Another security threat, Schiphol Airport evacuated, 2 arrests

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?

irelandrover

HensVassal wrote: »

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?

Well, yes.

If there is an attack on a train it is only the people on the train that are at risk. Its a calculated security operation as trains are also used for daily commutes and cities would grind to a halt if such security measures were implemented.

If a plane is taken then there is the potential to use it as a weapon as seen in the attacks on 9/11.

I'm not saying that its correct.

CelticRambler

Which brings us back to what constitutes a "good" terrorist strategy. The IRA did it well specifically by targetting train stations and underground stations, messing up the daily commute for hundreds of thousands of Londoners. All it took was a well-timed phone call and/or a carefully placed package. Minimum investment on their part, minimal personnel required, maximum disruption.

Airport/aeroplane attacks make for great headlines, but their impact on our daily lives is minimal so they're easily forgotten about. In fact, there was a bit of a campaign recently by the relatives of the one guy killed at the Stade de France to try and get people to remember that there was one guy killed at the Stade de France (apart from the bomber).

bodhrandude

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

Not necessarily, it works in Spain ever since the Madrid train bombings in 2004 the Spanish have scanning machines and armed security at every train station, a quick scan of your bag and on your way, no delays.

bodhrandude

Ha ha it looks like I destroyed the thread, everyone talking about countries coming to a standstill if security was introduced into railway stations and bus stations, you didn't realise that its been in place for eleven to twelve years in Spain.

anothernight

bodhrandude wrote: »

Ha ha it looks like I destroyed the thread, everyone talking about countries coming to a standstill if security was introduced into railway stations and bus stations, you didn't realise that its been in place for eleven to twelve years in Spain.

It's not actually in every train station. At least the last few times I've been in a train station in Madrid (including Atocha), they didn't have any scanners in the areas I used. The last time I took a train there (that wasn't metro turning into light rail, anyway) was at Aranjuez, and no scanners there. Neither were there in Las Rozas.

Last time I was around Atocha square and metro there were heavily armed policemen, but that's been the norm since forever anyway.

From memory, there's no extra security in the two bus stations I'm familiar with either, namely Moncloa and Avenida de América.


EDIT: Quick google there says getting your luggage scanned is compulsory if you're taking a high speed train, not a normal train, although apparently international and long distance routes also include these measures.

Scanning the luggage of every single person who goes through Atocha and stays within Madrid itself would cause serious delays considering the sheer number of people who go through the station every day.

old_aussie

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?

Maybe do some research and have a look at this link

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

I think the worst is yet to come for terrorist attacks in Europe, they're just getting started.

Sh1tbag OToole

old_aussie wrote: »

Maybe do some research and have a look at this link

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

I think the worst is yet to come for terrorist attacks in Europe, they're just getting started.

Going by the list you'd think they all collectively gave up on bombing trains in 2010

Mesrine65

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

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

Resisting a foreign army of occupation by force of arms in the quest for self determination is now terrorism?

I put it to you that the occupation by a foreign force/power, the subjugation of nations, the wanton pillaging of a nations resources etc., is a far greater act of terrorism.

Whether it's the British empire's misdeeds in Ireland/India/China/the middle east/Palestine or King Leopold II's ruthless treatment/pillaging of the Congolese for example, one would have to be intellectually dishonest, naive or have an agenda...to paraphrase your post.

Rattser

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.

The IRA had a goal. A 32 county Republic. The ISIS also have a goal. Armageddon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Good luck reasoning with that.

anothernight

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Resisting a foreign army of occupation by force of arms in the quest for self determination is now terrorism?

If you ask a Basque person what they think about ETA, there's a chance they'll call them freedom fighters and complain about the "political prisoners" currently held in Spanish and French prisons.

The definition of terrorism is, like it or not, very much debatable.