So the number of ACTUAL Islamic State attacks “fell steeply compared to the past four years” yet we are supposed to be alarmed that the number of “attempted attacks remains steady”. To do so requires that we ignore the fact that “In the United States, more than half of the 77 people charged with Islamic State-related crimes in recent years involved investigations using an undercover informer”. It also requires that we ignore the concerns expressed by civil liberties groups that the FBI mainipulates and entraps the perpetrators.
If one rejects the proposition that there “is no correlation between their military setbacks and the loss of territory and the intensity of the threat” one is likely to conclude that the Islamic State of 2018 is finally comprised of the JV members president Obama naively alluded to during the height of its terrorist campaign. Of course their elevation wasn’t due to the acquiesence of its leadership but instead the decimation of their varsity team by the campaign against them waged by president Trump. The NY Times and other media outlets are clearly loath to give president Trump credit for the decline in Islamic State attacks. While the threats from the Islamic State should not be minimized their existential threat has been. Thank you President Trump
2
Maybe it has ebbed in the west but just yesterday IS blew to bits
68 people who were protesting a local police commander in east Afghanistan. Suicide bombingis business as usual in those parts of the world. Seems as if it is almost a daily occurrence. Then some wonder why we don't want to import these warring, tribal people from the ME to the US? Mass chaos, murder and mayhem rules the day, all day every day. No thanks.
4
Seriously? There's no correlation between the lose of land and the drop in attacks? Of course there is. The more ISIS is seen as 'losers', the fewer attacks they're going to inspire.
2
They don't need to attack the West right now, Trump is doing it for them, in a manner of speaking: non-violent, but damaging none the less.
Stop letting any more "refugees" into Europe. How can you say there isn't a clash of civilizations? And where are the women and children, the doctors and engineers? These are all uneducated young men looking for work or worse, not refugees. No integration or real job skills (and Europe has enough trouble with employment on its own) and higher crime. Merkel's legacy is a permanent police state, a perpetual threat of terrorism and the end of Europe. Let's hope we don't go the same way.
9
It's suicidal to think of terrorist attacks as a function of ISIS allegiance and that if we "defeat" ISIS, they will stop. Islam is a religion AND a political identity whose mission is to conquer infidel lands wherever they can - like Europe and USA. It is mistaken for Christians to view Islam through the Christian prism of tolerance and acceptance - this is . Muslims do not wish to be minorities anywhere and are committed to political, then theocratic, hegemony everywhere. There is nothing wrong with this, but let's be honest about the truth. Congratulations on competent law enforce to foil attacks but this is false comfort. More are coming and no one can stop them all.
3
ISIS will ebb, but the electronic surveillance stays
2
For ISIS we have George W. Bush and his administration to blame. By overthrowing Iraq's Saddam for no good reason at all Bush gave license to ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), which Saddam kept in check.
Bush needed to blame someone, anyone it appears, for 9/11 to he picked out his daddy's nemesis, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and falsely accused Iraq of complicity in 9/11 and of having WMD's.
We lost about 7,000 kids, about 50,000 were maimed, while Iraq, for no good reason at all, suffered enormous losses of life and property and Iran was given entre to go into Iraq and start calling the shots.
When will the prosecutions begin?
16
@MIKEinNYC ISIS arose because Al Qaeda's power ebbed. Hammer down terrorists one place and someone emerges to fill the vacuum.
Saddam didn't keep ISIS in check. ISIS didn't exist. And Saddam was a Sunni, like ISIS. Saddam was keeping the Shi'ites and Kurds under his thumb. The emergence of Shi'ites ruling Iraq is partly to blame for the rise of ISIS, since the oppressed Sunnis saw ISIS (stupidly) as protection.
I'm no fan of Bush, but this is a whole lot more complex than your simplistic analysis. And so what if you prosecuted Bush and his cabal? It wouldn't make ISIS vanish.
3
@nerdrage
The fact is that you are right and I did simplify things. W actually was a major factor in the creation of ISIS. It was Saddam that kept movements like that from developing, probably to preserve his and his family's own power base.
That said, Bush had it out for Saddam due to his dad's experience in the region about 9 years earlier and how Saddam and the Iraqis continued to mock H.W. like by putting his image on rugs that people wipe their dirty shoes on, (they have a thilng about shoes), plus assorted other anti-H.W. activities.
As such, W used 9/11 as a premise to go after Saddam to finish the job, in his mind, that his dad started but was wise enough to suspend once the objective, kicking Saddam's Iraq out of Kuwait, was achieved.
As far as prosecuting W and his team go, it would be justice.
@MIKEinNYC Yes, Bush Snr was a lot wiser than his son:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us. [It would start] an urban guerrilla war and plunge that part of the world into even greater instability".
George Bush Snr, ‘A World Transformed’, published two years before his son became US President.
2