Brussels Airport Explosions

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: jimmyx
CNN just reported that the taxi driver that took them to the airport helped LE's locate the house where they came from. that address was raided and they found bomb making paraphernalia inside.

That driver's head will be a hood ornament on his taxi by weeks end.

Doubtful...if they cared they would not have called a taxi. That location and everything in it was left there with them knowing authorities would be all over it.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
I guess this is going to take some time. Maybe we could just lock up the boys (and men) between 12-76 until we background check them? I'm provisionally ok with that. Where will we house them? Can we use some of those secret complexes we always hear so much about on Rense.com? Maybe they can sleep in the plastic coffins until this all blows over?

I kinda like the FEMA camp idea.... Why have them here until they are vetted? Why is it our problem to house and feed them until we vet them? Why aren't their fellow neighboring countries doing that? We can't afford to save the world anymore than we can afford to police it. If we're going to subsidize unvetted refugees, why don't we subsidize them in friendly neighboring countries? And if those countries don't want them, why do we?

The question is how much do you want to spend to catch them in pre-crime and can we afford it?
The other question is why are we lighting our own heads on fire over a phenomenon that kills far fewer people in the US than lightning bolts from Zeus herself? How much do we have to spend so that we all feel *that* much safer?

You're never going to end terrorism. But I think it's common sense to address concerns where you can. We all have grounded electrical systems at home.

Do you think the many "No-Go zones" in Europe right now are healthy for those countries? Do you see how unfiltered immigration has led to these problems? We have enough problems at home without importing them.

And before someone says, "Well, the big reason there are so many refugees right now is because the West is stirring up chaos in the region. We should stop", I agree with that, too. The answer isn't one or the other. Instead we have a former Secretaary of State who left the region in chaos, and now claims them as great victories because we didn't lose a single American life. What sort of messed up standard is that? How are/were our national interests served by any of this?
Edit: Yes, of course, you can include Bush's jaunt through the Iraq. Gross misunderstanding of the consequences at all levels.

You could almost convince me that we are deliberately sabotaging our own nation at this point. Up is down; left is right; right is wrong.

a reply to: intrptr
Recon for things like this is not my field and I wouldn't pretend otherwise, but what you say suggests you know your onions. It sure makes sense that they sussed it all out in advance, so if you say they could have spent days or weeks preparing for this, I see no reason to argue.

Re the explosives. No army base supplies necessarily required. The 7/7 attacks in London were done using a T.A.T.P. high-explosive mix that could have been made in anybody's kitchen and most likely was. The "ingredients" for such a mix are easily sourced in regular shops. (I won't go into details here, for obvious reasons.)

Naturally, you have to know what you're doing. You get things wrong and you could suddenly find yourself accelerating towards heaven (or the other place!) at a great rate of knots, but there are enough people around with the knowledge and skills to make the stuff. And in its "fresh" form it has a predictable energy release, and is not hard to fuse.

Anyway,so it wouldn't surprise me if they had their own explosives. Either made by them personally or done by a specialist for them. Try to obtain military stuff is just another element of risk and they would have preferred to avoid it. Ergo, easier to make their own.

Also and finally, the white smoke at the airport blast scene suggest a high explosive device -- a detonation rather than a deflagration. And it was possibly therefore T.A.T.P.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s I want to see a plan that doesn't cost 50 billion dollars and put cushy contracts in the hands of DHS partners with known political connections and no track record of actual results. I'm a conservative, ok? I don't want to spend tons of money on junk data. Big government doesn't need an even bigger trough to lap my tax dollars from with little or no result.

I agree here, too, in that if all our illegal wire-tapping and data-mining isn't giving us solid indications on who is a potential threat among people already here, then we ought to just dump the entire thing. First, it's disgusting and unconstitutional. Second, if it's not identifying potential problems, what's the point?

insider.foxnews.com...

It seems irresponsible to be telling the press enough that this would even be possible.

Why would they tell anything that was going on during such an important, active investigation?

I thought the same when the closed circuit video was airingwithin minutes of the explosion.

Maybe that is just how they report over there, and I am just conditioned to long waits for info in the US.

Still, the potential that the press was used to signal or leak info to his friends seems entirely avoidable.

originally posted by: BarefootInWinter

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: jimmyx
CNN just reported that the taxi driver that took them to the airport helped LE's locate the house where they came from. that address was raided and they found bomb making paraphernalia inside.

That driver's head will be a hood ornament on his taxi by weeks end.

Doubtful...if they cared they would not have called a taxi. That location and everything in it was left there with them knowing authorities would be all over it.

Ya, you're right. Their kind don't resort to violent acts like beheading and such.

a reply to: RadioRobert

First, I'm staring you because your reply was on point, clever and civil. Bravo. I am so frustrated today it's hard to contain my inner smart ass. I apologize for the bernie Sanders crack, for example.

I don't know anything about "no-go zones" but I think gun-free zone signs are silly and pointless. It isn't my business to tell other people in other nations how to live.

Tone aside, I am against any plan that puts these terrorist F-bags on any kind of pedestal or gives them notoriety, recognition or acclaim. They are scumbags who murder in the name of religion, and deserve none of those things. I am likewise against throwing billions (or trillions!) of dollars at a problem, just to keep our friends in the lobby business flush. I want to see some real results. I want a good return on investment. I realize that sounds crappy, but we have to get real. What things are most dangerous? Where are our actual vulnerabilities? How can we effectively address them in a reasonable order of severity? US infrastructure is killing more people than terrorism right now, and we have a hard time affording that, right?

Aircraft carriers and Departments of Homeland Security are expensive. We are no more entitled to them than we are free college or free healthcare. Yet, here we are, trying to fix the world with our treasure while our allies never worry about going bankrupt from a Cancer diagnosis, and I'm a pinko for pointing out the disparity.

People died today. It sucks. Terrorists are bad people. In a perfect world we'd round up all the bad people, including the warmongers in our own Government who talk tough and produce crap results -- and fire them into the sun. But we don't live in a perfect world. People die crossing busy streets. Old people die in their homes trying to change a lightbulb. We don't declare war on houses for killing our parents. Why are we pissing money down a hole to give notoriety and fame to death groupies for Radical Islam?

a reply to: RadioRobert

Aaaand -- another star. I need to log out of here before I switch teams.

a reply to: BarefootInWinter
Agreed. It mattered not one whit to the bombers if their hideout was searched after they'd done the deed. They knew they would not be returning to it and that "cell" (possibly 2 or 3 operatives and a controller) is now finished. Doubtless there were also "cutouts" in their info exchange/command regime set up so it would be hard for authorities to trace back to any key people and take them out.

The authorities might learn some things from the search of those premises, but I doubt it will help them a whole lot in trying to prevent any other attacks that are in the pipeline. I just hope they are very careful in their search. It's very easy to booby trap a place and we don't want any more lives needlessly lost.

a reply to: intrptr

Neither of the two, because the west is not promoting endless war in M.E countries, muslims are quite capable of doing that on their own with their eternal conflicts between shia, sunni, wahabi, alawite, salafi, kurd, sufi.

For years now we have been dealing with islamic extremism, it is nothing new, in the 70s / 80s a hijack or a bomb, in the 90s even waging war and taking over a country (taliban Afghanistan).
After the millennium al qaeda took it to a whole new level when they attacked the WTC after hijacking 4 planes.
Within Europe extremist cells formed, Mohamed B who killed Theo van Gogh was a member of the hofstad group (an islamic extremist group in The Hague).
Over the globe there are many islamic groups, they kill for their ideology which is islam.

a reply to: BarefootInWinter
I agree with you completely. (Again! ) The authorities should not be releasing a darned word about whatever Saleh Abdeslam is telling them -- or not telling them. To do so is moronic at best and criminally negligent at worst. They have no idea what kinds of code words/phrases he might have prepared in advance to use in the event of his capture.

It's just incomprehensible to me that their own "Intelligence" people are apparently not using that which their name implies they have. When we are dealing with an enemy, it's fundamental that we do our utmost to not give them anything they could possibly use against us. "We" being whoever is under threat.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
First, I'm staring you because your reply was on point, clever and civil. Bravo. I am so frustrated today it's hard to contain my inner smart ass.

I have snark coming out of my ears, but I'm pretty good natured. I don't get, too worked up over the internet, but I, too, think the "other guy" is deliberately obtuse or suffering from subconsious delusion sometimes.

I don't know anything about "no-go zones"

No-Go Zone. Specifically the many areas in Europe that are now under their own sovereignty due to unchecked/unassimilated immigration. When we add people who don't desire to assimilate to our cities, they're going to end up dependent on our social services. Then we're feeding them to become disenfranchised and potentially radicalized. It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying all refugees would resist blending cultures, but I would say we have no idea how many will (and I suspect it will be the majority).

I want a good return on investment. How can we effectively address them in a reasonable order of severity?

Why don't we halt/curtail this unchecked immigration until we figure it out something that is effective at mitigating the risk? I realize the desire comes from a good place. I'm not against helping people, especially when we essentially stirred up the tempest that is displacing many fine people. If we're committed to helping them, why don't we do it in a way that mitigates our own risk? You figure we're paying to ship them, feed them, and board them. It's got to be cheaper to board them and feed them in Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, etc There is little assimilation issue there. Why aren't those countries stepping up while we help write a check?

Why are we pissing money down a hole to give notoriety and fame to death groupies for Radical Islam?

It costs literally zero dollars to suspend importation of refugees without a vetting system in place.

Oddly enough, a few days ago Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was speaking at a ceremony where he mentioned such an attack happening; even mentioning Brussels.

Source

Speaking at ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in the coastal town of Canakkale, Erdogan said, "there is no reason why the bomb that exploded in Ankara cannot explode in Brussels, in any other European city."

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You want an idea about no-go zones and why they are such an issue? Here you go. This piece sort of explains a bit about how Europe got to have so many and why they are such an entrenched problem.

How is it that in a prosperous European country there can be enough support within the Muslim community for a man who had pledged his allegiance to ISIS, has already successfully completed one terrorist attack and is planning others, to be protected and aided?

The answer is that this is a problem of Europe’s own creating—and it’s not going away. Beginning in the post-World War II era, Europe was in need of workers to pad its depleted work force. A natural place to look was North Africa, in former colonies of Spain and France. While it was assumed that migration would be short-term, the reality is that the men who came to work stayed, and later brought over their families. Europe made no plan for how to house and assimilate these families (see Christopher Caldwell’s excellent book, “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,” for an in-depth discussion of this topic).

More to the point, Europe was uncomfortable asking its Muslim communities to assimilate. European leaders felt that would be too reminiscent of the colonial era. Their guilt and newfound “enlightenment” guided them to leave these people to their communities, culture, and religion. At the same time, however, they also ostracized them. What resulted was tight-knit majority-Muslim enclaves often on the outskirts of major European cities (like Saint Denis on the outer edge of Paris, where one of the Paris attackers was found).

It's the result of Europe's need for workers couple with European unwillingness to assimilate them into the broader European culture. They called it multiculturalism and made all kind of high-minded sounding remarks about how great it is, but it has directly contributed to the problems of the no-go zones. When Europe has a "little Libya" or "little Somalia" or "little Iraq," they aren't joking. Culturally, that's really what it is.

These communities are volatile places that are not dissimilar, in some ways, to certain American inner cities. They remain close-knit via shared language, Arabic, shared religion, Islam, and a continued influx of immigration from their countries of origin. This is no longer just family reunification. It is common, for example, for second- and third-generation North African immigrants to look to their ancestral home for a spouse. This is most common among men. They want a woman uncorrupted by European values. These marriage practices keep a continuous supply of first-generation mothers having second-generation children.

These problems have now come home to roost. Europe has on its hands millions of Muslims, many of whom, although certainly not all, identify first as Muslims and second as Europeans. They are loyal, at best, to the local Muslim community with whom they share a sense of solidarity, or in its worst manifestations, to ISIS and its global sense of destiny. This manifests itself in its most extreme in attacking the great evil that is the West—even if it has been their home for their entire life. But, as has played out in the last few months, it is also manifesting itself in a large community of people willing to aid and abet terrorist networks in Europe.

These communities living in the no-goes DO NOT think of themselves as French or Belgian or European first, not even if they grew up there. They are Muslims first and have that as their primary allegiance. And now that you are adding in ISIS and Al Qaeda militants with the refugees, this is a toxic mix because many see that as their first duty - aiding and abetting.

I've said on here before that we have three main divisions of Muslims: the ones who only want to get on with life which make up maybe 50 to 60% of Muslims, the ones who are loyal to Muslims and Islam and will aid and abet which is about 30 to 40% of Muslims, and the militant radicals which are the rest.

The first group isn't anyone's problem. But the other two groups are a bad combination. One carries out these attacks, and the other group actively sympathizes with them and helps them. What you are seeing now is the collaboration of both groups in the network of no-goes across Europe. Why else do you think the main suspect from Paris was able to hide out under the noses of officials in Brussels for so long?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
The other begging question is where they got that much explosive in Brussels, without the local army base noticing any was missing…

The explosives are easy they made them from locally acquired over the counter products.
I could go to any US Walmart superstore and get the chemicals to build a large bomb.

I will not name the three products needed for making the explosive but they are easy to buy in most US towns.

They are also 100% stable to mix and use and make a great homemade plastic explosive.

a reply to: ketsuko

You know what? Thank you. I'm going to dig deeper into the information both you and Radio provided and see if I can make sense of it / see where it leads. I am going to try to stuff any preconceived notions I may have and see what I can come up with.

Have a good night.

a reply to: ANNED

Correct.
The more difficult thing to get hands on or improvise are the primary explosives to detonate the main charge, but that isn't all that difficult either, just less forgiving.

originally posted by: Daedal
Oddly enough, a few days ago Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was speaking at a ceremony where he mentioned such an attack happening; even mentioning Brussels.

Source

Speaking at ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in the coastal town of Canakkale, Erdogan said, "there is no reason why the bomb that exploded in Ankara cannot explode in Brussels, in any other European city."

The first thing that I thought when I heard that this happened in Brussels was - "I wonder if there was a drill nearby." I've been busy and imagine my surprise that in 35 pages of comments only 3 used the word "drill." (Yes, I just checked all 35 pages.)

The first person was Shamrock6, who used the word sarcastically directed toward anyone that might suggest such a thing. I don't blame him for that, just merely pointing out that he was the first and his intention.

The statistical coincidence of events and nearby drills is far beyond the norm and more into the realm of WTF? The statistical coincidence of the Turkish president specifically mentioning Brussels days before the actual attacks is also rather strange. Europe is full of large cities, sure the EU headquarters is in Brussels and that may be why he mentioned it. However, given it's the EU headquarters it seems even more unlikely such an event would occur if we factor in the importance of the EU headquarters, the intelligence agencies surrounding Brussels (GCHQ/MI6, DGSI, BND/BfV, and Belgium's own SV/SE).

Am I saying there was a drill in Brussels? Nope, because I don't know. We do know there were related drills in Paris when those attacks happened, and we could run down the list of American events as well. From where I sit (armchair quarterback and all) it seems that after Paris they (the intelligence agencies of Europe) have become incredibly lazy or this was a planned/allowed event.

What I have been surprised at reading is a lot of "us verses them" attitudes when it comes to Syrians/ISIS/etc. It seems to be the continued nature of TPTB Beast- to create enemies and allow them to or aid/facilitate them in causing these events so that we (the average people) stop looking behind the curtain of power and stare blindly at a fabricated enemy.

I for one refuse to accept the fabricated enemy and want the curtain torn down. I'm tired of watching average citizens treated as event fodder for ruling elites to use whenever they want to control the docile cow masses into accepting the next phase of their plan to destroy freedom and rights.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: anxiouswens
I dont want innocent muslims punished for this. [/post]

Why do we never hear, "I don't want the innocent gun owners punished", or "I don't want the innocent white people punished", or "I don't want innocent Christians punished", or "I don't want the innocent Republicans/conservatives punished"?

I think it's because those demographics aren't collectively derided for attacks. Islam is often blamed as a whole for these atrocities, but the same standard isn't applied to other demographics like Christians. For example, people flip their # at Islam for terrorist attacks, but no one had a go at Christianity for the actions of Anders Behring Breivik or the many Christian militias in Africa. Interestingly enough, while ISIS and Breivik cite religious influences, their actions are primarily motivated by politics. ISIS wants a caliphate, Breivik wanted to stop the 'invasion of Europe' and left-leaning politics.

a reply to: ketsuko

And I think part of the problem in Europe, is that you have masses of essentially unskilled workers. Even the ones who were craftsmen back home, by and large, aren't considered skilled workers in the West (though they certainly have a huge advantage). So you have people who may not speak much of the language, have little or nothing in the way of job prospects, where do they go? Those people don't assimilate. They stay with family, friends, community, etc (which is perfectly natural). And then you have a bunch of youth with no job prospects, resentful of discrimination, and a lot of time on their hands.

It's hard to pin it all on the closed community. You're basically brewing up all the needed ingredients for a gang problem. Only some of these gangs go to a radicalized mosque on Friday and come out thinking maybe striking out at the Great Satan and ending the day in Jannah instead of the ghetto isn't so bad.