ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.

Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.

[HopAlongBunny]

Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.

That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rorism/277844/

[Pannonian]

That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rorism/277844/

There are Muslim preachers who are taking the with our acceptance of all cultures as relative and their knowledge of our liberal tendencies. Promoting the most backward forms of Islam and arguing that it has a place here and so on. I take Ataturk's line on this; there are many cultures, but only one civilisation. If they want to undermine our civilisation, they can bugger off to where their ideas have a history.

I can't find the url at the moment, but I've read one Guardian interview with one of these preachers, who argued that man and woman were biologically different, and therefore Islam's treatment of the sexes was correct, and our treatment of them was corrupt. Corrupt it may or may not be, but equality of the sexes is also a British thing, and if he doesn't like it, then he can bugger off. If he's actively preaching that we're corrupt because of stuff like that, then we should bugger him off whether he likes it or not.

[Brenus]

Well, it is quite easy to deal with these preachers. Apply the law. Ah, I forgot. No law in UK. Hate speeches are the one against religions, not the against the religions that spread hate and discrimination...
And call to murder is freedom of speech as well, no?
In France, to call to kill the gays and the infidels is not considered as an opinion, but an incitement to murder/violence. To wear a burka is not considered as an element of fashion but an element of fascism as the tenets of this faith are against the principles written in the Constitution and basic human rights. So, as such, it is recognised as a political statement from a political party that doesn't respect the Constitution so is not legal.
See, it is easy. Common sense and no hypocrisy.