No. In fact, I specifically said that was not the case. What I said was intervening before an individual becomes radicalized is the key.
My apologies. How do we get to a would be radical before the radicals do?
Education, job opportunities, community outreach, a âbetterâ propaganda campaign, etc.
That has proven not to be the case when it comes to radicalization as radicalization statistics indicate reliably that radicalization occurs at all levels of income and education. No the terrorists are not just dumb, poor and desperate. They are true believers and that is a very different dynamic.
Yes, it is true this will not work for all would-be radicals. Feel free to suggest other interventions that might short-circuit the radicalization process.
We are way, way beyond the prevention. Observing the concentric circles with respect to Islamism, prevention is something you do as a post script to war, which we are at whether we choose to recognize that fact or not. Destroying the organizations that a radical can do something in the name of is the paramount focus in this war. We (referring to the free world) have to take out ISIS, we have to take out Boko Haram, we have to take out al qaeda, all these groups and where ever their raise their ugly heads with overwhelming force. And it has to be overwhelming and humiliating, so that one would be embarrassed to be associated with them. Then we can begin the process of de-radicalization.
De-radicalization will only work in a smoking creator, not in a state of empowered, emboldened Islamism that exists currently. The conversation is a non-starter with them.
Educating them and giving them Walmarts to go to will not change their minds or bring them peace, it just gives them new targets.
You can see the evidence in history as how social intervention has only served to make the Palestinians even more violent and determined. Every attempt at building peace through infrastructure, education and community out reach has only made the Palestinians more violent. Whatever you think about that situation, the facts dictate that such attempts at deprogramming, re-education, community outreach has been a catastrophic failure that only has made the world vastly more dangerous.
Winter is coming. Unfortunately, I havenât yet often been wrong when predicting these things. My prediction hence is that forces outside of our country are going to dictate our policy, regardless of what we prefer, towards the rest of the world. And by all measures itâs going to prove to be bloody and messy. Syria was the last peg to fall in setting up this perfect storm. We are not going to be able to do very little for very much longer.
Funny thing you mention concentric circles, a good explanation of this starts around 3:30 of the video.
The only way to beat an ideology is to win in the battlespace of ideas. We are not in an either/or situation; ie, the notion that we have to choose between degrading ISIS et al on the battlefield or take steps to preclude the coming to fruition of a new crop of radicals is a false one.
Assume for the sake of argument that we somehow managed to kill every single individual who is currently a member of a jihadist death-cult. Do you really believe that would prevent a radical from carrying out terrorist activities? Or would it simply create space for the creation of an equivalently-deranged replacement organization?
So, does this mean you propose we âcraterâ large sections of London, Paris and Brussels? Because many of the radicals come from these cities.
I wonât pursue this except to say it represents a highly biased interpretation of the situation.
I stole the idea from Sam Harris. I am not one to foot note all my sources when I blather about on these forums, but I will give credit where itâs due. I regularly listen to his pod casts and such. Not that I agree with him on much, but I donât learn by listening to echo chambers.
And where does this battle space exist? Tehran? Riyadh? Sudan? etc. The problem with Islam itself is itâs not open to criticism of any kind. Not from within or without. Being an apostate carries a huge penalty, even if your simply trying to have an honest exchange of ideas, the âgun to the headâ problem is not limited to the radicals.
Islamistâs are always so willing to show they are the fastest growing religion in the world. I say, take the threat of violence away from aposatacy, allow a free exchange of ideas and see how many you have then.
Free exchange of ideas is a non-starter for all, but the most liberal and secularize Muslims. Even those who agree with us and terrified for their lives and not without good reason.
You are not going to get reform because there are no âsafe spacesâ for most Muslims to do anything but nod in agreement. Those who try like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Maajid Nawaz are constantly under the threat of death, and both are practicing Muslims. Apostasy or even the very appearance of apostasy is not an attractive option for most muslims.
Even if they agree, they are not willing to lose their families or go into hiding because they want to think freely.
It would be nice to have honest conversations with the muslim world, but that act is strictly forbidden in most muslim cultures.
Not talking about a âkillâem allâ strategy. But defeating these large well funded organization will require a rather squeamish death toll with it regardless because death is part of their plan. But I am also talking about a damning, embarrassing defeat of the terrorist organizations so that other cannot rise in their place. No I do not want to play âwhack-a-moleâ with them. Thatâs what weâve been doing for 15 years now, just enough to disrupt, but not squash them. We have to squash them and any place that harbors them. The second partâs important because while a terrorist organization can move, giving them no place to go will help make that more of a reality.
That does not mean small terrorist organizations will not exist, but big ones will not, if pursued with appropriate focus and vigor. That needs to be the focus.
Pretty sure Europe has awoken to their immigration problems. If they do not, they will continue to be soft targets. The fun part about Europe is that they are not afraid of offending people.
That is not a âbiasedâ interpretation. Itâs a daily reality. Until the Palestinian charter removes the part about ârunning the streets red with rivers of blood of Jews, men women and childrenâ, and the complete and absolute refusal to recognize Israelâs right to exist, I have little time or patience for that bullshit. Israel has required only 2 things to allow a 2 state solution to exist, stop the terrorism and recognize their right to exist. The Palestinians continue to refuse both very small concessions. I cannot help them, nor can I fix stupid. The Jews are not going anywhere. If they require Jews to die or leave to allow peace, then peace will never exist.
Ask Jewbacca about the situation, he lives there. He can tell you the truth.
Let me ask you, if any country at any given time had fired over 4000 rockets in to our country randomly, to hit civilian targets, do you think there would be anything left of that country?
Of course not, even obama would have to act militarily.
1 Like
The battlespace exists primarily in social media.
I donât think that a fair generalization of Islam, although it is certainly true of certain subgroups within Islam.
Weâre not trying to convert individuals, nor are we seeking to get them to publicly âbuck the system.â Weâre trying to prevent their radicalization. So apostasy is not a concern.
Thank God for the internet/social media.
Youâre going to have to expand on this for meâwhat does it mean to âsquash themâ if not to kill them all? Likewise, what does it mean to âsquash any place that harbors themâ?
In terms of the threat posed to the US, it seems to me the small organizations are just as dangerous as the big ones.
My question wasnât about recent immigrants to Europe; rather, it concerned what we should do about Europe as an origin for individuals carrying French, British or Belgian passports who are intent on committing acts of terror on US soil. I donât think we can crater them.
Like I said, Iâm not going there at this time. But I stand by my original statement re bias.
Social media? Shirley, you must be kidding?
The places where we truly need to make inroads, information is controlled. Youâre not going to de-radicalize or prevent radicalization over social media. Itâs a lawless format. No one is forced to follow rules of logic and decency on social media. Itâs word vomit.
It can be an effective activism tool, but itâs not a tool for thoughtful dialog.
With social media? 
How good is the internet connect in Mogadishu, you think?
No, they are not. Far fewer people will be willing to blow themselves up, or die for some rinky-dink organization, then for ISIS or Al Qaeda.
You take away their motivation. Who do these first gen, children of immigrants do acts of terror in the name of? ISIS. Very, very few multi-generational Europeans are even remotely interested in these terror groups. Considering the right-wing, anti-immigration wave spreading through out Europe, at impressive speed, is a sign the Europeans are sick of it.
Like I said, Iâm not going there at this time. But I stand by my original statement re bias.
[/quote]
These are factual situations. I inserted them, not to talk about the Israeli/ Palestinian situation, but to make a point about community investment and the results there of, as it has been tried in the OTâs of Israel and it led not to any sort of de-radicalization but an increase in violence.
There is zero correlation between the âgood lifeâ and radicalization. Radicals come from many walks of life and in fair number of each. Education, poverty, infrastructure, community outreach, etc. has no effect, none on radicalization. The radicals are on a different wave link. They donât think like normal people do and their background has little to do with it.
You arenât going to get them to accept secularization or liberal democratic ideals.
All we can do to end radicalization is prove that itâs ideas are wrong. There is no caliphate, there will never be a caliphate that takes over the world and implements Sharia and any attempt to create one will be snuffed out immediately. Much of the radicalization is driven by prophecy and any optic that makes it look good for the prophecy it a lure to those who want to belong to something bigger than themselves.
Itâs almost noble if it were not that they believed the way to achieve such a thing is by cruelty, enslavement, grotesque displays, rape, disfigurement, genital mutilation, and rampant impudent murder. â How do you âsocial mediaâ someone from doing such things? And should they be just left alone to continue?
You should pay attention to Maajid Nawaz who is a muslim and a former radical. He knows the motivation and problem better than just about anyone, as he was there.
He is doing the work you are talking about, but heâs doing it in a multi-faceted way, not âsocial mediaâ. He would be more effective save for the price on his head and the threats of death. Also, getâs backlash from the left who calls him, a practicing Muslim, an anti-Muslim bigot, as he is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
These efforts do need to be done and are, but they will save precious few unless the actual enemy is defeated handily. Those who are in this fight know this, they are the ones by whom I am informed on the matter.
Use your social media to support people like Maajid and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who are doing this pre-radicalization workâŠ
Did I miss the part where you answered these questions?
âYouâre going to have to expand on this for meâwhat does it mean to âsquash themâ if not to kill them all?
âLikewise, what does it mean to âsquash any place that harbors themâ?
I thought I answered that with the advocating of more aggressive military action to destroy the organizations completely, so as not to be able to rise again. And punish any state that willingly harbors them, either militarily or otherwise depending on their complicity.
And you think these actions are not only effective, but also viable?
Letâs use ISIS as a test-bed for your approach. Weâll set aside for the moment the claim that we could âdestroy the organization completelyâ (we canât). Instead, just tell me which country/countries you would âsquashâ as part of your strategy.
Oh but we can!
Oh we have the resources to make ISIS a skid mark on the face of the Earth. And the air campaign operation âInherent Resolveâ has yielded results. The problem, however, is that ISIS uses human shields relentlessly so hitting high value targets while minimizing collateral damage is damn near impossible. As unappealing as it sounds itâs going to take a ground game.
Seriously, do you think one organization could withstand a coalition of 60 countries intent on destroying them if those countries were actually serious about the job? Of course not.
Secondly, we had the chance to take out Assad when he crossed the âRed Lineâ instead of the negotiated settlement that allowed Russia to enter the playing field. Itâs that moment alone that turned Syria in to a killing zone. With in 6 monthâs of the chemical weapons removal Russia sent a billions dollars worth of highly advanced, far more deadly military equipment in order to carry out the recapture of Syria. Then, along with weapons Russia sent planes and troops to help. The âRed Lineâ is perhaps the greatest fuck up in recent international blunders. I cannot think of a single more destabilizing event then that failure to finish off an Assad regime that was hanging by a thread. Now heâs back, bigger and badder then ever. And that situation is now extremely complicated.
But, in the case of Syria, ISIS was not harbored. They are occupiers. Unlike the Taliban or Al Qaeda who was welcomed and supported by the Afghaniâs, ISIS is not state sponsored save by Saudi Arabia, who has elements within itâs government that have been found to support ISIS.
âUnappealingâ doesnât begin to cover it. First, you want to invade another ME country??!! I donât think that would go over very well, either there or here at home. This is especially true when one considers that 1) such a response is wildly out of proportion to the threat posed to us by ISIS; and 2) ISIS has been attempting to goad us into a ground war for years. (Fighting the âarmies of Romeâ is central to their eschatology.)
You think you can get 60 countries to agree to invade the ME? Color me skeptical.
OK, letâs assume we âtook out Assad.â Then what? Are we going to occupy Syria?
You think itâs complicated nowâŠIt would be far more so without Assad. Am I a fan of/advocating for Assad? Of course notâheâs a monster. But taking out the monster didnât work in Iraq, it didnât work in Libya, and it wouldnât work in Syria.
Does that mean we need to âsquashâ SA?
We should not base our responses on what ISIS thinks they want. They believe they would have a chance, they donât. Second itâs not an invasion to occupy, but to liberate the territory. Further, you asked what needed to happen, not whatâs popular, in order to destroy ISIS. Practically every general and upper level military person who has spoken on the issue said that is what itâs going to ultimately take.
And you think thatâs unpopular? How many more terrorist attacks like Paris or Nice, or Belgium, or Orlando are you willing to absorb? The intelligence community has repeatedly warned itâs not an if, itâs when and how big. How many more refugees would you like to create? How many more Christians or Yazidiâs need to be murdered for you to care?
Thereâs a genocide going on inside Syria and Iraq. And after Kosovo the UN vowed never again. Yet they stand idly by watching it take place, while tacitly condemning this or that.
Hey me too, but Obama said he has a 60 country coalition dedicated to get rid of ISIS. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France and England have dropped a few bombs, but there is a telling absence from most of this coalition. I didnât put it together or say it existed, Obama did. I am saying âIf it were trueâ ISIS would have been a grease spot long ago.
Taking Assad out was/ is the policy of the U.S. as stated by the Obama administration. And no we would not occupy, NATO would hold together the state until legal, fair and democratic elections could be held and a constitution established.
It worked swimmingly in Iraq. You donât see Saddam anywhere, do you? Then we pulled out all our troops before the State of Iraq was stable. Everybody knew what was going to happen if we pulled out the troops to early and it happened as most predicted it would.
We knew al-Maliki was a disaster. We knew he wasnât stable and couldnât hold the country together and he was creating sectarian divisions across the country. And we pulled out, then demanded his ouster. The results were predictable. The job was not complete and we pulled out.
It doesnât matter what you think of the war in the first place, leaving the place unstable, knowingly was going to result in us making a huge U-Turn and going back. And that is exactly what we did. The current troop count is 4500 and climbing. There are boots on the ground in Iraq as we speak. The fact that the administration is not calling it that does not mean thatâs not what it is.
Elements within SA sponsored ISIS and high level ones, but it wasnât state sponsored. I am not advocating war with the Saudis. We can put diplomatic pressure on them to punish criminal elements and we can slowly stop doing business with them, which is something I would like to see happen. We donât need their oil anymore.
A more fundamental question, and one you have yet to address, is why you think we need to âdestroyâ ISIS in the first place, when they do not pose an existential threat to us. Why not continue what has proven to be a very effective strategy of degrading their abilities?
Orlando was horrible. 49 individuals killed. Likewise San Bernardino (14 killed). Thatâs 63 people killed out of a population of ~325M. Now, youâre asking me how many more such attacks would I be willing to absorb, if the other option were a full-scale invasion and occupation of significant portions of the MEâan operation that could cost >1 trillion dollars, and thousands of Americans KIA/wounded? Do you see how outrageous it is to even ask such a question?
Quite frankly, that youâre even posing it is a testament to the effectiveness of terror as a tactic.
Not via invasion and occupation.
That is not correctânot if âtaking him outâ means killing him.
No disrespect, but you have got to be kidding me. You sound like Rumsfeld:
(start at 34-s, and listen to his first comment about the projected length of the Iraq conflict)
I can only shake my head in astonishment at such a statement.
OK, if not the Saudis, then who is/are the state sponsors of ISIS? What states are you proposing we âsquashâ?