Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

Tuan said:
We can argue in many different ways on the causes and consequences of modern terrorism, but old Marxist theory has become a new "relative deprivation theory" at the dawn of new millennium, which drives people to push back against their opponents.

Remember, "change is the law of the universe".....here is an academic article

Relative Deprivation Theory in Terrorism: A Study of Higher Education and
Unemployment as Predictors of Terrorism
http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4600/Clare_Richardson_terrorism.pdf
Click to expand...

It is an interesting paper but in some respects, I think it shoots itself down unnecessarily as it continually mentions its low sample group as a reason it may be wrong, whereas it should also be accepted that the number of terrorists worldwide is still a very small number as a proportion of the world's population.

Also, the ability to gather data from suicide bombers as to what is motivating them is rather difficult given that it really is a short-term job.

On the whole I think it is a pretty well thought out paper which I think shows what we have been saying in that their motivation is determined by many factors including a real and perceived sense of inequality.
 
It might be be interesting to read what Criminologists are saying about why some decide to be terrorists.

Personally, I think why some decide to join ISIS or any other organization is a mix of many different reasons. If we ask 100 ISIS fighters and supporters, we can get a variety of reasons.
 
A short article about the terrorist personality by an Indian criminologist

http://www.globalindiafoundation.org/terrorism.pdf

Another article

Understanding Terrorist Psychology

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1575&context=mhlp_facpub

The articles describe a similar pattern of those who became members of other criminal gangs and groups. Although, isn't that a better approach? Terrorists are just criminals, similar as those engaging in other organized criminal behavior. Groups and gangs active in drug trafficking and arms trafficking are maybe even more dangerous for the society than what terrorists are.
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
A short article about the terrorist personality by an Indian criminologist

http://www.globalindiafoundation.org/terrorism.pdf

Another article

Understanding Terrorist Psychology

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1575&context=mhlp_facpub

The articles describe a similar pattern of those who became members of other criminal gangs and groups. Although, isn't that a better approach? Terrorists are just criminals, similar as those engaging in other organized criminal behavior. Groups and gangs active in drug trafficking and arms trafficking are maybe even more dangerous for the society than what terrorists are.
Click to expand...

I have argued that the word "terrorist" is itself a recruiting tool and should simply be replaced with criminal, far too many want to think of themselves as the biggest, baddest guy on the block and as such are drawn to emotive titles like terrorist especially since terrorism is such a grey area (one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter).
 
The peace Corps was a failure : it did not create any goodwill in the underdevelopped countries,but increased the hostility to the US .
 
lljadw said:
The peace Corps was a failure : it did not create any goodwill in the underdevelopped countries,but increased the hostility to the US .
Click to expand...

I have found nothing to indicate that the Peace Corps increased hostility to the US, in areas it was certainly ineffective but given that it has one of the smallest budgets of any agency doing that work that should be expected.

However, surveys in host countries indicated that Americans received an increase in favourability from around 15% to 70% because of the work done by the Peace Corps.
 
ISIS Hostage-Taking Caught on Video; Mosul Deaths Go To Formal Investigation

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2017 — A formal investigation has begun into the March 17 deaths of civilians in western Mosul, Iraq, the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman said today.

Addressing Pentagon reporters by teleconference, Army Col. Joseph Scrocca said OIR commander Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend directed that the investigation get underway rather than continue with the credibility assessments.

Scrocca said the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in mid-March left the coalition with some culpability and it would be disingenuous to continue with credibility assessments.

“Since we believe a coalition strike contributed in at least some way to the civilian casualties, Lt. Gen. Townsend has directed that the civilian casualty assessment move directly to a formal 15-6 investigation for all allegations in the west Mosul neighborhood where the strikes occurred on or around March 17,” he said.

A full investigation will allow OIR to analyze other aspects of the case that have significant bearing, such as strike procedures and the impact of ISIS tactics, Scrocca said.

The investigating officer also can make recommendations to the commander to adjust and improve operations in western Mosul, he added.
Click to expand...

On another note, I hear a good news about, Ayad al-Jumaili, believed to be a deputy of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed in an airstrike on Friday, according to an Iraqi intelligence spokesman.

The U.S.-led coalition against the ISIS said it was unable at the moment to confirm the information that was reported earlier in the day by Iraqi state-run TV.

Feel free to share info on this....i mean any open source item...the UK mirror reported the following:

ISIS' second-in-command 'who was in charge of terror group's internal security killed in air strike'
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I have argued that the word "terrorist" is itself a recruiting tool and should simply be replaced with criminal, far too many want to think of themselves as the biggest, baddest guy on the block and as such are drawn to emotive titles like terrorist especially since terrorism is such a grey area (one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter).
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the two though. Generally speaking, while a terrorist's motive is political, a criminal on the other hand is driven by economic motive...just my thought.
 
Tuan said:
There is a difference between the two though. Generally speaking, while a terrorist's motive is political, a criminal on the other hand is driven by economic motive...just my thought.
Click to expand...

I tend to see that as semantics and it somewhat proves my point, take the Robin Hood analogy we are told to admire him because his motives were what we are taught to be right, aiding the poor by fighting tyrants what greater calling can there be.

Yet in reality, to the wealthy he was not picky about who he robbed and attacked anyone with money no matter how they had attained it or what they had done with it, he was a criminal, little more than a murderer and a thief.

So who is right?
If the motive is all that matters then it becomes almost impossible to convict some of greatest mass murderers of our time, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all believed they were doing the right thing and cost was irrelevant.

This I believe is why the law is designed to be blind hence lady justice is blindfolded as justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness, it must be structured to be impartial.

Motive should play no part in determining whether an action is a crime or not and should only be considered once that determination has been made.
 
I agree with Monty on this one. Terrorists are simply only criminals and shall be treated as such. The best approach is to reduce the recruiting base for the terrorist organizations. If we can do something about grievances in our societies and even abroad. But the latter one is not our responsibility, that is the leadership in these countries responsibility.

There are another perceptions as well. We can stop intervening in their countries. However, that might causes some problems. We can get a huge amount of refugees and we got a lot of them. As long as the issues don't influence us, we can ignore it.

How did democracy and human rights emerge in the West? It occurred from within and it was a bloody struggle with revolutions, wars, and other setbacks. But it emerged from within and sometimes as a result of a war. The social revolution during the industrial revolution and the social change after the First World War. Maybe many of the countries in the Middle East and Africa need to go through a similar process. One issue that might need to be addressed is the high level of corruption in many of these countries.
 
I think there have been some fundamentals raised here, which deserve less dismissal and more introspection. Whether you guys like it or not, the truth is terrorism in most academic circles is associated with primarily political motives of groups. The groups may have religious backing, or ideological, but terrorist organizations are primarily identified as Terrorist when their political aspirations become transparent. Till then they are hardly classified as Terrorist. We can have some arguments for and against this stance, but this is how and why PLO was classified as a Terror Group initially, so was al Qaeda, Babar Khalsa or LeT or LTTE or the dozens we know.

Islamic extremism for one exhorts itself as purely a religious entity, whereas with Sharia as core with its legislative, judiciary, and executive arms (all understood as Political) is basically and primarily more Political in its aims than religious/ideological in most ways.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
I think there have been some fundamentals raised here, which deserve less dismissal and more introspection. Whether you guys like it or not, the truth is terrorism in most academic circles is associated with primarily political motives of groups. The groups may have religious backing, or ideological, but terrorist organizations are primarily identified as Terrorist when their political aspirations become transparent. Till then they are hardly classified as Terrorist. We can have some arguments for and against this stance, but this is how and why PLO was classified as a Terror Group initially, so was al Qaeda, Babar Khalsa or LeT or LTTE or the dozens we know.

Islamic extremism for one exhorts itself as purely a religious entity, whereas with Sharia as core with its legislative, Judiciary and Executive arms (all understood as Political) is basically and primarily more Political in its aims than religious/cultural in most ways.
Click to expand...


I know where you are coming from and the consensus in the perception of terrorism. Most policy makers, political think tanks, scientists, intelligence agencies, and/or law enforcement agencies perceive terrorism as a mix of political/ideological/religious motivated groups. But we must raise the questions if this perception might be wrong, and we should change it to the same perception we have about other organized crimes, the endgame for the organized criminal groups can be different, but is that really relevant?

I mean, how many policy makers, institutes, and other academics care about drug related crimes and the damage it creates to the society and the people exposed to this kind of crimes. Maybe we should leave this to the criminologists (academics, scientists), the law enforcement and the courts.

I have studied political science and conflict studies, the latter is much better to understand terrorism than political scientists. Conflict studies have an emphasis on conflict resolutions and lesser on the crimes committed during the armed conflict. That is the price we have to pay for reaching a peace agreement.

Political science and the scientists within this field don't care much about other crimes, and yet the terrorists get the full attentions. I also have a feeling if we perceive the terrorists as political entities, we somewhat provide them with a recognition of their acts.
 
I think the Wests biggest problem is a desire to rationalise our enemies and "understand" their motives which in the case of a conventional opponent both makes sense and is possible however against groups like IS and AQ it is pointless, largely irrelevant and emboldens them by making us look weak and indecisive.

I am convinced there is little to understand with regards to IS/AQ as their motive is simply one
of blind hatred and methodology doesn't extend beyond killing and destruction.
 
US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Washington (CNN)The US military has dropped an enormous bomb in Afghanistan, according to four US military officials with direct knowledge of the mission.

A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, nicknamed MOAB, was dropped at 7 p.m. local time Thursday, the sources said.

The MOAB is also known as the "mother of all bombs." A MOAB is a 21,600-pound, GPS-guided munition that is America's most powerful non-nuclear bomb.

The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, according to the military sources.

They said the target was an ISIS tunnel and cave complex as well as personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province.

The military is currently assessing the damage. Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on the use of the bomb, according to the sources. Authority had to be sought from Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command.

This is the first time a MOAB has been used in the battlefield, according to the US officials. This munition was developed during the Iraq War.
Click to expand...
 
At the dawn of a new world order where the leaders of the western liberal democracies including the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany and France announce their vision and mission of the future leadership for the "free world"; Russia, China and India on the other hand compete with each other for sphere of regional and global influence; amid tensions in Korean peninsula, the so-called Islamic State claims that it has found a new target in the Middle East, as its suicide bombers blew themselves up in Tehran, after influencing the UK election by waging two attacks in two weeks. Meanwhile, Iran's Revolutionary Guards accused Saudi Arabia and the US of being behind the attacks. Is this the beginning of a new world order or chaos? Interesting times ahead...

Tehran attackers 'were IS recruits from Iran'

Iran says the attackers who killed 12 people in the capital Tehran were Iranians who had joined so-called Islamic State (IS).

Suicide bombers attacked parliament and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic's founder Ayatollah Khomeini.

All the attackers were killed. Five people believed to be planning a third attack were arrested, officials said.

Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards accused Saudi Arabia and the US of being behind the attacks.

The violence comes amid heightened tension in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states cutting ties with Qatar over alleged support for Islamist militants and closer ties with Iran.

Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shia-majority Iran are staunch regional rivals.
In an interview on state TV, Reza Seifollahi, deputy chief of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said the attackers "had joined Daesh [IS] from a number of regions inside Iran."

IS earlier claimed the attacks - a first for Iran - and threatened further assaults on Iranian Shia Muslims.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards vowed revenge for the bloodshed, but pointed the finger at the US and Saudi Arabia in the wake of President Donald Trump's recent visit to the kingdom.

"This terrorist action, coming one week after the meeting of the president of the United States with the leader of the one of the region's reactionary governments (Saudi Arabia)... shows they are involved in this savage action," it said in a statement.
The US and Saudi Arabia both condemned the attacks.

US President Donald Trump said he was praying for the victims but added that "states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote".

Claiming the attack, IS posted a video which showed what it claimed was footage from inside the parliament building.

A voice is heard saying, in Arabic: "We're not going anywhere. We're staying forever."
BBC Persian's Jenny Norton says that despite Iran's active involvement in fighting IS in both Iraq and Syria, the Sunni group has not until now carried out any attacks inside Iran, and appears to have little support in this predominantly Shia country.

However, our analyst says, in recent months the group has stepped up its Farsi-language propaganda efforts - targeting Iran's restive Sunni minority.
Iranian intelligence agencies claim to have foiled a number of IS-inspired plots.
But by mounting a successful attack, IS could claim a major coup against a traditional foe that other Sunni jihadist groups, including its rival al-Qaeda, have failed to target in the past.

What is the likely effect of the attacks?

Middle East analyst Dina Esfandiary says one possible consequence will be increased calls by hardliners for tougher action against IS in Iraq and Syria.

Public support for action in Iraq is likely to grow, as it did when IS took swathes of territory in the country in 2014.

But Iran's involvement in Syria is not popular, our analyst says - it is seen as having few benefits and costing too many Iranian lives.

The attacks will also boost the popularity of the Revolutionary Guards, seen as protectors of the nation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
At the dawn of a new world order where the leaders of the western liberal democracies including the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany and France announce their vision and mission of the future leadership for the "free world"; Russia, China and India on the other hand compete with each other for sphere of regional and global influence; amid tensions in Korean peninsula, the so-called Islamic State claims that it has found a new target in the Middle East, as its suicide bombers blew themselves up in Tehran, after influencing the UK election by waging two attacks in two weeks. Meanwhile, Iran's Revolutionary Guards accused Saudi Arabia and the US of being behind the attacks. Is this the beginning of a new world order or chaos? Interesting times ahead...

Tehran attackers 'were IS recruits from Iran'
Click to expand...

4 of 5 of the attackers were Iranian Kurds who had joined ISIS .:wink:

Source : Al Monitor "Iran wakes up to Salafi recruitment in Kurdish regions " .

It is very unlikely that KSA is behind these attacks,as ISIS executed several attacks in KSA .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top