ISIS & Al Qaeda have already won. By succeeding in forcing change in our societies and everday lives

[Yossarian]

ISIS & Al Qaeda have already won. By succeeding in forcing change in our societies and everday lives

Lets look at what's happened, for example, since 9/11 in the U.S.A. alone.

* Every commercial airport has each had tens of millions of dollars worth of luggage and body scanners and various other security equipment installed. We wait in long lines to have our luggage scanned/opened, bodies scanned/patted down, pockets emptied, belts and other clothing with metallic content removed and checked, shoes checked ...

* Each and every public building in the country has had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of security monitors and other such equipment installed. Whether those buildings are in down town New York or in some small rural town in the wilds of Montana.

* Similarly, every office building, every retail store, every shopping mall, every bus and tube station in the country, has installed thousands of dollars worth of security cameras and scanners. Our every move is monitored and recorded, when and who we interact with, what we're buying, what we're carrying, what we're eating, even when and where we're going to the toilet ....

* Bridges, streets and road junctions are full of CCTV cameras monitored by highway police and other authorities. They know where we're coming from, the route we've taken, where we've been, the details of the vehicle we're in, who we're with ...

* Our emails and social media content is monitored. Our phones are bugged,. Our conversations are recorded. (Thanks to Edward Snowden for bringing that to the publics attention)

Wouldn't you agree that if the intentions of the likes of Isis and Al Qaeda is to disrupt the lives of everyone in the West (Even they know that a few random terrorist acts are not going to militarily defeat the might of Western police and security forces), then Isis and Al Qaeda have already won - because they've already forced those of us living in Western societies to accept increased surveillance, reduced liberties and more intrusions by the state into our daily lives. All in the name of being kept safe from the likes of Isis and Al Qaeda.

Discuss.

 

[Gilly]

The bank robbers won, banks have security guards, CCTV, big expensive safes. lol

 

[Yossarian]

The bank robbers won, banks have security guards, CCTV, big expensive safes. lol

I guess the gist of the OP is beyond you ... oh well.

 

[classic]

Ultimately it's those companies and government contractors and agencies that have really benefitted by taking away our liberties by installing all these security measures ie CCTV and all the surveillance equipment and making a huge profit installing them all over the world. A very profitable industry to be in ...Security.

 

[Yossarian]

Ultimately it's those companies and government contractors and agencies that have really benefitted by taking away our liberties by installing all these security measures ie CCTV and all the surveillance equipment and making a huge profit installing them all over the world. A very profitable industry to be in ...Security.

Hope for an attack. Which will create fear and panic. Feed on that fear, move in and claim you have a solution that will allow you to monitor and prevent further attacks. They just need to buy your product, install it and maintain it.

And oh yes, they'll need to agree to give up their privacy, allow their every move to be monitored and recorded by 'you don't know who', including their communications, places they visit, who they interact with.....

All these additional security measures will ensure their routine activities take longer, be more intrusive,.... it won't guarantee that future attacks won't occur, because for every security measure they take, someone somewhere will find a way around it, usually a loneshark operaing on their own. But it'll make them feel safe and secure.

Then watch your sales instantly shoot up. And then slowly fall away. Until the next attack.

I am of course referring to malware and virus attacks, and anti-virus software suppliers. Why did someone think I was referring to terrorism?

 

[Robert]

* Our emails and social media content is monitored. Our phones are bugged,. Our conversations are recorded. (Thanks to Edward Snowden for bringing that to the publics attention)


Discuss.

Did you seriously ever think otherwise? I would have been amazed if they did not do those things, and well before the current problem of Al-Qaeda and ISIL. These do not pose an existential threat to our societies, yet Russia has been pointing ICBMs at us since the 1960s.

 

[Yossarian]

Did you seriously ever think otherwise? I would have been amazed if they did not do those things, and well before the current problem of Al-Qaeda and ISIL. These do not pose an existential threat to our societies, yet Russia has been pointing ICBMs at us since the 1960s.

Big Brother. 1984. Roll on.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Wouldn't you agree that if the intentions of the likes of Isis and Al Qaeda is to disrupt the lives of everyone in the West (Even they know that a few random terrorist acts are not going to militarily defeat the might of Western police and security forces), then Isis and Al Qaeda have already won - because they've already forced those of us living in Western societies to accept increased surveillance, reduced liberties and more intrusions by the state into our daily lives. All in the name of being kept safe from the likes of Isis and Al Qaeda.

Discuss.

If that's what you call winning, it's a pretty pathetic aim for an organisation which supposedly wants to establish an alternative way of life for the world. It's basically like saying: We can't provide a better system for keep your money safe than the banks, but we can slash the bank manager's tyres so he can't open the bank for you tomorrow.

 

[Yossarian]

If that's what you call winning, it's a pretty pathetic aim for an organisation which supposedly wants to establish an alternative way of life for the world. It's basically like saying: We can't provide a better system for keep your money safe than the banks, but we can slash the bank manager's tyres so he can't open the bank for you tomorrow.

Pathetic aim, yes. Even they can't be so stupid as to truly believe that they can win and impose their rule on the rest of humanity? But then again, maybe they are that stupid.

However, the point is that even they know that killing a few innocents in a bar or on a plane is not going to result in victory. These random acts of terrorism, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, are designed to instil and spread fear amongst the rest of us, and force us to change our way of life. And in that regard, they have already done so.

As has already pointed out in other threads, for example, thousands die every year due to gun violence in the USA, as opposed to less than a hundred in total due to terrorism since 9/11, but the newly elected President of the USA is currently embroiled in a constitutional argument as to the best way of preventing terrorists entering the country whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to taking potential measures to reduce gun crime.

The average citizen of the USA has a far greater chance of dying as a result of gun crime than of dying due to terrorism. But which measures (as per the OP) have affected the day-to-day lives of average Americans, those to reduce gun crime or those to reduce terrorism?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pathetic aim, yes. Even they can't be so stupid as to truly believe that they can win and impose their rule on the rest of humanity? But then again, maybe they are that stupid.

However, the point is that even they know that killing a few innocents in a bar or on a plane is not going to result in victory. These random acts of terrorism, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, are designed to instil and spread fear amongst the rest of us, and force us to change our way of life. And in that regard, they have already done so.

As has already pointed out in other threads, for example, thousands die every year due to gun violence in the USA, as opposed to less than a hundred in total due to terrorism since 9/11, but the newly elected President of the USA is currently embroiled in a constitutional argument as to the best way of preventing terrorists entering the country whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to taking potential measures to reduce gun crime.

The average citizen of the USA has a far greater chance of dying as a result of gun crime than of dying due to terrorism. But which measures (as per the OP) have affected the day-to-day lives of average Americans, those to reduce gun crime or those to reduce terrorism?

I think scaremongering about Islamic terrorism has it's own uses for some governments. It's similar to how immigration issues are always trotted out at election time. Good way to win public support and divert from more awkward issues.

it's not been called The Great Game for no reason. The divergent alliances and shifting sands in Syria should tell us that much. Yesterday Turkey and NATO were posturing up against Russia over the Syrian crisis, today Turkey and Russia have joined forces and the US is on the outside looking in.

Yesterday Saudis were being blamed for spreading Wahabi ideology which creates terrorism, and Iran was being brought in from the cold. Now we are hearing that Trump's administration is going to chuck the Iranians back to the kerb and rekindle the partnership with old and reliable allies Saudi Arabia and their ilk. It's a tricky old geopolitical minefield and the ISIS hillbillies are probably considered assets or nuisances depending on which side you got out of bed in the morning.

 

[Markhor]

Indeed, and these changes haven't even made us safer. The Intercept have reported that there's no evidence that the NSA's surveillance dragnet, as revealed by Snowden, has disrupted any major attack within the US ever. Torture has repeatedly been proven to be an unreliable means of extracting information and ineffective in stopping terror attacks.

People need to calm down. Yes, terrorism is a problem and if I could snap my fingers and eradicate every jihadi off the face of the planet I would. Certainly we need effective counter-terrorism methods.

But we must live in the real world and keep some perspective. You are far more likely to be killed from a car accident, falling out of bed or drowning in a bathtub than at the hands of a terrorist. In the US, you are 3,000 times more likely to be a victim of a gun homicide than of terrorism.

The media especially in the US are whipping the terror threat way out of proportion for the sake of ratings, and are choosing to neglect things that ACTUALLY is hurting people's day-to-day lives like wage stagnation, climate change, poverty, lack of affordable housing and income inequality.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Infringement of basic liberties and civil rights is not a victory for ISIS or Al-Q, as these are created groups used to further a wider agenda. This was the aim of governments whose politicians work for the financial industry and for big coorporations. When they are doing the bidding for such groups, the nation will suffer in many ways, which then requires greater control as humans can be a rowdy bunch when things don't go their way. We have seen protests at a new level, people are using their voice to speak out against government policies esp foreign policies relating to war. Their voice has to be controlled or limited in some way and those with the loudest voice must be ridiculed or accused of being unpatriotic, extremists or even as traitors. The Patriot act pretty much destroyed and real opposition to the policies of the US government.

 

[Thivagar]

ISIS & Al Qaeda are not winning, they are losing. They have only damaged Islam and Muslims around the world. Look how many people have suffered over this these nutjobs.

 

[Robert]

I think scaremongering about Islamic terrorism has it's own uses for some governments. It's similar to how immigration issues are always trotted out at election time. Good way to win public support and divert from more awkward issues.

it's not been called The Great Game for no reason. The divergent alliances and shifting sands in Syria should tell us that much. Yesterday Turkey and NATO were posturing up against Russia over the Syrian crisis, today Turkey and Russia have joined forces and the US is on the outside looking in.
.

I thought The Great Game was that played between the British and Russian Empires in Afghanistan in the 19th century.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I thought The Great Game was that played between the British and Russian Empires in Afghanistan in the 19th century.

Globalisation means that there are now more than two players in The Great Game.

 

[Yossarian]

Globalisation means that there are now more than two players in The Great Game.

Summary: Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

By April, Milo’s influence is massive: He controls the international black market, plays a major role in the world economy, and uses air force planes from countries all over the world to carry his supply shipments. The planes are repainted with an “M & M Enterprises” logo, but Milo continues to insist that everybody has a share in his syndicate. Milo contracts with the Americans to bomb the Germans and with the Germans to shoot down American planes.

One evening after dinner, Milo’s planes begin to bomb Milo’s own camp: he has landed another contract with the Germans, and dozens of men are wounded and killed during the attack. Almost everyone wants to end M & M Enterprises right then, but Milo shows them how much money they have all made, and almost all of the survivors forgive him.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/section5.rhtml