You are constantly downplaying Boko Haram when in reality they are not that different from ISIS. They are just as dangerous and have the same goals. What makes you think destroying ISIS leadership will make them crumble. Last I checked we took out a lot of al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership and there are still plenty of them running around too. The founder of Boko Haram (Mohammed Yusuf) was captured and executed back in 2009 and a new leader stepped up. I would say that Boko Haram has become even more dangerous since their founder was killed.

 

While I don't think we should just sit back and watch I also don't think sending troops back into Iraq will accomplish anything in the long run, it will just be another waste of American money and lives.

Because Boko Haram is nothing more than another sect of IS. Since IS formed, they are forcing any other Islamic group to form under the IS banner. That is why Hamas is "at a crisis", as the world news calls it. They don't want to join IS, but IS is threatening them. 

 

Combine battling IS on the ground, and also hunting their leadership will prove effective. That is why Al-Qaeda is in disarray right now. Right after we got bin Laden, al-Qaeda occasionally managed to pull off an attack, but nothing like before; they were limping. However, now, they state to be under the IS banner. It's no longer al-Qaeda, AND Boko Haram, AND the Taliban, AND Hamas, AND Hezbollah, etc. It's now IS. THEY, are the Islamic extremist group in the ME. 

 

The reason Boko Haram managed to stay strong, is because we never "went after them". Their leader was caught and executed. No blow was dealt to them, as a whole. 

 

I was talking to a muslim chaplain about this, and he compared it to the American Revolution- We started fighting as individual colonies with no leadership, and we were failing horrible. As soon as we became united and fought together, we gained ground. 

 

For the first time, IS is providing leadership to ALL the Islamic Extremist groups. They're working "together" so to speak. The fact that IS has taken over whole parts of countries, is alarming. The armies aren't able to fight them effectively, and will continue to lose their ground. Could you imagine if IS managed to topple the governments of Iraq or Syria? Then it may be too late to act effectively.

 

I'm not suggesting that the US goes all blitzkrieg on the ME, but other countries should stand up to this. This isn't just the US being "attacked". France has, UK has, Canada has. It's only going to get worse.  It should be much more of a coalition than Iraq was, these countries should take a stand for themselves. I realize most of Europe is fairly liberal, and more of a pacifist, but something needs to be done.

 

I wish the US still embraced Big Stick diplomacy.

Because Boko Haram is nothing more than another sect of IS. Since IS formed, they are forcing any other Islamic group to form under the IS banner. That is why Hamas is "at a crisis", as the world news calls it. They don't want to join IS, but IS is threatening them. 

 

Combine battling IS on the ground, and also hunting their leadership will prove effective. That is why Al-Qaeda is in disarray right now. Right after we got bin Laden, al-Qaeda occasionally managed to pull off an attack, but nothing like before; they were limping. However, now, they state to be under the IS banner. It's no longer al-Qaeda, AND Boko Haram, AND the Taliban, AND Hamas, AND Hezbollah, etc. It's now IS. THEY, are the Islamic extremist group in the ME. 

 

The reason Boko Haram managed to stay strong, is because we never "went after them". Their leader was caught and executed. No blow was dealt to them, as a whole. 

 

I was talking to a muslim chaplain about this, and he compared it to the American Revolution- We started fighting as individual colonies with no leadership, and we were failing horrible. As soon as we became united and fought together, we gained ground. 

 

For the first time, IS is providing leadership to ALL the Islamic Extremist groups. They're working "together" so to speak. The fact that IS has taken over whole parts of countries, is alarming. The armies aren't able to fight them effectively, and will continue to lose their ground. Could you imagine if IS managed to topple the governments of Iraq or Syria? Then it may be too late to act effectively.

 

I'm not suggesting that the US goes all blitzkrieg on the ME, but other countries should stand up to this. This isn't just the US being "attacked". France has, UK has, Canada has. It's only going to get worse.  It should be much more of a coalition than Iraq was, these countries should take a stand for themselves. I realize most of Europe is fairly liberal, and more of a pacifist, but something needs to be done.

 

I wish the US still embraced Big Stick diplomacy.

 

Actually you are wrong about that. While Boko Haram share the same beliefs they are completely separate groups. I am not sure where you heard that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are under the IS banner. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are actually fighting against IS. They broke away from al-Qaeda last year and al-Qaeda has been fighting them since because al-Qaeda even thinks they are too extreme. I don't know where you are getting information that they are providing leadership to all Islamic extremist groups but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are only a handful of extremist groups that want to associate with ISIS, most of them believe they are too extreme and have actually been fighting against ISIS.

 

Referencing the American Revolution and Big Stick diplomacy is great but those were from a time when we fought actual countries with conventional armies. You can't exactly have diplomacy with a terrorist organization, they don't care about diplomacy. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with big sticks and very little was accomplished.

 

These attacks against the US, France, and other countries were carried out by lone wolves, they were not organized by any leadership from an extremist group. These kinds of attacks are extremely difficult to predict and prevent. We could go into the middle east and Africa and wipe out every last Islamic extremist group but there will always be individuals who are upset and want to take action against the west. Those are the people who will decide to grab a rifle and kill as many people as they can without warning. Those kinds of people might be inspired by groups such as ISIS but that doesn't mean killing ISIS will stop those attacks from happening.

Edited February 6, 201511 yr by l3ubba

Actually you are wrong about that. While Boko Haram share the same beliefs they are completely separate groups. I am not sure where you heard that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are under the IS banner. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are actually fighting against IS. They broke away from al-Qaeda last year and al-Qaeda has been fighting them since because al-Qaeda even thinks they are too extreme. I don't know where you are getting information that they are providing leadership to all Islamic extremist groups but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are only a handful of extremist groups that want to associate with ISIS, most of them believe they are too extreme and have actually been fighting against ISIS.

 

Referencing the American Revolution and Big Stick diplomacy is great but those were from a time when we fought actual countries with conventional armies. You can't exactly have diplomacy with a terrorist organization, they don't care about diplomacy. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with big sticks and very little was accomplished.

 

These attacks against the US, France, and other countries were carried out by lone wolves, they were not organized by any leadership from an extremist group. These kinds of attacks are extremely difficult to predict and prevent. We could go into the middle east and Africa and wipe out every last Islamic extremist group but there will always be individuals who are upset and want to take action against the west. Those are the people who will decide to grab a rifle and kill as many people as they can without warning. Those kinds of people might be inspired by groups such as ISIS but that doesn't mean killing ISIS will stop those attacks from happening.

You are right about al-Qaeda and IS. I was unaware they had divorced. Although, I'm willing to lump Boko Haram in with IS. They are both claiming land for the "Islamic Caliphate". While not openly stating they've hitched up with IS, I'm willing to believe they are mutually together. 

 

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, who's to say that the American's, back in the 1700s, weren't terrorists? We tarred and feathered loyalists, and treated them cruelly. We used tactics that, at that time, were considered barbaric. We weren't really a country at that point, either. That is almost exactly what IS is doing, but just using religion to justify. They're fighting for a cause, using unconventional, "barbaric" tactics, and cruelly treating those who don't support them. 

 

And while these attacks weren't directly caused by IS, they have heavily influenced it. And yes, one can argue that IS's ideology can never be put down, it's also true that when there is no powerful extremist group, domestic attacks motivated by Islamic extremism were scarce. There was no group or cause to rally behind. Almost like with "cop-hating" in the US. 5 years ago, people hated cops, yes, but they didn't openly spew that out, or rally against them. Now with the recent situations, there's a cause and group to rally behind, which is pulling all the "cop-haters" out of the woodwork. Basically, my point is when there isn't a major group in the ME, there ideology isn't as strong in the Western world. Although proven recently, it is debatable both ways. 

Actually you are wrong about that. While Boko Haram share the same beliefs they are completely separate groups. I am not sure where you heard that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are under the IS banner. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are actually fighting against IS. They broke away from al-Qaeda last year and al-Qaeda has been fighting them since because al-Qaeda even thinks they are too extreme. I don't know where you are getting information that they are providing leadership to all Islamic extremist groups but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are only a handful of extremist groups that want to associate with ISIS, most of them believe they are too extreme and have actually been fighting against ISIS.

 

Referencing the American Revolution and Big Stick diplomacy is great but those were from a time when we fought actual countries with conventional armies. You can't exactly have diplomacy with a terrorist organization, they don't care about diplomacy. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with big sticks and very little was accomplished.

 

These attacks against the US, France, and other countries were carried out by lone wolves, they were not organized by any leadership from an extremist group. These kinds of attacks are extremely difficult to predict and prevent. We could go into the middle east and Africa and wipe out every last Islamic extremist group but there will always be individuals who are upset and want to take action against the west. Those are the people who will decide to grab a rifle and kill as many people as they can without warning. Those kinds of people might be inspired by groups such as ISIS but that doesn't mean killing ISIS will stop those attacks from happening.

Out of curiosity how do you know for certain that these terrorist attacks aren't organized by ISIS leaders?

You are right about al-Qaeda and IS. I was unaware they had divorced. Although, I'm willing to lump Boko Haram in with IS. They are both claiming land for the "Islamic Caliphate". While not openly stating they've hitched up with IS, I'm willing to believe they are mutually together. 

 

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, who's to say that the American's, back in the 1700s, weren't terrorists? We tarred and feathered loyalists, and treated them cruelly. We used tactics that, at that time, were considered barbaric. We weren't really a country at that point, either. That is almost exactly what IS is doing, but just using religion to justify. They're fighting for a cause, using unconventional, "barbaric" tactics, and cruelly treating those who don't support them. 

 

And while these attacks weren't directly caused by IS, they have heavily influenced it. And yes, one can argue that IS's ideology can never be put down, it's also true that when there is no powerful extremist group, domestic attacks motivated by Islamic extremism were scarce. There was no group or cause to rally behind. Almost like with "cop-hating" in the US. 5 years ago, people hated cops, yes, but they didn't openly spew that out, or rally against them. Now with the recent situations, there's a cause and group to rally behind, which is pulling all the "cop-haters" out of the woodwork. Basically, my point is when there isn't a major group in the ME, there ideology isn't as strong in the Western world. Although proven recently, it is debatable both ways. 

That is not true at all. There have been plenty of attacks conducted since the 1960s. Just like there has been lots of "cop hating" since before 5 years ago and people did openly state how they felt about police and people did direct attacks toward police just for being police officers. What do you think the L.A. riots were about? The only difference between then and now is that either the media is covering it more and more and/or people are just don't know enough (or just forgot) about what has happened in the past.

 

Out of curiosity how do you know for certain that these terrorist attacks aren't organized by ISIS leaders?

Through the investigations and intelligence that comes out. Leaders of groups such as ISIS and other violent extremist organizations (VEOs) encourage and praise lone wolf attacks, but they are too busy conducting larger operations in the middle east or where ever they are located to plan, finance, and execute small scale attacks especially when there are lots of people out there willing to do it on their own. This doesn't mean that killing leaders or completely destroying these VEOs will stop the lone wolf attacks. The ideology is already established and there will always be people upset about something. Unfortunately lone wolf attacks are difficult to predict and prevent, that is why they are becoming more and more popular. They are usually very simple to plan and conduct and can be done so in manners that are very hard to detect.

That is not true at all. There have been plenty of attacks conducted since the 1960s. Just like there has been lots of "cop hating" since before 5 years ago and people did openly state how they felt about police and people did direct attacks toward police just for being police officers. What do you think the L.A. riots were about? The only difference between then and now is that either the media is covering it more and more and/or people are just don't know enough (or just forgot) about what has happened in the past.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. I never said they don't happen. But the frequency with which they happen are few and far between. But when there is a group or event that demands major media attention, or the group makes themselves extremely public, the ideas and beliefs spread like wild fire.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. I never said they don't happen. But the frequency with which they happen are few and far between. But when there is a group or event that demands major media attention, or the group makes themselves extremely public, the ideas and beliefs spread like wild fire.

 

No, the frequency was just as much as it is now. The only difference I can think of between then and now is that these attacks involve fewer and fewer people. Before a group of 5 or 6 people would get together and plan out an attack; now it is usually just one or two people.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. I never said they don't happen. But the frequency with which they happen are few and far between. But when there is a group or event that demands major media attention, or the group makes themselves extremely public, the ideas and beliefs spread like wild fire.

I'd be curious to know if this is backed up by statistics, or if it's just that the banner being applied to attacks makes it seem as though attacks are more frequent than they are. I have seen studies suggesting that a number of things (e.g. suicides) tend to increase when the media covers examples of them, but enhanced media coverage also tends to make people think the rate of something is more than it really is.

It also isn't necessarily accurate to say "these things are under the ISIS banner, so they were inspired by ISIS and wouldn't have happened without it." If you want publicity, and have any sympathy towards ISIS, going under the ISIS banner will increase your publicity.

I'd be curious to know if this is backed up by statistics, or if it's just that the banner being applied to attacks makes it seem as though attacks are more frequent than they are. I have seen studies suggesting that a number of things (e.g. suicides) tend to increase when the media covers examples of them, but enhanced media coverage also tends to make people think the rate of something is more than it really is.

It also isn't necessarily accurate to say "these things are under the ISIS banner, so they were inspired by ISIS and wouldn't have happened without it." If you want publicity, and have any sympathy towards ISIS, going under the ISIS banner will increase your publicity.

 

 

No, the frequency was just as much as it is now. The only difference I can think of between then and now is that these attacks involve fewer and fewer people. Before a group of 5 or 6 people would get together and plan out an attack; now it is usually just one or two people.

From the quick research I've done, since 2002, there have been 8 attacks against Western nations on their soil, inspired by Islamic ideology. In 2014, just off the top of my head, there have been 5 total terror attacks, 2 carried out, 3 foiled by governments. I mean, look at all the Westerners going over to IS and converting to their version of Islam. It was never this bad before. Yes, the media is making it worse, but when IS is able to have Twitter and Facebook accounts, multiple websites, youtube channels run in their name, etc they are spreading their message rather quickly and farther than before. Before IS rose to their current power, and after we killed bin Laden, you rarely heard anything coming out of the ME. The "Call to Islam" was almost nonexistent.

 

As I've said, the belief and ideology will always be there, but unless there is a group with financial and political means to propagate that message, the message will be weak.

From the quick research I've done, since 2002, there have been 8 attacks against Western nations on their soil, inspired by Islamic ideology. In 2014, just off the top of my head, there have been 5 total terror attacks, 2 carried out, 3 foiled by governments. I mean, look at all the Westerners going over to IS and converting to their version of Islam. It was never this bad before. Yes, the media is making it worse, but when IS is able to have Twitter and Facebook accounts, multiple websites, youtube channels run in their name, etc they are spreading their message rather quickly and farther than before. Before IS rose to their current power, and after we killed bin Laden, you rarely heard anything coming out of the ME. The "Call to Islam" was almost nonexistent.

 

As I've said, the belief and ideology will always be there, but unless there is a group with financial and political means to propagate that message, the message will be weak.

 

During your research did you happen to look at anything from the 1960s onwards. There were lots of attacks and hijackings back then. This kind of stuff isn't new, it has been going on for awhile. Only thing that has changed is some of the methods used to carry out attacks, has nothing to do with frequency.

During your research did you happen to look at anything from the 1960s onwards. There were lots of attacks and hijackings back then. This kind of stuff isn't new, it has been going on for awhile. Only thing that has changed is some of the methods used to carry out attacks, has nothing to do with frequency.

Again proves my point, there were major groups and events at that time. You had recent, severe anger at Israel for defeating the Arab armies, and all that anger was directed at the US and western nations for supporting them.

Again proves my point, there were major groups and events at that time. You had recent, severe anger at Israel for defeating the Arab armies, and all that anger was directed at the US and western nations for supporting them.

 

The people that committed most of these attacks did not rally behind an extremist group like many of the people today do, they were upset about what was going on and wanted to do something about it.

 

Bottomline, destroying ISIS will do nothing to stop attacks against the US or any of our allies. And wasting time, money, and American lives in Iraq or Syria will not solve anything. The root of the problem lies within the population of those countries; they don't care about maintaining their country's security. Why should the US be responsible for constantly going into those countries and defending it if the problem is just going to come back in a couple years. I feel like history is just repeating itself, apparently nobody has learned any lessons from the last 2-3 times.