Barcelona Terror Attack.

[Crazedwraith]

Thirteen people have died and dozens were injured after a van ploughed into crowds in Barcelona's famous Las Ramblas, popular with tourists, police and local officials say.

The vehicle sped along the pedestrian area, mowing down people and sending others fleeing for cover.
Police are treating it as a terrorist attack.

The head of the Catalan region said two people had been arrested.

Spanish media are reporting another suspect died in a shootout. El Mundo newspaper said the shootout happened in Sant Just Lesvern, on the outskirts of the city.

Police have released a photo of a man named as Driss Oubakir, whose documents were used to rent the van involved in the attack.
Local media say he is in his 20s, and was born in Morocco. However, latest reports suggest he has told police he was not involved, and that his documents were stolen.

So-called Islamic State has said it was behind the van attack in Las Ramblas, saying in a statement carried by its Amaq news agency that it was carried out by "Islamic State soldiers". The group gave no further evidence or details to back this claim.

The attack happened at the height of the season in one of Europe's top tourist destinations.

Witnesses said the van had deliberately targeted people, weaving from side to side as it drove down the boulevard.

Spanish media reports said the driver of the vehicle - a white Fiat that had been rented in the city - then fled on foot.

Vehicles have been used to ram into crowds in a series of attacks across Europe since July last year.

-snip eyewitness accounts-

How have leaders reacted?

Barcelona's mayor, Ada Colau, said the city would hold a minute of silence on Friday at midday.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he was heading to Barcelona, adding: "Maximum co-ordination to arrest the attackers, reinforce security and attend to all those affected."

The United States has offered its assistance to Spain.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also said consular assistance was being provided to Americans in the city, and urged US nationals to check in with their families.

"Terrorists around the world should know the United States and our allies are resolved to find you and bring you to justice," he told reporters.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May said her thoughts were with the victims, adding that "the UK stands with Spain against terror".

French President Emmanuel Macron said: "We remain united and determined."

Another attack with a vehicle.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. ISIS, white supremacists... same bullshit, different branding.

My condolences to the people of Spain.

[Elheru Aran]

It seems to be a fairly common theme in these European attacks that people are frequently mis-identified as the attacker before they figure out who the real one is. I'm not sure that has happened to quite the same extent here, apart from the highly public case of mistaken identification of some guy in the Boston bombing?

A very unfortunate event and I suspect it may lead to heavier restrictions upon where vehicles can be driven, at least in cities, for the foreseeable future, since these seem to have become a favored tactic...

[Soontir C'boath]

I would imagine that as more cars are used to run over people, that there will be a mandatory call to have all newly manufactured vehicles with a collision avoidance system installed.

It is morbidly amazing that after more than a century since it came about that only now it's being used more frequently as a weapon of choice.

[The Romulan Republic]

Self-driving cars ought to reduce this threat.

Albeit possibly by replacing it with cars that can be hacked by terrorists...

[Gandalf]

Self-driving cars ought to reduce this threat.

Albeit possibly by replacing it with cars that can be hacked by terrorists...

On the upside, hacking into a car should require more skill than "apply accelerator." It's at least one more barrier keeping people safe.

[TheFeniX]

It is morbidly amazing that after more than a century since it came about that only now it's being used more frequently as a weapon of choice.

I remember thinking years back at a city parade that "man, if some idiot lost control of his/her car, they could maim a hundred people easy." Cars are heavy. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're even heavier than they used to be. I read once an old 1970s Lincoln Continental (those boats) had the same curb weight as a 2000+ Corolla.

Even your light cars are in the 2500-3000lbs range. The lightest these days of the average commuter car doesn't really get below 2000lbs. Light trucks can reach 4000lbs easy (I think my Taco is 4,500lbs). There's not even a reason to rent/buy/steal anything as big as a moving truck: multiple 100-200lbs human vs a 3000lbs vehicle is easy math. And many commuter cars/truck have much better handling and acceleration than a big truck.

This is kind of where you wish every car had Glass Packs installed. At least you can hear them coming. But some of these newer fuel efficient 4-cyl? Floored, I think my electric lawnmower is louder.

The only moderately funny part about this, and it's not funny, is it puts a bit of perspective into those "guns vs cars" debates from way back. They are disturbingly more deadly when used against a crowd, provided you can get one to where it's needed.

Self-driving cars ought to reduce this threat.

Albeit possibly by replacing it with cars that can be hacked by terrorists...

Many years from now you might find it impossible to find a used car dealership that will sell you a Corolla (or whatever) for a couple grand cash that runs poorly, but that doesn't matter because you're just going to drive it into a group of people. In Texas and other states that have all sorts of uses for older vehicles to beat to shit, it might never get anywhere near there.

[wautd]

A second attack also in Cambrils. Luckily the scumbags were less sucessful in killing civilians this time

BBC

Spanish police stop second attack after 13 killed in Barcelona

Spanish police say they have killed five suspected terrorists in the town of Cambrils to stop a vehicle attack, after an earlier one in Barcelona.
The men, wearing explosive belts, were linked to the first attack, police say.
Thirteen people died and dozens were hurt when a van hit crowds in the Las Ramblas area of Barcelona on Thursday. The driver fled and is still at large.
Spain's PM Mariano Rajoy described it a "jihadist attack", which so-called Islamic State said it had carried out.
Mr Rajoy has announced three days of national mourning and a minute's silence will be held later on Friday.
The authorities are now also linking the attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils with an explosion at a house on Wednesday evening in the town of Alcanar that left one person dead.
Police chief Josep Lluis Trapero said it appeared the residents at the Alcanar house had been "preparing an explosive device".

In Cambrils, seven people, including a police officer, were wounded when a car was driven into them early on Friday, Catalan emergency services said. One person is in a critical condition.
Spanish media reported that the attackers' vehicle overturned and when the men got out they were quickly fired upon by police.
A series of controlled explosions was then carried out.

Police say the situation in Cambrils - a popular seaside resort to the south-west of Barcelona - is now under control.
Meanwhile police are continuing to search for the driver of the van used in the Barcelona attack, who fled on foot. He is believed to be the sole attacker there.
Tourists and locals fled when the rented vehicle sped down Las Ramblas in the centre of the city, mowing down people.
Witnesses said the van deliberately targeted people, weaving from side to side as it drove down the boulevard.
Two people have been arrested, but police say neither was the driver.

olice have released a photo of a man named as Driss Oubakir, whose documents were used to rent the van involved in the attack.
Local media say he is in his 20s, and was born in Morocco. However, latest reports suggest he has told police he was not involved, and that his documents were stolen.
So-called Islamic State has said it was behind the Las Ramblas attack, saying in a brief statement carried by its Amaq news agency that it was carried out by "Islamic State soldiers". The group gave no further evidence or details to back this claim.
Vehicles have been used to ram into crowds in a series of attacks across Europe since July last year.
In another incident, police shot dead a man who drove into officers at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Barcelona, but the authorities said there was no evidence that he was connected to the attack in Las Ramblas.

Gordon Corera, BBC News security correspondent
Barcelona is just the latest European city to witness the terrible effects of a vehicle attack on an iconic or "soft" target.
In Nice a year ago, Bastille Day celebrations were targeted, then a Christmas market in Berlin. In London, Westminster and London Bridge, as well as Finsbury Park, saw cars and vans used as weapons.
In the UK, new barriers have been put in place to mitigate some of the risks at key locations and there is discussion of imposing checks on those renting vans, but security services in Britain - as well as across Europe - are all too aware that there are limits to what they can do to spot and stop those planning murder in this way.
The weapons employed are readily available and there is little or no training, co-ordination or planning required. This means there are few points where individuals can be spotted by the intelligence services.
Although so-called Islamic State has released a statement saying what it calls its "soldiers" had carried out the Barcelona attack, it is not yet clear whether there was any direct link to the group or if they were simply inspired by its call to act. The language used often indicates the latter.
Either way, authorities will be bracing themselves for the possibility of further attacks of a similar nature.
What did people see in Barcelona?
A businessman from New Orleans, who was just arriving in a taxi in Las Ramblas, said: "I heard a crowd screaming. It sounded like they were screaming for a movie star.
"I saw the van. It had already been busted on the front. It was weaving left and right, trying to hit people as fast as possible. There were people lying on the ground."

Aamer Anwar said he was walking down Las Ramblas, which was "jam-packed" with tourists.
"All of a sudden, I just sort of heard a crashing noise and the whole street just started to run, screaming. I saw a woman right next to me screaming for her kids," he told Sky News.
"Police were very, very quickly there, police officers with guns, batons, everywhere. Then the whole street started getting pushed back.
"Police officers who got there just started screaming at people to move back, move back."

Kevin Kwast, who is on holiday in Barcelona with his family, said: "I was eating with my family in La Boqueria market very near where the crash occurred.
"Hundreds of people started stampeding through the market... we started running with them going outside right into where casualties were already on the ground.
"Police pushed us into a money transfer shop and we've been sheltering there for over an hour."

[Flagg]

The "car as weapon" we've seen of late may actually be a good thing. If they have to resort to just plowing a car into a crowd it may be a sign that they are unable to access and smuggle explosives and firearms into target areas. I'm not saying it won't be yet one more thing we'll have to adapt to, but if it's truly being used as a weapon of last resort, then it's a step in the right direction, even though it means people are still dying (which is no less tragic) and countermeasures (such as retractable barricades as one example) will have to be put in place.

But a bunch of people were just stabbed to death in Finland and frankly, just about anything can be used as a weapon. I'm afraid that we just have to resign ourselves to the very stark reality that no one is truly safe. And when we do so I think we'll be less subject to terrorism's desired effect.

[ray245]

The "car as weapon" we've seen of late may actually be a good thing. If they have to resort to just plowing a car into a crowd it may be a sign that they are unable to access and smuggle explosives and firearms into target areas. I'm not saying it won't be yet one more thing we'll have to adapt to, but if it's truly being used as a weapon of last resort, then it's a step in the right direction, even though it means people are still dying (which is no less tragic) and countermeasures (such as retractable barricades as one example) will have to be put in place.

But a bunch of people were just stabbed to death in Finland and frankly, just about anything can be used as a weapon. I'm afraid that we just have to resign ourselves to the very stark reality that no one is truly safe. And when we do so I think we'll be less subject to terrorism's desired effect.

I think if we see counter-terrorism effort merely as an attempt to locate suspects and bring them into custody before they attacked anyone, there will always be people that escaped from view and launch an attack.

What's needed is to really delegitimise the belief that those terrorists have that they can "win" the war via their efforts. Right now, they believe these efforts are working because it helps to divide society. It helps them to build an "us vs them" narrative. If past ideologies( and the belief that such ideologies can win) can fall out of favor to near irrelevance, the same can happen to such extremist views.

Destroy the narrative of victory, and you'll see fewer deaths.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah.

In a perverse way, the constant fear-mongering about ISIS plays into their hands. It leads to things like Muslim bans that encourage more Muslims to see the West as their enemy, and it also makes ISIS seem powerful.

The truth is, they ram cars into people because they don't have the military force to take on the world directly, and they never will. They're a threat, and should be fought, absolutely- but to portray them as this deadly existential menace lurking everywhere that's going to overrun us any day now is only helping them.

[ray245]

Yeah.

In a perverse way, the constant fear-mongering about ISIS plays into their hands. It leads to things like Muslim bans that encourage more Muslims to see the West as their enemy, and it also makes ISIS seem powerful.

The truth is, they ram cars into people because they don't have the military force to take on the world directly, and they never will. They're a threat, and should be fought, absolutely- but to portray them as this deadly existential menace lurking everywhere that's going to overrun us any day now is only helping them.

Well, the terrorists have been successful in dividing society since 9/11. The notion of a Muslim ban would probably be impossible in a pre 9/11 world in the US, with the President being impeached by both parties.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

Islamic extremism is winning the propaganda war, because we've been playing into their hands like frightened herd animals.

[Ace Pace]

Indeed.

Islamic extremism is winning the propaganda war, because we've been playing into their hands like frightened herd animals.

Do you have a consistent and long term solution? Because from what I'm seeing no one is offering practical, politically acceptable solutions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

Islamic extremism is winning the propaganda war, because we've been playing into their hands like frightened herd animals.

Do you have a consistent and long term solution? Because from what I'm seeing no one is offering practical, politically acceptable solutions.

What I think we need to do, broadly-speaking is to stop treating Muslims and foreigners as the enemy, reach out to moderates and people who are at risk of being radicalized, but have not yet been. To understand them and address their concerns. While at the same time shifting our propaganda campaign from "ISIS is a super-powerful existential threat" to "they're a pathetic pack of losers". Angry young men looking for purpose in life do not go join a gang they perceive as pathetic losers.

While, of course, doing everything we can to detect and arrest actual terrorists before they act, to respond to attacks effectively when they occur, and to deny ISIS any actual territory by working with our allies overseas.

Of course that's an uphill fight, because most peoples' gut reactions to threats tend towards tribalism and heavy-handed responses of one kind or another. But that's what I think ought to be done, broadly-speaking.

[Flagg]

The "car as weapon" we've seen of late may actually be a good thing. If they have to resort to just plowing a car into a crowd it may be a sign that they are unable to access and smuggle explosives and firearms into target areas. I'm not saying it won't be yet one more thing we'll have to adapt to, but if it's truly being used as a weapon of last resort, then it's a step in the right direction, even though it means people are still dying (which is no less tragic) and countermeasures (such as retractable barricades as one example) will have to be put in place.

But a bunch of people were just stabbed to death in Finland and frankly, just about anything can be used as a weapon. I'm afraid that we just have to resign ourselves to the very stark reality that no one is truly safe. And when we do so I think we'll be less subject to terrorism's desired effect.

I think if we see counter-terrorism effort merely as an attempt to locate suspects and bring them into custody before they attacked anyone, there will always be people that escaped from view and launch an attack.

What's needed is to really delegitimise the belief that those terrorists have that they can "win" the war via their efforts. Right now, they believe these efforts are working because it helps to divide society. It helps them to build an "us vs them" narrative. If past ideologies( and the belief that such ideologies can win) can fall out of favor to near irrelevance, the same can happen to such extremist views.

Destroy the narrative of victory, and you'll see fewer deaths.

That's why having a "War on Terror" is just as stupid as a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Hate". It's declaring a war that can never truly be won. And creates an enemy that can never truly be beaten because it's just created by craven politicians who can essentially use it to justify going after <insert political or criminal organization here> without having to truly justify it by just saying "this is part of the War on <X>."

And it also means utilizing murky or downright extra-legal means using military forces to achieve goals, which due to the fact that soldiers aren't police means that anywhere they are sent is legitimately seen as an attack on all of the people living wherever we send them. That's because aside from cases like the situation in Afghanistan during the turn of the century where it's practically a nation dedicated to Islamic Terrorism, it's a law enforcement issue. That's always where there has been great success fighting terrorists.

[Flagg]

Yeah.

In a perverse way, the constant fear-mongering about ISIS plays into their hands. It leads to things like Muslim bans that encourage more Muslims to see the West as their enemy, and it also makes ISIS seem powerful.

The truth is, they ram cars into people because they don't have the military force to take on the world directly, and they never will. They're a threat, and should be fought, absolutely- but to portray them as this deadly existential menace lurking everywhere that's going to overrun us any day now is only helping them.

Well, the terrorists have been successful in dividing society since 9/11. The notion of a Muslim ban would probably be impossible in a pre 9/11 world in the US, with the President being impeached by both parties.

Doubt it. But W Bush had 1 thing that sets him apart from shitpiles like Cheney or Trump and that is that he publicly denounced attacks against Muslims, repeatedly. There were plenty of inexcusable human rights abuses perpetrated by his Criminal Administration, but he did not promote the kind of hatred against Muslims that we've seen since he left office.

[ray245]

That's why having a "War on Terror" is just as stupid as a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Hate". It's declaring a war that can never truly be won. And creates an enemy that can never truly be beaten because it's just created by craven politicians who can essentially use it to justify going after <insert political or criminal organization here> without having to truly justify it by just saying "this is part of the War on <X>."

I won't say it can't be "won", just that it requires a very different and long process from quick and easy solutions. You can't wipe out Nazism for example, but you can delegitimize it to such a degree that few people would ever want to die for such an ideology.

And it also means utilizing murky or downright extra-legal means using military forces to achieve goals, which due to the fact that soldiers aren't police means that anywhere they are sent is legitimately seen as an attack on all of the people living wherever we send them. That's because aside from cases like the situation in Afghanistan during the turn of the century where it's practically a nation dedicated to Islamic Terrorism, it's a law enforcement issue. That's always where there has been great success fighting terrorists.

I think there are people who missed the "good old days" where punching Nazis is enough to stop Nazism. There is a lot of assumption that combating Islamic terrorism is the same as fighting a modern day WW2. Good vs evil that ends once the leadership is taken out.

I think people rather return to the pre 9/11 days. Is there terrorism hurting people in the world? Yeah, but there are far fewer cases of terrorists being so desperate that they resort to simply driving into people. I think the ideology that drove people to do such horrific acts can be defeated, and it's certainly more than a law enforcement issue. I think you can delegitimize the appeal of such ideol

Doubt it. But W Bush had 1 thing that sets him apart from shitpiles like Cheney or Trump and that is that he publicly denounced attacks against Muslims, repeatedly. There were plenty of inexcusable human rights abuses perpetrated by his Criminal Administration, but he did not promote the kind of hatred against Muslims that we've seen since he left office.

Trump's rise to power is the result of society's failure to really resolve the tension that's been building up ever since 9/11.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Apparently this attack technically a failure, because the bomb factory they were using as a base blew up forcing them to switch from using a van to deliver a weapon, to using said van as a weapon.

Of course, questions are being asked as to how the bomb factory blowing up didn't tip off the authorities that something was up- they had something like a couple dozen gas canisters at their disposal.

[Zaune]

Someone accidentally blowing their house up with improperly-stored propane tanks is just as likely to be a careless idiot as a terrorist, I guess. There's probably laws about how much you can store on your property in a residential neighbourhood but someone's got to bother reporting it before anything gets done about it.

[Flagg]

Terrorists are surprisingly incompetent.

[Patroklos]

Maybe, but if you are a terrorist watching this the lesson is that it may not be worth it to spend the time and logistics to create a bomb, exposing you to all the risks of working with bombs and the possibility of exposure because people are looking at that, when you can just rent some cars and ram a crowd.

Imagine if all the people involved in this plot so far, just to produce one bomb, had all just done exactly what happened at Barcelona simultaneously around Spain. The risk/reward between the tactics is weighted pretty heavily in the favor of just ramming people with cars. Especially since the idea of being murdered by a common object heightens the terror aspect. There is really no place for explosives in everyday life, but can you really ever effectively screen for non-modified vehicles for every possible target when every modern society is heavily reliant on and built around cars to a great degree?

[Zaune]

On the other hand, though, a car swerving off the road and flattening a few unlucky pedestrians is something that happens distressingly often. Is it really that much scarier if it's a terrorist doing it instead of a drunk driver?

[bilateralrope]

The risk/reward between the tactics is weighted pretty heavily in the favor of just ramming people with cars.

Only if you consider the death count the 'reward'.

If you're considering how scared the attack makes people, running them over has one downside: It happens often enough by accident that few people are going to automatically assume it's a terror attack like they do when a bomb goes off. The terrorist group taking credit is also more difficult.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The risk/reward between the tactics is weighted pretty heavily in the favor of just ramming people with cars.

Only if you consider the death count the 'reward'.

If you're considering how scared the attack makes people, running them over has one downside: It happens often enough by accident that few people are going to automatically assume it's a terror attack like they do when a bomb goes off. The terrorist group taking credit is also more difficult.

Using a car then yes, when it's something larger like a van or truck then it's more likely to be assumed to be an attack. Sadly the larger the vehicle, the more damage you can do.