The ISIS Megathread

[LosBlancos]

IRA really loved civilian and commercial targets.

According to the New York times piece which I will link to below, since the late 1960's the IRA killed 1,800 people of which 650 were civilians. Over the course of thirty years give or take they have amassed a civilian casualty toll of 20% of the almost 3,000 civilians who were killed within a day on the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/w...-civilian-deaths-in-its-30-year-campaign.html

 

[L2R]

According to the New York times piece which I will link to below, since the late 1960's the IRA killed 1,800 people of which 650 were civilians. Over the course of thirty years give or take they have amassed a civilian casualty toll of 20% of the almost 3,000 civilians who were killed within a day on the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/w...-civilian-deaths-in-its-30-year-campaign.html

how do you define "terrorism" if not the targetting of non-combatants and other unorthodox tactics which aim to demoralise or solicit fear of random unexpected violence away from any traditional battlefield?

 

[LosBlancos]

how do you define "terrorism" if not the targetting of non-combatants and other unorthodox tactics which aim to demoralise or solicit fear of random unexpected violence away from any traditional battlefield?

Did I say the IRA weren't terrorists? I didn't recall that.

There was some statistics in my post as well which I suppose where inconvenient to your case so I suppose a deflection was in order, but logically one would be much more concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism than the IRA.

One having a campaign largely contained to Britain, resulting in 650 civilian deaths. The other movement striking in almost every country on Earth, with instances (9/11 in particular) of causing more than four times as many deaths to civilians as the IRA within one day rather than a 30 year history.

 

[L2R]

here's just a refresher from context

They went overseas to kill Christians and apostates. Simple as that. People are hellbent on hunting down geriatric Nazi's that were complicit in war crimes of 60 years ago who were following orders which had they disobeyed they would be killed. Flying halfway across the world to kill infidels and wreck havoc in Syria is clearly psychopathic behaviour and you're idea that they will be peaceful citizens is laughable.

How about funding terrorists? Y'know, like Irish-Americans helping to fund the IRA?

The distinction has been made earlier in this thread..the IRA is in no way analogous to ISIS. For one I don't recall the IRA ever threatening America, having in all their years of operation a body count on par with a week of ISIS activity and focusing on military targets more often than civilians as ISIS often engages in wanton killing.

8)

so tell me, what, exactly is my case?

 

[LosBlancos]

here's just a refresher from context







8)

so tell me, what, exactly is my case?

You tell me, I have absolutely no idea what your case is. I'm surprised it hasn't regressed a conundrum of accusing me of "xenophobia" "racism" "being a reactionary".

By definition the IRA and ISIS are both terrorist groups, as is Al-Qaeda. I think the numbers I posted earlier speak to themselves. Would I be more concerned about disease that's killed a handful of people in the last 30 years like Ebola, or a disease like cancer which kills millions every year? Logically, one would be vastly more concerned about cancer.

 

[paranoid android]

IRA really loved civilian and commercial targets.

Which IRA? Because the Provisional Irish Republican Army for the most part stuck to keeping the fight directly on the British army as well as the police (the B-Specials, RUC). They didn't even attack the Loyalist paramilitaries nearly as much as they could have or in my opinion should have as they didn't want to be seen as being sectarian. They also tried to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because while blown up army barracks, downed helicopters or bombing where the Prime Minister and some other Tory cunts are staying may look good on TV blowing up civilians does not. This is not to say that civilians didn't get killed in the crossfire and even on purpose during a few incidents but to say that the Provos actually targeted civilians as a part of their campaign would be erroneous in my opinion.

As for LosBlancos i have no idea how fucking old you are but do you notice any parallels in how anyone suspected of being Muslim these days is treated compared to how anyone guilty of being Irish was treated well into the 90's? Or does that just fly right over your head? The Guildford 4 and Maquire 6 should stand as reminders of why scapegoating a whole ethnic group is a bad idea but apparently people have short memories. If anything the British state feared the PIRA and INLA much more then they fear any rag tag bunch of Islamic extremists as unlike Islamic extremists the physical force republicans where more then capable of doing serious damage to British infrastructure as well as military and police targets. The reason you don't see the high civilian causality rate with the republican paramilitaries is due to differences in tactics and goals. The PIRA and INLA wanted to bring about a 32 county Socialist republic not ethnically cleanse Ireland of any non Irish people. They where essentially waging a war of attrition against the British state not waging a war against people of English or Scottish ancestry in Ireland.

The Loyalists scumbags such as the UDA, UVF, UFF and whatever the fuck the brain dead morons called themselves would be far more comparable to ISIS as they both used religious fanaticism and sectarianism as recruiting tools and killed people solely based upon religion.

 

[L2R]

There was some statistics in my post as well which I suppose where inconvenient to your case so I suppose a deflection was in order

your words, cheaply thrown out and quickly forgotten yet again.

I think the numbers I posted earlier speak to themselves.

well no. some were bigger than others, but that alone does not mean what you intend to mean, which are as follows.
1- people who support islamic state from other countries have recently fleed the conflicts to which are returning to in order to suppor the terrorists they claimed to be fleeing from in the first place
2- upon their return from support islamic state they will cause violence in their lands of refuge
3- supporters of ira are entirely different from supporters of islamic state, just because ira killed ONLY 650 civilians

so, you are differentiating between supporters of terrorists because of some arbitrary point about IRA killing ONLY SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY CIVILIANS, and are suggesting as a result that one can't look at IRA supporters in recent history in order to determine the behaviour of returning Islamic State supporters in future, and despite having NO HISTORICAL COMPARISON AT ALL, it is a forgone conclusion that IS supporters upon their return will all become child raping and women eating monsters, each with forty heads and tentacle penii cover in steele strenght vice like suction cup grippy protrusions.

so i guess my case is that you are full of shit, you don't know history, you make things up to support your claims and when pressed with simple probing questions you throw hissy fits instead of any substance or examples.

 

[paranoid android]

^ But see one group is predominantly brown and Islamic while the other group is predominately white and Christian. Seems pretty clear to me 8)

 

[LosBlancos]

^ But see one group is predominantly brown and Islamic while the other group is predominately white and Christian. Seems pretty clear to me 8)

One group killed 650 civilians over the course of 30 years, the other 3,000 civilians over the course of a day.

There's plenty of white people joining ISIS, it has nothing to do with nationality or the colour of their skin, they are all united by a radical ideology.

If L2R wants to equate Americans that donated money to the IRA with people flying overseas to participate in the genocide of Christians and rigid implementation of Sharia law which includes killing gays, apostates, adulterers, and anyone they believe loyal to the Syrian government then that's his prerogative. I see a bit of a difference.

 

[L2R]

Of course you do

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Did I say the IRA weren't terrorists? I didn't recall that.

There was some statistics in my post as well which I suppose where inconvenient to your case so I suppose a deflection was in order, but logically one would be much more concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism than the IRA.

One having a campaign largely contained to Britain, resulting in 650 civilian deaths. The other movement striking in almost every country on Earth, with instances (9/11 in particular) of causing more than four times as many deaths to civilians as the IRA within one day rather than a 30 year history.

Invalid comparison - comparing the IRA to all Islamic Terrorism is changing the scope. You'd probably be better off comparing all Christian terror to all Islamic terror, but even that excludes the environment that both are currently in.

 

[paranoid android]

One group killed 650 civilians over the course of 30 years, the other 3,000 civilians over the course of a day.

There's plenty of white people joining ISIS, it has nothing to do with nationality or the colour of their skin, they are all united by a radical ideology.

If L2R wants to equate Americans that donated money to the IRA with people flying overseas to participate in the genocide of Christians and rigid implementation of Sharia law which includes killing gays, apostates, adulterers, and anyone they believe loyal to the Syrian government then that's his prerogative. I see a bit of a difference.

I don't see any comparison between ISIS and the PIRA but don't tell me your sticking up for evil Reds like the PIRA now . If anything the groups helping fight ISIS such as the PKK share alot more in common ideologically with the PIRA as both the PKK and the PIRA are National Liberation groups of the Marxist types. But many people would see both groups as being "terrorist" which means absolutely nothing besides that both groups employ terror to achieve their goals. Back during Apartheid era South Africa the African National Congress where sometimes referred to as being "Black Provos" by certain members of the press who where pro-Apartheid as they saw both groups as being nothing but terrorists despite both the British and South African governments liberal use of terror against both groups support bases as well. But you can't compare National Liberation groups to groups founded upon religious ideology unless you just want to be one of those mindless people who just label them both as terrorists and thus evil and not being worthy of further investigation.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army came about back in 1969 following a split in the IRA though they really didn't come onto the scene until 72 when the Official IRA went on ceasefire which resulted in another split as the more militant members left to form the Irish National Liberation Army who where Marxist-Leninist but where also heavily influenced by the Irish Marxist and leader of the 1916 Easter Rising James Connolly just like the PIRA where. They where the second biggest republican group during the troubles. After British paratroopers murdered 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday 1972 during a civil rights march recruitment for the Provisional IRA went through the roof of course and the 70's saw a rather big increase in the number of Provisional IRA attacks and some of the worst violence of the troubles. While the PIRA did draw upon centuries of resistance by Republicans for inspiration going all the way back to Wolfetone and Emmett when the 80's came along they where also influenced by various Maoist strategies in warfare with the South Armagh and East Tyrone Brigades being prime examples of this. So yeah they really bare no resemblance to ISIS at all in ideology, strategy or tactics. The only thing ISIS and the PIRA share in common is that the British both consider them terrorists but that's pretty much where the comparisons end.

The westerners going over to join ISIS are really no different then the various misguided twats who end up joining Fascist groups like the National Front or their more modern day equivalents such as the BNP and EDL. Both types of groups thrive on people who are pissed off, ignorant and looking for a scapegoat for all their ills. ISIS blame infidels the Fascists blame various ethnic groups and anyone that is left wing. That is who i would compare ISIS to if i was going to compare then to anybody as stupidity and a total lack of critical thinking is a essential element for both types of groups to exist.

Although perhaps Christian terrorists would be a more apt comparison to ISIS Christian terrorists and Fascists also seem to overlap quite abit as well.

 

[LosBlancos]

The westerners going over to join ISIS are really no different then the various misguided twats who end up joining Fascist groups like the National Front or their more modern day equivalents such as the BNP and EDL. Both types of groups thrive on people who are pissed off, ignorant and looking for a scapegoat for all their ills. ISIS blame infidels the Fascists blame various ethnic groups and anyone that is left wing. That is who i would compare ISIS to if i was going to compare then to anybody as stupidity and a total lack of critical thinking is a essential element for both types of groups to exist.

Although perhaps Christian terrorists would be a more apt comparison to ISIS Christian terrorists and Fascists also seem to overlap quite abit as well.

Humor me, how many people have the EDL or National Front or the BNP killed in their history ? Since they're really "no different" than ISIS in your eyes it does beg for examination.

Is it possible to have any dissent on your countries immigration policy without being labeled as a fascist or reactionary?

 

[L2R]

Is it possible to have any dissent on your countries immigration policy without being labeled as a fascist or reactionary?

yes, of course.

who, exactly, called you a "Reactionary"?

 

[paranoid android]

Humor me, how many people have the EDL or National Front or the BNP killed in their history ? Since they're really "no different" than ISIS in your eyes it does beg for examination.

Is it possible to have any dissent on your countries immigration policy without being labeled as a fascist or reactionary?

I said westerners going over to join ISIS are no different then the twats who end up joining Fascist groups so atleast read the quote right would you. While they have engaged in violence against immigrants, minorities and homosexuals they naturally haven't the capabilities to really rack up any kind of death toll. While the EDL in particular have been implicated in attacks on Muslims they haven't the popular support within their own communities to do so without facing a backlash. Plus anti-fascist groups do a fine job of kicking their arses. The BNP are much the same really and have done such heroic things as ganging up on immigrants, mailing razor blades to Jewish people for some reason, getting caught carrying cs gas, knuckledusters and other weapons as well as possessing explosives when a nail bomb one of the brain dead bastards was carrying to the workers revolutionary party in the UK and planning to detonate there went off a wee bit early. Just shows how intelligent they are when they can't even make a pipe bomb right ffs . Another BNP candidate was sent to prison on explosives charges as well so it's not for lack of effort that they didn't kill people they just sucked at it. As for the National Front (the UK twats) they have in the past had ties to Loyalist paramilitaries through their shared hatred of the Irish, anything left of center on the political spectrum and immigrants so enough said there given their history of pure blind hatred.

I was not so much comparing ISIS to fascists as i was comparing how the same type of pissed off clueless people join both groups. And what the fuck does immigration policy have to do with western cunts who go to Syria or wherever to join ISIS? If they are already say Canadians or Australians they can't very well be immigrants to either now can they?

 

[LosBlancos]

I said westerners going over to join ISIS are no different then the twats who end up joining Fascist groups so atleast read the quote right would you. While they have engaged in violence against immigrants, minorities and homosexuals they naturally haven't the capabilities to really rack up any kind of death toll. While the EDL in particular have been implicated in attacks on Muslims they haven't the popular support within their own communities to do so without facing a backlash.

Thanks for that concise answer. Sounds like quite the death toll for the right wing groups of Britain. If only they had the capability the numbers would be much higher, maybe if one of their members had access to a knife they could carry out their murderous plans.

I didn't realize they needed support within their community to commit acts of terror or kill people either. I didn't realized extremist groups cared about backlash, I suppose now I know.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Extremist groups caring about backlash could be a self-selecting trait. Any that are too abrasive early on won't attract enough members to grow, but will attract too much negative action.

Case in point - the first KKK had fertile ground to thrive in, due to the chaos left by the war, changing social values, and the lack of political leaders due to reconstruction. The first Klan grew rapidly, but caused such a backlash that it was more or less wiped out. It attracted too much attention, and was a threat to the government at the time.

If this hypothesis is true, then with the rise of effectively anonymous communications that are able to reach a large population, then groups may become more extreme, as they can alienate a larger percentage of the population and still grow. But the distributed nature of such an organization may make it mostly ineffective.

 

[LosBlancos]

Extremist groups caring about backlash could be a self-selecting trait. Any that are too abrasive early on won't attract enough members to grow, but will attract too much negative action.

Or it could be they are not nearly as "extreme" as their opposition would like to make them out to be and perhaps they would rather effect change through the democratic process than through violence, which would obviously be a very key distinction between these groups and ISIS. I suppose noting that such a wide berth exists between these groups and ISIS it might be convenient to whip out the ol' crystal ball and speculate on becoming "larger" and "more extreme" but for all intents and purposes it's pure conjecture.

 

[L2R]

Or it could be they are not nearly as "extreme" as their opposition would like to make them out to be and perhaps they would rather effect change through the democratic process than through violence, which would obviously be a very key distinction between these groups and ISIS. I suppose noting that such a wide berth exists between these groups and ISIS it might be convenient to whip out the ol' crystal ball and speculate on becoming "larger" and "more extreme" but for all intents and purposes it's pure conjecture.

i'm going to be forced to agree with you on that last point, being as how well versed and practiced you are in conjecture..

 

[LosBlancos]

ISIS militants have executed 13 teenage boys for watching the Asian Cup football match between Iraq and Jordan last week.
The young football fans had been caught watching the game on television in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which is controlled by the Islamic State.
The teenagers were rounded up and publicly executed by a firing squad using machine guns, anti-ISIS activist group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently reports.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Islamist-controlled-Mosul.html#ixzz3PJp7JDAi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook