Tugging on Superman's Cape

[konradv]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

 

[whitehall]

It's possible that jihad maniacs visualize a time when all muslems will rise up and support the war on the infidels. It's also possible that angry American muslem converts will unite with the jihad. Meanwhile their terror campaign has changed the way free people live. It will take a long, long time before Parisians enjoy the decadence of a rock concert again and left wing sympathizers throughout the world have created ever increasing acceptance of Sharia law and the abuse of women in the muslem faith. ISIS has already gobbled up territory in Africa and the Mid East. If you see the world through the eyes of maniacs who ideologically in the 6th century the upside is obvious in what they have gained in a couple of years.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many Muslims have you seen condemning the Paris attacks? How many have you seen signing up to fight ISIS?
The truth is all Muslims share varying degrees of support for ISIS because they all believe the basic tenet that the world is divided between the dar al harb and the dar al salaam.

 

[Brain357]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

Don't forget they just killed a Chinese hostage.

 

[Siete]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

their end game is to create enough attention to their cause so they can start a holy war on their own soil and gain some recruiting credibility along the way. Other than small splinter groups, they don't have the means to go to their enemy, so they piss them off until they come to them ... all this info is out there for the curious.

I don't make shit up like RW's either ... those assholes are proud of it... look it up.

 

[konradv]

It's possible that jihad maniacs visualize a time when all muslems will rise up and support the war on the infidels. It's also possible that angry American muslem converts will unite with the jihad. Meanwhile their terror campaign has changed the way free people live. It will take a long, long time before Parisians enjoy the decadence of a rock concert again and left wing sympathizers throughout the world have created ever increasing acceptance of Sharia law and the abuse of women in the muslem faith. ISIS has already gobbled up territory in Africa and the Mid East. If you see the world through the eyes of maniacs who ideologically in the 6th century the upside is obvious in what they have gained in a couple of years.

What's your point? The smart thing would be to show non-radicalized Muslims that ISIS is wrong. You're falling into the trap they're attempting to set. Wake up before it's too late.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

Silence is approval.
And the silence by Muslims about what is being done in the name of their religion is deafening.

 

[konradv]

Don't forget they just killed a Chinese hostage.

I accept correction. They're not just trying to piss off the West. My central point stands, however. Over-reaction like we're seeing from Trump et al. is counter-productive.

 

[konradv]

Silence is approval. And the silence by Muslims about what is being done in the name of their religion is deafening.

A. Not all Muslims are silent.

B. You're falling for ISIS' trap.

 

[Siete]

While most analysts are inclined to look at ISIS’s recent successes through an ill-defined prism of “jihadism,” what might be increasingly applicable is an understanding of the dynamics of cult psychology.

Cults derive their cohesive strength by maintaining rigid boundaries between insiders and outsiders, through the contempt with which they view the unenlightened, and by the unswerving obedience which each cult member displays towards the cult’s strict hierarchy and the absolute authority of the cult leader.

In the short term, these mechanisms of group cohesion solidify the power of the leader, but the exceptional level of solidarity found inside cults eventually becomes their undoing. They purge themselves of the homeostatic mechanisms which provide reality checks inside ordinary social groupings. An absolute intolerance for any form of dissent means that the cult leader becomes increasingly susceptible to miscalculations.

When al-Baghdadi declared himself the “caliph,” who could question his authority, his timing, or his judgement without risking their own life?

 

[konradv]

How many Muslims have you seen condemning the Paris attacks? How many have you seen signing up to fight ISIS?
The truth is all Muslims share varying degrees of support for ISIS because they all believe the basic tenet that the world is divided between the dar al harb and the dar al salaam.

As far as I'm concerned, you've signed up as a "useful idiot". You don't know the answers to your own questions, yet you'll throw them out there anyway, helping ISIS prove their point, "they hate us".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

They know Obama switched sides. He lied about the Benghazi terror attack, what the fuck is ISIS ISIL supposed to think?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Silence is approval. And the silence by Muslims about what is being done in the name of their religion is deafening.

A. Not all Muslims are silent.

B. You're falling for ISIS' trap.

Worldwide riots with 15 dead over the fake Koran burning story.

Seen one protest of more than 50 Muslims in the past 5 years?

 

[Kosh]

Silence is approval. And the silence by Muslims about what is being done in the name of their religion is deafening.

A. Not all Muslims are silent.

B. You're falling for ISIS' trap.

Just like the silence from the far left drones on Obama's illegal wars..

 

[Siete]

The prospect of a U.S. military intervention, most likely in the form of air strikes, was already problematic. While there are many who understandably favor hitting ISIS in order to deny it control of territory in Iraq, such a strike would bestow on ISIS the one thing it has until now been unable to definitively claim—legitimacy. A potential new line of jihadist argument then emerges: The caliphate was restored, but it was directly destroyed by the United States.

 

[konradv]

B. You're falling for ISIS' trap.

Worldwide riots with 15 dead over the fake Koran burning story. Seen one protest of more than 50 Muslims in the past 5 years?

My point seems to be going right over your head, as you keep doubling down on doing exactly what ISIS wants.

 

[bendog]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

Imo, you're right but you're trying to make logical sense. There's no logical sense to the Donald, at least in this case. He knows his audience. They're angry. And he cannot afford to let any other pols seem angrier than he.

Obama's loves to give speeches, but for all that, he's not a very good communicator because he always talks down, and that's not gonna cut it here. Americans need to be told the truth. Ultimately, liberalism (not the partisan kind) will win because liberalism always champions the rights of individuals against the state, or in this case, thugs. We can do more to make sure we aren't getting "sleeper agents," but the fact is we will be attacked again, and I'm pretty sure it'll be some home grown radicalized jihadis. But, we have to tell the world that our goal isn't some world wide domination. Rather, we cannot allow terrorists to have free reign to plot attacks that will kill not just Christians or Jews but also Muslims. We want a world where Muslims are free to govern themselves and worship as they see fit, and where individual Muslims don't have to fear either outside forces or other Muslims who force them to believe what they don't want to believe.

Kennedy or Reagan would be kicking azz and taking names, politically and militarily.

 

[Kosh]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is. They've bombed a Russian airliner, attacked the French in Paris and the threatened to extend their terrorist campaign to D.C. What possible sense does it make for an organization with a tenuous hold on a piece of ME desert to make enemies of the world's largest militaries? The easy answer is that they're crazy and we need to kill them all. While both of those options may be true the question remains, "what possible upside do they see?"

IMO, they know their following in the Muslim world is very small. Most Muslims are like you and your neighbors, they just want to go about their lives in peace. Turning this situation around is the only way they have of establishing the caliphate, given their numbers and relative weakness in a conventional military sense. To accomplish this they have to provoke an over-reaction in the non-Muslim world that makes suspects of all the followers of Islam.

In recent days we've seen people falling all over themselves to provide them with what they need. Presidential candidates and governors of some states are labeling refugees as terrorist plants, talking about shutting down mosques and not allowing them to settle in the states. It plays into the hands of the terrorists. It allows them to say that Muslims will never be accepted and that jihad is the only answer. It aids in the radicalization of Muslim youth, already marginalized, poverty-stricken and poorly educated, both in their home countries and in many places in the diaspora.

This isn't a plea to "be nice" to terrorists in the hope that they'll think better of us. This is a warning that lumping all Muslims together will only increase the radical tendencies of what is right now a very small proportion of the Islamic world. ISIL and Al Qaeda realize this this and, therefore, are going out of their way to "tug on Superman's cape" in hopes of a backlash from the West that galvanizes Muslims around the world into starting Armageddon and hastening the creation of a new caliphate. Don't fall for the rhetoric. It's what they want. The danger isn't that we'll be letting terrorists in, but that we'll be creating more among the Muslims already here.

Imo, you're right but you're trying to make logical sense. There's no logical sense to the Donald, at least in this case. He knows his audience. They're angry. And he cannot afford to let any other pols seem angrier than he.

Obama's loves to give speeches, but for all that, he's not a very good communicator because he always talks down, and that's not gonna cut it here. Americans need to be told the truth. Ultimately, liberalism (not the partisan kind) will win because liberalism always champions the rights of individuals against the state, or in this case, thugs. We can do more to make sure we aren't getting "sleeper agents," but the fact is we will be attacked again, and I'm pretty sure it'll be some home grown radicalized jihadis. But, we have to tell the world that our goal isn't some world wide domination. Rather, we cannot allow terrorists to have free reign to plot attacks that will kill not just Christians or Jews but also Muslims. We want a world where Muslims are free to govern themselves and worship as they see fit, and where individual Muslims don't have to fear either outside forces or other Muslims who force them to believe what they don't want to believe.

Kennedy or Reagan would be kicking azz and taking names, politically and militarily.

You far left drones killed liberalism and hijacked the term..

But then again all the far left drones on this board do is talk down to those that are not far left!

 

[Mac1958]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is.

Looking at their actions, and reading the first-hand accounts of people who have been with them and left them, I've reached the conclusion that they're (for the most part) sincere about their interpretation of their religion.

So their end game, then, is relatively simple: Establish a worldwide caliphate or die trying. The bonus in dying, of course, is the 72 virgins. Or one 72-year old virgin, which would be a delightful misinterpretation.

So the question that is presented to a more advanced civilization is, how you defeat an enemy that is both modern/tech savvy and absolutely unafraid to die?
.

 

[konradv]

When you consider the recent actions of ISIL, it makes one wonder what their strategy/endgame is.

Looking at their actions, and reading the first-hand accounts of people who have been with them and left them, I've reached the conclusion that they're (for the most part) sincere about their interpretation of their religion.So their end game, then, is relatively simple: Establish a worldwide caliphate or die trying. The bonus in dying, of course, is the 72 virgins. Or one 72-year old virgin, which would be a delightful misinterpretation. So the question that is presented to a more advanced civilization is, how you defeat an enemy that is both modern/tech savvy and absolutely unafraid to die?

You don't do it by providing them with more allies.