Jihadi terrorism

[Jamie in Chile]

I think religion is the problem, at least in part.

Without religion there are no crusades.

Without religion there is no big Israel/Palestine fight over Jerusalem area. In fact, without religion the jews would probably have gone with the Uganda option and no Israel/Palestine issue at all, and a much more peaceful middle east today.

Religion books, especially the three abrahamic religions, separate the world into belivers and non believers. Us and them. It's a serious and fundamental problem.

Whether religion is creating the hate from nothing, or whether it's just taking existing hatred and shaping it and increasing it is an interesting question, but it's really a philosophical, moot point.

All these suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the name of a holy book wouldn't be doing it as much if it wasn't for religion. Because they wouldn't (at least some of them) have enough conviction to go ahead with it if they weren't told it was holy duty and there was a paradise full of virgins at the end.

However, I don't think reducing the influence of religion should be looked at as the only solution either. But people who refuse to consider religion in a discussion about terrorism....that's just unhelpful political correctness.

Almost all the terrorists are from one religion. (And yet conversely, almost all the people from that religion are not terrorists.)

When you hear on the news that a terrorist has set off a bomb, you cannot say immediately much about the terrorist. You don't know what country they are from, are they old, are they young, are they white, are they black, rich or poor, there is almost nothing you can say about the identity of a terrorist when you first hear some breaking news. But you can say with a high decrease of confidence that they will be religious. And you will be right 80-90% of the time (about the only the other thing about them you can say with a 80-90% confidence level before the facts are in is male rather than female).

 

[FortyTwo]

Maybe the Slenderman thing was a bad example actually. It was only meant as a situational parallel, not an equivalent ideological drive.

How about this instead: eugenics as a practice is based on the findings of Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. Because eugenics is a problem, does that mean the Theory of Evolution is a problem? Should people be prevented from doing something fulfilling and important not just to them but to the world as a community simply because people use that as an excuse to do horrible things.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I certainly don't think people should be prevented from having religion although I do think they should possibly be discouraged from it where appropriate, although people need to respect beliefs enough to not have that discussion when it's clearly unwelcome.

 

[Second Summer]

There is a war: A war of oppression, and of control over energy sources, trade routes and land. This is our inheritance from the colonial era. As part of this war, Islam has been weaponised. So we're no longer talking about just a religion, but also an ideology, islamism. However, this is not the first time in history that Islam has been used for political purposes, far from it. It could be argued it was a political ideology from the outset.

Regardless, western countries are faced with a serious problem that will probably not go away for years and years. The islamists demand that the West stops interfering in the Muslim world, but untangling itself from the conflicts in the Middle East is proving difficult, as we saw demonstrated during the Arab Spring. Western energy independence would probably be one of the most significant steps towards de-escalation of the war. Another issue that must be addressed is the need for improving the economies and the wealth distribution in the Muslim world. And then there is the thorny issue of Israel and Palestine. Just to name a few of the larger issues.

Meanwhile here in the western world, we need to somehow address the more immediate threats. Can we do that while remaining democratic, open societies? Without illiberal political movements coming to power? One thing is clear: we would need political leadership of a higher calibre than what we've seen recently.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Meanwhile here in the western world, we need to somehow address the more immediate threats. Can we do that while remaining democratic, open societies? Without illiberal political movements coming to power? One thing is clear: we would need political leadership of a higher calibre than what we've seen recently.

What do you think the solutions should be?

I'm not directing this at you particularly, just in general. Again, I'm sleep deprived after seeing the news last night. It was a shock, but at the same time I have been expecting London to be attacked again.

I have been reading and listening to politicians and experts for years now and I'm not sure what the solutions are.

Maybe the police should have more guns? but I don't want the UK to become a police state as I like living in a tolerant and liberal society. These cowards are mostly people living here and have been brought up here so I can't see what their point even is. They think they will die in glory after murdering people and get their reward in the afterlife, how do you reason with people that f*cking stupid?

The UK Prevent deradicalisation strategy has had mixed reviews, as I understand.Reality Check: Why does the Prevent strategy divide opinion? - BBC News

 

[shyvas]

What do you think the solutions should be?

I'm not directing this at you particularly, just in general. Again, I'm sleep deprived after seeing the news last night. It was a shock, but at the same time I have been expecting London to be attacked again.

I have been reading and listening to politicians and experts for years now and I'm not sure what the solutions are.

Maybe the police should have more guns? but I don't want the UK to become a police state as I like living in a tolerant and liberal society. These cowards are mostly people living here and have been brought up here so I can't see what their point even is. They think they will die in glory after murdering people and get their reward in the afterlife, how do you reason with people that f*cking stupid?

The UK Prevent deradicalisation strategy has had mixed reviews, as I understand.Reality Check: Why does the Prevent strategy divide opinion? - BBC News

I also am trying to find answers to why would someone slaughter innocent people including children in the name of what?

Something is wrong with these extremists and why is it so easy to sway them into thinking that Westerners are evil ?

 

[Mischief]

I also am trying to find answers to why would someone slaughter innocent people including children in the name of what?

Something is wrong with these extremists and why is it so easy to sway them into thinking that Westerners are evil ?

That's true of extremists of every ilk. In the U.S., you are much more likely to be murdered because you are a Muslim than to be murdered by a Muslim.

 

[Mischief]

This article says what I was trying to say earlier in this thread, but much more eloquently: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=1

What the three men in Oregon understood, but the White House doesn’t, is that in a healthy society, Islamophobia doesn’t disparage just Muslims, racism doesn’t demean blacks alone, misogyny hurts more than women, xenophobia insults more than immigrants. Rather, we are all diminished, so we all have a stake in confronting bigotry.

One thing I’ve learned in my reporting career is that side by side with the worst of humanity, you find the best. The test for all of us is whether we can similarly respond to hatred and nihilism with courage and, in the dying words of Namkai-Meche, with “love.”

Asha Deliverance, left, the mother of Taliesin Namkai-Meche, who was murdered while defending two girls in an anti-Muslim attack, at her son’s vigil in Portland on Saturday. CreditBeth Nakamura/The Oregonian

When we charaterize these acts of murder as "a clash of civilizations", we're buying into the murderers' narrative, that these acts of brutality are an expression of their religion/concern for the future of the white race/whatever other excuse they are seizing onto to justify their violence.

I'm not buying into their excuses. I'm not going to reward them like that. (Likewise, I think it's a major mistake to give serial killers and spree killers and mass murderers the notoriety they crave. Their names should be forgotten. It's their victims who should be remembered. The murders should sink into obscurity.)

 

[Second Summer]

I also am trying to find answers to why would someone slaughter innocent people including children in the name of what?

Something is wrong with these extremists and why is it so easy to sway them into thinking that Westerners are evil ?

They're blaming us, rightly or wrongly, for the wars, violence, oppression, land theft, lack of opportunity in their home countries or countries of origin. The US drone wars, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, as well as other wars in the Middle East have led to untold misery in the region. There is just no end to the misery. And besides the Iranian revolution, the only vaguely credible force they have that is seen to stand up against all this are the islamists, who are now taking the war to the West.

 

[Second Summer]

What do you think the solutions should be?

I'm obviously just a lay-person, but some thoughts on the subject:

A good doctor will try to understand the underlying problems before he comes up with a treatment. I think the same applies here. You can't just treat the symptom, terrorism, without addressing the causes.

There has to be a multi-level approach. We must work towards Western energy independence. We should reward countries that are making democratic progress (like Tunisia) with investments and trade deals. We should help the countries that are taking in huge numbers of refugees from the wars (like Lebanon and Jordan). We should take away privileges from countries that are deliberately making the situation worse. On the home front we should not allow religious schools, and we should not allow ghettoes to develop. Hate speech must be stomped out, but we must be careful not to go too far as that creates resentment. It's a battle of hearts and minds.

I have been reading and listening to politicians and experts for years now and I'm not sure what the solutions are.

Maybe the police should have more guns? but I don't want the UK to become a police state as I like living in a tolerant and liberal society. These cowards are mostly people living here and have been brought up here so I can't see what their point even is. They think they will die in glory after murdering people and get their reward in the afterlife, how do you reason with people that f*cking stupid?

The UK-born islamist terrorists identifies with the people in the countries from where their families originated. They're taking the war and violence from these countries to our country so we get to feel the pain they're feeling.

We can give the police more guns and we can allow the police to monitor everyone's Internet activities without a warrant, but that does start to sound a lot like a police state.

 

[Mischief]

A Republican congressman on Sunday said any “radicalized Islamic suspect” should be hunted down and killed.

In a Facebook post, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), a viral YouTube star who was elected to Congress last November, argued that Christendom “is at war with Islamic horror.”

“Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down,” Higgins wrote. “Hunt them, identity them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.”

GOP rep on radicalized Islamic suspects: 'Kill them all'

 

[Second Summer]

This article is well-worth the read:

In his scholarly assessment of future jihadist activity in Europe, Professor Hegghammer agrees, predicting that the threat "will continue to increase for as long as the activists that were recruited in the early 2010s are politically active – that is, for another 15 to 20 years". Speaking to VICE, he adds that the next 15 to 20 years is "the period in which we can expect the hundreds of radicals who were imprisoned in the mid-2010s to be politically active. I expect them and their friends to be the jihadi entrepreneurs of the 2020s."

Searching for possible solutions, Professor Hegghammer urges: "An EU-led 'Marshall plan' for improved education in immigrant-heavy areas; much more money for regular youth work; a scaling back of recent jihadi capability gains on the internet; longer sentences for terrorism-related crimes, especially recruitment. Laws against foreign fighting, of all ideological varieties. Biometrics at the EU's outer borders. All of this will just be mitigation, though. The problem will only go away if and when there is a broad mood shift in the Muslim world toward rejecting militant Islamism; when it's seen as distinctly uncool, even among the counter-culturally inclined, like neo-Nazism in Europe today. If such a shift ever comes, it will come unexpectedly. Zeitgeist shifts cannot be predicted."

He continues: "The long-term outcome of this is predictable: very large security services and a tense atmosphere, a bit like France today, but permanently. To me, that's an incentive to start thinking outside the box. Are there things, both on the soft and the hard side, that we have previously dismissed as being excessive or unrealistic? Maybe we can look at them again."

More: Even with Increased Surveillance, There Is More of This to Come (June 5, 2017)

 

[FortyTwo]

GOP rep on radicalized Islamic suspects: 'Kill them all'

This. When you use words like "islamism" and paint this as a war of civilizations, regardless of your intentions, you are validating these kinds of people.

 

[Andy_T]

On the home front we should not allow religious schools, and we should not allow ghettoes to develop.

Agree on the "should not allow ghettos to develop" - but how? Singapore has an approach where they limit the percentages of people from each religion that are allowed to live in a certain area. This, however, is seen as quite controversial by most other people who are not Singaporeans.

Banning religious schools, however, would seem for me to go against "freedom of religion" that is one of the tenets of any enlightened civilization. I am not at all a fan of religious schools (especially Christian ones), but I would not want to ban them, either.

 

[Second Summer]

Agree on the "should not allow ghettos to develop" - but how? Singapore has an approach where they limit the percentages of people from each religion that are allowed to live in a certain area. This, however, is seen as quite controversial by most other people who are not Singaporeans.

Banning religious schools, however, would seem for me to go against "freedom of religion" that is one of the tenets of any enlightened civilization. I am not at all a fan of religious schools (especially Christian ones), but I would not want to ban them, either.

I don't think I would support a ban on religious schools, but I think discouragement goes a long way. In the UK we could begin by stopping the practice of funding religious schools with public spending.

Ghettos are probably harder to prevent, and that Singapore solution probably wouldn't be acceptable in the West. I'm no expert, but maybe a more egalitarian society with more equal opportunity for all would help? Unfortunately, the UK still seems like a class society, to a large extent. (Sorry to complain, I don't wish to be an ungrateful foreigner, but it's the truth.)

 

[Second Summer]

This. When you use words like "islamism" and paint this as a war of civilizations, regardless of your intentions, you are validating these kinds of people.

What is wrong with "islamism"? It's a widely used term. And I have explained why I think it's appropriate to say there is clash or even a war of civilizations. I don't think it's healthy for public debate in a liberal society to avoid certain terms only for the reason you suggest.

 

[Andy_T]

No words for this....

Republican congressman praises ISIS attack in Iran, says US should consider supporting ISIS

Experts at the House hearing where Rohrabacher made the comments immediately refuted his comments.

“Those attacks were claimed by the Islamic State,” said Matthew Levitt, director of The Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the conservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s never in our interest to support a terrorist group like the Islamic State. We should condemn the attacks in Tehran, as we would condemn any act of terrorism, even as we hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism.”

Rohrabacher wouldn’t listen to the experts on the panel, however.

“So that’s like Joe Stalin was a horrible guy, we must never associate with horrible guys like that, even against Hitler,” he said, talking over Levitt. “And so maybe it’s a good idea to have radical Muslim terrorists fighting each other. I’ll leave it at that.”

 

[Second Summer]

No words for this....

Republican congressman praises ISIS attack in Iran, says US should consider supporting ISIS

Sounds like a total moron, but we shouldn't be too surprised about morons in high positions in the US these days.

Hezbollah and Hamas, the groups supported by Iran, are also very different to ISIS, al-qaeda and other similar militant Sunni groups. For example, to my knowledge they don't attack Western targets, or at least not outside the region.

 

[Second Summer]

Saudi Arabia is the chief foreign promoter of Islamist extremism in the UK, a new report has claimed.

The Henry Jackson Society said there was a "clear and growing link" between Islamist organisations in receipt of overseas funds, hate preachers and Jihadist groups promoting violence.

The foreign affairs think tank called for a public inquiry into the role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations.

More: Saudi Arabia has 'clear link' to UK extremism, report says - BBC News (5. July 2017)

 

[Moll Flanders]

British jihadists stripped of citizenship and banned from returning to the UK | Metro News