The ISIS threat to Europe

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

There is something that's different. There's the religious element. If people are fighting for a cause such as independence from another country, or for rights, or for equality, or for self rule or for....then that's one thing. If they are simply based on turning people into suicide bombers against everything other than twisted religion, it's a bit different. People are killing themselves and others for an imaginary sky fairy, not Basque separation or whatever. The "Cause" isn't as clear and the "followers" are attracted by promises of virgins or immortality, not self rule.

There's something else that's different as well. The 'gentlemen bombers of the IRA'* occasionally used to phone first. One of my youngest memories is of going shopping with my Mum in Merry Hill and being turned round in the car park because someone had phoned a bomb threat through. 

*I can't remember where I heard that phrase, but it was a joke from somewhere basically making this point. I wish I could attribute it properly, but it was too good to leave out. 

[Chindie]

6 hours ago, BigJim said:

Disagree.

If terrorism is politically inspired, it has a possible negotiable, political solution, even if it is never reached. Otherwise it is not political, by definition: politics is the art of the possible.

Islamist terrorism is inspired in religion not politics. It is the non negotiable variety.

I find your description of it as "flavour of the month" as simply breathtaking... I'm afraid I have to retire from the debate. 

 

Terrorism is the act of using violence to fulfill a political aim. Whilst a true definition has never been fully agreed (because it starts to approach a label which can be used for acts many wouldn't like it to out of self interest, I.e. state terrorism for instance), the common thread is that it is violence that creates fear to bring about a political goal.

The definition of Islamism, from which we get the term 'Islamist,' is the belief that Islam should form the basis of all facets of life, from law to international relations, and is also known as 'political Islam', and it is a political position. Islamist violence with the intention to push an Islamist agenda through fear is Islamist terrorism - violence with the aim of furthering politicised Islam.

There is nothing that defines politics as 'the art of the possible'. It means 'of/for the citizens'. A great many political positions are impossible - anarchic capitalist libertarianism, true global communism, gun control in the US, etc etc. People still support them. Islamism is just another one, although it actually has some possibility as states could become truly Islamist quite easily, and some have got quite close to it.

[snowychap]

7 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Self starters buying in to anarchist terrorism were the big fashion just over 100 years ago.

Though how much they actually 'bought in' to the Anarchy part and how much they were in it for the terror/making a name for themselves is probably up for debate.

[Chindie]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's something else that's different as well. The 'gentlemen bombers of the IRA'* occasionally used to phone first. One of my youngest memories is of going shopping with my Mum in Merry Hill and being turned round in the car park because someone had phoned a bomb threat through. 

*I can't remember where I heard that phrase, but it was a joke from somewhere basically making this point. I wish I could attribute it properly, but it was too good to leave out. 

The IRA were unusual in that they sometimes provided warnings. Most groups don't.

[TrentVilla]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

The IRA were unusual in that they sometimes provided warnings. Most groups don't.

Because they were in those instances using the threat of violence rather than violence itself, same impact in terms of message and fear only less death.

It was a smart move by the IRA for lots of reasons not least domestic public opinion as incidents like the Warrington bomb didn't help them.

[MakemineVanilla]

Things took an interesting turn when a French newspaper decided not to publish the names of terrorists.

As an atheist I find it impossible to believe that all of these guys are entirely motivated by their belief in being rewarded in an actual afterlife, I tend to think that their motives are probably driven at least as much by a belief in being remembered as someone who made an heroic sacrifice for their baradari.

Keeping them anonymous would deprive them of such motives and not offer their personal examples as encouragement for others.

The media are generally against this idea because they excuse their exploitation by claiming that only if we understand these people can we attempt to tackle the problem, but as far as I can see we are no nearer to understanding what motivates these people despite years of debate and expert input.

I personally think we are trapped in our own historic view, where we seek to glorify the dead of our own wars by claiming that they were all motivated by patriotism, rather than personal and less exploitable reasons to do with loyalty to their 'pals' and the wish to avoid being branded a coward. 

Whether etched in stone, in print, or in pixels, naming the dead glorifies them; perhaps committing the names to oblivion would discourage those who seek that glory. 

[omariqy]

I would think for most terrorists, certainly over the last 20 odd years, their motives are typically political rather then religious.

[Chindie]

30 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Because they were in those instances using the threat of violence rather than violence itself, same impact in terms of message and fear only less death.

It was a smart move by the IRA for lots of reasons not least domestic public opinion as incidents like the Warrington bomb didn't help them.

Violence is violence whether it kills a hundred or none, and terrorism includes damage to property. By placing a bomb, the IRA intended to use violence to bring about their aims, the warnings (and I would agree it was a smarter PR move than just mindlessly killing) only serve to show that the IRA had some consideration for the wider impact of their actions (and they are unusual in that facet) and that they might benefit from a more sympathetic public, perhaps. But it's not a threat of violence. They were prepared to use bombs and prepared to have people die because of it. They'd skipped past the threat long before.

Off topic though.

[Chindie]

45 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Things took an interesting turn when a French newspaper decided not to publish the names of terrorists.

As an atheist I find it impossible to believe that all of these guys are entirely motivated by their belief in being rewarded in an actual afterlife, I tend to think that their motives are probably driven at least as much by a belief in being remembered as someone who made an heroic sacrifice for their baradari.

Keeping them anonymous would deprive them of such motives and not offer their personal examples as encouragement for others.

The media are generally against this idea because they excuse their exploitation by claiming that only if we understand these people can we attempt to tackle the problem, but as far as I can see we are no nearer to understanding what motivates these people despite years of debate and expert input.

I personally think we are trapped in our own historic view, where we seek to glorify the dead of our own wars by claiming that they were all motivated by patriotism, rather than personal and less exploitable reasons to do with loyalty to their 'pals' and the wish to avoid being branded a coward. 

Whether etched in stone, in print, or in pixels, naming the dead glorifies them; perhaps committing the names to oblivion would discourage those who seek that glory. 

I certainly think they see some appeal in being a martyr. But is being a martyr to a cause you don't believe in worth anything?

Despite the Islamic community saying they aren't, these are Muslim men, and they often 'bad' Muslims. The common thread that many are disenfranchised men offered a chance for their life to mean something is probably accurate IMO. The others, less common, with good jobs, things to live for, seem to fall into men who have begun to more seriously take their religion and have gone down the 'wrong' logical route, or are ones that see the world as a place where their sacrifice can go towards righting it's wrongs - usually some attack against the western world dominating, exploiting and espousing a mindset they find wrong or repellant. And the remainder will be genuine believers who think this is right. And the guys at the top are effectively running a cult so get the spoils built of the puddles of recently exploded young men and innocents. Maybe they believe some of it. Maybe they are devout. Either way they are the 'Haves' in the situation.

[BOF]

So France has said they will stop publishing names and photos of terrorists from this point on.  I think that's actually a significant step in stopping the genuine wackos who are out for their 15 minutes of fame.  The ones who decide on a whim that they support daesh but who are really just social lepers who want their name in lights.  For the person in that mindset, the prospect of not getting your name in lights just might be enough to decide not to waste your life and those of others.

It obviously will do nothing to stop the genuine daesh co-ordinated attacks, which will need a different approach.

But every bit helps, and hopefully this will go some way to stopping the culture of glorification which has to, in some small way, encourage and incentivise the unhinged into doing things they might not otherwise have done.

[TrentVilla]

42 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Violence is violence whether it kills a hundred or none, and terrorism includes damage to property. By placing a bomb, the IRA intended to use violence to bring about their aims, the warnings (and I would agree it was a smarter PR move than just mindlessly killing) only serve to show that the IRA had some consideration for the wider impact of their actions (and they are unusual in that facet) and that they might benefit from a more sympathetic public, perhaps. But it's not a threat of violence. They were prepared to use bombs and prepared to have people die because of it. They'd skipped past the threat long before.

Off topic though.

Just to clarify I was referring to the times they called through a warning resulting in the bombs being defused, which used to happen a lot.

[TrentVilla]

33 minutes ago, BOF said:

So France has said they will stop publishing names and photos of terrorists from this point on.  I think that's actually a significant step in stopping the genuine wackos who are out for their 15 minutes of fame.  The ones who decide on a whim that they support daesh but who are really just social lepers who want their name in lights.  For the person in that mindset, the prospect of not getting your name in lights just might be enough to decide not to waste your life and those of others.

It obviously will do nothing to stop the genuine daesh co-ordinated attacks, which will need a different approach.

But every bit helps, and hopefully this will go some way to stopping the culture of glorification which has to, in some small way, encourage and incentivise the unhinged into doing things they might not otherwise have done.

Perhaps.

In these days of live streaming, posting etc I'm sure those who do these sort of things and want the notoriety it brings.

What I would much rather the media stop doing is spreading the calls to arms of ISIS, stop reporting that they've call on people to carry out self starter attacks with cars etc...

The media unwittingly or worse knowingly are spreading the evil of message of ISIS for them, them not reporting it won't stop these attacks but it would do two things. One it would reduce the audience to whom ISIS is communicating and two it would mean that those that wanted to listen to them would need to do so by more direct means therefore you'd imagine making them more visible to security services.

Not publishing these peoples names post event is a little late really.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

3 hours ago, omariqy said:

I would think for most terrorists, certainly over the last 20 odd years, their motives are typically political rather then religious.

Not sure about that,  I doubt some of them can count to ten let alone understand the ebb and flow of world politics.

I think its just black and white,  we good,  them bad is about as far as it goes for most of them.  They sign up for genuine suicide missions in the name of something completely made up,  I think I can beat them at chess put it that way.

 

[omariqy]

25 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Not sure about that,  I doubt some of them can count to ten let alone understand the ebb and flow of world politics.

I think its just black and white,  we good,  them bad is about as far as it goes for most of them.  They sign up for genuine suicide missions in the name of something completely made up,  I think I can beat them at chess put it that way.

 

I don't doubt that first point but it still doesn't mean they can't follow a leader or idea that has political reasoning behind it.

[Keyblade]

4 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Things took an interesting turn when a French newspaper decided not to publish the names of terrorists.

As an atheist I find it impossible to believe that all of these guys are entirely motivated by their belief in being rewarded in an actual afterlife, I tend to think that their motives are probably driven at least as much by a belief in being remembered as someone who made an heroic sacrifice for their baradari.

Keeping them anonymous would deprive them of such motives and not offer their personal examples as encouragement for others.

The media are generally against this idea because they excuse their exploitation by claiming that only if we understand these people can we attempt to tackle the problem, but as far as I can see we are no nearer to understanding what motivates these people despite years of debate and expert input.

I personally think we are trapped in our own historic view, where we seek to glorify the dead of our own wars by claiming that they were all motivated by patriotism, rather than personal and less exploitable reasons to do with loyalty to their 'pals' and the wish to avoid being branded a coward. 

Whether etched in stone, in print, or in pixels, naming the dead glorifies them; perhaps committing the names to oblivion would discourage those who seek that glory. 

I think how much the whole virgins in afterlife stuff wagers in is something that is vastly overstated by westerners. I doubt it is anything more than an afterthought to Islamists. I mean, the promise of afterlife for martyrdom has been around for 1.5 millennia and these suicide missions are, to be generous, an infantile phenomena in Islamic history. There's been an 800% increase in terrorism (not all of it Islamic of course) since the year 2000 according to last year's Global Terrorism Index. I very much doubt that in that time Islamists suddenly discovered that they'll be rewarded in the afterlife if they blow themselves up, or that Muslims suddenly understood their religion 9x better. If anything I think this lends credence to the idea that their goals are almost purely political in nature.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Keyblade

[Keyblade]

20 hours ago, blandy said:

 

Context for all these figures is important - if anyone is saying that this tiny percentage of muslims worldwide, or in wherever is anything other than a minuscule figure, they're of course wrong. It's clear from the figure that we don't need to be scared of all muslims, or angry about them, or "anti" them. That would be stupid.

If the context is that 1 in 100,000 muslims (0.001%) is radicalised to the point of plotting or having carried out these terror acts, and there are (say) a million muslims in (say) the UK - then that's 10 people prepared and planning to cut the throats, shoot, bomb or whatever in random acts of terror. finding these 10 people, (or 450 people in Sweden or wherever) preparing to do mass murders - it is clearly beyond the "normal" for the police or society, and in that sense the tiny tiny fraction is still a major problem - "we have 15 or 50 active terror plotters on the loose" is not a good thing at all. The escape of (say) a dozen murderers from high security jail would be massive news.

So context matters.

Definitely, I fully agree here. I just think it bears stressing because with each attack there is more of a backlash towards Musims. Just going on r/worldnews on reddit when the France story broke out shows just how much of a growing resentment and mistrust there is of Muslims in Europe and America on account of these terrorists. Donald Trump is building a presidential campaign that he is favorite to win in which vilifying and creating policies that discriminate against Muslims are almost a cornerstone. The far right in Europe gains that much more ground with each attack, and many Muslims are honestly getting worried about a serious backlash. All because of the minuscule minority that I mentioned. They are definitely a major problem that needs to be addressed, but it doesn't hurt reminding people of just how much on the fringes these people are.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

They are definitely a major problem that needs to be addressed, but it doesn't hurt reminding people of just how much on the fringes these people are

Totally 100% bang on.

[chrisp65]

not a spoof, not The Day Today or Brass Eye, just your top quality Sky News

 

[villakram]

bwahahaha... we are in the twilight zone now!

I just went to subway for lunch. I simply walked right in. I could have killed them all, but I was hungry and their sandwiches just aren't that bad.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

On 7/27/2016 at 11:05, Genie said:

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

So manslaughter and murder are the same thing to you?

Just no. To the point it's not even worth arguing about.