The world must say no to extremism

[tartempion]

People should not kill or being killed for their believes. Extremism is the vomit of hate and cannot be tolerated. We should embrace our freedom and our freedom of speech. But personally, I think it is a bad idea to use the right on freedom of speech to insult a religion or people.

I am Belgian and I don't feel really patriotic, but when I see a cartoon with the words "Le Roi des cons est mort" after our King died is for me not acceptable and neither is it acceptable for Moslims when their God is insulted. .. "je suis Charlie"? ..not me.

I am Belgian also and I did enjoy GAL's cartoons on Wifried Martens, Andre Cools, Luc de Haene and others, a cartoon about that king who wasn't king for a day when they voted the abortion law, common....

But I wait for a million Muslims all together in many cities to demonstrate and agreeing on condemning terrorism.

I wonder how long my beard will be by then...

Edited January 15, 2015 by tartempion

[Ulysses G.]

Had you read the documents I linked in my posts - its not a lot of reading after all - then you'd see you were incorrect.

I suspect that Morch was correct, as he so often is. I've got to admit that I did not read all 60 or so pages closely, but I did notice that the largest number of recent arrests were "religious inspired terrorism". I could not find a breakdown of which religions, but I would suspect that most would be Islamic, especially since so many were in France.

According to Europol, France is at the top amongst countries exposed to terrorism in Europe. They report that between 2009 and 2013, the number of arrests of Islamist activists has doubled in Europe. France had the greatest number of Islamist activists. in 2013 there were 216 arrests of presumed islamist terrorists, 143 of them in France. Two thirds of arrested suspects in Europe were arrested in France. Muslims, living in France seem to be radicalized especially fast. Between 2012 and 2013, the number of presumed Islamist activists has nearly doubled, from 91 to 143.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[MrTee]

I recommend watching the Channel 4 documentary that was aired last night. : Angry, White and Proud.

Extremism laid bare. Actually looks rather comical to me, but we have to be aware this leads to a future that is less than desirable.

[Morch]

I will submit that the main difference will be the intent to hurt civilians as the main aim and purpose of the action.

Cue derisive "collateral damage" remarks. Fine. But this with the realization that virtually all victims of attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo one, are what would otherwise be called "collateral damage". Citing that these terrorists were supposedly radicalized by accounts of events overseas, carried out by a foreign army - how this makes attacking Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish deli, rather than, say, the USA embassy, even remotely reasonable escapes me.

As per the romantic misguided view some got on terrorist organizations, and specifically as appeared in the post above - it would not hurt applying some of the criticism both ways, rather than assuming a one directional stance.

Yes cue the "collateral damage" remarks. Rightfully so....How is Charlie different than a wedding party

blown to bits with no terrorist in sight any different? Or a simple metting of village elders mistaken for terrorist?

Ah intent?? One was a mistake....ooops sorry bought that.

Like the reporters blown away by an Apache gunship in Baghdad? While the shooters etc joked on the helicopter &

even lit up an ambulances with kids in it who came to help the reporters? Ooops collateral damages all with good intent??

Come now

Ok fine lets play your game & simply say....

Yes the good fruit is always high on the tree.

But if the starved are incapable of reaching it as it is too well protected by

aid/height....Well maybe they will take what they can reach.

Maybe they know they cannot reach an embassy

After all not everyone has it set in black & white.

Some hold even us little people responsible for what our governments do to them.

Matters not how dumbed down/censored our news is. They figure how could we not know

& also they do know we choose & keep them in office so we must be ok with their actions.

Trust me criticism is both ways & violence is never condoned

But what I see here is far from both ways. It is always assumed we woke one day

& terrorist<sic> hated us....WTH all we did was take a nap...how did this happen.....Yeah sweet dreams

Yes, it boils down to policy and intent. The worst one could say about the "collateral damage" issue is that it may show a disregard for human lives. Not a good thing, to be sure, but again, this if one assumes the worst. It is not, I think, claimed that the intent of these attacks is to specifically target and kill civilians. The policy could be callus and crude, but it is does not place the killing of innocents on a pedestal. If it was, there wouldn't even be "collateral damage" and attempts to explain these away, but rather they would have been embraced as extremely successful missions. Said nothing about it being a "good" intent, said nothing in favor of inflicting civilian casualties.

Terrorists do target civilians with express purpose and intention. In my opinion, this marks a difference.

Sorry, not into making excuses for terrorists and not buying them.

Tough hitting relevant targets? Let them try harder. Many times they are not even attempting this. One would have thought that with all that zeal, they would have more faith in their actions being successful. Some of them hold "us little people" to be legit targets? Well, that's sort of the point of them being terrorists which was made above.

Violence based on religious extremism, is hardly something new in the context of Islam. In various forms it was around way before the USA arrived on the scene.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Morch

[luk AJ]

People should not kill or being killed for their believes. Extremism is the vomit of hate and cannot be tolerated. We should embrace our freedom and our freedom of speech. But personally, I think it is a bad idea to use the right on freedom of speech to insult a religion or people.

I am Belgian and I don't feel really patriotic, but when I see a cartoon with the words "Le Roi des cons est mort" after our King died is for me not acceptable and neither is it acceptable for Moslims when their God is insulted. .. "je suis Charlie"? ..not me.

I am Belgian also and I did enjoy GAL's cartoons on Wifried Martens, Andre Cools, Luc de Haene and others, a cartoon about that king who wasn't king for a day when they voted the abortion law, common....

But I wait for a million Muslims all together in many cities to demonstrate and agreeing on condemning terrorism.

I wonder how long my beard will be by then...

I understand you agree with the way Charlie Hebdo uses freedom of press to insult everybody in their path. Ok, this is your choice enjoy your life, I am not looking for support, I just wanted to air my opinion.

[H1w4yR1da]

I recommend watching the Channel 4 documentary that was aired last night. : Angry, White and Proud.

Extremism laid bare. Actually looks rather comical to me, but we have to be aware this leads to a future that is less than desirable.

OK. How many innocent civilians have they killed. How many children raped or murdered? How many suicide bombings?

In the age of Islamic terror, you want to talk about white extremism?

Laughable!

Edited January 15, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[Morch]

Seems like an awful lot of percents, statistics, and figures come up on these topics - mostly unattributed, mostly not very reliable. This cuts both ways, of course.

Sorry I should have sent a link to support my assertion

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014

While you may doubt these finding I think Europol are more reliable than most - I'm sure one or two more extremist posters can link us to some hate site or other..

This report covers 2013 - further documentation is out there if you really want to know.

Thanks, not going over dozens of pages to validate one liner claims on an open forum, though.

As far as I could tell, your figure relates, if indeed correct, to attack executed, rather than including plots cut in the bud and attacks designated as hate-crimes or even regular crimes. It does not take into account arrests as well.

As pointed out the link refers to a single year only.

The replay incorporates your two other posts related posts.

This is not about "really wanting to know", but just an extension of my original comment.

First of all, my posts were not aimed at you

These are not "my" figures. There all figures collected by government agencies and or Universities..

You doubted the veracity of what I asserted as tough I just plucked these figures out of the air.

You also doubted the reliability of these figures and now when I offer you a link to support my assertion you back out as its too much for you to be "going over dozens of pages to validate one liner claims on an open forum", though.

Now you further try to negate what I am saying by bringing other mitigating circumstances - .. ( to attack executed, rather than including plots cut in the bud and attacks designated as hate-crimes or even regular crimes. It does not take into account arrests as well.) Had you read the documents I linked in my posts - its not a lot of reading after all - then you'd see you were incorrect.

Its almost as though you want to deny it without backing that up with any knowledge.

The same Europol site has stats for each year since its inception.

Its way too easy to get swept up in the anger about events such as Charlie Hebdo, or other Islamic terrorist activities, but at least tackle the issue with foresight of knowledge..

InB4 puerile apologist comments..

I'm not in any way apologising, explaining, or excusing what these evil barbaric people do. But I do recognise its in everyone's interest to move forward in such a way that doesn't mean creating ever more hatred, death and destruction.

We must have a different idea of what is a reasonable amount of reading when trying to assert 3 one liner statistical claims.

If my reader is to be believed, the links provided amount to dozens of pages. Guess I am not about to sift through them all in search of a few figures. Most open forums I'm on, this would not be deemed a reasonable proposal - different if this was in the context of a more professional or specialized forum.

My further observations regarding the links provided were a result of having a look and checking some of the content - they stand in relation to your original post.

I do not deny that the figures may be included in, or inferred from the data linked. Simply stating that I have no intention of trying

to verify the claim under these conditions.

[arjunadawn]

Mania, you make an impassioned and no unintelligent argument. The notion that single events or a series of events conspire to make a terrorist is not incorrect, but you are missing an ingredient in your recipe. The faith of islam is the glue that binds these events together. It is islam and the hate preachers in the mosques that conspire to make the cake. Long before abu garab and long before collateral damage there was 1390+ years of islamic aggression- an unbroken line of islamic glue that bound war and rage and god and duty. Those that assign contemporary motivations for jihad are totally on the wrong bus.

The nonsense that a series of unfortunate events makes a terrorist is awful. The flippant acceptance in which you state that our kids may some day have a terrorist in their midst is patent surrender. I wish to not yield a world where one day your children have terrorists in their midst. Win or lose, I choose not to concede surrender today!

Trust me I dont miss much

You can go read & see what you have missed.

See what even OBL's manifesto cited as reasons for attacks.

Nice to try & use religion as a catch all but it is far from that.

If it was then all the poorer are we as what do we base our terrorism on them as?

Please dont say payback/revenge etc.....Instead go back...way back...see when it started & who started it.

Plenty of blame to go around...none have clean hands.

Not just the US media accounts but the installations of puppet regimes...the arming of so called freedom fighters

to sway things in a desired direction...The outright assassinations of scientists & politicians.

Want this to end? So do I but I have a pretty good view & can see both sides.

Concede or surrender? Like Vietnam? Iraq, Libya? At the end of the day what was left?

If we dont want terrorist in our midst we should not be terrorist in theirs.

Who on earth would make a "nice try" in labeling a religion? What an awful, hateful thing. What barren mental faculties need to create a "catch all." Agree with me or not, I am no dolt, i don't need to create shadows when there is plenty of light. Gosh, if were going to "try" to create a "catch all" I would choose a manageable one that would not pose a threat of death to our children. I just reach a different conclusion then you.

I think I am among the few here that do go "way back." I assert you are not going back far enough. You return to the days of installation of puppet strongmen regimes in the last century, and have fair observations regarding meddling- but you are not going back far enough. When one limits the chain of history to this point in time one is bound to reach the conclusions you reach. Ok. But lets go back further, shall we?

Islam had been fairly stifled by the Ottoman Empire as it grew lax, weak, and internalized its focus after the defeat of Vienna. Few excursions from islam, and vivid memories from the west, made for fairly limited interactions. Jihad which had otherwise been nonstop since the prophet destroyed Mecca grew idle and fat and lazy from the 17th century. In this apostasy Wahhabi Islam flourished shortly after the siege of Vienna (not much empty space of jihad here), gaining such significant following that the later house of Saud would be unable to govern without the Wahhabi approval. Thus, while Islam remained suppressed by their own caliph of the Ottomans the orthodox grew pissed off (which today is astronomical in SA; one can only imagine how pissed they were in the 18th century- so close to the last defeat).

Jump from the end of the Ottoman era to the immediate polarization of the world into USSR/USA, et al axis. In the empty space between these two worlds Islam aligned wholly with Hitler as the Grand Mufti reached agreement, and Hitler adored and marveled at the Islamic warriors. BAMM! WWII and the later installation of strongmen to hold the glue of post WWI arbitrary states placed a further yoke upon the islamic umma. In the meanwhile the Wahhabi were joined in jihad by the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. The urge to jihad never went away and is surely not new. It just percolated while oppressed from above.

At the fall of the USA/Soviet polar world the modern information age broke, the social world opened, the ideas now spread back into the greater sunni world and reminded them of first causes, lesser jihad (war), and how indeed lesser jihad (war) is in essence greater than the greater jihad (individual). Madrases were developed, SA sponsored schools and mosques throughout the world taught jihad and hate, and whether the house of Saud really wanted this or not doesn't matter; they had little choice. A very old alliance between the house of Saud and the Wahhabi meant Wahhabi would always control the faith.

There is a reason the first targets of jihad are illegitimate rulers. Just as apostates of islam are a greater issue to islam than kafir. These types of issues are existential to islam. Therefore, the second and third targets of modern jihad, Israel and the USA, or actually not primary targets. In the space of the fall of the USSR, Qatar and SA have been using petrodollars to impregnate the west with their hatred. Leveraging capitalism they leveraged legislation, and in so doing, leveraged the EU into the absurd immigration policies that supersede nations- see UK and her efforts to enforce sensible immigration.

There have been two Great Jihad periods uninterrupted since the prophet. The stories are the same, the mechanics the same, only the actors and agents differ. How one could look at the expanse of islamic history and reach a different conclusion is incredulous. So, lets do look back. We just reach different conclusions but I am not a mind who creates "catch all" or "[tries]" to deceive.

Edited January 15, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Mudcrab]

People should not kill or being killed for their believes. Extremism is the vomit of hate and cannot be tolerated. We should embrace our freedom and our freedom of speech. But personally, I think it is a bad idea to use the right on freedom of speech to insult a religion or people.

I am Belgian and I don't feel really patriotic, but when I see a cartoon with the words "Le Roi des cons est mort" after our King died is for me not acceptable and neither is it acceptable for Moslims when their God is insulted. .. "je suis Charlie"? ..not me.

You find it unacceptable, but do not grab your assault rifle and storm their offices.

You apply an acceptable reaction to what you find unacceptable.

correct but if you take 1000.000 men randomly, tell them their wife is a hooker and their children are a joke, how many would grab their gun and shoot without hesitation? Some will react with an acceptable reaction but a few will shoot.

In Thailand I reckon a lot would nod their heads - but insist that his wife was different.

[H1w4yR1da]

But shouldn't the headline read "The world must say no to Islamic extremism"?

Why so? Are you ok with White Supremists and Zionist Israelis . Did you agree with the IRA or Baader Meinhor or Timothy Mcveigh? Are you saying yes to these extremists or or you simply an Islamaphobe trying to make a point?

Am I an Islamophobe? Of course I am! What a silly question!

Though I'd say there's nothing irrational in having a fear of Islam. It's perfectly natural in my opinion.

I prefer the term 'infidel'.

And strange as it may seem, neither White Supremists, Zionist Israelis, the IRA, the Baader Meinhoff gang nor Timothy Mcveigh have recently bombed Bali nightclubs, London Underground trains and buses, killed unarmed soldiers on the streets of western cities, drove explosive-laded cars into airports, attempted to destroy jet liners with exposives hidden in their clothing, raped hundreds of children in northern British towns or murdered Journalists in their offices.

Did I make my point?

That's still no reason to ignore other violent extremists. You're saying act only against the biggest group and forget the rest.

Which other violent extremists?

Off the top of my head..err. ..Al Quada, Chechens, Uighurs, Abu Sayaf, M.I.L.F. (snigger!), ISIS obviously and Jemaah Islamiyah.

I'm wondering though, what they all have in common?

Oh! I forgot FARC!

You know any others? I'm all ears.

Edited January 15, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[mania]

Yes, it boils down to policy and intent. The worst one could say about the "collateral damage" issue is that it may show a disregard for human lives. Not a good thing, to be sure, but again, this if one assumes the worst. It is not, I think, claimed that the intent of these attacks is to specifically target and kill civilians. The policy could be callus and crude, but it is does not place the killing of innocents on a pedestal.

Who decides if it was or was not intentional? Especially in certain areas

where it is definitely a punishment on a race more than a defensive move.

Folks watching the one sided western reports?

Let those being targeted speak & I doubt you will find agreement as much as you & I

for that matter would like it to be so.

[seedy]

Fanaticism - in any form - is wrong.

The basic premise is that there is only one way to act, think, believe. No acceptance of any differences.

Therein lies the problem.

The solution - education.

[guapo]

What u said it is perfectly correct, but that is only one side of equation, you and others fail to understand the word "respect, tolerance to others, vulgarity, insults, ect. When I was a young kid my father use to say" there is nothing that a kick in the ass can not fix" . I said it to my kids, and my kids have said it to their kids. Has your father ever said it to you ?? I doubt it. This freedom of speech bullshit it gives an edge to some while depriving others of their self esteem, their believes, their feelings. If people were more humble towards others this world would not be in the mess its in.

[Choctastic]

What a crock. The worst terrorists on the planet are STATE terrorists. The terrorism of Vietnam and Operation Phoenix. The terrorism of Fallujah. The terrorism of spit-roasting 100,000 retreating conscripts and their captive maids, retreating from Kuwait. The terrorism of invading Afghanistan on the pretext of wiping out 200 men with AK47s, who simply nipped across the border. THEN the pretext changed. 14 years of State terrorism and flooding the world with Opium. The STATE terrorism of the IDF. U.S. STATE terror has been ongoing for 100 years. Before that it was British STATE terror who invented 'divide and rule' and sent the SAS into Iraq to blow up people in markets and drive Shia against Sunni.

Most of these Islamic terrorists are working for us. To help the Imperial powers achieve their geo-political goals. In Afghanistan against the Russians. In Chechnya against the Russians. In Libya against Gadaffi. In Syria against Assad. In Kosovo against Milosevic. They are our ASSETS. That is why we are arming and training them and 'accidentally' supplying them with weapons.

Islamic terrorism was barely on the radar until we nurtured and grew it to replace the Red Menace and justify the massive Military-Industrial-Complex, which needs to be constantly fed.

The incident in Paris is tragic but insignificant in the context of the millions over the years who have died and been displaced by western Christian Armies and their extremist proxies. The media are hyping the threat to make the population tremble and turn to the state for security. It's a strategy of tension.

[H1w4yR1da]

What a crock. The worst terrorists on the planet are STATE terrorists. The terrorism of Vietnam and Operation Phoenix. The terrorism of Fallujah. The terrorism of spit-roasting 100,000 retreating conscripts and their captive maids, retreating from Kuwait. The terrorism of invading Afghanistan on the pretext of wiping out 200 men with AK47s, who simply nipped across the border. THEN the pretext changed. 14 years of State terrorism and flooding the world with Opium. The STATE terrorism of the IDF. U.S. STATE terror has been ongoing for 100 years. Before that it was British STATE terror who invented 'divide and rule' and sent the SAS into Iraq to blow up people in markets and drive Shia against Sunni.

Most of these Islamic terrorists are working for us. To help the Imperial powers achieve their geo-political goals. In Afghanistan against the Russians. In Chechnya against the Russians. In Libya against Gadaffi. In Syria against Assad. In Kosovo against Milosevic. They are our ASSETS. That is why we are arming and training them and 'accidentally' supplying them with weapons.

Islamic terrorism was barely on the radar until we nurtured and grew it to replace the Red Menace and justify the massive Military-Industrial-Complex, which needs to be constantly fed.

The incident in Paris is tragic but insignificant in the context of the millions over the years who have died and been displaced by western Christian Armies and their extremist proxies. The media are hyping the threat to make the population tremble and turn to the state for security. It's a strategy of tension.

[MrTee]

I recommend watching the Channel 4 documentary that was aired last night. : Angry, White and Proud.

Extremism laid bare. Actually looks rather comical to me, but we have to be aware this leads to a future that is less than desirable.

OK. How many innocent civilians have they killed. How many children raped or murdered? How many suicide bombings?

In the age of Islamic terror, you want to talk about white extremism?

Laughable!

It is laughable to watch these uneducated morons stand up for being English.

Their lame threats and faux anger is comical in the extreme.

They also rant on about the "Age of Islamic terror"

I can only imagine how it feels to live with such fear..

Or how it feels to allow these people to live inside your head - it must hurt, no?

is that why you share your anger on social media?

[Morch]

Yes, it boils down to policy and intent. The worst one could say about the "collateral damage" issue is that it may show a disregard for human lives. Not a good thing, to be sure, but again, this if one assumes the worst. It is not, I think, claimed that the intent of these attacks is to specifically target and kill civilians. The policy could be callus and crude, but it is does not place the killing of innocents on a pedestal.

Who decides if it was or was not intentional? Especially in certain areas

where it is definitely a punishment on a race more than a defensive move.

Folks watching the one sided western reports?

Let those being targeted speak & I doubt you will find agreement as much as you & I

for that matter would like it to be so.

If the intention of, say, drone attacks was to specifically target civilians - casualty figures would be way higher. The terrorists, on the other hand, specifically target civilians.

Agreed that on the receiving end, whether civilian or military, these things rarely matter that much or provide any consolation. On the same note, do many hurt by terrorist attacks accept the righteous justifications of their attackers?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Morch

[arjunadawn]

I have read many of his posts, I don't think he was baiting you. I think he was saying pretty much what I am saying: Islamic terrorism is the single greatest threat to the world today. Other forms of extremism exist but do not pose such existential threats.

Come now......This is nothing short of sensationalism.........

The Single greatest threat to the world today?????

The world today?????

Ok...how many high tech warships do these guys have?

Ummm that would be none

How many aircraft capable of being a world threat?

Ummm that would be none

How many nuclear subs? I think you know

So how in the heck do we come up with this sensationalized claim of them being

the single greatest threat to the world today???? I will tell you how

Scare Mongering in order to control you & get you to give up ever more of your freedoms

Folks should grow a pair & look at reality.

The main reason this rag tag group regardless of size have any real weaponry at all is we likely gave it to them

while we thought they were our lap dogs & we needed yet another regime removed so we could install one that suited our "greater" needs.

Folks should take a bite of reality & drop the sensational claims

Try to remember ...“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The body of your response evidences a serious lack of knowledge regarding warfare and history. It is not remotely necessary that an enemy have symmetry in capability. The world is wholly more interconnected, interdependent, and mutually vulnerable than it has ever been. There are "nodes" or "nexus" of areas where attacks have an exponential effect- such areas as civil security, cyber-security, energy grids, nodes of commerce, confidence in futures/trading, social media insurgency, regular insurgency, cyber insurgency, and then the old stand by tools terrorists use- beheadings, bombings, making people demand security, the state then over policing, sensational terrorism, etc.

The idea that equality in weapons makes or not a viable adversary is incorrect. The greatest threat comes from both ideas, and the sense of invulnerability an enemy may muster toward his target audience. These are my opinions; I disagree with you. Having studied warfare for my entire life and a SME and instructor on Trends in International Terrorism, I feel I bring more than just speculation to my point of view. I certainly don't need to sensationalize. I actually believe deeply the entire modern frame work of western civilization is in peril; certainly life as we have known it previously. Sensational? I arrive here by sound deliberation not sensationalism.

Your very last quote we can agree on, and in this manner the threat manifests as well. A police state or islamic state is equally repugnant to me.

[Ulysses G.]

If the intention of, say, drone attacks was to specifically target civilians - casualty figures would be way higher. The terrorists, on the other hand, specifically target civilians.

This is it in a nutshell. The only way to ignore this fact is to ignore it on purpose.

[willyumiii]

I agree 100% !

No more Christians, Muslims, Jews, Republicans...the list goes on and on!

[Choctastic]

You're either with us or you're against us.

[luk AJ]

I have read many of his posts, I don't think he was baiting you. I think he was saying pretty much what I am saying: Islamic terrorism is the single greatest threat to the world today. Other forms of extremism exist but do not pose such existential threats.

Come now......This is nothing short of sensationalism.........

The Single greatest threat to the world today?????

The world today?????

Ok...how many high tech warships do these guys have?

Ummm that would be none

How many aircraft capable of being a world threat?

Ummm that would be none

How many nuclear subs? I think you know

So how in the heck do we come up with this sensationalized claim of them being

the single greatest threat to the world today???? I will tell you how

Scare Mongering in order to control you & get you to give up ever more of your freedoms

Folks should grow a pair & look at reality.

The main reason this rag tag group regardless of size have any real weaponry at all is we likely gave it to them

while we thought they were our lap dogs & we needed yet another regime removed so we could install one that suited our "greater" needs.

Folks should take a bite of reality & drop the sensational claims

Try to remember ...“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The body of your response evidences a serious lack of knowledge regarding warfare and history. It is not remotely necessary that an enemy have symmetry in capability. The world is wholly more interconnected, interdependent, and mutually vulnerable than it has ever been. There are "nodes" or "nexus" of areas where attacks have an exponential effect- such areas as civil security, cyber-security, energy grids, nodes of commerce, confidence in futures/trading, social media insurgency, regular insurgency, cyber insurgency, and then the old stand by tools terrorists use- beheadings, bombings, making people demand security, the state then over policing, sensational terrorism, etc.

The idea that equality in weapons makes or not a viable adversary is incorrect. The greatest threat comes from both ideas, and the sense of invulnerability an enemy may muster toward his target audience. These are my opinions; I disagree with you. Having studied warfare for my entire life and a SME and instructor on Trends in International Terrorism, I feel I bring more than just speculation to my point of view. I certainly don't need to sensationalize. I actually believe deeply the entire modern frame work of western civilization is in peril; certainly life as we have known it previously. Sensational? I arrive here by sound deliberation not sensationalism.

Your very last quote we can agree on, and in this manner the threat manifests as well. A police state or islamic state is equally repugnant to me.

dear arjunadawn, thanks a lot for your contribution. I am very pleased this discussion is for once not rediculised. May I ask your opinion taking into concideration that often history repeats itself, will this futher escalates (if so into what?) or will wisdom and reason eventually prevail?

[Mosha]

You're either with us or you're against us.

What was it Saddam tried to kill my daddy to not worrying that much about Osama Bin Laden?

[H1w4yR1da]

It is laughable to watch these uneducated morons stand up for being English.

Their lame threats and faux anger is comical in the extreme.

They also rant on about the "Age of Islamic terror"

I can only imagine how it feels to live with such fear..

Or how it feels to allow these people to live inside your head - it must hurt, no?

is that why you share your anger on social media?

Maybe you should put the psychology pocketbook away before you embarrass yourself. Oops, too late!

There's nothing wrong with being proud of one's own culture. Despite sneering lefties like yourself spitting insults.

I live in Bangkok. No fear here. But I do fear for my country. Both from Islam and the &lt;deleted&gt; who support it.

[MrTee]

It is laughable to watch these uneducated morons stand up for being English.

Their lame threats and faux anger is comical in the extreme.

They also rant on about the "Age of Islamic terror"

I can only imagine how it feels to live with such fear..

Or how it feels to allow these people to live inside your head - it must hurt, no?

is that why you share your anger on social media?

Maybe you should put the psychology pocketbook away before you embarrass yourself. Oops, too late!

There's nothing wrong with being proud of one's own culture. Despite sneering lefties like yourself spitting insults.

I live in Bangkok. No fear here. But I do fear for my country. Both from Islam and the <deleted> who support it.

I'm proud of my own culture and country, but not these scumbags and uneducated morons. The failed EDL and thuggish football hooligans do not represent me. They are not what England means to me. I hold them with the same contempt as Choudary and the all other extremists trying to turn a once great nation into cesspit of hatred and violence.

All of them : a bunch of extreme idiots.

Its ok I get it you don't like islamasists, and thats ok fella. But at the same time you talk in exact same way as they do. To me its 2 sides of the same coin.

I don't like Islam, I don't like the uneducated scum like the failed EDL and their right-wing boot boys.

They won't win - They're destined to fail.

[arjunadawn]

It is not remotely necessary that an enemy have symmetry in capability. The world is wholly more interconnected, interdependent, and mutually vulnerable than it has ever been. There are "nodes" or "nexus" of areas where attacks have an exponential effect- such areas as civil security, cyber-security, energy grids, nodes of commerce, confidence in futures/trading, social media insurgency, regular insurgency, cyber insurgency, and then the old stand by tools terrorists use- beheadings, bombings, making people demand security, the state then over policing, sensational terrorism, etc.

The idea that equality in weapons makes or not a viable adversary is incorrect. The greatest threat comes from both ideas, and the sense of invulnerability an enemy may muster toward his target audience. These are my opinions; I disagree with you. Having studied warfare for my entire life and a SME and instructor on Trends in International Terrorism, I feel I bring more than just speculation to my point of view. I certainly don't need to sensationalize. I actually believe deeply the entire modern frame work of western civilization is in peril; certainly life as we have known it previously. Sensational? I arrive here by sound deliberation not sensationalism.

dear arjunadawn, thanks a lot for your contribution. I am very pleased this discussion is for once not rediculised. May I ask your opinion taking into concideration that often history repeats itself, will this futher escalates (if so into what?) or will wisdom and reason eventually prevail?

Today I was asked, since I have such observations, I should rightly have solutions. I do not, however. Or, the solutions I could put forth would be such that the current readership is not yet ready to consider such steps. Which brings us to your question.

Anniversaries are quite important in Islam, and particularly important as military rallying cries; this is always been so but is particularly meaningful to islam. This is why intel analysts always crunch the data with an eye toward anniversaries when deducing emerging threats. It is not a surprise to me that the date of the worst attack on American soil came on September 11th.

I have consistently maintained on these forums that the islamic world has actually never stopped waging jihad. Since 632 CE, under the command and mandate of their prophet himself, islam waged war upon... everyone... everywhere. Islam began with 400 years of nonstop aggression and penetration into Europe, and east toward central Asia, though it was actually later when they slaughtered the many, many tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists. The brief period of time recalled now in the West as the crusades were actually a response to islamic aggression. Yes, there were excesses, but this is not my purpose here. In the long view of time islam quickly expelled the Europeans and continued doing as they had always been doing- waging jihad.

They eventually toppled Constantinople, changing the Hagia Sophia into a mosque and renaming the seat of eastern Christendom Istanbul. Still, they didn't stop. They conquered as far as Hungry turning christian states into vassal states, and slaughtering numerous peoples. Simultaneous, the Second Great Jihad period was slaughtering innumerably on the subcontinent. It just never... ever... stopped!

In the 1500s Suleiman waged war upon the strategic Vienna, which pretty much lay at a mountain gateway to the remainder of Europe. Already we are approximately 900 years of nonstop jihad. Suleiman failed. Again, "Scarlet Apple," = Vienna, as was wont to be called by the Turks, was attacked and under siege in 1683. After approximately 2 months of siege, just as the Turkish sappers were about to bring down the wall for good, the Turks were scattered in a route by a Polish army from over-watch position. The date was September 12th, 1683. What September 11th, 2001 declared was "The clock has been re-set to the day before our rout." A choice to perceive this meaning otherwise is simply foolish and uninformed.

Islamic jihad appeared to sleep for hundreds of years and just awaken recently; but this is not correct. The yoke of the Ottoman Empire limited foreign adventure and jihad but the requirement of the faith to jihad percolated and distilled into Wahhabi school of thinking, and other. For various reasons related to consolidation and self preservation the Ottoman Turks choose a period of relative peace; the faithful apparently steamed and embraced a return to first principles represented by Wahhabi. WWI removed the yoke but quickly WWII replaced the Ottoman yoke with western backed strongmen and illegitimate rulers- there was no longer a caliph, who's singular duty is actually jihad. The House of Saud was not even able to take control of the peninsula until it entered into a power sharing agreement with the Wahhabists (they still control religion in SA to this day, thus the endless exporting of jihad). It is a fact that various strong armed leaders in the Arab world had as one of their top threats muslim jihadis.The Muslim Brotherhood was also formed about 100 years ago and had to exist underground, as illegal, outlawed. It too sought global jihad and the first line of obstacles were also the regional strongmen leading muslim lands. Later, President Obama would see to it that this impediment to jihad was removed.

Sine the Iranian revolution and age of jihad in Afghanistan, the jihadi genie was fully out of the bottle. Enter the age of the internet, social media, 24/7 news cycle, fast travel, weak borders, no real idols or leadership in the muslim world. Into this void modern jihad is now acting out its 1,400 year old goal of global domination. Islam exists in the dar al harb (House of War) until global jihad conquers the world and then dar al salam (House of Peace) will be in place. The silent majority of "moderate" muslims is a fantasy. There is a likely majority of muslims who are not following their scriptures and its mandates, but they are not interpreting islam correctly, or are selectively, and the jihadis are not, as the west would like to imagine; thus labeling them "moderates." They are without question simply not following the commands of their prophet. Jihadis at one time or another cite for their actions valid scriptural koran or hadith authority nearly every time. When the "moderates" make public announcements (in English) how jihadis are abusing the faith, they always take the citations out of context. The audience is the west, not arabic muslims who see through it. (Note: Islam does not mean "Peace." This mistake is not really corrected because it is not slanderous, but it is in error. Islam means "Submission.").

The prophet was expelled by his own tribe in Mecca for many of the same exact stories we read about in the west- insulting other gods, demanding compliance with Shar'ia, stating they were persecuted. At one point elders confronted the prophet and told him (Paraphrase) "Muhammad, we have no problem with you worshiping your god, we just want you to stop insulting our gods." Eventually, he was run out of the city. Sound familiar?

He hirjah (migrate) to Medina. He thus established the mechanism for migration and subsuming a host culture under the yoke of Sharia. He set the example and in a relative about of time, had Medina subdued. Hirjah jihad is currently being waged throughout the west. The prophet, having turned from a phase of Tolerance, then acted Defensive jihad in Medina claiming "we are persecuted," and when they successfully extracted enough concessions from Medina, and weakened Medina, the city fell, succumbing to Islam. The prophet then turned to Offensive jihad and returned to kill just about everyone in Mecca who had slandered him previously. Indeed, the reports of the "Companions of the prophet are full of accounts of many murdered and butchered for impugning the prophet with pen or lampoon. Even then, by the prophet's own demonstration, the tone was set to slaughter those who slander the prophet. Thus was established the blueprint for subversive war and how to make host nations kneel to shar'ia. From that very moment on the prophet launched into attacks everywhere, on everyone, spreading islam by the sword. He died doing exactly this and the injunction for every muslim is to live their life as best as they can to emulate the prophet ensures that this manner of jihad by sword is fundamental to the faith. (Note: The ancient components of Mecca, Medina, Mecca- Tolerance, Defensive jihad, and Offensive jihad are the core components of the faith. Greater than 50% of the koran is oriented toward others, non believers, and what must be done to them. It is simply staggering how little the west knows about islam).

The future is darker and more present than some imagine, though today I have been labeled "sensational." I am not. I see no solution whereby wisdom compels fraternity. I see no mechanism whereby an islamic reformation chooses modernity over antiquity. However, I am deeply moved and feel solidarity with Egyptian President al-Sisi by his comments at the seat of the most esteemed school of Islamic learning, al-Azhar. al-Sisi has pretty much stated everything I have stated above, and have been stating. Many have been killed for lesser comments; he defines himself as a leader among men, among muslims. We should all wish him peace and longevity.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/02/the-lion-of-egypt-president-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-doubles-down-on-his-call-for-a-total-reformation-of-islam/

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/01/13/calls-religious-revolution/

http://www.haaretz.com/video/1.636645

https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world-2014-was-one-of-the-bloodiest-years-for-iraq-and-syria/

With the west currently unable to even use the word "Islamic" in military and law enforcement lexicon, the jihadis are aided and abetted. With jihadi battlefield commanders daily being returned to lead men against the west, I see no end to this. With the fairly astute observation of Malcolm Gladwell regarding the "Tipping Point" I find there is a specific gravity, an inevitability that arises from continues defeat, or reactionary war, and past a certain point ideas take on a life that can no longer be managed or controlled.

To lay out a blueprint for strategies to tackle this clear and present danger is to expose the remainder of what I have to say to unnecessary rebuke. Thus far I stick to facts and leave my musings about solutions silent. There will shortly come a point where the manner of ideas I do suspect will be necessary will be openly discussed. This is going to get much worse. This is going to get much more violent. Many more people will die. Indeed, the slaughter happening in Africa alone is unmatched in contemporary history. Christianity is being destroyed throughout much of the world. Now, I am not a christian but these people do not need to play a dramatic role in the continued divine play of islam. Since I assert what I fear will happen quite quickly it is reasonable to invite others back to slam me and abuse me if I am wrong. However, I am not. One year, maybe two, and you will continue to see this virus spreading, become ever more virulent, inventing diabolical tools to destroy. Sorry, I have no optimism as long as the west facilitates this jihad. I do concede a glimmer of hope in the person of al-Sisi. I pray more islamic leaders legitimately stand up as he has done, not the double speak US and UK organizations parade for local consumption.

[mania]

If the intention of, say, drone attacks was to specifically target civilians - casualty figures would be way higher. The terrorists, on the other hand, specifically target civilians.

Agreed that on the receiving end, whether civilian or military, these things rarely matter that much or provide any consolation. On the same note, do many hurt by terrorist attacks accept the righteous justifications of their attackers?

Ah I see....so there is a number you have in mind then eh?

Probably doesn't hurt your opinion that the US Defense Dept. refuses to report civilian deaths caused by drones too

So when someone like Kissinger says...

Drones have killed more civilians than the bombing of Cambodia in the Vietnam War

You say well...........yeah thats nothing.........you should see how many we could kill if we

really put our backs into it. Your probably right but hey they are civilians right?

Plenty of good sites like living under the drones, Human Rights Watch NY, Amnesty in London etc etc...

Lots of data to go look at if you like & see if "well we could kill more if intentional" still sounds good to you

On your note of "do many hurt by terrorist attacks accept the righteous justifications of their attackers?"

Who the *#*@ cares? It is just more callous side stepping....enough....dead is dead

None here are saying one sides killing is more righteous than the other.

Only the side steppers who like to distract

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[mania]

The body of your response evidences a serious lack of knowledge regarding warfare and history.

You lack serious comprehension...

I never said the underdogs cannot defend themselves in warfare

The little guys in pajamas proved that in Vietnam when they basically kicked a superpowers butt back to where they came from

What I did say was your sensationalized fear mongering that they ( the latest invented boogyman in a long line of boogymen) presented "The Single greatest threat to the world today"

was total sky is falling chicken little BS

It still is

Edited January 15, 2015 by mania

[MrTee]

There's lot of stuff we're buying here.

Stop buying stuff

This chap knows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULLbBaU3NDM

[arjunadawn]

The body of your response evidences a serious lack of knowledge regarding warfare and history.

You lack serious comprehension...

I never said the underdogs cannot defend themselves in warfare

The little guys in pajamas proved that in Vietnam when they basically kicked a superpowers butt back to where they came from

What I did say was your sensationalized fear mongering that they ( the latest invented boogyman in a long line of boogymen) presented "The Single greatest threat to the world today"

was total sky is falling chicken little BS

It still is

Yes, indeed, if what you are saying is true I am totally not getting it. It would be fair then to say I "lack serious comprehension," or really any grasp of the issue at all. My effort, however valid it seems to me, has achieved nothing but fear-monging and sensationalism, at least with regard to you. Without my intention, I have created a Henny Penny situation and find myself running around screaming the sky is falling. If what you assert is true, I am this. Thank you for the head clearing and adjusting my focus so I can be more positive and contribute more of the penetrating information your posts illuminate.

What is even more staggering to me is the ease in which you revealed I have no clothes. Going directly to the source of my posts, you revealed me for what I am- totally lacking credibility and just stirring the pot. Thank you for your admonishment. I should endeavor from this point on to remain more focused, more grounded in reality, more like you.