The ISIS threat to Europe

[lapal_fan]

If the data is civilians dead, then both cases are true. 

The motives of the acts towards the end result do not enter the equation.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

36 minutes ago, Genie said:

Individuals and groups loyal to ISIS are killing innocent people in the US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey in retalliation

Not totally sure about this but I see what you are getting at,  I think they (isis) would find a reason no matter what.  The difference is we aim to kill the guilty,  they aim to kill the innocent. If it really was tit for tat retaliation then they would kill indiscriminately,  going into a catholic church is a different ball game I think. 

If everyone in the West through their hands in the air and said **** it,  lets all become religion X for example,  then and only then would they stop IMO.  Negotiation is not even possible,  they (isis) have absolutely nothing to offer of any value to anyone or anything in the universe.  

 

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

At its core that boils down to a belief that "they" are better than "us"

Isn't the reverse also applicable (though without the handy instructions from God*)?

 

*maybe not in the case of Bush and Blair

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

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

and then in 35 years time you get a statue in Parliament square next to the other terrorist 

 

 

[Keyblade]

It's easy for us to pontificate on motives or which type of attack is 'better' from our armchairs but I'm fairly certain those affected by them couldn't give any less of a damn about any of that.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

protect our own societies and interests while the Islamic world works through its problems

This is fundamentally a mistake, IMO.

It isn't true, in my reading, that the Islamic world has problems and needs to sort them out and we (the west, or Yurp)  need to build a metaphorical protecting wall till they do.

I think "we" (peaceful people of whatever faith or none) have a problem in that we keep getting attacked by twisted muslimist barm-pots. The us and them isn't west and Islamic world, it's peaceful people and wackos. I do agree that there's a particular problem with and in parts of Islam that need to be resolved as far as possible and that it's likely that people within Islam are best placed to work at that solution, but they will need our help and support whether in Bradford, Paris or Dharan.

 

7 hours ago, Awol said:

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.

Definitely this - they Jihadi's need to be seen (or fear being seen) as objects of derision, laughed at, ridiculed, pitied even.

7 hours ago, Awol said:

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.

The energy thing is almost another subject, but we should (IMO) be looking at walking away from it for all sorts of reasons, most of them nothing to do with religious dickweeds. It'll run out anyway, it's wrecking the planet, it's killing people and it'll be the cause of more wars if we don't walk away.

But yeah. complicated.

[BigJim]

52 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think "we" (peaceful people of whatever faith or none) have a problem in that we keep getting attacked by twisted muslimist barm-pots. The us and them isn't west and Islamic world, it's peaceful people and wackos. 

 

Agree with the sentiment, I just worry slightly about the terminology. Barm-pots and wackos just make it seem like the problem is down to a miniscule minority. And while they clearly are such in the western target countries, they are driven/inspired by very large numbers. Their lifespan is short, but it seems every one that falls is replaced by two or three. 

[maqroll]

19 hours ago, Awol said:

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

 

That's a somewhat misleading oversimplification of what I said. 

19 hours ago, Awol said:

It's complicated.

Yes it is. That's why I question whether repetitively throwing money in the form of war weaponry at the problem abroad rather than in the form of job training, education, mental health care and decent housing at home is ultimately the best way forward. I'm not suggesting the coalition evacuate the Middle East any time soon, but as long as were are there, there will be war, and an excuse for any disillusioned asshole or mentally ill maniac to blow himself up in a crowd of innocent people.

19 hours ago, Awol said:

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.

 

There is a cause and effect and it runs both ways. If our behavior is shaped by what they do (and it is), then surely their behavior can be shaped by us as well.  (and it is). At what point do we throw a wrench in the war machine and add a new tactic to the fight? 

A lot of people seem to think this is an intractable problem, and it is, if we exclusively keep on this path. I'm suggesting we look for alternatives to augment and ultimately replace our current "fight fire with fire" approach. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by maqroll

[Brumerican]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

 

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.

 

 

I recall watching a youtube video where a physicist explained how nearly all the worlds energy needs could be met by erecting solar panels across parts  of the African deserts . It would make use of pretty useless land and wouldn't cover the area that you would imagine it might . It would be expensive but would cost a fraction of the money that the developed world spent on their military . 

 

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, BigJim said:

Agree with the sentiment, I just worry slightly about the terminology. Barm-pots and wackos just make it seem like the problem is down to a miniscule minority. And while they clearly are such in the western target countries, they are driven/inspired by very large numbers. Their lifespan is short, but it seems every one that falls is replaced by two or three. 

If you totaled up all of ISIS' fighters worldwide and even throw in Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram for good measure, they would amount to less than 0.001% of the total Muslim population and that's me being generous by leaving out 1 or 2 extra 0's. I don't know what your definition of miniscule minority is but that more than satisfies mine.

[BigJim]

16 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

If you totaled up all of ISIS' fighters worldwide and even throw in Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram for good measure, they would amount to less than 0.001% of the total Muslim population and that's me being generous by leaving out 1 or 2 extra 0's. I don't know what your definition of miniscule minority is but that more than satisfies mine.

I imagine your numbers are probably in the ballpark, but the point was simply that we may be in danger of underestimating the numbers of players (and potential players) if we dismiss them as wackos.  It is largely irrelevant how small a percentage of the universal Muslim population they comprise: their numbers are growing (that's my perception at least). And their levels of support should not be underestimated either.

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, BigJim said:

I imagine your numbers are probably in the ballpark, but the point was simply that we may be in danger of underestimating the numbers of players (and potential players) if we dismiss them as wackos.  It is largely irrelevant how small a percentage of the universal Muslim population they comprise: their numbers are growing (that's my perception at least). And their levels of support should not be underestimated either.

Their numbers are tiny and their actual physical effect is tiny.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of europe's population of over 700 million has been killed. It will be a small number.

Whilst they shouldn't be ignored and can't be ignored, the media is currently doing a great job of bringing us every emergency and death everywhere and making this look like we are losing some sort of cultural struggle. There are 700 million of us, we will only lose anything we can't be arsed to stand up for. Including civil liberties.

Let's be vigilant, let's be aware, and safe and secure. But most of all, let's keep on keeping on being normal and doing normal stuff. 700 million of us.

[Keyblade]

4 minutes ago, BigJim said:

I imagine your numbers are probably in the ballpark, but the point was simply that we may be in danger of underestimating the numbers of players (and potential players) if we dismiss them as wackos.  It is largely irrelevant how small a percentage of the universal Muslim population they comprise: their numbers are growing (that's my perception at least). And their levels of support should not be underestimated either.

I agree with all of this, but it's quite different from when you questioned if they were a minuscule minority which is what I was trying to point out.

[BigJim]

9 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I agree with all of this, but it's quite different from when you questioned if they were a minuscule minority which is what I was trying to point out.

If you perceive it as a different point then I probably expressed myself badly. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

39 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

If you totaled up all of ISIS' fighters worldwide and even throw in Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram for good measure, they would amount to less than 0.001% of the total Muslim population and that's me being generous by leaving out 1 or 2 extra 0's. I don't know what your definition of miniscule minority is but that more than satisfies mine.

What percentage at a guess do you think support their actions? Bearing in mind that all of the 0.001% you speak of don't just pop out of flower pots if left in a cold and dark corner ? Something or someone has actively told them that this way of life is the way forward and manages to do this continually around the globe with seemingly no effort at all. I mean, as jobs go,  suicide bomber is not that great.  Either there is a massive infrastructure at work or they need to get some more cards in the job centre.

[Keyblade]

1 minute ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

What percentage at a guess do you think support their actions? Bearing in mind that all of the 0.001% you speak of don't just pop out of flower pots if left in a cold and dark corner ? Something or someone has actively told them that this way of life is the way forward and manages to do this continually around the globe with seemingly no effort at all. I mean, as jobs go,  suicide bomber is not that great.  Either there is a massive infrastructure at work or they need to get some more cards in the job centre.

It's hard to tell, however social media propaganda is actually very powerful and it seems ISIS in particular has been taking full advantage of that. Most of the western attackers are people who self-radicalized very quickly, and a lot of the time online. It's not like they're people who always sympathized with groups like ISIS and just one day decided to act on their support. It's been a running theme that the attackers were nominal Muslims at best who suddenly radicalized without authorities ever being aware, the Nice driver being the most recent example. I imagine it's kind of hard to combat something like that domestically.

[NoelVilla]

52 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

If you totaled up all of ISIS' fighters worldwide and even throw in Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram for good measure, they would amount to less than 0.001% of the total Muslim population and that's me being generous by leaving out 1 or 2 extra 0's. I don't know what your definition of miniscule minority is but that more than satisfies mine.

Percentage numbers like this can be deceiving in my opinion. The swedish authorities says there are about 450 people who travelled to fight with ISIS. There is about 1 million muslims in Sweden. That gives a different percentage than yours. 

Maybe using the muslim population of Indonesia isn't representative in this point.

[Keyblade]

Just now, NoelVilla said:

Percentage numbers like this can be deceiving in my opinion. The swedish authorities says there are about 450 people who travelled to fight with ISIS. There is about 1 million muslims in Sweden. That gives a different percentage than yours. 

Maybe using the muslim population of Indonesia isn't representative in this point.

Well since we were talking about Muslims in general, I used the entire Muslim population...and not just the population in Indonesia. In any case 450 out of 1 million Swedish Muslims is roughly 0.05% of the Swedish Muslim population, so you're right it's a slightly different percentage. Still a minuscule minority by most definitions I'd hope.

[NoelVilla]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

Well since we were talking about Muslims in general, I used the entire Muslim population...and not just the population in Indonesia. In any case 450 out of 1 million Swedish Muslims is roughly 0.05% of the Swedish Muslim population, so you're right it's a slightly different percentage. Still a minuscule minority by most definitions I'd hope.

1 million is a small sample in this case to. The statistic nerd in me just had to reply to object a little to your use of percentages

[BigJim]

19 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Well since we were talking about Muslims in general, I used the entire Muslim population...and not just the population in Indonesia. In any case 450 out of 1 million Swedish Muslims is roughly 0.05% of the Swedish Muslim population, so you're right it's a slightly different percentage. Still a minuscule minority by most definitions I'd hope.

Off topic, but I have at least learned that minuscule is the correct spelling, not miniscule (though the latter is apparently more widely used).