EDIT: Not a duplicate after all.

Via the BBC. The wonky formatting is due to me being on my phone.

Brussels Zaventem airport blasts cause casualties
16 minutes ago
From the section Europe

Media captionPeople fled Brussels airport after two explosions went off
Two blasts have struck the departures area of Zaventem airport in Brussels.
The Belgian government has confirmed casualties but has given no numbers. The cause of the explosions is unknown.
Another explosion has now been reported at the Maelbeek metro station close to the EU institutions. The whole metro system has been closed.
The blasts come four days after the capture in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, the main suspect in the jihadist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015.
Belgium has now raised its terror threat to its highest level.
Brussels airport blasts - latest updates
Emergency services are clearing the airport completely. Belgium's Het Laatste Nieuws reports that more bombs have been found.
The airport is being evacuated and has been closed to flights.
The Belga news agency reports that shots were fired and shouts in Arabic were heard before the two explosions.

Media captionDamage at the departure lounge of Brussels airport
Images on social media showed smoke rising from one of the buildings, amid reports of panic as people fled the airport.
Rail transport to the facility has been halted and people have been told not to come to the airport.
All flights have been diverted.
Image copyrightPA
Image caption
The departures hall at Zaventem following the blasts

Image caption
The whole metro system has been closed following a blast at Maelbeek station
Other reports say at least one of the explosions was close to the American Airlines check-in area but this has not been confirmed.
The Belgian broadcaster RTBF quoted a witness as saying there were people injured or unconscious in the departure area, opposite the Sheraton hotel.
Niels Caignau, a Swissport employee, told Flemish broadcaster VRT: "I was on a break and heard and felt a big explosion - we have from here a view over the departure hall and saw a plume of smoke come out.
"The windows are completely shattered. People went outside in shock. It doesn't look good."
There are few reports yet about the metro blast.
Belgium's Interior Minister Jan Jambon had said on Monday that the country was on the highest level of alert for possible revenge attacks after the capture of Salah Abdeslam.
He told Belgian radio: "We know that stopping one cell can... push others into action. We are aware of it in this case."
Zaventem airport is 11km (7 miles) north-east of Brussels and dealt with more than 23 million passengers last year.

Everything's screaming terrorists, let's hope the culprits are apprehended with all due haste.

But if both threads are duplicates, then which thread is the real Slim Shady!?

The guys who bombed Paris were travelling too and from Belgium and some of the guys were citizens of Belgium too.

Investigations have centred around Brussels for some time for terrorist activity.
With France tightening its borders and the ring closing on any suspects it makes sense that any attacks would have to be carried out locally. (Just my opinion).

Fixing the main post again, gimme a second.

Aye, Paris is a fortress. They found a weaker city :-(

There is a certain irony in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, becoming a magnet for terrorists...

Brussels media just reported on BBC . suicide boomb.

Ok. So no trouble guessing who and why

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
There is a certain irony in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, becoming a magnet for terrorists...

I think that might well be the point.

At the same time, this seems sudden for retaliation. More like a plan that had already been set up, and was executed in response. Maybe some bombers got trigger happy when one of their leaders went silent?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
There is a certain irony in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, becoming a magnet for terrorists...

I think that might well be the point.

At the same time, this seems sudden for retaliation. More like a plan that had already been set up, and was executed in response. Maybe some bombers got trigger happy when one of their leaders went silent?

Brussels is a focal point for anti terror intelligence at the minute - way before the Paris attacks.

 jhe90 wrote:
Brussels media just reported on BBC . suicide boomb.

Ok. So no trouble guessing who and why

An extremist group of British People from the leave EU faction?


No judging just yet, wait for confirmation.


Still very sad, none of th major cities seem that safe any more.

Sounds like it happened iat the check in desks, before security. I'm surprised they haven't carried out more attacks like that, everything before security is a soft target. In fact, ANYWHERE that you get large numbers of people queing in ansmall area is a soft target.

Terrible. This was what I guess we were all worried about.

I hope the Belgians can get a grip on the situation.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Sounds like it happened iat the check in desks, before security. I'm surprised they haven't carried out more attacks like that, everything before security is a soft target. In fact, ANYWHERE that you get large numbers of people queing in ansmall area is a soft target.

Aye, they fo have a knack for finding any security weak point. If there's a crack they exploit it.
So how much harder is airline travel going to get?

Suprised the frothing hate mob in raqqa are not trying to claim this one. Paris was them, this maybe linked to Paris, a leader recently arrested. The dots make some sense.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Brussels media just reported on BBC . suicide boomb.

Ok. So no trouble guessing who and why

An extremist group of British People from the leave EU faction?


No judging just yet, wait for confirmation.

Yes, because there's so many different kinds of suicide bombers nowadays...

fething terrorists, I hope the Belgians can take of it without any more innocent casualties ... the terrorists, not so much.

Ffs. As if flying wasn't a big enough pain in the arse already.

23 casualties according to The Guardian.

If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

It's one big cluster**** at the moment, the goverment is asking everyone to stay at home in the entire country, Kind of creepy this, my significant other got of the metro only half an hour before it exploded there. Can't think what would have happened if the train had run late. According to belgian media it's at least 10 dead at the Maalbeek metro hit.

To think I was at that arrival hall several times a few weeks ago, damn. Stuff like this makes it very difficult to stay neutral and humane with regards to immigrants. I know it sounds sad and all but that's the truth of it sadly enough and also the biggest casualty in all this.

And Welshoppo, since there were gunshots in Zaventem followed by shouting in Arabic I think we can safely assume that they are not brittish.

I'm in a UK city right now. Plenty of police about....

 Sigvatr wrote:
If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

Yeah... No... Maybe ?

I really don't want to see permanent laws ramping up security at the expense of personal freedoms. Terrorist threat or not.

Anyway, sincères condoléances to the Belgian people.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

Yeah, there is no 100% security. But it's time that we do something different to approach terrorist threats, bombing and invading is obviously not working. We need to cut the support and funds from terrorist cells, reduce the support from locals in training camp countries (aka no collateral damage bombings) and start a 'propaganda offensive' against the lies and hatred terrorist leaders spread in the name of their religion.

My condolences to the Belgian people.

As LethalShade mentioned, I am not sure I want increased security (or the illusion of it, anyway) at the expense of cutting back on one's personal freedom.

I am also hoping this situation doesn't spiral out of control.

Someone in Brussels on a Dutch language forum currently reporting 20 or so LEO's have just dragged someone armed with a rifle from a car just outside his building. No confirmation yet.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Someone in Brussels on a Dutch language forum currently reporting 20 or so LEO's have just dragged someone armed with a rifle from a car just outside his building. No confirmation yet.

Damn, its a Paris style. Stay safe folks.

Apparently in a side street to the Fonsny, near Brussels-South station.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Apparently in a side street to the Fonsny, near Brussels-South station.

He probably wasn't the only one, if it's confirmed. Stay safe.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Someone in Brussels on a Dutch language forum currently reporting 20 or so LEO's have just dragged someone armed with a rifle from a car just outside his building. No confirmation yet.

Awesome work of the Belgian police, at least that one isn't murdering anyone.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Someone in Brussels on a Dutch language forum currently reporting 20 or so LEO's have just dragged someone armed with a rifle from a car just outside his building. No confirmation yet.

Damn, its a Paris style. Stay safe folks.

That was a fair bit the moment the second bomb went off, I'd say.

Now several train stations in the Netherlands have been locked down, either partially (individual platforms) or fully, one of them the one directly under Schiphol international airport (from what I gather). Seems like there's a concrete threat there apparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Concrete bomb threat at Hoofddorp train station apparently (Netherlands, fairly far up north as well - that's basically straight underneath Schiphol approach).
Station has been evacuated it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Belgian Prime minister announcing restrictions on use of (operation of?) public transport (no surprise there), significant additional military presence in Brussels and surrounding areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dutch newspaper AD reporting IS has claimed responsibility. (Bit of a wonky source so keep that in mind for now)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Belgian DA apparently confirming Zaventem airport explosion was a suicide bombing.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Someone in Brussels on a Dutch language forum currently reporting 20 or so LEO's have just dragged someone armed with a rifle from a car just outside his building. No confirmation yet.

Awesome work of the Belgian police, at least that one isn't murdering anyone.

At this stage. Police are not always police. Only takes a quick change of uniform and they could be something far more capable.

Such needless and bloody chaos...

Seen a couple reports of another explosion on a main street near parliament. Apparently it was a bomb squad successfully disposing of another bomb they found. Just how many bombs did they plant!?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
My condolences to the Belgian people.

As LethalShade mentioned, I am not sure I want increased security (or the illusion of it, anyway) at the expense of cutting back on one's personal freedom.

I am also hoping this situation doesn't spiral out of control.

We're getting a major terror attack every 6 months or so. Lots of minor, "lone wolf" incidents. Social disorder and sexual assaults on a large scale in several European cities. Millions of people are migrating en masse into Europe with little to no control of their movements nor checks on their identities.

I'd say the security situation in Europe has already spiralled out of control.

(Unless you're specifically talking about the current situation in Brussels).

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Such needless and bloody chaos...

Seen a couple reports of another explosion on a main street near parliament. Apparently it was a bomb squad successfully disposing of another bomb they found. Just how many bombs did they plant!?

This has since been confirmed by Belgian EOD (DOVO) from what I gather.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dutch antiterrorism forces stating the evacuation and bomb reports at Hoofddorp has nothing to do with the situation in/around Brussels.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
My condolences to the Belgian people.

As LethalShade mentioned, I am not sure I want increased security (or the illusion of it, anyway) at the expense of cutting back on one's personal freedom.

I am also hoping this situation doesn't spiral out of control.

We're getting a major terror attack every 6 months or so. Lots of minor, "lone wolf" incidents. Social disorder and sexual assaults on a large scale in several European cities. Millions of people are migrating en masse into Europe with little to no control of their movements nor checks on their identities.

I'd say the security situation in Europe has already spiralled out of control.

(Unless you're specifically talking about the current situation in Brussels).

I was, actually.

Even though Portugal is a nice quiet little town err... I mean country, most of the people I talk with are getting very weary of the situation. I'd say we're not yet in the total lack of control, but we're close. The next couple of months will be crucial, no doubt.

Reports now coming through official channels that none of the station closings in the Netherlands are connected to the Brussels situation.

Immigration, millions of refugees, thousands of unregistered migrants in Calais and other places. The UK brexit is not going away any time soon.

Europe is a total mess right now

These guys are invariably born and raised within the EU, mate. Besides, let's not forget how much easier it is to get in as a tourist than as a refugee; if you were trying to commit an act of terrorism, you're not going in as a refugee. It's ridiculous to connect those two.

 Bolognesus wrote:
These guys are invariably born and raised within the EU, mate. Besides, let's not forget how much easier it is to get in as a tourist than as a refugee; if you were trying to commit an act of terrorism, you're not going in as a refugee. It's ridiculous to connect those two.

This.

The refugee situation is just an easy scapegoat at the moment, and people with a plan most definitely will not be coming in as refugees. I mean, look at the background of the people who usually plan and carry out these atrocities.

LEOs with abnormally heavy gear (we really don't see law enforcement with rifles outside of MPs at airports, ever, pretty much) at station Hoofddorp, aerial footage apparently shows passengers leaving the international train (which comes from Antwerp and Brussels) which would normally skip that station and head straight for Schiphol INTL) one by one, hands on their heads.

Sorry but no fething way this is really just the quasi-routine thing they're making it out to be to the press, this gak is pretty much unheard of here.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
There is a certain irony in Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, becoming a magnet for terrorists...

I think that might well be the point.

At the same time, this seems sudden for retaliation. More like a plan that had already been set up, and was executed in response. Maybe some bombers got trigger happy when one of their leaders went silent?

Brussels is a focal point for anti terror intelligence at the minute - way before the Paris attacks.

The municipality of Molenbeek is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Last Friday Abdeslam and several other terrorist suspects were arrested there, so there is a possibility this attack is a reaction to that arrest.

Newspapers are saying that the American airlines check in desks were targeted.

I've been to these places that were attacked, and to be honest, it feels weird seeing them done over like this.

The area directly hit had the check-in lines for AA and Delta and a Starbucks right around the corner.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

Yeah... No... Maybe ?

I really don't want to see permanent laws ramping up security at the expense of personal freedoms. Terrorist threat or not.

Anyway, sincères condoléances to the Belgian people.

What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Obviously, this is a direct response to the arrest and capture of the terror ringleader the other day, but it begs the question: how many more active terror cells are lurking in Belgium or France?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

Yeah... No... Maybe ?

I really don't want to see permanent laws ramping up security at the expense of personal freedoms. Terrorist threat or not.

Anyway, sincères condoléances to the Belgian people.

What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted.to immediately react. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

A excellent idea in principal, but a hard sell, because we all know that it would get bogged down in paperwork, funding issues, and questions of who provides the personnel and equipment.

Funny thing is, all of the EU leader states are already using the services of private military contractors for several purposes - with extremely high success quotes, might I add.

You hit the problem with absolute precision - paperwork. Doing something on a super-country level in the EU takes an incredible amount of paperwork and regulations and the current political direction the EU officially takes is shifting away from security and towards the left, thus further working against the idea of an international security task force...which would also be better equipped than any regular military unit would be. Just saying. Knowing the EU, however, in its current state, such a unit would be unfeasible as every single change in regards to equipment would most likely take months to complete and thus hinder efficiency.

Counterterrorism unit now apparently dragging suspect from train at Amsterdam Central station.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Funny thing is, all of the EU leader states are already using the services of private military contractors for several purposes - with extremely high success quotes, might I add.

You hit the problem with absolute precision - paperwork. Doing something on a super-country level in the EU takes an incredible amount of paperwork and regulations and the current political direction the EU officially takes is shifting away from security and towards the left, thus further working against the idea of an international security task force...which would also be better equipped than any regular military unit would be. Just saying. Knowing the EU, however, in its current state, such a unit would be unfeasible as every single change in regards to equipment would most likely take months to complete and thus hinder efficiency.

Perhaps the better option would be to let NATO handle it.

Britain, France, and Germany have excellent anti-terror/special forces units, and a force could be drawn from them. The Americans could get involved by providing the intelligence, and leave the bulk of the heavy lifting to Europe, so as not to get bogged down in American politics and accusations that America is bailing out Europe again.

Other smaller NATO members could provide personnel and equipment or funding.

Great. Now it's a real mess in my country. It's quite the panic and guess what, that's exactly what the terrorists are looking for.

We have military deployed for quite some time now in the stations. But of course, it can't stop everything. They just can't be everywhere at the same time.

Last information says there are at least 26 deaths. Number can be increasing, unfortunately. And now the witch hunt is already beginning, they're actively searching for suspects in Brussel.

Dutch police explicitly repeating statement that highly unusually heavy police deployments had nothing to do with Brussels situation.
One man arrested at Amsterdam Central, two arrested at Hoofddorp. One report states those latter two appear to be parcel-deliverymen who ignored police orders? Sounds peculiar, but no contrary reports yet.

edit: updated Hoofddorp situation

Nationalists in government are already talking about it being the "blackest day since World War II". It just makes me want to puke. They were the stupid ones putting all this security in place and they weren't even able to stop that. And comparing that to the same thing as World War II...

 Bolognesus wrote:
Dutch police explicitly repeating statement that highly unusually heavy police deployments had nothing to do with Brussels situation.

What's the motivation for saying that? Surely the police responding to the situation is a good thing?

 Sigvatr wrote:
What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Are you saying that we need a real-life 'team America'?

I disagree.

From what I see the police and security forces of Holland, France and Belgium are doing a great job. It's impossible to completely prevent this kind of terrorism. But they've arrested a number of people, each of whom when interrogated is likely to yield clues to any other cells still hidden. I am sure that membership of Interpol, NATO and the EU, and common languages, all help to make cooperation easier.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From what I see the police and security forces of Holland, France and Belgium are doing a great job. It's impossible to completely prevent this kind of terrorism. But they've arrested a number of people, each of whom when interrogated is likely to yield clues to any other cells still hidden. I am sure that membership of Interpol, NATO and the EU, and common languages, all help to make cooperation easier.

Knowing that Abdeslam was able to hide in Molenbeek for four months, I doubt they will catch everyone involved.

The response is just so hugely different from what a normal "suspicious behaviour on a train" police response would be that it seems peculiar.

Thing is, Dutch officials explicitly stated that the threat level would not be elevated beyond the level it's been at for quite a while now since they had no indications of imminent threats on Dutch soil.

Subsequently something which would normally be a fairly 'routine' police response apparently does elicit a response from a counter-terrorism unit which hardly ever gets deployed, but which gets deployed in several places at once now.

Now I don't think anyone would mind an overly cautious response given what's going on in Belgium at the moment.
It is rather peculiar for them to then claim that this heavy-handed response at no point had anything to do with Brussels.

To be clear: I'm not saying anything fishy is going on. All I'm doing is stating that this sort of response is extraordinary around these parts (I'm guessing the idea of a SWAT like unit tearing through a train like that is slightly less remarkable to the average American Dakkanaut ).
Some elements of our security apparatus seem a little more jittery than usual, and that might be interesting to foreign users.

By the way, it now seems Amsterdam Central station had an abandoned backpack on a platform in addition to the arrest they made from another train.

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Are you saying that we need a real-life 'team America'?

I disagree.

I'm hearing a real-life "Rainbow 6". But that's just me

Stay safe, Dakkanaughts.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If anything, let's hope that this time, Europe wakes up and starts to strongly focus on security. Every single loss is a tragedy and anything should be done to avoid a similar event in the future.

Yeah... No... Maybe ?

I really don't want to see permanent laws ramping up security at the expense of personal freedoms. Terrorist threat or not.

Anyway, sincères condoléances to the Belgian people.

Condolences to them.
I would bee leery of "security creep." Once you get the Euro version of Homeland Security and Security Theater it doesn't go away.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bolognesus wrote:
These guys are invariably born and raised within the EU, mate. Besides, let's not forget how much easier it is to get in as a tourist than as a refugee; if you were trying to commit an act of terrorism, you're not going in as a refugee. It's ridiculous to connect those two.

That argument only adds fire to the Trump/UKIP crowd (I heard Trump is the US version of UKIP but no one said what UKIP was).

Okay, gotta bolt.
Last update from Dutch language media: most of the armed response in and around trains and stations is winding down, some arrests (but not many), reports tend to indicate not too many suspicious packages/other things were found.

What we do currently have, however, is that apparently several media outlets are receiving powder letters (fake anthrax threats etc) and bomb threats.
Of course all of that might just be a bunch of donkey-caves deciding it'd be funny to mess around on a day like this, and nothing has really been verified as genuine even though several buildings are being or have been evactuated by now.

One university in/near Brussels has received a bomb threat they consider genuine and are apparently evacuating the entire campus.

 Frazzled wrote:

I would bee leery of "security creep." Once you get the Euro version of Homeland Security and Security Theater it doesn't go away.

It's already happening unfortunately.

I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Yet another sucky day to work at a vacation company. Luckily we have no clients there at the moment, but this means our sales are gonna suck for the next 3-4 weeks till people stop being scared again. That's about how long it took for things to pick up again after Paris happened.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From what I see the police and security forces of Holland, France and Belgium are doing a great job. It's impossible to completely prevent this kind of terrorism. But they've arrested a number of people, each of whom when interrogated is likely to yield clues to any other cells still hidden. I am sure that membership of Interpol, NATO and the EU, and common languages, all help to make cooperation easier.

Living in Belgium, I can tell you that on the paper, cooperation is fine. In reality, inside Belgium, communication between the different levels of power (state and regions) isn't really great.

Especially with Brussel, that our Nationalists just want to "blow up" because it represents everything they dislike.

Of course, they didn't want to have this kind of event happening, but I'm not sure they really did "everything they could" in Belgium to prevent that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

I'm voting to leave, but a rapid reaction force for Europe, but unconnected to the EU, sounds like a good idea to me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Can we please not go down this road. People on the Brexit side have said horrible things as well and this topic really isn't the place to start discussing the EU.

 Goliath wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Can we please not go down this road. People on the Brexit side have said horrible things as well and this topic really isn't the place to start discussing the EU.

I am fully supporting this.

There's even a specific thread for the Brexit matter. This is an entirely different thing.

Belgian news reports that Russia had informed Belgium on the possible culprits earlier this week, allegedly Belgians returning from fighting in Syria.

Bomb on the airport had nails in it.

*Shakes head*

We've got to do something with returnees. There must be some legal frameworks we can use for this.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

People got blown up, better try and make a snarky little political "point", right?

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

People got blown up, better try and make a snarky little political "point", right?

It's going to happen one way or the other - pro-brexit, anti-brexit, doesn't matter - whenever there is a terrorist attack one side picks up on it as 'proof' of their opinion.

Best advice is not to let it get to you and move on.

Or you could see that as an engagement pont for an argument and jump in feet first....

Interesting how the airport bomb source looks to be luggage that was just checked, on its way behind the service counters. Don't know how you avoid that without either banning checked luggage or having a permanent staff of bomb-sniffing dogs. I would think that a lone whacko in a suicide vest could have done more collateral damage if he'd simply run into the security line, so maybe choosing a method of attack that allowed the attackers to make an exit was a priority.

The first bomb was to cause people to panic and run, the second was blown up amidst fleeing people which resulted in more victims, according to an eye witness.

 motyak wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Are you saying that we need a real-life 'team America'?

I disagree.

I'm hearing a real-life "Rainbow 6". But that's just me

That's exactly what I thought as well.

Putting aside the politics, is such an idea feasible? It's interesting.

I don't think it is. Assuming such a hypothetical force existed, it would have to be based out of the upper part of France to me more or less in the middle of Europe, yes? Reaching the upper end of the UK is around 800 miles. Assuming they'd be travelling by Blackhawk or Chinooks , we're talking over 4 hours flight time if said helos are moving full speed. Even an Osprey would take almost 3 hours, I believe.

You'd have to have multiple basings everywhere, which means you can't really put aside the politics. But perhaps there is something I haven't thought of.

Checked baggage seems a dangerous route to go though. You're interacting with people more, who may notice signs of stress, you have to provide some manner of ID, even if fake it can still help the authorities out. Dumping a bomb in a trash can to create that panic effect seems a much safer bet in my eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Are you saying that we need a real-life 'team America'?

I disagree.

I'm hearing a real-life "Rainbow 6". But that's just me

That's exactly what I thought as well.

Putting aside the politics, is such an idea feasible? It's interesting.

I don't think it is. Assuming such a hypothetical force existed, it would have to be based out of the upper part of France to me more or less in the middle of Europe, yes? Reaching the upper end of the UK is around 800 miles. Assuming they'd be travelling by Blackhawk or Chinooks , we're talking over 4 hours flight time if said helos are moving full speed. Even an Osprey would take almost 3 hours, I believe.

You'd have to have multiple basings everywhere, which means you can't really put aside the politics. But perhaps there is something I haven't thought of.

I'd say unlikely to be feasible. To many levels of bureaucracy they'd have to work through. Leave it to a nations military/police forces to deal with, and the european intel agencies can come together on their own.

 motyak wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What Europe needs is an international crisis force that operates beyond an individual country. Traditional security in the form of governmental controlled and organized units is too ineffective to work against terror, they're inflexible and too restricted to immediately react. If you ever head to deal with transferring forces from one country to another, you stop to wonder why response times are that high. A cross-national unit of non-governmental bound soldiers will be able to quickly respond to any threat and is not hindered by borders or individual laws.

Are you saying that we need a real-life 'team America'?

I disagree.

I'm hearing a real-life "Rainbow 6". But that's just me

I was hearing real-life "GDI"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Can you at least wait for the bodies to be cool before you start using the dead for your political snark? Classless.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Perhaps the better option would be to let NATO handle it.

Britain, France, and Germany have excellent anti-terror/special forces units, and a force could be drawn from them. The Americans could get involved by providing the intelligence, and leave the bulk of the heavy lifting to Europe, so as not to get bogged down in American politics and accusations that America is bailing out Europe again.

Other smaller NATO members could provide personnel and equipment or funding.

Precisely. Resources are already there and you can draw both from governmental and non-governmental sources to recruit from. Plans to do such a thing exist but haven't been pooled much attention to, mostly due to politics and a strong anti-americanism in some member states.

 Ouze wrote:


I don't think it is. Assuming such a hypothetical force existed, it would have to be based out of the upper part of France to me more or less in the middle of Europe, yes? Reaching the upper end of the UK is around 800 miles. Assuming they'd be travelling by Blackhawk or Chinooks , we're talking over 4 hours flight time if said helos are moving full speed. Even an Osprey would take almost 3 hours, I believe.

You'd have to have multiple basings everywhere, which means you can't really put aside the politics. But perhaps there is something I haven't thought of.

No, that's it and how most plans see it. One main base (several ideas on where to deplay), several deployment bases in individual countries, mobile bases suggested. Politics is the problem, funding isn't. A lot of countries feel uncomfortable having a neutral force on their ground they can't command and thus reject the idea. That's the main problem, neutral boots on ground. Which is understandle politics-wise, but rationally, this means higher cost at way less efficiency...and in regards to politics, we haven't even started discussing jurisdiction on such a force yet, i.e. by which law they would be held responsible.

Then again, I don't want to derail this thread any further. This should be about the incident at hand and people expressing their feelings for those involved in it, to families and friends who had to suffer a great loss on this day.

For any American Dakka members who don't follow European Union politics, here's a quick re-cap of the problems facing Europe and why it'll be hard to create a multi-nation rapid reaction force to deal with future terror attacks in Europe.

1) The EU is 28 different member nations, so that's 28 different agendas. It's hard to get these nations to agree on simple stuff like agriculture and benefit reforms, never mind something of this magnitude.

2) Europe seems to engulfed in a tidal wave of problems. The migrant crisis is getting worse. Britain is having a vote on staying or leaving, and quite frankly, our leaders are just not up to the task. Any of these problems on its own would be hard to solve, but combined? Hard to see it happening.

3) Red tape. European institutions are notorious for red tape and bureaucracy . Given the level of the threat, you would hope that the red tape would be swept away and nations would unite for the common good, but IMO, any rainbow six style force would be snuffed out before it even got off the ground.

An expert of the BBC was saying that Belgian intelligence wasn't passing on information that quickly to the Belgian police!

Good luck trying to make this work across nations. It can be done, but I don't think the will is there.

My condolences to the Belgian people and all war and so called "human" stupidity victims. Our race is the biggest problem. In fact all of us are heartlings so (in my personal opinion), ther's no difference if a bomber is Turkish, Iraki or Hawaian or wtfplace is from.. Is real but I can't believe that no one could note anything before.. Are these ghosts that walks trough walls?

 Archimede wrote:
Are these ghosts that walks trough walls?

How in the world do you screen for terrorists while allowing Merkel's open-door policy (or elevator door, or turnstile, or whatever iteration it's on now) unimpeded? This was likely a terror attack undertaken by some militant ME group or individuals with funding from same. At this point, attacks are ongoing, with the EU urban centers being 'easy' targets given 'open' borders if you can ingress through one of the fringe EU nations. If mass influx of people with poorly documented origins into a borderless system is the backdrop that security forces are supposed to manage through, how in the world can they be expected to screen effectively? I'm surprised that there have not been more successful attacks.

Picture of the suspects has been released.

There's also rumours they're from Belarus.

 sourclams wrote:

 Archimede wrote:
Are these ghosts that walks trough walls?

How in the world do you screen for terrorists while allowing Merkel's open-door policy (or elevator door, or turnstile, or whatever iteration it's on now) unimpeded? This was likely a terror attack undertaken by some militant ME group or individuals with funding from same. At this point, attacks are ongoing, with the EU urban centers being 'easy' targets given 'open' borders if you can ingress through one of the fringe EU nations. If mass influx of people with poorly documented origins into a borderless system is the backdrop that security forces are supposed to manage through, how in the world can they be expected to screen effectively? I'm surprised that there have not been more successful attacks.

Aye however much defences we establish and design. If you let the enemy through the open gate.. That's fething useless. She has a wide open gate, its a weak point to all of Europe.

Its a sad day, but we may be letting wolves into our cities, waiting to attack. Not good
.

I'm agree that screening couldn't be effective with actuals boundary conditions (EU has to move "UNITED" and I only can demonstrate my disappointment about external policy management) My "ghost" where related to 1st and 2nd generation of "integrated" citizens that has common blind and deaf neighbours..

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Can we please not go down this road. People on the Brexit side have said horrible things as well and this topic really isn't the place to start discussing the EU.

I am fully supporting this.

There's even a specific thread for the Brexit matter. This is an entirely different thing.

People in this thread are calling for more European task forces and agencies to counter terrorism, which will almost certainly be tied to and involve the European Union. If you want to avoid this thread becoming a partisan argument with people trying to make political capitol out of it, fine. I fully agree. Its crass and far too soon to start making political points out of today's attacks, that is exactly what I was criticising.

So please direct your comments at the people here who are actually doing what you accuse me of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was wondering how low it'd be until Euro-philes started calling for "more Europe".

Can you at least wait for the bodies to be cool before you start using the dead for your political snark? Classless.

So its OK for the Pro-EU side ITT to immediately exploit the attack and start calling for more European agencies and political integration, but when the Anti-EU side call them out for it, its "political snark"? Double standards.

Many terrorists are home-grown.

You've a very negative view of people mate.

If someone suggests a solution to this problem that occurs to them, that is not some "political seizure" of the issue - people are thinking about the problem and if they think of a solution they mention it. It's hardly a co-ordinated power grab.

A decent response from you, if you dislike that policy, would be to suggest how we could become more secure without EU integration of security forces, rather than attacking your political enemies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many terrorists are home-grown.

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt this attack was undertaken by a French, German, or Belgian Nationalist (i.e., for an extreme-Right purpose, like protestation of the EU).

Even where the culprits have lived 'domestic' for some period of time, radical Islam has been the unifying theme of the higher profile attacks of recent years, going back to the Boston Marathon bombings or Ft. Hood shootings.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Then again, I don't want to derail this thread any further. This should be about the incident at hand and people expressing their feelings for those involved in it, to families and friends who had to suffer a great loss on this day.

Not to be callous or intentionally provocative, but as someone who lives in a country with more mass shootings than days in the year, I can tell you that posting your prayers, condolences, and suchlike are pretty much utterly worthless and sort of a waste of bandwidth at this point. They simply don't mean anything at all. I mean, I guess they might make the poster feel momentarily better, but that's like the absolute lowest form of slacktivism, the Dakka version of posting "amen" on some Facebook agony-porn post.

I think discussing solutions to, or ways to try and ameliorate at least, these sorts of attacks is at least interesting, if not any more useful, pragmatically speaking.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Then again, I don't want to derail this thread any further. This should be about the incident at hand and people expressing their feelings for those involved in it, to families and friends who had to suffer a great loss on this day.

Not to be callous or intentionally provocative, but as someone who lives in a country with more mass shootings than days in the year, I can tell you that posting your prayers, condolences, and suchlike are pretty much utterly worthless and sort of a waste of bandwidth at this point. They simply don't mean anything at all. I mean, I guess they might make the poster feel momentarily better, but that's like the absolute lowest form of slacktivism.

I'm on the same boat and my wife's facebook is already filling up with "Sorry for Belgium" posts, images etc. The thing is, however, that this could be said for most things on the internet - sure, we could continue other topics in this very thread, but no posts ever actually "does" something. You won't convince people over the internet, never, ever will that happen. We could discuss plans to make the EU more secure (and with its current policy, everything would make it much more secure as right now, Germany destabilized the EU), but said discussions won't lead anywhere, plans are already suggested, developed, hosted etc. and noone will ever say "...but this guy from the internet, on the tabletop gaming forum said...". We'd be discussing things that have already been discussed on a much, much higher level with politicans, private contractors and country representatives. There are already talks appointed throughout the entire year where all of this is discussed.

The funny...or rather disturbing issue about all this is that it's the "industry" / contractors who want to push for a change because it's cheaper (!) for each country than what they do today. Much cheaper if you go with a relatively adjusted fee / fund paid by each EU country. Yet politicians don't want to touch that matter with a very long stick. As a consequence, we see a radicalisation of Europe towards the right, a severely decreased trust in politics and civil uproar. People don't feel safe anymore and the government ignores them, actually even makes them feel /MORE/ insecure. Private companies could be fine with this as the more people feel insecure, the more people are looking for help the state cannot provide. If there's any sort of crisis, it's the upper level citizens that don't have anything to worry about as they already have contracts with private companies ensuring their safety. Even middle class civilians are slowly starting to ask for support - and to me, civilians asking for a quite expensive service because they are too scared, that's a pretty bad sign for a state. That state then even further spitting in its citizen's face is more than worrying.

 sourclams wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many terrorists are home-grown.

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt this attack was undertaken by a French, German, or Belgian Nationalist (i.e., for an extreme-Right purpose, like protestation of the EU).

Even where the culprits have lived 'domestic' for some period of time, radical Islam has been the unifying theme of the higher profile attacks of recent years, going back to the Boston Marathon bombings or Ft. Hood shootings.

I would take the 'home-grown' comment to imply that many so-called Islamist terrorists are 'home-grown' in the sense that they're born nationals who are radicalised at home, then (some) travail abroad to learn fighting/exploding things in general skills, & then return home to cause havoc.

 Ouze wrote:

I think discussing solutions to, or ways to try and ameliorate at least, these sorts of attacks is at least interesting, if not any more useful, pragmatically speaking.

Only question in my mind is whether these are 'new' immigrants, or more established. If 'new', then this will easily be framed as the inevitable result of an open-door immigration policy from countries in turmoil.

I actually doubt that's the case given the seeming level of organization with multiple coordinated attacks. If Russian intelligence really did tip off Western authorities, then that makes it even less likely that these were fresh off the boat terrorists.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many terrorists are home-grown.

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt this attack was undertaken by a French, German, or Belgian Nationalist (i.e., for an extreme-Right purpose, like protestation of the EU).

Even where the culprits have lived 'domestic' for some period of time, radical Islam has been the unifying theme of the higher profile attacks of recent years, going back to the Boston Marathon bombings or Ft. Hood shootings.

I would take the 'home-grown' comment to imply that many so-called Islamist terrorists are 'home-grown' in the sense that they're born nationals who are radicalised at home, then (some) travail abroad to learn fighting/exploding things in general skills, & then return home to cause havoc.

I recall reading there have been Jihadist training camps in the Ardennes, so it's not necessary they go to, say, Syria or another country.

We'll have to wait and see until there's more details on the suspects, though - I'm personally still considering the option that they're from Belarus a possibility.

Experiment 626 wrote:

I would take the 'home-grown' comment to imply that many so-called Islamist terrorists are 'home-grown' in the sense that they're born nationals who are radicalised at home, then (some) travail abroad to learn fighting/exploding things in general skills, & then return home to cause havoc.

Sure, but most have not fit this profile, at least in recent publicized attacks on the West. Either the 'many' or the 'born nationals' clause blows up that definition of home-grown. The perpetrators have most commonly been radical immigrants, with some being radical immigrants that have lived in the country/vicinity of the attack for some number of years.

Edit: Originating in Belarus doesn't diminish the likelihood that they're radical Islamicists. Much like the Tsarnaevs behind the Boston Marathon bombing.

Edit 2: Looks like Isis is at least claiming they were behind it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-claims-responsibility-for-brussels-attacks-explosions-bombings-at-airport-and-maalbeek-maelbeek-a6946136.html

A short and clear summary of everything so far

 sourclams wrote:


Edit: Originating in Belarus doesn't diminish the likelihood that they're radical Islamicists. Much like the Tsarnaevs behind the Boston Marathon bombing.

It does, however, go against the whole "immigrants did it" that everybody is already crying about on twitter, /pol/, and stormfront.

I fail to see how. In the 'ideal' case, the attackers are immigrants from some number of years ago versus fresh off the boat.

And it looks like Isis is linking the attack to Syria/Iraq so if true, that certainly won't help the 'let everyone in' pro-immigration lobby.

 sourclams wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

I think discussing solutions to, or ways to try and ameliorate at least, these sorts of attacks is at least interesting, if not any more useful, pragmatically speaking.

Only question in my mind is whether these are 'new' immigrants, or more established. If 'new', then this will easily be framed as the inevitable result of an open-door immigration policy from countries in turmoil.

I actually doubt that's the case given the seeming level of organization with multiple coordinated attacks. If Russian intelligence really did tip off Western authorities, then that makes it even less likely that these were fresh off the boat terrorists.

If the Paris attacks and Molenbeek-cell are any indication it's mostly second generation immigrants, born from guest workers who migrated during the 60s,70s and 80s from the Arab world and the Magreb in particular.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
A short and clear summary of everything so far

 sourclams wrote:


Edit: Originating in Belarus doesn't diminish the likelihood that they're radical Islamicists. Much like the Tsarnaevs behind the Boston Marathon bombing.

It does, however, go against the whole "immigrants did it" that everybody is already crying about on twitter, /pol/, and stormfront.

Er...why? If they are from Belarus they are immigrants. Am I missing something?

Edit: so er if ISIL is claiming it, what is their reason?

 Antario wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

I think discussing solutions to, or ways to try and ameliorate at least, these sorts of attacks is at least interesting, if not any more useful, pragmatically speaking.

Only question in my mind is whether these are 'new' immigrants, or more established. If 'new', then this will easily be framed as the inevitable result of an open-door immigration policy from countries in turmoil.

I actually doubt that's the case given the seeming level of organization with multiple coordinated attacks. If Russian intelligence really did tip off Western authorities, then that makes it even less likely that these were fresh off the boat terrorists.

If the Paris attacks and Molenbeek-cell are any indication it's mostly second generation immigrants, born from guest workers who migrated during the 60s,70s and 80s from the Arab world and the Magreb in particular.

Yep, the kids of immigrants tend to be susceptible to radicalization. Economic repression and lack of real assimilation into the host nation's culture gets exploited.

 Frazzled wrote:

Er...why? If they are from Belarus they are immigrants. Am I missing something?

Well if they're neither brown, nor fresh off the boat, they can't be used as justification for profiling or clamping down on immigration policy.

Of course, San Bernardino suggests that even brown, fresh off the boat immigrants can still pull off attacks successfully...

Edit: so er if ISIL is claiming it, what is their reason?

They've been broadcasting higher frequency of attacks for about a year, so if this really is 'them', it lends legitimacy or street cred or whatever within the radical Islamic crowd. I don't know if that furthers their goal to eventual Statehood, or if they just want to blow up Western civilians.

 sourclams wrote:
I fail to see how. In the 'ideal' case, the attackers are immigrants from some number of years ago versus fresh off the boat.

And it looks like Isis is linking the attack to Syria/Iraq so if true, that certainly won't help the 'let everyone in' pro-immigration lobby.

Most terrorists here in Europe are not immigrants at all. Immigrants only rarely turn towards terrorism, they tend to still have hopes of a better life and are grateful to their new country for giving them a new home. It is the later generations that tend to get desilliusioned and turn towards radical ideas as a result.
Most terrorists in Europe have been born here, grew up here and only radicalised later after not getting a good education, a job and generally failing at life. You have to understand that even if they are born and raised here for generations, descendants of muslim immigrants are still seen as foreigners by ethnic Europeans. For various reasons, they tend to be unable to get ahead in European societies and most of them life in poverty with crime their only chance to escape it (which leads to further hostility from society as they are automatically associated with being criminals). These young muslims, after constantly being rejected by their society and without any prospects of ever getting a better life are a very easy target for radical ideas, which is why so many of them turn towards radical islam and terrorism.

As an example, of the Paris attackers, none were immigrants. All of them were born in France or Belgium except one Syrian who only came to Europe with the purpose of participating in the attack, not as an immigrant. Of the London attackers, only one was an immigrant (from Jamaica, of all places).

 sourclams wrote:
Edit: Originating in Belarus doesn't diminish the likelihood that they're radical Islamicists. Much like the Tsarnaevs behind the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Boston bombers were Chechens. There are only very little Chechens or other muslim peoples in Belarus (there are only a few small Tatar communities that have lived there since the 14th century). If they are actual citizens of Belarus, their motive is very unlikely to be islamic. I highly doubt that they were Belarusians however. The way they look points towards North Africa/Middle East.

ISIL has been suffering serious setbacks in its geographical expansionism. Since said expansionism was a huge source of its clout (forming an actual physical state instead of the ideological stance of rival extremist groups), they are having to employ other methods to further their ends and keep rival groups (such as al-Quaeda) from regaining the spotlight, hence the greater activity in conventional terrorism (IE bombing).

Expect that if ISIL continues to get pushed back in Syria and Iraq, they will redirect to the relatively easier domestic attacks, like a "standard" terrorist organization.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You have to understand that even if they are born and raised here for generations, descendants of muslim immigrants are still seen as foreigners by ethnic Europeans.

I do understand that, which is why I think that attempting to un-label a second or even third generation immigrant is needless hair-splitting. It's less about arrival date and more about willingness to function. You have an ethnic or religious minority that has not assimilated into society; over time it becomes systemic and 'enclaves' become established. As such, referring to this as a 'home grown' terrorist, if in an attempt to associate it with extreme Right or 'domestic' terror, lacks transparency.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
I fail to see how. In the 'ideal' case, the attackers are immigrants from some number of years ago versus fresh off the boat.

And it looks like Isis is linking the attack to Syria/Iraq so if true, that certainly won't help the 'let everyone in' pro-immigration lobby.

Most terrorists here in Europe are not immigrants at all. Immigrants only rarely turn towards terrorism, they tend to still have hopes of a better life and are grateful to their new country for giving them a new home. It is the later generations that tend to get desilliusioned and turn towards radical ideas as a result.
Most terrorists in Europe have been born here, grew up here and only radicalised later after not getting a good education, a job and generally failing at life. You have to understand that even if they are born and raised here for generations, descendants of muslim immigrants are still seen as foreigners by ethnic Europeans. For various reasons, they tend to be unable to get ahead in European societies and most of them life in poverty with crime their only chance to escape it (which leads to further hostility from society as they are automatically associated with being criminals). These young muslims, after constantly being rejected by their society and without any prospects of ever getting a better life are a very easy target for radical ideas, which is why so many of them turn towards radical islam and terrorism.

As an example, of the Paris attackers, none were immigrants. All of them were born in France or Belgium except one Syrian who only came to Europe with the purpose of participating in the attack, not as an immigrant. Of the London attackers, only one was an immigrant (from Jamaica, of all places).

In turn the anti immigration parties point at the problems with Muslim immigrants and their decedents as a reason not to allow in refugees from the middle east. For their position it doesn't matter whether these terrorists are home grown or recent arrivals.

 sourclams wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You have to understand that even if they are born and raised here for generations, descendants of muslim immigrants are still seen as foreigners by ethnic Europeans.

I do understand that, which is why I think that attempting to un-label a second or even third generation immigrant is needless hair-splitting. You have an ethnic or religious minority that has not assimilated into society. As such, referring to this as a 'home grown' terrorist, if in an attempt to associate it with extreme Right or 'domestic' terror, lacks transparency.

"Home grown" doesn't have anything to do with extreme right, and it is rightly labeled "domestic terror" because it is terror carried out by someone actually living there.

Yet another cowardly attack validating right-wing ideas and concerns, gathering more polarised supporters.

I wouldn't be surprised if further down the line we have a situation where we see a mass exodus from Europe as non-muslims decide they've had enough of Islam and throw people out, innocent or not, as the risk is too great. I too find myself becoming less tolerant.

What ever the outcome, it's going to only get worse over the next decade :/

The point of these attacks is to spur response which makes it easier for ISIS to recruit. They want us to go and throw some more bombs and restrictions around, and they want life for disaffected muslims in Europe to get worse so that they're easier to get "on side". This has been the strategy since before 9/11, and it's publicised in statements from leading islamist terrorists.

Unfortunately, often our leaders play into their hands with reactionary, ineffective or counterproductive actions after an attack.

That said, I don't know what approach will work now that the situation is this bad. I mean it's really terrible out in Syria and Iraq right now, and what do we do about it? If we do nothing, we don't solve the problem either.

It's worth checking out "The Accidental Guerrilla" if you'd like to know more about this strategy of provoking responses. It's written by one of the counter insurgency specialists who has worked in countries with major insurgencies throughout the war on terror.

By the way, ISIL revendicated the attack by Amaq.

http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_explosions-a-zaventem-et-dans-le-metro-bruxellois-le-pays-passe-en-niveau-4-de-la-menace?id=9247724

Yeah, it's in french.

Belgium was targeted because of the coalition and the "fact" it never ceased to "fight Islam and muslims". Indeed there was a "small" episode about a group called ShariahforBelgium, who was recruiting fighters for Syria.

Sure, sure.

All media in Belgium are talking about this non stop. Even our King made a declaration. Let's give terrorist what they want, guys, spread panic and terror, it's such a nice idea.

More than 30 dead confirmed. And it's likely to go up...

Two attacks; one in the airport and another in a metro. Pictures of the suspects are shown. More explosives were found in the airport.


At least, there is someone who is glad that it is happening; Donald Trump. Guy has already made a tweet about this event. Guess what he wrote? Yeah, I know, it's easy.

People will always find a way to thrive off other people's fear.

I've been out of the loop for a bit but I've only just noticed these (they're available on Swiss and Norwegian, not just Speisa - but Speisa has it in English)

I've added it here for interest - but it seems that the tensions are leading some important people to think this in-fighting in Europe and polarisation is going to happen soon

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2323/europe-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-swiss-army-chief-s-urgent-warning.html

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2465/norwegian-army-chief-we-must-prepare-to-fight.html

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
fething terrorists, I hope the Belgians can take of it without any more innocent casualties ... the terrorists, not so much.

What are “innocent terrorist casualties”?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We're getting a major terror attack every 6 months or so. Lots of minor, "lone wolf" incidents. Social disorder and sexual assaults on a large scale in several European cities. Millions of people are migrating en masse into Europe with little to no control of their movements nor checks on their identities.

I'd say the security situation in Europe has already spiralled out of control.

Posted for perspective, excuse my French:

You may be a tad too much alarmist.

When I said that some terrorists are "home grown", what I meant is that a number of the English recruits to ISIL, doing terrorism in the UK or going to Syria to fight, are either second or third generation UK citizens, and in some cases, they are "white" converts to Islam.

Not to mention our continuing problem with white Christian terrorism by various groups in Northern Ireland. Many other countries also have had problems with home grown terrorism.

Thus it is obvious that blaming immigrants is useless and only serves to support a fascist agenda of fear and hatred.

As well as this, terrorists can enter a country as students, as tourists, or even illegally, in order to commit crimes.

Most, iirc 90+ or even 95+%, suicide bombers are converts from the West. Socially marginalized, frustrated individuals who get blinded by the ideology, migrate, then realize that living with the IS absolutely sucks, they know they can't return, they got nothing to lose, they fully embrace the propaganda and consider death / suicide as their only way out.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The way they look points towards North Africa/Middle East.

They look very much like the Boston Bombers, to me.

If it hasn't already, attention must shift to a strategy to counter this war on the west, because make no mistake, the West is under attack. It's not a war in the conventional sense, of tank divisions clashing, and aircraft flying overhead, but a classic insurgency, and the west is its target.

Like any insurgency, and I use the term insurgency, not terrorism, military solutions alone won't win this.

First and foremost, the west has to accept that it's in this for the long hall. It will take years, even decades, to counter this, and even then, that's no gurantee, because the future is uncertain. New problems in the future, such as climate change, or robots making millions unemployed, may exacerbate social tensions around the globe.

It took the British 12 years to defeat the Malayan insurgency. It took decades for the IRA to agree to a ceasefire in Northern Ireland, and famously of course, the Americans never really got to grips with the insurgency it faced in Vietnam.

Any solution has to be multi-faceted, involving both political and military agency, and it has to encompass these points:

1) When freedom is under attack, the answer is more freedom, not less. We have to fight for our values, not restrict them or clamp down on them in the name of security. Otherwise, they win, and what are we fighting for?

2) Realpolitik. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 has to be the most inept, misguided, shambolic, unnecesary foreign policy decision of the last 40 years! The structures it destroyed, the lives wasted, and the power vacuum it created, has created this monster called ISIL.

Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi, are and were mudering scum - you'll get no argument from me, but the harsh reality is that sometimes it's better to deal with the devil you know...

Instead of seeing the world how we want it to be, we should start seeing the world how it is, and cut our cloth accordingly.

3) American leadership is crucial. This is worthy of a seperate thread, and I'll happily start one if requested, but America has to have the courage of its convictions to see its decisions through.

This is no contradiction from me, but the Americans should have stayed in Iraq. For a small investment of money, and a small presense of troops, the Americans should have kept 30,000 troops in Iraq, supplemented by air assets and special forces assets in order to give Iraq and Afghanistan institutions the chance to grow. A peaceful stable Iraq, with a strong ally to call on = ISIL killed at birth IMO.

America is the world's most powerful country. The world's richest, and it has the advanatge of an all volunteer military. This isn't Vietnam era conscription. People are not in the US military against their will.

The USA has troops in the Balkans, South Korea, Germany for decades etc etc Why not Iraq? Why not finish what they started?

If the West gets involved in Middle East conflicts in future, it has to do things better.

4) Why are we seeing a rise in home grown terrorists? A core issue and one that must addressed. I have no answers to this, but I do know that these people are coming home brutalised by conflcit, and recieving training in failed states and power vacuums, which of course ties into my second point.

Solving this issue will probably by the hardest of all. Why are these people turning their backs on their own nations?

There are no easy answers.

I hope and pray for a peaceful solution and that nobody else gets killed. That's my heart speaking.

My head tells me that knee-jerk solutions, incompetent politicians, and a fearful populace (understandable) will probably result in more of the same.

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the americans to come to our rescue. Their invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, but they were aided in that by plenty of European nations.

We in Europe need to start thinking really carefully and seriously about working together on this stuff.

I gotta say, that book I was nattering about earlier suggested some stuff that seemed to me to make a lot of sense, like a greater investment in diplomacy, a cessation of bombing and drone campaigns as they are more useful for the recruiters than anything else, among a whole pile of other stuff.

But dealing with the "Homegrown" aspect will be crucial. Northern Ireland shows that one way out is bringing disaffected or previously very unhappy groups in out of the political cold is one way to do so. Investment and public spending are also a big part of it.

The problem is that none of the solutions are politically easy or popular, I reckon. Look how long the Troubles had to go on for and how many had to die before the peace process was able to actually get to where it is today?

Alternatively, the US can reinforce its borders and do better at stopping the home grown terrorists.

Those calling for more US involvement seem to ignore that, since WWII, US involvement in NA and the ME has not met with good results.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If it hasn't already, attention must shift to a strategy to counter this war on the west, because make no mistake, the West is under attack.

Dude. That sensationalism. Are you trying to sell some newspaper?

One bombing from time to time sure sucks, but seriously, it's nothing compared to what countries that really are at war with Islamists have to deal with.

HSoO: On the one hand, I agree - it's not even close to what the UK has dealt with in the past. On the other, I'd still rather there were some sensible policies in place to do something about it, because "Well, it's not as bad as Libya!" is not really a great argument, either.

The US has a huge advantage over Europe, that being experience. The US military alone is so far ahead of Europe that it's not even funny anymore. The German military is a pile of dirt compared to the US, the equipment is shoddy and training is lacking to say the least. Both the US and the UK have a long (common) history of military (cooperation) and it shows - their expertise is unrivaled. And let's not forget private military contractors. The good ones have access to top-notch gear and elite troops who will gladly offer advice and involvement. For a price - that is well worth it. US, UK and private military contractors is a strong trias of military expertise that must not be underestimated. Calling for US aid does not necessarily mean direct military intervention, but taking advice from a militarily far superior advisor is highly recommended.

 Da Boss wrote:
HSoO: On the one hand, I agree - it's not even close to what the UK has dealt with in the past. On the other, I'd still rather there were some sensible policies in place to do something about it, because "Well, it's not as bad as Libya!" is not really a great argument, either.

Sensible polices like not bombing the Middle east, for example.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If it hasn't already, attention must shift to a strategy to counter this war on the west, because make no mistake, the West is under attack.

Dude. That sensationalism. Are you trying to sell some newspaper?

One bombing from time to time sure sucks, but seriously, it's nothing compared to what countries that really are at war with Islamists have to deal with.

SO you shouldn't do anything because at least you're not as bad as Detroit?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


One bombing from time to time sure sucks

That is...a pretty bold understatement.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If it hasn't already, attention must shift to a strategy to counter this war on the west, because make no mistake, the West is under attack.

Dude. That sensationalism. Are you trying to sell some newspaper?

One bombing from time to time sure sucks, but seriously, it's nothing compared to what countries that really are at war with Islamists have to deal with.

SO you shouldn't do anything because at least you're not as bad as Detroit?

We should not have to put up with this gak. People should not be dead because someone is a coward who murders civilans.

 Da Boss wrote:
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the americans to come to our rescue. Their invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, but they were aided in that by plenty of European nations.

We in Europe need to start thinking really carefully and seriously about working together on this stuff.

I gotta say, that book I was nattering about earlier suggested some stuff that seemed to me to make a lot of sense, like a greater investment in diplomacy, a cessation of bombing and drone campaigns as they are more useful for the recruiters than anything else, among a whole pile of other stuff.

But dealing with the "Homegrown" aspect will be crucial. Northern Ireland shows that one way out is bringing disaffected or previously very unhappy groups in out of the political cold is one way to do so. Investment and public spending are also a big part of it.

The problem is that none of the solutions are politically easy or popular, I reckon. Look how long the Troubles had to go on for and how many had to die before the peace process was able to actually get to where it is today?

You'll get no argument from me. My own nation (Britain) is as equally to blame for the mess in the Middle East. Difference is, though, that Britain is not the global superpower of years ago. That mantle lies with America, and for better or for worse, they will have to exert their power and influence to deal with this.

 feeder wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
HSoO: On the one hand, I agree - it's not even close to what the UK has dealt with in the past. On the other, I'd still rather there were some sensible policies in place to do something about it, because "Well, it's not as bad as Libya!" is not really a great argument, either.

Sensible polices like not bombing the Middle east, for example.

As much as I wish it were as simple as that, it just isnt, from the other side its just as easy to say "dont terrorize the west and the west wont bomb you."

This conflict has existed for hundreds of years with countless assaults from and on both sides.

 Frazzled wrote:
SO you shouldn't do anything because at least you're not as bad as Detroit?

There are tons of things that should be done. Does not mean we have to get all sensationalist and grandiloquent about it.
As to what exactly should be done? Well, none of us are really qualified to tell, are we?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
SO you shouldn't do anything because at least you're not as bad as Detroit?

There are tons of things that should be done. Does not mean we have to get all sensationalist and grandiloquent about it.
As to what exactly should be done? Well, none of us are really qualified to tell, are we?

On that we can agree (+ 2 internetz for using grandiloquent in a sentence...NICE!). Doing nothing however, is what you called for, as the events were mild.

The events are increasing. Frankly you've stepped up your game against the US's random mass killer and Brazil's death squads.
You want to address it before it gets worse. Remember, in the ME, NA, and the Stans it is indeed much worse in many areas. its just not telegenic.
After all, how many bombings just happened in Turkey?

As you note, the real question should be: what do you do? And try not to freak out, or let other take advantage of it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That mantle lies with America, and for better or for worse, they will have to exert their power and influence to deal with this.

That is the rub, if the US intervenes in any way, its defacto seen as oppression and encourages more blow back in the form of terrorism, radicalization, and anti US sentiment.

If they don't intervene, they are seen as heartless or worse, toothless, which either fosters resentment, or worse, gives confidence to radicals that they wont face repercussions for terrorism, which encourages radicals and terrorism.


The entire problem is not the making of the US, this has been an issue since before the US was a thing, it cannot be on their shoulders alone.

Not saying I know the solution, just that its not going to come from the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

As you note, the real question should be: what do you do? And try not to freak out, or let other take advantage of it.

Thats the real question, and to its credit, the US has defiantly tried to use very targeted and conservative amounts use of force. Even that is seen as both "too much" by one side, and "not enough" by the other side.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, the US can reinforce its borders and do better at stopping the home grown terrorists.

Those calling for more US involvement seem to ignore that, since WWII, US involvement in NA and the ME has not met with good results.

For the record Frazz, I like America. I've met a lot of ordinary Americans in my time, and they are good, decent, friendly people.

I love American culture, food, and of course, American history.

But I'll get right to the point: the American government, is, and has been for a long time, full of fething idiots.

The West badly needs a president of the calibre of FDR or even a Harry Truman to get us out of this mess.

Instead, we get a GW Bush and the idiotic decision to invade Iraq. Or we get Obama drawing red lines and making himself look like a chump when he doesn't walk the walk. And now we can look forward to more of the same from Trump or Clinton...God have mercy on us.

In an ideal world, America would mind its own buisness and keep itself to itself. But because of historical events that have thrust the mantle of global superpower on America, it's too late in the day for America to retreat in on itself.

 easysauce wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
HSoO: On the one hand, I agree - it's not even close to what the UK has dealt with in the past. On the other, I'd still rather there were some sensible policies in place to do something about it, because "Well, it's not as bad as Libya!" is not really a great argument, either.

Sensible polices like not bombing the Middle east, for example.

As much as I wish it were as simple as that, it just isnt, from the other side its just as easy to say "dont terrorize the west and the west wont bomb you."

This conflict has existed for hundreds of years with countless assaults from and on both sides.

True, but it would certainly help.

 Frazzled wrote:
Doing nothing however, is what you called for, as the events were mild.

I certainly did not called for our equivalent of homeland security to do nothing. I just said it would be better to calm down on the superlatives.

 Frazzled wrote:
As you note, the real question should be: what do you do?

But that's not a question for the average everyman.

 easysauce wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That mantle lies with America, and for better or for worse, they will have to exert their power and influence to deal with this.

That is the rub, if the US intervenes in any way, its defacto seen as oppression and encourages more blow back in the form of terrorism, radicalization, and anti US sentiment.

If they don't intervene, they are seen as heartless or worse, toothless, which either fosters resentment, or worse, gives confidence to radicals that they wont face repercussions for terrorism, which encourages radicals and terrorism.


The entire problem is not the making of the US, this has been an issue since before the US was a thing, it cannot be on their shoulders alone.

Not saying I know the solution, just that its not going to come from the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

As you note, the real question should be: what do you do? And try not to freak out, or let other take advantage of it.

Thats the real question, and to its credit, the US has defiantly tried to use very targeted and conservative amounts use of force. Even that is seen as both "too much" by one side, and "not enough" by the other side.

I agree that America shouldn't have to do this on its own - but America has to be the leader in dealing with this.

I'm arguing for better, smarter solutions to countering this threat.

I've read a lot of literature on the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and I've read a lot on American security agenicies, military structure etc etc

and I could not beleive how many comepting agencies they were, or how much red tape was stopping the good stuff from happening.

I understand America's system of checks and balances in the name of democracy, but a lot of things could be done a lot better.

American intelligience for example, needs reforms, but we have a president who's made it clear from day 1 that he doesn't want to go anywhere near the NSA or CIA.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, the US can reinforce its borders and do better at stopping the home grown terrorists.

Those calling for more US involvement seem to ignore that, since WWII, US involvement in NA and the ME has not met with good results.

For the record Frazz, I like America. I've met a lot of ordinary Americans in my time, and they are good, decent, friendly people.

I love American culture, food, and of course, American history.

But I'll get right to the point: the American government, is, and has been for a long time, full of fething idiots.

The West badly needs a president of the calibre of FDR or even a Harry Truman to get us out of this mess.

Instead, we get a GW Bush and the idiotic decision to invade Iraq. Or we get Obama drawing red lines and making himself look like a chump when he doesn't walk the walk. And now we can look forward to more of the same from Trump or Clinton...God have mercy on us.

In an ideal world, America would mind its own buisness and keep itself to itself. But because of historical events that have thrust the mantle of global superpower on America, it's too late in the day for America to retreat in on itself.

Truman got us stuck in a war for three years and helped start the Cold War...

You're proposing we do what Bush did. That didn't work out.

There have been three non ME groups that successfully dealt with the problem: The Mongols, the Ottomans, and the Russians.
The methods they used are antithetical to Western culture, and for good reason.
Please tell me what "the US getting involved" more than we are actually means and how that is supposed to work vs. history.

Countries not involved generally don't have this issue.

Tokenistic bombing is certainly a stupid strategy. We can see that from the outcomes.

It's an unintended consequence of the overwhelming military superiority of the US that these insurgency tactics are becoming so much more common. When faced with a Goliath like the US military, fighting in a "fair fight" does not make any sense at all, so no one does it. Instead they try to exhaust the will of the US and it's allies through these sorts of attacks, provoking expensive interventions which achieve little other than to wreck the infastructure in the middle east and generate more recruits.

I'm sure the US will have a role to play in this, because it's the world military hyperpower and is our ally. But I'd rather see European leadership on this for once than go running to Papa USA again to save our butts.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Doing nothing however, is what you called for, as the events were mild.

I certainly did not called for our equivalent of homeland security to do nothing. I just said it would be better to calm down on the superlatives.

 Frazzled wrote:
As you note, the real question should be: what do you do?

But that's not a question for the average everyman.

I'll be honest, my glaucoma addled eyes read that and saw "better to calm down on the superlaxatives."
On that we can agree.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, the US can reinforce its borders and do better at stopping the home grown terrorists.

Those calling for more US involvement seem to ignore that, since WWII, US involvement in NA and the ME has not met with good results.

For the record Frazz, I like America. I've met a lot of ordinary Americans in my time, and they are good, decent, friendly people.

I love American culture, food, and of course, American history.

But I'll get right to the point: the American government, is, and has been for a long time, full of fething idiots.

The West badly needs a president of the calibre of FDR or even a Harry Truman to get us out of this mess.

Instead, we get a GW Bush and the idiotic decision to invade Iraq. Or we get Obama drawing red lines and making himself look like a chump when he doesn't walk the walk. And now we can look forward to more of the same from Trump or Clinton...God have mercy on us.

In an ideal world, America would mind its own buisness and keep itself to itself. But because of historical events that have thrust the mantle of global superpower on America, it's too late in the day for America to retreat in on itself.

Truman got us stuck in a war for three years and helped start the Cold War...

You're proposing we do what Bush did. That didn't work out.

There have been three non ME groups that successfully dealt with the problem: The Mongols, the Ottomans, and the Russians.
The methods they used are antithetical to Western culture, and for good reason.
Please tell me what "the US getting involved" more than we are actually means and how that is supposed to work vs. history.

Countries not involved generally don't have this issue.

But America is involved, Frazz, and there's no point wishing it away, becuase it'll still be there.

For better or for worse, you're committed to supporting Israel, you guys back the Saudis, and I believe you guys also have a large naval fleet out there as well.

As I said, Iraq was a disaster and it should never have happened, but having deicded to go in, America made the situation worse by not finishing the job.

Same thing happened in Libya with Britain and France.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Tokenistic bombing is certainly a stupid strategy. We can see that from the outcomes.

It's an unintended consequence of the overwhelming military superiority of the US that these insurgency tactics are becoming so much more common. When faced with a Goliath like the US military, fighting in a "fair fight" does not make any sense at all, so no one does it. Instead they try to exhaust the will of the US and it's allies through these sorts of attacks, provoking expensive interventions which achieve little other than to wreck the infastructure in the middle east and generate more recruits.

I'm sure the US will have a role to play in this, because it's the world military hyperpower and is our ally. But I'd rather see European leadership on this for once than go running to Papa USA again to save our butts.

Totally agree. But given the mess that European leaders have made when it comes to the refugee crisis, don't hold your breath on them showing leadership on this. Solving the refugee crisis has to factor in on the overall strategy of deafeating this war on the west.

I think the US should fix it's own problems first. I don't mind helping others but my own country would come first. Everyone should put Their own country first. Then by all means spread the love if that's what floats your boat.

yellowfever wrote:
I think the US should fix it's own problems first. I don't mind helping others but my own country would come first. Everyone should put Their own country first. Then by all means spread the love if that's what floats your boat.

To be fair, the US started a lot of the trouble we now have with ISIL by sticking their lovestick into the beehive that is Iraque. You can't fully abandon all responsibility - thus I say that we should combine our strength(s) and unite to form a strong fortress of freedom (uhm...) against terror.

As I said earlier, glancing over the newspapers highlights a disturbing lack of co-operation between the various branches of the Belgian security services. Intelligience not talking to police, police getting their funding cut, political barriers between Flemish and French factions creating a lack of co-operation between various government agencies. And so on.

Hopefully in the short term, a full review will fix this. Also, perhaps, if they're not already doing so, the USA could pledge more intelligience support to Belgium. Would make a big difference, and would be relatively cheap.

Overall, from what I've read, intelligience needs to get a lot better for all Western nations, not just Belgium. The focus on mass surveillance seems to be churning up a lot of junk, when in the past, old fashioned, focused methods, produced better results.

Sadly, there is no solution until Islam gets its gak together an undergoes the same kind of cultural revolution that Christianity went through.

Well one thing.

From now on, if one is known to one country,EU, US, Russia etc, anyone. Share Intel and act fast. It's a curse on this world we need to stop. Lives matter more than nations ego,s.

Well they should.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Perhaps the better option would be to let NATO handle it.

Britain, France, and Germany have excellent anti-terror/special forces units, and a force could be drawn from them. The Americans could get involved by providing the intelligence, and leave the bulk of the heavy lifting to Europe, so as not to get bogged down in American politics and accusations that America is bailing out Europe again.

Other smaller NATO members could provide personnel and equipment or funding.

So basically Rainbow Six?

As I type this, there is a counter-terrorism expert on BBC news saying that Belgium has the highest proportion of citizens going to Syria to join ISIL than any other European nation, and that Belgian Intelligience doesn't have a clear picture of how many came back, who they are, or what they are doing.

Clearly, this has been a recipie for disaster. The expert also called for other nations to help Belgium fill in its intelligience gaps...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I said earlier, glancing over the newspapers highlights a disturbing lack of co-operation between the various branches of the Belgian security services. Intelligience not talking to police, police getting their funding cut, political barriers between Flemish and French factions creating a lack of co-operation between various government agencies. And so on.

Hopefully in the short term, a full review will fix this. Also, perhaps, if they're not already doing so, the USA could pledge more intelligience support to Belgium. Would make a big difference, and would be relatively cheap.

Overall, from what I've read, intelligience needs to get a lot better for all Western nations, not just Belgium. The focus on mass surveillance seems to be churning up a lot of junk, when in the past, old fashioned, focused methods, produced better results.

The various technical 'INTs' are only so useful for dealing with this. You really need good HUMINT, and the US is not in a position to provide that, especially in European cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Well one thing.

From now on, if one is known to one country,EU, US, Russia etc, anyone. Share Intel and act fast. It's a curse on this world we need to stop. Lives matter more than nations ego,s.

Well they should.

Egos are not the issue. Sources and methods are.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Perhaps the better option would be to let NATO handle it.

Britain, France, and Germany have excellent anti-terror/special forces units, and a force could be drawn from them. The Americans could get involved by providing the intelligence, and leave the bulk of the heavy lifting to Europe, so as not to get bogged down in American politics and accusations that America is bailing out Europe again.

Other smaller NATO members could provide personnel and equipment or funding.

So basically Rainbow Six?

So Rainbow six, with smaller local task forces located at key points near multi travel locations and capital airports to reduce travel times. Each base covers x radias and if a large incident teams can move from the next closest base to reinforce.

Rainbow six, just more widely spread.

 Frazzled wrote:
There have been three non ME groups that successfully dealt with the problem: The Mongols, the Ottomans, and the Russians.

Which “the problem”?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Perhaps the better option would be to let NATO handle it.

Britain, France, and Germany have excellent anti-terror/special forces units, and a force could be drawn from them. The Americans could get involved by providing the intelligence, and leave the bulk of the heavy lifting to Europe, so as not to get bogged down in American politics and accusations that America is bailing out Europe again.

Other smaller NATO members could provide personnel and equipment or funding.

So basically Rainbow Six?

You all have a strange way of spelling XCOM .

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I type this, there is a counter-terrorism expert on BBC news saying that Belgium has the highest proportion of citizens going to Syria to join ISIL than any other European nation, and that Belgian Intelligience doesn't have a clear picture of how many came back, who they are, or what they are doing.

Clearly, this has been a recipie for disaster. The expert also called for other nations to help Belgium fill in its intelligience gaps...

Sounds like a perfect storm.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I said earlier, glancing over the newspapers highlights a disturbing lack of co-operation between the various branches of the Belgian security services. Intelligience not talking to police, police getting their funding cut, political barriers between Flemish and French factions creating a lack of co-operation between various government agencies. And so on.

Hopefully in the short term, a full review will fix this. Also, perhaps, if they're not already doing so, the USA could pledge more intelligience support to Belgium. Would make a big difference, and would be relatively cheap.

Overall, from what I've read, intelligience needs to get a lot better for all Western nations, not just Belgium. The focus on mass surveillance seems to be churning up a lot of junk, when in the past, old fashioned, focused methods, produced better results.

The various technical 'INTs' are only so useful for dealing with this. You really need good HUMINT, and the US is not in a position to provide that, especially in European cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Well one thing.

From now on, if one is known to one country,EU, US, Russia etc, anyone. Share Intel and act fast. It's a curse on this world we need to stop. Lives matter more than nations ego,s.

Well they should.

Egos are not the issue. Sources and methods are.

I may be wrong, but don't the CIA have a station in every European city? Plus, the US embassy in Belgium, and the American presense at NATO HQ, will probably have a fair idea of what's happening on the ground, when you consider how vast the US intellegience apparatus is.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



I may be wrong, but don't the CIA have a station in every European city? Plus, the US embassy in Belgium, and the American presense at NATO HQ, will probably have a fair idea of what's happening on the ground, when you consider how vast the US intellegience apparatus is.

The problem is communication. CIA can't communicate with anyone unless being allowed to, getting that clearance takes time (a lot actually...), embassies also need clearance before getting information and if you wanted to really step-up security / safety, you would have to relay a lot of information...which would have to follow that clearance process (source -> governnment -> foreign intelligence) every single time...and thus making it impossible to work. That's why, again, there's a high need for a super-national organization that has access to said info and doesn't need to get clearance for everything every time. Efficiency is key when it comes to fighting a war and right now, the West sucks at communicating. Thanks, bureaucracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I type this, there is a counter-terrorism expert on BBC news saying that Belgium has the highest proportion of citizens going to Syria to join ISIL than any other European nation, and that Belgian Intelligience doesn't have a clear picture of how many came back, who they are, or what they are doing.

Clearly, this has been a recipie for disaster. The expert also called for other nations to help Belgium fill in its intelligience gaps...

Okay, it may be too soon for the cliché dumb Belgian jokes, but hey, what else had you expected? It is Belgium!

Experiment 626 wrote:
Sadly, there is no solution until Islam gets its gak together an undergoes the same kind of cultural revolution that Christianity went through.

Eh, Christianity could use another one.

I wouldn't blame the majority of Islam for the wrong doings of the few.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I said earlier, glancing over the newspapers highlights a disturbing lack of co-operation between the various branches of the Belgian security services. Intelligience not talking to police, police getting their funding cut, political barriers between Flemish and French factions creating a lack of co-operation between various government agencies. And so on.

Hopefully in the short term, a full review will fix this. Also, perhaps, if they're not already doing so, the USA could pledge more intelligience support to Belgium. Would make a big difference, and would be relatively cheap.

Overall, from what I've read, intelligience needs to get a lot better for all Western nations, not just Belgium. The focus on mass surveillance seems to be churning up a lot of junk, when in the past, old fashioned, focused methods, produced better results.

The various technical 'INTs' are only so useful for dealing with this. You really need good HUMINT, and the US is not in a position to provide that, especially in European cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Well one thing.

From now on, if one is known to one country,EU, US, Russia etc, anyone. Share Intel and act fast. It's a curse on this world we need to stop. Lives matter more than nations ego,s.

Well they should.

Egos are not the issue. Sources and methods are.

I may be wrong, but don't the CIA have a station in every European city? Plus, the US embassy in Belgium, and the American presense at NATO HQ, will probably have a fair idea of what's happening on the ground, when you consider how vast the US intellegience apparatus is.

The problem with the CIA nowadays is that HUMINT (Human Intelligence) isn't what it was in the past. In the last few decades, there were over reliance in technological intellegence, and not enough human foot intelligence.

Of course... take that with a truckload of salt as its the "spooks" telling us this...

 Da Boss wrote:
Tokenistic bombing is certainly a stupid strategy. We can see that from the outcomes.

It's an unintended consequence of the overwhelming military superiority of the US that these insurgency tactics are becoming so much more common. When faced with a Goliath like the US military, fighting in a "fair fight" does not make any sense at all, so no one does it. Instead they try to exhaust the will of the US and it's allies through these sorts of attacks, provoking expensive interventions which achieve little other than to wreck the infastructure in the middle east and generate more recruits.

I'm sure the US will have a role to play in this, because it's the world military hyperpower and is our ally. But I'd rather see European leadership on this for once than go running to Papa USA again to save our butts.

European leadership in what sense? To be blunt, you guys no longer have the capability to take any kind of real lead on the Middle East. ISIS won't be vanquished diplomatically, and Europe can't maintain even small-scale expeditionary operations without US assistance anymore (as Libya and Mali demonstrated).

The current air campaign has been effective in causing significant losses in territory, materiel, and personnel among ISIS, when combined with our extremely active special operations presence on the ground and its not-oft-reported successes, but even in that European participation is a token more than anything. If Europe as a whole withdrew from it right now, we could make up the loss with no more than an additional carrier air wing.

The Toulouse airport in France is being evacuated.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
The Toulouse airport in France is being evacuated.

Bomb scare or an actual attack ?

 LethalShade wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
The Toulouse airport in France is being evacuated.

Bomb scare or an actual attack ?

Since nothing has happened yet, the former, but concrete enough to evacuate the entire airport and even take people ou of the airplanes as police and military sweep the place.

Just a question, what is Dakkas opinion on the whole 'why not PrayForAnkara' thing?

 Matthew wrote:
Just a question, what is Dakkas opinion on the whole 'why not PrayForAnkara' thing?

I never said Pray for Paris in the first place. I was more shocked by the 100+ kids killed in a school last year (I think that was in Pakistan, but I'm really not sure) than Ankara blasts.

 Matthew wrote:
Just a question, what is Dakkas opinion on the whole 'why not PrayForAnkara' thing?

Well, that's easy - I don't pray.

Turkey was complicit with IS, buying stolen oil... Funding terrorism.

Its sad, and no one should die but the fact they fed the snake that bit them later. Sorry for people, not leaders.

Suspects have been arrested.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Suspects have been arrested.

Got a source ?

 LethalShade wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Suspects have been arrested.

Got a source ?

http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/exclusif-najim-laachraoui-arrete-a-anderlecht-direct-56f2656235708ea2d3d54186
http://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-police-catch-brussels-bomb-suspect-report/

Only one guy arrested, it seems.

Thanks. He's one of the guys they were looking for after Paris' attacks. Glad he's been caught (if it's confirmed).

 Sigvatr wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I think the US should fix it's own problems first. I don't mind helping others but my own country would come first. Everyone should put Their own country first. Then by all means spread the love if that's what floats your boat.

To be fair, the US started a lot of the trouble we now have with ISIL by sticking their lovestick into the beehive that is Iraque. You can't fully abandon all responsibility - t

Sure we can. Just watch us.

 LethalShade wrote:
Thanks. He's one of the guys they were looking for after Paris' attacks. Glad he's been caught (if it's confirmed).

It's not him. They admitted they were wrong saying it was Najim. It's someone else, but we don't know who right now.

Would be a good thing to stop talking about US here, there's another topic for that.

 Sarouan wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Thanks. He's one of the guys they were looking for after Paris' attacks. Glad he's been caught (if it's confirmed).

It's not him. They admitted they were wrong saying it was Najim. It's someone else, but we don't know who right now.

My bad then.

RT wrote:Brussels terror: 3 suspects identified, suicide bombers were brothers, media reveals

Belgian police have discovered that the alleged suicide bombers in the CCTV footage at the Brussels airport were brothers, Khalid and Brahim El Bakroui, both residents of the capital and connected to Paris attacks’ key suspect Salah Abdeslam.

The two brothers and one more suspect, believed to be Najim Laachraoui, 25, were caught on the airport CCTV before the explosions, with Laachraoui thought to be the one who planted the explosive charges, according to Belgian newspaper DH.

Reports now indicate that Brahim was the airport bomber, while Khalid was behind the subway attack.

According to local broadcaster RTBF, citing a police source, the apartment raided by the police last week in the Forest borough of Brussels was rented by Khalid El Bakroui under a false name. The raid last week found weapons and an Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) flag, as well as fingerprints belonging to key suspect Salah Abdeslam, who was detained three days later.

According to RTBF, the link to terrorism was only made by the Belgian police in the wake of the Brussels attacks, despite the two brothers being on the radar for some time. The Bakraoui brothers also had criminal records for violent crime. Brahim was sentenced in 2010 for firing a Kalashnikov at police officers in the course of an armed robbery. He was released before serving his full sentence.

Earlier on Tuesday the police got a major break in the case when a taxi driver, who had unwittingly driven the three suspects to the Brussels airport, came forward with information.

The driver had recognized the trio after driving them to the airport early in the morning, HLN reports. He recalled them trying to fit too much luggage into the car, more than it could take. They were forced as a result to leave some bags behind, something they were visibly angry about. He tried to help them with the load, but was ordered not to touch anything.

Police raided the address where the suspects had been picked up, in Schaerbeek, finding the remaining suitcases, which contained an IS flag, nail bombs and hazardous chemicals.

Hours after the raid police were still at the property. A helicopter was reportedly seen hovering over the suspects’ address, with a sniper at the ready, as a large group of masked Belgian police worked the scene.

A subsequent airport search yielded two more unexploded devices, which were destroyed by police.

Armed raids have been taking place across the capital in the wake of the airport and Metro attacks that claimed more than 30 lives and injured 250 people.

https://www.rt.com/news/336840-brothers-suicide-brussels-airport/

Okay, as all sensible people already suspected, they weren't Belarusians (I mean, seriously? That would only have been credible had it been a potato bomb) but rather Belgian muslims.

"Brahim was sentenced in 2010 for firing a Kalashnikov at police officers in the course of an armed robbery. He was released before serving his full sentence."

I can't get my head around these sentences. Help me, please. How the hell does a man fire any kind of gun at the police (attempted murder of a peace officer) during an armed robbery, get convicted, and not get 20+ years in prison?

I know that sometimes jurors are dumb as hell, but seriously? Wow.

Anyhow, prayers to the family and all that gak.


Make sure Salah Abdeslam never sees daylight again, Belgium. Do your fething job.

Why is it the juries falt. They just decide guilt don't they. Doesn't the judge determine the punishment.

Judges decide on whether a sentence is lifted early or not.

yellowfever wrote:
Why is it the juries falt. They just decide guilt don't they. Doesn't the judge determine the punishment.

I'm not a Belgian court expert. Maybe it's a judge, or an appeals board, or some guy with a dart board. your question is irrelevant to my point.

Question remains: How the feth did he get out so early after such a serious crime?

Well you were calling them dumb. So I was just asking if was even the jurors falt. I don't call people dumb unless I know for sure they deserve it. But it's off topic. Carry on

It’s unlikely the defendant even had a trial by jury. Anything as emotive as that and you’re way better off with a judge than people off the street. And he might have pled guilty before hand, removing the need for a trial.

But with that said, kronk’s point is a very good one. It is scary how many of these kinds of horrific crimes, terrorism or otherwise, where you read the details about the attacker and are left wondering how that person was still on the street. I understand the need for second chances and all that, but surely firing an automatic weapon at police should carry a crazy long jail sentence?

You'd think, but even in the US, with our typically harsh sentencing, assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon only carries a maximum sentence of about 12 years (IANAL, result of quick google research). With good behavior, it's fairly reasonable for someone to be paroled halfway through.

He got 9 years IIRC.

More from ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-suspect-now-sought-brussels-subway-bombing/story?id=37891812

6 Arrested in Brussels Police Operation after French Raids Foil Planned Terror Attack



Six people have been arrested in a large police operation in Brussels, a Belgian prosecutor said Thursday night, as two suspects in the deadly Brussels bombings remain on the loose.

The six arrested were detained for questioning, a Belgian prosecutor said in a statement. The decision of whether to charge them is expected to be made tomorrow.

Belgian Interior Minister Jan Jambon tweeted earlier in the evening that five people had been arrested.

Several houses were searched in Brussels, Schaerbeek and Jette, the prosecutor said. The police raids were conducted in connection with the Brussels terror attack investigation.

News of the raid came shortly after raids in northwest Paris foiled a planned attack, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

The French plot was at the "advanced stage" of preparation and was discovered after a French national -- described as being at a "high level" in the plot -- was arrested this morning, Cazeneuve said.

There did not appear to be links "at this stage" between the plot foiled in France and the Paris or Brussels attacks, he added, saying the arrest is the result of weeks of investigation and the individual was involved in a "terror network" that planned to strike.

The raids in Argenteuil, about 8 miles outside of the center of Paris, were ongoing and the streets were sealed off.

Investigators are actively seeking a second suspect in the Brussels metro bombing who has been seen on surveillance camera footage inside the subway station with suicide bomber Khalid El-Bakraoui, a Belgian police source told ABC News.

That second suspect, who is unidentified, was spotted on the subway platform at the Maelbeek station with El-Bakraoui, according to police.

El-Bakraoui is thought to be dead after detonating a bomb on the subway train as it was pulling out of the station. The accomplice now being sought has yet to be identified, but police do not believe he died in the Tuesday attack.

In the other attack at the city's international airport, Khalid El-Bakraoui’s brother, Ibrahim El-Bakraoui, was one of two alleged suicide bombers who led that attack.

Najim Laachraoui and a man wearing a light-colored jacket, who has not yet been publicly identified by police, were with Ibrahim El-Bakraoui at the airport, as seen on a surveillance camera image released by authorities.

Laachraoui is believed to be dead after detonating his suicide bomb, while the unnamed man has been the subject of a manhunt since Tuesday's attacks, as Belgium lowered its threat level today from the highest level, 4, to 3. Paul Van Tieghem, director of the office that evaluates threats to the nation, said there is no indication that another attack is imminent but the threat is still serious and possible.

The first suspect that is being sought was pictured on the airport surveillance footage. His identity remains unknown, but he stood out in the photo because he was the only one of the three suspects pictured not wearing a black jacket. As a result, he's been widely referred to as the "man in white."

There has been some speculation that the "man in white" was a handler or supporter for Laachraoui and El-Bakraoui since he was not wearing a glove on his left hand like they were, which may have been hiding a trigger, and his bomb failed to detonate until after it was secured by law enforcement.

 Laughing Man wrote:
You'd think, but even in the US, with our typically harsh sentencing, assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon only carries a maximum sentence of about 12 years (IANAL, result of quick google research). With good behavior, it's fairly reasonable for someone to be paroled halfway through.

He'd get more time for the illegal possession of an automatic weapon than he would for assaulting an officer in the US.

I guess Europe should enact some stricter gun laws.

A security member of the Tihange nuclear power plant was found shot the other day, his access card was stolen and has now been blocked.

That is pretty fething scary.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
A security member of the Tihange nuclear power plant was found shot the other day, his access card was stolen and has now been blocked.

Shot dead, or just wounded?

Greek news report him as murdered, so...
Also his access card has been invalidated so Belgium is probably safe from radioactive death for the time being.

Pretty scary it might have been an option they were willing to try(assuming it's by the same people).

Still scary. A dirty bomb attack is up there with the scariest and most dangerous the west faces. A nuke is clean, these render large areas no gonzones and clearing up the mess....

No way you take this as anything less than deadly serious and act quickly and directly to nip it before it blooms its deadly flower.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
A security member of the Tihange nuclear power plant was found shot the other day, his access card was stolen and has now been blocked.

Shot dead, or just wounded?

Killed, he was taking out his dog on Thursday night when it happened.

The dirty bomb is the scariest potential terrorist attack I can imagine, barring a bioweapon.

I hope the relevant people took note and security on the nuclear waste reprocessing plants around europe is as tight feth right now.

 Da Boss wrote:
The dirty bomb is the scariest potential terrorist attack I can imagine, barring a bioweapon.

That appears to be the whole point - the Wikipedia article on Dirty Bomb implies that dirty bombs aren't anywhere near as dangerous as the public perceives them to be. The real danger of a dirty bomb is the psychological fear and economic damage resulting from self imposed no-go zones as an ignorant public flees the affected area, rather than any actual physical harm caused by radiation. Its a literal weapon of terror, not destruction.

I was certainly surprised by that.

Dirty bombs really shouldn't frighten anybody that much. The deadliest part is the actual bomb, the rest is primarily a financial weapon, one that would cost a lot to clean up but really wouldn't harm people. And there are sooooo many layers of security at a nuclear power plant that a terrorist isn't going to try anything there. Or if they do, get anything done besides get shot there. Nor can the reactor even be tripped with direct access to the control panel. Its just not possible.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Dirty bombs really shouldn't frighten anybody that much. The deadliest part is the actual bomb, the rest is primarily a financial weapon, one that would cost a lot to clean up but really wouldn't harm people. And there are sooooo many layers of security at a nuclear power plant that a terrorist isn't going to try anything there. Or if they do, get anything done besides get shot there. Nor can the reactor even be tripped with direct access to the control panel. Its just not possible.

Its chaos though. Denial , cleaning, it could take months or even years to make safe, cripple a city, send many thousands fleeing.
Pure terror.

Though any retaliation would be, well id not want to be on reciveing end of the counter attack. No one would be messing about with soft power, more a a rather large sledgehammer

That or a group who never where there deciding to make sure no one ever knows.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Dirty bombs really shouldn't frighten anybody that much. The deadliest part is the actual bomb, the rest is primarily a financial weapon, one that would cost a lot to clean up but really wouldn't harm people. And there are sooooo many layers of security at a nuclear power plant that a terrorist isn't going to try anything there. Or if they do, get anything done besides get shot there. Nor can the reactor even be tripped with direct access to the control panel. Its just not possible.

Well, couldn't they just blow the reactor up?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Dirty bombs really shouldn't frighten anybody that much. The deadliest part is the actual bomb, the rest is primarily a financial weapon, one that would cost a lot to clean up but really wouldn't harm people. And there are sooooo many layers of security at a nuclear power plant that a terrorist isn't going to try anything there. Or if they do, get anything done besides get shot there. Nor can the reactor even be tripped with direct access to the control panel. Its just not possible.

Well, couldn't they just blow the reactor up?

This is admittedly anectodal, but I've got an uncle who was involved in building one of Sweden's nuclear reactors. Apparently the reactors themselves are ridiculously tough; they're meant to withstand direct impacts from commercial airliners ramming into them. "Just blowing the reactor up" is going to be very difficult.

I also don't think reactors quite work that way.

Well if they can get a bomb inside the building its another story

 LordofHats wrote:
I also don't think reactors quite work that way.

I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oldmike wrote:
Well if they can get a bomb inside the building its another story

Not really. Assuming that the reactor is built to withstand the force of an airliner hitting it, a bomb is going to be peanuts in comparison. They'd have to drill into the reactor and place charges to blow it apart, and I'm fairly confident anti-terror police would get them before that happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oooh. Well yeah. that I suppose could happen XD

Assuming the reactor is protected in similar ways to a dam, they could fire artillery all the year at it and fail to accomplish much.

Given the danger of a breach any armour and concrete will be measured in metres. The main reactor core will be a veritable bunker.

You're all overestimating Belgian nuclear power plants.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oooh. Well yeah. that I suppose could happen XD

Oj! Why aren't nuclear plants better guarded? There should be like an entire army regiment guarding it! And those moving laser beams you have to dodge that you always see in movies when they break in somewhere. Because that is cool.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oooh. Well yeah. that I suppose could happen XD

Oj! Why aren't nuclear plants better guarded? There should be like an entire army regiment guarding it! And those moving laser beams you have to dodge that you always see in movies when they break in somewhere. Because that is cool.

Clearly the best solution is a moat (that will keep the black knight at bay), and for all other potential threats we'll just fill with moat with sharks. Sharks with freakin laser beams on their heads!

Then again, if crap can leak out of a reactor, they can't be entirely impregnable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=1


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-of-us-nuke-sites/

Relapse wrote:
Then again, if crap can leak out of a reactor, they can't be entirely impregnable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=1


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-of-us-nuke-sites/

Yes there can be leakage, but the amounts you're talking about involve epidemiological studies worrying about a slight risk of cancer 20 years down the line, not a serious threat to public health. Terrorists simply couldn't access the core to try and get said material.

I can't speak for Belgian security measures, but I also can't imagine they're all that different from the US. You're talking dozens if not hundreds of armed guards with full-auto M4's everywhere. All reactors have multiple control centers, all independent and all set up to trip the control rods. You literally can't force a fuel rod overload, least not from groups whose main claim to technological fame is being able to use twitter.

As to bringing in a bomb, nothing short of another nuclear explosion is going to damage a reactor, and then well, were all fethed so who cares.

There's a reason the best these groups can do involves AK's and semtex.

The momment you trigger s nuclear security alert your going to get a whole lot moving.

One too many and your probably going to have a elite military chomando team hunting you. Those guys do not mess about with your Miranda rights.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Then again, if crap can leak out of a reactor, they can't be entirely impregnable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=1


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-of-us-nuke-sites/

Yes there can be leakage, but the amounts you're talking about involve epidemiological studies worrying about a slight risk of cancer 20 years down the line, not a serious threat to public health. Terrorists simply couldn't access the core to try and get said material.

I can't speak for Belgian security measures, but I also can't imagine they're all that different from the US. You're talking dozens if not hundreds of armed guards with full-auto M4's everywhere. All reactors have multiple control centers, all independent and all set up to trip the control rods. You literally can't force a fuel rod overload, least not from groups whose main claim to technological fame is being able to use twitter.

As to bringing in a bomb, nothing short of another nuclear explosion is going to damage a reactor, and then well, were all fethed so who cares.

There's a reason the best these groups can do involves AK's and semtex.

Before the last couple of days the Belgisn government didn't care the slightest.

Hardly any security and badly maintained, all conveniently built on the borders with other countries. They're a disaster, and living within the affected zone of one of the power plant sites they make me regularly fear for my safety.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oooh. Well yeah. that I suppose could happen XD

Oj! Why aren't nuclear plants better guarded? There should be like an entire army regiment guarding it! And those moving laser beams you have to dodge that you always see in movies when they break in somewhere. Because that is cool.

The ones from resident evil?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I think Iron_Captain meant "blow it up" as in bring their own bomb and sabotage the reactor so that it leaks radiation or overheats, not turning it into a nuclear bomb.

Oooh. Well yeah. that I suppose could happen XD

Oj! Why aren't nuclear plants better guarded? There should be like an entire army regiment guarding it! And those moving laser beams you have to dodge that you always see in movies when they break in somewhere. Because that is cool.

Clearly the best solution is a moat (that will keep the black knight at bay), and for all other potential threats we'll just fill with moat with sharks. Sharks with freakin laser beams on their heads!

Baiting Frazz here are you not?

I can see Europe seriously gearing up to be police states (Security Central)