The True Threat of ISIS

[Mudcat]

As a threat to people in the US, depends on skin colour, but if you're black or Jewish, the KKK are a bigger threat.

To the best of my knowledge the KKK aren't even a legitimate threat towards Jews or people of color anymore. The biggest threat towards people of color seems to be people of color, in fact. It's certainly out of the question that the KKK would be able to take over a country or inspire the deaths of thousands, although I would still like it if the KKK ceased to exist.

My point still stands, the KKK isn't comparable to ISIS.

I'm enjoying PhantomWolf's reasoning in this thread

Why theirs?

 

[bit_pattern]

Why theirs?

Well, obviously he confirms my own preconceived biases and I think he is making points that are incisive and question the sacred cows valued by others who's biases that I disagree with. Why does anyone agree with anything?

 

[Mudcat]

Sorry, thought you were being sarcastic. Poe's law strikes again!

 

[bit_pattern]

Haha! Poe was a genius

Someone on the internet needs to invent a /sarcastic /notsarcastic font

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Okay, but here's the thing.

What do you propose that will "take them out"? Please give some specifics here.

Airstrikes and supporting Iraqi-Turkish-Israeli forces on the ground to defeat IS

What do you think the West should do that the regional actors cannot do?

Provide Air support and supplies

And you have lost me with this "horsemen of the steppe" thing. Who are you specifically referring to?

The Mongols, who ransacked their way from Mongolia to Poland.

I know the man with the funny moustache, he is endlessly (some may say tediously) brought up whenever someone is urging military action.

And Us Foreign policy since 1945 has been to make sure someone isn't as big a threat as the man with the funny moustache.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Airstrikes and supporting Iraqi-Turkish-Israeli forces on the ground to defeat IS

Like airstrikes and backing up the Afghani forced destroyed the Taliban?

Provide Air support and supplies

Which has been so effective at destroying extremism in the last 13 years

And Us Foreign policy since 1945 has been to make sure someone isn't as big a threat as the man with the funny moustache.

Perhaps you can do what no-one else has been able to do yet, explain in a rational manner, with evidence, how this rag tag group is any threat to the existence of the Western World or our continued way of life, let along as big a threat as the Axis forces in the first part of the 1940's.

 

[McHrozni]

Common wisdom around here, however, is that they don't acquire these radical ideas through their local mosques but primarily through radical websites.

Common wisdom could be wrong.

That said, what better avenue is there to counter it but through their Imams and mosques? If they acted responsibly for the past 16 years or so, they would have been declaring such websites as being run by apostates who are agents of the devil this whole time. It would certainly cut down on the web's recruitment capacity, and offer them a considerable amount of credibility when they meekly declare ISIS as being "incompatible with Islam" today.

McHrozni

 

[smartcooky]

While the Nazis had a huge, well armed army, they were essentially hamstrung through a lack of material resources, particularly oil. It is a little known fact that the bulk of the German Army throughout the WW2 was infantry and horse-drawn artillery. Less than 20% their Army was mobile panzer or mechanized divisions. German infantry divisions employed many thousands of horses and many thousands of men to look after them. Also, the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) was for the most part impotent during the whole of WW2. If the lack of oil and coal didn't keep them in home port, the hammering they got from the Royal Navy every time they ventured out did. They couldn't even invade Britain; islands that were not well defended, and only a few kilometres across the channel. The Royal Navy and the RAF would have decimated them had they treid to go ahead with Operation Sealion.

The invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa) was mostly about the capture of the Baku Oilfields. There were other anticipated benefit of course; victory over Russia would mean that Germany could demobilise large numbers of servicemen to help ease the labour shortage in German industry. This would be further relieved by using forced labour of Russian workers. Defeating the Russians would also severely disadvantage the Allies, particularly Great Britain. But Hitler and his High Command knew that they would not be able to continue the war much past mid 1943 without oil. Albert Speer, the German Minister for Armaments and War Production even admitted to this during his post-war interrogation... "the need for oil certainly was a prime motive in the decision to invade"

Yes Nazi Germany was a threat to the world and what we call our way of life. Had they been successful in invading Russia, defeating the Russian army and capturing those all-important Baku oilfields, we might be living in a very different world today.

However ISIL pose a different kind of threat to that posed by Nazi Germany. The world in 1944 was very different in terms of transnational migration, i.e. citizens of countries tended mostly to live in those countries. As a result , very few Germans lived outside of Germany at the commencement of hostilities. In Allied countries, many that were found were often interned in camps.

What ISIL has is sympathisers all over the world in far greater numbers that Germany ever had. They also have their nationals living and working among us. Our world has become so cosmopolitan, that terrorists are almost able to hide in plain sight, and operate with impunity. ISIL sympathisers donate huge amounts of money, over US$6m per day (US$2.2bn p.a.). Worse yet, they also have people who are willing to wage a terrorist war in their country of residence against the people of that country. Just because ISIL has not raised an army of millions in the Middle East, and invaded all the countries around them, does not mean we should make the mistake of underestimating what they are capable of. It took just nineteen Islamic Terrorists to kill over 3000 people in America and shut down New York for a long time. Just four bombers shut down the London transportation system for a few days. These were low cost operations with minimal material requirements. You can finance an awful lot of these type of operations for 6 millions bucks a day!!

While ISIL is very unlikely to destroy our way of life, or take over the western world, they can nonetheless make life very difficult for us. Anyone who does not believe that is burying their head in the sand.

 

[angrysoba]

Airstrikes and supporting Iraqi-Turkish-Israeli forces on the ground to defeat IS

I believe that Turkey and Iraq have warplanes and ground forces. As do Syria, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Can these not be used instead? (From what I understand some Saudi planes are involved in airstrikes, which is probably just as well). And I doubt that Israel joining in would help keep a coalition together. That's a sad fact of the Middle East.

Provide Air support and supplies

I don't think this is something that only the West can provide which cannot be provided by regional actors. Furthermore, even when defeated on the battlefield, ISIS will have to be dealt with in the civilian areas such as Mosul. Are Western troops going to be deployed to Mosul and Fallujah and cities in Syria?

If yes, what is the end result that you have in mind when we know that ISIS are defeated? Will this involve the bombing of civilians in Mosul like the area bombing of German cities?

The Mongols, who ransacked their way from Mongolia to Poland.

Either this allusion is meaningless or you mean that ISIS will develop into some kind of global power. Is this really likely?

And Us Foreign policy since 1945 has been to make sure someone isn't as big a threat as the man with the funny moustache.

So?

 

[angrysoba]

However ISIL pose a different kind of threat to that posed by Nazi Germany. The world in 1944 was very different in terms of transnational migration, i.e. citizens of countries tended mostly to live in those countries. As a result , very few Germans lived outside of Germany at the commencement of hostilities. In Allied countries, many that were found were often interned in camps.

What ISIL has is sympathisers all over the world in far greater numbers that Germany ever had. They also have their nationals living and working among us. Our world has become so cosmopolitan, that terrorists are almost able to hide in plain sight, and operate with impunity. ISIL sympathisers donate huge amounts of money, over US$6m per day (US$2.2bn p.a.). Worse yet, they also have people who are willing to wage a terrorist war in their country of residence against the people of that country. Just because ISIL has not raised an army of millions in the Middle East, and invaded all the countries around them, does not mean we should make the mistake of underestimating what they are capable of. It took just nineteen Islamic Terrorists to kill over 3000 people in America and shut down New York for a long time. Just four bombers shut down the London transportation system for a few days. These were low cost operations with minimal material requirements. You can finance an awful lot of these type of operations for 6 millions bucks a day!!

And what action do you propose will reduce terrorism?

While ISIL is very unlikely to destroy our way of life, or take over the western world, they can nonetheless make life very difficult for us. Anyone who does not believe that is burying their head in the sand.

Maybe they can, but I suspect we will end up making lives more difficult for ourselves as well. More "security" checks and whatnot.

 

[Caper]

While the Nazis had a huge, well armed army, they were essentially hamstrung through a lack of material resources, particularly oil. It is a little known fact that the bulk of the German Army throughout the WW2 was infantry and horse-drawn artillery. Less than 20% their Army was mobile panzer or mechanized divisions. German infantry divisions employed many thousands of horses and many thousands of men to look after them. Also, the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) was for the most part impotent during the whole of WW2. If the lack of oil and coal didn't keep them in home port, the hammering they got from the Royal Navy every time they ventured out did. They couldn't even invade Britain; islands that were not well defended, and only a few kilometres across the channel. The Royal Navy and the RAF would have decimated them had they treid to go ahead with Operation Sealion.

The invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa) was mostly about the capture of the Baku Oilfields. There were other anticipated benefit of course; victory over Russia would mean that Germany could demobilise large numbers of servicemen to help ease the labour shortage in German industry. This would be further relieved by using forced labour of Russian workers. Defeating the Russians would also severely disadvantage the Allies, particularly Great Britain. But Hitler and his High Command knew that they would not be able to continue the war much past mid 1943 without oil. Albert Speer, the German Minister for Armaments and War Production even admitted to this during his post-war interrogation... "the need for oil certainly was a prime motive in the decision to invade"

Yes Nazi Germany was a threat to the world and what we call our way of life. Had they been successful in invading Russia, defeating the Russian army and capturing those all-important Baku oilfields, we might be living in a very different world today.

However ISIL pose a different kind of threat to that posed by Nazi Germany. The world in 1944 was very different in terms of transnational migration, i.e. citizens of countries tended mostly to live in those countries. As a result , very few Germans lived outside of Germany at the commencement of hostilities. In Allied countries, many that were found were often interned in camps.

What ISIL has is sympathisers all over the world in far greater numbers that Germany ever had. They also have their nationals living and working among us. Our world has become so cosmopolitan, that terrorists are almost able to hide in plain sight, and operate with impunity. ISIL sympathisers donate huge amounts of money, over US$6m per day (US$2.2bn p.a.). Worse yet, they also have people who are willing to wage a terrorist war in their country of residence against the people of that country. Just because ISIL has not raised an army of millions in the Middle East, and invaded all the countries around them, does not mean we should make the mistake of underestimating what they are capable of. It took just nineteen Islamic Terrorists to kill over 3000 people in America and shut down New York for a long time. Just four bombers shut down the London transportation system for a few days. These were low cost operations with minimal material requirements. You can finance an awful lot of these type of operations for 6 millions bucks a day!!

While ISIL is very unlikely to destroy our way of life, or take over the western world, they can nonetheless make life very difficult for us. Anyone who does not believe that is burying their head in the sand.

Excellent post!!

 

[smartcooky]

And what action do you propose will reduce terrorism?

The following might help, probably all in the "easier said than done" category

First deal with ISIL
1. Cut off the money supply from black market oil and antiquity sales.

2. Organized co-operative efforts between countries not backbiting and infighting over what needs to be done

3. Bomb the crap out of them, and keep bombing them, perhaps using large scale thermobaric weapons

Then start at home
4. Reduce the opportunities for recruitment of terrorists domestically by silencing radical imams. Why do we allow these people to spread their bile? Would the Allies have allowed Nazis to openly extol the virtues of Naziism, and openly recruit participants for the SS in London or New York during WW2? Of course not. In fact, the one person who did do it, William Joyce (a.k.a. Lord Haw Haw) was prosecuted after WW2 and executed for high treason.

Maybe they can, but I suspect we will end up making lives more difficult for ourselves as well. More "security" checks and whatnot.

My first father in law was Irish, and lived in Londonderry (Northern Ireland) during the worst of the IRA bombing. He gave a pretty good (horrific actually) account of what it was like to live in fear of terrorists. Based on what he had to say, I'm sure I'd rather suffer the additional security checks than have to wonder where the next bomb will go off. Wouldn't you?

 

[angrysoba]

My first father in law was Irish, and lived in Londonderry (Northern Ireland) during the worst of the IRA bombing. He gave a pretty good (horrific actually) account of what it was like to live in fear of terrorists. Based on what he had to say, I'm sure I'd rather suffer the additional security checks than have to wonder where the next bomb will go off. Wouldn't you?

Do you mean that he told you he was in favour of "the additional security checks" because of what it was like living in Derry/Londonderry or did you draw that conclusion yourself from what he said?

 

[angrysoba]

The following might help, probably all in the "easier said than done" category

First deal with ISIL
1. Cut off the money supply from black market oil and antiquity sales.

2. Organized co-operative efforts between countries not backbiting and infighting over what needs to be done

I'm more than happy to cut off funding and to make funding of terrorism illegal. In fact, I think it already is.

As for the second point, "backbiting and infighting" has often been over Iran and Syria. Are the US and UK governments still intent in overthrowing the Assad regime? I think that the situation that Libya is in right now should be a caution against that kind of policy.

3. Bomb the crap out of them, and keep bombing them, perhaps using large scale thermobaric weapons

Is this serious? Where are you going to drop these bombs? And are you advocating the complete annihilation of the Sunni Arab population of Iraq and Syria among whom ISIS live? If not then we are going to need a more sensible policy beyond dropping bombs. Where do we go once that is done?

I'm not asking these questions because I am eager to see the problem fester but because I have seen very little evidence that these policies are any use at all and may simply stem from a (rightful) sense of anger and outrage.

Then start at home
4. Reduce the opportunities for recruitment of terrorists domestically by silencing radical imams. Why do we allow these people to spread their bile? Would the Allies have allowed Nazis to openly extol the virtues of Naziism, and openly recruit participants for the SS in London or New York during WW2? Of course not. In fact, the one person who did do it, William Joyce (a.k.a. Lord Haw Haw) was prosecuted after WW2 and executed for high treason.

There have already been people locked up for spouting extremism in the UK.

And during World War II there were a number of people who were locked up also for spouting fascist ideas (notably Mosely), and also there were those who were locked up in the UK and in France for being Communists. And also there were those who were locked up for being German.

But I don't think we need vague laws against freedom of speech. WWII was different because, well, we were at war and all media came under heavy censorship not just on ideological grounds but also what was allowed to be said if it affected morale or was seen as being overly critical of allies.

I doubt you would like that level of censorship.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then start at home
4. Reduce the opportunities for recruitment of terrorists domestically by silencing radical imams. Why do we allow these people to spread their bile? Would the Allies have allowed Nazis to openly extol the virtues of Naziism, and openly recruit participants for the SS in London or New York during WW2? Of course not. In fact, the one person who did do it, William Joyce (a.k.a. Lord Haw Haw) was prosecuted after WW2 and executed for high treason.

Excellent, you are ready to destroy one of the most fundamental pillars of our society, and people wonder why I think that people like you are more of a threat to our society that ISIS.

You would happily revoke the US 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association.

And how long after having destroyed these Rights do they come after us? Without a Right for Free Speech, what makes our speech protected? Without Freedom of Religion, what makes our religion, or lack of it, exempt from being shut down? Without Freedom of Association, what stops our governments determining who we can and cannot meet and talk with?

I see posters keeping on claiming that ISIS is somehow more dangerous than the Axis Powers, coming up with fanciful ideas as to why, and seeing monsters in the shadows.

Well I see them as the new McCarthians...

Are you now or have you even be a member of a Islamic group?

My first father in law was Irish, and lived in Londonderry (Northern Ireland) during the worst of the IRA bombing. He gave a pretty good (horrific actually) account of what it was like to live in fear of terrorists. Based on what he had to say, I'm sure I'd rather suffer the additional security checks than have to wonder where the next bomb will go off. Wouldn't you?

Major differences to Northern Ireland. During the Troubles there were two groups of militants which meant both sides were attacking each other. There were also multiple militant groups on both sides, comprised of hundreds of people and thousands of supporters in the local population in a small population of just over a million people.

With ISIS we're talking at about a handful of people, maybe a few dozen at most, with very little in the way of local support inside populations the size of the US and the UK. The numbers just don't come close to matching.

 

[smartcooky]

Excellent, you are ready to destroy one of the most fundamental pillars of our society, and people wonder why I think that people like you are more of a threat to our society that ISIS.

You would happily revoke the US 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association.

1st Amendment Freedom of speech is not absolute; people are not free to shout "fire" in a crowded building. Incitement to violence is not protected by the 1st amendment and most countries have "Hate Speech" laws including ours (Section 131)

Of course, in the US, there is the Patriot Act.

And how long after having destroyed these Rights do they come after us? Without a Right for Free Speech, what makes our speech protected? Without Freedom of Religion, what makes our religion, or lack of it, exempt from being shut down? Without Freedom of Association, what stops our governments determining who we can and cannot meet and talk with?

I have no problem with Freedom of Religion. However, such Freedom does not extend to inciting citizens to kill other citizens, or encouraging them to make war against them, or recruiting them to fight against those citizens. Detonating bombs in Police Stations and school buses, or encouraging others to do so IS EMPHATICALLY NOT covered by Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion. Only a loony left wing bleeding heart liberal would think that it was.

I see posters keeping on claiming that ISIS is somehow more dangerous than the Axis Powers, coming up with fanciful ideas as to why, and seeing monsters in the shadows.

I see it as a different threat, maybe not as dangerous, but not one to be ignored.

Well I see them as the new McCarthians...

Are you now or have you even be a member of a Islamic group?

Not OK, but there is nothing wrong with "Are you now or have you even be a member of a terrorist group?

Major differences to Northern Ireland. During the Troubles there were two groups of militants which meant both sides were attacking each other. There were also multiple militant groups on both sides, comprised of hundreds of people and thousands of supporters in the local population in a small population of just over a million people.

The families of the people who were killed by IRA bombs won't give a fat rats arse about your "Major differences"

With ISIS we're talking at about a handful of people, maybe a few dozen at most, with very little in the way of local support inside populations the size of the US and the UK. The numbers just don't come close to matching.

A handful of people? You seriously believe that?

There are over 15,000 foreigners fighting for ISIL in the Middle east including over 2000 westerners. If there are 2000 loony enough to actually go to the the Middle East and fight you can be sure there will be 10-20 times that many who are not quite loony enough and have stayed home.

Have you forgotten that only FOUR PEOPLE staged the 7/7/2005 attacks on London, and another four were to attempt a similar attack on 21/7/2005.... there's your handfull!!!

But, don't let me stop you from keeping your head buried firmly in the sand while you are pretending it isn't happening and hoping it will all go away by itself. Perhaps you could stand for office at the next election? Just change your name to Neville Chamberlain, and you'd be a shoe-in for a Labour candidacy somewhere (yes I know Chamberlain was a Tory, he just acted like a leftie!!).

You can say "Peace in our time!" while the rest of us will just have to be that much more vigilant.

 

[bit_pattern]

maybe not as dangerous

"Maybe"?

A few tin-pot radicals in the desert "might" not be as big a threat as the most industrialised nation on the planet having murderous intent to wage world war and murder millions in a systematic genocide.

Cool story...

But, don't let me stop you from keeping your head buried firmly in the sand while you are pretending it isn't happening and hoping it will all go away by itself. Perhaps you could stand for office at the next election? Just change your name to Neville Chamberlain, and you'd be a shoe-in for a Labour candidacy somewhere (yes I know Chamberlain was a Tory, he just acted like a leftie!!).

You can say "Peace in our time!" while the rest of us will just have to be that much more vigilant.

The Godwin is strong in this one...

Do you even begin to comprehend just how hysterical you sound?

 

[angrysoba]

There was an interesting discussion on radicalization of British Muslims here, and while I disagree with Douglas Murray on a lot of things, such as his general support for every and any kind of military intervention overseas, I think he is right here to point out that it is just wrong to assume that grievances about foreign policy and unemployment are the root of things like ISIS. He points out, clearly correctly, that the theology at least has something to do with it, and furthermore that it is not about poverty or unemployment or lack of opportunities and alienation. I agree with those who point out that it also is age-related. I think this is definitely true and some people will want to play out their dark fantasies. I also wish that the ISIS supporter who came on was asked about his poverty and inability to get a job or whatever else is claimed for people like him so that he could at least provide one useful service which was to dispel myths about how British foreign policy made him.

 

[angrysoba]

But, don't let me stop you from keeping your head buried firmly in the sand while you are pretending it isn't happening and hoping it will all go away by itself. Perhaps you could stand for office at the next election? Just change your name to Neville Chamberlain, and you'd be a shoe-in for a Labour candidacy somewhere (yes I know Chamberlain was a Tory, he just acted like a leftie!!).

You can say "Peace in our time!" while the rest of us will just have to be that much more vigilant.

And let me guess, you have cast yourself as Winston Churchill, right?

It was Neville Chamberlain's policy of rearmament which made Britain capable of fighting against Germany when Britain had to, while the current Tory government are more interested in finding things to scrap from the British military.

Most historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continent—and ill-equipped divisions, at that. Between 1919 and March 1932, Britain had based its military planning on a “10-year rule,” which assumed Britain would face no major war in the next decade. Rearmament only began in 1934—and only on a limited basis. The British army, as it existed in September 1938, was simply not intended for continental warfare. Nor was the rearmament of the Navy or the Royal Air Force complete. British naval rearmament had recommenced in 1936 as part of a five-year program. And although Hitler’s Luftwaffe had repeatedly doubled in size in the late 1930s, it wasn't until April 1938 that the British government decided that its air force could purchase as many aircraft as could be produced.

All of this factored into what Chamberlain was hearing from his top military advisers. In March 1938 the British military chiefs of staff produced a report that concluded that Britain could not possibly stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia. In general, British generals believed the military and the nation were not ready for war.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1st Amendment Freedom of speech is not absolute; people are not free to shout "fire" in a crowded building. Incitement to violence is not protected by the 1st amendment and most countries have "Hate Speech" laws including ours (Section 131)

Of course, in the US, there is the Patriot Act.

And who gets to decide what is hateful speech? Already in Australia and other countries people have been arrested and charged with hate speech for merely disagreeing with other religions, or pointing out issues with what they believe. What is to stop those laws being used to arrest Atheists who go around claiming that there is no god and anyone that believes in one is stupid?

I have no problem with Freedom of Religion. However, such Freedom does not extend to inciting citizens to kill other citizens, or encouraging them to make war against them, or recruiting them to fight against those citizens. Detonating bombs in Police Stations and school buses, or encouraging others to do so IS EMPHATICALLY NOT covered by Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion. Only a loony left wing bleeding heart liberal would think that it was.

No one is suggesting that blowing things up is protected, the thing is, we already have laws that cover these things, we don't have to make a bunch of new ones that will just end up biting us in the butt and taking away our liberties because we got scared.

I see it as a different threat, maybe not as dangerous, but not one to be ignored.

No one is suggesting that we ignore it. We already have very good systems set up in our own countries to find out those that are likely to cause trouble. The arrests in Australia recently are examples of this. The argument is whether the best course of action is to continue to do what we have been doing, locating and tracking those that are a threat within our borders, and shutting them down if they decide to act on their beliefs, which to date has been very effective, or should we rewrite our countries' laws to be much more restrictive, giving more power to our states to control our lives, and invade another country wasting more of our young men and women's lives in a repeat of the last two wars, both of which have been complete failures in their objective. You seem to be all for the second option, which IMO is nothing short of insane.

Not OK, but there is nothing wrong with "Are you now or have you even be a member of a terrorist group?

And it's a stupid as question now as it was when I was asked in to enter the US in 2007. It's also a pointless one, and one that smacks of racism and sexism. By far, the majority of Muslims in the west want nothing to do with ISIS, yet your, and others, answer to this issue is to make them all suspects of Terror. How about we treat all Christians are potential abortion clinic bombers? All Greenies as Unibomber or ELF suspects? Should we join up with Saudi Arabia and call all atheists terrorists?

See this is the problem with your line of thinking, it becomes a stereotyping of people based on the actions of a very small number in the group, and then ends up punishing them all for those actions.

The families of the people who were killed by IRA bombs won't give a fat rats arse about your "Major differences"

The families of those that died during The Troubles would likely be horrified that you are willing to use the memory of their dead in an paranoid political comparison to ISIS.

A handful of people? You seriously believe that?

There are over 15,000 foreigners fighting for ISIL in the Middle east including over 2000 westerners. If there are 2000 loony enough to actually go to the the Middle East and fight you can be sure there will be 10-20 times that many who are not quite loony enough and have stayed home.

Please quote your source. Sources I have read state that ISIS only has between 20 and 50k fighters in total. You are claiming that between 30 and 75% of their fighters are foreigners.

Have you forgotten that only FOUR PEOPLE staged the 7/7/2005 attacks on London, and another four were to attempt a similar attack on 21/7/2005.... there's your handfull!!!

Which were the first attacks of their type, before our police and security services were prepared and knew what to look for. How many successful attacks have their been since that first wave? And now we are talking about people that are already on the police's radar as they have gone to Syria. Do you really think that when they return they aren't going to be being watched like a hawk? You know, like happened in Australia. Why do you think that our current laws and precautions aren't enough? That we need to enact harsh rights removing laws and invade other countries to protect ourselves?