Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Belgian Raid Kills 2, Said To Avert "Major Terrorist Attacks"

Posted by timothy on from the knock-knock dept.

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."

20 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. And they may have. by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re: And they may have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  2. Prepare for more by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Prepare for more by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Prepare for more by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

    5. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    6. Re:Prepare for more by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Prepare for more by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Prepare for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Prepare for more by HBI · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  3. They've had that long. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:They've had that long. by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:They've had that long. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  4. Major? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. How could this all happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How could this all happen? by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. Re:How many attacks will it take? by unixisc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Solution? Import more Islamists into Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 !