Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[SeaKingTacco]

As John Powell suggests, we need to invite them to join us for drinks at the Dorchester.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-how-to-talk-to-terrorists-isis-al-qaida

Of course, we'll also need politicians with the guts to follow this example. Good luck with that.

Great article- thanks!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I find it hard to believe policymakers haven't learned that military force just draws more recruits. We've been at this for 15 years. Maybe it's time for a new strategy.

:blah:  Have you ever done anything to try to find/kill any of these people?  Or are you just complaining from behind the wall of protection provided by others with no intent to even 'suggest the new strategy', let alone be a part of it. 

Tell the families of the loved one killed in the past, oh, decade and a half, that terrorism is 'nothing to worry about'.  We can contain/kill them in their own back yard, or they will come to ours.  Their long term goal is to convert or kill your grandkids, what is happening today is to set up the victory of the future.  Stop being shortsighted with your head in the sand.  There is a threat to the western world.  It is real.  It just isn't knocking directly on your door...yet.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/23/what-europe-needs-to-do-to-stop-the-next-brussels/

What Europe needs to do to stop the next Brussels

By Ralph Peters March 23, 2016

What used to be bitter slums are now militant colonies.

The Muslim guts of European cities, from Brussels to Marseilles, and the high-rise banlieues of Paris (designed by the left as earthly paradises) or the grubby Stadtteile of Cologne or Hamburg, are no longer way-stations for readjusting immigrants. They’re imperial holdings of a bloodthirsty caliphate, poisoned with the spirit of jihad.

And the Islamist fanatics who rule from the shadows intend to slaughter the trusting aborigines, whose tribal chiefs are enchanted by the trinkets of political correctness — as we were reminded, again, Tuesday when terrorists killed 31 and injured hundreds in a double-barrel attack in Brussels.

Will Islam really conquer Europe? Of course not. But reality leaves Islamist terrorists unconvinced and unmoved.

And they’ve already disrupted societies, upended politics and seized strategic ground at Europe’s heart: The Brussels attacks were symbolically perfect, striking not only a national capital, but the headquarters of the European Union and NATO.

Consider Belgium. The police and intelligence organizations (mindlessly divided between Flemish- and French-speakers) couldn’t crack the local Muslim community. Contributing scores of jihadis to ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Molenbeek and neighboring slums also protected the terrorists in their midst.

Some locals must have known. Many more must have suspected. But none warned the authorities that hundreds of their “fellow Belgians” faced impending attacks.

The roots of radicalism had gone so deep that support for the fanatics trumped even the desire for self-protection. Of course, the locals saw that, in the wake of multiple terror attacks and arrests, they’d face suspicion, scrutiny and an end to the craven tolerance of their crimes.

But nobody talked. Nobody will.

Nonetheless, “humanitarian” groups will continue to defend the “rights” to government financial, medical and housing support for those who send their sons on jihad and beat their daughters to death.

Which brings us to the question: What can Europeans do? If they somehow summon the strength of will? Before the situation worsens monstrously?

Apart from the obvious measure of restricting migration that seeks only to feed at the public trough, there are three steps Europeans could (but likely won’t) take:

First, work on the families. In the Islamic cultures of the Middle East and North Africa, the family is the fortress. European states need laws that permanently deny all further state assistance, including subsidized housing, to the extended families of terrorists and their abettors.

Collective punishment? Islamist terror is a collective crime. As the residents of Molenbeek just reminded us. You have to do what works. And we need to remember the elementary truth that receiving countries owe immigrants nothing beyond their physical safety. We’re not in their debt, they’re in ours.

Second, not only resident status, but citizenship must be revoked from anyone affiliated with terror — including birthright citizenship. We must stop letting left-wing activists creatively interpret international law to protect monsters bent on massacre. (Liberal Canada) The first human right is for law-abiding citizens to be able to live in peace, free of bodily harm.

Third — and toughest — the Europeans need to find ways to break up the Islamist colonies that even the police prefer to avoid. Just as European colonialists brought smallpox to the natives of the Americas, the jihadi colonists bring their plague of fanaticism.

Even in our own country, where a different class of Muslim immigrant — largely educated, ambitious and law-abiding — means we don’t face the crisis Europe does, the toughest problems we do face come when Muslims from underdeveloped states are allowed to immigrate in mass and concentrate in one area. (Minnesota - 100,000 + Somalis) 

That lets them cling to their old culture and language, instead of learning English and digesting our social values. Note the way we’ve mishandled Somalis, who, in turn, have disproportionately slipped off to jihad.

American Muslims are yet another of our nation’s success stories (though we need to confront the bad actors abusing our tolerance). We get genuine immigrants seeking their American dream. Europe gets fanatical colonizers.

Don’t think there’s a difference? Check out Brussels.


Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army LCol (and former enlisted man), author, and media commentator. His last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He retired in 1998. Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst. In addition to his non-fiction books, he has also published several novels under the pen name Owen Parry.

Legendary novelist W.E.B. Griffin has singled Peters out as one of the “new breed” protecting our nation, who – in Griffin’s words – wrote the best analysis of our war on terror that Griffin has ever read.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The underlying fact is that no matter how well we treat Muslim refugees, how much of a start in a new country we give them, how much we hold nice little celebrations to accept them into the fold, it's all for naught.

When Johnny Jihadi shows up to blow up the shopping mall, he's not going to care about how nice you were to his brethren, how much you care or how inclusive you are.

You're an infidel and you need to be dealt with. Violently and fatally.

 

[jollyjacktar]

As John Powell suggests, we need to invite them to join us for drinks at the Dorchester.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-how-to-talk-to-terrorists-isis-al-qaida

Of course, we'll also need politicians with the guts to follow this example. Good luck with that.

Very thought provoking, seeing as we cannot turn Raqqa into a modern day Carthage.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Kilo_302] I find it hard to believe policymakers haven't learned that military force just draws more recruits. We've been at this for 15 years. Maybe it's time for a new strategy.
[/quote]
When I read this I always think of the silly saying that Canadian soldiers are peacekeepers,  not warriors.
I'm not sure where this came from.  If you apply enough force you're going to reach a point where there's no more recruits.  The problem is we're approaching it with this heart to and minds idea that we can throw enough money at them to make them our friends. In Afghanistan we watched the bad guys work for us during the day and plant bombs by night.

 

[Good2Golf]

Suggestions?

Buying hybrid cars, stop smoking and start reading newspapers?


...although in fairness, Matt Damon has travelled to Mars and back since then...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Gwynne Dyer gets one thing right in my uninformed opinion:

          "The first thing, after every terrorist attack, is to stress that media coverage of the attack is its primary purpose, indeed, almost its only purpose."


First, I stress that my opinion is uninformed. I know little about terrorism, except that it is a tactic, not a belief system or a nationality; and I know even less, therefore, about counter-terrorism, except that it doesn't seem to be working very well; but I do know, personally, some people who do study terrorism and think about it a lot and, generally, I defer to their opinions.

But, second, it does seem rather intuitively obvious to me that since one of the main aims of terror attacks is to frighten people, then "communicating" the attack is, indeed, one of the most important outcomes. If there are no frantic media reports about the attacks in Brussels then the people in Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent and Liège will not be frightened, will they?

More about "communicating" the terror in this good article from The Guardian that asks the very pertinent questions: "How can one show the suffering of this terror group’s victims without furthering its perverse agenda?" and "How can one refuse to show the suffering of this terror group’s victims without succumbing to the awful idea that they are people that it’s best not to acknowledge too freely?"

 

[MARS]

More about "communicating" the terror in this good article from The Guardian that asks the very pertinent questions: "How can one show the suffering of this terror group’s victims without furthering its perverse agenda?" and "How can one refuse to show the suffering of this terror group’s victims without succumbing to the awful idea that they are people that it’s best not to acknowledge too freely?"

I don't know...I question the...necessity (I guess that would be the word) for the Guardian (or any other media outlet) to show these kinds images, other than because "if it bleeds, it leads".  What is the public good that is accomplished?  Are ISIL-inspired terrorist events something the general public is unaware of?  Is it something, at it's base level, that we don't understand without images?  I am certain they sold a lot of papers and received a lot of online viewers, though.

But this isn't the same thing as, say, the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s, which most of us likely remember well.  That was something happening in a far flung, 3rd world country that I would argue the majority of the world would have remained unaware of and unconcerned with, if not for the months-long bombardment of disturbing images into our homes everyday.  It actually did accomplish a public good: those images generated an aid response.  (You can argue about the long-term effectiveness of that response, but that is not my point).

Are the people of Brussels safer because of these images?  Better informed?  Is there anything for the average citizen to even do to assist the authorities based on images of the victims and the carnage?

I don't think so.  I think they are simply salacious.  They appeal to our innate desire to view horror through our own eyes.  They are like trainwrecks - you can't look away.  But you don't need to actually see the suffering to appreciate it, I don't think, especially when there is no "So what" or "Now what" for the viewers.

 

[AbdullahD]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/23/what-europe-needs-to-do-to-stop-the-next-brussels/

What Europe needs to do to stop the next Brussels

By Ralph Peters March 23, 2016

What used to be bitter slums are now militant colonies.

The Muslim guts of European cities, from Brussels to Marseilles, and the high-rise banlieues of Paris (designed by the left as earthly paradises) or the grubby Stadtteile of Cologne or Hamburg, are no longer way-stations for readjusting immigrants. They’re imperial holdings of a bloodthirsty caliphate, poisoned with the spirit of jihad.

And the Islamist fanatics who rule from the shadows intend to slaughter the trusting aborigines, whose tribal chiefs are enchanted by the trinkets of political correctness — as we were reminded, again, Tuesday when terrorists killed 31 and injured hundreds in a double-barrel attack in Brussels.

Will Islam really conquer Europe? Of course not. But reality leaves Islamist terrorists unconvinced and unmoved.

And they’ve already disrupted societies, upended politics and seized strategic ground at Europe’s heart: The Brussels attacks were symbolically perfect, striking not only a national capital, but the headquarters of the European Union and NATO.

Consider Belgium. The police and intelligence organizations (mindlessly divided between Flemish- and French-speakers) couldn’t crack the local Muslim community. Contributing scores of jihadis to ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Molenbeek and neighboring slums also protected the terrorists in their midst.

Some locals must have known. Many more must have suspected. But none warned the authorities that hundreds of their “fellow Belgians” faced impending attacks.

The roots of radicalism had gone so deep that support for the fanatics trumped even the desire for self-protection. Of course, the locals saw that, in the wake of multiple terror attacks and arrests, they’d face suspicion, scrutiny and an end to the craven tolerance of their crimes.

But nobody talked. Nobody will.

Nonetheless, “humanitarian” groups will continue to defend the “rights” to government financial, medical and housing support for those who send their sons on jihad and beat their daughters to death.

Which brings us to the question: What can Europeans do? If they somehow summon the strength of will? Before the situation worsens monstrously?

Apart from the obvious measure of restricting migration that seeks only to feed at the public trough, there are three steps Europeans could (but likely won’t) take:

First, work on the families. In the Islamic cultures of the Middle East and North Africa, the family is the fortress. European states need laws that permanently deny all further state assistance, including subsidized housing, to the extended families of terrorists and their abettors.

Collective punishment? Islamist terror is a collective crime. As the residents of Molenbeek just reminded us. You have to do what works. And we need to remember the elementary truth that receiving countries owe immigrants nothing beyond their physical safety. We’re not in their debt, they’re in ours.

Second, not only resident status, but citizenship must be revoked from anyone affiliated with terror — including birthright citizenship. We must stop letting left-wing activists creatively interpret international law to protect monsters bent on massacre. (Liberal Canada) The first human right is for law-abiding citizens to be able to live in peace, free of bodily harm.

Third — and toughest — the Europeans need to find ways to break up the Islamist colonies that even the police prefer to avoid. Just as European colonialists brought smallpox to the natives of the Americas, the jihadi colonists bring their plague of fanaticism.

Even in our own country, where a different class of Muslim immigrant — largely educated, ambitious and law-abiding — means we don’t face the crisis Europe does, the toughest problems we do face come when Muslims from underdeveloped states are allowed to immigrate in mass and concentrate in one area. (Minnesota - 100,000 + Somalis) 

That lets them cling to their old culture and language, instead of learning English and digesting our social values. Note the way we’ve mishandled Somalis, who, in turn, have disproportionately slipped off to jihad.

American Muslims are yet another of our nation’s success stories (though we need to confront the bad actors abusing our tolerance). We get genuine immigrants seeking their American dream. Europe gets fanatical colonizers.

Don’t think there’s a difference? Check out Brussels.

Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army LCol (and former enlisted man), author, and media commentator. His last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He retired in 1998. Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst. In addition to his non-fiction books, he has also published several novels under the pen name Owen Parry.

Legendary novelist W.E.B. Griffin has singled Peters out as one of the “new breed” protecting our nation, who – in Griffin’s words – wrote the best analysis of our war on terror that Griffin has ever read.

Hi RifleMan62

That was an interesting read, I disagree with some points he makes and I'll do my best to explain why. Having said that I am not stuck like glue to my position, it's just that my gut says it is the wrong way to approach.

Firstly he brings up blood thirsty extremists and the radical agenda they hold (which I agree the extremist fools, want us all Dead). Outlining some acts they have committed which makes sense to explain the severity of the situation.

I start  to draw traction with him, when he starts make all Muslims culpable for the actions of a few extremists. Allegeding that other Muslims knew, without proof is an issue. If it comes out in the investigation that other Muslims had legitimate information about these attacks, then hold them accountable. But until and unless proof comes that other's did know let it lie. By assuming other Muslims knew and creating pieces like this your are feeding the 'woe is me' attitude extremists use to recruit (I know, they should just grow up and be adults.. but thats another topic).

I am sure just like in Canada there are Islamic groups, Imams and Mosques that are working against radicalism. But sometimes if these groups work with the police force, it undermines the effort.. because radicals will just assume it is state funded and thus evil. But that does not negate the fact interaction between the Police and the community needs to happen. So yes Muslims are a tight group of chaps usually, I know I can call on my Muslim brother 24/7 for help. Mayhap we have created our own Island that we need bridges to get off of and like all Islands in the world resources are usually rare. So we need to work with the broader communities and utilize our anti Radicalization in synch to some extent with state funded efforts.. Or create a state funded paralell.

I take extreme prejudice with the use of collective punishment. I believe with full conviction that a program utilizing collective punishment will exponentially increase the amount of radicals. I am not a very articulate debater, but this chap I am linking has an interesting read and take on the issue. I feel that it would be more effective then what he is suggesting (albeit he uses it in a school context).

http://www.learningspy.co.uk/behaviour/collective-punishment/

His second point of removing citizenship, is kind of a moot point but symbolic nonetheless. A terrorist is usually a murderer and Murderers tend to spend life in jail. So a national spending life in jail or someone who isnt is kind of pointless. But symbolically, it could be interesting. wiser people then I can debate the merits of it.

His third point I agree with mostly, we do need to make sure all immigrants integrate successfully into our countries. I do not believe they need to assimilate, but they need to integrate and make the country home. Having huge slums of low income immigrant communities create problems, but is it disproportionately more then any other low income slum? That is something to look into (i should have sorry).

I believe that social programs can be extremely effective here, teaching people the skills needed to be economically mobile etc. I spent time in Minneapolis and worked with a few Somalis there and have huge hopes and fears for the next generation. But we still have time to interject ourselves into these communities to help them.

Let the immigrants keep their culture in so far as what is permissible in the respective countries they move to. But let them take what is best from the country they move to, an immigrant doesnt need to abandon who they are.. they just need to grow. Also restrictions on immigration could actually be wise, if the countru can not handle the immigrants. If the country can handle the immigrants and integrate them then let them come.

I am sure I am missing something, but I am at work I have to go.

Abdullah

 

[tomahawk6]

Belgian intelligence failure to head off the Brussels bombing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/belgian-authorities-missed-a-key-chance-to-gather-intelligence-on-attacks/2016/03/26/97f5d492-f1f0-11e5-a2a3-d4e9697917d1_story.html

BRUSSELS — Belgian authorities announced Saturday that they had charged a man in connection with Tuesday's terrorist attacks, saying they believe he participated in the plot and may be "the man in white" captured in an airport surveillance video alongside the two bombers.

The man, identified by a European official as Fayçal Cheffou, appeared before a judge after he was detained Thursday night while sitting in a car in front of the Belgian prosecutor’s office.

Belgian security officials have been seeking a man captured in an airport surveillance video Tuesday, minutes before dual suicide blasts hit. The images show three men walking together, but only two are believed to have died in the blasts. The third, wearing a white jacket and a black hat -- was thought to be at-large after depositing an explosives-laden suitcase in the departures terminal. The two bombers wore black, along with black gloves on their left hands that authorities believe concealed the detonators.

A spokesman for the federal prosecutor's office, Eric Van der Sypt, said on Saturday that the man identified by his office only as Fayçal C. was being investigated as the possible third airport attacker. But he said the link "cannot be confirmed yet."

"We have to be 100 percent sure," he said. "These are very heavy charges."

 

[tomahawk6]

Really good article about the terror cells in Belgium and how they seem to be operating.One takeaway for me was the mention of watchers being used in these operations.The fact the cells are making their own explosives and as a result need to have hideouts that can mask the smell.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lives-dies-attacks-clues-terror-171007086.html?nf=1

 

[Kilo_302]

:blah:  Have you ever done anything to try to find/kill any of these people?  Or are you just complaining from behind the wall of protection provided by others with no intent to even 'suggest the new strategy', let alone be a part of it. 

Tell the families of the loved one killed in the past, oh, decade and a half, that terrorism is 'nothing to worry about'.  We can contain/kill them in their own back yard, or they will come to ours.  Their long term goal is to convert or kill your grandkids, what is happening today is to set up the victory of the future.  Stop being shortsighted with your head in the sand.  There is a threat to the western world.  It is real.  It just isn't knocking directly on your door...yet.

It's quite clear that containing them/killing them in their own backyard is simply not working, this is my point. We are creating more militants with every drone strike/air raid than we are killing. If this wasn't the case, we would have run out of terrorists a long time ago. I find it hard to not chuckle when the media announces that we killed some commander in a drone strike. We've been killing the first or second in command of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Al-Nusri, ISIS, Sadr Army etc etc for 15 years now. And somehow we don't seem to understand they're able to replace them.

Imagine for a moment that a close family member or friend is killed in a drone strike. Or perhaps even a few family members or friends. And imagine they had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and maybe one or two were just responding to an attack and then were killed in a "double tap" (which is itself a war crime).  Do you think this might cause some otherwise rational people to hate the West? Of course it would. Terrorism should never be dealt with with military means. It's wholly counterproductive, and adding drones to the mix just makes us look like cowards and further incenses people.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kilo- can you explain what you mean by a "double tap" being a war crime?

 

[Journeyman]

Terrorism should never be dealt with with military means.

Which brings us back to...

Suggestions?

The easy part is saying everyone is wrong; you still have not provided your solution.

 

[Kilo_302]

Kilo- can you explain what you mean by a "double tap" being a war crime?

Intentionally hitting first responders is a war crime. The CIA has, on numerous occasions, hit a target and then waited a few minutes and then hit it again while people are digging victims out of the rubble. There is more than enough doubt to accept that this strategy is criminal, especially if we take into account all the times mistakes have been made with the initial target itself.

Which brings us back to...The easy part is saying everyone is wrong; you still have not provided your solution.

The central tenet of terrorism as a strategy is to use your opponent's weight against them, to provoke an overreaction that then alienates people from your intended target, creating political mass necessary to achieve whatever goals you have.

The goal of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke an overreaction. When the US went into Afghanistan and Iraq it was committing itself to campaigns it couldn't win, but also campaigns that would destabilize both countries and the region, and draw in more militants. Furthermore, each cycle of violence results in even worse forms of extremism. ISIS will be far harder to talk than Al-Qaeda, but it still possible.

SO I would suggest we try ratcheting down the violence and attempt to talk. It will be distasteful, and some crimes will go unpunished (on both sides), but in the end it's the only solution. I understand you're asking for suggestions, but shouldn't there more onus on those who support military action when 15 years of military action has NOT worked?

 

[GR66]

I think it's naive to believe that terrorism against the West is simply a reaction to Western military intervention in the Islamic Crescent.  What is going on there is a cultural civil war.  Far more of the effort of the extremists is against their own people in their own countries than against the West.  We are simply a symbol of the modern liberalism that they oppose.

Even if we were to pull out all of our military forces their war would continue.  We would still be a target for them.  Even if we were to create a courdon around the entire area and break off all ties and trade with those countries we would remain a target.  Access to modern media cannot be blocked and we would always be seen as a threat and an evil influence on the minds of the people they seek to control.  Disengagement could be spun as abandonment and collective punishment by the witholding of our wealth while engagement could be spun as interference and economic control.  Regardless of what we do in the present/future, our past actions (from the Crusades onward) would be put forward as justification for continuation of their war.

I don't think there are any simple answers to this mess and if I did have "the" solution I'd be a wealthy man.  That being said, I think that a general strategy of containing the conflict as much as possible and trying to prevent it from raging out of control is likely the best option among a group of poor choices.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kilo- which times, specifically have the CIA hit a target and then hit it again a few minutes later when the first responders are on scene?

I would like to learn more about this.

 

[Jed]

I think it's naive to believe that terrorism against the West is simply a reaction to Western military intervention in the Islamic Crescent.  What is going on there is a cultural civil war.  Far more of the effort of the extremists is against their own people in their own countries than against the West.  We are simply a symbol of the modern liberalism that they oppose.

Even if we were to pull out all of our military forces their war would continue.  We would still be a target for them.  Even if we were to create a courdon around the entire area and break off all ties and trade with those countries we would remain a target.  Access to modern media cannot be blocked and we would always be seen as a threat and an evil influence on the minds of the people they seek to control.  Disengagement could be spun as abandonment and collective punishment by the witholding of our wealth while engagement could be spun as interference and economic control.  Regardless of what we do in the present/future, our past actions (from the Crusades onward) would be put forward as justification for continuation of their war.

I don't think there are any simple answers to this mess and if I did have "the" solution I'd be a wealthy man. That being said, I think that a general strategy of containing the conflict as much as possible and trying to prevent it from raging out of control is likely the best option among a group of poor choices.

I think this approach is simply a failing delay tactic. Like watching a slow growing cancer take hold. It is well past time to go in and take these ISIS guys down hard, and be relentless in rooting them out.  Will good Muslims be affected? Yes, very unfortunately. Time to get off the fence and really do something.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Intentionally hitting first responders is a war crime.

Do you mean medical staff specifically or first responders as in citizens first on the scene to help out?

Kilo- which times, specifically have the CIA hit a target and then hit it again a few minutes later when the first responders are on scene?

I would like to learn more about this.

I as well.