The ISIS threat to Europe

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Is simply bombing IS sufficient to do the job? No, as the PM has already admitted, but it will certainly have more effect than doing nothing. 

 

3 hours ago, tinker said:

For every bomb we drop another home grown sympathiser is created, thats where the threat to our national security comes from.

Will it though? (to AWOL) genuine question. I mean it sounds obvious, at face value - drop a bomb on some ISILs and kill them dead. Job jobbed. Reading reports from the people inside Raqqa, they said initially they wanted ISIL fighters to be bombed, and that when the planes came over, ISIL ran away. But as the bombing was stepped up after Paris, more and more  bombs rained down on them, killing innocent people, wrecking their town, and now they wanted the bombing to stop. That ISIL just hide underground, hide amongst the ordinary people's houses and it in essence is not working, while making their lives even worse.

There are enough aircraft already involved to more than bomb what needs bombing. Why throw more aircraft at it? it's symbolism that is really the issue, not the practicalities. Cameron wants to "help" France and to be seen by the US as getting stuck in.

Bombing will not beat ISIL, as everyone knows and says,

But troops on the ground - maybe.  British troops, American, French, Russian - it's not going to happen. And the Russians are bombing the "moderate forces" (because they're fighting Assad) that we say will take over if we change ISIL away with bombs (which we won't). Last year we wanted to bomb Assad (and help ISIL by default). Now we want to bomb ISIL (and help Assad, by default) while saying we oppose Assad. As to how moderate any of the groups are, that's a matter of strong doubt.

On top of that Turkey (who is supposedly "on our side" is, instead of mainly attacking ISIL, spending most of its time attacking "moderates", Kurds, and others that it doesn't like.

How the heck does us joining in with a few Tonkers really help? It might have "more effect" than doing "nothing" but surely better effect could be achieved via trying to work to get the various different nations- Russia, Turkey, France USA, Saudi, Iran et al to stop with their competing aims and concentrate on a set of agree objectives. And by not joining in with one side or another, perhaps we could have a small sliver of credibility in making that argument? while not creating more resentment that fuels what Tinker has pointed out

[supermon]

Slightly of topic, but did everyone hear about the shooting in Colorado Springs? Gunman killed 3 and injured a few too at an abortion clinic . 

Sad that it isn't reported and given adequate media coverage.

[Brumerican]

How did you find out about it if it wasn't reported ? 

FWIW it was the first story I saw this morning on the BBC website.

[darrenm]

You can't fight guerilla warfare with ww2 style drop a bomb on everything. It's ridiculously limited thinking to think it will do anything other than kill more innocent people than terrorists.

You need to out manoeuvre them. Disable them on the ground, out tech them, play tricks, keep them guessing. It needs people on the ground in great numbers. Bombing an identified military base as part of a strategic mission is fine, but it can't just be dropping bombs on anything that might have a target inside.

[Wainy316]

How can a group kill citizens of America, Britain, Russia, China and Japan and still be around to tell the tale?

[Awol]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

You can't fight guerilla warfare with ww2 style drop a bomb on everything. It's ridiculously limited thinking to think it will do anything other than kill more innocent people than terrorists.

That's true enough, probably why no one (on this thread at least) has suggested it.

[AshVilla]

Just seen an article about this guy called Abu Azrael the angel of death and Iraq's answer to Rambo who has killed 1500 ISIS fighters apparently

http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/the-iraqi-rambo-has-killed-1500-isis-members-and-is-a-beast/

[snowychap]

32 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

Abu Azrael

Sounds a similar kind of barbaric psychopath to the IS people whom he supposedly kills.

Edited November 28, 2015 by snowychap

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, AshVilla said:

Just seen an article about this guy called Abu Azrael the angel of death and Iraq's answer to Rambo who has killed 1500 ISIS fighters apparently

http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/the-iraqi-rambo-has-killed-1500-isis-members-and-is-a-beast/

tim howard?

[villakram]

3 hours ago, AshVilla said:

Just seen an article about this guy called Abu Azrael the angel of death and Iraq's answer to Rambo who has killed 1500 ISIS fighters apparently

http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/the-iraqi-rambo-has-killed-1500-isis-members-and-is-a-beast/

propaganda 101

[tinker]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

That's true enough, probably why no one (on this thread at least) has suggested it.

You could always get your own gun and go out and start the fight back against the shadow of doom were all living under.

Loonies are running around a desert while were dropping million pound bombs on their  tents, caravans and wooden shacks. Meanwhile back in the our own back yard were cutting back on our own security force, the police who have saved us from 7 recent attempts of terrorism. Its got all the makings of  a Monty Python plot.

Do people believe there could be state sponsored trolls? I'm beginning to think its a possibility 

[Awol]

8 hours ago, tinker said:

You could always get your own gun and go out and start the fight back against the shadow of doom were all living under.

Indeed but a little irrelevant to the discussion, don't you think?

Quote

Loonies are running around a desert while were dropping million pound bombs on their  tents, caravans and wooden shacks.

 

Raqqa, Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah... Not really holiday destinations at the moment, but substantially more than "tents, caravans and wooden shacks" in a desert. Situational awareness lacking...    

 

Quote

Meanwhile back in the our own back yard were cutting back on our own security force, the police who have saved us from 7 recent attempts of terrorism.

 

I thought was a ridiculous idea too so was relieved when the Chancellor announced there would be no Police or Security Service or Armed Forces cuts. You must have missed that.

 

Quote

Do people believe there could be state sponsored trolls? I'm beginning to think its a possibility

 

No budget I'm afraid, but disagreeing with your err, analysis, doesn't make someone a troll.   

Edited November 29, 2015 by Awol
Formatting

[maqroll]

[OutByEaster?]

I think ultimately the way you beat ISIS is through the encouragement of more moderate forms of Islam and the establishment of a better relationship with the Arab world - ultimately reducing the anger that ISIS exploit in order to recruit. I understand the need for caution at the other end, but it's the door marked IN at ISIS HQ that holds the solution to the problem.

That means dealing with Israel, it means having difficult conversations with the Saudi's, it means better relations with Iran, it means a less exploitative relationship with Iraq, it means improving the standing of women within the Arab world and allowing middle eastern nations to decide on the way forward for middle eastern nations, within a framework of international law - but that first one, controlling Israel, and being seen to support an Islamic people against a clearly wrong invasive regime would make a massive difference across the region in terms of feeling towards the West and the ability of ISIS to recruit and retain angry people.

We'd be safer from ISIS if we bombed Israel than Syria, that's how insane it is - we are feeding the troll.

The only way to disarm is to disarm.

[Tayls]

Has there been attempted dialogue with IS between any of the nations involved? 

[Mozzavfc]

2 hours ago, Tayls said:

Has there been attempted dialogue with IS between any of the nations involved? 

Would that even be possible? 

It's such a diverse group, and there isn't really a hierarchy controlling all branches  

[Awol]

3 hours ago, Tayls said:

Has there been attempted dialogue with IS between any of the nations involved? 

IS doesn't recognise the state system or any of the regimes surrounding it as representative or valid authorities. Only God's law (the Shariah) counts - although that doesn't restrict them from doing commercial business with individuals outside their Caliphate.

Anyway, given their actions how could any government negotiate with IS even if they were open to it? 

[Marka Ragnos]

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

IS doesn't recognise the state system or any of the regimes surrounding it as representative or valid authorities. Only God's law (the Shariah) counts - although that doesn't restrict them from doing commercial business with individuals outside their Caliphate.

Ha! I actually think that, despite your ample and well-intended qualifications, you make them sound a little saner here than they are.

I think they're about twenty paces beyond Sharia -- they're in a hopped-up, meth-visioning, apocalyptic zombie-angel world. But yes, they buy fuel and stuff, and can be quite organized in their craziness.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Marka Ragnos

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Portraying them as a barbaric death cult full of whackos is easy and gets the blood pumped in support of some air strikes. I've been guilty of it too. The truth is far more unpleasant. They know exactly what they are doing, what they want, and how to go about it. They make their own money. They run farms and repair shit. They are slowly and surely putting together a type of governing body capable of controlling what they have. This is why they have to be stopped. Not because they are nutters on a blood-thirsty rendezvous with death, rather they have to be stopped because they are capable of becoming something far more organized and much, much more dangerous.

I don't think bombing is the answer precisely for that reason. They live among civilians and control resources vital to people. If the aim is to stop them, the only way to do it is to send troops in, and if we do that then we damn well better have a plan in place for what comes after.

 

[Marka Ragnos]

5 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

Portraying them as a barbaric death cult full of whackos is easy and gets the blood pumped in support of some air strikes. I've been guilty of it too. The truth is far more unpleasant. They know exactly what they are doing, what they want, and how to go about it.

I actually think "barbaric death cult" is a fitting description, though I don't see this as legitimizing a bombing campaign. But my definition of "crazies"is probably different than your crazies. I don't think they know what they are doing. I think they believe they know it, but not all the time. They're as capable of faithlessness as any human beings. The "normal" inside the state looks pretty damn unstable to me, and hellish in its treatment of almost everyone who is not a fighter or in a fighter's family.

When you write,

Quote

They make their own money. They run farms and repair shit. They are slowly and surely putting together a type of governing body capable of controlling what they have. This is why they have to be stopped. Not because they are nutters on a blood-thirsty rendezvous with death, rather they have to be stopped because they are capable of becoming something far more organized and much, much more dangerous.

you're actually describing an org that's more like what Al-Qaeda wanted to be at once point. You're describing a very common revolutionary trajectory, from insurgency to legitimacy. But these guys aren't on that programme. ISIS isn't trying to get organized for the long term. The famous plan for currency -- and I don't think that has really got off the ground -- seems more about propaganda than a functional economic tool. They aren't looking to form a stable equilibrium; they don't seek political ends. They're far more like Jim Jones in Guyana than Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. Stability is ipso facto a state of sinfulness.