In a comment below, you asked if the solution is to ban books, news stories. Are you suggesting banning comments is legitimate?
Lots of liberals have blamed terrorism on poverty and lack of opportunities to integrate. I've been following this issue over the last 3 years, and that's what I have seen.
I don't know how much you have been following the attacks, but in Europe there have been horrendous stories about rape, gang rape, terrorism from Muslim migrants. Since earlier you mentioned you were from Ireland, did you know about the gang rape of children in Rotherham? What about the sexual attack in Germany during New Year's a few years back? This stuff is getting very common these last few years.
I'm ok with immigration and aiding vulnerable groups, but if it brings the kind of problems we are seeing, when would you say enough is enough? How many more stadiums, night clubs, street cafes, streets need to be attacked before people acknowledge that there is a problem? The attacks so far have been mitigated because there was security: if there was no security during the attack on the Stade de France, the casualties would have been much higher, for instance.
I've lived in Europe and travelled freely, but the violence we are seeing are real facts I find concerning. I am not suggesting violence as a response, only to see the problems that exist, understand the causes. Lest you think this is only an Islamic terrorism issue, I also find the violence coercion in the history of Christianity to be problematic. But Christianity is right now not the cause of the violence we see.
And if you have solutions, what are those?
edit: why does this comment not show up? Is there a censorship thing here?
I did mention England, Belgium, France, Middle East, Philippines, USA, Egypt: so scale geographically ISIS wins. I didn't mention Canada, Sweden, Africa, Turkey.
For if it's about numbers, would you say IRA has killed more people than ISIS? Did the IRA use sex slaves like ISIS did with Yazidi prisoners as in the New York Times piece I linked? These guys are targeting all different sorts of groups in almost all continents.
And if nations security apparatus were not fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda, do you think there would be less or more violence? In other words, are they satisfied with sovereignty in some limited geographical area, or would they try to do as much damager wherever they could?
In the debate regarding Islamic terrorism, in the West liberals tend to ascribe it to poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunities, poor integration.
But when Islam-related violence is regarded in the Middle East, people blame it on Bush and Obama for removing the tyrants who kept the internal religious conflict under control.
So why are people surprised that May, or anyone else, would copy the tyrants' methods of reaching for autocracy in dealing with these issues? And the irony is that liberals would wash away the common element that is prevalent in the terrorism in Europe and the conflict in the Middle East, which is in fact Islamic fundamentalism.
Having lived in Europe for a few years, seeing what has happened in the last 10 years has me thinking that the insane violence in the Middle East will be imported into Europe and destroy the Europe that I admired. Thank-you Merkel.
If you want to know why political and religious violence is worse than drug overdose and why we have to resist it, look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. Although we can say it was Bush then Obama who destabilized the country by removing the tyrants, in the tyrants' absence, religion-influenced political struggles (ie. Sunni vs Shiite, Islam vs Kurd) blew the countries apart, and continues to blow the countries apart.
So drug addictions can be bad, but religously-motivated wars are worse because they will destroy everyone. Even stable countries like Saudi Arabia is not immune, and people are worried that the more radical elements there will take power if the country loses its wealth, wealth which is used to pacify the population.
Since these attacks are aligned with ISIS and ISIS exists within the framework of Islam, then Islam is a pre-condition for these attacks.
So even if the attackers may not have been Muslim previously in their life, Islamic fundamentalism remains a constant factor in all these attacks. At the end of the day, whether these people are sane/insane/confused/rich/poor, it's all done within the context and framework of Islamic fundamentalism. And the model for these attacks is in the Middle East where suicide bombing has been a feature of life there in the past 20 years.
In case you think it's only poor and mentally ill, consider the attackers in the Dkaka, Indonesia cafe. These guys were educated in university and came from well-off families.
Do you think these terrorists were just going to stop at killing a few people? "Gee, I think I will kill 10 people then go home." Seriously?
My guess is they would keep on killing as many as they could, just as they tried to enter the stadiums and concerts to do maximum damage, just as they locked in the Bataclan to kill as many as they could, etc, etc. In which of these events did they kill a few people then went home?
>> there are clearly more radicalized general idiots out there than there are radicalized muslims.
It's not the Christians in Belgium, France, Middle East, Philippines, England, US and Egypt who are blowing people up and killing people.
The violent conflict of the Middle East has spread to all these other places, and it coincides with the migration of Muslims together with the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The IRA were not on the scale of Islamic terrorism we have seen in the past 10 years, and which can even become more significant. The pattern of the Irish Catholic-Protestant conflict was more limited in scope. What we are seeing with Islamic terrorism is much larger and more bloody to EVERYONE, not just between Sunni-Shiite, but extends to Jews, Kurds, Yazidis, Christians.
So no, Islamic terrorism is not comparable to "all Christians". To do so is either blindness or pernicious propaganda on your part.
Check out "ISIS Enshrines a
Theology of Rape" at New York Times on the rape of Yazidis.[1] They are praying before they rape and after they rape. If this story is true, it indicates that ISIS is not a mere political movement, but is also bound to its theology. The BBC reported on the recent bridge attack of a witness who said the attackers said "This is for Allah."[2]
Lots of liberals have blamed terrorism on poverty and lack of opportunities to integrate. I've been following this issue over the last 3 years, and that's what I have seen.
I don't know how much you have been following the attacks, but in Europe there have been horrendous stories about rape, gang rape, terrorism from Muslim migrants. Since earlier you mentioned you were from Ireland, did you know about the gang rape of children in Rotherham? What about the sexual attack in Germany during New Year's a few years back? This stuff is getting very common these last few years.
I'm ok with immigration and aiding vulnerable groups, but if it brings the kind of problems we are seeing, when would you say enough is enough? How many more stadiums, night clubs, street cafes, streets need to be attacked before people acknowledge that there is a problem? The attacks so far have been mitigated because there was security: if there was no security during the attack on the Stade de France, the casualties would have been much higher, for instance.
I've lived in Europe and travelled freely, but the violence we are seeing are real facts I find concerning. I am not suggesting violence as a response, only to see the problems that exist, understand the causes. Lest you think this is only an Islamic terrorism issue, I also find the violence coercion in the history of Christianity to be problematic. But Christianity is right now not the cause of the violence we see.
And if you have solutions, what are those?
edit: why does this comment not show up? Is there a censorship thing here?