Another security threat, Schiphol Airport evacuated, 2 arrests

ceadaoin.

Parts of Schiphol airport in Amsterdam were evacuated this evening and some people reported being locked in the airport for hours with little information. Military police were deployed and there have been 2 arrests so far and a car with belgian plates is being impounded.

I think the situation is resolved now and the airport is reopened.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-04-12/amsterdam-airport-schiphol-evacuated-amid-security-alert/

Is this what life in Europe will be like for at least the foreseeable future? No doubt it is going to get worse before it gets better. It seems every week there are more arrests, foiled plots and situations like this. What's the solution? It's depressing.

Does all this make you feel less safe in Europe? I think I would definitely be more on alert myself next time Im over there. Or is it just the media blowing things out of proportion?

smash

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What's the solution? It's depressing.

Shhhhh, go to bed and it'll be grand.

Arsemageddon

ceadaoin. wrote: »

. Or is it just the media blowing things out of proportion?

I think the problem has more to do with jihadis blowing things up.

The Backwards Man

I remember we had five bombscares in one day in a place where I worked. And three the day after. Never even made the news at the time, there were that many incidents with people getting killed to fill the news.

So no, I don't feel unsafe in Europe at the minute.

Calibos

Have had a couple of 20 something Middle Eastern guys in buying rolling tobacco the last few days. They were shocked at the price and said the same thing was about €3 or €4 back in Belgium.


...Yeah, I'd keep that bit of information to yourselves lads if I were you :eek:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

It's really nuts that this is the norm now for Europe. It will get worse before it gets better.

It seems almost strange that the US considers 9/11 where everything changed for them, when in reality random attacks there are pretty much only carried out by lone nuts who have lost the plot and had access to too many guns.

With Europe though, where mass indiscriminate murder is/was not the norm, Islamic terror is just something that happens now, and it could be a football match in France or a train station in Belgium or Buckingham Palace in the UK.

When the history books are written, there will be a clear distinction made between Europe pre Islamic terrorism and post Islamic terrorism, the same way the Berlin Wall is a watershed moment in European history. Before this there was domestic terrorism (IRA here, Algerians in France, ETA in Spain) in Europe with groups who had defined goals and objectives (not that it was morally right or whatever), but this relatively new source of terrorism has no end goal other than to murder as many people as many times as possible until there is no one left.

And there's not a whole lot Europe can do to eradicate it as long as big parts of the Middle East is a war torn sh1thole and there are enough Muslims within Europe who feel like a marginalised underclass and become a part of it.

The chances of any one person being killed in a terrorist attack is minuscule, but when many people have to reconsider a trip to Euro 2016, or won't go to Tunisia on holidays, or are weary on an underground, it's not possible to argue that it hasn't changed something for so many people irrevocably.

Dohnjoe

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

but when many people have to reconsider a trip to Euro 2016, or won't go to Tunisia on holidays, or are weary on an underground, it's not possible to argue that it hasn't changed something for so many people irrevocably.

People in Iraq get bombed, kidnapped, killed every other day.. in the grand scheme of things deciding whether or not to go to Tunisia on holidays is hardly dramatic stuff

Yes, it is serious, but apart from some longer queues in airports it doesn't impact our lives too much

SEPT 23 1989

We are at war in Europe when will people finally let that fact sink in?

The Backwards Man

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

We are at war in Europe when will people finally let that fact sink in?

Which rabble rousing purveyor of nonsense do you write headlines for?


Unless you're of the far left loony type or the far right loony type (all the one sow's pigs), there is no war in Europe. There is a threat, as there have been countless threats in countless countries all over the centuries.

I suppose the only difference is there are far more vested interests and useful idiots that are able to perpetuate fears and rumours through social media than ever before.

RDM_83 again

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I remember we had five bombscares in one day in a place where I worked. And three the day after. Never even made the news at the time, there were that many incidents with people getting killed to fill the news.

So no, I don't feel unsafe in Europe at the minute.

You know what the difference is though, you had bomb scares because the vast majority of the time they gave warnings, seen the aftermath of a good handful of bombs and driven past a viable but not armed device none of those caused death.
The psychological impact of the current attacks is different, look at Brussels the place was meant to be in lockdown, people had been talking about how the area the bombers were from was going to be trouble for ages but it still happened.

Dohnjoe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You know what the difference is though, you had bomb scares because the vast majority of the time they gave warnings, seen the aftermath of a good handful of bombs and driven past a viable but not armed device none of those caused death.
The psychological impact of the current attacks is different, look at Brussels the place was meant to be in lockdown, people had been talking about how the area the bombers were from was going to be trouble for ages but it still happened.

People will generally forget about it

Madrid was bombed in 2004, London 2005 - people don't go around gripped in fear

The risk situation is simply higher at the moment due to recent events in Syria, but in context the risk is still very low

Blowfish

If you look at the statistics (link), Europe is actually far safer than it used to be when it comes to terrorism, it's just hyped a hell of a lot more these days.

HensVassal

Why aren't these terrorists attacking trains? There's no security there. It would be a doddle. Seems to me they don't want to which begs the question, do they even exist?

CelticRambler

HensVassal wrote: »

Why aren't these terrorists attacking trains? There's no security there. It would be a doddle. Seems to me they don't want to which begs the question, do they even exist?

I'm pretty sure I saw a train at the weekend, so yeah, I'd say they do exist ... but maybe it was just a long convoy of MPVs. :pac:

I remember being teased (or "emotionally abused" if your prefer) in an English workplace about probably being an Irish terrorist and them having to check the place for bombs every evening after I left. Seeing/hearing the Twitterbook generation going on about the current "state of terror" that's never been seen before makes me feel really old. Those ISIS amateurs still haven't done anything in Europe remotely comparable to what the IRA did in London, especially the Bishopsgate and Canary Wharf bombings.

stunmer

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I remember we had five bombscares in one day in a place where I worked. And three the day after. Never even made the news at the time, there were that many incidents with people getting killed to fill the news.

So no, I don't feel unsafe in Europe at the minute.

Islamists don't do bomb scares

The Backwards Man

stunmer wrote: »

Islamists don't do bomb scares

The incident at Schiphol was a bombscare, whether it was Islamists, Buddhists or Satanists matters not.

Dohnjoe

HensVassal wrote: »

Why aren't these terrorists attacking trains? There's no security there. It would be a doddle. Seems to me they don't want to which begs the question, do they even exist?

A guy with an AK47 was caught on a train between Amsterdam and Paris recently

The metro was attacked in Brussels. In Madrid, 192 were killed on trains. London underground was bombed, with a foiled attack not too long after. A suicide bomber killed 41 people in a Moscow train/metro bombing in 2004 and 40 in 2010 in a similar bombing. Hundreds have died in terrorist attacks in India in various train bombings and acts of sabotage.

Dohnjoe

stunmer wrote: »

Islamists don't do bomb scares

but if they did, they'd probably be the best bomb scares in the world

Herb Powell

Calibos wrote: »

Have had a couple of 20 something Middle Eastern guys in buying rolling tobacco the last few days. They were shocked at the price and said the same thing was about €3 or €4 back in Belgium.


...Yeah, I'd keep that bit of information to yourselves lads if I were you :eek:

I know right? Wouldn't want to have a ton of people coming over and buying all their chaape tobacco.

A.Partridge

Dohnjoe wrote: »

but if they did, they'd probably be the best bomb scares in the world

:pac:

Ha ha ha...comment of the week!

:pac::pac:

511

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I remember we had five bombscares in one day in a place where I worked. And three the day after. Never even made the news at the time, there were that many incidents with people getting killed to fill the news.

So no, I don't feel unsafe in Europe at the minute.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The incident at Schiphol was a bombscare, whether it was Islamists, Buddhists or Satanists matters not.

The Paris massacre last November wasn't a bombscare. It's pretty obvious Islamist terror organizations are way, way more bloodthirsty and more dangerous than the terrorists you dealt with up North. The people have a right to be more concerned about Islamist terrorism over the other terror groups - particularly suicide bombings, they are impossible to defend against.

dav3

511 wrote: »

The Paris massacre last November wasn't a bombscare. It's pretty obvious Islamist terror organizations are way, way more bloodthirsty and more dangerous than the terrorists you dealt with up North. The people have a right to be more concerned about Islamist terrorism over the other terror groups - particularly suicide bombings, they are impossible to defend against.

That's quite a statement to make. I'm not sure it's possible to differentiate between various terror groups. A lot of the killings on this island were barbaric and bloodthirsty.

RDM_83 again

Blowfish wrote: »

If you look at the statistics (link), Europe is actually far safer than it used to be when it comes to terrorism, it's just hyped a hell of a lot more these days.

If you removed the NI and Basque countries conflicts from that list which were geographically bounded and involved groups that could be negotiated with the difference isn't as large.
You could also remove a lot of the deaths in Germany as they were to some extent a state sponsored proxy war with an enemy that no longer exists (the soviet union)

anothernight

Yes, if you remove the numbers that don't suit your argument from the statistics, the statistics will look like they suit your argument.

ScumLord

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Does all this make you feel less safe in Europe?

Nope. Still one of the safest places in the world.

If you stayed inside watching the news all day you'd think there's a war zone outside the door but it's simply not true. I go to London a lot and all the bobbies standing around with machine guns in airports and train stations do give a sense of security.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

I like Shiphol, if you can like a airport, definetly the most chilled international airport I've been in.

RDM_83 again

anothernight wrote: »

Yes, if you remove the numbers that don't suit your argument from the statistics, the statistics will look like they suit your argument.

Do you think that if Europe approached the levels of Civil conflict that occurred in the Basque country and NI it would be in anyway a functional entity
What resemblance does ISIS have with the IRA and ETA? Both those entities were mindful of public opinion even if they ignored it for tactical/strategic reasons.

anothernight

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Do you think that if Europe approached the levels of Civil conflict that occurred in the Basque country and NI it would be in anyway a functional entity
What resemblance does ISIS have with the IRA and ETA? Both those entities were mindful of public opinion even if they ignored it for tactical/strategic reasons.

Dude, all the guy said is that "Europe is actually far safer than it used to be when it comes to terrorism". If I get blown up by ETA or by ISIS I die anyway. Not that ETA was mindful of public opinion (or that it's in any way relevant).

I have friends whose apartments had to be rehabilitated to make them safe after ETA attacks btw. Our window panes vibrating when larger attacks happened. Bombs deactivated in the buildings next to my school, etc. But life still went on. Or maybe we just didn't have a hard-on for thinking we were at war or something.


I don't want to descend into the "discussion" so I'll leave it at that.

MonkeyTennis

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

We are at war in Europe when will people finally let that fact sink in?

Speak for yourself.

Sh1tbag OToole

Ronald Wilson Reagan wrote: »

I like Shiphol, if you can like a airport, definetly the most chilled international airport I've been in.

Tis a sh1thole, like every other international airport. Queue endlessly, get hassled by security gobsh1tes, people trying to sell you overpriced crap everywhere. Sit around waiting for your chance to be herded into a pressurised metal tube.

goose2005

dav3 wrote: »

That's quite a statement to make. I'm not sure it's possible to differentiate between various terror groups. A lot of the killings on this island were barbaric and bloodthirsty.

In general they were carried out against military/paramilitary targets or property. Very few attacks were deliberate mass killings of civilians, and nothing on the scale of the Bataclan.

dav3

goose2005 wrote: »

In general they were carried out against military/paramilitary targets or property. Very few attacks were deliberate mass killings of civilians, and nothing on the scale of the Bataclan.

I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree. At the very least you should educate yourself on the UVF and the shankill butchers.

As for the story that inspired the OP. I'll be putting up the Dutch flag on facebook shortly. 12/04/2016, suspicious man arrested at airport, never forget.

CelticRambler

goose2005 wrote: »

In general they were carried out against military/paramilitary targets or property. Very few attacks were deliberate mass killings of civilians, and nothing on the scale of the Bataclan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

17th May, 1974 - 34 dead, 300 injured, hardly a military target amongst them ...

Scene outside the Bataclan 2015


Scene outside Bishopsgate 1993


Spot the difference. Were you even born then? :rolleyes:

RDM_83 again

CelticRambler wrote: »

Scene outside Bishopsgate 1993


Spot the difference. Were you even born then? :rolleyes:

How many people died in the Bishopsgate bombing?One guy that ignored the police cordons, how many would have died in an attack by Islamic Fundementalists with those resources, potentially 500+
Pretty terrible comparison to use.

keeponhurling

dav3 wrote: »

As for the story that inspired the OP. I'll be putting up the Dutch flag on facebook shortly. 12/04/2016, suspicious man arrested at airport, never forget.

Ik ben Amsterdam

Irish Praetorian

HensVassal wrote: »

Why aren't these terrorists attacking trains? There's no security there. It would be a doddle. Seems to me they don't want to which begs the question, do they even exist?

Never heard of the Madrid bombings? By far the most devastating Islamist terrorist attack on Europe.

CelticRambler

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How many people died in the Bishopsgate bombing?One guy that ignored the police cordons, how many would have died in an attack by Islamic Fundementalists with those resources, potentially 500+
Pretty terrible comparison to use.

Yeah, but "terrorism" - real terrorism - isn't about killing people. 500 deaths? That many die in France every month on the roads. Add to that all the other crash victims in all the other European countries and it highlights the irrelevance of the actions of a few "lone gunmen".

The perpetrators of the Paris attack (and their feckit-gotta-do-something Brussels attack) are now all dead or in custody. The IRA bombers were able to damage whole blocks of London, interfere with the lives of thousands of ordinary people, get away and do it again (and again and again).

The chance of being side-by-side with a one-time-only ISIS bomber on the day he (or she) decides to go looking for his virgins is miniscule. In terms of organised or guerilla warfare, they're a bunch of amateur eejits with no hope of success.

FTA69

ScumLord wrote: »

Nope. Still one of the safest places in the world.

If you stayed inside watching the news all day you'd think there's a war zone outside the door but it's simply not true. I go to London a lot and all the bobbies standing around with machine guns in airports and train stations do give a sense of security.

A lot of that is theatre to be honest though. If you have someone utterly determined to plant a bomb or light a fire or attack someone with a knife (Lee Rigby, some attacks in the West Bank etc) then all the cops in the world won't prevent that from happening, not if the only condition of the target is that it's a group of people.

FTA69

dav3 wrote: »

That's quite a statement to make. I'm not sure it's possible to differentiate between various terror groups. A lot of the killings on this island were barbaric and bloodthirsty.

Contrary to what certain Independent columnists and other revisionist eejits may say, "IRA = ISIS" is simply a lazy, inaccurate and agenda-laden comparison with no bearing in reality.

There is a massive difference between an organisation such as the IRA and loose gangs of religious loonies looking to kill anyone and everyone.

ceadaoin.

B

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah, but "terrorism" - real terrorism - isn't about killing people. 500 deaths? That many die in France every month on the roads. Add to that all the other crash victims in all the other European countries and it highlights the irrelevance of the actions of a few "lone gunmen".

The perpetrators of the Paris attack (and their feckit-gotta-do-something Brussels attack) are now all dead or in custody. The IRA bombers were able to damage whole blocks of London, interfere with the lives of thousands of ordinary people, get away and do it again (and again and again).

The chance of being side-by-side with a one-time-only ISIS bomber on the day he (or she) decides to go looking for his virgins is miniscule. In terms of organised or guerilla warfare, they're a bunch of amateur eejits with no hope of success.

Except allegedly there are hundreds if not thousands of "one time only ISIS bombers" in Europe. That's a lot of potential victims.

Paris and Brussels (even before the recent attack) were in a state of emergency for a weeks. People were told to stay home for long periods. That's a pretty big interference in the lives of ordinary people. Did the IRA do that?

There isn't really a comparison between car accidents, which everyone understands is a possibility when they get into a car, and being murdered at a concert or restaurant.

CelticRambler

ceadaoin. wrote: »

B

Except allegedly there are hundreds if not thousands of "one time only ISIS bombers" in Europe. That's a lot of potential victims.

Allegedly. Yeah.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Paris and Brussels (even before the recent attack) were in a state of emergency for a weeks. People were told to stay home for long periods. That's a pretty big interference in the lives of ordinary people. Did the IRA do that?

To a certain extent, yes. But the "state of emergency" is a political tool, nothing to do with security. Here in France, we're still in a state of emergency because our lame frog president is desperate to look like he's doing something, anything, that justifies standing for election again next year.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There isn't really a comparison between car accidents, which everyone understands is a possibility when they get into a car, and being murdered at a concert or restaurant.

So what exactly is the difference between being dead as a result of an uninsured alcoholic Frenchman doing 140kmh in a 50kmh zone (probability 1 in 10.000) and being dead as a result of someone's islamic delusion (probability 1 in 100.000.000.000?) ?

No, you're right, there's no comparison - ordinary life is far more likely to kill you. :rolleyes:

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

There is a massive difference between an organisation such as the IRA and loose gangs of religious loonies looking to kill anyone and everyone.

Yes, the IRA are white people like us and therefore can be reasoned with. Whereas ISIS have dark skin and a "crazy" religion and therefore are beyond reason.

For the entirety of human history, everyone has described their "enemy" as faceless, mindless automata, hellbent on killing you and your entire family.

And your enemy says the exact same thing about you.

It's the reason why the Terminator films are so popular. They expose an inner primal fear and put it on screen - that of an enemy who will stop at nothing until you're dead and cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances.

HensVassal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A guy with an AK47 was caught on a train between Amsterdam and Paris recently

The metro was attacked in Brussels. In Madrid, 192 were killed on trains. London underground was bombed, with a foiled attack not too long after. A suicide bomber killed 41 people in a Moscow train/metro bombing in 2004 and 40 in 2010 in a similar bombing. Hundreds have died in terrorist attacks in India in various train bombings and acts of sabotage.

So why is there no security at train stations? Why no scanners? No metal detectors? Why is this crap only confined to airports?

seamus

HensVassal wrote: »

So why is there no security at train stations? Why no scanners? No metal detectors? Why is this crap only confined to airports?

Security theatre.

Flying is an innately nervous experience for most people. You're confined in a metal tube travelling hundreds of KM per hour, 10,000 metres in the air. One person fncks up and you're a gonner, you have no control over the situation.

Land transport, or even boats are not the same. The feeling of isolation and helplessness doesn't exist. If a train crashes, you can get out and walk home. If a boat starts to sink, you can swim. The realistic prospects of survival aren't important, it's only important that people feel like they have some control over their own destiny.

If they didn't set up a big show at airports to prove how safe flying is, less people would be willing to fly.

Land based transport has the opposite problem - too much security is too much hassle and people will select private transport instead.

RDM_83 again

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the IRA are white people like us and therefore can be reasoned with. Whereas ISIS have dark skin and a "crazy" religion and therefore are beyond reason.

For the entirety of human history, everyone has described their "enemy" as faceless, mindless automata, hellbent on killing you and your entire family.

And your enemy says the exact same thing about you.

It's the reason why the Terminator films are so popular. They expose an inner primal fear and put it on screen - that of an enemy who will stop at nothing until you're dead and cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances.

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the IRA are white people like us and therefore can be reasoned with. Whereas ISIS have dark skin and a "crazy" religion and therefore are beyond reason.

For the entirety of human history, everyone has described their "enemy" as faceless, mindless automata, hellbent on killing you and your entire family.

And your enemy says the exact same thing about you.

It's the reason why the Terminator films are so popular. They expose an inner primal fear and put it on screen - that of an enemy who will stop at nothing until you're dead and cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances.

Bollocks! Hezbollah, the PPK,the PLO, and even Hamas are all mainly brown with that religion but they aren't generally thought of in the same way as the current wave of Islamist attacks as they have a clear goal and geographic scope and can be negotiated with to varying degrees

HensVassal

511 wrote: »

The Paris massacre last November wasn't a bombscare. It's pretty obvious Islamist terror organizations are way, way more bloodthirsty and more dangerous than the terrorists you dealt with up North. The people have a right to be more concerned about Islamist terrorism over the other terror groups - particularly suicide bombings, they are impossible to defend against.

Ever hear of Bloody Friday?

Dohnjoe

HensVassal wrote: »

So why is there no security at train stations? Why no scanners? No metal detectors? Why is this crap only confined to airports?

Sheer logistics

Take France as an example, hundreds of train and metro stations, millions of French people travelling daily. Treating each train commuter to the same level of security as an airline passenger would bring the country to a standstill and incur huge cost and have severe economic consequences

Better to increase security at key points and invest the cost/manpower into prevention and detection

irelandrover

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sheer logistics

Take France as an example, hundreds of train and metro stations, millions of French people travelling daily. Treating each train commuter to the same level of security as an airline passenger would bring the country to a standstill and incur huge cost and have severe economic consequences

Better to increase security at key points and invest the cost/manpower into prevention and detection

There is also no risk of a 9/11 style attack from a train.

HensVassal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sheer logistics

Take France as an example, hundreds of train and metro stations, millions of French people travelling daily. Treating each train commuter to the same level of security as an airline passenger would bring the country to a standstill and incur huge cost and have severe economic consequences

Better to increase security at key points and invest the cost/manpower into prevention and detection

I don't believe that for a moment. So ramp up security at airports where it was already difficult to conduct an attack before all this nonsense was introduced. Then tell us that terrorists are are everywhere, ready to strike indiscriminately but don't implement the security measures that would be the logical response to the fear-mongering.

If these terrorists are so ubiquitous and so callous and so barbaric there'd be carnage all over the place every half an hour. But there isn't. Which leads me to conclude that the threat is hyped.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

FTA69 wrote: »

Contrary to what certain Independent columnists and other revisionist eejits may say, "IRA = ISIS" is simply a lazy, inaccurate and agenda-laden comparison with no bearing in reality.

There is a massive difference between an organisation such as the IRA and loose gangs of religious loonies looking to kill anyone and everyone.

This is exactly right. The world isn't a black and white place. There are different types of 'terrorism' and anybody who cannot make a distinction between the varying forms that it takes are either intellectually dishonest, naive or have an agenda.

Our 'heroes' of 1916 would have fitted the definition of terrorists perfectly. But we shut down the country and celebrate their actions now.

HensVassal

irelandrover wrote: »

There is also no risk of a 9/11 style attack from a train.

WHAT??

"We're not going to plant a bomb on a train to kill people"

"Why? It's an easy target"

"Because we can't fly a train into a skyscraper!"

Dafuq?