Sergeant Wilson Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 The 'loony' and 'lone wolfe' type descriptions are often preferred and still finds relevance with a lot of people despite the pattern of attacks. Global jihad is not about joining up and being part of what we In the west would term a 'cell' . That people who are perhaps mentally vulnerable are part of those involved is no surprise. It's also handy for claiming atrocities that have hee haw to do with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 He was investigated twice and found to have no links to any terrorist group. He was a looney wire a grudge and a gun, who managed to find a group on the internet that shared some of his nuttiness. Eta, Fucksake I've agreed with TSAC! The frightening thing is that IS can flip maniacs over the edge to act by indoctrination over the internet without any meeting in the real world. They don't care about the targets, just as much carnage as possible and their name linked to it. We don't know what happened here but the three investigations by the FBI would suggest he had some connection with radical Islam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillonearth Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Metric or imperial Marlboros? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Even ISIS took longer to take credit than Trump did. IS haven't taken credit for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 The frightening thing is that IS can flip maniacs over the edge to act by indoctrination over the internet without any meeting in the real world. They don't care about the targets, just as much carnage as possible and their name linked to it. We don't know what happened here but the three investigations by the FBI would suggest he had some connection with radical Islam.True, but ISIS is not the primary reason this happened. He was a gay hating nutter before they came along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree house tam Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Agree with Owen Jones' point but he handled that like a spoilt wee girl throwing a tantrum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Agree with Owen Jones' point but he handled that like a spoilt wee girl throwing a tantrum.He's humourless and sanctimonious wee scrote but his heart is in the right place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 True, but ISIS is not the primary reason this happened. He was a gay hating nutter before they came along. You are correct, the evidence would suggest he was and that homophobia may well be connected to his religion which, in turn, is connected to apparent support for ISIS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I'm sure they have? I know what you are referring to, but be careful with "crediting" them. The comment came indirectly through their unofficial media channel, and not from an IS top dog. It's a subtle nuance but it is a difference. The connection is one of association - he did it in our name and praise Allah - rather than IS directing the operation. In cases of the latter, IS make a very public announcement. One of the reasons the Egypt Air thing has gone unclaimed is because IS had nothing directly to do with it, although the nut job on board probably felt he did. It may even be a technical fault. IS never take direct responsibility for things they didn't do, but they often take vicarious association. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 On the back of Paris, Brussels and San Bernadino it seems people don't want to face the issue that jihad is for us in the west; and that's on top of the numerous plots discovered by law enforcement across the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 On the back of Paris, Brussels and San Bernadino it seems people don't want to face the issue that jihad is for us in the west; and that's on top of the numerous plots discovered by law enforcement across the world. The main sufferers from "Jihad" or as I believe you put it, "worldwide caliphate", are other Muslims. Keep reading the Daily Mail though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 On the back of Paris, Brussels and San Bernadino it seems people don't want to face the issue that jihad is for us in the west; and that's on top of the numerous plots discovered by law enforcement across the world. What exactly do you want here tubbs? You're coming across like a supporter of some sort of crusade. Do you want all Muslims to take responsibility and be punished accordingly? There are many things you can accuse western governments of but not taking terrorism seriously is not one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Fair point, and an important one. I should say they take credit for the supposed ideology (as I've said earlier, up for debate whether they should) rather than the direct action.Correct.Islamic State as a functional organisation is nearly kaput. As an impactful influence, it's deadly. The ideology predates either of the Gulf Wars by decades, arguably centuries. IS is by no means the root of this. It has just been successful to an unheralded degree - complicit in which is the reactionary right wing tabloid press. See Mr. Tubbs. Edited June 13, 2016 by Savage Henry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 The main sufferers from "Jihad" or as I believe you put it, "worldwide caliphate", are other Muslims. Keep reading the Daily Mail though. You are indeed correct muslims are by far the most victimised group by ISIS, unlike you I can't comment on the DM position as I don't read it. Blasphemy is the first target of ISIS and Muslims who don't recognise the caliph and the teachings of ISIS are seen as worse than mere unbelievers. These facts are not contrary to my point re global jihad in pursuit of the world wide caliphate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 What exactly do you want here tubbs? You're coming across like a supporter of some sort of crusade. Do you want all Muslims to take responsibility and be punished accordingly? There are many things you can accuse western governments of but not taking terrorism seriously is not one of them. Merely recognising the threat and it's nature is what I am saying. Nothing about blaming all muslims; but your statement is a case in point as to why folk will prefer to frame Orlando as a gun control issue or a homophobic issue etc rather than a matter related to jihad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 You are indeed correct muslims are by far the most victimised group by ISIS, unlike you I can't comment on the DM position as I don't read it. Blasphemy is the first target of ISIS and Muslims who don't recognise the caliph and the teachings of ISIS are seen as worse than mere unbelievers. These facts are not contrary to my point re global jihad in pursuit of the world wide caliphate. The Caliphate is not a global entity. Subservience to it is. Again, a subtle difference but an important one. There are no IS troops ready to occupy the West in order to have one great global state. The Caliphate as a state exists - or at least was declared to exist - in Iraq and Syria. Oddly, the Caliphate broadly mirrors post Ottoman artificially imposed borders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 True, but ISIS is not the primary reason this happened. He was a gay hating nutter before they came along. Perfect storm, gay hating nutter who's told if he murders loads of them he'll be doing it in a just cause and go to heaven, and a country where you can buy an assault rifle from the local corner shop on a whim. Take one factor out and it probably wouldn't have happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 The Caliphate is not a global entity. Subservience to it is. Again, a subtle difference but an important one. There are no IS troops ready to occupy the West in order to have one great global state. The Caliphate as a state exists - or at least was declared to exist - in Iraq and Syria. Oddly, the Caliphate broadly mirrors post Ottoman artificially imposed borders.I agree and that is why I said in pursuit of the world wide caliphate. In recent times we have seen the worst terrorist attack in France since the War and the worst in the US since 9/11. ISIS generated circa 500m dollars last year from oil, taxation and hostage taking etc. That's very different from the terrorism we are 'used to' even from Al Qaeda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 The main sufferers from "Jihad" or as I believe you put it, "worldwide caliphate", are other Muslims. Keep reading the Daily Mail though. You're ITK when it comes to this, so: I recall reading something a while back (probably after the Paris attacks) talking about how ISIS have absolutely no interest in a "global" caliphate, and that attacks on the "far enemy" (to borrow a phrase from AQ) weren't really their thing. Recent attacks on the West have been a desperate response to what has been happening on the ground (just wildly throwing punches hoping that something sticks), as opposed to a fundamental change in tactics and organisation. How accurate is that? Could this attack be down to radical Islamism? Perhaps, but that's a separate entity from ISIS. IS isn't exactly a threat to anyone apart from those within the Middle East. <-Obvious statement is obvious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Will the USA ever revoke the 'right to bear arms' the 'second amendment' which was adopted in Dec 1791? That was 225 years ago....... Since the Internet came onboard circa mid 1990's in popular use, do you think mass shootings over there have got worse? With so many guns in circulation over there, it could prove an impossible task to ban certain guns, especially with the NRA lobbyists. Edit to add: An estimated 300 million guns in the USA. Edited June 13, 2016 by FlyerTon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.