The ISIS threat to Europe

[StefanAVFC]

30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In 2013 in the USA there was an average of 30 people per day shot dead. Every single day of the year. 1st January, 30 dead, 2nd January another 30, 3rd January another 30 right up through February, March, through the summer, past thanks giving, past Christmas. News Years Eve, another 30 people shot dead.

In between 2007 and 2014 the combined total of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq is estimated at something over 100,000. The number of drug gang related deaths in Mexico for the same period was over 150,000.

Mexican drug gangs might not be of interest to us though, right? After all, in 2014, we only lost 2,248 people to illegal drug deaths in the UK. What would our response be, if in 2016, 2,248 people died because of terrorists in the UK?

1,800 people died in road accidents in the UK in 2014. Can you imagine the outcry, if ISIS managed to kill 10% of that number of people on a motorway? We'd have new laws, new speed limits, more cameras, more police cars, stop and search at the services. 

I'm not trying to make any direct correlation. I'm just trying to grab a sense of perspective. We get the news we crave and the news that is 'fashionable' at any one time. Fear sells. Remember when dogs biting kids was a big problem? Well dogs haven't stopped biting kids. Cars haven't stopped hitting pedestrians, cocaine hasn't stopped killing dickheads.

The current story is terror and how it might directly impact 'us'. Paris fitted so well into the narrative. It looks more like our cities. We've been to Paris. The witnesses can speak english and give their testimony in english for us. It was always going to get more attention.

Whatever happened to the Ukraine? Did that one finish? 

Absolute bang on Crispy

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 on huffington post it states that it is believed that they came from Greece/Turkey posing as Syrian refugees

No, they didn't 'come from Greece'. It is believed some of them travelled through Greece and Turkey.

That is, they were French and Belgian citizens, they travelled to Syria, then came back. So stopping refugees isn't looking like the ultimate fix to the problem is it.

Paris Suspects

Quote

French officials have named Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 27-year-old Belgian linked to a Brussels-based terror cell, as the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks

But, this is a fast moving and confused story. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions on any apparent information.

What is clear to me, is that Greece is part of the Schengen zone. But Greece is bust and is being kept bust by Northern European countries, not least Germany. A bust country with a vast border and no money to police it. A vast country, leaking like a sieve, but starved of the financial and physical help it needs. Once the refugees and migrants get in, Greece has no option but to let them pass through. it doesn't have the money to retain them. clothe them, feed them and give them shelter and medicine.

Looks like there have been quite a number of decisions made, mostly concerned with money not people, that have all aligned over time to make a real mess.

But don't worry. I'm sure a quick dabble in some limited bombing in some parts of Syria will bring this all to a swift conclusion.

 

[omariqy]

I don't suppose many have seen the impact of the recent bombings in Syria? There is a facebook group called #Live updates from Syria' by a British couple who have been there helping out for the last few years. Some of the vids and pics are horrifying.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, omariqy said:

I don't suppose many have seen the impact of the recent bombings in Syria? There is a facebook group called #Live updates from Syria' by a British couple who have been there helping out for the last few years. Some of the vids and pics are horrifying.

There's a video on this link https://www.facebook.com/DAILYSABAH/videos/517394518417645/?pnref=story that shows the violent force of the bombs. (No blood or gore). It's still shocking.

[sexbelowsound]

Has anybody seen the trailer by Vice for the interview with the Eagles of Death Metal?

I find it very disturbing that Vice seemingly think that an interview about such a tragedy needs hype built up around it like its a movie.

[choffer]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's inconsistency rather than hypocrisy, surely?  But you're right that death and destruction, in fact news in general, from some places gets less media interest and less reader/ viewer interest than news from other nations. It's true all over the world and the reasons are varied, but with some common traits and one of those traits is to do with how close is the country in question. If it's "local" then I think the media will feel more readers / viewers will know the place and will want to read or view the story. It's likely that the country will be an ally or friend. On a human level if my neighbour is arrested or robbed or has a child or dies this is of interest and news to me. If someone in London has a child or or is robbed or whatever, then though I may feel (if I were to read about it) some emotion, it's not going to be the same as for my neighbour.

The best analogy I heard (and, like all analogies, it's flawed to some extent) was that it would be illogical to tell someone they shouldn't be upset at their brother's funeral when they couldn't even be bothered to go to the funeral of their second cousin.

[Chindie]

30 minutes ago, choffer said:

The best analogy I heard (and, like all analogies, it's flawed to some extent) was that it would be illogical to tell someone they shouldn't be upset at their brother's funeral when they couldn't even be bothered to go to the funeral of their second cousin.

That's the analogy I've tended to use.

As you say it's not perfect but I think it helps to parse the ideas a little easier.

I've become a little tired of the implication that the loss in Paris should be diminished because there's been tragedies elsewhere, which seems to underpin the argument every time I see this discussion. Until the world becomes entirely globalized, which may never happen, it's not a bad thing to be more effected by things on your doorstep that break the norm than by things thousands of miles away where tragedy fits the narrative. And of course the media exploits that to sell papers and adverts.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Chindie

[omariqy]

I see the Sun are trying to rile things up in an already volatile environment with their 1 in 5 Brit Muslims have sympathy for people going to fight for ISIS. The actual question given was sympathy for fighters in Syria. I.e. it could mean those fighting against ISIS. What they don't mention for the same poll 11% of non-muslims had sympathy for fighters. With Islamophobia strife, this is very dangerous by the Sun.

Edited November 23, 2015 by omariqy

[omariqy]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

That's the analogy I've tended to use.

As you say it's not perfect but I think it helps to parse the ideas a little easier.

I've become a little tired of the implication that the loss in Paris should be diminished because there's been tragedies elsewhere, which seems to underpin the argument every time I see this discussion. Until the world becomes entirely globalized, which may never happen, it's not a bad thing to be more effected by things on your doorstep that break the norm than by things thousands I'd miles away where tragedy fits the narrative.

Agree. For example I feel it more when an atrocity happens in say Palestine then it would if it happened in the US. Purely because it feels closer for me.

In a related note. WWE Survivor Series was yesterday. There was an apparent threat of an ISIS attack earlier in the week which ended up being nothing. At the beginning of the event, given that the world has been trying to show solidarity with Paris/France by singing their anthem etc, the Americans decided to sing their own national anthem and chant USA USA USA.

[snowychap]

39 minutes ago, choffer said:

The best analogy I heard (and, like all analogies, it's flawed to some extent) was that it would be illogical to tell someone they shouldn't be upset at their brother's funeral when they couldn't even be bothered to go to the funeral of their second cousin.

I don't like the analogy and think it's more than flawed to some extent (as it looks at it very much from one way only).

Without wishing to run with it too much, I'd counter with saying that some of what we see is like telling someone that they have to mourn (with me and just as much as me) at my brother's funeral and that, while I am sad at the loss of his brother-in-law, I'd only ever been to his house once so I shan't be going to his.

[Villarocker]

I believe that there is some western agenda that this is all part of. I am not sure what or who is enforcing it but I do not believe that a group of people managed to get hold of all this gear so easily and then went on its merry way from country to country persecuting people who don't believe in Islam. Apparently, more Muslim people died in the Paris attacks than there were perpetrators. If true, that goes to show that they don't really care about the Muslim faith and are part of something else that is discriminate against anyone who isn't part of that agenda.

Who is buying the oil from them and selling arms to them? Why isn't that being stopped? Another thing to question is why do they target the innocent members of the public? Why not target government buildings or officials?

I struggle to believe anything that comes from official channels these days. I think there's been so much bullshit over the years that I just don't believe anything they say anymore.

 

[choffer]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't like the analogy and think it's more than flawed to some extent (as it looks at it very much from one way only).

Without wishing to run with it too much, I'd counter with saying that some of what we see is like telling someone that they have to mourn (with me and just as much as me) at my brother's funeral and that, while I am sad at the loss of his brother-in-law, I'd only ever been to his house once so I shan't be going to his.

Aye, the problem is when it becomes prescriptive. I'm mourning so you should too and you must mourn what I say you should. My point was countering those who tell me what I should mourn and that I shouldn't mourn one bad thing because another bad thing (to which I am less connected) happened also. We should be impacted by all the bad things in the world but I will very naturally be hurt more by the bad things that more closely impact me.

[Villarocker]

44 minutes ago, omariqy said:

I see the Sun are trying to rile things up in an already volatile environment with their 1 in 5 Brit Muslims have sympathy for people going to fight for ISIS. The actual question given was sympathy for fighters in Syria. I.e. it could mean those fighting against ISIS. What they don't mention for the same poll 11% of non-muslims had sympathy for fighters. With Islamophobia strife, this is very dangerous by the Sun.

I hope that the British do not take part in the bombing of Syria. Killing 10s or 100s of thousands of innocent people in the hope of destroying a few camps and weapons etc is not going to help heal the open wounds that exist after the damage caused by the illegal bombing of Iraq. All it will do is give these frightened people a good reason to join up with IS. There are other ways to get to IS and they need to follow them but, I doubt that's what they actually want to do. Fear seems to be what they want to instil in us all and I guess that will help them to impose whatever privacy infringements they wish to impose on us all.  

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, choffer said:

Aye, the problem is when it becomes prescriptive. I'm mourning so you should too and you must mourn what I say you should. My point was countering those who tell me what I should mourn and that I shouldn't mourn one bad thing because another bad thing (to which I am less connected) happened also. We should be impacted by all the bad things in the world but I will very naturally be hurt more by the bad things that more closely impact me.

I agree.

I do wish we'd have fewer minute's silences, though (especially imposed ones).

Edited November 23, 2015 by snowychap

[choffer]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I agree.

I do wish we'd have fewer minute's silences, though (especially imposed ones).

The more you do anything, the lesser its' impact.

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, villarocker said:

I believe that there is some western agenda that this is all part of. I am not sure what or who is enforcing it but I do not believe that a group of people managed to get hold of all this gear so easily and then went on its merry way from country to country persecuting people who don't believe in Islam. Apparently, more Muslim people died in the Paris attacks than there were perpetrators. If true, that goes to show that they don't really care about the Muslim faith and are part of something else that is discriminate against anyone who isn't part of that agenda.

Who is buying the oil from them and selling arms to them? Why isn't that being stopped? Another thing to question is why do they target the innocent members of the public? Why not target government buildings or officials?

I struggle to believe anything that comes from official channels these days. I think there's been so much bullshit over the years that I just don't believe anything they say anymore.

 

All of these questions are quite easily answered.

ISIS has formed in a power vacuum. Vast areas of Iraq and Syria even when these countries were stable were not controlled and governed the way we would expect in the UK. Once these countries fell to civil war these areas were basically there for the taking. So ISIS is formed by a variety of jihadi elements that have been knocking about the area for years (the group has ties to all Qaeda in it's earliest days). They are in a part of the world were arms are not hard to come by, and they also have support from some Middle Eastern nations who support their beliefs.

The form of Islam they support declares any and all that do not follow their particular brand of Islam to not be Muslims and therefore should be killed. Hence why they kill a lot of Muslims as well as other faiths.

Oil is sold to neighbouring countries via black market routes, which makes cutting it off difficult. Bombing has been targeted at the oil fields but didn't make much difference, they quickly has them repaired and the group has other revenue sources anyway.

Targeting the public is a basic tenant of terrorism. You attack the public to instill fear that in turn is used to pressure governments to act in the groups interest. The terrorist methodology lets a weak actor attack a strong one with great efficiency, because it doesn't play by the rules and has exponentially greater psychological effect.

[Jon]

43 minutes ago, villarocker said:

I hope that the British do not take part in the bombing of Syria.  

Sadly, given all the rhetoric and media manipulation, that's looking like an increasingly done deal.

[Wainy316]

If military action is a must is boots on the ground not the better option? More likely to get results than speculatively dropping bombs and less collateral damage? Or is the issue that it'd cost more?

[PieFacE]

With Russia, US and France already bombing Syria is there any need for us to get involved. It's a weird one for me, standing back and doing nothing isn't "right", but bombing isn't the answer either.

[Villarocker]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

All of these questions are quite easily answered.

ISIS has formed in a power vacuum. Vast areas of Iraq and Syria even when these countries were stable were not controlled and governed the way we would expect in the UK. Once these countries fell to civil war these areas were basically there for the taking. So ISIS is formed by a variety of jihadi elements that have been knocking about the area for years (the group has ties to all Qaeda in it's earliest days). They are in a part of the world were arms are not hard to come by, and they also have support from some Middle Eastern nations who support their beliefs.

The form of Islam they support declares any and all that do not follow their particular brand of Islam to not be Muslims and therefore should be killed. Hence why they kill a lot of Muslims as well as other faiths.

Oil is sold to neighbouring countries via black market routes, which makes cutting it off difficult. Bombing has been targeted at the oil fields but didn't make much difference, they quickly has them repaired and the group has other revenue sources anyway.

Targeting the public is a basic tenant of terrorism. You attack the public to instill fear that in turn is used to pressure governments to act in the groups interest. The terrorist methodology lets a weak actor attack a strong one with great efficiency, because it doesn't play by the rules and has exponentially greater psychological effect.

They are very good responses could well be the way things have worked here but, for me personally, something doesn't seem right. I mean, Anonymous say they can hack ISIS and even posted video supposedly showing how to do it. Surely, if that is possible, there must be ways to track where these ISIS folks are and, if so, they must be vulnerable to an attack. Why don't special forces go in and take them out?