• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) compares this to a 4GW operation. Our security, law enforcement and civil liberties structures are not designed to deal with this sort of attack. (definitionally, "Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) uses all available networks — political, economic, social, and military — to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency. Still rooted in the fundamental precept that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power, 4GW makes use of society’s networks to carry on its fight. Unlike previous generations of warfare, it does not attempt to win by defeating the enemy’s military forces. Instead, via the networks, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision makers to destroy the enemy’s political will. Fourth-generation wars are lengthy — measured in decades rather than months or years.").

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen-islam-terrorism-column/85794088/

Glenn Reynolds: An untraditional war
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 8:54 a.m. EDT June 13, 2016
We can't stop ISIL-inspired massacres if we deny we're fighting Islam's jihadist strain.

In the wake of the Orlando shootings, people are trotting out the usual post-massacre talking points about gun control, terrorism, etc. But the solutions aren’t so easy.

Gun control is much stricter in Europe, but that hasn’t stopped mass shootings like the ones at Charlie Hebdo’s offices or at the Bataclan concert hall. (It’s also very strict in California, but that didn’t stop the shootings at San Bernardino.) Talking about gun control is mostly a way of avoiding a tough problem.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, was quick to tweet out that this vindicates his positions: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!” But Trump’s proposal of a temporary moratorium on immigration of Muslims to America wouldn’t have prevented shooter Omar Mateen’s actions. Mateen wasn’t a recent immigrant but a  U.S. citizen born of Afghan parents, and he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group, according to a Department of Homeland Security report cited by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

The thing is, proposals such as gun control are basically peacetime remedies, which don’t apply in time of war. But traditional wartime remedies might not work, either, because this is not a traditional war.

Instead, what we are facing is what William S. Lind calls “fourth-generation warfare.” Or maybe it’s even fifth-generation warfare: We’re not fighting armies. We’re not fighting guerrillas. We’re not even fighting traditional terrorists. Instead, we’re fighting an opponent who turns apparently law-abiding citizens (Mateen was licensed as a security guard and thus had passed background checks) into killers without anyone noticing. They’re not actually “lone wolf” terrorists; they’re more like human drones, attacking distant targets on command without warning.

Well, that last isn’t quite true. There were warning signs with the San Bernardino shooters, whose neighbors reportedly didn’t want to call the cops for fear of being thought racist. And there were warning signs with Mateen, who apparently had been on security officials’ radar screen for some time but not enough to do anything about it. Classmates of Nidal Hassan said he regularly spouted Islamist propaganda months before he shot up Fort Hood, but the military was too politically correct to do anything and afterward tried for some time to pretend that his deliberate, jihadist attack was merely “workplace violence.”


To prevent this sort of event in the future, we need to do several things.

First, interrupt the flow of radicalizing propaganda at the source: ISIL and various other jihadist outfits need to be neutralized or destroyed. These organizations pursue a deliberate strategy of radicalizing Muslims in Western countries to turn them into terrorists, and they operate networks of sympathizers throughout the USA. We used to cozy up to the Saudis, but thanks to hydraulic fracturing we don’t really need their oil anymore, so they need to be told to put a stop to this sort of support or else. We likely could have nipped ISIL in the bud a few years ago at minimal cost — or kept it from sprouting in the first place by maintaining a presence in Iraq — but it needs to be brought down now.

Vigils were held around the country grieving for the more than 50 people who were killed in a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando. Meanwhile, the wife of the shooter is calling him "mentally ill." (June 12) AP

We also need to be clear about what it is we’re fighting. We’re not fighting Islam as such. Many good Muslims are horrified by this violence. But we are fighting the jihadist strain of Islam, and unfortunately quite a few Muslims view that strain as legitimate.

We can’t allow ourselves to be blinded to this reality, unless we want to see jihadist attacks like this — which have, sadly, become normal in the past few years — continue and increase.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
 
Jarnhamar said:
"Here" seems like the ideal place to do this.  You know,  in the Islamic terrorisim in the west thread.

LOL fair enough, I guess I more meant at this time. Anyways, the first link was to place your statement in a religious context, second one was to show that murder generally was forbidden and third one was to show killing non-Muslims specifically was forbidden.

So was I thorough enough to debunk the statement?
 
Shayk Yasir Qadhi tipped me off to this via fb feed and I ran to Google to get something substantial to post.

It looks like Omar mateen was a homosexual himself and frequented the pub he shot up, allegedly bouncers had to throw him out occasionally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-was-a-regular-at-lgbt-nightclub-pulse-before-atta/
 
AbdullahD said:
It looks like Omar mateen was a homosexual himself and frequented the pub he shot up, allegedly bouncers had to throw him out occasionally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-was-a-regular-at-lgbt-nightclub-pulse-before-atta/
Just spotted a few similar hits myself ...
Yet another ingredient for the "what drove him" stew ...
 
AbdullahD said:
Shayk Yasir Qadhi tipped me off to this via fb feed and I ran to Google to get something substantial to post.

It looks like Omar mateen was a homosexual himself and frequented the pub he shot up, allegedly bouncers had to throw him out occasionally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-was-a-regular-at-lgbt-nightclub-pulse-before-atta/

Was he though?  When you go hunting, you try to blend in with your surroundings.  This may have been part of his planning for a while.
 
Lightguns said:
That's what I thought but 2 years seems a long recce......

Might have taken him 2 years to put himself up to it as well.
 
How does all this jibe with the statement (by his father?) that the catalyst was when he became enraged when he was two men kissing in Miami?

I fear there is too much unsubstantiated information or rumour floating around by an eager media and internet "experts" to reach a conclusion. Best that we wait for the professionals to complete their investigation. And if any of us believe their findings will be received and accepted as valid, well, lots of luck.
 
Remius said:
Might have taken him 2 years to put himself up to it as well.

Fair points, but what could he be looking for that would take two years on the inside to find.

Bars are not exactly that hard to scout out I hate to say it... I could believe a couple weekends... he'll even a couple months... but a couple years sounds like he liked it to me...

Full disclosure as always I have zero knowledge of warfare and if I'm being an idiot here call me on it... but how he did this it just seemed to simple to need two years of research...
 
Thucydides said:
Some of Canada's worst mass murders were carried out with explosives (Air India, 329 people) or fire (Gargantua nightclub in 1975, 13 dead)

From what I have read, "Some were shot, but most suffocated when the building was set on fire in what was believed to be an underworld contract hit."

jollyjacktar said:
Maybe he just sucked at research.

 

Attachments

  • rimshot.gif
    rimshot.gif
    60.7 KB · Views: 81
Old Sweat said:
How does all this jibe with the statement (by his father?) that the catalyst was when he became enraged when he was two men kissing in Miami?
One more theory to throw into the sausage machine:  #selfhatecrime?
7a67f54c244b1638b0b8bc1d147f8607.jpg
A reminder to anyone seeking an "all jihadi" or "all homophobia/hate" answer here:  it may be both, it may be something else we don't know about, it may be a bit of all of the above.
Old Sweat said:
I fear there is too much unsubstantiated information or rumour floating around by an eager media and internet "experts" to reach a conclusion.
As is always the case with such attacks.  This one, though, I think seems to hit a wider range of buttons than the (relatively more) cut-and-dried "guy/gal (with or without mental illness) is radicalized => hurts/kills cop/soldier/symbol of the state-society" events.
 
milnews.ca said:
This one, though, I think seems to hit a wider range of buttons than the (relatively more) cut-and-dried "guy/gal (with or without mental illness) is radicalized => hurts/kills cop/soldier/symbol of the state-society" events.

I think this one hit all three buttons. Add a dash of possible mental illness...
 

Attachments

  • triangle-2.png
    triangle-2.png
    7 KB · Views: 91
AbdullahD said:
So was I thorough enough to debunk the statement?

Honestly no,  not at all,  and I'll explain why.

I can drop a quote like
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

To me that's straight forward.  Cut peoples heads off if they don't believe in Allah.

Now you get all these kinds of scholars who try and pick apart the various spiritual angles and different contexts and "well what they really mean"  etc. When  I hear someone trying to put cutting someone's head and finger tips off into a  "spiritual"  context it sounds like Bullshit and no different to me that when I catch a student (or child)  doing something wrong  they come up with 101 reasons about what they kinda sorta really are doing.  "No its not how it looks,  that's not what I mean, I meant to do this ,  I just thought no cell phones meant no texting, maybe but this and that,  you don't understand"    Willy nilly stuff.

The problem with Islam, one of many,  is that these" friendly scholars" are all but ignored by the masses.  Too many Muslims (the world over)  take "cut their heads off"  in its most literal form. 

 
Jarnhamar said:
Honestly no,  not at all,  and I'll explain why.

I can drop a quote like 

To me that's straight forward.  Cut peoples heads off if they don't believe in Allah.

Now you get all these kinds of scholars who try and pick apart the various spiritual angles and different contexts and "well what they really mean"  etc. When  I hear someone trying to put cutting someone's head and finger tips off into a  "spiritual"  context it sounds like Bullshit and no different to me that when I catch a student (or child)  doing something wrong  they come up with 101 reasons about what they kinda sorta really are doing.  "No its not how it looks,  that's not what I mean, I meant to do this ,  I just thought no cell phones meant no texting, maybe but this and that,  you don't understand"    Willy nilly stuff.

The problem with Islam, one of many,  is that these" friendly scholars" are all but ignored by the masses.  Too many Muslims (the world over)  take "cut their heads off"  in its most literal form.

The ugly face of truth. Not always easy to acknowledge.
 
Regarding this joint in Orlando. I am sure the investigators will check if they were obeying the occupancy limits and emergency exit regulations at the time of the massacre.

I'm not a daytime inspector, but I remember some nightclubs that looked to me on emergency night calls like death-traps waiting to happen. Overcrowded and problems with the emergency exits.  This was intentional so customers would not sneak out without paying and/or let their friends in without paying the door charge.
We always tried to use the emergency exits, and got to see the problems.

Cocoanut Grove in Boston with 492 fatalities ( hundreds more were injured ) in a single night was the worst historical example of what could go wrong in a night-club. That was an accident. One can only imagine how many in a terror attack.

Stories such as this,

Club safety measures questioned after Orlando shooting

"...prompting questions about exit plans and code enforcement at crowded area bars and clubs."

“I would be concerned now about the emergency exits ’cause it gets really full,”

“I don’t know of a lot of jurisdictions do the night inspections, where we go out while the clubs are in operation,”

 
Jarnhamar said:
Honestly no,  not at all,  and I'll explain why.

I can drop a quote like

To me that's straight forward.  Cut peoples heads off if they don't believe in Allah.

Totally, because when you read a book you only read one fragment of a  sentence to come up with your opinion of it all right?... not. So why only read one fragment of a  sentence and condemn an entire religion? Links for you.

http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/surah8_12.htm

Now you get all these kinds of scholars who try and pick apart the various spiritual angles and different contexts and "well what they really mean"  etc.

Here is work for you, find ALL the tafsir's of Quran and kindly show me witch ones do not put them in proper context. A couple to start with are ibn Kathir and maariful quran. Both are widely accepted by ALL sunni scholars that I have ever heard of. So if every single scholar agrees with putting something in context doesn't that make sense to do so?

When  I hear someone trying to put cutting someone's head and finger tips off into a  "spiritual"  context it sounds like Bullshit

Actually the context for this one isn't spiritual it is warfare... you kinda have to kill people in war the last I heard...

and no different to me that when I catch a student (or child)  doing something wrong  they come up with 101 reasons about what they kinda sorta really are doing.  "No its not how it looks,  that's not what I mean, I meant to do this ,  I just thought no cell phones meant no texting, maybe but this and that,  you don't understand"    Willy nilly stuff.

Okay but yeah maybe you should read it all... heck you don't really even have the full verse there... so yea I daresay an explanation is valid and acceptable not really apples to apples here.

The problem with Islam, one of many,  is that these" friendly scholars" are all but ignored by the masses.  Too many Muslims (the world over)  take "cut their heads off"  in its most literal form.

Really? I have seen no evidence that the majority of Muslims take the literal meaning of isolated verses out of context. The majority seem to take it in context, only extremists take it out of context and when you have 1.8 billion or so Muslims you do end up having a couple hundred thousand extremists but they are not a significant percent.

Let's read the entire surah together and tell me if it makes more sense to take it in the context of an isolated battle or not.

http://quran.com/8

Abdullah

Post script edited for clarity new phone weird auto corrects.
 
AbdullahD said:
Actually the context for this one isn't spiritual it is warfare... you kinda have to kill people in war the last I heard...

It's not spiritual?  It's warfare based on murdering anyone and everyone who isn't a believer.  Nothing about protecting borders or land.  It's murdering disbelievers where ever you find them.  Murdering people for religious reasons sure sounds spiritual to me.

  The majority seem to take it in context, only extremists take it out of context and when you have 1.8 billion or so Muslims you do end up having a couple hundred thousand extremists but they are not a significant percent.

1. A couple hundred thousand extremists aren't a significant percent? 
2. I've previously gave you a great example of an every day village of regular Islamic followers who turned berserk in moments and physically ripped a woman apart.  A woman who was accused of ruining a book full if paper,  which turned out to be false.

You're couple hundred thousand figure is vastly underestimated in my opinion.

Let's read the entire surah together and tell me if it makes more sense to take it in the context of an isolated battle or not.
I'm content watching the news and seeing what's being done in Allah's name by his followes.

 
She knew! Orlando terrorist's wife 'told the FBI she tried to talk him out of the attack', visited Pulse and other targets with him AND was there when he bought his arsenal of ammunition - but never called 911

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641206/She-knew-Orlando-terrorist-s-wife-told-FBI-tried-talk-attack-cooperating-authorities.html#ixzz4BZxFcw8M
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Jarnhamar said:
1. A couple hundred thousand extremists aren't a significant percent? 

You're couple hundred thousand figure is vastly underestimated in my opinion.

The percentage, if that number is accurate is 0.01111111 percent.    Not that significant no.  But I'm more concerned about the impact that percentage can have.  clearly a big one.
 
Back
Top