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."

Comments

And they may have.

[Mal-2]

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.

Re: And they may have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not notice the part where the third wasn't killed?

Re:And they may have.

[Opportunist]

Ask the French. They, unlike a good deal of Europe that followed the rule of the European version of the SCOTUS and canceled the data retention laws, do still have total surveillance.

Re:And they may have.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, as a French, I will tell you: the attacks of last week only happened because of the effective control that exists in France to keep surveillance away from the innocent and the general population. The two first attackers were known to the authorities for joining jihad in Syria; they were sent to jail when they came back and had their phone wiretapped for 3 years after they were reselased. In July 2014, the national commission on phone surveillance disallowed the secret services to continue wiretapping these two, since they had done nothing wrong had just become regular citizen (they are NOT allowed to wiretap without a warrant and they need strong clues on possible terrorist attacks to get one). It wasn only six month later these guys decided to origanize the attacks; few more month of wiretapping warrant and the attacks were prevented (just like they were today in Belgium).

Re:And they may have.

[gnasher719]

The real problem is that these people managed to collect lots of weapons. How did they get these weapons? Why is nobody asking how they got their weapons? What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer? Plus severe punishment for anyone trying to smuggle illegal guns in the country, or selling illegal guns? That would be something that should stop that kind of terrorism, while not affecting any ordinary citizen.

The problem isn't stopping terrorists. The problem is stopping terrorists without turning the country into a police state.

Prepare for more

[HBI]

They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism. It's an asymmetric war. You can choose to ignore it and the murders, or you can fight it. Staying neutral isn't an option.

Re:Prepare for more

[radtea]

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.)

Re:Prepare for more

[chipschap]

I think it's all caused by global warming.

Re:Prepare for more

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Prepare for more

[swb]

but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.

It all depends on what kind of battlefield warfare you're willing to fight.

The TV news friendly, politically popular war where we're real careful about the destruction we cause and the collateral damage and winning hearts and minds is a sure loser.

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.

The of the firebombing of Tokyo and the A-bomb strikes. The Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man and never surrendering. Once we demonstrated the ability and willingness to just level cities until they capitulated, they capitulated. The alternative was not capitulating and risking the reduction of the Japanese nation to the same footnote status of Carthage.

How do you think Julius Ceasar won the Gallic campaign? By building roads and schools and promising H1-B visas? You were given an offer to disarm and pledge allegiance to Rome. Your alternative was to have your people killed, your treasure seized and anyone left standing sold into slavery or crucified.

No, it is not nice in any sense of the word. It is utter brutality and bloodshed. Which is why we should never, ever get into these conflicts unless we're willing to do what successful armies for centuries have done to actually conquer a people.

Re:Prepare for more

[Anonymous Coward]

And to give you an example you might understand, last week, Islamists killed 2,000 people in Nigeria.

Remind me, how many people has the Westboro Baptist Church killed?

Re:Prepare for more

[Rakarra]

And to give you an example you might understand, last week, Islamists killed 2,000 people in Nigeria.

They live in an impoverished country with little real government to speak of with lots of tribal warfare that may or may not have anything at all to do with religion.

The Westboro loons live in a country where there is actually strong law enforcement, and the legal system makes it easy to be a real pain in the ass.

Re:Prepare for more

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Prepare for more

[Ol Olsoc]

Not really responding to the overarching point of your post, but the consensus of the allied commanders at the time of the A-bomb attacks was that Japan was ready to surrender very soon, if not immediately, and that if a ground invasion even proved necessary, Japan would fold immediately.

Your point? We did what we did, and they surrendered.

I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.

By the way, is consensus truth? The Japanese thought they would demoralize the US by attacking Pearl Harbor. An attack on a possession galvanized us As I recall, there was a certain party that thought that Russia was going to fall quickly, and how did that work out for them?

Another party was going to get involved in Japan about this time, and seeing what they did to Germany, perhaps you would have found that a superior solution? Would you rather have had Tokyo reduced to the state that Berlin was? It is much fun to Monday morning quarterback. Then we can discard and emphasize as many facts as we like.

Re:Prepare for more

[Ol Olsoc]

There is actually a difference between a normal Muslim who has his religion and wants to live his everyday life and an Islamist nutjob hellbent on screwing up the country he lives in.

To give you an example you might understand, think of it like some everyday Christian vs. the Westboro Baptist loonies.

So has the Westboro Baptist lopped off anyone's head because they were the wrong version of Christianity or didn't convert to their looniness? Very very few Christian terrorists, Northern Irland has some kooks, but otherwise, I wouldn't mind being filled in on the multitudes of Christians bringing down planes, bombing churches, removing peoples heads, or other fun stuff.

As far as I know, there aren't a lot of Catholics strapping bombs to themselves, and chanting, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, amen.", detonating it on the end of "amen".

There is no question that most Muslims are not terrorists. But it is denial of the most dangerous sort to deny that most terrorists are Muslim. You just have to decide whether you accept terrorism in the name of religion. You statement makes me believe you do.

Re:Prepare for more

[swb]

There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world but only 320 million Americans. There are five Muslims in the world for every one American. It's not clear that there would be any point to an all out war between the all the Muslims of the world and the USA (i.e. both sides would lose far more than they could hope to gain). But it's also far from clear that the USA could win such a war with brutality alone. Most likely other countries would get involved and the outcome would be determined by which side could build the strongest alliances.

Total warfare is an overarching military philosophy, it is not a specific campaign strategy.

We speak of Islamic extremism, but most generally we experience a particular flavor of Arab-dominated Islamic extremism made possible right now by a handful of weak and failed Arab states, bounded by Lebanon on the North and West, Syria and Northern Iraq in the Center and Yemen in the South. Arab states with functioning governments and effective central control have little problems with jihadis, they are treated as an internal problem.

Imposing order on these areas would vastly minimize the breeding ground for this kind of terrorism.

Re:Prepare for more

[markass530]

"Northern Irland has some kooks,"

By that logic I Could say "The Middle east has some kooks, but otherwise"

Re:Prepare for more

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Prepare for more

[tehcyder]

Only 64% of Muslims in France said violence was never justified. Wow! Only 64% - why such a low number? How many Christians in the United States would not support violence? Got to believe it would better than 64%

If you asked a sample of Americans whether violence was never justified to defend themslelves, I imagine a lot less than 64% would agree.

It depends on what question you ask, and how you ask it.

Re:Prepare for more

[sribe]

The only unequivocal point is that they did surrender. If they had truly believed in fighting until the last Japanese person died in a ditch, they would have.

No, it is not the only unequivocal point. There are records of the high command's meetings.

Re:Prepare for more

[HBI]

OK, let's be clear about something here. Hirohito was not an absolute ruler, but he had a lot of clout and the people in the Japanese council were eager to spare him the task of making decisions. Also, they feared for their own status after a surrender. It is of note that ultimately, he was the one who announced to the Japanese people that it was time to lay down their arms. So he did have authority and could have chosen to wield it at any time. It is clear that the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima shocked the Japanese, but only the second strike at Nagasaki caused them to sue for peace. In this, both the ruling clique and Hirohito himself can be blamed for sitting on their asses and letting their people get firebombed (whether conventionally or atomically) for too long.

That said, the bombs came along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Korea...never forget that that happened almost simultaneously. Truman's decision to drop bombs when he did was partially politically motivated inasmuch as there was an imminent plan for the Soviets to invade Hokkaido, the most northerly Japanese home island. This would have entitled the Soviets to an occupation zone in Tokyo and Japan, and we might have spoken later of "communist North Japan" and "South Japan".

Then, there was the lack of desire to let MacArthur wrap himself in glory in the invasion of Japan itself. Never mind the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of casualties expected.

It was important to the US for Japan to surrender exactly when Japan did, and no later. The answer is never as simple and black and white as we would like.

Re:Prepare for more

[david_thornley]

After doing some research, I simply don't know when Japan would have surrendered under other circumstances.

By the summer of 1945, the Japanese Navy, in some respects the most powerful in the world in early 1942, had been destroyed. Japan had been blockaded, cutting off most raw materials. The ferries carrying coal from the northmost main island to the industrial centers had been sunk, so the economy was collapsing.. The Japanese Army had been bled white, and had lost against any real Western Allied attack for over a year, longer than that against the US and Australia. The Western Allies had defeated Nazi Germany and were redeploying their main forces against Japan.

Under these circumstances, there were advocates of surrender, but they were getting nowhere. The Army and Navy had a stranglehold on government, and they were determined to resist. The original Japanese strategy against the US was to let the US waste their resources fighting through Japanese defenses until they decided it wasn't worth it, and that strategy was still in effect. The Japanese were making provisions to make the expected invasion of the southernmost main island extremely bloody, and (as we found after the war) the US plans for that invasion were basically what the Japanese expected. The US Navy was losing ships at a steady rate.

We dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, and the Japanese knew perfectly well what the bomb was, having had a couple of atomic bomb projects themselves (one Army and one Navy). They correctly deduced that it would be a long time before we would have another U-235 gun bomb. Nothing changed. The Soviets attacked. Nothing.

Then we dropped another one on Nagasaki, of a different sort. The Japanese physicists had thought this impossible, not having considered a plutonium implosion bomb. They had no reason to offer why we wouldn't have a lot more of them fairly quickly. (In fact, the next one was mostly ready to go, and the production lines were ramping up.) There was no reason we couldn't destroy Japan methodically, city by city. The Soviet offensive in Manchuria proceeded inexorably, although I don't know what the Japanese government knew when.

Sound like a good time to surrender? The Emperor took an unconstitutional initiative towards surrender. The advocates of surrender didn't know what would happen; Anami, the Minister of War, could effectively veto any surrender, and he gave no indication of what he thought. The Emperor recorded a surrender announcement. In it, he mentioned two things about the war: that there was a new and most cruel bomb, and that other than that things had not developed necessarily to the advantage of Japan.

So, the Emperor had decided, Japan was clearly in a completely hopeless situation, so you'd assume the surrender would go ahead, right? In fact, there were several attempts by lower-ranking people to stop the surrender, including an invasion of the Imperial Palace, and the burning of a government minister's home. (Anami eventually made an oblique comment that appeared to condone the surrender, then committed ritual suicide.)

What would convince Anami to allow surrender? What would prevent a coup by junior officers determined to continue the war? (The Japanese junior officer corps was high undisciplined in some ways, having kicked off the invasion of China proper without restraint from Tokyo.) Except for the historical process, which I know led to Japan's surrender, I simply don't know. Since I don't know, I have a great deal of doubt about any claim that Japan would have surrendered under X conditions.

What would happen if the surrender was delayed? The postwar Air Force study concluded that Japan would have surrendered in late Fall if not earlier, and for all I know they may be right. Japan currently occupied a whole lot of China and Indochina (by then, what is now Malaysia and Indonesia would have been liberated). There were hundreds of millions of civilians there, and they were starving. Because the surre

Re:Prepare for more

[david_thornley]

It's plausible that Japan surrendered because the Soviets attacked, but I really haven't seen evidence for it. The evidence that it was because of the Nagasaki bombing is inconclusive, but it appears stronger than the Stalin explanation.

Re:Prepare for more

[tlambert]

I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.

Though only after US inflicted crippling economic sanctions on them. I'm not a US basher, but large powers (US, Russia) tend to act like school bullies.. they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack".

Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.

And by "crippling economic sanctions", you mean we stopped selling them scrap steel for them to use in pursuit of their war on China, where they were attempting to seize territory so that, among other things, they had the ability to mine to produce their own steel.

They were kind of expansionist, empire-building, belligerent asses at the time. A conflict was inevitable, even if we'd enabled them to take China, other areas in Asia, and the Philippines.

How many attacks will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like ISIS has effectively declared war on the US and Europe. How many attacks like the ones in France, and how many thwarted attacks like the ones discussed here, will it take before we decide to load up and actually take them out? This is different than the last two Iraq wars, and different than Afghanistan. Does anyone know what we are actually waiting for? Is it because there is no oil, or not enough public outrage? Are we waiting for another catastrophic attack to justify our actions? Why are we not taking them out now?

Re:How many attacks will it take?

[unixisc]

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.

Re:How many attacks will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe is doing the same Chamberlain-esque tactics that they did when Germany rose to power in the 1930s. However, instead of land, it is "maybe, we shouldn't 'blasphemy'", which is turning into "maybe we need to pass laws punishing those to speak bad about Islam or else we get bombed". Europe has done nothing to stop ISIS, and in fact has condoned, if not starting to actively recognize IS as a sovereign state.

Well, not all of Europe. France has had the willpower to stabilize Libya and try to do something in the Middle East while the rest of the continent has been happy to surrender to the religious zealots. France also has had the gumption to say "no" to burqas. Of course, this is why France gets targeted. People may joke about "surrender monkeys", but they step forward while the rest of Europe kneels. Some of the Scandinavian nations refuse to have minarets put up and resist having another foreign violent culture overrun them.

I am not surprised that IS's propaganda showed Europe under their flag in two years. Hell, it seems that the continent, except for a few holdout nations, will happily cede them the caliphate... just like how Czechoslovakia became Germany's.

Re:How many attacks will it take?

[delt0r]

Then you go through Greece into Turkey to where ever you want to go. It is not that difficult to travel in and out of a the EU without passports.It is just inconvenient.

Re:BAU

[ShopMgr]

You nuke a city, we nuke a city. I say we start with Mecca. Three times a day, you can kneel, bow, and remember - for 10,000 years.

They've had that long.

[tlambert]

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.

Re:They've had that long.

[peragrin]

Interesting fact.

When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
Guess how old Islam is?

Religions age about a 1000 time slower than people.

You start out young and idealistic, and you try to convert people peacefully. Then you get all angsty in your teenage years and try to force people to believe your way is the right way. Then you slowly mature into adult hood.

Read the old testament to learn what the jews did in their first 2000 years.

Re:They've had that long.

[tlambert]

Interesting fact.

When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
Guess how old Islam is?

I kind of think it doesn't matter; all you are really saying is that they don't learn from mistakes by watching the people on the road in front of them. They have an example of how to go from being violent to being non-violent, and they are unwilling to follow that example. That's a choice, not them lacking a working example, as Christianity did when they were stumbling around trying to find a road forward. I don't think the situation is comparable, and it's certainly not comparable on time scale, just because both of them are religions.

False Flag

[MrKaos]

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.

He's missing from the nuthouse

[TrollstonButterbeans]

And I don't know if he is commenting on events in the news.

Or perhaps he is commenting on a movie he saw.

He clearly has quite an imagination. He should be a writer!

It's called deportation

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:It's called deportation

[unixisc]

THIS!!! Just like I mentioned above. In fact, even deportation wouldn't be necessary: in a lot of cases, you have Muzzie fighters wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS. I say - let them. Just note who they are, and impound their passports, so that they can't return. Same goes for Western converts to Islam who wanna join the Jihad. Send them all one way, but just cut off all return traffic from the entire region. That way, you won't have to bother. Then amongst those who remain and are causing problems, do a variety of things - from deportation to persecution.

It's worth noting that a lot of these Jihad campaigners who are there in the West have death sentences on them even from Islamic countries, like Jordan or Saudi Arabia. That's why they are there, and St. We-Won't-Tolerate-The-Death-Penalty Europeans refuse to extradite them back. Well, if that's gonna be their attitude, don't say that they didn't invite it upon themselves.

Major?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Like Charlie Whosit major? We are so weak and pathetic. What was the toll? 10? 15? More people probably choked and died eating fast food that day. And thousands march supposedly to defend "freedom of speech" at the same time their leaders/legislators wish to take as much of it away as possible.

Oh did anybody march in Nigeria this week? Last month? How many world "leaders" showed up there? More died as a result of terrorism there in the past month than probably in the past five years (if not quite a bit more) in Europe.

Terrorism as existed for ages. To get wound up and bent out of shape the way people do now over a handful of deaths is insane and contributes to the continuation of the attacks.. If this is the best that Al or Bob Qaeda and ISIS can manage can't we all just give it a freakin rest? It is one thing to feel some sorrow for the families of those kiled but quite another for whole societies to change their principals and ways of life.

Re:Major?

[tompaulco]

When will people understand that death due to an accident that was nobody's fault is different than premeditated murder or someone who would not have otherwise died? Yes, terrorism deserves to be focused on more than accidentally choking on a Big Mac.

How could this all happen?

[Opportunist]

Isn't that what we're asking? How could this all happen? Why did those kids become radical jihadists? Do we have to be afraid of Islam now? Is there going to be another threat to the Occident from the Turkish raiders like in 1600s and 1700s? Should we kick all Muslims out? Or put them in camps to give them a chance to concentrate better? And anti-Islam organizations are forming already. In Germany, PEGIDA formed. Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (it does work as an acronym in German, but PEATIOTW simply has no ring to it). And every right wing nutjob party left and right jumped up and cried that THEY are the REAL pegidiots. And everyone is wondering just why this all happens and what we can do now.

Why, what, how?

It's actually quite simple. And it's no wonder that it started in France. Europe has had a lot of immigration from Arab and Maghreb countries. Middle Europe more from Turkey, France more from North Africa. And those immigrants have two things in common: They're mostly Muslim, and they're treated like shit in the countries they went to. They were dumped into ghettos ... sorry, into certain areas that are suitable for them to settle in "so they can be among themselves", got shitty jobs nobody else wanted to do, get inferior payment to "good native" citizens, are looked down upon ... in a nutshell, they're second class citizens. If that.

But, well, they didn't complain. As odd as it may sound, they didn't think this was wrong. They came here because, well, the situation at home was not too great and they were needed as workers. Yes, really. Back when most of these people came there was actually a shortage of laborers. People who'd clean our floors, empty our waste baskets, cleaned our yards and did all the other petty crap nobody wanted to do for the pennies offered. They were actually content with it, they looked back at their former home country and could at least say, hey, it's better than that shit! And our kids will one day be living here and they'll have it better. They were mostly accepting it with the prospect that their kids will be French/German/Austrian/Danish/Dutch/Belgian/yougettheidea, and then they'll no longer be second class but they'll be one of "the good natives". And while usually religious, they were hardly what we today would consider fundamentalists. They were Muslims, often quite devout, but not out to preach or even kill the Infidels.

Well, time went on and the second generation came to be. They were born "here". They had no real ties to their parents' native country except that they'd maybe remember having family there, maybe even going there to visit Grandfather and Grandmother, along with the others that stayed. For the US people here, think of it as if your forefathers once came from Europe, say, after WW2, and you're visiting those relatives. Yes, sure, you remember that your family has ties there. But you feel like you're from the US, don't you? Well, these people feel like they should be French/German/..., but they cannot. To the French/German/... they're still "the African" and "the Turk". They're not "one of us". They're still "one of them". They still get only the crappy homes, can only get the crappy job, can still just get shitty payment and are still looked down as second class citizens.

And that's something that's hard to digest. Because the message is clear: You'll never be one of us. That you're born here means jack. You're still the African to us. You're still the Turk to us. You're still second class. You will never belong here. And you can't even hope that your kids will.

Now, for a moment think how you'd feel if the country you call home considers you "inferior" and a good portion of the people would just love to "send you back home", to a country you have no ties at all to. With a good chance that you don't even speak the language properly, if at all.

You might understand that this does breed some contempt. And you

Re:How could this all happen?

[cheesybagel]

You're wrong if you think they cannot get jobs because of some ethnic connotation. Much like the blacks in America a lot of them do not have an education and do not want an education. For whatever reason none of these problems happen with Asians even though they aren't Europeans either. Guess why.

Re:How could this all happen?

[thesupraman]

Could you please let me know which Govt Department I go to in France to apply for the location I am allowed to live in?
I seem to be having trouble finding it - hell - last time I was there I just lived where I damn well wanted to and could afford..
Lucky I wasnt tracked down, I assume the penalty for living in the wrong place ispretty damn severe!

Oh, sorry, you mean you were talking figuratively, not literally? or some BS excuse like that?
Do you realise that the rhetoric you are spouting here is almost EXACTLY from the playbook of pre-soviet communism?
Didnt work out too well then either, for those who believed it.. unless you consider life under stalinist russia, or maoist
china to have worked out well for minorities (and I DO suggest you go and find out what did happen to them..).

In the end there is a certainly small percentge of ALL populations who will take up any excuse to do bad things.
They are (some of) the rapists, the murderers, the arsonists, you get the idea...
These particular ones just grabbed on a different excuse for their actions. Its not the voices in their heads, its not because
society forced them to, its not to compensate for what their parents did to them, its to 'avenge their religion', and its about
as BS as the other reasons - but these kinds of people will always find a reason.

THAT is the important thing to remember. This is no more 'Islam' than the crusaders were 'Christian' (even less so as it is not
state sponsored). It is the scumm of humanity doing what they have always done.

And, unfrotunately, there is no law you can pass, no restructions you can place, no force you can empower to stop it.
the best you can do is EDUCATE PEOPLE, and stop assuming that every nasty little arsehole is actually a wonderful
person who just needs love and support to help them bloom. Some of them are just nasty little arseholes.

Re:BAU

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there the fanatical demand that the GP not 'stop there'? When you have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, Taoists and others causing terror and other law & order problems, THEN it will make sense equating them with the others. Charlie Hebdo, for instance, insulted the 3 major religions, but did their staff ever get threatened, much less killed, by any Christian or Jewish fanatics? It was only the Muslims who threatened them and carried it out. Where are the Jewish or Catholic ghettos in Paris, which are no go zones for French police? Where are the churches or synagogues that instruct their sheeple on how to carry out a terror attack for $DEITY? Given all the events of the last 2 weeks, people are quite justified in directing their rage at just Muslims, and not other religious groups

Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe !

[Anonymous Coward]

After the carnage of World War II, Europe used to be a place where people, no matter if they are truly civilized or not, tried to behave with civility
 
... until the Europeans decided to "diverse" their society by importing the Islamists in

With the Islamists came the bombings and killings and mayhems and intimidation and you know what the so-called 'European Leaders' wanna do ?

Import even more Islamists into Europe !

As though the cure for a cancer patient is to put even more cancerous cells inside the body

Sooner or later Europe gonna be overwhelmed by the Islamists

Sooner or later National Cathedrals will be replaced by National Mosque

No more bikini, no more women's rights, no more diversity, for all must kow-tow to Allah, or have their heads cut off

Congratulations, Europeans, for you have brought the troubles all onto yourselves !

Re:Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe !

[hooiberg]

We have already municipal offices with separate counters for men and for women. Swimming pools and fitness centers with women-only-days (but men still have to pay the same for membership, while they are allowed less entry). Ha, even a swimming pool with separate dress booths for: men without children, women without children, men with sons, men with daughters, women with sons, women with daughters. And cases of violence of non-muslims against muslims is considered a terrible hate crime, but violence of muslims against non-muslims is considered fairly normal... Fortunately, the last politicians who have grown up in our hippie days are retiring, and hopefully we will have a more realistic outlook on politics in the years to come. Our left wing parties are growing smaller and smaller every election. There is hope.

Re:BAU

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a pretty good reason for Islam to be singled out. There have been close to 25,000 terror attacks since 9/11. It's the reason security clearances thru airports now involve removing shoes, belts, coats and putting them in baggage trays. Which other religious group has carried out relentless campaigns of terror and intimidation worldwide? When was the last time Jews flew planes into skyscrapers? When was the last time Christians issued death threats against newspapers or cartoonists? When was the last time Hindus went off on a religious war to Nepal, planning to return to the West to carry out terror attacks? When was the last time Buddhists made any part of any city ghettos that the city's police couldn't enter? But each of the above has been done by Muslims, and throughout the world - whether it's Jihadi attacks by Abu Sayyaf in Philippines, to last weeks rampage in Paris.

It's one thing for a group of people to simply believe in an imaginary leader. It's quite another to try and make the imagined diktats of that leader the law for everybody, regardless of whether they believe in it or not.

Come On

[SuperKendall]

They live in an impoverished country with little real government to speak of with lots of tribal warfare that may or may not have anything at all to do with religion.

That is unbelievable whitewashing bullshit of what happened, and you dishonor the 2000+ dead with your sickening lies/ignorance.

Boko Haram has stated openly they are an Islamic group and are trying to form an ISIS like African Caliphate . What more do you need to see the truth?

Tell me about it, I woke up at 5 am by a raid!

[freaker_TuC]

Wednesday at 5:00 AM, I woke up, in Antwerpen by the sound of a bomb. First they tried to get through the window of the neighbours, but they couldn't push their window-rollers up. They tried to ram my (armorized burglar-proof) door once as well. After, they rammed 2 ports and a few doors for more than 12 times in order to arrest someone who wasn't even officially living there. When going outside to check what was going on, as it sounded a war has started, I saw two armed masked men which were anything but friendly.

Never have seen this before like this and never woke up that fast, but with a barrel of a gun right in front of me when opening my front-door to see what was going on.

Tomorrow they will be having the military protecting Antwerpen. Happy happy, joy joy ..

WITNESS SUPRESSION

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They must be killed - judge, jury, executioner - before they can reveal that "Charlie" was a Gladio.