The ISIS threat to Europe

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, BigJim said:

And the condemnation needs to come from every quarter.

I've not heard your condemnation of this event; I have, however, taken it as read.

[chrisp65]

1 hour 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.

 

But the trouble with demanding visible public condemnation of everything is that it could end up filling your life. Endlessly having to state the obvious that you are against stuff.

It's then this double edge, this suggestion, deliberate, implicit, or misread, that to not condemn is to condone. That's a really bad path.

I haven't seen many people condemn the attack in Japan today. Am I to take from that it has been condoned by all that didn't condemn it?

Of course not.

 

[brommy]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But the trouble with demanding visible public condemnation of everything is that it could end up filling your life. 

Is this was is known as a 'Scouser'?

[will87]

Just seems like there's no end to the number of dehumanised monsters who think nothing of butchering innocent people, it's so depressing.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

4 minutes ago, will87 said:

Just seems like there's no end to the number of dehumanised monsters who think nothing of butchering innocent people, it's so depressing.

Its all very sad,  these people must have seen (With all the media coverage) the pain and heartache these event have caused, yet they still went ahead.  Horrible people.  Its all so one sided,  nothing ever good about the religion or the people in the media.  

[Genie]

2 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Its all very sad,  these people must have seen (With all the media coverage) the pain and heartache these event have caused, yet they still went ahead.

This could easily be written about Western troops based in the Middle East blowing up anything that moves, or doesn't move.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

This could easily be written about Western troops based in the Middle East blowing up anything that moves, or doesn't move.

Not really. Explain. 

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Not really. Explain. 

I find it difficult to believe that for all the bombs dropped, bullets fired and missiles launched every day there are not innocent people killed as a result.

Like the claimed 73 civilians killed last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/us-airstrike-allegedly-kills-56-civilians-in-northern-syria

Of course, 99% of it won't get reported but who would report it?

We mourn the loss of those innocent men and women and children killed in Europe, and retaliate by dropping bombs 'over there' and the cycle carries on, and on. 

You can't believe the Western troops are 100% effective in their strikes?

[ml1dch]

9 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

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

Full explanation is here - 

 

 

It's not really an insult and the reason why it's not a popular name has been pretty badly misreported - there's an excellent (and very long) piece here by an English / Arabic translator which explains it a lot better than the Mirror is going to. To crib the main thrust though:

Quote

And so if the word is basically ‘ISIS’, but in Arabic, why are the people it describes in such a fury about it? Because they hear it, quite rightly, as a challenge to their legitimacy: a dismissal of their aspirations to define Islamic practice, to be ‘a state for all Muslims’ and – crucially – as a refusal to acknowledge and address them as such. They want to be addressed as exactly what they claim to be, by people so in awe of them that they use the pompous, long and delusional name created by the group, not some funny-sounding made-up word. And here is the very simple key point that has been overlooked in all the anglophone press coverage I’ve seen: in Arabic, acronyms are not anything like as widely used as they are in English, and so arabophones are not as used to hearing them as anglophones are. Thus, the creation and use of a title that stands out as a nonsense neologism for an organisation like this one is inherently funny, disrespectful, and ultimately threatening of the organisation’s status. Khaled al-Haj Salih, the Syrian activist who coined the term back in 2013, says that initially even many of his fellow activists, resisting Daesh alongside him, were shocked by the idea of an Arabic acronym, and he had to justify it to them by referencing the tradition of acronyms being used as names by Palestinian organisations (such as Fatah). So saturated in acronyms are we in English that we struggle to imagine this, but it’s true.

The main issue that they take is that they want people to use the title that they have given themselves, rather than the throw-away acronym that Arabic doesn't really employ. DAESH, ISIS or ISIL - it doesn't matter, it's the removal of the grandiosity (and crucially, the word 'state') that is the issue for them. 

The fact that the acronym when written down looks a bit like another word is a bit of a red herring - to paraphrase what they article goes on to say, if they had chosen to call themselves Syrian Heroes In Death, then their complaint wouldn't be that SHID looks a bit like shit. Their complaint would be that they weren't being referred to as the Syrian Heroes In Death.

[snowychap]

40 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

there's an excellent (and very long) piece here by an English / Arabic translator

I remember reading that piece a while ago and found it quite enlightening.

I do also remember there being some criticism of (parts of) it in the comments, though, by people who also appeared to be Arabic speakers/people who knew a boat load more than me on the subject (wouldn't be difficult as I know the square root of eff all) so I did rather row back from totally accepting what she said.

[maqroll]

So many of these terrorists and ISIS members are known to be lapsed Muslims, not having been particularly strident in their religious views prior to "signing up". 

I think the root of so much of this violence is the result of a failed assimilation scheme on the part of these European countries, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Open borders is all well and good (maybe), but what's the **** plan after?

In France, they get dumped in ghettoes and that's it. Waving the Jihad flag is an easy out for the broke, lonely and desperate.

Providing people with an economic foothold instead of carpet bombing Syrian villages seems to me to be the best long term strategy.

[Awol]

5 hours ago, maqroll said:

So many of these terrorists and ISIS members are known to be lapsed Muslims, not having been particularly strident in their religious views prior to "signing up". 

I think the root of so much of this violence is the result of a failed assimilation scheme on the part of these European countries, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Open borders is all well and good (maybe), but what's the **** plan after?

In France, they get dumped in ghettoes and that's it. Waving the Jihad flag is an easy out for the broke, lonely and desperate.

Providing people with an economic foothold instead of carpet bombing Syrian villages seems to me to be the best long term strategy.

The, "If only we did X differently or did more of Y, everything would be okay" theory.

Wanting to blame ourselves is understandable because then a solution to the problem must logically be within our power, but there are a few problems with it, imo.

First it infantilises the people who are carrying out these attacks - and the broader Muslim community from which they are drawn - by suggesting their behaviour can be fundamentally guided by our own. It denies the personal agency of these people (the terrorists) as individuals and their autonomous decision making processes.

It also fails to recognise the supremacist nature of the religious ideology that underpins the actions of these individuals and terrorist groups. At its core that boils down to a belief that "they" are better than "us" and includes some handy instructions from God to impose their (and therefore his) will through violence on the rest of us non-believers. 

That isn't something that can be addressed by simply accumulating wealth, otherwise the great and the good of some Middle Eastern societies wouldn't be pouring money, weapons & moral support into many of these groups.

Just because western culture has largely abandoned Abrahamic monotheism for the worship of material wealth doesn't mean everyone else has. Indeed this explicit rejection is one of the reasons radical Islam holds us in such contempt - we have no belief.

I'm not suggesting a solution because I don't believe we in the West have an answer for this problem. What we do have to find is a way to effectively protect our own societies and interests while the Islamic world works through its problems, a process that will likely take decades at least.

Non intervention is also put forward as a strategy but that ignores some key realities imo. First a democratic government cannot ignore repeated assaults against its population within their own borders if it wishes to survive. Trying to do so would rapidly result in its replacement by something far more sinister that promised an alternative. We may see that scenario play out in France before too long.

Secondly allowing these groups to conquer populations and hold then consolidate territory only gives them the chance to build the capacity of a state, as we've witnessed for the last few years with ISIS. Had we done nothing at all about that (even though our response has been very limited) then Baghdad would have fallen and most if not all of the region would now be incorporated into a Caliphate, or look much like Syria.

If we were really cynical and said  we just didn't care what they did to each other we still wouldn't be immune from the type of attacks happening now. The ideology of these people is such that Europe, Africa & Asia simply become the next targets of the project, and the remote radicalisation of "at risk" members of our own society would only increase.

IMO the best incentive to not following Jihadism in general is to see it fail wherever it tries to establish a firm hold territorially. Very few people are inspired to give their own lives for an obviously hopeless cause - not so glamorous a way to die.

Finally we all know that walking away from half the world's energy supply is not an option without accepting total economic collapse. Clearly that isn't an option either. 

It's complicated.

 

 

[TrentVilla]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

The, "If only we did X differently or did more of Y, everything would be okay" theory.

Wanting to blame ourselves is understandable because then a solution to the problem must logically be within our power, but there are a few problems with it, imo.

First it infantilises the people who are carrying out these attacks - and the broader Muslim community from which they are drawn - by suggesting their behaviour can be fundamentally guided by our own. It denies the personal agency of these people (the terrorists) as individuals and their autonomous decision making processes.

It also fails to recognise the supremacist nature of the religious ideology that underpins the actions of these individuals and terrorist groups. At its core that boils down to a belief that "they" are better than "us" and includes some handy instructions from God to impose their (and therefore his) will through violence on the rest of us non-believers. 

That isn't something that can be addressed by simply accumulating wealth, otherwise the great and the good of some Middle Eastern societies wouldn't be pouring money, weapons & moral support into many of these groups.

Just because western culture has largely abandoned Abrahamic monotheism for the worship of material wealth doesn't mean everyone else has. Indeed this explicit rejection is one of the reasons radical Islam holds us in such contempt - we have no belief.

I'm not suggesting a solution because I don't believe we in the West have an answer for this problem. What we do have to find is a way to effectively protect our own societies and interests while the Islamic world works through its problems, a process that will likely take decades at least.

Non intervention is also put forward as a strategy but that ignores some key realities imo. First a democratic government cannot ignore repeated assaults against its population within their own borders if it wishes to survive. Trying to do so would rapidly result in its replacement by something far more sinister that promised an alternative. We may see that scenario play out in France before too long.

Secondly allowing these groups to conquer populations and hold then consolidate territory only gives them the chance to build the capacity of a state, as we've witnessed for the last few years with ISIS. Had we done nothing at all about that (even though our response has been very limited) then Baghdad would have fallen and most if not all of the region would now be incorporated into a Caliphate, or look much like Syria.

If we were really cynical and said  we just didn't care what they did to each other we still wouldn't be immune from the type of attacks happening now. The ideology of these people is such that Europe, Africa & Asia simply become the next targets of the project, and the remote radicalisation of "at risk" members of our own society would only increase.

IMO the best incentive to not following Jihadism in general is to see it fail wherever it tries to establish a firm hold territorially. Very few people are inspired to give their own lives for an obviously hopeless cause - not so glamorous a way to die.

Finally we all know that walking away from half the world's energy supply is not an option without accepting total economic collapse. Clearly that isn't an option either. 

It's complicated.

 

 

Yes it is but people love to pretend otherwise.

Superb post.

[villaglint]

Yes Awol I agree with that entirely but I also agree with Maqroll too in that there are many angles to this issue and no doubt there are failings on our side we could address. 

As you said it's a complicated problem and we are tangled in it. 

 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

11 hours ago, Genie said:

I find it difficult to believe that for all the bombs dropped, bullets fired and missiles launched every day there are not innocent people killed as a result.

Like the claimed 73 civilians killed last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/us-airstrike-allegedly-kills-56-civilians-in-northern-syria

Of course, 99% of it won't get reported but who would report it?

We mourn the loss of those innocent men and women and children killed in Europe, and retaliate by dropping bombs 'over there' and the cycle carries on, and on. 

You can't believe the Western troops are 100% effective in their strikes?

No I don't. 

US bombers are launching airstrikes in northern Syria in response to the ISIS incursion there. They're not doing it in the hope of bringing about destruction to a civilisation in its entirety. Chances are high that ISIS used those people as human shields too. 

The events are not even remotely comparable. 

[Genie]

49 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

The events are not even remotely comparable. 

US, French, Turkish, Russian, UK etc troops are very possibly killing innocent people on a daily basis in their push to irradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Individuals and groups loyal to ISIS are killing innocent people in the US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey in retalliation (in some part at least) to the war in their home country... you think they are not even remotely comparable? You think every loss of a civilian life in Syria is because they were being used as a humas shield by ISIS?

[tonyh29]

29 minutes ago, Genie said:

US, French, Turkish, Russian, UK etc troops are very possibly killing innocent people on a daily basis in their push to irradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Individuals and groups loyal to ISIS are killing innocent people in the US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey in retalliation (in some part at least) to the war in their home country... you think they are not even remotely comparable? You think every loss of a civilian life in Syria is because they were being used as a humas shield by ISIS?

You don't think there is a world of difference between collateral damage and deliberately running people over in a truck ?

 

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

You don't think there is a world of difference between collateral damage and deliberately running people over in a truck ?

You've just summed it up perfectly. 1 persons collateral damage is another persons terrorist attack.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

You don't think there is a world of difference between collateral damage and deliberately running people over in a truck ?

 

Well, of course I'm convinced of the purity of our motives etc etc, but famously events like dropping bombs on civilians by mistake may be open to multiple interpretations. 

The problem with 'signalling' is that we have to be prepared for the possibility that other people will hear a different message to the one we intended. 

[Wainy316]

If you're dead it doesn't matter if you were killed deliberately or by accident, you're still dead.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Wainy316