|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Police have carried out anti-terror raids in Sydney sparked by intelligence reports that Islamic extremists were planning random killings in Australia. PM Tony Abbott said a senior Australian Islamic State militant had called for "demonstration killings", reportedly including a public beheading. The raids, with at least 800 heavily-armed officers, led to 15 arrests. One man has been charged with planning an attack. Prosecutors said he planned to "gruesomely" execute someone. Australian media reports said a plot involved beheading a random member of the public after draping them in an Islamic State flag. Asked about the reports in a press conference, Mr Abbott said: "That's the intelligence we received.'' "Direct exhortations were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in ISIL (Islamic State) to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country." Analysis: BBC's Jon Donnison in Sydney The news of an alleged plot to publicly behead a random Australian will shock many people here, including the vast majority of this country's long-established moderate Muslim community. Many Muslims are unhappy with what's going on in Iraq and Syria but would never resort to violence. These raids risk antagonising the broader Islamic community. But Australia, like many countries including Britain, is worried about the threat from Islamic State, not just abroad but at home. More than a decade on from Australia's support for the US-led war in Iraq, the country finds itself embroiled in a conflict that is far from over. Tony Abbott this week announced he is sending 600 troops to the Middle East to assist in the fight against Islamic State. Security forces clearly face a battle at home too. |
Nicely stated, Greg. That's my thoughts exactly.
An analogy would be comparing the US military to the CIA. Both are good at what they do and have some overlapping activities (at least these days), but each will always be better at what they do than the other. ISIL (without dedicated training and direction) will never be what AQ (or even AQI) was/is, and vice versa. And I'm hoping that ISIL will continue to distance itself away from AQ.
The comparison for IS should be the Taliban, not AQ. Murderous as they are, the Taliban doesn't run missions outside of the region. They were happy to host AQ in Afghanistan and support them in a variety of ways, but they were distinct organizations with separate goals.
Agree...that's why when people talk about ISIL threats to our nation in the same light as other terrorist attacks of the past conducted by groups like AQ, it just doesn't hold water. And Greg's comparison of the ISIL with Taliban seems far more apt, especially when it comes to their capabilities, desires, etc.
Quote:
They want to take and hold territory, something AQ never really did. However, I don't see them eschewing international terrorist acts. It's just that I expect them to be more like the failed Times Square car bomb of a few years ago as opposed to a sophisticated 9-11 operation.
Agree...that's why when people talk about ISIL threats to our nation in the same light as other terrorist attacks of the past conducted by groups like AQ, it just doesn't hold water. And Greg's comparison of the ISIL with Taliban seems far more apt, especially when it comes to their capabilities, desires, etc.
AQ never succeeded in doing so except in concert with the Taliban, but remember that the terrorist training camps were less about suicide vests and IEDs than about conducting guerrilla attacks on conventional forces. So this isn't entirely unintended.
In the end...ISIL isn't an international terrorist organization, as some are arguing. Just because they "splintered" from and is led by a former member of AQI doesn't mean that they are inline with AQ's mission. But I guess you can say that about AQAP and AQIM as well since both of those groups (along with Al Shabaab) are all affiliated with AQ but are more concerned about local control rather than international power projection.
There are a lot on the left and the right who view this as an "optional" war we really don't need to get involved in very much. I think that is so wrong, if only in the sense that to allow them to survive as a pseudo-state massively increases their ability to continue to recruit foreigners. We can't permit that to continue indefinitely.
The conundrum we have is that the more we get involved, the more it permits countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to sit on the sidelines and provide weak lip service.
That may be just bluster but it doesn't seem to be a situation we should ignore. Their capabilities and desires can evolve. It will be interesting to see if bombing the shit out them provides them with the proper attitude adjustment.
I read that Ayman Al Zawahiri wants in on some of this action. Maybe he's tired of being the red headed stepchild in the terrorist ranks after being the top guy for a while.
There are a lot on the left and the right who view this as an "optional" war we really don't need to get involved in very much. I think that is so wrong, if only in the sense that to allow them to survive as a pseudo-state massively increases their ability to continue to recruit foreigners. We can't permit that to continue indefinitely.
The conundrum we have is that the more we get involved, the more it permits countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to sit on the sidelines and provide weak lip service.
Couldn't agree more. Allowing ISIL to continue will only give them time to become more sophisticated and allow their aim to go beyond the region. I am all for crushing ISIL sooner rather than later, but at what cost is the question that no one seems to want to really delve into.
As far as the regional partners go, I doubt that they'll do much to actively go after ISIL in Syria or Iraq even if we don't do anything. So where do you go from there? Be patient hoping for your regional partners to do something when it's most likely that they won't or go after ISIL knowing that you'll get limited support from your regional partners? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Lone wolves with passports is a more relevant concern, imv.
OBL was already becoming irrelevant by the time he was killed by much of AQ and its affiliates. Only the US (and our partners) really gave a damn about him at that point.
It has me wondering whether it would be better to stay out of action in Syria for a while (even with Congressional authorization) and force him to confront what even for him is the greater threat.
Lone wolves with passports is a more relevant concern, imv.
The good thing about the whole lone wolves with passport fighting with ISIL and then returning to their home countries to conduct attacks is that majority of them will be flagged already by their respective nations' intelligence agencies. Is the system perfect? No, but majority will be flagged (especially since the number is still relatively low).
As far as the use of the Internet to recruit, incite, and direct attacks internationally, that's something that's been discussed and looked at ad nauseam by the IC with limited effectiveness due to the overwhelming information that has to be sifted through and the ease of reconstituting online presence by extremists even after the authorities take action against them (actions which are more difficult than should be to carry out).
No, but would the nation be terrorized by such an act compared to say an Oklahoma style bombing? Or even London style bombing? It's all about what is the overall aim of the action.
Japanese Saran attacks?
Do "thugs" have the ability to make sophisticated videos?
They have the means to match the Madrid and Saran attacks - those events were not very sophisticated at all. They don't have to take down a large building with an airplane; a subway station full of people will do for them.
They want territory - in order to establish a Caliphate which will be used as a center to spread Sharia rule over all current "non-believers". This is not new; study the antecedents of the Muslim brotherhood that go way back deep into the last century. Don't be lulled into thinking they do not have their eyes on us.
Japanese Saran attacks?
Do "thugs" have the ability to make sophisticated videos?
They have the means to match the Madrid and Saran attacks - those events were not very sophisticated at all. They don't have to take down a large building with an airplane; a subway station full of people will do for them.
They want territory - in order to establish a Caliphate which will be used as a center to spread Sharia rule over all current "non-believers". This is not new; study the antecedents of the Muslim brotherhood that go way back deep into the last century. Don't be lulled into thinking they do not have their eyes on us.
Yes...putting those attacks in one lump definitely tells us that you're on top of it all. And I'm not sure how you know that ISIL has the ability to match those attacks in today's environment without an extensive support networks established in target nations. What they have are a bunch of sympathizers, who have bought into the Islamic Caliphate ideology through the Internet and what they see in the media and not some sleeper cells able to procure, develop, plan, and execute what you call not such a sophisticated attack in today's environment.
And having an ability to put a video together doesn't make you anymore qualified or sophisticated enough to carry out a major terrorist attack. Come on now.
I want to be 7 feet tall so I can play in the NBA but neither of those things will happen.
And who even argued that ISIL doesn't have an eye on us or anyone outside of the region? But wanting and actually being able to do something about it are two different things. So they have their eyes on us, but who doesn't?
Quote:
They want territory - in order to establish a Caliphate which will be used as a center to spread Sharia rule over all current "non-believers".
I want to be 7 feet tall so I can play in the NBA but neither of those things will happen.
Even if they can't do it, that doesn't mean they can't do some serious damage while they try.
If you mean that they will spew out a ton of propaganda to try to motivate Muslims in the West to attack locally, then OK, they will try. If you mean that the IS is going to plot their own terrorist attacks using their own people and resources, then I disagree with you.
If you mean that they will spew out a ton of propaganda to try to motivate Muslims in the West to attack locally, then OK, they will try. If you mean that the IS is going to plot their own terrorist attacks using their own people and resources, then I disagree with you.
And even if they do convince a handful of sympathizers to do something here, what will it be? And I'm not trying to take anything away from any innocent person losing his/her life, but a handful of murders committed by "internet jihadists" is vastly different from a large scale terrorist attack conducted by ISIL members.
And how would you feel if the Giants had Calvin Johnson?
What's the point of your ridiculous hypothetical?
See Ronnie's last comment. That's not a good thing, obviously, but a)how likely a threat is that and b)what is the appropriate level of response for something like that?
Look at it another way - the cartels pretty much run Mexico now, right? Do you think they want these jokers upsetting the applecart and disrupting their cash flow from the US, making it more difficult for them to operate.
Quote:
fighters were in Mexican border towns with car bombs and bomb belts?
See Ronnie's last comment. That's not a good thing, obviously, but a)how likely a threat is that and b)what is the appropriate level of response for something like that?
Look at it another way - the cartels pretty much run Mexico now, right? Do you think they want these jokers upsetting the applecart and disrupting their cash flow from the US, making it more difficult for them to operate.
Obviously Greg is far more patient to stupid questions than I am. Thanks for that, Greg.
What gets smuggled in from Mexico now? People and drugs. In both cases, the powers in Mexico have an interest in facilitating their export. What would the hook be for them to be complicit in something like this? Terrorist attacks originating in Mexico would trigger a massive American response to seal off the border. It would be disasterous for the cartels and the politicians they own.
No, you're an idiot, Bake. Instead of asking some jackass question that has no basis in reality or even relevant to the topic at hand, why don't you do some research and contribute something of worth to the discussion? Either that or let the adults, who actually have some understanding of these topics talk. Stupid questions get asshole answers, so sue me.
What gets smuggled in from Mexico now? People and drugs. In both cases, the powers in Mexico have an interest in facilitating their export. What would the hook be for them to be complicit in something like this? Terrorist attacks originating in Mexico would trigger a massive American response to seal off the border. It would be disasterous for the cartels and the politicians they own.
GDI...I have to reconsider my view of you as a curmudgeon and start thinking of you as a patient teacher of men. F@#% you, Greg!...;)
-New research reveals ISIS government structure in parts of Syria and Iraq
-Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a former U.S. inmate in Iraq, is leader of so-called "Islamic State"
-TRAC research shows ISIS' evolution from military force to basic services provider
-Many ISIS officials, including key deputies, are Saddam Hussein-era military officers
Link - ( New Window )
Maybe they can't attack a major building, but they sure as hell can attempt those types of attacks.
Please don't mistake what I'm saying, Bake (or anyone else). I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm trying to get you to expand your thinking a bit. The press thrives on fear and hysteria, and the information you'll get from them will play into that. I know it's not easy to work around that, but if you broaden your sources of information and analysis it'll do you a world of good.
Now, what about the North American jihadis? Yes, such people do exist. There are Americans (and probably Mexicans) who have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS. Quite frankly, though, these guys are overwhelmingly aimless losers, which is how they ended up in Syria in the first place. The damage they could inflict is very limited. As Ronnie said, that doesn't make it any better for their victims if they manage to kill 2 or 10 or 20 people, but from a national security standpoint that is a very limited threat.
Judicial Watch - ( New Window )
Quote:
"trying"
If you mean that they will spew out a ton of propaganda to try to motivate Muslims in the West to attack locally, then OK, they will try. If you mean that the IS is going to plot their own terrorist attacks using their own people and resources, then I disagree with you.
And even if they do convince a handful of sympathizers to do something here, what will it be? And I'm not trying to take anything away from any innocent person losing his/her life, but a handful of murders committed by "internet jihadists" is vastly different from a large scale terrorist attack conducted by ISIL members.
What about OKC like you mentioned above? That wasn't a large scale attack coordinated by some terrorist organization, correct? Pretty much a few "internet jihadists" although ideology was a bit different.
Maybe they can't attack a major building, but they sure as hell can attempt those types of attacks.
And once again, where do you come up with this idea? What makes you think that it'll be easy for ISIL to pay off anyone?
Better yet, do you think it's that easy to:
1) come into the US as an experienced fighter from anywhere in the Middle East (especially when there is a lack of an ISIL support networks in the US that haven't been identified or are being tracked),
2) get smuggled into the US through our southern border (especially with the hurdles that Greg aptly stated earlier),
3) obtain the material and build these bombs and IEDs without anyone finding out?
Sure, if your group has been doing this for a long time there may be a support network to do so, but to attribute a capability or even the desire to ISIL just because you watched some news doesn't make your questions or your thoughts any more valid.
At this point...
Really, Cam? Do you want to throw your hat into this as well with you ability to compare an apple to an orange?
OKC was done by domestic terrorist prior to 9/11. Maybe you mistook my OKC comment as anything more than just the level of violent act (minus the actual motive or perpetrators). I've never said domestic terrorism isn't something to worry about...actually far from it. I think domestic terrorism is the one thing we should be focusing on more. But to use OKC as some proof that ISIL (a dangerous militia currently fighting in ME) is also capable or even want to attack the US at this point seems to be grasping at straws here.
The discussion is whether ISIL can conduct an attack in this country now in a post-9/11 environment?
As long as you recognize it, my job is done, brah.
This is definitely a threat but at the individual level, but national security level threat, it is not.
Your beef should be with them..they seem to think they have a good source. Remember I asked an opened ended question. I didn't say I thought it was true. Just respond to it and move on.
Right, brah? Good, glad we agree.
Quote:
What about OKC like you mentioned above? That wasn't a large scale attack coordinated by some terrorist organization, correct? Pretty much a few "internet jihadists" although ideology was a bit different.
Really, Cam? Do you want to throw your hat into this as well with you ability to compare an apple to an orange?
OKC was done by domestic terrorist prior to 9/11. Maybe you mistook my OKC comment as anything more than just the level of violent act (minus the actual motive or perpetrators). I've never said domestic terrorism isn't something to worry about...actually far from it. I think domestic terrorism is the one thing we should be focusing on more. But to use OKC as some proof that ISIL (a dangerous militia currently fighting in ME) is also capable or even want to attack the US at this point seems to be grasping at straws here.
The discussion is whether ISIL can conduct an attack in this country now in a post-9/11 environment?
Easy.
Wasn't looking to argue. I was just asking a simple question.
The site in question is an extremely partisan outfit whose sources are entirely anonymous. They have an agenda to push. Be wary.
Your beef should be with them..they seem to think they have a good source. Remember I asked an opened ended question. I didn't say I thought it was true. Just respond to it and move on.
Right, brah? Good, glad we agree.
Hmmm...I'm not so sure. You seem to be pretty confident in your position here:
[quote]Look it would be easy for ISIS
Bake54 : 1:23 pm : link : reply
to pay off anyone they needed to. These guys already have experience with bomb belts, IEDs and car bombs in Iraq from 8 years ago.
Maybe they can't attack a major building, but they sure as hell can attempt those types of attacks.[/img]
To which I would argue that you're wrong. So while my snarky response was probably not warranted, you didn't just ask an open ended question but rather threw out a counterpoint posed as a question (based on your follow-on post as above). So I apologize for calling you an idiot, but your question was still a clown question.
Bake54 : 1:23 pm : link : reply
to pay off anyone they needed to. These guys already have experience with bomb belts, IEDs and car bombs in Iraq from 8 years ago.
Maybe they can't attack a major building, but they sure as hell can attempt those types of attacks.
The site in question is an extremely partisan outfit whose sources are entirely anonymous. They have an agenda to push. Be wary.
Yeah...I saw the site address for the link he provided and didn't even waste time responding to it...it's a shit site like any other similar partisan sites.
Sure...that's what I am. Or maybe that I actually know what I'm talking about with regards to this topic and am calling your question/posts for what they are, lazy attempt at trying to interject your point based on a shitty source. Either way, I hope you learned something at least.
Jihad Selfies - ( New Window )