Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?