Say what you will about the DHS and other US law enforcement agencies, but we’ve gone 13 years without a significant terrorist attack. That’s really quite impressive (leaving aside the legitimacy of the NSA’s methods and other such issues for a moment.)
Fighting experience and training have throughout history increased the skill of fighting men. This doesn’t necessarily make them better terrorists, but it can potentially make them more dangerous. No cite is needed when thousands of years of historical warfare back this argument up. Every commander knows it to be true. No need to cite some study and post it on an internet forum.
I read your post. If your contribution to this conversation is “well they want all lands at some point in the indeterminate future so… CONFLICT” you should probably just stop.
Then you didn’t understand it. Read again. Nowhere did I write or suggest that “The restoration of Al-Andalus is ISIS’ biggest going concern right now.” So you should go back, read again and if you want to respond to it, then respond to something I wrote.
It’s quite simple: ISIS see it as their goal to establish a Kalifat. This includes countries in the West. And may be used as grounds for terrorists attacks in the West. Not that they’d need high ideological goals to attacks the West since they islamofascists. And anyway, they have enough reasons with the Western intervention in Iraq. Which the decapitation of the US hostage should show. I’m sure if they had had the capability to do more than that on US soil they’d have been happy to do so.
Is anybody saying it is the greatest concern we should have? Not that I know of. But it is something we should be prepared for and act accordingly.
Consider that foreign fighters went to Iraq to specifically fight the invadnig/occupying American forces. How many returning fighters have managed to wreck havoc and chaos in the West? Few, if any.
Now consider foreign fighters in Iraq/Syria fighting to impose a caliphate on other Muslims/locals. Why exactly, other than a generalized “the west oppresses everyone” outlook, would that generate a higher number of returning radicals bent on inflicting damage in the west?
The notion that central American immigrants are Hamas or ISIS operatives is of course total nonsense.
It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that ISIS may undertake terrorism in the US as a result of US support for its regional enemies - though if their leaders had an ounce of sense they would avoid doing that.
But then, if they had an ounce of sense they would have avoided beheading journalists …
I’m inclined to agree, but . . . they’re not rational people, are they? It is known from bin Laden’s published speeches that the purpose of 9/11 was to provoke a general world war between the Islamic world and the Western world, which bin Laden believed would result in the unification of the Islamic world under a new Caliphate, which, with God on its side, would win the war and become the world’s newest superpower. And even Al-Qaeda rejects ISIS as just too crazy. They already have a “Caliphate,” and maybe they do want an all-out war with the U.S.
How many returning fighters have come back to cause havoc? Not many as yet. However, plenty have come back with changed ideals and plenty of practical experience. Practical experience that can be easily passed on. It only takes a small percentage of them to train others.
Once again it needs pointed out. Terrorist movements are rarely static. What yesterday was a movement based on defined territorial limits in Saudi/Iraq can become an entirely different beast tomorrow. After all we keep being told that the Palestinian issue(amongst others) leads to anger at Western Governments for supporting Israel. We are constantly warned that our policies in the greater Middle East are radicalising Muslims. Yet, the same people who warn of this radicalisation seem to see ISIS fighters as a static group. A group that will not exploit other issues; as a group apart. Well, unless they are a very silly group of individuals they will exploit every opportunity they can get.
I’ve got a rock in my pocket that stops terrorists. I’ll give it to you for only $1,000,000,000. A hell of a lot more cost effective and only marginally less useful, imho.
“There are Westerners in ISIS” is not equivalent to “They are recruiting from the West”, nevermind “they are recruiting a lot of people from the West” which was the original clim.
Nor do Tom Tildrum’s links for that matter - the first seems to be a “Come help if you want !” broadcast on the interwebs, the second is pretty much Random Muslim Idiot meets Anonymous.
To me, recruiting involves a slightly more active role than that. And more material help bringing folks from the West to a training camp in Syria for that matter. The International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War this shit is not.
Speaking of which, the assumption that a guy who joined up with ISIS is then going to come back and WREAK TERROR!! is as specious as the notion that a guy coming back from the International Brigades would have then bombed out London because DIRTY COMMIES would have been back then. I’m sure some idiots might, much like the Tzarnaev brothers figured (on their own) setting off a random bomb would be a great idea and a boon to the Muslim cause everywhere.
I doubt the leadership of ISIS would be overly happy with them cats though, nevermind training them specifically to do so and giving them marching orders.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
But then, if they had an ounce of sense they would have avoided beheading journalists …
[/QUOTE]
It’s not like they did it for shits and giggles. Their goal was to stop US air raids on their positions in Kurdistan (well, in where Kurdistan would be if there was one anyway), by threatening US civilians within their sphere of influence.
It’s a gruesome tactic, and its strategic validity is dubious, but it’s not irrational is my point.
You completely mangled that analogy.
[QUOTE=Kobal2;17673717Nor do Tom Tildrum’s links for that matter - the first seems to be a “Come help if you want !” broadcast on the interwebs, the second is pretty much Random Muslim Idiot meets Anonymous.[/QUOTE]
I’m not suggesting that those are evidence of ISIS recruiting or operating here. I was just showing that the Chicago media was one source of the notion being flagged by the OP.
My point is that, as a tactic, ‘do as we say or we will commit gruesome atrocities and film them for all to see’ isn’t one that works well on the US. Therefore, employing it demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how to influence the US.
Apropos of that, the tactic of ‘do as we say or we will commit terrorist outrages in the US’ is likewise a tactic that has historically not worked well, to say the least. However, given the fact that they are willing to do the one, it isn’t outside the bounds of possibility that they may be willing to do the other - even though we can all reasonably predict that use of such a tactic will not end well for them.
Oh, yes. Didn’t mean to impugn on you or anything of the sort, sorry if it came off that way.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
My point is that, as a tactic, ‘do as we say or we will commit gruesome atrocities and film them for all to see’ isn’t one that works well on the US. Therefore, employing it demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how to influence the US.
[/QUOTE]
Quite. Which would contradict the whole “they’re 10x smarter and more resourceful than Al Qaeda !” FoxNews byline.
Willing, maybe. As you say, they don’t strike me as particularly insightful a bunch.
Able ? I mean, telling some useful US sympathizer to take a scaaary picture For The Cause is one thing, getting them to blow up the White House (or put themselves in any danger whatsoever) is another IMO. Especially when a US resident would know that it’s a stupid strategy, unless the goal was to provoke overwhelming retaliation. Which, since they want to establish a country and those don’t exactly move, is not a good plan (as opposed to Al Qaeda’s more nebulous status and fungible geographical base)
I thought they were in the woodpile. Oh, wait; that’s someone else.
I once kept pictures of Joanna Cameron under my bed…
Nowadays I know how to find them online. Here, for instance,
The current Republican party is a bigger threat to the U.S than ISIS is.
According to Norwegian intelligence sources the high terror alert a few weeks ago was based on four ISIS terrorists travelling to Oslo, which were planning an “extreme and spectacular” terror attack. The Norwegian intelligence agency were working with the intelligence agencies of two other nations. But they lost track of the suspected ISIS terrorists in Athens.
Uh huh. Tell me, seeing as how ISIS is a Sunni militant group whose existence is predicated on carving out a state for themselves in Iraq and Syria, how would extreme and spectacular terror attacks in Norway help them achieve that goal?