Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News Politics

Belgian Raid Kills 2, Said To Avert "Major Terrorist Attacks" 257

As reported by CNN, Reuters, and other outlets, a raid in the Belgian city of Verviers -- one of several counter-terrorism actions in the country today -- ended in the death of two men, and the capture of a third, who are said to have been planning imminent acts of violence akin to the ones earlier this month in France. From Reuters' coverage: Coming a week after Islamist gunmen killed 17 people in Paris, the incident heightened fears across Europe of young local Muslims returning radicalised from Syria. But prosecutors' spokesman Eric Van Der Sypt said the Belgian probe had been under way before the Jan. 7 attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. ... Describing events in the quiet provincial town just after dark, he said: "The suspects immediately and for several minutes opened fire with military weaponry and handguns on the special units of the federal police before they were neutralised." ... Earlier in the day, prosecutors said they had detained a man in southern Belgium whom they suspected of supplying weaponry to Amedy Coulibaly, killer of four people at a Paris Jewish grocery after the Charlie Hebdo attack. After the violence in Verviers, La Meuse newspaper quoted an unidentified police officer saying: "We've averted a Belgian Charlie Hebdo."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Belgian Raid Kills 2, Said To Avert "Major Terrorist Attacks"

Comments Filter:
  • And they may have. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:30PM (#48824737) Homepage Journal

    They may have averted their own Charlie Hebdo event, but sadly, the credibility of both sides of the "War on Terror" has been shot to hell -- primarily because of the actions of government which they thought people would take lying down. Most of them have, but even if they aren't in the streets protesting, they'll still roll their eyes and say "yeah, right".

    Let's assume for the moment that this is completely legitimate, and an opportunity for the authorities to win back some respect. If so, they should carry the ensuing trial(s) openly for all to see. "We used surveillance programs to detect X, Y, and Z and couldn't have done it without them because A, B, and C" is exactly the sort of rational argument we'd like to see. If it turns out they did it through traditionally acceptable (like warrants) means, this weakens the argument of being able to do an end run around such procedures. Obviously this would be unwelcome from an authoritarian perspective, but it might win back some trust from those of us who do respect the actions of legitimate and responsible investigators.

    • We tried that here with the whole Stingray thing. Even though we now know about that tech, it still doesn't help anyone gain any "respect" towards law enforcement. If anything it makes them more untrustworthy as it had to be practicably beaten out of them.
  • Prepare for more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HBI ( 604924 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:33PM (#48824763) Journal

    They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism. It's an asymmetric war. You can choose to ignore it and the murders, or you can fight it. Staying neutral isn't an option.

    • Re:Prepare for more (Score:5, Interesting)

      by radtea ( 464814 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:44PM (#48824857)

      They'll keep doing it till they're kept so busy at home that they don't have time for this foreign adventurism.

      By "kept so busy at home" you mean "engaging in productive trade", right?

      Because it certainly wouldn't make any sense to suggest that bombing them, for example, is "keeping them busy" in any materially useful sense, since we have overwhelming empirical data that bombing and any other form of military assault has the primary result of engendering resistance.

      Furthermore, "at home" is Belgium for the people involved in this action, and "at home" was France for the blasphemophobes who murdered the blasphemers of Charlie Hebdo.

      You are right that this is an asymmetric war, but you don't seem aware that that requires tactics very different from bombing or other military action in many cases. Limited military assaults can serve definite purposes, as the case of ISIS shows, but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.

      In fact, there not being a battlefield in any conventional sense was a requirement for winning against the Soviets. Even setting aside the problem of nuclear weapons, if we had met the Soviets on the battlefield we can say with near certainty that the population would have rallied 'round the commisars, and the Soviet Empire would have never fallen.

      As such, our tactical response to Islamists should be primarily--but not exclusively--non-military. It should be economic, political, satirical, even poetical: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=... [tjradcliffe.com]

      It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs. We should be in this for the long haul, and while we should be willing to kill and die now and then, if anyone suggests those should be the primary activities involved, they are simply expressing a profound ignorance of humans, and history, and warfare (both its costs and its effectiveness, which bellicose emotionalists often get wrong.)

      • by reikae ( 80981 )

        I'm curious who you're representing when you say for example "we had" and "our tactical response". Do you mean Christians, or any non-Muslims, or Americans, or something else?

      • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:02PM (#48825017)

        It took hundreds of years for Christians to let go of blasphemophobia. It may take as long for Muslims to let go of theirs.

        They've *had* hundreds of years. What makes you think another hundred years will change anything?

        Christians started tolerating "blaphemy" after they rose to power, and after they got their story straight to the point where they could face academic introspection, and after secular authority was predominantly in charge of the society in which they lived.

        • by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @10:00PM (#48826289)

          Interesting fact.

          When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
          Guess how old Islam is?

          Religions age about a 1000 time slower than people.

          You start out young and idealistic, and you try to convert people peacefully. Then you get all angsty in your teenage years and try to force people to believe your way is the right way. Then you slowly mature into adult hood.

          Read the old testament to learn what the jews did in their first 2000 years.

          • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @11:22PM (#48826729)

            Interesting fact.

            When Christianity turned 1400 they were hyper violent, and it took 4-500 years for that to wear down.
            Guess how old Islam is?

            I kind of think it doesn't matter; all you are really saying is that they don't learn from mistakes by watching the people on the road in front of them. They have an example of how to go from being violent to being non-violent, and they are unwilling to follow that example. That's a choice, not them lacking a working example, as Christianity did when they were stumbling around trying to find a road forward. I don't think the situation is comparable, and it's certainly not comparable on time scale, just because both of them are religions.

          • so, around the year 2300 we should expect this to taper off?
          • Religions, civilizations, people, they all go through the same stages of life.

            You start off young and starry-eyed. Then you go through your teenage years of rebellion and angst. And then you set off discovering what you want. Then you go do the things you want to do. If you screwed up and your results didn't match your expectations, you go through mid-life crisis. And finally, you sit back and shake your head at all the other younger versions doing the same thing.

            Religions are about 500 years to 7 human yea

          • You start out young and idealistic, and you try to convert people peacefully.

            Interesting idea. Except this is not quite what happened with Islam. You might want to read up on the historical development of that particular religion.

            Hint: the whole "spread it with sword and fire" thing was not just a phrase from the sales brochure. They actually took that fairly seriously from day 1 onwards.

            • And yet when Christianity was in it's dark ages, and islam and the arbors saved their history guess how old islam was?

      • Re:Prepare for more (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:06PM (#48825061)

        2015

        IT''S 2015.

        2015

        Think about it. In this age of information, there's a specific religion that murders others out of what they call "blasphemy". In 2015. I can't say Christians were justified in their murders, but holy shit it's far less wrong than doing it now with all the knowledge we have of the universe and our complex societies based on freedom of speech and religion. And you're really equating them to Christians hundreds of years ago. There's not even the slightest probability of Islam reforming, you know why? Because they MURDER reformists. The sects that already exist are there for good. Christianity, while they also had this issue, it devolved really quickly into what we have today: a bunch of fringe denominations that ignore half the bible and only cherrypicks the good things. And let's not forget the very especial parts where they outline God's law and MAN's law (Romans 13:1-7 for instance). All in all, Christianity is far more easy to fit in with civil society. It's the perfect book to cherry pick quotes from since there are so many contradictions.

        Also, while I'm at it, I'll just leave this here. Take it with a grain of salt though.

        From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism):
        In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified, ( http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97 ) in Europe:

        64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
        70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
        83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
        69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10 % sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
        In mainly Muslim countries:

        45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
        61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
        43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
        28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
        69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
        71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

      • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:13PM (#48825125)

        but the real war won't be won on the battlefield any more than the war against the Soviets was won on the battlefield.

        It all depends on what kind of battlefield warfare you're willing to fight.

        The TV news friendly, politically popular war where we're real careful about the destruction we cause and the collateral damage and winning hearts and minds is a sure loser.

        Scorched earth total warfare where you ring a population center and utterly bomb it to rubble without any consideration for civilians is winnable. You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.

        The of the firebombing of Tokyo and the A-bomb strikes. The Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man and never surrendering. Once we demonstrated the ability and willingness to just level cities until they capitulated, they capitulated. The alternative was not capitulating and risking the reduction of the Japanese nation to the same footnote status of Carthage.

        How do you think Julius Ceasar won the Gallic campaign? By building roads and schools and promising H1-B visas? You were given an offer to disarm and pledge allegiance to Rome. Your alternative was to have your people killed, your treasure seized and anyone left standing sold into slavery or crucified.

        No, it is not nice in any sense of the word. It is utter brutality and bloodshed. Which is why we should never, ever get into these conflicts unless we're willing to do what successful armies for centuries have done to actually conquer a people.

        • Re:Prepare for more (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:35PM (#48825643)

          Scorched earth total warfare where you ring a population center and utterly bomb it to rubble without any consideration for civilians is winnable. You win a war by utterly destroying your enemies ability AND their will to fight. And you do by inflicting massive death and destruction.

          100 percent correct, and unpopular as hell.

          It's like dealing with bullies. at heart, they are cowards, and after making a few examples, thy have a marked tendency to stand down. I would never get into a war that I did not intend to win, and post WW2 history has adequately proven that limited warfare and the unfathomable stupidity of win hearts and minds warfare simply doesn't work - although I believe that the recent longest wars in US history were also a massive corporate welfare project too.

          • "never get into a war that I did not intend to win" I'm not aware of too many countries that purposely engage in wars they intend to loose.
          • OK, the whole scenario is a bit far fetched, however this is how it would play out, and their is historical precedent.

            1) The USA has by far the largest, most powerful, most advanced, most strategic, military forces in the world. The next two in line Russia and China, are also not all that dominated by Muslims. When you start to look down the list, you got to go WAY down the list to find Muslim dominated countries with advanced military might. So in a strictly conventional war, it is really no contest.

            Howeve

    • Get them all free tickets to that great Muslim garbage disposal called Syria. Give them guns and send them out to shoot other islamofacists and be shot themselves. Win-win!

      • That's what Saudi Arabia did; "export" the extreme views so those people will be too busy fighting elsewhere and not them.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seems like ISIS has effectively declared war on the US and Europe. How many attacks like the ones in France, and how many thwarted attacks like the ones discussed here, will it take before we decide to load up and actually take them out? This is different than the last two Iraq wars, and different than Afghanistan. Does anyone know what we are actually waiting for? Is it because there is no oil, or not enough public outrage? Are we waiting for another catastrophic attack to justify our actions? Why ar

    • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:57PM (#48825455)

      One thing I don't get - why is the West - Europe and Americas - allowing anybody to come in from ISIS lands, like Iraq or Syria? I don't have a problem w/ wannabe Jihadis taking the next flight to Baghdad, and then making their way to the frontlines in Raqqa. Let them go there, fight or do whatever ISIS asks them to do, and leave it to them.

      Only thing - when they do leave for that region, take down their names and make sure that their trip is just one way. Impound their passports, cancel their citizenship/visas and make it impossible for them to legally re-enter the West. After all, they either are or embraced Islam, and decided that jihad is what they want to do. Fair enough - so let them go to the battlegrounds in Iraq or Syria where they can fight for their dear caliphate, or do whatever their Arab bosses ask them to do. If they wanna kill other Muslims b'cos they are not the same type as them, that's their problem. Let them all slug it out and determine who represents the true Islam.

      Just prevent them from ever returning, and you won't have the issue of jihad terror in the West.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Europe is doing the same Chamberlain-esque tactics that they did when Germany rose to power in the 1930s. However, instead of land, it is "maybe, we shouldn't 'blasphemy'", which is turning into "maybe we need to pass laws punishing those to speak bad about Islam or else we get bombed". Europe has done nothing to stop ISIS, and in fact has condoned, if not starting to actively recognize IS as a sovereign state.

      Well, not all of Europe. France has had the willpower to stabilize Libya and try to do somethin

    • Why are we not taking them out now?

      Even in endless war, we have to recharge the coffers every so often. Since we are not in any immediate threat of survival as a country, we must wait a while before the next war.

      Remember, normal wars used to require rationing, and other belt tighting, and things like buying "war bonds" in order to cut down on public demand. In endless warfare, you pass on the costs and blame to the next 80-10 year cycle.

    • by X.25 ( 255792 )

      Seems like ISIS has effectively declared war on the US and Europe. How many attacks like the ones in France, and how many thwarted attacks like the ones discussed here, will it take before we decide to load up and actually take them out? This is different than the last two Iraq wars, and different than Afghanistan. Does anyone know what we are actually waiting for? Is it because there is no oil, or not enough public outrage? Are we waiting for another catastrophic attack to justify our actions? Why are we not taking them out now?

      And then you wonder why they hate you.

  • False Flag (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:03PM (#48825033) Journal

    I jut have to point out that this happened in Australia. 16 men were picked up for exactly this same reason and then let go without charge. As it turns out the very day before wikileaks data revealed that NSW police were using spyware, an illegal technique as it is the same as domestic spying.

    In the media frenzy that followed the politicians whipped the masses into a frenzy on one hand saying "we're all gonna die", then "everybody stay calm" and at the right moment introduced legislation that made the illegal techniques, legal.

    I have to wonder if the same thing is happening here to the Belgian people. I am no fan of Islam and it's plethora of human rights violations however, any salient person can observe the governments using Islam to tighten their grip on ordinary people's freedoms.

    Unfortunately since objective media doesn't exist anymore those who care can see the persistent slide to a police state world emerging with horror replete with the knowledge that dead men cannot be bought before a court of inquiry.

    • Islamic terrorists in Belgium? Surely it cannot be:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

      I guess you also missed the part where they fired back at the Belgian police using automatic weapons.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      I jut have to point out that this happened in Australia. 16 men were picked up for exactly this same reason and then let go without charge. As it turns out the very day before wikileaks data revealed that NSW police were using spyware, an illegal technique as it is the same as domestic spying.

      This really did happen, the person who tried to mod this down is a complete idiot.

      Of the 16 arrested, 15 were released without charge on the same day. The 16th received a misdemeanour weapons charge (unsecured wea

    • by delt0r ( 999393 )

      Unfortunately since objective media doesn't exist anymore...

      Don't kid yourself. It never did. Just read some of the BS reports during WWII, and then check what we now believe to be true.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    There was a piece on NPR yesterday while I was driving home and the French guy they were interviewing was saying that their secret service people knew of about 5000 people who had gone to Syria and become radicalized and had fought and trained over there and have since returned. He then went on to complain about the level of surveillance it took to keep and eye on that many people, and on and on he went. I just don't get it. Call me stupid but if you know who they are and they're radicalized and especially

    • THIS!!! Just like I mentioned above. In fact, even deportation wouldn't be necessary: in a lot of cases, you have Muzzie fighters wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS. I say - let them. Just note who they are, and impound their passports, so that they can't return. Same goes for Western converts to Islam who wanna join the Jihad. Send them all one way, but just cut off all return traffic from the entire region. That way, you won't have to bother. Then amongst those who remain and are causing problems

    • This is more complicated than you think. A lot of them either are French citizens natural from Algeria, or some other former French colony in Africa, or even 2nd generation immigrants who were born in France from Muslim parents. Some probably are having a hard time finding work and then they join these fundamentalist mosques and get convinced to go fight in Syria for ISIS. Then they come back and do terrorist acts in France or whatever.

      The French feel they have a kind of debt to these people since they left

      • I agree that it's harder, but that's where the laws need to evolve. The old school laws said that if you are born in place X, you automatically belong there. But today, you have people whose loyalties are clearly elsewhere, and the laws should recognize that. These 2 brothers didn't think of themselves as Frenchmen: they saw themselves as Muslim first and last. And they weren't an asterisk: a huge percentage of the Muslim populations in the West consider their first loyalty as being towards Islam, and a

    • I don't know who was this "French guy" you heard, but according to french officials there is about 1200 french fighters in Syria with ISIS or other groups, and a little less than 200 who came back to France.
      Furthermore, most -- if not all -- of them are french citizens and nothing can be done to prevent them to come back home -- not because of french laws but because of international laws : no country can force another country to keep one of its nationals. All that could be done is sending them to jail in F

  • Major? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lawrence_Bird ( 67278 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:37PM (#48825325) Homepage

    Like Charlie Whosit major? We are so weak and pathetic. What was the toll? 10? 15? More people probably choked and died eating fast food that day. And thousands march supposedly to defend "freedom of speech" at the same time their leaders/legislators wish to take as much of it away as possible.

    Oh did anybody march in Nigeria this week? Last month? How many world "leaders" showed up there? More died as a result of terrorism there in the past month than probably in the past five years (if not quite a bit more) in Europe.

    Terrorism as existed for ages. To get wound up and bent out of shape the way people do now over a handful of deaths is insane and contributes to the continuation of the attacks.. If this is the best that Al or Bob Qaeda and ISIS can manage can't we all just give it a freakin rest? It is one thing to feel some sorrow for the families of those kiled but quite another for whole societies to change their principals and ways of life.

    • When will people understand that death due to an accident that was nobody's fault is different than premeditated murder or someone who would not have otherwise died? Yes, terrorism deserves to be focused on more than accidentally choking on a Big Mac.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @07:40PM (#48825339)

    Isn't that what we're asking? How could this all happen? Why did those kids become radical jihadists? Do we have to be afraid of Islam now? Is there going to be another threat to the Occident from the Turkish raiders like in 1600s and 1700s? Should we kick all Muslims out? Or put them in camps to give them a chance to concentrate better? And anti-Islam organizations are forming already. In Germany, PEGIDA [wikipedia.org] formed. Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (it does work as an acronym in German, but PEATIOTW simply has no ring to it). And every right wing nutjob party left and right jumped up and cried that THEY are the REAL pegidiots. And everyone is wondering just why this all happens and what we can do now.

    Why, what, how?

    It's actually quite simple. And it's no wonder that it started in France. Europe has had a lot of immigration from Arab and Maghreb countries. Middle Europe more from Turkey, France more from North Africa. And those immigrants have two things in common: They're mostly Muslim, and they're treated like shit in the countries they went to. They were dumped into ghettos ... sorry, into certain areas that are suitable for them to settle in "so they can be among themselves", got shitty jobs nobody else wanted to do, get inferior payment to "good native" citizens, are looked down upon ... in a nutshell, they're second class citizens. If that.

    But, well, they didn't complain. As odd as it may sound, they didn't think this was wrong. They came here because, well, the situation at home was not too great and they were needed as workers. Yes, really. Back when most of these people came there was actually a shortage of laborers. People who'd clean our floors, empty our waste baskets, cleaned our yards and did all the other petty crap nobody wanted to do for the pennies offered. They were actually content with it, they looked back at their former home country and could at least say, hey, it's better than that shit! And our kids will one day be living here and they'll have it better. They were mostly accepting it with the prospect that their kids will be French/German/Austrian/Danish/Dutch/Belgian/yougettheidea, and then they'll no longer be second class but they'll be one of "the good natives". And while usually religious, they were hardly what we today would consider fundamentalists. They were Muslims, often quite devout, but not out to preach or even kill the Infidels.

    Well, time went on and the second generation came to be. They were born "here". They had no real ties to their parents' native country except that they'd maybe remember having family there, maybe even going there to visit Grandfather and Grandmother, along with the others that stayed. For the US people here, think of it as if your forefathers once came from Europe, say, after WW2, and you're visiting those relatives. Yes, sure, you remember that your family has ties there. But you feel like you're from the US, don't you? Well, these people feel like they should be French/German/..., but they cannot. To the French/German/... they're still "the African" and "the Turk". They're not "one of us". They're still "one of them". They still get only the crappy homes, can only get the crappy job, can still just get shitty payment and are still looked down as second class citizens.

    And that's something that's hard to digest. Because the message is clear: You'll never be one of us. That you're born here means jack. You're still the African to us. You're still the Turk to us. You're still second class. You will never belong here. And you can't even hope that your kids will.

    Now, for a moment think how you'd feel if the country you call home considers you "inferior" and a good portion of the people would just love to "send you back home", to a country you have no ties at all to. With a good chance that you don't even speak the language properly, if at all.

    You might understand that this does breed some contempt. And you

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cheesybagel ( 670288 )

      You're wrong if you think they cannot get jobs because of some ethnic connotation. Much like the blacks in America a lot of them do not have an education and do not want an education. For whatever reason none of these problems happen with Asians even though they aren't Europeans either. Guess why.

      • ". Much like the blacks in America a lot of them do not have an education and do not want an education. "

        Really?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thesupraman ( 179040 )

      Could you please let me know which Govt Department I go to in France to apply for the location I am allowed to live in?
      I seem to be having trouble finding it - hell - last time I was there I just lived where I damn well wanted to and could afford..
      Lucky I wasnt tracked down, I assume the penalty for living in the wrong place ispretty damn severe!

      Oh, sorry, you mean you were talking figuratively, not literally? or some BS excuse like that?
      Do you realise that the rhetoric you are spouting here is almost EXACT

  • It occurs to me that if you took a population and forbid explicit graphic representations depiction certain forms of art hundreds of generations you could actually cause a change of genetics, a fundamental alteration of the brains of the core members of that group which would result in the loss appreciation and sense of humor related to these types of illustrations. Individuals within this group might have a great deal of difficulty understanding that other cultures highly value cartoons. Selective breeding

  • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

    reverting bad mod

  • It seems there are not many candidate for suicide or life prison, even within jihadists. Now law enforcement fight back, I am not sure we will see waves of terrorists engaging SWAT-like units.
  • Wednesday at 5:00 AM, I woke up, in Antwerpen by the sound of a bomb. First they tried to get through the window of the neighbours, but they couldn't push their window-rollers up. They tried to ram my (armorized burglar-proof) door once as well. After, they rammed 2 ports and a few doors for more than 12 times in order to arrest someone who wasn't even officially living there. When going outside to check what was going on, as it sounded a war has started, I saw two armed masked men which were anything but friendly.

    Never have seen this before like this and never woke up that fast, but with a barrel of a gun right in front of me when opening my front-door to see what was going on.

    Tomorrow they will be having the military protecting Antwerpen. Happy happy, joy joy ..

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.

Working...