ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Freakbro said:
I just googled 'How terrorist groups end' and came across data analysed from 1968 - 2006

43% - Politics
40% - Local policing
10% - Victory
7% - Military force

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html
Click to expand...

ISIS is not a terrorist group, it has a capital city, administration and army. It is a state. An unconventional state, certainly, but a state all the same.

Anyway, politics can work with domestic terrorism because those groups usually have a vested interest in reaching a peaceful settlement. Do ISIS? Their plan is transnational, they have no vested interest in a political solution in any one country.

So the UK's idea of more money to fight terrorism is to throw an extra billion £'s at GCHQ.
Click to expand...

GCHQ is responsible for gathering intelligence. Why would that not be a good idea? They don't just monitor FB.
 
Last edited:
A power sharing agreement might work in the Middle East. Maybe one day Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will support LGBT and an anti-austerity agenda too.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
ISIS is not a terrorist group, it has a capital city, administration and army. It is a state. An unconventional state, certainly, but a state all the same.
Click to expand...

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɨs/), the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham,[28] or simply Islamic State (IS),[29] is a Wahhabi/Salafi jihadist extremist militant group and self-proclaimed Islamic state and caliphate.

The group has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union and member states, the United States, India, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

So you're wrong on that score

Anyway, politics can work with domestic terrorism because those groups usually have a vested interest in reaching a peaceful settlement. Do ISIS? Their plan is transnational, they have no vested interest in a political solution in any one country
Click to expand...

Also, the political solution does not have to done with them directly, as I am aware that they are not currently in any mood for talking, but it can be done with the people funding them
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
It is a little too simplistic to blame "The West" though. When you have Pakistani heritage Brits going to Syria to fight for a Caliphate exactly how is that a result of people dying in the Iraq war?

Iraq is used as an example of our action causing the attacks on the UK, Syria is used as an example of our inaction causing the attacks on the UK. They are effectively excuses used by an ideology that wants to expand.
Click to expand...

I think people sometimes also forget that all it takes to get people murdered by these fanatics is drawing a cartoon.

Rosbif said:
A power sharing agreement might work in the Middle East. Maybe one day Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will support LGBT and an anti-austerity agenda too.
Click to expand...

haha yea and maybe he will stand up for womens rights.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
ISIS is not a terrorist group, it has a capital city, administration and army. It is a state. An unconventional state, certainly, but a state all the same.
Click to expand...

It is a terrorist group, and whilst it refers to itself as a state is not recognised as such, hence the rise in the term Daesh - which I understand they do not like.
 
Harlequin said:
we invaded over oil ;)

if you want to `stop` ISIS , kill the means to make money , destroy the oil. - 1/2 the army will leave when the pay checks run out.
Click to expand...

that is the Donald Trump understanding of the situation:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/07/08/donald-trump-isis-strategy-oil-iraq-bts-ac.cnn

problem is they're not mass murdering for money - they're religious fanatics...

(also Iraq wasn't invaded for oil the previous poster was correct - it was mostly regime change based on some dubious claims of WMDs)
 
Harlequin said:
the provo`s wanted a united Ireland - didn't happen did it
Click to expand...

We addressed grievances and reached a compromise in a way that was sufficient to undermine support for the terrorist elements.

Not that I think removing support for ISIS is going to be an easy job...but that's the only way to stop the terrorist attacks.
 
dowie said:
that is the Donald Trump understanding of the situation:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/07/08/donald-trump-isis-strategy-oil-iraq-bts-ac.cnn

problem is they're not mass murdering for money - they're religious fanatics...

(also Iraq wasn't invaded for oil the previous poster was correct - it was mostly regime change based on some dubious claims of WMDs)
Click to expand...

I have read that some western recruits have become dissatisfied with lack of funds, pay, squalid conditions.

Though as you say, the majority are just plain religious fanatics.
 
Gilly said:
It is a terrorist group, and whilst it refers to itself as a state is not recognised as such, hence the rise in the term Daesh - which I understand they do not like.
Click to expand...

How other states and groups choose to regard it is irrelevant. Statehood is not determined by the assent of other states or groups.

ISIL have all of the trapping of a functioning state and regard themselves as a state, thus they are a state. The only way to change that fact is to destroy them.

Now for political reasons it may not be prudent for us to acknowledge that officially, but that doesn't change the reality on the ground.

Freakbro said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

So you're wrong on that score
Click to expand...

See above. Just because other countries say "you're not a state, you're terrorists" does not make it so.
 
Last edited:
NexusK said:
So the UK's idea of more money to fight terrorism is to throw an extra billion £'s at GCHQ.
Click to expand...

for helping to prevent attacks like the Paris one it is probably a good idea

the extra security recently on flights out of Egypt when Russia and Egypt were not releasing much info - well it was UK/US analysts intercepting comms that established it was very likely a terror attack

a well funded GCHQ would seem like quite a good idea
 
dowie said:
for helping to prevent attacks like the Paris one it is probably a good idea

the extra security recently on flights out of Egypt when Russia and Egypt were not releasing much info - well it was UK/US analysts intercepting comms that established it was very likely a terror attack

a well funded GCHQ would seem like quite a good idea
Click to expand...

Didnt help France though did it :(.

Heck if they released a report on what they've stopped I'd be more trusting. Value for money.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
I have read that some western recruits have become dissatisfied with lack of funds, pay, squalid conditions.

Though as you say, the majority are just plain religious fanatics.
Click to expand...

western ISIS recruits are generally soft - some idiot loners from Luton, Birmingham who've played too much call of duty.... some of the seasoned fighters have treated them with complete contempt apparently, they're basically little more than a PR exercise and quite a few of them want to come home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom