Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The parallels continue to mount up. Don't know if anybody saw this. Macron team hit by coordinated hacking attack.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-bitter-french-campaign-ends-macrons-team-hit-by-hack/ar-BBALjg6?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.

That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing) to bring together all the Muslim Cardinals (there is no such a thing) for a Muslim Conclave (there is no such a thing) before deciding that formal excommunication?

Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?

It is quite normal for religious people to stand up and be counted, and to formally disown an errent section claiming to be of that religious community. It doesn't require phantom catholicism.
There is already a form of Islamic excommunication, but it isn't used against ISIS, its abused by Isis. Iron Captain gave the name for it takfir, which I didn't know, thanks Iron Captain.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for the relevance to the French election, there is an argument that the Islamic community doesn't do enough to proactively root out extremism.

That makes no damn sense either. If you are talking about terrorism, then it's the counter-intelligence agencies job to work on this problem, not the average french muslim. If you are talking about extremism, well, I have a friend who comes from a pretty extremist Christian family, I never saw any Christians trying to root out that extremism, or anyone saying they should.

it makes perfect sense outside complacency ridden France.

France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.

How are things going in France... yeah right.... and you want your overstretched hole riddled security forces to wetnurse potential ISIS converts as well as try to 'protect' France.

Were it not so tragic I would laugh.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

If you are talking about extremism, well, I have a friend who comes from a pretty extremist Christian family, I never saw any Christians trying to root out that extremism, or anyone saying they should.

Actually that happens a lot. Westboro Baptists are as unpopular in the Christian community as they are elsewhere, and are pretty much entirely isolated. Also Christianity in the west doesnt have that type of dynamic. 'Extreme' churches tend to raise placards that the LGBT community don't like, rather than conduct suicide bombings. Yes individual murderous nutcases exist, but in reality that is due to individual isolated crime, people like Anders Brevic and abortion centre bombers are lone nutcases that claim to be Christian rather than part of Christian movements.

Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly. Though uneven handling and politically motivated uneven handling has much to do with that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
They need to be very clear that ISIS doesnt act for them

So you mean that they should insist that ISIS doesn't kill act for them when they kill them? Maybe they should wear, under their normal clothes, a tshirt that says “I do not approve of ISIS killing me”, and in case they are hit by an ISIS terrorist attack, they just remove/tear out their clothes to show their tshirt as they die?
Who would that be important for? For ISIS? So that ISIS know that the people they kill don't approve of being killed? Yeah that seems important. For people that are completely thick on the issue? Maybe those people should stop being so dense instead.

I will assume you are being facetious rather than mind bogglingly stupid.

It is not to do with anti ISIS T-shirts, though visible solidarity does help break down barriers of mistrust so that is important in its own way.

It works best when Moslem parents are encouraged raise their kids to understand a rational compassionate Islam, which can certainly be found in passages of the Koran, jihad begins at home at least indirectly. Most converts who go fight for ISIS are bored ignorant teenagers who have few prospects, disinterested teachers, parents and community leaders; but are taken interest of by radical preachers.

A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.

It is even possible that the recruiters and radical preachers that are the root cause can themselves be reached and turned around:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/13/godfather-of-british-jihadists-admits-we-opened-to-way-to-join-isis

The bottom line is that if you starve ISIS of recruits by educating western Moslems you cut a portion of their reinforcements (though westerners are only a tiny fraction of the whole) and more importantly for western nations it cuts back on the number of problem cases that the security services have to watch, cuts cost of such operations and minimises the number of atrocities that are planned and executed. Even the best security cannot stop them all, so it pays to minimise the number of threats.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
and doesnt act for Allah in their theological opinion

Who the feth cares about theology? spankers I guess.

Intelligent rational people do, because many of the problems disappear if the scriptures excused for hateful purpose by evil men were not willfully misread and taught to gullible angry people.

Taken from either a religious or secular point of view there is much to be gained by challenging extremist ideology itself. Most extremist ideology is unscriptural. For example anti-Semitic doctrines are warned against in the Koran, but that bit is glossed over by radical clerics. What would happen if it were not?
Islamic teaching says that Christians and Jews are 'peoples of the book' and are not to be persecuted, what do you think happens when this teaching is adhered to and when it is omitted?

Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught. This isn't entirely the fault of radical Islam either, the relatively peaceful caliphates of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were hardened by the atrocities caused by the Crusades and the Mongols.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I find it difficult to argue against that logic.

I don't even find any logic here so yeah it's hard to argue.

From the low quality of your input your inability to see the logic is not indicative of absence.

 sebster wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:


So yes, you've demonstrated that killing on a widespread scale occurs across the whole world, unfortunately. However, that is not the point being raised by the persecution of apostates. No other religious group (aside from a few select minor cults I imagine) engages in such virulent persecution of those that denounce their own religion.

I'm not saying persecution of apostates didn't occur for these other faiths, it most certainly did, but it is not practised to any noticeable degree in the modern age.

There it is again, 'modern age'. It just fething staggers me that people can't see the real relationship. People know that all religions were brutal through history. They know that brutality declined as the host nations transformed in to modern, liberal democracies. And they can see that the countries in which Islam is still frequently brutal are countries that do not have modern, liberal democracies. They see all that and then conclude 'well it's clearly Islam is just more violent'.

It's kind of amazing, really.

That said, I do think you make a good point that the threat of apostate killing has a chilling effect where it occurs, much like the example I gave of women. I still don't think it is on the same scale, but you make a good point all the same.

Just so I understand this correctly, you are asserting that the lack of a modern, liberal democracy is the cause for the more brutal features of the Islamic faith being featured and that the faith itself is not a contributing factor, or at least no more so than any other religion.

Clearly that is not the case, France and many unfortunate others would not have been experiencing the similar acts of violence from members of their own Muslim population if it was merely a matter of how modern or liberal any particular society is. If we look at Australia's history of immigration we can see that race riots, discrimination and distrust have been a similar feature in each wave of immigrants from the Chinese to the Greeks and Italians. Pre-meditated, indiscriminate attacks with international collaboration against members of the host nation have not been a serious concern in those immigration waves.

It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.

If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.

 Orlanth wrote:
Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?

Nowhere. I was just highlighting why that was stupid. Which authority do you want to declare that formal excomunication? I can find you tens of thousands of random Muslim that will happily tell you about how “ISIS are not true muslims” though. Which isn't worth a rat's ass, still.

 Orlanth wrote:
Iron Captain gave the name for it takfir, which I didn't know, thanks Iron Captain.

I see that you have been forging your opinion on top-notch knowledge of the subject at hand .

 Orlanth wrote:
it makes perfect sense outside complacency ridden France.

Complacency-ridden France? As opposed to where, the UK ?
It's funny because you have sharia courts and we have bans of the hijab at school and the burka in the street.
Please tell me more about complacency-ridden France lol.

 Orlanth wrote:
France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.

So basically, what you are saying is “There were people in the UK that joined ISIS, there still are, I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I am going to say it's less. Also there are people in France that join ISIS. This is proof that France is doing a worse job. Also noone in France shares my stupid idea and ask all and every French muslim to explicitly condemn ISIS even when said disapproval is bloody obvious for anyone with half a brain (this one is of course completely false, there are plenty of people doing that in France too, but hey, it was just obviously false so no problem here).

Nice argument!

 Orlanth wrote:
Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly.

Sure. I have seen the Church take responsibility for the LRA every time! They can't even properly take responsibility for pedophile priests lol.

 Orlanth wrote:
It is not to do with anti ISIS T-shirts, though visible solidarity does help break down barriers of mistrust so that is important in its own way.

Do you wear an anti-ISIS tshirt? If not, how are people going to trust you? That definitely seem to imply that you are an ISIS partisan, right?

 Orlanth wrote:
A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.

Yeah, I am sure that you have educated yourself deeply on the subject .

 Orlanth wrote:
Intelligent rational people do, because many of the problems disappear if the scriptures excused for hateful purpose by evil men were not willfully misread and taught to gullible angry people.

Oh I see that you are a great Islamic exegete! You know the scriptures better than all those hate preachers from Saudi Arabia that basically dedicated their life to studying them and therefore you are totally going to win arguments by showing how they misread them! I will totally bet all my money on you winning those kinds of debate, what could possibly go wrong! I'm sure that's the best possible approach to convince people not to blow themselves up. I mean, what other reasons than “Islam tell you not to do it” could possibly work to convince people not to do that?

 Orlanth wrote:
Islamic teaching says that Christians and Jews are 'peoples of the book' and are not to be persecuted, what do you think happens when this teaching is adhered to

Well, the IRI. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christian have reserved seats in the Majliss (the parliament). Bahais are horribly discriminated against. Apostates are killed. SUCH A JOLLY GOOD TIME REALLY!

 Orlanth wrote:
Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught.

Properly read and taught .

1. Is this ongoing situations proven that the French Constitution of 1958 (One that proclaims the Fifth Republic of France) is coming to the dead end as claimed by the La France Insoumise faction (Which means the 'Sixth Republic' is needed).
2. Did Brigitte Bardot still backs the Front Nationale after the change of leadership (and softer policy towards the LGBT... which the classic Rightwing antagonizes). What influences her Fascist point of view ?
3. It's a sad news that JLM didn't make it to the second round. Only the Neolib and the Neofascist/Nationalist remains (and the debates between these 2nd round candidates are nothing but a strong, 'generic' attacks against each other sans policy and lack of phillisophy.

https://www.facebook.com/piyabutr2475/posts/10154451997430848

4. What percentages of a likelihood that the FN will emerge triumphant in the next election campaign five years from now on? (Dunno if Bardot will live to see that day)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?

Nowhere. I was just highlighting why that was stupid. Which authority do you want to declare that formal excomunication? I can find you tens of thousands of random Muslim that will happily tell you about how “ISIS are not true muslims” though. Which isn't worth a rat's ass, still.

Ok. This was explained, it is worth something if done properly. You arent going to stop a terrorist with a bomb by telljng him most Moslems think ISIS is theologically wrong. What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information and there is a good chance he doesnt devolve into a terrorist with a bomb.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Iron Captain gave the name for it takfir, which I didn't know, thanks Iron Captain.

I see that you have been forging your opinion on top-notch knowledge of the subject at hand .

We are on the same page it seems, but Iron Captain knows the Arabic words.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.

So basically, what you are saying is “There were people in the UK that joined ISIS, there still are, I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I am going to say it's less. Also there are people in France that join ISIS. This is proof that France is doing a worse job. Also noone in France shares my stupid idea and ask all and every French muslim to explicitly condemn ISIS even when said disapproval is bloody obvious for anyone with half a brain (this one is of course completely false, there are plenty of people doing that in France too, but hey, it was just obviously false so no problem here).

Of course I don't know how many ISIS members there are in the UK. First because ISIS don't carry membership cards and second because the people watching them, GCHQ and MI5 are part of the security services and their operations are secret.
However we do have rough figures, 3000 high risk Islamists is a figure quoted in the press recently, and it is believed that France has more. French jihadists are certainly successfully executing far more attacks and the UK is seeing far more arrests and convictions.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly.

Sure. I have seen the Church take responsibility for the LRA every time! They can't even properly take responsibility for pedophile priests lol.

The LRA doesnt however get recruirts from Europe, ISIS does so the church must be doing something right there.
As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Do you wear an anti-ISIS tshirt? If not, how are people going to trust you? That definitely seem to imply that you are an ISIS partisan, right?

That was so random I don't know what you are talkjng about, and evidently you dont either. Are you trying to crack a joke?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.

Yeah, I am sure that you have educated yourself deeply on the subject .

Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11268208/Jihadists-in-Syria-write-home-to-France-My-iPod-is-broken.-I-want-to-come-back.html
http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/10/british-isis-fighter-says-he-wants-to-come-home-because-he-really-wants-fish-and-chips-6183376/

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Oh I see that you are a great Islamic exegete! You know the scriptures better than all those hate preachers from Saudi Arabia that basically dedicated their life to studying them and therefore you are totally going to win arguments by showing how they misread them!

I explained what I meant clearly enough, but here it is again.

1. It won't be me doing the deprogramming and deradicalisation, so my own level of knowledge of Islam is not relevant.
2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.
3. Once someone is already a terrorist work can still occur, it involves the state rather than the local community, and works mostly on threat by chosing prison or reeducation to returning jihadis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11068878/British-jihadists-to-be-forced-to-attend-deradicalisation-programmes-says-Cameron.html

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I will totally bet all my money on you winning those kinds of debate, what could possibly go wrong!

A fool and his money are soon parted.
You dont even now what you are betting on.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught.

Properly read and taught .

Laughing again, why do you make it sound like you have run out of meds.

Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.

If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.

Turns out when you treat people like terrorists due to their religion despite every indication to the contrary, it makes them angry.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:


If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.

Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.

There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now. Throughout the western world this is this absurd demand to deal with a particular kind of violence that on the whole constitutes less of a thread than a typical work day commute. More people are killed by non-Muslims than Muslims daily in Europe and the US, but for some baffling reason people are obsessed with how dangerous Islam is (well not the Free Masons, they're pretty harmless except for the whole New World Order thing )

 LordofHats wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:


If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.

Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.

There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now.

No not really. A few thousand is roughly equivalent to the current threat level in the UK according to released sources. Last time I checked I was not living in a warzone.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782647/London-terror-attack-3-500-potential-terrorists-monitored-less
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-3000-isis-jihadists-britain-6470558
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3000-terror-suspects-plotting-to-attack-uk-t7hfpqfbbp6

 Orlanth wrote:


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782647/London-terror-attack-3-500-potential-terrorists-monitored-less
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-3000-isis-jihadists-britain-6470558
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3000-terror-suspects-plotting-to-attack-uk-t7hfpqfbbp6

And two and half years later and Britain has only suffered the misfortune of two major attacks related to Islam whose fatalities don't even amount to 1% of the annual murder rate of the country.

Dear god. Could it be that the government is as paranoid and reactionary as the people who put it in power, and both are in desperate need of some actual perspective? Could it be that if we're so concerned about people killing other people, we should be mass banning and imprisoning doctors, who kill more people daily in the western world by accident than Muslims kill on purpose? Maybe we should just start sending tobacco growers to jail. They've killed more people in a year than Islamic terrorists will kill a lifetime (which is understandably short).

And if this post about people dying upsets anyone reading it, imagine how a typical Muslim in a western country feels constantly having to hear about how "dangerous" they are and how the government should do something about it. I'm sure those feelings of alienation are incredibly conductive to their assimilation into the country, and not a blatant catch-22 built by the moronic aspects of the human mind rearing their head to build a realm of circular logic to justify bigotry under the guise of rationality.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606092/Islamist-Extremist-Islamic-State-ISIS-MI5-Britain-Andrew-Parker-Security-David-Cameron
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782647/London-terror-attack-3-500-potential-terrorists-monitored-less
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-3000-isis-jihadists-britain-6470558
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3000-terror-suspects-plotting-to-attack-uk-t7hfpqfbbp6

And two and half years later and Britain has only suffered the misfortune of two major attacks related to Islam whose fatalities don't even amount to 1% of the annual murder rate of the country.

Dear god. Could it be that the government is as paranoid and reactionary as the people who put it in power, and both are in desperate need of some actual perspective? Could it be that if we're so concerned about people killing other people, we should be mass banning and imprisoning doctors, who kill more people daily in the western world by accident than Muslims kill on purpose? Maybe we should just start sending tobacco growers to jail. They've killed more people in a year than Islamic terrorists will kill a lifetime (which is understandably short).

And if this post about people dying upsets anyone reading it, imagine how a typical Muslim in a western country feels constantly having to hear about how "dangerous" they are and how the government should do something about it. I'm sure those feelings of alienation are incredibly conductive to their assimilation into the country, and not a blatant catch-22 built by the moronic aspects of the human mind rearing their head to build a realm of circular logic to justify bigotry under the guise of rationality.

Where to begin with this. Islamic terrorists are a clear and present danger, they need to be watched to gather evidence for trial, and also to prevent atrocity.
They dont add up to 1% BECAUSE the security services are on the ball, not in spite.

The US has a murder rate of about 17k persons a year, they lost about 2-3 months 'quota' on one day on 9/11. Yep preventing this is important. ISIS would love to do a mas attack, they would also like to use WMDs if they got access to them.

We spent a lot of effort to find scum like Mohammed Emwazi, yes he killed half a dozen people on video with a knife. There are people out there would would dearly love to spread radiologicals over western cities like, Paris London and Washington. I think that is enough of a problem to say we are not overegging this.

The small percentage of terrorist incident casualties compared to the murder rate is not relevant. The average house panicked house burglar, thug or even rapist-murderer is not trying to fly jets into skyscrapers or poison the water supply with radiologicals or bioweapons.

 Orlanth wrote:
Where to begin with this.

Tell me about it.

Islamic terrorists are a clear and present danger, they need to be watched to gather evidence for trial, and also to prevent atrocity.

Terrorists of all colors are a clear and present danger, but most people seem to enjoy the luxury of not being lumped in with them on account of sharing the same broad religious denomination.

But no really. It's always endearing how nonchalantly certain people merrily transition from talking about all Muslims being dangerous to the specificity to "Islamic terrorists" being dangerous. So which are we talking about? I'm responding to the former, not the later but I do enjoy the goal post shift people pull every time this topic comes up.

They dont add up to 1% BECAUSE the security services are on the ball, not in spite.

You literally just claimed above that the people investigating this keep things secret, so is this just convenient speculation or do you have inside knowledge? I'm betting the former.

ISIS would love to do a mas attack, they would also like to use WMDs if they got access to them.

They would also love for the conflict to become Islam vs the world. For some baffling reason right wing politics the world over love demanding "we can't let the terrorists win" while letting the terrorists win.

The small percentage of terrorist incident casualties compared to the murder rate is not relevant. The average house panicked house burglar, thug or even rapist-murderer is not trying to fly jets into skyscrapers or poison the water supply with radiologicals or bioweapons.

It's completely relevant. Killing people is considered a negative, and we react extremely to extremist attacks because they kill a lot of people, but the degree to which we direct focus on those attacks is completely out of proportion with how many people are dying relative to other causes. I literally just got finished reading a bunch of newspapers from 1850, and we were saying the same gak about the Irish and Ireland actually spent nearly a solid century in constant domestic violence, but outside the UK I never saw anyone saying we should consider the Irish a pervasive threat (well not after 1890 ). If we're going to take extreme positions on an entire group of people on account of how many people specific extreme elements of that group can, have, or want to kill, why the feth aren't we all throwing every Christian in jail right now? There's plenty of Christian extremists in the world. They talk about final solutions all the time. Obviously Christians are a pervasive threat and we must resolve them. Except we're not going to do that because it's patently absurd. Only Muslims get that kind of nonsense thrown at them these days.

So what time tomorrow should we know the winner?

NinthMusketeer wrote:[Turns out when you treat people like terrorists due to their religion despite every indication to the contrary, it makes them angry.

Because Islamic extremism isn't a serious issue in nations where Islam is the majority of the population or even the law of the land, right?

LordofHats wrote:

Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.

This is uncalled for.

There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now. Throughout the western world this is this absurd demand to deal with a particular kind of violence that on the whole constitutes less of a thread than a typical work day commute. More people are killed by non-Muslims than Muslims daily in Europe and the US, but for some baffling reason people are obsessed with how dangerous Islam is (well not the Free Masons, they're pretty harmless except for the whole New World Order thing )

The UK and US, when compared to France, has been extremely successful in preventing these attacks. In part due to somewhat draconian anti-terror laws. If you honestly think that these laws exist completely without justification or that the threat they purport to prevent is completely imaginary... well that's just a foolish line of thought. Certainly these governments come to like this increasing power they enjoy, but they are not fabricating an Islamic-terrorist threat from scratch to justify it.

As to your argument that you're more likely to be killed by anything or anyone else in your daily life than a terrorist attack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqro2DTGhlo

 Orlanth wrote:
What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information

Who are you asking to tell him this?
His parents? Most of them do, you know. Really people that go full terrorist often comes from family that totally disapprove all this.

 Orlanth wrote:
We are on the same page it seems, but Iron Captain knows the Arabic words.

We are not on the same page. I know Arabic words too, you know.

 Orlanth wrote:
The LRA doesnt however get recruirts from Europe

So what? Is the Pope somehow only concerned by Europe?

 Orlanth wrote:
As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.

.
ISIS are Sunni. That never stopped you from saying “Muslims” . Denominations somehow didn't count at that time .
Oh how things change when the table are turned . Oh the double standards !
Why have those pedo priests not been formally excommunicated? Not only didn't Catholicism do that, but neither did Protestants, as far as I can tell. Why so, do you think?

 Orlanth wrote:
That was so random I don't know what you are talkjng about, and evidently you dont either. Are you trying to crack a joke?

I am trying to show how you are basically considering all Muslims as ISIS supporters by default, unless they explicitly show they are not. But somehow you don't think you should be held to the same standard. You don't have to show that you don't support ISIS. They do.

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.

That's one way to say “I have read sensationalist headlines and distorted them (none of those even speak of Facebook)”.
What I'm reading is “Some people that went to a war-torn country to fight a war are facing terrible conditions that goes way, way farther than “No facebook” and they therefore want to leave”. Not “Spoiled brats are throwing a tantrum because they are so soft”, despite the eye-catching (and a bit dishonest) headlines.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. It won't be me doing the deprogramming and deradicalisation, so my own level of knowledge of Islam is not relevant.

Then don't tell me which interpretation is the right, good-faith, accurate one and which is the wrong, dishonest, misleading one.
Just say “The one I like” and “The one I don't like”.

 Orlanth wrote:
2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.

So it still involves being more convincing than those guys, which was my point.

 Orlanth wrote:
Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.

I'm not arguing otherwise. Just laughing at the good old, quite comfortable, very unsubstantiated idea that “read in a way that I like more” is synonymous with “properly read and taught”.

This is uncalled for.

It's completely called for, and if you don't like it then do some introspection. You entire posting history in this thread reads like a long series of "I'm not racist, but" comments and its reached the point where there is no point in indulging you.

The UK and US, when compared to France, has been extremely successful in preventing these attacks. In part due to somewhat draconian anti-terror laws. If you honestly think that these laws exist completely without justification or that the threat they purport to prevent is completely imaginary... well that's just a foolish line of thought. Certainly these governments come to like this increasing power they enjoy, but they are not fabricating an Islamic-terrorist threat from scratch to justify it.

And there's that goal post shift, where you seamlessly transition from attacking all Muslims as a pervasive multi-generation threat to only talking about terrorists so as to maintain the veil of rational credibility.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information

Who are you asking to tell him this?
His parents? Most of them do, you know. Really people that go full terrorist often comes from family that totally disapprove all this.

Community. Familes might disapprove, or otherwise claim to disapprove because they openly live there, still many current parents are uninterested in social discipline.
secondly we need to de-radicalise student unions, which is where a lot of jihadism is expoused, we must stamp on the head Trojan horse schools (look it up), the Tories did this, Labour ignored it for reasons of PC dogma. Above all extremist mosques should be ostracised and moderate social Imams encouraged, and ushered to take stwardship of disaffected youth. ?there is room for improvement in secondary education too.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
We are on the same page it seems, but Iron Captain knows the Arabic words.

We are not on the same page. I know Arabic words too, you know.

look at the context, I was talking abut Iron Captain, who has his head screwed on preoperly when it comes to understanding Ismalic radicalism and its dangers.
I was certainly not talking about you.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The LRA doesnt however get recruirts from Europe

So what? Is the Pope somehow only concerned by Europe?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-pays-tribute-to-ugandan-martyrs-1448726203
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/pope-francis-mass-uganda-preach-reconciliation-peace

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/27/pope_francis_‘studying_possibility’_of_south_sudan_visit/1295251
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/22/pope_francis_appeals_for_‘suffering_south_sudan’/1294160

Evidently not.

Anyway you missed or were unable to understand the point. Christian communities in European countries do not send fanatics to join the LRA. No churches preachs holy war on behalf of the LRA, and it any isolated sect were to do so, the condemnation by the churches would be immedate and vocal, and the sect would likely be shut down.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.

.
ISIS are Sunni. That never stopped you from saying “Muslims” . Denominations somehow didn't count at that time

ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers.

.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Why have those pedo priests not been formally excommunicated? Not only didn't Catholicism do that, but neither did Protestants, as far as I can tell. Why so, do you think?

Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance. In Catholic teaching excommunication equals damnation. Outside of poltical usage in the middle ages it is not formally used much.
Protestants don't have a doctrine of excommunication as under most Protestant teachings salvation and damnation are judged by God alone.

However most churches have a civic equivalent, expulsion and a rejection of action. This does happen, though in the cases of Protestants, especially in the UK there isnt much evidence for child molestation. There is some, but its not endemic, more like the standard % of criminals in the education system that can be found in any demographic, it was also decisively dealt with. The CoE especially has avoided culpability by not turning a blind eye to any paedo they found anyway, CoE paedos have been uncovered, but not CoE cover ups. This doesnt cover them from ignorant people who lump all denominations in together.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
That was so random I don't know what you are talkjng about, and evidently you dont either. Are you trying to crack a joke?

I am trying to show how you are basically considering all Muslims as ISIS supporters by default, unless they explicitly show they are not. But somehow you don't think you should be held to the same standard. You don't have to show that you don't support ISIS. They do.

Ok, i was right then, you really don't have a clue what you are saying.
There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.

That's one way to say “I have read sensationalist headlines and distorted them (none of those even speak of Facebook)”.

Couldnt find the Facebook reference at short notice, it was a case several years ago. Instead if a jihadist who wanted to return home because they couldn't get Facebook, I gave to links to one who returned because his ipod broke, and another who yearned for fish and chips.
Point was well established, many jihadis have a shallow commitment and thus are ripe for deradicalisation.
I even used media with different slants.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Then don't tell me which interpretation is the right, good-faith, accurate one and which is the wrong, dishonest, misleading one.
Just say “The one I like” and “The one I don't like”.

You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.

Now if a group like ISIS that wants t get hold of radiological materials to duild a dirty bomb, to explode in a western city to cause thousands maybe tens of thousands of random people to die of radiation poisoning, and want to do this in the name of God. Can you find something incompatible with peace in that action.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.

So it still involves being more convincing than those guys, which was my point.

Your point is that you need to match the theology of the hate preachers, its easier than that, you need to replace the theology of the hate preachers. People have too go a fair way to find a hate preacher in a western country, there is time and opportunity to educate impressionable Moslems before they get radicalised.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.

I'm not arguing otherwise. Just laughing at the good old, quite comfortable, very unsubstantiated idea that “read in a way that I like more” is synonymous with “properly read and taught”.

Where do you possibly get the excuse to make such an assumption.
Also you flit about with words like 'unsubstantiated' like you dont know what they mean. You don't post links to evidence, you don't post examples we can Google, you just post baseless objections and then handwave to claim my multiple sourced arguments are somehow 'unsubstantiated'.
You know what the the yellow lines of text are for, they links to news articles or other evidence to back up a point, and I always like to post at least two links or seperate examples to multiple source.

 Orlanth wrote:
ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers

Okay, completely ignoring that Hybrid's point was that you're just "no true scottsman-ing" your way to a circular logic where you will always be right no matter how you choose to approach Islam, ISIS is Sunni. They're Salafi's and they're favorite poster child for fake Muslims are Shiites, then "no true Muslim" Sunnis who are not also Salafis.

You've come full circle on the road of unintentional irony.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.

That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)

Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...
Another problem would be that he is not recognised by much of the muslim community.

So I do agree with you that calling on the muslim community to formally excommunicate ISIS doesn't make much sense. Only a legitimate Caliph that enjoys support of both Sunni and Shia could do something like that, and there hasn't been a Caliph like that since Muhammad died and Abu Bakr and Ali started fighting each other.
At most we could ask muslim communities to openly condemn and speak out against ISIS and islamic terrorism and to actively fight it, and call upon the muftis to issue fatwas against ISIS. Many muslim communities have already done so, and it is muslims who are doing most of the fighting already. I am not sure what we could ask more of them. Many muslims of course have not spoken out against ISIS, but that unfortenately is because many of them do actually have a degree of sympathy for ISIS, most of which is a result of gak the West has been pulling of in the Middle East. For many muslims, ISIS and other radical groups are like resistance movements against the West. If we want to fix that, we will not just have to point fingers at the muslims, but we need to work together with them and also look at our own part as Westerners in the situation in the Middle East. We are far from blameless. But of course, what exactly is to be done is the big question of 21st century politics. I do honestly not know the answer.

The Caliph is technically more like a divine right to rule King (or the Stewards of Gondor) than the Pope

Though some Pope's did try

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.

That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)

Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...

"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O

 Orlanth wrote:
secondly we need to de-radicalise student unions, which is where a lot of jihadism is expoused

Are you still talking about France ?

 Orlanth wrote:
ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers.

.
Let me put this inside a spoiler tag

I wish there were blinking tags too, you deserve them.

 Orlanth wrote:
Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance.

Oooohh, I see! What about the nazis? I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for them not being formally and explicitly excommunicated by the church, but one that somehow, for reasons that I will disclose below, don't apply to muslims and ISIS :

 Orlanth wrote:
There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.

But there is, really. The double standard that you impart on them and only them to explicitly denounce ISIS does.

 Orlanth wrote:
Couldnt find the Facebook reference at short notice, it was a case several years ago. Instead if a jihadist who wanted to return home because they couldn't get Facebook, I gave to links to one who returned because his ipod broke, and another who yearned for fish and chips.

And it's obviously the main reason for them to want to go home, and definitely not a tiny detail that was mounted up by journo for sensationalism . You know, living in a war-torn country on the losing side of a war fought in terrible conditions doesn't even begin to factor into their decision. If only they had facebook then having no running water, no bed, no heating, risking your life every day, and so on, wouldn't matter one bit to them!
How naive.

 Orlanth wrote:
You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.

.
Sure, man, sure .

 Orlanth wrote:
Now if a group like ISIS that wants t get hold of radiological materials to duild a dirty bomb, to explode in a western city to cause thousands maybe tens of thousands of random people to die of radiation poisoning, and want to do this in the name of God. Can you find something incompatible with peace in that action.

Nope. What I can find, by looking it up, is tons of material to support their action in Islamic scripture.

 Orlanth wrote:
You don't post links to evidence, you don't post examples we can Google, you just post baseless objections and then handwave to claim my multiple sourced arguments are somehow 'unsubstantiated'.

Yeah I'm a lazy bum.
I can't find the courage to go dig a few links for you about nice quotations from the Quran, or the Sunnah, to show you what “religion of peace” means. Just go google Banu Qurayza or something.
Go by yourself look at the justification actual jihadi use for their actions and check them against the texts by yourself, instead of relying on the convenient assumption that they are the one distorting the texts or something.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.

That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)

Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...

"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O

So like Aun'va?

 Galas wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.

That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)

Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...

"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O

So like Aun'va?

Lol.. Why not at this point!

Local field command will run day to day combat, half thr original senior figures are killed it seems.
There losing badly. His death, might be symbolic. He not a man. He a caliph... He a Pope...

Far as I'm awhere there's not a second I command take over system for this unlike other roles.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
secondly we need to de-radicalise student unions, which is where a lot of jihadism is expoused

Are you still talking about France ?

Europe.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance.

Oooohh, I see! What about the nazis? I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for them not being formally and explicitly excommunicated by the church, but one that somehow, for reasons that I will disclose below, don't apply to muslims and ISIS :

Spoiler:

DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!

Ok. I will explain it to you. Nazis are not seen as holy.
ISIS consider themelves holy, and people are being hoodwinked into thinking that joining ISIS is holy. How about having the Moslem community proactively disown ISIS and educting Moslems in Europe so they don't sign up.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.

But there is, really. The double standard that you impart on them and only them to explicitly denounce ISIS does.

There is no double standard. You keep on deliberately misrepresenting what I have posted, despite repeated and different methods of clarification.
Do you have learning difficulties, it would explain a lot.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

And it's obviously the main reason for them to want to go home, and definitely not a tiny detail that was mounted up by journo for sensationalism .

Do you have evidence for that? you cant just take a link and handwave and say senstalionalist press without applying a reason. Also the press chosen are not particularly known for senstatlioanalism. Guardia, Daily Mail, Sun, Star or Mirror are often sensationalist. Telepgraph, Times and Independent are usually fairly good sources. All press embellish to some extent or other, but not the the extent you can call 'fake news'.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You know, living in a war-torn country on the losing side of a war fought in terrible conditions doesn't even begin to factor into their decision. If only they had facebook then having no running water, no bed, no heating, risking your life every day, and so on, wouldn't matter one bit to them!
How naive.

I didn't bother to quote inks to the comments of jihadis wanting out for those reasons there are rather a lot of them. Also you forget the point being made: some jihadis have a shallow adherence to jihad, I think I have said this three times now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.

.
Sure, man, sure .

Ok so you are a screaming bigot. Nice to get that out of the way. I will stop wasting time on you.

Last comment, not bothering with answering the rest of your post now.


Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.

Message ends.

 Orlanth wrote:



Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.

Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West.
If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:



Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.

Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West.
If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.

Aye. The ones behind its rise are a few evil men, there's always gonna be someone who financed, or enabled radicals to exists and grow.
Not every muslim but there's some very bad eggs in the basket.

Those eggs are a real danger as they infect others.
While they may be few they are vocal, they are prominent.
They are what we see most of. Not the shop keeper who just wants to mind own business.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:



Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.

Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West.
If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.

Aye. The ones behind its rise are a few evil men, there's always gonna be someone who financed, or enabled radicals to exists and grow.
Not every muslim but there's some very bad eggs in the basket.

Those eggs are a real danger as they infect others.
While they may be few they are vocal, they are prominent.
They are what we see most of. Not the shop keeper who just wants to mind own business.

You are correct. The problem is when looking for those rotten eggs we shake the basket and don't mind broking half of them and just say "Nah, they were rotten for the beginning"
Terrorism, as all the complicated problems, don't has a simple solution. Theres no magical spell that many politicians today say they have to make it disappear. Not theres only one way to solve this problem too, so people that think otherwise are pretty blind to how thinks works in the world. Obviously, the way you find more apropiate to fix this problem will vary with your ideary or ideology or vision of the world. But thats how all works, no?
If people, in general (Myself included), were more humble to recognise that is more probably for us to be in the wrong that in the correct answer to everything, we could work better as a society.