paris

rick_chasey

Would be curious for a source for that stat - I'd be surprised if there are that many people willing to inflict such violence on civilians, but assuming you're correct, that is terrible isn't it?

The poor refugees can't escape them.

orraloon

Goo, do you know any Muslims personally? Or do you inform yourself from the bottom of the internet?

pinno

mamba80 wrote:

yes but what are we in Europe going to do about it? lock downs? border closures? camps on the German.Polish borders, mass deportations? it seems we are powerless, just waiting for the next attack, held back by our democratic freedoms.

There's probably a lot going on that we don't know about.The more ISIS drag countries in to the mix, the greater the force against them.

mamba80 wrote:

all this flag waving and solidarity means diddly squat, in the UK we allow the free movement of IS fighters to and fro Syria/Iraq...... conservative estimates at about 500 per year, though some are repeat visits!!!!.

It's defiance. It's solidarity. It's symbolic. Rising above the ashes and the carnage are demonstrations of compassion and altruism. Way above the moralities of these twisted b@stards.

mamba80 wrote:

Islam certainly appeared to be a reasonably peaceful religion until the 1990's and that coincided with the wests meddling.

Yes, historically we have opened a can of worms. However, I cannot comprehend the level and nature of the brutality. I would understand if they targeted politicians and the powers that be but targeting civilians is pure cowardice and only serves to generate conflict towards them.

The other thing I cannot comprehend is the absence of uproar and protest amongst the peaceful Muslims - the apparent lack of a 'not in my name' attitude.

DeVlaeminck

I suppose targeting politicians is difficult and would create less fear and outrage than bombing the public. I assume their tactic is to turn non Muslims against Muslims which in turn feeds into marginalising Muslims which feeds in to radicalising muslims which feeds in to support for Isis etc. How long until they pull off a really big attack in the UK where we will be looking at hundres s of casualties. A gas attack on a crowded tube station or something.

slowmart

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I suppose targeting politicians is difficult and would create less fear and outrage than bombing the public. I assume their tactic is to turn non Muslims against Muslims which in turn feeds into marginalising Muslims which feeds in to radicalising muslims which feeds in to support for Isis etc. How long until they pull off a really big attack in the UK where we will be looking at hundres s of casualties. A gas attack on a crowded tube station or something.

Your'e applying a logic that doesn't exist in the mind of the organisation you are referring to.

WMD are much harder to build and deploy effectively when bombs,grenades and machine guns are just as deadly and create the same result. Death, fear and news.


The real issue is why are ISIS still a military force, the regional superpowers, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could end this conflict militarily in a few months if they had the political will to do so. All three have significant and potent offensive military capability and combine that with uncontested air supremacy little would stand in the way for long.

Instead the power brokers seem to want to fight the war by proxy and to serve their own interests, add the Kurds, Sunni and Shia Muslims, US and Russia together with oil and incumbent political survival means an environment where ISIS are an enabler for the disruption and power plays that we see and are ongoing.

finchy

Slowmart wrote:

The real issue is why are ISIS still a military force, the regional superpowers, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could end this conflict militarily in a few months if they had the political will to do so. All three have significant and potent offensive military capability and combine that with uncontested air supremacy little would stand in the way for long.

Instead the power brokers seem to want to fight the war by proxy and to serve their own interests, add the Kurds, Sunni and Shia Muslims, US and Russia together with oil and incumbent political survival means an environment where ISIS are an enabler for the disruption and power plays that we see and are ongoing.

I don't think that either Turkey or Saudi Arabia would want to prop up the Assad regime. Iran would, but might be fearful of being drawn into a longer conflict, especially in a predominantly Arab country, which is an expense they could do without.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

yes but what are we in Europe going to do about it? lock downs? border closures? camps on the German.Polish borders, mass deportations? it seems we are powerless, just waiting for the next attack, held back by our democratic freedoms.

all this flag waving and solidarity means diddly squat, in the UK we allow the free movement of IS fighters to and fro Syria/Iraq...... conservative estimates at about 500 per year, though some are repeat visits!!!!

Islam certainly appeared to be a reasonably peaceful religion until the 1990's and that coincided with the wests meddling.

The usual retort.
Yes the West 'meddled' in the Middle East. It would give greater credence to your view if Middle Eastern countries, states or political movements had risen up to fight the Western aggressor. But no, it was a religious movement, who assert that the 'meddling' had been an attack on a religion. It had of course been no such thing.
If it had been an attack on the religion of Islam, Saudi Arabia, the most conservative religious country in the region would not be courted by us to the chagrin of many.
If the 'meddling' had been an attack on Islam, surely Indonesia would have been a ripe target with its 250m believers.

Edit The West's meddling in the 90s was in direct response to Iraq invading Kuwait. An act of military aggression to achieve a political gain. The Western response was not religiously driven but again political and economic.

Kuwait was something we had to deal with, as i know only too well but Bush snr had the good sense to leave Saddam in power, big difference.

But its not my view Bally, its virtual every serious commentators opinion on the middle east, even in Syria we meddled in a relatively peaceful secular state, by refusing to engage with Assad/russia and supporting the FSA .... but what are we now doing.. yep engaging with Assad and Russia.

ISIS need failed states to operate in and we ve helped provided them in abundance Iraq, Syria, Libya all within striking distance of europe.

mamba80

Pinno wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Islam certainly appeared to be a reasonably peaceful religion until the 1990's and that coincided with the wests meddling.

Yes, historically we have opened a can of worms. However, I cannot comprehend the level and nature of the brutality. I would understand if they targeted politicians and the powers that be but targeting civilians is pure cowardice and only serves to generate conflict towards them.

The other thing I cannot comprehend is the absence of uproar and protest amongst the peaceful Muslims - the apparent lack of a 'not in my name' attitude.

i can understand it, look back through history? extreme violence breeds terror and thats what they feed on and need to control the areas they operate in.
Take the IRA ? the bombing of civilians, beatings, executions, extreme violence isnt a Muslim only thing.

Muslims do protest against IS etc but with a significant minority of IS supporters in their own communities, it would be a very brave Iman who would openly campaign against IS - look what happened to Catholics who opposed the IRA ? a fighting force of maybe 1500 or so out of a population of 2m.

i m not saying they are right to do so, just offering a possible explanation as why they are less vocal than we d like.

homers_double

I'm sure that somewhere a James Bondesq character is hatching a plan to take himself and a bunch of unknowns under cover with a lot of high powered rifles and cap a few of the ****ers on their own soil.

mr_goo

orraloon wrote:

Goo, do you know any Muslims personally? Or do you inform yourself from the bottom of the internet?

Yes have worked with people of the muslim faith. Have clients of the muslim faith. I honestly believe that the majority of them are honest decent people. However that does not stop me from believing that this religion has a very real and far reaching problem with its relationship with the 'West'.
One of my very dear colleagues from way back was Bangladeshi and had distanced himself from Islam as he realised that as being from the first generation of his family to be brought up in UK, it did not fit and was not relevant. He had to go into hiding as his elder brothers tried to kidnap him and take him back to the homeland as he did not conform with the families beliefs.

mr_goo

As my father in law said on the morning of the Brussels attack. The biggest fear he has is if they attacked in an unconventional manner. ie poisoning the water supply. Now that is a really frightening thought.

ballysmate

Muslims do protest against IS etc but with a significant minority of IS supporters in their own communities, it would be a very brave Iman who would openly campaign against IS - look what happened to Catholics who opposed the IRA ? a fighting force of maybe 1500 or so out of a population of 2m.

The IRA and ISIS are different beasts. The IRA were heavily into organised crime, running protection rackets and the like. People in Ireland did denounce the IRA, Nobel Laureates, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan for example.

No doubt people from within the Muslim community are helping the security services, but I fear that too many in those communities would believe that to turn anyone over to the security services would mark them out as being a 'bad Muslim'

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

As my father in law said on the morning of the Brussels attack. The biggest fear he has is if they attacked in an unconventional manner. ie poisoning the water supply. Now that is a really frightening thought.

sorry cba to read the whole thread so can you put your Father-in-law in context

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Muslims do protest against IS etc but with a significant minority of IS supporters in their own communities, it would be a very brave Iman who would openly campaign against IS - look what happened to Catholics who opposed the IRA ? a fighting force of maybe 1500 or so out of a population of 2m.

The IRA and ISIS are different beasts. The IRA were heavily into organised crime, running protection rackets and the like. People in Ireland did denounce the IRA, Nobel Laureates, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan for example.

No doubt people from within the Muslim community are helping the security services, but I fear that too many in those communities would believe that to turn anyone over to the security services would mark them out as being a 'bad Muslim'

On the news after the arrest of the Paris attack mastermind, that he had hidden in broad daylight withing a large muslim community only a couple of blocks away from his family. I am pretty sure that many knew he was back 'home' and as you say nobody dobbed him in for fear of being labelled a bad muslim. Which I am sure would be more severe than being ostracised by the community.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

As my father in law said on the morning of the Brussels attack. The biggest fear he has is if they attacked in an unconventional manner. ie poisoning the water supply. Now that is a really frightening thought.

sorry cba to read the whole thread so can you put your Father-in-law in context

What?
It needs no context.

ballysmate

There are targets out there now, being reconnaissanced. The security services know of many but obviously not all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ifice.html

On a computer memory stick found at Mr Sarwar's home, said Mr Wright, was: "Information about one of the largest gas stations in the UK, oil refineries, the National Grid, and power stations including nuclear power stations.
"There was also information on Chernobyl and UK airports, including Heathrow's new control tower."
The memory stick also included information on Canary Wharf.
A diary found in Mr Sarwar's home included the names of oil refineries at Fawley in Hampshire, Kingsbury, Warwicks., Coryton, Essex, and a gas terminal at Bacton, Norfolk.

The gas refineries on the east coast where the gas comes ashore are critical. Without them the country is plunged into cold and darkness. There were detailed maps of these installations found. As a consequence, armed police protect these plants 24/7.
Time will tell. As has often been quoted, terrorists only have to get lucky once...

orraloon

Be afraid, be very afraid.

What we need to do is to spend £100bn+ on nuclear 'deterrent', that'll stop these suicide vest k-nobs.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

As my father in law said on the morning of the Brussels attack. The biggest fear he has is if they attacked in an unconventional manner. ie poisoning the water supply. Now that is a really frightening thought.

sorry cba to read the whole thread so can you put your Father-in-law in context

What?
It needs no context.

context makes a huge difference if he is senior exec at Thames Water, a Risk Analyst for IHS or a normal punter with an opinion

DeVlaeminck

Slowmart wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I suppose targeting politicians is difficult and would create less fear and outrage than bombing the public. I assume their tactic is to turn non Muslims against Muslims which in turn feeds into marginalising Muslims which feeds in to radicalising muslims which feeds in to support for Isis etc. How long until they pull off a really big attack in the UK where we will be looking at hundres s of casualties. A gas attack on a crowded tube station or something.

Your'e applying a logic that doesn't exist in the mind of the organisation you are referring to.

WMD are much harder to build and deploy effectively when bombs,grenades and machine guns are just as deadly and create the same result. Death, fear and news.


The real issue is why are ISIS still a military force, the regional superpowers, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could end this conflict militarily in a few months if they had the political will to do so. All three have significant and potent offensive military capability and combine that with uncontested air supremacy little would stand in the way for long.

Instead the power brokers seem to want to fight the war by proxy and to serve their own interests, add the Kurds, Sunni and Shia Muslims, US and Russia together with oil and incumbent political survival means an environment where ISIS are an enabler for the disruption and power plays that we see and are ongoing.

Sorry for quoting so much but I'm interested in what way you think I'm applying a logic that doesn't exist within ISIS. I'm suggesting that one reason for these terror attacks is to make themselves appear relevant - to appear like a player on the world stage. By doing that they attract young Muslims who have been radicalised to their cause. The other related purpose or these attacks is to create a split between Muslims and non-Muslims which again plays into their hands - if they can drive opinions towards the extremes then they benefit as they are one of those extremes.

Why regional powers don't go in to Syria and other countries to take on Isis is a different question but yes one worth discussing. First thought is that a war by proxy avoids an all out war - Turkey for example clearly would not want to provoke war with Russia, Saudi would not want to provoke war with Iran, these countries have their own internal conflict to manage too. The other point is an initial military victory is one thing but managing the aftermath is another - as we've seen with so many military interventions. For some nations ISIS may serve some purposes but I think even Sunni states would recognise the danger to their own sovereignty posed by such a populist movement. It's not a subject I claim expertise on though.

orraloon

Ballysmate wrote:

The IRA and ISIS are different beasts. The IRA were heavily into organised crime, running protection rackets and the like.

NPR provided an interesting analysis of how ISIS operate inside the territory they control. Elements of parallel state and of organised crime.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... iting-isis

ballysmate

orraloon wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The IRA and ISIS are different beasts. The IRA were heavily into organised crime, running protection rackets and the like.

NPR provided an interesting analysis of how ISIS operate inside the territory they control. Elements of parallel state and of organised crime.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... iting-isis

True. I accept that the towns taken over by ISIS are brutally oppressed. I was thinking more of the communities at home though.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I suppose targeting politicians is difficult and would create less fear and outrage than bombing the public. I assume their tactic is to turn non Muslims against Muslims which in turn feeds into marginalising Muslims which feeds in to radicalising muslims which feeds in to support for Isis etc. How long until they pull off a really big attack in the UK where we will be looking at hundres s of casualties. A gas attack on a crowded tube station or something.

Your'e applying a logic that doesn't exist in the mind of the organisation you are referring to.

WMD are much harder to build and deploy effectively when bombs,grenades and machine guns are just as deadly and create the same result. Death, fear and news.


The real issue is why are ISIS still a military force, the regional superpowers, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could end this conflict militarily in a few months if they had the political will to do so. All three have significant and potent offensive military capability and combine that with uncontested air supremacy little would stand in the way for long.

Maybe it could lead to a world war? by the same token, the west could move in or russia, no one has because it would be a mess with unknown consequence.

But even if they did, combating terrorism is very difficult, the Germans could nt halt attacks on them by resistance fighters throughout Europe during WW11, despite some very brutal reprisals, the British could nt stop the IRA nor more recently, the Russians in Afgan nor the USA/allies in Iraq/Afgan

As for calling for more Muslims to dobb in suspects or be vocal against ISiL...if wishing Christians a Happy Easter...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-35898543

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

As for calling for more Muslims to dobb in suspects or be vocal against ISiL...if wishing Christians a Happy Easter...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-35898543

...and there was me presuming the guilty would be a misguided racist.
Instead, it was a misguided fanatical religious person.