ISIS in America?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So 1 guy was belgian, you got me there, still dosent make what your saying true, you claimed isis has or is infiltrating, your own words.

So plz keep up making stuff up bud.

Actually, I was just trying to prove a point that you don't know what you are talking about. He was not the only Belgian in the group, but again I don't expect you to know as you don't seem to care about facts.

Their MO is to find others locally to recruit and kill for them. It really isn't rocket science here. Are you saying you think all of these are unrelated random acts of extreme violence not in the name of religion and completely unrelated?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Well some ats people have been claiming that isis was sending a horde of terrorist to take over europe, im still waiting must be next week or something.

They won't send over a horde of anything to take over all at once....not their style. They will send them in to hit multiple targets over time to create fear.

Going by Iraq, Libya and certainly Syria, sending a horde all at once is their only style.

I'm pretty sure this isn't Isis, although I am often wrong.

They seemed to know why they were doing, has ex-military been ruled out? What was the significance of the people in the building they attacked?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thats cool isis a group that is about 1 year old is infiltrating, but the best part is its been proven lol. For proofs you would need facts
So again stay on the ball,'gotta burn a bit when your wrong and you keep on behing wrong.

ISIS is 1 year old? I am pretty sure there are threads on ATS about ISIS that are older than 1 year.

I will end my conversation with you on that note. It is apparent you either have absolutely NO clue as to what you are talking about, or are trolling at this point.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yea run away lol, you got called out, and still couldent bring any proof to the table, have a nice day.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Dude you stated that isis is infiltrating place to do attacks, then you say there recruting in other countries plz make up your mind.

Would it be difficult for you folks to stay on topic? This thread is about ISIS being inside America or not - not about Europe. A bit of off-topic is cool, put this is a bit much.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: boncho
Stop the inane ramblings. Just where did I post anything like

You posted it about yourself actually. Using that quote as a comparative, is essentially saying "If Americans would like their free gun laws back, we need to stop using them to shoot each other and join the military, to show the government we do know how to use firearms for a beneficial use."

So , here comes my patented saying :
Game over , you are all out of tokens .

No offense, but do you have reading comprehension problems or did you not read the source?
You said

Gandhi actually stated , the darkest day was when the British took their guns.

I clarified and you continued:

No way to misinterpret the statement.unless you are a gun control advocate. Nice try though.

What Ghandi was saying, and he said this in his autobiography, is that Britain would regret its mistrust of the Indian peoples, as he went around and recruited people for the war, he encouraged them to fight alongside to show to the British they were trustworthy and loyal to the crown, and in doing so the law would be repealed (it would be the 'darkest day' because the British would realize the Indians are loyal to the crown and the law wasn't needed-he didnt disagree with the law, he disagreed that Indians should be treated differently than brits).

It had nothing to do with the right to bear arms for ones personal defence, or any common argument in US gun control debate. It was about Indian's being treated differently than British, and his method of gaining trust with the British.

Paraphrasing: 'Britain will regret the day it barred Indians from having guns, because we (Indians) will volunteer to fight in the war along side them, we will learn how to use firearms properly, show we are loyal and competent, and willing to give our lives to serve them, which in turn will show the law was not needed.'

So as mentioned, you are bringing it up in defence or opposition of gun control. How does it relate to you? Were you trying to join the military to prove you are able to carry weapons? This does not relate to the gun control debate at all in America, because you are not subjects of an imperial crown and you are not trying to join the army to prove your competence in firearm ownership. If anything, this would support a gun control argument because Ghandi didnt disagree with the act because it took people's guns away, he disagreed with it because it suggested Indians weren't loyal subjects to the crown, and he wanted to prove that wasn't the case. If the act was proportional and included British and Indian, he likely wouldnt have had any objection to it at all, and that quote would not exist.

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'.

www.anesi.com...

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thats cool isis a group that is about 1 year old is infiltrating, but the best part is its been proven lol. For proofs you would need facts
So again stay on the ball,'gotta burn a bit when your wrong and you keep on behing wrong.

ISIS is 1 year old? I am pretty sure there are threads on ATS about ISIS that are older than 1 year.

I will end my conversation with you on that note. It is apparent you either have absolutely NO clue as to what you are talking about, or are trolling at this point.

Daesh has existed in some form or the other since 1999. However, the Caliphate and current incarnation of "IS", was announced around June 2014 I believe.

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]),[37][38] the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL". On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be an Islamic state and worldwide caliphate, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph, and renamed itself ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah (الدولة الإسلامية, "Islamic State" (IS).

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So the story changed again, gotta love people who make stuff up as it goes. Im still waiting for isis to take over, do you have an eta, or we just have to wait till nothing happens lol.

What story? I was speaking to your statement of hearing they were sending a horde over. It has already been shown they have infiltrated multiple countries and carried out attacks, or have you already forgotten those? Their way is to do just that. They don't have an army they just deploy like conventional warfare....they sneak them in and plan small cell attacks in multiple areas over time to create fear in the populace. That is what they ARE doing and HAVE done all over the world.

Actually, technically they have been here since the 80s (Sort of), when the Afghanis were fighting the Russians, they had centres all over the US and their activities were known as 'The Struggle', which changed later to 'The Base' (aka: Al Qaeda), so they went from a bunch of refugee/remittance centres for funding defence from Russians, to actively funding operations in the name of Jihad. (Al Kifah).

This following documentary is a must watch. Its the story of Ali Mohamed, who's story is too weird to believe. He was a Egyptian intelligence officer, but was exiled from Egypt for being a radical. (This is back when Egypt was progressive, and the Brotherhood did not have a lot of power), Ali was a translator for Ayman al-Zawahiri and came to America shortly after, along with the Blind Sheik and others who were responsible for the first WTC Bombing, when he came he joined the US military at Fort Bragg. During his time here, he worked intermittently for FBI & CIA, but at the same time was committed to fighting the Russians, he went back to train soldiers using classified US military materials, he also trained Osama Bin Laden's personal guards, and was in charge of transportation operations getting him in and out of Africa. He also worked on intelligence reports for the embassy bombings taking random trips to Africa to fulfill his duties.

After the embassy bombings happened he was finally charged and tried as a conspirator. However, instead of being sentenced for being a spy/traitor/etc, he just disappeared right after 9/11. No one knows what happened to him from there.

Its one of the weirdest stories out there, and it really makes no sense at all. He was close to all the top Al-Q leaders, but not only limited to them, but all the who's who of Egyptian radicals and jihadis, the people responsible for Anwar Sadat's assassination, etc

The documentary covers almost all of this. It also talks about the refugee centres and the mission to supper them, which started out as 'the struggle' which eventually changed to 'the base' Al Qaeda



Here's a link to the Al Kifah Refugee centers

So, "Hey Bonch, thats not IS tho!" Nope, it isn't. But Al-Q and IS were slightly aligned, and developed relations in Iraq during the war. In fact, "Daesh" as they are known by most normal Muslims in the region (derogatory), formed around 1999.

Followed along this far? Good.

Lets look at the start of Daesh: *The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces.*

They were relative nobodies up until Iraq. The war there changed *a lot* though. Al-Q was actually broken up pretty good with the operations in Afghanistan and early Iraq, but what happened, is the presence there suddenly gave legitimacy to Daesh.

While all this happened, the jihadi groups in the US and Europe, were under so much surveillance that often times undercover operatives from various countries would be spying on each other, because there were so many secret agents infiltrating the mosques and other cultural centres. Not much room for any of these operations to yield much fruit.

However, with Iraq, eventually the toll of the war (Millions dead, relocated, displaced, etc) kind of reinforced negative sentiments towards the West. At the same time the region was destabilized from other problems, wars, skirmishes, etc

So even if Al-Q and Daesh don't claim to be totally aligned today, I would bet money on the fact you will find the same actors, either helping out, supporting, or directly participating. Its like if you start up two progressional sports leagues, they are going to draw from the same talent pool.

So are they already here? Plenty of jihadi-minded individuals are likely state-side already. How many will be born out of the Syria crisis? Who knows. Treating the refugees like they are already guilty probably isn't a good idea. In fact, any hate or intolerance towards Muslims in general, will not do anything to quash the radical sentiment, that's for sure.

There is likely the same thing to happen that happened during the 80s with the struggle against Russia. Except this time, the radicals have decided to go jihad on the entire globe. Not the smartest group IMO. Im sure Al-Q or other groups, even if they aren't aligned with IS directly, if it comes time to seek out mercenaries or helpers, or whatever, there only needs to be one powerful leader to spring up to cause a lot of damage.

I think right now they don't have that. Their official people don't seem to be the larger than life personalities that past Jihadi groups had. If they do get that, they might be able to coordinate global recruiting, which I think was already stated here they like to break this thing up, source locally among various populations. This is where that documentary is a good watch, as it shows you exactly how they did it prior, for the embassy bombings and WTC.

I would be surprised however if they are successful. I would imagine with all the agencies currently operating specifically for countering these types of organizations, and the sheer amount of double agents working inside their best source of recruitment (mosques, refugee centres, etc) its going to be very hard for them to operate. Though we did just have the Paris crisis.

I think the long term is likely a long drawn out affair. Similar to the IRA, or in a totally opposite comparison, like the way gangs have sprung up in the US, one goes down and another pops up, over and over again. It will be an ideological war for the future I presume. As more and more operations are carried out in the Middle East, and more and more people are displaced, it makes it easier to scoop up misguided kids, turn them into radicals, just as 10 years ago they might have turned to gangs.

Luckily, the 'potentials' are limited to mostly Muslims. Which is good and bad. Smaller demographic to go radical by themselves, or with pressure, but then a stronger reaction from regular people, who will blame that subset of the population. Leading to racial tensions and more hate, which in turn could fuel more radicalization and recruiting opportunities.