Well, it's starting to definitely push people in the direction of "boots on the ground" in Syria/Iraq.

In Europe?

Well, it's starting to definitely push people in the direction of "boots on the ground" in Syria/Iraq.

In Europe?

I think Americans often fail to comprehend just how very, very long Europeans have lived with the threat of terror attacks. For many Americans (particularly in my generation, i.e. under 30's) terror attacks on their own country's soil didn't become a fact of life until the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

By contrast, when I was a kid in England in the 90's, I remember hearing about terror attacks on the news with chilling regularity. There were IRA attacks in the UK every few months for most of my childhood. Attacks in Spain by the Basque Separatist movement. Neo-nazi attacks in Austria and Sweden. Marxists in Greece. Algerian groups in France. Militant Leftists and the Mafia in Italy. The list goes on...

When you've grown up in an environment where the threat of terror attacks is just a fact of life, they don't have the same ability to instill fear. Terror attacks are horrifying, but you've always known that the next time you step on the London Underground could be the last... You can't let it rule your life, you get on with your shit, and trust the authorities to keep you safe - their lives are on the line every bit as much as yours, and more.

Relevant to the above post: https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/712350739939643392

Actual link to stats used on Twitter

Between Lockerbie, Madrid, London, and Paris, it seems middle eastern terrorists take the lead. If I'm reading that wrong, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

Though that neo-Nazi in Norway, IIRC, did a good bit on his own.

This chart would be far more helpful if the attackers were listed as well.

A link with some breakdown of that chart above.

Between Lockerbie, Madrid, London, and Paris, it seems middle eastern terrorists take the lead

I think it's a little weird to lump Lockerbie under the same heading as the recent Islamist attacks.

Lockerbie was carried out by the intelligence services of a sovereign country, under the direction of that country's leader. Which is a tad different than being attacked by a multinational terrorist network.

It's also an event that is worth putting in perspective: just 6 months before, the US "accidentally" shot down a passenger jet in Iranian airspace, with a slightly higher death toll. And the US was still actively engaged in Naval warfare in tail end of the Iran-Iraq war. Which makes a whole bunch of Middle Eastern governments none too friendly with the Western powers at the time.

Mehh..i live in a region where those threats aren't prevalent.

Olof Hedman, on 22 Mar 2016 - 3:26 PM, said:

I don't see how this changes anything. It's not like it is a surprise or anything.
Of course there was co-conspirators, we knew that from the same day of the paris attacks.
There are also lots of other co-conspirators, they even claim to have a whole state of their own.


Pretty much this.

I'd go even further and say not just "pretty much" but totally this.

Terror is nothing new, and this bombing was no surprise at all. It was well-known that there was a "second team" in Paris that escaped. What did you expect them to do after the arrest of Abdul-blahblah?

We've had people who aimed to destroy the state during the 1960s and 70s. And 80s. We didn't have them in the 90s, but Spain and France did.

What's new is that today we have the internet and media are more excited (TV commentators seem to get a stiffie whenever they can say "A new dimension of terror"), and also the terrorists are more numerous, and have a much easier (and less troublesome) life. That, and it's about religion, not about marxism or separatism.

And of course, terrorists are part of our governments and found in the majority of courts now. There's the famous quote "If we cannot destroy the state with force, we will march through the legislative and jurisdictive" (it was "Institutionen", but I don't think "institutions" makes a lot of sense in English in that context? What was meant was legislative/jurisdictive). This is what they've done during the last 40 years, and the way they've corroded the legal system is one reason why it's so easy for terrorists and criminals today. But there's not much you can do about it.

Will it continue? Of course it will. Even high-profile "analysts" and politicians who get to speak on public TV openly say "we will have to get used to this". There is no reason for terrorists to stop. The risk of getting caught is near zero, and even if you are caught, nothing happens. The reactions and repercussions are ridiculous to say the least, as is the way police interacts and cooperates in general in Europe, not to mention the laws. I'm sure the bombers are rolling on the floor, laughing at us right now.

Really, privacy laws? Nobody cares about my privacy, but for terrorists it suddenly matters? I took the wrong job.

Will anything change substantially? No.

Only thing that will change is that politicans (our Inner Mininster already said it again last night) will say "we do not bend to terror", everybody writes "I am Brussel" on his website for a week or two, and then there's total panic when someone caughs or because some nutter does an anonymous phone call or posts something on twitter. Oh wait, that won't change... we've already had that happen this winter.

Paris has been thoroughly "milked" for fear, so I think the next strike in Paris will only be on June 10 (but I could of course be wrong), and the Brussels thing was a reaction to the Abdel-whatshisname arrest (which you could kind of anticipate). They probably don't want to push it too far in Brussels because it might kick of the Belgian police and military to do pest control inside that suburb which is owned by them (although that is really, really, really [repeat 10 times] unlikely to happen), they just wanted to leave a "we are still here" message, and that has been done. No point doing another strike any time soon. I think Germany makes the most sense now.

There's some kind of high-profile football game on saturday, UK versus Germany or something (is that right?). Expect something there, either a repetition of Hannover (where the brave "we will not bend to terror" was followed by "oh my God, panic panic panic, stop that game" a few hours later, without explaining why), or maybe even a real thing. Although I don't think so, why would you do a real strike, and risk dying from your own bomb or being caught and spend 3 months in a luxury prison if a phone call or a tweet has the same effect and there is no risk whatsoever. Prisons are nice in Germany, but still... it's spring time, better not risk 3 months for murder. These same people who will not bend to terror have already demonstrated in Hannover how they will bend because of... yeah, well, because what actually. We still don't know.

Expect something in Hamburg on Sunday. Christians, women and children, holding hands around the great Easter fire? That's just perfect, not only fear and panic, but also spoiled a major Christian holiday. Get two for the price of one, can it be any better? They don't even need explosives or machine guns, knives will do. Of course Berlin would be a more "prestigious", symbolic target, but I don't think so... too much police, too much surveillance, way too hard, too much risk for too little benefit.

What will eventually change is that life gets more miserable for everybody, except for the terrorists of course. They have exactly what they want. More cameras will be placed everywhere, and more controls will happen. The average citizen will be substantially more harrassed. That's already happening, and to no avail.

And yes, they've succeeded at destroying all that was good about Europe. Europe was a very expensive thing which we have paid for very dearly. The Euro, gallopping inflation, subventions, one totally fucked-up EU regulation after the other, everything was catastrophic. There was never one good thing about Europe, except one. The single good thing about Europe, which made all this really worthwhile, was that you could freely go to another EU country without needing a passport and without being stopped at the border. What border, anyway? Well, go figure, now that's gone.

Boots on the ground in Syria? Crazy or what? First, to what avail? It's a mission that is destined to fail to begin with (and that's not just because Africa has more people than Europe). Also, the IS would, again, be rolling on the floor with laughs. That would be foreigners killing foreigners, and them watching and laughing.

Second, and more importantly, we need all boots that we have here. Unlike in the USA, we aren't allowed to carry weapons. Which means we need those boots to carry them. Boots gone, nobody protecting us. Protecting, that means both from the IS and from the Nazi counter-movement.

I think it's a little weird to lump Lockerbie under the same heading as the recent Islamist attacks.

So you're saying that the chart is in error or flawed then?