|
tooterfish posted:I don't think this is true. Sure, they have to be pretty radicalised to go there and join ISIS in the first place, but don't discount the training and contacts they'll receive, or how much their world-view will be reinforced. It's one thing to talk about doing things, actually doing and seeing them done first hand will change these guys in pretty unpredictable ways. There's an awful lot still not known about the psychology of radicalisation but one thing that seems to be surprisingly true is that people who have been involved in high-intensity conflicts seem to be considerably less threat on their return to their own countries than those who had been involved in low-intensity conflicts, who in turn are far less threat than those who have self-radicalised. Most of the terrorists (of whatever motivation) in the UK have been in that latter camp, with very few from the former two and almost none from the first. Most of the contacts they were likely to have made will have been made, over the internet, long before they left. You don't just rock up to Thomas Cook and go "Return ticket to the Jihad, please!". As to training, it's not really applicable as ISIS are well-supplied with things that go bang, which aren't really as available in Blighty. Knowing how to fire an RPG or make an IED from an artillery shell is a very different skillset than being able to covertly acquire or make explosives from scratch in a country with tight controls on such things (just try and buy just about anything with lots of nitrogen in it). The 7/7 bombers remain just about the only terrorists in the history of the UK who have managed to make viable devices completely from scratch; compare to the 21/7 bombers or the guys who bought a (literal) ton of ammonium nitrate with their own debit cards. Even assuming they'd come back from the fight with a new explosives recipe that doesn't need restricted precursors and doesn't constitute a much bigger risk to those who mix it than those who they wish to use it against, it will still take them time to prepare. I'm not saying they don't constitute a risk - but they don't constitute a risk right at this moment, for all those reasons, and the way to manage that risk is to do what we're already doing - heavily restrict access to the means and the opportunity - it would be nice if we attempted to do something about the motivation but meh, and keep an eye on those likely to be a specific risk.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
namesake posted:Putin won't be funnelling anything to IS, they're carting around more gear from the US due to their gains in Iraq, although Soviet stuff from Syria will be everywhere as well. I was more referring to Syrian weaponary yeah, but given he seems to spend his current days plotting how to next gently caress with Europe for daring to threaten the Ukraine pipeline's "neutrality" I'd not consider it beyond him to have other things going, though I definitely agree he's nowhere near IS. It's more an argument about looking at what's likely to happen based on reasonable comparisons. The IRA are less of a major threat than drunk arseholes on parades these days, they've lost legitimacy with Stormond and no longer having murdering Army sorts wandering the streets. IS will have the same problem. Nobody likes terrorists, and the idea that normal, conservative rural villagers are genuinely clamouring for videos of torture and execution as they go about their lives is a bit weird. If IS become a threat ranting about the decadant bogeyman who isn't there, you're going to see pushback locally, and importantly a willingness to cooperate with a more moderate government. I've met Wahabis who were glad when Gaddaffi was brutally murdered in the street, because people get sick of that bullshit fast. They've all watched the video with about the same reaction most people here had to "ding dong." IS are an aura or a tremor, we need to be worried about what happens next. And if the people of the middle east look around them and see a western-installed government or western troops and they feel they didn't ask for this or need this, then we're going to see Afghanistan all over again at best, or people that thought IS weren't brutal enough becoming realistic options. People in the middle east need to know that they want us there, in whatever form, to get these zealots to gently caress off. Then when the zealots come again, they won't be so keen, and we will be dealing with less suicide bombers attacking bases in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There's an awful lot still not known about the psychology of radicalisation but one thing that seems to be surprisingly true is that people who have been involved in high-intensity conflicts seem to be considerably less threat on their return to their own countries than those who had been involved in low-intensity conflicts, who in turn are far less threat than those who have self-radicalised. Most of the terrorists (of whatever motivation) in the UK have been in that latter camp, with very few from the former two and almost none from the first. I'd suggest, potentially, that going to fight in a foreign war is going to make you consider being back home (even if you detest much about 'home') as R&R time. You'd naturally begin to split your life into two halves, the part that you spend 'on tour', and time you're on leave. You've been fighting the jihad in the Iraqi desert for months, I'd imagine first priority on getting back to the UK after that is less 'let's make some bombs' and more 'I could murder a cuppa'. Obviously, this attitude is going to increase with the intensity of the conflict. If you're watched your friends die, and been in genuine fear for your life, you're going to be a hell of a lot less likely to bring that upon yourself voluntarily during your 'downtime'. On the other hand, self-radicalised jihadis don't have access to that foreign battleground and are therefore unable to compartmentalise spheres of 'fighting' and 'resting'. The UK is necessarily their warzone as well as their home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Technically it's Paisley. If we're splitting hairs, Linwood 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
We had a whole bunch of militarised, gun-toting killers come back from the Middle East a few years ago and none of them kicked up too much of a fuss. At any rate, a large proportion of them apparently commit suicide. I wouldn't be too worried
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd suggest, potentially, that going to fight in a foreign war is going to make you consider being back home (even if you detest much about 'home') as R&R time. You'd naturally begin to split your life into two halves, the part that you spend 'on tour', and time you're on leave. You've been fighting the jihad in the Iraqi desert for months, I'd imagine first priority on getting back to the UK after that is less 'let's make some bombs' and more 'I could murder a cuppa'. Obviously, this attitude is going to increase with the intensity of the conflict. If you're watched your friends die, and been in genuine fear for your life, you're going to be a hell of a lot less likely to bring that upon yourself voluntarily during your 'downtime'. There is some evidence to suggest they go to Kosovo for R&R and there are rumours they're trying to radicalise it, which would be a awful since it is one of the most liberal Islamic countries. IS is somewhat different to AQ since the former have established a state with the desire to continually expand its boarders. They have also consistently displayed extremely competent tactical capabilities, instead of crumbling in the face of the Peshmerga they all but broke them before US air support began. Thus, in response to Western bombing and spec ops on the ground the threat won't be from returning Jihadists deciding to do some freelance terrorism but from a deliberately planned military operation in origin countries to further IS military operations in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Poor old george got his jaw/rib broken by some nutter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28992601
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Has the UK ever given a poo poo about people fighting overseas before? I know the government considered throwing the Foreign Enlistment Act at British volunteers to the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, but nothing ever came of it. Is this different because Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
So Miliband has come out in support of "mandatory de-radicalisation" of anyone suspect of having sympathies towards the Islamic State. Jesus Christ, and I thought Jacqui Smith was bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
TinTower posted:So Miliband has come out in support of "mandatory de-radicalisation" of anyone suspect of having sympathies towards the Islamic State. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Can't wait to see all these anti foreign-fighter laws applied to Mark Thatcher
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Has the UK ever given a poo poo about people fighting overseas before? Lord Haw Haw was hanged for treason and all members of the British Free Corps of the Waffen SS that could be identified were punished. Given IS has made claims to having established a state this seems a reasonable comparison. Specifically though when British people are openly making propaganda where they cut off a civilian's head and declare allegiance to a state that regularly commits atrocities it is probably a good idea to worry about what happens when they come back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
At this point, I'm not sure there's anyone in the country who could be enthusiastic about voting for Labour. I mean, I'm likely to, but I certainly won't be happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Lord Haw Haw was hanged for treason
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Lord Haw Haw was hanged for treason and all members of the British Free Corps of the Waffen SS that could be identified were punished. Given IS has made claims to having established a state this seems a reasonable comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In that case they were fighting for a country that was involved in active declared hostilities against the UK though, not just heading off to get involved in somebody else's conflict. The British jihadis running off to join IS seem more like the British gentlemen adventurers that ran around Africa in the 19th century. Awful people, but it seems like we're paying special attention because they're awful Muslim people. I'd be interested if the government reacted as strongly to someone running off to join a right wing paramilitary group in Colombia for a while (or to aforementioned Mark Thatcher). It seems to me that it's less *because they're Muslim* and more that the position they're taking is inherently anti-western. It's essentially treason. The disturbing part is the numbers in which this is happening, the publicity they get and the success they are having in the Levant. For Mark Thatcher, the goal wasn't to establish a new country that would then be used as a power base to attack and convert/destroy the west from. tentish klown fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:At this point, I'm not sure there's anyone in the country who could be enthusiastic about voting for Labour. Someone I know has developed rabid anti-Conservatism but is stupidly expressing by being positive (sort of) about Labour because of lack of alternatives. Pretty much any criticism is met with 'yeah but without electoral reform we can't do anything else' . Of course he said he likes Tony Blairs style after watching a few speeches and agreed when Tony suggested an appropriate way of dealing with disruptive neighbours on housing benefit would be to remove that benefit...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There's an awful lot still not known about the psychology of radicalisation but one thing that seems to be surprisingly true is that people who have been involved in high-intensity conflicts seem to be considerably less threat on their return to their own countries than those who had been involved in low-intensity conflicts, who in turn are far less threat than those who have self-radicalised. Most of the terrorists (of whatever motivation) in the UK have been in that latter camp, with very few from the former two and almost none from the first. Any sources on this, please?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:
Ok, so can I go gently caress up DRC with no consequence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Ok, so can I go gently caress up DRC with no consequence? As far as British political and security interests are concerned, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:As far as British political and security interests are concerned, pretty much. Well, well played for removing the fun from an argument ad absurdium I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Well, well played for removing the fun from an argument ad absurdium I guess. Sorry  But it's true. If you go gently caress around in the DRC, or South America, or the poorer south east Asian countries, that's not a threat to British security. If you want to go play Rambo with ISIS in Syria, the end goal of your compatriots is to conquer the west until there are no non-Muslims (and no wrong-type-of-Muslims) left. That is why it's a big issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
See, to my somewhat jaundiced eye, it looks like IS pose less of a threat to Britain (as a nation) than the IRA ever did. It seems a tad ridiculous to go so over the top about what is essentially something that could be dealt with by a police investigation and a series of arrests being made of people who have committed war crimes in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:As far as British political and security interests are concerned, pretty much. Who defines these interests? Mark Thatcher?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:See, to my somewhat jaundiced eye, it looks like IS pose less of a threat to Britain (as a nation) than the IRA ever did. It seems a tad ridiculous to go so over the top about what is essentially something that could be dealt with by a police investigation and a series of arrests being made of people who have committed war crimes in other countries. While other people have mentioned it's seemingly less likely for active fighters to return and commit terrorist attacks, which need citation, ISIS is arguably more dangerous than the IRA (admittedly I wasn't alive during most of the troubles though my neighbourhood was bombed). It's an active war one with a free flow of information considered to be dangerous. Isis before they became IS were well known during the insurgency as being pretty slick operators with IEDs and the like. From a security standpoint dissemination of that kind of training and info is very bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In that case they were fighting for a country that was involved in active declared hostilities against the UK though, not just heading off to get involved in somebody else's conflict. The British jihadis running off to join IS seem more like the British gentlemen adventurers that ran around Africa in the 19th century. Awful people, but it seems like we're paying special attention because they're awful Muslim people. I'd be interested if the government reacted as strongly to someone running off to join a right wing paramilitary group in Colombia for a while (or to aforementioned Mark Thatcher). They're working as part of a state or quasi-state that is openly anti-Western and they're gaining conventional and insurgent military experience. While the situation in Iraq-Syria is very different to the UK IS are using terror bombing and other tactics that could be used in Britain. While they're not going to sneak an AK through customs the sheer amount and diversity of US military equipment IS have captured in the last few months means a heightened chance something AQ never had access to could be used in the UK. British IS recruits being a threat to the UK is due to the goals of their organisation, not the fact they're Muslim. Though of course Islamophobia has contributed to the creation of IS in several ways. Ex-Squadies working for whatever Blackwater are called these days or Mark Thatcher's oil industry coup group are scum but they don't threaten UK interests and there is no reason to believe they'll commit acts of terror in the UK. Chocolate Teapot posted:Who defines these interests? Mark Thatcher?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
See I think I might be being Naive but I do not think that IS are very likely to cause any large scale destruction. The fact remains that they are an armed force in a different country, any influence that they do have over here is limited by the probable lack of support, alongside the extreme difficulty in getting any weaponry into this country. I can understand the concerns though, but it just seems unlikely that anything will happen, not impossible and there should be some additional methods taken, but I do not see the IS as a huge threat to us just yet. Maybe if they invade Turkey and start winning instead of getting beaten up by Kurds with some Air support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:He and other members of the establishment yes. Plenty of elites are doing awful things to the British population and going unpunished which is something that needs to change but that is no reason to discount the threat IS pose. Hypothetically speaking, but focusing on the allegedly immediate threat of IS will essentially only propagate a bigger threat in the future, as what happened with al Quaeda. The focus should primarily be placed upon the actual threat of the establishment, which would probably go much much farther in stemming this problem for a much longer time. And other fantasies etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
I'm going to repeat myself; what is threatened by IS is not UK national security but the UK national interests in the Middle East. If they want a caliphate they've got a shitload of work to do on the ground in the Middle East long before they pay any attention to Europe; their European recruits might be coming from the decadent West but they're fighting for land in the Middle East. It's not simply going over there for a war, it's a state building project and jihadis will be much more focused on expanding its borders than coming here and blowing up a Nandos. Even if we do get involved the priority will be attacking targets in Iraq and Syria. If IS is destroyed and scattered then they may well bear serious grudges but chances are that they'd be in such disarray and there'd be enough intelligence gathered to track them through our already very intrusive surveillance state. Yes it's a threat, no it's not any more dangerous or apparent since we went into Iraq in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:See I think I might be being Naive but I do not think that IS are very likely to cause any large scale destruction. The fact remains that they are an armed force in a different country, any influence that they do have over here is limited by the probable lack of support, alongside the extreme difficulty in getting any weaponry into this country. I think the two main reasons for concern are that 1) IS was a nothing force 6 months ago, when they expanded it was assumed they had gotten lucky and then they displayed considerable battle hardened professionalism. Heavy US bombing has caused tactical retreats, not routs. 2) While they were in the wilderness before they managed to capture huge amounts of territory and US/Iraqi weapons they were using all sorts of improvised weaponry and are the inheritors of the knowledge and skills of the Iraqi insurgency AND the Syrian civil war. So we have a highly professional and hardened force who have deep institutional knowledge of improvised weaponry and insurgency tactics that up to this point were badly underestimated. Their members with UK passports (which our glorious securities services have no idea who they are) could be a real threat. Chocolate Teapot posted:Hypothetically speaking, but focusing on the allegedly immediate threat of IS will essentially only propagate a bigger threat in the future, as what happened with al Quaeda. The focus should primarily be placed upon the actual threat of the establishment, which would probably go much much farther in stemming this problem for a much longer time. And other fantasies etc. A bad comparison: The Mafia in the US are clearly an awful organisation and the US authorities are right to go after them even if the authorities also used it as an opportunity to smear and attack Unions. Of course the US has been and may still be complicit with Mafia activities which makes this a bad comparison but still, some things reactionaries attack really are bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
ISIS are not a threat to the west. Just as Al Qaeda were not. They managed to steamroll through parts of Iraq and such mainly because Iraq didn't have the capability to defend itself properly thanks to Operation Oil Grab and US/UK involvement loving up the infrastructure and leaving little left. This doesn't take into account the influence of those bitter people who were already broadly affiliated with ISIS already who were more than happy to let them steamroll through and even opened the gates for them. Against civilians and badly disciplined local militias they're making major gains, against any sort of real resistance they're having less effect. ISIS are not particularly scary if you're reading this, sorry. You may feel scared but it's largely irrational. They're not going to be bringing down Western civilization any time soon. Thinking they will is almost at Israeli levels of delusion, but at least they have the fact ISIS are quite near as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:So we have a highly professional and hardened force who have deep institutional knowledge of improvised weaponry and insurgency tactics that up to this point were badly underestimated. Their members with UK passports (which our glorious securities services have no idea who they are) could be a real threat. They are dangerous yes, but I am not convinced they are suddenly excessively dangerous to the UK. When British fighters say things like "What are we doing sitting in the UK? Sitting in the land which kills Muslims everyday. What are we doing in their lands? It is not the lands for us." that certainly shows a dislike for the UK but overall a desire to leave the UK. Their desire to help IS build the caliphate is what drives them, I'd say the greater danger is them coming back and recruiting more people to go over than attempting an attack in the UK. Again, IS is a threat to the UKs national foreign policy objectives, not a threat to the UK itself. It's a major threat to everyone leaving in the Middle East and potentially north Africa I suppose which is important as well but it's an important distinction to make about why the UK government is acting the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
The worst thing ISIS is doing to the UK is that it is a risk to the puppet government the West took 10+ years to establish in Iraq. The uppity natives are going to be a problem, particularly as they're using consequences of our systemic otherizing of Muslims in our own country that we used to justify our occupation as a means to recruit disillusioned people for their own cause. ISIS is a monster we helped create, and now the public doesn't have the same appetite for total war in a time when we may actually need it thanks to the previous occupation being such a poo poo storm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:ISIS is a monster we helped create, and now the public doesn't have the same appetite for total war in a time when we may actually need it thanks to the previous occupation being such a poo poo storm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Any sources on this, please? It was a talk I attended on counterterrorism in 2006 or 2007, and the speaker (some mandarin from the FCO) was talking about Brits going to fight for the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan - the text of it might be available somewhere, I'll try and find it for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I think calling for total war might be a little bit of an overreaction. And I don't think it's something people have had an appetite for since about 1940, if ever. Oh they still have plenty of appetite for it, as long as it's us doing it to other people. Less so in the UK than the US (where actual elected politicians claim we should just nuke Mecca) but if you were to tell people we were going to go all Dresden on ISIS I think there'd be a lot more support than you'd hope
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I think calling for total war might be a little bit of an overreaction. And I don't think it's something people have had an appetite for since about 1940, if ever. I say may be needed because I'm not in the slightest bit convinced war is needed at all. Maybe I'm putting too much faith into humanity but I don't fundamentally believe people are 'born wrong' and it's largely cultural elements that make people the way they are and the Middle East has been hosed over so much it may even be impossible to find out exactly what is the straw that broke the camel's back. History has proven that punitive measures are very ineffective in virtually every single instance. Didn't work with Germany after WW1, didn't work with Palestine, didn't work with the IRA and didn't work with Al Qaeda. You can't fight organisations like ISIS with bombs and soldiers, all it does is douse the flames with petrol. You need to figure out why the fire is raging and try to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Oh they still have plenty of appetite for it, as long as it's us doing it to other people. Less so in the UK than the US (where actual elected politicians claim we should just nuke Mecca) but if you were to tell people we were going to go all Dresden on ISIS I think there'd be a lot more support than you'd hope The people filling the mass graves would certainly support it. The selfish buggers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I say may be needed because I'm not in the slightest bit convinced war is needed at all. Maybe I'm putting too much faith into humanity but I don't fundamentally believe people are 'born wrong' and it's largely cultural elements that make people the way they are and the Middle East has been hosed over so much it may even be impossible to find out exactly what is the straw that broke the camel's back. Look at you, trying to explain and understand the situation. You're just as bad as them terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Semprini posted:...despite not actually being British.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 19:09
|
|
