The True Threat of ISIS

[Darth Rotor]

It might be instructive for some folks to take a look at the al Jazeera article on the multinational effort to curb ISIS and help in the region where ISIS are being a right pain in the backside.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/in...-coalition-uae-saudi-2014101142731382476.html

I note that Japan and Korea are involved in Humanitarian aid -- applause -- and that a few surprise to me, Albania and Croatia, are involved on the Military side. It's an interesting mix, to be sure.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would if I could. I don't know exactly how in detail. but then, nor did anyone in 1920 (of any consequence) predict the rise of Nazi Germany over the next 20 years.

It happened nonetheless!!

And you are totally ignoring how it occurred. Fascism rose in Europe in many countries at the same time, and did so in response to the growing Communism threat. It built on the Western fears of Communism, their Xenophobia, and their sense of National Pride, things that are still very much in existence in our Western Society.

Islamic Extremism has nothing in common with Western Society, it simply can't, and will never get a foothold in it like Fascism did because Fascism is what happens to Western Society when we give in to our fears, just as they did in 1930's Europe. Westerners will never be drawn to Islamic Extremism as they are to Fascism, which means that the only way for your great-grandkids to live in an Islamic Fundamentalist country is if they move to one. You don't even have to worry about them flooding in and taking over, as this would require astounding numbers (as pointed out previously when I noted that in the country you live personally, the non-Muslim population is growing 21.4 to 1, and the increase in Muslims has been dwarves by the increase in Hindus, and even beaten by the increase in Sikhs.

If that's not enough, the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany had supporters numbers in the millions, even in 1924 they had over 6% of the vote. Even in France every Muslim would have to support an Islamic Party to get those numbers, and they wouldn't even get close to the 37% support 8 years later without converting millions of non-Muslims, something is highly unlikely to happen.

Finally, Nazi Germany had 15 Million troops, and that doesn't include the troops available from their other Axis Powers, such as Italy. ISIL has perhaps 50,000, many of whom are foreigners from outside of Iraq and Syria. They are surrounded by major militaries who vastly outnumber them and they have only survived as long as they have because the Governments of the two countries they are in are so messed up and unstable that they hardly have authority outside of their respective Capitals. Should they try moving against a country with a stable Government and a real military, ISIL will be squished like the bug they are.

These are the reasons they aren't a danger to our way of life, and it's also the reason you can't say why they are, all you have left is your paranoia and xenophobia, carry on that way and you're in more danger of returning to Fascism than there ever is in having to live under an Islamic State.

 

[smartcooky]

These are the reasons they aren't a danger to our way of life, and it's also the reason you can't say why they are, all you have left is your paranoia and xenophobia, carry on that way and you're in more danger of returning to Fascism than there ever is in having to live under an Islamic State.

So you don't think there is any danger of Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism in the west or outside of the middle east?

Well, you're a bit late

► USA - February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, in New York City. 6 killed.

► USA - September 11, 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers: two planes crashed into World Trade Center and one into the The Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead.

► Indonesia October 12, 2002 The Bali bombings, 202 killed and 240 injured.

► Indonesia August 5, 2003 The Marriott Hotel bombings. Killed 12 and injured 150

► Spain March 11, 2004 – Madrid train bombings, killed 191 people and wounded 1,800

► September 1, 2004 - Beslan, Russia - School, 1200 hostages held, 300 killed, 156 children

► Indonesia September 9, 2004 – 2004 Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia; killing 9 and injuring over 150

► United Kingdom July 7, 2005 – Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.

► India September 13, 2008 – Bombing series in Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places. 33 people dead and 130 injured

► India November 26, 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 166 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's financial capital, Mumbai

► Sweden December 10, 2010 Stockholm bombing, Sweden. killing the bomber and injuring two people

► China July 18, 2011 Hotan attack, Hotan, China. A series of coordinated bomb and knife attacks killed two people

► USA April 15, 2013. – Boston Marathon bombings.Killed 3 and injured 183 others

► United Kingdom May 22, 2013 – Two men with cleavers kill British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich

► Kenya September 21, 2013 - Westgate shopping mall attack, 67 killed, 175 wounded

Do you honestly believe that the people who live in these countries are completely unaffected by these acts of terrorism, that is has not affected them at all. Ask any New Yorker who was there on September 11, 2001 how it affected them. Ask Londoners, particularly those who use the Tube every morning, what impact the 7/7 bombings had on them!

And you are totally ignoring how it occurred. Fascism rose in Europe in many countries at the same time, and did so in response to the growing Communism threat. It built on the Western fears of Communism, their Xenophobia, and their sense of National Pride, things that are still very much in existence in our Western Society.

Islamic Extremism has nothing in common with Western Society, it simply can't, and will never get a foothold in it like Fascism did because Fascism is what happens to Western Society when we give in to our fears, just as they did in 1930's Europe.

And again, you entirely miss the point.

There are over 42 million Muslims living in the west. Even if the vast and overwhelming majority of them are decent Law-abiding citizens as I believe they are, there is still a huge potential for radicalization of a small number of them, and a small number of "sleepers" is all it will take to carry out another 7/7 or 9/11 attack.

The people who committed the 9/11 attacks didn't simply deploy into the USA just a day or two prior to the attacks, they were living there for 6 to 18 months. Prior to that, a number of the terrorists were member of a Hamburg Islamic Terrorist Cell; Hamburg, thats Germany, another western country.

The 7/7 London Tube bombers were even worse. Germain Lindsay, was born in Jamaica but emigrated to England in 1990 when he was 5 years old. Hasib Hussain was born in Leeds, as was Mohammad Khan. Shehzad Tanweer was born in Bradford. They were all British citizens Still think that "Islamic Extremism has nothing in common with Western Society"

The facts are that while it might not appeal to the average westerners it still has the potential to appeal greatly to disaffected Muslims living in the west, They are a prime resource for radicalization by Islamic Extremsists.

 

[smartcooky]

PhantomWolf, I just hope that for people like you, it doesn't take an Islamic terrorist bomb in your hometown that kills people you care about before you wake up!

 

[PhantomWolf]

So you don't think there is any danger of Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism in the west or outside of the middle east?

No one has said that, but nice strawman.

Well, you're a bit late

► USA - February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, in New York City. 6 killed.

► USA - September 11, 2001 – 4 planes hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers: two planes crashed into World Trade Center and one into the The Pentagon. Nearly 3000 dead.

► Indonesia October 12, 2002 The Bali bombings, 202 killed and 240 injured.

► Indonesia August 5, 2003 The Marriott Hotel bombings. Killed 12 and injured 150

► Spain March 11, 2004 – Madrid train bombings, killed 191 people and wounded 1,800

► September 1, 2004 - Beslan, Russia - School, 1200 hostages held, 300 killed, 156 children

► Indonesia September 9, 2004 – 2004 Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia; killing 9 and injuring over 150

► United Kingdom July 7, 2005 – Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.

► India September 13, 2008 – Bombing series in Delhi, India. Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places. 33 people dead and 130 injured

► India November 26, 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 166 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's financial capital, Mumbai

► Sweden December 10, 2010 Stockholm bombing, Sweden. killing the bomber and injuring two people

► China July 18, 2011 Hotan attack, Hotan, China. A series of coordinated bomb and knife attacks killed two people

► USA April 15, 2013. – Boston Marathon bombings.Killed 3 and injured 183 others

► United Kingdom May 22, 2013 – Two men with cleavers kill British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich

► Kenya September 21, 2013 - Westgate shopping mall attack, 67 killed, 175 wounded

And these events have destroyed the Western World as we know it? By the way, in the same time 3797 people were killed (and I note most during 9/11 or in non-Western Countries,) in just New Zealand alone, 9233 people died on our roads. 33,561 people died in car accidents in just 2012 in the US.

Worldwide as many people die in just one day in vehicle accidents as in all the attacks you listed. Each year tens of millions of people are injured, maimed, and disabled in vehicle accidents. This hasn't destroyed western civilisation yet.

As spectacular as they might be and as great to sell newspapers, Terrorism is extremely minor on the list of ways to die.

Do you honestly believe that the people who live in these countries are completely unaffected by these acts of terrorism, that is has not affected them at all. Ask any New Yorker who was there on September 11, 2001 how it affected them. Ask Londoners, particularly those who use the Tube every morning, what impact the 7/7 bombings had on them!

Again you strawman.

Do you honestly believe that those attacks are a threat to end Western Civilisation?

And again, you entirely miss the point.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/MuslimMap.png[/qimg]

There are over 42 million Muslims living in the west.

Did you remove Turkey from Europe?

Even if the vast and overwhelming majority of them are decent Law-abiding citizens as I believe they are, there is still a huge potential for radicalization of a small number of them, and a small number of "sleepers" is all it will take to carry out another 7/7 or 9/11 attack.

which apparently you think will somehow bring about the end of Western Civilization. I don't. 9/11 didn't do with nearly 3000 dead because of a unique never to be repeated circumstance, what makes any attack could make the West accept Fundamental Islam as a way of life?

The people who committed the 9/11 attacks didn't simply deploy into the USA just a day or two prior to the attacks, they were living there for 6 to 18 months. Prior to that, a number of the terrorists were member of a Hamburg Islamic Terrorist Cell; Hamburg, thats Germany, another western country.

The 7/7 London Tube bombers were even worse. Germain Lindsay, was born in Jamaica but emigrated to England in 1990 when he was 5 years old. Hasib Hussain was born in Leeds, as was Mohammad Khan. Shehzad Tanweer was born in Bradford. They were all British citizens Still think that "Islamic Extremism has nothing in common with Western Society"

The facts are that while it might not appeal to the average westerners it still has the potential to appeal greatly to disaffected Muslims living in the west, They are a prime resource for radicalization by Islamic Extremsists.

You're still talking a handful of people, can you honestly say that 100 or even a 1,000 of these people could bring down Western Civilization? Seriously? If you really do, then you are as deluded as they are. The West well never submit to them, no matter how much they try and blow stuff and people up. The more they do it, the more the West will resist them, that is our nature.

 

[PhantomWolf]

PhantomWolf, I just hope that for people like you, it doesn't take an Islamic terrorist bomb in your hometown that kills people you care about before you wake up!

You might want to check under your bed, I think I saw a red under it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And again, you entirely miss the point.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/MuslimMap.png[/qimg]

There are over 42 million Muslims living in the west.

Much more informative...

 

[smartcooky]

No one has said that, but nice strawman.

Again you strawman.

Do you honestly believe that those attacks are a threat to end Western Civilisation?

Did you remove Turkey from Europe?

which apparently you think will somehow bring about the end of Western Civilization. I don't. 9/11 didn't do with nearly 3000 dead because of a unique never to be repeated circumstance, what makes any attack could make the West accept Fundamental Islam as a way of life?

You just don't get it do you. Either you can't or you refuse to.

They may not "take over the western world" (yet) but they have, can and will seriously affect our way of life. These are NOT strawmen as you claim. I am arguing EXACTLY against what you are arguing - YOU have said, on numerous occasions in this thread, that what is happening in the Middle East at the moment won't affect our way of life. In the poll YOU created, which asks "How big a threat to the world is ISIS?", YOU voted for "Pretty Much None, they're stuck where they are ". Any way you slice it, you are saying that they are ZERO threat to anyone outside of Iraq and Syria. This is not a strawman on my part, you are arguing that they can have ZERO impact on our way of life. Well buddy, wake up and smell the coffee, because they already are...

Have you flown anywhere overseas lately?
Did you fly anywhere at any time before September 11, 2001?
Did you notice the difference?
If you haven't, ask someone who has.

Have you ever heard of the Patriot Act?
Do you understand why Congress passed it?

Have you ever heard of the Department of Homeland Security?
Do you understand why it was created?

It is simply undeniable that Islamic Terrorists have had an impact on life in the west. I have been to the Middle East several times in my lifetime, both as a tourist (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar) and on duty (Iran, Iraq). I would not want to go anywhere near there now and am I am never likely to again. Its just too dangerous for westerners.

You're still talking a handful of people, can you honestly say that 100 or even a 1,000 of these people could bring down Western Civilization? Seriously? If you really do, then you are as deluded as they are. The West well never submit to them, no matter how much they try and blow stuff and people up. The more they do it, the more the West will resist them, that is our nature.

Now that IS a strawman. I'm not arguing that 100 or 1000 people can bring down western civilization. Do I need to remind you of your own question that you ask in the poll?

Remind me how many people it took to plan and execute the 7/7 attacks in London? When will you sandal-wearing liberal peaceniks get the fact that it only takes a handful of people to plan and execute terrorist acts.

And these events have destroyed the Western World as we know it? By the way, in the same time 3797 people were killed (and I note most during 9/11 or in non-Western Countries,) in just New Zealand alone, 9233 people died on our roads. 33,561 people died in car accidents in just 2012 in the US.

Worldwide as many people die in just one day in vehicle accidents as in all the attacks you listed. Each year tens of millions of people are injured, maimed, and disabled in vehicle accidents. This hasn't destroyed western civilisation yet.

As spectacular as they might be and as great to sell newspapers, Terrorism is extremely minor on the list of ways to die.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You might want to check under your bed, I think I saw a red under it.

I haven't responded to (slapped you for) any of your comments on this topic thus far mostly due to our shared history on Apollohoax, but I'll just say I think you've painted yourself into a False Dichotomy trap. ISIS doesn't need to be capable of toppling Poland, Denmark and France to be a threat to regional stability. Not that "regional stability" exists to begin with, which means that new power players in the region can create disproportionate effects for the amount of force they apply. ISIS troops are on the march towards suburbs of Baghdad as we speak ( http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-troops-as-isis-jihadists-close-in-on-baghdad ) which may not affect you in your antipodian First World ivory tower but will not create peace and prosperity for anyone anywhere even if they fail to take Abu Ghraib.

 

[McHrozni]

In 1968 the Muslim population in France was 1.6%. Now it is somewhere between 7 and 12% (I got different answers looking). Do you think that number will simply go down?

I can see it going either way. I can see it going up to 30 or 40% in 80 years... Or I can see it stagnating... or I could see a great secular awakening and dropping.

A group like ISIS does not help the situation.

That's actually arguable. If Muslims in Europe don't want to be associated with ISIS, I think it is reasonable to assume some will embrace secularism, even abandon their religion. Not all, obviously, but some. Maybe even a majority, who knows. It happened to Christianity, so why not Islam.

McHrozni

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't responded to (slapped you for) any of your comments on this topic thus far mostly due to our shared history on Apollohoax, but I'll just say I think you've painted yourself into a False Dichotomy trap. ISIS doesn't need to be capable of toppling Poland, Denmark and France to be a threat to regional stability. Not that "regional stability" exists to begin with, which means that new power players in the region can create disproportionate effects for the amount of force they apply. ISIS troops are on the march towards suburbs of Baghdad as we speak ( http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-troops-as-isis-jihadists-close-in-on-baghdad ) which may not affect you in your antipodian First World ivory tower but will not create peace and prosperity for anyone anywhere even if they fail to take Abu Ghraib.

Not to mention that, in the real world, ISIL are about to topple Kobani (despite the US and others' air strikes, which have been too little and too late) and with that is sure to come a huge slaughter of innocent civilians.

PhantomWolf however, will be happy in his idealist world, believing that the events taking place in Iraq and Syria will have no impact on him at all. The number of innocent civilians massacred will be less than the number of people killed on the roads in [insert name of country here] and therefore, not significant. I'm not sure that the dead in Kobani will appreciate the fine distinction.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, New Zealand's terrorist alert status has been lifted from "very low", where terror is unlikely, to "low", which means it is possible, but not expected. This is a direct response to the ISIL threat, and the highest level it has ever been, including post 9/11 and the Bali bombings.

 

[angrysoba]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, New Zealand's terrorist alert status has been lifted from "very low", where terror is unlikely, to "low", which means it is possible, but not expected.

If that's not a reason to cut out all the namby pamby lefty ideas of freedom of speech then I don't know what is.

The problem with lefties is that they don't understand the price of liberty is the curtailment of freedom of speech and it could not come soon enough for many people!

 

[PhantomWolf]

You just don't get it do you. Either you can't or you refuse to.

I understand what you are saying, you're just wrong about it.

They may not "take over the western world" (yet)

They won't even take it over, or destroy it, the rest is your own paranoia.

but they have, can and will seriously affect our way of life.

No they won't. If we allow our own Governments and people like you who cheer for them as they strip away our rights, then that will seriously effect our way of life, but ISIL, they won't manage to do anything.

These are NOT strawmen as you claim. I am arguing EXACTLY against what you are arguing - YOU have said, on numerous occasions in this thread, that what is happening in the Middle East at the moment won't affect our way of life.

No, I have argued, and will continue to do so that they won't destroy the Western World, no where I have argued that they won't affect it at all. My worry is that paranoids and wanna-be fascists will jump on the situation to be about laws that curb our individual rights

In the poll YOU created, which asks "How big a threat to the world is ISIS?", YOU voted for "Pretty Much None, they're stuck where they are ". Any way you slice it, you are saying that they are ZERO threat to anyone outside of Iraq and Syria. This is not a strawman on my part, you are arguing that they can have ZERO impact on our way of life. Well buddy, wake up and smell the coffee, because they already are...

Pretty much no threat to the existence of western world does not = zero effect. You are the one creating that straw man, repeatedly.

Have you flown anywhere overseas lately?
Did you fly anywhere at any time before September 11, 2001?
Did you notice the difference?
If you haven't, ask someone who has.

Have you ever heard of the Patriot Act?
Do you understand why Congress passed it?

Have you ever heard of the Department of Homeland Security?
Do you understand why it was created?

Did ISIL create or cause any of these to occur? Did Islamic Fundamentalists put any of those things in place? This is exactly what I am arguing against, the eroding of our freedoms and rights by Government using inflated threats to pass more restrictive and fascist laws, all while the sheep cheer from the balcony.

It is simply undeniable that Islamic Terrorists have had an impact on life in the west. I have been to the Middle East several times in my lifetime, both as a tourist (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar) and on duty (Iran, Iraq). I would not want to go anywhere near there now and am I am never likely to again. Its just too dangerous for westerners.

Oh noes, the western world will fall because they can't go on holiday in a country with a civil war ranging. BTW, of all of those countries listed, only parts of Iraq are too dangerous, because there is a war going on and war zones are dangerous.

Now that IS a strawman. I'm not arguing that 100 or 1000 people can bring down western civilization. Do I need to remind you of your own question that you ask in the poll?

Perhaps you need to re-read it and the OP again, cause right now I think you have missed it.

Remind me how many people it took to plan and execute the 7/7 attacks in London?

It's irrelevant, single terrorist attacks do not threaten the existence of our society. Even multiple attacks wouldn't, and I'd note that the security forces are getting better at stopping attempted attacks as well. Can you show me any countries that have changed religion to follow an extremist form because of Terrorist attacks by that religion?

When will you sandal-wearing liberal peaceniks get the fact that it only takes a handful of people to plan and execute terrorist acts.

Repeated ad hominem attacks noted.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

I suggest you actually learn what a fallacy is. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is one where differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. I didn't do anything close to that, I pointed out that compared to an everyday events that we do without thought, driving a car, that the risk of being killed by an Islamic attack is extremely small.

You and those Lawmakers you cheer on as they strip away people's rights, want to make people scared of a shadow that is of minor danger to us compared to the drunk driver down the street. You have your threat assessment radar completely out of whack if you are foolish enough to continue to allow our Governments to tighten the noose about us necks for fear of an over blown threat of an Islamic Terrorist cutting it.

The sad thing is that in the 1930's it was the NSWP that used the threat of communism and the communist groups in western Europe as a driving force to make Fascism popular throughout Germany. They used that support of the cheering crowds to strip rights from people and do atrocities to a religious group all in the name of national security. It was that fear and willingness to charge into battle against the Communist enemy that led to the country going to war. But of course Islam is the real threat, just like it was Communists and Jews in 1930.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not to mention that, in the real world, ISIL are about to topple Kobani (despite the US and others' air strikes, which have been too little and too late) and with that is sure to come a huge slaughter of innocent civilians.

Except that the latest news from Kobani is that the Kurds are pushing ISIL back and have killed a large number of their fighters in an ambush. If Turkey was to allow reinforcements, or even better actually cross the border themselves, ISIL wouldn't stand a chance there.

PhantomWolf however, will be happy in his idealist world, believing that the events taking place in Iraq and Syria will have no impact on him at all. The number of innocent civilians massacred will be less than the number of people killed on the roads in [insert name of country here] and therefore, not significant. I'm not sure that the dead in Kobani will appreciate the fine distinction.

Thanks for making stuff up and attributing it to ne, I won't hold my breath for any apology for your lies and well poisoning.

I will note that no-one bothered to get upset and sent troops and airstrikes against those conducting massacres in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Congo, Zimbabwe, Burma, The Central African Republic. I don't remember people like you demanding we change our laws and cheer on the idea of arresting and locking people up for expressing their opinions because of them either. Oh, but yeah, most of them were African and don't have oil, so why do they count?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, New Zealand's terrorist alert status has been lifted from "very low", where terror is unlikely, to "low", which means it is possible, but not expected. This is a direct response to the ISIL threat, and the highest level it has ever been, including post 9/11 and the Bali bombings.

Yes, because the answer to a civil war conflict on the other side of the planet is to remove the civil rights of your own people. Excellent plan, if you're a fascist. This is the exact thing I have been warning against, and here you are cheering for it. Lucas had it right, Liberty does die to thunderous applause.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't responded to (slapped you for) any of your comments on this topic thus far mostly due to our shared history on Apollohoax

Just because we agree on the AH doesn't mean we can't disagree and discuss different topics.

but I'll just say I think you've painted yourself into a False Dichotomy trap.

Not at all. A False Dichotomy would be that they are either no danger at all, or "OMG the world is going to end and we're going to have to pray to Mecca or have our heads chopped off."

I think that reality is somewhere in the middle, that they are a serious threat to the people in the direct area of Iraq and Syria, a lesser threat to the surrounding countries, and a very minor threat to everyone else. On the other hand, other posters here do seem to definitely fall into the if you don't believe that they are dire threat to Everyone, you must believe that they are a threat to no-one crowd.

ISIS doesn't need to be capable of toppling Poland, Denmark and France to be a threat to regional stability. Not that "regional stability" exists to begin with, which means that new power players in the region can create disproportionate effects for the amount of force they apply. ISIS troops are on the march towards suburbs of Baghdad as we speak ( http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-troops-as-isis-jihadists-close-in-on-baghdad ) which may not affect you in your antipodian First World ivory tower but will not create peace and prosperity for anyone anywhere even if they fail to take Abu Ghraib.

No one is claiming that ISIL marching on Baghdad would create peace and prosperity for anyone anywhere, except perhaps for them. The question is would their taking Baghdad topple the West? Would it cause millions of westerners to embrace Islam and Sharia Law, because that is what needs to happen for the dire claims of certain posters here to come true.

Reality is quite different, even if they get to Baghdad, which they have been having trouble doing, they then start to run into the majority shi'ite population. Such a population won't support them, but will fight them, and they don't have the number to overcome that, let alone enough to keep it under control if they did. Remember the US had 115,000 well trained soldiers in Iraq, and they couldn't keep control without the support of the local leaders. At the most, ISIL has half that number.

If by a miracle they did somehow manage it, it's as far as they get militarily, because their forces would be used entirely on maintaining control of the area they hold. They would become little more than the new Taliban, a disaster for the people under them, but hardly a blip on the radar for everyone else.

 

[smartcooky]

Except that the latest news from Kobani is that the Kurds are pushing ISIL back and have killed a large number of their fighters in an ambush. If Turkey was to allow reinforcements, or even better actually cross the border themselves, ISIL wouldn't stand a chance there.

Please try to keep up with world events of you are going to discuss them. Your "latest news" is three days old!

58 minutes ago at time of posting

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/world/meast/isis-threat/index.html

and the massacre has started already...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-the-savagery-of-isis-laid-bare-9791199.html

Thanks for making stuff up and attributing it to ne, I won't hold my breath for any apology for your lies and well poisoning.

I'm not making stuff up. In post #145, you said...

By the way, in the same time 3797 people were killed (and I note most during 9/11 or in non-Western Countries,) in just New Zealand alone, 9233 people died on our roads. 33,561 people died in car accidents in just 2012 in the US.

Worldwide as many people die in just one day in vehicle accidents as in all the attacks you listed. Each year tens of millions of people are injured, maimed, and disabled in vehicle accidents. This hasn't destroyed western civilisation yet.

So, no apology is necessary or will be forthcoming. You belittled the deaths of thousands of people in terrorist actions by comparing them with with various road tolls, exactly as I said. How bloody despicable and insulting to the memories of those who were murdered by these scumbags!

I will note that no-one bothered to get upset and sent troops and airstrikes against those conducting massacres in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Congo, Zimbabwe, Burma, The Central African Republic.

Terrorists from "Rwanda, or Haiti, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Congo, Zimbabwe, Burma, The Central African Republic" weren't hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings in New York, bombing embassies around the world, setting off bombs in the London transport system and blowing up trains in Madrid were they!!

I don't remember people like you demanding we change our laws and cheer on the idea of arresting and locking people up for expressing their opinions because of them either. Oh, but yeah, most of them were African and don't have oil, so why do they count?

See previous paragraph.

Yes, because the answer to a civil war conflict on the other side of the planet is to remove the civil rights of your own people. Excellent plan, if you're a fascist. This is the exact thing I have been warning against, and here you are cheering for it. Lucas had it right, Liberty does die to thunderous applause.

This NOT a civil war. A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic This war encompasses Iraq, Syria and now the border areas of Turkey. I count three countries and the armed forces of at least two (not including those outside the region).

I find it hilarious that you quote a line from a piece of fantasy fiction, to support your own fantasy fiction.

 

[smartcooky]

Not at all. A False Dichotomy would be that they are either no danger at all, or "OMG the world is going to end and we're going to have to pray to Mecca or have our heads chopped off."

I think that reality is somewhere in the middle, that they are a serious threat to the people in the direct area of Iraq and Syria, a lesser threat to the surrounding countries, and a very minor threat to everyone else. On the other hand, other posters here do seem to definitely fall into the if you don't believe that they are dire threat to Everyone, you must believe that they are a threat to no-one crowd.

No one is claiming that ISIL marching on Baghdad would create peace and prosperity for anyone anywhere, except perhaps for them. The question is would their taking Baghdad topple the West? Would it cause millions of westerners to embrace Islam and Sharia Law, because that is what needs to happen for the dire claims of certain posters here to come true.

Once again, I remind you of the title of this thread; a thread YOU started

"The True threat of ISIS"

and the question YOU asked in the poll YOU created

"How big a threat to the world is ISIS?"

and the choice YOU clicked

"Pretty Much None, they're stuck where they are"

You did not ask the question, "Can ISIS take over the world?", but you are arguing as if that is what you did ask, against posters who are debating your actual question.

Reality is quite different, even if they get to Baghdad, which they have been having trouble doing, they then start to run into the majority shi'ite population. Such a population won't support them, but will fight them, and they don't have the number to overcome that, let alone enough to keep it under control if they did. Remember the US had 115,000 well trained soldiers in Iraq, and they couldn't keep control without the support of the local leaders. At the most, ISIL has half that number.

If by a miracle they did somehow manage it, it's as far as they get militarily, because their forces would be used entirely on maintaining control of the area they hold. They would become little more than the new Taliban, a disaster for the people under them, but hardly a blip on the radar for everyone else.

Oh please!! Can't you work this out for yourself?

ISIL can easily keep control by the simple dint of slaughtering all the civilians who don't join them. Its not hard to keep control of a civilian population when they are all dead.

This is not a solution that was available to the US forces!!

.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Please try to keep up with world events of you are going to discuss them. Your "latest news" is three days old!

58 minutes ago at time of posting

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/world/meast/isis-threat/index.html

and the massacre has started already...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-the-savagery-of-isis-laid-bare-9791199.html

And Turkey while keeps the borders closed and stop reinforcements there is a threat that the Kurds there will lose, but this is Turkey's doing and they need to actually get involved instead of playing politics, or at least allow fighters to get into the town and civilians get out.

I'm not making stuff up. In post #145, you said...

So, no apology is necessary or will be forthcoming. You belittled the deaths of thousands of people in terrorist actions by comparing them with with various road tolls, exactly as I said. How bloody despicable and insulting to the memories of those who were murdered by these scumbags!

And you belittle the deaths of the thousands that die on our roads, because somehow being killed by a drunk driver isn't worth as much in your opinion as someone that died in a bombing. Perhaps you can tell that to the families of those who have lost loved ones to traffic?

What I didn't do was compare those being massacred in Iraq and Syria, you made that up. I compared deaths in Western Countries by non-ISIL sources. So yes you did make it up.

Terrorists from "Rwanda, or Haiti, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Congo, Zimbabwe, Burma, The Central African Republic" weren't hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings in New York, bombing embassies around the world, setting off bombs in the London transport system and blowing up trains in Madrid were they!!

Last time I checked no Terrorists from Iraq or Syria had done any of those things either, but I'm willing to stand corrected if you can point to one who has flown a plane into a building of blown up a train in London or Madrid.

See previous paragraph.

See previous answer.

This NOT a civil war. A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic This war encompasses Iraq, Syria and now the border areas of Turkey. I count three countries and the armed forces of at least two (not including those outside the region).

Actually it is a civil war, well two actually. One inside of Syria, and the spill over that has reignited the one inside of Iraq. A civil wars is when civilian groups or non-governmental forces fight a war against each other, or against the Government forces of a country, that is exactly what is occurring in Syria and Iraq. Unless you are claiming that ISIL really is a State and as such can declare war on another State.

I find it hilarious that you quote a line from a piece of fantasy fiction, to support your own fantasy fiction.

Laugh all you want, perhaps one day you'll wake up and realise how many of our rights are being stripped away by Governments inflating and using the fear and paranoia by people like you to assert more and more authoritarian control over our lives. Sadly by then it'll be far to late, our way of life will be gone, but not because of a fictional Islamic takeover.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Once again, I remind you of the title of this thread; a thread YOU started

"The True threat of ISIS"

and the question YOU asked in the poll YOU created

"How big a threat to the world is ISIS?"

and the choice YOU clicked

"Pretty Much None, they're stuck where they are"

You did not ask the question, "Can ISIS take over the world?", but you are arguing as if that is what you did ask, against posters who are debating your actual question.

Part of any poll is the OP which is able to clarify what is being asked and why, since the question is very limited in size. But please continue to ignore that won't you. And yes I did click that because they are pretty much stuck where they are. Even if they do manage to somehow kowtow the population of Southern Iraq, that's where they stop.

Oh please!! Can't you work this out for yourself?

ISIL can easily keep control by the simple dint of slaughtering all the civilians who don't join them. Its not hard to keep control of a civilian population when they are all dead.

This is not a solution that was available to the US forces!!

No, the US forces were actually pretty nice for the most part, if we ignore the random killings, and torture.

But you seem to forget that when you start killing the population something happens, do you really think that Shi'ites are going to just let ISIL walk in to their homes? Do you think that everyone that is likely to be on the end of a massacre will just wait patiently to be killed, or do you think that perhaps knowing that if they don't fight back they will be killed anyway, they might just fight with everything they have to prevent ISIL getting to their families? Do you honestly believe that 50,000 ISIL troops are really capable of fighting and then controlling several million Shi'ites who are willing to fight to their last breath to protect their homes and families?

If so, I think you are deluded and credit ISIL with far more power than they actually have. The vast majority of the area they currently control they do because the locals let them in, or because there is virtually no-one there, it's large tracks of desert and open space. Where the locals have resisted them, they are struggling.

Let's take Kobani as an example (though there are many others.) Poorly equipped and besieged, with no reinforcements, the fighters there have held off ISIL since July the 2nd. After being repulsed the first few attempts, ISIL got reinforcements and started a full assault on Oct 16th, and now almost a month later have still failed to take the centre of the city. If one small town with no reinforcements and poorly trained fighters with even poorer weapons are capable of holding them back for so long, why do you think they have any hope of taking a more fortified, better armed city with far more fighters in it, and people willing to die fighting before they surrender?

 

[smartcooky]

Ok, so since we have been descending into this supposed Orwellian nightmare of yours where we are all doomed to a life of subservience to the Ebil Gubmint, and where free speech has been eroded, perhaps you can give us all some examples of things that you cannot say now that you would have been free to say five years ago; ten years, twenty years, fifty years ago. Give us some examples where the public's right to free speech has ACTUALLY been eroded?