Hug a Jihadi

Hug a Jihadi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:17:03 AM)
No I am not suggesting anyone goes out and hugs the nearest jihadi. Here in Australia the Govt has chosen to take the hardest possible line in dealing with terrorists and potential terrorists, making aiding, materially supporting or fighting for a designated terrorist organisation anywhere a criminal offence punishable by lengthy prison sentences (IIRC) up to 20 years. Those suspected of travelling overseas to fight with IS or similar organisations have their passports cancelled, and are subjected to heavy surveillance by security agencies as well as aggressive prosecution if they step over the line. This seems to represent the standard line taken by Western Govts to deal with this problem, though details may vary in other countries. In one Danish city, they have adopted a very different approach. 'Hug A Jihadi' is the name of a police-designed and -run program in Aarhaus, Denmark's second largest city, that aims to cure terrorism with empathy, jobs, social integration - in short killing terrorism with kindness. You can read about it or watch the video at this site: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/hug-jihadi "Under a program run by police in Denmark’s second largest city, Aarhus, a unique approach is being tested – offering assistance to radicalised youths and adults, rather than treating them as criminals. The police running the program believe helping young extremists is the best way to keep the peace. Treating them harshly and with suspicion only isolates them further - making them more of a danger to society. The program has been referred by some in the media as the ‘hug a terrorist’ model of deradicalisation. So far, it’s been remarkably effective. Which approach is wiser? Which is more effective? Is this a model that can be adopted and employed elsewhere? How should we treat those misguided youths who have been attracted to militant Islamism and other terrorist causes? How can we prevent those misguided youths from turning sympathy into becoming fully fledged active terrorists? How should we design and implement effective deradicalisation programs ?

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:50:24 AM)
No, I don't see how this can work. The only way to make nasty people nice is to keep on kicking them till they become nice again. That strategy never fails.

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:50:36 AM)
I think the stupid thing is block their passport and prevent them from going overseas to fight side by side with ISIS. Let them go. And discontinue their citizenship. That's the best solution. Tell them to stay with ISIS and don't come back. Maybe they will think twice about leaving knowing they can never come back.

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:51:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer No, I don't see how this can work. The only way to make nasty people nice is to keep on kicking them till they become nice again. That strategy never fails. The only way to stop killers from killing is to give them the death penalty. Not alive, can't kill anymore. Anybody caught donating money to ISIS should also have entire bank account confiscated and frozen and donated to charity.

respectmen -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 5:34:32 AM)
Ban muslim immigration would be a starting point. Let's face it, western civilization is the superior culture of the world. Why give it away in the cause of political correctness? Why take away the highest level of human advancement to suit all cultures and genders?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 5:36:22 AM)
Here's an idea. Micro chip em and send em off to join ISIL. Get our drones to home in on the chips and...................

vincentML -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 5:49:50 AM)
I anticipate some pretty extreme responses to your OP, Tweak. You give us such deliciously widely opposing options. The harsh version, imo, lacks due process provisions. Anyone who goes overseas is suddenly a target by the govt. Assuming that means if they journey say to Pakistan, but not Scotland. Sounds a bit similar to Trump's selection of seven nations from which refugees are barred. Furthermore, given the ubiquitous internet, there is not reason to discount the budding stay-at-home Jihadist to suddenly emerge with a suicide bomb vest rapped around his chest. So, I ask you, is your govt spending money worrying about travelers and ignoring the children who have been radicalized through their computer, and how do you tell? Do you place an NSA listening device on every Muslim child's computer and mobile phone? The soft alternative also suffers from a similar problem of identifying the potential jihadists. Do the authorities make an announcement for every distressed Muslim child to come down to city hall for some ice cream? Both approaches seem unsuitable to solve the problem.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 8:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle No I am not suggesting anyone goes out and hugs the nearest jihadi. Here in Australia the Govt has chosen to take the hardest possible line in dealing with terrorists and potential terrorists, making aiding, materially supporting or fighting for a designated terrorist organisation anywhere a criminal offence punishable by lengthy prison sentences (IIRC) up to 20 years. Those suspected of travelling overseas to fight with IS or similar organisations have their passports cancelled, and are subjected to heavy surveillance by security agencies as well as aggressive prosecution if they step over the line. This seems to represent the standard line taken by Western Govts to deal with this problem, though details may vary in other countries. In one Danish city, they have adopted a very different approach. 'Hug A Jihadi' is the name of a police-designed and -run program in Aarhaus, Denmark's second largest city, that aims to cure terrorism with empathy, jobs, social integration - in short killing terrorism with kindness. You can read about it or watch the video at this site: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/hug-jihadi "Under a program run by police in Denmark’s second largest city, Aarhus, a unique approach is being tested – offering assistance to radicalised youths and adults, rather than treating them as criminals. The police running the program believe helping young extremists is the best way to keep the peace. Treating them harshly and with suspicion only isolates them further - making them more of a danger to society. The program has been referred by some in the media as the ‘hug a terrorist’ model of deradicalisation. So far, it’s been remarkably effective. Which approach is wiser? Which is more effective? Is this a model that can be adopted and employed elsewhere? How should we treat those misguided youths who have been attracted to militant Islamism and other terrorist causes? How can we prevent those misguided youths from turning sympathy into becoming fully fledged active terrorists? How should we design and implement effective deradicalisation programs ? So, it's "Thug a Jihadi" vs. "Hug a Jihadi." The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. The soft approach might be more effective in turning hearts and minds away from the radicalization, but it can also end up being a yuge dice roll. How terrible would it be if a soft approach resulted in the deaths of innocents? In the end, I think it would be best to apply both strategies. The more hardened and radicalized, the less likely a soft approach is likely to work.

Aylee -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 8:20:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Here's an idea. Micro chip em and send em off to join ISIL. Get our drones to home in on the chips and................... As some day it may happen that a victim must be found I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of society offenders who might well be underground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW_Ukl71OH4

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 9:26:39 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 I think the stupid thing is block their passport and prevent them from going overseas to fight side by side with ISIS. Let them go. And discontinue their citizenship. That's the best solution. Tell them to stay with ISIS and don't come back. Maybe they will think twice about leaving knowing they can never come back. Until you understand why they join how would you expect to stop them?

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 9:28:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 Anybody caught donating money to ISIS should also have entire bank account confiscated and frozen and donated to charity. Freedom and democracy at work?

vincentML -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 9:48:00 AM)
quote: The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. That is really strange. Wasn't there a movie about arresting people for future crimes? Who are the "they" "them" or "their" you are talking about? How would you distinguish people going abroad for the purpose of assisting some radical group? What distinguishing characteristics would compel the immigration people to say: "Oh fuck, there goes a jihadi. Let's take away his passport or citizenship. Wot? He hasn't committed any crime yet? Well, fuck! Let's just shoot his towel-head ass dead then we will be certain he will not come back to harm us." DS, you often have some really good ideas but this is not one of them.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 9:49:22 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, it's "Thug a Jihadi" vs. "Hug a Jihadi." The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. The soft approach might be more effective in turning hearts and minds away from the radicalization, but it can also end up being a yuge dice roll. How terrible would it be if a soft approach resulted in the deaths of innocents? In the end, I think it would be best to apply both strategies. The more hardened and radicalized, the less likely a soft approach is likely to work. Consider where the "radicals" of the 60's have gone? Omg they got jobs with the establishment. David horoitz and eldridge cleaver became republicans jerry rubin and abby hoffman got jobs. Whodathunkit?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 10:28:10 AM)
quote: The only way to stop killers from killing is to give them the death penalty. Which makes you a killer, and the only way to stop you is the death penalty for using the death penalty. Killing is killing.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 10:30:00 AM)
quote: The soft alternative also suffers from a similar problem of identifying the potential jihadists. No it doesn't, that's just the point. The first approach, the harsh one, breeds more jihadis, the second approach will prevent new jihadis. you do not sign up for a suicide mission when you have something to live for.

BoscoX -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 10:48:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The soft alternative also suffers from a similar problem of identifying the potential jihadists. No it doesn't, that's just the point. The first approach, the harsh one, breeds more jihadis, the second approach will prevent new jihadis. you do not sign up for a suicide mission when you have something to live for. Why is it only Muslims who go all Allahu Akbar!!! slash hack slash when their poor little feelers get a booboo [image]http://www.youthway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2A1AF67600000578-3144213-Street_performers_entertaining_young_children_and_passersby_have-a-4_1435661039939.jpg[/image]

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 10:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Do the authorities make an announcement for every distressed Muslim child to come down to city hall for some ice cream? In my country, parents are urge to report their children for extremism. Basically, anybody suspected of extremism has to go through compulsory "re-education about the version of Islam that is compatible to Singapore laws". So it is a criminal offense if friends/family/relatives, knows that someone is going to join ISIS and not report them for rehabilitation. Recently, there was two colleague. They were just colleagues. One dude said he wants to join ISIS. And the other dude says, he admire his courage to fight for Islam. Both got in trouble and both were sent for rehabilitation. It's an anonymous hotline.

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:05:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick you do not sign up for a suicide mission when you have something to live for. You need to watch the documentary on the teenagers joining ISIS from South East Asia. Loving parents, great friends, great job. Pampered lives. But they do it because they believe it is what Allah wants them to do with their life. Living a higher and more noble purpose. They left their cushy comfortable lives and the people who love them to go support ISIS. These are women too. Who are medical students, lawyers. Seriously, good education ones. Also clearly well off too. Nothing to do with being shun or anything like that. For gawd's sake, Indonesia and Malaysia are majority Muslims. Nobody is shunning them. They get first rights. And if ya read an article about Singapore Muslims, they never feel ostracized. Here is an article by a hijab wearing Muslim female in Singapore talking about how it's like to grow up as a Muslim in Singapore. Yet it's young women like her that are giving up their lives for ISIS. http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/we-are-singaporean-before-anything-else This whole, "Fight Jihad with kindness" is a dumb concept that fact is many are joining ISIS from Muslim Majority countries who are living well and have plenty to live for. The west is painting the big lie over there that terrorist are poor and desperate people. They are not! Like those California terrorists who went and shot people. They had a new born baby to live for, yet they rather go on a killing spree and leave their baby behind. THIS has nothing to do with them not having anything to live for. They believe so strongly that their Allah wants them to serve a higher purpose. I think they need to make it super harsh penalties for joining ISIS, like not being allowed to come back. The consequences has to make them think twice before joining.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Which approach is wiser? Which is more effective? Is this a model that can be adopted and employed elsewhere? How should we treat those misguided youths who have been attracted to militant Islamism and other terrorist causes? How can we prevent those misguided youths from turning sympathy into becoming fully fledged active terrorists? How should we design and implement effective deradicalisation programs ? It seems to me that deradicalisation by such means, even if it were effective would have a limited shelf life. Seems a little like the antibiotics arms race: it works for awhile, and will change a few lives, then the motherlode of bad ideas back in the caliphate gets wind of it, and sends people specifically to take advantage of that organization, much as they are doing with every other outreach effort on the continent. I have had the pleasure of dealing with true believers of that sort, and the only cure I'm personally aware of is Pb. Radicalization is a hell of a thing - the few people who have left ISIS generally have a bone to pick with some minutiae of how ISIS operates, not the jihadism project itself. If you want a solution that spares you not only jihadis, but also a whole lot of dead weight on your social security system, check out Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. They're smart enough to employ SEP fields at their borders.

BoscoX -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:24:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The soft alternative also suffers from a similar problem of identifying the potential jihadists. No it doesn't, that's just the point. The first approach, the harsh one, breeds more jihadis, the second approach will prevent new jihadis. you do not sign up for a suicide mission when you have something to live for. Because the Koran promises jihadis sex slaves on the other side after a suicide mission, Muslim mothers consider suicide missions to be marrying their boys off. Okay, maybe not all Muslim mothers, but enough of them. They don't suicide just for fun, after all

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875