French police kill gunman responsible for school shooting

[Steely Dan]

@Folium,

We could bat this one back and forth all day, but for now here is a link showing how many French Muslims are estimated to have gone to Pakistan to train with the Taliban, this does not include other Countries or networks they set up on their return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/officials-dozens-of-french-muslims-training-with-taliban-in-pakistan/2012/03/24/gIQAmHGCYS_story.html

Secondly I suggest you google Pew research as to how people view themselves, either by their nationality or religion. The Muslim world views itself essentially as one nation whereas people in the west view themselves strongly by nationality. Most worryingly the current generation of young Muslims are actually less well integrated than the previous one, we are in uncharted territory as this has not happened before and is deeply worrying for anyone who still believes in multiculturalism.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/

[folium]

@Folium,

We could bat this one back and forth all day, but for now here is a link showing how many French Muslims are estimated to have gone to Pakistan to train with the Taliban, this does not include other Countries or networks they set up on their return.

http://www.washingto...GCYS_story.html

Secondly I suggest you google Pew research as to how people view themselves, either by their nationality or religion. The Muslim world views itself essentially as one nation whereas people in the west view themselves strongly by nationality. Most worryingly the current generation of young Muslims are actually less well integrated than the previous one, we are in uncharted territory as this has not happened before and is deeply worrying for anyone who still believes in multiculturalism.

http://www.pewglobal...nsions-persist/

Thank you for dropping the "indigenous" nonsense as used by racist organizations like the BNP (if you want a laugh google "BNP indigenous weekend", amazingly its only had about 170 views, it needs to be more widely viewed to show these people up).

Re your piece from the AP that highlighted 85 French/dual national citizens possibly trained with the Taliban over the last 3 years. Out of a total population of almost 5 million French muslims, what's that as a %?

Sure it represents a possible threat to France and elsewhere that these nihilists choose to strike, but hardly permits widespread condemnation of the remaining 4,999,915 French muslims. Bit of perspective perhaps?

The Pew research piece highlights the need to integrate more and address the issues that cause such feelings. Hopefully the winding down of the 2 wars in the Middle East will help (2 more classic examples of unintended consequences at work, or maybe too much bedtime reading of Clash of Civilizations). Multiculturalism is somewhat of a busted flush today and the issues of the last decade or so just underlines the importance of genuine integration.

European countries are going to need immigration for decades to come in order to address the demographic problems they face. Looks like you will have to get used to many more "non French, Italian, German, British" sounding names. Anyway they just might fund your pensions, bring more interesting culinary additions and boost your sports teams at the same time.

Merah was a murdering scumbag who killed unarmed soldiers and civilians (obviously including 3 children). As of yet there is no reliable evidence tying him to al Qaida but this does not detract from the fact that a tiny minority of disaffected French citizens are a potential risk that needs to be identified and managed.

A comparison could be made with the Thuringer Heimatschutz group in Germany and its neo-Nazis gang members who murdered 10 people in the last 12 years, and commited a string of bombings, bank robberies and assaults, in order to terrorise the Turkish community in Germany. Does this mean that all Germans are neo-Nazis, if we extrapolate your views on Merah and the French muslim community?

A miniscule minority cannot be used to taint an entire community.

[manarak]

@folium

agree with what you write.

But there globally is a problem with islamists worldwide, and it has to be tackled somehow.

I believe islamist hate speech has to be acted upon and punished harshly.

Advocating an islamist republic already is anti-democratic.

And in France the islamist problem adds on top of other problems that are typically French:

- the low to middle class French are very begrudging

- a low-class "loose cannon"/no-future/hate layer of people has developed in France, especially in Marseille, Lyon, Paris

- Mitterand was a fatal mistake in 1981 and again in 1988 and the socialists were very (too) generous with immigrants, giving them no incentive to integrate into French society and every reason to exploit the system

I'm glad not to live there anymore.

[folium]

@folium

agree with what you write.

But there globally is a problem with islamists worldwide, and it has to be tackled somehow.

I believe islamist hate speech has to be acted upon and punished harshly.

Advocating an islamist republic already is anti-democratic.

And in France the islamist problem adds on top of other problems that are typically French:

- the low to middle class French are very begrudging

- a low-class "loose cannon"/no-future/hate layer of people has developed in France, especially in Marseille, Lyon, Paris

- Mitterand was a fatal mistake in 1981 and again in 1988 and the socialists were very (too) generous with immigrants, giving them no incentive to integrate into French society and every reason to exploit the system

I'm glad not to live there anymore.

Mercifully jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.62 billion Muslims. The Muslim population of SE Asia alone is almost 230 million (4 million in Thailand, almost 6% of the population, only 800,000 less than France). [Data from Jan 2011 Pew Research Center Report]

Lancing the extremist threat will be a lengthy, expensive and multilayered task addressing grievances within countries and internationally, but the last thing it needs is demonising almost a quarter of the world's population.

All forms of hate speech and intolerance need to be addressed and hopefully countries are now moving on from multiculturalism towards firmer integration.

It would appear that many European countries face similar issues to those succinctly raised by Manarak in relation to France, and these will make solving the problem harder. But the problem will have to be solved, and recent experiences have underlined the futility of the self-fulfilling clash of civilizations approach.

Edited March 25, 2012 by folium

[Jingthing]

Jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny minority? Define tiny. Because I totally agree they are a minority of Muslims, but I also think they are enough numbers to be a serious problem.

[OzMick]

Considering the deceased's lengthy juvenile offender record and a history of violence, it isn't surprising he met a violent end. The shame is that he had to kill so many before he died.

The question now is whether or not his body is released within 24 hours to respect muslim burial rites and who will claim his body. His mother wanted nothing to do with him and refused to assist the police trying to talk him into surrendering. Where does he get buried? Toulouse where the burial plot risks becoming a martyr's tomb, or perhaps back to Algeria?

IMHO they should study his brain to see if they can identify abnormal areas which would lead to extreme violence and belief of bronze age religions.

Why should anybody respect the burial tenets of his religion when tenets of the same religion led him to violate the LIVING rights of others, including 3 young children. In fact, why should his religious beliefs have any more credence than mine - and I believe that the bodies of murderous terrorists should be left to rot in the sun as per ancient burial practice of Zoroastrianism, the world's oldest monotheistic religion.

Bronze age religions? I presume you are referring to Islam, which missed the Bronze Age by about 1000 years.

Fundamentalists of any faith and extremists in general are not the most attractive types and when they resort to violence are beyond contempt.

Sadly your intemperate response is exactly that desired by terrorists and would only act as a brilliant recruiting tool for more extremists.

It's an intemperate response because I don't pander to his religious beliefs, which will cause deluded persons brainwashed as children, into more violence in the name of their non-existent god?

IMHO religious teaching of children is child abuse and should be treated as such. When fronted with such concepts to be accepted as "faith" most humans capable of thought would simply laugh.

BTW monotheism first evolved in the bronze age, and most monotheist religions share the same old myths, up to and including mormonism possibly the most ridiculous of all (scientology is a hot contender, but at least it's got some new myths).

[folium]

Jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny minority? Define tiny. Because I totally agree they are a minority of Muslims, but I also think they are enough numbers to be a serious problem.

interesting question but also one that cannot be accurately answered and I am not being evasive.

firstly there needs to be some distinction between nationalist insurgents who happen to be Muslim, and who may or not take on the jihadist label for publicity, funding and fear generation (eg varying stances of <deleted>, MNLF & Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines).

Secondly there are no exact numbers for any of the jihadist groups for obvious reasons.

There are however 2 statements that can be made:

Firstly the term jihad refers to the "defence of Islam, using force if necessary". Hence sticking hand into hornet's nest in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc helps create jihadists, so in theory extraction of that hand should greatly diminish jihadist ranks.Hence jihadist activity has largely been played "at home" rather than "away".

Secondly and more importantly if the numbers of jihadists really were more than a tiny fraction of the Muslim world, where are they all and what are they up to? They seem to be keeping a mighty low profile, or is that just part of the plan?

Perhaps it's like a rerun of the arms race of the Cold War where paranoia and vested interests kept both sides racing in a contest that was based on over-inflated fears of the other side's capabilities and intentions.

[folium]

Considering the deceased's lengthy juvenile offender record and a history of violence, it isn't surprising he met a violent end. The shame is that he had to kill so many before he died.

The question now is whether or not his body is released within 24 hours to respect muslim burial rites and who will claim his body. His mother wanted nothing to do with him and refused to assist the police trying to talk him into surrendering. Where does he get buried? Toulouse where the burial plot risks becoming a martyr's tomb, or perhaps back to Algeria?

IMHO they should study his brain to see if they can identify abnormal areas which would lead to extreme violence and belief of bronze age religions.

Why should anybody respect the burial tenets of his religion when tenets of the same religion led him to violate the LIVING rights of others, including 3 young children. In fact, why should his religious beliefs have any more credence than mine - and I believe that the bodies of murderous terrorists should be left to rot in the sun as per ancient burial practice of Zoroastrianism, the world's oldest monotheistic religion.

Bronze age religions? I presume you are referring to Islam, which missed the Bronze Age by about 1000 years.

Fundamentalists of any faith and extremists in general are not the most attractive types and when they resort to violence are beyond contempt.

Sadly your intemperate response is exactly that desired by terrorists and would only act as a brilliant recruiting tool for more extremists.

It's an intemperate response because I don't pander to his religious beliefs, which will cause deluded persons brainwashed as children, into more violence in the name of their non-existent god?

IMHO religious teaching of children is child abuse and should be treated as such. When fronted with such concepts to be accepted as "faith" most humans capable of thought would simply laugh.

BTW monotheism first evolved in the bronze age, and most monotheist religions share the same old myths, up to and including mormonism possibly the most ridiculous of all (scientology is a hot contender, but at least it's got some new myths).

So while approximately 20% of the world's population fall into your nonreligious camp, by your reckoning some 5 billion people are child abusing, deluded simpletons, worthy of little more than mockery.

With such insights governments will be queuing up to get your advice on preventing further Merah type incidents.

[manarak]

Mercifully jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.62 billion Muslims. The Muslim population of SE Asia alone is almost 230 million (4 million in Thailand, almost 6% of the population, only 800,000 less than France). [Data from Jan 2011 Pew Research Center Report]

Jihad can be understood as "defending" the 0.01% minority of muslims who do religion "right" against the evil 99.9% of the country who do religion "wrong".

But the problem is much larger than just the jihadists.

For example, many people say the muslim brotherhood is "moderate", but their mission statement is to establish islamic republics.

And let's not forget Al-Quaida stems from eminent members of the muslim brotherhood and their ideas.

I say any muslim supporting or even not opposing the idea of being ruled by an islamist republic is part of the problem.

The form of government "Islamist republic" may sound democratic, but it's not. it is a theocracy where religion overrides the people and the government.

Edited March 25, 2012 by manarak

[folium]

Mercifully jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.62 billion Muslims. The Muslim population of SE Asia alone is almost 230 million (4 million in Thailand, almost 6% of the population, only 800,000 less than France). [Data from Jan 2011 Pew Research Center Report]

Jihad can be understood as "defending" the 0.01% minority of muslims who do religion "right" against the evil 99.9% of the country who do religion "wrong".

But the problem is much larger than just the jihadists.

For example, many people say the muslim brotherhood is "moderate", but their mission statement is to establish islamic republics.

And let's not forget Al-Quaida stems from eminent members of the muslim brotherhood and their ideas.

I say any muslim supporting or even not opposing the idea of being ruled by an islamist republic is part of the problem.

The form of government "Islamist republic" may sound democratic, but it's not. it is a theocracy where religion overrides the people and the government.

Today there are only 4 Islamic Republics in existence. Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan & Mauritania. The last is an authoritarian military regime, Afghanistan is a shambles, Pakistan likewise with a strong secular element, and only Iran is a theocratic Islamic Republic.

The Iranian regime has been aiding and abetting the creation of more such theocracies around the world whenever the opportunity has arisen since the 1979 revolution with stunningly little success. Seems that most people don't want to live in a theocracy and more importantly political leaders are very unwilling to hand over their powers.

Al Qaida has been largely unsuccessful in most of its stated aims, apart from provoking foreign military interventions which have been used to recruit more jihadists and advance the agenda of the one true theocracy of Iran. The Arab Spring has just highlighted Al Qaida's relative weaknesses.

Excellent piece from the Lebanese newspaper, the Daily Star here:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2011/Sep-09/148318-the-arab-spring-is-al-qaedas-winter.ashx#axzz1qAgdThgL

[chuckd]

Mercifully jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.62 billion Muslims. The Muslim population of SE Asia alone is almost 230 million (4 million in Thailand, almost 6% of the population, only 800,000 less than France). [Data from Jan 2011 Pew Research Center Report]

Let's look at this statement.

You claim only a tiny fraction of the 1.62 billion Muslims are considered Jihadists. Let's assume only 1% of the Muslim population would be considered radical Islamists.

Taking that assumption, that would mean there are 16,200,000 radical Islamists in the world.

Now let us assume that only 1/10th of the radical 1% would be jihadists.

Taking that assumption, that would mean there are 1,620,000 potential jihadists in the world.

That number of potential soldiers is larger than any single military force in the world, with the exception of the People's Republic of China.

You are not going to defeat this enemy by singing "We are the World" around a campfire toasting marshmallows.

[Scott]

I suggest you stick to the topic. The topic is NOT some theoretical model of how many jihadists exist in the world.

[Steely Dan]

RT@SkyNewsBreak: AFP: Lawyer says brother of Toulouse gunman to be brought before judge

From what I have read the brother is implicated as an accessory to murder and is openly by his own admission in agreement with his brother's actions, which kind of blows the lone madman thesis. In addition a facebook page set up in homage to the killer attracted over 500 supporters before it was taken down a matter of hours later, so there is a lot of madness in the world, or more likely a diseased and hateful ideology is at work - those who commit the murders are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Morch]

Immigration today is not on the scale of that found in the mid to late 19th century as a proportion of total population. The destination of most of those migrants...the USA. Where the German Americans represented the largest root stock of all the ethnic groups that composed the USA. And what happened in the next century those same German American twice fought their original homeland. Why, because they had been integrated into US society. Were all German Americans so integrated, no, hence the resistance of some German Americans to US entry into both World Wars on the "wrong side" as they saw it.

Immigration is a fact of life in most societies, just look at how "Thai" the Thais really are or the same for many nations today. Obviously it brings challenges as well as opportunities, but as the US shows in the low number of home-grown terrorists compared to Europe, a country that integrates its citizens better suffers less follow-through.

I'm no apologist for the US and the ironic situation that many migrant groups are integrated better and treated better than AfricanAmericans.

Samuel Huntington and his "Clash of Civilizations" was bedtime reading for Bush jnr, Cheney and the other neocon chickenhawks, but totally ovelooked the fact that there is no monolithic "western civilization", let alone an "Islamic civilization". It's all way too simple and derivative, much as the Nazi claim to Aryan purity was so laughable when you consider that the original Aryans originated from India!

If the FN in France or the BNP in the UK ever held real political power heaven help all of us.

What these tragic murders in France underline is that many muslims are well integrated into French society (ie the 3 murderd soldiers), but some need to be brought into the fold not excluded by clash of civilization nonsense.

I agree with you that immigration will not just go away, and that it is something Western nations will have to deal with. Ignoring the problems or thinking there is a quick, straightforward magic way of handling them is are more than wishful thinking.

The USA actually limits immigration and apparently sees it as a potential problem (thinking of Mexico). In general they are also more geared toward integration (or indoctrination) - this being to some degree a part of the process of acquiring a citizenship, a more uniform education system, and having a social system that rewards mainstream integration.

In specific regard to Radical Islam - while some may say that current USA interpretation of freedom of expression etc., there's also very low tolerance (compared to Europe) to open actions and threats vs. other groups (or religions). I'm aware that it is all too easy to bring specific examples to the contrary - speaking in general terms here.

It seems to me that the modern immigration systems of most Western European nations adopted an open door policy with too little in the way of checks and balances. Dealing with the outcome is not an easy task at the best of times, more so in the context of the current political climate.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Morch

[OzMick]

Yes, though the 20% figure is moot. Many people are "born into" a religion and remain registered as such though they pay no more than lip-service if that. Australia is supposedly a "christian" nation, a supposition not supported by church attendance.

'Standing in a garage no more makes you a car than standing in a church makes you a Christian.' Woody Allen.

No, politicians pander to the views of the vocal minority and perceived majority. The US will be a greater democracy when a (declared) atheist becomes president.

Reply to Folium, misposted.

Edited March 26, 2012 by OzMick

[Steely Dan]

It seems to me that the modern immigration systems of most Western European nations adopted an open door policy with too little in the way of checks and balances. Dealing with the outcome is not an easy task at the best of times, more so in the context of the current political climate.

Ain't that the truth. Indeed the UK Labour government actually set aggressive quotas for immigrants from southern Asia to the degree effort was even made to explain our benefits system to prospective immigrants. Even more wickedly many were let in even with criminal records. We can talk about the failure of multiculturalism, but in truth the folly is not recognizing how and why an influx of immigrants from say Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia is infinitely more problematic than immigrants arriving from Cambodia, Burma or Nepal. Islam is not just a religion, it is an all in one political ideology with it's own self contained judicial system governing 'moral' conduct as well as interactions with those not of the faith. A recent survey of British Muslims found 40% are in favour of living under Sharia law. Now Sharia law is not compatable with the universal human rights accepted by secular law, so we have an enormous problem. To count those who will murder for ideology now is missing the point - there are huge numbers also engaged in Jihad, but that is a slow jihad of demographics - The murders come later.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Morch]

@Folium,

We could bat this one back and forth all day, but for now here is a link showing how many French Muslims are estimated to have gone to Pakistan to train with the Taliban, this does not include other Countries or networks they set up on their return.

http://www.washingto...GCYS_story.html

Secondly I suggest you google Pew research as to how people view themselves, either by their nationality or religion. The Muslim world views itself essentially as one nation whereas people in the west view themselves strongly by nationality. Most worryingly the current generation of young Muslims are actually less well integrated than the previous one, we are in uncharted territory as this has not happened before and is deeply worrying for anyone who still believes in multiculturalism.

http://www.pewglobal...nsions-persist/

Thank you for dropping the "indigenous" nonsense as used by racist organizations like the BNP (if you want a laugh google "BNP indigenous weekend", amazingly its only had about 170 views, it needs to be more widely viewed to show these people up).

Re your piece from the AP that highlighted 85 French/dual national citizens possibly trained with the Taliban over the last 3 years. Out of a total population of almost 5 million French muslims, what's that as a %?

Sure it represents a possible threat to France and elsewhere that these nihilists choose to strike, but hardly permits widespread condemnation of the remaining 4,999,915 French muslims. Bit of perspective perhaps?

The Pew research piece highlights the need to integrate more and address the issues that cause such feelings. Hopefully the winding down of the 2 wars in the Middle East will help (2 more classic examples of unintended consequences at work, or maybe too much bedtime reading of Clash of Civilizations). Multiculturalism is somewhat of a busted flush today and the issues of the last decade or so just underlines the importance of genuine integration.

European countries are going to need immigration for decades to come in order to address the demographic problems they face. Looks like you will have to get used to many more "non French, Italian, German, British" sounding names. Anyway they just might fund your pensions, bring more interesting culinary additions and boost your sports teams at the same time.

Merah was a murdering scumbag who killed unarmed soldiers and civilians (obviously including 3 children). As of yet there is no reliable evidence tying him to al Qaida but this does not detract from the fact that a tiny minority of disaffected French citizens are a potential risk that needs to be identified and managed.

A comparison could be made with the Thuringer Heimatschutz group in Germany and its neo-Nazis gang members who murdered 10 people in the last 12 years, and commited a string of bombings, bank robberies and assaults, in order to terrorise the Turkish community in Germany. Does this mean that all Germans are neo-Nazis, if we extrapolate your views on Merah and the French muslim community?

A miniscule minority cannot be used to taint an entire community.

The actual number of people involved with any terrorist activity, anywhere in the world and for whatever cause, is usually very low.

The more relevant issues have to do with the level of support they receive from the population, the ways in which support manifests itself, public opinion perceptions, and a having (or not) a social climate which fosters new recruits,

One cannot assess the threat just by counting numbers of operative terrorists - those, by themselves, do not present a mind boggling problem and are generally easy to deal with, provided the is no popular backing.

Generally speaking, the public in most Muslim countries (and by extension, Muslim immigrants in Western countries) does not exactly wholeheartedly reject religion-related violence when directed toward non-Muslims. There are many reasons as to why this is the state of affairs (education, economy, Western sins...you name it), but very little in the way of change or even acceptance that there is an issue here. In fact, liberal or secular opposition isn't highly tolerated in most Muslim countries, nevermind external criticism.

So ok...there's a need (at least from the Western point of view) for immigrants to be integrated. Fine.

How do you deal with integration not being a high priority on the immigrant list of things-to-do? How to make it an attractive proposition for them? (and as a side note, yes - no society can integrate a large inflow of immigrants without itself undergoing a cultural change). Because saying "addressing grievances within countries and internationaly"...that sounds awefully like placing the burden of the effort on Western shoulders, without demanding much of immigrants or their core countries (I could have misinterperted that part). It is all very fine not demonising a quarter of the world, but somehow acceptable for that quarter to demonise all of the rest. Not very fair now, is it?

[Morch]

Mercifully jihadist-inclined Muslims are a tiny fraction of the world's 1.62 billion Muslims. The Muslim population of SE Asia alone is almost 230 million (4 million in Thailand, almost 6% of the population, only 800,000 less than France). [Data from Jan 2011 Pew Research Center Report]

Jihad can be understood as "defending" the 0.01% minority of muslims who do religion "right" against the evil 99.9% of the country who do religion "wrong".

But the problem is much larger than just the jihadists.

For example, many people say the muslim brotherhood is "moderate", but their mission statement is to establish islamic republics.

And let's not forget Al-Quaida stems from eminent members of the muslim brotherhood and their ideas.

I say any muslim supporting or even not opposing the idea of being ruled by an islamist republic is part of the problem.

The form of government "Islamist republic" may sound democratic, but it's not. it is a theocracy where religion overrides the people and the government.

Today there are only 4 Islamic Republics in existence. Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan & Mauritania. The last is an authoritarian military regime, Afghanistan is a shambles, Pakistan likewise with a strong secular element, and only Iran is a theocratic Islamic Republic.

The Iranian regime has been aiding and abetting the creation of more such theocracies around the world whenever the opportunity has arisen since the 1979 revolution with stunningly little success. Seems that most people don't want to live in a theocracy and more importantly political leaders are very unwilling to hand over their powers.

Al Qaida has been largely unsuccessful in most of its stated aims, apart from provoking foreign military interventions which have been used to recruit more jihadists and advance the agenda of the one true theocracy of Iran. The Arab Spring has just highlighted Al Qaida's relative weaknesses.

Excellent piece from the Lebanese newspaper, the Daily Star here:

http://www.dailystar...x#axzz1qAgdThgL

Saying that there are only four of those around is somewhat misleading. Even without the official title of "Islamic Republic" or being dubbed a theocracy, most Muslim countries exhibit rather low tolerance for non-Muslim freedoms and rights. Same goes for secular or liberal opinions expressed by Muslims. Acceptance of religious minorities isn't really on par with what they get in the West.

As for the linked article - I don't quite see how replacing secular military dictators (most were trying not to let Al-Qaeda set shop in their backyards) with Radical Islam oriented regimes is a setback for Al-Qaeda. Granted, some do not share the exact same views, but will they actively attempt to block Al-Qaeda from operating within their countries? Remains to be seen. Right now, the prevalent social atmosphere seems rather favorable for recruiting efforts. The effects on Al-Qaeda aren't even very important if the new conditions in the area will promote the apperance of clone or rival groups sharing the same mentality.

Calling some of those new players "moderate" is an exaggeration or wishful thinking. They are moderate only relatively speaking, yet a long way to go before they actually fully denounce their rhetoric, and act in a similar manner. The way things are going (in Egypt, for example) what is seen is actually Radical Islamic groups gathering political strength, and in the process forcing the (relatively) moderate groups to follow suit. Overall, it is somewhat too early to fully assess the effects of the Arab Spring at this stage. Could pan out in more than one way.

It is telling that like most moderate and liveral voices, Omar Ashour (the author of the article) is both Western educated and Western based. Not quite sure he would be at liberty to express such views within most Muslim countries without putting himself at risk. Then again, perhaps being a well liked national level sports figure offers some protection (plus he's got a mean kick on him :-)).

[Steely Dan]

To distill things into bullet points there are the following factors the French government needs to consider.

• Why is it that many Muslims, especially the younger ones actually de-assimilating relative to the previous generation.
  
• If current trends of birth and migration continue what will France look like in 20 years and are indigenous those who regard themselves as culturally French going to be happy to change to reflect a new cultural consensus of values?
  
• What (if anything) can be done to integrate into society those that want to live separately from it or change its laws or values?
  

I think the following link is required background towards understanding why integration is proving a problem, which should be given consideration instead of focusing on manufactured external gripes or social provision issues.

[chuckd]

Yes, though the 20% figure is moot. Many people are "born into" a religion and remain registered as such though they pay no more than lip-service if that. Australia is supposedly a "christian" nation, a supposition not supported by church attendance.

'Standing in a garage no more makes you a car than standing in a church makes you a Christian.' Woody Allen.

No, politicians pander to the views of the vocal minority and perceived majority. The US will be a greater democracy when a (declared) atheist becomes president.

Reply to Folium, misposted.

A rather cute quote from Woody Allen but your hypothesis about the US Presidency is patently absurd.

Considering only 1.5% of the US population are self professed atheists and 2.4% are self professed agnostics, it is unlikely your dream of a declared atheist taking the Presidency is going to be fulfilled.

Although I will admit the current White House resident has done much to make your wishes a reality, he is an admitted Christian...sans the obligatory church attendance that is.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

[trompelemonde]

I think narrow minded bigots are a much bigger threat.

[geriatrickid]

Yes, though the 20% figure is moot. Many people are "born into" a religion and remain registered as such though they pay no more than lip-service if that. Australia is supposedly a "christian" nation, a supposition not supported by church attendance.

'Standing in a garage no more makes you a car than standing in a church makes you a Christian.' Woody Allen.

No, politicians pander to the views of the vocal minority and perceived majority. The US will be a greater democracy when a (declared) atheist becomes president.

Reply to Folium, misposted.

A rather cute quote from Woody Allen but your hypothesis about the US Presidency is patently absurd.

Considering only 1.5% of the US population are self professed atheists and 2.4% are self professed agnostics, it is unlikely your dream of a declared atheist taking the Presidency is going to be fulfilled.

Although I will admit the current White House resident has done much to make your wishes a reality, he is an admitted Christian...sans the obligatory church attendance that is.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Not to mention those that wear magical undergarments adorned with freemasonry insignia. France's attempts/desire to ensure secularism is one quiet way of controlling religious extremists. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working with perps like this one. If you look at the fellow's videos and behavioural record, he was fairly secular and looked like any goofy 20 something with bad teeth. He wasn't overly religious on the outside it seems and he certainly seemed to like his western luxuries as he had quite the criminal record for his pursuit of such items. I think as the story develops, we may see that this guy was one angry confused hombre that was manipulated and used by others. You don't spend all those years tangling with French juvenile authorities and social services and emerge well adjusted. I think the brother has some splainin' to do.

Edited March 26, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

I think narrow minded bigots are a much bigger threat.

Like those found in the enclaves of some ethnic groups where even the police fear to go?

[bigbamboo]

I think narrow minded bigots are a much bigger threat.

Those who choose to live life governed by religious or political dogma AND try to impose it on others could be considered a threat to any free thinking people. As Kipling said, 'Dogma is the end of all thought'

[Colin Yai]

I think narrow minded bigots are a much bigger threat.

Not quite sure what you mean by "narrow minded bigots"? with respect is there any chance you could enlighten me (and others) as I'm in a quandary as to what or who you are alluding to! , get it off your chest, I guarantee you will feel personally a whole lot better instead of writing in riddles

[Steely Dan]

A recent gallup poll found 35% of French Muslims thought terrorism was justified if it advanced Islam, that equates to 360,000 people. There sure are a lot of bigots around it would seem.

[Scott]

Please don't feed the troll.

[Colin Yai]

To distill things into bullet points there are the following factors the French government needs to consider.

• Why is it that many Muslims, especially the younger ones actually de-assimilating relative to the previous generation.
  
• If current trends of birth and migration continue what will France look like in 20 years and are indigenous those who regard themselves as culturally French going to be happy to change to reflect a new cultural consensus of values?
  
• What (if anything) can be done to integrate into society those that want to live separately from it or change its laws or values?
  

I think the following link is required background towards understanding why integration is proving a problem, which should be given consideration instead of focusing on manufactured external gripes or social provision issues.

Thanks for the Video Dan ,for me it made a lot of sense especially bearing in mind that IMHO religious or cultural integration is a lost cause , what we witnessed in France and other acts of Islamic terrorism World wide attests to this all too well, As for the cold blooded murder of the 3 French(Muslim) Soldiers ,maybe he thought they had "sold out" to a mainly Christian Country (for now ) so there fore deserved to die. Edited March 26, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

A recent gallup poll found 35% of French Muslims thought terrorism was justified if it advanced Islam, that equates to 360,000 people. There sure are a lot of bigots around it would seem.

Hardly a "tiny Minority" eh Dan , and that,s only in France ,how many in Europe as a whole does not bear thinking about!!. Edited March 26, 2012 by Colin Yai

[trompelemonde]

I think narrow minded bigots are a much bigger threat.

Like those found in the enclaves of some ethnic groups where even the police fear to go?

Yes, probably. But it was really aimed at some of the re-hashed/re-fried/mis-quoted Daily Mail statistics in some of the earlier posts that appear to often in these threads by some people pushing their own little agendas.