ISIS is in fact winning. Fundamentalism is winning.

[wholol]

See I could believe that but most. govermemts are to stupid to pull it off.

See that's where people forget some of the things that happened in the past, try to recall some of the recent "wars" if they can even be called that.

How did things happen the way they did and what was the outcome? it is true that some governments couldn't pull it off, but I'm pretty sure we can name a few that can.

This isn't simply about winning votes, if you look into the whole petrodollar fiasco over the past few decades you should realize what I'm talking about.
Propaganda is and has been playing a major part in all of this, but what's really scary is how far the people in power would go to keep themselves there and how little people care about the big picture, and I'm not just talking about a single country here.

I don't want to get into name calling and enter a debate that will probably end up in arguments with everyone stating differing opinions about what is the "right" way , but let's just say this entire terrorism charade was engineered quite a few years before terrorism became a thing, some truths are hard to swallow.

If I had to label it, I would consider it on par with the whole petrodollar thing and while most of these incident seem like they are randomly occurring "terrors" they are in fact quite calculated moves, moves not invented by fanatically religious people I assure you.

It's true though that there are differing groups of terrorism, but I'd wager they belong mostly to different powerhouses and are operating to achieve different goals, think of it as a world-scale chess game, where the super countries don't want to get directly involved due to several reasons and this is the most brilliantly thought-out chess game wherein lies moves to counter other moves, moves that can be traced back to the cold war period, it's not rocket science really.

[Barnabas]

You do realize that we have native white terrorist to right? unabomber, Tim Mcveigh, mass shooters none of these have anything to do with multiculturalism. If you look at the death count Jihadist have a lot of catching up to do in terms of body count. Should we start getting rid of white people too? you know since terrorists and all.

- - - Updated - - -



On the contrary they love people like Donald Trump and Lepen, nothing drives recruitment and funding like extremists that fit their narrative. ISIS entire propaganda is that the world hates Muslims and people of color and that they are coming after you one day. If you consider what her father is and the thing she says Lepen is ISIS wet dream, her father is a known racist and she stood by him and takes money from him.

I still don't see how that is winning? What mostly drives the European terrorist attacks is the lack of opportunity and living in slums for those migrants. France has to come to terms with relaxing the strict labor laws they have built over time. Then when the migrants see some upward mobility they can actually settle and not be so angry. You'll still have some assholes still but the likelihood they will want to kill a whole bunch of people will be sparse. Any of the candidates can do that so if it's le pen or fillon or macron ISIS won't be winning jack shit.

[Powerogue]

I think this idea that we'd go back to squabbling, isolated, war-torn countries ignores the existence of things like the internet and larger global trade/communication in general. Even pulling out of a union isn't going to mean these countries are no longer codependent on each other at all.

[Hiricine]

If ISIS goal ambiguous and we just say they win no matter what happens, then yes they win.

If their goal is to create an Islamic State, they are losing. They're losing territory, and their members are being killed off. I find it extremely unlikely that their goal is to create European quasi-ethnic states.

[Mihalik]

I think this idea that we'd go back to squabbling, isolated, war-torn countries ignores the existence of things like the internet and larger global trade/communication in general. Even pulling out of a union isn't going to mean these countries are no longer codependent on each other at all.

With threats like a resurgent Russian imperialism in eastern and northern Europe, embattled economies of south, an ongoing demographic problem (dropping birthrates, limited resources, isolated ethno-religious minorities) and rising nationalism across the board aeconomic and declining American leadership the absence of organizations like the EU would make all those issues exponentially worse.

Not to mention the fact that the collapse of the common economic area (which is conservatively estimated to contribute around 12% or more to EU economies) would guaranteedly bring a new wave of economic crunches that would severly affect Europe and the global economy.

Sure people can make vague predictions about "the long term" which is mostly just wishful thinking, but we would have an entire generation of people fucked over.

Furthermore the existence of the internet guarantees nothing, as most of its commercial benefits would be largely nullified in a world where a single shipment of something will have to pass customs everytime it crosses a national border. Nor does it act as a guarantee against the rise of nationalistic autoritharianism as Russia and more recently Turkey have clearly shown us.

Nor is it as free as it seems when nations like China or Iran censor much of it and countries like Turkey shut down media and internet access whenever they find it convenient.

The EU isn't just a trade union, but also a strong institutional guarantee for personal freedoms, security cooperation and peace.

Most people who look back at a Europe before the EU either look at that past with rose tinted glasses or are too young to have experienced it and they literally have no idea what they are talking about because they lack a framework to imagine it. Many of the things they simply think as the norm and given would not and cannot exist without the EU.

People are profoundly ignorant. It's often not their fault,but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

[leigonlord]

What is wrong with being supportive and proud of your country and your fellow countrymen all working together to create a better country for yourselves in an identical belief of prosperity for yourselves?

because it lead to 2 world wars and its leading to a third.

[Mihalik]

I find it extremely unlikely that their goal is to create European quasi-ethnic states.

The consequences of the collapse of the EU would be sweepingly broad. It would mean everything from rising poverty, to decreased security cooperation. The refugee crisis would get exponentially worse and the new nationalist governments in countries like France would be left with a "Muslim problem" to tackle. All the solutions they usually propose include militaristic policing, ethnic and religious discrimination and worse.

The goal of terrorists is instability, fear and strife. If you make people scared enough you cause instability which in turns causes strife and those are the environments where they thrive.

They are not just a territory, but also an ideology. Even if they lose territory the ideology remains, they would either just reorganize themselves to resemble more traditional terror groups or simply resourface under a new brand.

[Deleted]

The consequences of the collapse of the EU would be sweepingly broad. It would mean everything from rising poverty, to decreased security cooperation. The refugee crisis would get exponentially worse and the new nationalist governments in countries like France would be left with a "Muslim problem" to tackle. All the solutions they usually propose include militaristic policing, ethnic and religious discrimination and worse.

The goal of terrorists is instability, fear and strife. If you make people scared enough you cause instability which in turns causes strife and those are the environments where they thrive.

They are not just a territory, but also an ideology. Even if they lose territory the ideology remains, they would either just reorganize themselves to resemble more traditional terror groups or simply resourface under a new brand.

It is not the terrorists that make us hate the EU. It is far more than that.

Nice try, but keep trying and you will improve!

[Hiricine]

The consequences of the collapse of the EU would be sweepingly broad. It would mean everything from rising poverty, to decreased security cooperation. The refugee crisis would get exponentially worse and the new nationalist governments in countries like France would be left with a "Muslim problem" to tackle. All the solutions they usually propose include militaristic policing, ethnic and religious discrimination and worse.

The goal of terrorists is instability, fear and strife. If you make people scared enough you cause instability which in turns causes strife and those are the environments where they thrive.

They are not just a territory, but also an ideology. Even if they lose territory the ideology remains, they would either just reorganize themselves to resemble more traditional terror groups or simply resourface under a new brand.

The refugee crisis really isn't that big of a problem in the "midway" countries most of the refugees walk through to get to the rest of Europe, and most of it isn't coming from countries ISIS is active in, unless you're defining the very small subset of refugees thats part of the migrants.

The goal of terrorists is whatever they say their goal is, generally. ISIS says they want to form a state, and their attacks are meant to deter foreign intervention, according to their words. The chaos might be a part of that, but generally, nationalistic states that are oppositional to their goals hurt them more than help.

To the last point, its a hard metric to measure, but if ISIS has no members and no territory, it isn't much of a threat. The terror attacks seem to be ramping up mostly because they're becoming more aware of vulnerable targets than anything, most of the deaths they have caused are in Islamic countries that couldn't give a shit what France thinks of them.

If ISIS gets driven into hiding and resurfaces or rebrands that would be a win, in that it couldn't grow by itself. The idea that there is a better alternative to trying to reduce their numbers and influence as much as possible is silly, killing 90% of them and having them go into hiding is better than leaving that 90% alive, and ISIS certainly sees it the same way.

[Torto]

The consequences of the collapse of the EU would be sweepingly broad. It would mean everything from rising poverty, to decreased security cooperation. The refugee crisis would get exponentially worse and the new nationalist governments in countries like France would be left with a "Muslim problem" to tackle. All the solutions they usually propose include militaristic policing, ethnic and religious discrimination and worse.

The goal of terrorists is instability, fear and strife. If you make people scared enough you cause instability which in turns causes strife and those are the environments where they thrive.

They are not just a territory, but also an ideology. Even if they lose territory the ideology remains, they would either just reorganize themselves to resemble more traditional terror groups or simply resourface under a new brand.

How exactly would the refugee crisis get worse if the EU collapses? With each sovereign nation able to once again control their own borders, how would refugees be able to wander into Scandinavia, Germany or the UK? I would think the disintegration of the EU and the abolition of the obscene socialist EU bureaucracy would solve the refugee crisis once and for all.

[Independent voter]

ISIS lost Dabiq, a city that was so important to them they even named their magazine "Dabiq". The Koran says Dabiq is the site of the battle that will bring about the End Times.

ISIS is going to be driven out of Mosul eventually, there are still 400k Iraqi citizens trapped in the city so the going is slow.

Then we have that huge bomb dropped on ISIS' Afghanistan stronghold.

The ultra religious look a everything as a message from God. The mullahs spin it but if ISIS keeps losing like this, the mullahs can only do so much.

I think ISIS is losing, but gradually.

[Deleted]

Have a cup of tea and calm down dear.

Brexit was not due to ISIS, it was because the majority do not like the French idea of a European super state.

Pretty much this. Countries are made of people who like to be their own identities. ISIS just cant turn the world into what it wants so it goes full spite mode and just fucks with everyone and acts like it has a point. OPs fears is the only ISIS victory.

[Acidbaron]

People are greatly overblowing this and so is the media.
People like the OP are seeing trends happening and merely sticking whatever reason they think is right to it and ignoring all other factors.

Over reacting to this act is rather normal, it will die down again as it did before. The idea to close all borders for a few random skirmish attacks is silly and counter productive, the whole reason that group has to resort to such small scale attacks is because of the order forces of different countries working together much closer and better since the attacks in Paris, Brussels, London and so forth.

I invite you to look up how many steps France have to go through and check boxes it has to meet to completely withdraw itself from the EU, electing either far right or far left candidate won't suffice.

I don't really follow this whole European identity crisis as a nationalist myself, Europe has and always will be changing, so will it culture and so will its people. The solution that the far right called assimilation instead of integration doesn't work and won't come to pass and the notion that accepting other cultures will merely change us not effect them isn't a reality either and won't come to pass. And honestly if everyone still had the disposable income and was well off like we were in the 80's and 90's seeing improvements to our lives on that front, this would not even be a big of a deal. The rise of nationalism comes from economic down turn not immigration.

[Kiri]

Of course it is winning.

We can't even fight them effectively because one side of our nation won't even allow to say Islam and terrorism are linked.

When there is an attack, the media won't even call it what it is. They claim it was a "lone gunman" or "isolated incident."

Not only that, Isis is nasty as hell and will even resort to things like having children soldiers and child executioners (it's all on video if you don't believe it).

The media protects them for some weird reason that I have yet to figure out. Some say it is because there is a lot of Saudi money in the media and Saudi is basically funding the terrorists to destabilize the region to maintain superiority. Our politcians all turn a blind eye because they are on the Saudi gravy train themselves. Which is why Obama tried to veto that bill allowing citizens to sue the Saudi's over terrorism.

I do consider the media complicit in this (and if you read how the papers and newscasters describe these attacks- you will see what I mean).

Something very "fishy" is going on here. I find it very odd that people protect these vicious, blood thirsty murderers and there must be a reason behind it. Usually that reason has to do with money.

I think pretty much every recent explicit terror attack has been labelled a terror attack eventually. The media, however, has taken to try and not call such incidents terror attacks until proven so. In doing so, they are not protecting vicious, blood thirsty murderers - but instead those Muslims that are not any of those things. And they do it simply because there are people who, when told that the terrorism in question is coming from radical islamists immediately go to Muslim=Terrorist.
That used to not be the case in the past, but has increasingly become so in recent years. Therefore, the media gets more cautious nowadays. A simple, reasonable explanation that does not need any conspiracy theories.
For contrast, just look at the other attacks. A mosque in Canada being shot up? No uproar in America. A white christian shooting dead Indians in the US? No uproar, and no one linking either of those characteristics to terrorism. The media does not have to be careful with that. But as soon as someone that even only looks Arabic shoots someone, you immediately have cries of terrorism and the need for punitive measures against everyone with either the same origin or religion. Just look at Trump staying completely silent for the latter two incidents, but immediately seizing on the last thing in Paris. It is currently very easy to get the support of a subset of the population by playing on their fear of 'the other' and use that for political or monetary gain. Of course, the left-leaning media is also motivated by pushing against that. They may only be doing the moral thing here for selfish reasons, but at least they are doing it instead of fear-mongering wherever they can.

To be honest, these days it is less the violent terrorists working to induce fear in people, but more the populists and right-wingers.

[Krille]

As opposed to globalization that is of course the saviour of everything individual national culture can hope for?

It's insane to think that we must look at any increase in nationalism and any dissolution of ultrasovereign bodies as somehow beneficial to ISIS. It's globalization that has let those people in, appeased them and given them far more than they've ever deserved, and for what? Cultural enrichment? How's that meme working out? Not so great.

The "cultural enrichment" thing is a meme from the nationalists themselves. Allowing refugees to take refuge in your country was never about culture, it's about common sense. Some countries would even do it to increase their nations population as more people generally means more money, in this particular case it's been overwhelming for many nations so thats not been the case. But in the long-term future, having a bigger population is a good thing most of the time. Only the far-right baboons run around shouting "muh cultural enrichment" cus that's the only thing you care about. To preserve some ancient culture.

[Deleted]

I dont want people in Bruxelles i did'nt vote for to make my laws, so ISIS is winning. Seems legit.

[Mormolyce]

In the wake of the latest attack in Paris

2001: ~3,000 die in an Al Qaeda attack.
2017: 1 man shot by a guy with a gun.

Yeah I'd say they're not really on their way up.

[Damajin]

The "cultural enrichment" thing is a meme from the nationalists themselves. Allowing refugees to take refuge in your country was never about culture, it's about common sense. Some countries would even do it to increase their nations population as more people generally means more money, in this particular case it's been overwhelming for many nations so thats not been the case. But in the long-term future, having a bigger population is a good thing most of the time. Only the far-right baboons run around shouting "muh cultural enrichment" cus that's the only thing you care about. To preserve some ancient culture.

Common sense? Rofl.

The rest of what you wrote is absolute drivel.

[Deleted]

In the wake of the latest attack in Paris now once again there's talk about the possible victory of Le Pen. A candidate that aims to take France out of the EU, something that would likely mean the demise of the Union and likely the rise of new waves of nationalism, further stocked by conflict, social strife and political and economic instability.

Brexit was the first salvo. If the EU is undone and Europe returns to being an isolated, impoverished, conflict torn continent Islamic terrorism would have won by irreversibly damaging the West, Western civilization and Western prosperity and security.

I am not saying that this is the end, but the damage will be deep.

An interesting parallel to draw is how a terrorist attack (killing of an Austrian prince) by a single radical unleashed half a century of chaos and war on the continent.

Many have seemingly forgot the lessons of the past and are now once again we seem poised to give in to fear, nationalist fervor.

I am worried.

...Did you write that yourself or just copy-paste standardized liberal bullshit?

"In the wake of" WTF dude? Nobody talks like that irl, do you work as a journalist or something?

[xenogear3]

You know there are two realms, right?

The realm, we are in right now, is just a temporary proving ground to test people's will.

There is another realm that you get either reward (64 virgins) or punishment (tortured forever).