HN Explorer

Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

19 points by mininao ↗ HN
Hi, I live in paris, and I've been profoundly hit by the violence of tonight's attacks in Paris ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/world/europe/paris-shooting-attacks.html ) I think that as technology makers, we have a power to change the world. So my question is simple : What can we do to prevent these awful acts ?

Thanks. (I trust that the HN community is wise enough to discuss about this matter without violence, racism, etc..)

70 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] thread
maxharris
The #1 thing you can do is to name the party responsible (once it is known for certain), and to name the ideology that motivates these repeated, ever more brazen attacks.

If this is what everyone thinks it is (but is cautiously tip-toeing around), "extremism" is not specific enough.

dynamic99
Didn't you just tip-toe around it?
AnimalMuppet
No. He said "once it is known for certain". We're pretty close, but it is still reasonable to say that we're not there yet.
kleer001
Hmmm, isn't that what they want? More attention?
stray
It is impossible to prevent while only criminals/terrorists have the weapons.

An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.

miguelrochefort
A recent tweet by Newt Gingrich echoes precisely that:

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832

I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.

sirrocco
I call bullshit on that. Tell me one theater/school/whatever attack in the States that has been foiled by armed citizens.
brogrammer90
Concealed carry permit holders actually follow the law and don't solicit businesses that are "gun free zones."
stray
According to the FBI (https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-...):

[In] 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but 3 cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack.

So it appears that even the FBI says there were 3 over a span of 12 years that were foiled by armed citizens. And that fully one third of them were stopped by citizens without guns.

I would assume that if everybody were armed then, that more than 33 percent would be foiled by armed citizens.

That is of course, if you accept the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be a credible source

kohanz
Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that the timing of that politically-charged tweet was in incredibly poor taste.
stray
Fully disagree.

It is precisely during tragic times like these that people need to be reminded that an unarmed citizenry is completely vulnerable to armed criminals/terrorists.

Gun control has zero effect on people who don't care about the law.

And many innocent people have just died as a result. Hundreds of families have just been forever changed because of it.

miguelrochefort
I can't think of a better opportunity to post such a tweet.
staunch
"Now is the time" = I agree with the argument.

"Now is not the time" = I disagree with the argument.

[dead] brogrammer90
Why are you limp wristed millennials downvoting this? If a mere 1% of the crowd were allowed to carry concealed, even with something wimpy like a Ruger SR22 or S&W M&P 22 Compact, the body count here would be less than 10.
yongjik
From Wikipedia:

> According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention).

So, 11,713 homicides and accidents in the US, not counting suicide. This week alone, gun will likely kill more Americans than the attack on Paris today.

tvm
This can be somewhat misleading.

eg.,:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-hom...

Brazil, Italy etc. - significantly lower percentage of firearms between citizens (say compared to USA), yet there are percentually more homicides performed with firearm.

disabledalpha
One has to be careful there. Yes, according to that data, in Italy 67% of homicides are by firearm while 11.9% of people have a firearm. Since the numbers for the US are 60% and 89% one is tempted to conclude that in Italy there are more firearm related homicides. However, this is false. If one looks at the fourth column it is clear that in Italy there are 0.71 homicides by firearm for each 100k peoples while in the US there are 2.97, more than 4 times as many.

Brasil on the other hand has indeed much more homicides per 100k people than the US, although having only an 8% of the population legally possessing a weapon.

TL;DR: In Italy there are four times less homicides by firearm per 100k people than in the US.

stray
By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and three times more important to prevent high places.

Because the three most common causes of accidental death in the US are Unintentional fall deaths, Motor vehicle traffic deaths, and Unintentional poisoning deaths. And each of those kills roughly three times as many Americans as guns.

When you add in intentional firearm deaths, it's roughly the same as automobile deaths -- yet we give 16 year olds the keys without a second thought.

yongjik
Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right."

Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that arming citizens will solve (or mitigate) the problem of terrorism. I pointed out that the proposed solution will kill orders of magnitude more people than terrorism itself. Automobiles are a separate problem.

stray
Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism.

A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional.

So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely decrease as well.

You know, because of the threat of getting shoy by your would-be victim.

j2bax
That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.
stone-monkey
There's really no way to know for sure what would have happened in this situation if other citizens had guns, but it's possible they could have limited some casualties. However, looser gun laws aren't such a simple issue. If you're considering the societal impact of gun proliferation, you have to weigh the pros and the cons.

While there may be more people available to stop gunmen because of the access to guns, increased access to firearms increases the number of firearm related accidents. This is really something that comes with the territory. No matter how much gun safety is taught, there's always going to be a distribution of people who fall outside of safe usage of guns. At that point, you have to consider whether, as a nation, does the number of casualties based on this incident outweigh the potential number of casualties based on firearm related incidents caused by increased proliferation of guns?

6d0debc071
And the body counts in the school shootings, would they also be less than ten?
asadlionpk
Even if we don't count the side-effects of this. I don't think armed citizens stand a chance against highly trained militants with heavy weaponry.
stray
Have any idea how many of us are even better trained ex-military?

In the US, about 13.4% of men are veterans. And 1.4% of women are veterans. So if you're in a theater with a hundred men and a hundred women -- fifteen of those people are competent in the responsible use if firearms AND have proven themselves willing to put their lives on the line for their countrymen.

I'd put money on an overweight, half-blind, ARMED, 60 year old US Marine up against 5 religious zealots with AK-47s any day of the week.

Hell, even those Air Force guys probably know what they're doing :-)

notahacker
When your adversaries are armed with suicide bombs and have no intention of living, armed citizens are very easily victimised. Iraqi civilians have plenty of firearms, and minimal restrictions on carrying them.

What actually did reduce the magnitude of the damage caused in the Paris attacks was the kind of intrusive security checks on people entering the Stade de France that are usually rather less popular around here...

J_Darnley
Little at the moment. A largely open border to the rest of the Eurasian continent allows for an inflow of weapons even if you successfully collected all that are already here. Weak explosive devices can be made with common(ish) materials. Even with tight controls you will still get knife attacks. Just look at Palestine recently.

Tight controls will require a more authoritarian government. I for one don't want that but I expect we will get it and the masses will demand it. Yay for neighbours.

miguelrochefort
The only true way to prevent these acts is to eliminate ideological conflicts altogether. Usually, this is done by letting the state pick a winning ideology and suppress those who don't adhere to it. This tends to ensure a level of homogeneity that makes violence obsolete.

A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surveillance, which supposedly should be able to catch extremists before they act. Sadly, we're still very far from Minority Report's level of accuracy.

Alternatively, we could adopt a more reactive approach which would focus on reducing the gravity of such events rather than trying to prevent them. Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings. This assumes an important "good" to "bad" people ratio (where "good" is defined by the majority and/or by the state).

Basically, live in a society that's xenophobic and armed.

UnoriginalGuy
> Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings.

Here we go again...

When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]."

Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a lot of what you're suggesting: fight a dangerous weapon with another dangerous weapon, potentially put bystanders in harm's way, make it even harder to track/identify the good from bad, make it easier to obtain weapons.

The US has more mass killings than any other western nation, yet they also have concealed carry, clearly something isn't working here. Is the solution really "more guns, more guns?"

brogrammer90
More than half of these mass killings occur in "gun free zones." Who follows the law? Concealed carry permit holders. Who doesn't? The crazies.
stephenr
How many of the "crazies" use legally (by local laws) acquired guns?
mininao
Even if the ones perpetrating these crimes have no gun permits, the existence of gun permits itself makes gun ownership commonplace, allowing the "crazies" easier acquisition and possession of guns
[dead] saywahat
France has strict gun laws but that did nothing to prevent the attack. Instead it turned the good people into defenseless farm animals waiting their turn for slaughter.
mininao
And if the killings occur in gun free zones, Concealed carry permit holders won't be able to defend themselves, right ?
miguelrochefort
"Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...

yrochat
Your source also says: "Climate Change isn't about the environment. It's about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well."

This should allow you to understand it is a really bad source. I guess that starting from that, it is easy to prove that the numbers you cite are wrong.

All in all, isn't it obvious that only gun-free zones is a better solution that only gun-allowed zones?

notahacker
If you're not content taking your bogus statistics from the sort of blog with so little handle on reality it described Bloomberg as a "communist organisation", you can read the actual report

It excludes mass shootings if the shooters were gang members or robbers, if the victims were in [multiple] private homes, if concealed carry permits weren't handed out like candy in the local area or if the heavily armed guards in place throughout the incident were naval officers or law enforcement officials stationed there to stop shootings....

Trouble is, once you've concluded armed guards were shot because they were "gun free", anywhere where concealed carry isn't commonplace is also "gun free" and mass shootings in private homes don't matter to analysis of gun owners' ability to defend themselves you've probably concluded that rather more than 92% of the US population are in gun free areas...

sirrocco
No, having guns won't help one bit. Just name one attack in the States that has been foiled by a citizen.

What will happen unfortunately is that the surveillance measures will increase exponentially, normal citizens will throw privacy out the window, terror attacks will still happen.

It's the world we live in.

stray
I commented elsewhere in this thread with three.
mrits
It happens quite frequently. If everyone had a gun it would prevent almost all of the incidents. I'm not sure why you would argue this. The other question is how bad is the result of everyone carrying a gun.
DanBC
> I'm not sure why you would argue this.

Because there are plenty of places where lots of people have guns but suicide bombings or kidnapping or etc still happen regularly.

atmosx
I hold equally responsible the extremist groups (ISIS, Al Qaida, etc.) and entirety of western and eastern governments (USA gov, EU, UK gov, China gov, Rus gov, France gov and my country's gov) for this mess. Our policies are the ones who allow these extremist groups to grow.

I feel that these events are connected a la V for Vendetta:

[0] In Afghanistan, tie between 9/11 and the war often gets lost

[1] U.S. Weaponry Is Turning Syria Into Proxy War With Russia

[2] Drone Strike in Yemen Hits Wedding Convoy, Killing 11

[3] EU and France deny any change in Syria policy

[4] Collateral Murder (Wikileaks - Iraq)

[5] Italy Arrests ISIS Terrorist Disguised As Refugee

[6] Syria: A human tragedy

[7] Cheney Insists Iraq War Was Worth It Because Of WMD

[8] Who are Isis? A terror group too extreme even for al-Qaida

[9] Charlie Hebdo Shooting

These are random links, I just collected from DDG mind you, nothing well-thought. I could start from the crusades I guess and everything would be equally aligned in my mind.

On a personal note feel terrorized. I was planning a trip to Paris this year. Now, I don't know. The only thing that remains, unfortunately, is fear. We can't see straight anymore.

Obama calls Paris attacks 'outrageous'. Is he willing to stop fueling the war in Syria?

“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” - Ghandi

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Asimov

[0] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/10/world/la-fg-afghanis...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-rus...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/middleeast/drone-str...

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-mideast-crisis-...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

[5] http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/italy-arrests-isis-terrori...

[6] http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2014/03/syri...

[7] http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/29/2853061/cheney-...

[8] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extrem...

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

lgieron
The terrosist attacks are caused by political, cultural and economic factors, I don't think technology has an important role to play in an eventual solution...
cJ0th
In the grand scheme of things this is possibly the correct answer. However, what technology can do is bring some meaning to more peoples life. One reason people do things like those which happened in Paris is due to the fact that these people are not integrated into a friendly, peaceful society. Thus they feel a void and need to fill it with something that gives them a sense of power and belonging. Technology can be used to enable people to create meaning for themselves. For Instance, the advent of digital music production enabled people who couldn't play a "real" instruments in the olden days to express themselves musically now. I know a guy who used to get into fights at night clubs until the day I introduced Cubase to him!

And even if these individuals are not strong enough to do something productive technology could at least give them a glimpse of power and belonging in online communities. For example, a person who is busy playing WoW all day won't get to shooting someone in the streets.

What I wrote above is, unfortunately, hugely idealistic. More realistically I see two options for this problem:

1. don't just bomb targets but level the ground. This is of course not something we actually want to do because it would kill many innocent people. Still from an unempathetic point of view: Is killing millions of people now worse than eventually allowing <made up stat>twice as many people to be killed over the comming decades</made up stat>? instead:

2. We have to fucking evolve and acknowledge that they found a bug in our system and "we are the best, democracy rules, those guys are in the wrong - why are they so mean?" as well as a couple of bombs simply don't cut it anymore. Instead, we should come off our high horses and work our ass off to address the (political, cultural, economical) domains OP mentions so that we can leave our current conception of the world behind us and progress to something that serves us better in the coming years. However, this is radical and it is hard to make a society move into this direction as all of us would have to question everything we do. Maybe finding time for teaching refugees your language for free is more important than working longer hours so that you contribute to pushing the GDP. Maybe moderate Muslims should do more to prevent those attacks even though it is neither their fault not their responsibility to do anything about it. Maybe the "average customer" should be more mindful when s/he goes shopping by making sure that s/he doesn't support supply chains which somehow benefit terror supporters. In short, every member of society has to work their ass of to bring some positive change about.

lgieron
I'm not sure if WoW and similar games fulfill the deep needs of connection and belonging people have (for example, Breivik was pretty much playing WoW 24/7 for a couple years before he moved on to his radicalism and, eventually, mass murder). Given by the amount of negative emotions I've seen in online games, my guess is that's more of a paliative, similar to alcohol or drugs. As for the Fight Club -> music production story, that's great and gives some hope. However, most people are not cut for and/or interested in solitary activities like this.

I don't see first option as a viable one, simply because there's currently 1.7 billion Muslims in the world (most of them doesn't support the radicals, but I'm guessing that could change very quickly if their innocent family members get killed during the "levelling of the ground"). It would lead to WWIII.

I think the positive route, along with some smart interventions (i.e. not having borders open to any and all refugees which want to enter Europe, but rather absorbing them at a manageable rate), is the way to go.

cJ0th
> I don't see first option as a viable one

I agree "option" wasn't a good way to put it. As to Breivik, I didn't know that he played WoW. You are probably right that games don't offer enough substance/not a positive atmosphere.

kleer001
Technology can help increase empathy. At least I think it can. I hope it can.

That technology might help. Maybe by sharing the marginalized stories of vulnerable people.

We've tried fear and anger to stop these kind of things, but it's just like a whack-a-mole. Why don't we try empathy and understanding?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IgOVOPLTYI

disclaimer: My heart goes out to all of those touched by needless violence. I in no way endorse violence of any kind, and the perpetrators of such deserve to be caught, tried, and if guilty, locked away for the rest of their lives. That said, those that do overt violence are not the root of the problem. They have (or had) friends and family that could have steered them in a different direction.

TurboHaskal
The more empathy the more effective terrorism becomes.
kleer001
I'm not sure how you got to that. Do you see the empathetic as somehow easier to scare?

Fear does not necessarily follow from empathy. What does follow from more empathy (as I understand) is more care of poor people, more inclusiveness, quicker action to the needy, less warmongering.

edit: Here's a primer on Empathy technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT5X6NIJR88

eivarv
Make people realize what types of thinking leads to these types of actions, in addition to under which conditions, how and why.

I think it's very strange that what we know of common errors of thinking (e.g. logical fallacies, cognitive biases, etc.) have no real place in our pop-, political or common intellectual culture. The fact that we don't use these "checklists" when evaluating ideas directly leads to the spread and rise of intellectually bankrupt ideas, or ways of thinking that make no sense (at best), all over the political spectrum.

Also: Education, equality, social mobility and inclusivity (all known to play their parts in this complex equation).

eivarv
Sorry; not to comment upon that which must not be commented upon, but I'd love to hear what people disagree with my post about, as opposed to not getting to know anything other than its popularity.
manuelh
Fight the causes, the real causes; stop neocolonialism (France has bombed Lebanon, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, all Muslim countries, and I'm not quoting military intervention in Africa), education - but meaning sensibility from the West to Third country history (links to the technology issue below)

That's just to start.

colund
Unfortunately, I think the terrorists suffer from a severe lack of empathy. I'd say the terrorist seem to be psychopaths or schizofrenic. So probably they need to be de-brainwashed via some hard-to-reject facts. The problem with the world is that social structures work in cluster (especially with Internet) and it's hard to reach into social structures with people who have opposite beliefs for a meaningful discussion.
eivarv
I'm surprised so many people during the last days have said stuff like this here on HN, i.e. that these things have something to do with mental illness.

Do people really know this little about what mental illness (in this case psychopathy or schizophrenia) actually is?

I also thought it was widely known that very little is needed for people to be able to act abhorrently towards someone they identify as somehow other than themselves (e.g. sociological out-group, "otherization").

colund
Come on. I am aware that most people have a "psychological dark side" so to speak and that normal people can go to war. My point was that the ruthlessness of the terrorists show a sever lack of empathy of innocent people, and that it seems hard to reason with their obsessive minds. I'm not saying that all terrorists are psychopaths. Probably their manipulative leaders are, though!

I'm sure that you can debate whether they are sane or not.

A psychologist supports the view that terrorists may be psychopaths when she writes "As we turn now to Islamofascist terrorists, we can begin to see that they meet almost all the criteria listed above for psychopathic traits. They even use the same excuses for their unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their own actions." http://drsanity.blogspot.se/2004/10/psychopathology-of-terro...

Another article supports the idea that terrorists are not mentally ill and furthermore discusses whether terrorists may be depressed: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/06/29/mental-i...

eivarv
I totally understand what your point is, I just don't think that it makes much sense. I would even hesitate to call it a "dark" side, as many of the same patterns of thought are used (to an extent) by most people.

You might be able to establish some sort of link between ruthlessness and "psychopathy". I'd love to hear where schizophrenia enters the picture, though.

While your first link is only a personal blog post, it does present some coherent thought - but even the author states that "terrorists, by and large, do not suffer from psychosis".

There is also the fact that what we think of as psychopathic actions (or stereotypes thereof) are primarily driven by the ego of the perpetrator, as opposed to the alleged ideological motivations of (e.g. islamic) terrorists.

Note that the first article focuses on the common superficialities (their behaviors appears somewhat similar), but says nothing of the cognitive processes at play in practice - the piece is mostly speculation.

By the way, the statements that "the Palestinians have perfected victimhood as a science" (near the end of the article) leads me to take this source with a grain of salt.

The second article is an argument based on a hell of a lot of assumptions (it even admits this), and basically assumes that since the causes of mental illness and terrorism resemble each other they must be connected (or even the same).

My gripe with your initial post is that the assertion is dubious (at best, and not really theoretically supported), and that it:

- Gives a psychologically satisfying explanation as to how "they" can do things like this, that makes it easier for us to see them as something other than us.

- Ends up perpetuating mental health stigma.

- Politicizes psychopathology.

I suggest taking a look at what a professional authority, e.g. APA [0] says about the matter.

[0]: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

PerfectElement
I don't think it's hard to convince people to suppress or nurture their empathy towards certain groups, specially when they are indoctrinated from a young age. Just look at the way most of us care so much about certain animals' wellbeing, while completely ignore the suffering of others.
gesman
Long term - open dialogs.

Short term - allow law abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. This will make life of police much easier and would save lives.

davidtron9999
suicides will increase overnight
gesman
You mean people will buy guns en masse to finally be able to commit suicides?
thrwwy123
Tech people can disable the forums where terrorists recruit and promote their ideology. There are many foreigners who join ISIS, and many who initiate attacks based upon what they read.
junto
There is very little we can do in the short term. We have to understand the reasons why ISIS are targeting the west. They have a multiple pronged approach:

- Provoke the west to further attacks on Muslims. Ideally the deaths of Muslims in Muslim lands should include innocents. Drone strikes and bombings are good, because it helps them turn the local people to their side.

- Provoke the west to hatred and bigotry of the greyzone Muslims (moderates) living in the west. Ideally they feel further marginalised and excluded. They need to be turned to fight for the caliphate, or be killed with the rest of the 'kuffār' (western non-believers).

- Provide young impressionable marginalised Muslim male youths with 'heroic' role models. Ghettoes in Paris where the 2005 riots took place are an ideal breeding ground for marginalization. Most are unemployed, have no education and no opportunities.

- Removal of despotic dictators from Muslim lands. Promoting instability, unemployment and isolation improves the chances of additional soldiers to join the fight.

I highly recommend an article called "THE EXTINCTION OF THE GRAYZONE" [1]:

  The Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between
  one of two choices, they either apostatize and adopt the 
  kufrī religion propagated by Bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron, 
  Sarkozy, and Hollande in the name of Islam so as to live 
  amongst the kuffār without hardship, or they perform hijrah 
  to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the 
  crusader governments and citizens.
This shows how the aim is two end up with two sides. No greyzone. Finally this highlights what we are up against:

  As the world progresses towards al-Malhamah al-Kubrā, the 
  option to stand on the sidelines as a mere observer is being 
  lost. As those with hearts diseased by hypocrisy and bid’ah 
  are driven towards the camp of kufr, those with a mustard 
  seed of sincerity and Sunnah are driven towards the camp of 
  īmān.

  Muslims in the crusader countries will find themselves 
  driven to abandon their homes for a place to live in the 
  Khilāfah, as the crusaders increase persecution against 
  Muslims living in Western lands so as to force them into a 
  tolerable sect of apostasy in the name of “Islam” before 
  forcing them into blatant Christianity and democracy.
  
  Muslims in the lands ruled by the apostate tawāghīt will 
  find themselves driven to the wilāyāt of the Islamic State, 
  as the tawāghīt increase their imprisonment of any Muslim 
  they think might have a mustard seed of jealousy for his 
  religion, or lead them to apostatize by working as agents, 
  soldiers, and puppets serving the banner of the tāghūt.
  
  Mujāhidīn in the lands of jihād will find themselves driven 
  to join the ranks of the Khilāfah, or forced to wage war 
  against it on the side of those willing to cooperate with 
  the munāfiqīn and murtaddīn against the Khilāfah. If they do 
  not execute these treacherous orders, they will be 
  considered khawārij by their leaders and face the sword of 
  “independent” courts infiltrated by the Sufis, the Ikhwān, 
  and the Salūlī sects.

  Eventually, the grayzone will become extinct and there will 
  be no place for grayish calls and movements. There will only 
  be the camp of īmān versus the camp of kufr.
ISIS believe in a prophesy. They are trying to make it come true. If you look at the list of things above, we are falling slowly into their hands, one step at a time.

The sad thing is that there is no quick fix. We could leave the middle east and stop interfering. It would be a good first step to defusing tensions based on our presence there, but it would simply open the door to ISIS at the moment, leaving a vacuum for them to fill.

If we go full out war, with boots on the ground then we end up joining a fight that we cannot win.

I've heard calls to "nuke the...