The True Threat of ISIS

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Apples and high heels shoes.

In the first two cases you are talking large and extremely well organised armies who were right next door. If ISIS had a million troops in control of Mexico, you might have something to worry about. As it is, perhaps 50,000 up against Turkey, Iran, or Israel, it's be a slaughter, and not with ISIS on the winning side. They are trapped where they are.

On the axe wielders, they had naval superiority, ISIS does have a navy, and if they did, they wouldn't 5 minutes after encountering the UK and US Navies. Secondly, they only controlled small areas outside of their homelands, at a time when Europe was far from united and rulers could control a small area relatively easily. Try caving off a part of the UK or France today and see how far you get.

Your analogies are worthless.

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

We could ignore it very easily. Ebola is not a threat the West, it is transmitted by bodily fluids, that means you need to get infected blood or other fluids on you, and then into you. That's quite a hard way to transmit a disease in the West where we have methods of dealing with the sick and dead that don't include close physical contact without protection and also a high level of hygiene.

The West could easily ignore it, if we wanted to be cold hearted to those whose cultures who treat their dead differently, and as such as spreading it around their families and neighbours. Not only are they overwhelmed by the sick, but those sick are taking the medical resources away from everyday patients, such as pregnant women, trauma patients, and so on, so much of what the West can do is reinforce their medical teams so that they can deal with the situation. Otherwise there isn't a lot we actually can do about it at all.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

They have been killing those that they consider traitors to Islam or to be apostates. They weren't killing hostages.

 

[Craig B]

Or perhaps even better, tell us exactly what YOU are doing to stop the slaughter of Brown people.

Western military intervention has not up to now been the most effective way of stopping such slaughter. See https://www.iraqbodycount.org; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256 And other estimates.

 

[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.

By that metric you should ignore traffic laws as well. You're far more likely to die of a heart attack or cancer anyway.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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

OK, if that's what you meant, then sure
Many random murders you can't control all about are what makes you a failed state though.

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.

I'm not sure anyone here advocates any of those three. No one is engaged in an illegal foreign war, US and NATO are only conducting strikes against ISIS in agreement (unofficial for Syria, quite open for Iraq) with governments. No one is about to harass religious minorities within our own countries, or is about to introduced repressive or undemocratic measures.

That doesn't mean we need to ignore them, though. Diligent policing can be quite proactive where probable cause exists, and it should be in this case. Extensive wiretaps for all Imams whose followers went to fight for ISIS should be a good and entirely legal start, good police work and nothing more.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

No one is about to harass religious minorities within our own countries ... Extensive wiretaps for all Imams whose followers went to fight for ISIS should be a good and entirely legal start, good police work and nothing more.

Quite so.

 

[McHrozni]

Quite so.

What would you do?

McHrozni

 

[PhantomWolf]

By that metric you should ignore traffic laws as well. You're far more likely to die of a heart attack or cancer anyway.

McHrozni

Considering that over 30,000 Americans die each year in the US at the hands of other Americans in traffic accidents, that would be stupid. How many Americans have died in the US at the hands of ISIS?

Ignoring ISIS doesn't increase the danger, ignoring on coming traffic is fatal.

You should stop while you are behind, when you have to use plainly dumb analogies, you have well and truly lost.

 

[McHrozni]

Considering that over 30,000 Americans die each year in the US at the hands of other Americans in traffic accidents, that would be stupid. How many Americans have died in the US at the hands of ISIS?

Note the qualifier that makes the question irrelevant: in the US.

How many would have to die for you to consider them a threat?

Ignoring ISIS doesn't increase the danger, ignoring on coming traffic is fatal.

Ignoring people who want to kill you doesn't ignore the danger of them killing you - and we're talking about a country where firearms are widespread and comparatively easy to obtain for good measure.

That's a first. I guess traffic laws are just for show and collecting tickets then!

McHrozni

 

[PhantomWolf]

Many random murders you can't control all about are what makes you a failed state though.

Really? Do the 12,000+ murders a year in the US make it a failed state?

When you count the dead to guns, other homicides, and car accidents in the US, you have a total of around 65,000 deaths a year.

Compared to that amount, how many do you think Terrorists need to take to have any affect at all?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Note the qualifier that makes the question irrelevant: in the US.

Compared to the 30,000 how many have they killed total? 3? So what's that?0.01%

How many would have to die for you to consider them a threat?

To the US? Well consider 3,000 died on 9/11 and the US is still there, 30,000 die a year to traffic accidents and the US is still there, I'd say that to be a real threat to the US, you're talking the need to kill millions, and ISIS simply doesn't have that ability.

Ignoring people who want to kill you doesn't ignore the danger of them killing you - and we're talking about a country where firearms are widespread and comparatively easy to obtain for good measure.

When they are halfway around the world and have no access to you, they can threaten to kill you all they like, it's never going to happen, this is the point. Wanting to kill, threatening to do so, and actually being able to do it are totally different things. ISIS has no ability to kill large numbers of Americans or other Westerners, period. They best they might be able to do is convince one or two wackos to try going on a spree, but the threat of that occurring is about the same as having any other wacko going ape and trying to kill people in a workplace, or school shooting.

That's a first. I guess traffic laws are just for show and collecting tickets then!

If you feel like ignoring a car coming at you, feel free, ISIS isn't that, it's a parked car on the other side of the planet.

 

[Craig B]

What would you do?

I don't even know what you would do. What is the "follower" of an Imam? Someone who attends the same mosque? What about imams against whom there is no suspicion of a desire to incite violence? What are "extensive" wire taps. But don't bother answering these questions. You're not being serious; just spouting provocative stuff, and I have no intention of taking the bait.

 

[McHrozni]

Really? Do the 12,000+ murders a year in the US make it a failed state?

When you count the dead to guns, other homicides, and car accidents in the US, you have a total of around 65,000 deaths a year.

Compared to that amount, how many do you think Terrorists need to take to have any affect at all?

Yeah indeed ... if only there was some agency (I propose it's named a "police force") in the US that was fighting against these murders and car accidents.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't even know what you would do. What is the "follower" of an Imam? Someone who attends the same mosque? What about imams against whom there is no suspicion of a desire to incite violence? What are "extensive" wire taps. But don't bother answering these questions. You're not being serious; just spouting provocative stuff, and I have no intention of taking the bait.

Yes, those too, and all places where the said Imam could incite people, in that order. I probably should've clarified that only the ones that had their current followers fight for ISIS should be included, not past followers. It should be self-evident, but you don't seem like one to be ready for a serious debate.

I realize several innocent ones will probably have their privacy violated by the legal system as a result, which is why I call for investigations and wiretaps and not arrests and deportations. Furthermore, something incited them to go and fight for the most atrocious regime in a generation in the name of their religion. If you think of a better source or radicalization than the cleric of the said religion who preached to them just before they decided to join, you're free to point that out, I have no problem with investigating other sources. This one is just so glaringly obvious it would be utterly irresponsible to ignore.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I'd say that to be a real threat to the US, you're talking the need to kill millions, and ISIS simply doesn't have that ability.

Millions? I guess US only needs to worry about four threats: Russia, China, UK and France, and ignore everyone else. There is no other state or organization or anyone that has the capacity to kill "millions" on the US soil.

McHrozni

 

[NWO Sentryman]

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.

What I am saying is that fif you take them out now, you will get a lot less grief from the middle east. They may be insignificant to the west now, but if they are allowed to consolidate like those horsemen near Russia or that man with a funny moustache, will they remain insignificant?

 

[Craig B]

only the ones that had their current followers fight for ISIS should be included, not past followers. It should be self-evident

Its not self evident to me! (I asked what you meant by "followers" anyway). Suppose some Mad Mullah is being wire tapped because of his current followers, but they blow themselves up in a suicide bomb outrage, and become past followers? That means the Mad Mullah is now in the clear, eh? And the buggers can stop bugging him. That's self evident to you?

Furthermore, something incited them to go and fight for the most atrocious regime in a generation in the name of their religion. If you think of a better source or radicalization than the cleric of the said religion who preached to them just before they decided to join, you're free to point that out, I have no problem with investigating other sources. This one is just so glaringly obvious it would be utterly irresponsible to ignore.

Aha, "followers" means "people to whom a cleric has preached". And if there's no evidence that the cleric has ever preached in favour of violence?

Anyway, you're simply being provocative, as I have stated.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I guess because the Japanese weren't threatening white people, the west should have let them pillage their way across China?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah indeed ... if only there was some agency (I propose it's named a "police force") in the US that was fighting against these murders and car accidents.

You mean the same agency that you don't seem to believe is able to effective prevent returning Jihadists from pulling off major terrorist attacks?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Millions? I guess US only needs to worry about four threats: Russia, China, UK and France, and ignore everyone else. There is no other state or organization or anyone that has the capacity to kill "millions" on the US soil.

Well you missed out India, Pakistan, and Israel, possibly North Korea, Mexico probably could, as could Canada, but since a total of zero of the listed countries would, even Russia, despite your issues with Putin, then, yes, in the real world, the US doesn't have to worry about anyone threatening it's existence, which means that what it should be focusing on is domestic issues rather than trying to be world policeman.