Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[Looch City]

Because of the crazy egotistical political leaders who basically doom the country and its people.

The religion could be anything, they could be Christians and be shouting "Jesus Christ compels you!" for all that matters. You have a dangerous group of people with a twisted ideology take control of a vulnerable area with an absence of a proper political party and in an open civil war....and you end up with ISIS.

Islam does not equal radicalism but radicals tend of be Islamic because it's a consequence of the reality in the region. The region is a mess and ripe for any crazy group to take over.

You really need a big 'reset' button.


Anyway that's how I see it from what I've gathered in news articles, people, and traveling in the area.

[nik-]

Be careful with claiming Jordan is a pillar as well. al-Zarqawi was Jordanian and 2000 ISIS members came from Jordan.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Actually the patents bring up another point...literacy of the population.

Could it be said that higher chances of radicalism are seen in societies with lower literacy?

You would think education levels would be negatively related to support for terrorism but according to a few studies that doesn't really seem to be the case. There are a lot of educated terrorists

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Most of the deaths were in N Ireland, your wiki post excludes those, the troubles caused around 4000 deaths as I recall.

So we're using the conflict in Northern Ireland as a yardstick for what's normal now?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by blankall

So we're using the conflict in Northern Ireland as a yardstick for what's normal now?

No, we're putting context to the level of damage currently being inflicted historically. It's a useful exercise in terrorism because our collective memories are short and our reaction is key. Unprecedented reaction would be inappropriate if context shows current concerns aren't unprecedented

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In what form - military aid and sales? The U.S. has also given Egypt and Saudi Arabia massive loans and aid for military procurement. Pakistan too, which was an important American ally in the Cold War. Doesn't seem to have generated any great outburst of scientific or research activity.

To clarify:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...aid#Recipients

Israel receives about 3 bil, Egypt 1.5 bil, Jordan 1.2, and the Palestinians 1 bil from the USA.

Those amounts don't include foreign aid from other sources, most notably Russia. While Israel only gets aid from the US, the other states listed all have multiple sources.

[St. Pats]

Always have thought that the major problem in the Middle East and in many parts of the world is the way countries were put together by outsiders. Iraq and Syria as countries really just do not work. Still think, as I have for many years, that the solution is multiple new countries. Starting with Kurdistan. No federalism. Separate countries.

Would that solve ISIS and Muslim fanatics worldwide. NO. But it could restore some order to at least that part of the Middle East.

I like that they (US?)are floating the idea of federalism. I hope it morphs into separate nations.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No, we're putting context to the level of damage currently being inflicted historically. It's a useful exercise in terrorism because our collective memories are short and our reaction is key. Unprecedented reaction would be inappropriate if context shows current concerns aren't unprecedented

You're suggesting reaction should be based on head count?

Unbelievable

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're suggesting reaction should be based on head count?

Unbelievable

Not entirely, no. I'm suggesting that while for many people, especially the younger crowd, this threat seems unprecedented. In fact, worse and more terrifying damage has be wrought on Europe and it survived. The response needs to always be thoughtful, but absolutely body count is important.

Are you so enlightened that the size of these attacks are completely irrelevant? 1 person is the same as 1000?

[2Stonedbirds]

To be fair, Europe did go through something similar about... Ohhhh 1000 years ago or so?

They did survive. Didn't turn out so well for the Muslims however.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Not entirely, no. I'm suggesting that while for many people, especially the younger crowd, this threat seems unprecedented. In fact, worse and more terrifying damage has be wrought on Europe and it survived. The response needs to always be thoughtful, but absolutely body count is important.

Are you so enlightened that the size of these attacks are completely irrelevant? 1 person is the same as 1000?

You're being obtuse here.

Reaction should be a function of not only the act, but also the threat, and the motive.

Islamic terrorists are capable - and willing - of much greater damage. They also carry an ideological threat to the west's entire way of life and even our very existence.

That is very different than a terrorist that is fighting for a single cause (release of prisoners, political issue, or whatever). They both might blow up a train station and kill 1oo people today. But one is a far greater threat than the other, and warrants a very different response.

[Mr.Coffee]

Ideological threat to our way of life and existance?

That is blowing this way out of proportion. A few months ago, Fareed Zakaria on CNN reported that ISIS' army is about an estimated 30,000 men.

That's it. So......... no. Both of those risks you write about are very, very, very small. If Zakaria's number is right, their entire army couldn't even fill McMahon stadium. And ideological?

I mean, seriously?

[2Stonedbirds]

It's the lone wolf that presents issues to our free societies, not a rag tag group of ideologues in the desert.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Ideological threat to our way of life and existance?

That is blowing this way out of proportion. A few months ago, Fareed Zakaria on CNN reported that ISIS' army is about an estimated 30,000 men.

That's it. So......... no. Both of those risks you write about are very, very, very small. If Zakaria's number is right, their entire army couldn't even fill McMahon stadium. And ideological?

I mean, seriously?

Talking about all Islamic extremists here. And yes, ideologically, their mandate is death to all infidels. To actually listen to someone speak, you here them talk about never giving up the cause. Death is irrelevant because their children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren will carry on the cause. They speak very directly about having a much greater will in this regard than the west does.

If you don't want to take the threat seriously, that is your choice. But dismissing this as 30,000 ISIS soldiers is completely missing what is going on, and has been going on for some time - on many fronts, not just ISIS.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Talking about all Islamic extremists here. And yes, ideologically, their mandate is death to all infidels. To actually listen to someone speak, you here them talk about never giving up the cause. Death is irrelevant because their children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren will carry on the cause. They speak very directly about having a much greater will in this regard than the west does.

If you don't want to take the threat seriously, that is your choice. But dismissing this as 30,000 ISIS soldiers is completely missing what is going on, and has been going on for some time - on many fronts, not just ISIS.

To be clear, you actually believe the West faces an existential threat from ISIS? (If even in the long view?)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

To be clear, you actually believe the West faces an existential threat from ISIS? (If even in the long view?)

Maybe you should read my post again (that's not what I said).

Separately: have you ever actually listened to some of the really indoctrinated leaders speak? Complete annihilation of the west is their goal and life's mission. Whether or not I think they can succeed (I don't), it still speaks volumes to the depth of the threat (which was the point).

And to continue on, how many soldiers does it take to administer a chemical weapon?

Do you believe that, given the opportunity, there aren't Islamic extremists who would jump at the chance?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Maybe you should read my post again (that's not what I said).

Separately: have you ever actually listened to some of the really indoctrinated leaders speak? Complete annihilation of the west is their goal and life's mission. Whether or not I think they can succeed (I don't), it still speaks volumes to the depth of the threat (which was the point).

And to continue on, how many soldiers does it take to administer a chemical weapon?

Do you believe that, given the opportunity, there aren't Islamic extremists who would jump at the chance?

Until I moved to Canada in 85 I was fairly sure that I would die in a nuclear blast, everyone in the UK was, that was if the IRA didn't get me first.

The only threat to our way of life is us crapping our pants and giving ourselves over to some moron like Trump or Cruz because we're scared of the boogeyman.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Until I moved to Canada in 85 I was fairly sure that I would die in a nuclear blast, everyone in the UK was, that was if the IRA didn't get me first.

The only threat to our way of life is us crapping our pants and giving ourselves over to some moron like Trump or Cruz because we're scared of the boogeyman.

Again, read what I said. The discussion was about the severity of the threat (vs body count). And that is determined, in part, by their goals, determination, and resources.

What I said was that their determination is absolute. They will die for the cause, and so will their children and grandchildren.

They also have the resources to potentially obtain the means to much greater damage. Again, these points are to define the severity of the threat.

I didn't say (and then I clarified it again that I didn't say) that I think they will succeed in annihilating the west.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Until I moved to Canada in 85 I was fairly sure that I would die in a nuclear blast, everyone in the UK was, that was if the IRA didn't get me first.

The only threat to our way of life is us crapping our pants and giving ourselves over to some moron like Trump or Cruz because we're scared of the boogeyman.

I also never said anything about voting in Trump or Cruz. But way to once again try to make whatever happens the west's fault.

[Street Pharmacist]

And isis does not want death to the west. They'd like it, sure. They want to reestablish the Caliphate to usher the end of days. To do that they need a battle with "Rome" at a predescribed place in the desert (Dabiq). They only attack the west so we ensure Muslims stay in their homeland and don't feel secure outside the great Caliphate and to entice a war that will increase their enrollment. Remember, most Muslims worldwide think the US and it's allies are actively trying to kill Muslims and destroy them. There's nothing to rally the battle cry like another US or western occupation.