Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Clockwork on March 22, 2016, 12:04:53 PM
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/22/471391497/what-we-know-terrorist-bombing-at-brussels-airport?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
More terrorist BS and again it was muslims. And at least one of them was let through the border despite being inspected because we aren't taking a hard enough stance against them.
-
Deeply saddening; hopefully this is the last strength of these cells around Brussels. And hopefully IS will buckle in the next few months, which may start taking some wind out of the sails of this evil sect and its ability to recruit young western Europeans.
I'm not sure what sort of "hard stance" would you take that more effectively distinguishes a potential attacker from an innocent person? In any case, any evidence that one of them came through a border, as I've not actually seen that stated on any news source so far?
In any case, I'll say the sorts of things I'm tired of saying by now:
- This is in some ways an aftershock of the Paris attacks, as it was probably carried out by the same IS-inspired cell or an extension of it (given that the cell was raided last week and is in ), and taking advantage of the fact that Belgium is only just developing effective counterterrorism strategies.
- As far as I can see there is no evidence to link this to the refugee crisis.
- This shows the futility of excessively powered up and invasive security; why didn't airport security pick this up? Simple, the terrorists blew up a queue on the way into the airport. Turning into a police state doesn't stop that terribly easily.
- We need more international cooperation on policing to deal with these problems.
- Also, getting out of the EU wouldn't make these attacks less likely, if anything it would hamstring policing cooperation. (I know nobody here has suggested that, but I've seen it a bunch of times on social media already and it's horsedung).
- The main thing that stops these sorts of attacks is early warnings and information from within people's communities. Britain has gotten fairly good at that, Belgium still has some far more isolated communities. We need to work harder across Europe to ensure that people and their communities aren't isolated so people can flag up problems to the security services; that's broadly proven the most reliable way of countering terrorism at its roots.
I don't intend to get into a long-form argument on this I'm afraid - too much work to do.
Also, pre-emptively let's split the thread, this one's going to run for a while.
-
Bloody
pirates terrorists! :'(
All I can say afterwards is that Clockwork has his opinions, Jub have your opinions, I've got my opinions, we all got our opinions on the subject. Arguing your opinion to someone else isn't going to do anything to change the opinion of the other person. I'm not defending anyone here, this time I'm stating a fact.
-
OK, here are my opinions.
1. These are appalling and terrible actions; those responsible should be sought vigorously, and subjected to the full force of the law.
2. Those who committed these acts are no more Muslim than the IRA (for example) were Christian. They may say that they act in the name of their religion, but their acts are contrary to the strongest moral teachings of their religion.
3. If we associate "Muslim" with "terrorist", we are doing what the terrorists want. It suits them to have the Muslim communities in Europe and other "Western" countries isolated and alienated from the the rest of society; as we have already seen, the more that this happens, the more that those communities become fertile recruiting grounds for the terrorists themselves.
There will probably be some more later, on the subjects of refugees and security; unfortunately I need to get on with some work.
-
I'm not sure what sort of "hard stance" would you take that more effectively distinguishes a potential attacker from an innocent person?
I too would like to know what the answer to this is. Short of a no entry policy which is unfeasible (and immoral) anyway I don't see how you could prevent all potential radicals arriving.
-
I was content just to leave this at a single post. It's not like anyone's got anything more to add that hasn't been said before. I've answered this question previously in another thread somewhere. It's old news, we always argue the same thing and it comes down to a difference of opinion, like cg said.
-
Aye - I think it's worth occasionally having these discussions because it's good for all of us to enlighten each other on why we think what we do, but I guess this is one we've had a fair few times of late (sadly).