Shootings and explosions in Paris

[999tigger]

So how did ISIS get started then? They did not spring from the ground fully formed.

 

Someone had to pay a lot of money for the Toyotas with the 20mm cannons bolted to the truck bed.

 

Did they win the lottery maybe?

 

From Quora

 

The birth of ISIS

ISIS was established in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zaraqawi to launch attacks on Shia muslims and their establishments. The group received seed funding from Osama bin laden and swore allegiance to it in 2004 and changed its name to Al Qaeda in Iraq(AQI). AQI targeted Coalition forces and civilians using tactics such as vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), suicide bombers, and executions of hostages by beheading and other means, attempting to pressure countries and foreign companies to leave Iraq, push Iraqis to stop supporting the United States and the Iraqi Government, and attract additional cadre to its ranks.

The group albeit being a part of Al Qaeda was not in favour of principals of it. While Al Qaeda focussed on creating groups of fighters which can take their cause forward globally, Zaraqawi on the other had wanted to focus on eliminating sunnis in Iraq. This conflict of interest led to a spat between the two groups with Al Qaeda virtually disowning AQI.

After death of Zarqawi he was succeeded by Abu Bakar Al Bagdadi who is also the current head of ISIS.

 

The Rise

 

After the death of Osama Bin Laden Al Qaeda was in a total mess. Also the internal war raging in Syria in 2011 and the unstable government in Iraq togather provided a perfect opportunity for AQI. Syria was in chaos, and the Iraqi jihadists established secure bases of operations there, raising money and winning new recruits to their cause. Their ambitions grew along with their organization, expanding to include Syria as well as Iraq. Iraqi jihadists, by 2013 calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) to reflect their new, broader orientation, also faced less pressure in Iraq with the departure of U.S. forces at the end of 2011. In Syria, the group took over swaths of territory, benefiting as the Syrian regime focused on more moderate groups while the Syrian opposition as a whole remained fractious. At the same time, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki put in place a series of disastrous policies to bolster support among his Shi’a base, systematically excluding Iraqi Sunnis from power. Thus Baghdadi’s organization steadily shored up popular support, regained its legitimacy in Iraq, built a base in Syria, and replenished its ranks.

 

In June 2014, Baghdadi’s forces shocked just about everyone when they swept across Iraq, capturing not only large parts of Iraq’s remote areas but also major cities like Mosul and Tikrit, important resources like hydroelectric dams and oil refineries, and several strategic border crossings with Syria. Within a month, the group—now calling itself the Islamic State—would officially declare the establishment of a caliphate in the territory under its control, naming Baghdadi the caliph and “leader for Muslims everywhere.

 

Oil, kidnap, smuggling and extortion. You should look at the environment that allowed it to form in the first place. The West played a large role in creating an environment which made it possible.

[Harrystottle]

Thanks for that. (Not taking the p***, btw).

[lottiecass]

You can't cite the absence of very particular and narrow forms of violence and use it as proof of non violence. When was the last time the Muslims partitioned a country causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, or sold billions of pounds worth of arms? Or pulled down a regime to install their own?

 

Name one Islamic country that has a bloodier history than our own.

 

I am not trying to prove non violence,I know our history is far less than perfect.So you do not mind the spread of isis? what would you suggest,give them a good talking to?

[999tigger]

We might argue about justifying individual military actions abroad, but there's always a difference between military actions and terrorism. And even without involvement of outside countries, Islamic countries are violent inside just by themselves. That's a fact.

 

Funnily enough I agree with you. Just runningman not being able to recognise the difference and looking at it in a particular **** eyed way to try and make a point.

[slater1]

Awful stuff

[runningman1]

We might argue about justifying individual military actions abroad, but there's always a difference between military actions and terrorism. And even without involvement of outside countries, Islamic countries are violent inside just by themselves. That's a fact.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. The difference is solely the perpetrators. If we do something like use violence to force political change (such as the removal of Saddam Hussein), it is war and the participants are heroes. If the Muslims do it, we call it terrorism.

 

Can you not see that you are viewing the world through the prism of a western narrative? Try to be objective.

[melthebell]

i dunno if this has already been mentioned but Anonymous is upping their "war" against Is in cyber space

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/anonymous-declares-war-on-isis-news/

[Eric Arthur]

You can't cite the absence of very particular and narrow forms of violence and use it as proof of non violence. When was the last time the Muslims partitioned a country causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, or sold billions of pounds worth of arms? Or pulled down a regime to install their own?

 

Iraq and Syria 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012..... Let's not get started on Pakistan or Afghanistan, or Indonesia, or Egypt, there isn't enough space on the internet.

 

Name one Islamic country that has a bloodier history than our own.

 

The history of Islamic countries is so bloody that they don't exist as countries for very long before some new regime slaughters the incumbent regime to take it over.

 

 

I think that you know this though because you have to be trolling.

[RescueDiver]

Blaming those who propagate and perpetuate the Islamic religion/culture is inevitable. Here's the problem. Which one of these is the extremist?

 

That's right... we can't tell. He is in there somewhere. He is part of that community. He is a product of their cultural and religious teachings. But we can separate him from them. Our choices are therefore:

1. Live with it
   
2. Ask the community to find ways to reform their cultural and religious practices and teachings in order to stop so many from their community embracing extremism... and remain tolerant whilst they do it
   
3. Reject the whole community
   

I would suggest that people in the West are not going to live with it.

 

I would suggest we are currently at the point where option 2 is the preferred solution, although it is somewhat of a problem that Muslims have yet to even acknowledge the need to reform.

 

I would also suggest that all the time option 3 draws closer. Just look at the political shift towards the anti-immigration parties across Europe for your evidence. Just look at how attacks against Muslims are on the rise... and no doubt going to grow more following this latest atrocity.

 

Muslims living in the West need to wake up to the reality of the situation they are in. Sticking their bottom lip out and complaining about it not being fair is not going to help them. It really doesn't matter whether it is fair or not. The clock is ticking... reform.

 

'He' is the appropriate word there, not a woman in site, should that raise concerns about equality?

[WiseOwl182]

 

Less than 2% of all terror attacks are carried out in the name of Islam.

 

Erm, going to have to ask for the source of this stat? Frankly, I don't believe it, and certainly not in terms of victim numbers.