Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[ChairmanPoo]

Am I the only one who thinks that, bad as this is, it's an improvement over the shit islamists have pulled out during the last decade? I find knife nuts much less scary than bomb nuts, and easier to take down.

Assuming he was part of any organized group, that is. TBH, his ramblings and looks are shabby enough, I'd not be surprised if he was just an isolated lunatic like that Nidal Hassan guy.

[Sheb]

Actually, the Al-Qaeda network is down. The invasion of Afhanistan and the drone campaign deprived them of any safe haven and most of their leadership had been blown up. They simply cannot mount murderous plots like they did, so they're down to pushing kids into making pressure-cookers bombs.

Sure, we've still have Islamists militias in place like Syria and the Maghreb that can cause problem, but they don't have expertise into striking the West.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

At this point it is more accurate to say that al-Qaeda is an idea rather than an actual organization. Unfortunately, this idea has become a nexus for the affiliation of Islamist groups the world over.

[XXSockXX]

There is a problem in the perception of terrorism. Most terrorism isn't islamic (at least in the West). But you wouldn't know that from the media.

But it's easy to see where that perception comes from. If you look at those numbers from Europol, you will notice that most casualties from terrorism in Europe are caused by islamists.
Most attacks by far are carried out by separatists, but these tend to be very localized and usually don't target civilians. These attacks are in fact perceived as very threatening in Spain, France and Northern Ireland, but less so outside these regions.
The most talked about terrorism case in Germany is the NSU group, but they acted more like serial killers, didn't seek publicity and were only discovered by accident, years after the murders. So they are now perceived as terrorists, but there was never a scare of right-wing terrorism during the time they were active.
Breivik was a lone wolf, while most islamist have or claim to have some connection to a greater network. This is I guess the main problem, every other month you hear of a foiled attack by a salafist network. Even if a lot of these people are probably relatively isolated, it appears as if there were some mayor organisation behind all this. This perception plays into the hands of the terrorists, as they seem much more dangerous than they actually are, but it also makes it more difficult for non-muslims to distinguish between conservative muslims and potential terrorists. The whole "all muslims are terrorists" idea seems more of an US-thing to me, if you live in a medium-sized german city, you will probably see lots of muslims everyday without fearing for anything all the time.

[ChairmanPoo]

These attacks are in fact perceived as very threatening in Spain, France and Northern Ireland, but less so outside these regions.

ETA has been in a full ceasefire for 3 years, and unless there's a split they seem likely to remain so. And AFAIK they were never very active in France to begin with.

[XXSockXX]

These attacks are in fact perceived as very threatening in Spain, France and Northern Ireland, but less so outside these regions.

ETA has been in a full ceasefire for 3 years, and unless there's a split they seem likely to remain so. And AFAIK they were never very active in France to begin with.

France has corsican separatists. According to this: https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/europol_te-sat2013_lr_0.pdf
there were 121 separatist attacks in France and 46 in Spain in 2012. Most of the french ones were probably in Corsica and while ETA is officially in ceasefire, there still is Resistencia Galega.

[ChairmanPoo]

there still is Resistencia Galega.

Resistencia Galega is a joke. They don't go very much beyond street vandalism, for what I've seen. In fact I was not aware of their existence until now. The miners' protest in Asturias last year was bigger than them, it seems to me
Then again, that kind of unrest is precisedly what the national media tends to gloss over...

[XXSockXX]

there still is Resistencia Galega.

They don't go very much beyond street vandalism, for what I've seen.

Well that was my point from earlier, european separatist groups carry out many attacks, but are only locally active and rarely hurt civilians (1 person was killed by corsican nationalists in 2012). Islamists tend to go for mass killings with bombings or amok shootings and they can attack anywhere, which is why they are perceived as much more of a threat.

[ChairmanPoo]

Well, while not on the same level as islamists as far as carnage goes, ETA and IRA did both achieve a respectable bodycount in their day. They did avoid mass killings for the most part, though (barring exceptions), as they knew such things alienated even their most starwalt supporters.

TL, DR, yeah I get what you're saying :p

[Sheb]

Actually, I should have linked directly to Europol. I went ahead and made a table with the data for the last few years. Please note that the total for 2007 doesn't include attacks in Northern Ireland (the UK only reported two islamist attacks and nothing for the other categories). Oh, and this include foiled attacks. I also didn't count suicide bombers in the casualties.



Islamist terrorism account for a disproportionate share a casualties (On average it's ten time as deadly as other kind of terrorism), still a minority of death. Not shown here, but Islamist terrorism also get a disproportionate share of law enforcement ressources, with around 40% of total arrests. Also note that generally terrorism is a non-issue and we're really wasting a lot of attention, money and time fighting it.

P.S. Also, around 2010, Europol changed its category from "Islamist terrorism" to "Religious terrorism". Political correctness much? :p

[XXSockXX]

Islamist terrorism account for a disproportionate share a casualties (On average it's ten time as deadly as other kind of terrorism), still a minority of death. Not shown here, but Islamist terrorism also get a disproportionate share of law enforcement ressources, with around 40% of total arrests. Also note that generally terrorism is a non-issue and we're really wasting a lot of attention, money and time fighting it.

P.S. Also, around 2010, Europol changed its category from "Islamist terrorism" to "Religious terrorism". Political correctness much? :p

We were talking about perception of terrorism, so you should not weigh islamist terror vs everything else. Islamist terror is, even if carried out by lone wolves, perceived as a unified threat that might lurk everywhere (since there are muslims almost everywhere). Separatists, left- and right-wing terrorists are a very diversive bunch that have no common agenda and are not perceived as such. You don't notice ETA and IRA much in Germany and you don't think of animal-rights activists or anarchists burning cars as a huge left-wing terrorism threat like in the 70s or 80s.

I strongly disagree on your "non-issue" remark, that bomb on the train station in Bonn recently could have killed or injured hundreds and it was lack of attention that kept the NSU undetected until the main suspects killed themselves.

EU is always pc apparently, we are also calling islamists "salafists" now, probably to avoid confusing islam and islamism.

[Sheb]

Well, except for separatism most of the other terrorrism are made by groups that share a common objective and often have informal contacts. They're just as unified as Islamists.

[XXSockXX]

Well, except for separatism most of the other terrorrism are made by groups that share a common objective and often have informal contacts. They're just as unified as Islamists.

Not really. There are wildly different agendas within the extreme left and the extreme right is not that unified either.

Also I'm not saying islamists are unified, but they are perceived as such, since they all claim to act in the name of islam.

Another point might be that islamists are targeting the majority, while other terrorist groups tend to target the government, businesses or minorities or whatever has to do with their agenda.

[Sheb]

Again, it's a misconception. Of the Islamists attacks we've seen here, most of the deaths came from attacks aimed at the military (like that guy that got beheaded or the French gunner) or Jews. Although they do have a disturbing share of people that just want to kill as many people as possible, it's not unique to Islamists either (Again, Breivik).

[XXSockXX]

Again, it's a misconception. Of the Islamists attacks we've seen here, most of the deaths came from attacks aimed at the military (like that guy that got beheaded or the French gunner) or Jews. Although they do have a disturbing share of people that just want to kill as many people as possible, it's not unique to Islamists either (Again, Breivik).

The last two bigger islamic attacks that were foiled in Germany were targeting trains or train stations, like the London or Madrid bombings, and they involved larger organized groups. We were very lucky with islamic terror so far, the only casualties AFAIK are two US soldiers killed by a lone wolf type.
The disturbing thing is of course self-radicalization of second or third generation immigrants or even converts. There is no way to combat that effectively and Breivik (although not an islamist) is a prime example of what a single well organized lunatic can do. Similarly these guys in Boston and now Woolwich could have done much more harm if they had been more competent.