Slashdot Mirror


Terrorist Attack In Brussels Airport and Metro Station: At Least 34 Dead (mirror.co.uk)

SomeoneFromBelgium writes: This morning there was a double bomb explosion in Brussels, Belgium. In the National Airport entrance hall an estimated 13 people were killed by a big explosion; around the same time another bomb exploded in Metro station 'Maalbeek,' close to the financial district, killing an estimated 10 persons. Note: story updates bump this figure ot at least 34 deaths. Reader jones_supa adds Shots were fired and Arabic shouted before the blasts, suggesting a terrorist attack. Video and images on social media showed smoke rising from an airport building and shattered windows. Confused and shocked passengers fled the terminal to safety as they were evacuated by armed police. Footage showed rubbish littered across the floor. All traffic from and to the airport has been suspended. The airport is monitoring the situation closely and will deliver further announcements in Twitter. Update: 03/22 13:06 GMT by T : According to the New York Times and other sources, at least one of the explosions was set off by a suicide bomber. Slate has an actively updating stream of updates about the attack, too.

65 of 1,011 comments (clear)

  1. It is not a justification for more surveillance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic. Any one of us is still far more likely to die in a number of ways that we have long accepted as risks which are ultimately unavoidable if we want to sustain our way of life. We can't stop driving just because people die in road accidents, and we can't stop being free just because people die in terrorist attacks. If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.

  2. Don't take away everyone's freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the wake of the terror attacks, there are already complaints about security failures at European airports. Because the attacks were committed outside of secure areas, there's already talk about extending security farther out. Of course, anything that's not secured is potentially a soft target. Taken to the extreme, this could mean searching anyone upon leaving their homes. This is impractical and these additional security measures won't stop terrorism. They don't address the real issue. Yet I fear these measures are coming, and will extend the reach of surveillance while further eroding privacy.

    If you want to stop terrorism, you must identify the issue, and then directly address that issue. A disproportionate amount of attacks are committed by Muslims. The typical response is that most Muslims aren't violent. While that's true, the moderate followers of Islam enable the extremists Muslims to carry out their actions. This has been elegantly stated by Sam Harris, a brilliant neurologist. Instead of being politically correct, it's important to confront the real issue. And that issue is Islam.

    Stopping terrorism means stopping Islam. It's not bigoted because being Muslim is a choice. Being Arab or Persian is out of the control of a person. Belief in a fairy tale like the Muslim religion is a choice and a dangerous one. We wouldn't take belief in Zeus seriously in the present day, so why defend Islam? We would be better off extending surveillance and profiling to Muslims. Better still would be to altogether ban Islam. In order to be secure, the root cause of the problems must be addressed. That root cause is Islam, which must be banned.

    1. Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it's time to ban ALL religions?

    2. Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone even suggests we stop allowing immigrates from countries which we are currently at war until we have a reasonable vetting process, you hear cries of racism. Ironically from people who think all Muslims are of a certain race.

    3. Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stopping terrorism means stopping Islam.

      Oh totally. But we can't stop there, because there should be no half measures. We need to ban Christianity because look at what happened in Colorado with that Planned Parenthood. Terrorism. Also, we need to ban Atheism because the "dark knight" guy in Aurora was an Atheist.....I bet that's where he got the ideas. See, if only the non-violent Christians and non-violent Atheists had done something to prevent this type of terrorism, it'd be OK. But, they don't stop it, so we need to ban their philosophies as well. So glad someone had the courage to say it.

      /bitter sarcasm

      Seriously, how in the fuck is this moderated as "Insightful". You sir, are an idiot.

    4. Re:Don't take away everyone's freedom by Notorious+G · · Score: 2, Insightful

      American christians have a far greater percentage of violent fundamentalists than those in other countries.

      Oh yeah, I know we all feel a great deal of stress and fear every time we see a Christian walking up to a crowd. They're a real threat, they are. If only they could be more like those nuce muslim boys....

  3. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by alphatel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.

    You insensitive clod, we need phone decryption to spy on law-abiding citizen, not terrorists!

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  4. Re:Probably Muslim extremists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know of course, that means you're racist.

  5. We won't win war on terror by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The man sounds on target to me.

    We won't win war on terror: Former French PM

    " Europe is taking the wrong approach to fighting terrorism, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has told CNBC.

    Speaking immediately after a series of explosions rocked the Belgian capital of Brussels, de Villepin said that they were "tragic events" but added that Europe should be showing that it is sticking to its rule of law and can only "reduce" the threat of terrorism.

    "I do believe that our strategy should be very different than the one it is. Much less a military approach than a political approach, trying to find solutions in the Middle East and we are far from doing that," he said."

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:We won't win war on terror by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you handle the culturally/religiously driven self-motivated lack of engagement?

      "We want to engage more, but your society is full of things that are forbidden by our religion. Your women are immodest, your media is full of blasphemous imagery, your employers will not change their business practices to allow us unimpeded practice of our religion. We can't live as our religion says we should unless you change your culture to accommodate our beliefs. Therefore we find comfort in our own neighborhoods where we can live in greater accordance with our beliefs."

      Basically, there is a lot of self-segregation going on and a certain resentment that the host country won't change to accommodate their religious beliefs. This seems to end up leading to a perception of discrimination and probably harms second and further generation offspring who might otherwise more easily assimilate.

  6. Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you really think this is about cartoons, you can just as well claim that the Iraq war was about WMDs and spreading democracy (and that Western democracy is a real problem for the rest of the world).

    --
    Donate free food here
  7. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I abolutely agree with the above... We don't need our freedom to be restricted because of occasional terrorist attacks. If we allow that then they win, we lose. And as stated above, a lot more people die on the road each day, and nobody cares..

  8. Monotheistic Theo-Fascist Psycho-Cults by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Monotheistic Theo-Fascist mass-murdering Psycho-Cults - I'm just so fed up of them.

    Katholics, Protestants, Muslim, Jewish orthodox ... abrahamic book & revelation religions are all the same at variing points in history: Wacko genocide-advocating psycho-cults that have been around for too long. We've always done better whenever we've condemned them to their temples and curbed their power as much as possible.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  9. take effective action instead of security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You know who doesn't have this kind of broblem ?
    Israel.

  10. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also note that they didn't need to get anything past airport security to do this.

    Remember that, next time you're being groped by a TSA agent.

    --
    No sig today...
  11. Re:So soon after the arrest of the Paris suspect by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like have a Secret Police sneak in and quietly arrest people at night without anyone knowing? Europe has tried that in the past.

  12. Re:Before the idiot 'Murican gun nuts start up.. by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    please STFU about your pathetic metal penis extensions... It's time for political correctness to be thrown into the trash can and for the mass deportations of Muslims from Europe... or a Final Solution in 20 years time.

    Wow. I've got to hand it to you: A lot of posts on the internet start with "guns are bad", but not a lot of them end with "but Nazis are good".

    Please STFU about your pathetic mental penis extensions.

  13. Re:take effective action instead of security theat by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know who doesn't have this kind of broblem ? Israel.

    I don't know. Ask the Palestinians in Israel and they might tell you they have a very big terrorism problem.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you advocate for more surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in response to these attacks, you are cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to undermine the fundamental values of our society.

    You insensitive clod, we need phone decryption to spy on law-abiding citizen, not terrorists!

    And lets just stop being PC about all this...and get serious.

    The time for profiling has come. Let's face it, this attack has all the markings of another horrible, malicious attack by those damned radical Baptist terrorists.

    It has all the signs....open your eyes people, we KNOW where and who the real threat is.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  15. Re:why is this on slashdot? by bungo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well incidents of terrorism in western cities doesn't occur every day.

    The fact that the group most likely behind it is the most web-wise terrorist group that has ever existed should be of at least a little bit of interest to us here.

    You you think you live in isolation? What happens in Brussels won't have effects in the rest of the world? You think that various world leaders are not going to use this as an excuse to bring in more monitoring, loss of rights? If not, let me know where you live, I'd like to move there.

    I passed through the metro station where the bomb went off 30 minutes before hand. My wife, only 15 minutes. Either of us could have been caught if the timing had been different.

    All public transport in Brussels has been stopped. Taxis are impossible to find - but the streets out of Brussels are mostly blocked, so cars aren't very good anyway. I have no way of getting home, except a very long walk for many hours. Sucks to be me, but sucks more for the people in the train that was behind mine.

    Ok, here's an IT angle for you:

    The mobile phone network stopped working just after the attacks. The Belgian government recommended people to use social media to communicate. Facebook added a 'I have not been blow up' button (or something like that, I don't use Facebook).

    --
    "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
  16. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.

  17. Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only certain 'Christian' factions in the USA.

    Yeah, it's always "only some Christians but all Muslims", isn't it?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  18. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree with you re: no more mass surveillance, let's be clear: terrorism isn't like car accidents, at all. It's not a random event that just happens. It's the end result of conscious human decision-making to murder as many innocent civilians as possible and to scare the shit out of everyone so their very way of life is affected. It's isn't neutral, natural happenstance; it's the deliberate conducting of the worst kind of evil. And because it's the result of human decision-making -- meaning, someone is actually *deciding* to kill these innocent people -- it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal." That's what those evil fuckers want, and we cannot let them win.

  19. Re:why is this on slashdot? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you just shut up with your pathetic bleating.

    It's stuff that matters and slashdot has never ever ever been nothing but tech.

    What's is with all the whiners about topicality recently?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. Here it comes by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until we hear how the Belgian police could not anticipate and prevent this attack because the attackers used data encryption? Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  21. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's the worst possible timing too. Those terrorists really know how to hurt us long term, making sure their actions harm us for decades to come.

    The UK will immediately use this as justification for the Snooper's Charter, and France already gave up a lot of its freedoms after the Paris attacks. Billions and billions of Euros will be pissed away on ineffective security, our technology and competitiveness will be damaged by ill considered rules on encryption and data access.

    This might even help push the UK out of the EU, causing unknowable economic damage that has knock on effects for health and education over many decades.

    I only wonder if they planned it this way, or if it's just blind luck.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble by chthon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Europe we have Catholics, Lutheran protestants, a small amount of Calvinists, and then the Orthodox church in Eastern Europe. Those can all be denominated under the name of Christians, but as far as I know we do not have any of them running around killing people under the guise of pro-life. That really seems to be a US-only problem.

  23. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.

    Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  24. Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.

  25. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The point is that a free society has certain vulnerabilities which cannot be avoided without negating the fundamental values that make it a free society. Being vulnerable like that is "a cost of doing business", so to speak. You probably know that in retail a certain percentage of "shrinkage" is unavoidable. Shoplifting is not an accident. It is a conscious act, but that doesn't mean you can stop it without incurring a cost that is not worth incurring. We try to reduce it, but ultimately we deal with the fact that we are better off with shoplifting being possible than with the measures it would take to eliminate it.

  26. The problem is religion. by tekrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We should ban all religion. This whole "my God is better than your God" dick-measuring contests is what gets everyone killed. Get rid of religion and you take away 99% of all reasons people want to kill each other.

    We've had religion for tens of thousands of years, and, there's no documented proof of any god. It's a myth. Stop it, grow up, and take your first steps as a real person from under the shadow of "god made me do it".

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  27. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, because when Europe had border controls, there was no terrorism. Period.

    Yes, because putting a lock on your door and having a criminal break in your house anyway is EXACTLY the same as leaving your door wide open with a big sign in your front yard reading "Free cash and valuables inside!"

    I mean, are you seriously arguing that because an odd terrorist might get in anyway, that we should just say "fuck it" and open the borders up to invite them in? Because, if that's what you're saying, I want you to call your mother up and tell her that she raised a dumb fuckwad.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  28. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, Irish Republican Army ring any bells?

  29. Re:Probably Muslim extremists. by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but my initial suspicion is that it was Muslim extremists

    Hush, you fool! You'll be called a racist if you say that out loud.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  30. Re:Not again by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedoms are not taken away by terrorists. They are taken away by power-hungry politicians who see opportunity to do so when a terrorist event happens. Get your facts straight.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  31. No one is willing to say it by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are correct. We should not need to give up our way of life because a subset of the population is hell bent on destroying it.
    The problem is the radicals are willing to take radical action to achieve their ends, but western society does not have the political stomach to take the actions needed to solve the issues.
    Make no mistake. These terrorist acts will only continue and with greater frequency.

    You simply cannot have that many radicals in a population and expect nothing to happen.
    You must either..
    A. Remove or restrict freedom of moment and Freedom in General
    B. Remove the factors which contribute to a person becoming radicalized
    C. Remove that portion of the population which is most likely to become radicalized.
    D. Ignore the issue and live with constant threat of terrorist attacks.

    I know that in the west do not want to appear intolerant and to a large extent we must tolerate some things we do not personally agree with.
    But not things which are not compatible with western core beliefs.
    We are not at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islam is however at war with us. Unless we fight back, we are going to lose.

    1. Re:No one is willing to say it by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are not at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islam is however at war with us.

      Radical Islam is the snake. "Regular" Islam is the grass.

      Unless we fight back, we are going to lose.

      Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:No one is willing to say it by ultranova · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.

      And every civilization that has insufficiently resisted bug-eyed aliens from Venus have fallen to bug-eyed aliens from Venus. Since the bug-eyed aliens from Venus don't actually exist, this is an empty set and sufficient level of resistance is zero, but the tautology remains true nonetheless. This says, much less proves, absolutely nothing about bug-eyed aliens from Venus.

      Now grow a pair and stop spreading panic.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:No one is willing to say it by Glarimore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.

      This statement literally means nothing. "Everything without sufficient buoyancy sinks." Well, no shit.

  32. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's a justification for breaking up the EU and reinstating border controls like we've had for the vast majority of history. Because there was a goddamn reason we had them.

    1) Border controls don't do anything to stop people already in the borders from doing harm.

    2) Explosives are available in the UK, the same as in Belgium, France and every other country in the world - and if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them - they're going to do it.

    Let's say you have border controls between country X and country Y. At any given time, there will be some number of people from each of those countries standing in a line waiting to get home - and thus are a target.

    3) You could keep the EU and have border controls anyway (but see point 2 above)

    Conclusion: Your anti-EU rant is not really applicable here.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  33. Re:Religious fundamentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, GP is right, Islam needs a schism between moderate and fundamentalist. Both Shia and Sunni are fundamentalist movements. A moderate Islam would be neither Shia nor Sunni.

  34. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand your point, but can you point to the last time that a baptist blew themselves up?

    Suicide bombing has long been used.
    The Chinese suicide squads during the 1911 revolution and again during the second Sino-Japanese war.
    Another famous example us the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2.
    Hell, even the Germans did it during the battle of Berlin.

    In all those cases, one group was at war with the target group.
    You cannot deny that Radical Islamic terrorist are at war with you. You are their enemy. Do you think that because you have nothing against them that they dont want you dead?
    Sure, we have our brand of crazies who see the US government as a target. The uni-bomber for example.
    But when was the last time that one of these guys went to a mall or shopping center and detonated a vest to blow up women and children?

  35. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do you call a man with a hotel on his head?

    Normal Tebbit.

    The IRA in Britain, the RAF/Baader-Meinhof Group in Germany, and the ETA in France and Spain are just three of many major terrorist groups who committed wide ranging atrocities in Europe between WW2 and the late 90s. The IRA even managed to kill several members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, maiming many others including her right hand man Norman Tebbit (hence the above joke, popular in school yards throughout the UK after it happened), in one bombing in the mid-eighties. What Western Governments have the Islamic terrorists tried to wipe out?

    Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.

    Stop being scared of these cretins.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  36. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read the summary of this, and my thought was - "I'm shocked it took this long to happen" - That said, I am surprised they just went for the entrance hall and not the security lines.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  37. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I run the IT for an organisation that I am not going to link to here because we're already having trouble dealing with the load today. We're based out of the International Press Center, a small tower behind the Berlaymont that also houses the local branches of Bloomberg and the BBC. Half of us (including myself) go through Maelbeek every day since it's the stop before Schuman, the other half come from the other direction. I was in the subway before the one that blew up; I heard the thump and saw the smoke from Maelbeek as I was getting out of the subway at Schuman; I assumed it was an electrical fire or something and went on to work. We are still on "lock down" in our tower, some of the journalists have been here since 6:00AM and nobody in the building has anything to eat.

    You won't see many pictures of this in main stream media, but this is what happened to the subway that was bombed. The cars in the Brussels subway are arranged with blocks of four seats on either side of a central aisle. There is a door and standing space between each set of 8 seats. The blocks are very solid and designed to protect the passengers in them in the event of a subway crash. During rush hour the seats are full and you usually have about twice as many people standing in the open space. In the picture you can see that the bomb went off in the middle of one of these blocks of eight. I can just about guarantee that those seats were full, so we know where half the subway dead came from right there. It looks like the block of seats just behind that block held together (to the right of the image), even though the shifted some, so I would suppose that those people in that set of 8 survived. It looks like the areas between the explosion row and the surviving row and the explosion row and the bulkhead to the left of the image were not very survivable. I guess it would depend on how much shrapnel was in the bomb and how many bodies were shielding you.

    I go into this detail because I want to make a point: the terrorist will always get through. We cannot get around this situation with more security. There will always be places where people are forced to congregate and you can't secure them. We can't even get people to buy tickets reliably in the subway; forget about frisking everybody with bulky clothes who rides the subway. True, you can't bomb an airliner anymore, but you sure as hell can bomb the new bottleneck at airport security. Yet the PM of France is already calling for greater intelligence cooperation, which we all know is a euphemism for greater surveillance.

    This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.

  38. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've long said that it wouldn't be long before terrorists blew themselves up before the security checkpoint. I figured they would do it on line for security during a busy day, but the check-in line was (in hindsight) another target likely to cause maximum casualties with minimal risk of being stopped. Are they going to move the checkpoints to the airport entrances now? (Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.) Then the attacks will just happen in the inevitable line leading up to the checkpoint. That's the main trouble with TSA-style checkpoints: No matter where you place them, there's always another target.

    Of course, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Worldwide, there were 32,727 terrorism related fatalities in 2014 (the most recent statistic I could find). This is out of about 7 billion people, so your risk of being killed by a terrorist was about 0.0005%. Even if we doubled the terrorism fatalities (perhaps to account for other deaths weren't labeled as terrorism but might be stretched to fall under that), we'd only get to a 0.001% risk.

    Obviously, living in different areas of the world gives you a greater or lower risk. If you live in Iraq, you likely have a higher risk than if you live in Smalltown, Kansas. However, you have a far greater risk of dying in a car accident (1.25 million deaths worldwide in 2013, or a 0.02% risk) than by terrorist.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  39. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the arrest didn't make them any more determined to kill innocent people. If any thing, it only caused them to expedite the plans they already had out of fear they would soon be discovered when the arrested terrorists ratted on them.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  40. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yeah 0 to 8 killed in a year since the 1970s, until the MUSLIM TERRORISTS killed 20 in Jan 2015, 130 in November 2015, and now this

  41. Re:Keep saying there's no Islamic terrorist proble by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Christians only stopped being in the news in the UK every day killing each other for being the wrong flavour of Christian when some time around 2001 the citizens of New York suddenly decided that funding terrorism wasn't cool anymore.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  42. Re:Probably Muslim extremists. by pablo_max · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Muslim is not a race. It is a religion and ideology.

    Races are not dangerous. Religion and ideology can be deadly.

  43. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're serious about this they've already won.

    Ponder on that for a minute.

  44. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by jez9999 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable

    LOL! Yeah right. Much better to be oppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.

  45. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan by Bartles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No it's not. There's no evidence that it's a peaceful religion. It has never been a peaceful religion, and it won't be until it is reformed or destroyed.

  46. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Evtim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me tell you how it is on the A'dam airport. No matter how much security you have there is a moment when after check-in the travelers go through the passport/screening control. In order to make it "safer" passengers from 20-30 check in lines go through the same passport control.

    So, you walk through the airport's door [completely unguarded] and within 20 paces you are in the middle of THOUSANDS of people waiting for the passport control. If you are quick it would take about 3-5 seconds to rush in and detonate yourself...even if there were fully armed guards you can do it....so you need a control point before the control point before the control point...

    That is why someone above was joking about "it's queues all the way down". Complete security is an impossibility, therefore no amount of money spent and restrictions placed will help you. Never. There will always be gatherings of people that cannot be secured [school, disco, cafes, church, hospital, company building, sport events ...the list is endless]....we cannot give up all those activities and we cannot make them 100% secure.

     

  47. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.

    Because Europe stopped the Islamic hordes at the gates of Vienna centuries ago. They are now back and have flooded Europe, which has welcomed them with open arms. They have not changed. The do not assimilate. They reproduce far more quickly then the native populations. This is only the beginning.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  48. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.

    Very well said, and stay safe.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  49. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Give me a single quote by Jesus Christ, telling his people to "Kill infidels" or its equivalent. Just one.

    People kill. Some religions promote killing, others do not. Religions that promote killing ("Smite them in the neck" ) are not peaceful. Those that promote peace ("Turn the other cheek") do not.

    Moral equivocation is why you cannot distinguish the difference between Islam and Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism).

    And yes, all religions have followers that committed horrible crimes, even atheism has, It doesn't excuse it or make them morally equivalent,

    But here is a test, pee in a cup with a crucifix (or bible or ...) and see what happens. Pee on a Koran, and see what happens. Go ahead, I dare you. One would be called "art" and the other "Racist bigotry", morally equivalent ... right?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  50. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan by Yunzil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And how many Muslims do you know?

  51. Beware your own logic by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.

    The logic of a united Ireland is as reasonable as the USA conquering Canada. Whilst this was the intention of US foreign policy at one time, the US has grown out of it. The concept of accepting the settled that have emerged as a result of colonialism is a fraught one, but it has worked better in Africa, and until recently the Middle East, than the alternative of fighting it out.

    The issue of 'oppression' is of course more complex, though blaming the 'English' shows a lack of knowledge, given that Ulster Protestants are mainly of Scottish origin, as indicated by the prevalence of Presbyterianism as the main churches. In retrospect it's obvious that the Catholics were being oppressed; but that was hard for everyone to admit at the time. We've got to the point now where a really messy constitution is up and running that has begun to build trust, but the situation is still on a knife edge.

    1. Re:Beware your own logic by Cederic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your support for terrorism has been noted. Your casual racism too.

      You're clearly an ignorant cunt, and trust me, the IRA are vicious self-interested criminals that damaged and continue to damage Northern Ireland.

  52. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillan by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Islam is as peaceful as christianity and judaism.

    Actually all those religions (and a few more) believe in the same god

    You are an Idiot!

    Great work mentioning two that went through reforms.

    *5 stars. Would laugh at stupid comment again*

    But on a more serious note: The god they believe in has zero to do with anything. But thanks for playing.

  53. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by larkost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just a reminder: the Old Testament is still part of the bible. Those books are full of God commanding the Israelites to kill their enemies. A prime example would be the genocide of the Canaanites: God commanded them to kill all of the Canaanites, but the Israelis took the women and children as concubines/slaves. God was then angry at them for not having slaughtered the women and children. That is only one example, and there are many.

    You can argue that the Old Testament is no longer valid, but then you also have to throw out the ten commandments, the garden of eden, and almost everything used in the gay-marriage debates. You also have to question why those passages are still part of modern Christianity's holy book.

    It is also silly to paint Christianity as a religion of pease, and Islam as one of war. Both from historical points (the Crusades being an easy example) and from general numbers: there are 2.75 million muslims living in the U.S. now, and 1.6 billion in the world. If Islam really was a religion of war, you would expect total chaos. But since we don't see that, it is a much more reasonable interpretation that these extremists don't represent the religion.

  54. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This exactly.

    You have 300 passengers and usually about 3-6 hijackers. If only 2 percent of the people think "Fuck it, I'm dead anyway if those asshats get what they want, I risk it", you are already the majority.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Re: It is not a justification for more surveillanc by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Luke 19:27 is a parable. It wasn't a command given to his believers.

    Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right. But the rest is always to be taken literally, right? It's the "literal WORD OF GOD", right? lol

    -

    The other two are NOT Jesus commands to his followers either.

    Umm, but Jesus is God, isn't he? That's what your bible says, over and over. That's what all the preachers and priests say. Are they wrong, or are you?

    -

    Be honest, there are plenty of Atheists who would kill religious people if given a chance.

    Sure, I'll be honest- I've never known an atheist who says he or she would like to "kill religious people", not one. We would be happy if religion died and took all of its hatred and bigotry with it, but no atheist I know has ever said they'd like to kill religious people.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  56. Re:It is not a justification for more surveillance by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should all be rounded up and deported aboard container ships to the Middle East.

    Has it never occurred to you that most immigrants from the Middle East are in your (and my) fine country precisely because they don't like murderous regimes, suicide bombs, and countries which don't respect human rights? Or is that too obvious?

    Every Muslin has blood on their hands.

    Oh, wait, I see what you're saying. Yeah, lightweight cotton is evil. Death's too good for it, I say.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});