Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

@Happy MEel I found this for you. I dont really get WTF it means howver.

I think we'll have to wait for @Barry O'Speedwagon to explain it to us. He'd know for sure.

"

Nah, IS is a poofier version of IT.

Seriously though, while the formal IS / ISIL / Daesh cockmunchers have their specific aims in the middle East, a lot of the people who respond to them who have little idea about any of that shit. Some are just evil thugs. Some are people who have had a rough time and look for people offering simple solutions to complex problems. Some (not those in the UK) are people who have lost their family to US/Allied bombers or soldiers, and that will tend to piss people off a touch. Where did it start? Well the formation of the Israeli state had a lot to do with it, But then, Britain promised the same land to both the Jews and the Palestinians.....worked out a treat.

 

[Happy MEel]

By waging "holy war" in the west, in part they distract attention from what they're really doing. The US and the UK are currently far too busy running around their own countries looking for terrorists to really bother too much about IS in the Middle East. Create the idea that a nation is under attack and they will first worry about defending themselves. Make the US or whoever think that IS have a genuine foothold to wage war against them on their own soil and they are going to focus more energy internally and less energy externally.

On top of that, the "holy war" is a tactic they use as recruitment tool. It's much easier to recruit and twist impressionable young people into radicalised foot soldiers willing to die for your cause if they believe that A) they are being persecuted and B) the west is some evil empire. Not to mention by altering perceptions of Islam in the west, they give the recruits a reason to hate. And hate is an incredibly powerful tool. IS thrive on hate. From there you can mould the hatred of the west into hatred of Saudis, or any other Middle East nations, very easily.

Thanks @Bazal for the articulate response.

It's a very risky move if that is indeed the case because there will come a tipping point where the west will have had enough and take out the source as you're suggesting. Are they really getting that many recruits heading over to Syria to justify such a gamble?

 

[Bazal]

Thanks @Bazal for the articulate response.

It's a very risky move if that is indeed the case because there will come a tipping point where the west will have had enough and take out the source as you're suggesting. Are they really getting that many recruits heading over to Syria to justify such a gamble?

I wouldn't know the numbers tbh. I'm sure some intelligence agency somewhere does. Probably the Mossad, those pricks know everything....

But they are certainly getting a hell of a lot of Middle Eastern recruits who don't have to go far and probably won't appear on any lists.

 

[Gronk]

Cheers @Gronk and that would make sense. I can see the logic in that but we've had posters on here who seem to know what they are talking about saying it isn't about Islam and is purely a push for power over the Middle East. That's what I can't rationalise in my head.

I reckon the ISIS dudes are full of shit. They are criminals who surround themselves with young girls and and take drugs.

They sell the bullshit story to their soldiers about 42 virgins and gods will etc, and keep them tanked on speed so they dont change their minds. If they do change their minds btw they will lose their heads.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ghters-to-keep-themselves-awake-a6744366.html

 

[Bazal]

I reckon the ISIS dudes are full of shit. They are criminals who surround themselves with young girls and and take drugs.

They sell the bullshit story to their soldiers about 42 virgins and gods will etc, and keep them tanked on speed so they dont change their minds. If they do change their minds btw they will lose their heads.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ghters-to-keep-themselves-awake-a6744366.html

Yeah they're a bunch of power hungry gangsters who use impressionable people as fodder in their little war.

 

[Happy MEel]

I wouldn't know the numbers tbh. I'm sure some intelligence agency somewhere does. Probably the Mossad, those pricks know everything....

But they are certainly getting a hell of a lot of Middle Eastern recruits who don't have to go far and probably won't appear on any lists.

Well if they're getting plenty of recruits from within the Middle East do they really need to venture out externally where they're likely to piss off some superpowers? They are always so keen to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks, wouldn't they be better off fighting their war for power under the radar?

 

[Bazal]

Well if they're getting plenty of recruits from within the Middle East do they really need to venture out externally where they're likely to piss off some superpowers? They are always so keen to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks, wouldn't they be better off fighting their war for power under the radar?

Not necessarily.

In nature, animals or groups of animals often make themselves appear more threatening than they are. Hyenas will mob lions, for example, even though a lion can quite comfortably kill a lot of hyenas if it's so inclined. By taking the fight to the lions, the hyenas hope present an unacceptable risk. A bad injury can mean a lion can't hunt or potentially eat and will die, and there's the risk of infection etc etc etc....

That's kind of like what IS are doing. "We can get to you where you live, imagine what we can do in our house. Better stay away..." And, again, a lot of the people they do radicalise in the west are incidental in a way. They create the appearance of a larger, more dangerous organism, so to speak. And then, of course, is the idea that they implant that your home is under threat. Naturally you'll defend your own country before sending troops and whatnot halfway across the world.

 

[Noise]

Well if they're getting plenty of recruits from within the Middle East do they really need to venture out externally where they're likely to piss off some superpowers? They are always so keen to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks, wouldn't they be better off fighting their war for power under the radar?

Yep, if they are really only after land and have plenty of recruits from middle eastern countries why piss off the west? I reckon western countries would ignore their pissy land grab and let them all blow shit out of each other if they weren't linked to terrorist attacks in their countries. Surely IS would have a better chance of winning their land grab war against other shithole middle eastern nations half arsed army than trying to fight them Plus the US / UK / coalition forces as well

 

[phantom eel]

They are always so keen to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks, wouldn't they be better off fighting their war for power under the radar?

There is no under the radar in the middle east. The western powers are all highly involved over there (and have been for 50 years) propping up this dictator or that, supporting this rebel organisation or that alliance etc, all to suit our own interests - and yes, Australia has been up to our necks in the mess over there too.

Groups like IS or Al Qaeda know it's a matter of time before their lawless grab for land, followers, power, a caliphate, or whatever comes to notice outside the middle east. The use of recruits in western countries to carry out terrorist attacks is to use fear and terror as a weapon against those non-middle east/western players, to try to scare them from moving in and cutting it off the source (until the next group rises). "We" shouldn't give in to IS terror tactics.

 

[phantom eel]

And before some Hadley listener writes that "the Muslims" should be more critical of IS...

http://www.mcb.org.uk/london-bridge-attack-muslim-council-of-britain/

 

[phantom eel]

A considered reply. Thank you. Unlike someone else who is still trying to pick fights.

Geez, stop following me around the forums!

Ffs...

 

[Bazal]

Yep, if they are really only after land and have plenty of recruits from middle eastern countries why piss off the west? I reckon western countries would ignore their pissy land grab and let them all blow shit out of each other if they weren't linked to terrorist attacks in their countries. Surely IS would have a better chance of winning their land grab war against other shithole middle eastern nations half arsed army than trying to fight them Plus the US / UK / coalition forces as well

The other thing I should mention in relation to this is that they want their caliphate to extend to all Islam. Basically they want to rule the Islamic world, not just the Middle East.

 

[Noise]

Phantom , if you seem to know the location of IS hq , then I'd hazard a guess that the US/Coalition forces do too. Why haven't we wiped this hq out yet? What are they waiting for? How much bad shit needs to be done before an air strike wipes the whole area?

 

[phantom eel]

The other thing I should mention in relation to this is that they want their caliphate to extend to all Islam. Basically they want to rule the Islamic world, not just the Middle East.

And therefore not the West.

 

[Bazal]

Phantom , if you seem to know the location of IS hq , then I'd hazard a guess that the US/Coalition forces do too. Why haven't we wiped this hq out yet? What are they waiting for? How much bad shit needs to be done before an air strike wipes the whole area?

Because it's so politically sensitive. And I think at this stage it's not much better than a well educated guess.

They do regularly strike IS camps and settlements, though.

 

[Bazal]

And therefore not the West.

Well, they want to rule all the Muslims in the west. They've already decreed their authority over them, for whatever good that did them.

 

[phantom eel]

Phantom , if you seem to know the location of IS hq , then I'd hazard a guess that the US/Coalition forces do too. Why haven't we wiped this hq out yet? What are they waiting for? How much bad shit needs to be done before an air strike wipes the whole area?

I've just looked at the latest maps (from a fortnight ago), the situation there changes daily as I'm sure the "western" forces over there are more aware than we are.

To go in and essentially wipe out a major town in another country (in this case Syria) in order to wipe out IS headquarters isn't a simple decision. There are laws even in war situations that should be followed, and if our countries aren't going to do that then we would be just as bad as IS (which isn't a country, hence the problem).

I suggested we need the UN to give the ok, even though ISIS is not a country per se. Surely we're at that point now? If - and it might be a big if - the different controlling factions in the other parts of the host country and its neighbours (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, possible a few more...) can all agree, then lets make it happen. But it's much more difficult that getting an instant decision to go an attack.

 

[Noise]

Because it's so politically sensitive. And I think at this stage it's not much better than a well educated guess.

They do regularly strike IS camps and settlements, though.

I get the political sensitivity issues. I guess I was more asking how much more evil shit are we prepared to take from IS before we stop worrying about the sensitivity of it all. Are they worried about votes, public backlash? Which nations would be opposed to a full on strike on the area? Surely neighboring nations / towns want IS gone too as they have taken their land

 

[phantom eel]

Well, they want to rule all the Muslims in the west. They've already decreed their authority over them, for whatever good that did them.

Yep, good luck to them with that. There is a reason that many Muslims came to the west, and it's usually to have escaped nutjobs like this lot, decreeing their "authority" over people.

 

[phantom eel]

Which nations would be opposed to a full on strike on the area?

Syria (bit of a problem, as it's their turf)
Russia (bit of a problem, now with rumoured Trump links)
Iran
Bolivia

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...leeast/world-reactions-syria-strike.html?_r=0