ISIS Atrocity Tipping Point

[Airbrush]

ISIS has been getting away with a horrendous murder rampage across Syria and Iraq, but now they went too far burning the Jordanian pilot alive. Beheading is tame in comparison. Jordan is reacting saying they will revenge this murder. Why have I not heard the two magic words when it comes to defeating ISIS: INFILTRATION and DEPROGRAMMING? Train people to join ISIS and appear to be "normal psychopaths" which is what ISIS needs. If ISIS cannot trust its' recruits any longer, it will collapse. Also there are a lot of impressionable youths who need to be deprogrammed in an Islamic deprogramming camp.

 

The good news is probably Jordan and some other local countries will get busy with an infiltration program.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Phi for All
Requested by the OP

[CharonY]

Could you elaborate what you mean precisely? I imagine that the opposing forces have intelligence in place, yet considering the size of the forces (estimates range between 30k to 200k) they will obviously not be a significant number.

I do not see how that would somehow lead to a collapse, or what you mean with deprogramming...

[overtone]

It's not enough to fix ISIS as the bad guys. We're never going to succeed until we learn to be the good guys.

[iNow]

Thats a much longer game and won't payoff for decades even IF it worked. The problem we're seeing now is immediate and present and requires alternative responses.

[overtone]

 

 

Thats a much longer game and won't payoff for decades even IF it worked.

Nothing else reasonable has a ghost of a chance of succeeding ever.

 

The problem we're seeing now is immediate and present and requires alternative responses

Nothing except acting as the good guys will work, on any time scale.

 

Unless simply stepping hard on the entire population of the Middle East, extending the Palestinian model to the region as a whole - local genocides, mass slaughter, travel bans and fences and appointment of military overlords with overwhelming force and no ethical curbs, locking the place down like the prison it will be regardless of expense or bloodshed,

 

is somebody's idea of an alternate response. And the results their idea of success.

[iNow]

Reply was to OP. Apologies for confusion.

[swansont]

ISIS has been getting away with a horrendous murder rampage across Syria and Iraq, but now they went too far burning the Jordanian pilot alive. Beheading is tame in comparison. Jordan is reacting saying they will revenge this murder. Why have I not heard the two magic words when it comes to defeating ISIS: INFILTRATION and DEPROGRAMMING? Train people to join ISIS and appear to be "normal psychopaths" which is what ISIS needs. If ISIS cannot trust its' recruits any longer, it will collapse. Also there are a lot of impressionable youths who need to be deprogrammed in an Islamic deprogramming camp.

 

The good news is probably Jordan and some other local countries will get busy with an infiltration program.

 

If people thought it would work, it's naive to think that it's not already being tried. Why would anyone tip their hand and announce that a clandestine effort was underway? That's horrible security.

[Airbrush]

Could you elaborate what you mean precisely? I imagine that the opposing forces have intelligence in place, yet considering the size of the forces (estimates range between 30k to 200k) they will obviously not be a significant number.

I do not see how that would somehow lead to a collapse, or what you mean with deprogramming...

 

It is amazing how many mafia bosses can be put into prison because of the work of only one informant. To infiltrate ISIS will take very dedicated operatives, with nerves of steel, who can act like real psychopaths. The current bombing campaign is quick and dirty, but locating the ISIS leaders for pinpoint strikes is the most effective way to disable ISIS.

 

They burned the pilot alive because the bombing is doing exactly that to ISIS. "You burn our people alive, so we will burn the pilots who drop the bombs." However bombing always creates collateral damage, unless you have operatives INSIDE ISIS to pinpoint strikes on the ISIS LEADERS.

 

It looks like Jordan can do something about this. Their spokesman made a statement hinting at efforts beyond simple bombing that will take time. It takes time to train willing fighters to slip inside ISIS in order to destroy them, but that is the best way to conquer ISIS.

 

Deprogramming can only be done by expert, CHRISMATIC Imams who can use their religion to get inside the heads of the youths with jihad on their mind. This takes time in a secure environment, a concentration camp for misguided youths. They can have fun playing soccer in the camp, but they need to attend deprogramming meetings all day long, every day.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Airbrush

[swansont]

However bombing always creates collateral damage, unless you have operatives INSIDE ISIS to pinpoint strikes on the ISIS LEADERS.

 

You've said stuff like this before, without any kind of evidence of why it's true (probably because it's not).

[Airbrush]

Pinpoint air strikes require foward observers, or FO, as the military calls them. You can't get more forward then as a trusted MEMBER of ISIS. This is not from evidence but common sense.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Pinpoint air strikes require foward observers, or FO, as the military calls them. You can't get more forward then as a trusted MEMBER of ISIS. This is not from evidence but common sense.

 

 

Ah, "common sense". Funny thing how sometimes common sense crumbles in the face of reality.

 

Perhaps you have not heard of unmanned vehicles? They can act as forward observers (who don't generally don't infiltrate organizations, BTW, just territory)

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/246620721.html

 

The US has eliminated quite a few terrorist leaders without infiltration (or announcing it, anyway).

[StringJunky]

Pinpoint air strikes require foward observers, or FO, as the military calls them. You can't get more forward then as a trusted MEMBER of ISIS. This is not from evidence but common sense.

 

 

On board with the US air crews fighting Islamic State

 

...Over Iraq or Syria the planes orbit in a "stack," waiting to be given a target by the JTAC (pronounced 'J-tac', it stands for Joint Terminal Air Controller, the person who makes the decision about engaging the enemy, directing the air crews onto them).

 

During the long Afghan campaign the JTAC was often someone on the ground, directly under enemy fire. In this new operation there are some on the ground (for example coalition special forces) but most JTACs are either aloft in other aircraft or sitting in an operations centre, watching the downlinks from Reapers and other drones.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30816105

[dimreepr]

Pinpoint air strikes require foward observers, or FO, as the military calls them. You can't get more forward then as a trusted MEMBER of ISIS. This is not from evidence but common sense.

 

 

How often do we hear “common sense” as a way to validate an opinion rather than evidence? Air strikes have almost zero chance of winning this or any war. Infiltration may provide an answer but not in the short term; understanding/intelligence is the best way forward but that provides little hope to those facing a current barrage.

[DimaMazin]

 

Air strikes have almost zero chance of winning this or any war.

[StringJunky]

.. Air strikes have almost zero chance of winning this or any war...

I think the current NATO approach in this situation is the most appropriate one. The aim should be to provide support. A full complement of NATO boots on the ground gets in the way - as the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown - of those who really should be taking control: the Arabs.

Edited February 5, 2015 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

I think the current NATO approach in this situation is the most appropriate one. The aim should be to provide support. A full complement of NATO boots on the ground gets in the way - as the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown - of those who really should be taking control: the Arabs.

 

 

I think it was appropriate in Iraq and Afghanistan; but here and now a foot war is more so.

 

 

 

 

?

[DimaMazin]

 

?

Successful air strikes can make win when they are sufficient. Feet can't when they are without rockets and air strikes.

[dimreepr]

Successful air strikes can make win when they are sufficient.

 

 

History and logic has taught us they will never be sufficient.

 

 

Feet can't when they are without rockets and air strikes.

 

 

 

Why not?

[Hans de Vries]

Your vision is a bit simplistic, guys.

 

ISIS is not some small destructive cult that will collapse entirely once it's charismatic leader is dead. It's an expression of a powerful, ambitious religious-political movement that transgresses all borders and enjoys support of dozens if millions in the Arab world and hundreds of millions in the Muslim world. It constantly invents new tactics, constantly produces new leaders and has an almost unlimited supply of manpower in form of young men willing to die in combat and receive their celestial virgins.. It's like a hydra - you cut off one head and the next one grows immediately. Against Islamists sheer firepower will be ineffective. It did not work in Afghanistan under the Soviets, it did not work in Afghanistan under NATO, it did not work in Iraq once and it will not work this time either.

 

For islamism to be destroyed, mentality of the entire Middle East must change. Unless they understend en masse that Sharia law is a road to nowhere, and decide to build a modern society based on western values, the bloodshed will not stop.

 

This war will not become easier. OVer time it will only get harder. Jordan and UAE are already out of coalition, other Arab states may follow them if they start feeling threatened.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Moontanman]

I keep wondering, do we know where these people are, the hard core leaders, or are they spread out all over hell and creation?

[dimreepr]

For islamism to be destroyed, mentality of the entire Middle East must change. Unless they understend en masse that Sharia law is a road to nowhere, and decide to build a modern society based on western values, the bloodshed will not stop.

 

 

No one is suggesting Islam should be destroyed, or could be.

 

ISIS doesn’t represent Islam any more than the KK represents Christianity.

[StringJunky]

...This war will not become easier. OVer time it will only get harder. Jordan and UAE are already out of coalition, other Arab states may follow them if they start feeling threatened.

UAE is only absent from flying missions until the US have better search and rescue facilities, closer to the battlefield and Jordan is acting with the coalition but also doing stuff unilaterally; you might say they are on the warpath.

 

 

No one is suggesting Islam should be destroyed, or could be.

 

ISIS doesn’t represent Islam any more than the KK represents Christianity.

The peaceful Islamic nations refer to them as 'Daesh' (it means 'bigots who impose their views on others') and that's what they want other countries to refer to them as because they don't represent modern Islam. I have read lately Western leaders are starting to adopt it, which makes does sense.

[Hans de Vries]

OK but the theological validity of their ideology is a different issue altogether. It does not belong to this topic. I simply wanted to highlight that Middle Easterners must adopt Western values. It does not matter whether they do this by creating a westernized Islam, adopting atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism or whatever mix of religions they choose.

 

It's the result that matters - the Middle East shall turn from a poor, backward, intolerant place plagued by constant wars into a flourishing region with democracy, freedom of speech, religion, equality of men and women and a highly developed rule of law.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[CharonY]

I assume with Western values you mean progressive, recent, modern values? It is not that Westerns values a few decades ago were very palatable to current society.

My point being that Western values have changed massively in modern times, and these have come with a wide range political and socioeconomic shifts. It is unlikely that one can happen without the other. However, once things are in place, the changes can be quite rapid.

Edited February 5, 2015 by CharonY

[imatfaal]

OK but the theological validity of their ideology is a different issue altogether. It does not belong to this topic. I simply wanted to highlight that Middle Easterners must adopt Western values. It does not matter whether they do this by creating a westernized Islam, adopting atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism or whatever mix of religions they choose.

 

It's the result that matters - the Middle East shall turn from a poor, backward, intolerant place plagued by constant wars into a flourishing region with democracy, freedom of speech, religion, equality of men and women and a highly developed rule of law.

 

"I simply wanted to highlight that Middle Easterners must adopt Western values" - from an objective point of view: Why must they adopt my values why should not I be forced to adopt theirs?

 

Now I have nothing but dislike for religion in general and the particular barbaric sexist homophobic xenophobic stone age cult of the Islamic State is hateful to me; but your proposition strikes me as saying my way is best because I say so based on my own value judgements (and I will repeat I agree with those value judgements).

 

But can you or I (proponents and members of the modern western state) provide a good reason to X or Y (proponents and members of the Islamic state) that will convince them of the truth of our assertion that they "must adopt Western values" bearing in mind that they have their own values and code upon which they are judging the arguments put forward. It seems to me that I have so little in common with the fervent supporters of the Islamic State that I would struggle to convince them that bears do it in the woods - let alone that their fundamental values need to be jettisoned and replaced with mine. I am not sure where the common ground lies from which we can - through shared experience, morality, and humanity - move forward to a joint vision of global politics.

 

I am a humanist - but seeing images of mass graves, watching videos of the tortured, reading the latest IS rules for women, dreading news of the latest beheading or crucifixion I worry that whilst this pernicious and evil perversion of a religion (that was pretty nasty and wicked in the first place) holds sway there is no position of shared belief and morality from which to start a dialogue. ...that there are no fundamental truths that we both hold to be true and which I can show to be better served through my form of pluralistic secular democracy

 

Which returns me to my first point- Why should they listen to me and accept western values? I am completely certain that the only way they could make me operate under their values would be through compulsion by brute force - and I would never accept it (I hope). So why should they when position is reversed?

 

What is it about our value system that transcends subjectivity and makes it objectively better?