[InsaneBaron]

The ends do most emphatically not justify the means, especially if said means are such that they might (and I stress, MIGHT) work in the short term, but will just fuel further resentment 5 or 10 years down the line.

Absolutely right.

[Sandwich]

Source?

It's been something occasionally in various news articles here off and on over the years. Snopes has a good summary of the situation, concluding that the truth of the matter is undetermined. The story was that it was a General Pershing in the Philippines.

[Dragon]

The ends do most emphatically not justify the means, especially if said means are such that they might (and I stress, MIGHT) work in the short term, but will just fuel further resentment 5 or 10 years down the line.

Note, IS is, right now, very unpopular among the people they're oppressing. I've just read an article (in Polish newspaper, so I can't quite link to it) describing partisans fighting the IS. I wouldn't be surprised if they had, at some point, a similar idea to me. They certainly seem to have gotten the "exterminate the bastards" part right. They're not very strong now, but hopefully they'll grow (otherwise, we're still screwed). A whole lot of people wish horrible death towards IS, giving them said horrible death and desecrating their bodies would likely have them cheering. Sure, they also have supporters, but I think that an effective enough psychological campaign would make the IS look weak. Their success seems to be based on strength and terror of their own. Someone stronger and scarier than them could make membership appear much less appealing.

Also, I believe the end can justify the means. It's important to note that this is only the case when those means are absolutely necessary, and that no better alternative exists. It would be very improper to glass the entire region just because IS poses a treat. However, it still needs to be dealt with, and the stronger it grows, the less options we have. If those guys manage to establish a country with an actual military, they would likely threaten other states and cause much, much more destruction than if they were crushed now. I was attempting to optimize the solution regarding lives lost. When choosing between vicious psychological/terror warfare and an utter extermination, what would be your pick? We're way past the point where "good" solutions are available. I'm not going to insinuate that anyone in this thread thinks IS will settle for a peaceful solution, because unlike PH, I make no habit of insulting people outright.

Jokes aside, the situation is already crappy, and it's getting crappier the longer it's left to fester. To chose the lesser evil, then to carry out with ruthless efficiency, but also without taking pleasure in it, is the right thing to do. One can try to argue which of those options is actually the lesser evil (it's kind of complex, and depends on what you believe in), but sitting around doing nothing is, IMO, actually one of the "bigger evil" options. I used to argue commando raids to decapitate them, then (briefly) an all-out assault, and now this. And I will argue glassing the region should the situation devolve to the point it can be called "lesser evil" (though I really hope it doesn't come to that...). Sometimes, you've got to chose the lesser evil, because otherwise, the big one will reach out it's paw and grab you by the balls. And I can tell you, we're straight on course to that.

[karajorma]

, because unlike PH, I make no habit of insulting people outright.

Cut that **** out right now.

[Scotty]

I think that warrants an actual warning, actually.  It's certainly blatant and obvious enough for one.

This has been your HLP moderation staff at work.

[Bobboau]

it's also hilariously ironic.

[The E]

Note, IS is, right now, very unpopular among the people they're oppressing. I've just read an article (in Polish newspaper, so I can't quite link to it) describing partisans fighting the IS. I wouldn't be surprised if they had, at some point, a similar idea to me. They certainly seem to have gotten the "exterminate the bastards" part right. They're not very strong now, but hopefully they'll grow (otherwise, we're still screwed). A whole lot of people wish horrible death towards IS, giving them said horrible death and desecrating their bodies would likely have them cheering. Sure, they also have supporters, but I think that an effective enough psychological campaign would make the IS look weak. Their success seems to be based on strength and terror of their own. Someone stronger and scarier than them could make membership appear much less appealing.

Also, I believe the end can justify the means. It's important to note that this is only the case when those means are absolutely necessary, and that no better alternative exists. It would be very improper to glass the entire region just because IS poses a treat. However, it still needs to be dealt with, and the stronger it grows, the less options we have. If those guys manage to establish a country with an actual military, they would likely threaten other states and cause much, much more destruction than if they were crushed now. I was attempting to optimize the solution regarding lives lost. When choosing between vicious psychological/terror warfare and an utter extermination, what would be your pick? We're way past the point where "good" solutions are available. I'm not going to insinuate that anyone in this thread thinks IS will settle for a peaceful solution, because unlike PH, I make no habit of insulting people outright.

Jokes aside, the situation is already crappy, and it's getting crappier the longer it's left to fester. To chose the lesser evil, then to carry out with ruthless efficiency, but also without taking pleasure in it, is the right thing to do. One can try to argue which of those options is actually the lesser evil (it's kind of complex, and depends on what you believe in), but sitting around doing nothing is, IMO, actually one of the "bigger evil" options. I used to argue commando raids to decapitate them, then (briefly) an all-out assault, and now this. And I will argue glassing the region should the situation devolve to the point it can be called "lesser evil" (though I really hope it doesn't come to that...). Sometimes, you've got to chose the lesser evil, because otherwise, the big one will reach out it's paw and grab you by the balls. And I can tell you, we're straight on course to that.

If the object of the exercise is to create a situation where the region is put on a path to self-reinforcing stabilization (as opposed to a stabilization imposed by foreign armies), then measures based around degrading and disrespecting religious and cultural tenets of the people living there are absolutely counterproductive.
All you'd do is to send these people the very clear message that no, they are not respected, no, we will not stop disrespecting them, their culture, and their right to self-select their mode of government. This is not the right way to start a healing process.

Sure, the people fighting under the IS banner are criminals. Sure, they need to be stopped. But you can do that without trolling them into blind rage. What you are suggesting, that we give people who are already quite angry at western society over issues both real and imaginary more real issues to be angry about will not work. It'll just fuel more hatred.

As I said, it might work in the short term. But in the long term, people will remember this. They will tell their kids or students about it, and those will just become angry again, restarting the ****ing cycle. Beat them militarily, cut off their supply, but don't tell them that their culture is only worthy of disrespect.

[The E]

Trust Peter Watts to go straight to the dystopian reality.

We had a shooting up in Canada the other day. Like most things Canadian it was a modest, self-effacing affair, nothing that even a couple of losers from Columbine would write home about: a single death, a geriatric hero. A Prime Minister cowering in the closet, scribbling back-of-the-napkin notes on how best to exploit this unexpected opportunity.
He didn’t have to think very hard. Harper’s always seemed almost pathetically eager to turn Canada into a wannabe iteration of the US— think the dweeby eight-year-old, desperate to emulate his idolized older brother— and the Patriot Act has, I suspect, always been his Beacon on the Hill (or his Castle Anthrax grail-shaped beacon, depending on your cultural referents).  So our beloved leader is once again trying to resurrect all those measures he couldn’t quite sneak into C-52, or C-10, or C-30— all those measures that no sane citizen would ever oppose, unless of course we chose to “stand with the child pornographers“.  You know the list: lowered evidentiary standards. Increased powers of police surveillance. Increased powers of detention and “preventative arrest”.  Increased data sharing with the US.
Basically all that stuff they were doing anyway with impunity, only now more of it will be legal.
But here’s an interesting proposition: new legislation making it illegal to “condone terrorist acts online“.  The money shot from Ivison’s story:
There is frustration in government  that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas … Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.
Read that again, just to make sure you’ve got it.  We’re not talking about real hate speech here.  We’re not talking about advocating genocide, or gay-bashing, or threatening real violence of any type. We’re talking about looking at people the government doesn’t like and saying You know, they’ve got a point. We’re talking about criminalizing statements like— oh, for example, “Omar Kadhr was a kid on a battlefield, under attack by the US Military: why wouldn’t he fight back?”

[Sandwich]

See, that article inadvertently highlights in that last line what has been done to the definition of the word terrorism over the past decade and a half: terrorism is now considered to be any violent action against the ruling authority ( or something like that). The actual definition of terrorism is instigating fear in a civilian populace so that they are afraid to go about their daily routine (my definition, not taken from anywhere else). Fighting a military force is not terrorism.

[Dragon]

"Terrorist" has joined the ever-increasing group of shorthands for "evil". Along with "Nazi", "Fascist", "Communist", etc. That said, it's been used that way for quite a while. A rule of thumb about rebels: if they win (or the speaker wants them to), they're freedom fighters. If they lose (or the speaker doesn't wish them well), they're terrorists. If the speaker doesn't care, then they're just rebels. That's regardless of what their doctrine actually is. Oh, and if we're the ones using terror, it's "psychological warfare", not terrorism, because terrorism is bad. Somebody should, perhaps, take a dictionary to all those people...

If the object of the exercise is to create a situation where the region is put on a path to self-reinforcing stabilization (as opposed to a stabilization imposed by foreign armies), then measures based around degrading and disrespecting religious and cultural tenets of the people living there are absolutely counterproductive.
All you'd do is to send these people the very clear message that no, they are not respected, no, we will not stop disrespecting them, their culture, and their right to self-select their mode of government. This is not the right way to start a healing process.

Sure, the people fighting under the IS banner are criminals. Sure, they need to be stopped. But you can do that without trolling them into blind rage. What you are suggesting, that we give people who are already quite angry at western society over issues both real and imaginary more real issues to be angry about will not work. It'll just fuel more hatred.

As I said, it might work in the short term. But in the long term, people will remember this. They will tell their kids or students about it, and those will just become angry again, restarting the ****ing cycle. Beat them militarily, cut off their supply, but don't tell them that their culture is only worthy of disrespect.

Note that I'm not proposing just some blanket mass murder and desecrations, the way oppressive regimes sometimes tried crushing the populace. I am, in essence, proposing a punishment for being an IS member that would also extend into the afterlife. It should be definitely made clear that IS fighters are not respected, are not impressing anyone and are, in fact, committing crimes against both humanity and God (the very one they're "fighting for", which I why I'd expect it to be very damaging). The methods I proposed might not be the best choice (in practice, fooling about with pigs could be risky, as it could also raise questions about their handlers), but I'm sure Koran can provide some others. It might be as simple as refusing IS members their burial rites, on grounds on them being "unclean" simply by joining an evil organization. Rebels fighting against them likely already practice that on a small scale. It's about making it clear that they're not getting those heavenly virgins, but a lifetime of eternal torment.

Still, there is a big problem with the strategy I'm proposing - if executed by "outsiders", this runs the risk of being presented as fighting against Islam, as opposed to assaulting the IS specifically. Even if it was made explicit that desecration is used as a punishment for being an IS member, not because they're Muslims, it would be possible to twist it that way if it was done by a non-Islamic force. To be plausible, religious punishment might need to be exerted by people of a compatible religion. Otherwise, destruction of the very idea of the Islamic State might not be assured, and it's survival is definitely an undesirable outcome. I don't think this invalidates the method in general, though. It's just something that needs to be considered for the implementation.

Remember, the IS isn't just some guerilla with legitimate grievances and questionable methods. They're fighting for domination of the entire region, and are using methods that are not only questionable, but clearly evil, no matter how you slice it. Their massacres can't even be justified as "necessary" to their ends, because they do them more harm than good. Not that they care, and they're not interested in what "Caliphate" was actually supposed to be, either. We need to do more than just destroy them militarily. The very idea of an entity like IS needs to be condemned and eredicated, like it happened with Nazism in Germany.

it's also hilariously ironic.

Intended effect. Good thing at least one person got the joke (yes, I do know this was not a good thing to say. Nobody's perfect).

[The E]

Nothing you just wrote here even comes close to being a reasonable thing. You want to use internet trolling tactics on these people. Fine. But be aware that trolls are not that good at making positive, lasting changes. You are also proposing that us enlightened nations enlist the help of local religious authorities to do the trolling for us.

I have never, ever seen a more insane proposal. It is utterly laughable and only worthy of contempt.

[Dragon]

I see you simply don't understand neither what I'm trying to say, nor how a religious person thinks. Maybe someone else who does might respond in a somewhat more useful manner, in that case. You seem to assume we're fighting reasonable people who are not too different from us. It'd be very difficult to be more wrong on that. Remember what I've said about "first and second world" distinction being a good idea? That was with regards to Russia, but this is yet another "second world" (different from Slavic one) people from the West simply don't understand. Having dealt with religious nuts before (Poland is chock-full of catholic ones) and being aware of the fact such a divide exists, I managed to come up with a strategy (I'm not saying much about tactics, and I'd appreciate it if you minded that distinction) that could lead to IS being destroyed in body and spirit.

You'd be right, if we were fighting people thinking like us. We're not, so your assumptions are incorrect. These methods were used in the past, with some success. Yes, I'm aware most of these cases were in middle ages, but the way people there are acting and thinking brings middle ages to mind more than anything else.

That said, world leaders seem to share your line of thinking. That's why we don't stand a bloody chance against the IS. They might get ripped apart from the inside or overcome by partisans currently nibbling at them, but that's it. The West won't destroy the Islamic State, just like it didn't destroy the VC or North Korea. The last enemy we actually managed to eliminate were the Nazis and the Japanese Empire. This kind of thinking will be the death of the Western civilization. Russia already saw this (why do you think they're acting so bold?), and IS will soon see it, too.

[The E]

I managed to come up with a strategy (I'm not saying much about tactics, and I'd appreciate it if you minded that distinction) that could lead to IS being destroyed in body and spirit.

Your strategy is laughable. In the greater conflict between us established westerners and the up-and-coming middle east, your strategy would have us focussed on maybe eliminating a single franchise of a larger operation (You do know that IS is just one of al-qaeda's local branches, right?), at the cost of alienating everyone in the region. Instead of just eliminating the idiots, you want to give everyone who is currently neutral a couple of really good reasons for believing the al-qaeda propaganda about the evil west; Tell me how this is supposed to lead to a situation where we can coexist peacefully (Or, for that matter, how the various ethnic groups down there can coexist).

You'd be right, if we were fighting people thinking like us. We're not, so your assumptions are incorrect. These methods were used in the past, with some success. Yes, I'm aware most of these cases were in middle ages, but the way people there are acting and thinking brings middle ages to mind more than anything else.

Ah, yes, the glorious middle ages, where states were stable and hardly any wars between cultures ever happened, grudges were rarely cultivated and everyone was so reasonable .... **** it, I can't keep this up. Read your goddamn history books again. What the **** makes you think that any of these techniques worked in anything but the short term?

And yeah, fundamentally? I believe the people down there are fundamentally the same as us. They want the same things from life, a stable place to live, decent food, good prospects for their children, and maybe not get stabbed.

That said, world leaders seem to share your line of thinking. That's why we don't stand a bloody chance against the IS. They might get ripped apart from the inside or overcome by partisans currently nibbling at them, but that's it. The West won't destroy the Islamic State, just like it didn't destroy the VC or North Korea. The last enemy we actually managed to eliminate were the Nazis and the Japanese Empire. This kind of thinking will be the death of the Western civilization. Russia already saw this (why do you think they're acting so bold?), and IS will soon see it, too.

Let me ask you, what's so goddamn great about western civilization that we need to abandon large parts of the value system it is built upon to secure it against a nebulous enemy?

[666maslo666]

That's why we don't stand a bloody chance against the IS. They might get ripped apart from the inside or overcome by partisans currently nibbling at them, but that's it. The West won't destroy the Islamic State, just like it didn't destroy the VC or North Korea. The last enemy we actually managed to eliminate were the Nazis and the Japanese Empire. This kind of thinking will be the death of the Western civilization. Russia already saw this (why do you think they're acting so bold?), and IS will soon see it, too.

I do agree that we are far too soft on ISIS and islamists in general.

But trolling them with dead pigs does not do anything to defeat them, and could be counterproductive because it plays right into their narrative of the west waging a war on Islam (instead of a war on islamists), which means that the extremists will be even more eager to fight against us and even the moderates could be alienated.

[MP-Ryan]

Peter Watts has a few rhetorical flourishes in the blog that I find problematic from a tone perspective - he makes no attempt to be even moderately objective, and his contempt for the current government is obvious.  That takes away from a reasoned critique, I think.

That said, he is correct that the government has now expressed a desire to criminalize speech that supports terrorism.  Being an author and not someone tied into law, however, he misses a few things.  For one, laws to criminalize speech face a considerable hurdle in that they must be Constitutional.  Canada's Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of conscience, association, and speech, and the only way those things can be restricted is if they pass a test set out in its very first section: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words, the government has to satisfy the courts and the population that any limits it wants to place on speech is reasonable and demonstrably justified.  That's a fairly significant hurdle.  Canada does have limited provisions against hate speech, balanced by this test.  We haven't seen any proposed text of a ban on written/verbal support of terrorist acts, so we can't speculate on its likely Constitutionality (though this particular government has a bad habit of passing obviously unconstitutional laws to get struck down by the Supreme Court... they're on something of a roll lately).

The impetus of this comes, of course, from the fact that the police/intelligence agencies have now identified and are watching nearly 100 people across the country who are actively espousing ISIS ideology and have shown a desire to travel to engage in ISIS' fighting, yet they haven't actually committed a criminal offence at this point that anyone can prove.  The desire is to add a criminal offence that allows us to detain and possibly imprison these people to protect society at large, as we now have two instances where someone wanting to leave the country to fight with ISIS has been either accidentally or intentionally prevented from doing so (Canada can revoke passports for administrative issues in the application process, thus allowing for effective bars to international travel without terrorism conviction) has instead attack institutions of the government (active service military).  Of course, as many lawyers and law enforcement can tell you, we already have several tools to ensure people keep the peace and respect the law on a proactive basis, so such measures are not entirely necessary.  Then again, has anyone ever met a pro-security legislator who saw criminal legislation they didn't like?

Regardless, Canada does not suffer from the same sorts of terrorism creep that the US does, despite Watts' statements, and the definition of terrorism is clearly laid out: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-26 (see 83.01, "terrorist activity", particularly para (b)).  Even if the government were to manage to pass a broad (and unconstitutional) speech restriction, so long as its tied to terrorism it would have very short legs in application.  I don't believe such a criminalization is necessary or desired, personally.

[jr2]

...maybe eliminating a single franchise of a larger operation (You do know that IS is just one of al-qaeda's local branches, right?),

nope


(Al-Qaeda actually disavowed anything to do with ISIS as they were too radical, and no, ISIS was not formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, several Vox links in the first few results that could be helpful).

EDIT:  Just to be clear, given the current topic and the personal attacks + moderator action already involved, the snipe emoticon was meant in jest and directed toward the mistake, not you as a person.  To you as a person I'd give a good-natured whack on the back of the head or whatever you would prescribe in similar circumstanses for silly mistakes on my part.