Why we need to know ?
This Helps Your Acknowledgemet Grow
Will make you understand the world
What happens when discover?
Get your free analysis
Terrorism- actuality
Brussels terrorist attack
AnalysisThe March 22 terrorist attacks in Brussels come as the European Union is still reeling from the November Paris attacks and scrambling to solve the migrant crisis. More important, they come as nationalist forces are challenging key principles of the Continental bloc, including the free movement of labor and the Schengen Agreement, which eliminated border controls among several member states. The atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is sure to follow will only worsen these social, political and economic crises.The first outcome of the Brussels attacks will be a fresh round of debate over EU border controls, in particular those in the Schengen zone. The Schengen Agreement came under fire at the start of the migrant crisis in early 2015. The Paris attacks escalated the controversy, particularly because the perpetrators moved between France and Belgium without detection. Consequently, France and other countries enhanced their border controls. The European Commission has since said that it wants all border controls in the Schengen area lifted by the end of 2016. However, the latest attacks — and the potential that more will follow — will make this difficult.Several governments in Western Europe will likely soon announce new national security legislation, improved controls on fighters returning from conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as enhanced intelligence sharing with their neighbors. EU members will also resume discussions on how best to combat terrorism abroad in troubled nations such as Libya and Syria. Europeans will become more willing to contribute to the coalition against the Islamic State, possibly with more weapons and training for the Iraqi military and Kurdish militants, increased deployment of combat aircraft and participation in NATO surveillance missions in Turkey.Another casualty could be the recent, tenuous agreement between Turkey and the European Union to limit the arrival of asylum seekers in Europe. Renewed awareness of the threat of terrorism among EU member states will bring focus on the bloc's external borders, possibly justifying deeper cooperation with Turkey. But the attacks could also reignite anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe and increase popular demands on EU governments not to grant visa-free travel to Turkish citizens — a key stipulation from Ankara for cooperation on migrant issues.Anti-Muslim sentiment could also lead to more support for nationalist parties across the Continent. France's National Front already receives substantial support in electoral polls. In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party recently achieved record performances in regional elections and is currently the country's third most popular party. Both France and Germany will hold general elections in 2017, in votes that will happen against the backdrop of the immigration crisis and the multiple terrorist attacks. In both cases, the mainstream parties will be under electoral pressure from their nationalist rivals. As a result, they will likely adopt some elements of nationalist party platforms. The same can be expected in other Northern European countries such as the Netherlands or Sweden, which also have relatively strong nationalist movements. Political parties and groups that want the United Kingdom to leave the European Union could also use the recent terrorist attacks to justify greater isolation from the Continent.Lastly, the Brussels attacks will hurt European economies, though likely only for a short time. In the coming days, some people in Belgium and other Western European countries may decide to avoid travel or densely crowded areas, such as cafes and shopping malls, out of fear of another attack. It will temporarily stifle domestic consumption and the tourism sector. For most Europeans, the threat of terrorism is by now a part of their daily lives. Beyond national politics and economics, the long-term impacts of the attacks will affect the very fabric of the European Union.Two explosions have struck the departures area of Zaventem airport in Brussels
The Belgian government has confirmed there are casualties but has given no numbers yet.
The cause of the explosions is unknown. The airport is being evacuated and has been closed to flights.
The blasts come four days after the capture in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, the main suspect in the jihadist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015.
Brussels airport blasts - latest updates
De fortes déflagrations ont été entendues à l’aéroport de Bruxelles, ce mardi matin, aux alentours de 8 heures locales (7 h TU). Le parquet fédéral évoque pour l'heure un bilan d'au moins 13 morts et 35 blessés, selon la chaîne publique RTBF. Par ailleurs, une autre explosion a eu lieu dans une station de métro proche des institutions européennes.
Emergency services are clearing the airport completely. Belgium's Het Laatste Nieuws reports that more bombs have been found.
The Belga news agency reports that shots were fired and shouts in Arabic were heard before the two explosions.
Images on social media showed smoke rising from one of the buildings, amid reports of panic as people fled the airport.
Rail transport to the facility has been halted and people have been told not to come to the airport.
Other reports say at least one of the explosions was close to the American Airlines check-in area but this has not been confirmed.
The Belgian broadcaster RTBF quoted a witness as saying there were people injured or unconscious in the departure area, opposite the Sheraton hotel.
Niels Caignau, a Swissport employee, told Flemish broadcaster VRT: "I was on a break and heard and felt a big explosion - we have from here a view over the departure hall and saw a plume of smoke come out.
"The windows are completely shattered. People went outside in shock. It doesn't look good."
The Zaventem airport is 11km (7 miles) north-east of Brussels and dealt with more than 23 million passengers last year.
Nuclear Weapons in Lithuania: Defense against Russia or Target for Terrorists?April 12, 2016Adomas Abromaitis A complex geopolitical situation is forcing the Baltic States and their NATO allies to take unprecedented steps to increase defense capabilities and counter potential aggressors. A new Lithuanian military strategy approved in March describes Russian actions along with terrorism as the main threats for the security of Lithuania, as reported by Delfi.Unfortunately for the pacifists, the Alliance and Russia today are arming and demonstrating their respective military power. They constantly compare their armed forces’ strength and capabilities, conduct large-scale military exercises, respond to each other by deploying new contingents and military equipment closer and closer to the NATO-Russian border.The Baltic States have become such a border.Moscow has placed Iskander-M launchers in Kaliningrad. The Russian Iskander is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and has never been made available to any foreign army for operational use. The weapon affords Russia the ability to use its Baltic enclave to threaten US missile defense installations in Poland and more generally to intimidate its neighbors – the Baltic States.During combat operations, it would be used to destroy both stationary and moving targets. Targets would range from surface-to-air missile batteries, enemy short-range missiles, airfields, ports, command and communication centers, factories, and other hardened targets.The commander of US military aviation in Europe and Africa, General Frank Gorenc, said the increasingly powerful Russian air defense raises serious concerns for US military aviation.He said that the Pentagon is particularly concerned about the Russian air defense system in the Kaliningrad region, a Russian enclave which borders Lithuania and Poland: “Russia now creates the strategy of limiting / blocking access. I do not remember anything else that would bother me as much as this strategy now and it worries me. Russian air defense in the Kaliningrad area increasingly threatens NATO military access to air space in parts Europe.”The most logical response to this Moscow activity would be deploying nuclear warheads close to Russia’s borders. It has been well-known for decades that the United States still stores nuclear weapons in Europe. The existence of the bombs is officially neither confirmed nor denied. According to The Trumpet, more than 180 American-owned nuclear bombs are stored in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Turkey and Belgium. Hypothetically, if a country has nuclear weapons it can deter Russia. The Baltic States do not possess such weapons, but there are some indicators that they are ready to deploy or to be host nations for aircraft equipped to carry nuclear weapons. By the way, just such aircraft were engaged an air policing mission in the Baltics.NATO has been paying close attention to the modernization airbases in the Baltics. These sites have already been expanded and modernized according to NATO standards. In addition, the United States plans to spend $3 million (EUR 2.65 million) in 2017 on building a munitions storage area at the Air Base in Siauliai, northern Lithuania, according to LETA/BNS. Does it mean that this particular airbase will be used as a storage facility for nuclear warheads? Probably not, but in this case the Baltic States will feel much safer than now.But there is the other side of the coin. If nuclear warheads were to be deployed on the territory of the Baltic States, they would automatically turn into an attractive target for terrorists.Inside the halls of NATO, the future of nuclear weapons is a simmering political issue. Some of the nuclear faithful and their new Eastern European allies argue that readiness should be beefed up, and that nuclear weapons should be used more for “signaling” against a militaristic Russia. At the NATO Summit coming up in Warsaw in July, the possibility of a new “strategic concept” involving nuclear weapons is rumored to be on the agenda. But the Baltic States themselves should decide if they want to counter Russia successfully with nuclear weapons, but do so at the cost of simultaneously becoming a terrorist target.Details are still emerging as to precisely who was responsible for the Nov. 13 Paris attacks. Sorting through the jumble of misinformation and disinformation will be challenging for French authorities, and for outside observers such as Stratfor.
While the Islamic State has claimed credit for the attack, it is still uncertain to what degree the Islamic State core organization was responsible for planning, funding or directing it. It is not clear whether the attackers were grassroots operatives encouraged by the organization, like Paris Kosher Deli gunman Ahmed Coulibaly, if the operatives were professional terrorist cadres dispatched by the core group, or if the attack was some combination of the two.
French President Francois Hollande publicly placed responsibility for the Nov. 13 attack on the Islamic State, declaring it an act of war. This French response to the Paris attacks is markedly different from that of the Spanish government following the March 2004 Madrid train bombings. Instead of pulling back from the global coalition working against jihadism, it appears that the French will renew and perhaps expand their efforts to pursue revenge for the most recent assault. The precise nature of this response will be determined by who is ultimately found to be the author of the Nov. 13 attack. ...
Terrorism - Europe
