Shooting in Demark

Shurimgreat

A lot of people are flagged to intelligence communities. I heard somewhere that there are something like 1.2 million people on one terrorist database watchlist alone. You can't just round them all up or even put everyone of them under surveillance. This issue is growing by the day.

Lets be clear, all these potential terrorists are muslim and all are disenfranchaised in the west mostly to do with the fact they hate the western lifestyle and would prefer if something like Sharia law was imposed here.

This religion is dangerous, end of story. There are good Muslims yes, but their religion is dangerous and will be in the long run. It creates more violent fanatics willing to die or kill than any other religion.

nokia69

Qualitymark wrote: »

What they're saying now is that the man was known to police, not intelligence, and was a small-time gangster.

So for the majority of ordinary Muslims who just want to mind their families and live a decent life, this is nothing to do with them.

he was known to the police for being a small time gangster and for having islamist views

there was an interview on the BBC with someone who went to the same high school, and he said that the attackers islamist views were well known and that people had told the police

Dan_Solo

Cisco100 wrote: »

So...you're denying them or not denying them or just smearing the previous poster's remarks?

I think he's saying he'd like to see some evidence of these gangs? Do you have any yourself?

Dan_Solo

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yeah right, because history began in 2003...but never mind...

Funnily enough that's almost exactly when ISIS started.
No connection at all, oh no.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Funnily enough that's almost exactly when ISIS started.
No connection at all, oh no.

Source?

Because ISIS is only about 2 years old, believed to have started in the summer of 2012, mostly in Syria, and mostly with the help of President Assad to help set them up by releasing their early leaders and not going after them for the first year, allowing them gain a foothold in the country. And then using it as excuse that he was fighting terrorism.

Wurzelbert

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Source?

Because ISIS is only about 2 years old, believed to have started in the summer of 2012, mostly in Syria, and mostly with the help of President Assad to help set them up by releasing their early leaders and not going after them for the first year, allowing them gain a foothold in the country. And then using it as excuse that he was fighting terrorism.

and not like isis or 2003 would be the starting point of islamic terrorism anyway...

Shurimgreat

ISIS is just the latest in the a list of hundreds of extreme Islamic terrorist groups who want to spread Islam by the use of force and terror, going right back to the origins of the religion itself. There is nothing new in ISIS only that their brutality is unrivalled. Apart from that, they have the same goals as all the previous groups, terrorise people. In Syria, Libya, Egypt, Afghanisation and so on there are dozens of terrorist groups, all affiliated with ISLAM and all wanting to impose harsh Sharia Law. As you know Sharia Law is completely incompatable with democracy and most other forms of basic human rights.

Wurzelbert

the naked gun comes to mind...”my people are very upset”...”of course, they're arab terrorists.”

Qualitymark

Bob24 wrote: »

Reputable French newspaper definitely says here that Danish intelligence services (PET) have confirmed the killed had been flagged to them in September 2014 by prison authorities.

Ah. My info comes from BBC World Service interviews. Either may be right or wrong.

BuilderPlumber

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Source?

Because ISIS is only about 2 years old, believed to have started in the summer of 2012, mostly in Syria, and mostly with the help of President Assad to help set them up by releasing their early leaders and not going after them for the first year, allowing them gain a foothold in the country. And then using it as excuse that he was fighting terrorism.

ISIS as in the use of this name is only from around 2013 but we all know ISIS was previously known as al Qaeda in Iraq and was founded around late 2003 or early 2004 after the invasion of Iraq. Think Zarqawi and the beheadings of Kenneth Bigley and the shooting of Margaret Hassan. Current ISIS leader Baghdadi was a member of this and worked up the ranks. Largely defeated by 2009, the 2011 so-called Arab Spring and the Syrian uprising in particular gave them a new revival and eventually the new name.

Bob24

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah. My info comes from BBC World Service interviews. Either may be right or wrong.

BBC is reporting the exact same thing as the French newspaper: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31500390

"Denmark's domestic intelligence agency (PET) says it had been warned by prison officials about the man who killed two people in a shootout in Copenhagen."

Shurimgreat

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

ISIS as in the use of this name is only from around 2013 but we all know ISIS was previously known as al Qaeda in Iraq and was founded around late 2003 or early 2004 after the invasion of Iraq. Think Zarqawi and the beheadings of Kenneth Bigley and the shooting of Margaret Hassan. Current ISIS leader Baghdadi was a member of this and worked up the ranks. Largely defeated by 2009, the 2011 so-called Arab Spring and the Syrian uprising in particular gave them a new revival and eventually the new name.

It branched off from AQ around 2012, mainly related to the Syrian Civil War. AQ had no real influence in Syria before the revolution, then gained ground in the vacuam that followed the revolution. It was an AQ branch then as was Al Nusra Front. But ISIS refused to obey AQ orders.

ISIS has far more to do with the Syrian Civil war than the invasion of 2003. Without the Syrian Civil War there would be no ISIS and no tens of thousands of foreigners joining it.

Linking ISIS to the Iraq War is just the same old tired agenda from the same old people. Most people agree on the point ISIS owes its beginnings, influence and strength to the Syrian Civil War. And this partricular group or something similar would have happened with or without the Iraqi conflict. Where-ever you get power vacuams in Muslim nations you get terror groups like this who try to hoover up funds and recruits.

alwald

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It branched off from AQ around 2012, mainly related to the Syrian Civil War. AQ had no real influence in Syria before the revolution, then gained ground in the vacuam that followed the revolution. It was an AQ branch then as was Al Nusra Front. But ISIS refused to obey AQ orders.

ISIS has far more to do with the Syrian Civil war than the invasion of 2003. Without the Syrian Civil War there would be no ISIS and no tens of thousands of foreigners joining it.

Linking ISIS to the Iraq War is just the same old tired agenda from the same old people. Most people agree on the point ISIS owes its beginnings, influence and strength to the Syrian Civil War. And this partricular group or something similar would have happened with or without the Iraqi conflict. Where-ever you get power vacuams in Muslim nations you get terror groups like this who try to hoover up funds and recruits.

a lot of your facts are wrong but this your standard I am used to it at this stage.
let's tackle the real issues here instead of focusing on when it was created.
they were created in 1999, changed during the Iraqi invasion and changed even further after that until they became the evil group that they are now but here are the real questions:
1 - Why since 1999 they didn't have the same impact as now, what has changed since?
2 - Why do they have good weapons, chars and so on? from where did they buy them and how they paid for them?

Shurimgreat

alwald wrote: »

a lot of your facts are wrong but this your standard I am used to it at this stage.
let's tackle the real issues here instead of focusing on when it was created.
they were created in 1999, changed during the Iraqi invasion and changed even further after that until they became the evil group that they are now but here are the real questions:
1 - Why since 1999 they didn't have the same impact as now, what has changed since?
2 - Why do they have good weapons, chars and so on? from where did they buy them and how they paid for them?

A lot of my facts are wrong?
Right let's start at the beginning shall we?
Answer these questions.
Whose the current leader of ISIS?
When did they change their name?
When and where did they begin their current reign of terror?

AQ are actually mild in comparision to ISIS. Generally they won't take sex slaves, the treat most of the prisoners ok, and release some after a while.

ISIS were formed in 2012. That is not even up for question. Bagdadi only became fanatical after being released from Abu Garib, probably joined a local AQ branch after that, and would still be a nobody if it wasn't for the Syrian Civil war which attracted tens of thousands to his movement. There would be no ISIS without the Syrian Civil War. The clue is in the name, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

alwald

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A lot of my facts are wrong?
Right let's start at the beginning shall we?
Answer these questions.
Whose the current leader of ISIS?
When did they change their name?
When and where did they begin their current reign of terror?

AQ are actually mild in comparision to ISIS. Generally they won't take sex slaves, the treat most of the prisoners ok, and release some after a while.

ISIS were formed in 2012. That is not even up for question. Bagdadi only became fanatical after being released from Abu Garib, probably joined a local AQ branch after that, and would still be a nobody if it wasn't for the Syrian Civil war which attracted tens of thousands to his movement. There would be no ISIS without the Syrian Civil War. The clue is in the name, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Since when we answer questions by questions?

answer my first 2 questions and then I will gladly answer your questions.

1 - Why since 1999 they didn't have the same impact as now, what has changed since?
2 - Why do they have good weapons, chars and so on? from where did they buy them and how they paid for them?

Shurimgreat

alwald wrote: »

Since when we answer questions by questions?

answer my first 2 questions and then I will gladly answer your questions.

1 - Why since 1999 they didn't have the same impact as now, what has changed since?
2 - Why do they have good weapons, chars and so on? from where did they buy them and how they paid for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "chars"?
Its well known how ISIS fund themselves. In fact they have a wide variety of funding means. As for weapons a lot came from raiding barracks in Syria and Iraq.
Because they weren't around in 1999. Find me an article from 1999 that specifically mentions ISIS.

And people forget that 9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion. As did the effort to blow up the twin towers in 1993 which had the purpose of destroying both towers too. Some people believe Islamic terrorism only started post 2003.

Bob24

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "chars"?

I think he means tanks.

alwald

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "chars"?

I meant tanks.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its well known how ISIS fund themselves. In fact they have a wide variety of funding means.

Can you elaborate please.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As for weapons a lot came from raiding barracks in Syria and Iraq.

they won't have much if they relied only on raiding poor Iraq after the US invasion and some parts of Syria, surely there must be something else don't you think?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Because they weren't around in 1999. Find me an article from 1999 that specifically mentions ISIS.

Created in 1999 and were called at the time "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", they changed their name several times, Baghdadi was appointed leader in 2010 but he was active in different groups since 2003. the name ISIS didn't exist in 1999 but the group itself started forming in 1999.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And people forget that 9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion. As did the effort to blow up the twin towers in 1993 which had the purpose of destroying both towers too. Some people believe Islamic terrorism only started post 2003.

I am well aware that Islamic terrorism started way before 9/11, even before 1993, check what happened to the US embassy in Beirut in 1983. I am well aware also about different plots such as Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, Gladio and others.

Wurzelbert

Bob24 wrote: »

I think he means tanks.

probably a french speaker...

Wurzelbert

Nodin wrote: »

Tbh, a lot of these people are young men born in the West who become radicalised.

most of them born in the west only geographically, though...in reality born into a completely non-western parallel culture and society that has throughout its history of some 1400 years always been the sworn enemy if the west...born there and radicalised there, too...

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There would be no ISIS without the Syrian Civil War. The clue is in the name, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Astounding how you can put Syria in bold in "Iraq and Syria" and then you've magically made the Iraq part disappear. Nothing to do with Iraq at all apparently...

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Astounding how you can put Syria in bold in "Iraq and Syria" and then you've magically made the Iraq part disappear. Nothing to do with Iraq at all apparently...

I put it in bold to emphasise that Syria played a part in their founding. Some people make out Syria had nothing to do with it, all a result of Iraq invasion and so on and so forth. But if you look at the name you can clearly see Syria is a big part in who they are, they don't deny it.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

ISIS is just the latest in the a list of hundreds of extreme Islamic terrorist groups who want to spread Islam by the use of force and terror, going right back to the origins of the religion itself.

This is simply false. There's no evidence at all that the first conquests by the Arabs had anything to do with Islam at all. There are precisely zero contemporary references to Islam.

alwald

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I put it in bold to emphasise that Syria played a part in their founding. Some people make out Syria had nothing to do with it, all a result of Iraq invasion and so on and so forth. But if you look at the name you can clearly see Syria is a big part in who they are, they don't deny it.

Another wrong fact, ISIS have an Arabic name that is translated to English in different ways, if you look at their Arabic name there is no mention of Syria but an area called Levant (Syria is part of Levant but Levant is way bigger than Syria)
By the way I am still waiting for an answer about their funding. this is the most important part IMO

BuilderPlumber

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It branched off from AQ around 2012, mainly related to the Syrian Civil War. AQ had no real influence in Syria before the revolution, then gained ground in the vacuam that followed the revolution. It was an AQ branch then as was Al Nusra Front. But ISIS refused to obey AQ orders.

ISIS has far more to do with the Syrian Civil war than the invasion of 2003. Without the Syrian Civil War there would be no ISIS and no tens of thousands of foreigners joining it.

Linking ISIS to the Iraq War is just the same old tired agenda from the same old people. Most people agree on the point ISIS owes its beginnings, influence and strength to the Syrian Civil War. And this partricular group or something similar would have happened with or without the Iraqi conflict. Where-ever you get power vacuams in Muslim nations you get terror groups like this who try to hoover up funds and recruits.

I agree. The Iraq war caused al Qaeda in Iraq but this organisation was largely gone by 2011. The independent nature of this organisation inspired ISIS but yes ISIS would not exist but for the Syrian war.

With regard to if there was no Iraq war: yes, I believe the Arab Spring revolts would have happened with or without Saddam being in power in Iraq. ISIS or similar would still have formed albeit maybe not quite in the same way. War in Iraq caused a vacuum, as did ones in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Asking when did Middle East/'Islamic' terrorism start is also a hard one to answer. 9/11 certainly took it to a whole new level. 1983 Lebanon US army attack perhaps was a previous upwards step. Lockerbie 1988? Some point back to 1979 and the strife in Iran and Afghanistan as its roots. Others say it started in 1975 with the Lebanon war. More clearly say it began in 1948 with the foundation of Israel. Others will go back to the colonial era of pre WW2.

It is quite clear that terrorism has been around for quite some time whether committed by 'Islamic' peoples or others. What is also quite clear is that organisations like ISIS and al Qaeda have never had as much influence and power. Terrorist groups are doing today only what they they could do in their wildest dreams a mere 15-20 years ago.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And this partricular group or something similar would have happened with or without the Iraqi conflict. Where-ever you get power vacuams in Muslim nations you get terror groups like this who try to hoover up funds and recruits.

You mean a power vacuum, like, for example, when the West invaded then abandoned Iraq, or a power vacuum, like, for example, when the West initiated a civil war in Syria?

Dan_Solo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Terrorist groups are doing today only what they they could do in their wildest dreams a mere 15-20 years ago.

While they certainly aren't afraid of terror tactics (who is?) calling ISIS a "terrorist group" is a pretty inaccurate description of a group that controls huge swathes of Iraq and Syria and even the US aren't so sure they want to get tied up fighting. Calling them "terrorists", Dubya style, advances the analysis not one bit.

Shurimgreat

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I agree. The Iraq war caused al Qaeda in Iraq but this organisation was largely gone by 2011. The independent nature of this organisation inspired ISIS but yes ISIS would not exist but for the Syrian war.

With regard to if there was no Iraq war: yes, I believe the Arab Spring revolts would have happened with or without Saddam being in power in Iraq. ISIS or similar would still have formed albeit maybe not quite in the same way. War in Iraq caused a vacuum, as did ones in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Asking when did Middle East/'Islamic' terrorism start is also a hard one to answer. 9/11 certainly took it to a whole new level. 1983 Lebanon US army attack perhaps was a previous upwards step. Lockerbie 1988? Some point back to 1979 and the strife in Iran and Afghanistan as its roots. Others say it started in 1975 with the Lebanon war. More clearly say it began in 1948 with the foundation of Israel. Others will go back to the colonial era of pre WW2.

It is quite clear that terrorism has been around for quite some time whether committed by 'Islamic' peoples or others. What is also quite clear is that organisations like ISIS and al Qaeda have never had as much influence and power. Terrorist groups are doing today only what they they could do in their wildest dreams a mere 15-20 years ago.

There was a big limitation on mass terrorist attacks before modern times. Advances in explosives, mobile phones, remote radio technology, IEDs, roadside bombs, carbombs, etc have meant Islamic terrorism is worse than ever.

100 years ago there was no point making a roadside bombs or even car bombs. Or hijacking airplanes. Mass car bombs were unheard of. Big terrorist atrocities were unheard of. Groups also couldn't organise themselves very well as there were no phones or internet.

Also colonialism really clamped down on potential terrorist groups in the middle east and elsewhere.

All the inventions above have helped those intent on terrorism, not just Islamic terrorism.

And sadly because of these inventions, terrorist acts of this nature will continue far into the future. You can't defeat every suicide bomber but you might be able to defeat the ideology that motivates them.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And people forget that 9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion.

And as is incredibly well documented, had nothing to do with Iraq at all and therefore explains pretty much nothing about where ISIS came from.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Big terrorist atrocities were unheard of.

This is nonsense. Atrocities have been around since year dot. Whether you want to call them "terrorist" or not which doesn't really denote anything other than "I'm on the other side."