IS

[classical_hero]

Is your country currently torn apart by a brutal civil war thereby leaving a power vacuum in which ISIS can carve out a small piece of territory? If the answer is no then likely there is no threat for you to wake up to.

Does the Lindt Cafe Siege ring a bell?

 

[Agent327]

How droll. It seems those concerned are already wide awake to the threat:

Like the recent immolation of Jordanian pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh captured by the extremists in Syria, this mass killing will horrify Egyptian and wider Arab and Muslim opinion. The authorities in Cairo and their conservative allies in the Gulf are deeply alarmed by the growing chaos in Libya. Egypt and the UAE have already intervened against Islamist forces and may do so again now more forcefully.

(From that article you linked to.)

 

[kramerfan86]

Does the Lindt Cafe Siege ring a bell?

You mean the attack by the guy with a long history of being violent and disturbed and who had only converted to sunni Islam weeks before the attack? Listen if you want to get all panicky over that feel free I on the other hand am feeling pretty relaxed.

 

[Funky]

Is your country currently torn apart by a brutal civil war thereby leaving a power vacuum in which ISIS can carve out a small piece of territory? If the answer is no then likely there is no threat for you to wake up to.

Would you still hold this position if you knew the IS had obtained weapons of mass destruction?

 

[kramerfan86]

Would you still hold this position if you knew the IS had obtained weapons of mass destruction?

Depends on your definition of a WMD. A nuclear bomb (actual nuclear bomb not just a normal bomb with some radioactive material on it) or certain biological weapons (ones with the ability to spread from person to person) sure. Chemical weapons? Not particularly. Why ask? You'll die of stress if you start worrying not only about realities but low possibility hypotheticals too.

 

[Borachio]

Let's suppose that IS have a nuclear bomb, and/or biological weapons. And they've expressed the intention of using them.

How is me worrying about it going to matter?

Never mind not worrying about low probability hypotheticals, I'm not going to worry about things that my worrying cannot affect. Or, at least, I'm going to try.

 

[Whomp]

I read a interesting piece in the Atlantic called "What ISIS Really Wants" and it spoke of devotion, territory, the apocalypse and the fight. This part I found interesting when talking to Musa Cerantonio, an Australian preacher and recruiter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features...eally-wants/384980/?google_editors_picks=true

Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who’d been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.

The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who “Rome” is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely.

After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

 

[Borachio]

I honestly hope this is all nonsense.

But what if they're right?

Unlikely things do happen. Just look at the success of Facebook.

 

[Whomp]

From what it says in the article al Baghdadi has all the requisites to become a caliph. Something al Qaeda elites like Zawahiri and bin Laden never had.

 

[Funky]

Depends on your definition of a WMD. A nuclear bomb (actual nuclear bomb not just a normal bomb with some radioactive material on it) or certain biological weapons (ones with the ability to spread from person to person) sure. Chemical weapons? Not particularly. Why ask? You'll die of stress if you start worrying not only about realities but low possibility hypotheticals too.

There is a difference between dying of stress from worrying and taking issues seriously. Given the increasing proliferation of deadly weapon technology it is a plausible scenario that the IS (or a similar group) will get their hands on such weapons in the next years. Happily you admit that that would constitute a severe threat, not only to the region where the group is present.
Sure, you can go hide in your niche of content with the excuse of not being able to do anything anyway. Fortunately not everyone thinks like you, or we'd already be doomed.

 

[kramerfan86]

There is a difference between dying of stress from worrying and taking issues seriously. Given the increasing proliferation of deadly weapon technology it is a plausible scenario that the IS (or a similar group) will get their hands on such weapons in the next years. Happily you admit that that would constitute a severe threat, not only to the region where the group is present.
Sure, you can go hide in your niche of content with the excuse of not being able to do anything anyway. Fortunately not everyone thinks like you, or we'd already be doomed.

By what means would ISIS get a nuclear bomb? Utter collapse of Pakistan seems about the only means that would happen and I do not see that occurring. Bioweapons take a level of sophistication and resources terrorist organizations dont have. There is a reason despite the fact terrorists have desperately desired such weapons they still do not have them. Closest they could reasonable come to these things are WMD "lites" like chemical weapons, anthrax, or a dirty bomb, which while those all have a certain "wow" factor them they arent any more deadly than the convention attacks they already attempt to do.

So no I am not hiding in a niche of "meh cant do anything about it" but instead am simply not convinced the threat is truly there.

 

[Funky]

By what means would ISIS get a nuclear bomb? Utter collapse of Pakistan seems about the only means that would happen and I do not see that occurring. Bioweapons take a level of sophistication and resources terrorist organizations dont have. There is a reason despite the fact terrorists have desperately desired such weapons they still do not have them. Closest they could reasonable come to these things are WMD "lites" like chemical weapons, anthrax, or a dirty bomb, which while those all have a certain "wow" factor them they arent any more deadly than the convention attacks they already attempt to do.

So no I am not hiding in a niche of "meh cant do anything about it" but instead am simply not convinced the threat is truly there.

While chemical weapons are potentially a lot more heinous than you make them out, I agree with you that we do not yet face the threat of a group like IS acquiring WMD. How long do you think this will remain so? Five years? Ten? Perhaps fifteen? Do we want to wait until the threat is real before we react? Do we meanwhile want to sit back and watch how chaos and death is spread by conventional weapons?

 

[kramerfan86]

While chemical weapons are potentially a lot more heinous than you make them out, I agree with you that we do not yet face the threat of a group like IS acquiring WMD. How long do you think this will remain so? Five years? Ten? Perhaps fifteen? Do we want to wait until the threat is real before we react? Do we meanwhile want to sit back and watch how chaos and death is spread by conventional weapons?

I dont think its ever a major threat. Actual organized governments struggle to produce proper WMDs, I dont think a terrorist group is going to ever reasonably have the capability and they arent the sort of thing that just appear on the black market.

there is nothing to be done about them at the moment outside of the standard intelligence gathering and nothing about ISIS make me personally feel any less safe than 5 years ago when Bin Laden's boys were the big bad boogy man.

 

[Funky]

I dont think its ever a major threat. Actual organized governments struggle to produce proper WMDs, I dont think a terrorist group is going to ever reasonably have the capability and they arent the sort of thing that just appear on the black market.

there is nothing to be done about them at the moment outside of the standard intelligence gathering and nothing about ISIS make me personally feel any less safe than 5 years ago when Bin Laden's boys were the big bad boogy man.

Well, IS is factually orders of magnitude more dangerous than bin Laden ever was. Perhaps not to you personally. Not yet at least. But IS is just the tip of the iceberg. Islamistic terrorist attacks have occured in most major Western countries already. Just today a large public event in my country Germany was canceled to avoid another terrorist attack. Not to speak of the violence and mayhem spreading throughout the Muslim world. We are facing a problem of a too large scale to just turn our backs on it and ignore it. You may of course do whatever you desire. I rather accept the responsibility to help oppose those forces that wish to ruin our civil society with their theocratic barbarism.

 

[Borachio]

I rather accept the responsibility to help oppose those forces that wish to ruin our civil society with their theocratic barbarism.

But what can be done to help?

edit: You might try talking to IS and other fundamentalists, but is that likely to do anything? You might try bombing them into oblivion, but it was bombing places like Iraq and Afghanistan that has led us where we are. Is more bombing likely to make it better?

 

[kramerfan86]

Well, IS is factually orders of magnitude more dangerous than bin Laden ever was. Perhaps not to you personally. Not yet at least. But IS is just the tip of the iceberg. Islamistic terrorist attacks have occured in most major Western countries already. Just today a large public event in my country Germany was canceled to avoid another terrorist attack. Not to speak of the violence and mayhem spreading throughout the Muslim world. We are facing a problem of a too large scale to just turn our backs on it and ignore it. You may of course do whatever you desire. I rather accept the responsibility to help oppose those forces that wish to ruin our civil society with their theocratic barbarism.

People seem to confuse 'not worried about it' and "totally ignore it". Like I said I think western governments need to keep up intelligence gathering and such, but am I going to sit around and feel particularly threatened by the whole thing? Not particularly, there is a long list of things far more likely to ruin my existence than terrorists are.

 

[Funky]

But what can be done to help?

The core of the problem is that too many Muslims believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. As I have said previously, we must encourage moderate Muslims to reform their faith. They must somehow find a way to reconcile their holy texts with a modern global society. That is not an easy task, given that these texts contain so much wickedness and can't be edited.
The irony of the situation is that instead of talking honestly about the problems with Islamic scripture, and, if necessary, applying conversational pressure to moderate Muslims who say that groups like IS have nothing to do with Islam, we have rendered the doctrines of Islam taboo to criticism, and label those who acknowledge the connection between scripture and violence as islamophobes. There are a few Muslims or former Muslims, like Salman Rushdie, Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Hamid Abdel Samad, who have recognized this folly and, at risk of their lives, are fighting a battle of ideas. But in light of the immense threat that extremist Islam poses, there are far too few. Too many can get away with claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and ignoring any problems in their scripture. And we too often let them get away with it.

What can you do personally? That depends a lot on your personal situation. Read the Koran and the Hadith for starters (unlike the bible they are pretty short). Obtain second-hand information. Talk openly about it. Have discussions. Join a group that stands for humanism. Confront those who use the word "islamophobia" to douse any criticism of Islam. Raise consciousness.
Ultimately, only Muslims themselves can reform their faith. But we can help them by opposing those who deny there is a problem in the first place.

 

[Oruc]

The core of the problem is that too many Muslims believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. As I have said previously, we must encourage moderate Muslims to reform their faith. They must somehow find a way to reconcile their holy texts with a modern global society. That is not an easy task, given that these texts contain so much wickedness and can't be edited.

I don't think we should be encouraging anyone water down their faith, what good is faith and belief if it doesn't dominate and define you and you don't force it on others?

 

[Funky]

I don't think we should be encouraging anyone water down their faith, what good is faith and belief if it doesn't dominate and define you and you don't force it on others?

You do realize that the very notion of forcing any kind of belief on others is the antipole of democracy and open society, and the primary cause of needless human suffering?

 

[Oruc]

You do realize that the very notion of forcing any kind of belief on others is the antipole of democracy and open society, and the primary cause of needless human suffering?

It's a pillar of democracy, people wouldn't bother taking part if they didn't think get others to toe their line, put their sacred cow on top of the others.