Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

Let me give a specific example, the Islamist terrorists who follow the Wahhabism Islamic doctrine, the very same doctrine of Da’ish (ISIS). They have no respect for Kafir, the Arabic term for "unbeliever", or "disbeliever". The term itself alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in Allah and the teachings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and denies the dominion and authority of Allah; or otherwise does not heed the beliefs and prescriptions held by the religion of Islam.

Indeed Kafir are deeply loathed by Allah with specific passages of the Qur'an that would amount to what we in modern times would categorize as hate speech: 2:10, 2:99, 2:171, 3:73, 3:28, 6:106, 8:55, 9:28, 48:29. These passages specifically refute your argument regarding a mutual goal of respect.

I could go further arguing "peace" with Kafir cannot exist in the face of jihad, for example 8:12: "I will instill terror into the hearts of Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them".

Sadly I could go on but I think my point is made.

The root of your argument is cultural relativism, and the fallacy that all culture is equivalent. Some cultures are superior to others if we compare merit and achievement. For example, when faced with the decision to live under a secular state (where there is a separation of religion and government) or to live under a theocracy (government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives) I submit that history has shown that it is far better to live under a secular state. If you agree with this than you are making a value judgement that a secular state is better than a theocracy... and therefore rejecting cultural relativism. At this point your whole argument unravels.

We're no longer dealing with some Marxist hippies kidnapping planes for show.

The new breed we deal with is hell bent on destroying the so-called West. This "homeopathic" solution you present is only enabling them more.

I'm genuinely having trouble reading that sentence so I'm going to assume from the rest of your quote that you are advocating the hypothesis that narratives that attempt to justify terrorist violence supports terrorists. I think most people would agree with that, but that is not what was questioned.

There currently seems to be a prevailing Western narrative unquestioned by mass media that the most effective way to prevent terrorism is to control the material people consume, especially on social media.

The TV and print media is full of the narratives of billionaire press barrons and arms-exporting governments. If we accept that radicalisation is driven by narratives that become accepted (we are the good guys) and that it is a gradual process (opposed -> indifferent -> supporter -> active) how would we even know if we were radicalised by the narratives that we consume?

Perhaps when we advocate detention without trial of terror suspects; the abdandomnent of human rights laws for terror suspects; extra-judicial murder for suspected terrorists; a war on foreign soil with the overt and understandable intent that our armed forces should have zero casualties?

Personally, I think there is a case for censoring truly extreme material as long as extreme caution is used so it doesn't spread to narratives which are critical of government foreign policy and there is an equal silencing of the overtly genocidal attitude of the far right that gets a far easier time and regularly enters corporate media ("bomb them"). I suspect the latter is quite effective radicalisation material and helps advance the idea that entire countries hate a religion and that this is a war that is an existential threat to people of that religion.

I know there are innocent casualties when we wage war, but that is not the same as what is happening here.