What can be done to prevent Islamic Jihadism in America

[Darth Omar]

According to this article most of the Arab-Americans in Dearborn are Muslim.

"Today, Dearborn is a unique Arab-American community--both nationally and among the smaller Arab communities scattered around Metro Detroit. The Dearborn community is overwhelmingly Muslim, and majority Shiite Muslim. Shiites are a minority in the Muslim world. It’s also mostly Lebanese, with smaller pockets of Iraqis, Yemenis, and Palestinians."

If they're already Muslims no conversion is necessary. And if the agenda is "convert or die", well, don't see much news about these deaths of non-Muslims.

Radical Muslims kill other Muslims for apostasy. Though I'm unsure whether 'radical' or 'orthodox' is the better word.

 

[Darth Omar]

I don't know if I can wrap my head around using the words "Trump" and "serious" in the same sentence, but no, most other Republicans aren't serious about illegal immigration either. But they don't fight to maintain the flow like the left either

It's impossible to know how serious Trump is or isn't because he's running for office and not holding it. By serious I mean his proposals actually have teeth whereas the establishment [of both sides] make the pretense of wanting to fix immigration.

Well, I don't know if the Democrats even make the pretense. Making the pretense risks alienating parts of their coalition which puts their social and economic agendas at risk. Not to mention, their multicultural crusade. But that's another debate.

But immigration is one of the carrots Republican candidates have dangled in front of conservative voters for too long. Trump comes along and promises some concrete measures [at least one of them is literally a concrete measure] and people wonder why the establishment guys are struggling.

The same thing with the moratorium on non-native Muslims entering the country. Not that it was terribly hard to do, but Trump positioned himself as the most serious candidate on the Islamic terrorist threat with that, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not.

There's a reason he has lead in the polls since summer. It's like the pundits and other politicians are tone deaf and don't get it.

 

[iolo]

Wow, zing. So you don't know what you were talking about, or at least you can't say

I don't speak Spanish, alas. I am sure you mean something by this quacking, but I find ducks considerably more intelligible.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Start with not giving them the tools they need, make it as hard as possible for them to get the tools.

Then education, education, education. The best weapon against hate is education.

Well this is an open ended question as it probably isn't possible to completely prevent radicalization. There are always going to be misfits and losers and the frustrated who feel their lives are irrevocably ruined that will become radicalized.

The key is creating conditions which reduce the likelihood of radicalization and those conditions largely exist in our country. The outrageous acts of radicalized individuals get a lot of press coverage but are really are low in number and they are not supported by any significant mass movement in our nation.

There are numbers of method to defuse radicalization in which education does play an important role but not a central role. The primary characteristics of the radical/fanatic is frustration and a sense that somehow their lives are irrevocably ruined. Such people tend reject a self centered life and become attracted to a cause or a charismatic leader which offers them a selfless life for which they are often willing to sacrifice their material well being or even their life for this cause or leader.

There are a number of ways to prevent radicalization though none are 100% completely effective. The most important are to make sure that people have opportunities for advancement, have meaningful work, that they have acceptance at some level such as extended family, community or some active or practical organization. People who become isolated or feel isolated have a high probability of becoming frustrated and thus radicalized. Look at the recent mass shooting as evidence of this as most of the shooters have been alienated men who felt or have been intensely isolated. Freedom of movement is also an important tool as those who are frustrated often relieve their frustration by emigrating to someplace with more opportunities for advancement or more acceptance and less isolation.

So education plays an important role in terms of fulfilling a self centered life, personal advancement and obtaining meaningfull work which in turn reduces the likelihood of radicalization but not a central one as many well educated people become radicalized for the reasons I've outlined.

One thing is for sure, bigotry and discrimination are counter productive in that it increases the likelihood of radicalization by alienating, isolating and limiting opportunities for advancement, success and meaningful work. Prejudice and bigotry are causes of radicalization.

 

[kaz]

It's impossible to know how serious Trump is or isn't because he's running for office and not holding it. By serious I mean his proposals actually have teeth whereas the establishment [of both sides] make the pretense of wanting to fix immigration.

Well, I don't know if the Democrats even make the pretense. Making the pretense risks alienating parts of their coalition which puts their social and economic agendas at risk. Not to mention, their multicultural crusade. But that's another debate.

But immigration is one of the carrots Republican candidates have dangled in front of conservative voters for too long. Trump comes along and promises some concrete measures [at least one of them is literally a concrete measure] and people wonder why the establishment guys are struggling.

The same thing with the moratorium on non-native Muslims entering the country. Not that it was terribly hard to do, but Trump positioned himself as the most serious candidate on the Islamic terrorist threat with that, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not.

There's a reason he has lead in the polls since summer. It's like the pundits and other politicians are tone deaf and don't get it.

I agree with you that he is targeting areas that many Republicans are frustrated on. He just is such an attention whore and he likes being provocative, so it's hard to know what he is actually serious about

 

[kaz]

I don't speak Spanish, alas. I am sure you mean something by this quacking, but I find ducks considerably more intelligible.

Memorization and mindless repetition of left wing talking points takes some serious brains, doesn't it? Who can compete with that on an IQ test?

 

[kaz]

Well this is an open ended question as it probably isn't possible to completely prevent radicalization. There are always going to be misfits and losers and the frustrated who feel their lives are irrevocably ruined that will become radicalized.

The key is creating conditions which reduce the likelihood of radicalization and those conditions largely exist in our country. The outrageous acts of radicalized individuals get a lot of press coverage but are really are low in number and they are not supported by any significant mass movement in our nation.

There are numbers of method to defuse radicalization in which education does play an important role but not a central role. The primary characteristics of the radical/fanatic is frustration and a sense that somehow their lives are irrevocably ruined. Such people tend reject a self centered life and become attracted to a cause or a charismatic leader which offers them a selfless life for which they are often willing to sacrifice their material well being or even their life for this cause or leader.

There are a number of ways to prevent radicalization though none are 100% completely effective. The most important are to make sure that people have opportunities for advancement, have meaningful work, that they have acceptance at some level such as extended family, community or some active or practical organization. People who become isolated or feel isolated have a high probability of becoming frustrated and thus radicalized. Look at the recent mass shooting as evidence of this as most of the shooters have been alienated men who felt or have been intensely isolated. Freedom of movement is also an important tool as those who are frustrated often relieve their frustration by emigrating to someplace with more opportunities for advancement or more acceptance and less isolation.

So education plays an important role in terms of fulfilling a self centered life, personal advancement and obtaining meaningfull work which in turn reduces the likelihood of radicalization.

One thing is for sure, bigotry and discrimination are counter productive in that it increases the likelihood of radicalization by alienating, isolating and limiting opportunities for advancement, success and meaningful work. Prejudice and bigotry are causes of radicalization.

Does it really make sense that the way to minimize the risk of as you say a "misfit" or a "loser" is to give them "opportunity for advancement?" Isn't being a misfit/loser hand in hand with not taking advantage of the opportunities you already have?

And I'm not sure who "you" is. Government sucks at providing opportunities, they are a destroyer of wealth, not a creator. Government doesn't produce net economic value. Economic value is created by companies when they make a profit, the profit is the economic value they created

 

[iolo]

What can be done to prevent Islamic Jihadism in America ?

Bring Bush and his hangers-on to public trial for war-crimes, preferably in Baghdad, and stop paying the child-killers of 'Israel'.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't know if I can wrap my head around using the words "Trump" and "serious" in the same sentence, but no, most other Republicans aren't serious about illegal immigration either. But they don't fight to maintain the flow like the left either

That's because the right talks a tough game but the reality is they want the cheap labor to undermine costs in the labor market domestically. Want to dramatically reduce illegal immigration? Start giving large fines and prison time to employers who hire them. With no realistic enforcement measures against those who hire illegals everything else is a bunch of posturing and hot air.

 

[iolo]

That's because the right talks a tough game but the reality is they want the cheap labor to undermine costs in the labor market domestically. Want to dramatically reduce illegal immigration? Start giving large fines and prison time to employers who hire them. With no realistic enforcement measures against those who hire illegals everything else is a bunch of posturing and hot air.

But since America is a plutocracy, that will not be possible.

 

[evince]

Memorization and mindless repetition of left wing talking points takes some serious brains, doesn't it? Who can compete with that on an IQ test?

hahahahahahahahahahah


you deny science


you deny Math


you deny history


you don't back your shit ideas with facts asshole


YOU are the dupe

 

[evince]

But since America is a plutocracy, that will not be possible.

because the republican party has STOLEN the people power for decades now.


they cheat in elections and subvert our democracy


stop them from ever getting elected again by stopping the cheating and America is restored immediately

 

[Darth Omar]

Well this is an open ended question as it probably isn't possible to completely prevent radicalization. There are always going to be misfits and losers and the frustrated who feel their lives are irrevocably ruined that will become radicalized.

The key is creating conditions which reduce the likelihood of radicalization and those conditions largely exist in our country. The outrageous acts of radicalized individuals get a lot of press coverage but are really are low in number and they are not supported by any significant mass movement in our nation.

There are numbers of method to defuse radicalization in which education does play an important role but not a central role. The primary characteristics of the radical/fanatic is frustration and a sense that somehow their lives are irrevocably ruined. Such people tend reject a self centered life and become attracted to a cause or a charismatic leader which offers them a selfless life for which they are often willing to sacrifice their material well being or even their life for this cause or leader.

There are a number of ways to prevent radicalization though none are 100% completely effective. The most important are to make sure that people have opportunities for advancement, have meaningful work, that they have acceptance at some level such as extended family, community or some active or practical organization. People who become isolated or feel isolated have a high probability of becoming frustrated and thus radicalized. Look at the recent mass shooting as evidence of this as most of the shooters have been alienated men who felt or have been intensely isolated. Freedom of movement is also an important tool as those who are frustrated often relieve their frustration by emigrating to someplace with more opportunities for advancement or more acceptance and less isolation.

So education plays an important role in terms of fulfilling a self centered life, personal advancement and obtaining meaningfull work which in turn reduces the likelihood of radicalization but not a central one as many well educated people become radicalized for the reasons I've outlined.

One thing is for sure, bigotry and discrimination are counter productive in that it increases the likelihood of radicalization by alienating, isolating and limiting opportunities for advancement, success and meaningful work. Prejudice and bigotry are causes of radicalization.

I see a couple of problems with this: the first is filing all violent ideologues into the general category of 'radical' is a tad simplistic, since it ignores the ideological underpinnings to the movement and makes the ideology irrelevant.

The second problem is related to the first and I touched on it before: it seems counterintuitive, at best, to think something like radical Islam can be effectively countered while treating the ideology as some sort of irrelevancy or side bar that plays second fiddle to the availability of jobs or etc.

It's also runs contrary to the evidence insofar as so many radical Muslims have jobs and come from stable environments. In Europe many of them quit them to go join the caliphate in Syria.

The best approach is to analyze the ideology itself, and confront it---with your own propaganda if need be. In the case of radical Islam, that means studying the same things the radicals are studying and not fretting over the issue of whether they've perverted the religion or not. If CAIR doesn't like it, they can take a hike.

Without knowing what makes them tick, you're pissing in the wind. Which is pretty much where our policy stands now.

 

[evince]

liar

 

[kaz]

you deny science


you deny Math


you deny history

stupid and evil were hotter, I preferred them

 

[christiefan915]

Based on what? The Constitution says "We The People of the United States." Where does it say non-citizens have Constitutional rights? And how did you decide they have not those two particular ones but they have the others? Based on what? I believe two things:

1) Anyone in the US should have Constitutional rights assumed until it's determined they are not US citizens

2) We should give foreigners legally here most rights, such as protection from illegal search and seizure, that sort of thing. But granting a right legislatively does not make it a Constitutional right.

I say that so you don't go down the strawman path that I want them to not have rights. I am specifically challenging that the Constitution grants them rights of citizens

Read this article from a Georgetown law professor. I said MOST of the rights apply, and he agrees.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

 

[canceled.2021.1]

We can shut down CAIR

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ents-portray-cair-hamas-related-organization/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I see a couple of problems with this: the first is filing all violent ideologues into the general category of 'radical' is a tad simplistic, since it ignores the ideological underpinnings to the movement and makes the ideology irrelevant.

It's not simplistic. It's a fact. If a person is willing to kill or be killed for a cause, well that's the very definition of a radical/fanatic. As for the ideological underpinnings of a mass movement the evidence shows that in actuality they are superfluid and interchangeable. The only real ideological requirement the movement requires to attract potential radicals is that they offer the opportunity for a selfless life instead of a self-centered one.

The second problem is related to the first and I touched on it before: it seems counterintuitive, at best, to think something like radical Islam can be effectively countered while treating the ideology as some sort of irrelevancy or side bar that plays second fiddle to the availability of jobs or etc.

The ideology isn't a side bar and it may appear to be counterintuitive but it's the psychology of the radicalized individual that propels a mass movement like radicalized Islam. Having said that, the ideology itself are interchangeable. The true believer can be easily converted to another ideology or another cause as long as that cause provides them the opportunity to lead a selfless life in place of a self centered life that they believe to be irrevocably ruined. As for socio-economic factors, as long as conditions provide ample opportunities for people at all levels to have meaning and/or success in a self centered life than selfless radicalized ideologies have very little appeal to large numbers.

It's also runs contrary to the evidence insofar as so many radical Muslims have jobs and come from stable environments. In Europe many of them quit them to go join the caliphate in Syria.

Actually it isn't contrary. You're making an assumption that only those at the very bottom of the socio-economic status are those that are radicalized and that's not exactly the case. The masses in the middle and working classes who do most of a nations work rarely form the ranks of radicals/fanatics that mass movements rely upon. Also, the abject poor are often to focused on day to day survival where going to bed with a full belly is an achievement are rarely radicalized. The ranks of the radicalized are mostly filled with those of the upper and prosperous classes who are thwarted and frustrated in their ambitions due to a variety of factors, by the new poor where factors like war or economic collapse thrust many who were once prosperous into the ranks of the poor and the newly prosperous who having been abjectly poor and have now have achieved some level of prosperity are frustrated that other factors they cannot control prevent them from a greater or a more fair measure of prosperity. These are the types of socio-economic factors that encourage radicalization.

An example of what I am describing would be our own Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Note that it was not the Black northern intellectuals like Malcolm X, W.E.B. Dubois or Richard Wright who led the civil rights movements nor was it the abjectly poor blacks from northern large city ghettos that filled it's ranks. It was the Black Southern merchant and professional classes that led the Civil Rights movement and the relatively prosperous working class poor blacks who filled it's ranks.

The best approach is to analyze the ideology itself, and confront it---with your own propaganda if need be. In the case of radical Islam, that means studying the same things the radicals are studying and not fretting over the issue of whether they've perverted the religion or not. If CAIR doesn't like it, they can take a hike.

Without knowing what makes them tick, you're pissing in the wind. Which is pretty much where our policy stands now.

Well there I agree that without knowing what makes a fanatic tick you're pissing up wind but your treading on dangerous ground. What your suggesting is replacing one mass movement with another and you'd better be careful there due to the law of unintended consequences. Just ask the businessmen who with seeming justification supported National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy that was ultimately to their own demise.

What I'm telling you is that it's more than just ideology and that largely as long as an ideology make a selfless life available to a true believe that those ideologies are easily interchangeable. There's all sorts of evidence to this affect. Hitler was a master at converting radicalized communist to National Socialism. Lenin was a master of converting radicalized nationalist to Communism as was Chairman Mao. These weren't just people on the sidelines they converted. These were those movements avowed enemies yet those charismatic leaders were easily able to fill the ranks of their radicalized movements by converting the members of their radicalized enemies.

So again, Islam is not the problem here. It is how Islam is used as a tool by charismatic leaders to radicalize followers that is a part of the problem. Having said that, the movement in the middle east could just as easily be a nationalist or poltical movement and it's ranks would largely be filled by the same people.

 

[Darth Omar]

It's not simplistic. It's a fact. If a person is willing to kill or be killed for a cause, well that's the very definition of a radical/fanatic. As for the ideological underpinnings of a mass movement the evidence shows that in actuality they are superfluid and interchangeable. The only real ideological requirement the movement requires to attract potential radicals is that they offer the opportunity for a selfless life instead of a self-centered one.

The ideology isn't a side bar and it may appear to be counterintuitive but it's the psychology of the radicalized individual that propels a mass movement like radicalized Islam. Having said that, the ideology itself are interchangeable. The true believer can be easily converted to another ideology or another cause as long as that cause provides them the opportunity to lead a selfless life in place of a self centered life that they believe to be irrevocably ruined. As for socio-economic factors, as long as conditions provide ample opportunities for people at all levels to have meaning and/or success in a self centered life than selfless radicalized ideologies have very little appeal to large numbers.

Actually it isn't contrary. You're making an assumption that only those at the very bottom of the socio-economic status are those that are radicalized and that's not exactly the case. The masses in the middle and working classes who do most of a nations work rarely form the ranks of radicals/fanatics that mass movements rely upon. Also, the abject poor are often to focused on day to day survival where going to bed with a full belly is an achievement are rarely radicalized. The ranks of the radicalized are mostly filled with those of the upper and prosperous classes who are thwarted and frustrated in their ambitions due to a variety of factors, by the new poor where factors like war or economic collapse thrust many who were once prosperous into the ranks of the poor and the newly prosperous who having been abjectly poor and have now have achieved some level of prosperity are frustrated that other factors they cannot control prevent them from a greater or a more fair measure of prosperity. These are the types of socio-economic factors that encourage radicalization.

An example of what I am describing would be our own Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Note that it was not the Black northern intellectuals like Malcolm X, W.E.B. Dubois or Richard Wright who led the civil rights movements nor was it the abjectly poor blacks from northern large city ghettos that filled it's ranks. It was the Black Southern merchant and professional classes that led the Civil Rights movement and the relatively prosperous working class poor blacks who filled it's ranks.

Well there I agree that without knowing what makes a fanatic tick you're pissing up wind but your treading on dangerous ground. What your suggesting is replacing one mass movement with another and you'd better be careful there due to the law of unintended consequences. Just ask the businessmen who with seeming justification supported National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy that was ultimately to their own demise.

What I'm telling you is that it's more than just ideology and that largely as long as an ideology make a selfless life available to a true believe that those ideologies are easily interchangeable. There's all sorts of evidence to this affect. Hitler was a master at converting radicalized communist to National Socialism. Lenin was a master of converting radicalized nationalist to Communism as was Chairman Mao. These weren't just people on the sidelines they converted. These were those movements avowed enemies yet those charismatic leaders were easily able to fill the ranks of their radicalized movements by converting the members of their radicalized enemies.

So again, Islam is not the problem here. It is how Islam is used as a tool by charismatic leaders to radicalize followers that is a part of the problem. Having said that, the movement in the middle east could just as easily be a nationalist or poltical movement and it's ranks would largely be filled by the same people.

But if it were a nationalist movement it would be a local instead of a global phenomenon.

The left is uncomfortable with the prospect that Islam may be the problem: hence, the search for root causes and the silly euphemisms for radical Islam. If the 'radicals' aren't misinterpreting their text then they aren't radical Muslims but orthodox Muslims.

The 'ideology first' method doesn't have a dog in that fight. The only objective concern is countering a threatening doctrine.

 

[iolo]

But if it were a nationalist movement it would be a local instead of a global phenomenon.

The left is uncomfortable with the prospect that Islam may be the problem: hence, the search for root causes and the silly euphemisms for radical Islam. If the 'radicals' aren't misinterpreting their text then they aren't radical Muslims but orthodox Muslims.

The 'ideology first' method doesn't have a dog in that fight. The only objective concern is countering a threatening doctrine.

The Islamist State, as you know, is a reaction to constant colonialist murders by cynical scum labelled as 'Christian'. As you also know, the American campaign to abolish democracy in the Middle East meant that people had to work through the Mosque (even those McCarthyite nutters didn't envisage trying to destroy a religion followed by untold millions of people), with inevitable muddling effects. Attacking that religion was left to ignorant nutters such as your goodself. Heil Trump!