At least 84 killed in terrorist attack in Nice, France

[Flash Walken]

This is predictable blowback from keeping a region largely impoverished and without the material benefits of modernisation.

Praying east just doesn't hold a candle to Coke, if the people of the middle east had been invited into the material benefits of modern society they would abandon religion like every other modern society has.

If Middle Eastern countries had been invited into economic prosperity in the 70s and 80s (or the 50s) like eastern europe religious extremism would be a minor issue. Unfortunately for the people of the middle east, a big part of western prosperity that the Eastern Europeans came into enjoying came off the backs of keeping the people of the middle east impoverished under dictatorial rule.

What is uncommonly credited with an decrease in religiosity is the emancipation of women. The economic need of women to participate in the labour force has an immediate emancipatory impact on the population. The romantic vision is of Rosie the Riveter but it also takes the form of the 17th century wet nurse.

Unfortunately, most Islamic countries missed the era of industrialisation of the 70s and 80s that Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America enjoyed. This industrialisation brought women into the workforce and lead too a general improvement in standard of living and less reliance on traditional norms and strict religious observance.

Now that we are in an era of labour depression combined with de jour austerity, immigrant populations from these regions once again find themselves ghettoized without economic opportunity. Although they are often facing similar economic disadvantages as their national brethren, as minorities they have less economic and cultural agency, sometimes just perceived and sometimes real, than their 'native' peers.

As western society continues to have less and less need for conventional labour this problem is going to get worse and worse. As climate change makes traditional agricultural labour harder and harder in the region these impacts will also accelerate.

You can trace a lot of this back to Eisenhower and Dulles and their relationship with Nasser. Choosing a status quo relationship in the middle east of economic colony status to empower western europe against the soviet union was ill advised policy.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nik-

This portion was enabled yes, but a "home base" still has to be a home base for something. If you consider ISIS as the be all end all and the problem, then your outlook on Western impact is going to be different than mine. I don't consider them that, they're just the current flavour.

Agreed... which is why i tend to reject reductivist arguments...

its extremely complex situation, based on a thousand years of history...

one can look to the rise of the madrassas in Saudi Arabia as one of the catalysts for this...or the rise of the Ayllotahs in Iran...but ultimately, the conflict involves a lot of complexities that most in the west have a very limited understanding of...

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Buster

I try to avoid using anecdotal evidence, where possible. But I also try to avoid assumptions where possible.

You made the statement that most Muslims feel the same (equivalent?) outrage to the average secular westerner over such terrorist acts. I don't see evidence to support this claim. There is certainly compelling evidence to counter the claim.

The interesting data point here is the following at least to me:



This data is from 2009, Pew global Attitudes Survey. It's good data.

Do you think that 3 in 10 non-muslims in Britain would say that suicide bombings can be justified?

I don't know, but it would hardly surprise me. It wasn't that long ago when they had one of the most active terrorist groups in the world, the IRA. A bunch of white Christians. Things the IRA supporting areas had in common with the "radical muslims" of the west: high poverty rates, high unemployment rates, brutal treatment by the police force, lack of civil rights, general feeling of disempowerment...

It's important to note that the Muslim youth in the West have really only started to turn into terrorists AFTER the WTC strikes (which were done mostly by Saudi Arabians). This is when the West went insane over the Muslim threat and started their new "crusade against Islam" (as it's often described in Muslim countries). And started attacking pretty much anyone except Saudi Arabia.

After the WTC strikes the civil rights of Muslims have in many countries been ripped part and the already difficult situation of Muslim youth born into poverty has turned rather hopeless. Especially young Muslim men are having extreme difficulties getting jobs and apartments due to mistrust and flat out racism. Add to that numerous civil rights violations such as groundless arrests, travel restrictions, invasions of privacy by government agencies, house raid by the police etc, all resulting from terrorism investigations. Add to that the constant fear incited by growing nationalist / far right groups, and you have all the basic ingredients of radicalization. Which are pretty much the exact same ingredients as they were in Northern Ireland.

Distrust and fear of the local authority, social isolation based on religion, poverty, unemployment and general feeling of disempowerment and hopelessness. That's what creates radicals. Religion is just one ingredient, the actual teachings of the religion don't really matter and in fact religion can be completely replaced with political affiliation. (As shown by groups such as the Red Army Faction.)

Religion does enter into the equation, is it also did in Northern Ireland, but it has pretty much nothing to do with what any of the religions teach. (In fact when captured Islamic terrorists have been interrogated, it has been noted that they generally know almost nothing of the teachings of Islam.)

Many especially in the US fail to realize that there have been plenty of Muslims in Europe for centuries. While there obviously have been plenty of religious warfare between Christians and Muslims, it's really nothing special compared to the wars among Christian rulers. Immigrant muslims were not seriously considered a threat to public safety before the WTC strike, but their treatment after the attacks has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

People also tend to forget that Al-Qaeda was not nearly as "Islamist" as it's often portrayed in Western media. For example Osama Bin-Ladens "Letter to America" after the WTC strike listed very clearly defined (and frankly not totally unreasonable) political goals as the reasons for the strike. AFAIK their political goals are still pretty much the same: they primarily want to drive the Western occupation forces out of the Muslim countries and overthrow oppressive Western backed governments (including Israel).

ISIS on the other hand is really it's own sick beast. As many by now know, even the Al-Qaeda consider them attrocious and have been fighting mostly against them.

As for the graph, you're reading such weird things from it. That graphy pretty clearly shows that where you live correlates much more with your attitude towards suicide bombings than your religion.

Btw, ISIS as a "nation" has suffered a long string of defeats and is essentially facing total defeat. This has mostly been achieved by various local forces (many of them Muslim), supported by US and Russian air forces. There's really not that much more to be done on that part, unless the West wants to start seriously arming one of the fighting groups over there.

As for these kinds of terrorist attacks done by Western born Muslims, I will come back to this point: they started to happen only after we started fearmongering and treating the local Muslims as the enemy and the police started taking away their rights. To me this is a pretty big hint as to what we could do to stop them from happening again.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really don't see the point in singling out Islam every time there's one of these attacks. We all know that fundamentalist Islam is producing a lot of radicals. However, we also need to take into account that the vast majority of the victims of fundamentalist Islam are Muslims themselves. I'm not sure what people want the average Muslim to do about it? Abandon their religion?

Why not?

I was raised Christian. When I realized that Christianity was directly responsible for so much hatred and discrimination against gays, it was obvious to me that I had to leave the church. If I hadn't, I'd have been enabling that evil by praising an all-powerful god who was ok with people discriminating against gays in his name.

Now, if you add killing innocent men, women and children all over the world to discrimination against gays, it seems reasonable that some Muslims would start reaching the same conclusion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's the same reason we have all those terrorists from South America and sub Saharan Africa.

I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not. You do know there are plenty of terrorists in sub-Saharan Africa, right? (Including Al-Qaeida and ISIS, but also Christian groups and political groups. Nelson Mandela was a clearcut terrorist before he became an icon of peace.)

In South America the terrorists tend to be politically organized, and those same political lines used to be a prime motivator for terrorism in Europe in the 70's.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not. You do know there are plenty of terrorists in sub-Saharan Africa, right? (Including Al-Qaeida and ISIS, but also Christian groups and political groups. Nelson Mandela was a clearcut terrorist before he became an icon of peace.)

In South America the terrorists tend to be politically organized, and those same political lines used to be a prime motivator for terrorism in Europe in the 70's.

Yeah, no one said all terrorists are Islamic and that the middle east is only place where there are terrorists.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, no one said all terrorists are Islamic and that the middle east is only place where there are terrorists.

Okay, it's just hard to keep track of this stuff when you don't know people in RL and can't hear their tones

[nik-]

What? No, it wasn't sarcastic, I'm saying that no one here is saying what you're implying in your post.

I was speaking in generalities as a result of scope. Terrorist organizations obviously exist elsewhere, but I think it's pretty clear what the common denominator is for the vast majority of present day groups, and it's not colonialism.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

What? No, it wasn't sarcastic, I'm saying that no one here is saying what you're implying in your post.

Yeah I got that now, I just wasn't sure. No offense meant.

I was speaking in generalities as a result of scope. Terrorist organizations obviously exist elsewhere, but I think it's pretty clear what the common denominator is for the vast majority of present day groups, and it's not colonialism.

Logic 101: Correlation does not mean causation.

If Islam generally speaking played a significant part in breeding terrorism, then the majority of terrorists throughout history should logically have been Muslims. Also, if the incompatibility of Islam and "modern Western values" was the problem, then again this type of terrorism in the West should have started decades earlier than it has happened. A quick fact check shows that neither is the case.

Therefore logic says that Islam does not appear to be a significant contributing factor.

There are also other common denominators we can look into. Distrust of authorities (usually for good reason), poverty, hopelessness. People are acting as if terrorism was some new phenomenon that we know nothing about, when in fact it has been long studied in many countries. None of the studies suggest that the contents of a religion are a significant contributing factor. (It can be a diminishing factor though, as there are religious minority groups that are clearly anti-violent.)

Again: attacks like this started years after the West declared the general Muslim population to be a security threat.

Also, if you're looking at where these strikes are happening, they have not been happening in every country with a significant Muslim population. They have not even been happening in every country that has taken part in the wars in the Middle East, or in every country with lots of poor Muslim.

The common denominators are large populations of Muslims living in poverty and alienated from the general population, and the police forces of those countries being well known to not respect civil rights during terrorism investigations, plus politically sizable nationalist movements.

In short: poverty, hopelessness, alienation, disrespect of civil rights and nationalistic hatred and fearmongering directed at minorites breeds terrorism. So if you really want to be against terrorism, stop fearmongering against Muslims, demand that civil rights of terror suspects are respected and demand that politicians address the issues of widespread poverty.

These are solutions that are known to work. "The War on Terror" on the other hand only increases terrorism, which has been admitted even by the Western intelligence agencies.

[Itse]

Addition:

If you want to put the blame on religion, you could blame Wahhabism.

Wahhabism is a recent (mostly 20th century) branch of pseudo-Sunni Islam that started to gather speed in the 1970's, and that actually does correlate with terrorism to the point that people are IMO right to be worried about it.

(Also worth noting that not all Islamic armed groups that are labeled terrorists are at all the same. Some have fighting what I'd call somewhat legitimate wars, if you consider any war to be legitimate. Others are simply terror groups. The latter type tend to be Wahhabists.)

[T@T]

It is religion, how many of these suicidal idiots would carry out their mission if they knew there was no paradise waiting for them?

I am totally amazed at just how many people in the world can believe in such total and udder crap. Just 2 weeks ago I talked to a young man from Africa and he totally believed in a "fruitful" paradise if he did the right things in his human life. (I haven't bit my tongue so hard since talking to a anglican bishop)

Most world leaders would know yet they don't have the gonads to expose the BS that is religion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by T@T

It is religion, how many of these suicidal idiots would carry out their mission if they knew there was no paradise waiting for them?

Atheists are perfectly capable of self-sacrifice.

As for proved-to-work ways to combat radicalization, I recommend reading up on the Aarhus-model. (As in Aarhus, Denmark.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...away-from-isis

The rest of Europe came down hard on citizens who had traveled to Syria. France shut down mosques it suspected of harboring radicals. The U.K. declared citizens who had gone to help ISIS enemies of the state. Several countries threatened to take away their passports — a move formerly reserved for convicted traitors.

But the Danish police officers took a different approach: They made it clear to citizens of Denmark who had traveled to Syria that they were welcome to come home, and that when they did, they would receive help with going back to school, finding an apartment, meeting with a psychiatrist or a mentor, or whatever they needed to fully integrate back into society.

Their program came to be known as the "Aarhus model." It's been called the "hug a terrorist" model in the media, but this description never sits well with the cops. They see themselves as making an entirely practical decision designed to keep their city safe.

As they see it, coming down hard on young, radicalized Muslims will only make them angrier and more of a danger to society. Helping them is the only chance to keep an eye on them and also to keep the peace in their town.

"The original response was to fight [extremism] through military and policing efforts, and they didn't fare too well," says Arie Kruglanski, a social psychologist at the University of Maryland who studies violent extremism. "That kind of response that puts them as suspects and constrains them and promotes discrimination — that is only likely to exacerbate the problem. It's only likely to inflame the sense there's discrimination and motivate young people to act against society."

"Aarhus is the first, to my knowledge, to grapple with [extremism] based on sound social psychology evidence and principles," Kruglanski says. What Link and Aarslev were doing was so unexpected that it created an opening for people to think differently about their ideology. "They expect to be treated harshly," Kruglanski says. Instead, they got the opposite. "That kind of shock opens people's minds to maybe they were wrong about their society that they perceived as their enemy. It opens a possible window into rethinking and re-evaluating."

Starting in 2012, 34 people went from Aarhus to Syria. As far as the police know, six were killed and 10 are still over there. Of the 18 who came back home, all showed up in Aarslev and Link's office, as did hundreds of other potential radicals in Aarhus — about 330 in total.

But the program is admired for another accomplishment: Since the initial exodus of young people, very few have left from Aarhus for Syria, even when traffic from the rest of Europe was spiking. Last year, in 2015, it was just one person.

The program is still precarious, though. One terrorist attack in Aarhus could undo much of the work that has been done. But the officers are willing to keep trying. As Link put it, there are still "strong forces" out there tempting young Muslims to leave their lives in the West and join the battle.

[oldschoolcalgary]

^^^ the Aarhus-model is really interesting, and makes a ton of sense to me...

that said, it would have zero chance of happening in NA... none.

just look at some of the posts being made in this thread.

I find it more than ironic, that the US, which holds itself up as a Christian Nation, is one of the most angry xenophobic countries in the world. Where groups of people will brandish their assault rifles outside a mosque under the guise of 'Freedom of Speech' and/or exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Radical Islamistic hoover up that stuff with glee for their recruiting... its an absolute boon to them and to their cause.

Nothing happens in a vacuum - and if one looks at the history of the 20th century things like suicide attacks are a relatively new phenomena... tracking back to other conflicts in the middle east primarily.

It absolutely does NOT justify or validate their actions...However, one has to be completely ignorant and/or obtuse not to acknowledge that the breeding ground for radicalism was a result of poverty, hopelessness and ongoing conflicts and subjugation.

When you have zero hope and no future, an afterlife in Paradise, being celebrated as a Martyr (+ the monetary promise of your family being taken care of) probably sounds appealing to many disaffected/angry youth.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Itse

Addition:

If you want to put the blame on religion, you could blame Wahhabism.

Wahhabism is a recent (mostly 20th century) branch of pseudo-Sunni Islam that started to gather speed in the 1970's, and that actually does correlate with terrorism to the point that people are IMO right to be worried about it.

(Also worth noting that not all Islamic armed groups that are labeled terrorists are at all the same. Some have fighting what I'd call somewhat legitimate wars, if you consider any war to be legitimate. Others are simply terror groups. The latter type tend to be Wahhabists.)

You are (and in previous posts) trying to parse the problem in a way that is neither necessary nor helpful.

How we treat combatants returning to the west, or when you think "Islamic terror" attacks occurred is typical obscurantist nonsense. It also takes the usual west-centric approach to the problems that are inherent to Islamic ideology.

Terrorism on western targets is a minor issue in the context of the greater problem posed by Islamism. It's merely a small symptom of a far greater problem. It's also why it is actually more interesting to discuss domestic policy within Islamic countries, than it is to try to figure out why people shot up Charlie Hebdo.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I find it more than ironic, that the US, which holds itself up as a Christian Nation, is one of the most angry xenophobic countries in the world.

Absolute nonsense.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

^^^ the Aarhus-model is really interesting, and makes a ton of sense to me...

that said, it would have zero chance of happening in NA... none.

just look at some of the posts being made in this thread.

I find it more than ironic, that the US, which holds itself up as a Christian Nation, is one of the most angry xenophobic countries in the world. Where groups of people will brandish their assault rifles outside a mosque under the guise of 'Freedom of Speech' and/or exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Radical Islamistic hoover up that stuff with glee for their recruiting... its an absolute boon to them and to their cause.

Nothing happens in a vacuum - and if one looks at the history of the 20th century things like suicide attacks are a relatively new phenomena... tracking back to other conflicts in the middle east primarily.

It absolutely does NOT justify or validate their actions...However, one has to be completely ignorant and/or obtuse not to acknowledge that the breeding ground for radicalism was a result of poverty, hopelessness and ongoing conflicts and subjugation.

When you have zero hope and no future, an afterlife in Paradise, being celebrated as a Martyr (+ the monetary promise of your family being taken care of) probably sounds appealing to many disaffected/angry youth.

The US is relatively speaking NOT xenophobic/angry.

The US has enormous immigrant populations, and for the most part takes pride in that fact. I'm not sure it is fair to attribute that to its Christian population, but it is what it is.

Edit: Dammit Cliff.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Buster

You are (and in previous posts) trying to parse the problem in a way that is neither necessary nor helpful.

How we treat combatants returning to the west, or when you think "Islamic terror" attacks occurred is typical obscurantist nonsense. It also takes the usual west-centric approach to the problems that are inherent to Islamic ideology.

Terrorism on western targets is a minor issue in the context of the greater problem posed by Islamism. It's merely a small symptom of a far greater problem. It's also why it is actually more interesting to discuss domestic policy within Islamic countries, than it is to try to figure out why people shot up Charlie Hebdo.

How do you treat them when they try to come home? Give them a choice, if they want to come back to Canada they plead guilty to treason, terrorism related chargers, and throw in a few charges that stand as accessory to child rape and offer them life in prison with no parole. Or tell them if they don't agree to that they can't come home, but will be transported to France or Germany so the authorities can talk to them.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Buster

The US is relatively speaking NOT xenophobic/angry.

The US has enormous immigrant populations, and for the most part takes pride in that fact. I'm not sure it is fair to attribute that to its Christian population, but it is what it is.

Edit: Dammit Cliff.

You are correct: i stand guilty of generalizing not unlike those i was criticizing. That should be changed to a "vocal minority in the US"... sadly this minority often drives the debate and talking points...

fundamentalism or fanaticism of any kind, is never a good thing. It eliminates any kind of empathy or debate and reduces things to an us versus them mentaility...

parading outside of mosque with assault rifles or talk of eliminating all immigration based on religion can lead only lead to us in the wrong direction...Clearly a segment of Islam has already done this and the results of that are pretty devastating.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do you treat them when they try to come home? Give them a choice, if they want to come back to Canada they plead guilty to treason, terrorism related chargers, and throw in a few charges that stand as accessory to child rape and offer them life in prison with no parole. Or tell them if they don't agree to that they can't come home, but will be transported to France or Germany so the authorities can talk to them.

I didn't meant to say that western combatants or western terrorism weren't issue we need to handle.

My point is that the entirety of the West's issues with Islam, are only one part (maybe not even a big one) of the issues with the Islamic ideology.

[Swift]

It's looking increasingly likely that the guy had nothing at all to do with Islamic extremism and was just a mentally unhinged guy who was angry at the world - https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hlel-relatives

Sure, ISIS are claiming responsibility but they'll obviously latch on to anything that would further their case.

So, essentially the last 13 pages have been kneejerk reactionism.