The ISIS threat to Europe

[TrentVilla]

Spot on AWOL

This mornings news...

Air France plane makes emergency landing in Kenya after suspect package found in a toilet.

[maqroll]

Yay AWOL!

[chrisp65]

To get the number of 700 to 800 in to perspective. That's pretty much the same number as is estimated the pro fascist Irish Volunteers lead by Eoin O'Duffy brought to the 'liberation' of Franco's home grown fascists that had been pinned down and isolated in Alcazar in 1936.

So whilst I don't personally think the 700 number is credible, it must surely be far higher, I also don't think it is the start of UK social melt down and civil war.

The British Isles also sent an estimated 4,000 anti fascist volunteers to fight in Spain. All at a time when communication and travel was far more difficult and the language barrier probably more of a problem.

Perhaps if we spent some time and money working out who was where, rather than on another thousand sorties, we'd have more of a handle on this. 

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with idiots that support ISIS leaving here and going to Syria to fight in the shit and the dust. I do have a problem with them coming back here afterwards.

[TrentVilla]

I agree with almost all of the above except I'd say that our security forces probably have an extremely good knowledge of who has gone to join ISIS even if they don't know where they are.

[TrentVilla]

That Air France flight I mentioned earlier destined for Paris, they've confirmed they've found a bomb and two passengers are in custody being questioned.

Almost 500 on board not to mention potential ground casualties. Lucky escape it would seem.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

That Air France flight I mentioned earlier destined for Paris, they've confirmed they've found a bomb and two passengers are in custody being questioned.

Almost 500 on board not to mention potential ground casualties. Lucky escape it would seem.

According to the Air France chief exec., it wasn't a bomb:

Quote

Beeb link

An emergency landing of an Air France flight from Mauritius to Paris in Kenya was caused by a false bomb alert, the airline's chief says.

Frederic Gagey told a news conference that the suspected package turned out to have been made of paper and a timer.

The pilots of the Boeing 777 requested to land at Moi International Airport in Mombasa after the item was found in a toilet.

Both the aircraft and airport were safely evacuated.

Mr Gagey told journalists that the device appeared to be made of a carton, sheets of paper and some sort of kitchen timer, and placed behind a mirror in a toilet.

He said the device had had no explosives, it would not have been detected during pre-flight security checks in Mauritius, and passengers and crew had not been at risk.

...

 

[chrisp65]

 

The Independent

Quote

Thirty per cent of Republicans in a poll said that the national security threat posed by Agrabah......demands a US military intervention.

......

The statistic was found during a survey of 532 Republican primary voters by Public Policy Polling between 16-17 December.

 

For clarity, the city of Agrabah is the fictional city in the Disney cartoon feature film, Aladdin.

Support for bombing Agrabah was highest amongst Trump supporters.

I know it's easy to trick people into silly responses, I've seen people sign a petition to ban water, but it really does make it clear that there are a lot of people out there happy to have an easy opinion on whether to kill people, without a single piece of fact or evidence to base that decision on.

I suppose we can take some comfort that only 30% wanted to bomb it. My guess would probably have been higher.

[blandy]

I saw that Aladdin thing and thought it was pretty lame. It's basically just showing that there are a lot of uninformed or uneducated dimwits in the world. It doesn't tell anyone anything about Syria or whatever.

[chrisp65]

I think it tells us that politicians are driven by the need to be seen to 'do something'. Politicians act out of self preservation which is dictated by 'the public'.

Many of the public driving these actions know less than **** all.

Which means people get bombed for poll rating approval where polls are influenced by uninformed or uneducated dimwits that don't mind killing people as long as we are doing 'something'.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Politicians act out of self preservation which is dictated by 'the public'.

Sometimes they do and sometimes it is. Sometimes they do and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes they don't.

By this I mean, yes, sure, the media says "look at the horrors in Libya, can't we do something? and then Cameron or whoever says "let's do bombs" - so there's an element of self preservation. But for local MPs, they want to keep their jobs and seats. They also get whips threatening them, so that's then being driven not by the public, but by the whips.

Other times their constituents will want one thing "save our steelworks" and the whips or party will not give a damn. so they are driven by their constituents to bang their head against the wall. And sometimes and in a few cases MPs do what they think is right, regardless.

MPs are employed by their constituents to use their judgement on matters, not to just do whatever the (most) constituents want. What I find to be so troubling is that so many of the MPs are woefully informed. Perhaps they don't have time to understand things better, but I suspect that many just want an easy life. Why find out about something if party policy is to take a particular stance. They just learn the party lines and don't actually think about it. When asked what they think they make sounds out of their mouths, with their brains not even involved. The espouse certainty, without having gone through the process of thinking about it.

There are a few honourable exceptions, but too few. Id on't think they're all daft, I think the system makes them behave like that. Independents and small party MPs tend to be much more balanced because they don't have the same whipping and promotion aims.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Sometimes they do and sometimes it is. Sometimes they do and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes they don't.

By this I mean, yes, sure, the media says "look at the horrors in Libya, can't we do something? and then Cameron or whoever says "let's do bombs" - so there's an element of self preservation. But for local MPs, they want to keep their jobs and seats. They also get whips threatening them, so that's then being driven not by the public, but by the whips.

But why does the media say this? To sell papers etc., and/or because their owners/patrons have a very specific neo-liberal agenda?  It's not just Cameron reacting to the pressure, he is part of the same system... a one way street this is not, e.g., we know in quite some detail how pally Tony and Rupert were!

Edited December 21, 2015 by villakram

[blandy]

Sorry you're right. I typed that wrong - I meant to write the media shows the horrors and then people go "can't we do something?". You're also right that the papers want to sell something, but in the UK the BBC, which is where plenty of people get their news from, is not "neo-liberal", though our Gov't is trying to cajole and bully it to their agenda. Tony and Rupert, Cameron and Rupert - no difference.

[TrentVilla]

An interesting read, one I'm curious to hear a few peoples views on. (AWOL,Blandy,Snowy,Villakram etc)

Quote

As the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino show, Islamic State has achieved a global reach. No longer satisfied with terrorising large swaths of the Middle East, it is inspiring, recruiting, training and supplying terrorists to carry out murderous acts around the world. Analysis Saudi Arabia's anti-terrorism alliance: a political message sketchy on details US, Britain and others welcome announcement of 34-member coalition to fight terrorism, but some observers question Saudi motives Read more Given this new international agenda, analysts are struggling to assess the source of the group in an attempt to improve their understanding of how to stop it. In terms of its source, most point to Saudi Arabia; in terms of stopping it, most point to the United States. However, a closer look at Isis reveals that it is engaged in an entrenched theological war with the Saudi religious establishment to determine who justifiably espouses the purest tenets of Sunni Islam. As the custodian of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina and the host of the world’s Muslims for the pilgrimage, Saudi Arabia leads one and a half billion Muslims in fighting Isis. The kingdom’s leadership of the recently announced Muslim coalition to fight terrorism in all its forms confirms that Saudi Arabia is not only not the source of Isis but it is the terrorist group’s central opponent and the only nation that can fully and legitimately defeat it once and for all. More than 34 countries have joined the coalition. Three factors clarify Saudi Arabia’s intrinsic and total war on Isis. First, many people claim that Saudi Arabia is the source of Isis because both practise a version of Islam called Salafism (erroneously known in the west as Wahhabism). Salafism is rooted in the word salaf, or “forefathers”, and refers to the way the prophet Muhammad’s followers in the religion’s first three generations practised Islam. And while it is true that the kingdom espouses Salafism, Isis’s claim that it is Salafi has no theological basis, because the group is in fact a continuation of a crude sect known as the Kharijites, or the ones who “defected” from the Muslim community (ummah) during the reign of the fourth caliph Ali (whom the Kharijites assassinated). The Kharijites, like Isis, believe that whoever disagreed with them should be murdered as infidels (takfir), rationalised mass killings against civilians including women and children (isti’rad), and practised an extreme form of inquisition to test their opponents’ faith (imtihan). Isis’s adherence to the Kharijite ideology is not the only reason it is not a true Salafi movement; it has also committed an act of disobedience that effectively nullifies its Salafi pretenses. In original Islamic scriptures and practice, the highest authority is the “guardian” of the ummah, (wali al amr). All religious, political and military powers are concentrated under this authority, which Saudi Arabia’s system best exemplifies in the modern world. In other words, King Salman’s legitimacy to rule is contingent on him being first and foremost the wali al amr of the people, and in return the people show their acceptance of his rule by proclaiming him as their ruler. This proclamation (bay’ah) is a contract between the ruler and the ruled in which the first swears to promote Islam and the welfare of the second, and the second swears to obey (ta’ah) the tenets of Islam and follow the first’s leadership. Should the first deviate from Islam, the second is obliged to replace him. The joint bay’ah of the ummah to the ruler is fundamental to Salafism and anyone that breaks the bay’ah – as Isis has done – can never again be considered a true Salafi. Advertisement Given the importance of the wali al amr to Sunni Islam, Isis and Saudi Arabia are locked in a theological struggle from which only one can emerge victorious. The second reason Saudi Arabia and Isis are in complete opposition is that the core mission of Isis is to restore the caliphate, an Islamic empire led by a supreme leader. Given that the kingdom is the epicentre of Islam, Isis’s road to the caliphate lies through the kingdom and the Saudi people. Isis has conducted a series of terrorist attacks in the kingdom in the past year. In response Saudi Arabia has put the group on its list of terrorist sponsors, declared that belonging to or funding Isis is a crime punishable by death and arrested countless Isis supporters, operatives and financiers. The final reason why Saudi Arabia is Isis’s strategic enemy is financial. As an organisation with expanding ambitions, Isis requires ever-expanding resources. Therefore, just like al-Qaida, Isis covets the kingdom’s enormous oil fields and monetary wealth. When Isis first appeared in Syria in 2011, Saudi Arabia tried to galvanise support for the moderate Syrian opposition. But the world failed to listen. Now Isis is a threat not only to the Middle East but also to the entire world. Only a coalition led by Saudi Arabia can genuinely defeat Isis while also delegitimising the group in the eyes of the wider Muslim world. If the nations of the world hope to completely defeat Isis, they should stop falsely accusing the Saudis of creating the group and instead join them in defeating it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/22/saudi-arabia-isis-us-terrorists-coalition

[snowychap]

As I don't have any deep knowledge about the intricacies of Islamic theological history I can't comment on the accuracy of his points so I'll let others question them but I'll quote this in response to the author's point Salafism (erroneously known in the west as Wahhabism):

Quote

Since the eighteenth century, the rulers of the Arabian Peninsula have shared power with their religious contemporaries, and this remains the case in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today. While the monarch is technically the country's supreme religious leader and custodian of Islam's two holiest mosques at Mecca and Medina, in truth, he shares authority with a powerful group of spiritual leaders, the ulema. For nearly 300 years, the Al Saud has controlled the state while the Al ash-Sheikh,³ the descendants of Sheikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), has controlled the religious institutions. This cooperative and consensual relationship has provided the kingdom with one of the most stable societies in the region and has allowed it to avoid the war and revolution that has wracked nearly every one of its neighbors.

In reaction to what he considered Islam's degeneration, Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wahhab founded what is generally known as Wahhabism, a movement based on a particularly strict interpretation of Islamic law.

That's from here - an article in 1999 entitled The Power of Saudi Arabia's Islamic Leaders and written by Nawaf E. Obaid.

 

I'd also put a couple of things out there: I would worry about siding with any group in a theological struggle from which only one can emerge victorious, and it would appear that he is making the claim that, as Saudi Arabia and IS are now publicly at odds and in battle, this somehow proves that Saudi Arabia couldn't have been (at least even partly) the source of what may have been the ideological, theocratic and financial* basis for IS - or have I read that wrong?

*Edit: On the subject of funding, I was reading an article the other day which was a result of some chap's analysis of accounts produced for the various regions under IS control and which suggests that there may well be very little foreign funding of the organization (at least nowadays). That's if one accepts the accuracy of the figures though I doubt they had any of the big 4 in to do them so we're probably safe in assuming that they're not made up.

Edited December 22, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

Completely agree with Snowy's comment on any theological or ideological war. Anybody willing to commit murder to prove their version of a god or idea is better than another person's version of a god or idea really isn't somebody to be siding with.

I think it was around the time the whole Iran / Israel / Contras / Ollie North / Reagan thing came to light (all those years ago!) that I realised they are all a bunch of scheisters, murderers and liars and that power always corrupts.

Bad people kill people. Do we have a policy that will obviously help the innocent? If not, stay out of it until we do. Don't dabble. Don't play games. Don't look to manipulate a profit out of loss. The rest is pointless detail.

USA / Iran / Israel / Nicaraguan Contras

Quote

On August 20, 1985, Israel sent 100 American-made BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles to Iran ......... Subsequently.......408 more missiles were delivered. On September 15, 1985, following the second delivery, Reverend Benjamin Weir was released by his captors, the Islamic Jihad Organization.

The above is both non-relevant, and totally relevant. Thirty years ago the USA was supplying missiles to Jihadi groups, via Israel, whilst creaming off some of the money to fund terror gangs to destabilise central America as a consequence of which, drug smuggling boomed.

They're all filthy.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

An interesting read, one I'm curious to hear a few peoples views on. (AWOL,Blandy,Snowy,Villakram etc)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/22/saudi-arabia-isis-us-terrorists-coalition

It reads like a Ministry of propaganda piece. Like a PR exercise to defend SA from criticisms.

I don't have the theological knowledge or understanding to comment on the writers comments about different forms of Islam. And I don't think the Saudis are the cause of all the ISIL troubles, as the Syrian civil war, which has been going on for ages, precedes the existence of ISIL, as does the calamity in Iraq  - the leadership of ISIL is in part at least made up of former Saddam henchmen. 

We do know that the Saudi system is violent, undemocratic, extreme, misogynist and inhumane by our standards (or most anyone's) Bit that doctrine has existed for long before ISIS. So I can see why the Saudis would want to respond to the growing message that's been spread that it's somehow their doing. It isn't. And if they join in the efforts to bring an end to it, that is good. Them renouncing ISIL as basically Kharijites and so not the same islamic group as them is not really sufficient. It looks like weasel words. Most muslims says ISIL is not following Islam, not that "it's just a different form of Islam".

I don't find it convinces me of anything, and I don't really trust it as an accurate summary of the mentality of the Saudi authorities and hierarchy (though I'm sure many or most of them, as decent people hate ISIL as much as the rest of the world). But their version of their religion is one that's barbaric also.

[villakram]

That piece is very complimentary to those nice Saudis. There is some additional sneakiness in that article, e.g., I'm sure there are many on here that have large problems with the imperial ambitions of USA/Britain/France, but that does not mean we have anything against the civilian population in those countries (or most of them anyway). Similarly here, where the claim is that the Saudi's are opposed to ISIS... well the Saudi dictatorship is officially opposed to ISIS, the theocracy and/or civilian population, who knows? My enemies enemy etc. But what are the Saudi's doing in the shadows? Someone is funneling money to the bad men.

Iraq is now closely allied with Iran and the Saudis are opposed to Iran (in public) primarily due to religious reasons, but in reality it's all about the oil/gas dollars. ISIS appears and makes a mess of Iraq and Syria, close allies of Iran... and look at that they are religiously similar to Saudi nonsense just like our Talibannnnneeee friends. Another coincidence, there are 2 large pipeline projects proposed to feed the EU with gas/oil (i) Iran through Syria (ii) Qatar/Saudi through Syria. One of these groups would also be willing to cooperate in a strategic sense with Russia, and maybe with the EU but the negotiations would be fun and the other group would be more closely aligned against Russia and with the US/EU (though EU is a pretty loose coalition). And no mention of those sneaky Turks.

Saying all this, many people predicted this kind of mess would happen in Iraq post invasion due to the ethnic make up of the country and Sykes-Picot... weak appeasers the lot of them, and even the US/DoD had produced, now leaked, studies showing that they understood the development of a sectarian insurgency where ISIS now exists was likely and in a strategic sense not all that problematic.

Regarding the magic Saudi coalition. One might wonder why the Indonesia is not involved being the most populous Sunni muslim nation on the planet or for that matter the USA. This comes across a a giant PR exercise.

[villakram]

On 12/21/2015 at 14:01, blandy said:

Sorry you're right. I typed that wrong - I meant to write the media shows the horrors and then people go "can't we do something?". You're also right that the papers want to sell something, but in the UK the BBC, which is where plenty of people get their news from, is not "neo-liberal", though our Gov't is trying to cajole and bully it to their agenda. Tony and Rupert, Cameron and Rupert - no difference.

ya, wasn't particularly directed to you... and the beeb seem to blow which ever way the funding goes. When I say neo-liberal, that's just because the past 2 governments have been that way. I guess it's more that the beeb are a patriotic bunch, e.g., their softly softly as regards "lord" Coe and his IAAF shenanigans... you lot should have a color-revolution, hehehe!

[villakram]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Completely agree with Snowy's comment on any theological or ideological war. Anybody willing to commit murder to prove their version of a god or idea is better than another person's version of a god or idea really isn't somebody to be siding with.....

Oh, and don't forget that Reagan (or his team anyway) negotiated with Iran to hold off on releasing the hostages under Carter's watch, because super Ron to the rescue.

[villakram]

Well worth a read, the latest from Seymour Hersh. Power factions in the US government... Pentagon vs CIA. 

"In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military