ISIS...Islamic State Victims

So am I. I would cite the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and 9/11 as examples of pre-GW2 violent, militant Islam.

From those came GW2, Afghanistan and the subsequent violence which we have witnessed - but it's roots lie prior to GW2, prior even to 9/11 (self-evidently).

I believe the Rushdie thing is irrelevant - the fatwa and the list of attempted executions were not against The West, they were against specific individuals. The rise of hatred of the West has it's roots entwined in the events I've listed above and it is the issues which caused the initial problem which need to be addressed before a final solution can be achieved.

I view it just slightly differently.

Pre-GW2 is what I would call the Al-Qaeda era. AQ were seeking to achieve largely domestic political goals - hoping to secure them via the occasional spectacular aimed at Western interests.

Post-GW2 is the ISIS era. This talks in the period of the disintegration of Iraq, and the Arab Spring that followed on several years later.

In terms of reach of ambition, scale of success, and relentlessness of their intent, ISIS dwarfs Al Qaeda. The only acceptable political resolution for ISIS is full implementation of the Sharia under the Caliphate - nothing less will do.

AQ may have hinted at a such a scenario, but it never had the means to make it manifest, and was nothing more than a pipe-dream. Not only have IS delivered the Caliphate, they have done so with a ruthless and brutal approach that even Al Qaeda found beyond the pale, due to the wanton slaughter of Shia muslims. Indeed, this is largely the cause of the ongoing schism that exists between the two organisations. For me, the kind of terror we see under ISIS - driven by relentless religious mania - renders any real comparison with Al Qaeda and others before them, almost irrelevant. The threat has evolved to the point where a distinction can me made, and it's possibly this subtlety (which one either believes or disbelieves in) which results in the circular arguments about what started when.

Let's just say this; regardless of what one believes in terms of connectedness, the Caliphate seemed a very long way away indeed, prior to the start of GW2..
 
you had a vicious islamist regime well before the caliphate that acted in no less a violent manner

it was the taleban







and for the rather feeble assad fawners on here. From der speigel

Some have done time for terrorism, while others were radicalized inside: Former prison inmates are now on the frontlines of the Syrian civil war. The jihadists fighting alongside the rebels are discrediting the insurgency, just as Damascus may have hoped.


The face of the rebellion has changed since the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad began nearly 1,000 days ago. Black flags with white calligraphy are increasingly common -- a sign of the growing influence of Islamist extremists. Since Assad's regime lost control of the northern borders in the summer of 2012, they have been streaming into the country.


Now, foreigners are fighting alongside Syrians. They include Chechens, Libyans, Tunisians, Belgians and Germans -- all jihadists fighting a war for Islam against what they believe is an infidel regime. Some already fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and bring their valuable combat experience with them. Still others have spent time behind bars for their jihadist past, and from there they have found their way to the Syrian front. Given that jihadists both mistrust journalists and want to keep their activities quiet in the event that they wish to return to their native countries in the future, the fate of foreign jihadists in Syria often only becomes known when they are killed.
Some Were Incarcerated in Well-Known Terror Jails
But a few of their fates have come to light, and they provide an interesting glimpse into where these fighters are coming from. At least one has come from the United States' detention camp at Guantanamo Bay: Mohammed al-Alami. The Moroccan jihadist was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he was arrested before being imprisoned at Guantanamo between 2002 and 2006. After that he was handed over to Morocco, where he was also imprisoned for an unknown length of time. This summer, he was killed in Syria, which raises the question of how many former Guantanamo prisoners could also now be fighting in Syria.
Another prison that has produced fresh Syrian fighters is Iraq's Abu Ghraib, made infamous by the prisoner torture scandal that came to light there in 2004. Hundreds of inmates were freed from the facility this year by al-Qaida, and it remains unclear how many may have made their way into Syria. But the terrorist organization is apparently making a big effort to get them there. Reporters at the online edition of the American monthly Foreign Policy recently described the well-organized dispatch of an Iraqi to the Syrian front with the help of al-Qaida middlemen.
De-radicalizing extremists in prison is difficult. Indeed, many become radicalized while behind bars, as a study by the Rand Corporation think tank indicates. And it would seem that these former Iraqi prisoners were not deterred from such ideology by their captivity. In the case of some former prisoners, their experience in jail actually inspires them to pursue jihad.
Among the latter are former victims of Syrian torture, some of whom have become rebel leaders in the uprising. Early this month, Joshua Landis, an American expert on Syria, published a Top Five list of insurgent leaders. One of the main things that stands out about these men is that three are former inmates of the notorious Sednaya prison, which houses political prisoners outside of Damascus, many of whom are either Islamists or alleged Islamists, along with pro-democracy activists. Torture is common there. After a prison uprising in 2008, an unknown number of prisoners were shot to death in their cells. And recently, Syrian rebels declared they had killed the prison warden. For these men, the insurgency against Assad is about exacting revenge.
Discrediting the Rebels
Ironically, Assad is no stranger to cooperation with radical Islamists, and many jihadists who were held at Sednaya were actually encouraged by the Syrian regime to undertake campaigns for Islam in the past. In 2003, Syrian intelligence agents lured young men into neighboring Iraq to make like difficult for the Americans there. That is, until Washington threatened to bomb Damascus and topple the regime.


Several sources, among them a Syrian human rights advocate who gave details to US officials -- the details of which were published by WikiLeaks -- have suggested that Damascus released Sednaya prisoners so that they could undergo training in camps before being sent to Iraq for what the diplomatic cable called a "proxy war." But upon returning to Syria, these men landed backed in prison, where they felt they had been betrayed by Assad. Around the beginning of the Syrian uprising, in March 2011, Assad once again released jihadists from the country's prisons. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of Syrian students, liberal activists and human rights advocates began being arrested. Their fates were recently documented by Human Rights Watch, which alleges that many have been detained arbitrarily, tortured and subjected to unfair trials.
Already at the beginning of the uprising, Assad vilified his opponents as members of al-Qaida, which wasn't true at the time. Some critics of the regime now claim that by releasing the jihadists from prison, Assad's intention was to quickly radicalize the opposition, discrediting it in the process. If that was his aim, it has certainly been a success.

Article...

 
Last edited:
So am I. I would cite the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and 9/11 as examples of pre-GW2 violent, militant Islam.

From those came GW2, Afghanistan and the subsequent violence which we have witnessed - but it's roots lie prior to GW2, prior even to 9/11 (self-evidently).

I believe the Rushdie thing is irrelevant - the fatwa and the list of attempted executions were not against The West, they were against specific individuals. The rise of hatred of the West has it's roots entwined in the events I've listed above and it is the issues which caused the initial problem which need to be addressed before a final solution can be achieved.




Rushdie was clearly not about an individual at all. it was about exercising a threat of violence against freedoms in the west . it was about stating you will do what we say or we will get you

and given that charlie hebdo was violence over precisely the same issue then you may as well claim the same for that attack.
 
Last edited:
Clivex, the only linkage between reaction to Rushdie/Satanic Verses, and the type of ultra-violent Jihad conducted by ISIS (and their affiliates/proxies), are your "lingering intentions'. By that measurement - if it even qualifies as a measurement - I should probably be just as scared of the Germans, or the French, or the English, as I am of ISIS........but everyone (with the apparent exception of your good self) can see that it would be ridiculous to hold such a position.

You're trying to portray violent, militant Islam as a pre-Gulf-War-2 creation. In some (very) small respects, this is true, but you try to extend this to deny GW2 having anything to do with the genesis of ISIS - which is an equally ridiculous position to hold. It is self-evident that GW2 - and the chaos of the Arab Spring - were the most crucial factors, when it came to enabling the Islamic State. I can't seriously believe that you continue to deny this.

this is truly awful.

not even aware of 9/11? thats a "very small respect" as is madrid bali 7/7 kenya shall we go on?

to state that islamic militancy started with isis is bizarre

actually i really have to get off this now. To be arguing on this level is ... well..
 
Last edited:
you had a vicious islamist regime well before the caliphate that acted in no less a violent manner

it was the taleban

Wholly irrelevant to the discussion. My point had nothing to do with "Do violent islamist regimes exist?".

The Taliban were undoubtedly odious, but they did not indulge in indiscriminate murder or enslavement of non-believers (for example), and had absolutely no ambitions beyond their own borders/tribal regions. This again makes the pre-GW2 distinction clear, in my view.

the quoted article is a little odd, if you ask me. It seems to argue that if Assad takes prisoners, then it's somehow his fault if they become radicalised, and then it goes on to name-check Abu Ghraib.......which suggests that the US is also culpable. And it closes with a theory that he (Assad) wanted to radicalise, then free, prisoners in the hope that it would discredit the opposition - yet it makes no mention of the fact that this would increase the chance of his regime being toppled.

It's all a bit incoherent, which probably explains why only you 'get it'. ;)
 
Last edited:
this is truly awful.

not even aware of 9/11? thats a "very small respect" as is madrid bali 7/7 kenya shall we go on?

to state that islamic militancy started with isis is bizarre

I stated nothing of the sort, you muppet, and you know it...... because it's all there in black-and-white.

PS. On rreading it back, I think I better clarified my view in a post later than the one you quoted, so I have edited the above little to reflect that. :D
 
Last edited:
Wholly irrelevant to the discussion. My point had nothing to do with "Do violent islamist regimes exist?".

The Taliban were undoubtedly odious, but they did not indulge in indiscriminate murder or enslavement of non-believers (for example), and had absolutely no ambitions beyond their own borders/tribal regions. This again makes the pre-GW2 distinction clear, in my view.

the quoted article is a little odd, if you ask me. It seems to argue that if Assad takes prisoners, then it's somehow his fault if they become radicalised, and then it goes on to name-check Abu Ghraib.......which suggests that the US is also culpable. And it closes with a theory that he (Assad) wanted to radicalise, then free, prisoners in the hope that it would discredit the opposition - yet it makes no mention of the fact that this would increase the chance of his regime being toppled.

It's all a bit incoherent, which probably explains why only you 'get it'. ;)

its a mess but there is a tendency by some to whitewash assads intentions and actions. Thats all im pointing out

there is a belief that the existence is the caliphate works to his advantage. I dont know what hes thinking but i wouldnt be banking on hs determination to bring it down
 
here we go. im not saying a word

Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets.
Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.
"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that the police, on the rare occasions that they're issued arms, have always had a shoot-to-kill policy if circumstances force them to open fire e.g. aim at the chest, not at the legs

Shooting an armed assailant to only injure or disable would surely just make the situation more dangerous as the injured party would in all likelihood loose off more shots: rather like you see in 'entertaining' violent films

Was the intention just to reiterate and reassure that a shoot-to-kill policy will still apply?

On another matter, Hollande has stated again that France is 'at war' with ISIL: is this a formal declaration of war, in which case all sorts of 'rules of war' come into effect, or just rousing words?

I realise I'm something of a dim minnow - and swimming round and round in circles - on this board of bright pike but I'd be grateful if you big fish could explain
 
Last edited:
Corbyn is effectively writing his own P45 tonight.

It is ludicrous that someone would fail to support shoot-to-kill in a terror scenario, and it is absolutely unforgivable in the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
 
In terms of reach of ambition, scale of success, and relentlessness of their intent, ISIS dwarfs Al Qaeda. The only acceptable political resolution for ISIS is full implementation of the Sharia under the Caliphate - nothing less will do.

At the risk of sounding like Cantona, I have a rose which produces blooms of various sizes and shades of the same colour. Their roots are the same though - and if I wanted to kill it I'd have to get to the roots of the plant.
 
and for the rather feeble assad fawners on here. From der speigel

I think any "Assad fawners(ing)" is largely the product of your imagination again. Personally I've only ever described him as a 'sub-optimal solution' which is tantamount to the least bad of a particularly unedifying choice (provided of course that you restrict that choice to the feasible and realistic and not candy floss clouds and castles in the sky)

I've said it before, it's perhaps worth saying again though.

It will be a lot easier to deal with Assad post ISIL, than it will ISIL, post Assad

The Der Spiegel article is a bit confused. There can be little doubt that Assad held political prisoners, and there can also be little doubt that some of these were Islamists (well quite a lot of them actually). In the early days of the Syrian uprising western politicians (principally Cameron and Obama) were continually denouncing Assad for detaining these prisoners. By now he would have to be getting nervous about the narrative they were preparing bearing in mind what had happened in Libya

Did he release jihadist prisoners to join the pro-democracy movements so as to undermine them? I doubt it. This wouldn't be their natural calling would it. They'd join other groups. Did he release them to challenge the pro-democracy movements? That would seem more plausible. He could have calculated (unlike the west) that when working class conservative jihadis/ terrorists come up against middle class radical pro democracy/ protestors, the numerical greater and more brutal jihadis will win. Did he release them to pre-empt any direct action visited on him by the US too by emptying his jails of 'political prisoners' and thus denying them the pretext of justifying air strikes? Did he miscalculate that he could then beat them on the battlefield?

Again (as I've said before) Assad ain't about to win the nicest government in the world competition, but he's a whole lot better than the Islamic State. That should have been the starting point, and then work progressively from there
 
I was under the impression that the police, on the rare occasions that they're issued arms, have always had a shoot-to-kill policy if circumstances force them to open fire e.g. aim at the chest, not at the legs

My understanding is that the military at least are told to try and excute the more difficult head shot given that there is a good chance that any urban Jihadi is wearing a suicide vest and that a body shot risks setting off a secondary
 
Im winding you up a bit but more interested now in the astonishing statement from corbyn

i believe it is probably the clueless statement I have ever heard from a party leader.
 
its not really him thats clueless though...its the party for electing him.....he is a pacifist so his views are always going to be along those lines..what the labour party are doing electing someone like him is where the cluelessness really is..what a silly party..voted in a happy hippy who would let terrorists roam the streets virtually unchallenged
 
Agree ec but I think it's underlying political beliefs too

he chose to support the ira in Ireland rather than the sdlp. And still won't condemn their bombings. That's not pacifism
 
i think he just doesn't condemn anyone for anything tbh Clive...i think he just doesn't want to think about violence at all..its like he's blocked it from his head.,,so unlikely to condemn or even comment

that interview was unreal..to be fair it should be just cause to get rid of him..just on that one interview..."it could be dangerous" alone would be enough for me to vote no confidence at all.

Labour really are silly if they stick with him
 
Im winding you up a bit but more interested now in the astonishing statement from corbyn

i believe it is probably the clueless statement I have ever heard from a party leader.

Ha! Troll

I'm not too concerned what Corbyn thinks to be honest. Shoot to kill can go wrong from time to time, but that's just a statement of the bloody obvious. Since shoot to tickle isn't really an option though..... I think it depends what the actual question posed to him was, and the context of the complete answer. Clearly there are occasions where taking 'suspects' alive (I use the word loosely) is a desirable outcome if you have grounds to believe that doing so will assist in the generation of intelligence. Clearly there are other occasions where Mr 7.62 does the trick
 
At the risk of bursting your bubble, Simmo, a single root will produce only identical blooms on your rosebush. Many different types of roots are needed before many different roseblooms can be produced. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top