Donnadogsoth Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 I see no reason to believe the elements that comprise ISIS, the Ba'athist and Al-Qaeda elements, are, in quality or quantity, unique to the Iraq-Syria region. The Moslem world is large and there are many indoctrinated people in it, many angry, envious, or outright wicked people who are eyeing the fall of the West with salivation. So, given ISIS comprises "one unit," worth of Islamic threat to the West, how many other "units" of ISIS are there in the world? In other words, how many ISIS-sized units of Islamic militants are there in the world, lying in wait for the right chaotic conditions in which to arise?
shirgall Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 I see no reason to believe the elements that comprise ISIS, the Ba'athist and Al-Qaeda elements, are, in quality or quantity, unique to the Iraq-Syria region. The Moslem world is large and there are many indoctrinated people in it, many angry, envious, or outright wicked people who are eyeing the fall of the West with salivation. So, given ISIS comprises "one unit," worth of Islamic threat to the West, how many other "units" of ISIS are there in the world? In other words, how many ISIS-sized units of Islamic militants are there in the world, lying in wait for the right chaotic conditions in which to arise? Are you asking because we've been droning and have now had a warship attached by Houthi rebels in Yemen? Or the Salafists in Algeria? Or the "Islamic Fighting Group" in Libya? Hizbul Shabaab (HSM) formerly Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI) in Somalia? Etc, etc. etc.
RichardY Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 I see no reason to believe the elements that comprise ISIS, the Ba'athist and Al-Qaeda elements, are, in quality or quantity, unique to the Iraq-Syria region. The Moslem world is large and there are many indoctrinated people in it, many angry, envious, or outright wicked people who are eyeing the fall of the West with salivation. So, given ISIS comprises "one unit," worth of Islamic threat to the West, how many other "units" of ISIS are there in the world? In other words, how many ISIS-sized units of Islamic militants are there in the world, lying in wait for the right chaotic conditions in which to arise? No idea. I don't think anyone really has an idea except maybe the Intelligence Agencies. And who knows how many "neutrals" might pull a grenade when a person's back is turned. Even if someone surrenders, from ISIS while fighting against ISIS/Islamists, it might be preferable to shoot them anyway "Let God sort them out". Similar things have happened loads of times, even to former allies. (Sinking part of the French Fleet in 1940.) Don't think people should be too bothered about the Middle East, it's Europe that's going to be a battleground again sooner rather than later. Some demographic overview would be interesting, not just Stefan's presentations or alt-right new broadcasting. An equivalent of "The Big Board" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZV_lIwmz5E Often terrorists and rioters will use social media and smartphone apps to coordinate activities, it might be useful to have a "Big Board" to determine where Libertarianism might be the most effective to spread.
eggmunkee Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I think maybe a better question is how many more ISIS's will be created before the globalist/NATO power group is unseated from power (non-elected government power). I doubt the notion that ISIS arose just from a power vacuum and organic belief system clashes or riled up from Western-led bombing and war campaigns. Does the reader doubt the US/NATO hand in the creation of al-Qaeda? If not, I suspect he believes this was a strategic error. He may also believe a subsequent strategic error led to an accidental creation of ISIS. I think this is incorrect. The history of both show intention to fund and create these groups as proxy armies. First of all, there is evidence the US military foresaw and worked towards what they knew would form something like ISIS: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html I believe one consequence of the existence of Intelligence-related supra-national military organizations like NATO, is that intelligence ops have an even wider scope and can cut even further against any national interests, let alone the interest of individuals in a given area of the world, yet they are always thoroughly camouflaged and divided up into various nation's parts played. When an organization, working always through murder, theft, deception, and other black ops methods, is planning in multiple decades, is targeting a goal such as Global Hegemony or perhaps a permanent war-state globally, the results can't be well analyzed from the false worldview of individual nations working on national priorities and national interests, nor can it be well analyzed from an individual power ambition lens. The state of the world today is neither the result of individual nations' struggle for dominance, nor the struggle of powerful people for individual power and control. The people at the level of NATO command or steering committee for the Bilderberg group are not playing 2d chess, or petty personal power quests, the surface level narrative of their conflicts is not reflective of the reality. They work together on things which consolidate and concentrate power globally, they may conflict pettily over smaller points on the board, but never actually endangering a common goal. They protect their core of consolidated corruption to a man or woman, no matter what other philosophy or rhetoric they may be using for deception. The rise of ISIS required a lot of investment in radicalized education from countries like Saudi Arabia, it probably was involved in the Gulen schools movement where Islamic schools are being set up all around the world. There are almost undoubtedly Muslim Imams working directly for Western intelligence working on brainwashing future soldiers for the whims of NATO commanders. We see how the West is using its own terrorist forces to get closer to war with Russia, along side installing missile sites near Russia's borders, assisting the overthrow of Ukraine covertly, etc. etc. Hillary is calling for war with Russia if deceptive US intellegence agencies claim Russia committed cyber-attacks (which can be fabricated easily). Put simply, one cannot pretend that every action the West takes causes blowback, and at the same time think no one in the very complex and nuanced intellegence planning field has recognized or accounted for it. Foresight, correct analysis, and desire for an outcome kind of preclude the conclusion of ignorant mistake by stupid but well-meaning people that comes back to bite them. I don't think stupidity is a good explanation for trillions of unaccountable dollars in the US defense and intellegence agencies. So I propose we stop making the mistake of thinking our enemies (of freedom, morality, peace, trade) are stupid and blind. They put out different levels of narrative to provide something for different groups, not because they can't get a story straight. I wouldn't doubt that there are extensive documents about distruptive talking points by the sub-community intending to affect. We must try to match them on that type of analysis and psychological awareness.
RichardY Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 The state of the world today is neither the result of individual nations' struggle for dominance (agree with first point), nor the struggle of powerful people for individual power and control. Disagree with second point. Thinking of mobile phone development and Apple in particular, I doubt that modern smart phones would have developed at the speed they did without someone like Steve Jobs at the helm, so many complex products were developed with the guy in charge (Toy Story, Ipod ,Iphone, Itunes, Apple Mac etc). My point being that although organisations "may" improve on existing designs if there is going to be an impact some persons vision/innovation is directing somewhere. When an organization, working always through murder, theft, deception, and other black ops methods, is planning in multiple decades, is targeting a goal such as Global Hegemony or perhaps a permanent war-state globally, Not sustainable longer term, though there are some groups(organizations) that no doubt profit individuals and themselves in someway. Banks, Arms Dealers, Military, Political Groups. They put out different levels of narrative to provide something for different groups, not because they can't get a story straight. I wouldn't doubt that there are extensive documents about distruptive talking points by the sub-community intending to affect. We must try to match them on that type of analysis and psychological awareness. There is an obvious bias now in the MSM to anyone with a "reasonable" level of intelligence and access to the Internet and importantly to alternative news sites and comment sections. What the "they" though is should not matter in a reasonable society. Though just putting out alternative analysis, I'm not sure is going to be enough. Crucially now I think it has to be better targeted in someway, what should be the highest priority seems highly debatable. Ideally "easily" eliminating the root cause of the current World woes depending on your perspective and crucially feelings. Alternatively attempting to "sanitise" a particular area, through more political action such as backing a political candidate or changing the acknowledgement and obedience of the "state" on a more local level. Option (1) Root cause: First step Try to make non-peaceful parenting, peaceful. Second step( unfortunately... "I see you" LOTR style), undermine the direct force of recognised political positions. Option (2) Sanitise: Interfere more directly with "freewill" target specific areas en masse exploiting networking potential of Internet to bring philosophy, truth and awareness to particular segments of populations. Persuade and win by proxy and example. "Small" countries, in Europe might be good targets for Libertarianism and Ideally no state. The USA is pretty big and I think and feel it would be good/excellent if Trump wins, but... there is still "post Trump" and how much political power may corrupt the guy. But if the SHTF I guess you guys could retreat further into the country "Wolverine Style!". Was surprised to see a video on Youtube of Somali's in Minneapolis protesting for stuff(even the cops looked like Somali's), if I were a Somali refugee I'd probably be down in Florida for the warmth, but I think they don't get on well with Hispanics for some reason. Maybe there are some other strategic options for spreading Libertarianism.
eggmunkee Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 Disagree with second point. Thinking of mobile phone development and Apple in particular, I doubt that modern smart phones would have developed at the speed they did without someone like Steve Jobs at the helm, so many complex products were developed with the guy in charge (Toy Story, Ipod ,Iphone, Itunes, Apple Mac etc). My point being that although organisations "may" improve on existing designs if there is going to be an impact some persons vision/innovation is directing somewhere. Not sustainable longer term, though there are some groups(organizations) that no doubt profit individuals and themselves in someway. Banks, Arms Dealers, Military, Political Groups. There is an obvious bias now in the MSM to anyone with a "reasonable" level of intelligence and access to the Internet and importantly to alternative news sites and comment sections. What the "they" though is should not matter in a reasonable society. Though just putting out alternative analysis, I'm not sure is going to be enough. Crucially now I think it has to be better targeted in someway, what should be the highest priority seems highly debatable. Ideally "easily" eliminating the root cause of the current World woes depending on your perspective and crucially feelings. Alternatively attempting to "sanitise" a particular area, through more political action such as backing a political candidate or changing the acknowledgement and obedience of the "state" on a more local level. Option (1) Root cause: First step Try to make non-peaceful parenting, peaceful. Second step( unfortunately... "I see you" LOTR style), undermine the direct force of recognised political positions. Option (2) Sanitise: Interfere more directly with "freewill" target specific areas en masse exploiting networking potential of Internet to bring philosophy, truth and awareness to particular segments of populations. Persuade and win by proxy and example. "Small" countries, in Europe might be good targets for Libertarianism and Ideally no state. The USA is pretty big and I think and feel it would be good/excellent if Trump wins, but... there is still "post Trump" and how much political power may corrupt the guy. But if the SHTF I guess you guys could retreat further into the country "Wolverine Style!". Was surprised to see a video on Youtube of Somali's in Minneapolis protesting for stuff(even the cops looked like Somali's), if I were a Somali refugee I'd probably be down in Florida for the warmth, but I think they don't get on well with Hispanics for some reason. Maybe there are some other strategic options for spreading Libertarianism. I just wanted to say I appreciate your response and just haven't had the chance to give it due time and consideration. Hope to respond soon.
Recommended Posts