Their whole model is built on appealing to disaffected youth who feel that Western society has actively tried to marginalise them. ISIL present themselves as creating a state where people are free to worship on their own terms and without being subject to the tyranny imposed upon them by a West that assumes that their way of life is better.
Now, we know that that's not true, but ISIL aren't appealing to us. They're appealing to impressionable young men by offering them what they want. In that way, they're exactly the same as a street gang. So don't look to 1940s Europe for the solution - look to 1990s Los Angeles.
Sorry dragging up a relatively old post, but I found the comparison between ISIL and current street gangs interesting. I think you are right in stating that they have many similarities, and that the approach needed to combat ISIL is closer to that of combating a street gang than to waging war on a country.
However, I don't know if looking to how L.A. gang culture has been handled provides the best example. Since the 1990's, the street level violence, ie gang banging, has subsided, but many of the gangs have become more structured and more militant. They have managed to increase their revenue streams, and as a result, have managed to both increase and enhance their weapons stockpiles, to the point where fully automatic weapons and assault riffles are considered the norm. The gangs have also dramatically increased their recruitment techniques, to the point where we have active gang members as national celebrities, and gang culture parading as pop culture. So in those regards, I don't know if I would call the efforts to combat American street gangs entirely successful.
In a situation like this, as hard as the pill may be to swallow, I don't feel that more violence or retaliation will bring about a positive outcome. I agree with you when you say that the number one way to combat this evil is to fight radicalization of young men. This is a mental excercise, not a physical one.
Along with fighting radicalization on an intellectual level, if we have any hope of stopping or subsiding the violence, I think we need to start taking long hard looks at all the players involved in this conflict, and other similar ones.
There is a line in urban culture which relates to inner city violence.
"
Ain't no Uzis made in Harlem." The underlying message of the line is that somewhere, somebody is benefiting from the violence.
As far as I'm aware, the majority of the weapons being used in this conflict are not manufactured by ISIL. Now I realise that these groups get their hands on weapons through a variety of means and sources, but at some point, somewhere along the line, somebody(s) or some group(s) is benefitting from these events.
I think if we're going to find a way out of this mess, we need to find a way to identify who is benefitting from this, and put pressure on them to stop their practices. Multiple times easier said than done, and truth be told, more of an abstract concept that has been running through my head, brought to the forfront by your comments on the gangs.
Just to clarify to anyone reading this, please don't take my comments as an attempt to introduce either a gun control or hair brained illuminati element into this discussion, that is absolutely not my intent. I'd just like to dodge that bullet before its fired.
Sad
.
I agree with others that the tweets were insensitive and extremely ill timed.
On top of that however, I think there is another element of sadness hidden within this story, and that is the rather deplorable state of local media outlets (at least in North America).
Judging from the tone of the tweets, their seems to be a shared frustration with the local media, which seems to be a rather ongoing issue. Unfortunately, this event, and the subsequent coverage of it, may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for some of these people.
I can only look at my own local news outlets as an example, but they are pretty much trash. They report weather, traffic, local fluff pieces, and when it happens, breaking world news (which is just recycled footage from the big networks). Local issues are only reported on when they are somewhat shock worthy.
Another member gave account of their experience listening to the BBC coverage, and how appalling and overwhelming it was.
I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who may have been dealing with the KKK for a lengthy period of time, witnessing little to no local news coverage of the situation, and then seeing my local news station switch to extended 100% coverage of an event on the other side of the world. I'm not at all arguing that the tweets were in good taste, but I do think I can understand the frustration some of those people may be feeling.
