Why do we react differently to different terrorist organasiations? IS vs IRA

a reply to: nonspecific

They have to date murdered anyone and everyone who has not fallen immediately and completely in line with them (or taken the women and raped them) - Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Yazidis, Christians, and anyone and everyone else that is not their own narrow and specific brand of Islam. They have also blown up and otherwise desecrated the Holy places of the same groups.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

They have to date murdered anyone and everyone who has not fallen immediately and completely in line with them (or taken the women and raped them) - Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Yazidis, Christians, and anyone and everyone else that is not their own narrow and specific brand of Islam. They have also blown up and otherwise desecrated the Holy places of the same groups.

Although I agree with you sentiment I again have to disagree. I know lots of people who have not fallen immediately and completely in line with them and have not been killed..

I can confirm this as I and many others are still alive.

a reply to: tadaman

I've not been affected by ISIL, except the beheading of 2 fellow Brits.

The IRA killed many, many more.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Well thank God its not more prevalent. You have to ask yourself what a Caliphate founded in violent conquest will be to its European neighbors in the future. Look to history for context.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: tadaman

I've not been affected by ISIL, except the beheading of 2 fellow Brits.

The IRA killed many, many more.

Many more have been killed in the UK by the IRA than ISIS

Both are wrong but I have to question the responses to both groups given there own actions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

They have to date murdered anyone and everyone who has not fallen immediately and completely in line with them (or taken the women and raped them) - Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Yazidis, Christians, and anyone and everyone else that is not their own narrow and specific brand of Islam. They have also blown up and otherwise desecrated the Holy places of the same groups.

So we're told, so we're told. First rule of propaganda, paint thy enemy in the worse light possible. If they are that bad, what is the attraction for so many?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Its not exactly an attraction. It is more about survival instinct and self preservation. If armed men enter your home or town you will do everything they say. Its human nature. Its not like African child soldiers believe in the causes they are made to fight for. People just dont like to die.

EDIT TO ADD:
Most people just want to live a happy life. Even the most ardent believers in God just want to live a happy life, have children and have a couple years of peace in their old age. Everything else is done by temporal men vying for temporal political power.

Most people know that God doesnt care if the world is Islamic, Christian, or Jedi. In their minds and hearts, God is just conducive for them towards being good people. Human spirituality is false beyond the self and ones own actions.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Well thank God its not more prevalent. You have to ask yourself what a Caliphate founded in violent conquest will be to its European neighbors in the future. Look to history for context.

If they venture into my Country I will stand up and fight. That includes any of these so called sleeper cells, I will honestly stand up and fight.

To understand the mess of the Middle East and it's sectarian divisions, you are much better off staying out of it. Oh, hang on we can't, we need the oil.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Well thank God its not more prevalent. You have to ask yourself what a Caliphate founded in violent conquest will be to its European neighbors in the future. Look to history for context.

If they venture into my Country I will stand up and fight. That includes any of these so called sleeper cells, I will honestly stand up and fight.

To understand the mess of the Middle East and it's sectarian divisions, you are much better off staying out of it. Oh, hang on we can't, we need the oil.

So you are ready for a fight then?

And I imagine you are armed and ready to do so?

a reply to: tadaman

Do you honestly believe the people being affected by ISIL, really care about you and if it was turned on it's head, they would consider in helping you in your plight?

You seem to be reeling off what the MSM is spouting. That's understandable and I appreciate they paint a scary picture, damn they paint a picture so terrifying, you couldn't possibly put them in the same category as any other terrorist organisation.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I agree with you. Its better to stay out of it if possible. As far as the oil, that is a huge factor but the driving force is global stability. Not having a secure line of resources for the world will throw us into regional wars globally for resources every body needs.

Can you imagine what you would do if your children are starving and you look out the window and see your neighbors house has cows, chickens, and a barn full of grain? What if he just wouldn't sell you anything because you are not of his particular faith? Or if he would ask for your home in exchange for a few meals?

Some places have almost no resources. They either trade well, or have good armies. No one just lays down to die.
In the interest of global peace we need for vital resources to flow freely. If not someone will just take them out of desperation.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I dont really understand what you are saying here. I dont really care about them either. I cant and would be a liar if I pretended to. I wont even hide that. I want them to be prosperous so they dont need to resort to extreme reactions to our prosperity. I think this has become a serious threat to our people in the west and everyone globally. I would like to see it come to an end. Its too dangerous to exist. ISIS and every other branch of extremist religions has to be killed dead. No one can win an ideological war and we shouldnt even play that game. Its just a contest of who argues BS better. We need to kill the people who kill others until they are all dead. Simply put.

a reply to: tadaman

Remember when we never had these problems? Me too, good old Saddam, why did we take him out again? Oh yeah, axis of evil, 9/11 et al.

We reap what we sow, all those hollering for his downfall, where are they now?

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Well thank God its not more prevalent. You have to ask yourself what a Caliphate founded in violent conquest will be to its European neighbors in the future. Look to history for context.

If they venture into my Country I will stand up and fight. That includes any of these so called sleeper cells, I will honestly stand up and fight.

To understand the mess of the Middle East and it's sectarian divisions, you are much better off staying out of it. Oh, hang on we can't, we need the oil.

So you are ready for a fight then?

And I imagine you are armed and ready to do so?

I cannot confirm or deny any of what you ask, I live in the U.K. South West, just like you.

I completely agree that the public perceives groups differently, such as the IRA and ISIS, at least in America. I am not sure about how these groups are perceived across Europe, although the most disdain for the IRA is likely to be found in Britain. So what I will say below will be from the perspective of an American. A super-cool American, I hope you will forgive me for saying. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are not the only Middle Eastern terrorist groups, or Muslim extremist groups, who exist in that part of the world, yet they are the only ones that have been pursued by the US and its allies. I feel that this is because these groups have directly threatened American and allied nations, as well as the fact that they possessed the determination and means to carry out such attacks.

Other terrorist organizations are labelled as such, but them not having the direct motivation to attack westerners, or not possessing the means or the support and intelligence networks necessary for such a feat, means they are not a priority target. Obviously the US does not have a problem with terrorist organizations if those organizations serve some purpose that benefits the US, granted that they do not attack allied nations. So it must be said that there could be an ulterior motive involved, and that we are attacking certain groups precisely because there is something to be gained. I mean if we wanted to secure ourselves against terrorists, and only that, we could secure the borders and spend all the military funds within America, and our goals could be achieved. So it would be difficult to argue that we are doing this solely to protect ourselves.

As far as groups like the IRA are concerned, they are definitely terrorist organizations, but they pose no direct threat to America, although the threat was technically to an allied nation. But given that the group in question exists within Britain, America would not engage the IRA anyway, unless invited to do so by Britain, which would not happen. The nations where terrorists are being attacked now can be attacked precisely because there is no government to say it cannot be done. There is not really any threat posed by a nation itself, except maybe Syria, but by themselves they cannot stand up to the US military, even with the US military in the state in which it currently finds itself. It is not at peak performance by any stretch of the imagination. We're coming off of two wars, have spent trillions of dollars, have worn out weapons systems, have depleted stockpiles of military hardware such as ammunition, bombs, and missiles, have numerous enemies, have a number of incompetent military leaders, face advancing hardware and technology from nations that could be future enemies, among many other things that are bad for the military and the nation. I have not really answered you question sufficiently, to be honest, and it is probably a combination of the things I've mentioned. Politics. Is it ever really right vs. wrong, or terrorists vs. the good guys?

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I completely agree that the public perceives groups differently, such as the IRA and ISIS, at least in America. I am not sure about how these groups are perceived across Europe, although the most disdain for the IRA is likely to be found in Britain. So what I will say below will be from the perspective of an American. A super-cool American, I hope you will forgive me for saying. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are not the only Middle Eastern terrorist groups, or Muslim extremist groups, who exist in that part of the world, yet they are the only ones that have been pursued by the US and its allies. I feel that this is because these groups have directly threatened American and allied nations, as well as the fact that they possessed the determination and means to carry out such attacks.

Other terrorist organizations are labelled as such, but them not having the direct motivation to attack westerners, or not possessing the means or the support and intelligence networks necessary for such a feat, means they are not a priority target. Obviously the US does not have a problem with terrorist organizations if those organizations serve some purpose that benefits the US, granted that they do not attack allied nations. So it must be said that there could be an ulterior motive involved, and that we are attacking certain groups precisely because there is something to be gained. I mean if we wanted to secure ourselves against terrorists, and only that, we could secure the borders and spend all the military funds within America, and our goals could be achieved. So it would be difficult to argue that we are doing this solely to protect ourselves.

As far as groups like the IRA are concerned, they are definitely terrorist organizations, but they pose no direct threat to America, although the threat was technically to an allied nation. But given that the group in question exists within Britain, America would not engage the IRA anyway, unless invited to do so by Britain, which would not happen. The nations where terrorists are being attacked now can be attacked precisely because there is no government to say it cannot be done. There is not really any threat posed by a nation itself, except maybe Syria, but by themselves they cannot stand up to the US military, even with the US military in the state in which it currently finds itself. It is not at peak performance by any stretch of the imagination. We're coming off of two wars, have spent trillions of dollars, have worn out weapons systems, have depleted stockpiles of military hardware such as ammunition, bombs, and missiles, have numerous enemies, have a number of incompetent military leaders, face advancing hardware and technology from nations that could be future enemies, among many other things that are bad for the military and the nation. I have not really answered you question sufficiently, to be honest, and it is probably a combination of the things I've mentioned. Politics. Is it ever really right vs. wrong, or terrorists vs. the good guys?

Thanks for a hefty reply.

Do you actaully beleive that ISIS will commit acts of terrorism in the United States?

Other than a small scale isolated incident do you beleive they are big enough to actually make a large scale attack on your country whilst fighting the war in there own country?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yeah man, Saddam was crazy and wrong but there werent any extremist organizations in Iraq. Maybe I am missing the bigger picture and some other threat that other more well versed and insightful people saw coming. I think that it was just bad government on our part. To this day I hate Bush Co. (same as Obama Co.) for setting into motion a chain of events that will take centuries to undo.

They played their hand greedily and stupidly IMO. Proxy warfare of the cold war era was more sane and balanced, even though it was what it was. There was a foreseeable future no matter what. Now, its all up in the air. And to think its all for more wealth and influence that they dont even need. Money, power, BS.

I wish we had scientists and engineers in government who would get ours and their collective kicks from being freaking Titans. Moon colonies, mars outposts, longer life spans and better medicine, better education and a new golden era of spiritual and scientific discovery going hand in hand, collective efforts for greatness, ect.

This is just dumb and wasteful.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Jiggy, with the utmost respect, you are talking nonsense.

Now I have never had any beef with you, but just because some terrorist organisation has the Gaul to stand up to the U.S, does not, NOT, make them any more or less of a terrorist organisation.

The problems in Ireland are well documented and they deservedly gained their independence from the U.K, with the exception of a portion, mainly Protestant portion In the North.

As a consequence, they pledged allegiance to the U.K, with the exception of the Catholics living in the North. Now, the Catholics were treated harshly, some May say like second class citizens.

One day the catholic elements in the North decided enough was enough and the whole of Ireland should be integrated. Violence erupted and the British Government were particularly brutal towards the catholic elements, as these were the element that was causing most problems to the Government.

A referendum was called and as a result, the North decided that it would remain as part of Great Britain. The catholic elements had to like it or lump it and they would continue to be treated the way they were. Unhappy with this the catholic elements decided enough was enough and that the only way they felt they would be listened to, was to result to terrorism. The ideology was honourable to the Catholics who felt they were being treated as second class, and they assisted these terrorists in their actions. This included killing anybody who got in the way of their bombs. Bombs they cowardly planted and ran away from, never to be identified.

Now take ISIL, the Saudis funded them in the hope they would get rid of the regime in Syria and Iraq, regimes they were against. The organisation was protected by the Saudis, U.S Allies for quite a while, then they became too big to control. They started abducting westerners and killing them. They posted videos of this in order to Instil terror into everyday western folk, by executing everyday western folk. The terror of knowing it could be you there, the absolute horror of realising this and the foreign way in which they do this in the name of their God, it's repulsive because we have been brought up mainly with Christian values. Values which are poles apart from theirs.

Both organisations killed/kill innocent people in horrific ways. They both have ideologies that went against the consensus. Religion plays a part in both terrorist organisations and the IRA trained with fundamentalists and were armed by fundamentalists in the 80's.

There aren't any good terrorists, never have been, but if you are willing to negotiate with one group, you have to negotiate with the other.

I guess what I Am really saying is that the Middle East's problems are the Middle East's problems, but we decided to become embroiled in the region and as a consequence, any of kin in the region will become targets.

Damn, the MSM have built them up to be such a terrifying organisation they have given them credence.

The fear and perception that they are Europe's doorstep has been built by the MSM, maybe under the instruction of our Governments, because all of a sudden they have intercepted a terrorist attack in Australia and the U.K.

Can anybody honestly not remember there not being a bogey man? Back in the day it was the USSR, then that broke down. It then became Saddam Hussein, then we took him out. Then it was Iran, North Korea and Mad Dog Gadaffi.

There's always a bogey man, there always has to be to keep us in our servitude. If there wasn't we would see who the real bogey man is wouldn't we?