Explosions in Brussels - multiple casualties

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.

**Sigvatr**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

One bombing from time to time sure sucks

That is...a pretty bold understatement.

**jhe90**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**easysauce**

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.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

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?

**Frazzled**

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.

**easysauce**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**feeder**

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.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**yellowfever**

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.

**Sigvatr**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**Experiment 626**

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

**jhe90**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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...

**CptJake**

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.

**jhe90**

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.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

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

.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**Sigvatr**

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.

**Iron_Captain**

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!

**Tactical_Spam**

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.