|
Randler posted:There are various ends for which violence as a means is not only acceptable but commendable. MysteriousStranger posted:There are legitimate uses of violence. There are legitimate uses of violence by the state and by national political factions, within international legal framework; but what we are talking about right now is private violence by a couple of fairly exlusionary groups with little legitimacy, whether we speak about ISIS, al-Nusra, ETA or IRA.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Right, it's nihilistic within the context of the countries where the terrorism takes place. ETA or IRA can claim to be attacking domestic targets to bring about a positive change for the locals - ISIS can't since their goals lie outside the places in Europe they are focusing on. IRA and ETA killed hundreds outside Northern Ireland and Basquelands as well. Probably to a greater relative degree then ISIS killings in Syria/Iraq VS Europe. Volkerball posted:What exactly are you getting at here when you keep claiming Western governments are bankrolling this stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html https://www.quora.com/Does-Saudi-Arabia-fund-terrorism http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/sau...ocratic_nation/ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html Lagotto posted:Yeah, I do think you are not really upset, true. Well you think wrong. I really can't help if you think some people are justified in murdering children, you presumable sociopath? Nobody is comparing the numbers except you either. Nobody has even brought it up except you. Look in the mirror and you see 
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:IRA and ETA killed hundreds outside Northern Ireland and Basquelands as well. Probably to a greater relative degree then ISIS killings in Syria/Iraq VS Europe. As a tip: Next time you want to post a dumb agitprop graph, just don't, people will rightfully question your motives and look right through your faux emotional outbursts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:As a tip: Next time you want to post a dumb agitprop graph, just don't, people will rightfully question your motives and look right through your faux emotional outbursts. Come on, really? It's always hilarious how the side that accuses everyone of sympathizing with terrorists always is the first to sympathize with the terrorists (as long as they are the right kind of terrorists) DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:MS13 isn't Mexican! Also, they do not commit suicide bombings and mass killings. If not MS-13, then whoever committed this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If not MS-13, then whoever committed this. That's violence in their own state. Latin America has a history of being screwed with by the US and European powers that's similar to the middle east and still on going. Yet there is not a Latin American terrorism problem in nations where they immigrate to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Come on, really? Yeah, really. That entire graph, the article you ripped it from and your comment here: DarkCrawler posted:IRA and ETA killed hundreds outside Northern Ireland and Basquelands as well. Probably to a greater relative degree then ISIS killings in Syria/Iraq VS Europe. Is nothing but doing exactly the thing you are saying you are not doing here: quote:Nobody is comparing the numbers except you either. Nobody has even brought it up except you. But continue with the crocodile tears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia The vast majority of ISIS' support comes from private individuals within countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, not from the government, although there are some links between KSA (+ Turkey) and al-Nusra. But most Saudi support is to the Islamic Front, which is their proxy the built from the ground up after the FSA carved itself up. I mean, if you're saying the West needs to get less comfortable with Saudi Arabia, you'll get no argument from me really, but trying to use "pragmatic" Western relations with KSA as a launching point into "the West supports terrorism" is a bit of a stretch. ISIS itself is opposed to KSA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:That's violence in their own state. Belgian nationals killing people in Belgium is also violence in their own state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The vast majority of ISIS' support comes from private individuals within countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, not from the government, although there are some links between KSA (+ Turkey) and al-Nusra. But most Saudi support is to the Islamic Front, which is their proxy the built from the ground up after the FSA carved itself up. I mean, if you're saying the West needs to get less comfortable with Saudi Arabia, you'll get no argument from me really, but trying to use "pragmatic" Western relations with KSA as a launching point into "the West supports terrorism" is a bit of a stretch. ISIS itself is opposed to KSA. Those private individuals aren't getting their money from anywhere else then oil. I'm not really comfortable getting into semantics about how that money is divided among the centerpiece of Wahhabist Islam, it's still coming from us (and US and China, etc.). ISIS is a direct result of that policy and while it split off like a tumour from al-Qaeda it was certainly given birth by it. In addition, considering Saudis are the most likely group to join ISIS, I'm pretty sure that big number of fighters is being bankrolled from the Kingdom. And it is not like buying it from Russia or Iran is better considering that money benefits Assad, aka. ISIS oil customer number #1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-oil-idUSKBN0TT2O120151210 http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/nov/25/saudi-arabia-white-daesh-is-the-father-of-isis-says-writer Lagotto posted:Yeah, really. That entire graph, the article you ripped it from and your comment here: How about you read the actual post that accompanied the graph and how numbers weren't relevant to the point at all? If you are thrown into frothing teary rage that doesn't allow you to see the words when someone mentions that other people then Muslims can get radicalized too, that is not my problem. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:How about you read the actual post that accompanied the graph and how numbers weren't relevant to the point at all? If you are thrown into frothing teary rage that doesn't allow you to see the words when someone mentions that other people then Muslims can get radicalized too, that is not my problem. Oh I did, no worries. I still think you are full of poo poo though. Like I said, if the numbers, the graph, the articles you are posting and your comment comparing the numbers aren't relevant -> pro-tip, don't post them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
USA doesn't buy SA oil anymore, and afaik the main source of financing for SA foreign operations comes from capital gains, not from oil sales per se. So it would probably help to move on with international controls on banking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Oh I did, no worries. I still think you are full of poo poo though. Like I said, if the numbers, the graph, the articles you are posting and your comment comparing the numbers aren't relevant -> pro-tip, don't post them. Simply stating that IRA and ETA weren't limited to domestic bombing campaigns and were engaging them just as much as ISIS is not "comparing numbers", it's saying that ISIS's tactics are not anything new. The difference is not in their methods of operation or in that Muslims are more easily radicalized then white Christians, it's that we are the ones bankrolling our enemies in this case. Stop being so goddamn easily offended. steinrokkan posted:USA doesn't buy SA oil anymore, and afaik the main source of financing for SA foreign operations comes from capital gains, not from oil sales per se. So it would probably help to move on with international controls on banking. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimussa2&f=m But I do agree that oil is simply the most blatant way, not the only one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimussa2&f=m That's like 10% of the already shrinking foreign oil imports - it's hardly a significant amount at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Simply stating that IRA and ETA weren't limited to domestic bombing campaigns and were engaging them just as much as ISIS is not "comparing numbers", it's saying that ISIS's tactics are not anything new. The difference is not in their methods of operation or in that Muslims are more easily radicalized then white Christians, it's that we are the ones bankrolling our enemies in this case. Stop being so goddamn easily offended. This is getting circular. Lagotto posted:You are pretty dumb if you don't see a difference between ETA, IRA and ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Now I'm curious, would you care to explain that difference? Asking as someone only aware of them by name, not by their actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's like 10% of the already shrinking foreign oil imports - it's hardly a significant amount at all. 9 million barrels of oil per day imported from foreign sources. Price of barrel at the current moment is about 40 bucks. 9,000,000 x 40 = 360,000,000 360,000,000 x 0,1 = 36,000,000 36,000,000 x 365 = 13,140,000,000 Thirteen billion dollars a year is pretty significant. Not in terms of oil consumed by U.S. yes, but even a fraction of that sum is a lot of loving money in terrorism. Lagotto posted:This is getting circular. Only because you're just calling people dumb instead of explaining why A) You believe IRA and ETA members were not as radicalized as Islamists B) You believe their killings of civilians are justified or somehow less evil then killings made by Islamists It's a question you have been asked many times because both are retarded positions and it would be very interesting to see your weird reasoning behind it. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Belgian nationals killing people in Belgium is also violence in their own state. Venezuela and Columbia are not radicalizing Latin Americans in the US to go commit suicide bombings and mass shootings at rock concerts in western foreign capitals! Nor are Latin Americans shouting "Jesus is great" while shooting western journalists over poking fun at Latino's in the media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:Venezuela and Columbia are not radicalizing Latin Americans in the US to go commit suicide bombings and mass shootings at rock concerts in western foreign capitals! Nor are Latin Americans shouting "Jesus is great" while shooting western journalists over poking fun at Latino's in the media. False equivalency. Radicalized Americans kill other Americans almost every day and have throughout history. Some of them have been inspired by foreign/international movements. Some of them have done it in the name of Jesus and we had an guy shooting up an abortion clinic just at the end of last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:9 million barrels of oil per day imported from foreign sources. The entire oil exports from SA to the Americas make up less than 15% of their oil trades, so the low dependency is mutual. I don't doubt they would find a market to replace the marginal loss of trade from US embargo, and that they would not be forced to cut down the money they are using to sponsor terrorism. Frankly, I'd like to see the Sauds brought to justice, but economic embargo doesn't seem likely to work as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Those private individuals aren't getting their money from anywhere else then oil. I'm not really comfortable getting into semantics about how that money is divided among the centerpiece of Wahhabist Islam, it's still coming from us (and US and China, etc.). ISIS is a direct result of that policy and while it split off like a tumour from al-Qaeda it was certainly given birth by it. In addition, considering Saudis are the most likely group to join ISIS, I'm pretty sure that big number of fighters is being bankrolled from the Kingdom. And it is not like buying it from Russia or Iran is better considering that money benefits Assad, aka. ISIS oil customer number #1. It's coming from all over. Saudi exports of oil are extremely diverse. Any one importer can remove themselves from the equation and it won't hurt KSA any. And as you mentioned, oil money going to Russia or Iran isn't any better. I don't know if you're coming at this from a "stop buying from the Saudi's" or "stop buying oil" perspective, but if it's the latter, well, that's getting done slowly but surely. As it stands, KSA is set to be a net importer in 20 years. And Saudi's aren't the most likely group to join ISIS per capita. It's just that with a population of 28 million, almost exclusively Muslim, small aberrations get magnified. Per RFERL, 2000-2500 Saudi's have travelled to Iraq or Syria to fight for ISIS. If we bump that number up to 5,000, and assume that 2 million Saudi's aren't actually Muslim, which is a huge overestimation, that's 1 ISIS fighter per every 8,943 Saudi Muslims. Compare that to Belgium, where in 2011, 900,000 people had a foreign background from Muslim nations, and in 2008, it was estimated 628,000 people were Muslims. We'll bump that number up to 1.5 million, and Belgium has so far had 520 nationals go to fight for ISIS. That's one ISIS fighter per every 2,884 Belgian Muslims. So the problem is significantly worse in other nations. http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/foreign-fighters-syria-iraq-is-isis-isil-infographic/26584940.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
my dad posted:Now I'm curious, would you care to explain that difference? Asking as someone only aware of them by name, not by their actions. One was struggling for a unified Ireland, and was mostly targetting British military targets. ETA would be the Basque equivelant. The other is a foreign organisation trying to achieve a worldwide kalifate, wants to kill all non-muslims, destroy western civilisation and is utilising our own citizens against us, citizens who's only link to this organisation is their religion and (if we include other incarnations of muslim terrorism) has mass bombed half of the European capitals specifically targetting civilians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The entire oil exports from SA to the Americas make up less than 15% of their oil trades, so the low dependency is mutual. I don't doubt they would find a market to replace the marginal loss of trade from US embargo, and that they would not be forced to cut down the money they are using to sponsor terrorism. Losing both US and European trade and military aid doesn't really sound like something that the Saudi economy can take without upheaval, especially if other allies join in. The demand for oil in the other relative giants like China or Russia are either going down fast or don't exist. Pretty sure that the last few decades have shown that it doesn't take a huge thing for a country's economy to start going down and this is a pretty huge thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:
No I don't on both a) and b). Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:No I don't on both a) and b). Hope this helps. Don't go off on weird whiny tangents about numbers that don't have anything to do with what others post, hope that helps?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Don't go off on weird whiny tangents about numbers that don't have anything to do with what others post, hope that helps? Again, if you don't care about the numbers don't post them together with an article that goes out of it's way to downplay the impact of the attacks by nummerically comparing them with IRA and ETA attacks. And you are still dumb for equating IRA with ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's coming from all over. Saudi exports of oil are extremely diverse. Any one importer can remove themselves from the equation and it won't hurt KSA any. And as you mentioned, oil money going to Russia or Iran isn't any better. I don't know if you're coming at this from a "stop buying from the Saudi's" or "stop buying oil" perspective, but if it's the latter, well, that's getting done slowly but surely. As it stands, KSA is set to be a net importer in 20 years. Stop buying oil perspective. The whole resource is so intricately linked into bad poo poo within the Middle East that we need to wash our hands of it and since it is significantly contributing into war against our citizens we need to do it now and not in twenty years. This isn't the thread about Iran, Russia or Venezuela but I'm not exactly wanting to support their goals either, you know? I don't obviously believe that simply ceasing to fund Saudi oil will alone stop terrorism - for that a far more efficient security organization in European Union is needed. But one effort is utterly useless without the other. Volkerball posted:And Saudi's aren't the most likely group to join ISIS per capita. It's just that with a population of 28 million, almost exclusively Muslim, small aberrations get magnified. Per RFERL, 2000-2500 Saudi's have travelled to Iraq or Syria to fight for ISIS. If we bump that number up to 5,000, and assume that 2 million Saudi's aren't actually Muslim, which is a huge overestimation, that's 1 ISIS fighter per every 8,943 Saudi Muslims. Compare that to Belgium, where in 2011, 900,000 people had a foreign background from Muslim nations, and in 2008, it was estimated 628,000 people were Muslims. We'll bump that number up to 1.5 million, and Belgium has so far had 520 nationals go to fight for ISIS. That's one ISIS fighter per every 2,884 Belgian Muslims. So the problem is significantly worse in other nations. Wasn't making an per capita argument, simply that those thousands of fighters probably receive substantial support from home, being engaged in constant military operations as opposed to blowing themselves up (though I imagine several of them do blow themselves up). Lagotto posted:Again, if you don't care about the numbers don't post them together with an article that goes out of it's way to downplay the impact of the attacks by nummerically comparing them with IRA and ETA attacks. How is stating a loving fact that shows Europe's resilience against terrorism and that there is a long history of militant radicalization utterly independent of Islam in any way meant to downplay the impact of the attacks. You should really take a breather, you're constantly reading into things that don't exist  The context of that graph is explained in the words I wrote in the loving post that accompanied it. And I don't equate IRA with ISIS. I never said anything else but that the members who kill civilians are equally radicalized and that killing civilians is equally bad regardless of cause. Once again you invent things just to get mad at them. Seek help. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:How is stating a loving fact that shows Europe's resilience against terrorism and that there is a long history of militant radicalization utterly independent of Islam in any way meant to downplay the impact of the attacks. You should really take a breather, you're constantly reading into things that don't exist What do you mean with European resilience? The entire loving difference with IRA and ETA is that the impact was regional and between parties that could be negotiated with. Nothing to do with European resilience. This 'thing' with ISIS is completely different, pointing out that we have been through worse is bullshit. This is new and we should act like it is something new. For ISIS and it's supporters this is a clash of civilisations. I don't have all the answers but acting like this is just the latest reincarnation of older European terror groups is dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:One was struggling for a unified Ireland, and was mostly targetting British military targets. ETA would be the Basque equivelant. Just a point of order: while it's probably somewhere on the fantasyland, mildly Underpants Gnome agenda, "killing all non-Muslims" and "destroying western civilization" aren't particularly high on the ISIS priority list. They're almost entirely focused on creating and defending their lovely expansionist pseudostate at the moment, and if they ever get past that step I may not be posting to the forums due to complications from multiple magical flying unicorns exiting my anus. This isn't necessarily an entirely pedantic point, either - there may be some policy relevance to ISIS' recruitment flowchart starting with "if possible, move to Syria and join the fight". Their stated goals for attacks on civilians in the West right now are twofold-ish, and imo pretty believable because they're meant for the consumption of fellow death cultists or people who might become same: 1) Force Muslims outside of the Caliphate borders to, more or less, choose between being their religion and their country / reject the gray area of being able to be a good Muslim while not doing everything in their power to help the Caliphate. Bonus points if they can disrupt the lives of refugees, who are at best borderline-apostates for being right there and still refusing to join ISIS' ranks. 2) Ideally, make continued participation in the Middle East expensive enough for Western governments that they pull out of the fight, although rhetoric on this one is a bit incoherent. The IRA's "you're with us or against us" efforts, for instance, definitely existed, but for a bunch of reasons were considerably narrower than the poo poo ISIS is pulling. I don't disagree with the assertion that there are major differences, but I would argue that there is some value in examining those cases in re how to reduce recruitment and so on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:What do you mean with European resilience? The entire loving difference with IRA and ETA is that the impact was regional and between parties that could be negotiated with. Nothing to do with European resilience. Umm that bombs used to blow far more often and we didn't fall apart and the world did not end, quite a bit to do with resilience. Lagotto posted:This 'thing' with ISIS is completely different, pointing out that we have been through worse is bullshit. This is new and we should act like it is something new. For ISIS and it's supporters this is a clash of civilisations. I don't have all the answers but acting like this is just the latest reincarnation of older European terror groups is dumb as hell. It wouldn't be anything but few uncoordinated one-off attackers if we hadn't fed Wahhabist Islam with endlless money and weapons and continue doing so. How is it that you are still not getting this. They are not attractive to their maladjusted criminal recruits because they are Muslim, it is because they are the biggest baddest kid on the block. Wahhabism is different because it operates on an entirely different scale of international funding, not because Muslims are more inclined to radicalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Umm that bombs used to blow far more often and we didn't fall apart and the world did not end, quite a bit to do with resilience. Honestly, the groups I'd be inclined to compare are the forty billion communist groups in the late 19th and most of the 20th century.  International expansionist groups that recruit based on ideology rather than nationalism (thereby casting a ridiculously wider net than "are you Irish, y/n"), get most of their followers from disaffected young folks, and have a strong interest in persuading the masses that there's no middle ground between with them and against them? Sounds like a pretty good set of case studies! Especially since there weren't very many communist regimes that were as nasty as ISIS, so really, this should be easymode.  No, Pol Pot sympathizer in the back row, sit down
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:What do you mean with European resilience? The entire loving difference with IRA and ETA is that the impact was regional and between parties that could be negotiated with. Nothing to do with European resilience. How is it new? The West has faced widespread terrorist networks aspiring to create a global utopia before. Take the Red Army Faction, for example - if the internet had been around when they were operating, do you honestly think they wouldn't be as effective or vicious as ISIS? The fact is, which "god" is being worshiped, whether it be Allah or Stalin, doesn't really matter. There's nothing new here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How is it new? The West has faced widespread terrorist networks aspiring to create a global utopia before. Take the Red Army Faction, for example - if the internet had been around when they were operating, do you honestly think they wouldn't be as effective or vicious as ISIS? The fact is, which "god" is being worshiped, whether it be Allah or Stalin, doesn't really matter. There's nothing new here. Beat you to it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Yes, it would be quite interesting to compare the psychology of the Baader Meinhof gang with the pathology of Islamist attackers. In bothe cases the terrorists serve the interests of some foreign power with only a slight veneer of rationalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Umm that bombs used to blow far more often and we didn't fall apart and the world did not end, quite a bit to do with resilience. Yes, I indeed explained again and again why I think an article that is pointing out that we are plenty resilient is dumb, because comparing numbers with historical IRA bombings is a incredibly disingenuous when evaluating the current situation. But thank you for your input. quote:It wouldn't be anything but few uncoordinated one-off attackers if we hadn't fed Wahhabist Islam with endlless money and weapons and continue doing so. How is it that you are still not getting this. They are not attractive to their maladjusted criminal recruits because they are Muslim, it is because they are the biggest baddest kid on the block. Wahhabism is different because it operates on an entirely different scale of international funding, not because Muslims are more inclined to radicalism. Who is not getting what? Do you even know where ISIS is getting it's financing from? Apparantly not. Regardless, why does what you are posting even matter? And are you seriously implying that deeply religious people are as equally inclined to radicalise as the moderately religious? There is no speciifc gene to radicalisation as far as I know no, but being under the influence of radical religious views really helps. Just pointing out the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Yes, I indeed explained again and again why I think an article that is pointing out that we are plenty resilient is dumb, because comparing numbers with historical IRA bombings is a incredibly disingenuous when evaluating the current situation. Lagotto posted:Who is not getting what? Do you even know where ISIS is getting it's financing from? Apparantly not. Regardless, why does what you are posting even matter? And are you seriously implying that deeply religious people are as equally inclined to radicalise as the moderately religious? There is no speciifc gene to radicalisation as far as I know no, but being under the influence of radical religious views really helps. Just pointing out the obvious. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Well I'm sure the surviving victims and people affected by those bombings are happy to know that some guy on the internet who likely wasn't alive then thinks their fear was less real. Scale and context dude for the 10th time. The Brits lost more during The Falklands, no need to get fussed with a few terrorist attacks right? And no you don't, ISIS doesn't need external financing. Lagotto fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Scale and context dude for the 10th time. So in other words the numbers we are not supposed to utter. Or do you have other ways of determining scale then objects of measurement? And ISIS does not deal in cash only and turn oil into gold. It needs international financing (aka shady Gulf banks propped up by oil) and Western participation in oil trade for it to be functional, as well as access to Iraqi government revenue (which comes from...). Western owned businesses invest and trade in oil even in cases where their countries aren't consuming it. Russian oil supports Assad who purchases his oil directly from ISIS. Gulf donors are also an integral part of ISIS's ability to send funds to foreign operatives. It doesn't really help if you have billion dollars in Syria if you can't send it to a guy who needs to buy a ton of weapons and explosives in Belgium. http://uk.businessinsider.com/heres-how-isis-keeps-up-its-access-to-the-global-financial-system-2015-3?r=US&IR=T And I am not sure why everyone else seems to be OK with Al-Qaeda still being funded 100% on oil money when they are responsible for more western death then ISIS. I don't want them to operate either and I'm not happy that they are what, neutral now? gently caress that. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Scale and context dude for the 10th time. The Brits lost more during The Falklands, no need to get fussed with a few terrorist attacks right? That's not what he's saying and you know it. You're treating ISIS' attacks as something completely new and unheard-of in European history, when they aren't. The Red Brigades, Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, the Baader-Meinhof Group, Carlos the Jackal? Their vision for a utopia was different from ISIS', but they weren't that different in their strategy or actions. The only real difference is the fact that ISIS fighters tend not to be white, and are (unfairly) associated with the unwashed hordes of refugees that many Europeans believe (also unfairly) are swarming into their countries. quote:And no you don't, ISIS doesn't need external financing. Why wouldn't it need external financing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not what he's saying and you know it. You're treating ISIS' attacks as something completely new and unheard-of in European history, when they aren't. The Red Brigades, Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, the Baader-Meinhof Group, Carlos the Jackal? Their vision for a utopia was different from ISIS', but they weren't that different in their strategy or actions. The only real difference is the fact that ISIS fighters tend not to be white, and are (unfairly) associated with the unwashed hordes of refugees that many Europeans believe (also unfairly) are swarming into their countries. ISIS is self contained. They are selling the oil from the fields they took on the black market, selling black market historical artifacts (they don't destroy all of them, mostly just the replicas), collecting taxes, run a banking system, and took over several banks with a lot of cash on hand. Granted, they can't deal on the actual market for these goods, but they are doing all of this on the black market fairly easily. This isn't to say that Saudi money doesn't get to them, but not buying oil wouldn't stop this. The Saudi's own a lot of poo poo and have a pretty drat good sovereign fund. They can pay out of that for this and even if it's billions it's a drop in the ocean to them. So ISIS is capable of self financing and the Saudi's don't need to sell oil to throw them the pennies they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 00:38
|
|