The ISIS threat to Europe

[Keyblade]

Yeah I found the shouting of Daesh really weird because if I'm not mistaken that's an English acronym?

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

As the Beeb's man Frank Gardner said, it seems a little strange that the two bods were reported to have shouted "Daesh" considering how the Islamic Staters aren't supposed to be all that keen on the moniker.

Indeed and it may well prove to be incorrect but its currently what is being reported.

I guess though not everyone who is inspired by them is smart enough to know that as well.

[TrentVilla]

3 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Yeah I found the shouting of Daesh really weird because if I'm not mistaken that's an English acronym?

Half right. Its an Arabic acronym and is an insult.

Full explanation is here - 

Daesh is an acronym for the Arabic phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

Essentially, it's another word for ISIS - but apparently one that ISIS militants do not favour.

Why? Because it is similar to the Arabic words 'Daes', 'one who crushes something underfoot' and 'Dahes', translated as 'one who sows discord'.

[BOF]

Isn't that what Iran et al call them?  I thought it was basically a derogatory term for them which is reason enough to use it.  It's what I refer to them as because it also removes the Islamic element from their moniker,  which is something they clearly are not.

EDIT : Wot Trent sed.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I've lost track of the number of incidents in France in the last 12-18 months.

Hollande has had a VERY tough term hasn't he, all these attacks, floods, rioting, strikes, the Euro's. All in the space of a couple of years.

[Keyblade]

Ah right. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that one of their supporters is dumb enough to think it's like a more intimidating way to say ISIS

[Chindie]

Isis are reclaiming Daesh and inverting it into an honorific, clearly.

[Keyblade]

Has the Daesh shout been confirmed? Because CNN seems to be running with it right now, having a huge discussion on ISIS  

[maqroll]

1 hour ago, Keyblade said:

Because CNN

Enough said

[Awol]

I would suggest what these two blokes did rather than what they may or may not have shouted gives a fairly good indication of their thought process.

Rushing a Priest during mass and slitting his throat is a fairly uncompromising statement. The fact he was 86 yrs old will only add to the anger/horror of the French public. 

Good on the French plod for not messing around and shooting them both straight off the bat. 

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

I would suggest what these two blokes did rather than what they may or may not have shouted gives a fairly good indication of their thought process.

One would hope that responses from western governments, agencies et al. would be formulated after looking at everything that has happened and all that can be found out rather than merely 'a fairly good indication of the thought process' of a couple of murderers.

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

One would hope that responses from western governments, agencies et al. would be formulated after looking at everything that has happened and all that can be found out rather than merely 'a fairly good indication of the thought process' of a couple of murderers.

I didn't mention or allude to government responses (other than a well done to French cops), more the "is it ISIS or isn't it ISIS" question. 

The point is yet another terror attack has occurred on the continent where the actions (murdering innocent people) speak louder than the words. ISIS inspired, AQ inspired, it really doesn't matter. The source code for this avalanche of murder is radical Islam. 

[BigJim]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

One would hope that responses from western governments, agencies et al. would be formulated after looking at everything that has happened and all that can be found out rather than merely 'a fairly good indication of the thought process' of a couple of murderers.

Quite so, but at the same time it is important to move swiftly to condemn atrocities wherever and by whoever they are committed. We don't need to know the who or why to proclaim the foulness of the deed, without pointing fingers, and it needs to be proclaimed by all quarters of society to ensure that everybody knows the perpetrators have no sympathisers.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

The point is yet another terror attack has occurred on the continent where the actions (murdering innocent people) speak louder than the words. ISIS inspired, AQ inspired, it really doesn't matter. The source code for this avalanche of murder is radical Islam. 

Of course it matters, otherwise we're lumping everything together in one unholy morass.

It matters whether or not something is directly organized by IS or by another group, whether something is indirectly organized by IS or by another group, whether people are 'self-radicalized' (i.e. the point you made in an earlier post) or even whether one or more people decide to do something and claim that their actions are part of some much grander world plan when they're not.

It matters not only for how these things may be addressed and dealt with by authorities, agencies et al. but also for how the public deal with them.

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Quite so, but at the same time it is important to move swiftly to condemn atrocities wherever and by whoever they are committed. We don't need to know the who or why to proclaim the foulness of the deed, without pointing fingers, and it needs to be proclaimed by all quarters of society to ensure that everybody knows the perpetrators have no sympathisers.

I don't really know what that has to do with my post.

I draw a worrying inference from your post about a lack of swift public condemnation implying some sort of sympathy with the perpetrators. I think this thread has been down that road all too often.

[BigJim]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't really know what that has to do with my post.

I draw a worrying inference from your post about a lack of swift public condemnation implying some sort of sympathy with the perpetrators. I think this thread has been down that road all too often.

Your post implied that people should wait until all the facts are discovered before reacting to such things. I maintain that it is important to condemn quickly, but without making wild accusations. And the condemnation needs to come from every quarter. Don't worry - it's a simple concept: Evil will triumph if good men remain silent, etc.

 

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Your post implied that people should wait until all the facts are discovered before reacting to such things. I maintain that it is important to condemn quickly, but without making wild accusations. And the condemnation needs to come from every quarter. Don't worry - it's a simple concept: Evil will triumph if good men remain silent, etc.

 

How many times a day do I need to say that then? And who do I need to say it to? Is it alright if I just say it to my wife, or do I need to sign up for a Twitter account to write it on there? 

It's self-evidently obvious that people waiting for a fraction of a second to find out just a little bit about the incident before giving an opinion is not remotely the same as approving of the action. 

[BigJim]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

How many times a day do I need to say that then? And who do I need to say it to? Is it alright if I just say it to my wife, or do I need to sign up for a Twitter account to write it on there? 

It's self-evidently obvious that people waiting for a fraction of a second to find out just a little bit about the incident before giving an opinion is not remotely the same as approving of the action. 

It's self-evidently obvious that no-one suggested it was. I was responding to a comment that we should examine "everything that has happened and all that can be found out " before reacting. Sorry if it has hit a nerve with you..

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by BigJim

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, BigJim said:

It's self-evidently obvious that no-one suggested it was. I was responding to a comment that we should examine "everything that has happened and all that can be found out " before don't reacting. Sorry if it has hit a nerve with you..

 

And I, in turn, was responding to a thread started by your initial post in which you said 'it is important to move swiftly to condemn atrocities wherever and by whoever they are committed . . .  to ensure that everybody knows the perpetrators have no sympathisers' which certainly seemed to imply that anyone not rushing to condemnation was a sympathiser. 

 

[snowychap]

35 minutes ago, BigJim said:

I was responding to a comment that we should examine "everything that has happened and all that can be found out " before reacting.

My post said:

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

One would hope that responses from western governments, agencies et al. would be formulated after looking at everything that has happened and all that can be found out rather than merely 'a fairly good indication of the thought process' of a couple of murderers.

By formulating responses, I did not mean the immediate pronouncement of grief and solidarity with a person/community/country/continent or any other soundbite that follows in the immediate aftermath of any of these events. I was talking about addressing what has happened and responding by deciding what, if anything, there was possible to do about similar events in the future.

 

1 hour ago, BigJim said:

Your post implied that people should wait until all the facts are discovered before reacting to such things.

If that was the inference you drew then, as per my explanation above, it was incorrect.