Boots on the ground in Syria?
...
(and that's not just because Africa has more people than Europe).

Eh? Syria isn't in Africa...

I think it's a little weird to lump Lockerbie under the same heading as the recent Islamist attacks.

So you're saying that the chart is in error or flawed then?

No, not really - the chart just talks about terror attacks.

I think it is flawed to draw the conclusion from the chart that Lockerbie is in the same category as Daesh/related attacks.

Boots on the ground in Syria?
...
(and that's not just because Africa has more people than Europe).

Eh? Syria isn't in Africa...

No it isn't, but virtually all IS fighters come from northern Africa.

The Syrians are "Emirs" and the north Africans are the fighters. They come, a thousand per day, they go through the training camp, then go to the front, and die within a day or two. Dogs eat their bodies. New ones come the next day. They don't even have proper names, they get names like "the Maroc".

Hence "population count of Africa" is what matters.

Seeing how many of the terrorists are actually european (some of near east or african origin, still europeans), the fugitives shouldn't be blamed for that.

If anything, the fugitives and the higher danger of terrorist attacks share a common cause: the current situation in syria. Without the ISIS pumping money into terrorist cells, and giving them a reason to do their bombings, I am pretty sure the terrorism in europe would go back to the usual level.

Boots on the ground in Syria, and a quick ending to ISIS is what is needed now. And for that, the EU and the NATO need to play an active role, and the US might need to do more than just air attacks. But really, this time the europeans have the strongest fallout to weather apart from the neighbouring arabian states, so its the europeans that should be the msot active here.

I am sure, if the NATO and Russia would start to sit on a table once again, and REALLY sit down to plan a common operation, splitting Syria into a part where the NATO should be responsible (the non-Assad controlled territory), and a part where the russians would be (Assad controlled territory), and leaving the Iraq to the US and NATO, you might be able to find a way how both sides could work together, even if only for the brief time needed to eliminate the ISIS.

It is extremly sad that the neighbouring countries do not seem to be able, or even willing to help solve to problem in a really meaningful way, with saudi arabia rather excalating their feud with the iran than really fighting the ISIS (somebody fears that his place as the wests best friend in the arabian world might be overtaken?)... even then, trying once again to get help from the neighbouring states, even IF just so they stop financing the ISIS over shady channels would help of course.

Get back ISIS territory, kill all ISIS mercenaries where ever you find them (hopefully the international ISIS fighters are among them so they cannot return), stick the western ISIS fighters that didn't got killed into jail for a long time (I would court martial them, they should be treated as soldiers that commited high treason, but then people don't like things run in military way, I accept that). Find all the sources of financing that ISIS had, and shut them down.

Really step on the feet of arabian states that supported the ISIS in some way.

... then maybe, MAYBE there would be a valid chance to get stability back to the region, for real peace talks in Syria (because there is no longer the easy excuse of having to fight the ISIS). THAT might make the current problems in europe solve itself...

But of course, most countries will now start to build up police states, try to push fugitives out of their country, and start to vote for the extreme right. Lets revive the bush-era here in europe. Because reading all the e-mails of your citizens will certainly make us all feel way more secure :)

No it isn't, but virtually all IS fighters come from northern Africa.



The Syrians are "Emirs" and the north Africans are the fighters. They come, a thousand per day, they go through the training camp, then go to the front, and die within a day or two. Dogs eat their bodies. New ones come the next day. They don't even have proper names, they get names like "the Maroc".

Hence "population count of Africa" is what matters.

Well, the core of the ISIS fighters AFAIK are still from Chechnya... a "part of russia" that is full of terrorist/freedom fighters (depending if you go with the official russian way to see things), which happen to be muslims (and after what they had to suffer in the war with russia and after that, a lot might have turned into islamists just as a contrast to the christian russians).

These allegedly are extremly professional mercenaries, and were part of ISIS from day one. And most probably on of the reasons why russia has a big interest in the conflict.

I think Americans often fail to comprehend just how very, very long Europeans have lived with the threat of terror attacks. For many Americans (particularly in my generation, i.e. under 30's) terror attacks on their own country's soil didn't become a fact of life until the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

By contrast, when I was a kid in England in the 90's, I remember hearing about terror attacks on the news with chilling regularity. There were IRA attacks in the UK every few months for most of my childhood. Attacks in Spain by the Basque Separatist movement. Neo-nazi attacks in Austria and Sweden. Marxists in Greece. Algerian groups in France. Militant Leftists and the Mafia in Italy. The list goes on...

When you've grown up in an environment where the threat of terror attacks is just a fact of life, they don't have the same ability to instill fear. Terror attacks are horrifying, but you've always known that the next time you step on the London Underground could be the last... You can't let it rule your life, you get on with your shit, and trust the authorities to keep you safe - their lives are on the line every bit as much as yours, and more.

Relevant to the above post: https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/712350739939643392

The majority of those European Attacks were by groups such as the IRA and ETA. These groups operated in an entirely different way than modern terrorists such as Daesh.
The IRA and ETAs main targets were military and security forces. There were civilian casualties but, these were usually seen by the terrorists as collateral damage. Later when the IRA started targeting economic targets they usually phoned in coded messages so that civilians could be evacuated from the area.

Unless you were in the military or government or worked close to them you weren't really a target for the 80s or 90s European terrorist groups. Now the modern Islamic terrorists are an entirely different kettle of fish. These are groups who deliberatly go out to deliberately harm civilians centres of population to cause as much panic as possible.

Unless you were in the military or government or worked close to them you weren't really a target for the 80s or 90s European terrorist groups.

That is not really true. Especially the IRA (or directly related (sub)groups) were guilty of several murders of people suspected to be British informants/collaborators, some of whom were definitely innocent but still killed. Including women of young children.
And even that is not really helpful to you when you are dead because a bomb went off too early. Or the bullet sprayed towards security forces accidentally went through you. Or the bank robbery to refresh the cash reserves went messy. Or you happened to be in the way during the car chase.

Now the modern Islamic terrorists are an entirely different kettle of fish. These are groups who deliberatly go out to deliberately harm civilians centres of population to cause as much panic as possible.

I won't argue the current breed of terrorists there is a bloodthirsty lot but I'm also very unwilling to let off domestic terrorism (ETA, IRA, RAF, whoever I'm missing) that easily. In some way they feel even worse to me despite the lower body count because they attack their own people.
At least with Daesh you can argue they are attacking a hostile force through economic means. That's a point of view I can absolutely not agree with but according to some horrifying fragments I read in that now closed Trump-thread there are several people on this board who find it entirely okay to kill civilians just because they happen to work in the territory of their enemy. Not even as an accidental by-product, but deliberately. They probably meant "it's only okay if we do that to others", not the other way around but I don't really see the difference here.

I'm in no mood for long texts or more quotes but in my mind getting "boots on the ground in Syria" is going to be very counterproductive. It's playing right into Daesh's crusader rhetoric of the West and basically does what they currently try to goad the West into.

Unless you were in the military or government or worked close to them you weren't really a target for the 80s or 90s European terrorist groups.

That is not really true. Especially the IRA (or directly related (sub)groups) were guilty of several murders of people suspected to be British informants/collaborators, some of whom were definitely innocent but still killed. Including women of young children.
And even that is not really helpful to you when you are dead because a bomb went off too early. Or the bullet sprayed towards security forces accidentally went through you. Or the bank robbery to refresh the cash reserves went messy. Or you happened to be in the way during the car chase.

Now the modern Islamic terrorists are an entirely different kettle of fish. These are groups who deliberatly go out to deliberately harm civilians centres of population to cause as much panic as possible.

I won't argue the current breed of terrorists there is a bloodthirsty lot but I'm also very unwilling to let off domestic terrorism (ETA, IRA, RAF, whoever I'm missing) that easily. In some way they feel even worse to me despite the lower body count because they attack their own people.
At least with Daesh you can argue they are attacking a hostile force through economic means. That's a point of view I can absolutely not agree with but according to some horrifying fragments I read in that now closed Trump-thread there are several people on this board who find it entirely okay to kill civilians just because they happen to work in the territory of their enemy. Not even as an accidental by-product, but deliberately. They probably meant "it's only okay if we do that to others", not the other way around but I don't really see the difference here.

I'm in no mood for long texts or more quotes but in my mind getting "boots on the ground in Syria" is going to be very counterproductive. It's playing right into Daesh's crusader rhetoric of the West and basically does what they currently try to goad the West into.

Well it's a situation that doesn't have perfect solutions (ISIS I mean). I think that the current approach is do some airstrikes where they can't really hit us back and hope that the problem goes away on its own. (Tho to be fair there are special forces all over the area). Could it go away on its own? Maybe, but at the same time, you've got a pseudo country-state/totalitarian regime type thing that is going to strengthen itself more and more as time goes by. The local armies/fighter groups have made some progress, but ultimately that progress has been slow and pretty minimal. Fighting ISIS on the ground is not going to be easy by any means, and ultimately it comes back to the issues that most Democratic nations have with war: when the death toll on our troops mount, the people don't want to continue the war, which can lead to a premature withdrawal. The longer the war lasts, the more likely that is to be. Make no mistake, this would be a very long and bloody operation with boots on the ground. However, if the operation goes through and runs for as long as it should, it would certainly work because ultimately Western militaries are more superior to ISIS. It's more a question of having more determination than the other guy.

Let's not talk about that least we end up getting into something that leads to another constructive discussion being closed.

That is not really true. Especially the IRA (or directly related (sub)groups) were guilty of several murders of people suspected to be British informants/collaborators, some of whom were definitely innocent but still killed. Including women of young children.
And even that is not really helpful to you when you are dead because a bomb went off too early. Or the bullet sprayed towards security forces accidentally went through you. Or the bank robbery to refresh the cash reserves went messy. Or you happened to be in the way during the car chase.

But my point is they still didn't go out and indiscriminately target civilians and there was no reason for the average citizen in the UK to be scared of being blown up. Unlike Daesh who deliberately target civillians. Both are bad groups of people but, one group is much more scary than the other.

Let's not talk about that least we end up getting into something that leads to another constructive discussion being closed.

I don't see why. In that thread I'm talking about I have seen several people express opinions which would allow me to immediately excuse what Daesh has done in Brussels as completely legitimate and okay (maybe switch a actor and target in a few places and replace drone-based bombs by people-based bombs). I'm pretty sure I have seen several of those people express shock and anger in this thread though. If we cannot talk about that hypocrisy then it might be better not to talk about the issue at all.

Let's not talk about that least we end up getting into something that leads to another constructive discussion being closed.

I don't see why. In that thread I'm talking about I have seen several people express opinions which would allow me to immediately excuse what Daesh has done in Brussels as completely legitimate and okay (maybe switch a actor and target in a few places and replace drone-based bombs by people-based bombs). I'm pretty sure I have seen several of those people express shock and anger in this thread though. If we cannot talk about that hypocrisy then it might be better not to talk about the issue at all.

Sorry, I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek (a joke). I should've been a bit more expressive I guess.