How Do You Stop Jihadi Ideas?

2015-12-05T19:24:50-05:00

"To get a visa to the United States, Malik—who reportedly pledged her allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook post during Wednesday’s attack—had to go through an in-person interview, biometrics, and checks against terrorist watch lists. The review included her workplaces, travel history, and family. The process is supposed to be especially rigorous for people from extremist-infested countries such as Pakistan, where she was born. Then, to get a green card, she had to go through additional national security background checks using data from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. She passed both screenings, most recently in July. Now Pakistanis are trying to blame Saudi Arabia for radicalizing her while the Saudis claim to have no information linking her to militants.

Farook was born in Chicago and grew up in California. Since the attack, investigators have discovered that he had contacts with people “associated” with the Nusra Front (a Syrian al-Qaida affiliate) and Somalia’s al-Shabab. But investigators anonymously concede that all of these contacts are years old, “not substantial” (for example, liking a Facebook page), and not with anyone of “significant investigative concern.” As of Friday night, no one has found a connection to ISIS. The bottom line, according to FBI Director James Comey, is that “we have no indication that these killers … are part of a network.”

And that raises a question. If you can’t stop ideas from crossing borders—if you can’t surveil every node of every network, peer into every soul, and know in advance who’s becoming radicalized—then you have to look for some other, more material transaction to monitor or control. The most obvious such transaction is the acquisition of weaponry. In the ideal world of the National Rifle Association—a world in which guns are freely available and our sole method of regulating their use is through mental health treatment, or sometimes through criminal background checks—anyone with a clean record can buy all the guns and ammo he wants, without raising any alarms. Including Syed Farook.

I’m a skeptic of gun laws. The weapons used in San Bernardino were apparently purchased legally, under California’s relatively strict laws, and then modified illegally. Rounding up most of the guns in this country would be logistically impossible, and enacting mandatory registration would be an enormous political challenge.

But if you’re not willing to pursue some kind of gun registration or gun control, then you’re left with the psychology of the shooter. And what San Bernardino just demonstrated, in the grisliest way, is that we’re even less capable of tracking psychology than we are of tracking guns. So if you want to blame radical Islam, go right ahead. And tell us how you’d monitor the flow of radical Islam from Syria to California. And if you can’t answer that question, then ask yourself whether you love liberty so much that you’re willing to defend the right of everyone, including aspiring jihadists, to stockpile and bear unregistered arms."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/12/syed_farook_and_tashfeen_malik_may_have_been_inspired_to_kill_what_it_means.html

This is an extremely difficult problem. There is no easy or clear solution.

Walt

What If the Freedom to Bear Arms Is Also the Freedom to be a Jihadi?

At this moment, investigators in several countries are searching for people who might have been involved in Wednesday’s massacre in San Bernardino, Califor

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Dec 5 at 2015 7:51 PM

2015-12-05T19:51:02-05:00

What makes you think that we are entitled to a society that is free from danger?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 5 at 2015 8:57 PM

2015-12-05T20:57:45-05:00

"And if you can’t answer that question, then ask yourself whether you love liberty so much that you’re willing to defend the right of everyone, including aspiring jihadists, to stockpile and bear unregistered arms."

Simply put, I am willing to defend the Protection of EVERYONE to Right to Bear Arms. EVERYONE.

Our Constitution is clear on the matter. Unless someone has done something (as in committed a crime, and been accorded Due Process), the have those Protections. Just like they have the Protections to Free Speech, or Assembly, or Search & Seizure. All of it.

Now, when you become "disenfranchised" after proving that you cannot be trusted, that's another story. But our system works on the "null check" ideal. You don't have to prove "need" or anything for that matter to exercise a fundamental, natural, legal, or any other type of Right. That's why the Protections exist. They're there because the Government WILL whittle them away.

So... "whether you love liberty so much that you’re willing to defend the right of everyone, including aspiring jihadists, to stockpile and bear unregistered arms?"

Don't you?

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 6 at 2015 2:52 AM

2015-12-06T02:52:35-05:00

Capt Walter Miller How Do You Stop Jihadi Ideas? Unless there is a way to identify and wipe every one of them who carries this idea off of the face of the earth, you cant... You are right, even if we had the most relaxed gun control laws in the world, this is not an answer for what you posed, and there is no easy or clear solution....

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 2:54 AM

2015-12-06T02:54:22-05:00

The way to win a war of ideas is to prove that your ideas are better.
I will use one simple example.
The Islamists have a finite supply of folks that are willing to die for the cause at any given time. It regenerates, but slowly. Many are coerced into being a suicide bomber. Others are wooed by the prospect of a cash payment to their family. That is one of the ways they recruit those "non-threatening" widows.
SO much of what ISIS does centers around death. It is all they do. The people who live in ISIS territory, all they want to do is live.
The messaging basically is, what do you prefer, life as a free man or death when ISIS chooses you to be the next "volunteer". It is a powerful message.
I am simplifying for brevity, but much of ISIS's rhetoric and actions are vulnerable to effective counter-messaging.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Dec 6 at 2015 6:59 AM

2015-12-06T06:59:56-05:00

You can't stop ideas, but the root cause of "radicalization" is isolation & rejection by the dominant society - with all the islamaphobia going on it just wears people down. Some react with violence. It's an easy fix that's difficult to implement. A great pity b/c until we do acknowledge this we'll see more "lone wolf" murderers. Just a sad and sorry ass fact.

Response by PO3 Brad Phlipot made Dec 6 at 2015 7:15 AM

2015-12-06T07:15:14-05:00

@Capt Walter Miller you have successfully dumbfounded, taken away my fuel and all the above. I now see the issue, my attitude was round em all up and send them back to wherever they came from. I do not like the posture we are in here at home the police are better equipped than we were and all this MRAP BS is just crazy add the TSA friskings and the whole thing sucks. I confess I have no idea how to stop this, for my part all I can do is be vigilant and active in my community. Any intrusion on any of the amendments of the Constitution for security would be as Ben Franklin put it "Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". So for GOD sake if you have the answer I'm listening.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 6 at 2015 7:36 AM

2015-12-06T07:36:48-05:00

"Swift, ruthless and deadly, the attack appeared to reflect an evolution of the terrorist threat that Mr. Obama and federal officials have long dreaded: homegrown, self-radicalized individuals operating undetected before striking one of many soft targets that can never be fully protected in a country as sprawling as the United States.

“We have moved to an entirely new phase in the global terrorist threat and in our homeland security efforts,” Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, said in an interview on Saturday. Terrorists have “in effect outsourced attempts to attack our homeland. We’ve seen this not just here but in other places. This requires a whole new approach, in my view.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/california-attack-has-us-rethinking-strategy-on-homegrown-terror.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

California Attack Has U.S. Rethinking Strategy on Homegrown Terror

On Sunday, President Obama will address the nation on the broad threat of terrorism, while providing updates on the investigation into the attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 6 at 2015 7:43 AM

2015-12-06T07:43:27-05:00

“The couple was not on any radar and had no real connections to terrorist suspects,” said Matthew G. Olsen, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “And what’s really troubling is that they appeared to be a well-integrated and stable couple, with a baby and a job.”

While it would be a worrisome intelligence failure if the government missed obvious warning signs, William McCants, a former State Department official who worked on countering violent extremism, said the alternative — that there were no signs at all — would be worse."

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Dec 6 at 2015 8:58 AM

2015-12-06T08:58:09-05:00

There is no silver bullet answer on this issue but there are a few things we should admit and start to act upon:

1. Our screening process for "immigrants" coming from that area of the world is sorely lacking and is putting American lives at risk. We need to be willing to say "no" more often and any inkling of a concern should be met with a reject stamp. No one has a right to come here. This is at the crux of allowing thousands of undocumented and unverifiable Syrians into this country.

2. We need people that are willing to step up and say something when they see something. The liberal position on not "profiling" silenced 1-2 people (neighbors) from reporting the observed activity of the shooters home. They were afraid they would be labeled racists if they said anything. How is that for warped PC? This was very preventable. Political correctness cost 14 people their lives and 20+ serious injury.

3. As the author states "And that raises a question. If you can’t stop ideas from crossing borders—if you can’t surveil every node of every network, peer into every soul, and know in advance who’s becoming radicalized—then you have to look for some other, more material transaction to monitor or control. The most obvious such transaction is the acquisition of weaponry. In the ideal world of the National Rifle Association—a world in which guns are freely available and our sole method of regulating their use is through mental health treatment, or sometimes through criminal background checks—anyone with a clean record can buy all the guns and ammo he wants, without raising any alarms. Including Syed Farook".

The authorities cannot survey every street corner, every web post, every mosque, every meeting place, every living room. We cannot let PC keep people from doing the right thing and speaking up.

The authors notion of limiting the transaction on weapons is a punishment on citizens that have inalienable rights here in America. We cannot stop illegal drugs and people from flowing across our southern border. How well do you think we would do against weapons coming across? Not very good I suspect. They will get weapons one way or another just like the did in Paris. No chatter there about more gun laws, you can't get them there, period. More gun laws will not work in France any more than they will work here. That is a complete misdirection.

4. We were able to defeat the ideologies of Nazism and of the Japanese Bushido code in the last century (without more gun control). We had to defeat them on the battlefield first. You have to deal with the current jihadists and then be willing to do the harder work of de-radicalizing the next generation. That is the really hard part but you cannot stop the next generation until we defeat the current one and disallow them access to the hearts and minds of the next generation. We were told this would be a generational war/effort. Americans want instant results. That will not happen here.

The presidents notion that this is tied to economics (opportunity) and/or climate change are a misdirection and should be shouted down. Farook had a good government job, he was born and raised here and attended American schools. He had a wife and child and still was flipped to the dark side. In this case it appears the wife might have been the radicalizing key. Had we said no on her Visa 14 people would be alive today. That shows you the power and the insidious nature of the jihadists to flip people with their warped ideology.

We would not have defeated the Nazis or the Japanese by containment and allowing them to send their radicals to our shores and continuing to control land and resources. The radicals (like generations before the current lot) need to be defeated where they live and grow more like minded people. We cannot keep hoping this will fix itself if we are just nicer or more accommodating to them. Look at non believers in Iraq/Syria/Libya etc. If your desire is to be enslaved or murdered that is what allowing this to fester will bring to us. Hope is not a course of action.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 6 at 2015 9:50 AM

2015-12-06T09:50:13-05:00

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 6 at 2015 10:53 AM

2015-12-06T10:53:42-05:00

Or there could be a more simple solution.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 6 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-12-06T19:33:17-05:00

You need to kill them and destroy almost every fabric of their society. Put your boots on their necks until they don't want to fight or can't fight anymore.