12 dead in attack on Paris newspaper; France goes on alert

[Tep]

You identify an important issue for liberals. I do think that some people have difficulty in separating genuine commentary or criticism from stereotyping. I am a huge fan of Bill Maher and I understand what he says about the Muslim thing but I wonder if he too is stereotyping. Or if not stereotyping, then I am not able to distinguish genuine commentary from bigotry. I look forward to his return on Friday evening US time as he will surely have more to say and I want to hear it and think about it.

There is a difference between statements like 'Islam cannot exist in or is incompatible with a Democracy' (which I have had thrown at me) and 'I do not support the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia'. Apart from the social, political and cultural contexts, I think the first is clearly an over generalisation and easily disproved (i.e. Indonesia etc) and to me represents bigotry. The 2nd statement is more specific and can be dissected and argued.

The other concern is general ignorance, including mine. I have not read the texts. I don't know what Sharia Law says. I think many people do not. Some people claim they do but clearly get the information from ideologically driven sources that presents that information accordingly. I have no access to information channels that convey the latest in Islamic thought, the latest Fatwas or interpretation of scripture. I am told by non Muslims that such interpretation is forbidden anyway. In fact almost all my information does from non Muslims. I would prefer to hear comments from a Muslim woman on the face covering issue than on some old white Christian male.

Many, most if not all these terror events have some connection to Islam. I wonder about the meaning of such connections. I wonder about the causation of the events and the role of other, political mainly but also possibly social and economic, issues. How to deal with this? Information. Respect. Engagement. The alternatives are to horrible to contemplate.

Allow me to wonder, again, why is it that calls for "Information. Respect. Engagement." are almost universally directed (whether by Westerners or Muslims) at the West?

It seems like an acknowledgment that Western culture is (relatively, at least) more capable of accommodating foreign notions, and it is somehow implied that this attribute makes it the responsibility of the West to make head-ways toward Muslims. Another thing implied is that these attempts are not being made, or that efforts made are not enough. Accepting immigrants and refugees would seem like an indication of good intentions to begin with. Allowances made to cultural, social and religious needs are way beyond anything on offer elsewhere in the world. What exactly is missing? Were other immigrant communities afforded better attitudes and conditions?

It is not that there are no instances of the "Information. Respect. Engagement." approach among Muslims, mostly to do with those living in Western countries. But can these be said to be a true representation of their communities? Would "Information. Respect. Engagement." be an accurate description of general Muslim attitudes?

One response could be to follow the idea of the 'moral high ground' but this could be dangerous and bring up issues of cultural and moral equivalency with which I am not equipped to deal. Plus it is possibly a little pompous.

I was exploring the issue of separating legitimate commentary from the general noise of hate speech against Muslims and my focus is on how to 'deal' with muslim populations resident in Western liberal democracies. I don't touch on immigration as I don't think it appropriate on this type of thread. But anti-muslim sentiment is rife. So my issue is the practicality of what to do with those migrant muslim populations that already reside in our home countries. I do not subscribe to the kill them all school of non thinking. Nor with the send them all back him mob who ridiculously ignore the fact that the terrorists in Paris were French nationals.

So how to adopt a liberal approach to living with muslim immigrant populations or their descendants? Information. Respect. Engagement. I propose these as practical strategies. I am extremely proud of Australian culture. But I am not a chauvinist and I don't believe assimilation is a one way street. Bot the host and immigrant culture changes through engagement. This is my experience anyway with how multiculturalism in Australia has worked and been quite successful.

So my thoughts are mere suggestions for strategies to address the integration issue. It need not require people to subjugate themselves to others or give up closely held ideals and principles but it may provide some way of allowing different people with different ideals to live together.

As posted elsewhere, my doubts are not with regard to the merit of finding ways for communities to reach better understanding and harmony through dialogue. Obviously, there are elements which could be engaged and reasoned with.

The issues are more to do with how representative these elements are, and how much sociopolitical weight they carry. There could be different takes on that, and even if these voices do not represent a widely accepted attitude of "Information. Respect. Engagement." it does not mean that efforts should be dropped. Nurturing and supporting whatever forces of reason existing is worthwhile in itself. But it needs to be said that information is not very likely to be publicly available in communities that resist criticism and free speech, respect denied when not reciprocated, and that engagement requires willing partners.

In short, while the notion presented is worthy enough, it seems to ignore that "Information. Respect. Engagement." works if it is indeed a two-way street. Directing the burden of appeals for acceptance and accommodation toward one party, which is already exhibiting these attitudes to a greater degree does not always sound reasonable.

Rather than "how to adopt a liberal approach to living with Muslim immigrant populations or their descendants?" shouldn't it be Muslims immigrant populations (or their descendants) be the ones making greater efforts to live with the native population?

My attention was mainly taken by your last comment, so let me respond bottom up.

If an immigrant population lives within the confines of the law of the host country, what further requirement is there for them to 'fit in'? Politically driven emigration has a long history from the Huguenots to UK, North America and South Africa to the 17th & 18th Century; the Puritans to North America in the 17th C; and the German Lutherans to my home state of South Australia in the 1830's. These immigrants specifically wanted to find a new home to worship and live according to their traditions. Clearly beyond the first generation, these immigrants were changed by their new environment but they also made significant impacts on their host culture from the 'Puritan Work Ethic' and industrial might of north east US in 19th Century to the world class wines from Penfolds and other wineries from the Barossa Valley made from grapes first cultivated by the Germans. This requirement to fit in seems to only be required of the muslim populations. Other ethnic ghettoes became tourist attractions or food destinations over time but it is the muslim populations that have to change their habits.

I wonder what 'fit in' means? Is it limited to the superficial like clothing? For some this is a big issue. Or is it more integral like having to adopt the symbols and traditions of their host country as their own. Surely this is down to individual choice? If the clothing or dietary choices or ideological principles of the immigrant populations are confrontational to the host population, then this is more an issue for the host populations to to deal with since the immigrant populations surely have the right to their beliefs and practices as long as they act within the law.

It is interesting that we look at the concept of Information from diametrically opposed points of view. My view on this issue is the need for non Muslims to have more credible information about Muslim beliefs and practices if they want to engage appropriately with Muslim populations. A bunch of posters on these threads talk a lot about Muslim beliefs and practices and quote scriptures. With few exceptions, I pay very little attention to this. I doubt the credibility and certainly the motivation behind the information they provide. You see the word applying to the need for the Muslim populations to allow the free exchange of ideas in what you view as an intellectually hidebound culture. You may well be right although it is dangerous to generalise and stereotype and I do not disagree with your point of view. I think it strengthens my choice of Information as a relevant strategy.

Finally you make statements about engagement and ask whether the people with whom you engage are the right ones to facilitate change. I think experience has shown that integration is both a formal and informal process. Researching the immigration of people from the Caribbean to the UK post WWII, I saw that proactive government programs were required to address the racial and socio-economic issues generated by this immigration. So your point is well taken when it comes to formal, policy driven initiatives to facilitate integration and acceptance. It is on this point that I was actually reflecting when I proposed the words Respect and Engagement. If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them. Again, I come back to my initial comment on what is required to fit in? Are they allowed to eat their food in their homes as long as they wear 'normal' clothes outside? Are they allowed to follow their religion as long as they don't build their mosques too high?

The word radicalisation is used a lot these days to refer to the creation of terrorists. I think there are many elements to this concept. Host populations confusing the idea of integration with assimilation and the expression of resentment when this does not happen in the manner or timescale desired may well be a contributing factor. Are we not seeing some of these 'home grown' terrorists coming from the 2nd generation of immigrants? Clearly there are some failures. To me the marginalisation of immigrant populations that have been unable to integrate into an underclass is a contributing factor in radicalisation. To me that is an outcome of the Assimilationist Approach. The American Melting Pot ideal I think is fixed in time and place and its time has long passed.

[Credo]

According to former German secretary of state, Mr Schäuble, terrorists were *produced* by the US in Guantanamo, tthat's why Germany refused to take some converts from there.

And, yes, from my very personal experience I can confirm that:

Once you experience you are in a terroristic situation, you become a terrorist yourself if you get in contact with your enemy.

I think the people that were sent to Guantanamo had been in contact with terrorists prior to their incarceration. You seem to want to derail this topic and take it in a different direction. I hope the Mod's are noticing.

I'm posting about the ice-cold logic of terrorism.

Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong, I'm far from being perfect. But don't hide behind authorities again.

I am talking about ice-cold facts. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims, maybe millions, have been allowed to settle in countless countries. They have been welcomed. They have been allowed to build their Mosques, in most places they can wear their religiously-related garb, they can celebrate their holidays. They can integrate or they can segregate.

Has that strategy worked?

It would appear that in more and more places, it hasn't.

When we treat them with respect and tolerance they view it as weakness. When we treat them with the same violence that they mete out it is their excuse for terrorism.

It seems that there is only one group that is losing and it isn't Islam.

[Kitsune]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

Charlie survivors disagree with you

[micmichd]

According to former German secretary of state, Mr Schäuble, terrorists were *produced* by the US in Guantanamo, tthat's why Germany refused to take some converts from there.

And, yes, from my very personal experience I can confirm that:

Once you experience you are in a terroristic situation, you become a terrorist yourself if you get in contact with your enemy.

I think the people that were sent to Guantanamo had been in contact with terrorists prior to their incarceration. You seem to want to derail this topic and take it in a different direction. I hope the Mod's are noticing.

I'm posting about the ice-cold logic of terrorism.

Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong, I'm far from being perfect. But don't hide behind authorities again.

I am talking about ice-cold facts. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims, maybe millions, have been allowed to settle in countless countries. They have been welcomed. They have been allowed to build their Mosques, in most places they can wear their religiously-related garb, they can celebrate their holidays. They can integrate or they can segregate.

Has that strategy worked?

It would appear that in more and more places, it hasn't.

When we treat them with respect and tolerance they view it as weakness. When we treat them with the same violence that they mete out it is their excuse for terrorism.

It seems that there is only one group that is losing and it isn't Islam.

Disagree. Islam would lose, too, when treated with suspicion in Europe or bombed in Muslim countries.

Islam would win if liberal. And don't tell it's impossible. Take Damaskus as an example that liberal Islam is possible.

[Kitsune]

I worked in colleges in France as a teacher.

And I maintain, education money is not well used at all.

We as teachers are becoming targets of incivilities, abuses and crimes.

It is now impossible to teach most schools because teachers have become the only republican port left. The parents have given up, the social services don't have the founds and the rest of society is despising them

We as teachers had to double as social workers, psychologists and parents for kids who were pretty much abandoned by everyone else.

I am not surprised some turn to Jihad

Schools are not supposed to replace parents.

Family aids, housing allowances, scholarships... are paid.

Quality social housing exists. For whatever reasons (?), after a while you'll find broken elevators, graffitis, letterboxes destroyed... and guess by who?

Healthcare is cheap and still one of the best among OECD.

BTW, I've got some of my degrees from France... and spent a number of years living / working there...

Additional note, when you immigrate to a country you've to adapt yourself to the country and its rules / customs You can not expect the host country to adapt to your "values".

You are right school should not replace parents.

But most parents are now deserting their roles as parents, it's a fact.

I am talking of social SERVICES not social BENEFITS...

NO Social services like educators, social workers, job centers, training centers, etc

and NO public services, like post offices, banks, town hall, libraries, community centers etc

Basically nothing to do, no hope to get out, or get a job

Your options are down to drug dealing, robbery, theft, and Islam.

All of the sudden the guy from Alqaida proposing you a free trip to Syria sounds cool

[Ulysses G.]

All of the sudden the guy from Alqaida proposing you a free trip to Syria sounds cool

A trip to murder innocent people and probably end up dead themselves, would never sound good to rational Westerners. Only wackos and complete losers join these groups.

[Morch]

Although extremist groups such as ISIS have supported this horrendous crime, these evil terrorist murderers do not represent the majority of Muslims and have been condemned by them.

Charlie Hebdo killings condemned by Arab states – but hailed online by extremists

Saudi Arabia called it a “cowardly terrorist attack that was rejected by the true Islamic religion”. The Arab League and Egypt’s al-Azhar university – the leading theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world – also denounced the incident in which masked gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar” – “god is great ” in Arabic.

Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria and Qatar all issued similar statements......

The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, which represents more than 250 Muslim organisations across the country, condemned the killings. Tariq Ramadan, a leading Muslim thinker, commented: “It is not the prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted.”

Moderate Muslims Use #JeSuisCharlie To Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack In Paris

“Each time a terrorist atrocity takes place, the condemnations of Muslim mainstream figures are barely registered,” Hellyer said, pointing to recent statements by the Mufti Emeritus of Bosnia, French Muslim leaders, the Azhar University and Muslim public intellectuals who have condemned the attacks.

"And yet we're still doing stories about ‘Are moderate Muslims speaking out?’” Hellyer said.

Not in our name – Muslims respond in revulsion to Charlie Hebdo massacre

The Muslim Council of France, and of Britain, have denounced today’s attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo. The imam of the mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, has said:

“This is a thunderous declaration of war. The times have changed. We’re entering a new phase of this confrontation… we are horrified by the brutality and the savagery”

But Muslims don’t need imams - or ‘community leaders’ – to speak for them – they can do it for themselves. Here are some of the denunciations on Twitter..........

Paris Murders are a Greater Insult to Islam: Muslim Council of Britain Statement on Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Muslim Council of Britain Express Solidarity With Jewish Community After Paris Kosher Supermarket Deaths

Of course, those whose closed minds tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush will no doubt, yet again, call me an 'apologist for terrorists' for posting this, even though I have never sought to defend or apologise for any act of terrorism, no matter who commits it.

But that is the only reaction these people can come up with when confronted with facts which don't suit their prejudice.

I have posted a similar list earlier, so not contesting that there are were and are official statements from Muslim organizations and heads of state condemning the attack.

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

There are instances when the above happens, but there is a disparity of numbers showing up for similar occasions to do with protesting (real or imagined) wrongdoing against Islam or Muslims. This could be attributed to many factors, non of which shed a very favorable light on the issue.

[Ulysses G.]

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

Of course. Certain posters keep trying to claim that small numbers of Muslims condemning these terrorists attacks represent the majority, but I just don't buy that. In fact, I wonder how many of them do it only for political reasons and don't even mean it - although, some do, of course.

I would compare them to many posters on Thai Visa who constantly make excuses and rationalizations for the acts of Islamic terrorist groups, but are careful to always throw in a disclaimer about how they do not support terrorism. Frankly, after reading their posts every day, I am very suspicious about their sincerity.

[micmichd]

All of the sudden the guy from Alqaida proposing you a free trip to Syria sounds cool

A trip to murder innocent people and probably end up dead themselves, would never sound good to rational Westerners. Only wackos and complete losers join these groups.

Sorry I feel addressed. I'm not from Al Qaida, I'm not even Moslem, but I'm extremely liberal.

I've been to the liberal Muslim cities, Beirut and Damaskus, before wars turned them over to become what they are today. I hope the spirit of liberalism is still alive there.

I'm already thinking of new challenges to come. I'm a structuralistic cultural anthropologist (besides other qualifications), that's why I appear to be so cynical.

From several field studies I know the darkest sides of society, including total institutions like jail and asylum, from the inside. And I'm a programmer for epidemiological models and statistics. So, I know what I'm talking about.

I am also an anarchist like the people from Charlie Hebdo, in fact I know some of their friends in Paris and Berlin. And I hate to see liberalism going down by paranoia. I've already experienced the consequently next stage of paranoia, where nobody wanted it to happen, nobody feels personally responsible, yet it happens - unless someone starts intervention. I have committed myself to be among the ones to start up. I'm talking about social suicide by HIV.

[micmichd]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.

Ethics are beyond that.

[Ulysses G.]

All of the sudden the guy from Alqaida proposing you a free trip to Syria sounds cool

A trip to murder innocent people and probably end up dead themselves, would never sound good to rational Westerners. Only wackos and complete losers join these groups.

Sorry I feel addressed.

Why? You are not addressing my post in anyway that I can figure out. Why did you quote from it?

[alanrchase]

So if I understand you correctly you want "yes men" who never question your views. Anyone who has the audacity to take a different path to a solution for the problem from you is obviously an "apologist". Where can I sign up to live in your utopia?

[Ulysses G.]

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? It would be nice if some posters started addressing something that someone actually said (and perhaps provide a quote that indicates the subject).

Edited January 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[alanrchase]

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? It would be nice if some posters started addressing something that someone actually said (and perhaps provide a quote that indicates the subject).

Talking to you. Quote did not attach.

[Morch]

7by7

Who is interested in moderate Muslims? It is the 25 per cent that hate everything and they need to be put down

Where do you get that 25% from?

Approximately 1.57 billion people worldwide are Muslim.

Are you seriously suggesting that 392.5 million of them are terrorist murderers or supporters of same?

It is important for people to realise that the vast majority of Muslims no more support terrorism than you or I.

This is because marginalising ordinary Muslims, demonising them, attacking them for the crimes committed by the terrorists will only radicalise more of them; especially among the young living in the West; as can be seen by those misguided youths from Europe traveling to join ISIS.

Do you really want to act as a recruiting sergeant for ISIS?

I'll start by saying that I haven't got a clear idea of how many Muslims are terrorists or support Muslim terrorism. Of "evidence" presented, it can be said that most assessments are crude and, to a degree, reflect a bias, one way or the other. Opinion poles are also somewhat suspect, as they are quite easy to be faulted for phrasing and cultural differences.

So while repeated assurances that "they are not the majority" are probably correct, this is hardly the claim that needs to be countered. A dedicated minority can trump a passive majority. Furthermore, things are probably not as clear cut as that - there are many ways to express support, sympathy, approval and the like. People may be for one thing, but not for the other and so on and so forth. Not necessarily a state of dichotomy with pro/con terrorism being the only options and only shades existing. So when something like "Are you seriously suggesting that 392.5 million of them are terrorist murderers or supporters of same?" is brought up, might as well retort with "are you seriously suggesting that 1.175 billion of them are humanistic pacifists...etc?".

Excuse me if I do not buy into that as well. IMO, most references to this question are either based on unreliable assessments, posters anecdotal experience and sheer bias (all cut both ways).

What is considered as "radicalizing" for ordinary Muslims? Relating that there are terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims? Ignoring that there are Muslim institutions and leaders facilitating this? We do not talk about Fight Club. Right.

Now lets see how this works the other way around, non-Muslims are attacked, some of the are even being attacked for crimes of other non-Muslims, they are being demonized ("Racists!","Bigots!", "Islamophobes"), and marginalized (criminally, politically and socially). Keeping at it will only "radicalize" more of them etc......do you really want to act as a recruitment sergeant for UKIP?

There were and there are many immigrants in Europe who did not turn to terrorism even after being attacked, demonized and marginalized. How come suddenly signing up with IS (or the current flavor of the month terrorist outfit) became a default option?

[Ulysses G.]

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? It would be nice if some posters started addressing something that someone actually said (and perhaps provide a quote that indicates the subject).

Talking to you. Quote did not attach.

What are you talking about? I have many posts on this thread and don't know which one you are referring to.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[mrtoad]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.

Ethics are beyond that.

Its not a disease. Its also not in either the DSM.or ICD. So stop the drivel.

[alanrchase]

What I do wonder about is how much public support among Muslim communities and nations do these statements represent? Westerners are quite at home denying that their leader's statements conform to their own views (this can be evident in about any semi-political topic on TVF). Would it not be the same for Muslims?

When people feel strongly about issues, there is often a public display of their discontent - be it demonstrations, marches, strikes and what not (limiting the reference to relatively non-violent means of expression), or nowadays, social media campaigns. There is relatively less public outrage expressed by Muslims over Islam-related terrorist attacks than one could have expected, going by some of the claims repeatedly raised. If these statements indeed represent a majority, then this majority either feels less than directly involved or threatened, is either passive or restricted in its reactions.

Of course. Certain posters keep trying to claim that small numbers of Muslims condemning these terrorists attacks represent the majority, but I just don't buy that. In fact, I wonder how many of them do it only for political reasons and don't even mean it - although, some do, of course.

I would compare them to many posters on Thai Visa who constantly make excuses and rationalizations for the acts of Islamic terrorist groups, but are careful to always throw in a disclaimer about how they do not support terrorism. Frankly, after reading their posts every day, I am very suspicious about their sincerity.

Yes, you do have many posts, your view is the same in them all. The above quote is the one I was referring to. Apologies for any confusion.

[canuckamuck]

12 people murdered by radical muslims. Whatever race or religion they were. It is another hate filled attack by muslims against the West. No other way of dressing it up.

Charlie survivors disagree with you

So you are asserting that the survivors know the motivation behind the attacks, and it wasn't about religion?

Do you think that if we had the power to bring the terrorists back to life and ask them questions in a condition where they were incapable of lying. Do you think they would tell you that this was not about religion? That this wasn't about hatred of western freedoms, born from the radical mullahs spread liberally about Europe?

[Credo]

I'll start by saying that I haven't got a clear idea of how many Muslims are terrorists or support Muslim terrorism. Of "evidence" presented, it can be said that most assessments are crude and, to a degree, reflect a bias, one way or the other. Opinion poles are also somewhat suspect, as they are quite easy to be faulted for phrasing and cultural differences.

So while repeated assurances that "they are not the majority" are probably correct, this is hardly the claim that needs to be countered. A dedicated minority can trump a passive majority. Furthermore, things are probably not as clear cut as that - there are many ways to express support, sympathy, approval and the like. People may be for one thing, but not for the other and so on and so forth. Not necessarily a state of dichotomy with pro/con terrorism being the only options and only shades existing. So when something like "Are you seriously suggesting that 392.5 million of them are terrorist murderers or supporters of same?" is brought up, might as well retort with "are you seriously suggesting that 1.175 billion of them are humanistic pacifists...etc?".

Excuse me if I do not buy into that as well. IMO, most references to this question are either based on unreliable assessments, posters anecdotal experience and sheer bias (all cut both ways).

What is considered as "radicalizing" for ordinary Muslims? Relating that there are terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims? Ignoring that there are Muslim institutions and leaders facilitating this? We do not talk about Fight Club. Right.

Now lets see how this works the other way around, non-Muslims are attacked, some of the are even being attacked for crimes of other non-Muslims, they are being demonized ("Racists!","Bigots!", "Islamophobes"), and marginalized (criminally, politically and socially). Keeping at it will only "radicalize" more of them etc......do you really want to act as a recruitment sergeant for UKIP?

There were and there are many immigrants in Europe who did not turn to terrorism even after being attacked, demonized and marginalized. How come suddenly signing up with IS (or the current flavor of the month terrorist outfit) became a default option?

I have quite a few Muslim friends and a lot of them do support terrorism. The situation is that they only support terrorism against whom they perceive as their enemy. Most of them aren't very political, so they didn't support the 9/11 attacks or the British bombings. They do support terror attacks on Israel and on Jews. They also support terrorist attacks against Shiite Muslims and Mosques.

These are people who are relatively moderate in their religious practices. Personally, they would not be involved in terrorism. They just don't see anything wrong with these things happening to their enemies.

How many are like that, I don't know, but I suspect a lot.

[7by7]

Anjem Choudary . . .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips

Ah but it is constantly rammed down our throats people like him are not true muslims.

Do "True" Muslims hate this man as well, and disagree with his "interpretation" of their religion?

I hope so.

two examples from the UK

Muslims against Anjem Choudary

Muslims criticise BBC interview with preacher linked to soldier's killer

Also elsewhere; for example from Few would shed tears if Britain barred Anjem Choudary from returning

Choudary plans to hold his conference – ‘Shariah for Pakistan’ – at the Red Mosque in Islamabad.......the ultra-conservative authorities of the mosque have now sought to distance themselves from Choudary. A spokesman told Pakistan’s The News:

"The whole mosque administration condemns the inflammatory statements used by this group, clearly seeking publicity. We are not aware of any conference in the mosque on 30th November and it’s for the government of Pakistan to take action [against] anyone who enters Pakistan."

The mosque’s leader also described Choudary’s views as ‘wrong’ and argued ‘people like him create problems for Muslims in Europe and Pakistan.’

Choudary and people like him no more represent Muslims than people like Pamela Gellar represent non Muslims.

In fact. they're the same; spreading hate and discord to feed their pathetic need for publicity.

In itself, not a problem. The problem comes when these people attract followers; virtually all of whom come from from the low intelligent, gullible and those with such low self esteem they feel in need of a cause and leader to follow.

[micmichd]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.

Ethics are beyond that.

Its not a disease. Its also not in either the DSM.or ICD. So stop the drivel.

It's ICD F30, religious mania.

[mrtoad]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.

Ethics are beyond that.

Its not a disease. Its also not in either the DSM.or ICD. So stop the drivel.

It's ICD F30, religious mania.

Thanks for proving you are full of BS.

[7by7]

Imagine...inviting these "people" in to a liberal country, then having them setup independent sectors within that country that are governed by radical laws. (Sharia).

This is increasing...exponentially.

So in which country is that happening? It's certainly not happening in any European one; where those who try to impose Sharia law are arrested and suitably punished; in the UK, for example, by imprisonment.

Additionally, they still say we are stifling their religion....by grouping "Normal" muslims with "Weirdo" type muslims.

Eh?

Where do they say that?

Many Muslims do say that they are not terrorists and do not support terrorists. Is that what you mean?

[Ulysses G.]

Of course. Certain posters keep trying to claim that small numbers of Muslims condemning these terrorists attacks represent the majority, but I just don't buy that. In fact, I wonder how many of them do it only for political reasons and don't even mean it - although, some do, of course.

I would compare them to many posters on Thai Visa who constantly make excuses and rationalizations for the acts of Islamic terrorist groups, but are careful to always throw in a disclaimer about how they do not support terrorism. Frankly, after reading their posts every day, I am very suspicious about their sincerity.

Yes, you do have many posts, your view is the same in them all. The above quote is the one I was referring to. Apologies for any confusion.

I'm not really sure what your complaint is. You said that I want everyone to agree with my views and - on certain subjects - you are correct. I think that the post that you were addressing illustrates this pretty well.

I think that a lot of Muslims are not honest about supporting radical Islam and make claims that they don't mean, for political reasons. I also feel that a lot of posters on TV are dishonest about radical Islam and a lot more don't know much about it, but act like they do. To me, not challenging these people's erroneous information, false claims and their sincerity is a big mistake.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[alanrchase]

Of course. Certain posters keep trying to claim that small numbers of Muslims condemning these terrorists attacks represent the majority, but I just don't buy that. In fact, I wonder how many of them do it only for political reasons and don't even mean it - although, some do, of course.

I would compare them to many posters on Thai Visa who constantly make excuses and rationalizations for the acts of Islamic terrorist groups, but are careful to always throw in a disclaimer about how they do not support terrorism. Frankly, after reading their posts every day, I am very suspicious about their sincerity.

Yes, you do have many posts, your view is the same in them all. The above quote is the one I was referring to. Apologies for any confusion.

I'm not really sure what your complaint is. You said that I want everyone to agree with my views and - on certain subjects - you are correct. I think that the post that you were addressing illustrates this pretty well.

I think that a lot of Muslims are not honest about supporting radical Islam and make claim that they don't for political reasons that they don't really mean. I also feel that a lot of posters on TV are dishonest about radical Islam and a lot more don't know much about it, but act like they do. To me, not challenging these people's sincerity is a big mistake.

Yes.

[dragonfly94]

Choudary and people like him no more represent Muslims than people like Pamela Gellar represent non Muslims.

In fact. they're the same; spreading hate and discord to feed their pathetic need for publicity.

In itself, not a problem. The problem comes when these people attract followers; virtually all of whom come from from the low intelligent, gullible and those with such low self esteem they feel in need of a cause and leader to follow.

Rubbish, the problem came when the prophet attracted followers and when they spread his idioctic violent and intolerant nonsense belief system throughout the middle east and north Africa, and onto today. Choudary is at least not a hypocrite and a true follower of the prophet who exemplifies the real nature of Islam. Will you denounce the violence preached in the koran or not, forget your obsession with Biblical 'facts' some of which you make up, the subject is Islam and how it creates so much misery and death all over the world. You cannot get away with labeling it's followers, nutters, lone wolfs and of low intelligence. It's Islam which is the problem and it's Islam which needs to be taken down.

[micmichd]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.

Ethics are beyond that.

Its not a disease. Its also not in either the DSM.or ICD. So stop the drivel.

It's ICD F30, religious mania.

Thanks for proving you are full of BS.

I've been asked, so I tell.

That does not mean that I give psychiatrists a right to judge political issues, in fact I fight this. According to ICD, I would be a liberal manic, which raises the question: Is liberalism a mental disease?

And if it is: is terrorism a cure?

I'm keen to read your answers.

[mrtoad]

Sorry, terrorism is not a question of personal belief. It's a sociopolitical disease and can spread without intention. Very hard to escape a contagious disease that can even be spread via Internet.
Ethics are beyond that.

Its not a disease. Its also not in either the DSM.or ICD. So stop the drivel.

It's ICD F30, religious mania.

Thanks for proving you are full of BS.

I've been asked, so I tell.
That does not mean that I give psychiatrists a right to judge political issues, in fact I fight this. According to ICD, I would be a liberal manic, which raises the question: Is liberalism a mental disease?
And if it is: is terrorism a cure?

I'm keen to read your answers.

No, that is your interpretation. Nice try at trying to look smart.

However, I am sure you can book an appointment for an assesement with a suitable professional.

[micmichd]

mrtoad, do you really believe I would dare to accuse a whole profession that could lock me up in asylum if I wouldn't already have an expertise on my mental state?

Edited January 11, 2015 by micmichd