Terrorism

[Rayvin 5527]

Not really, As the Pentagon outlined 12 years ago, it is what we do (the people we elect) that drives resentment...

 

2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With?

 

The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

 

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

 

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

• Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.

 

http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

 

This is fair. I'm not sure it's the be all and end all of the issue, but I can see why these points would be serious issues for many Muslims.

[Happy Face 29]

Not true. I've already stated that misguided western interventions have aided their cause. And the Iraq war was a massive disaster on that score. We didn't create the jihadi ideology though, whether it's Isis, or al qaeda

 

Did you watch the latest Adam Curtis show?  He actually does think the US (Kissinger) was involved in the genesis of the style of suicide bombings the middle east has exported.  He says Kissinger stabbing Assad in the back led to a successful suicide bombing campaign to drive out the US out and it's only grown since.

 

Syrian President Hafez al-Assad nurturing a bold plan to unite the Arab world, only to be thwarted by the Machiavellian, divisive scheming of Henry Kissinger, leading inexorably to the invention of suicide bombing, Isis, the chaos in modern Syria and, somehow, Brexit.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/gloriously-compulsive-and-maddening-adam-curtiss-hypernormalisation-reviewed/

[Happy Face 29]

I'm going to split the last couple of pages into another relevant topic because It's nowt to do with Clinton V Trump.

[Dr Gloom 22457]

 

That's great and all, but I'm talking about ISIS - the current and most established political force behind jihadi terrorism. That was born out of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know that they didn't start jihadism, but my initial point was that 1) we didn't start it, and 2) we made it a lot worse. By creating ISIS. You're trying to argue something I'm not arguing. I'm arguing that our foreign policy made jihadism worse, and enabled them much greater political clout and control, and that ISIS proves this. You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying ISIS were the first on the scene in terrorism; I'm not.

 

you said we created isis. we didn't. i actually think the argument you're making applies more to al qaeda, whose ambitions were more focused on attacking america and its allies, than isis, who dream of something much bigger. this is an interesting read on the differences between the two ideologies from Quora 

 

 

Both are radical jihadists groups whose origins lie in the "Jalalabad School" of Jihadist thought. ISIS was founded by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who originally showed up in Iraq and setup an Al Qaeda franchise there during the American occupation of the country. However, he was so extreme, particularly in his hatred for Shia Muslims that Al Qaeda all but disavowed him. This was because his brutal actions in Iraq disgusted even hardcore jihadists.

 

While both groups tend to share much in terms of their hatred for those they consider deviants, crusaders etc., Al Qaeda was traditionally not interested in establishing a caliphate but more focused on attacking the US and its "taghut" Muslim allies. In contrast, ISIS seeks to re-establish the caliphate and become the only legitimate Islamic state in the world. They also, at least in their propaganda, wish to fulfill certain Islamic prophecies dealing with the end of times by engaging Western forces in Syria (specifically the plane of Dabiq).

 

In terms of ideology, arguably, ISIS relies heavily on the concept of takfirism (the doctrine of declaring anyone in opposition to them, particularly Muslims, as deviants) while Al Qaeda traditionally adhered more closely to an extremist version of Salafism. For most mainstream Muslims both groups actually exhibit the characteristics of what are known as the Kharajites.

 

Today, Al Qaeda is more of a loose confederation of Jihadist groups who pledge allegiance to what is left of Al Qaeda "central" in Afghanistan / Pakistan's tribal areas. Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak area is greatly diminished and, officially, remains subordinate to the Afghan Taliban in terms of alleigance. ISIS, on the other hand, considers the Taliban deviants, and they pledge allegiance solely to Abu Bakr Baghdadi, their so-called "Caliph".

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Al-Qaeda-and-the-Islamic-State-of-Iraq-and-Syria-ISIS-How-do-the-two-groups-compare-Why-did-the-two-groups-split

[Dr Gloom 22457]

i wondered what the fuck was going on. reposting this fron the other thread 

 

 

That's great and all, but I'm talking about ISIS - the current and most established political force behind jihadi terrorism. That was born out of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know that they didn't start jihadism, but my initial point was that 1) we didn't start it, and 2) we made it a lot worse. By creating ISIS. You're trying to argue something I'm not arguing. I'm arguing that our foreign policy made jihadism worse, and enabled them much greater political clout and control, and that ISIS proves this. You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying ISIS were the first on the scene in terrorism; I'm not.

 

you said we created isis. we didn't. i actually think the argument you're making applies more to al qaeda, whose ambitions were more focused on attacking america and its allies, than isis, who dream of something much bigger. this is an interesting read on the differences between the two ideologies from Quora 

 

 

Both are radical jihadists groups whose origins lie in the "Jalalabad School" of Jihadist thought. ISIS was founded by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who originally showed up in Iraq and setup an Al Qaeda franchise there during the American occupation of the country. However, he was so extreme, particularly in his hatred for Shia Muslims that Al Qaeda all but disavowed him. This was because his brutal actions in Iraq disgusted even hardcore jihadists.

 

While both groups tend to share much in terms of their hatred for those they consider deviants, crusaders etc., Al Qaeda was traditionally not interested in establishing a caliphate but more focused on attacking the US and its "taghut" Muslim allies. In contrast, ISIS seeks to re-establish the caliphate and become the only legitimate Islamic state in the world. They also, at least in their propaganda, wish to fulfill certain Islamic prophecies dealing with the end of times by engaging Western forces in Syria (specifically the plane of Dabiq).

 

In terms of ideology, arguably, ISIS relies heavily on the concept of takfirism (the doctrine of declaring anyone in opposition to them, particularly Muslims, as deviants) while Al Qaeda traditionally adhered more closely to an extremist version of Salafism. For most mainstream Muslims both groups actually exhibit the characteristics of what are known as the Kharajites.

 

Today, Al Qaeda is more of a loose confederation of Jihadist groups who pledge allegiance to what is left of Al Qaeda "central" in Afghanistan / Pakistan's tribal areas. Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak area is greatly diminished and, officially, remains subordinate to the Afghan Taliban in terms of alleigance. ISIS, on the other hand, considers the Taliban deviants, and they pledge allegiance solely to Abu Bakr Baghdadi, their so-called "Caliph".

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Al-Qaeda-and-the-Islamic-State-of-Iraq-and-Syria-ISIS-How-do-the-two-groups-compare-Why-did-the-two-groups-split

Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 22457]

Did you watch the latest Adam Curtis show?  He actually does think the US (Kissinger) was involved in the genesis of the style of suicide bombings the middle east has exported.  He says Kissinger stabbing Assad in the back led to a successful suicide bombing campaign to drive out the US out and it's only grown since.

 

Syrian President Hafez al-Assad nurturing a bold plan to unite the Arab world, only to be thwarted by the Machiavellian, divisive scheming of Henry Kissinger, leading inexorably to the invention of suicide bombing, Isis, the chaos in modern Syria and, somehow, Brexit.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/gloriously-compulsive-and-maddening-adam-curtiss-hypernormalisation-reviewed/

 

i did. thought it was great, and thought provoking. love his work, but as always with his films, a lot of it is conjecture. 

[Dr Gloom 22457]

I'm saying that you can't create meaningful political change in a country by charging in and wiping out all established power structures, and then running away before establishing anything close to an organised system of governance.

 

so we should let them continue to be ruled oppressively, otherwise all hell will break loose? i happen to agree with you here, just want to hear you say that the arabs aren't ready for democracy 

[Happy Face 29]

i did. thought it was great, and thought provoking. love his work, but as always with his films, a lot of it is conjecture. 

 

You'll agree the use of it under Assad was an entirely political tool though?  Warping religion to convince youths to provide the only weapon that could defeat the US.

[Dr Gloom 22457]

You'll agree the use of it under Assad was an entirely political tool though?  Warping religion to convince youths to provide the only weapon that could defeat the US.

 

i was speaking to a guy at work who knows much about this than i do, who reckons suicide bombing predates Assad. I'll try to track him down and get him to tell me the argument again and will try to share it on here. 

[Gemmill 46961]

I'm going to split the last couple of pages into another relevant topic because It's nowt to do with Clinton V Trump.

We need a separate forum. Ay-rab chat.

[Gemmill 46961]

i was speaking to a guy at work who knows much about this than i do, who reckons suicide bombing predates Assad. I'll try to track him down and get him to tell me the argument again and will try to share it on here.

[emoji38] Dictator dictation.

[Dr Gloom 22457]

[emoji38] Dictator dictation.

 

it sounded convincing, but he was only making an argument, same as curtis. 

[Rayvin 5527]

i wondered what the fuck was going on. reposting this fron the other thread 

 

you said we created isis. we didn't. i actually think the argument you're making applies more to al qaeda, whose ambitions were more focused on attacking america and its allies, than isis, who dream of something much bigger. this is an interesting read on the differences between the two ideologies from Quora 

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Al-Qaeda-and-the-Islamic-State-of-Iraq-and-Syria-ISIS-How-do-the-two-groups-compare-Why-did-the-two-groups-split

 

I'm actually pretty confused now... I think the semantics are what we're stumbling over. Let's break it down further in the hope of resolving this because I'm now 99% certain that we agree. ISIS were established by someone who believes in Islamic supremacy. I agree. However, ISIS would have gotten nowhere near power or influence though, if we hadn't barged into Iraq under false pretenses and wiped out everything that was stopping them develop. So when you say we didn't create ISIS, you mean that a Jihadist nutjob created ISIS. And when I say we did, I mean they would never have come to be had we not given them the exact conditions they required to start seizing power, and that if we hadn't done this, we wouldn't now be having to deal with them - even though the guy who established them would still have had his views. Do we agree on that?

 

 

so we should let them continue to be ruled oppressively, otherwise all hell will break loose? i happen to agree with you here, just want to hear you say that the arabs aren't ready for democracy 

 

 Yes we should. Or rather, we should continue to let them be oppressively ruled if all we're going to do is open the door to something worse by failing to finish the job we started. If a foreign power invaded our country, took out all forms of government and otherwise bombed us back to the stone age, we'd probably all be at the mercy of the right wing neo-nazis. I don't think the Arab experience is a unique one based on their culture.

 

I don't even know why you'd want me to say they aren't ready for democracy... it's no odds to me whether they're ready for it or not. The point is, they don't have it now, and their situation is worse than when we invaded. I'm not wedded to the idea of democracy being the one true way of governance though, so maybe I'm abnormal in this respect.

[Happy Face 29]

It's only the oppressively ruled states we support, until they oppose our interests.  We suppress any democracies in the region other than Israel as it's dangerous to have a democracy acting in it's own interests rather than a dictator acting in his and ours.

 

If we're seriously discussing whether the western mission in the Middle East is one of bringing freedom to oppressed people then we're dancing around in the fairy land invention of the western propaganda machine in complete disregard of the evidence in front of us.

[Rayvin 5527]

It's only the oppressively ruled states we support, until they oppose our interests.  We suppress any democracies in the region other than Israel as it's dangerous to have a democracy acting in it's own interests rather than a dictator acting in his and ours.

 

If we're seriously discussing whether the western mission in the Middle East is one of bringing freedom to oppressed people then we're dancing around in the fairy land invention of the western propaganda machine in complete disregard of the evidence in front of us.

 

Agreed but you can only argue the points in front of you.

[Renton 22346]

Politics and Religion always seems to bring out the worst in you mind. Your insight evaporates when you post shit like this

To be clear I am advocating a ban on full face coverings only, not hair or body coverings. I want it banned because it's a block to communication and identity. It's not ridiculous or bad to want this and HF'S comparisons with balaclavas in the Scottish mountains is the ridiculous opinion, not mine. Anyway, I'm off out now in lake district wearing my bobble hat.

[Dr Gloom 22457]

I'm actually pretty confused now... I think the semantics are what we're stumbling over. Let's break it down further in the hope of resolving this because I'm now 99% certain that we agree. ISIS were established by someone who believes in Islamic supremacy. I agree. However, ISIS would have gotten nowhere near power or influence though, if we hadn't barged into Iraq under false pretenses and wiped out everything that was stopping them develop. So when you say we didn't create ISIS, you mean that a Jihadist nutjob created ISIS. And when I say we did, I mean they would never have come to be had we not given them the exact conditions they required to start seizing power, and that if we hadn't done this, we wouldn't now be having to deal with them - even though the guy who established them would still have had his views. Do we agree on that?

 

 

 

 Yes we should. Or rather, we should continue to let them be oppressively ruled if all we're going to do is open the door to something worse by failing to finish the job we started. If a foreign power invaded our country, took out all forms of government and otherwise bombed us back to the stone age, we'd probably all be at the mercy of the right wing neo-nazis. I don't think the Arab experience is a unique one based on their culture.

 

I don't even know why you'd want me to say they aren't ready for democracy... it's no odds to me whether they're ready for it or not. The point is, they don't have it now, and their situation is worse than when we invaded. I'm not wedded to the idea of democracy being the one true way of governance though, so maybe I'm abnormal in this respect.

 

 

yes, i found your semantics confusing - to be fair, you did say we created Isis at one point, which was the the bit i picked you up on. i think you also said the west is to blame for suicide bombers, which i disagree with. 

 

i think that's why we're arguing where we're essentially coming from roughly the same place. that is that isis, al qaeda and other jihadi groups exist - the west didn't create them, but the illegal invasion of iraq certainly helped their cause. 

[Kid Dynamite 7302]

To be clear I am advocating a ban on full face coverings only, not hair or body coverings. I want it banned because it's a block to communication and identity. It's not ridiculous or bad to want this and HF'S comparisons with balaclavas in the Scottish mountains is the ridiculous opinion, not mine. Anyway, I'm off out now in lake district wearing my bobble hat.

'I want it banned', 'Corbyn's ruined MY party'

 

you're like a man sized toddler

[Happy Face 29]

Getting Leazes banned went to his head.  He'll be after windows without stained glass next.

 

This is why we have to defend the freedoms of our worst enemies.

[Rayvin 5527]

yes, i found your semantics confusing - to be fair, you did say we created Isis at one point, which was the the bit i picked you up on. i think you also said the west is to blame for suicide bombers, which i disagree with. 

 

i think that's why we're arguing where we're essentially coming from roughly the same place. that is that isis, al qaeda and other jihadi groups exist - the west didn't create them, but the illegal invasion of iraq certainly helped their cause. 

 

I haven't mentioned suicide bombers in this conversation I don't think, although I agreed with HF about the factors involved being more complicated than simple ideology.

 

Where we seem to disagree in all of this, is the relative importance we both place on Western intervention. I think that without it, we wouldn't be facing the scale of attacks that we're seeing, and that are own actions have demonstrably endangered our populaces. You think, I assume, that we'd be facing this anyway?

[Dr Gloom 22457]

It's only the oppressively ruled states we support, until they oppose our interests.  We suppress any democracies in the region other than Israel as it's dangerous to have a democracy acting in it's own interests rather than a dictator acting in his and ours.

 

If we're seriously discussing whether the western mission in the Middle East is one of bringing freedom to oppressed people then we're dancing around in the fairy land invention of the western propaganda machine in complete disregard of the evidence in front of us.

 

and here lies the great hypocrisy. it's an outrage that we're in bed with the saudis, a truly hideous and barbaric regime. if we really were interested in spreading democracy and freeing oppressed people we'd start with them. but they control the world's oil supply, so we don't.

 

i don't think that part of the world is ready for democracy. and, like rayvin, i don't believe it's the west role to enforce it. if it's going to happen, let it happen organically. bush, rove et al's actions have unleashed dark forces. 

 

as far as the second sentence is concerned, it's safe to say the neocons failed. even the two current presidential nominees are arguing over who thought iraq was a bad idea first.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5527]

Getting Leazes banned went to his head.  He'll be after windows without stained glass next.

 

This is why we have to defend the freedoms of our worst enemies.

 

Was it Renton who got Leazes banned?

[Dr Gloom 22457]

I haven't mentioned suicide bombers in this conversation I don't think, although I agreed with HF about the factors involved being more complicated than simple ideology.

 

Where we seem to disagree in all of this, is the relative importance we both place on Western intervention. I think that without it, we wouldn't be facing the scale of attacks that we're seeing, and that are own actions have demonstrably endangered our populaces. You think, I assume, that we'd be facing this anyway?

 

no, you're right. we fanned the flames, like i have already said. we didn't create the ideology though. the nutjobs who inspire people to blow themselves up in the name of a religion do so because they're fascists. they hate all non believers, even some other muslims, not just "the west" 

[Park Life 71]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

 

 

"That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

 

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

 

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly."

Edited November 3, 2016 by Park Life

[Dr Gloom 22457]

Was it Renton who got Leazes banned?

 

it was the collective will of the board tbf. the end of his time here was a dark time. imagine living in the calpihate. LM was our very own baghdadi