Why should we stop people who want to join ISIS?

[The Once and Future King]

Daesh is a modified Arabic acronym like Nazi in English and has entered the common vernacular in many Arabic countries. Also I feel calling them IS gives them to much legitimacy if some crazy group of rebels in Idaho called themselves the American Empire I doubt that's what we'd refer to them as.

As for the recruits can they be charged with treason? Does fighting for an enemy army meet the definition?

They could be charged as foreign combatants. they would have to kill Americans or attack American soil for treason.

[mcbigski]

Ideally we shouldn't. But then ideally we'd be engaging ISIS in direct military action and if, inshallah, we were to make martyrs out of tens of thousands of them, the world would be a better place. In that case, the more, the better.

[The Once and Future King]

Ideally we shouldn't. But then ideally we'd be engaging ISIS in direct military action and if, inshallah, we were to make martyrs out of tens of thousands of them, the world would be a better place. In that case, the more, the better.

Nice

[DreamSongs]

Did you see my story about the Ontario teen who was told by Facebook she would be banned until she changed her first name? She drew so many angry comments from idiots who called her disrespectful, and worse, for using the name of a terrorist group as her name?

No...I missed that specifically. There are people named 'Isis' and the disrespect has become blatant. There is an argument within the community as to whether or not 'Isis' should be readdressed by a different goddess.

The main talking points are that the USAs allies refuse to acknowledge IS as a negotiable entity. Would you rather refer to a terrorist group that is inaccurately described as a legitimate 'State' by an easy acronym coined by the media or consider that the acronym DAESH is more offensive to these jerks?

[JoeyBanana]

Less recruits for the enemy.

But mostly for humanitarian reasons.

Let's assume they are going to try and kill people regardless. Where do you think their chances of success is higher? In Syra/Iraq where they'll get training and equipment and chaos reigns in most places or in Europe or the US, where they'll be (ideally) under surveillance, basically on their own, have limited access to weapons (ideally), and there is a strong and stable security structure in place?

Assuming, of course, we can't discourage most of the volunteers from violence. I think we should primarily keep the Daesh away from them, not them away from the Daesh.

[The Reckoner]

If anyone's stupid enough to fight for ISIS, I question whether or not they should even be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

[felice]

Daesh are killing Americans and our allies. They are terrorists. They want to topple our goverment and rule the world with their backwards ass religous laws.

Where exactly are they killing all these Americans, and what are the Americans doing there? I somehow seem to have missed the reports of Daesh forces marching on Washington.

I have no doubt that Daesh is evil and the world would be far better off without it, but I'm not at all convinced that bombing people is going to do any good in the long run.

[Shryke]

Where exactly are they killing all these Americans, and what are the Americans doing there? I somehow seem to have missed the reports of Daesh forces marching on Washington.

I have no doubt that Daesh is evil and the world would be far better off without it, but I'm not at all convinced that bombing people is going to do any good in the long run.

Not bombing them did not seem to be doing anyone any good.

[Arkhangel]

Take away their passports, then force an intervention on them, to convert them from terrorist Muslims to 'good' Muslims, like the way homophobic parents convert their gay children into straight children? Good luck on that one. Lock them up in prisons? For how long? Until there are no extremist Muslims left in the world?

Er, did you just compare terrorism and homosexuality? Are you kidding me?

[andrew_]

Why stop these young people? Let them go, let them die for their beliefs. If that makes them terrorists, strip them of their citizenships or cancel their passports, don't let them back in, put them on the no fly list.

Exactly my thoughts, let them leave and stop them from coming back, and see how they enjoy spending freezing cold nights in a foxhole with US drones flying overhead. Good riddance.

[DireWolfSpirit]

To the thread question I'm not committed to any argument for a couple of reasons.

A few posters were bantering back and forth about "rights" and "state power",

this reminded of something that's been bothering me for a while.

Do I have less rights than your ordinary generic consumer good, say a pair of sneekers?

They say corporations are people now ( i think the courts have ruled so ). But I sometimes

have the impression that goods have more freedom of movement than people

do, especially with all the free trade agreements nowadays (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc).

Another poster mentioned libertarians and I think a key point with that philosophy

is that people should be free even if it means free to make mistakes.

I don't agree with a nanny state or big brother that can tell me where I can or can't travel.

The Cuba travel ban has always irritated me for that reason.

So for the two reason or examples I mention above,

I just couldn't make a good argument why we should ban people from traveling or assembling anywhere,

even if it would be a mistake for them to do so,

it's a mistake I think they should be free to make.

Furthermore this conflict has some very unusual paradigms wired into it.

I can't view it as the simple cold war "us vs them" conflict.

Even though the rebels have been commiting heinous

atrocities, it isn't clear to me why it would be a good idea to

pick one side over the other. Only months ago my government was

busily painting Assad as a boogeyman. In the years previous to that my government was actively at odds with the same groups that are now

fighting the rebels. We have sanctions ongoing against Iran.

Nato member Turkey has been supporting the rebels.

So on the face of it you have the enemy of my enemy is my ......

My what , my enemy friend, my frenemy? I'm

naturally sceptical to support any involvement in this conflict.

If there's to be a great war over a caliphate that would rule vast swaths of Iraq and Syria. Should we be teaming up with Iran and Al Queida to defeat the rebels? Because that's what fighting ISIS entails.

I remember clear complaints from Syrian citizens that were very critical of

the U.S. for threatening war with Assad . In their eyes Assad was fighting the

terrorists. This is from August 2013-http://youtu.be/7pfZidV-7Wg

Well months later now, many American citizens ( flipflop )

are now clamoring for the U.S. to fight rebels in Syria.

What the fuck this is an old fashioned circle jerk!

Like I said earlier this isn't a classic coldwar "us vs them" conflict.

My vote is to heed the old addage of

"Not marching abroad to seek monsters". However if someone else wants to

go over there and dive in the middle of such a mess,

it's a mistake (freedom) i'm content to watch them make.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

They say corporations are people now ( i think the courts have ruled so ).

Corporations have always been considered "jural persons". That's why they are called "corporations". They are legal fictions created for the purpose of insulating shareholders for direct legal liability for the actions taken by agents of that "jural person". If corporations were not considered people they would have no utility at all to the people who petition the State for permission to create them.

[HandsomeWhiteWalker]

The thing that makes me laugh is they hate the west so much, yet they communicate via, and use western designed technology. Then you have the white westerners going out there to fight with ISIS whom have suddenly gone from atheists to believers of Islam within a few weeks. ISIS will not be around for long with their tiny "army" and they're a fad to a lot of western muslims who don't believe they belong in a western society. I don't care if they want to go and join ISIS, as long as we don't allow them back into our countries once they've decided that their little hobby isn't as good as they first thought.

[Horza]

Exactly my thoughts, let them leave and stop them from coming back, and see how they enjoy spending freezing cold nights in a foxhole with US drones flying overhead. Good riddance.

And the Iraqis and Syrians they kill?

[andrew_]

And the Iraqis and Syrians they kill?

We as a society can't be held responsible for the actions of terrorists half a world away?

Would you have us not let them leave and let them back into a society they loathe and wish destroyed? Or would you have us detain them indefinitely for crimes they are yet to commit at the expense of the taxpayer? There's no easy answer that's for sure.

[The guy from the Vale]

We as a society can't be held responsible for the actions of terrorists half a world away?

Would you have us not let them leave and let them back into a society they loathe and wish destroyed? Or would you have us detain them indefinitely for crimes they are yet to commit at the expense of the taxpayer? There's no easy answer that's for sure.

Why could the Afghans as a society be held responsible for 9/11 then?

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Let them go and die. Revoke their passports when they leave so if they don't die they can't come back.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tgftv,

Was Afgan society held reaponsible or was the Afghan government that called OBL their guest held responsible?

[Fragile Bird]

Er, did you just compare terrorism and homosexuality? Are you kidding me?

Oh come off it. I did no such thing. I asked what you think you're going to do with the young people who want to go join ISIS. Many people have floated the idea in this country and elsewhere that you have to change the minds of those who wish to do so. How are you going to do that? With an intervention?

[The guy from the Vale]

Scott,

why don't we hold Pakistan responsible as a consequence, then? And why did we occupy Afghanistan after OBL had fled?