ISIS defector explains a key reason why people continue to join the group

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So we cross paths again on a similar theme...

What would you suggest as a solution in this instance? Let's just say for a moment the assertions of the OP are in fact accurate, what then would you suggest as an agreeable course of action?

It is an honest question...to which I would truly like to understand a reasonable approach (not involving violence to combat violence).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

This is a tough question to answer while on the spot, but I can attempt to begin to answer it. By no means am I suggesting that my answer will be the end all be all or even a COMPLETE solution. Part of addressing this issue with non-violence is to attempt things, see how they are working then adapt accordingly.

The first thing we can do is stop showing our fear of terrorism when a new group of windbags enters the world stage yelling about how they are going to fundamentally change everything yet somehow can only manage to execute one or two terrorist attacks in the West in a year. Rejecting refugees just because ISIS may have infiltrated their ranks. Denouncing all Muslims as secretly terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. You know ACTIVELY show that ISIS' threats and intimidation aren't going to change who we are and what we stand for.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'd be happy to get into it too - just don't you worry about that

:-)

I'm out of here for the day in a few - don't feel like slapping something together

catch you laterish

Edit to add: I am a pacifist - which I'm sure you've figured out by now. But I'm also a realist - I know we don't get out of this without violence

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Exactly. Thank you. Sometimes I'm not so sure why people are so opposed to trying to humanize their enemy. To me, I see trying to understand the reasons people do what they do can help us take measures to make sure that those things don't happen anymore. Clearly just blowing each other up isn't getting us anywhere. There has to be a better answer, and we'll never figure it out if we refuse to even TRY to understand our enemies.

Most people are not psychologically equipped to do that. In fact NOT understanding the Enemy (or in this case maybe, might be threatening population) is the only way most people can commit violence. They must dehumanize them to be able to harm them. While the driver for this phenomenon isn't necessarily a bad thing, the application can become the most terrible force that humans are capable of. This is why any empathy expressed toward these refugees, or The Enemy elicits such a vehement response. It's chipping away at that armor of cognitive dissonance that the majority of the population is building around themselves in preparation for the violence they feel needs to be done to handle the threat.

It goes like this:

See threat (could be).

Hate threat and make them animals in your mind.

Kill threat.

Aaaannnd.... Their sense of self is intact. They are still good people because the ones that they killed, condoned killing or even just refused help to are only lazy cowards/infidels/terrorists/filthy animals/pick your label anyway. The vast majority of the population falls into the tendency whole sale with no hesitation or doubt. Hook, line and sinker.

It's a knee jerk response and generally leads to violence when a more empathetic answer would probably be better for everybody. However, drawing an appropriate line on that empathy can be hard too. Sometimes, The Other is a threat, and getting a handle on that while still remaining empathetic and rational can be difficult too.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Fair enough, and I do understand your posture (believe it or not).

I will look forward to your insight.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, but how do we tell people not to be afraid, not to be swayed by the acts of terrorists, when this is all they see on the MSM, 24x7, ad-nauseum?

Secondly, "all" is a strong and all-inclusive word. Not even I am suggesting rejecting 'all' refugees, or branding 'all' Muslims as terrorists / terrorist sympathizers. What I have suggested in numerous threads on this theme is to focus on the high risk groups, and as much as it may not be politically correct, subject these groups to a little more scrutiny. No, they cannot help where they were born, or where they live (in some cases), but they must understand that the proverbial 'carrot' is emigration to the free world, and the 'stick' is the extra scrutiny, the bar which they must make the effort to clear to be granted the carrot.

a reply to: redhorse

Yea. Certainly you are right. I experienced plenty of the dehumanizing rhetoric while in the military. So I know what you mean. Though in the military, your role IS to kill the other person so it's kind of required there.

I just find it so hypocritical that people can preach wanting peace and an end to war yet continue to contribute to perpetuating the cycle of violence.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, but how do we tell people not to be afraid, not to be swayed by the acts of terrorists, when this is all they see on the MSM, 24x7, ad-nauseum?

It takes a certain level of intestinal fortitude. Though that is something that the violent ones are always demanding of us. However, the violent one don't realize that it's much harder to stand your ground in the face of the threat of violence than it is to lash back at it though. I acknowledge that it isn't easy, but if we embrace the thinking we can help others get through it. For the most part, everyone is living through it now. Even despite all this fear rhetoric, we are all still going to work, earning a living, spending time with our families, and all the other stuff we normally do. It's clearly possible for most of society. We just have to recognize it.

Secondly, "all" is a strong and all-inclusive word. Not even I am suggesting rejecting 'all' refugees, or branding 'all' Muslims as terrorists / terrorist sympathizers. What I have suggested in numerous threads on this theme is to focus on the high risk groups, and as much as it may not be politically correct, subject these groups to a little more scrutiny. No, they cannot help where they were born, or where they live (in some cases), but they must understand that the proverbial 'carrot' is emigration to the free world, and the 'stick' is the extra scrutiny, the bar which they must make the effort to clear to be granted the carrot.

ALL the refugees get tons of scrutiny. It takes over half a year for refugees to come here. What exactly do you know about the American refugee process exactly? Have you gone to the its website and looked into it, or have you just let the news tell you how it works (or rather doesn't work)? Have you visited a refugee inprocess center? Have you spoken to anyone who has gone through it? Or have you just listened to the media about it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know quite a bit about it actually, I deal with it every day. I suspect I know quite a bit more about it than you do frankly. I can tell you the scrutiny you refer to is bureaucratic more than anything (#1), and has little (if anything) to do with screening for things like links to terrorism other than some casual questions by some low level government 'clerk' which are then filed in a massive warehouse of data which no one ever looks at until it's too late.

And (#2) I can also tell you that emigration to the US by a college educated white Christian male with a good paying job is 10,000 TIMES more difficult!! And I know this because I live it! One of my colleagues is an Irish national and he has spent over 10 YEARS getting citizenship...not 6 months! This is just one example of hundreds I could give you. Plus, the 6 months you refer to has the individual in question already living here under refugee status while all the bureaucracy and paper work goes through. I also happen to work in the aviation industry, so I have first hand knowledge of how foreign national intake works. Refugees have a much simpler process to endure than the average person, it's a much lower bar of scrutiny.

Be careful with your assertions about what may influence my understanding of how things work when you have no idea of my background, education, line of work or understanding of the system itself. Else you might make yourself look silly.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know quite a bit about it actually, I deal with it every day. I suspect I know quite a bit more about it than you do frankly. I can tell you the scrutiny you refer to is bureaucratic more than anything (#1), and has little (if anything) to do with screening for things like links to terrorism other than some casual questions by some low level government 'clerk' which are then filed in a massive warehouse of data which no one ever looks at until it's too late.

You can tell me all this, yet you magically neglect to tell me WHY you are able to say all this.

I can also tell you that emigration to the US by a college educated white Christian male with a good paying job is 10,000 TIMES more difficult!! And I know this because I live it! One of my colleagues is an Irish national and he has spent over 10 YEARS getting citizenship...not 6 months! This is just one example of hundreds I could give you. Plus, the 6 months you refer to has the individual in question already living here under refugee status while all the bureaucracy and paper work goes through. I also happen to work in the aviation industry, so I have first hand knowledge of how foreign national intake works. Refugees have a much simpler process to endure than the average person, it's a much lower bar of scrutiny.

Immigration isn't the same as being a refugee. Trust me I know too. I have several friends trying to immigrate here too. My buddy from China has been waiting for the better part of 10 years for a green card and he is likely going to have to wait for some more years now too.

Be careful with your assertions about what may influence my understanding of how things work when you have no idea of my background, education, line of work or understanding of the system itself. Else you might make yourself look silly.

I COULD do that, but it looks awfully fishy when you tell me that I'm wrong then never elaborate on why that is the case.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I explained very clearly "why" am able to say this. I think you should re-read what I wrote.

I do not intend to elaborate any further details on a public forum on the Internet.

You can either accept what I say, ignore it or deny it...your choice.

And yes, I do completely understand the refugee process is wholly different than the immigration process...boy do I ever!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I explained very clearly "why" am able to say this. I think you should re-read what I wrote.

I did read it. Several times. You never mention why you have more knowledge than I do on the refugee process. That is unless you think knowing someone waiting to get a green card is having intimate knowledge of the refugee process. Because if that were the case, you and I would be in the same boat.

I do not intend to elaborate any further details on a public forum on the Internet.

That's cool. Don't expect me to believe you if you don't though.

You can either accept what I say, ignore it or deny it...your choice.

You're right I can do those things.

And yes, I do completely understand the refugee process is wholly different than the immigration process...boy do I ever!

Though letting us know why you know that is clearly a taboo subject.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: madenusa

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the security procedures surrounding VIPs these days. When was the last time you saw a president or prime minister riding in an open top car? When someone on the campaign trail "spontaneously" drops into a diner, that diner was thoroughly inspected by the Secret Service two weeks earlier, and all the employees subjected to a background check. The Secret service then returns the morning of the visit and inspects every nook and cranny. VIPs live in a bulletproof glass box.

maybe 'cause they're instructed to start war, the politicians instigate it, the terrorists are the boots on the ground.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What would you suggest as a solution in this instance? Let's just say for a moment the assertions of the OP are in fact accurate, what then would you suggest as an agreeable course of action?

You may as well ask if there's a solution to North Korea. There is no agreeable course of action

You're asking is there a solution to Isis? Aside from making it impossible for them to recruit or make money, there's nothing you can do to them that you won't also do to innocent civilians

I entered this thread for other reasons

What's the point of your question?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's it??? That's your response?

The point of my question is to understand if there are other viable options out there to combat terrorism or, in this case, the recruiting for terrorism without resorting to violence which you have plainly stated you abhor. My point is; there are lots of people out there being overtly critical of solutions being brought to the table by others, but offering no solutions of their own. My point is; there are lots of people who wave their arms and blather about over all the killing, yet bury their collective heads in the sand, say it's impossible and just hope the problem will magically go away on its own. Well, it won't (go away on its own), and my mind is open to a more effective, kinder, way of dealing with the problem if there is one...so let's hear it! That's my point.

Regarding NK; there are no similarities at all. I disagree completely there is no agreeable solution there. NK is completely isolated (which incidentally enough is one of the tactics I am advocating for combating terrorism). NK can puff their chest out and make all sorts of noises, but at the end of the day they know, we know and everyone else in the whole World knows; if they so much as take one step across that 'line' they will cease to exist. They can't move north because China will exterminate them; they can't move south because the west will exterminate them. They can't move east or west because they have no viable navy and lack the economy to create one. They are completely isolated, economically as well as a people. In light of these factors they pose little, if any, threat to the outside world.

On this very thread I have laid out steps to deal with terrorism which, if you took the time to read them, would accomplish similar ends while still allowing refugee emigration and not having to fire a shot (provided they respect the rules). Terrorism will cease to exist when there is no one to terrorize. Terrorism only works when terrorists threaten the ways of freedom; terrorism has no value when used against an already oppressed people. The reason terrorism is effective is because persons from these organizations are allowed to move freely in the free world and threaten to take away the very freedoms people enjoy as a result of their hard work through fear.

You talk about the 'hypocrisy and dishonesty' of people wanting to use violence to address the problem of terrorism as being 'more than you can stand', yet you offer absolutely no solutions of your own which are 'sincere and honest' as an alternative. No, it would seem you are the one being a hypocritical and disingenuous when complaining about the actions of others, as if there is a better way, without spelling out what this magical 'better way' actually is.

That...is my point.

P.S. I am growing very weary of the constant complaining and droning on from the liberal left about all the atrocities of people attempting to do something, anything, to stop terror. Tired of the constant yammering that if people were just left alone to do what they will, to live and let live, that life would just be all rainbows and unicorns. They have only problems, but offer no solutions. Never a one. Pretty typical, wouldn't you say?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Take a step back claydisk

Breathe...

Talk about puffing up chests

You talk about the 'hypocrisy and dishonesty' of people wanting to use violence to address the problem of terrorism as being 'more than you can stand', yet you offer absolutely no solutions of your own which are 'sincere and honest' as an alternative. No, it would seem you are the one being a hypocritical and disingenuous when complaining about the actions of others, as if there is a better way, without spelling out what this magical 'better way' actually is.

You're evidently the one that needs to slow down and read. The hypocrisy and dishonesty that I was talking about is better understood if you read my first post in this thread. When I said I got into this thread for other reasons - that was what I was talking about. Read it - understand me

Then simmer down. You seem like somebody that pretty much wants to control the flow of conversation to better showcase your genius :-)

My reply was short - but not antagonistic. I needed to understand what you were looking for

You asked how I would solve this problem based on the accuracy of the OP. It's too late - anything we do to destroy ISIS will affect the civilian population. Same as North Korea - which, by the way - was not intended to be a straight across the board example but rather a more symbolic comparison. The population of North Korea is living an actual hell- they are kept in line by monsters - and there is nothing we can do that won't also horribly affect that hostage population of innocents

None of this is pretty. The only way to fix it is to go back in time. There was a time when the world could have aided and protected Syria. We made some formal protests - but the problem of Assad was something most people thought could be allowed to continue. Nobody can see the future - but we can still guess. Peaceful protest went pretty much the way you would expect in Syria. Crop failures, lack of work, political and economic oppression, tyrants and monsters - Russia, the USA - and here we are

Going forward? People need a future, stability, freedom and peace. You offer kids actual inclusion and a shot at a future - they won't cross borders to join a fantasy

If you offer their parents that same inclusion and some dignity? Well - a girl can dream

P.S. I am growing very weary of the constant complaining and droning on from the liberal left about all the atrocities of people attempting to do something, anything, to stop terror. Tired of the constant yammering that if people were just left alone to do what they will, to live and let live, that life would just be all rainbows and unicorns. They have only problems, but offer no solutions. Never a one. Pretty typical, wouldn't you say?

Who cares what you think? Go Fly a kite

I like flying kites.

Otherwise, thank you for the non-answer. It's pretty much what I expected.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Otherwise, thank you for the non-answer. It's pretty much what I expected.

Of course it's what you expected. You never intended to understand what I was saying in the first place. This was never meant to be a genuine conversation

I did read all your posts - by the way

Seems you were only after another opportunity to insult and then blather on on about your anti-terrorist procedural - which doesn't exist. At least - not in this thread. You allude to some kind of actual involvement in the refugee situation - but I think that's just some kind of bragging

Next time you want to discuss something - bring something to discuss. Then read what other people are saying

Edit to add: In my previous post I offered my thinking on what could be done. I know how you feel about unicorns - but what you keep repeating is that the unicorns never offer solutions. You don't like what they're saying - and that's fine. But to pretend that we aren't up for the discussion is dishonest

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Otherwise, thank you for the non-answer. It's pretty much what I expected.

Of course it's what you expected. You never intended to understand what I was saying in the first place. This was never meant to be a genuine conversation

You didn't say anything to understand...other than it's impossible. That's a non-answer. What, just throw our arms up and give up?

I did read all your posts - by the way

Okay.

Seems you were only after another opportunity to insult and then blather on on about your anti-terrorist procedural - which doesn't exist. At least - not in this thread. You allude to some kind of actual involvement in the refugee situation - but I think that's just some kind of bragging

Actually, you are correct. I noticed this after I posted. The step by step plan I spoke of was a response to yourself in a different thread and can be found...

Here

Next time you want to discuss something - bring something to discuss. Then read what other people are saying

I did, and I did. You are just upset you didn't have a credible reply to any of the points I have repeatedly made.

I'm done; there is no point in continuing.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm done; there is no point in continuing.

:-)