That's a long list. I'll get back to you on it.

The Redscape profanity filter has blocked that. Will see what I can do...

bbauska wrote:The Redscape profanity filter has blocked that. Will see what I can do...

http://www.theonion.com/tag/terrorism

Susan Rice has a way with words...

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

danivon wrote:All very interesting, DF, but how many attacks in Europe in the past decade by jihadis?

Here is one possible answer. Wikipedia has this page about terror attacks in Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... pean_Union

The graphs show that most attacks are from separatists, not "religious" motives. Although that does include failed/foiled as well as successful. But the number from "religious" looks to be in the order of about a dozen a year.

And the data source is here -https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_publications/37

There are a lot of arrests - which suggests that our police and security forces are doing a lot to catch jihadi terrorists, and foiling a lot of potential attacks. That is important. The recent leak of ISIS data will be very useful to identify people across Europe.

It's tough to tease apart "separatist" and "religious". Many (Most?) of the separatist attacks are from Islamic separatist groups. From your wiki website, there's FLN, Black September, PFLP, Guards of Islam, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, CSPPA, GIA, Abu Hafs, Al Qaeda, Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly, Mohammed Merah, Islamic State, and AQIY. If I leave Europe there's Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban (who brutally went after Christians families yesterday in Afghanistan). There's also Hamas who call for death for all Jews.

I appreciate perspective, but you are in denial if you want to talk about this as purely separatist.

I was looking for attacks in the last decade.

And just looking at the first on your list, the FLN were not motivated by religion, but were socialists and nationalists who wanted Algerian independence (and having achieved it fifty odd years ago have not been a terror group in Europe Again). Yes, most Algerians were Muslim, but the FLN went on to become the one-party dictators who repressed opposition in Algeria including Islamic movements.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Just trying to answer your question. Sorry, I know you like to supply the answers from your own head as a gotcha, buy there you are.

"Furthermore, the number of terror attacks in Ireland over the past decade compared to the attacks in the rest of Europe by jihadists . . . which one is greater?"

So far it looks like it is a close thing, but Ireland is ahead on the numbers. By all means, prove me wrong (without changing the question - yes we know about the death rates already)

I think it's fairly simple, something even you grasp: death is worse than property damage or even injury.

Last time. You asked about a comparison of the "number of attacks", not me. I have sought to answer it, and all you can do is attack as if it was not your question in the first place and only a crazy person would ask it.

And my first post shows that the number of deaths in Western Europe from terrorism has fallen over time since the heights of the 70s and 80s.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Just trying to answer your question. Sorry, I know you like to supply the answers from your own head as a gotcha, buy there you are.

"Furthermore, the number of terror attacks in Ireland over the past decade compared to the attacks in the rest of Europe by jihadists . . . which one is greater?"

So far it looks like it is a close thing, but Ireland is ahead on the numbers. By all means, prove me wrong (without changing the question - yes we know about the death rates already)

I think it's fairly simple, something even you grasp: death is worse than property damage or even injury.

Last time. You asked about a comparison of the "number of attacks", not me. I have sought to answer it, and all you can do is attack as if it was not your question in the first place and only a crazy person would ask it.

And my first post shows that the number of deaths in Western Europe from terrorism has fallen over time since the heights of the 70s and 80s.

Great.

Super scary, except we are not living in the 70s or 80s.

I think we're done here.

freeman3

Ricky...(Scratches head, pulls hair, gnashes teeth)...let it not be said that you are afraid to argue against someone holding the same views on an issue

.
I guess I should have prefaced my epistle with, " I agree because..."

Fate

Is ISIS theologically diverse? Are there a multitude of, or even several, different sects?

Daesh is not theologically diverse. Kinda the point of being a caliphate.
However, it represents what number of people?
In territory ot controls there are about 12 million people. Of course only some subset of the 12 million are actually followers of Al Baghdadi.
The estimates of how many actual fighters ranges between 30,000 and 200,000. Since the 200,000 is a Kurdish estimate number that includes potentially conscripted fighters, who are unlikely to be fanatically loyal or actually adherents to Baghdadi as caliph. ... the CIA estimate of 30,000 to 40,000 seems about right.

So maybe Daesh has around 500,000 actual adherents? And maybe a tenth of that ready to sacrifice? And the Muslim population is 1.6 billion.... And yet people want to say we are at war with all of Islam....
Which is theologically very diverse.

A parallel would be fighting the Pentacosts but claiming all Christianity was part of the fight.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Is ISIS theologically diverse? Are there a multitude of, or even several, different sects?

Daesh is not theologically diverse. Kinda the point of being a caliphate.
However, it represents what number of people?
In territory ot controls there are about 12 million people. Of course only some subset of the 12 million are actually followers of Al Baghdadi.
The estimates of how many actual fighters ranges between 30,000 and 200,000. Since the 200,000 is a Kurdish estimate number that includes potentially conscripted fighters, who are unlikely to be fanatically loyal or actually adherents to Baghdadi as caliph. ... the CIA estimate of 30,000 to 40,000 seems about right.

So maybe Daesh has around 500,000 actual adherents? And maybe a tenth of that ready to sacrifice? And the Muslim population is 1.6 billion.... And yet people want to say we are at war with all of Islam....
Which is theologically very diverse.

A parallel would be fighting the Pentacosts but claiming all Christianity was part of the fight.

Thank you for finally answering the question.

As you may recall, my comment was about ISIS' motivation. They clearly are religiously motivated. You responded with gibberish about their being many sects within Islam. While true, it has nothing to do with ISIS, which you now finally admit.

1. There is no doubt Obama understated or misunderstood the threat of ISIS

.
Who didn't?
Please point to a public statement that offers the earliest recognition the Daesh was about to rise by anyone....

2. There is no doubt he threw Mubarak under the bus because he got caught up in some kind of neo-neo-con fervor, thinking democracy was going to bust out all over the place.

The Bus was millions of Egyptians attempting self determination. What exactly was the US supposed to do in terms of direct involvement and how would that have affected the course of events? In the end the Egyptian military council was in control ... They let things evolve as much as they were willing to ...
The notion that there is some kind of influence that the White House can always control events is a neocon myth.

3. He overthrew Qaddafi and had no plan for the aftermath

.
Several European governments asked that the US join them in bombing campaigns designed to stop a genocide. Should he have ignored their requests and allowed Qaddafi's forces to butcher the populace?
Whenever European nations or the US have "a plan" its essentially colonization. It looks like what the occupation of Iraq was.... There is a great arrogance that the US or other nations can control events in a third world country.... Even with 100,000 troops occupying Libya could the events be controlled? Doubtful based on the lessons of Iraq and Lebanon. (quickly learned by Reagan)

4. He drew a "red line" in Syria and backed off like a weasel

.
And the option was a full fledged military intervention? You do remember how successful Iraq was right?

5. He invited Russia into the Middle East.

They were already in Syria for years....

6. He ignored (and continues to) Iran's illegal behavior because getting the agreement was more important to him than actually stopping Iran from getting a nuke

.
The reality is that the treaty has kept Iran from being able to get nuclear weapons for several decades...
And recent electoral results in Iran point to a softening of their position to the west as moderates are in the ascendancy.

7, He has strengthened Putin. He unilaterally took ABM systems out of Europe. He's done nothing but tsk-tsk Putin no matter what he does

.
You may not be aware of how difficult sanctions have made Russia's economic conditions....
Compared to war.......a good choice.
Why do you expect the President to be able to control the actions of a mighty nation like Russia? The arrogant idiocy that thinks US interests need only be expressed to make it so I suppose.

8. He's done little to check China as it flexes its muscles in the Pacific and as it hacks into sensitive areas of our cyber-systems

.
What levers does he have?

9. He has made many of our allies wonder if they can count on us for anything.
Actually he's enormously popular with most allies. Unlike his predecessor

.
It would be really interesting if you had any evidence to back up this statement in particular.

[

Fate

As you may recall, my comment was about ISIS' motivation. They clearly are religiously motivated. You responded with gibberish about their being many sects within Islam. While true, it has nothing to do with ISIS, which you now finally admit.

Is this you recognizing that the west is at war with Daesh and their vision of a caliphate and not the entire Islamic faith?

Rickyp, don't quit your day job.

rickyp wrote:

1. There is no doubt Obama understated or misunderstood the threat of ISIS

.
Who didn't?
Please point to a public statement that offers the earliest recognition the Daesh was about to rise by anyone....

GWB.

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

2. There is no doubt he threw Mubarak under the bus because he got caught up in some kind of neo-neo-con fervor, thinking democracy was going to bust out all over the place.

The Bus was millions of Egyptians attempting self determination. What exactly was the US supposed to do in terms of direct involvement and how would that have affected the course of events? In the end the Egyptian military council was in control ... They let things evolve as much as they were willing to ...
The notion that there is some kind of influence that the White House can always control events is a neocon myth.

You are wrong again.

Earlier in the day, Obama had told an audience that "we are witnessing history unfold," a sign that he understood the Egyptian president would resign. Now Obama was watching a defiant Mubarak announce that he was transferring some presidential powers but would remain in office.

Returning to the White House, Obama summoned Vice President Joe Biden and top foreign policy aides to the Oval Office. The president was perplexed. They pored over English translations of Mubarak's address, trying to parse the language to determine exactly what he'd said. They searched printouts of a speech that Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman had delivered shortly afterward, trying to discern precisely what powers Mubarak had transferred.

An hour later, Obama delivered his verdict: Not good enough. The Mubarak speech did not satisfy the president, nor would it calm the protesters who were demanding change.


His staff raced to craft a sharply worded response. Obama phoned Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, read a draft to them and asked for suggestions.

Obama's position: Mubarak's plan was not "immediate, meaningful or sufficient."

The White House's handling of that moment hewed to a strategy developed after the crisis erupted Jan. 25. Determined to be on "the right side of history" without intruding in Egypt's political affairs, Obama wanted to put pressure on the dictator, squeezing Mubarak to hand over power and begin the transition to a more democratic country.

The alternative likely was to allow Mubarak to clamp down on the uprising--that's what dictators do. I'm not saying there were great options, but Obama rolled the bones. He thought, like a neo-con, that democracy would be "better." Once elections produced the Muslim brotherhood, he had second thoughts.

3. He overthrew Qaddafi and had no plan for the aftermath

.
Several European governments asked that the US join them in bombing campaigns designed to stop a genocide. Should he have ignored their requests and allowed Qaddafi's forces to butcher the populace?

That's what he did in Syria. Furthermore, the Euro governments were mostly concerned about oil. If they wanted to get involved, they should have done it themselves. It's not our job to make sure that Europe's oil supplies are unhindered.

Whenever European nations or the US have "a plan" its essentially colonization. It looks like what the occupation of Iraq was.... There is a great arrogance that the US or other nations can control events in a third world country.... Even with 100,000 troops occupying Libya could the events be controlled? Doubtful based on the lessons of Iraq and Lebanon. (quickly learned by Reagan)

So, are you saying Obama intentionally led Libya into chaos, or that he was arrogant, or that he didn't care? Because if there was a plan in Libya, it sure isn't obvious what it was.

4. He drew a "red line" in Syria and backed off like a weasel

.
And the option was a full fledged military intervention? You do remember how successful Iraq was right?

That's immaterial. What matters is he should not have said a thing if he was not going to act. What a President says matters. By saying he would re calibrate, then doing nothing, he signaled that he would do nothing but flap his gums. He let Assad know he could do as he pleased.

5. He invited Russia into the Middle East.

They were already in Syria for years....

They had access to a port. They did not have ground troops, etc.

6. He ignored (and continues to) Iran's illegal behavior because getting the agreement was more important to him than actually stopping Iran from getting a nuke

.
The reality is that the treaty has kept Iran from being able to get nuclear weapons for several decades...

The reality is you don't know that. They have shown a post-agreement willingness to flout international restrictions on missiles. They were just implicated in a hacking scheme that Obama kept under wraps until the agreement was done.

And recent electoral results in Iran point to a softening of their position to the west as moderates are in the ascendancy.

Uh-huh. How has that changed their willingness to fund terror, foment war, and pursue missile tech that coincidentally they would need to launch nuclear missiles at Europe and the US?

7, He has strengthened Putin. He unilaterally took ABM systems out of Europe. He's done nothing but tsk-tsk Putin no matter what he does

.
You may not be aware of how difficult sanctions have made Russia's economic conditions....
Compared to war.......a good choice.
Why do you expect the President to be able to control the actions of a mighty nation like Russia? The arrogant idiocy that thinks US interests need only be expressed to make it so I suppose.

Again, words matter. The President didn't have to take the ABM systems out. Why did he? He could have offered more than moral support as Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Why didn't he?

8. He's done little to check China as it flexes its muscles in the Pacific and as it hacks into sensitive areas of our cyber-systems

.
What levers does he have?

You're joking, right? We have more than half a TRILLION in trade annually with China and we have no leverage? Really?

9. He has made many of our allies wonder if they can count on us for anything.
Actually he's enormously popular with most allies. Unlike his predecessor

.
It would be really interesting if you had any evidence to back up this statement in particular.

Sure. Here's an easy one. He touted Yemen as a success story in the war on terror. Who controls Yemen now and what did Obama do?

rickyp wrote:Fate

As you may recall, my comment was about ISIS' motivation. They clearly are religiously motivated. You responded with gibberish about their being many sects within Islam. While true, it has nothing to do with ISIS, which you now finally admit.

Is this you recognizing that the west is at war with Daesh and their vision of a caliphate and not the entire Islamic faith?

Nice. In order to try and cover up your own errors, you try and make it out that I've been saying we're at war with "the entire Islamic faith."

An interesting analysis of how ISIS started and an overall interesting and detailed assessment of the situation in Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... aq/412042/