Given the attacks they've suffered, surely France isn't any better at dealing with it?Originally Posted by Lee
Given the attacks they've suffered, surely France isn't any better at dealing with it?
Should it? Surely neighbouring countries should share information to try and prevent this shit irrespective of what formal union they share?
I agree it should cross borders irregardless, but if remaining in the EU led to pan-European institutions which effectively dealt with this sort of thing then might you say "fair enough". As it is, we're nowhere near this Utopian vision of how to address this.
There's a significant, but determined minority of nutbags who're employing tactics the like of which we've not faced before, they're spread all across Europe and their number grows by the year - this shit is here to stay, regardless of how good or joined up the security services might be.
Yes, but as I referenced above, the only way to deal with them is through effective intelligence gathering. That requires significant time investment and significant manpower - which, let's be blunt, means throwing money at it so the structures can exist. And it means their security services need to be effectively coordinating with a) each other and b) the rest of the European security services.
Right now, Brussels represents the hotbed of European-based Islamic fundamentalist activity. They know there's a problem. As it's in Brussels, it's a Belgian responsibility to deal with it - and they're not.
As I referenced, the IRA were beaten through intelligence gathering and informants riddling the system. This is cell-based, which makes it a hell of a lot harder, but intelligence works.
It's looking more like a failure of the Belgians to gather or share intelligence than a French issue though. The attacks could happen anywhere as has always (and always will be) the case. They're being planned in Belgium and there is clearly a willingness in the Muslim community there to protect them, and an inability on the part of the Belgians to penetrate them and then do anything useful with any information.
You can't really stop people turning up at an airport or train station once they're away from the people who should be watching them. And we know that the Belgians were watching these guys, and the blokes behind Paris before those attacks.
The big questions now should be what the fuck do we do with Molenbeek and how do we stop something similar springing up elsewhere in Europe? Foreign policy and security has always been a fundamental weakness of the EU. It really needs to step up in that regard now. I'd argue for greater integration of security services others will argue for the opposite.
Whatever the answer, the cat is out of the bag in that we now have lots of people in Europe from cultures very different to our own. There is, correctly, a focus on getting the external EU borders sorted. But what are we doing to make sure those who are already here aren't being allowed to set up Molenbeek-esque ghettos, perpetuating values at odds with our own and then then bringing up kids to blow me up on the flight to the Algarve in twenty years time?
I agree intelligence works, well to a degree anyway, but these fucks are a whole different ball game to the IRA. Which isn't to say 'we' give up or don't criticise the Belgians (who definitely appear to be at the wrong end of a shambles), but your posts have an air about them that implies this can be beaten, and sadly, I don't think it can.
@ GS.
Hang on, weren't you one of the mob calling people cunts if they wouldn't put a refugee up in their spare bedroom and that Europe should take them all?
Which isn't to say I disagree with your post now, but I mention it anyway.
The guys who did Paris and Brussels were not refugees - it's important to remember that.
EDIT: Of course, that's not to say that some of the refugees could be extremist.
The IRA was cell-based too, you know.
I don't think I called anybody a cunt for not putting somebody up but yeah, I was and still am in favour of us taking in refugees. There is plenty of room and the vast majority of these people desperately need help. Help which we can provide.
Of course a (relatively) small number of dodgy characters will get through but you don't stop that unless you stop all immigration. And I'm absolutely not in favour of doing that. Sometimes a principle is worth the associated risk. It's worth remembering that this set of cunts were radicalised in Europe, not Syria. They were already our problem.
There's nothing hypocritical in thinking its a bad idea to allow people to set up mini-Afghanistans once they're here though. That's something I've been consistent on and a view you know I hold - hence my criticisms in conversations we've had in here of the University of Islamic Terrorism which appears to be continuing happily about its business up the road from my house.
Beating them doesn't need to entail their complete eradication, rather you need to wear down their capacity to undertake attacks of this nature. I suspect one of the key aspects of this strategy would need to be getting the local communities 'on side', and ensuring that they are willing to 'grass' on people who they have concerns about. One of the issues that existed with the IRA in the seventies and eighties was that it had widespread support in the community. Combined with a distrust of the security services and British state, it meant that IRA operatives had a safety net to fall back on and hide within. Once this started to fail, and the British state was successful in penetrating the hierarchical structures of the organisation, intelligence was flowing and it became clear that the IRA simply could not win (i.e. achieve a united Ireland).
The IRA ultimately came to the table, largely in recognition of the fact it couldn't win. They've accepted the principle of self-determination for the populace, effectively conceding the point. Dissidents are continuing, on a much smaller scale, the 'struggle' - but it lacks widespread community support. The situations are clearly not wholly comparable, but there are significant lessons that can be taken from the campaign which effectively wore down the IRA's capacity - and indeed willingness - to continue.
We will never 'beat them' in the manner that western populaces appear conditioned to accept a victory i.e. with the unconditional surrender of the enemy. However, the aim has to be to wear down their operational capacity to undertake attacks. Intelligence-driven solutions are the only way we can do this given the current situation given we can't turn back the clock to 40 years ago and start again.
Fair enough. I still can't believe that place.
The IRA had formal structures and decision-making hierarchies - district commanders and an Army Council, with a political wing to articulate the message throughout Ireland, north and south. Cells existed, yes, but within a wider structure. This is not the case with IS.
I regularly see gangs of gowned Muslim teenagers on trips to the local Aldi (a 'perk' which is advertised in the school's website, by the way - what a life they must lead). It's a bizarre sight. Fertiliser sales there must be through the roof.Fair enough. I still can't believe that place.
It's not that they're refugees - it's that they came in through the 'refugee route' through Greece via Turkey. It meant they could get to Syria, train and get back into Europe without detection. It's a failure of migration policy, because you simply cannot operate an 'open door' policy. Nobody - of sane mind - blames genuine refugees. Unfortunately, the situation in the Aegean means you simply can't know who is and who isn't a genuine refugee, who's an economic migrant and who's a terrorist.
The Belgians are historically shit at everything, because they're not a real country. Cf the Congo Crisis.
I know nothing of Belgian history. Why is it not a 'real country'? I know they're split by language group and that there's a bit of angst as a result, but that's my lot.
Interestingly I've read a fair bit in recent years on European history (indeed I'm reading a book on it now) but nothing of Belgium is ever retained. Maybe it exists only to be invaded and, latterly, to hide paedophiles and mad Muslims.
I think the issue is that while they've been radicalised in Europe, the failure to deal effectively with IS in Syria has lent them an 'easy' way of getting effective training. The porous nature of European borders and the failure to deal with the refugee crisis effectively has meant they have an 'easy' way of getting back, equipped with their training and their range of contacts to carry out attacks that they probably wouldn't have if they hadn't been able to get into Syria in the first place, and which they certainly wouldn't be able to put into practice if they couldn't get back into the country afterwards.
I've no problem taking long-term refugees from the camps in Turkey or Lebanon - they're going through the correct legal channels, they're currently in a safe country and it allows us to vet them. Germany will 'rebel' against Merkel's refugee policy at some point. They've lost track of 130,000 asylum seekers (genuine or otherwise) already. That's a scary ratio when you consider the potential implications.
We created it in 1820 or so to act as a buffer between France and Prussia after we'd finished with Napoleon. Or something along those lines. Lewis could tell you properly.
GS attempting to audit the Belgian security services.
I agree that the UK approach to taking directly from the Middle East is correct, although we (Europe, not just the UK) do need to deal with those who are now here. Calais is a black mark against us all, frankly.
You'll get no argument from me that the external EU border situation has been shambolic. But, to use a terrible phrase, it is what it is. They're here now. The external border needs sorting and it will happen because politicians will do whatever they need to do to survive and this issue has pissed people off. I don't think that's our main issue any longer.
I'm not saying anything that isn't widely accepted, much as I would like to have unique insight into the issue. You can read about it here, which is a neat summation of the issues.GS attempting to audit the Belgian security services.
Calais is irrelevant. France is a safe country, and if the French aren't prepared to go in and register these people there then that's their problem. It is simply not our responsibility to unilaterally bin off the Dublin regulation when it suits us to appease emotive rhetoric back home. Until such time as Dublin is rescinded, we should act within the confines of its structures - and that means that those who are in Calais should be expected to register in France, before going through the necessary channels to move to the UK if they have family already here. It's the French who have the black mark against them for allowing it to get out of hand.
I agree the external border isn't the main issue, however I think we do need to secure it to prevent a continuation of the problem. Once the external borders are secured (or secured insofar as they can be), then we can address the issues which exist 'internally'. Where you fucking start, I don't know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/wo....co/zdAj7viot2
Read.
We are saying the same thing about Calais, we just use the term 'Europe' differently. I don't care which country sorts it (of course it ought to be France though), I just don't think it's tolerable to have that kind of set up in what should be a civilised corner of the globe.
I agree on the border stuff too.
I'm not sure how useful the IRA comparisons are for Muslamic terrorism. Yeah, intelligence; but the IRA had actual strategic leadership and goals, the frustrating of which led to all the bollocks cells jacking it in when the top boys realised they had lost and came round. What would convince these silly idiots to do likewise?
It's not a useful comparison for the 'end game', but it's a useful comparison for how to degrade their ability to undertake attacks.
I haven't read very much about ETA - how did the Spanish deal with them?
IRA/Islamist terrorism comparisons have always been a total non-starter. The IRA weren't fanatics.
The best comparison is American mass shootings, since they're both losers acting out against some perceived slight that you would find impossible to solve. How do you stop people being inadequate and blaming society?
You're simplifying it. It isn't just solitary losers, you know. There is a cause, and order.
Again, it's a pointless comparison when considering the end game and how to 'bring the enemy to the table'.
Where one maintains the comparison within the strict parameters of "stopping an attack", the methods which worked to prevent IRA atrocities are about the best you're going to get for IS-inspired atrocities. They have common traits e.g. the need for weapons (smuggled or 'developed and built'), planning, communication amongst conspirators. Intelligence can help to uncover such planning or to intercept weapons importations - this can be as simple as people in the community thinking "this lad's acting funny" and alerting authorities, or a store owner wondering why some lad who lives in the city is buying eight tonnes of shite they shouldn't need. The IRA had a community to hide in when they needed it because it had support, and this seems to be the case in Molenbeek for Islamic terrorists - it's about penetrating that community and encouraging people within it to 'grass'.
One doesn't need the two situations to be identical to see that there are clear lessons which should have been learnt. I'd like to hear alternative suggestions for preventing atrocities insofar as we can.
The FBI have absolutely tonnes of informants within the Muslim communities. As long as it's on tape, you can be thrown in jail for YEARS for something as innocuous as 'Yeah, I'd probably think about doing something fucked up for money' because you're completely broke.
They (British security services at least) have those sort of links don't they? They seem to foil plenty of plots, and can't be doing so solely through monitoring internet forums.
http://www.politico.eu/article/local...tell-brussels/
Safer in Europe, lads.
That's nothing to do with European intelligence, read the article I posted earlier in the thread. Belgian intelligence and all the different local/federeal forces all hate each other and refuse to talk. It's a pure Belgian issue.
Which has huge consequences for the rest of Europe given Brussels' position as a key base. If they can't even get the basics right (this isn't even intelligence failings, it's basic fucking police work) then we're fucked.
This is quite an interesting take on things from the former head of MI6: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/op...ge-uk-security
Well, does it? The intelligence will be passed on to us by their intelligence, from what I gather it's below that that are fucking useless at everything, so I doubt they have much information on anything.
Yes, it does. Belgian failures impact wider European security. This wouldn't matter if nothing was happening in Belgium, but it appears to have become a significant (if not the main) base for planning such atrocities. It creates significant concerns, because if we are reliant on Belgian intelligence to penetrate terrorist cells, and Belgian police work to 'stop' it or 'pre-empt it' by arresting them, then there appear to be huge (not just some, but huge) failures when potentially vital information on Europe's most wanted individual isn't shared. Perhaps recent events, including the negative publicity, will force some sort of rethink.
However, I think it would be entirely reasonable if you were now sitting in Paris, Brussels etc. in central Europe to be concerned at what other mistakes have been made by these lads and which just aren't public yet. Recent events would suggest they're barely functioning in terms of carrying out basic police work, never mind more complex and detailed intelligence and investigatory work.
Jeez, I actually prefer Harold views. Even I strongly disagree with them but at least were good arguments.
I will try to speak clearly and in a way even you understand.
What is the problem?
Terrorism
Who is behind this terrorism?
Daesh
Is it a organization?
Yes.
Organizations need money, who is funding them?
Basically US and European Union.
Do they want to stop it?
In February a proposal to stop selling weapon to middle east was refused in EU parlament.
In the same proposal a embargo to anything daesh related was refused.
Basically capitalism is the reason of terrorism.
Life's are not more worth then money.
This is not a conspiracy theory.
The end.
Close this thread please.
Stop saying "close this thread" in every thread.
I'm a twit
I don't write in " every thread ".
Had to lol at this, unfortunately.
http://news.yahoo.com/organisers-can...60850318.html#Brussels (AFP) - The organisers of a "March Against Fear" planned for Sunday to mark the Brussels terror attacks said they had cancelled the event after the authorities asked them to do so because of security fears.
"We understand this request. The security of our citizens is an absolute priority. We join the authorities in proposing a delay and ask people not to come this Sunday," the organisers said in a statement on Saturday.
Something with all this seems to annoy me. Apparently this bombing and hebdo were connected. I heard the terrorists on the phone before they were caught and they were clear that they only attack specific targets ( ex: hebdo folk, Jewish shop etc), they even told the guy that was with them that he wouldn't die because he has nothing to do with this holy war.
During their escape they didn't kill one single guy which corroborate with their story. And now killing innocents without a specific target?
Something here is very dodgy.
If it was all Hebdo related, why gun all those people down in Paris? Face it. They're not that precise. If they were they'd be tipping people off like the IRA did.
The guys from hebdo were precise. Also they never mentioned IS. Which is even more strange.
Islamic terrorism didn't just start happening in 2012, you know.
Ó wise one, explain to me when it started!
Also explain what you mean by "terrorism".
Wikipedia sez: "Violence as a form of coercion used for ideological, political or relgious aim."
Well, Webster's dictionary describes it as: the process of removing weeds from one's garden.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote