The True Threat of ISIS

[PhantomWolf]

Wait, mass murder wouldn't impair security?

It would reduce the military strength in any substantial way, but I do think preventing mass murder falls under "security".

McHrozni

About the same as a school shooting reduces security, actually probably less.

 

[Craig B]

Wait, mass murder wouldn't impair security?

It would reduce the military strength in any substantial way, but I do think preventing mass murder falls under "security".

McHrozni

Nonsense. Unless you mean it "wouldn't" reduce military strength. If so, I agree. My point is that individuals randomly murdering other individuals whom they happen to encounter in the street isn't "mass murder". And even if, Heaven forbid, individual lunatics were to obtain automatic weapons and shoot several people at a time, the perpetrators would be apprehended and eliminated very speedily. States are never overthrown, let alone conquered, by such means. Never. It is insane.

 

[McHrozni]

Nonsense. Unless you mean it "wouldn't" reduce military strength. If so, I agree.

Ugh, yeah. Typo. Sorry

My point is that individuals randomly murdering other individuals whom they happen to encounter in the street isn't "mass murder". And even if, Heaven forbid, individual lunatics were to obtain automatic weapons and shoot several people at a time, the perpetrators would be apprehended and eliminated very speedily. States are never overthrown, let alone conquered, by such means. Never. It is insane.

Well, Iraqi authorities were overthrown in such a way in the north, but that's because the state was so weak.

That said, what is your point here? That ISIS doesn't threaten us because they could only kill a few (dozen? hundred?) civilians, but not overthrow our state(s)? That's a rather high tolerance for what constituted a "threat".

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

About the same as a school shooting reduces security, actually probably less.

I'm reasonably certain school shootings are on the list of potential threats as well. You'd ignore ISIS because other threats exist as well or something?

McHrozni

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm reasonably certain school shootings are on the list of potential threats as well. You'd ignore ISIS because other threats exist as well or something?

McHrozni

I ignore ISIS about the same as I ignore the threat of an Asteroid hitting the planet and wiping us out, mainly because the second is actually a danger to the Western World, the first is a lot of hot air, and Politicians using them to drive up ratings by trying to create fictitious panic. ISIS is extremely low in the threat status, you have more chance of being killed driving to work in the morning or slipping over and killing yourself in the shower, and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

 

[Craig B]

Well, Iraqi authorities were overthrown in such a way in the north, but that's because the state was so weak.

They were overthrown by an armed incursion which their feeble army couldn't cope with. Not by random murders of Iraqi residents.

That said, what is your point here? That ISIS doesn't threaten us because they could only kill a few (dozen? hundred?) civilians, but not overthrow our state(s)? That's a rather high tolerance for what constituted a "threat".

My point is that the threat represented by such killings, if they occur, can be dealt with by diligent policing, normal vigilance, and the framework of existing laws. We are not in such danger that we need to engage in illegal foreign wars, harass religious minorities within our own countries, or undermine our own constitutions by the introduction of ill-advised repressive or undemocratic measures.

 

[mysteronyx]

If the beheadings that began with Foley didn't happen, would we be conducting airstrikes?

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the beheadings that began with Foley didn't happen, would we be conducting airstrikes?

Well, when you consider that the airstrikes started before Foley and the others were killed, in fact it was the airstrikes that lead to them being killed, does that answer your question?

 

[Polaris]

If the beheadings that began with Foley didn't happen, would we be conducting airstrikes?

Airstrikes began before Foley was beheaded.

ETA: Ninja'd.

 

[Mudcat]

Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Asteroid collision insurance?

In all due seriousness I think that ISIS is more of a threat to Muslims in general and themselves in particular as they will inevitably turn on themselves if they haven't already. That would have been my choice had that choice been an available choice from your poll choices, therefore I choose Planet X instead.

 

[Mudcat]

Well, when you consider that the airstrikes started before Foley and the others were killed, in fact it was the airstrikes that lead to them being killed, does that answer your question?

They would have done those beheadings whether we used air strikes or some other means, so "air strikes lead to them being killed" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[angrysoba]

They are a terrorist threat eventually though. They won't be happy by holding a swath of desert between Iraq and Syria, and they certainly can't hope to take and hold much more than that. Once the disillusioned come home, they're bound to get ideas, and lone wolf attacks are a real possibility.

Ultimately nothing can prevent "lone wolf" attacks. There will always be someone who wants to do it.

The question is how on Earth does Teresa May get from:

a) ISIS exists

to

c) ISIS will gain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that will threaten the UK through its state apparatus.

?

There seems to be a lot missing in her argument that will probably not be affected by airstrikes.

And suppose that the mission now becomes to eradicate ISIS?

And ISIS decide to hunker down in the civilian areas of Mosul.

Do we then carpet bomb Mosul and use World War Two as a precedent (as some people on these forums are happy to do) on the basis that ISIS are using human shields and therefore are to be blamed for all "collateral damage"?

Because if we do not, then what about our assumption about the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that ISIS can then get their hands on?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I ignore ISIS about the same as I ignore the threat of an Asteroid hitting the planet and wiping us out, mainly because the second is actually a danger to the Western World, the first is a lot of hot air, and Politicians using them to drive up ratings by trying to create fictitious panic. ISIS is extremely low in the threat status, you have more chance of being killed driving to work in the morning or slipping over and killing yourself in the shower, and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Russia said the same about those horsemen in the steppe. France said the same thing about that man with a funny moustache. The Saxons and Byzantines said the same thing about those axe wielding men in narrow boats.

Or if you want a more immediate example, does that mean the west should ignore Ebola?

 

[Craig B]

Russia said the same about those horsemen in the steppe. France said the same thing about that man with a funny moustache. The Saxons and Byzantines said the same thing about those axe wielding men in narrow boats.

Or if you want a more immediate example, does that mean the west should ignore Ebola?

Nonsense. Nobody is ignoring these maniacs. Merely rationally assessing what real dangers they in fact represent, so that the measures taken to resist them won't do more damage than to ourselves than they are capable of doing to us.

 

[Spindrift]

Russia said the same about those horsemen in the steppe. France said the same thing about that man with a funny moustache. The Saxons and Byzantines said the same thing about those axe wielding men in narrow boats.

Or if you want a more immediate example, does that mean the west should ignore Ebola?

Those horseman on the steppe were a better army. The man with the funny mustache had a better army and especially air force.

ISIS is better than the Iraqi Army but that ain't saying much.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Those horseman on the steppe were a better army. The man with the funny mustache had a better army and especially air force.

ISIS is better than the Iraqi Army but that ain't saying much.

The horsemen on the steppe relied on constant victory to keep momentum. Had Russia, China or Persia prepared for them and/or gotten lucky and inflicted a defeat, I suspect they wouldn't have been as successful.

Actually, the man with the funny moustache had direct orders for the German army to retreat at the Rhine if the French opposed the remilitarisation. It wasn't until he claimed Czechoslovakia that the Germans could become a credible threat to the French and even then, they had luck that wouldn't pass as plausible in a Tom Clancy novel.

But hey who cares if Isis slaughter Brown people, they don't count amirite?

 

[Craig B]

But hey who cares if Isis slaughter Brown people, they don't count amirite?

We were fed balderdash like that to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Now, a decade later ...

 

[angrysoba]

Russia said the same about those horsemen in the steppe. France said the same thing about that man with a funny moustache. The Saxons and Byzantines said the same thing about those axe wielding men in narrow boats.

Or if you want a more immediate example, does that mean the west should ignore Ebola?

The horsemen on the steppe relied on constant victory to keep momentum. Had Russia, China or Persia prepared for them and/or gotten lucky and inflicted a defeat, I suspect they wouldn't have been as successful.

Actually, the man with the funny moustache had direct orders for the German army to retreat at the Rhine if the French opposed the remilitarisation. It wasn't until he claimed Czechoslovakia that the Germans could become a credible threat to the French and even then, they had luck that wouldn't pass as plausible in a Tom Clancy novel.

But hey who cares if Isis slaughter Brown people, they don't count amirite?

And at this point, instead of tut-tutting from the vantage point of Mount Sanctimony, why don't you put your God's Eye View of History to some use and tell us what should be done. Or perhaps even better, tell us exactly what YOU are doing to stop the slaughter of Brown people.

 

[PhantomWolf]

They would have done those beheadings whether we used air strikes or some other means, so "air strikes lead to them being killed" is a bit of a stretch.

Well the airstrikes were how the West got involved. ISIS had held the men prisoner for 6 months prior to that without doing anything to them, and warned that if the airstrikes continued that they would kill them in retaliation. Airstrikes continued, they acted on their threat. So yes, the airstrikes did lead to them being killed.

 

[angrysoba]

Well the airstrikes were how the West got involved. ISIS had held the men prisoner for 6 months prior to that without doing anything to them, and warned that if the airstrikes continued that they would kill them in retaliation. Airstrikes continued, they acted on their threat. So yes, the airstrikes did lead to them being killed.

That's a bit of a stretch. ISIS have been killing prisoners left and right in large numbers.

The only difference with Western hostages including Turkish hostages, is that they have a bargaining potential. Or have propaganda uses, or both. I think to say "without doing anything to them" is false as well. We cannot be sure how much physical and mental torture many of those people have been put through.