Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[T@T]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I thought you were a Cape Bretoner?

That's a newfie with his nuts kicked in, yes I'm a caper, our english literature is no better and in a lot of ways "WORST" ..lol

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by T@T

That's a newfie with his nuts kicked in, yes I'm a caper, our english literature is no better and in a lot of ways "WORST" ..lol

Haha, yeah I know it very well. Literally the only time we've ever come together on this board (I know I'm an a**hole, lol) was when we discussed hang outs in Cape Breton and reminisced about the greatest Canadian island!

[Itse]

Al-Qaeda and ISIS do not have the same goals. To put the difference very roughly, ISIS has 100% religious goals, but Al-Qaeda's goals are pretty much basic "freedom fighter" stuff.

ISIS as an organization has two goals. To set up a Caliphate and to bring out about the End of Days. (Those are two somewhat separate things, and not every member of ISIS wants both things.) What's important here is that both are extremely vague goals. In short, ISIS does not actually have much of a plan.

Al-Qaeda on the other hand essentially wants to drive out the US military (and any other "occupying force") from the Islamic lands and to overthrow all the dictatorial rulers backed by the United States and their allies. (This includes the destruction of the state of Israel, which they see as illegitimate.) While Al-Qaeda is also deeply interconnected with the same ultra-conservative branch of (pseudo-)Sunni Islam called Wahhabism, they are on average a lot less crazy and nonsensical bunch than ISIS.

(From what I've gathered, Al-Qaeda is actually lot less fanatic than it used to be after the birth of ISIS, as most of the worst bunch left Al-Qaeda for ISIS.)

The main difference I guess could most easily be summed up in the fact that you can totally negotiate with Al-Qaeda and reach agreements that both sides could accept. ISIS you can't work with. (In large part because you can't make deals with an organization that has only a vague idea what it wants.)

This is why in practice US and other Western nations have recently worked quite a lot with Al-Qaeda to fight ISIS. (Mostly indirectly but still.) Al-Qaeda and the US might be sworn enemies, but both see the difference between a mortal enemy and a doomsday cult.

Also it's important to understand that when the Western media says "ISIS fighter" or "Al-Qaeda affiliate", those are extremely generalized concepts that often do not mean what you'd think it means.

Many of the groups fighting for ISIS are not strictly speaking ISIS, just local armed groups that ISIS is paying to fight for them. These are also groups you can negotiate with. You can also generally relatively safely disarm them and just send them on their way, because they're not generally fanatics. (This is starting to be important now that ISIS has started to lose the war.)

"Al-Qaeda affiliate" (a term often used but rarely explained) is an even more vague concept. These affiliations can sometimes come and go, and the variation is even greater than with ISIS. In Al-Qaeda you have everything from your stereotypical bloodlusty fanatics and "true believers in the cause" to groups that are pretty much just local armed militias mostly interested in protecting "their own", to groups that simply have political goals that are closely enough aligned with those of Al-Qaeda that they can work together. (This is a problem for the West, because telling the different groups apart is not easy for an outsider, and a simple change in leadership might change a group away from fanatic Islamism, or towards it.)


As for Nazis and religioun, that's a really complicated story, but you most certainly can't simply call them "religious". (Especially not Christian).

It's actually pretty interesting stuff. I recommend reading the Wikipedia page.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think you're throwing a lot of confusion into the Al Qaeda concept. Its not really a terrorist group, its a bunch of loosely affiliated groups with different aims and goals. That's why you see groups in Asia that are Al-Qaeda affiliated that are far more psychotic then the ones in the middle east for exampe

The original concept with Bin Laden was that Al Qaeda was almost like a phone book of evil that could share resources, submit plans for terrorist activities and receive funding and material support. Bin Laden dreamed of himself not as a central authority that told these groups what to do, but would be able to advise and coordinate activities by different groups by offering or withholding funds and material aid or expertise. But the groups themselves would pick their own targets and plan their own ops and define their own end games.

The only reason why ISIS and Al-Qaeda are separate isn't because Al-Qaeda isn't as radical, or they've suddenly become quasi good guys. But because their alliance broke up because of a perceived slight caused by the leadership of the local Al-Qaeda groups feeling slighted and dis-respected by the ISIL leaders.

I read an article where a Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader was bemoaning that ISIS and them were fighting because what was basically a family squabble over levels of respect.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think you're throwing a lot of confusion into the Al Qaeda concept. Its not really a terrorist group, its a bunch of loosely affiliated groups with different aims and goals. That's why you see groups in Asia that are Al-Qaeda affiliated that are far more psychotic then the ones in the middle east for exampe

That's a fair simplification, but in the end I think it's important to realize that simplifications only go so far. You can't actually DO much based on simplifications. Or have an informed opinion on policies based on that level of simplification. Well okay you can, but you'll inevitably go wrong very often.

IMO it's often better that people admit they can't get a good grip on something complicated than it is to try simplify it to a point where they can.

The original concept with Bin Laden was that Al Qaeda was almost like a phone book of evil that could share resources, submit plans for terrorist activities and receive funding and material support. Bin Laden dreamed of himself not as a central authority that told these groups what to do, but would be able to advise and coordinate activities by different groups by offering or withholding funds and material aid or expertise. But the groups themselves would pick their own targets and plan their own ops and define their own end games.

Yes, but you're leaving out some pretty huge bits there. Bin Laden had a vision of co-operating forces fighting against "evil" (mainly US influence) in multiple fronts all around the world. Essentially "think global, act local" applied to terrorism. They're only supposed to be "a phonebook of evil" for Islamist fighters and likeminded groups fighting "the same kinds of enemies".

Of course the enemy is very vaguely defined and I'm sure those principles get very murky when you start applying them in practice, especially outside the Middle-East. Still, most Al-Qaeda affiliates can be described (from a certain angle) as "fighting against the tyrannical Western forces and their puppets".

The only reason why ISIS and Al-Qaeda are separate isn't because Al-Qaeda isn't as radical, or they've suddenly become quasi good guys. But because their alliance broke up because of a perceived slight caused by the leadership of the local Al-Qaeda groups feeling slighted and dis-respected by the ISIL leaders.

I read an article where a Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader was bemoaning that ISIS and them were fighting because what was basically a family squabble over levels of respect.

That's a good addition, but then again as you said "an Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq" can mostly speak for himself. There are others who see more fundamental differences. Especially the groups that are only very loosely affiliated to Al-Qaeda.

Also, I don't believe alliances ever really break apart purely on such grounds. Perceived slights can easily be one big reason and even more easily they can bring things to a breaking point, but there's usually plenty of tension behind the scenes.

(Also, I would certainly not describe Al-Qaeda as "quasi good guys", I hope that wasn't the impression. They're just not as bad as ISIS/ISIL. Which really isn't much.)

[nik-]

What really broke the alliance between core Al Qaeda and what eventually became ISIS was takfir. Al-Zarqawi was pretty adamant about attacking muslims he felt were sub-par and Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri weren't for it at all.

So "more radical" is definitely accurate. But in the end it's like dying in a house fire in 12 minutes instead of 14.

[Zulu29]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...service=mobile

Priest murdered and hostages taken at a church in France. ISIS claiming responsibility.

[OMG!WTF!]

I literally and honestly can't keep track of this any more. I have lost the plot completely and have no idea who is blowing what up, where and for what reason any more. It's a little freaky.

[polak]

The french are going to start deporting people and frankly I don't blame them. They have to do something.

[CaptainCrunch]

I firmly believe that two things are going to happen.

We're going to see a rise in power of radical right wing parties In Europe. They might not seize outright power, but they will become very powerful in their parliaments or whatever.

The immigration and refugee systems are going to collapse in Europe as well.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I firmly believe that two things are going to happen.

We're going to see a rise in power of radical right wing parties In Europe. They might not seize outright power, but they will become very powerful in their parliaments or whatever.

The immigration and refugee systems are going to collapse in Europe as well.

The next general elections in France and Germany are going to be very, very interesting and have a big impact on how things are going to work moving forward.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RyZ

The next general elections in France and Germany are going to be very, very interesting and have a big impact on how things are going to work moving forward.

I think that election is about 18 months away, and the Socialists are already plunging because nobody believes that they can protect France.

I think the German government will for the most part be ok. But I believe that these radical crazy parties will be able to accumulate a wack load of power in minority governments.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...service=mobile

Priest murdered and hostages taken at a church in France. ISIS claiming responsibility.

This attack is pretty unique actually (in a bad way). They made the priest kneel at the altar, then filmed themselves slitting his throat. Pretty brazen.

Then they had an islamic sermon for the remaining hostages before exiting the church. Six months ago, this would have been unbelievable.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

The french are going to start deporting people and frankly I don't blame them. They have to do something.

How do you deport someone who was born in the country? What I definitely could see is the end of open borders as we know them for EU citizens in member countries.

[killer_carlson]

The Vatican is calling for peace and prayer in response.

They are better people than I.

[nik-]

Pope Francis doesn't seem like the type to call for a Crusade.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...leaves-8586796

What the hell.

[CaptainCrunch]

Seems pretty self explanatory.

[2Stonedbirds]

And all too common.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The Taliban: reminding everyone that while ISIS is a horror show of brutality and barbarism, "we got here first".