Terrorism: Paris, Syria, Turkey, Belgium, Florida......

[wesdadude]

Seems relevant.

 

[placebo]

I'll play the devil's advocate (no pun intended).

Allah (Islam), Yahweh (Judaism) and God (Christianity), are all the same unicorn.

Each denomination has substituted their own social mores to the personality of their particular breed of elf.

The Jews were used to persecution, so they decided their god should be a nasty piece of work, with a low tolerance and unforgiving attitude to disobedience.

Prior to the 7 century CE the Arab tribes were pagans, but around 610 the angel Gabriel told Muhammad the Jews were a bunch of whack jobs, talking to trees and rocks. What sort of chosen people would talk to a bush as if it were God? The Arab tribes were the chosen ones, as proven by God's decision to send the underboss angel Gabriel to pass on Intel. The pagan Arabs were a bloodthirsty lot, so they decided the crazy jew God wasn't anywhere nasty enough, so theirs needed to want to eradicate or subvert any pretenders to the roll of chosen people.

The Christians were at the lower end of the class spectrum, and as such were sick of the pushy god telling them they were useless. So they elevated the contradictory prophet, Jesus (what a Mexican was doing in Israel is anyone's guess) to the son of God, as he was pushing a particular brand that was very attractive to the poor uneducated masses. "do anything you want, make sure you feel guilty about any fun you might have, but be damned sure, you're broke and contrite before you drop dead, and dad will forgive you and give you a golden ticket to the chocolate factory.


So it's more the self styled social commentators of the ancient civilisations that decided if you were in like Flynn, rather than your postcode.

As a lapsed catholic myself it's intriguing that the only common themes in the three Abrahamaic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims) is monotheism, a violent hatred of other Abrahamaic religions, and a love for molesting children.

 

[Hellyeah]

I'll play the devil's advocate (no pun intended).

Allah (Islam), Yahweh (Judaism) and God (Christianity), are all the same unicorn.

Each denomination has substituted their own social mores to the personality of their particular breed of elf.

The Jews were used to persecution, so they decided their god should be a nasty piece of work, with a low tolerance and unforgiving attitude to disobedience.

Prior to the 7 century CE the Arab tribes were pagans, but around 610 the angel Gabriel told Muhammad the Jews were a bunch of whack jobs, talking to trees and rocks. What sort of chosen people would talk to a bush as if it were God? The Arab tribes were the chosen ones, as proven by God's decision to send the underboss angel Gabriel to pass on Intel. The pagan Arabs were a bloodthirsty lot, so they decided the crazy jew God wasn't anywhere nasty enough, so theirs needed to want to eradicate or subvert any pretenders to the roll of chosen people.

The Christians were at the lower end of the class spectrum, and as such were sick of the pushy god telling them they were useless. So they elevated the contradictory prophet, Jesus (what a Mexican was doing in Israel is anyone's guess) to the son of God, as he was pushing a particular brand that was very attractive to the poor uneducated masses. "do anything you want, make sure you feel guilty about any fun you might have, but be damned sure, you're broke and contrite before you drop dead, and dad will forgive you and give you a golden ticket to the chocolate factory.


So it's more the self styled social commentators of the ancient civilisations that decided if you were in like Flynn, rather than your postcode.

I-like-you-Fnuckles...........
Has-the-Jews-god-arrived-yet?..........cos-I'm-sick-of-hearing-they're-trippe-on-the-media

 

[Mattydv]

On topic, those targets that France recently bombed, why hadn't they been destroyed before?

Yeah, that's the obvious question. My guess is they were observatory targets at the time, and with events unfolding in France as they did it resulted in their status changing as a PR exercise etc.

 

[thecat]

Yeah, that's the obvious question. My guess is they were observatory targets at the time, and with events unfolding in France as they did it resulted in their status changing as a PR exercise etc.

They could wipe out ISIS tomorrow. There'll be a fair bit of collateral damage, and probably a lot of civilian deaths and then where are we at?

Now we have 1000 nut jobs and their band of isolated copycats. We know who they are, around about where they are and with a few notable exceptions, have been able to stay a step in front. Wipe them out in 1 go and who is going to step up in to their shoes? What about all those civilians who so far have lived under ISIS oppression but suddenly they have innocent family members caught up in the bombing raids. Are they going to rejoice that their oppressors are gone or blame the deaths of their families members on the nation who dropped the bombs?


I notice lots of social media about anonymous taking down ISIS internet sites. I'm pretty sure those sites were being monitored and we were getting info from them. Where do we look now?

 

[ajay]

They could wipe out ISIS tomorrow. There'll be a fair bit of collateral damage, and probably a lot of civilian deaths and then where are we at?

Now we have 1000 nut jobs and their band of isolated copycats. We know who they are, around about where they are and with a few notable exceptions, have been able to stay a step in front. Wipe them out in 1 go and who is going to step up in to their shoes? What about all those civilians who so far have lived under ISIS oppression but suddenly they have innocent family members caught up in the bombing raids. Are they going to rejoice that their oppressors are gone or blame the deaths of their families members on the nation who dropped the bombs?


I notice lots of social media about anonymous taking down ISIS internet sites. I'm pretty sure those sites were being monitored and we were getting info from them. Where do we look now?

I'm sure we could wipe out a significant part of their infrastructure, you can't bomb an idea out of existence. The former, combined with somehow choking their income could hopefully reduce momentum of their idea until it seens futile for the few that remain... but that's probably a tad naive/simplistic.

Interestingly - on the anonymous front - I was listening to an interview on the ABC with a person from the NSA cyber division (something of that ilk, I can't recall the exact organisation) who, while acknowledging that anon was "unlawful" to a point, refers to them as another arrow in the quiver.... so whatever they're trying to do to slow down ISIS appeared to be somewhat welcomed... make of that what you will...

 

[Calvin27]

I'm sure we could wipe out a significant part of their infrastructure, you can't bomb an idea out of existence. The former, combined with somehow choking their income could hopefully reduce momentum of their idea until it seens futile for the few that remain... but that's probably a tad naive/simplistic.

I find this the hardest to digest. that we don't know or can't stop the flow of monentary support. I mean these guy need a fair whack of money to keep their operation going. Someone must be funding it and money trails will be everywhere. The hard part is there is so much out there that I find it hard to seperate myth from reality. For example which are truths:

- Halal certification - possible, but this is an emotional response and lot of what I have read is rubbish - this makes it hard to be ojbective
- The oil sales to neighbouring countries - probably true to some extent, but I don't see it funding the whole thing.
- Private donations hidden under charities and offshore - Possibly a contributing factor, but no one has be persecuted that I am aware of
- Government backed - most likely but then why don't we see the west respond to this?

 

[John U]

There is already some pretty hardcore islamic countries in the region, with lots of oil and lots of cash, who seem to be able to do what they want as long as the oil keeps flowing. If they were fair dinkum they could start looking there as a major source of funds.

Halal Certification - shirely you can't be serious. That's up there with associating homosexuality with bestiality.

 

[Knuckles]

IS/ISIS/ISIL have been in the oil business for at least a decade. Mostly smuggling Saddam's sanctioned oil out through Syria. This has left them with massive cash reserves. Add to that the estimated $500 million a year income from their current oil and refining assets they've probably got enough to keep them going for years.

Then there is their other income streams: sex slaves, kidnapping for ransom and pillaging pretty much every square inch of captured territory.

So income wise they're pretty self sufficient for the time being, not really needing to much in the way of outside traceable assistance there.

 

[John U]

IS/ISIS/ISIL have been in the oil business for at least a decade. Mostly smuggling Saddam's sanctioned oil out through Syria. This has left them with massive cash reserves. Add to that the estimated $500 million a year income from their current oil and refining assets they've probably got enough to keep them going for years.

Then there is their other income streams: sex slaves, kidnapping for ransom and pillaging pretty much every square inch of captured territory.

So income wise they're pretty self sufficient for the time being, not really needing to much in the way of outside traceable assistance there.

Why not target their oil and refining asset's then? Because they're selling us cheap oil? Their locations would be well known and they would NOT (edit) be surrounded by innocent civilians.

 

[Calvin27]

Halal Certification - shirely you can't be serious. That's up there with associating homosexuality with bestiality.

Haha I clearly said a lot of it was rubbish, I was just raisign that a lot of people think this is a source.

IS/ISIS/ISIL have been in the oil business for at least a decade. Mostly smuggling Saddam's sanctioned oil out through Syria. This has left them with massive cash reserves. Add to that the estimated $500 million a year income from their current oil and refining assets they've probably got enough to keep them going for years.

Then there is their other income streams: sex slaves, kidnapping for ransom and pillaging pretty much every square inch of captured territory.

So income wise they're pretty self sufficient for the time being, not really needing to much in the way of outside traceable assistance there.

I believe you, but there is a part of me that thinks it would be really easy to target their oil wells and sites plugging their biggest earners. As for the cash reserves, unless they are holding pure cash (which is ironic because it will probably be usd), electronic accounts theoretically should be traceable and neutralised. But all we seem to talk about it boots on ground.

 

[pharmaboy]

Haha I clearly said a lot of it was rubbish, I was just raisign that a lot of people think this is a source.



I believe you, but there is a part of me that thinks it would be really easy to target their oil wells and sites plugging their biggest earners. As for the cash reserves, unless they are holding pure cash (which is ironic because it will probably be usd), electronic accounts theoretically should be traceable and neutralised. But all we seem to talk about it boots on ground.

For finances you need govt support to do the searching and blocking - the region is full of govts that pay lip service to such things, then you have the Swiss........

 

[Knuckles]

That's the kicker.

Bombing out the oil infrastructure, while easily doable, would pretty much be an act of terrorism in itself. The west is fucked without reliable oil supplies, why do you think Saddam fired all his wells during desert storm, he knew it was the biggest impact he could have on the opposing forces. Reduce the availability of oil, start panic buying, stockpiling and price gouging, eventually the western war machine will grind to a halt. Add to that the number of civilians required to keep this infrastructure running, and it quickly knocks the shine off indiscriminately carpet bombing the fields/refineries (unless you're Pauline Hanson or golden staf).

That's not to say the US haven't given it the ole college try. They just underestimated the scope of IS oil and overestimated the impact they'd had. Until recently when those boots on the ground, in the form of special forces operating behind the lines, managed to take out IS' oil emir, whose name escapes me (and I probably spell it wrong anyways) and captured his ledgers.

As for their folding, it's not 1927 anymore, there are multiple ways of hiding/laundering/transferring money these days. Look at silk road. I willing to bet IS has a fair stack of bitcoin in its coffers.

 

[John U]

That's the kicker.

Bombing out the oil infrastructure, while easily doable, would pretty much be an act of terrorism in itself. The west is fucked without reliable oil supplies, why do you think Saddam fired all his wells during desert storm, he knew it was the biggest impact he could have on the opposing forces. Reduce the availability of oil, start panic buying, stockpiling and price gouging, eventually the western war machine will grind to a halt. Add to that the number of civilians required to keep this infrastructure running, and it quickly knocks the shine off indiscriminately carpet bombing the fields/refineries (unless you're Pauline Hanson or golden staf).

That's not to say the US haven't given it the ole college try. They just underestimated the scope of IS oil and overestimated the impact they'd had. Until recently when those boots on the ground, in the form of special forces operating behind the lines, managed to take out IS' oil emir, whose name escapes me (and I probably spell it wrong anyways) and captured his ledgers.

So it's illegal to trade with terrorist organisations unless those organisations hold enough of the commodity you need and then it's OK. And if that's the case then you bomb areas also occupied by civilians. What a clusterfuck.

 

[Calvin27]

Reduce the availability of oil, start panic buying, stockpiling and price gouging, eventually the western war machine will grind to a halt. Add to that the number of civilians required to keep this infrastructure running, and it quickly knocks the shine off indiscriminately carpet bombing the fields/refineries (unless you're Pauline Hanson or golden staf).

As for their folding, it's not 1927 anymore, there are multiple ways of hiding/laundering/transferring money these days. Look at silk road. I willing to bet IS has a fair stack of bitcoin in its coffers.

I would have though the US would welcome a hike in oil prices especially with their hoards of marginal cost shale oil investments.

Yeah bitcoin seems a viable option. It might explain why the price is so volatile despite real investors not really taking stock.

Thanks good response and lots to think about.

 

[Knuckles]

So it's illegal to trade with terrorist organisations unless those organisations hold enough of the commodity you need and then it's OK. And if that's the case then you bomb areas also occupied by civilians. What a clusterfuck.

There's also the black market. If you're selling illegal arms to outlawed armies, you wouldn't be adverse to swapsies for a $35 barrel of oil, that you'd value at $20 then on sell for $100.

There's also private banks, hedge funds (which let's be honest, are hardly opposed to operating with one foot either side of the thin blue line) and state banks of sympathetic/couldn't give a fuck countries.

Then there are also the banks of the captured territories, which if shut down by the west would have, for all intents and purposes, the same effect as nuking the region

 

[johnny]

Oil infrastructure has been attacked, a lot of it destroyed in order to decrease IS' ability to create revenue. They don't own enough of it for its destruction to have a significant effect on the global price, which is quite low at the moment. A lot of the oil was going in to Turkey and elsewhere in the region.

IS controls territory that not only had a lot of banks with cash reserves in them when they arrived but they also now tax those territories, which have populations in to the millions. Then there's all the black market stuff like people, antiques, etc.


Destroying ISIS is only treating the symptom, it doesn't treat the cause. AQ were hunted out of Afghanistan and have been living in hiding for a decade or so now. They are relatively ineffectual as compared to before 9/11 but not out of the game. Since then we have seen the growth of IS, somewhat of an offshoot from AQ. The ideology is the problem, radical ideology. That cannot be defeated by us, that victory has to be won by the Muslim world first and the rest of the world second. Right now we're not in the best place in that fight. In places like a Australia there is a good cooperation from Muslim communities that do not agree with the extreme versions of Islam (they want their daughters educated, they want their sons to live and they want to live in a liberal market society, etc. etc.). However in the Arab world things aren't so great. Influential Imams in KSA and Egypt are saying stuff like ISIS is a Western conception created to divide and destroy the Muslim world, some are calling for Jihad against Russia similar to the response to Russia invading Afghanistan during the Cold War. Indonesia things are a bit better, the two leading Islamic orgs Muhammadiya and Nahdatul Ulama are working hard to defeat the spread of IS ideology and popularity in their country..., not least because their position of leaders of the Islamic community is threatened by the introduction of IS but also because they are not extremist schools of Islam.

Defeating IS is to defeat the narrative of the caliphate. That means taking territory and showing their fighters to be be not living and fighting at the standards that glorifies them to recruits. If they can't hold territory, they can't be a caliphate and they are not the "chosen ones". If they can't win battles and look to be running they are not the great fighters of the prophecy, etc. etc.

Defeating IS also requires inclusive governance in Iraq and Syria. IS was able to flourish partly because al Maliki and Assad were screwing their Sunni populations. This allowed IS to gain the support of the Sunni tribes that had previously assisted the US military under Petraeus in kicking ISI out of Ramadi and Iraq. The Sunni tribes don't have a huge reason to go back to the way things were post-US invasion and pre-IS ascendance. They have to have a workable alternative, whatever shape that may be.


All of the above is very general and belies the massive complexity when dealing with tens of millions of people, differing sectarian beliefs, tribal identity, deep history, massive corruption, interference by external powers, national and economic interests, etc. etc. Nothing here is simple but the above is a broad picture of the drivers and possible ways forward that are discussed by some of the key thinkers in the public realm such as David Kilcullen, Peter Leahy, Peter Jennings, Anthony Cordesman, Some Middle Eastern thinkers who's names I can't recall now and others in the public realm who are credible.

 

[kwikee]

Fuck, Johnny! You sure know a lot of stuff about a lot of topics! RB's own Dr Karl!

 

[climberman]

This article in The Atlantic has good background:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=SFFB

 

[johnny]

Haven't read it but Atlantic is a decent source of reading.

As is The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, ASPI Strategist, Lowy Interpreter, Stratfor, AIIA Australian Outlook, New Mandala, War on the Rocks, Rand, CSIS, CFR, IISS, Brookings, Carnegie, SIPRI and other orgs of the same make up.

I may not agree with everything coming from those sources but they are entirely credible.