Is ISIS the most brutal terriorst group of all time.

[jeff jones]

Jeff, you have shown you have no broad historical perspective. You seem to be very limited to only what you have been shown. Like too many, you are a fine example of people believing that what happens in their own time and what they can see has to be the worst ever. Terrorist groups have always been defined by acts of gross inhuman injustice, by acts of extreme abuse of human rights up to and including planned state mass executions. It may be a newer concept, but it's a very, very old tactic and there are many far worst examples in history than Isis, though their extremism of their views and acts so far has great evil potential. Still, limiting current popular use of the term "terror" to political and religious extremist sub groups changes nothing. Even limiting the definition to the latter it's amazing how quickly Al Qaeda with such a long recent history of so much more far ranging terror by murder and acts of international destruction of innocent people is being set aside for a current sort of FLAVOR of the MONTH.

Now "unplugged"? You give the Nazis, one of the most vicious regimes who accomplished one of the most cold-bloodedly evil calculated mass slaughters in all of history some bit of sympathetic understanding because they...eventually...got involved in a "war". One they started? You think this isn't UNPLUGGED...like your crying about escorts not liking you.

As usual you are wrong but that is par for the course and for you to say that i gave the nazis a pass is bullshit and you know it but i don't hold that against you because i know that you became unplugged a very long time ago and you are completely delusional. For the record i do not cry that escorts do not like me ever, but i am not like you, constantly beating your chest trying to prove over and over again how special you are to them. Do me a favor go and take a long hard look in the mirror and then tell me if you believe the escorts that you pay for sex are into you. After looking in the mirror if you say that they are, then you have truly lost your mind and you should go and get the help you need.

JJ

 

[Aka]

that escalated quickly.. yes, if you consider governments as terrorist groups (that is debatable-I would call them rogue states, dictatorships, etc) then yes, there are many other far worse examples than ISIS

 

[Vercingentorix]

Let's take it back to the ORIGINAL MUSLIM TERRORIST, Muhammad himself, the prophet of Islam himself. Not only did he preach killing the Infidels, but he preached beating of wives. Then there was the 500 people he had beheaded in one day, not to mention the additional 800 later. He was a Pedophile in that he married his wife Aisha at 6 and raped her at 9. He had all manner of humans as slaves and called Blacks "raisen heads". I could go on but why bother, he set the bar so high only Adolf Hitler himself could challenge his record.

Muhammad was one sick b__tard: Murderer, Racist, Rapist, Pedophile, wife beater, butcher, etc..etc...etc...

(Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256) (Ibn Qayyim, p. 115–116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222)

 

[EagerBeaver]

More On ISIS Threats Against Putin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Assad-promise-liberate-Chechnya-Caucasus.html

 

[Aka]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Assad-promise-liberate-Chechnya-Caucasus.html

Ill repost what I've said before:

I wouldnt worry too much about that. The Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov (who is fking mental btw) just said this:

“Whoever dares to threaten Russia and say out loud the name of our President Vladimir Putin will be destroyed right where he is… These people will end their days under the hot sun of Syria and Iraq and moments after death they will be greeted by the flames of eternal hell.”

“Those bastards have nothing to do with Islam. They are enemies of Muslims everywhere”

So there isnt much ISIS can do if they do not have the support of the local muslims in the Caucasus.

 

[Aka]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Assad-promise-liberate-Chechnya-Caucasus.html

A couple of things happened in the Caucasus recently that the western media didn't report on. So to give you some context:

Because of the threats of the Winter Olympics and the upcoming F1 and World Cup and after the train station bombings just before the Olympics Putin met with the Chechen leaders and presented them with 2 options:

If as much as a firecracker goes off in Sochi, there will be 50.000 Russian troops in the Caucasus the next day in a scorched earth campaign. Chechens know Putin is not bluffing.

If they play nice they will be given greater autonomy,a local government that they get to elect, etc.

The Chechens liked the 2nd option, the Olympics went smoothly and Putin kept his word. Now the Chechens and Putin have a much better relationship.

The second benefit of getting the Chechen leadership on his side is that they act as a buffer between Georgia and the rest of Russia. If NATO ever tries something crazy through South Osetia they will get straight into Chechen territory and those guys can't wait to get their hands on some Americans.
You can accuse Putin of many things, but being dumb is not one of them.

 

[Siocnarf]

Terrorism is the use of warfare targeting enemy civilians (not just colateral damage, but deliberate actions against unarmed people) . For groups like ISIS that's pretty much all they can do. We call them ''terrorist groups'' because they are nothing else beyond that.

The Romans an the Nazi had great political and economic power but also used terrorism on a much grander scale than ISIS could ever dream of. In just a couple of weeks, the Japanese army murdered and raped over 200 000 civilians in Nanjing taking pictures of everything as is their wont. However, I would not exactly classify the Holocaust as terrorism, since it was mostly done in secret, like many other acts of genocide.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, they instilled terror, but they were not a terrorist organization...

What's the definition of a terrorist organization?

 

[Doc Holliday]

The Romans would be a close tie, the killings were less but if they had the fire power the Nazis had and the population to go after they may have surpassed them.

If you look at the mess & chaos the Americans led by President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney & their cronies did when they invaded & bombed Iraq under false pretences for the sake of creating a war, the same thing could be said of them if you look at what they did from a neutral perspective.

 

[Aka]

I missed the "of all time" part...Then no, I do not think so...But from the recent and current ones I would say yes.

What's the definition of a terrorist organization?

The question was about a group/cell/organization, whatever you want to call them. Eg. IRA, ETA, Hamas, the Chechens, Al-Qaeda, the Khmer Rouges,etc.. paramilitary groups....not countries. If you want to include those then thats a different topic.

http://www.start.umd.edu/tops/
Here's a list of all the recent "terrorist organizations" up to 2008 according to the US Department of Homeland Security...856 groups....pretty scary thought...

 

[Doc Holliday]

The question was about a group/cell/organization, whatever you want to call them. Eg. IRA, ETA, Hamas, the Chechens, Al-Qaeda, the Khmer Rouges,etc.. paramilitary groups....not countries.

If i go with your definition, i don't see much of a difference between the Nazis & Hamas, although i find the Nazis considerably better organized & much more brutal.

 

[Siocnarf]

If i go with your definition, i don't see much of a difference between the Nazis & Hamas, although i find the Nazis considerably better organized & much more brutal.

If we want to split hair, the Nazis were a political party and not a ''terrorist group''. But they controlled many terrorist paramilitary groups, the Einsatzgruppen, who were responsible for spreading terror and crushing civilian dissidence behind the advance of the german army.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

Terrorism is the use of warfare targeting enemy civilians (not just colateral damage, but deliberate actions against unarmed people) . For groups like ISIS that's pretty much all they can do. We call them ''terrorist groups'' because they are nothing else beyond that.

Terrorism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/mi...ares-caliphate-in-iraq-and-syria-live-updates

All terrorist groups seek to be the governing bodies of a nation no matter how big or small. ISIS has already followed the pattern by declaring itself a caliphate, this is a self-governing religious state using terrorism to expand up to the point of declaring it's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the legitimate Caliph or leader of every Muslim in the world, which if fulfilled would involve 2.08 billion people. While we identify them as a small rising terrorist group they identify themselves as leaders of 25% to 30% of the world's entire population. It may seem ludicrous for now, but the goal is regional and eventually world domination. Sound familiar? That's why I object strongly to the statement: "i really don't consider the nazis to be a terror group. What they did was awful and it was brutal but the difference is they were a government fighting a world war that they started of course but I don't think it is the same thing as al-qaeda and ISIS". Al Qaeda was the governing body in Afghanistan and is wherever it has control, Isis thinks it's a governing body and is wherever it has control. Sure it's small now, but so were the proto-Nazis, proto-Bolsheviks, proto-Khmer Rouge until they succeeded in their political aim and took over nations. Whether Isis succeeds in it's goal or not they are no different from the beginning struggles and use of terror to the end goal of all the others. Only the specific principles behind their doctrines that motivate them are different.

The previously quoted statement implies that somehow a terrorist group achieved some sort of legitimization because it had run a nation and fight a war. This is exactly what Isis is in the process of doing. Do we no longer call them a terrorist group if they achieve their aim of being a world power equivalent to the Nazis. Size has nothing to do with being terrorists. Terrorism is about the removal of what civilization recognizes as basic universal human rights to live by making individual choices about the quality of life. When humans are treated and controlled like disposable chattel with no rights to improve their condition and pushed into a state of fear and deprivation of all kinds, that is terrorism.

...I would not exactly classify the Holocaust as terrorism, since it was mostly done in secret, like many other acts of genocide.

I'm very surprised by this. What your implying is if it's unknown it's not terrorism??? Whatever secrecy there was it was a tool for terrorism. Lack of knowing that it's going on by others changes nothing. The people imposing it were committing terrorism all the same, and the victims certainly experienced the full effect of this terrorism. I really don't see how "secrecy" changes what we call the process of declaring an ethnic group inferior or sub-human, eliminating all rights, eliminating all legal recourse, collecting the so-called inferior group into deprivation prisons, executing and disposing of them. And let's not forget the inhuman experimentation. It also add a special heinous quality that it was all carried out in a calculated heartless factory-like processing system.

If we want to split hair, the Nazis were a political party and not a ''terrorist group''.

I disagree 100% As I said, Isis has already declared it's political standing as a Caliphate/Islamic state and declared it's huge political territorial goals to control 2 billion people. No one in Nazi Germany had a choice or rights not dictated by the government. There was no legal principle based on universal ethics or human rights. The same for Isis. The only difference between them and the Nazis is size and actual control. The Nazis needed almost 10 years to achieve their aims of a state with citizenship based on race. Isis given time, wants a state of citizens based on religion. Where's the real difference? Both want (or wanted) to be rid of all others or dispose of them. One difference is Isis would allow conversion to Islam, a chance to live. With the Nazis and Hitler there was no choice. You were defined by race and you faced the consequences of your birth, including slavery or extermination regardless of all else.

BTW - saying : "i really don't consider the nazis to be a terror group"...is unfathomable regardless of intent.

Really,

Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

I'm very surprised by this. What your implying is if it's unknown it's not terrorism???

Well, that's the definition of terror. I can't be terrorized by something I don't know is happening. Of course, pogroms and arrests and people disappearing were elements of terrorism. However, the ''final solution'' of exterminating them was a secret and therefore not a terrorist tactic as such. They did not kill those people to scare the survivors, they killed them to kill them all. Meanwhile, they used terror tactics to keep the target population unsettled, a careful balance between terror and hope so they would not dare to revolt until all the undesirable elements were exterminated.

 

[Siocnarf]

BTW - saying : "i really don't consider the nazis to be a terror group"...is unfathomable regardless of intent.

That was merely a matter of semantic there and that's why I put ''terror group'' in quotes in my post. We all know they used terror but they did many other things. They also had diplomats, but that doesn't make it a ''diplomatic group'' either. I am saying they were as a whole more than simply a terrorist group. A large government with many cells of terrorist enforcer under it's command. They could use their reputation as a cultured and sophisticated race to allay suspicion on one hand while dishing out terror with the other. Remember, we know now what they were doing. For people living in Germany at the time it was a lot more confusing.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

Well, that's the definition of terror. I can't be terrorized by something I don't know is happening. Of course, pogroms and arrests and people disappearing were elements of terrorism. However, the ''final solution'' of exterminating them was a secret and therefore not a terrorist tactic as such. They did not kill those people to scare the survivors, they killed them to kill them all. Meanwhile, they used terror tactics to keep the target population unsettled, a careful balance between terror and hope so they would not dare to revolt until all the undesirable elements were exterminated.

I get what you mean when you say you have to know about it or it isn't terrorism, but what I mean is it happened or it didn't.

You do realize that 60 million Germans knew of groups losing all rights, property, and disappearing, so they knew when the Jewish, Gypsy, Slavic peoples were being taken over by the engines of terror, and so did everyone know who came under the Nazi sphere of terror from France to Russia, and Norway to Africa. To say the Holocaust wasn't exactly terrorism because Americans and others were too far to know really doesn't make sense to me. It took far more than the SS and the Einsatzgruppen to make this happen. They needed a hell of a lot of man power and infrastructure support beyond just Nazi organizations to identify, move, process, and execute all the policies/crimes. There were about 575 million Europeans in 1940. At least 50% had first hand experience with Nazi terror directly or indirectly. That's a lot of knowing.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

Yes, I agree with all that. I am pondering the meanings of the words, not denying anything that happened. My interpretation is that, in many cases, genocide is not terrorism because it is usually denied by the persons responsible when discovered. When the Nazi discovered the mass graves at Katyn the Soviets said it was just Nazi propaganda. It was not until the 80s that it was proven to be a Soviet crime. The Turkish government still denies the Armenian genocide. Conversely, terrorist acts are design to attract as much attention as possible. One does not exclude the other. The visible atrocities can be a sleight of hand to hide what is really being done.

 

[jeff jones]

So the masses don't get upset i am not comparing this to isis or the nazis or anything else but could this be considered a form of board terrorism. Lets say an escort believes she is going to go and meet a handsome hunk and she knocks on the door and when the john opens it he is so ugly she wants to go running down the hallway screaming hysterically at the top of her lungs, get me the fuck out of here but she doesn't. She goes into the room anyway because she doesn't want a bad review written about her. What is this, is this a form of board terrorism.

JJ

 

[Merlot]

???

...in many cases, genocide is not terrorism because it is usually denied by the persons responsible when discovered.

Sorry Siocnarf, I'm not seeing the logic of this at all. Murderers, rapists, arsonists, every criminal in the world denies what it is. I don't see how it's possible that denial changes anything. "What are you in here for? Didn't do it." - Shawshank Redemption. I'll admit that what something is may be debatable in some cases, However, the Holocaust and many other acts of terrorism cannot be denied by anyone, regardless of whether they believe what they are saying about denying it or just lying about it

Conversely, terrorist acts are design to attract as much attention as possible.

I don't see that being always true either. At Wounded Knee 1890 the U.S. Army committed a brutal act of slaughter, a lesson in terror to instill fear and submission. It was the same much earlier at the Washita, and at Sand Creek. Lessons for the Natives, the nature of which was hidden from the American public. The government did all it could to hide what happened. The same with the Turks against the Armenians, and you just described how the Russians refused to admit to the mass slaughter of Polish officers at Katyn. Every terrorist in the world denies what they are, but that changes nothing. One of my best former friends, a Turkish Muslims angrily denied anything was ever done to the Armenians.



Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

True, sometimes an act of terror can be made to bully a small group while trying to hide it from the larger community. I'm not saying genocide is never an act of terrorism. I guess I just have a more narrow definition for that word. In the case of the Katyn genocide for example it was kept secret from the Polish population. The goal was not to terrorize them with this act, but to remove their elite and leaders. On the other hand Stalin's planned famines were acts of terrorism because they were clearly meant as a revenge for rebellion.

As an aside, it is difficult to compare a group that is operating now, with a group from the past on which we have a full historical hindsight (or as best as can be). Compare us reading the newspaper about ISIS now and our grandfather reading about some Nazi pogrom.