Terrorists strike yet again

MWF

Now needs wood
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
27,747
Location
MWF HQ, Ukadia
Car(s)
MX-5 1.8i Indiana SE, update pending
That's the last bit of news the wider world needed. It's just fuel for those who don't believe we should be accepting any of the refugees from the Syrian conflict when the vast majority are simply fleeing the persecution.
 

Delll

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
210
That's the last bit of news the wider world needed. It's just fuel for those who don't believe we should be accepting any of the refugees from the Syrian conflict when the vast majority are simply fleeing the persecution.
The last bit of news the world needed... Because we should continue taking them in and thus subjecting our cities to a massively heightened risk of terrorist attacks? The Middle East hasn't been peaceful since WWII. Sure, western countries' involvement has been a major cause in the instability. But if they fight their countrymen in the home countries because they use wrong words in prayer, they will fight themselves and us in western countries. Should discussing the consequences of mass immigration be ignored in favour of singing Kumbaya and sticking fingers in our ears so as not to hear the explosions?
 

geeman

suomiface
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
3,207
Location
Finland
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla,Chevrolet Corvette,Alfa Romeo Mito
Time to wipe these asshats off the planet.
You know, the terrorists have this exact same attitude. ISIS and other terrorist groups are basically the embodiment of the sentiment "Time to wipe these asshats off the planet", except the asshats in this case is the rest of the world. Shit has been going down in the middle east for centuries, some of it caused by outsiders and some of it caused by themselves. It shouldn't be a surprise that people are a bit angry over there and are looking for someone to blame. We as a civilized people should not take up the revenge attitude even though in dark times like these it seems justified. In the end the revenge attitude will only create more anger and perpetuate the never-ending cycle of terror.

Also "wiping these asshats of the planet" is easier said than done. ISIS is not a country we can invade, ISIS is not a person we can kill, ISIS is an idea. As the saying goes "You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.". People have tried killing an idea by killing men in the past and it usually ends up making the idea stronger.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
again, retaliation. They cannot fight France or Russia on the Battlefield so they attack this way.



And I totally agree. We should not make unfounded accusations nor base our actions on it.


That?s coming from a perspective that isn?t concerned by Millions of refugees. European countries are somewhat under pressure by that. Terrorist-attacks or not.
And do the local powers have the ability? Then do they lack the will or what?s keeping them?
The only ones really fighting in Iraq and Syria are what?s left of Iraq and Syria. Iran, Turkey and the others are not going to put boots on the ground to fight Daesh. That much has become clear in the last months. They are going to defend themselves and maybe contribute some air-strikes. They have the very same "let the local powers deal with that" approach. Maybe if the situation were to worsen, maybe then Iran, Turkey and so on would see the need to act. But for now, they do not seem willing to "get in there and sort this out".
Iran has the power and reason to fight ISIS. Right now they only have the equivalent of Western "advisors" deployed because the West is fighting the war for them. Shia-Iraq and Syria are close allies, they aren't going to let them fall.

What is much more interesting/worrying than any lone wolf / homegrown or not discussion is why ISIS, be it by leading locals spiritually or by actually training/sending people, have turned their strategy 180?. Until now, ISIS focused on building themselves into a local power to be reckoned with by being ruthless in their local expansion strategy and staying out of global politics. Yep, there's has been some alibi anti-ISIS bombing and drone warfare, but it's the main reason the west has left them more or less alone so far.

By attacking targets in the West (and maybe downing a Russian airliner as well) they are provoking a major international strike against them that is almost guaranteed to take a bunch of the territory they gained away from them. It seems like the most stupid move in the history of expansive warfare.

And while I won't even comment on most of the racist shit Delll spouts, he's right in one point: A war against ISIS can only be won by ground troops. In fact, sending in a decent amount of soldiers instead of arming ISIS to fight Assad would probably have prevented this shit from happening. But as long as the West fears the images of soldiers returning home in body bags by the dozen, the terrorist threat will not be stopped: You can destroy a country with air strikes, but you can't control it without a guy with a gun on every street corner. And you need to do the latter to stop terrorism. Thus, another bombing campaign will only make stuff worse. Send in ground troops, disarm these assheads and stay until civil society is fully restored. Even if it takes a dozen years or more. The Americans stayed in Germany for more than 40 years after WW II to make sure civil society would work. The West has to do the same next time they try to fight terror in the middle east.
It's either a 180?, or not ISIS. The Baathists officials in ISIS aren't idiots.

I am still of the thought this is another group. If it is another group, taking out ISIS won't stop them. ISIS is already on the decline. Ground forces from Iraqi-Kurdistan have been defeating them in Northern Iraq (Sinjar was just retaken). Iran has the capability of bringing in further troops if they wanted to Eastern Iraq and Syria. If the West comes in it will be a continuation of the last 14 years.

I am all for airstrikes, but let the local powers finish off ISIS.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, the terrorists have this exact same attitude. ISIS and other terrorist groups are basically the embodiment of the sentiment "Time to wipe these asshats off the planet", except the asshats in this case is the rest of the world. Shit has been going down in the middle east for centuries, some of it caused by outsiders and some of it caused by themselves. It shouldn't be a surprise that people are a bit angry over there and are looking for someone to blame. We as a civilized people should not take up the revenge attitude even though in dark times like these it seems justified. In the end the revenge attitude will only create more anger and perpetuate the never-ending cycle of terror.

Also "wiping these asshats of the planet" is easier said than done. ISIS is not a country we can invade, ISIS is not a person we can kill, ISIS is an idea. As the saying goes "You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.". People have tried killing an idea by killing men in the past and it usually ends up making the idea stronger.
ISIS isn't an idea, they are an actual entity. They are the remains of disfranchised Baathists and Iraqi-Sunnis. They are an armed military force trying to establish a nation. They are not Al-Quada.

If the head of ISIS is removed, it will fall apart.
 

geeman

suomiface
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
3,207
Location
Finland
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla,Chevrolet Corvette,Alfa Romeo Mito
ISIS isn't an idea, they are an actual entity. They are the remains of disfranchised Baathists and Iraqi-Sunnis. They are an armed military force trying to establish a nation. They are not Al-Quada.

If the head of ISIS is removed, it will fall apart.
ISIS is an entity in a literal sense, but it is formed because of an idea. That idea will not die if the head guy is removed. Maybe they will get another head dude or maybe they will form another entity, either way the underlying idea will continue to exist.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
ISIS is an entity in a literal sense, but it is formed because of an idea. That idea will not die if the head guy is removed. Maybe they will get another head dude or maybe they will form another entity, either way the underlying idea will continue to exist.
That is like saying the Bolsheviks were an idea. I can guarantee if Lenin, Trotsky, and co were killed there would be no other Communist force to take their place.
 

geeman

suomiface
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
3,207
Location
Finland
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla,Chevrolet Corvette,Alfa Romeo Mito
That is like saying the Bolsheviks were an idea. I can guarantee if Lenin, Trotsky, and co were killed there would be no other Communist force to take their place.
I am not so sure. It's like saying if you killed the CEO of Apple they would stop selling iPhones.

Silly comparisons aside. I think it's pretty absurd to think that if you kill the head dude of ISIS all the rest of radical people over there will be like "oh, I guess the west is OK then, better get back to my farming or whatever".
 
Last edited:

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I am not so sure. It's like saying if you killed the CEO of Apple they would stop selling iPhones.
I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks would have fallen apart without its leadership and no one would replace them as no one else was as organized.

The same goes for ISIS, if their head is cut off there won't be anyone as well organized and capable of such organized action. Will there still be violent revolutionaries? Yes, but they will not be united, nor will they have the same agency.

- - - Updated - - -

Silly comparisons aside. I think it's pretty absurd to think that if you kill the head dude of ISIS all the rest of radical people over there will be like "oh, I guess the west is OK then, better get back to my farming or whatever".
How is it silly? It is pretty comparable. A newly formed weak divided government with issues of legitimacy finds itself facing an army of organized revolutionaries.

An idealistic revolutionary organization who's primary backing comes from those suffering from the legacy of a vicious tyrant and an unresponsive new government.
 
Last edited:

MWF

Now needs wood
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
27,747
Location
MWF HQ, Ukadia
Car(s)
MX-5 1.8i Indiana SE, update pending
The last bit of news the world needed... Because we should continue taking them in and thus subjecting our cities to a massively heightened risk of terrorist attacks? The Middle East hasn't been peaceful since WWII. Sure, western countries' involvement has been a major cause in the instability. But if they fight their countrymen in the home countries because they use wrong words in prayer, they will fight themselves and us in western countries. Should discussing the consequences of mass immigration be ignored in favour of singing Kumbaya and sticking fingers in our ears so as not to hear the explosions?
That is precisely the kind of blinkered, racist, prejudiced viewpoint that plays into the hands of these violent criminals. One bad apple slipped through amongst hundreds of thousands of peace-loving refugees. If we close our borders and fail to reach out to those poor, disenfranchised people whose lives have been turned upside down then we are no better than the terrorists who drove them from their own lands.

We need to accept that there is a price to pay in any war but that it is better to accept a small number of casualties on home soil than standing idly by and letting a myriad more suffer. If we do that we allow Daesh to dictate our behaviour and offer them the upper hand.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
One of the terrorists has been identified as a Parisian. I don't see how not accepting refugees would have protected Paris from that one.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,097
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
The last bit of news the world needed... Because we should continue taking them in and thus subjecting our cities to a massively heightened risk of terrorist attacks? The Middle East hasn't been peaceful since WWII. Sure, western countries' involvement has been a major cause in the instability. But if they fight their countrymen in the home countries because they use wrong words in prayer, they will fight themselves and us in western countries. Should discussing the consequences of mass immigration be ignored in favour of singing Kumbaya and sticking fingers in our ears so as not to hear the explosions?
Yeah, now I see what Calvin and Dr Grip were on about regarding you....
 

awdrifter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
3,132
You know, the terrorists have this exact same attitude. ISIS and other terrorist groups are basically the embodiment of the sentiment "Time to wipe these asshats off the planet", except the asshats in this case is the rest of the world. Shit has been going down in the middle east for centuries, some of it caused by outsiders and some of it caused by themselves. It shouldn't be surprise that people are a bit angry over there and are looking for someone to blame. We as a civilized people should not take up the revenge attitude even though in dark times like these it seems justified. In the end the revenge attitude will only create more anger and perpetuate the never-ending cycle of terror.

Also "wiping these asshats of the planet" is easier said than done. ISIS is not a country we can invade, ISIS is not a person we can kill, ISIS is an idea. As the saying goes "You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.". People have tried killing an idea by killing men in the past and it usually ends up making the idea stronger.
They do not follow the rules of war, if we do then we lose. I'm sure governments will use black ops regardless, but this concern for collateral damage has got to stop if we want to win. US basically flatten two major cities of Japan in WWII killing millions of Japanese civilians, but that won the war. We can't use nukes now, but we have conventional weapons that can achieve the same level of destruction. If we use them on any cities controlled by ISIS, they won't have any ability to fight back for many years. The victors of war writes the history. The collateral damage will be forgotten.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,861
Argatoga, I disagree. Even if Al Baghdadi was killed, jihad as an ideology would survive. An astonishing number of people buy into that crap and there are many organizations that believe in that cause. Cutting off the head of the snake won't work - running it over with a lawnmower will.


That is precisely the kind of blinkered, racist, prejudiced viewpoint that plays into the hands of these violent criminals. One bad apple slipped through amongst hundreds of thousands of peace-loving refugees. If we close our borders and fail to reach out to those poor, disenfranchised people whose lives have been turned upside down then we are no better than the terrorists who drove them from their own lands.

We need to accept that there is a price to pay in any war but that it is better to accept a small number of casualties on home soil than standing idly by and letting a myriad more suffer. If we do that we allow Daesh to dictate our behaviour and offer them the upper hand.
Not that I agree with Delll but the "one bad apple" bit is something that I've heard before and it's extremely hypocritical. A tiny percentage of cops use excessive force that results in lethality, yet we still call for a decrease in police brutality like its some sort of epidemic. A tiny percentage of gun owners commit homicide, yet there's a huge push for gun control.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
When I say head, I mean more than just Al Baghdadi (especially if the rumors are true and he is too wounded to lead). The head would be the most senior officials. Killing that lot will end ISIS, it won't end the broader extremist muslim movements however.
 

Delll

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
210
That is precisely the kind of blinkered, racist, prejudiced viewpoint that plays into the hands of these violent criminals. One bad apple slipped through amongst hundreds of thousands of peace-loving refugees. If we close our borders and fail to reach out to those poor, disenfranchised people whose lives have been turned upside down then we are no better than the terrorists who drove them from their own lands.

We need to accept that there is a price to pay in any war but that it is better to accept a small number of casualties on home soil than standing idly by and letting a myriad more suffer. If we do that we allow Daesh to dictate our behaviour and offer them the upper hand.
Peace-loving? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWA-a7gf2YM (the video is embellished with stupid sound effects and text but the footage does speak for itself...) One bad apple? Alright... How are we supposed to help the poor, disenfrachised people? When they come here, most of them don't speak English let alone another local language. Their education is not recognised here (if they have one). They go on benefits... Which is alright and certainly enough to live in most(?) EU countries. But it also leaves them bored. Which leads to crime. And when they commit crime, people will be prejudiced against them. And no, it's not just general xenophobia either. I posted more official stats somewhere else, but this is an indication of the general distribution. What is your general perception of Somalis compared to Indians?

How much should we suffer ourselves to prevent suffering in other countries? Is the increased crime etc worth it? What if we, instead of taking all those people in and putting them on western benefits, directed more resources towards their home countries? "But they're not safe there." And why aren't they safe there? Because of their countrymen. What happens when we take those countrymen in? London will become Baghdad.
One of the terrorists has been identified as a Parisian. I don't see how not accepting refugees would have protected Paris from that one.
France does have a problem with people from their colonies. Unemployment and segregation lead them to crime. Cars burn, things depicted in La Haine happen. And guess what, similar things will happen with 2015 "refugees" unless they're all given a million monies a year at the risk of being thrown out. Similar things have happened with refugees from earlier years, even when the volume was less than 10% of this year's. I repeat, I suspect the Parisian suspect's probably isn't Pierre Baguette Bonaparte if this indeed was an islamist-sponsored attack.
 

Mally Dangerous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
2,179
Location
Atlanta
Kenya This happened back in April. Wanted to bring attention to it because it was a terrorist attack.

Lebanon This happened in Lebanon yesterday.
 
Last edited:

geeman

suomiface
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
3,207
Location
Finland
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla,Chevrolet Corvette,Alfa Romeo Mito
They do not follow the rules of war, if we do then we lose. I'm sure governments will use black ops regardless, but this concern for collateral damage has got to stop if we want to win. US basically flatten two major cities of Japan in WWII killing millions of Japanese civilians, but that won the war. We can't use nukes now, but we have conventional weapons that can achieve the same level of destruction. If we use them on any cities controlled by ISIS, they won't have any ability to fight back for many years. The victors of war writes the history. The collateral damage will be forgotten.
It's not that simple and it's very different from WW2. War has changed and the enemy is not a concentrated country or it's people. Unlike the Japanese ISIS doesn't have to worry about having all their major cities getting destroyed or all of their people dying. They don't have that kind of infrastructure in the first place. The motivation is also different, in WW2 the Japanese wanted to conquer the world and to stop them only thing needed was to prove they couldn't, ISIS motivation is their people have been killed and oppressed and now it's "time to wipe these asshats of the planet", whatever it takes, anyone who dies in this holy war will go to heaven. You can't stop that kind of motivation by killing even more of their people.

Even if you somehow could cause enough damage to ISIS and it's organization that they would be unable to do anything or they would disband that wouldn't win us the war. It would only buy us maybe few years before they would regroup or another group would rise up. ISIS itself has risen to prominence in few short years after all. Also rarely the next group will be more moderate than the last, they are always more radical.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
IS do have cities. Raqqa for instance is their "capital". And they do have to worry if their supporters die, eventually there won't be any left that thinks that becoming a martyr is the greatest thing ever. Obviously we need to tackle both the head of the snake (IS leadership) and the tail (recruitment) but you're saying IS is somehow a undefeatable organisation, it's not. It came from nothing and it shall return to nothing.

What I'd like to see are boots on the ground to secure Syria (most easily accomplished by giving Assad the means he need to do so) and civilian electronic communication with Syria blacked out.
 

geeman

suomiface
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
3,207
Location
Finland
Car(s)
Toyota Corolla,Chevrolet Corvette,Alfa Romeo Mito
IS do have cities. Raqqa for instance is their "capital". And they do have to worry if their supporters die, eventually there won't be any left that thinks that becoming a martyr is the greatest thing ever. Obviously we need to tackle both the head of the snake (IS leadership) and the tail (recruitment) but you're saying IS is somehow a undefeatable organisation, it's not. It came from nothing and it shall return to nothing.
They have but the cities are not as important as they would be for a country.

I am not saying ISIS cannot be defeated. I am just saying it's not as easy as just bombing few cities and killing few people and defeating ISIS won't end terrorism, it will just take on another name. Also ISIS did not come from nothing, it came from just the thing you are suggesting we do, it was born because people were attacking their people and they didn't like that very much.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,013
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Keep in mind that ISIS is not a group that simply wants to fight for independence and to create their own nation and then leave in peace. No, what they really want is to destroy western civilization. What better way to accomplish this and to show your enemy just how powerless they are than to slaughter 150+ people in one of your enemy's largest and most symbolic cities?
And that's exactly what -so far- was one of the main differences between ISIS (and the Taliban) and Al-Quaeda: ISIS had a very much local agenda. They never set out to destroy the West and their lifestyle. Actually, doing so would drain their recruitment pool. ISIS wants to free the traditionally Islamic countries from Western influence and unite them under a single rule (the so-called "califate"). While this is bad news for Israel (and, depending on who you ask, for Spain as well), it's a clear-cut expansionist political agenda and not a mad "destroy all Western civilization" target like Al-Quaedas.

And that is why I do not understand this shift in strategy. They have nothing to gain from attracting the wrath of all of the West.

The question is whether ISIS think of themselves as a local power, in which case they have something (their territory) to lose and thus can be defeated but also can be controlled by compromise (peace/money against cutting off terror links). If they think of themselves as terrorists first and foremost, they can escape. Not to Europe as Delll thinks, that's too complicated if you got your allies in Saudi-Arabia and Quatar right next door. They don't need or have to have a main base in Syria or elsewehere, they can set up shop wherever they want and will have moved again before the West has even programmed the coordinates into a drone.
 
Last edited:
Top