2 Explosions at Zaventem Airport (Brussels)

[Buce]

How can you say it was 100% right with what's subsequently happened? It might have made matters worse ( not sure how) but there's no way you can know that.

What business was it of ours to take sides in a civil war? We did that in Libya - that worked out well, didn't it? We caused regime change in Iraq (illegally, and for spurious reasons) - that worked out well, too, didn't it?

Of course it was 100% right not to get involved militarily in Syria.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Defeating ISIS will not be the end of extremism, but after defeating Al Qaeda there was a good few years free of terrorism until ISIS came along.

 

Thought I should highlight to you Al Qaeda still exist. They may not be as prevalent on US or European soil, but they definitely still exist.

[Darkon84]

Thought I should highlight to you Al Qaeda still exist. They may not be as prevalent on US or European soil, but they definitely still exist.

 

Correct, they've even been fairly active since the turn of the year, claiming responsibility for the bombing in Burkina Faso which killed about 30 if I remember correctly, and more recently, the Ivory Coast shootings about 2 weeks ago which killed around 20.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/clone.of.brussels-attacks-manhunt-suspect-airport-.html

 

The Belgian authorities are looking more incompetent by the day. It's hard enough to stop these people without just deciding to ignore people who tell you they are terrorists.

It's worth remembering that to detain someone indefinitely, you need to have concrete proof that can be put in front of a court of law. Turkey may have provided warnings, but what's not clear is how substantial the warnings were and whether this is one of many etc, etc, etc.

[Guest MattP]

It's worth remembering that to detain someone indefinitely, you need to have concrete proof that can be put in front of a court of law. Turkey may have provided warnings, but what's not clear is how substantial the warnings were and whether this is one of many etc, etc, etc.

 

Yes I wasn't calling for anyone to detain him illegally, but I think when you are warned about these people you probably should be making sure they aren't wandering into airports unwatched with giant suitcases having not booked a flight anywhere, whether it would have saved lives is up for debate but it's clear to not even be keeping an eye on these people isn't the right approach.

 

He also appears to have made a trip to Birmingham last year (just on Daily Politics) and I doubt it was to have a good time on Broad Street, if that's the case and Belgium did ignore the information given it's clear we have some serious communication issues given his past.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Yes I wasn't calling for anyone to detain him illegally, but I think when you are warned about these people you probably should be making sure they aren't wandering into airports unwatched with giant suitcases having not booked a flight anywhere, whether it would have saved lives is up for debate but it's clear to not even be keeping an eye on these people isn't the right approach.

 

He also appears to have made a trip to Birmingham last year (just on Daily Politics) and I doubt it was to have a good time on Broad Street, if that's the case and Belgium did ignore the information given it's clear we have some serious communication issues given his past.

You may be conflating two stories, because I think the DP story was regarding the guy currently being held and to be deported to France.

And in terms of what has and hasn't be done, I'd personally reserve judgement until more details come to light as time goes on. To trust a singular report via the Turkish government which is akin to "we told you about this guy" might be a bit premature... Maybe they've told countries about 1000's of people that have travelled through their country - in which case, tracking them becomes a lot harder due to sheer weight of numbers.

If this was a simple problem, it would have long been solved, but it's not sadly - it's an ever evolving situation and one where we are always having to react, we are never going to be in front of terrorism.

[MC Prussian]

Yes I wasn't calling for anyone to detain him illegally, but I think when you are warned about these people you probably should be making sure they aren't wandering into airports unwatched with giant suitcases having not booked a flight anywhere, whether it would have saved lives is up for debate but it's clear to not even be keeping an eye on these people isn't the right approach.

 

He also appears to have made a trip to Birmingham last year (just on Daily Politics) and I doubt it was to have a good time on Broad Street, if that's the case and Belgium did ignore the information given it's clear we have some serious communication issues given his past.

It's been made clear again in the past few days that Belgium's secret service has been undermanned and underfunded for a while now.

 

It's easy to play the blame game when you don't know more about the puzzle pieces that lead to the whole picture.

 

 

For every terror suspect being surveilled it takes between 20 and 25 counterterrorism officials to track him. Coulibaly (EDIT: the guy who attacked a Jewish supermarket in Paris in early 2015), for example, was using 20 different phones, according to Brisard, and each required a different officer to monitor the incoming and outgoing calls.

The Belgians are unwilling or unable to commit that kind of manpower, one of the country’s counterterrorism officials told BuzzFeed a week before the attack.

'Frankly, we don’t have the infrastructure to properly investigate or monitor hundreds of individuals suspected of terror links,' he said. 

The problem is exacerbated in Brussels because the local police force is divided into six police corps spread over 19 boroughs (particularly odd since the population is only 1.3 million). Sharing intelligence is complicated by the silos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3505737/US-counterterrorism-experts-claim-Belgian-security-services-s-like-children-failure-stop-jihadi-strikes.html

 

More on the state of the Belgian Secret Service of today:

 

In virtually every other European country, the fight against terrorism involves greater centralization of power, people and money. Combating terrorism, particularly in the Internet age, involves specialist teams of individuals, whether military, police, secret service, or civilian. It involves specialist equipment, particularly for surveillance and intelligence-gathering, and it involves sharing information across national borders. Actually, that trend to greater centralization and specialization is not peculiar to the fight against terrorism. It is also frequently found, for instance, in healthcare, education and research.

But Belgium, in thrall to its linguistic politics, is moving in the opposite direction. Almost every general election and subsequent negotiation of a coalition federal government brings another round of devolving powers to its regions, ranging now to the most banal of subjects — such as, to cite a recent example, the recognition of foreigners’ professional qualifications.

It was revealed after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January that the Belgian secret service had a shortfall of 150 intelligence officers on a desired complement of 750 (so few!). This week it was disclosed that 42 people had been recruited, but their training would take another two years. The consequences of that understaffing are dribbling out, with further disclosures about information on the Paris attackersthat was not passed on or pulled together.

http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-failed-state-security-services-molenbeek-terrorism/

 

Yes, that's a failure of almost epic proportions by the State Security, but there's regional, linguistic and political reasons for the state it finds itself in today.

It's complicated. And I do agree that something's got to be done about those shortcomings.

[Webbo]

What business was it of ours to take sides in a civil war? We did that in Libya - that worked out well, didn't it? We caused regime change in Iraq (illegally, and for spurious reasons) - that worked out well, too, didn't it?

Of course it was 100% right not to get involved militarily in Syria.

did it lead to a peaceful outcome? Did it lead to less casualties? Did it stop the expansion of ISIS or stop the migrant crisis? Did it stop Europe from becoming a target for terrorism?

I cant think of any way how not intervening made things better.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

did it lead to a peaceful outcome? Did it lead to less casualties? Did it stop the expansion of ISIS or stop the migrant crisis? Did it stop Europe from becoming a target for terrorism?

I cant think of any way how not intervening made things better.

Unless you have access to a Parellel Universe, no one can answer any question of this nature with any certainty. Something you may wish to consider however... France has been targeted twice of late and they were very vocal and active in the region, more so than the UK.

[inckley fox]

The fact that the terrorists are not native to Syria, doesn't mean that they are not being radicalised by ISIS, these people are the pawns in all of this. If it wasn't for some external influence, ISIS or Al Qaeda, it is very unlikely any of these terrorists would have committed these atrocities, they were at the least inspired by and encouraged by ISIS if not directly instructed by them. As has been stated in this thread a lot of them were not very religious had backgrounds of petty crimes and misdemeanours and  something turned that into a terrorist.

 

This didn't happen by chance, someone made that happen, I don't know how directly or indirectly ISIS leaders in Syria influenced these people, or the people that radicalised these people, but all threads lead back to Syria and without ISIS I doubt these attacks would have happened. I can't prove it, but it feels like ISIS is the head of this particular hydra.

 

Defeating ISIS will not be the end of extremism, but after defeating Al Qaeda there was a good few years free of terrorism until ISIS came along.

 

There is already military action in Syria, but it is proving to be insufficient, stepping up the military action seems the next logical step, in Iraq where we are engaging on the ground ISIS is failing to take as strong a hold  as in Syria, so it has proved to be partially effective, with more support and ground troops it  could be more effective. Obviously it needs to be done carefully and with serious planning and forward thinking. This is not an opinion I have formed lightly, but I see very few other options and I don't see the point in waiting for the next tragedy before we respond.

 

I'm not sure the facts back you up when you say that none of this would happen without ISIS, and that there were 'a good few years free of terrorism until ISIS came along'.

 

ISIS have existed since the turn of the century and they are one of many listed Islamic terrorist organisations. Sympathy for extremism in Muslim communities across the EU could and will, in the future, be capitalised on by these groups as the threat from ISIS recedes, just as ISIS replaced Al-Qaeda as, apparently, the foremost threat.

 

Islamic terrorism certainly didn't disappear during the changing of the guard either, as you claim. There were 560 terrorist arrests in the EU in 2006, when Al-Qaeda was at its peak, around half of which were related to Islamic extremism. The number rose to 830 in 2007 and dropped to below 500 in 2011 before rising again, but the number of arrests related to Islamic extremism has always been between 100 and 250, with spikes in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2013. It hardly points towards a 'terrorism-free' pre-ISIS era.

 

There's no denying, of course, that the number of terrorist incidents involving Islamic extremists, the number of deaths and the number of arrests has risen sharply in the wake of the Syrian Civil War, even more so than it rose in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. But at no point since 2003 has the threat disappeared, neither has it depended on a single organisation, or responded to any one single conflict. The common denominator has, perhaps, been the profile of the terrorist - usually native, usually from a poor background, usually with a criminal history.

 

So unless we feel our action in, say, Iraq - which directly led to the 'rebranding' of ISIS and its proliferation in the wake of the Syrian conflict - worked as a solution for Islamic extremism, as opposed to a catalyst, it seems questionable to embark on a similar course of action now. The conflict would be likely to create further conflicts, further ill-feeling towards EU countries, and there are plenty of other terrorist organisations willing to exploit the vulnerabilities of people to fight their cause. Put simply, at the time of 9/11 there was probably 1 Islamic terrorist or terrorist sympathiser per, what, 700,000 or 800,000 Muslims in Europe. I'd guess that, as a consequence of our various military involvement in the years that followed, that number has significantly risen. Possibly hundred-fold.

 

That's not to say that it would be wrong, of course, on moral grounds. It's just unlikely to be an effective long-term anti-terrorist measure, based on recent history. A part of the problem, for a long time, has been the notion that Islamic extremism is a serpent, or hydra, which can be decapitated and nullified. Not only because there are plenty of other 'serpent heads', if you like, waiting in the wings, but because the sympathy in Europe for extreme action persists.

 

If a person feels passionate enough about obliterating the west to blow themselves up for the cause, they are unlikely to respond to attacks on their leaders in faraway lands with which the terrorists rarely have a clear personal connection, by saying 'oh well, it was nice while it lasted, let's get back to selling cannabis in alleyways'. Even if we managed to destroy every terrorist organisation in the Muslim world by establishing peace everywhere, which sounds improbable, there would still remain - according to the EU itself - an organised network in situ in mainland Europe and the UK. I'm suggesting that we switch our emphasis to these people (seeing as they're the ones who actually commit the atrocities) in the fight against terrorism, and the social or educational factors that inspire them, before we embark on a military campaign which is likely to boost their numbers.

[Webbo]

Unless you have access to a Parellel Universe, no one can answer any question of this nature with any certainty. Something you may wish to consider however... France has been targeted twice of late and they were very vocal and active in the region, more so than the UK.

I also mentioned that intervening in Libya didn't turn out that well. My point was more against the cynics on here who are against everything, who always know better. When we had a chance to intervene earlier when we could possibly have nipped this in the bud , lots on here were saying we were only doing it for oil and we'd only make things worse, now some are saying only military action will stop this.

 

Whether the govt , of any persuasion , makes the right decision or wrong it's not fair to assume that they have an evil, ulterior motive.

[Rincewind]

Oil is valuable though.

[Buce]

The Sun censured for lying - yet again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35903066

[Captain...]

Re: Belgian security, if it is asunder staffed as reported this is where the EU needs to step up, draft in security staff and resources from other member states to help deal with what is clearly a problem in Belgium.

@@inckley fox I'm not disagreeing with your statements on profiles, nor that Islamic terrorism will most likely continue on one level after ISIS is gone. None of this addresses the fact that ISIS is growing getting stronger and increasing the terror threat to one that feels greater than it has ever been before.

[Rincewind]

If you spoke to the majority of Muslims I believe they would be as appalled at the actions of ISIS as everyone else but we seem to only hear about the 'thousands' of those fleeing from a war torn country that support them.

I am not religious in anyway but to associate murdering cvnts with something that will give them martyrdom in their eyes is not the way to go in my opinion.  Just call them what they are. Murdering bastards and put them in the same category as others that claim they are killing for some imaginary friend. 

[inckley fox]

Re: Belgian security, if it is asunder staffed as reported this is where the EU needs to step up, draft in security staff and resources from other member states to help deal with what is clearly a problem in Belgium.

@@inckley fox I'm not disagreeing with your statements on profiles, nor that Islamic terrorism will most likely continue on one level after ISIS is gone. None of this addresses the fact that ISIS is growing getting stronger and increasing the terror threat to one that feels greater than it has ever been before.

 

It would be pretty naive of me to think that what happens with ISIS in Syria or Iraq bears no relation to its actions elsewhere, just as it's naive to be stubbornly against any sort of interventionist foreign policy, or to think that the terror threat is a stagnant or one or, on a world scale, no more than a niggling irritant.

 

If a government could present a clear plan for action with clear, attainable objectives to make life better for the Syrian people then military involvement might be right. The problem is that, even with the best of intentions, I haven't heard of such a plan (how many ground troops did Cameron claim were waiting, with no great degree of certainty, proof or even sense of how that number of fighters would lead to a positive outcome? And there hasn't even been talk of an endgame) and messy, poorly thought-through offensives - especially those which incorporate regime change - have tended to create more problems both on foreign and home soil.

 

Plus, of course, the objectives of such a campaign in Syria would have to be to dismantle Isis and create stability over there; it may well reduce EU migration in the long-term but there's little to suggest that - even in the unlikely event of us having learnt from our previous failures in the Middle East - it would lead to a reduction in Jihadist sympathies in our own countries. If that's our priority, as it should be in my opinion, then we're going to need a far-reaching domestic strategy, and with ample resources to back it up.

 

Nobody has, over the past fifteen years, managed to propose this, either in government or in opposition. The closest we get is someone occasionally putting a school which was outstanding a few months earlier straight into Special Measures, or people suggesting that we ban the veil, reclaim our borders, leave the EU... all of which seems largely irrelevant to the issue of Muslims in poor neighbourhoods feeling disenfranchised by Britain, turning to crime and then to Jihadism. it feels like there's neither consistency nor an underlying strategy in place to counter the threat, and the causes of the threat. I can see that you appreciate this, though we might differ a little on where the priorities should lie in dealing with it.

[Wymsey]

Another suicide bomber kills 29 at football match in Iraq.

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35901358

[MC Prussian]

Roughly 400 right-wing extremists (part of them football hooligans) traveled to Brussels on Easter Sunday, marching against Islam, disturbing a vigil and trampling on the bomb attack memorial at the Place de la Bourse in the city center, using racist chants or even the Heil Hitler sign.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/27/pictures-riot-police-and-migrants-clash-with-anti-isis-hooligans-at-brussels-terror-shrine/

[digitalalba]

7/7 was a Thursday. Islam is compatible, extreme Islam isn't, there is a difference. 

I think you will find it was the morning after we 'won' the Olympics, BOOM!

 

It's against forum rules to reply to you later point. The word 'extreme' doesn't have a definition that applies fact.

Maybe we could be given an adult platform to discuss things in this forum of discussion?

[digitalalba]

Terrorism is incompatible with any civilisation.  Many millions of Muslims live peacefully and happily in Western Europe, completely disproving your pathetic attempt at making a point off the back of a horrible tragedy.

If they're happy, why do they want to change it?

[MC Prussian]

If they're happy, why do they want to change it?

 

Change what?

[Fox92]

I think you will find it was the morning after we 'won' the Olympics, BOOM!

 

It was still a Thursday.

[leicsmac]

Change what?

 

Well, you see, all Muslims (even the ones settled in Europe, because they're all sleeper agents or enablers) are the same and they all want to change Europe to a caliphate where women wear niqabs, gays are thrown off buildings and adulterers are stoned to death.

[Itsthejoeker]

Change what?

 

 

He's still upset that he's being served Halal meat in Subway

[Steven]

Well, you see, all Muslims (even the ones settled in Europe, because they're all sleeper agents or enablers) are the same and they all want to change Europe to a caliphate where women wear niqabs, gays are thrown off buildings and adulterers are stoned to death.

 

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Oh sorry wrong religion .......