Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 345 posts

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#251

Post by cafard »

fweespee_ch wrote: post #232
BFatts wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every attack that they "didn't see coming" there are, most likely, plenty of attacks that they "did see coming" and stopped. Even more likely is that we don't hear about these stopped attacks because they aren't sexy news. Or, when attacks ARE stopped, and it's published, people question whether it's just blustering by the government to justify their jobs. It's not like you can say "yeah, we saw that coming and l…

1) Surveillance doesn't work. 2) Finding real plots are too hard so they entrap people and even then, they don't find many. 3) They aren't spreading around their "successes" because they are absurdly few and borderline entrapment. 4) Homegrown threats are a greater danger and largely being ignored. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-... > But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those…

Right, but this was in Belgium.

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#252

Post by kirk21 »

elcapitan wrote: post #41

Belgium hasn't had stable governments for many years, with many observers, especially in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, calling it a 'failed state'. I read an article about that a while ago, couldn't find it directly, but I found this one: http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-failed-state-security...

Let's not exaggerate. This is not a third world country. A lot things work really well. You're right that immigration was not handled well but except that Belgium is pretty well managed.

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#253

Post by spriggan3 »

grp wrote: post #194
DoubleMalt wrote: post #136

What I find reassuring in the midst of this tragic mayhem however, is how little actual damage the terrorists could do. They had explosives, weapons, the resolve to sacrifice themselves and tried their best to do as much damage as possible. And they managed to to kill less than 30 people (provisional count). Of course every death that brought on by this fanatic mob is too much, but we should keep our perspective. A b…

They seek fear, not the maximum number of deaths. Victims are not the goal but a way.

They seek "the ends of times". Daesh is a death cult. Victims certainly is the goal here, to kill as many people as possible. There is no political goal, they made no political demands, they didn't make any in Paris either. The goal is to kill civilians.

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#254

Post by Lawtonfogle »

SonicSoul wrote: post #223
ant6n wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't drive a car, I cycle. I reject the risk of driving, but drivers put that risk on me anyway. Even more so than they do to themselves, because I'm more vulnerable than a person sitting in a moving steel cage, and because many drivers seem eager to put risk on me. In my life time, I'm much more likely to be murdered by a driver than a terrorist.

wait. you cycle because driving is too risky? are you statistically less likely to get injured while cycling, or is it mainly about caring for not injuring others?

I read it as they don't drive, and thus don't consent to the risk of being in a car accident. Not that they cycle because of the risk; they didn't list why they cycle.

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#256

Post by dhimes »

falcolas wrote: post #239
twoodfin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a bus accident doesn't result in an international airport or a city's entire metro system shutting down for an extended period of time, nor frightfully disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I appreciate your point, and it is somewhat reassuring, but terrorists can cause damage beyond the raw numbers because their damage can be focused.

Why do we let one incident shut down an entire metro system? Would we do the same if a bus overturned? I have no intention of belittling the incident, but I fail to see how shutting everything down is a proper response to any incident of less than catastrophic scale. I take that back, I can see a reason: CYA. Nobody would want to be the one who makes the decision to keep the metro system running and have a second att…

Why do we let one incident shut down an entire metro system?

If you don't shut down and an second and/or third incident then happens in a coordinated attack, it's very easy to say "Why didn't you shut down? Couldn't you see that we were under attack?"

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#257

Post by musha68k »

Bard7 wrote: post #202
grp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seek fear, not the maximum number of deaths. Victims are not the goal but a way.

They seek a Bush type response.

Unfortunately I don't know much about Belgian politics but I do hope they won't go down the "Hollande" route.

They should look up north, Norway is the shining beacon in terms of how a country can handle terrorism responsibly.

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#258

Post by matwood »

kbart wrote: post #195
matthewaveryusa wrote: post #117

We havent seen a group of 50 militants take over a city and reck havoc because our surveillance systems can detect such levels of organization. As horrible as this sounds, anyone with an IQ above 60 can plot and kill 30 people because there's not enough signal in the vast noise our communication networks generate to pick up on it. If we can prevent terrorist attacks that kill thousands of individuals we've won.

If entering a major airport strapped with explosives undetected and blowing up twice killing tens of people isn't a spectacular security failure, I don't know what is. I agree that it's nearly impossible to detect/prevent random shootings/stabbings (like in Paris attacks), but this is not such case.

In a free society people can move where they please. The explosions happened before the security checkpoints at a very busy airport, so I don't see how this was some security failure. Intelligence failure yes, but airport security? I'm not so sure. Are you suggesting that a perimeter be setup around the entire airport and people are checked before entering the grounds?

Re: Brussels Rocked by Terrorist Attacks

#259

Post by glastra »

falcolas wrote: post #239
twoodfin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a bus accident doesn't result in an international airport or a city's entire metro system shutting down for an extended period of time, nor frightfully disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I appreciate your point, and it is somewhat reassuring, but terrorists can cause damage beyond the raw numbers because their damage can be focused.

Why do we let one incident shut down an entire metro system? Would we do the same if a bus overturned? I have no intention of belittling the incident, but I fail to see how shutting everything down is a proper response to any incident of less than catastrophic scale. I take that back, I can see a reason: CYA. Nobody would want to be the one who makes the decision to keep the metro system running and have a second att…

I had to look up what that acronym means ("cover your ass", for anyone interested). WTPOUAWYCJWOTFS?

That's "what's the point of using acronyms when you can just write out the full sentence?"

Post reply on HN