Iraqi Army Routed by ISIS Again

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, May 19, 2015.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    That isn't your call.

    We have a legal obligation to not render our citizens stateless. And we also have a legal obligation to enforce our laws against our citizens to protect the wider community and to punish those who go there to fight for organisations like ISIS.

    Neither do you.

    Therefore, this:

    Is of little to no consequence as far as the Australian legal system goes. See how that works?

    It is our (by our, I mean my country's) responsibility to deal with our citizens who break our laws.

    You still aren't getting it.

    They broke the laws in Australia. Therefore if they wish to return or try to reenter the country, then they must face the consequences of their actions and face a court of law and the punishment that will go along with it.

    Quashing their citizenship and leaving them stateless is basically allowing them to get away with breaking this country's laws, not to mention forcing other countries to deal with these individuals. Which would be placing the citizens of other countries at risk if these individuals are stateless and allowed to roam free within the general population.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, this is what you said:
    135 Democrats voted against even giving W the choice, let alone going. Most of the rest voted to give W the choice, but only so he could use it to threaten Saddam - not so he could actually just launch an invasion without further ado.

    Believing W&Cheney lies about their plans for negotiations is not the same thing as voting for war. Voting against allowing W to launch war is not the same thing as voting for war. Failing to prevent packs of Republicans from doing something horrible and wrong does not make anyone responsible for the horrible and wrong thing they do.

    The W&Cheney administration was and is entirely responsible for the Iraq War, without caveat or qualification - they told the lies, designed and worked the media campaign, asked for the War Powers, pressured the Congress, organized and launched the entire thing.

    And they were very happy to take full credit for it, on May 1, 2003. W did not invite any Dems unto that aircraft carrier and thank them for their support. Every major Republican politician and media pundit went on TV and bragged and gloated and called the opponents of the folly bad names and talked about how they needed to apologize and be shamed.

    It was only later that they started talking about how everyone was responsible, how no one knew better, how we were all in this together. Then they started blaming other people: Now ISIL in Iraq is somebody else's fault, just as the "Mission Accomplished" banner was the Navy crew's fault and the lies about WMDs were the intelligence agencies' fault and the failure of the Bribe Surge was Obama's fault and so forth.

    Which helps them avoid a topic that isn't going to look so good on the resume - that if we want to step hard on ISIL, actually knock them back and down, we are going to have to welcome our new ally Iran into Iraq.

    And that will be another fine jewel in W's legacy - Iran and Iraq, friends at last.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Well to be honest, I would think most people prefer that ISIS recruits magically realise the errors of their ways and take up arms in defense of Western democracy, much as few of us truly expect that to ever happen in practise. I understand the anger towards ISIS and its crimes, but I don't see what's so wrong with incarceration and rehab. Put them in a shitty prison with broken toilets and force them to make license plates in exchange for the privilege of unprocessed meat, if cost and luxury are such an issue.

    Otherwise you're going to get into a situation where people are calling for the same treatment- rendering Australian-born citizens stateless or trying to force other countries to accept them- to be applied to others who take up arms against the state and its laws, such as white supremacists, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hindu extremists, gang members, murderers... And of course there will likely be loads of innocent victims abused by the manipulation of such laws for personal agendas. It's a long list of people to dump into the sea, and I figured Australia like just about every civilized country had a reason for abandoning the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Australia does not have the death penalty at all. In fact, we are very much opposed to it.

    And you are correct, if people can be rehabilitated, then great. If not, then they remain in prison. I don't think we are very comfortable with the idea or belief that we make these people stateless and where does it end? TWe have an obligation to our citizens, whether we like them or not, to treat them legally. And if that means letting our citizens back into the country to face trial and prison? Then so be it.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It's not yours, either.

    I argue that, by their actions, they have done so already - and from what I've heard of Australian law on this matter, there's a reasonable conclusion that it's legal: further, I'd argue that they've taken up with a new state, ISIS. It's not an unreasoned argument.

    Yes, I see how triumphalism goes. What you don't see is that neither does your opinion matter in that larger sphere. This is a site of discussion and debate. I have as much likelihood of changing Australian law as you.

    Well, I argue that under those laws, ISIS seekers have already isolated themselves. If you think I read that law incorrectly, say so.

    So then, under my argument, Australia would be holding prisoner stateless individuals. How does that work? Let's break this down according to extant Australian law. Step 1: at what point did they break the law, and which law, under Australian jurisprudence?
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes, but I get a say here by voting and letting my local representative know how I feel on the matter. I get to have my voice heard. That is the privilege of living in a democracy such as Australia.

    You do not.

    Australians, by and large, are not happy with all that Abbott is proposing. Whether you agree with the population here or not is really beside the point. I suppose your inflated ego might lead you to believe you know more about this than you clearly do, but I can assure you, it does not. You are certainly free to your opinions, but please, make sure they are educated opinions that shows an understanding for the current political climate and the Government here.

    They haven't really done anything yet.

    These are proposals, put to the Attorney General, George Brandis, along with several other ministers in Cabinet. They disagreed, and the Attorney General also disagreed with the prospect of the Australian Government making Australian citizens Stateless.

    In an interview with Sky News on Tuesday, Brandis emphasised that the government had not made any decisions about second-generation Australians and had instead opted to “lead a national conversation about the rights and obligations associated with citizenship”. This will begin with the release of a discussion paper for community feedback on Tuesday.

    Brandis said the government was “not going to be rendering anyone stateless” and would be “compliant with the rule of law and proper rule of law principles”.

    “Heavens above, in the next fortnight we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta – I mean we are not going to be doing anything that is inconsistent with the rule of law but we are going to be tough,” he said.

    We have an obligation to act legally and to treat our citizens legally, no matter how much we might find their actions revolting.

    It is clear you do not quite understand the political climate in Australia at present, nor do you understand that our Prime Minister has a habit of saying stupid things or promising and proposing stupid things and then being smacked down by his senior Ministers for it. This is a constant problem and it is ongoing. This is one such occasion. Certainly, we will have tough laws brought to Parliament in the middle of this year or perhaps a bit later on in the year. However, usually the Cabinet and the Government will approve of all measures before they are tabled before Parliament. This time Abbott did what he always does and tried to pander to the extreme right of the country and it failed and backfired in the most public way imaginable.

    Note the Attorney General's comments once more, just for good measure, so you understand the illegality of what Abbott proposed:

    "not going to be rendering anyone stateless” and would be “compliant with the rule of law and proper rule of law principles"

    Abbott is trying to skirt the law or find ways to make it legal. The Attorney General has said, and expressed his displeasure at Abbott's mouth breathing, by clearly saying that we are not going to be rendering anyone stateless and that we have to be compliant with the laws that govern us.

    Considering I have led lobby groups and have been involved in actually changing laws in this country, what success do you think you have with this ridiculous argument?

    This is certainly a discussion and debate, but you are commenting on something you know little about, nor do you understand. To be able to understand it, you need to have a grasp of the political climate in this country, just as you need to have an understanding of our Prime Minister's actions and his attempts to do "captain's call", which saw him nearly lose his hold on his position in the Government fairly recently. I live here and I understand the nuances involved in what Abbott tried to propose and those of us who live here also know and understand what he is trying to do. He said it was something he was proposing. It doesn't mean it is law. And the fact that his own senior ministers, even Pyne, is against it, is telling, because his proposal is skirting our national and international obligations, not to mention people are not keen on the Government being able to strip people of their citizenship without even a conviction in a court of law, for one thing.

    As I said, there are a lot of things in the politics of this discussion that you clearly do not understand.

    Since there are no actual laws about this in place yet, I don't really know what you believe you read.

    This is a proposal by Abbott and the proposal entails that people who return from fighting overseas with groups like ISIS can be stripped of their citizenship by the Government. The evidence would be for the Government's eyes only and the discussions about each case would be done in secret. Abbott failed to mention if the Australian citizens in question would have a right of reply or be able to defend themselves.

    Such things do not make Australians comfortable, because of the lack of transparency and there does not appear to be any measure in place to protect citizens from unlawful acts by the Government. We are strange in that we like our freedoms and we aren't so keen on the Government having secret hearings and stripping people of their citizenship from those hearings. I doubt any citizen in any country would be comfortable with that idea.

    The proposal is for Federal laws. Which makes sense.

    However when you break the law, you will normally face a trial in a court of law. This proposal by Abbott, would entail a private hearing or a decision by one minister on supposedly, a case by case basis.

    As Brandis noted, we cannot simply strip people of their citizenship in this fashion. If people have dual citizenship and they have another country to go to, then perhaps. However for Australian citizens who do not have another country or citizenship in another country, or positive prospects of gaining citizenship in another country, then it becomes dicey. It becomes even worse when you consider that Abbott's proposal would apply to Australian born citizens, born to Australian migrants who are also citizens of this country. Like my children, as a prime example. Both their father and myself were born in different countries and we migrated here as children. We are Australian citizens and we are not dual citizens. Our children were born here and have no other citizenship or connection to any other country. If people like my children convert or go and fight for groups like ISIS, Abbott's proposal is to render those people stateless by stripping them of their citizenship. We cannot do this. Or in cases like the young Australians who convert to Islam and go and fight. They are 3+ generations Australians and have no family outside of Australia and no connection to any other country. We also cannot render these individuals stateless.

    Then comes the fact that they broke the laws in Australia by going to fight for ISIS. By rendering them stateless, they aren't really facing a trial here for having broken the law. Instead, we will have a minister being judge and jury, so to speak, and finding them guilty and leaving them stateless. This would be done in secret with no recourse or ability to appeal. I shouldn't have to explain why this is wrong or bad, or why no person would find this acceptable. There are current measures in place, to try to prevent people who went to ISIS or are at risk of joining ISIS from traveling. The Government cancels their passports, so they are stuck. If they wish to get back into the country, they are then forced to negotiate and they are then arrested on return. That is what is happening now.

    What people prefer is that if they choose to return, then they face a trial and serve their sentence for breaking the law. This ensures that the laws are applied fairly, with due process, and we are not creating second class citizens, but instead, treat all the same. As for secret decisions for a minister's eyes only, that can result in people losing their citizenship and becoming stateless? No. People here don't want that because that is really dangerous territory.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Do you feel that Tony Abbot may be attempting to circumvent the need for the judiciary to determine guilt and sentence? That he and or his minsters, seek to clandestinely act as judge jury and jailor in ways he has done with boat people ( asylum seekers ) being secretly ( media is banned ) held on ships before returning them to country of origin or other destinations other than Australia?

    Asylum seekers, returned ISIL members etc would (are) then be governed directly by Government agencies ( possibly including the High Court - aka constitutional) rather than the Judiciary.

    To be honest it reeks of a serious neo-fascist agenda... IMO

    ( Abbott employs a particular political strategy of "push the boundary" falsely claim it as an impulsive "wanna do but can't" fall back and move towards the boundary again...a strategy that he appears to have used regarding the current budget situation extremely well IMO)

    Also,
    Universal Declaration of Human rights which Australia is a signatory of.
    Article 15.
    • (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
    • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
    which Abbott should be very conversant with is being directly and deliberately (IMO) challenged.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    What appears to be proposed is that those fighting for ISIL would be stripped of citizenship and therefore could not return to Australia at all.
    Currently they face legal proceedings if they return. ( As citizens ) but Abbott appears to wish that they never return by stripping them of the right (citizenship) to do so.

    In doing so, I might add, and in my opinion only, he would be forcing the fighters to continue to establish a nation of their own (gaining citizenship of the caliphate instead) thus he would be actually aiding the ISIL cause by default of stripping the fighters of their citizenship here.

    It is not the first time a Leader has used a "Homeland security agenda" to push or promote neo -fascist ideology. Where Government becomes less inhibited by the judiciary.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Well in effect, that is exactly what his proposal would entail.

    And it appears to be very broad as well.

    Which is why even the likes of Brandis, Pyne, Bishop and Joyce all disagreed quite vehemently, and which resulted in Brandis speaking out about it in public in response to Abbott's comments about it to the media last week. This was brought up in Cabinet and to hear Abbott tell it, this was agreed to. The usual type of "captain's call" he is known for is what this is smelling like.

    Currently, the Australian Government is stripping them of their passports to prevent them from a) traveling to Syria to fight for ISIS and b) preventing them from getting back into the country without first approaching the Government for their passports. This means that they are arrested at the airport on re-entry, tried and sent to prison if the Government is able to prove that they were fighting for ISIS or other similar organisations. This is also why those who are now attempting to return after fleeing from their time with ISIS are trying to negotiate their right of return to the country and trying to escape or avoid going to jail for breaking the law. Currently we have the 3-4 men and the woman and her 5 children, who had gone to Syria to join her husband, and whose children were seen in the media holding up severed heads and holdings guns and whatnot. These kids have seen and been taught things that no child should ever see or be taught. So the negotiation of the return is to see how those children can be protected, treated, debriefed and rehabilitated and placed, preferably, with the woman's Australian relatives, while she goes to prison. The 3 men who escaped from ISIS after fighting with them are trying to negotiate a return by saying they will return if they don't go to prison and instead will work with young boys and teenagers to dissuade them from being radicalised. Personally, I don't buy it and I do think they need to go to jail, as does the woman who went there to join her husband and dragged their small children with them.

    But it needs to be processed properly and there needs to be a trial, the extent of their involvement needs to be known and this needs to be done, above board and with some modicum of transparency. Which is essentially what Brandis was alluding to.

    This is a concern that many of us share.

    While we might not want these fellows back, they are still our citizens and we must still treat them accordingly and legally. We would expect nothing less from other countries in dealing with our citizens over any crimes they may have committed on foreign soil. We cannot have one set of rules and laws for some and another set of rules and laws for others.

    Abbott is once again trying to play the political game, and trying to bring his numbers up in the polls. By stoking the fear and hatred, he thinks he can do this. But we have been through this collectively multiple times with Abbott and I think the majority are able to see through it, as they have in this instance. Which was why there was general scoffing and then the rebuke from his own ministers. How many times have we gone through this captain's call bullshit that he appears to be pulling again?

    Abbott's statements to the media were nothing more than 'we aren't letting them back into the country' rah rah rah, while ignoring the legality of what he is proposing. He has now been brought back to Earth with a giant thud as he realises that this has to be agreed to by Government and has to make it through Parliament, not to mention be legal. After the budget fiasco that is still ongoing (he honestly thought that people would ignore the fact that he just tried to blackmail the opposition and those in the Senate), and after everything that has happened since late last year and early this year, you'd think he would have cottoned on by now. But we are heading into an election cycle, so he has to drum up support somehow and how best then to terrify the country and go to extremes and extreme reactions which are not actually even legal. We've been here and done that too many times.

    Which is essentially what Brandis was referring to.

    You know it's bad when even the Conservatives in the party aren't buying it as being legal.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Sorry guys slightly off topic but:
    The intriguing thing is that if he manages to strip citizenship from these fighters they are no longer able to be found guilty of any offense under Australian Law that is committed abroad.

    He would be in effect granting them impunity for the crime they have up till now committed by fighting in the Middle East as Australian Citizens.
    At the moment they are "wanted" in Australia for illegal activities abroad, take away their citizenship and their activities are no longer illegal.
    Their crimes (if any) would have to be treated under local ( Iraqi or International etc) laws if I am not mistaken.

    The thing is, persons are willingly joining ISIL knowing full well they will most likely perish.
    The main thrust of their participation is to aid in the establishment of the Islamic State

    Threatening the loss of citizenship will only reinforce their desire to join and not necessarily act as a deterrent. Remember they wish to establish a new nation ( state ) and according to erudite reports, they have already conformed to the main or basic elements of what is considered as Statehood. (by the international community)
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    As strange as it may sound the USA and Australia etc, may eventually end up buying oil from ISIL
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    This is something that many are discussing. There was a very good piece about it in The Interpreter. At any rate, Dutton and Abbott have been forced to admit that any such law will need to face judicial review instead of just settling with Dutton deciding on his own without any form of review or appeal and they both appear to be trying to push ahead with it while admitting they will not be able to leave people stateless after the huge protest in Cabinet. This won't end here and the leaks from Abbott's offices and the other Ministers are definitely showing distinct disagreement in the ranks and it appears as though Abbott is again trying to do the same captain's call BS and riding "roughshod" over the cabinet's national security committee, as well as with the party cabinet as well.

    The same plan had divided the cabinet's national security committee.

    The idea is that even an Australian-born citizen, without any other citizenship, could be stripped of Australian citizenship at the discretion of the immigration minister alone, without a suspect being charged or facing a court.

    Under the proposal, the only protection against an Australian being rendered stateless is that they must also be eligible to apply for citizenship of another country, even if they do not actually hold that second citizenship.

    Ms Bishop posed to the cabinet meeting this question: if Australia were to strip one of its people of citizenship on suspicion of terrorism, would another country be likely to approve that person's application to become a citizen?

    The core objection was that an Australian effectively can be rendered stateless, losing fundamental rights and in violation of international law, without due process.

    A related proposal – that dual citizens could be stripped of Australian citizenship on suspicion of terrorism – has been accepted.

    According to participants, Senator Brandis, in opposing the plan, told the cabinet meeting: "I am the Attorney-General. It is my job to stand for the rule of law."

    Mr Joyce put to the meeting: "Isn't that what we have courts for?", according to people present.

    Mr Andrews is said to have pointed out to the meeting that, if concern about the proposal was so widespread, community concern was likely to be even greater.

    Because the idea had divided cabinet's national security committee, it was not presented to Monday night's cabinet meeting as proposed law but as part of a "discussion paper".

    The six-page discussion paper was distributed during the meeting, angering some that it had not been circulated in advance, as matters for cabinet are supposed to be.

    Mr Turnbull asked Mr Abbott in the meeting whether The Daily Telegraph had been briefed on the idea for Tuesday morning's newspaper, according to people present.

    Briefing the newspaper, a favoured channel for leaking the Prime Minister's moves in advance, would have effectively pre-empted the cabinet, which met from 7pm.

    Mr Abbott replied that the newspaper had not been briefed. Page five of The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday morning carried a report that said in part: "Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce today, after cabinet last night approved the policy, that a bill will be introduced before the end of June that would strip dual national terrorist sympathisers of their Australian citizenship.

    "Included in the bill will be controversial measures based on the UK model to also strip nationality from Australians who hold sole Australian citizenship but only if they have legal access to citizenship of another country – getting around international law preventing countries from making people stateless."

    Ministers were angry that Mr Abbott and his office were apparently riding roughshod over the national security committee of the cabinet and the full cabinet.
     
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    How did a thread about the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to ISIS become a thread about Australian domestic politics?

    As for me, I agree with Geoff and by implication I guess, with Prime Minister Abbott.

    Regarding rendering people stateless, wouldn't traveling to Syria in order to fight jihad for the Islamic State constitute a declaration of allegiance to the IS? In effect these people would be outbound emigrants forsaking their Australian identity for that of the Islamic State. If they think that they have rights that need to be recognized, they should take that complaint to Raqqah, not Canberra. (Was that a head that just rolled by?)
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Yeah sorry about that...
    ...a controversial thought,

    Maybe it's really about working out indirectly that the ISIL situation is not really our problem. However how it effects our citizens is.

    If I am not mistaken the USA action in Iraq, this time round ( after the obvious failure of the previous agenda - re: fall of Tikrit), started with a humanitarian mission to support the escape of the Yazidi from a mountain top and provide to humanitarian aid whilst waiting.

    As a result ISIL executed the first USA hostage and audaciously published it on the net.
    USA and Australian ( and other nations) involvement has since escalated.

    Maybe there is a need to reaffirm the humanitarian agenda.

    It seems to me the primary concern of our Government is to do with citizens being recruited and returning, and that in itself is relatively minor problem given the numbers involved.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Conceivably. It's sort of an open question: how many jihadis does it take to pour ricin in a reservoir? Against the numbers I'm not sure how it can be managed: there will be such people.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Of course there will and are such people.

    However it would be harder for the ones who return and are sent to jail to do this. And those close to them tend to be tightly monitored.

    The people who are the type to be putting ricin into our drinking supplies, for example, will be home grown terrorists. And several of the young men and women who have gone to ISIS are not Muslim born, or born from Muslim parents, but are new converts. Which begs the question.. How are they being converted? Some are converting and becoming radicalised without their parents even knowing (one young boy here converted to Islam and went to Syria to fight with ISIS and his father found out he had converted when they found out he had run away from home and was there). He later blew himself up in a large car bomb, thankfully he didn't take anyone out with him. I think we also need to focus on that as a priority.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    They're being converted in the standard way: contacts, some mosques.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Online.

    They are grooming teenagers online, much like a paedophile would groom a child online.

    Jake Bilardi was one such convert and a prime example. He wasn't even Muslim, yet he converted and became a radical without anyone knowing.

    Earlier this year, as gunfire rained down on the Iraqi city of Ramadi, Bilardi began typing a lengthy manifesto, a blog post which sought to explain his journey from suburban misfit left bereaved after the death of his mother, to unlikely religious soldier.

    He revealed how he came to identify with the Taliban in Afghanistan, loathe democracy and develop a belief in a wide-scale western conspiracy that uses the cult of celebrity to foster political ignorance.

    Importantly, he also detailed how members of the death cult groomed him online, and over time converted him from being an admirer of ISIS rival groups, to a warrior-on-standby for the Da’esh.

    “It was my conversations with brothers from the State online though that began getting me to question my view of the organisation and the stories I had heard about it … Slowly but surely I would come to love the state,” the post says.


    They aren't doing it in mosques. Mosques are often monitored. That would be too obvious.

    ISIS are very modern in their recruitment. They use social media and they literally flood it with thousands of posts, photos, videos, tweets, every single day. Even video games. That is how they are able to target kids, many of them vulnerable kids or kids open to suggestion and they start chatting to them online through social media. And slowly but surely, they drag these kids in. Most of the people going to fight for ISIS, well most from here at any rate, have been young, many in their teens.

    It has cemented itself as a global terror movement largely through its supporters’ prolific use of social media, platforms accessed hourly by most western teenagers.

    Prominent Australian jihadis like Mohamed Elomar, Khaled Sharrouf and Mahmoud Abdullatif became important cogs in the ISIS propaganda machine, posting photos of themselves from the frontline brandishing assault rifles and wearing camouflage, as if they had been cast in a Middle Eastern Rambo film.

    The emergence of the ‘jihadi selfie’, the use of hashtags like #jihadilife and public posts between terrorists using familiar slang terms like ‘bruv’, all have intention of making this remote theatre of war appeal to the bravado of other disaffected young men back home.

    Attorney-General George Brandis says the internet has exponentially increased the reach and effectiveness of terrorist propaganda.

    “Every day, ISIL and its followers create up to 100,000 of pieces of online propaganda that glorify terrorist violence and oppose Australia’s inherent values and freedoms — the rule of law, respect and tolerance,” Senator Brandis says.

    “Although the internet has not created the problem of violent extremism, it is a tool that extremists are increasingly using for radicalisation and recruitment.”

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But for every account blocked others spring up, and the battle to win the war online is also coming at a significant cost to taxpayers.

    The federal government is spending $21.7 million to counter the online propaganda of extremists, by promoting and expanding the reach of community voices that expose the lies of ISIS, but many experts say more needs to be done.

    Monash University counterterrorism expert Greg Barton says many of the teens who have gone overseas to fight for ISIS have been targeted and “deliberately groomed” by radicals in a similar way to the victims of child sex offenders.

    “There is a very clever group of people approaching them online in a one-on-one way, investing time in their lives, pandering to their self-esteem and their sense of belonging,” he says.

    “It’s not some sort of passive, magnetic pull, it’s an individual coming up and befriending them, so kids from very safe backgrounds, from non-Muslim backgrounds, can become victims. It’s absolutely the way kids end up with substance abuse problems ore become targeted by paedophiles.”


    Parents should not just be worried about sexual predators targeting or grooming their kids online anymore. They also need to look out for terrorists trying to groom their kids.

    The money is not enough. Moderate Muslim groups and counselors working to stem the tide of radicalised teenagers are saying more needs to be done and some counter terrorism experts here are saying that the approach should be the same as the way law enforcement tackle and handle paedophile rings online. What they are doing and how they are recruiting is no different.

    Mosques and contacts.. old school now.

    If you want to see how easy and out there they are online, then you should read this piece, from The Guardian. If you have kids who spend time online, playing online games or who use social media, then you really should read that article.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, as a matter of fact, they almost certainly are operating through mosques also; there are various 'radical' ones and it wouldn't be difficult to find a few like-minded individuals there.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-from-montreal-mosque-family-members-say.html

    This is not to say that staff are involved, although this is also probable at some sites. Thanks for the link - I'll have a look. I'm not too worried about my own kids - we've discussed the threat of religious radicalism - but fools are born every day.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It is for some, but not for all.

    I do agree with some of the experts, however, who have pushed for treating the online groomers for ISIS in the same way as we hunt out online paedophiles who groom children.

    Why aren't police officers posing as children and weeding these people out?

    My kids are too young to understand the ramifications or the dangers of this sort of thing. Sure, they play Minecraft online, for example, but they aren't allowed to chat. And if anyone tries to chat to them, I am in the room watching their screens at all times when they play online. These are some of the main rules about using the internet that my kids have to live with. They know it is because there are "bad people" out there, but it isn't just about paedophiles now. And those who groom like this, like to start with young kids usually. Sow the seeds, as they say.

    I was reading this article, a while ago, about how they are able to attract young teenage girls. They prey on the girl's insecurities, they sort of do the whole romance thing, with good looking guys who want to marry them, very much like the grooming the reporter found herself subjected to in that Guardian article I linked. With boys they go for the whole hero fighter theme and the sense of belonging, etc. It is insidious.

    Then of course comes those who are converted in prison, which I have spoken about quite a bit on this site quite and that is starting to become a problem here as well. Imams are finding that a lot of young men are converting to Islam while in prison and converting to or with other prisoners, who "educate" with radical themes. In Australia, they are going for young Aboriginal men, many who feel disillusioned and in disarray, who feel rejected by society and they end up in prison. Prime pickings.
     

Share This Page