Thursday, November 19, 2015

THE ISLAMIC STATE VS 'US' - THE END GAME

'IS' (the entity) and its constituent parts (ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah et al) has three main stated aims ...  (1) To rid Muslim countries of any and all infidels and (2) The establishment of a world wide Caliphate and (3) The destruction of the State of Israel.

To expand on (2).   In the book 'Islamic Imperialism - A History' (Efriam Karsh, Professor of Mediterranean Studies, King's College, London) it is explained thus .... "As a universal religion Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities.   In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle in the path of Allah or jihad.   This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the house of War) which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph". 

There it is in black and white ... radical Islam's end game.   

I'm not sure you can argue this is the end game of the Muslim community per se which, like Christianity, has many streams and, be very clear, I'm focusing on the terrorist stream.    But what I accept and understand is that this line of reasoning will and does resonate with those Muslims who see themselves marginalized and angry (for whatever reason) and presenting a way for them to hit back at a society whose values are not their values.

So, where to from here?   Not sure I have the answers and I don't think that, right now, the 'West' (wrong word) has them either. There are the short term expedients ranging from the provision of training support to national armies which, at best, has only been marginally effective but really falls into the 'seen to be doing something' category through to the unleashing of air-power designed (I guess) to bomb 'them' into submission. Problem is 'submission' is a word not readily understood by radical Islam ... all it does is beget martyrs who, in turn, beget more martyrs.

But, if you accept that radical Islam is a cancer then what you need to do is to isolate and destroy the cancer.   For those countries that are seen to harbour and nurture terrorism perhaps the answer is to isolate them in a cordon sanitaire much like that used to contain the Ebola virus.    Let nothing but nothing in, except under strict international control, and the same going out (especially oil) until you can be sure the people themselves have dealt to the extremists in their society.    It would of course require an unprecedented amount of international cooperation and considerable resources to achieve this acknowledging there will always be elements (countries/people) looking to break the embargo to suit their own purposes.    Has the international community the will/stomach to attempt this?    It would be breaking new ground and this in itself creates new problems.   Unfortunately I suspect there will have to be more 'Paris' type massacres before the world community would consider such a paradigm shift.

What I do know is that within individual countries there is a need for enhanced and greater surveillance to order to anticipate terrorist threats.   Dr Shearer made the point that agencies need to work alongside the Muslim community.   Fine as far as it goes but that's not the complete answer because for some in these communities it will be a case of 'Omerta' maybe coupled with a (misguided) sense of loyalty to fellow Muslims.   Increased surveillance will attract opposition.   It may infringe on civil liberties as we know them.  Tough .... it's war. Persons deemed a threat should be incarcerated in the same way as foreign aliens were during the wars and, if we need our own version of Regulation 18b (the Regulation used to intern members of the BUF during WW2), then that's OK with me too.   Where those assessed to be a threat are non-citizens they should be deported quick smart from whence they came under the provisions of s163 of the Immigration Act 2009.

But overlaying all that there MUST be a concerted effort to convince our own Muslim community this is NOT directed against them as Muslims.   It is directed against those who choose to be terrorists.   Further, that it is in their interest we work together to defeat terrorism acknowledging they need to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

I can hear the naysayers from where I sit.   Stiff s**t, if you're going to pan this post then at least have the courtesy to put forward your own solutions in order for them to be critically debated because solutions are needed and needed now and not later when it may be too late.


28 comments:

JC said...

You missed Step One.. "The identification, isolation and rendering harmless all those citizens who would seek to identify, isolate and render harmless all the following anti-terrorism steps...:)

JC

Noel said...

Stats on Isis/Isil fighters from other countries offer some hints.
On a per capita basis and numbers deployed no surprises Belgium and France lead the charge.

I hope Australia is taking note of all the variables that produced that outcome.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

It might not be a bad start to do as France is doing and seek a formal declaration of war against IS or whatever it's nom du jour might be.

Then it might be easier to shoot the Lichtbaus, Rizens, Kellers, Assanges and Snowdens who willfully gave away our vital intelligence secrets to the enemy.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

The savages are being sent some useful messages. Russia has said 'For every one of our civilian aircraft you attack, we will send you 27 fully loaded heavy bombers, from Russia with love.

France has said 'For every attack on French civilians we will send you another aircraft carrier.'

Obama has said 'Should you dare to attack the United States we will immediately retaliate by negotiating. We will give you everything you want and ask for nothing tangible in return. Just ask Iran.'

The Veteran said...

Adolf ... understand your (and Putin's sentiments) but the use of air-power to bomb 'them' back into the stone-age ain't, IMHO, a long term solution as it creates martyrs and what IS loves is martyrs. In addition, there have been any number of studies done that go to show that mass bombing campaigns strengthens the resolve of those being bombed (UK and Germany in WW2 and North Vietnam in the 60s and 70s). In the case of North Vietnam they went to the negotiating table in the knowledge that the US had lost its appetite for the war and that they could sign anything knowing that if they broke it the US would not intervene to save the South ... as so it was.

If we are to defeat IS abroad then we need to think outside the square and that is what I have attempted to do. As for our home grown variety and we have to put faith in our intelligence agencies to do the job they are paid big (and increasing) bucks to do ... and access to Five Eyes and Echelon are important elements in the equation.

I know this gets me offside with some but I repeat again, we cannot be seen as fighting a religion. We are fighting terrorists who have chosen to pervert their religion. Winning the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim community is right up there in what we need to do to win this war.

One final point. We live in a 'now' society. Our psyche demands immediate answers and action, preferably yesterday. We have to understand that, for them, this is a long term
'game'. If we fail to recognise that then we will forever be playing catch-up.

Noel said...

"'IS' (the entity) and its constituent parts (ISIL, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah et al"
So that covers at least Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia, Philippines to name a few.

Cordon sanitaire on that lot. Pretty big job.
Whist "shotgun quarantine" worked in one country in Africa it was only able to slow Ebola not eliminate it, when multiple countries were involved.

Tinman said...

I doubt the real world can stop this war.

I believe only Islam itself can stop it.

We currently have muslim scum happily spouting peace while feeding and supporting terrorist

I suggest that the only way forward is to treat every muslim as a potential terrorist - explaining while we do so that we can't tell the difference - until being a muslim becomes so untenable muslims will rise up as a group and wipe the terrorist bastards out.

Only then will we have peace.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... please do me the courtesy of reading what I said ... the 'cs' is to be applied to those countries that support and nurture Islamic terrorism. That takes out Indonesia and the Philippines while Africa ain't a country and I never said it would be 'easy'.

And your solution?

Tinman ... You are on the money when you said that 'only Islam can stop it'. I disagree that we need to treat every Muslim as a potential terrorist ... the tools available to our intelligence agencies are sophisticated enough to make that unnecessary.

Tinman said...

Veteran I don't doubt your word on the tools available to the intelligence agencies but stopping the actual terrorists themselves is not going to stop the atrocities continuing to be planned.

The terrorists are in fact young people who have been persuaded that their duty/destiny (or whatever is to kill for Allah.

They are like young people all over the world, all over history - easily persuaded by things pretending to be religion and patriotism.

They are fairly easy to indentify

The world needs to look past these people to the scum behind them, the ones who (more often than not covertly) supply and succour and even persuade these young people of the path to take.

The ones who claim theirs is a religion of peace while slipping a backhander to the terrorists.

These scum will not be stopped by the intelligence people, most fly very much under the radar.

Only by making the existence of ALL muslims very bad indeed will the mainstream people be forced to expel the scum.

Anonymous said...

"We are fighting terrorists who have chosen to pervert their religion."

No we are not. The religion as per the Koran is perverted full stop - go and read the bloody thing. These creeps are completely justified theologically in doing what they do. Atheists have no idea how this works of course because they see human thought as a pinnacle of enlightenment, all are basically good and so on.

Germany was is despair toward the end of the war - troops returning from home leave were horrified at the damage in the German cities and became depressed. Only the fear of Russia saw them fight on hoping a deal could done with the west to save Germany from ruin. In the end Germany just ran out of men, munitions and fuel. North Vietnam was brought to its knees by bombing - the US just gave it away when victory was there to be had.

I don't care about beating them - just isolate them in their Muslim countries, close borders at gun point and ignore them. Repatriate the existing populations if there is so much as a goat smelling fart, no mosques, no calls to prayer, no political representation, no political relationships with Muslim nations, no Emirates and so on.

We have to win this war or we are stuffed.

3:16

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I'm inclined to agree with 3:16 in so far as the description of Islam as a religion is fraudulent. It is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The 'church' is the state and those who refuse to submit are to be killed.

I've thought for some time that the only end to it will be a large scale bloody conflagration such as that which ended the islamic occupation and subjugation of Spain. Sustained bombing of the IS held territories is a good start but I don't agree with those who oppose 'boots on the ground' to follow. And yes, it might mean we have to tolerate some less evil bad bastard like Assad.

On the home front, it will not surprise me if a number of mosques are found to have been used as staging posts and 'safe houses' for terrorists. Expect them to be destroyed and their officials to be dealt with severely.













Ross said...

Don't forget that Christians are told in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples of all the nations. How is that different from Islam?

I'd suggest the difference is whether you do it peacefully or violently. I don't see a moral difference between a Christian extremist killing abortion doctors or a Daesh suicide bomber - they are both wrong, wrong, wrong.

Anonymous said...

I agree mostly with Adolf and 3:16, the issue isn’t just Isis or what every you want to call them, you obliterate them and it will be the Iranians, obliterate them and it will be the Chechens or Boko Haram or Al shebab or whatever.
Unfortunately the problem is not enough has been learnt from history since Islam’s inception in the 7th century. The musselman was pushed back in Spain, at the Gates of Vienna, On the Barbary Coast, In the Caucus by Catherine by Ivan et.al, etc etc etc, and every time its taken the full barbarity of Islam to bring about the fight back from what we would consider the enlightened civilised peoples, however that push back its never, never been done by nicely nicely diplomacy or anything other than a bloody and dirty barbarous response, meeting fire with fire, its what works, all that history has shown works. Those that didn’t take that approach are no longer there, there is no equal christian society in Asia Minor what was once the home of the orthodox Greek/Syrian etc church, No Zoroastrian society left in Persia, no Coptic's in Egypt other than the last remnants of what where once great societies that didn’t fight fire with fire, thats the future of the civilised world, an abused and persecuted minority until like the Jews in Iraq/Afganistan/Syria/Lebanon/ Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/UAE/Sudan/Egypt they are no more.
Our society hasn’t got whats needed anymore, Islam is a many headed hydra, as I started by saying hitting ISIS will do nothing any more than hitting Al Qaeda or taking out Osama did. Islam is the body and the faith its adherents have is beyond reason to most of the west. If you want to shake it then you have to show its powerless, that could be done, it could but it won’t.
Recent history shows what was done to change the Japanese belief in the deity of their kings, a similar problem but not as huge.
So here is a suggestion that will never be done, pick a place they all gather, say once a year at a pre-ordained time and with no warning turn it to glass. At no loss to the civilised world, no boots on the ground, no non muslims would be harmed and to be honest its about the only way you will show Mohamad and his false gods and idols for the fraud they are.
But we all know we don’t have the leaders for that type of action.

So here is to watching the death of the civilisation that like every other before it, brought great good to the world and then became morally corrupt and incapable of understanding nothing is achieved without sacrifice.

watchman

The Veteran said...

Watchman ... your solution ... nuke Mecca ... right. Big call. Pakistan has the bomb, Iran is close to it. Both Muslim nations. What do you think their response might be?

Anonymous said...

Veteran
Mecca and glass it will not happen, but as you raised it I ask you. Iran, what do you think they are going to do with the bomb? Because so far they have done everything that they have said, and they are intent on bringing the coming of the 12th Iman that is the sole purpose of the Islamic state of Iran. Its not going to be a question of if just when.
So whilst I know that the west will never bomb Mecca and we are going to be dealing with conjecture and hypothesis, how do you see the outcome once Iran has nuked Israel ? Or are you thinking its got any other outcome?

Watchman

Andrew Berwick said...

Pakistan isn't gong to nuke the west, or Israel, Neither is Iran.

These days it's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting ISIS on the ground, with US air support. Iran wants jeans and rock'n'roll - and no more CIA invasions.

The big problem with nuking mecca - or nuking every muslim majority country - is that you've still got millions of muslims in the west. Either you execute them all first, or you'll have lots of terrorsim at home after killing around 1600 million muslims...

Anonymous said...

No..there you don't have it Veteran. A random quote from an Israeli professor with links to Zionism and suddenly it's all spelt out easy-peasy.

Just two of his critics..."Political scientist Ian Lustick commented that Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History was malevolent, and his analysis erratic and sloppy."

"Yezid Sayigh, professor of Middle East studies, wrote that "[Karsh] is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)."

If you start with with a false assumption then it just gets worse. Nature abhors a vacuum and the situation in the area was ripe for somebody well funded for a land grab because this being funded by Saudi and Qatar.

Terrorism is not the raison d'etre of the ISIL, it is an uncontrollable by product by fanatics who believe in what they are told and what they believe and I think that when the dust settles in Paris it will not be a Jihadist invasion but homegrown dissaffected French Citizens.

The French have in charge the most hated PM in 70 years and many are blaming him for the latest tragedy because of a lack of direction and the "idee fixe" that bombing will solve the problem........it doesn't. A wonderful cartoon in one of the French papers showing Obama, Cameron, Hollande,Putin, Merkel,etc in line waving a leg in the air and showing their knickers singing Bom,bom...bom,bom...bom biddy bom.
The Caption which I'm sure doesn't need translating.."Cette est ne Cancan par... C'est le "Kneejerk".

A month ago Corbyn called for a plan and dialogue with Putin and Assad and whoever they could get from ISIL. Unthinkable,Traitor, Stalanist, commy cried the papers.. quite disgusting murmured the Veteran.

Now Putin is talking, and by implication Assad, is talking to the the west. This now hailed as step forward by the Tories who in the fullness of time and latest intel decided that the time was ripe.. Nothing to do with a bearded old crackpot or a bomb in a Russian plane..

Corbyn is the only one to publicly name Saudi Arabia as a contributor to ISIL. The Tories will not even mention the name because the unpleasant truth is that Saudi wealth is now so ingrained into British business and any sanctions would bring catastrophic economic retaliation.

ISIL is currently earning about US$3,000,000 a day from oil, down from $5,000,000, the antiquities market is drying up and they have to pay salaries to keep the state running no one is working for nothing. So it's really easy answer, just stop the supplies and money coming in and the oil going out.

Not quite, most of it is going out through Turkey who have NOT closed the border and as the Turks are in an undeclared war with the ONLY troops who are actually taking ground and winning battles..the Kurds.

Bombing, particularly around civilian areas, is counterproductive and only creates enemies where none existed before. Don't forget the cities are occupied territories and people who live there do so under duress and they are having a bad time of it.

If the RAF had carpet bombed Paris on the basis there were some Germans there and a some tanks had been spotted on the Champs Elysee then the entire French nation would have joined the German army.

It was Churchill who said Jaw Jaw was better than War War and once again Jeremy Corbyn asked Cameron at PMQ yesterday "What are you doing about sanctions on those who fund ISIL and what is the plan?" That was answered by fudge and misdirection.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

Watchman......the Moors had universities, enormous libraries, emancipation for women, plumbing, public baths, freedom of worship, and were highly developed in medicine and surgery.

It was the Christian west that was barbaric, backward and unhygienic and under the guise of a religious crusade, which the rank and file bought into, set out on a land grab. Behind every religious war there is money and trade.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Not international terrorism, local terrorism.

List of the dead black hats.

Bilal Hadfi, 20 - French (living in Belgium)

Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, 29 - French

Samy Amimour, 28 - French

Ibrahim Abdeslam, 31 - French (living in Belgium)

Salah Abdeslam, 26 - French (living in Belgium)

Hamza Attou, 21 - Belgian

Mohamed Amri, 27 - Belgian (born in Morocco)

*Eighth suspect (unidentified) carrying stolen passport in name of 'Ahmad al-Mohammad', 25 - from Idlib, Syria

The alleged mastermind is Abdelhamid Abaaoud, 27, from Belgium.

Anonymous said...

The depth of knowledge displayed on this blog is breathtaking and Veterans plan for international cooperation is stunning in it's simplicity.

Some people get confused by events in Syria but they’re not that complicated and I believe I have the answer. Quite simply, we need to bomb somewhere or other out there, like the Tories wanted. Back then we should have dropped bombs to support the Isis rebels fighting against the evil Assad. But as we didn’t bother, we now need to put that right by bombing the Isis rebels, and protecting Assad.

Because if only we had bombed Assad back then, it would be much easier to bomb Isis and their allies now, as we would be one of their allies so we could bomb ourselves. And we could do that without the fuss of going all the way to Syria, which would cut down on carbon emissions as well.
Also, we could ask Isis if they had any bombs left over that we had given them, “as we need them back to bomb you please”.

The change has happened because back then, you may recall, Assad was so unspeakably evil he had gassed his own people. But now we have decided we support Assad so I suppose we have found out the gas wasn’t so much a chemical weapon as a Syrian version of a room freshener that has left Aleppo with an alluring scent of lemon...

If you were really fussy, you could look for another example of a western invasion in the Syria/Iraq region in the recent past, and find out how well that went. But where we went wrong in Libya and Iraq, is we only bombed one side.

This is the sort of pacifist behaviour that causes the trouble. We should have bombed all the different sides, to make sure we annihilate the right people.

Sometimes we have tried this to a certain extent, so at different times we have armed Assad and Gaddafi and Saddam and Bin Laden and then bombed them for using the bombs we had sold them. But it is not organised properly and leaves the poor buggers confused.

Instead of supporting Arab dictators for 20 years, then opposing them for three, and then supporting them again, we should arrange it on a rota system. We could bomb them on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, bomb their opponents on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and leave Sundays for US construction companies to make some money rebuilding the stuff we have bombed, so there is something new to bomb.
 
Lord Egbut Nobacon

Noel said...

Anon 2.42
Your list goes back to my original post and therein lies the answers to dealing with local jihadists.

The Veteran said...

Well, to sum up some 'interesting' views.

Karsh's thesis on radical Islam can be disregarded because he is linked to to Zionism and is not a trained historian or political/social scientist (Rupert). Comment ... comforting, we can all sleep safely in our beds then.

Watchman suggests that, sooner or later, Iran will nuke Israel and what then? Comment ... you can guarantee that Israel would retaliate and whether that could be 'contained' is entirely the moot point.

The use of unbridled air-power is favored by many although others (me included) would argue it can be counterproductive.

We should be 'negotiating' with terrorism rather than fighting it. Comment ... certainly novel and has never worked in the past. Totally in line with Corbyn's view that Jihad John should have been arrested.

I have to worry that Rupert might be attempting to 'take the piss' by agreeing with me on the need for a robust and watertight regime of sanctions against countries suspected of harbouring and nurturing Islamic terrorism.

The argument regarding home grown terrorism is self evident and so are the solutions.

Finally, this whole subject is fraught with contradictions. We are entering a new paradigm whether we like it or not. Just not sure that 'we' realize what that means.

Thank you for your contributions.

Anonymous said...

Veteran,
Thank you for your thoughts and ruminations.
My final thought, when Iran nukes Israel, and they will (because only the most rose coloured hippy spectacles make believe they want jeans and rock and roll), its not going to be in a position to fire anything back, its a very small country one bomb the size of one of the Japanese bombs would do it. The known knowns and known unknowns say Israel's only chance is an early knock out using Iron Dome or similar, or a dud that only fizzles, but then what?
In the event of a strike back will Russia side with Iran and its proxies Syria/Hezzbollah and Hamas and by default Turkey and of course by then you can expect the EU to come onboard as well, you know just to establish a peaceful end to the jews.
I take it everyone does know the geographical position of Armageddon? It doesn’t look so rosy, and the oldest dream the oldest hatred gets its final call to duty, yes and thats all those hiding behind the Boycott and Divest and its only zionism, all joined at the hip, the preaching of the Koran and socialism in all its forms from Nationalism to Communism the full left to right of the socialist spectrum.

There is certainly not going to be a quick fix, nor do I think there can be, but then I’m resigned to that and if I summon up every ounce of socialism I can find within me, I don’t care because I have no skin in any future generations.

However for those that do then judging by some of the comments here there is hope because obviously there is a parallel universe some seem to inhabit if only you could find it. Though I guess I’m not allowed to enter it being related to the tribe that runs the world and is responsible for all the evils (sarc).

Watchman

Anonymous said...

Watchman - Geez you're an idiot. The Jerhico's are in hardened silos and not even the USN could take out the Dolphins with the Popeye Turbos.

But the fact remains: the cheapest, easiest, and quickest response is to do what Cheney and Rumsfeld told Bush to do on 9/12 - but he said no - to nuke the entire muslim middle east in one quick strike.

With any luck, Daesh will hit the US after Pres. TRUMP is elected. And there can be no question that's what he'd do --- and no question that will finish off the muslims and peacelovers once and for all.

Anonymous said...

And the winner is.................Mr Kalashnikov. If eight men had piled into street with flintlock pistols and swords it would have been a non event If they had come out blazing with bolt action military rifles it would have been a bit more serious.

It's the ability for the few to kill so many that is the concern and the angst and over reaction is the result of the number of dead not the number of perpetrators.

Quite simply anyone who has not lived in France for a considerable period and cannot speak the language colloquially or know how things work would last about five minutes. There are no safe havens as Adolf has suggested, particularly in Mosques, as France is not multicultural it assimilates it's citizens and the bloke sweeping the floor of the Mosque is just as likely to be a policemans dad.

All this means that Jihadists, as has been shown, come from a very tight group of family (brothers) and friends and are self sustaining and cannot mix in the Muslim community even more so if a group moves from France to Spain for example.

Veteran......you do not negotiate with terrorists, you negotiate with those who control the terrorists, a subtle difference. Lets see, where has it achieved an acceptable out come. IRA, PLO, 1949 Jewish question, Mandela and apartheid probably a few more. The US is not very good at this which is why we stagger from one crisis to another. As Saudi Arabia harbours and nurtures the extremist Wahabism sect which appears to be the bible ISIL worships from then it should be easy, unless you address the issue of MONEY.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Andrei said...

understand your (and Putin's sentiments) but the use of air-power to bomb 'them' back into the stone-age ain't, IMHO, a long term solution as it creates martyrs and what IS loves is martyrs

Dear Mr Veteran Mr Putin's plan is not "to bomb them into the stone age" rather it has been to assist the Syrian Army regain Government control over Syrian territory.

Now the fact the the West lead by the USA's goal is to topple Assad and the method to do this after they were blocked from bombing Syria into the stone age back in 2011 is to arm moderate rebels (i.e. Al Qaeda) is lost the the pontificaters including yourself here.

So the USA has been whingeing about Russia bombing the "wrong people" because Russia has blocked their plan to topple Assad using terrorism against the Syrian people as its tool.



Anonymous said...

Andrei............would like to see more input from you on this subject. What is your background? You seem to understand what is going on.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Andrei said...

A lot is going on Lord Egbut Nobacon

We are on the knife edge of WW3 - a red line was crossed in Ukraine and the USA has left a trail of failed states in the wake of its disastrous foreign policy decisions including its (mis)use of air power

Mr Putin is a Judo black belt and a Chess master and instead of WW3 something else may emerge from this carnage

Here is an interesting story Typhoon fighters scrambled from RAF Lossiemouth to intercept two Russian Tu-160 bombers on Syrian bombing mission

Why do you think that route from Russia to Syria was taken? Can you figure it out?

Monsiuer Hollande will be in Moscow next week, via Washington as will be the King of Jordan.

At the G20 world leaders queued up to confer with VVP - Obama of course and Cameron as well as the new PM of Australia (who did not "shirt front" him)

Interesting times