The ISIS threat to Europe

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

You and I pay those who drop bombs from 10k feet and above on the heads of whomever. Cowards? I don't think that's the correct way to characterize them. Whether we would like to or not is only somewhat relevant; they believe they are fighting a war, and there are no rules.

It is a good point you raise,  but a war with no rules never ends and their aims for victory can never be realised.  The courageous thing to do would be to turn ones back on killing innocent people and try to,  for the sake of all try to enter into dialogue or at least a cease fire.  What's the long term plan,  nick big lorries now and then and drive them like rocket polishers, they might as well became travellers if that is their war game model,  get some caravans on the go instead.

I am not disagreeing with you though,  maybe I picked the wrong word.  

 

[Tayls]

 

Quote

The only suspect held after Monday's deadly lorry attack on a Berlin Christmas market has been released, prosecutors say

Released...

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, darrenm said:

Got the wrong man apparently. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/berlin-attacker-germany-wrong-man-suspect-still-at-large-naved-b-police-latest-news-updates-a7486561.html

"We have the wrong man," the newspaper quoted a Berlin Police official saying. "And therefore a new situation — that the real attacker is still at large and can carry out new harm"

He has now been released, apparently.

[villakram]

27 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

It is a good point you raise,  but a war with no rules never ends and their aims for victory can never be realised.  The courageous thing to do would be to turn ones back on killing innocent people and try to,  for the sake of all try to enter into dialogue or at least a cease fire.  What's the long term plan,  nick big lorries now and then and drive them like rocket polishers, they might as well became travellers if that is their war game model,  get some caravans on the go instead.

I am not disagreeing with you though,  maybe I picked the wrong word.  

 

I think it's too easy to disparage what they do. They believe they are being wronged and are using the limited means at their deposal. Most of these poor chaps are canon fodder too. They are kids who popped out of the wrong vagina in the wrong part of the world at the wrong time. Would we really act differently in such a situation or is it telling us something fundamental about the human "spirit"? I don't know.

That dialogue you suggest is 100% the solution; however, we must also turn our backs to violence and I do wonder somewhat despairingly if that is ever going to happen. 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by villakram

[Davkaus]

How do you open dialogue with people whose goal is nothing short of the complete overhaul of western civilization, and for us all to live under the rule of the caliphate? Maybe we could send some Jehovah's witnesses over.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Davkaus

[Tayls]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

How do you open dialogue with people whose goal is nothing short of the complete overhaul of western civilization, and for us all to live under the rule of the caliphate? Maybe we could send some Jehovah's witnesses over.

Milk and cookies is always a great starting point for any meeting. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Just now, Tayls said:

Milk and cookies is always a great starting point for any meeting. 

I was thinking that the medium of song in combination with the above ?

[Xela]

2 minutes ago, Tayls said:

Milk and cookies is always a great starting point for any meeting. 

I always find a bacon sarnie is a good way to start the meeting. Oh...

[Chindie]

IS has claimed it. 

Took 24hrs. I somewhat suspect this'll be another example of the Islamist franchise rather than an actual planned attack by the group.

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

How do you open dialogue with people whose goal is nothing short of the complete overhaul of western civilization, and for us all to live under the rule of the caliphate? Maybe we could send some Jehovah's witnesses over.

Well, you can't just invite them for a chat, as some of the ironic comments above have rightly emphasised.

You have to start by reducing their immediate power (see comments above about where Isis get their money to buy weapons and the people to use them).

You also have to undermine their base of popular support, by offering people a safe, clean place where they can earn a living and get on with their life.  Nothing is more successful than that in undercutting support for terrorist movements.

Unfortunately, the strategy of "the west", which I guess means the US and those who ars prepared to support them uncritically and unthinkingly, is the exact opposite; building support for terrorists, by oppression and destruction.

When you get to the point where they will have a conversation, you then have to give them concessions which seem to go further than your (by then) position of strength would suggest.

In such ways, we build peace.  It's not quick.  And it's not what we're doing now.  By doing the wrong thing, we extend the period of danger to ourselves, and certainly create the scope for more terrorist attacks, which could kill your child or mine.

[Awol]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

IS has claimed it. 

Took 24hrs. I somewhat suspect this'll be another example of the Islamist franchise rather than an actual planned attack by the group.

 

The model they are explicitly pursuing is of Jihadi entrepreneursim. 'Don't come to us, attack in place, use vehicles, or a knife, or whatever you can get hold of, kill as many as you can.' 

Both AQ and IS media outlets have been putting this message out for a while online, in videos and via their published literature.

The new organising principal of expeditionary terrorism is decentralisation. The core groups don't need the hassle and risk of compromise to bring people to Jihadi controlled territory, indoctrinate and train them, then sneak them back to plan and launch spectacular attacks. There is still a level of that happening (Paris, Brussels) but it's not the main effort anymore.

If the perpetrator says "I'm acting in the name of IS/AQ/Judean People's Front" then that's who they are and what they are doing. 

[tonyh29]

6 would be terrorists were arrested last week in the U.K. , allegedly planning a similar style attack , guess it raises questions on if the German plot was linked and if the German plotter was on a watch list etc 

[TrentVilla]

15 hours ago, Keyblade said:

A mosque in Zurich was shot up today by a gunman, and I've had most of the major 24 hour news networks on loop on the tv today all day and I haven't seen a single report on it. 

I know the point you are making and it's a valid one I'm just not sure it's a good example.

There were no fatalities, the motive isn't known and the attack hasn't been linked to any kind of extremism.

The only thing it's been linked to is another murder.

So really it's a domestic story and you wouldn't expect it to get picked up by international media especially on the same day as an assaination in Turkey and the incident in Berlin.

It was though reported by some British media such as The Guardian.

[tonyh29]

19 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I know the point you are making and it's a valid one I'm just not sure it's a good example.

There were no fatalities, the motive isn't known and the attack hasn't been linked to any kind of extremism.

The only thing it's been linked to is another murder.

So really it's a domestic story and you wouldn't expect it to get picked up by international media especially on the same day as an assaination in Turkey and the incident in Berlin.

It was though reported by some British media such as The Guardian.

Was a Ghanaian man wasn't it who also appears to have killed a South American 

i guess one can't rule it out being a terrorist attack but as you say it seems unlikely 

[blandy]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

Well, you can't just invite them for a chat, as some of the ironic comments above have rightly emphasised.

You have to start by reducing their immediate power (see comments above about where Isis get their money to buy weapons and the people to use them).

You also have to undermine their base of popular support, by offering people a safe, clean place where they can earn a living and get on with their life.  Nothing is more successful than that in undercutting support for terrorist movements.

Unfortunately, the strategy of "the west", which I guess means the US and those who ars prepared to support them uncritically and unthinkingly, is the exact opposite; building support for terrorists, by oppression and destruction.

When you get to the point where they will have a conversation, you then have to give them concessions which seem to go further than your (by then) position of strength would suggest.

In such ways, we build peace.  It's not quick.  And it's not what we're doing now.  By doing the wrong thing, we extend the period of danger to ourselves, and certainly create the scope for more terrorist attacks, which could kill your child or mine.

I think you're half right. The first part is spot on, cut off resources, provide safe space for families to live. I think you're wrong on the second part, though. The US and allies are not building support for the terrorists  by oppression and destruction, that's to my eyes a misreading. The attacks in France and Germany and the US over the past year or so, these weren't conducted by people oppressed by the US. The various fundamentalists Islam barmpots are not being oppressed by the US. People chopping off the heads of westerners, of yatzidis, of Sunni and Shia are not doing so because of American oppression. 

Thats not to say that the west hasn't got things horribly wrong in the Middle East over the past 25 years, or longer, and hasn't contributed to the circumstances that have led to the whole IS mayhem. Dismantling of the Iraqi structure and failing to prepare for "what next" after acting in Iraq and Libya was criminal, but here we are.

stop the money, stop the smuggling, stop the weapons, stop the porous borders around IS, set up safe areas for people fleeing the fighting, set up medical facilities and schools and shelter, stop with the geopolitics and gradually shrink the area where the fighting is taking place, expanding the safe areas all the time.

but the people dying in Berlin, Aleppo, palmyras are not dying because the US and allies are causing them to die by oppression and obstruction, they're sadly dying because of dictatorship, civil war, religious zealotry, hate, barrel bombing by Russians and many other reasons, including hate preaching, radicalisation, intolerance, and thick people seeking power or notoriety.

[Chindie]

The franchise thing isn't new, bin Laden had that in operation years ago it just had less pick up than IS has managed. He had people flocking to the al Qaeda 'brand'.

I also would argue that there needs to be evidenced 'buy in' for the cause rather than just a label. We went through this before though.

[tonyh29]

Documents found in the cab , wasn't that the same with Nice ?

is part of the IS mo to make the job easy  for authorities ?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think you're half right. The first part is spot on, cut off resources, provide safe space for families to live. I think you're wrong on the second part, though. The US and allies are not building support for the terrorists  by oppression and destruction, that's to my eyes a misreading. The attacks in France and Germany and the US over the past year or so, these weren't conducted by people oppressed by the US. The various fundamentalists Islam barmpots are not being oppressed by the US. People chopping off the heads of westerners, of yatzidis, of Sunni and Shia are not doing so because of American oppression. 

The destruction of entire states and social systems in the Middle East is the direct and unarguable consequence of US (and Saudi, Israeli etc) foreign policy.

That has created enormous resentment and hostility among both the people personally and directly affected, and others too.  Similarly (for example), many Irish people have been brought up to resent the conduct of the British state because of the conduct of the Black and Tans.  People don't have to be the personal victim of a direct act of oppression for that to be the case.

The actions of the US and others, including us, have created both the material conditions (collapse of the social order, proliferation of weapons, absence of rule of law) and more than enough motivation to strike back.  Where those material conditions apply, we see the rise of militias, sometimes ant-west, sometimes pursuing more local grievances, sometimes supported and funded by western states in order to harm Assad and others.  Where only the motivation exists, we see random acts of terror.

The reason that Isis dress people in orange jumpsuits before beheading them is not because they have a poor sense of fashion, or they have a job lot they bought at discount.  It is an obvious reference to Abu Ghraib and other acts of torture, to signal that it is an act of revenge which will stir the sympathy of many people who themselves have not been individually oppressed, but who quite naturally bitterly resent the actions of the self-declared world policeman.

Western interference in the ME has created deep opposition, and among the many millions who see that this warmongering interference is utterly morally wrong, a tiny number will choose to take direct action by murdering at random.  When these acts of terrorism happen, the general reaction seems to be astonishment, and a refusal to accept that there could be any connection between what we have been doing, and how people react to our serial invasions.  To deny the connection frankly seems perverse.  And yet we are told that these acts of terror happen not because of our actions, but because "they hate our freedom".

[peterms]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I know the point you are making and it's a valid one I'm just not sure it's a good example.

There were no fatalities, the motive isn't known and the attack hasn't been linked to any kind of extremism.

The only thing it's been linked to is another murder.

So really it's a domestic story and you wouldn't expect it to get picked up by international media especially on the same day as an assaination in Turkey and the incident in Berlin.

It was though reported by some British media such as The Guardian.

I would certainly expect it to be reported.  It has more than local and individual significance.

Very obviously, an attack on people praying in a mosque is an attack on people who will certainly be Muslims.  It's not as though the attacker would have been wandering down the road, intent on attacking someone but indifferent as between choosing a supermarket, a post office, or a mosque, any more than when a shaven-headed **** with the IQ of a shoe throws a pig's head at a mosque in Luton or Gateshead, they were undecided between that or the local chippy as the target.

Often in these cases, we hear the line about it being a random act by someone with mental health problems, as though mental health and political extremism are two quite separate things.  Quite possibly the perpetrators do have mental health issues.  But what is beyond doubt is that an attack on a mosque is a political act, no matter what other factors may also be present.

What I would expect to see reported and discussed, is how a climate of opinion exists, how it is fed by the narrative of scum like Farage and his counterparts in other places, which can lead people to justify these acts to themselves.

[Keyblade]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I know the point you are making and it's a valid one I'm just not sure it's a good example.

There were no fatalities, the motive isn't known and the attack hasn't been linked to any kind of extremism.

The only thing it's been linked to is another murder.

So really it's a domestic story and you wouldn't expect it to get picked up by international media especially on the same day as an assaination in Turkey and the incident in Berlin.

It was though reported by some British media such as The Guardian.

You're right. But lack of casualties or information has never stopped the media from wildly speculating before has it. This just really isn't 'news'. That church in France with 1 casualty warranted full day coverage though.