ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Warbler said:
I'm sure ISIL are deeply frustrated that they don't have the same presence on the ground in the west, and that they're desperate to try and reach out to people who might be sympathetic, who are already based here. I'm sure you're right in suggesting that part of that strategy is to launch these kinds of attacks in the hope provoking retaliation and ultimately transferring the theatre to our streets, as people get sucked in and the whole thing snowballs. It makes perfect sense. What doesn't make quite so much sense is the timing. Logically this would be something they should be looking at long term (20-30 years) it did set me wondering if the caliphate is under a lot more pressure than we realise? This is the third attempt now to inflame areas outside of the immediate conflict zone in about 10 days
Click to expand...

No

this was aimed at an American bands concert which must have been planned weeks If not momths in advance . Also one attack was in the traditional up jewish district

I would bet that this was in the agenda a long time back
 
Identifying targets and planning, are different to the 'go' decision.

Conventional military planners have lists of potential targets and tactics worked out well in advance as to how to attack certain objectives. Plans are formulated and then sat on whilst the individuals wait for opportunity, or a spark to enact them. Having said that, I can't believe that a restaurant required too much thought. One suspects the football match was the key. With Hollande attending the game there would be a chance you could draw a lot of focus to the Stade France, whilst then targeting smaller venues, with fewer police, and less escape routes. It's not dissimilar to what Anders Brevik did attacking Oslo first which turned out to be something of a diversion

We'll have to wait and see what the first reports tell us about the identity of the attackers of course, but we do know France has made two notable escalations this week. Coincidence? My feeling is to say probably not, albeit I'll equally accept that being a non-combatant doesn't guarantee immunity either. I think being a non beligerent reduces your risk, but clearly doesn't eliminate it

I would also remind folk that it was only a month ago that an attack was foiled on a Thalys train. Again, with no escape or decent hiding places, that could easily have run to 100 dead

ah... I forgot that attack in Turkey about a month ago too. That killed quite a lot of peace protestors didn't it?
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
OK you're slowly getting there. The next question is do you believe this is inevitable at some point in the future? When, or if, you conclude that it is, the next thing you do is take a deep breath, with a resigned sense of dystopia, and start asking different and very nasty questions like where do we fight it? how do we fight it? and when do we fight it? The answers are of course pretty gruesome across the board, but then war is rarely a neat and clean thing.

I'm pretty certain we aren't there incidentally, but 5 years times, 10 years, 20 years? What will it take? Or do we have to wait until the numbers are more even, and the level of weaponry available to the enemy has improved?
Click to expand...

i will lay this out one more time. The patronising tone is too grating and I think I will leave it at that. I am not "slowly getting anywhere" and don't flatter yourself that you know any more than anyone else what the future holds or what the solutions are. The simply fact is you don't
 
clivex said:
You know where to go for a tactless and thick headed article don't you.

first thoughts about last night? Worry about the Muslims.

Pretty repulsive



http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...leave-france-in-trauma-fearing-for-the-future
Click to expand...

Aye, too right you are.

This, of course, is the same newspaper that portrays Jews and Israeli's as "murderers" simply for defending themselves. ( Whilst Islamofascists are "victims").
Talk about getting priorities completely arseways; this rag is twisted.
 
Look at the timing of the article. This was pointed out to me

it was written before they even knew how many were dead
 
clivex said:
You know where to go for a tactless and thick headed article don't you.

first thoughts about last night? Worry about the Muslims.

They were exciting the hostages one by one last night and this is what the guardian worries about?


repulsive



http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...leave-france-in-trauma-fearing-for-the-future
Click to expand...


Your contributions on this thread in the last 24 hours expose you fully for what you are.

By the way there is nothing at all objectionable in that article.
 
Well we know full well what you are dont we?

I think that was nicely exposed in the thread wasnt it

not that we didnt know anyway.

but keep at it. There must be a brit hating angle you can dig out of last nights events
 
Last edited:
She was writing that as they were executing one by one

and the autistic cannot see why that might be seen as just a little but tasteless
 
I certainly don't like coat-trailing chauvinist racist Brits like you. But then the vast majority of other Brits don't either, thank God
 
Go on then. Report a racist comment I've made . Go do it

and whilst you are at it what has been your contribution to the thread. . The one where you were interestingly bothered by the killing of the beheader? And got taken apart by anither poster for the laughable comparison that you made?

moving onto real people, an ex poster from here was close to the attacks last night.
 
Last edited:
Who exactly was Jihad Johnny? What he did was extremely repulsive but do you think he was a top man in ISIL or more a violent showman used in propaganda pieces? Was he worth the resources that went into targeting him and killing him? Did they do it to give people like you a superficial thrill or were they taking out a strategically important person?

Anyway that's a side issue after yesterday's other sad events. And sad they certainly are.
 
I will ignore the comment about the thrill but he was their mouthpiece and front man, for want of a better phrase. There is also an interview with an ex isis operative that explicitly makes it clear that he was highly influential and inspirational to other recruits.

I am delighted that he is dead

also the idea that he is has been the only target is plain wrong. As was stated last night on the bbc the drones have been taking out one leader a week since May. Clearly this is the one that makes the headlines

i would personally never underestimate the negative effect on the enemy of taking out inspiring figures. Al queda went backwards after bin ladens welcome death. These organisations attract the highly vulnerable and throughly bigoted who throughout time have responded strongly to charismatic leaders
 
Last edited:
Clive's base, visceral reaction is of course exactly what the perpetrators wish the public would vent en-masse

I was about to retire to bed last night in my usual neutral, relaxed state of mind when the news broke and I ended up watching it unfold transfixed (if that's a suitable word) into the small hours; my neutral, relaxed frame morphing into one of anger and hate with all sorts of Clivexian thoughts infecting the grey cells: negative thoughts that might provide a temporary relieving of blood pressure but solve nothing

I hate ISIL et al for provoking hate in me; a hitherto alien trait in gentle, libertarian, laid-back Drone

Hollande is at last using the w word and with USA, Russia and most-and-sundry joining in condemnation this must surely be an opportunity to seize an awful but bringing together moment and plan a concerted joint operation to wipe out ISIL et al. This will undoubtedly result in the deaths of thousands of innocents, but that is war isn't it. I recall many saying that a good reason for the west not to get involved in Syria when it all went up there that there would be thousands of civilian casualties. Yes there would indeed: thousands in a short time rather than the thousands that have died over the long time since we backed off. Smething I was in agreement with at the time incidentally, but you never stop learning and you should never be concerned about changing your mind in response to events

I am now of the opinion that we go in hard, very hard: or not at all

Words are easy of course
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
I am now of the opinion that we go in hard, very hard: or not at all
Click to expand...

That's been the end game for some time, the questions are who is "we", where is "go in", and ultimately "how"

I've thought for some time now this is a military issue. Our politcal classes have been making an absoulte of bollock of this for over a decade now. They'll continue to do so
 
Last edited:
thats true Warb..as i said the other day..we have to stop letting folk back in countries once gone..they just had an ex cobra bloke on and he said many of the french jihadi's have been out there..got "blooded" and then have come back to carry out this sort of atrocity

the problem has two immense tiers..answering all your questions there..carrying out and removing them out there..but you will still be left with "sleepers" here and elsewhere in Europe.
 
The 'we' at the moment means essentially the USA and Russia arm-in-arm and arms-in-arms. As I mentioned this atrocity seems to have resulted in an equal condemnation from the two big players so this possibly brief opportunity to work together as allies must not be missed. 120+ lives may not be entirely wasted

As for the where to 'go in' and 'how' I freely admit to not having a clue. I hope someone does

Best not to mention the 'intractable' problem of Japan in 1945
 
EC1 said:
the problem has two immense tiers..answering all your questions there..carrying out and removing them out there..but you will still be left with "sleepers" here and elsewhere in Europe.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The European militaries simply don't have the depth. They could easily find themselves spending months assembling some sort of invasion force only to discover they need them back home!

The threat is going to come from our own cities and be carried onto our own streets and transport infrastructure. When? I don't know. Months, years, decades? I expect it'll surface, go underground, resurface etc we might enjoy a period of calm where we con ourselves into believing we've gotten on top of this, but it will keep coming back, and quite probably be ever more virulent each time

The logical thing to do is work with those nearer the epicentre who possess the will and capacity to fight ISIL. That doesn't mean someone yelling into a camera wearing a western football shirt and telling you how much he hates Daesh. That's fine on sentiment, but it won't get you very far. The advantage of doing things this way round is it blurs the west/ east, cross/ crescent distinction which conservative Islam needs to promote division, and 'side taking'

For far too long we've been looking in the wrong direction and identifying the wrong enemies because we've entrusted the job to a generation of useless politicians whose reflex default is to frame everything in political philosophy, which in some cases is hopelessly locked into their own formative cold war influences. Other politicians have framed loosely in line with their trading patterns, and one of them of course seemed to allow personal family vendettas into their thinking

Outside of using different weapons, there aren't actually that many countries in the world with the capability of prosecuting what will be necessary to take the heat of this region
 
Last edited:
If the heart of ISIL is destroyed and all those in it: the caliphate, islamic state call it what you will, would this weaken the 'sleepers' in the West? In any terrorist organization there are, in my opinion, a significant number who aren't actually ardent believers in the cause they're fighting for but are no more than disaffected psychopaths who hate for hate's sake, who are just intent on seeking an outlet in which to perpetrate the violence they crave. Destroy the source with its truly ardent believers and organizers and the non-ardent psychos elsewhere will disappear

Just a thought
 
there is truth in that Drone..the first hurdle is out there clearly..but you will need to very vigilant..this attack is a reprisal for the action agin them over the last month or two...as was the Russian plane...which shows they are hurting....i would think if some type of all out offensive on the ground was taken against them then yesterdays type attacks would be stepped up in european cities..the harder they get hit the more cowardly the response basically
 
Last edited:
All the above ignores the fact that so long as Islam exists there will always be terrorism and hatred of non believers. You can white label it under Al queda isis or whatever but the fundamental problem is the "religion"
 
Absolutely spot on !
The underlying cause is a bad, evil ideology (hate everyone that isn't a "worshipper". Hate the "kuffars", and kill them. Hate modernity, and trample it down. Hate gays, hate women who want to be independent, show no tolerance to anyone who doesn't follow the "rules").
How to combat this is another question? I dunno.
Ban the fcking thing altogether in our western society? I don't know what the answer is.
 
so what you going to do about it?

i disagree that its the "religion"...the religion is open to interpretation same as any other..isis have their interpretation

your answer is..its all muslims..burn them out

if you had your way Clive the streets of this country would be exactly what Isis want...a warzone

with that belief..you might as well join Isis..becasue you are doing their work for them..divide and conquer

but given your view..how would you remove all muslims from this country?.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
Absolutely spot on !
The underlying cause is a bad, evil ideology (hate everyone that isn't a "worshipper". Hate the "kuffars", and kill them. Hate modernity, and trample it down. Hate gays, hate women who want to be independent, show no tolerance to anyone who doesn't follow the "rules").
How to combat this is another question? I dunno.
Ban the fcking thing altogether in our western society? I don't know what the answer is.
Click to expand...

can you please explain how you would ban it and remove all muslims form the UK?
 
Back
Top