Paris attacks 13-11-15

[Wouter]

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160322_02197055

A Belgian terror expert believes the attack was planned long in advance, but probably accelerated due to the arrest of Abdeslam and co. I tend to agree; one doesn't put such an operation together at very short notice, and the fact that one nail bomb was not used (and at least one other explosive device failed to detonate) points to a rushed execution. It's likely they felt it was "now or never", with law enforcement close on their heels.

He also predicts a lot more terror attacks, all over Europe. I agree there, too. IS has plenty of recruits.

Present, official death toll of the attacks is 34. But some of the wounded are in a very bad condition.

 

 

[Nugget1229]

12 minutes ago, Wouter said:

<snip>

There has been debate for months in Belgium about the demand of law enforcement to extent the present 24-hour pre-arrest to 72-hours (or even 48-hours), but without a consensus so far. As such things can apparently only changes after a large number of victims has been made, I hope now the politicians take the hint.

<snip>

 

When you say 'pre-arrest' are you referring to the amount of time they can be held before being charged?

 

Also-terrorists fucking suck!

[Wouter]

8 minutes ago, Nugget1229 said:

When you say 'pre-arrest' are you referring to the amount of time they can be held before being charged?

 

Yes.

[Lordsteve666]

15 minutes ago, Wouter said:

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160322_02197055

A Belgian terror expert believes the attack was planned long in advance, but probably accelerated due to the arrest of Abdeslam and co. I tend to agree; one doesn't put such an operation together at very short notice, and the fact that one nail bomb was not used (and at least one other explosive device failed to detonate) points to a rushed execution. It's likely they felt it was "now or never", with law enforcement close on their heels.

He also predicts a lot more terror attacks, all over Europe. I agree there, too. IS has plenty of recruits.

Present, official death toll of the attacks is 34. But some of the wounded are in a very bad condition.

 

 

I think they are probably correct that more is to come. But this whole affair raises so interesting points I think:

1. One person involved seems to have chickened out at the last minute possibly if the rumor of a suicide vest being found unused are to be believed. So are some of these extremists not as keen to die as their middle eastern brothers? I heard on TV the day Adbelsalam was captured that many extremists consider him a coward for fleeing rather than dying in battle.
    
2. Secondly, this tactic here seems to be changed somewhat from what I think we've seen in the past. The airport attack seemed to consist of one bomb used to flush people evacuating into the other bomb. That's a whole other level of planning and is quite a nasty tactic if it is being used now. It means even proven tactics of evacuating places safely and quickly won't be as viable anymore?

[mormont]

The fact is, these attacks all have a pattern. They're aimed at ordinary people going about their daily business.

Why? Partly because these terrorists lack the ability to do much else. But mostly because they're not really interested in doing so. They're not trying to bring down Western governments. They're not looking for a military defeat. They choose to attack civilians because they want ordinary citizens to feel scared. They want Western countries to react in ways that will drive more people towards their so-called state (and stop people from leaving it). IS need those people to come to them, and they know they won't come without us driving them away. IS do these things to make us exhibit hate and fear of Muslims. They need that. That's their goal. They're depending on it.

Let's not co-operate.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

The fact is, these attacks all have a pattern. They're aimed at ordinary people going about their daily business.

Why? Partly because these terrorists lack the ability to do much else. But mostly because they're not really interested in doing so. They're not trying to bring down Western governments. They're not looking for a military defeat. They choose to attack civilians because they want ordinary citizens to feel scared. They want Western countries to react in ways that will drive more people towards their so-called state (and stop people from leaving it). IS need those people to come to them, and they know they won't come without us driving them away. IS do these things to make us exhibit hate and fear of Muslims. They need that. That's their goal. They're depending on it.

Let's not co-operate.

Oh boy.

ISIS could detonate a nuclear bomb in Paris or London, and the Left would still be singing this song. At what point do the deaths become too large a price to pay for an open, tolerant and multicultural society? To the Left, the answer is "Never".

[Hereward]

I'd be insulted at being called part of the Left if it was almost anyone but you. But we do have an open, tolerant multicultural society. The alternative is an authoritarian, closed and intolerant society, with a side order or mass executions/internment. I don't think that's a choice anyone sane would ever take. Your mileage obviously varies. 

[Wouter]

31 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

I think they are probably correct that more is to come. But this whole affair raises so interesting points I think:

1. One person involved seems to have chickened out at the last minute possibly if the rumor of a suicide vest being found unused are to be believed. So are some of these extremists not as keen to die as their middle eastern brothers? I heard on TV the day Adbelsalam was captured that many extremists consider him a coward for fleeing rather than dying in battle.
    
2. Secondly, this tactic here seems to be changed somewhat from what I think we've seen in the past. The airport attack seemed to consist of one bomb used to flush people evacuating into the other bomb. That's a whole other level of planning and is quite a nasty tactic if it is being used now. It means even proven tactics of evacuating places safely and quickly won't be as viable anymore?

It's possible one chickened out. Abdeslam declined to blow himself up at the Stade de France, allthough that was apparently the plan.

The tactic to detonate one bomb and then another (or several others) to target those who flee or those who come to bring aid is common in attacks in Iraq and Syria, and the like. It's not new. They seldom go for one bomb only, this was also the case in the earlier bombings in Madrid, London and Paris.

[mormont]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Oh boy.

ISIS could detonate a nuclear bomb in Paris or London, and the Left would still be singing this song.

But IS will never do that, because they will never have the ability.

I note that you don't have an actual counter to any of the points made, by the way. No disagreement about what IS are hoping to achieve. No argument as to what an intolerant reaction will do to hurt IS. Only hyperbole and attacks on people whose politics you find disagreeable.

[DanteGabriel]

The sooner IS get their way, the sooner FNR will have his dream of a world subdivided into ethnically homogenous enclaves, so there's that.

[Crazydog7]

This is awful not just for the loss of life but the fact that it will provoke a reaction that is exactly what Isis wants a jittery reactionary Europe. 

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

This is awful not just for the loss of life but the fact that it will provoke a reaction that is exactly what Isis wants a jittery reactionary Europe. 

No, it won't. Not here anyway. Community relations are infinitely better in the UK than in most of Europe, precisely because the last few  governments have made huge efforts to ensure that there is a multinational definition of Britishness.

[Wouter]

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160322_02196826

Interesting opinion piece by Mia Doornaert, in De Standaard, written in a reaction to the Daesh attacks.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Wouter said:

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160322_02196826

Interesting opinion piece by Mia Doornaert, in De Standaard, written in a reaction to the Daesh attacks.

 

Interesting article. Wonder if Europe will indeed wake up.

[baxus]

33 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Oh boy.

ISIS could detonate a nuclear bomb in Paris or London, and the Left would still be singing this song. At what point do the deaths become too large a price to pay for an open, tolerant and multicultural society? To the Left, the answer is "Never".

Out of curiosity, what alternative solution would you propose?

Over the years, centuries even, it has been shown that repression doesn't do the job. Whether it's about keeping slaves in chains, keeping women in the kitchen, stopping them from voting, banning black people from riding in the front of the bus or any other example you can think of - repression didn't work. And it won't work.

Open, tolerant and multicultural society is the way to go, and it doesn't matter one bit that today you might have an argument against it. Trust me, I live in a rather fenced in, not-tolerant-enough society refusing to accept different cultures even if they've been present in these parts for centuries.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, baxus said:

Out of curiosity, what alternative solution would you propose?

Over the years, centuries even, it has been shown that repression doesn't do the job. Whether it's about keeping slaves in chains, keeping women in the kitchen, stopping them from voting, banning black people from riding in the front of the bus or any other example you can think of - repression didn't work. And it won't work.

Open, tolerant and multicultural society is the way to go, and it doesn't matter one bit that today you might have an argument against it. Trust me, I live in a rather fenced in, not-tolerant-enough society refusing to accept different cultures even if they've been present in these parts for centuries.

Well think about it. What would the response be if a nuclear device was detonated in a major European city? And then the question becomes: Why would that response be any less justified after what has already happened in Paris and Brussels?

Is it because a couple of hundred deaths are somehow still acceptable?

[Swordfish]

14 minutes ago, baxus said:

Out of curiosity, what alternative solution would you propose?Over the years, centuries even, it has been shown that repression doesn't do the job. Whether it's about keeping slaves in chains, keeping women in the kitchen, stopping them from voting, banning black people from riding in the front of the bus or any other example you can think of - repression didn't work. And it won't work.

Repression often works.  Just ask the native Americans, for example.

 

[Altherion]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

The fact is, these attacks all have a pattern. They're aimed at ordinary people going about their daily business.

Why? Partly because these terrorists lack the ability to do much else. But mostly because they're not really interested in doing so. They're not trying to bring down Western governments. They're not looking for a military defeat. They choose to attack civilians because they want ordinary citizens to feel scared. They want Western countries to react in ways that will drive more people towards their so-called state (and stop people from leaving it). IS need those people to come to them, and they know they won't come without us driving them away. IS do these things to make us exhibit hate and fear of Muslims. They need that. That's their goal. They're depending on it.

Let's not co-operate.

Cooperate or don't, they'll keep doing this all the same. Stoking Western anger is one of their goals, but they don't need it and they're not depending on it. The conditions that drive people to them existed before people started to feel scared, they still exist now and they're extraordinarily difficult to alter. There is an unpleasant trade-off: reacting harshly drives incites more hatred, but reacting softly lowers the threat of retaliation for future attacks and makes them technically easier.

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

But IS will never do that, because they will never have the ability.

Don't bet money on it. All useful technology that was once exotic eventually becomes commonplace. Something that a little over half a century ago was the province of world superpowers which had gathered some of the most brilliant minds of the age in one place can now be accomplished by a hermit kingdom under a long list of sanctions and with a GDP that is smaller than the 50th metropolitan area in the US. And they don't have to take that particular route -- there is a wide variety of evils which are perhaps not quite as bad, but even easier to accomplish.

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

Out of curiosity, what alternative solution would you propose?

Over the years, centuries even, it has been shown that repression doesn't do the job. Whether it's about keeping slaves in chains, keeping women in the kitchen, stopping them from voting, banning black people from riding in the front of the bus or any other example you can think of - repression didn't work. And it won't work.

Open, tolerant and multicultural society is the way to go, and it doesn't matter one bit that today you might have an argument against it. Trust me, I live in a rather fenced in, not-tolerant-enough society refusing to accept different cultures even if they've been present in these parts for centuries.

There are two ways that I can think of. The first one is unproven and I don't know the specifics of how this could be done, but if one could somehow restructure society to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the poverty and hopelessness of the lower classes and come up with an ideology that renders something like Islam unnecessary, in principle you could end it.

The second one is obvious and it stems from the fact that, when applied properly and in sufficient quantities, repression most certainly does do the job. Remember, much of Western Europe was once ruled by Muslims. The descendants of Charles Martel et al can play the ancient game and they start from a far superior position than their ancestors did. Of course, it would mean the utter end of the values the ruling elites of Europe have been promulgating since the end of WWII, but it's a proven, reliable method.

[MercenaryChef]

15 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Repression often works.  Just ask the native Americans, for example.

 

That was not simply repression.  It was a near total destruction of their populace,  assimilation and re-education of the survivors and only then into repression. 

Taking care of radical Islam the same way is nigh impossible and terrible to think of.

[Lordsteve666]

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Repression often works.  Just ask the native Americans, for example.

 

Yeah but when one of your "options" for solving the problem happens to pretty much amount to genocide then anything is better than that, even difficult political and social changes.

I mean yes we probably could get rid of Islamic extremism if we annihilated the middle east plus every population of Muslin people in the world and wiped the very existence of that religion/belief from the world. But that's is somewhere we never want to consider going...ever.