# Liberals' answer to terrorists: Talk them through their feelings



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2016)

Article Link

Liberals' answer to terrorists: Talk them through their feelings

OTTAWA -- The Liberal government has unveiled its first desired weapon to combat homegrown terrorists, and it's a therapy couch.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, facing scrutiny one week after jihadi sympathizer Aaron Driver was killed by police in Strathroy, Ont., on his way to attack a transit hub, said he wants counter-radicalization counselling mandatory for people under anti-terrorism peace bonds.

Driver, 24, was under a court-ordered peace bond intended to limit his activities but he was able to obtain explosives, plan an attack and film a martyrdom video.

Police got wind of his plans through a tip from the FBI and intercepted him as he was leaving his southwestern Ontario home in a taxi.

There were some ad hoc interventions aimed at helping deradicalize Driver but nothing deliberate and well-organized, Goodale said Wednesday after a speech to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Liberals plan to open a federal office of counter-radicalization to serve as a national focal point for counselling and intervention services.  

"We are in the process of recruiting the person that will lead the effort. And we are determined to get this office up and running toward the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall," Goodale said.

"We need to understand what positive messages can counteract the insidious poison that draws people in, especially young people."  

The government is also back to "examining" and "considering" other changes to monitor terrorists in our midst, but it doesn't appear to be in any hurry.   op:

Considering Driver was on an anti-terrorist peace bond -- as are another dozen or so people across the country -- but was not under constant surveillance, the government said it wants to find a way to make peace bonds more effective -- perhaps involving community outreach organizations.

"(Driver's peace bond) is obviously a lesson that one needs to look at very carefully," Goodale said. "And we are examining very carefully what we need to do to make our police and security activity more effective."

Goodale said the government would move as rapidly as possible, but he stressed that good laws are not developed "in a panic."

A federal consultation on national security, to conclude by the end of the year, must happen first, he said.

"I've obviously got to do this in a coherent and sensible way, not scribbled down on the back of an envelope."


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2016)

> The Liberals plan to open a federal office of counter-radicalization to serve as a national focal point for counselling and intervention services.



Can probably get a good 20-30 new PSAC workers in there to boost votes for next election. Couple million dollar budget too.



> "We are in the process of recruiting the person that will lead the effort. And we are determined to get this office up and running toward the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall," Goodale said.



Is Dr. Phil available?



> "I've obviously got to do this in a coherent and sensible way, not scribbled down on the back of an envelope."



You mean like most of the Liberal campaign promises? Guesstimates and quick direction changes after taking over because nothing they said jived with reality?

What a joke.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2016)

It's much better to be proactive than constantly having to be reactive.  We have to stop lone wolf converts from ever getting to that point.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2016)

Another one size fits all federal bureaucracy.

If it as nimble and responsive as PWGSC, the former CIDA or VAC, we can simply kill off the radicals through boredom and old age as they wait for their cases to be processed.....

While I certainly cannot do more than a bit of hand waving here, the solution is not a centralized bureaucracy but rather to create something which resembles antibodies that move through the "body politic". _How_ to actually do this is beyond me. I'll be open to suggestions though.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's much better to be proactive than constantly having to be reactive.  We have to stop lone wolf converts from ever getting to that point.


The counseling is for individuals under peace bond, that's reactive; they're already radicalized. They could have conceivably already conducted a terror attack before the peace bond process even started.


----------



## Lightguns (18 Aug 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> Liberals' answer to terrorists: Talk them through their feelings
> 
> ...



The head of one useless body telling another useless body about his plans to create another useless body.  I bet more gun owners and Alberta separatists are legally forced to get counseling than Jihadists.  Mission creep on this one is gonna be huge, like a the former HR tribunals on steroids.  But I am jaded......

I guess I better define this better.  I think eco warriors and Jihadists are radicals but I do not think that separatists (Western or Quebec) are necessarily radical.  Both have in the past threaten violence.  MSM thinks that property rights owners (firearm or land) are radicals and often used constitutional property rights as a conservative boogeyman that was going to bring economic activity to an end in Canada claiming that they are violent. 

So who is a radical, does threatening violence make you radical?, there a guy in NS who has blocked his neighbour's right of access to their properties and runs heavy equipment day and night forcing them off the road, radical?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's much better to be proactive than constantly having to be reactive.  We have to stop lone wolf converts from ever getting to that point.



And you think this is the very best COA...or does this COA have more of an ''appearance"of doing something...which I consider to be the LPC main concern...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2016)

Stuff like this is part of the puzzle, but it can't be the end all of your efforts. The problem will be how to measure it's effectiveness in a political correct system where they may not be allowed to do what they need to do. Also how do they get the information to connect, who will they connect with at what level. will they be passing intel along, etc,etc


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2016)

I'm not sure what the best COA is as this is really uncharted waters.  We have a problem with radicalised lone wolf terrorist/sickos.  I'm of the belief that comprehensive approach is necessary.  I have little faith that bloated government office will achieve anything but we'll see. 

I realise that some people would rather take more extreme measures.  But that clearly does not seem to work.

This is just one piece of the overall solution.


----------



## Lumber (18 Aug 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And you think this is the very best COA...or does this COA have more of an ''appearance"of doing something...which I consider to be the LPC main concern...



While I don't share the disdain for the LPC that you do, I agree that this COA will look like a lot but achieve very little.

How much money for how much return? If you look at the amount of money the US spend on anti-terrorism activities at home, including the entire Dept of Homeland Security, the FBI, the NSA, etc., and then compare the number of people killed by Terrorism is the US against the number of people who die from alcohol related incidents, smoking-induced diseases, etc. do they have their priorities straight?

Is it even possible to not do things this way? No on is _afraid_  of heart disease, even though it's the 2nd highest cause of death in Canada, and can be greatly affected by changing your diet and lifestyle; no, it's the big boogie man of home-grown terrorism which kills... how many?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Aug 2016)

I am okay with a de-radicalization programme being another tool in the tool box against terrorists.

I too am sceptical that this particular office will actually achieve anything of consequence, beyond providing a sinecure for well connected Liberals. But I am particularly cynical...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Aug 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am okay with a de-radicalization programme being another tool in the tool box against terrorists.


         :nod:   

Community engagement is key;  the main problem wherever this has been attempted is the perceived (justified or not) cross-purposes of developing trust for de-radicalization and collecting information to support intelligence/law enforcement.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> We have a problem with radicalised lone wolf terrorist/sickos.



We could look at the inspiration for the radicalization.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...
> A federal consultation on national security, to conclude by the end of the year, must happen first, he said.
> 
> ....



Another consultation - On the good news front, as someone with libertarian instincts, if the government is consulting then it isn't making things worse.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2016)

Put this guy on a non-stop loop and tie them into a chair in front of the TV. Bob will make them calm down, get in touch with their feelings and give them something else to do.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could look at the inspiration for the radicalization.


Allowing people who rape children and burn people in cages to take and hold territory is probably good inspiration. No one wants to follow a loser who constantly gets his *** kicked. That's why the Ottawa Senators can't ever sell out a game.

Edit: fixed phone autocorrect


----------



## ballz (18 Aug 2016)

I can't help but think that this lone-wolf radicalization thing is just something that people pre-disposed to becoming a lone-wolf random mass killer latch onto. Does it influence their behaviour and make the more likely to commit to this kind of act? Maybe, who knows, there is very little known.

My understanding of a peace bond is that it is only offered to those who the prosecution does not have a strong enough case against, so they offer a peace bond instead of going to trial. You agree, keep the peace for 12 months, and you get to avoid going to trial and possibly being convicted of a crime. To me, since entering into a peace bond is voluntary, you should be able to make the arrangements under that peace bond as stringent as you want. After all, the bondee can choose not to take the peace bond and go to trial instead. If that's the case, then a condition of a peace bond being to attend counselling is not a terrible idea.

Of course, I have absolutely zero faith in the government, of any party, being able to effectively de-radicalize someone they've identified, no matter what conditions / programs they use. **We have a generation of largely disenfranchised youth. Looking at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, most people in our relatively bountiful society have their physiological and physical safety needs met. Their need for "love/belonging" seems to be where they are stuck, or perhaps its the "esteem (self-esteem and self-respect)" as many do have families/groups they belong to. I think these needs drive people more psychologically crazy than physiological and safety needs, which are more physical by their nature.** How in the sweet name of anything you can address that, I don't know.

**Purely based on my non-professional, relatively uneducated feelings on the topic. But the understanding of this problem is so little, I think even those that are immersed in this in their professional lives have relatively little more than their own feelings on the topic.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Allowing people who rape children and burn people in cages to take and hold territory is probably good inspiration. No one wants to follow a loser who constantly gets his *** kicked. That's why the Ottawa Senators can't ever sell out a game.


That said, Al Qaeda wasn't holding a lot of ground anywhere when 9-11 happened, so while beating them on their home turf is one element, even if they hold no ground, I'm guessing ISIS'll still be able to keep inspiring


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, Al Qaeda wasn't holding a lot of ground anywhere when 9-11 happened, so while beating them on their home turf is one element, even if they hold no ground, I'm guessing ISIS'll still be able to keep inspiring



How much turf do the Hell's Angels hold?  And despite 60 years of effort to eradicate them they still exist and still keep recruiting.  Not to mention the success of mobs like Cosa Nostra et al.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How much turf do the Hell's Angels hold?  And despite 60 years of effort to eradicate them they still exist and still keep recruiting.  Not to mention the success of mobs like Cosa Nostra et al.


Good parallels, indeed.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, Al Qaeda wasn't holding a lot of ground anywhere when 9-11 happened, so while beating them on their home turf is one element, even if they hold no ground, I'm guessing ISIS'll still be able to keep inspiring


Not saying it's the only solution, but allowing that open wound to fester only compounds the problem. Al-Qaeda also didn't need to hold ground, they had freedom of movement in Afghanistan and some other countries. When people are constantly worried about whether people in black pyjamas will kill them in their sleep, it makes it harder for them to plot and inspire outside of their local sphere of influence.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2016)

Peace bonds....  *sigh*

Ok, Jian Ghomeshi promising not to choke-hold any more women for 12 months...I (disappointedly) get that.

An Islamist radicalized anti-Western individual being trusted as they promise not-to-be-naughty, and then being de-surveilled....  :not-again:

#HowNotToUsePeaceBonds

As for the need to help 'de-program' radicalized young males (predominantly), the intent of Goodale's announcement is not, in and of itself, a bad idea.  As with many of these not-so-bad ideas, the Devil is I. The execution details...

:2c:


----------



## medicineman (18 Aug 2016)

Got an idea here that kills two birds with one stone...set this dept up with its HQ and mind cleansing centre on Hans Island -  there are then feet on the ground to show the flag AND we can keep these wayward souls away from the rest of Canada until satisfied they're no longer nutters.  They can be looked in on by Alert, polar bears, drunken Inuit Vikings, etc as needed.

Of cours, we'd need a new ministry or ADM set up just oversight, resupply, etc...which would not solve much more in spending.

Back to my easel...

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, Al Qaeda wasn't holding a lot of ground anywhere when 9-11 happened, so while beating them on their home turf is one element, even if they hold no ground, I'm guessing ISIS'll still be able to keep inspiring



AQ and ISIS are 2 different beasts, taking different paths to the same destination.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Aug 2016)

I agree with Colin in part here:

Two different organizations but with two different objectives.

AQ wants to cause uprisings in Arab (they say muslim, but it's really Arab) countries to trow out the various dictators or "entrenched" families and then, turn those countries into "proper" Islamic republic (A la Iran, but in each country - see recent Bin Laden's son statements calling for uprising in Saudi Arabia). So they don't need territory to exist, only to cause existing countries to become Islamic republics, then they dissolve or disappear. Their terrorism in the West is aimed at causing responses by the West but in the middle east, so as to cause the said uprisings.   

ISIL wants to be a Caliphate, that is the unified Islamic "Umma", thus wants to govern and needs, by definition, a territory to so rule based on their interpretation and application of Islam - said territory to be expanded until it covers all the earth and all are "good" (according to them) Muslims. Territory is essential to their existence and it is doubtful that, fully deprived of any territory, they would continue to exist as an organization - though it is some times difficult to see if their various forays into terrorism in the West is aimed at the establishment of the Caliphate in the West or simply at causing reaction in the West that drives even more innocent people to join their side at the current location of their "Caliphate".


----------



## Journeyman (19 Aug 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't help but think that this lone-wolf radicalization thing is just something that people pre-disposed to becoming a lone-wolf random mass killer latch onto.


This is why some folks are distancing themselves from the term "lone wolf," when clearly "stray mutt" is more applicable.  A week before Zehaf-Bibeau killed Cpl Cirillo in Ottawa, he was just a drug-addled shit-head; suddenly he became a "lone wolf jihadist martyr."  :   No, he was a stray mutt. 

Now Ted Kaczynski -- the "Unabomber" -- he was a lone wolf terrorist; he planned and conducted his attacks alone and he eluded authorities for over 17 years.


Once again, as I'd posted a few weeks back, the NY Times had an interesting article on who may be a terrorist and who's simply deranged.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I agree with Colin in part here:
> 
> Two different organizations but with two different objectives.
> 
> ...



And the age old tensions that (probably) pre-date Islam, and that resulted in the fall of the Caliphate in 1922, the tensions amongst Arabs, Persians and Turks (the people of the Steppes - not just the people of Turkey), they still exist.  And then there is the ongoing problem that locals like Tuareg, Kachin and Iban don't see themselves as any of the above.

It is a recipe for continuing instability.  I don't think it will be resolved any time soon.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Aug 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> AQ and ISIS are 2 different beasts, taking different paths to the same destination.


Good timing.  _Foreign Policy_  magazine has a three-part series on ISIS vs AQ, with the third part being published just today.

Part 1  "Present at the Creation"
Part 2  "How the Islamic State Seized a Chemical Weapons Stockpile," and
Part 3  "The Greatest Divorce in the Jihadi World"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> This is why some folks are distancing themselves from the term "lone wolf," when clearly "stray mutt" is more applicable.  A week before Zehaf-Bibeau killed Cpl Cirillo in Ottawa, he was just a drug-addled crap-head; suddenly he became a "lone wolf jihadist martyr."  :   No, he was a stray mutt.
> 
> Now Ted Kaczynski -- the "Unabomber" -- he was a lone wolf terrorist; he planned and conducted his attacks alone and he eluded authorities for over 17 years.
> 
> ...



One of the distinctions between AQ and ISIS, is that AQ was a top down organization that wanted to careful control how they attacked the west. ISIS is very much in control within their claimed territory, but also actively encourages free lancers to attack Infidel/non-believers/apostle targets outside the area they control. They give a blessing to the nutbars who finally have something "meaningful" in their lives. It's a brilliant strategy, the cost to themselves is minimal, but the cost of tracking and stopping these attacks for us is quite high. The flip side is that such attacks makes the fight with ISIS, more personal for us. If their hope was to divert western resources away from the Caliphate, then it's a massive failure.


----------



## Altair (19 Aug 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> One of the distinctions between AQ and ISIS, is that AQ was a top down organization that wanted to careful control how they attacked the west. ISIS is very much in control within their claimed territory, but also actively encourages free lancers to attack Infidel/non-believers/apostle targets outside the area they control. They give a blessing to the nutbars who finally have something "meaningful" in their lives. It's a brilliant strategy, the cost to themselves is minimal, but the cost of tracking and stopping these attacks for us is quite high. The flip side is that such attacks makes the fight with ISIS, more personal for us. If their hope was to divert western resources away from the Caliphate, then it's a massive failure.


That's the thing about ISIL. They have no sense of self preservation.

The west didn't start bombing them when when they started to overrun area in Syria or Iraq.  The west started bombing them when they made a production of killing westerners and posting the videos online.

They have consistently gone out of their way to attract western attention and bring the bombs down on their heads.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That's the thing about ISIL. They have no sense of self preservation.
> 
> The west didn't start bombing them when when they started to overrun area in Syria or Iraq.  The west started bombing them when they made a production of killing westerners and posting the videos online.
> 
> They have consistently gone out of their way to attract western attention and bring the bombs down on their heads.



So Donald Trump was right? ISIS was created by Obama?  It is a brilliant CIA black operation?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2016)

That's the problem with religious fanatics. Allah, Vishnu, God or a flying spaghetti monster can't stop a JDAM from speeding your way to the afterlife. They want us to deploy ground troops because they feel like they can fight a giant battle and win. If the Iraqi army can make the gains it has at the decent rate of speed they've advanced at, this whole thing would have been over months ago with a Desert Storm level response. Yep, they would have defaulted to an insurgency, but the pure shock and awe would have depleted all the resources they gained from the banks in Syria and Iraq.

We just didn't have a US President, UNSC or NATO Gen Sec willing to lead a Coalition of the Willing to sort it out.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's the problem with religious fanatics. Allah, Vishnu, God or a flying spaghetti monster can't stop a JDAM from speeding your way to the afterlife. They want us to deploy ground troops because they feel like they can fight a giant battle and win. If the Iraqi army can make the gains it has at the decent rate of speed they've advanced at, this whole thing would have been over months ago with a Desert Storm level response. Yep, they would have defaulted to an insurgency, but the pure shock and awe would have depleted all the resources they gained from the banks in Syria and Iraq.
> 
> We just didn't have a US President, UNSC or NATO Gen Sec willing to lead a Coalition of the Willing to sort it out.



I disagree. Large scale responses to what are, for the most part, internal matters of the Arab community are what brought about the current unrest.

If the west had invaded Syria all that would have occurred was that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh would have just moved back to a phase II insurgency from a phase III insurgency (based on Mao's theory of insurgency) and we would find ourselves in a situation much the same as Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation might actually be worse since we'd also be fighting a proxy war with Assad, the Russians, and any other Sunni nations that don't like the idea of the west settling matters. A few short years later, the west pulls out, the newest Sunni/Shia terrorist group forms to fill the power vacuum, and we're back in the same mess.

This needs to be an Arab solution and perhaps will play out like a modern day 30 years war in the middle east. The west cannot gain anything by attempting to solve the Arab world's problems.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2016)

We already broke the area (royal we) by invading in 2003. This is just a result of short sighted politicians pulling troops out too early and leaving a power vacuum for extremists thrive in. 

We broke it, right or wrong, so it's our responsibility to stabilize the mess.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Aug 2016)

I would respectfully suggest the area was broken well before 2003.  What we did in 2003 was essentially remove the powers at be, that kept everybody locked down & therefore prevented the tensions from flaring up.

There was a great deal of ethnic tension/hatred between Sunni & Shia well before we invaded.  Eventually these groups would have engaged each other, Saddam had just - actually - done a great job of keeping that from happening, even if it was under a brutal regime.

Even taking all of the ethnic and tribal bulls**t out of the discussion, there was still a great deal of political tension in the region - i.e., Iraq/Iran war illustrates.  

The only pockets of stability & economic prosperity are in countries that have found a balance between their culture, and modern day values.  Unfortunately though, this mindset is not prevalent throughout the region.  OR, in countries sitting on huge oil reserves who rule with an iron fist.  (Saudi)


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

I would agree with CBH99.

The Arabs never had any great love for the Ottomans who dominated the Caliphate until Kemal Ataturk tore it all down.   That is what Lawrence of Arabia exploited.   The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem may have loathed the Brits and the French and their Sikes-Picot line but he detested Ataturk because he tore down the muslim "Church".  In western terms - he sacked Rome.

Sunni, Sufi, Shia, Ismaili.  Arab, Turk, Persian.  Modern. Traditional.  

As I said: unstable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2016)

kudeos to the above 2 posts, also people fail to consider what would be happening if Saddam survived. Likely the sanctions would have collapsed. France, Russia and China were promised access to the oil fields in exchange for the massive debts owed, Saddam would be building up his Guard unit and likely working on some form of WMD response, likely with Pakistan and NK help. I suspect we would now be looking at a 2nd war between Iran and Iraq, the last one cost 1.2 million dead. Hard to say if the Arab Spring would have sprung, very likely things would still go the same way in Syria if it did.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

https://1muslimnation.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/islam-to-secularism-how-kemal-ataturk-reformed-ottoman-turkey/

This link - from an arabist point of view in 2006 - gives a pretty fair history of Ataturk.  The comments are also interesting in light of current events.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2016)

All that good work in ruins now with the Bros in charge.  Shame,  that.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already broke the area (royal we) by invading in 2003.


RTFO.    :stars:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already broke the area (royal we) by invading in 2003. This is just a result of short sighted politicians pulling troops out too early and leaving a power vacuum for extremists thrive in.
> 
> We broke it, right or wrong, so it's our responsibility to stabilize the mess.



No it was broken centuries before that. Anyway, magical thinking seems to dominate the discussion; is it the fault of the Crusaders? Maybe the Romans didn't do a good enough job sacking Jerusalem? Alexander III destabilizing the region by destroying the Persian Empire and spreading Hellenistic influence across the region and into the Indian Subcontinent?

The real problem is with few exceptions the region has little in the way of resources, natural borders or modern social, cultural or institutional structures. The "natural" state of affairs outside of naturally protected enclaves is shifting tribal regions dotted around oasis and natural watercourses. If *we* think we have the responsibility to fix things, then we will need to devote decades of time and resources to build and nurture the social, political and economic structures of a modern society and tran people to use them until it sticks. Western Nation States didn't even exist until after 1648, and we can point to various things along the way that led to where we are now (Free Speech evolved over 800 years starting with the Magna Carta). Erasing some of the more virulent strains of *Western* thought took quite a bit of doing; WWII erased National Socialism for over 60 years as a serious political movement, and after a prolonged 70 year struggle we managed to collapse Communism. If it takes that much time and effort to fix problems created by _Western_ philosophy, then fixing Islamic radicalism isn't going to be any easier.


----------

