No one really knows how many fighters they have. Estimates range from the 200,000 down to 30,000 or so. ISIS are able to recruit very effectively from overseas. They even manage to get people to convert to Islam to join them in the fight, as we have been seeing. What we have also seen is that people who get there to fight for them soon realise that all is not as it appeared. There is support for them, if there was not, they would no longer be around. There is support for them in Iraq and Syria, as well as overseas. They sell their ideology well. It might certainly encourage soldiers to fight against them instead of running away from them. I think it takes a lot to demand fairly new and untrained soldiers to take up the fight against people who are not afraid to die for the cause and are happy to die for the cause. And obviously, the demand was too much. I think you misunderstand the initiative. The point is that children are more likely to open up to their friends than they are to their parents or family. Australian children, teenagers, are running away from home and going to join ISIS without their parents being aware of it. Their friends had a clue that it was coming, but the parents did not. I think having an outlet for kids to give a heads up about one of their friends possibly considering going and stopping these kids before they leave is not a terrible idea. It does need to be implemented properly and these kids will most definitely need to go through counseling to break the hold that ISIS has managed to get on them. The parents of these kids deserve that and these kids deserve a chance. As a parent, I would want that heads up. Because what is going on at the moment is a tragedy. Like the family that lost 4 boys to ISIS. The parents thought they were going on a holiday.. 4 brothers they assumed were in Thailand. And they had gone to Syria to join ISIS. The day before they were due to return home, they SMS their mother to tell her that they were in Syria and that they would see her in Paradise. She thought they were enjoying a tropical holiday in Thailand and was preparing for their return. She did not deserve that, neither did her other children or the rest of that family. If these boy's friends knew or suspected something was going on, that they were being recruited, then I think having that outlet to report it or be able to spot radicalisation will eventually save lives because it will allow the parents and the authorities to literally stage interventions to save these kids. I can't fault that. The sentiment is in the right place. It's not telling children to be afraid. It's telling children to speak up and potentially save their friend's lives.
Bells, Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Australian Gov. position should be regards those that abandon ISIL and wish to return back to Australia? How do you feel regarding the families and friends who live here in Australia, of those deserters? Should we encourage Australian citizens to abandon ISIL by allowing them entry back into Australia ( say as pseudo prisoners of war) or discourage them by revoking citizenship? ( as the Gov. is considering at the moment)
If they are Australian citizens, prison and intensive rehabilitation. If they are not Australian citizens, then their residency permits should be reversed.
I was quite shocked to hear Australia's government contemplating stripping citizenship from Australian-born jihadis because of their parents' origins. I don't have much sympathy for the rights of people who barely even recognize the concept of rights themselves, but it seems like a Pandora's Box that could lead to unintended consequences for other citizens down the road, and I can't see such laws coming into practice in a first-world democracy. For those who lied on their loyalty oaths in order to gain Australian citizenship or chose to violate the agreement at a later date, it's obviously a different matter and I personally agree with giving them the boot.
You don't think Iran and Syria were working behind the scenes to make sure it lasted a lot longer than it needed to?
the war was only a couple of months long the occupation lasted years. and Iran really had legit reasons for viewing the invasion as a threat to it.
True, but it is more than that. They also botched the reconstruction of Iraq and in doing so they laid the foundations for the current mess in Iraq. But that is water under the bridge. The question now is where do we go from here? And no one seems to have a really good answer to that question. I can't see how giving more weapons to a country whose troops drop them and run at the first sign of the enemy does anything but strengthen the enemy (i.e. ISIS).
How then does it make sense for them to incite terrorism against both civilians and US troops in the context of getting the US to leave? And it's not just radical Shia militias they were financing; ISIS operated for years out of eastern Syria while Bashar Assad looked the other way.
My strategy would be to leave the larger region to its fate and focus all assistance only on those groups and regimes with a secular democratic non-sectarian agenda. That starts with an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, should they want it, followed by the application of international law to those areas of Kurdistan presently occupied by Iran, Syria and Turkey. If Iraq's Shiites want to treat Sunnis like dogs and freeze them out of the political process, then they can get Iran to spend its own blood and treasure defending them instead of contracting it out for free to the West. Maybe they'll change their ways when ISIS beats them to within an inch of their lives, and if by then it's not too late to help out, that's the only time we ought to get involved. If regimes like the Saudi monarchy don't want to start making meaningful democratic reforms for their own part, the US likewise ought to gradually disengage from them and leave them to their fate, so that one day America can morally intervene in humanitarian matters without being accused of holding double standards.
There needs to be a much better leadership and that is done with elections that all parties that are over there becoming involved. The major problem was that no one let anyone else run for the Congress or President in Iraq and that doesn't sit well with the other factions who live there as well. Once a real election can be held and everyone is allowed to both vote and run for a government seat then and only then can progress be started. Without that then we will continually see many problems develop like ISIS and other terrorists. Now I see America has sent more weapons into Iraq for the Iraqi military left their old weapons that America gave them for the ISIS to use against them. What happened to the 15 billion dollars of weapons America left there? Where have they all vanished off to? More money wasted and now more money that's going down the drain. I don't think that the Iraqis now in power should be helped at all because of my first paragraph but until a better more equal government is formed it should be left to die on the vine. They brought it on themselves so why should America waste more of anything there?
For what it's worth... There is a serious over statement and misunderstanding of the nature of the ISIL problem here in Australia. IMO. Firstly, ISIL is not technically a terrorist organization. By definition to be a terrorist organization it must be devoted to the overthrow or disruption of "legitimate" government. ISIL does not display these attributes as it's focus. Sure it may be very well be an outcome but it is not their main agenda. (Creating the Caliphate appears to be the main agenda) If it were it's focus, Baghdad would have been infiltrated and possibly brought to it's knees ages ago. It seems to me that is more a religious sectarian conflict disguised as an Islamic jihad. Secondly, here in Australia we have NOT really had any organized terrorist activity. We have IMO had some very disturbed and suicidal people taking advantage of the fear that ISIL and by proxy the Federal Government has fostered. The attack on two police officers near were I live, by a suicidal young man who took the call to Jihad as a way of justifying his suicide IMO. (Melbourne) The siege in Sydney also carried out by a suicidal psychotic, who had to ask for an ISIL flag whilst hours into the siege. ( Sydney ) The recent capture of a young man who apparently was plotting a suicidal act of violence for our ANZAC day ( war memorial day) possibly also at a cenotaph that is near were I live. ( the activities were cancelled as a precaution) ( Melbourne ) Bomb making materials found in the home of a young Muslim man who like most young men play "Funny Buggers" on social media. (Melbourne) ...no doubt a few others that I have failed to mention including a few incidents in Sydney. In all cases there appears to be no structural or organizational support other than a lunatic in the Middle East inciting others to perform Jihad or recruit for ISIL in the way of ISIL The local fall out ( potential and actual violence) could very well be due in many ways to those mentally ill persons that wish to join ISIL in the Middle East but are unable to do so and frustrated due to being aware of *surveillance being placed upon them and other reasons. *the increased use of hi tech surveillance can have extraordinary impacts on persons who are paranoid to begin with. ( the key words with in this thread are no doubt being filed on various security organizations hard drives right now) The problem is that the Australian Government, in particular the Prime Minister Tony Abbot, are totally spooked by the possibility that some of our young and mentally ill youth, ( eg. 14.3 per 100,000 suicides per an. 2013. 15 to 19 age group. src) may seek to use the ISIL form of Islamic Jihad as a way to demonstrate their disturbed world view. There is also the inherent fear with in the Government and general Australian population of Islam-ification of the Australian way of life ...and this is not to be underestimated either. I guess what I am saying is that I believe the Australian Government and media has terribly over reacted to the threat and instead of treating it as a "terrorist (Red) under your bed campaign" which it appears to be doing, it could be better served treating it as a serious community mental health issue instead.
Tony Abbott was never the sharpest tool in the shed and his own cabinet were shocked and repulsed by his suggestion. It was a political ploy to buy the racist votes and because the overall sentiment is 'we don't want them coming back here to live in the general population', he went overboard. People here are not keen on leaving people Stateless, which would perpetuate the issue of distrust and hatred they have for the West. And many here are unhappy with the thought of passing on the buck, so to speak, and to let another country deal with our problem. I think people would be happy with jail time and rehabilitation. Especially for those who went there to fight with ISIS and took their children with them.
Actually it was voted on by all of Congress that America should go over to Iraq and fight. No one voted against going so the Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans so don't say things that are not true.
Well, it's a principle of Australian politics that once you fight for a foreign power against Australia, that you lose Australian citizenship, or so I hear. Thus the question is how to call ISIS a state: mere semantics. As such, I can't see a problem with it. Surely just shooting them out of hand would be more acceptable of course, but I suppose I'll settle for the... 'liberation' of their citizenship, as it were. As a Canadian soldier, I took an oath to Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and all her legal heirs, which is the Canadian roundabout way of the swearing of loyalty to the Dominion itself. That's fine, as far as it goes: but an oath is just words to some people and what right is it, precisely, that exempts citizens of the nation from the obligation of legal loyalty to that nation simply because they happen to be born within its borders? A border is nothing; just a geographical supposition. Before we extend the concept of disloyalty to dissent, it ought to be said that ISIS is indeed an enemy of the West in general and Australia along with it - it passes the test of reasonability in process to take their citizenship. After all, we're hoping to take their lives, are we not? Even the Aussies themselves insist that they wish to leave no one stateless.
But that's ridiculous: they already hate the West. Leniency is not likely to change that. As for what their state would be: ISIS makes such claims to statehood. Very well. Enjoy the benefits. Why, exactly, would I want murderous religious fascists loose among the population, free to develop their own Fifth Column?
Where, exactly, did I say or utter the words "loose among the population"? Please show me where I even suggested that people who go and fight for ISIS are allowed to return and left loose in the population? Perhaps you should calm down, stop jumping to ridiculous conclusions and actually read what people say. If people are dual citizens, sure. However if someone is born here, to Australian citizens, we cannot revoke their citizenship and leave them Stateless. Do you think it is acceptable to leave them Stateless and force other countries to deal with them? Australian's don't. Certainly, it is a crime to go and fight for a force against Australia. Actually, it is illegal to fight for any foreign force without permission. While a pass is made for people who go and fight against ISIS, those who fight for ISIS are detained and it is hard for these individuals to get back into the country. There is currently a group trying to negotiate their return, all Australian citizens, and are trying to avoid life in prison by saying they escaped from ISIS, are afraid they are going to be killed and are willing to turn and give the Australian Government information on ISIS and help rehabilitate and speak to young teenagers about what joining ISIS is really like and why they should simply not go. People are split up over this. Personally, I say prison. I don't think these individuals should be allowed to return and be let "loose among the population". Then they can work at rehabilitating those who become radicalised in prison, and perhaps record videos to show teenagers as to why they should not travel to Syria or Iraq to join ISIS. That might be a start towards paying for the crimes they committed or helped commit while they supported ISIS. But we cannot leave people Stateless. For example, Khaled Sharrouf's wife (Australian born and a convert) wants to return to Australia with her 5 small children. He was the fellow who posed with his children holding guns, and had his 7 year old son hold up a severed head for a photo. He is an ISIS fighter and often featured in the news because of his crimes there. His wife went there voluntarily and took the children with them. So what do we do? The children have seen, experienced and been made to take part in horrific things by their father and with the acceptance of their mother. The Government have advised her family that she will face the law, and their children will be placed in family care, and probably be receiving a hell of a lot of therapy and counseling. We cannot and should not remove citizenship from those children. Australians would not find that acceptable. Each case has to be dealt with separately. People like Sharrouf should face life in prison and solitary confinement if he tries to return home. No exception. No one is denying that ISIS is an enemy of the world, not just the West. There is more to the world that requires protection than just "the West". It stands to reason that we should not and could not leave people stateless and possibly endanger another country who might allow them entry as stateless people. If they are Australian citizens and have no dual citizenship, then it is our responsibility as global citizens and citizens of our country to apply our laws to our citizens. It is absolutely unacceptable to leave them stateless and possibly endanger another country or other people. Members of the Abbott Government certainly expressed those views in the Cabinet meeting when some in the Government tried to suggest stripping Australian born or Australian citizens (with no dual citizenship) and Australians in general would not find that acceptable. Leaving people stateless poses a bigger danger of their becoming even more radicalised. People here prefer to send them to jail and face extensive rehabilitation, but they remain in prison. Our ongoing role should be to protect our children and educate them on the reality of ISIS and possibly stem the outgoing tide of youngsters. These kids need to be counseled and that is where a lot of the focus is on now, within and outside the Muslim community. It is where they are recruiting and who they are targeting. They are, literally, like child predators who groom children.
The falsity of that ridiculous claim has been demonstrated to you several times right here - at least twice by me, also by others. Why do you continue to believe nonsense like that, that a twenty second net search can debunk, that makes no sense, that everyone knows is not true? 135 Congressmen voted against the War Powers Act, against even giving W the choice to launch an invasion of Iraq. Most of these votes were Dem. The Dems that voted to give him the choice usually defended their vote as conditional - they said they believed that W would launch invasion only as a last resort, and just needed the threat to help him negotiate. So if you believe what they said at the time, very few Democratic Congressmen voted to send America over to Iraq and fight. Instead, a few dozen were fooled by administration lies, and more than a hundred were not fooled. So the first part of your assertion is garbage. Again. The second part is also false, all on its own: even if every single Democrat in Congress had voted for the War Powers Act in the full knowledge that it was a vote to launch invasion, the war was still entirely Republican doing. The lies, the propaganda, the organization of the effort, the choice to set up and launch an invasion of Iraq of all places (nothing to do with 9/11, and an ally against Al Qaeda), the media blitz and schedule of events, were entirely the doing of W&Cheney's administration - and Republican Party loyalty was a prerequisite for membership in that group, outside of the corporate honchos anyway . A common function of religion.
This from you? I'll bite my tongue. As you say, though: you did indeed demand that they be locked up. Mea culpa. I go further than that: simply don't let them back in. Of course: and neither do you speak for all Australians. It's my position that by taking up with ISIS, they have tangentially forsaken this society and I don't think it's too extreme to leave them with the state of their choice. I do agree that there may be mitigating circumstances, of course: but I don't think it's necessarily our responsibility to deal with those who willingly take up with the new terrorist state and fight for it. They've made their choice and in so doing, have dispensed with the spirit of their citizenship, if not with the actual paperwork. If they wish to reapply for Australian citizenship, I suppose that would be acceptable, although I don't know how far such a request would go through channels before it was quashed. Such is my position.
As I said Democrats voted for it as well. Here is the proof since you can't believe it. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._YHABw&usg=AFQjCNErv0t_5aR4enpNUKM5m9KPysCjQg
