Bomb scare in Amsterdam – MAJOR UPDATE
Early this morning, police surrounded furniture shop Ikea and told employees to get out after it received a tip about a possible bomb attack.
Police rushed to the scene – the store was still closed at the moment they arrived.
No details about the bomb scare are known yet. Was it a sick kind of practical joke? Perhaps it was more than that – a test?
Or was there truly a threat?
RTL Nieuws implies there may have been, or may still be: the Heineken Music Hall (a concert hall) remains closed, for instance, and several suspects have been arrested. Police are currently searching the suspects’ homes.
Amsterdam Mayor Cohen says the threat was aimed at stores. What stores exactly remains unclear. The offices, however, have not been closed. Reporters asked Cohen about this – why not also evacuate offices? – he answered that the threat was only aimed at shops. Shops, he said, attract more people.
It’s a strange thing to say considering the fact that people also work in office buildings. If the threat is serious – and I’m getting the impression it is considering the arrests – offices too should be evacuated and sealed.
MAJOR UPDATE
Seven individuals from Moroccan heritage were arrested. One of them is a relative of one of those who committed a major terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain, in 2004.
Shops remain closed, as does the Heineken Music Hall.
ANOTHER UPDATE
Police responded to a tip from someone in Brussels, Belgium. The tipster said extremists planned to set off bombs in several shops in order to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The Dutch intelligence bureau responded immediately, arresting the seven individuals.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
