Liberals' answer to terrorists: Talk them through their feelings

[PuckChaser]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

RTFO.    :stars: