Jump to content

Brussels


Olle Sjostrom

Recommended Posts

Yes, I agree. Too many bombs and civilians killed in the Middle East. I'm talking about Europe, and the EU in general, being a bad place because of politics (refugee politics and the treaty with Turkey etc). 

In Sweden the general media have gone from No racism to pretty much full on foil hat racism in less than six months. That's what I mean with terrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 80000 have arrived already, but now the Eu has decided to not let anyone in. Or, the deal is basically that these boat trips need to end (because they're dangerous and peoole die). So when a boat does arrive (with say 20 people) they are sent back to Turkey to camps. But the Eu now has to accept to take in 20 refuges already in camps from Turkey, so as these boats come in, waiting refugees in camps gains entry to the EU. This is how I think, if I've understood correctly, how it works.

What happens to the refugees in the camps when the boats stop coming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know they will be "redistributed" throughout the Shengen countries. I am leaving next week for a doc shoot to Greece. I am following a couple of Syrians along their journey. 2 different docs actually, one week one, the other week the other. 

Today cpnsulates here in Istanbul closed again because of treats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Olle. The wars need to stop in order to solve the refugee crisis.

I miss a strong anti-war sentiment in wide parts of western society, which was very present until few decades ago. I guess most people who lived through WW2 have died meanwhile, and those were the ones that were very clear about never wanting to have wars again. I feel like too many people in Eruope and elsewhere are not that opposed anymore to the idea of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for bringing that up Christian. I had the exact same conversion with my mom yesterday that the "peace movement" that was very present and active during Vietnam and the cold war and up until like 2000 or so with the Iraq war, is just gone. It's like you need an educated opinion. What about just peace... It's sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is a peace movement in Europe going to stop Assad? More to the point, how is it going to stop IS? I'm absolutely not saying that a war is the answer. I don't know the answer. But someone who is willing to blow himself up and kill hundreds of innocent civillians isn't going to change his mind because someone is singing "give peace a chance"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An oblique response to some of the things posted so far and some other thoughts:

http://ourworldindata.org/data/war-peace/war-and-peace-after-1945/  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%9389

 Ie. the 'Cold War' wasn't so cold outside of Europe and North America, which would suggest the term is a bit nato/eurocentric (?). Incidentally Radovan Karadžić's war crimes trial is concluding this week in the Hague. For those who don't remember or weren't around, he was infamous in a post 'Cold War' European military conflict that claimed over 100,000 lives in 3 years. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/the-hunt-for-radovan-karadzic-ruthless-warlord-turned-spiritual-healer

ISIL have killed over 2300 in terror attacks since 2013. Iraq and Shi'a muslims have suffered the most but the biggest single attack was the killing of 224 en route to Saint Petersburg aboard the Metrojet Flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL

Speaking as someone who's lived in Western Europe for over 46 years I would say there are very few places on earth less terrible to be. I say this despite terrorist attacks, some dodgy politics and c.25,000 road deaths a year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(While I'm sure most of you have already seen this? - I'm simply posting this for those who may have missed it?)

From:  David Ignatius Washington Post  Tuesday March 22nd 2016   https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-ignatius

Brussels shows Europe’s shockingly dysfunctional approach to security

 

The value of catastrophic events is that they can help people face up to problems that are otherwise impossible to address. Maybe this will be the case with Tuesday’s horrific attacks in Brussels.

Europe is facing a security threat that’s unprecedented in its modern history, at a time when its common currency, border security and intelligence-sharing are all under severe stress. If Europe were a stock, a pragmatic investor would sell it, despite the sunk cost and sentimental attachment. Without radical restructuring, it’s an enterprise headed for failure. 

David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive

The European Union needs to reinvent its security system. It needs to break the stovepipes that prevent sharing information, enforcing borders and protecting citizens. In the months before Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels, “the system was blinking red,” as George Tenet, the former CIA director, famously described the period before Sept. 11, 2001. Yet Belgium (like pre-9/11 America) couldn’t connect the dots. 

The jihadist wave rolling back toward Europe is dizzying: U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that more than 38,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Iraq and Syria since 2012. At least 5,000 of them came from Europe, including 1,700 from France, 760 from Britain, 760 from Germany and 470 from Belgium, according to official data collected by the Soufan Group, a security consulting firm. Relative to its population, Belgium spawned the largest number of these fighters.

Belgian authorities couldn’t find Salah Abdeslam , the logistical planner of the November Paris attacks, for more than 120 days — until they finally nabbed him Friday a few blocks from where he grew up in the Arab enclave of Molenbeek. He was hiding in plain sight. But Belgium’s failure was cooked into the system: The jihadists move stealthily, and the Belgians didn’t collect or share enough of the intelligence that was there. Authorities had allowed Molenbeek to become a haven — more dangerous to Belgium than even the jihadists’ sanctuaries in Syria, Iraq and Libya. 

Terror in Brussels, hour by hour

Belgium was left reeling after three attacks left at least 31 people dead and more than 200 injured March 22. The terror began unfolding during peak rush hour, and ended with at least one suspect still at large. (Deirdra O'Regan/The Washington Post)

Americans, who are less exposed to the threat, may smugly imagine they can wall themselves off. But the Islamic State’s rampage is more an American failure than a European one. The United States formed a global coalition to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State back in September 2014. This strategy hasn’t worked; the Islamic State’s domain has shrunk in Iraq and Syria but expanded elsewhere. 

The failure of the U.S.-led coalition to contain the jihadists has left a fragile Europe exposed to terrorism and social upheaval. President Obama hopes that history will affirm his prudent policy, but this view is surely harder to maintain after the Paris and Brussels attacks. 

How could the United States and Europe develop a more effective strategy to combat the Islamic State? It would begin with truly shared intelligence and military command. After the shock of Pearl Harbor, the top leadership of the United States and Britain gathered in Washington in December 1941 for the “Arcadia Conference.”Though remembered for the personal bond between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, its greatest achievement was a unified command that swept aside petty jealousies within the U.S. and British militaries and between the two nations. Once this alliance was struck, eventual victory was inevitable, as Churchill said. 

The obstacles to success against the Islamic State are similar. The intelligence services of European nations vary in competence and aggressiveness. Experts say that Britain and France have strong spy agencies; Germany’s is competent but afraid to level with its public; the rest are relatively weak, and there is no Europe-wide spy agency. 

Europe wants more “product” from America’s intelligence Leviathan, but less collection. Americans and Europeans sometimes act as though they’re on different teams. This was the path to Brussels. 

“There’s a general recognition among intelligence professionals that the services have to cooperate more, and that the U.S. should take the lead in bringing them together,” argues Michael Allen, former staff director of the House Intelligence Committee. 

Intelligence strategies that worked against al-Qaeda may not succeed with this adversary. The Islamic State leaves few digital signals. More “human intelligence” — real spies daring to penetrate the enemy camp — is essential, however risky. Another answer may be the application of “machine learning” to big data sets to yield essential leads: Who’s likely to be recruited? What are the likely targets? What’s the best way to disrupt potential adversaries?

European intelligence services must combine forces with the United States and with each other. The West needs a new Arcadia Conference to build a partnership to contain the Islamic State as it plots the next Brussels-style attacks. 

Read more from David Ignatius’s archivefollow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35898255

 

 

Ex-CIA director: EU 'gets in way' of security services

 

A former CIA director has said the European Union "in some ways gets in the way" of security services, as the debate continues over whether the UK would be safer in or out of the EU.

Retired general Michael Hayden told the BBC the union was "not a natural contributor to national security".

Home Secretary Theresa May has said there are "good reasons" on the security front to stay in the EU.

An in-out referendum on UK membership of the EU takes place on 23 June.

Security has been a key argument in the debate so far, with In campaigners saying being in the EU makes the UK safer, and Out campaigners arguing the opposite.

Is Britain safer in or out of the EU?

It has intensified following Tuesday's terror attacks on Brussels, which claimed 31 lives.

Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove said EU-based security bodies were of "little consequence" and that leaving the EU could boost Britain's security.

But the former head of GCHQ, Sir David Omand, has said the UK enjoys the best of both worlds by staying in - remaining part of an established information-sharing network while still retaining control of the border.

Prime Minister David Cameron has warned that leaving Europe would be a "threat to national security" and, after Brussels was bombed, Mrs May called for the UK and its allies to work with "greater urgency and joint resolve" to defeat terrorism.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hayden said the standard of security services across Europe was "very uneven".

France and Britain had "very good" services, he said, while in Scandinavia, they were "good but smaller". 

The rest of Europe had "small" services and Belgium's, in particular, was "small, under-resourced and legally limited - and frankly working for a government that has its own challenges in overall governance".

'American panic'

He said he agreed with Sir Richard that leaving the EU could boost Britain's security.

Mr Hayden said: "I don't mean to be arguing against the European Union, but the union is not a natural contributor to national security to each of the entity states. 

"In fact in some ways [it] gets in the way of the state providing security for its own citizens."

He rejected a suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would affect the US's ability to co-operate with national security services, adding that European security services were "more forthcoming with us than they are with one another".

"We are a huge security service and each sees their national interests as being well served by having a productive relationship with us and, frankly, the same math does not apply to other services on the continent," he said.

Asked about US President Obama watching baseball in Cuba as the Brussels attacks unfolded, he said he thought the president wanted to deny the enemy the "image of victory of American panic" over their attack. Later, a US official said at least two of the dead were US citizens.

'Mistrust'

Philippe De Backer, a member of the European Parliament with a particular interest in intelligence services, said he strongly disagreed with Mr Hayden's comments over the EU.

"If he were faced in the US with separate services... he would be the first to call for a centralised agency," Mr De Backer, of the Belgian Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, told the Today programme.

There is currently no EU-wide intelligence-sharing arrangement.

However, the European Parliament had long called for closer co-operation on intelligence, but "mistrust" between member states had stifled that, Mr De Backer said.

He suggested that if the UK left the EU, it would be hard for it to keep up with Europe-wide policing and security services.

"I think we are now at a turning point. Because of this fragmentation in 28 different intelligent services, we have seen the information services have not always been up to speed," he said.

'Nationalist rise'

He said it was time to give greater strength and more resources to Europol and Eurojust, because a "helicopter view" was the only way to dismantle the terrorist networks.

He said member states must now move on from the "old concept of sovereignty" towards a "shared sovereignty where we understand that we are better off when we share information and pool resources".

Dominique Moisi, who helped to found the French Institute of International Relations, said there was a "dramatic lack of collaboration and exchange of information" across European intelligence agencies.

This was partly due to a "pecking order" in which France and Britain rated each other but no-one else, "sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly", he told the BBC's World At One.

Europe had to rediscover the "dimension of security to regain some of its hard power", he added, but there was a kind of "protective, emotional, nationalist rise which is a stumbling block to rationality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine how difficult it would be to assemble and co-ordinate bodies like the NSA or CIA if many of the states of the union had representatives who were more pre-occupied by trying to gain political ground through undermining the concept of the union as a principle. For example, some of our politicians are blaming the so called immigration crisis on the european union itself and saying Britain would be safer from terrorists if we leave the EU. The irony being some of these politicians (eg. ukip) have only achieved electoral success as MEPs (members of the european parliament).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps in the end it is all down to perceived priorities. There are definite advantages for the UK to remain the EU, but to me all these undoubted pluses are less important than having our laws made by people that we elect. If we don't like what a government has done, in five years we can chuck them out in the next election. This doesn't happen when we are in the EU as their laws and regulations can take precedence over UK law. Some people will say that the advantages of remaining in the EU outweigh the lack of democracy that goes along with membership, but my personal view (which might well be an artefact of my age and memory of the UK being of more consequence than maybe it is now) is that democracy trumps everything else.

An analogous situation could be that people living in the USA would be asked to have their laws subject to supervision from Canada, so long as association with Canada brought wealth and convenience for some. 

Having said all that, I fully expect the referendum to confirm our continued membership of the EU, because I reckon that my point of view is not shared by the majority...so in fact democracy will win! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who make laws in the EU are elected by us, the people who live in it. Or rather, the parliament is. The commission is not voted for directly, but it consists of representatives from your own government at home, which hopefully you would have elected, too. And if you don't like them, you can chuck them out in the next election.

There is no lack of democracy, although there is room for improvement, of course, such as electing the commission members directly, too.

The comparison with the US is apt: the states can make laws themselves, but the federal government can also make some laws. I am also sure that the 50 states fare much better as part of the union, than on their own.

I believe the same applies to the EU.

It may seem like the UK would gain indepence and importance by leaving the EU. But I don't think so.

The likelihood of Scotland leaving the UK increases considerably when outside the EU. That would leave a much smaller UK, which would be less relevant politically and possibly even less relevant economically.

And the loss to the EU would be terrible, too, and may set a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow, which may well cause the entire EU to implode. This will render countries like Poland and Hungary (and likely others) completely unchecked (or rather, their governments) and with no leverage to contain them. The path into autocracy is already drawn out and of course they have already started to follow it.

This will once again throw Europe into turmoil.

Of course, it may play out completely differently, but I am very certain that the consequences for the UK will be dire. And all that for a perceived lack of democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

The people who make laws in the EU are elected by us, the people who live in it. Or rather, the parliament is. The commission is not voted for directly, but it consists of representatives from your own government at home, which hopefully you would have elected, too. And if you don't like them, you can chuck them out in the next election.

 

There is no lack of democracy, although there is room for improvement, of course, such as electing the commission members directly, too.

 

The comparison with the US is apt: the states can make laws themselves, but the federal government can also make some laws. I am also sure that the 50 states fare much better as part of the union, than on their own.

 

I believe the same applies to the EU.

 

It may seem like the UK would gain indepence and importance by leaving the EU. But I don't think so.

 

The likelihood of Scotland leaving the UK increases considerably when outside the EU. That would leave a much smaller UK, which would be less relevant politically and possibly even less relevant economically.

 

And the loss to the EU would be terrible, too, and may set a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow, which may well cause the entire EU to implode. This will render countries like Poland and Hungary (and likely others) completely unchecked (or rather, their governments) and with no leverage to contain them. The path into autocracy is already drawn out and of course they have already started to follow it.

 

This will once again throw Europe into turmoil.

 

Of course, it may play out completely differently, but I am very certain that the consequences for the UK will be dire. And all that for a perceived lack of democracy.

+1

And in Britain with our so called democracy there are many who feel unrepresented and unserved by a system that is skewed towards London and the wealthy south east - perhaps a larger over seeing body like the EU would allow for more autonomous regional bodies, Eg the Welsh and Scottish assemblies which despite their difficulties have allow local populations to be more in charge of their destinies than the current Westminster system does. But I do acknowledge the EU is far from perfect with some scandalous situations occurring in relation to Greece for example but the EU is still relatively young, lessons will be learned, legislations will be tightened, I hope, because my (admittedly limited) understanding of what happened/is still happening had me seriously considering if the EU was a just a front for a horribly corrupt european financial sector. But back to the subject of terrorism, we all have much higher chances of suffering untimely deaths from a road accident than the worst a terror group can do and I believe it's worth remembering this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this informative. YMMV?  (Hopefully, it won't be perceived, by any of you, as 'glorifying' anything? Or, appear to be too 'pulpy'?)

 

from : http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35890960

 

Brussels attacks: Molenbeek's gangster jihadists

_88928647_molenbeek-alamy.jpg

Photo: Alamy


In the poor inner-city areas of Brussels, deprivation, petty crime and radicalisation appear to have gone hand in hand.

The BBC's Secunder Kermani has been finding out how drinking, smoking cannabis and fighting - combined with resentment towards white Belgian society for its perceived discrimination against Arabs - prepared some young men for a role as fighters in Syria, and terrorists in Europe.

 

Molenbeek is a place full of contradictions.
It's just a few minutes away from the heart of the European Union, but this densely populated district of Brussels has 40% youth unemployment.
It's been in the spotlight ever since the Paris attacks in November when it was revealed that the ringleader, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, and three of the other attackers grew up in Molenbeek.

They include Salah Abdeslam - who was arrested after a four-month manhunt back in his home neighbourhood.

How did he manage to stay hidden for so long? And why have so many young people from Molenbeek ended up as jihadists?

Most people in Molenbeek are rather sick of journalists - they resent the way they are portrayed in the media as a "jihadist capital of Europe".

But one phrase you often hear when foreign journalists attempt a vox pop is that "terrorism has nothing to do with Islam".

Certainly, many of those who joined IS from the area did not come from particularly religious backgrounds.
 

Cafe once run by Abdeslam  (AFP photo)

_88927169_cafe-getty-976.jpg

 

Salah Abdeslam and his elder brother Brahim - who blew himself up in the Paris attacks - used to run a cafe in Molenbeek that sold alcohol and was closed down for drug offences.

One friend of the brothers who used to hang out there told me he would regularly see Brahim Abdeslam "watching IS videos, with a joint in one hand, and a beer in another".

He said Brahim would spout off radical statements but that no-one took him seriously.


Another friend showed me a video from a Brussels nightclub of the two Abdeslam brothers on a night out with girls, drinking and dancing - this was February 2015, just months before they started to plan the attacks in Paris.


The network that the Abdeslam brothers had around them - based as much on personal loyalty, disenchantment and petty crime as radical ideology would be key in helping Salah escape after the Paris attacks. The network was not just in Molenbeek but stretched across the so-called "croissant pauvre" (poor crescent) of Brussels - a semi-circle of deprived inner-city neighbourhoods including Schaerbeek, where Salah had a safe house, and Laeken, where some of those who helped hide him grew up.
 

Map showing districts in Brussels and the 'croissant pauvre'

_88928062_brussels_poor_croissant_624map

 

While making a documentary for Panorama, I read the transcript of the interrogation of two of Salah Abdeslam's friends, whom he called on the night of the Paris attacks asking for help.


Hamza Attou and Mohammed Amri tell police Abdeslam said he had had a car accident and needed to be picked up. Attou claims that once they arrived Abdeslam threatened "to blow up the car if we didn't take him to Brussels".


But Amri then goes on to describe how the three men drive around Paris for about "the time it took to smoke a joint" before attempting the journey back. According to Attou, they try to drive along smaller, quieter roads - but end up lost and back on the motorway. Then they smoke a further three joints on the drive back to Brussels - they are stopped at three separate police checkpoints but allowed to pass.


Police interrogation transcript reveals how Salah Abdeslam escaped following Paris attacks At one, according to Attou, a police officer "asked Amri whether he had drunk. Amri said, 'Yes'… The police officer told Amri it wasn't good to have drunk, but that wasn't their priority today."

Back in Brussels Abdeslam changed his clothes and his appearance. According to Attou, he went to a barber's where he "got himself shaved, trimmed his hair and shaved a line on his eyebrow".

He then called another friend and told him to drop him off in another neighbourhood. These three friends were all arrested a few hours later. According to another of the circle, "they are all in jail for nothing - just because they helped Salah without thinking".
Abdeslam would remain on the run for the next four months before being arrested. It may be hard to imagine anyone agreeing to help someone involved in an atrocity like the Paris attacks - but it seems Abdeslam was able to draw upon both a network of IS supporters, and also a small network of people who were not necessarily extremists, but who felt a sense of personal loyalty to him - and a mistrust of the Belgian state.
 

There is certainly a sense of disaffection among many in Molenbeek. I spent an evening on a street corner talking to one young Muslim man who had been accused of attempting to travel to Syria.


He alternated between fixing me with an intense stare, and refusing to make any eye contact - exuding an air of slight volatility. Initially when I told him I wanted to understand why someone would commit an attack like the one in Paris - he told me I should travel to Raqqa, and ask people there. For him Western air strikes against IS were the answer.

But then he changed his mind. It was the fault of domestic conditions. He railed against the Belgian government - against white Belgians, who hated those of Arab descent, he said. And he would repeat "there is no democracy here" - a feeling that you can't express any view dissenting from the mainstream without being labelled extreme.

 

Many other young people I spoke to, who had no connection with extremism whatsoever, also had grievances about the way Muslims are treated. Some described how having a Molenbeek address made getting a job harder, and girls who wore the hijab complained of laws banning the headscarf in many places of work.


Sheikh Bassam Ayachi used to be considered a leading radical preacher in Molenbeek. The Syrian-born cleric, now 70 years old, arrived in the area in the 1990s. Some accuse him of sowing the seeds of radical Islam in Molenbeek - but he unequivocally condemns events like the Paris attacks.

When the Syrian conflict began, he travelled back to his homeland. Now allied to mainstream Islamist rebels, he's a staunch opponent of both the Assad regime and IS. So much so that the group tried to assassinate him, planting a bomb in his car. The attack cost him an arm but he survived.
 

Sheikh Bassam Ayachi

_88927168_sheikh-976.jpg

 

Over Skype I asked him why he thought so many young people from his old neighbourhood in Molenbeek were joining IS - a group he believes "sully the name of Islam, and sully the name of the Syrian revolution".


He put it down to the lack of action against the Assad regime on the one hand, and domestic factors on the other.


"The young people from Molenbeek feel frustrated because they were marginalised by the Belgian government. They have never tried to give them work, education, social help in order to get them integrated into society," he said.


"Some of them were delinquents, selling hashish and so on. Over time they ended up in prison. In prison they found that returning to religion was something amazing: 'We can forget about any of the stupid things we did in our lives.' So they turned to religion but with hatred in them against Western society."
That sense of a need to atone for past sins is perhaps one reason why so many of those from Molenbeek who ended up with IS had criminal backgrounds.
 

Brahim Abdeslam Brahim Abdeslam - Salah's older brother - died after he set off his suicide belt in Paris cafe Although, as one friend of the Abdeslam brothers tells me, "It can't be that, we've all had problems with the police, we don't all end up like that." He's at a loss to explain the cause of their radicalisation - clinging rather forlornly to an idea that perhaps they did it for money, and didn't realise what they were getting into.

Or perhaps the reason for the crossover between crime and jihad is the macho glamour associated with both. A former friend of one of the leading figures in the Paris attacks described him to me as "someone who always liked a fight".

But many of these young men didn't stumble into the jihadist world completely unaided. For the early years of the Syrian conflict, according to community leaders, it was normal to see "recruiters", barred from operating in mosques, talking to groups of followers on the streets, in cafes or in private study circles.

One of the most successful of them was a man called Khalid Zerkani - now in jail in Belgium. His entourage included Abdelhamid Abaaoud, plus another of the Paris attackers, and a man currently in prison in Morocco for alleged links to the Paris cell.
 

A man on a stretcher near the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, 13 November 2015 AFP Photo

One-hundred-and-thirty people were killed and hundreds wounded in the Paris attacks

_88928651_bataclangetty976.jpg

 

According to court files he wouldn't only preach to would-be jihadists, but would put them in touch with smugglers in Turkey who would transport them into Syria, and he would dole out stolen gifts to them - earning himself the nickname of "Papa Noel" - Santa Claus.

One of the young men in his circle of influence was Yoni Mayne - who ended up travelling to Syria alongside Abdelhamid Abaaoud. His mother blames Zerkani for his radicalisation. "He has destroyed the life of my son, who was 23. He has also destroyed my life. I will not forgive him."

She saw her son change after meeting Zerkani: "He used to wear brands only - Gucci, Dior, Versace... He left everything behind, even perfume, he left everything. He would wear robes only, like a Saudi."

They don't feel at home anywhere - so they're forever trying to find out who they are In 2013, Yoni left for Syria. He returned, but his mother was terrified he would leave again, "I told the police he intended to leave because the phone kept ringing, even when he was asleep, to harass him. I got in touch with the police once again and I told them that he intended to leave. They said that he would not leave, that they would do something."

But the police didn't do anything. Yoni left for Syria in early 2014 and was killed a few months later.

When he and many of the others first left Brussels for Syria the conflict was far simpler. They may have had fundamentalist interpretations of religion but their primary intention was to stop the abuses being perpetrated by the Assad regime.

But most gravitated towards IS, and their radicalisation, and desensitisation to violence would have only continued.

There are people trying to solve the issues in Brussels. At the BBA gym - many of whose members come from Molenbeek - there's a mix of colours, races and religions. One former gym member did end up going to Syria and being killed. Another is currently in jail in Turkey, accused of links to the Paris attacks.

Club president Mohamed Maalem says his biggest task is to give young people a sense of self-esteem. Many who are third or fourth generation immigrants struggle with their identity, he says. "They go to Morocco they're told they're Belgian. Here they're told they're Moroccans. They don't feel at home anywhere - so they're forever trying to find out who they are."
One of the trainers at the club argues that the key cause of radicalisation in Molenbeek is a sense, rightly or wrongly, of not having a future.

"Radicalisation doesn't start with a religious ideal," he says. "The guys I know [who went to Syria] they have no ideology, they have no big ideas... They are going because they are leaving something. They are fed up with this society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Constantin said:

There is no lack of democracy, although there is room for improvement, of course, such as electing the commission members directly, too.

This is hard to become reality. The European Constitution has been rejected in past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no lack of democracy, although there is room for improvement, of course, such as electing the commission members directly, too.

This is hard to become reality. The European Constitution has been rejected in past.

Of course. The entire European project is very difficult. It's tricky to get 28 people to agree on anything, but 28 countries is virtually impossible. And yet, we have already come far, but we need go much further. It may not happen, but I hope it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...