The ISIS threat to Europe

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Actually it's a perfectly reasonable question.

If ISIS routinely claimed things that they weren't responsible for as other groups have done in the past sooner or later one would be disproved, it's not happened though.

So you can't answer the question.

Which means there is absolutely nothing to support your view point.

No, it isn't a 'perfectly reasonable' question, at all.

Who said anything about ISIS 'routinely' claiming things that they weren't responsible for? I questioned the assertion that they don't claim things they haven't done.

My viewpoint is one of skepticism at accepting that assertion.

Even the incident that Keyblade posts about above may well be the case that ISIS were responsible for it contrary to what the Bangladeshi officials said (perhaps the Bangladeshi officials have an agenda that doesn't fit with accepting that it was ISIS's responsibility).

Edit: Perhaps it's the case that groups on all sides have all sorts of different agendas that affect what they say, what they lay claim to and what they accept as read.

Edited July 16, 2016 by snowychap
changed were to weren't

[Keyblade]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

ISIS stormed a cafe in Bangladesh 2 weeks ago and tortured 20 people to death over 12 hour period.

The Bangladeshi authorities denied it was ISIS because they won't admit ISIS have a presence in the country. 

 

But they didn't deny the attack from 2 weeks ago?

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

But they didn't deny the attack from 2 weeks ago?

Yes they did. Nobody believes them obviously, but the authorities tried to blame local militant groups.

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, it isn't a 'perfectly reasonable' question, at all.

Who said anything about ISIS 'routinely' claiming things that they weren't responsible for? I questioned the assertion that they don't claim things they haven't done.

My viewpoint is one of skepticism at accepting that assertion.

Even the incident that Keyblade posts about above may well be the case that ISIS were 

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, it isn't a 'perfectly reasonable' question, at all.

Who said anything about ISIS 'routinely' claiming things that they weren't responsible for? I questioned the assertion that they don't claim things they haven't done.

My viewpoint is one of skepticism at accepting that assertion.

Even the incident that Keyblade posts about above may well be the case that ISIS were responsible for it contrary to what the Bangladeshi officials said (perhaps the Bangladeshi officials have an agenda that doesn't fit with accepting that it was ISIS's responsibility).

Edit: Perhaps it's the case that groups on all sides have all sorts of different agendas that affect what they say, what they lay claim to and what they accept as read.

 

It was for the reason I already gave, you just couldn't or didn't want to answer it.

I get you are sceptical, it's a common theme, personally though I've seen nothing to suggest ISIS claim responsibility for events they aren't involved with.

[Keyblade]

I mean you can't help but be skeptical when there's no other evidence other than ISIS claiming the attack and the guy being Muslim. And whatever other things we know about him point to the opposite.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

It was for the reason I already gave, you just couldn't or didn't want to answer it.

That's pretty cheap as I said, in response to your post:

35 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Of course I can't.

 

4 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I get you are sceptical, it's a common theme, personally though I've seen nothing to suggest ISIS claim responsibility for events they aren't involved with.

I'm not sure it is that common.

Saying that you've seen nothing to suggest that they claim responsibility for events they aren't involved in is quite different from asserting as fact that they don't claim things they haven't done.

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Skeptical of what? 

There are essential two different types of terrorist attack linked to ISIS, direct and indirect. 

Direct being the attacks in Paris where it would seem they are directly behind it and potentially Nice where they may just have provided the inspiration.

Only a couple of weeks ago ISIS called on Muslims to use cars or trucks to kill infidels in the West.

The incident in Nice wasn't an accident it was premeditated murder, it remains to be seen what his motivation was I agree.

It does though seem more likely it was at the very least inspired by ISIS rather than someone just randomly deciding to commit mass murder.

We shall see I guess what if anything was found at his home.

I'm not following, if it's not a direct link, how can they claim credit for the inspiration if we haven't found out about his motives yet? 

[TrentVilla]

59 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I mean you can't help but be skeptical when there's no other evidence other than ISIS claiming the attack and the guy being Muslim. And whatever other things we know about him point to the opposite.

Nothing wrong with a little scepticism.

But playing devils adocate for a moment, we don't really know anything about him.

There is the quote from his dad but then look at the quote from the dad following the nightclub shootings.

[villanwesty88]

These attacks all over the world are very sad and wrong.

The thing that bothers me is that acts are reported as being terrorist as soon as a Muslim is involved. What about that German Wings flight a year or two back, wasn't that terrorism? It was simply reported as suicide by a nut job - where is the line though? Absolutely guaranteed if the pilot of that plane was a Muslim the reporting would have been completely different. 

Also I feel Media Coverage is poor - we get loads of what is going on in Nice but hear little about what happens in say Baghdad. 

The way events are reported using different language and the levels of coverage create a perception amongst many that Muslims are to blame. I'm currently in Devon to visit family and my brother tells me of the crap he hears at work "kill em all" "bomb the bastards" etc. A lot of people sadly can't think for themselves and take the media reporting as the truth. 

In my opinion this creates a negative cycle that constantly repeats. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Surely this act, like those before it and the many more to come, is a declaration of war? 

Is going in hard and completely obliterating them really not an option? They call themselves a state after all. They have territory. 

I'm not suggesting it's the only option but if not this, and clearly not diplomacy, then what? Education? Wait until they punch themselves out or run out of money? Oh great, another 50 years of this ahead then. 

Living in fear cannot be the option.

Where are our leaders? 

[Chindie]

I'd also lean towards knowing more about the perpetrator before taking any groups claims on face value.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, villanwesty88 said:

These attacks all over the world are very sad and wrong.

The thing that bothers me is that acts are reported as being terrorist as soon as a Muslim is involved. What about that German Wings flight a year or two back, wasn't that terrorism? It was simply reported as suicide by a nut job - where is the line though? Absolutely guaranteed if the pilot of that plane was a Muslim the reporting would have been completely different. 

Also I feel Media Coverage is poor - we get loads of what is going on in Nice but hear little about what happens in say Baghdad. 

The way events are reported using different language and the levels of coverage create a perception amongst many that Muslims are to blame. I'm currently in Devon to visit family and my brother tells me of the crap he hears at work "kill em all" "bomb the bastards" etc. A lot of people sadly can't think for themselves and take the media reporting as the truth. 

In my opinion this creates a negative cycle that constantly repeats. 

We work on patterns as a species, even if pure logic suggests the pattern is flawed. Unfortunately the narrative, the pattern, has become that large acts of violence committed by Muslim men has a distinct chance of being terrorism. The downside of that thinking is that it means more often than not a Muslim man cannot commit an act of violence for a reason other than his faith. Which obviously isn't the case.

As for the German wings comparison. No that wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is about the why. Why did someone do this thing. If it was to make a political point, if the aim was to use that violence to scare people into acting differently in line with your political point, that's terrorism. It subsequently turned out that the man had no political motivation in doing such a heinous thing, but did have a history of depression. So it's not terrorism.

Had he been Muslim maybe the immediate conclusion was to look for terrorist intent, because of the pattern. On digging that would have been diminished though if the intent wasn't there like in the actual case. A comparison can be drawn with the recent Egypt flight, terrorism was considered but as they've struggled to find intent or further evidence (of anything, really) that's died away. And that flight had a few Muslims on it.

[HanoiVillan]

You can also consider me a skeptic in this 'ISIS never claim anything they didn't do' line. I am certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise, but it would take more than unsourced references to unnamed 'security experts' to do so. I note in passing that it took them a lot longer to claim credit for the Nice attack than it did for Paris (more than 24 hours).  

[villanwesty88]

6 hours ago, Chindie said:

We work on patterns as a species, even if pure logic suggests the pattern is flawed. Unfortunately the narrative, the pattern, has become that large acts of violence committed by Muslim men has a distinct chance of being terrorism. The downside of that thinking is that it means more often than not a Muslim man cannot commit an act of violence for a reason other than his faith. Which obviously isn't the case.

As for the German wings comparison. No that wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is about the why. Why did someone do this thing. If it was to make a political point, if the aim was to use that violence to scare people into acting differently in line with your political point, that's terrorism. It subsequently turned out that the man had no political motivation in doing such a heinous thing, but did have a history of depression. So it's not terrorism.

Had he been Muslim maybe the immediate conclusion was to look for terrorist intent, because of the pattern. On digging that would have been diminished though if the intent wasn't there like in the actual case. A comparison can be drawn with the recent Egypt flight, terrorism was considered but as they've struggled to find intent or further evidence (of anything, really) that's died away. And that flight had a few Muslims on it.

All fair points. Just very saddening how Muslims who have nothing to do with it have their name dragged through the dirt because of others. Heck, why does their religion even have to be mentioned in reports? You never read the headlines "Christian man commits murder". The media don't help. ISIS are not true Muslims and they do not represent other Muslims. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth so we all have to work together for peace - Muslims WANT peace too. Cheap stabs in the media and people treating Muslims with contempt is so counter productive it irritates me immensely. 

I just wish we as humans could be work together, share food and water with everyone and stop having wars. We can't go on like this. 

[villakram]

Some word coming out that some of the bodies at Bataclan were mutilated, all in accord with B.C. era war standard operating procedures. I can understand why this would not be publicized but I think it was quite naive of whomever it was in authority that decided to do this.

"According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda."

http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

[Guest av1]

14 minutes ago, villanwesty88 said:

All fair points. Just very saddening how Muslims who have nothing to do with it have their name dragged through the dirt because of others. Heck, why does their religion even have to be mentioned in reports? You never read the headlines "Christian man commits murder". The media don't help. ISIS are not true Muslims and they do not represent other Muslims. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth so we all have to work together for peace - Muslims WANT peace too. Cheap stabs in the media and people treating Muslims with contempt is so counter productive it irritates me immensely. 

I just wish we as humans could be work together, share food and water with everyone and stop having wars. We can't go on like this. 

Equally, its no good saying that they aren't Muslims, because that will not solve the problem. I've no idea what will solve the problem by the way, but education is always a good starting point, and that means looking at the different interpretations of the religion and why some crazy words removed follow an extremely violent form of it. 

They may be in a very very small minority but isis are muslims who claim to be fighting in the name of islam, they may not represent the vast majority of Muslims but I'm not sure how helpful it is to simply say 'they aren't true muslims' 

[villanwesty88]

30 minutes ago, av1 said:

Equally, its no good saying that they aren't Muslims, because that will not solve the problem. I've no idea what will solve the problem by the way, but education is always a good starting point, and that means looking at the different interpretations of the religion and why some crazy words removed follow an extremely violent form of it. 

They may be in a very very small minority but isis are muslims who claim to be fighting in the name of islam, they may not represent the vast majority of Muslims but I'm not sure how helpful it is to simply say 'they aren't true muslims' 

Why would be unhelpful? They clearly don't represent 1.6 billion other people. You cannot label innocent people in the same group as terrorists, it's just wrong. I think this kind of attitude to blame Islam (not accusing you directly of this) is very dangerous - the more you alienate people the more they'll rebel - perhaps exactly what Isis would want! 

 

[ender4]

10 hours ago, villanwesty88 said:

 

Also I feel Media Coverage is poor - we get loads of what is going on in Nice but hear little about what happens in say Baghdad. 

There is only so much news that we can all take in.

We take a closer interest in stuff and have a more emotional connection to stuff closer to us.  If it happens in Birmingham, i'm at the epicentre.

Then the interest goes slightly down for other UK cities, then a neighbouring country, then Europe....

Further afield, the emotional connection is lost.   Drug wars in Mexico, bombings in Baghdad, civil war in an African country, human right violations in China/Russia, police killing black people in America, etc...   it all loses potency after seeing it every day/week/month.

[useless]

The more you know about the lives of the everyday people involved in a news story the bigger the emotional impact it will have on you.

[Wainy316]

Last two posts are spot on.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Wainy316