I think you probably agree on that one anyway.

scrubbedexpat099

There were a few more countries that Adolf included in his world tour, he was of course quite keen on Islam.