Explosions at Zaventem Airport (Brussels airport)/Brussels metro

[Solmyr]

Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?

[The Brain]

Australia.

[Tamas]

Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?

There must a solution for that, surely. Something final that could please him

[Eddie Teach]

Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?

Phantom Zone.

[dps]

Where, exactly, would you suggest a country should deport its own citizens?

Australia?

[Queequeg]

I'm in Munich.

Can't believe how many niqabs I'm seeing.  Is....Munich just way more chaotic than Vienna?  It's, well, obviously a lot tackier but it seems way more different than I thought it would be.   Vienna has migrants but they tend to, well, look like they belong there.  This is quite startling. 

[Zanza]

Where did you see them in Munich? The ones in the expensive inner city shopping district are often tourists. Munich has a massive medical tourism from Arab states ongoing and they combine that with shopping apparently. 

[Zanza]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/gulf-tourists-flock-to-munich-s-luxury-lifestyle-as-paris-fades

[Zanza]

Wow, if this is true, Belgium is a fat joke. But then I suspect other Western European countries would have probably not deported the guy either, fearing they might appear "somewhat racist".

They let him go for lack of evidence.

[Solmyr]

A German speaker could translate this more, but apparently Merkel is gaining popularity again: http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Merkel-wieder-beliebt-wie-vor-Fluechtlingskrise-article17331966.html

[Zanza]

Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.

[DGuller]

Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.

Explain it to me:  is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?

[Martinus]

Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.

Explain it to me:  is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?

Yes.

[Zanza]

Hardly surprising, she was and now again is the most popular politician in Germany by a wide margin. She'll be reelected for four more years in September 2017.

Explain it to me:  is she that good of an administrator that Germans think it would be dumb to get someone else just because she's been there long enough, is she a ruthless political operator that only gains ever more power with administrative resources at her disposal, or are Germans just too apathetic to ever think of changing her out until biology does that for them?

Yes.

Marti said it. It's a combination of all three factors.

[jimmy olsen]

Grallons everywhere agree

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/03/charlie_hebdo_acceptance_of_practicing_muslims_contributes_to_terrorism.html

Charlie Hebdo: Acceptance of Practicing Muslims in Society Contributes to Terrorism

By Daniel Politi

Satirical French publication Charlie Hebdo is coming under fire for an English-language editorial that seems to at least partly blame practicing, and peaceful, Muslims for terrorist attacks. A little more than a week after 35 people were killed in Brussels, the newspaper wonders, "How did we end up here?"* The newspaper that suffered a terrorist attack of its own last year says that "the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale."

To make its point, Charlie Hebdo uses three examples: Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar, a nameless woman in a burqa, and a baker who is a Muslim. Ramadan, who, incidentally condemned the attack against Charlie, has devoted his life to defending Islam. "His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people criticizing his religion in any way," notes the editorial. He effectively makes "little dents" in secularism by imposing "a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic." The editorial then goes on to sarcastically dismiss concerns that a woman wearing a burqa may be hiding a bomb. And finally there is the baker who stops selling ham, and everyone simply shrugs and accepts it because "there are plenty of other options on offer."

The editorial then goes on to mention the Brussels attackers, noting that while no one in the three examples really did anything wrong, the terrorist attack can't happen "without everyone's contribution." The enforced silence to not criticize someone who is different or holds different beliefs means that "it is secularism which is being forced into retreat." The editorial concludes:

The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow.

Criticism of the editorial came fast and furious on Twitter.

[numerous tweets]
...

Writer Teju Cole took to Facebook to write what is perhaps the most extensive, and reasoned, criticism of the editorial, saying "the people of Charlie ... finally step away from the mask of 'it's satire and you don't get it' to state clearly that Muslims, all of them, no matter how integrated, are the enemy." Charlie seems to want to defend "the wish to discriminate freely against Muslims without having to be called out on it" and somehow characterizing the whole exercise as brave and speaking truth to power. "This is precisely the logic also of the masses who praise Trump for his 'honesty'—as though only ugliness could be honest, as though moral incontinence were any more noble than physical incontinence," writes Cole.

Charlie had already come under fire this past week for its front page about the Brussels attacks.