an insightful article on IS

[Beef Oven!]

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

Well forgive me ts, but I'm finding it hard to know where you're coming from, so I'm throwing in some assumptions.

What's your response to my post #27 i.e.

"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 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."

[teamsaint]

Well forgive me ts, but I'm finding it hard to know where you're coming from, so I'm throwing in some assumptions.

What's your response to my post #27 i.e.

"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 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."

My response is that, in comparison to the current approach to exit controls, (zero apparently) a system of checks, for instance on whether kids were travelling with parental authority, would inevitably be be less laissez Faire. It might still be relatively light touch, of course.

Where I am coming from is simple. The headline strongly implies that people should be free to go to Join IS, but the article suggests that exit controls would stop this happening, with the assumption that in the case of the three girls at least, that this would be a good thing.
We clearly read it differently. It bothers me, it doesn't bother you, or you see it as consistent. So it goes.

[Beef Oven!]

My response is that, in comparison to the current approach to exit controls, (zero apparently) a system of checks, for instance on whether kids were travelling with parental authority, would inevitably be be much less laissez Faire. It might still be relatively light touch, of course.

It would still be laissez faire. Just because an eight year old is not allowed to board a plane on their own without finding out if their mum knows about it, doesn't render the exit policy non-laissez faire.

IMV, a laissez faire exit policy would need to just log people as they leave the country (as we used to do a little while back) as we do when they come in, check there are no warrants for arrest etc. People are logged on entry and it's linked, for example to the benefits agency's system to check people aren't claiming benefits while abroad, so it's no big deal to have basic exit logging. We might want to have a minimum age limit, where we'd check that say, a 15 year old kid's mum knows they're leaving the country.

Where I am coming from is simple. The headline strongly implies that people should be free to go to Join IS, but the article suggests that exit controls would stop this happening, with the assumption that in the case of the three girls at least, that this would be a good thing.
We clearly read it differently. It bothers me, it doesn't bother you, or you see it as consistent. So it goes.

The headline doesn't imply anything, it explicitly says that if Limeys want join IS, let them. In the narrative it points out that we have no exit checks and implies we should. And it suggests these young kids might not have got on the plane if their mums had been asked if they knew about their trip to Turkey, then Syria.

There's nothing contradictory in any of this.

[2LO]

Hi -(from a longtime evacuee from FoR3 boards and the web in general)

Returning this thread to the original link posted by akaCJ (for which thanks):
The long article in The Atlantic was indeed fascinating - ominous but not without some hope.
It's interesting that the many replies eventually to appear have done much the same as the first batch of zillions of comments to the original article on The Atlantic's site, i.e. have started to invent 'another' conspiracy when one whopping great one already exists.

Many of the comments to Graeme Wood's piece started laying into Obama, surely secondary to the original argument, and indeed a second article by Mr Wood has been published - worth reading and not so long!

The Guardian item with such a provocative headline would seem to be an expression of precisely what Graeme Wood's piece seeks to challenge - the apparently sacrosanct discussion of religion, its merits or rank unworthyness, in our considerate, sensitive culture.

[Bryn]

... Many of the comments to Graeme Wood's piece started laying into Obama, surely secondary to the original argument, and indeed a second article by Mr Wood has been published - worth reading and not so long! ...

Thanks.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

indeed many thanks 2LO a very interesting follow on to the first article ....

[2LO]

indeed many thanks 2LO a very interesting follow on to the first article ....

I thought so. Thanks CDJ for the original link (& Bryn for the 2nd!) - to date probably the most detailed attempt I've seen on the unspeakable ISIS.

The resultant bickering reminds me of a drama (not really a 'play') staged by NT in 2012 by a company called DV8.
Dealing with multicultural tolerance or otherwise and including references to the likes of Rushdie and the Danish cartoons, it's title a self-explanatory "Can We Talk About This?". The NT received many complaints, not all about production values.

[ahinton]

I don't think she's contradicting herself, because she's only questioning why we don't have the most basic exit checks that almost every other country has. It does seem surprising that 15 year olds can hop onto a plane with just a ticket and passport.

On the main question of youngsters going off to join (or whatever) IS, I think it's a family matter and not for the state to interfere anymore than it already does.

But aren't you contradicting yourself here? Tightening exit checks is something that only the state can do and I read your post as implying that you would like to see the state doing just that; if it does so sufficiently and if those moves prove successful, however, wouldn't that tend to override any "family matter" input here?

I think in any case that, just as with tightenings on, say, drugs policy, a tightening of extit controls would likely risk pushing these exits underground and tax the ingenuity of those wishing to exit UK and go to Syria or elsewhere to join and/or support ISIS. Given that, as far as we know to date, the numbers of under-18s actually aiming to do this or who have actually succeeded in doing it is very small indeed, we'd be looking at a similar tiny monority of people who would then feel obliged to use their imaginations and figure out effective ways around those tougher exit controls - and, as some of them might feel discouraged by those tought exit control, they might even think twice about trying, thereby making the numbers still wanting to do this even smaller. In so saying, I am not, of course, seeking to undermine the gravity of the matter.

Another issue with the "does your mum know you're trying to fly to Turkey?" argument might in some cases be that the answer is "she suspects that this is what I'm doing, she disapproves completely but I'm not going to let her stop me"; this kind of dialogue (which would not apply in all such cases, of course) would then leave the official/s at the airport being drawn into a "family matter" over which they have no jurisdiction.

[Beef Oven!]

But aren't you contradicting yourself here? Tightening exit checks is something that only the state can do and I read your post as implying that you would like to see the state doing just that; if it does so sufficiently and if those moves prove successful, however, wouldn't that tend to override any "family matter" input here?

No, I'm not contradicting anything and I am not talking about tightening exit checks, I'm asking what we might think the basic level of check should be. Do we let 2 year olds fly alone, without checking with mummy that she knows, and is ok about it? or is it 8 year olds? 16?

I think in any case that, just as with tightenings..........

Not talking about tightening anything, just seeing where we think the age limit might be set, if we were to have one. 2 year olds? 8 year olds? 16 year olds? Btw, do you have a view on this specific question?

Another issue with the "does your mum know you're trying to fly to Turkey?" argument might in some cases be that the answer is "she suspects that this is what I'm doing, she disapproves completely but I'm not going to let her stop me"; this kind of dialogue (which would not apply in all such cases, of course) would then leave the official/s at the airport being drawn into a "family matter" over which they have no jurisdiction.

Indeed, and can mum overrule a 2 year old, based on this suspicion? Or is it an 8 year old that can be overruled on mum's viscerals? 16? Or never?

The airport official, or check in clerk would have jurisdiction, based on the age of the child, depending on what age limit we decide to set.

[Serial_Apologist]

I thought so. Thanks CDJ for the original link (& Bryn for the 2nd!) - to date probably the most detailed attempt I've seen on the unspeakable ISIS.

The resultant bickering reminds me of a drama (not really a 'play') staged by NT in 2012 by a company called DV8.
Dealing with multicultural tolerance or otherwise and including references to the likes of Rushdie and the Danish cartoons, it's title a self-explanatory "Can We Talk About This?". The NT received many complaints, not all about production values.

Where fundmentalist islamicists appear to agree is that, unlike with Christianity's permittance of its own interpretability, there seem consistency-wise to be various stoppers within the Koran which preclude a Reformation-type theological review from within that might allow for non-literal interpretation of its truths. With this the article's author seems to be in agreement - thus incurring approval from ISIS supporters - in contrast with latter-day "liberal" permissive interpretations.

[Frances_iom]

Where fundmentalist islamicists appear to agree is that, unlike with Christianity's permittance of its own interpretability, there seem consistency-wise to be various stoppers within the Koran which preclude a Reformation-type theological review from within that might allow for non-literal interpretation of its truths. ....

and as pointed out in the Tablet (14 Feb) in an article by Damian Howard SJ this was the point that Pope Benedict was making but which brought down on his head such a weight of 'political posturing' which it would appear still continues tho some seem to have swung thru 180 deg - Benedict was making point that Christianity (other than some cults in the USA) espouses reason as an investigation as to what the meaning of the (IMO 'so called') revelation might be ie that 'God' is rational in his activities not vicariously capricious who is to be obeyed without question but the pressure in Islam is to return to a literal interpretation in which reason plays no part - Howard points out that this deliberately jettisons the centuries of study on the jurisprudence of Islam

[2LO]

...there seem consistency-wise to be various stoppers within the Koran which preclude a Reformation-type theological review from within that might allow for non-literal interpretation...

A book by a perfect entity responsible for making everyone and everything and for controlling everything that happens everywhere 'til the end of days; that iterates its conclusive, final, irrevocable nature and demands all-consuming submission to said entity, would seem to make reform and interpretative argument a bit difficult.

If you believe in it, of course. "Mighty chastisements" are prepared for the rest of us, acc. to my Oxford paperback translation. Not a fun read, really.

[Frances_iom]

A book by a perfect entity responsible for making everyone and everything and for controlling everything that happens everywhere 'til the end of days; that iterates its conclusive, final, irrevocable nature and demands all-consuming submission to said entity, would seem to make reform and interpretative argument a bit difficult.

as pointed out by many apologists a true religion of peace fully at home in a democracy and western tradition - you cannot argue with one who rejects reason and as shown eg by the initial mormon development strict(ie a highly simplified) literal interpretation of in this case the committee written King James bible will easily outgun any slightly more relaxed reading

[Serial_Apologist]

Frightening, isn't it? Almost turns me back into being an apologist for capitalism as well...

[ahinton]

No, I'm not contradicting anything and I am not talking about tightening exit checks, I'm asking what we might think the basic level of check should be. Do we let 2 year olds fly alone, without checking with mummy that she knows, and is ok about it? or is it 8 year olds? 16?

But if exit checks remain as they are at present and that risks letting some people through whereas were they tightened they might let fewer through, would it not be the case in any event that any decision to tighten them would have to be made by the state because it is its agencies alone that are charged with such responsibility? Were controls introduced that required those between the ages of, say, 10 and 17 inclusive to be questioned as to their reasons for travel and were such a procedure necessarily to have to include checking with mummy (or other parent or lawful guardian), the risk that flights might then be missed, insurances clamined upon and litigation threatened and perhaps instigated purely because it happend not to be possible to contact mummy (or other parent or legal guardian) for corroboration (or if such corroboration were wrongly suspected to be false) in time for the passengers concerned to catch their flights, there might be all manner of fallout.

Not talking about tightening anything, just seeing where we think the age limit might be set, if we were to have one. 2 year olds? 8 year olds? 16 year olds? Btw, do you have a view on this specific question?

Were a minimum age limit for travel to be set at whatever level, that would surely constitute a tightening of exit controls by the imposition of a condition that does not currently apply. Since you ask, I do not have a certain view on this but accept that it might not be deemed altogether unreasonable for the state to create some kind of legislative framework for it.

Indeed, and can mum overrule a 2 year old, based on this suspicion? Or is it an 8 year old that can be overruled on mum's viscerals? 16? Or never?

Again, a 2 year old and, in most cases, an 8 year old is unlikely to seek to board an international flight alone, so I don't see that applying in practice, but then one might ask in one should be permitted to travel alpone without being questioned first if the journey is to be made by international train or coach. This might also raise the question of whether such restrictions, if they were to be imposed, should apply only to international travel or whether 14 years olds, for example, should be questioned before being allowed to board international flights but not flights from London to Glasgow.

The airport official, or check in clerk would have jurisdiction, based on the age of the child, depending on what age limit we decide to set.

But only if such a limit is indeed set, which would, as I wrote, constitute a tightening by the state of exit controls.