2014 December 04 Thursday
How To Make Jihad Work For Western Countries

It is time to work on real solutions. I'm still a child of the Enlightenment who believes we can solve problems with reason.

Western countries should pass laws that state that anyone who goes to the Middle East to fight for IS/ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or al Nusra front or al Qaeda loses the right to return to the Western country they left. Then Western countries should offer free airplane tickets to anyone who wants to go fight for those same groups. Claiming the free airplane tickets makes it easy to identify some of those who go off to fight.

Any group in a Western country that recruits Jihadists could even get rewarded by their host country for doing this. Register a Jihadist for departure, assure they make it to the airport, get a few thousand quid. What say you?

I would go further: If Kabul falls then offer money to buy out Western country citizenship to anyone who wants to move to Afghanistan. Make it a destination for Jihadists living in the West who want to live under strict fundamentalist Islamic rule.

I think people who share common values should live together in a society that fully embodies their preferences.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2014 December 04 11:45 AM 


Comments
Stephen said at December 4, 2014 3:56 PM:

Why limit it to particular flavour-of-the-month terrorists and particular flavour-of-the-decade regions? Perhaps just have a zero tolerance rule:

If you fight overseas in a para-military organisation or serve in a foreign military, then that act constitutes a formal decision by you to renounce your citizenship. Been nice knowing ya.

This also neatly solves the problem of the state killing its own citizens.

bob sykes said at December 5, 2014 4:10 AM:

"I think people who share common values should live together in a society that fully embodies their preferences."

That is an argument for breaking up the US along ideological, religious and racial lines.

James Bowery said at December 6, 2014 12:19 PM:

"I think people who share common values should live together in a society that fully embodies their preferences."

That is an argument for returning to the US Constitution's original intent except within very restricted areas, such as preventing people from emigrating from a State (ie: the 13th amendment). It is certainly within the original intent of the US Constitution that a State could, if it so chose, limit immigration to it for any reason whatsoever.

The big problem is what do you do about allocation of territory. For that, I've proposed minimal rules for sortocracy that might be thought of as amendments to the US Constitution's original intent -- with rule #2 obviating the 13th amendment.

Toddy Cat said at December 6, 2014 8:23 PM:

That is an argument for breaking up the US along ideological, religious and racial lines."

You say that like it's a bad thing. That's what is going to be our salvation, all of us. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

James Bowery said at December 7, 2014 8:59 AM:

Bloomberg acknowledges the logic of separation while clearly preferring that the dividing lines remain bipolar, Republican vs Democrat, and smearing the Republican pole as essentially on the side of slavery. The thing is, while one can argue that Republican attitudes toward immigration and wages are aligned with slavery, the tendency for Democrats to pass more and more laws at the Federal level, uniformly enforced, can only result in a larger incarcerated population which is the loophole that allows modern day slavery where the plantations are basically government pork handed out as political spoils to companies that want to avail themselves of prison labor.

albatross said at December 7, 2014 12:08 PM:

There is a huge difference, though. Prison labor isn't a huge font of wealth--I think most of the profit of the private prison companies comes from the taxpayers paying to keep the prisoners locked up. By contrast, slavery was a critical part of the South's economy before the civil war--it was economically very valuable. (Similarly, sugar plantation slavery was economically very productive, as well as being a pretty good approximation of hell on earth.)

The private prison companies (and prison guard unions, and businesses that sell to prisons, and...) benefit from more prisoners, and they probably have some marginal effect pushing us toward locking up too many people, but they're a lot more possible to defeat than the forces of slavery in the pre-Civil War South. (Ending our endless bombing of third world peasants and cutting back our gold-plated military might be about that hard to stop--that's a substantial chunk of our economy.)


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright