an insightful article on IS

[Beef Oven!]

sorry, I misquoted you.

I think in the case of a 15 year old, it's semantics, though.

You might think there is little difference between what you describe as ''general parental responsibility'' and a family matter - that's entirely a matter for you. You decide where you draw the line. On these matters I'm light-touch. We're all different, it's not semantics.

[teamsaint]

perhaps the state should spend a bit less time on controls like fining people for taking their kids out on holiday during term time, and a bit more on checking what 15 year olds are doing travelling in groups on airplanes on known routes to dangerous areas?

I imagine the parents of those three girls might think so.

[Beef Oven!]

perhaps the state should spend a bit less time on controls like fining people for taking their kids out on holiday during term time, and a bit more on checking what 15 year olds are doing travelling in groups on airplanes on known routes to dangerous areas?

I imagine the parents of those three girls might think so.

Turkey is not a dangerous area.

All that needs to be done is to have a check on under 16s travelling without an adult (or under 18s for those who want control over a greater number of young people)

The UK's policy on fining parents who take their children on term time holidays (a policy I strongly disagree with) has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject.

[teamsaint]

Turkey is not a dangerous area.

All that needs to be done is have a check on under 16s travelling without an adult.

The UK's policy on fining parents who take their children on term time holidays (a policy I strongly disagree with) has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject.

Fining parents has to do with the subject of government controls, of which there are many , and this is an example.
I would agree about checks on under 16's travelling alone.

I haven't suggested Turkey is dangerous at all, just that it is a known route to a dangerous area.

Edit. I also strongly disagree with fining parents for taking kids out of school for a holiday.

[Bryn]

this piece tgave my ignorant old mind important insights that were unknown to it

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/

It took but one reply to the initial message in this thread for it to be diverted into discussing an article of far lesser import. Can we please get back on track. I have yet to finish reading the article linked to above, but would not wish it to get lost in chatter about whether the headline for another article contradicts that article's thrust.

[Beef Oven!]

Fining parents has to do with the subject of government controls, of which there are many, and this is an example.
I would agree about checks on under 16's travelling alone.

I haven't suggested Turkey is dangerous at all, just that it is a known route to a dangerous area.

Like you, I don't agree with fining parents, but it's got nothing to do with this topic.

Hundreds of thousands of people, young ones too, fly to Turkey each year and it cannot be described as a known route to a dangerous area. IMV, that is being hysterical (probably because that's how the government and press present it).


When you say ''perhaps the state should spend.......... a bit more time checking what a 15 year old are doing travelling in groups on airplanes", who do you expect to do the checking? The Police, MI5, civil servants?

Perhaps it would be simpler if a boarding condition was placed on under 16s (or under 18s for those that can't trust young people) that would be administered by the check in staff.

[teamsaint]

I would agree that the government and press probably do choose to present the routes through Turkey in that way, and for dubious reasons, but that doesn't mean that people don't get to Syria that way.
I'm certainly not being hysterical, my main concern in my initial post tonight was to flag up what I still see as serious contradictions in a piece in an influential newspaper, ( on a related subject to the OP)and in the way that government controls vary between too light in some cases, and too heavy in others, in my opinion.

[Beef Oven!]

It took but one reply to the initial message in this thread for it to be diverted into discussing an article of far lesser import. Can we please get back on track. I have yet to finish reading the article linked to above, but would not wish it to get lost in chatter about whether the headline for another article contradicts that article's thrust.

The thread was started a week ago and nobody has been moved to discuss the 'article's thrust' - and a week a later you haven't even finished reading the short, straight-forward article.

I think that teamsaint, I and others can be forgiven for having a discussion related to the article.

[Frances_iom]

...Can we please get back on track. I have yet to finish reading the article linked to above,...

The thrust of the 1st article is totally pessimistic - non-Moslems should not attempt to argue theology with such believers in the literal interpretation of the Koran -

....Quietist Salafis believe that Muslims should direct their energies toward perfecting their personal life, including prayer, ritual, and hygiene. Much in the same way ultra-Orthodox Jews debate whether it’s kosher to tear off squares of toilet paper on the Sabbath (does that count as “rending cloth”?), they spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring that their trousers are not too long, that their beards are trimmed in some areas and shaggy in others. Through this fastidious observance, they believe, God will favor them with strength and numbers, and perhaps a caliphate will arise. At that moment, Muslims will take vengeance and, yes, achieve glorious victory at Dabiq. But Pocius cites a slew of modern Salafi theologians who argue that a caliphate cannot come into being in a righteous way except through the unmistakable will of God...
Still, his quietist Salafism offers an Islamic antidote to Baghdadi-style jihadism. The people who arrive at the faith spoiling for a fight cannot all be stopped from jihadism, but those whose main motivation is to find an ultraconservative, uncompromising version of Islam have an alternative here. It is not moderate Islam; most Muslims would consider it extreme. It is, however, a form of Islam that the literal-minded would not instantly find hypocritical, or blasphemously purged of its inconveniences. Hypocrisy is not a sin that ideologically minded young men tolerate well. ...That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.

maybe the need for literal interpretations of some ancient book run deep in the human pysche but coupled to the muderous treatment of their opponents exlicitly called for in such books when read literally there really is the Clash of Civilisations warned about some 30 yrs ago

[Beef Oven!]

I would agree that the government and press probably do choose to present the routes through Turkey in that way, and for dubious reasons, but that doesn't mean that people don't get to Syria that way.
I'm certainly not being hysterical, my main concern in my initial post tonight was to flag up what I still see as serious contradictions in a piece in an influential newspaper, ( on a related subject to the OP)and in the way that government controls vary between too light in some cases, and too heavy in others, in my opinion.

But where's the contradiction in the suggestion that the UK should have what most other countries have on exit - pretty simple ''have you got your parent/guardian's permission to travel" for (you choose) year olds, and saying if Britons want to join IS, let them? There really doesn't seem to be a contradiction in this at all.

[teamsaint]

But where's the contradiction in the suggestion that the UK should have what most other countries have on exit - pretty simple ''have you got your parent/guardian's permission to travel" for (you choose) year olds, and saying if Britons want to join IS, let them? There really doesn't seem to be a contradiction in this at all.

The tone of the headline is strongly suggestive of a laissez faire approach, while the article suggests firmer exit controls.
since the government wants to stop folk going to join ISIS, it looks and feels contradictory to me.

Not much point in having firmer exit controls if the end game is to let people go if they want to ?

IMO, a more accurate headline would have indicated the "need" for firmer exit controls, which seems to be the conclusion of the article.

[Beef Oven!]

The tone of the headline is strongly suggestive of a laissez faire approach, while the article suggests firmer exit controls.
since the government wants to stop folk going to join ISIS, it looks and feels contradictory to me.

Not much point in having firmer exit controls if the end game is to let people go if they want to ?

IMO, a more accurate headline would have indicated the "need" for firmer exit controls, which seems to be the conclusion of the article.

Your reference to "firmer exit controls'' is highly misleading. We don't have any exit controls in the first place. All the writer said was that the the exit of these three young girls might've been prevented, if we had the same simple, laissez faire approach that most other countries have, including asking the kids if their mums and dads knew about their trip. Pretty laissez faire, IMV.

By all means hate on people who don't care whether Britons want to join IS and who don't want to spend money and use resources 'saving' them, but at least get your facts right.

[Bryn]

The thread was started a week ago and nobody has been moved to discuss the 'article's thrust' - and a week a later you haven't even finished reading the short, straight-forward article.

I think that teamsaint, I and others can be forgiven for having a discussion related to the article.

I somehow missed the initiation of the thread on the 16th inst., so I suppose its resurrection deserves at least one clap, but Mary Dejevsky's Grauniad piece surely does not fit the title of this thread.

[teamsaint]

Your reference to "firmer exit controls'' is highly misleading. We don't have any exit controls in the first place. All the writer said was that the the exit of these three young girls might've been prevented, if we had the same simple, laissez faire approach that most other countries have, including asking the kids if their mums and dads knew about their trip. Pretty laissez faire, IMV.

By all means hate on people who don't care whether Britons want to join IS and who don't want to spend money and use resources 'saving' them, but at least get your facts right.

you've got the wrong person, Beefy. Not " hating on" anybody.

[Bryn]

The thrust of the 1st article is totally pessimistic - non-Moslems should not attempt to argue theology with such believers in the literal interpretation of the Koran - ... maybe the need for literal interpretations of some ancient book run deep in the human p[sy]che but coupled to the mu[r]derous treatment of their opponents ex[p]licitly called for in such books when read literally there really is the Clash of Civilisations warned about some 30 yrs ago

I find the article more sober and realist than pessimistic. I think its analysis deserves wider consideration, though I do not argue with the latter part of your reply.