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

[Morch]

This is political theatre not to be taken seriously. A real journalist or a more talented interviewer would have picked Choudary apart. Hannity is a blunt, unsubtle instrument in the manufactured culture wars, pretty much confined to the US context. This is meant to drive ratings and income for the corporation behind this media outlet.

Rushdie started to talk about this on Bill Maher's Real Time the other day. I listen to Salman Rushdie. He has been engaged deeply on these issues for a long time.

Choudary is difficult to listen to but basically a provocateur. The trick is to not be provoked. If you believe in free speech, then you have to let him speak. People like this have little moderation. If you have well crafted laws and strong institutions, generally you can give them enough rope to hang themselves. If they stray into hate speech or actual incitement of actions to aid and support terrorist activities then you can get them. Just like Abu Hamza.

Could a non-Muslim carry on like Choudary and get away with it in the UK?

Is there an equivalent non-Muslim minority figure going on in the same style and getting away with it?

How would either of the above fare in any Muslim country if trying something of the sort?

It would not be allowed. But isn't that the great thing about Western democracies? Free speech.

It is allowed; you only have to look at the activities of people like Tommy Robinson and Pat Condell to see that!

Yes, free speech is one of the cornerstones of Western democracy.

"I abhor what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." (Original source unknown, but often attributed to Voltaire.)

*posts removed to allow reply*

As much as I am not a fan of Pat Condell, do you actually believe that his clips are anything close to Choudary's level?

Or this? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paris-shootings-british-hate-preachers-4957281#rlabs=1 Or Hamza?

Just wondering if we could get some perspective here.

[F430murci]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

[F430murci]

Fact is, it is time to stand up for what you believe and the peace and well being of your country and reject all of this PC bs designed to make you feel ashamed for believing in what's right.

Edited January 11, 2015 by F430murci

[alanrchase]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

So "black on black " does not impact you so no problem there?

[F430murci]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

So "black on black " does not impact you so no problem there?

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

[alanrchase]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

So "black on black " does not impact you so no problem there?

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

Ah, the grow some statement. No agenda whatsoever. No word games. Serious solution suggestions would be nice. Round them up and deport them? Wonderful. I can't think of a viable solution but if you can please educate me.

[micmichd]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

You mean you lock yourself up in a room, and then you feel secure?

What about freedom to move, freedom to learn, freedom to travel?

Yas, and freedom to love or hate?

[F430murci]

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

Ah, the grow some statement. No agenda whatsoever. No word games. Serious solution suggestions would be nice. Round them up and deport them? Wonderful. I can't think of a viable solution but if you can please educate me.

Lol, be helpful if you learned how to use quotes.

Not up to me to solve the world's problems. No matter what we do, certain races/cultures will never integrate into our society. No go zones, are you fricken kidding me! There is no solution. We are flexible, but Muslims are not and frankly . . . there is a ibg trust issue now that people have to put on the table and acknowledge rather than being all PC about it. Seriously, even these so called peaceful Muslims living under the so called religion of peace, Islam, still find it necessary to be divisive and create their own little countries inside their host countries.

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country. Economically, they are drain. Socially, they cause disruption. Politically, they create divisiveness. Culturally, they create fear and unwarranted guilt. Moreover, how much money does it costs our governments to try and keep tabs on these folks to try and stop terrorist acts. Its time to cut our loses, tighten visa requirements and put our foots down. This PC stuff is nothing but a losing proposition going forward and I think we are starting to realize this.

[F430murci]

Sorry, but you are barely coherent.

US has taken desperate measures to protect its homeland in the wake of 911. National security is our top priority. If not kept in check, we see crap like Boko Haram, ISIS, Syria and etc. and we need to do whatever is in our power to keep that crap off US streets.

barely - but answer me this "my man" why do you allow terrorism on a scale much larger to exist on your own doorstep?

I'm not going to lecture you on US gun crime you know the statistics.. but you'll fight tooth and nail to keep your "amendments" even if that means you children get terrorised but other children.

Because life is not fair and we should do whatever we can to preserve out country's safety and security. My children are not terrorized and live great lives.

US gun crime impacts inner cities and minorities way more than it impacts me. I never lock my doors to my home and live in peace.

Black on black gang or drug violence does not involve blowing up buses, train stations, subway stations, marathons or flying planes into buildings full of innocent women and children Yep, Islam terrorist are the most vile scourge in the planet and should be eradicated at all cost if necessary to preserve national security.

You mean you lock yourself up in a room, and then you feel secure?

What about freedom to move, freedom to learn, freedom to travel?

Yas, and freedom to love or hate?

Uhm, what are you talking about. Lock myself in a room. I said I never lock my doors. I travel to Russia and Thailand once a year. I am in Bali 3 to 6 times a year. I surf in Puerto Rico and Costa Rica very frequently. I go to South Africa at least once every two years. Regarding learning, I have done quit well there as far as education, as have my children. Not sure what you are trying to say.

[alanrchase]

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

Ah, the grow some statement. No agenda whatsoever. No word games. Serious solution suggestions would be nice. Round them up and deport them? Wonderful. I can't think of a viable solution but if you can please educate me.

Lol, be helpful if you learned how to use quotes.

Not up to me to solve the world's problems. No matter what we do, certain races/cultures will never integrate into our society. No go zones, are you fricken kidding me! There is no solution. We are flexible, but Muslims are not and frankly . . . there is a ibg trust issue now that people have to put on the table and acknowledge rather than being all PC about it. Seriously, even these so called peaceful Muslims living under the so called religion of peace, Islam, still find it necessary to be divisive and create their own little countries inside their host countries.

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country. Economically, they are drain. Socially, they cause disruption. Politically, they create divisiveness. Culturally, they create fear and unwarranted guilt. Moreover, how much money does it costs our governments to try and keep tabs on these folks to try and stop terrorist acts. Its time to cut our loses, tighten visa requirements and put our foots down. This PC stuff is nothing but a losing proposition going forward and I think we are starting to realize this.

Sorry for messing up with a quote earlier, thanks for pointing it out.

Never mentioned no go zones. Keep up the good work.

[micmichd]

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

Ah, the grow some statement. No agenda whatsoever. No word games. Serious solution suggestions would be nice. Round them up and deport them? Wonderful. I can't think of a viable solution but if you can please educate me.

Lol, be helpful if you learned how to use quotes.

Not up to me to solve the world's problems. No matter what we do, certain races/cultures will never integrate into our society. No go zones, are you fricken kidding me! There is no solution. We are flexible, but Muslims are not and frankly . . . there is a ibg trust issue now that people have to put on the table and acknowledge rather than being all PC about it. Seriously, even these so called peaceful Muslims living under the so called religion of peace, Islam, still find it necessary to be divisive and create their own little countries inside their host countries.

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country. Economically, they are drain. Socially, they cause disruption. Politically, they create divisiveness. Culturally, they create fear and unwarranted guilt. Moreover, how much money does it costs our governments to try and keep tabs on these folks to try and stop terrorist acts. Its time to cut our loses, tighten visa requirements and put our foots down. This PC stuff is nothing but a losing proposition going forward and I think we are starting to realize this.

You're annoying. "These nutters" work for your welfare, quite contrary to your expenditures on warfare.

I would extend the "one human one vote" principle to the children in your country, most of them which you would probably call "baby nutters"

[F430murci]

Look, you clearly have an agenda, but you try to act all coy and innocent about it in a sissy and manipulative way. Grow some cojones and say what is your mind instead of being all wussy about it.

I can not solve any of societies problem and I have spoken out on black and black and gun violence many times on her. I was just responding to a post that is trying to insinuate we should not be worried about Islamic terrorists when guns and back on black violence are more prevalent here.

You guys try to play games with words and ideology solely for the purpose of misdirection and trying to persuade the US and people like myself from being sick and tired of Islamic nut cases that candidly cannot integrate with a normal society, hence the need for no go zones.

Ah, the grow some statement. No agenda whatsoever. No word games. Serious solution suggestions would be nice. Round them up and deport them? Wonderful. I can't think of a viable solution but if you can please educate me.

Lol, be helpful if you learned how to use quotes.

Not up to me to solve the world's problems. No matter what we do, certain races/cultures will never integrate into our society. No go zones, are you fricken kidding me! There is no solution. We are flexible, but Muslims are not and frankly . . . there is a ibg trust issue now that people have to put on the table and acknowledge rather than being all PC about it. Seriously, even these so called peaceful Muslims living under the so called religion of peace, Islam, still find it necessary to be divisive and create their own little countries inside their host countries.

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country. Economically, they are drain. Socially, they cause disruption. Politically, they create divisiveness. Culturally, they create fear and unwarranted guilt. Moreover, how much money does it costs our governments to try and keep tabs on these folks to try and stop terrorist acts. Its time to cut our loses, tighten visa requirements and put our foots down. This PC stuff is nothing but a losing proposition going forward and I think we are starting to realize this.

You're annoying. "These nutters" work for your welfare, quite contrary to your expenditures on warfare.

I would extend the "one human one vote" principle to the children in your country, most of them which you would probably call "baby nutters"

Lol, I am sure being annoying is adequate grounds to kill me for a lot of Muslims . . . Kind if like the poor porn girl getting death threats.

If the shoe fits . . . Anyone that kills or threatens to kill a woman or throw acid in her face, be it out if honor or jealousy, meets the definition of nutter.

Please, please explain how Muslims work for my welfare. What percentage of Muslim refugees get government assistance and why the heck should they receive it in the first place?

[F430murci]

Religion has a strong binding effect, but other institutions (eg labour unions) have it, too.

Give people good jobs so they can stand on their own feet. It's not the final solution to it all, but it helps a lot.

Just saying, from a liberal country with very low unemployment.

Give people " good jobs"? Give, give, give. How about go to school, get off your lazy butts, apply for jobs, work hard to become successful and work your way up the ladder.

What good is a Union? To pay someone an inflated income that provides very little benefit to a company? Are companies just supposed to open their check books to individuals with little education, little skills and that provide little or no benefit to the company?

Lets see. Fail in your own country. Go to new country. Expect hand outs. Expect companies in new country to give a "good job" that one could apparently not get in their own country. Expect Union to ensures they get paid more than they are worth.

Anyhow, somehow I doubt employment status has anything to do with the actions of these terrorists so its a moot point anyway.

[F430murci]

Lol. sorry. I am getting cranky. I am so sick and tired of seeing good, hard working, nice and innocent people harmed by people that are just evil and those same evil people want to blame the innocents for they harm that they perpetrate. Then we have this lunatic brigade that tries to make us who are sick and tired of the terrorist actions feel guilty about out frustrations. Excuse me.

Cops gunned down in the streets. Innocent people gunned down in markets. Good hardworking cartoonists perhaps sending a message that we all need to stop taking ourselves so dang seriously gunned down . . . and then its somehow their or our fault because we are unfair, we didn't give them "good jobs" or whatever the excuse du jour may be.

[Rooo]

Inappropriate posts removed.

[H1w4yR1da]

You're annoying. "These nutters" work for your welfare

I wonder whether the families of the victims of the attacks in Paris would agree?

[Mosha]

Make of this what you will

British hate preacher Mizanur Rahman’s sick sermon backing jihadists hours after the Paris bloodbath could be a driving force for further killings, an expert has warned.

In a speech to a London audience, and streamed online to thousands of followers, Rahman ranted “Britain is the enemy of Islam” and defended the slaughter of the 12 Charlie Hebdo victims.

He later said: “Insulting Islam... they can’t expect a different result.”

Critics have called for an urgent probe into Rahman, now on police bail after he and others were arrested last year on ­suspicion of terror offences.

He tells followers in the video: “Clearly what happened in France is a war. These cartoons is part of their own war, is part of the pyschological warfare.

"You can’t have that attitude. You know what happens when you insult Muhammad.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paris-shootings-british-hate-preachers-4957281#rlabs=1

People like him need silencing permanently..

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

Off topic posts and replies have been removed as well.

[canman]

Make of this what you will.

Next the MSM will be calling them freedom fighters

CNN's Christiane Amanpour Calls Charlie Hebdo Terrorists 'Activists'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/10/cnns-christiane-amanpour-calls-charlie-hebdo-murderers-activists

[Morch]

*posts removed to allow reply*

Well, one would have to swallow the implication that there were no issues at all with Muslim immigrant communities and them confines of the law. Taking the latest duo of law abiding citizens as representing the whole of Muslims immigrant communities is naturally misguided. Taking them as representing an element of Muslim immigrant communities, is not. We could then go on into debate regarding the role this element plays within Muslim immigrant communities and its effect on the relationship with the host majority. I would venture that this role is being downplayed - by certain media outlets, political interest groups, and by Muslims as well.

Obeying the laws of the land is indeed a minimal requirement for "fitting in". The same applies to changes regarding dress code and culinary choices. There would be instances where these would collide with host culture, and if a satisfactory solution which allows the minority to uphold its traditions without infringing on the host culture and rules - more power to both. The issues are more evident when "not fitting in" is involved - hanging on to cultural practices and traditions which are at odds with the host's, or attempting to limit host population freedoms and rights in favor of minority cultural practices will lead to friction. These attempts need not even be successful in order to cause issues, merely repeated and offensive. Muslims are not required nor asked to drop all of their cultural and religious ideas, just the bits that do not conform to host countries' standards of acceptable social conduct. This was something which, I believe, was applied in turn to any immigrant group.

Immigrant communities may become tourist attractions and culinary destination if and when they embrace the notion of capitalizing on their ethnicity by engaging the host population. Standoffish or isolationist communities will not fare as well on this department.

Whether a community leans toward integration or assimilation is not that important, as long as certain niceties are observed. Upholding cultural and religious traditions can be achieved (at least for some minorities) with lesser amounts of antagonism, confrontation and animosity.

I do not think that our views on the issue of information are that opposed. In agreement that many Westerners do not really know a whole lot about Islam and Muslims. This could be equally applied without much prejudice as to opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, more a general thing. On the same note, it could be said that many Muslims lack accurate information (or as some may put it - "simply don't get") regarding Western culture, practices, religions and values. The difference is that whereas I see the lack of information as being exhibited by all relevant parties, the appeal made in your post seems to be directed at Western societies.

The question of engaging Muslims goes a bit further than whether the "right people" are engaged. It is also a question regarding the general willingness exhibited by Muslims to engage Westerns in general and host populations specifically. It could be suggested that "If it is indeed true that "If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them" is a correct observation, but that it cuts both ways. There are loud voices heard against Islam and Muslims, there are loud Muslim voices against Western values and Westerners. Respect cannot be a one way street.

Immigrants, especially those coming from poorer quarters of the world, those with different appearance, and markedly different cultural habits are sometimes treated badly by officials and populations of host countries. This is not unique to Muslims, rather a sad reality worldwide. It could be said that relative to other countries (not to mention Muslim immigrants countries of origin) this is less of an issue in modern day Western countries. This is not imply that things are perfect, but offered an opinion that Muslims are not generally treated worse than other minorities (the beginning of the post may serve as a qualifying statement).

There could be many factors contributing to either "radicalization" (which could mean a whole lot of things) or "creation of terrorists" (a somewhat more straightforward concept). The whole gamut of social, economical and psychological factors could be dropped in and there will be room for more. Failures by authorities are a given as well. All this does not quite answer why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism compared with other minorities facing similar difficulties.

I agree with much of what you have written. I was clumsy in my expression to say that we were opposed on the Information issue. As you observed and what I meant was that we looked at it from opposite ends. In an attempt to find, define or describe a liberal response to the 'Muslim Question', I believe I have gone as far as I can at this stage on my original postulation of Information, Respect and Engagement for muslim migrant populations attempting to live productively and successfully within Western Liberal Democracies. But then we come to you last question of why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism? How to answer this without resorting to stereotyping?

Perhaps a start could be to look at examples of ethnic immigration in recent history and also to look at elements that cause people to turn into terrorists.

Sicilian and Calabrese immigrants to the US drew on their cultural customs to survive in a new and often hostile environment which in some cases led to the creation of organised crime that has now been largely defeated in the US through RICO legislation since the 70's and 80's. Many Irish immigrants to the US joined law enforcement. Greek and Italian immigrants to my part of Australia went into market gardening, including marijuana cultivation. From these and other examples, can you say there is a cultural bias towards how an immigrant population will act in their host country? Not all Sicilians were mafia. Not all irish were cops and not all Greeks and Italians in my home state grew dope. Plenty of cultural stereotypes are reinforced by such observations. So are all Muslim immigrants susceptible to becoming terrorists?

What is the experience with terrorism? I don't touch Northern Ireland in this discussion because I don't think you can define Northern Ireland as an ethnicity from which to draw parallels. I look at 2 examples, both of which come from the Balkans. Most people are familiar with the historic cause of WWI being generally accepted as the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. Apparently these types of nationalist terrorists were quite common in the early 20th Century and it is quite interesting to research them. I remember a movie from the 70's starring Oliver Reed on that very issue. What put an end to these types of nationalist terrorists? Clearly the First World War had an impact, but probably the Versailles Treaty and subsequent developments also contributed. The other example is from my home country where Serbian and Croat immigration in the 50's resulted in the establishment of para-military training camps to train fighters against the Yugoslav regime. This did not manifest itself in my state so much as the Eastern States. Local football (soccer) clubs were the fronts for a number of these para-military societies. What happened? Yugoslavia collapsed and the vicious Balkans War took place and we got that wonderful concept introduced to our language now of Ethnic Cleansing. But that too is now past and while not a perfect situation, the problems seem contained and systems in place seem to be operating to deal with them.

From my examples, I think that while some ethnic traits contribute to how migrant populations engage with their host country, you cannot really generalise and say that an entire culture will act in a certain way. Also that the causes of terrorism are rooted in time and place to clear political or ideological circumstances and once those circumstances changer, then the causes of such terrorism disappear.

So in answer to your question, why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency towards terrorism, I would answer that it would predominantly be the religious component. I know this would surprise many here who have hurled the apologist slur at me frequently in the past, but I do believe that Islam is an ideology that has not benefited from the rationalist, humanist and liberal experience of the West. What we are seeing are clashes between this un-reconstructed faith of the migrant population and the values of the host population. My argument is that a liberal approach allows for the illiberal aspects of Islam to be moderated to enable muslim immigrant populations to integrate (not assimilate) into host populations. Illiberal responses to the issue I think are a contributing factor to the creation of terrorists and that Muslims by nature are not more susceptible to becoming terrorists but the inability of their religion in its unreconstructed form to accommodate liberal beliefs is a contributing factor. As always there will be caveats to that view as well as other contributing factors but I do think that in this case, it is fairly obvious that the religious issue is a predominant factor in addressing your question.

Muslims come from varied ethnic background, so ethnicity would obviously not be the issue anyway. Rather, as you described, this could be attributed to a mixture of economic, social, historical, cultural and religious factors (with the last probably playing a special role).

Engaging, or attempting to engage Muslims is not futile nor a mistake. On the other hand, dogmatically clinging to liberal values (and to be clear, this is a general comment, not a personal one) seem to be somewhat off mark.

Processes whereby culture and religion evolve are lengthy, often requiring decades, generations, centuries. Engagement may speed up these processes to a degree, but expectations ought to remain realistic. Islam will not make an about face and will probably not even become visibly more moderate in our lifetimes. Advances can be made locally, or on specific issues, perhaps.

Could be wrong, but many of the claims to the effect that Muslims could be engaged with relatively swift and noticeable positive outcomes strike me as underlying assumption regarding the superiority of the liberal position vs. Islamic (or Muslim) views (and, naturally, vs. conservative views as well). Are Muslims interested in engagement? Do Muslims who are interested in engaging Western values represent significant element and influence of their societies? What does engagement mean from a Muslim point of view? It is not that I have an answer to these questions, nor do I expect them to be answered - just points to ponder.

Another thing quite often noticed when inspecting liberal views on these matters is the existence of a working assumption, which postulates that liberal humanistic values are universal, even within a multicultural framework. That apparent differences could be overcome, with views finally converging on this point of view (or close enough). Other than being both missionary and superior in nature, this is not necessarily always supported by reality. Given the time frames cited above, it could not be ruled out, but this is neither here nor there, history seen eras where different sets of values were common.

The main complaint against the liberal approach would be its apparent lack of moderation and self-criticism. Engaging Muslims is all fine and well. When it becomes the goal itself, rather than a means, things go awry. This could manifest itself by reluctance to apply some measures and actions vs. Muslim elements not interested in engagement, by overdoing PC to a point interfering with constructive criticism, by making over-allowances as overtures, and by using existing engagement efforts as fig leafs whenever things do not go according to plan.

So, by all means, engagement efforts ought to be carried out and can certainly play a positive role. This would go down much better all around if taken with a realistic approach, moderation and while allowing legitimate criticism.

[Morch]

Earlier I was watching rolling footage of this mass gathering in Paris, on al Jazzera (incidentally, the rolling news bar below it was a case of one after another news of the latest Islamist atrocity carried out somewhere across an expanse as large as from North / West Africa, Syria to Afghanistan). In Paris, call me cynical but most of it was a cringeworthy act of theatre, focused on so called 'world leaders' who allegedly cherish free expression. While 100s of 1000s of people gathered round some totem pole of 'freedom of expession' and democracy, one of the reporters mentioned that some survivors of the attack on the office were not at all impressed by the march itself, claiming that in recent days suddenly they have all these new friends who were ambigous at best or deeply against them and their work before the attack. In the make up of 'world leaders' we also saw Gulf leaders, who I am confident don't give a toss about democracy nor support the freedom of expression to mock the prophet of Islam, but were concerned with maintaining business links lest the atmosphere turn a bit sour. Reporters mentioned that many Parisians, particularly in the Muslim community, were angry at Benjamin Netanyahu being present among the leaders in Paris. Reason? Because, they say this march is supposedly about unity and they claim Netanyahu is not about unity but division.

In the same breath, these people didn't want Netanyahu there at all, a clear sign of 'division' if you ask me. Was Netanyahu there with an agenda? Of course, all the present leaders were there with an agenda and Netanyahu was open about the other side of his reason for being there. He openly invitged that if French Jews want a safe haven then come to Israel after what has been happening to Jewish communities in France in recent years. However, so did Abbas who was there, have an agenda, looking rather chilly in the cold paris air. Abbas needs the French so badly in his connections.

European leaders jostled to get their face seen the most clearly at the front of the 'walk for freedom'. Netanyahu didn't appear at the front until several minutes into the march, probably down to security risks given how unwelcome he is said to be in Paris today. Snipers were on rooftops allegedly, but given the general hostility to Israel in France, still a wise decision if you ask me. Occasionally I'd flip over to BBC to see how they portrayed it all. One reporter interviewed an Iranian dissident in the crowd who immediately said these attacks had nothing 'whatsoever' to do with Islam, and then used the rest of her time on camera as an open forum to slam the Iranian Regime. Overall the meme of the day seemed to be that - "the pen is mightier than the sword" (a huge pencil was held aloft to illustrate), a nice ideal but in reality our western nations do not hold freedom of expression to be an absolute because it probably isn't realistic, yet the claim is still made. We too have our 'no go' subjects that can get you into trouble with law, and we know it well. Internet comments can get people arrested and charged, the police admit to monitoring social media and if certain statutes don't prevent people mocking aspects of Islam in publications or television, then a general fear that you or your family might be slaughtered for doing so, remains and self censors many comedians and editors of publications. At times I fell for the spirit of the whole thing,but then again I attended a march for 'free expression' years ago and found the British police taking photos and video footage of everyone present, also checking the plackards before hand and during it all to ensure that nobody was writing things that controvened a plethora of laws. I saw the paris march as grand theatre.

More to this story, but not exactly related to topic.

Basically, the French were not keen on Netanyahu using the occasion as a tool for his elections campaign back home (the same happened on previous occasion, so not an imagined concern), and as the message-for-the-day sought was one of unity rather than animosity and divisiveness (not making a judgement as to the merits of the French position), both Netanyahu and Abbas were dissuaded from attending. They both issued statements to this effect, citing weather and security issues as reasons.

A few hours later on, two of Netanyahu's political rivals announced that they will head to Paris in order to represent Israel, which resulted in Netnayahu going back on his plans and his word to the French, all within less than a day. The French were rightly annoyed and issued an invitation to Abbas as well.

Netanyahu managed to further anger the French government with the sort of speech they were keen to avoid, and with what amounted to a call for French Jews to emigrate to Israel. Rather out of tune with the general note of unity, standing together and not giving in to the fear of terrorism.

Abbas is said to be down with a cold, weather in the Middle East being relatively harsh these days.

Netanyahu's conduct during the event was called undignified, as him and his entourage were spotted shoving their way to the front, vying for better media coverage.

That the whole event was a media circus is obvious. That most, if not all, leaders attending had agendas is also true. That some do not give two figs about human rights nor freedom of speech is a certainty.

[micmichd]

Christianity and Islam have something in common: Both ard Abrahamic religions with strong tendency to missionary actions. Part of the conflict is probably their similarit, the "next neighbour is my best enemy" effect as observed in Europe.

Both religions seem to be quite flexible when it comes to adaptation in different environments, they tend to split up into various sub-religions (confessions) that then start to fight each other, eg in the 30y war in Europe, or Sunnites vs Shiites in ME now.

I don't think there is a problem with Muslims, but rather with a certain branch of Islam that now use desperate orphans to prove that their fraction represents the one and only "real islam"

Putting all these Muslim fractions into one pot and shout "<deleted> off" is not only unfair, but also contraproductive, since Europe would die off without immigrants.

Who will pay for your pensions if your population permanently decreases year after year?

[Steely Dan]

*posts removed to allow reply*

Well, one would have to swallow the implication that there were no issues at all with Muslim immigrant communities and them confines of the law. Taking the latest duo of law abiding citizens as representing the whole of Muslims immigrant communities is naturally misguided. Taking them as representing an element of Muslim immigrant communities, is not. We could then go on into debate regarding the role this element plays within Muslim immigrant communities and its effect on the relationship with the host majority. I would venture that this role is being downplayed - by certain media outlets, political interest groups, and by Muslims as well.

Obeying the laws of the land is indeed a minimal requirement for "fitting in". The same applies to changes regarding dress code and culinary choices. There would be instances where these would collide with host culture, and if a satisfactory solution which allows the minority to uphold its traditions without infringing on the host culture and rules - more power to both. The issues are more evident when "not fitting in" is involved - hanging on to cultural practices and traditions which are at odds with the host's, or attempting to limit host population freedoms and rights in favor of minority cultural practices will lead to friction. These attempts need not even be successful in order to cause issues, merely repeated and offensive. Muslims are not required nor asked to drop all of their cultural and religious ideas, just the bits that do not conform to host countries' standards of acceptable social conduct. This was something which, I believe, was applied in turn to any immigrant group.

Immigrant communities may become tourist attractions and culinary destination if and when they embrace the notion of capitalizing on their ethnicity by engaging the host population. Standoffish or isolationist communities will not fare as well on this department.

Whether a community leans toward integration or assimilation is not that important, as long as certain niceties are observed. Upholding cultural and religious traditions can be achieved (at least for some minorities) with lesser amounts of antagonism, confrontation and animosity.

I do not think that our views on the issue of information are that opposed. In agreement that many Westerners do not really know a whole lot about Islam and Muslims. This could be equally applied without much prejudice as to opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, more a general thing. On the same note, it could be said that many Muslims lack accurate information (or as some may put it - "simply don't get") regarding Western culture, practices, religions and values. The difference is that whereas I see the lack of information as being exhibited by all relevant parties, the appeal made in your post seems to be directed at Western societies.

The question of engaging Muslims goes a bit further than whether the "right people" are engaged. It is also a question regarding the general willingness exhibited by Muslims to engage Westerns in general and host populations specifically. It could be suggested that "If it is indeed true that "If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them" is a correct observation, but that it cuts both ways. There are loud voices heard against Islam and Muslims, there are loud Muslim voices against Western values and Westerners. Respect cannot be a one way street.

Immigrants, especially those coming from poorer quarters of the world, those with different appearance, and markedly different cultural habits are sometimes treated badly by officials and populations of host countries. This is not unique to Muslims, rather a sad reality worldwide. It could be said that relative to other countries (not to mention Muslim immigrants countries of origin) this is less of an issue in modern day Western countries. This is not imply that things are perfect, but offered an opinion that Muslims are not generally treated worse than other minorities (the beginning of the post may serve as a qualifying statement).

There could be many factors contributing to either "radicalization" (which could mean a whole lot of things) or "creation of terrorists" (a somewhat more straightforward concept). The whole gamut of social, economical and psychological factors could be dropped in and there will be room for more. Failures by authorities are a given as well. All this does not quite answer why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism compared with other minorities facing similar difficulties.

I agree with much of what you have written. I was clumsy in my expression to say that we were opposed on the Information issue. As you observed and what I meant was that we looked at it from opposite ends. In an attempt to find, define or describe a liberal response to the 'Muslim Question', I believe I have gone as far as I can at this stage on my original postulation of Information, Respect and Engagement for muslim migrant populations attempting to live productively and successfully within Western Liberal Democracies. But then we come to you last question of why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism? How to answer this without resorting to stereotyping?

Perhaps a start could be to look at examples of ethnic immigration in recent history and also to look at elements that cause people to turn into terrorists.

Sicilian and Calabrese immigrants to the US drew on their cultural customs to survive in a new and often hostile environment which in some cases led to the creation of organised crime that has now been largely defeated in the US through RICO legislation since the 70's and 80's. Many Irish immigrants to the US joined law enforcement. Greek and Italian immigrants to my part of Australia went into market gardening, including marijuana cultivation. From these and other examples, can you say there is a cultural bias towards how an immigrant population will act in their host country? Not all Sicilians were mafia. Not all irish were cops and not all Greeks and Italians in my home state grew dope. Plenty of cultural stereotypes are reinforced by such observations. So are all Muslim immigrants susceptible to becoming terrorists?

What is the experience with terrorism? I don't touch Northern Ireland in this discussion because I don't think you can define Northern Ireland as an ethnicity from which to draw parallels. I look at 2 examples, both of which come from the Balkans. Most people are familiar with the historic cause of WWI being generally accepted as the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. Apparently these types of nationalist terrorists were quite common in the early 20th Century and it is quite interesting to research them. I remember a movie from the 70's starring Oliver Reed on that very issue. What put an end to these types of nationalist terrorists? Clearly the First World War had an impact, but probably the Versailles Treaty and subsequent developments also contributed. The other example is from my home country where Serbian and Croat immigration in the 50's resulted in the establishment of para-military training camps to train fighters against the Yugoslav regime. This did not manifest itself in my state so much as the Eastern States. Local football (soccer) clubs were the fronts for a number of these para-military societies. What happened? Yugoslavia collapsed and the vicious Balkans War took place and we got that wonderful concept introduced to our language now of Ethnic Cleansing. But that too is now past and while not a perfect situation, the problems seem contained and systems in place seem to be operating to deal with them.

From my examples, I think that while some ethnic traits contribute to how migrant populations engage with their host country, you cannot really generalise and say that an entire culture will act in a certain way. Also that the causes of terrorism are rooted in time and place to clear political or ideological circumstances and once those circumstances changer, then the causes of such terrorism disappear.

So in answer to your question, why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency towards terrorism, I would answer that it would predominantly be the religious component. I know this would surprise many here who have hurled the apologist slur at me frequently in the past, but I do believe that Islam is an ideology that has not benefited from the rationalist, humanist and liberal experience of the West. What we are seeing are clashes between this un-reconstructed faith of the migrant population and the values of the host population. My argument is that a liberal approach allows for the illiberal aspects of Islam to be moderated to enable muslim immigrant populations to integrate (not assimilate) into host populations. Illiberal responses to the issue I think are a contributing factor to the creation of terrorists and that Muslims by nature are not more susceptible to becoming terrorists but the inability of their religion in its unreconstructed form to accommodate liberal beliefs is a contributing factor. As always there will be caveats to that view as well as other contributing factors but I do think that in this case, it is fairly obvious that the religious issue is a predominant factor in addressing your question.

Muslims come from varied ethnic background, so ethnicity would obviously not be the issue anyway. Rather, as you described, this could be attributed to a mixture of economic, social, historical, cultural and religious factors (with the last probably playing a special role).

Engaging, or attempting to engage Muslims is not futile nor a mistake. On the other hand, dogmatically clinging to liberal values (and to be clear, this is a general comment, not a personal one) seem to be somewhat off mark.

Processes whereby culture and religion evolve are lengthy, often requiring decades, generations, centuries. Engagement may speed up these processes to a degree, but expectations ought to remain realistic. Islam will not make an about face and will probably not even become visibly more moderate in our lifetimes. Advances can be made locally, or on specific issues, perhaps.

Could be wrong, but many of the claims to the effect that Muslims could be engaged with relatively swift and noticeable positive outcomes strike me as underlying assumption regarding the superiority of the liberal position vs. Islamic (or Muslim) views (and, naturally, vs. conservative views as well). Are Muslims interested in engagement? Do Muslims who are interested in engaging Western values represent significant element and influence of their societies? What does engagement mean from a Muslim point of view? It is not that I have an answer to these questions, nor do I expect them to be answered - just points to ponder.

Another thing quite often noticed when inspecting liberal views on these matters is the existence of a working assumption, which postulates that liberal humanistic values are universal, even within a multicultural framework. That apparent differences could be overcome, with views finally converging on this point of view (or close enough). Other than being both missionary and superior in nature, this is not necessarily always supported by reality. Given the time frames cited above, it could not be ruled out, but this is neither here nor there, history seen eras where different sets of values were common.

The main complaint against the liberal approach would be its apparent lack of moderation and self-criticism. Engaging Muslims is all fine and well. When it becomes the goal itself, rather than a means, things go awry. This could manifest itself by reluctance to apply some measures and actions vs. Muslim elements not interested in engagement, by overdoing PC to a point interfering with constructive criticism, by making over-allowances as overtures, and by using existing engagement efforts as fig leafs whenever things do not go according to plan.

So, by all means, engagement efforts ought to be carried out and can certainly play a positive role. This would go down much better all around if taken with a realistic approach, moderation and while allowing legitimate criticism.

As you pointed out, even with engagement it might take lifetimes before any measurable moderation in Islam is visible. This is why as a conservative I argue there are no Liberal solutions (at least not on a timeframe that is practical). At last count there were 750 officially designated no go zones in France, where the police are reluctant to go and are essentially self-governed. In these zones approximately four million Muslims are living.

We can argue all day on likely future demographics, but even at present levels there is a huge problem, which it appears we are finally waking up to. Without radical changes to influence demographics, assimilation etc the future looks more likely to resemble the Balkans than post war Western Europe.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Steely Dan

[uptheos]

"I’m not interested in this civil liberties stuff. If they’re a threat, I want their emails and calls listened to".

The mayor of London’s remarks came as British prime minister David Cameron admitted there were “things to learn” from violence witnessed in Paris and that the Islamist terror threat would be with us “for many years to come”.

[micmichd]

Please, tell him to ask his Secret Service. They have fabulous data mining software, Tempora & Prism.

Their problem if they don't know what they should look for, IT won't tell them.

[micmichd]

Yes, I would rather count on something like Euro-Islam (like Sarajewo) than surrender to mutual warfare again.

And then I could be proud to be Farang again, whether in Europe or Thailand.

[Morch]

*posts removed to allow reply*

Well, one would have to swallow the implication that there were no issues at all with Muslim immigrant communities and them confines of the law. Taking the latest duo of law abiding citizens as representing the whole of Muslims immigrant communities is naturally misguided. Taking them as representing an element of Muslim immigrant communities, is not. We could then go on into debate regarding the role this element plays within Muslim immigrant communities and its effect on the relationship with the host majority. I would venture that this role is being downplayed - by certain media outlets, political interest groups, and by Muslims as well.

Obeying the laws of the land is indeed a minimal requirement for "fitting in". The same applies to changes regarding dress code and culinary choices. There would be instances where these would collide with host culture, and if a satisfactory solution which allows the minority to uphold its traditions without infringing on the host culture and rules - more power to both. The issues are more evident when "not fitting in" is involved - hanging on to cultural practices and traditions which are at odds with the host's, or attempting to limit host population freedoms and rights in favor of minority cultural practices will lead to friction. These attempts need not even be successful in order to cause issues, merely repeated and offensive. Muslims are not required nor asked to drop all of their cultural and religious ideas, just the bits that do not conform to host countries' standards of acceptable social conduct. This was something which, I believe, was applied in turn to any immigrant group.

Immigrant communities may become tourist attractions and culinary destination if and when they embrace the notion of capitalizing on their ethnicity by engaging the host population. Standoffish or isolationist communities will not fare as well on this department.

Whether a community leans toward integration or assimilation is not that important, as long as certain niceties are observed. Upholding cultural and religious traditions can be achieved (at least for some minorities) with lesser amounts of antagonism, confrontation and animosity.

I do not think that our views on the issue of information are that opposed. In agreement that many Westerners do not really know a whole lot about Islam and Muslims. This could be equally applied without much prejudice as to opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, more a general thing. On the same note, it could be said that many Muslims lack accurate information (or as some may put it - "simply don't get") regarding Western culture, practices, religions and values. The difference is that whereas I see the lack of information as being exhibited by all relevant parties, the appeal made in your post seems to be directed at Western societies.

The question of engaging Muslims goes a bit further than whether the "right people" are engaged. It is also a question regarding the general willingness exhibited by Muslims to engage Westerns in general and host populations specifically. It could be suggested that "If it is indeed true that "If you scream obscenities at a person based on their ideology, then you are not going to get far in trying to influence them" is a correct observation, but that it cuts both ways. There are loud voices heard against Islam and Muslims, there are loud Muslim voices against Western values and Westerners. Respect cannot be a one way street.

Immigrants, especially those coming from poorer quarters of the world, those with different appearance, and markedly different cultural habits are sometimes treated badly by officials and populations of host countries. This is not unique to Muslims, rather a sad reality worldwide. It could be said that relative to other countries (not to mention Muslim immigrants countries of origin) this is less of an issue in modern day Western countries. This is not imply that things are perfect, but offered an opinion that Muslims are not generally treated worse than other minorities (the beginning of the post may serve as a qualifying statement).

There could be many factors contributing to either "radicalization" (which could mean a whole lot of things) or "creation of terrorists" (a somewhat more straightforward concept). The whole gamut of social, economical and psychological factors could be dropped in and there will be room for more. Failures by authorities are a given as well. All this does not quite answer why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism compared with other minorities facing similar difficulties.

I agree with much of what you have written. I was clumsy in my expression to say that we were opposed on the Information issue. As you observed and what I meant was that we looked at it from opposite ends. In an attempt to find, define or describe a liberal response to the 'Muslim Question', I believe I have gone as far as I can at this stage on my original postulation of Information, Respect and Engagement for muslim migrant populations attempting to live productively and successfully within Western Liberal Democracies. But then we come to you last question of why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency to turn to terrorism? How to answer this without resorting to stereotyping?

Perhaps a start could be to look at examples of ethnic immigration in recent history and also to look at elements that cause people to turn into terrorists.

Sicilian and Calabrese immigrants to the US drew on their cultural customs to survive in a new and often hostile environment which in some cases led to the creation of organised crime that has now been largely defeated in the US through RICO legislation since the 70's and 80's. Many Irish immigrants to the US joined law enforcement. Greek and Italian immigrants to my part of Australia went into market gardening, including marijuana cultivation. From these and other examples, can you say there is a cultural bias towards how an immigrant population will act in their host country? Not all Sicilians were mafia. Not all irish were cops and not all Greeks and Italians in my home state grew dope. Plenty of cultural stereotypes are reinforced by such observations. So are all Muslim immigrants susceptible to becoming terrorists?

What is the experience with terrorism? I don't touch Northern Ireland in this discussion because I don't think you can define Northern Ireland as an ethnicity from which to draw parallels. I look at 2 examples, both of which come from the Balkans. Most people are familiar with the historic cause of WWI being generally accepted as the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. Apparently these types of nationalist terrorists were quite common in the early 20th Century and it is quite interesting to research them. I remember a movie from the 70's starring Oliver Reed on that very issue. What put an end to these types of nationalist terrorists? Clearly the First World War had an impact, but probably the Versailles Treaty and subsequent developments also contributed. The other example is from my home country where Serbian and Croat immigration in the 50's resulted in the establishment of para-military training camps to train fighters against the Yugoslav regime. This did not manifest itself in my state so much as the Eastern States. Local football (soccer) clubs were the fronts for a number of these para-military societies. What happened? Yugoslavia collapsed and the vicious Balkans War took place and we got that wonderful concept introduced to our language now of Ethnic Cleansing. But that too is now past and while not a perfect situation, the problems seem contained and systems in place seem to be operating to deal with them.

From my examples, I think that while some ethnic traits contribute to how migrant populations engage with their host country, you cannot really generalise and say that an entire culture will act in a certain way. Also that the causes of terrorism are rooted in time and place to clear political or ideological circumstances and once those circumstances changer, then the causes of such terrorism disappear.

So in answer to your question, why do Muslims exhibit a greater tendency towards terrorism, I would answer that it would predominantly be the religious component. I know this would surprise many here who have hurled the apologist slur at me frequently in the past, but I do believe that Islam is an ideology that has not benefited from the rationalist, humanist and liberal experience of the West. What we are seeing are clashes between this un-reconstructed faith of the migrant population and the values of the host population. My argument is that a liberal approach allows for the illiberal aspects of Islam to be moderated to enable muslim immigrant populations to integrate (not assimilate) into host populations. Illiberal responses to the issue I think are a contributing factor to the creation of terrorists and that Muslims by nature are not more susceptible to becoming terrorists but the inability of their religion in its unreconstructed form to accommodate liberal beliefs is a contributing factor. As always there will be caveats to that view as well as other contributing factors but I do think that in this case, it is fairly obvious that the religious issue is a predominant factor in addressing your question.

Muslims come from varied ethnic background, so ethnicity would obviously not be the issue anyway. Rather, as you described, this could be attributed to a mixture of economic, social, historical, cultural and religious factors (with the last probably playing a special role).

Engaging, or attempting to engage Muslims is not futile nor a mistake. On the other hand, dogmatically clinging to liberal values (and to be clear, this is a general comment, not a personal one) seem to be somewhat off mark.

Processes whereby culture and religion evolve are lengthy, often requiring decades, generations, centuries. Engagement may speed up these processes to a degree, but expectations ought to remain realistic. Islam will not make an about face and will probably not even become visibly more moderate in our lifetimes. Advances can be made locally, or on specific issues, perhaps.

Could be wrong, but many of the claims to the effect that Muslims could be engaged with relatively swift and noticeable positive outcomes strike me as underlying assumption regarding the superiority of the liberal position vs. Islamic (or Muslim) views (and, naturally, vs. conservative views as well). Are Muslims interested in engagement? Do Muslims who are interested in engaging Western values represent significant element and influence of their societies? What does engagement mean from a Muslim point of view? It is not that I have an answer to these questions, nor do I expect them to be answered - just points to ponder.

Another thing quite often noticed when inspecting liberal views on these matters is the existence of a working assumption, which postulates that liberal humanistic values are universal, even within a multicultural framework. That apparent differences could be overcome, with views finally converging on this point of view (or close enough). Other than being both missionary and superior in nature, this is not necessarily always supported by reality. Given the time frames cited above, it could not be ruled out, but this is neither here nor there, history seen eras where different sets of values were common.

The main complaint against the liberal approach would be its apparent lack of moderation and self-criticism. Engaging Muslims is all fine and well. When it becomes the goal itself, rather than a means, things go awry. This could manifest itself by reluctance to apply some measures and actions vs. Muslim elements not interested in engagement, by overdoing PC to a point interfering with constructive criticism, by making over-allowances as overtures, and by using existing engagement efforts as fig leafs whenever things do not go according to plan.

So, by all means, engagement efforts ought to be carried out and can certainly play a positive role. This would go down much better all around if taken with a realistic approach, moderation and while allowing legitimate criticism.

As you pointed out, even with engagement it might take lifetimes before any measurable moderation in Islam is visible. This is why as a conservative I argue there are no Liberal solutions (at least not on a timeframe that is practical). At last count there were 750 officially designated no go zones in France, where the police are reluctant to go and are essentially self-governed. In these zones approximately four million Muslims are living.

We can argue all day on likely future demographics, but even at present levels there is a huge problem, which it appears we are finally waking up to. Without radical changes to influence demographics, assimilation etc the future looks more likely to resemble the Balkans than post war Western Europe.

I do not believe it is an either/or question between adopting conservative or liberal approaches. Part of the problem on the Western end stems from turning these issues into a partisan battleground rather than dealing with things themselves.

Adopting a conservative approach wholesale is not a magic solution, nor an absolute answer to all that needs to be addressed.

What is woefully missing is a balanced approach burrowing the more reasonable elements of conservatism and liberalism and applying them in an appropriate manner.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[H1w4yR1da]

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country.

Radical Islam also taking hold in Scottish Highlands & Islands, under influence of spiritual leader, Mullah Kintyre. #foxnewsfacts

[alanrchase]

Please educate me how these nutters benefit the US, the UK, France or any European country.

Radical Islam also taking hold in Scottish Highlands & Islands, under influence of spiritual leader, Mullah Kintyre. #foxnewsfacts

Mullah Kintyre? Are you posting a pi** take? Either way somewhat amusing.

[micmichd]

Don't you mean Paul McCartney's Mull of Kintyre ?