Slashdot Mirror
Belgian Raid Kills 2, Said To Avert "Major Terrorist Attacks"
As reported by CNN, Reuters, and other outlets, a raid in the Belgian city of Verviers -- one of several counter-terrorism actions in the country today -- ended in the death of two men, and the capture of a third, who are said to have been planning imminent acts of violence akin to the ones earlier this month in France. From Reuters' coverage:
Coming a week after Islamist gunmen killed 17 people in Paris, the incident heightened fears across Europe of young local Muslims returning radicalised from Syria. But prosecutors' spokesman Eric Van Der Sypt said the Belgian probe had been under way before the Jan. 7 attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. ... Describing events in the quiet provincial town just after dark, he said: "The suspects immediately and for several minutes opened fire with military weaponry and handguns on the special units of the federal police before they were neutralised." ... Earlier in the day, prosecutors said they had detained a man in southern Belgium whom they suspected of supplying weaponry to Amedy Coulibaly, killer of four people at a Paris Jewish grocery after the Charlie Hebdo attack. After the violence in Verviers, La Meuse newspaper quoted an unidentified police officer saying: "We've averted a Belgian Charlie Hebdo."
They may have averted their own Charlie Hebdo event, but sadly, the credibility of both sides of the "War on Terror" has been shot to hell -- primarily because of the actions of government which they thought people would take lying down. Most of them have, but even if they aren't in the streets protesting, they'll still roll their eyes and say "yeah, right".
Let's assume for the moment that this is completely legitimate, and an opportunity for the authorities to win back some respect. If so, they should carry the ensuing trial(s) openly for all to see. "We used surveillance programs to detect X, Y, and Z and couldn't have done it without them because A, B, and C" is exactly the sort of rational argument we'd like to see. If it turns out they did it through traditionally acceptable (like warrants) means, this weakens the argument of being able to do an end run around such procedures. Obviously this would be unwelcome from an authoritarian perspective, but it might win back some trust from those of us who do respect the actions of legitimate and responsible investigators.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism.
By "kept so busy at home" you mean "engaging in productive trade", right?
Because it certainly wouldn't make any sense to suggest that bombing them, for example, is "keeping them busy" in any materially useful sense, since we have overwhelming empirical data that bombing and any other form of military assault has the primary result of engendering resistance.
Furthermore, "at home" is Belgium for the people involved in this action, and "at home" was France for the blasphemophobes who murdered the blasphemers of Charlie Hebdo.
You are right that this is an asymmetric war, but you don't seem aware that that requires tactics very different from bombing or other military action in many cases. Limited military assaults can serve definite purposes, as the case of ISIS shows, but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.
In fact, there not being a battlefield in any conventional sense was a requirement for winning against the Soviets. Even setting aside the problem of nuclear weapons, if we had met the Soviets on the battlefield we can say with near certainty that the population would have rallied 'round the commisars, and the Soviet Empire would have never fallen.
As such, our tactical response to Islamists should be primarily--but not exclusively--non-military. It should be economic, political, satirical, even poetical: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...
It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs. We should be in this for the long haul, and while we should be willing to kill and die now and then, if anyone suggests those should be the primary activities involved, they are simply expressing a profound ignorance of humans, and history, and warfare (both its costs and its effectiveness, which bellicose emotionalists often get wrong.)
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Not if they get a nuke. Since Islam is an incredibly violent, sexist, evil false religion (source cited: the Quran) it should simply be outlawed everywhere. I don't give a fuck about religious freedom. All that does is allow Scientology to exist.
It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs.
They've *had* hundreds of years. What makes you think another hundred years will change anything?
Christians started tolerating "blaphemy" after they rose to power, and after they got their story straight to the point where they could face academic introspection, and after secular authority was predominantly in charge of the society in which they lived.
I jut have to point out that this happened in Australia. 16 men were picked up for exactly this same reason and then let go without charge. As it turns out the very day before wikileaks data revealed that NSW police were using spyware, an illegal technique as it is the same as domestic spying.
In the media frenzy that followed the politicians whipped the masses into a frenzy on one hand saying "we're all gonna die", then "everybody stay calm" and at the right moment introduced legislation that made the illegal techniques, legal.
I have to wonder if the same thing is happening here to the Belgian people. I am no fan of Islam and it's plethora of human rights violations however, any salient person can observe the governments using Islam to tighten their grip on ordinary people's freedoms.
Unfortunately since objective media doesn't exist anymore those who care can see the persistent slide to a police state world emerging with horror replete with the knowledge that dead men cannot be bought before a court of inquiry.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
2015
IT''S 2015.
2015
Think about it. In this age of information, there's a specific religion that murders others out of what they call "blasphemy". In 2015. I can't say Christians were justified in their murders, but holy shit it's far less wrong than doing it now with all the knowledge we have of the universe and our complex societies based on freedom of speech and religion. And you're really equating them to Christians hundreds of years ago. There's not even the slightest probability of Islam reforming, you know why? Because they MURDER reformists. The sects that already exist are there for good. Christianity, while they also had this issue, it devolved really quickly into what we have today: a bunch of fringe denominations that ignore half the bible and only cherrypicks the good things. And let's not forget the very especial parts where they outline God's law and MAN's law (Romans 13:1-7 for instance). All in all, Christianity is far more easy to fit in with civil society. It's the perfect book to cherry pick quotes from since there are so many contradictions.
Also, while I'm at it, I'll just leave this here. Take it with a grain of salt though.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism):
In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified, ( http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97 ) in Europe:
64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10 % sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
In mainly Muslim countries:
45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.
There was a piece on NPR yesterday while I was driving home and the French guy they were interviewing was saying that their secret service people knew of about 5000 people who had gone to Syria and become radicalized and had fought and trained over there and have since returned. He then went on to complain about the level of surveillance it took to keep and eye on that many people, and on and on he went. I just don't get it. Call me stupid but if you know who they are and they're radicalized and especially if they are an immigrant, why don't you simply revoke their passport, put em on a plane back to Syria and call it a day?
Why would France or any other country not take these steps? If they were fully naturalized citizens I can see there being some other steps necessary but honestly even in this country with it's anti-terror laws if someone goes overseas to fight and be trained then they are immediately considered an enemy combatant and subject to detention. At least for the ones you have credible evidence and intelligence on. Someone gets convicted of trying to recruit for IS or AQ and they let em go? Seriously kick em out!
One thing I don't get - why is the West - Europe and Americas - allowing anybody to come in from ISIS lands, like Iraq or Syria? I don't have a problem w/ wannabe Jihadis taking the next flight to Baghdad, and then making their way to the frontlines in Raqqa. Let them go there, fight or do whatever ISIS asks them to do, and leave it to them.
Only thing - when they do leave for that region, take down their names and make sure that their trip is just one way. Impound their passports, cancel their citizenship/visas and make it impossible for them to legally re-enter the West. After all, they either are or embraced Islam, and decided that jihad is what they want to do. Fair enough - so let them go to the battlegrounds in Iraq or Syria where they can fight for their dear caliphate, or do whatever their Arab bosses ask them to do. If they wanna kill other Muslims b'cos they are not the same type as them, that's their problem. Let them all slug it out and determine who represents the true Islam.
Just prevent them from ever returning, and you won't have the issue of jihad terror in the West.
Scorched earth total warfare where you ring a population center and utterly bomb it to rubble without any consideration for civilians is winnable. You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.
100 percent correct, and unpopular as hell.
It's like dealing with bullies. at heart, they are cowards, and after making a few examples, thy have a marked tendency to stand down. I would never get into a war that I did not intend to win, and post WW2 history has adequately proven that limited warfare and the unfathomable stupidity of win hearts and minds warfare simply doesn't work - although I believe that the recent longest wars in US history were also a massive corporate welfare project too.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim.
The other day I was pondering the question of "What is a terrorist?". I mean, taken literally, a terrorist would be someone who causes terror. But what terrifies me? In my case, not death, per se. But there are much worse things than the sweet oblivion of death. I've traveled the world and seen desperate poverty up close and personal. The thought of people I care about being trapped in desperate poverty scares me. I do lay awake sometimes in the wee hours of the morning with cold fear in the pit of my stomach wondering whether I'll be able to keep my daughter from falling into poverty. If I were to die of cancer in the next few years, things would be pretty tough for my wife and daughter. But is that terror? And, if so, who is to blame? Why don't we live in world where anyone willing to do an honest days work can easily find work that pays enough to live simply but comfortably?
But, while it might not literally terrify me, a high probability of being killed would almost certainly concern me. If some small group of people got their hands on weapons that allowed them to kill a billion people in a single attack, and they were clearly intending to kill many billions more unless their demands were met, then I would probably talk things over with my wife and say, "Well, dear, I'm looking at the situation and I'm thinking that there's a good chance we may not survive this so perhaps I should take few days off work so we can have some quality time together before we're killed?" I wouldn't really call such a group "terrorists" but perhaps "concernists" - as they would be a significant cause for concern. Fortunately, though, such groups have yet to exist.
And what of people just killing each other generally for whatever reason? Well, that happens a lot. And many more die indirectly (e.g. of poverty) as a results of the callous indifference of others. I mean, yeah, pretty much all of it is unfortunate but the causes are all so diverse it's hard to identify any single pattern or cause. Sure, you've got things like 9/11 and the various school shootings in the USA. But then you've got other things like the USA war on Iraq and the resulting rise of ISIL. And then there's always the general background of violent crime.
You just have to decide whether you accept terrorism in the name of religion.
So the thing is, that's not really a binary decision. First, you have to try to figure out what that even means. And then you have to look around at all the really bad stuff going on in the world (poverty, disease, and all sorts of violent conflicts) and figure out how much you care about "religious terrorism" relative to everything else. I suppose there are some people out there who are so insanely lucky that they have lived such extremely sheltered lives that Charlie Hedbo type incidents actually seem scary. But there are a lot of people who just shrug at one more little drop in the vast ocean of human misery and wearily get on with their lives.