Are our resident Germans ok?

[dragoongfa]

Krulle, Shadowdragon and others?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Um...

Is there a user named "Shadowdragon" who is distinct from me?

[Tamri]

Um...

Is there a user named "Shadowdragon" who is distinct from me?

I think he keep in mind Suederwind.

[dragoongfa]

Yeah, Suederwind sorry. Kind of sleepy when I wrote that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Yeah, Suederwind sorry. Kind of sleepy when I wrote that.

Suederwind isn't online on the Discord chat, or I'd @tag him and ask.

[Krulle]

I'm okay, but then I live in The Netherlands, near The Hague. 852 km away...

Friends of mine live in Munich, though. Although they live a bit outside...
I hope they're okay.

Thanks...

[Suederwind]

I am fine. No need to worry, living about 235km away from Munich.
Thanks, anyway!

[Sweforce]

I am fine. No need to worry, living about 235km away from Munich.
Thanks, anyway!

They are hell bent on hitting everywhere anyway. Basically they are taunting the west into launching retaliatory strikes on the Muslim world so they can recruit from people angry at said retaliatory strikes.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I am fine. No need to worry, living about 235km away from Munich.
Thanks, anyway!

They are hell bent on hitting everywhere anyway. Basically they are taunting the west into launching retaliatory strikes on the Muslim world so they can recruit from people angry at said retaliatory strikes.

The jackass who did the shooting wasn't a jihadist. He shouted "Allahu Ackbar" because he was Muslim, and that's what a Muslim who sees himself as some kind of warrior should shout, but this guy was German-born and bred and considered himself German. He was apparently angry about all the immigrants and refugees, as well as deeply mentally ill. This really was far more like an American school shooting than political terrorism.

[Sweforce]

I am fine. No need to worry, living about 235km away from Munich.
Thanks, anyway!

They are hell bent on hitting everywhere anyway. Basically they are taunting the west into launching retaliatory strikes on the Muslim world so they can recruit from people angry at said retaliatory strikes.

The jackass who did the shooting wasn't a jihadist. He shouted "Allahu Ackbar" because he was Muslim, and that's what a Muslim who sees himself as some kind of warrior should shout, but this guy was German-born and bred and considered himself German. He was apparently angry about all the immigrants and refugees, as well as deeply mentally ill. This really was far more like an American school shooting than political terrorism.

You could be right in this individual case but actions like this is exactly what ISIS promotes. So for the general trend of attacks it still holds up even if we do not know the story behind the individual cases.

[Nemo]

Not our usual fare, hope Arioch doesn't mind too much.

so they can recruit from people angry at said retaliatory strikes.

Erp. Thats a small aspect of it, sure, but only one. And maybe not in this particular case, but in general. Its more a damned if you do - damned if you don't problem.

The supposed prophet laid out that Islam is to be made supreme over all by one of: conversion, emigration, usurpation, or eradication. Christians and Jews get to live, but not as free men or equals. They must be put under Islam in public affairs, they can be their own people at home. War is to be used to advance Islam over others when the other means fail.

If they attack and you fall back, you give ground to their cause and they feel justified in their success - Allah supported their action. If they attack and you strike back you give fire to their cause, as you are now waging war with Islam/Allah - not them, but Islam/Allah in whose name they act.

As an aside, I despise this notion of fighting "terrorists" or "terrorism". Picture it. They day is December 8th, 1941. And the President stands before Congress demanding a declaration of war against our aggressors. Thats right, we need to stamp out the evil of Aviators, and Aviation. Absurd. Have to recognize it for what it is. Total War being waged by a segment of the Islamic faith. And who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?!




No, but seriously. If it comes to total war there is only one proven way to "win". Its to make war itself too terrible to fight. And if you're not willing to do that, the only other viable option I see is to draw a line and say "stay on your side".

[Sweforce]

No, but seriously. If it comes to total war there is only one proven way to "win". Its to make war itself too terrible to fight. And if you're not willing to do that, the only other viable option I see is to draw a line and say "stay on your side".

Unfortunately, through massive immigration they have made our side their side as well. The future looks bleak in Europe. Sadly, they choice is between getting blood on our hands or slavery.

[Nemo]

I won't disagree with bleak, but I do see other options. The most likely being the elite classes utilize the internalized strife to advance powers of surveillance and control over the populace as a whole. Because you can't single out any one group! Thatd be bigoted/racist/phobic etc. But ya, any effective policing would require speech and thought crime legislation. Thats a genie that doesn't go back in the bottle easily, and people will clamor for it once the bodies stack high enough.

Thats if the threat remains internalized, of course. Containment is another possibility. Identify the potential threat, isolate elements of it, remove where possible. So Germany points to a religious minority. Says its a threat to the greater good. Systematically separates that group from the whole, and then begins shipping elements of it off. Deja vu, I feel like I've seen this play before? Had bad reviews the first time around. Can't imagine people would opt to go for an encore.



Sorry. I said I see options, I didn't say I see good options.

[fredgiblet]

The other option is to deal with the why. The beliefs of ISIS are not the Muslim mainstream, so there's a reason why people are diverging from the mainstream to move to extremism, understanding and dealing with the why of it can be a very powerful tool in containment.

Unfortunately we, as a people, don't seem to be interested in the long view of such things. We have to act NOW! It doesn't matter what the results of the action will be, we must have immediate action!!!!1!!1!! As a result we flail at a problem and accomplish nothing, potentially even making it worse.

[dragoongfa]

The other option is to deal with the why. The beliefs of ISIS are not the Muslim mainstream, so there's a reason why people are diverging from the mainstream to move to extremism, understanding and dealing with the why of it can be a very powerful tool in containment.

Unfortunately we, as a people, don't seem to be interested in the long view of such things. We have to act NOW! It doesn't matter what the results of the action will be, we must have immediate action!!!!1!!1!! As a result we flail at a problem and accomplish nothing, potentially even making it worse.

I tend to avoid such hot potato topics on non political forums...

Well, I know that I am going to regret this...

The ISIS mentality may not be the mainstream but it finds enough acceptance in Muslim nations that no public backlash or outcry has been heard from any Muslim nation. Actions speak louder than the words of politicians and the fact is that only the West and Egypt (which is a western backed secular dictatorship) really pursues and persecutes Islamic extremism in any meaningful manner.

The radicals may be few but the majority is deathly silent to their actions.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I tend to avoid such hot potato topics on non political forums...

Well, I know that I am going to regret this...

The ISIS mentality may not be the mainstream but it finds enough acceptance in Muslim nations that no public backlash or outcry has been heard from any Muslim nation. Actions speak louder than the words of politicians and the fact is that only the West and Egypt (which is a western backed secular dictatorship) really pursues and persecutes Islamic extremism in any meaningful manner.

The radicals may be few but the majority is deathly silent to their actions.

This is, uh, not true? King Abdullah of Jordan led the first reprisal airstrike against ISIS personally, from the cockpit, when ISIS burned a Jordanian pilot alive. He went to the poor man's family, told them that their son had been killed and he wasn't able to stop it, but he damned well was going to rain hell on those responsible, and then he did it.

ISIS is a huge threat to everyone in the region. Nobody likes them; even fucking Al Qaeda are at war with them. Literally the only allies they have are those Boko Haram assholes.

[dragoongfa]

I tend to avoid such hot potato topics on non political forums...

Well, I know that I am going to regret this...

The ISIS mentality may not be the mainstream but it finds enough acceptance in Muslim nations that no public backlash or outcry has been heard from any Muslim nation. Actions speak louder than the words of politicians and the fact is that only the West and Egypt (which is a western backed secular dictatorship) really pursues and persecutes Islamic extremism in any meaningful manner.

The radicals may be few but the majority is deathly silent to their actions.

This is, uh, not true? King Abdullah of Jordan led the first reprisal airstrike against ISIS personally, from the cockpit, when ISIS burned a Jordanian pilot alive. He went to the poor man's family, told them that their son had been killed and he wasn't able to stop it, but he damned well was going to rain hell on those responsible, and then he did it.

ISIS is a huge threat to everyone in the region. Nobody likes them; even fucking Al Qaeda are at war with them. Literally the only allies they have are those Boko Haram assholes.

I am talking about the public at large not politicians who look after their own skin and attack every threat against them; ISIS is a threat to everyone who has political power in the middle east, even Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are quite content in funding them and providing them with weapons. The public at large in the middle east however has not expressed any outrage against ISIS in the same way the West and the rest of the world has.

[Absalom]

The jackass who did the shooting wasn't a jihadist. He shouted "Allahu Ackbar" because he was Muslim, and that's what a Muslim who sees himself as some kind of warrior should shout, but this guy was German-born and bred and considered himself German. He was apparently angry about all the immigrants and refugees,

... Wow, that's not as rich as Hitler hating Jews, but not particularly for lack of trying.

But ya, any effective policing would require speech and thought crime legislation. Thats a genie that doesn't go back in the bottle easily, and people will clamor for it once the bodies stack high enough.

Sadly, policing is in general just a band-aid for this situation. The "European problem" mostly comes down to social engineering (actively subvert the culture of "threatening" groups to realign them with conventional culture: not multi-culturalism -friendly), while the "Middle-eastern problem" mostly comes down to social engagement (no-wife + no-job naturally leads to nothing-to-lose: this requires major economic, legal, and cultural changes). These two won't fully stop terrorism, but they're the only ways to reliably improve the situation over the long-term.

Thats if the threat remains internalized, of course. Containment is another possibility. Identify the potential threat, isolate elements of it, remove where possible. So Germany points to a religious minority. Says its a threat to the greater good. Systematically separates that group from the whole, and then begins shipping elements of it off. Deja vu, I feel like I've seen this play before? Had bad reviews the first time around. Can't imagine people would opt to go for an encore.

Not yet, anyways.

Unfortunately we, as a people, don't seem to be interested in the long view of such things. We have to act NOW! It doesn't matter what the results of the action will be, we must have immediate action!!!!1!!1!! As a result we flail at a problem and accomplish nothing, potentially even making it worse.

In defense of this perspective, it's no so much "We must have results now!" as "We must start taking it seriously and taking action now!". The negative view in the US of Obama's handling of ISIS largely arises from a perception that he's trying to not deal with it. Basically, most of us thing that instead of "flailing" at the problem, he's trying to "shoo" it away. The only real way to deal with this perception is to take more direct action, i.e. mount an invasion of the ISIS held bits of Syria, since the Syrian government refuses to differentiate between them and other rebel groups.

I'm not saying that this wouldn't have some fall-out, mind you, just that there's actual reasons why the current US effort is perceived the way it is.

The radicals may be few but the majority is deathly silent to their actions.

What a (non-)coincidence! The vast majority of both Christians and Americans haven't performed protests of the Westborough Baptist Church's actions, and yet we disapprove of them! And yes, completely relevant, despite the difference of scale.

This is, uh, not true? King Abdullah of Jordan led the first reprisal airstrike against ISIS personally, from the cockpit, when ISIS burned a Jordanian pilot alive.

Huh, hadn't known that he did it personally.

I am talking about the public at large not politicians who look after their own skin and attack every threat against them;

News reports are made on outrageous situations, not on sensible situations. If the reporters aren't outraged then the chances of it getting reported on automatically halves: same with editors. There's also the question of whether they'd be allowed to protest: in many cases, demonstrations in the Islamic world that you see on TV which aren't attacked by government forces have been either organized or endorsed by the government. Islamic-world demonstrations aren't indicative of the opinions of the local populace (technically they usually aren't in the West either: it's always outraged extremists, because it takes outrage to induce a protest), but instead of the local power-brokers.

even Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are quite content in funding them and providing them with weapons.

Turkey targets them instead of supporting them, and to the best of my knowledge the Saudis do as well (which is a very Saudi sort of thing: they did much the same right after getting wahabi forces to help them establish Saudi Arabia), despite being affiliated with the general philosophy that ISIS has risen out of. Still, you did at least aim in vaguely the right direction with the Saudis since they're largely responsible for the decades-long expansion of wahabism across the Islamic world.

The public at large in the middle east however has not expressed any outrage against ISIS in the same way the West and the rest of the world has.

Our expressions of outrage have also mostly been political.

[fredgiblet]

In defense of this perspective, it's no so much "We must have results now!" as "We must start taking it seriously and taking action now!". The negative view in the US of Obama's handling of ISIS largely arises from a perception that he's trying to not deal with it. Basically, most of us thing that instead of "flailing" at the problem, he's trying to "shoo" it away. The only real way to deal with this perception is to take more direct action, i.e. mount an invasion of the ISIS held bits of Syria, since the Syrian government refuses to differentiate between them and other rebel groups.

I'm not saying that this wouldn't have some fall-out, mind you, just that there's actual reasons why the current US effort is perceived the way it is.

I was speaking in more general terms really. A tragedy occurs and people latch onto the first suggestion they hear and insist that it MUST be done NOW!

The specific situation in Syria is...complicated, especially now that the Russians have stuck their noses in. Honestly I think not acting is the smarter move, support groups who are acting, let the locals fight the war. Barging in without a plan or a clue is what created this mess in the first place. Of course the whole thing goes further back, fucking Sykes-Picot man. WW1 is STILL fucking us over 100 years later.

[dragoongfa]

News reports are made on outrageous situations, not on sensible situations. If the reporters aren't outraged then the chances of it getting reported on automatically halves: same with editors. There's also the question of whether they'd be allowed to protest: in many cases, demonstrations in the Islamic world that you see on TV which aren't attacked by government forces have been either organized or endorsed by the government. Islamic-world demonstrations aren't indicative of the opinions of the local populace (technically they usually aren't in the West either: it's always outraged extremists, because it takes outrage to induce a protest), but instead of the local power-brokers.

So we don't see any protest because either the reporters are not reporting it, the Islamic governments don't allow the protests to happen or the public ain't outraged for those who commit genocide level atrocities. And no protesters ARE NOT extremists, a protest is a peaceful demonstration not a riot.

Turkey targets them instead of supporting them, and to the best of my knowledge the Saudis do as well (which is a very Saudi sort of thing: they did much the same right after getting wahabi forces to help them establish Saudi Arabia), despite being affiliated with the general philosophy that ISIS has risen out of. Still, you did at least aim in vaguely the right direction with the Saudis since they're largely responsible for the decades-long expansion of wahabism across the Islamic world.

Turkey does the bare bones minimum against ISIS when providing substantial logistical support.

1) The Oil that funds ISIS is exported via Turkey: http://observer.com/2016/02/deal-with-t ... tolen-oil/
2) ISIS fighters travel via Turkey (First openly now discreetly), hell even today ISIS wounded are treated in Turkey: https://www.rt.com/news/346882-isis-tur ... s-doctors/
3) ISIS fighters have used Turkish soil to attack the Kurds of Kobane: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... first-time

The main targets of Turkish air-strikes have been the Kurdish fighters of YPG and PKK. The PKK restarted its guerrilla war against Turkey in retaliation to these attacks.

As for the Saudis, they and Qatar play a dangerous double game, this relatively old analysis is good enough: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/isis/1.693831

Our expressions of outrage have also mostly been political.

One quick example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_sc ... kidnapping

Besides Nigerian outrage and the usual Political correct politicking Western nations were the only nations where people openly protested against Boko Haram.

What a (non-)coincidence! The vast majority of both Christians and Americans haven't performed protests of the Westborough Baptist Church's actions, and yet we disapprove of them! And yes, completely relevant, despite the difference of scale.

I can point a few things that are wrong with your statement:

1st) The WBC is publicly derided by everyone and have no public support.
2nd) The WBC's activities can only be described as peaceful despite the fact that in essence they are trying to incite a violent response and a riot.
3rd) If the WBC tried the same stuff on any place other than the US they would be arrested because the rest of the west has laws about jackasses who protest funerals and are trying to incite riots.

You can equate the WBC to ISIS's level of evil when the WBC actually does something of note like ISIS does.