That’s bullshit, for the record.
It is apparently the case - at least to some extent - in Belgium.
From the NY Times: Belgian Minister Says Government Lacks Control Over Neighborhood Linked to Terror Plots.
Didn’t that already get debunked in the threads after the Charlie Hebdo incident?? Or at least, that it is no worse than some nasty neighborhoods in the US back during the peak of urban crime.
From the Independent: Visiting Molenbeek, the police no-go zone that was home to two of the gunmen
the headline is mistranslating the comment, it does not mean the government does not control - that is it is a no-go for police - this neighborhood in Bruxelles, it means the situation is not under control, that is there is a continuous problem. It is not the same sense of the word as in the english.
and there is one in that neighborhood, that is sure.
Bad language skills of the americans and the first run of news sticks in the mind.
NM
Molenbeek is NOT a no-go zone. I’ve been there multiple times and never felt that I was in danger. It is a poor neighbourhood for sure (although parts of it are surprisingly nice, even affluent).
I won’t deny that it’s been linked to terrorist activity since the mid-90s. It does have a seriously dark side.
But suggesting that you risk your life if you go there is over the top. You can run into trouble but not more than in any other poor neighbourhoods in any big city.
I think you meant to reply to the person who was giving credence to the bad translation, not me.
there is a problem among journalists who have a weak grasp of a language and they translate badly and then sensationalize the bad translation…
I add that I can not recall myself if I have ever been to that part of Bruxelles or not, but in any case it was immediately obvious the mistranslation.
The Independent is American?
Regards,
Shodan
and the rosbifs too then, but the link to that was not there when I wrote.
Can an aircraft carrier fit in the Suez Canal? Would Egypt let it go thru?
Actually, France might as well get in their licks while they can. Once Russia gets its vengence machine revved up (assuming the aircraft bombing investigation doesn’t yield any surprises) I half-expect that Raqqa will be reduced to a smoking hole in the ground.
Of course.
Why not?
That operation was planned well in advance of the attacks.
Uh, because it’s a major warship, not some tramp steamer carrying a load of coal. I’m sure the USS Ronald Reagan couldn’t just go thru the Suez Canal without a fair amount of diplomatic effort.
How do you think US warships reach the Indian Ocean? Sailing around Africa is a huge waste of time. The Suez Canal is generally open to any boat except in time of war. Egypt wants the portage fees. Here is the USS Theodore Roosevelt passing through. Here is India’s new carrier, the INS Vikramaditya.
In the USA, there are sections of town in major cities that police won’t visit after dark without backup. Years can pass and they never really get any safer. It’s not that the police won’t go there, but if someone calls them, it may take them hours to arrive, if ever, and they may feel the need to have heavy weapons and specially trained officers to do it.
Huh. Well, I guess I stand corrected. I’d have thought it would be at least a bit politicized.
Also, I’m surprized at how desolate the canal is in that video. I know it’s a desert, but for most of the trip there was nothing along the shores of the canal.
The Suez is important source of hard currency and they need to keep it open than risk diversion of the traffic from perceived closure risk, but this aside, the Egypt is no friend of the DAESH or any of the Islamist tendancies, why would you think they would object?
Well it is the desert, yes, what would you expect?
It is not the Nile valley…
Cite?
Everything I read describe this as being more than what the French were previously doing, as being in retaliation, with the biggest implication of already planned being that targets had already been identified by the US as in the queue so to speak and were handed over to the French as best first targets to hit.
And the aircraft carrier being readied was also “already in the works”? Do share your source.
No I do not think they will put significant ground troops in the field. More likely they, along with the US, will a select few to provide ground-based intelligence to direct bombing. The Western military response (NATO under article 5?) will likely be restricted to bombing that hopefully maximizes ISIS military capability while minimizing non-combatant harms. One can dream.
Russia is of course an unpredictable actor in this. Or at least difficult to predict. How much do they target ISIS in the wake of the Russian jet (presumed) bomb? How much do they keep up a focus of attack on other groups that the US actually backs?
The mobilization of the Charles de Gaulle was started many weeks ago, already the 5 nov le Figaro discusses the mobilisation announced. Other efforts were in planning, that is harded to find, but this is not news.