They’re not “on the run” as the president says; they’re on the march:
“Today we worry about more than just terrorist cells — we worry about full-fledged terrorist armies as they capture territory and enlist thousands to join their ranks.”
In Syria and Iraq, McCaul said the world is witnessing “the largest global convergence of Islamist terrorists” in modern history.
Note: In “modern” history. This really has been going back for centuries. They just have better weapons now, and weaker-willed foes.
we worry about full-fledged terrorist armies
“Terrorist armies” is a contradiction in terms, terrorists are better described as groups that use terror tactics against soft targets because they’re too weak to raise armies.
If we’re going to start including armies “terrorists” the term terrorist is getting a new definition. Michael McCaul is being alarmist, there’s been no trend towards more terrorism over the decades, the rate goes up and down and increases after major conflicts with the losers in the major conflict resorting to terrorism (or guerrilla tactics or freedom fighting depending on definitions, methods and ideology).
I think there is an upward trend right now. People track these things but it doesn’t get reported on the nightly news.
Nice distraction away from the main point. Do you have anything to add regarding home grown terrorism?
Were the Vikings an army or terrorists? I would just call them aggressive opportunists, just like ISIS (which, by the way, ruins my fond memories for the Shazam/Isis hour.)
I’m not sure what to make of the numbers being offered, is it “1000 “terror cases” of which 80% are linked to ISIS”, or is it “about two dozen known terrorist plots in the U.S., including the San Bernardino massacre.” or is it “almost 90 terrorist plots to attack Western targets since 2011”
The latter two could be consistent with each other, but not the first.
And what constitutes a “terror case”? Two dick heads talking on the phone? A report by someone who thinks some guy who might be a Muslim is acting suspiciously?
Okay, thanks. That is helpful and good thoughts to chew on.
Army:
NOUN
1.an organized military force equipped for fighting on land.
Source: Oxford dictionary
Terrorism:
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:
the fight against terrorism
international terrorism.
Source: Oxford Dictionaries
Looks like the definition of terrorism is very different to the definition of army.
Not really, and certainly not mutually exclusive.
I thought this was going to be about Democrat’s violent extremism but it was about Islamist terrorism.
The last time there was a “global convergence of Islamist terrorists” of any significant magnitude was in Iraq 2003-2007. The difference then was that there were American troops awaiting them who killed the terrorists by the thousands, decimating their numbers and destroying the movements morale.
Then Obama came along and pissed it all away.
Actually, ISIS/Daesh has been losing territory & men, but why quibble about the narrative?
ISIS is like water, following the path of least resistance, filling weak areas, and changing its shape.
They are experiencing loss and gains simultaneously. They are doing pretty good in Libya, for example. They are making gains in Europe. Their ranks are easily replenished from the global community. Troops are cycled in and out, exporting their ideology and tactics all over the globe.
I don’t think they ever intended to hold land in Iraq but just took it because they were able to. IMO, they expected to get pushed back but no one made the effort. They make a token resistance at best as land is retaken. It is easy for them to withdraw and attack, they are very mobile.
The long period of time between them taking a city and the USA and our allies pushing them out, allows them to build up IEDs and other booby traps. There are very few numbers of ISIS troops in these cities but they are doing a fantastic job of slowing down the USA and our allies.
This has prevented the USA from taking any significant action in Syria or anywhere else. Our Syrian strategies, developed by Obama, have been a massive disaster. Arming “moderate” Muslims backfired. There are no no-fly zones, safe havens, or much of anything to speak of. Putin pushed our air force back and killed the people we were arming, when they didn’t decide to join ISIS that is.
Obama will be lucky, and I think this is his only real goal, to push ISIS out of Iraq before he leaves office. To do so, he will rely on Iranian proxy militias that are just as bad as ISIS and will have destroyed the diplomatic work done to unite Iraqis against AQ during the surge. Iran even gets nuclear weapons as a cherry.