French terrorist attacks

[JZinCO]

While I don't agree with the overall tenor of EricL's thoughts, I do wish that more secular Muslims (and there are millions upon millions) would speak up in resistance against the barbarism of ISIS and other terrorists groups in their midst. But I can hardly blame them. They are likely afraid and just living their micro-lives just like we do. They are probably afraid of becoming like the many secular bloggers in Bangladesh who have been hacked to death (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032). Or the numerous cartoonists (of which Hebdo is just the most recent example) or novelists that are threatened and sometimes killed violently. That is a powerful motivation to stay silent.

They do!  Londoner supplied one link.  Here's an article that gives dozens more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/

Islamic countries are fighting wars against extremism in several countries: not only against ISIS in cooperation with the US and France, but also in Yemen.

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out. When 86% of Egyptians (according to Pew, 2013) support murder of apostates, the progressive muslims are clearly in the minority. This is a problem. We need a critical mass of muslims to stand up to barbarism.

Regarding the second paragraph, I agree to the extent that some countries (e.g. Jordan seems to be engaged for reasons compatible with Liberalism. However, some countries are involved with combating for the wrong reason (holy war against heretics), such as Iran or Syria. This doesn't help the cause for moderation and liberalism in Islam at all.

EDIT: I can assume that many of the leaders in the linked article made heartfelt statements... but for the religious body of the Sauds to say 'we don't support terrorism'. That's laughable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia Vice News actually has a great episode on how the tenets of Wahhabism lead to sanctioning of terrorism.

[arebelspy]

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

So someone says Muslims don't speak out. Clear evidence is shown that they do.  Now the goalpost moves to "MORE need to speak out."  How many is enough?

The leaders are the ones with the microphones, that people listen to.  How is the average Muslim, who is against these terrorist attacks, supposed to "speak out" exactly?

They're against it.  Their leaders are against it.  They speak out against it.

To then say "oh, it's not enough" is unfair.

[Paul der Krake]

A cursory read of the "US presidential candidates" thread is all you need to identify the individuals to steer away from in serious discussions elsewhere. They typically quote your words, distort and poison your train of thought, but there is no obligation to write back.

The mods (praise be) have chosen a very hands off approach, and quite frankly it is amazing that it works so well. We are, at least by internet standards, a very reasonable bunch.

Back on topic, Sam Harris has a podcast on the difficulty to frankly discuss the extremism in Islam. Give it a listen:

http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/still-sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

[JZinCO]

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

So someone says Muslims don't speak out. Clear evidence is shown that they do.  Now the goalpost moves to "MORE need to speak out."  How many is enough?

"Enough" in my view happens when someone supporting murder of apostates and infidels or treatment of women as second-class becomes a social pariah and loses their social, political, religious standing. Those mass demonstrations that occur after the prophet is drawn, we need those after Islamists murder anyone whether in Paris or in a muslim-majority state.
It is akin to how it is uncouth to denigrate african americans today, but it was acceptable a generation ago.

[beltim]

While I don't agree with the overall tenor of EricL's thoughts, I do wish that more secular Muslims (and there are millions upon millions) would speak up in resistance against the barbarism of ISIS and other terrorists groups in their midst. But I can hardly blame them. They are likely afraid and just living their micro-lives just like we do. They are probably afraid of becoming like the many secular bloggers in Bangladesh who have been hacked to death (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032). Or the numerous cartoonists (of which Hebdo is just the most recent example) or novelists that are threatened and sometimes killed violently. That is a powerful motivation to stay silent.

They do!  Londoner supplied one link.  Here's an article that gives dozens more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/

Islamic countries are fighting wars against extremism in several countries: not only against ISIS in cooperation with the US and France, but also in Yemen.

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out. When 86% of Egyptians (according to Pew, 2013) support murder of apostates, the progressive muslims are clearly in the minority. This is a problem. We need a critical mass of muslims to stand up to barbarism.

I'm reminded of the quote from the Bible here: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

In fact, among Americans of different faiths, Muslims were the least likely to support killing of civilians: http://fair.org/blog/2013/05/03/killing-civilians-is-a-more-popular-than-youd-think-especially-among-pundits/

Secularism is not a religious value.  It is a cultural value.  When you blame "Muslims" for something you're talking about a diverse group of 1.6 billion people in dozens, if not hundreds, of cultures.  Blaming Muslims in general for any particular act of terrorism committed by a Muslim is like blaming Christians in general for the terrorism committed by the IRA.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

[justajane]

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

So someone says Muslims don't speak out. Clear evidence is shown that they do.  Now the goalpost moves to "MORE need to speak out."  How many is enough?

The leaders are the ones with the microphones, that people listen to.  How is the average Muslim, who is against these terrorist attacks, supposed to "speak out" exactly?

They're against it.  Their leaders are against it.  They speak out against it.

To then say "oh, it's not enough" is unfair.

For the record, I did not originally say that no Muslims speak out. I said that more likely need to speak out for there to be change but that I understand why ordinary citizens keep quiet. They are afraid. Here it is again what I wrote:

While I don't agree with the overall tenor of EricL's thoughts, I do wish that more secular Muslims (and there are millions upon millions) would speak up in resistance against the barbarism of ISIS and other terrorists groups in their midst. But I can hardly blame them. They are likely afraid and just living their micro-lives just like we do. They are probably afraid of becoming like the many secular bloggers in Bangladesh who have been hacked to death (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032). Or the numerous cartoonists (of which Hebdo is just the most recent example) or novelists that are threatened and sometimes killed violently. That is a powerful motivation to stay silent.

You can see the same thing happen in gun violence debates on here. Non-Americans will come on and say, "Wake the fuck up, American citizens. Bring about change and speak up!" What they don't understand is that there's not much that the average American can do, especially when so many people are perfectly happy with our current gun laws. It's very hard for people on the outside of a culture to understand what's really going on on the inside. I grant that this is also the case on the issue of terrorism in the Muslim world.   

[arebelspy]

What makes you think normal citizens are keeping quiet any more than the average American citizen is "keeping quiet?"  Because they don't post some trite message on Facebook.  An average citizen doesn't have a platform the way the leaders do.  I think they're as against the terrorist attacks as the non-Muslims.

[justajane]

What makes you think normal citizens are keeping quiet any more than the average American citizen is "keeping quiet?"  Because they don't post some trite message on Facebook.  An average citizen doesn't have a platform the way the leaders do.  I think they're as against the terrorist attacks as the non-Muslims.

Neither you nor I know the answer to your question. You can't know for certain either that your hypothesis is correct. Unfortunately we don't have access to actual polls or accurate election results. And EricL, who actually did have some first-hand experiences in Afghanistan was banned, so we can't ask him further about what he experienced. And he likely was exposed to only a teeny tiny amount of average folk too, so it's not like his perceptions would lead us to a better answer. 

What we do know is that the violence is disturbing and we're all grasping at straws and answers here.

[Squirrel away]

I'm reminded of the quote from the Bible here: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

In fact, among Americans of different faiths, Muslims were the least likely to support killing of civilians: http://fair.org/blog/2013/05/03/killing-civilians-is-a-more-popular-than-youd-think-especially-among-pundits/

Secularism is not a religious value.  It is a cultural value.  When you blame "Muslims" for something you're talking about a diverse group of 1.6 billion people in dozens, if not hundreds, of cultures.  Blaming Muslims in general for any particular act of terrorism committed by a Muslim is like blaming Christians in general for the terrorism committed by the IRA.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes exactly, I am English but with an Irish heritage and I remember other kids being teased at school because they were Irish because of the IRA bombings that were going on in the 80s and 90s in London. Now I assume it is the same for Muslim kids at school.

What exactly are the moderate Muslims supposed to do? Their religion has been hijacked by a barbaric death cult and it is ridiculous to think that they should be publicly apologising about these awful criminals when it is nothing to do with them.

[JZinCO]

While I don't agree with the overall tenor of EricL's thoughts, I do wish that more secular Muslims (and there are millions upon millions) would speak up in resistance against the barbarism of ISIS and other terrorists groups in their midst. But I can hardly blame them. They are likely afraid and just living their micro-lives just like we do. They are probably afraid of becoming like the many secular bloggers in Bangladesh who have been hacked to death (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032). Or the numerous cartoonists (of which Hebdo is just the most recent example) or novelists that are threatened and sometimes killed violently. That is a powerful motivation to stay silent.

They do!  Londoner supplied one link.  Here's an article that gives dozens more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/

Islamic countries are fighting wars against extremism in several countries: not only against ISIS in cooperation with the US and France, but also in Yemen.

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out. When 86% of Egyptians (according to Pew, 2013) support murder of apostates, the progressive muslims are clearly in the minority. This is a problem. We need a critical mass of muslims to stand up to barbarism.

I'm reminded of the quote from the Bible here: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

In fact, among Americans of different faiths, Muslims were the least likely to support killing of civilians: http://fair.org/blog/2013/05/03/killing-civilians-is-a-more-popular-than-youd-think-especially-among-pundits/

Secularism is not a religious value.  It is a cultural value.  When you blame "Muslims" for something you're talking about a diverse group of 1.6 billion people in dozens, if not hundreds, of cultures.  Blaming Muslims in general for any particular act of terrorism committed by a Muslim is like blaming Christians in general for the terrorism committed by the IRA.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not really sure how you you distorted my viewpoint to suggest that I blame all muslims for the acts of a few. Simply put. If not from holy texts and teachings, where do those cultural values stem from? When the Lord's Resistance Army kills people in the name of Jesus, the religious ideology is to blame. When Islamists kill cartoonists for the drawing of the prophet, the religious ideology is to blame.
From the viewpoint of an Islamist, whose interpretation of holy texts tell them that there can be no governance except by that of a holy empire, you can bet that secularism is a question for religion to answer.

[justajane]

What exactly are the moderate Muslims supposed to do? Their religion has been hijacked by a barbaric death cult and it is ridiculous to think that they should be publicly apologising about these awful criminals when it is nothing to do with them.

At this point, I feel like we're all arguing with each other when we don't actually disagree with each other. I don't know what they are supposed to do ultimately. You're right.

But how does any social change happen then? Are they just doomed to live in fear and under barbaric leadership for the rest of their lives? What's the answer here? I can't imagine it's going to be external intervention from the West that is going to make things better. I imagine we can all agree that that would just make things worse.

[JZinCO]

What makes you think normal citizens are keeping quiet any more than the average American citizen is "keeping quiet?"  Because they don't post some trite message on Facebook.  An average citizen doesn't have a platform the way the leaders do.  I think they're as against the terrorist attacks as the non-Muslims.

Well, we could always ask them: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
It's scary that 25% of british muslims supported the 7/7 bombing. It's even scarier that Islamism is strongest younger muslims born in the UK. This is not 'culture' as was alluded to earlier. The immigrants who reared this generation are much more moderate than their children!
The underlying problem isn't just religion. We don't see ultra-conservative seikhs terrorizing. The problem is the quran and hadith, and the solution isn't scrapping the religion or attacking the religion; I agree with Aayan Hirsi Ali in that the solution is adopting a less literal, more progressive interpretation of the text. It's what Christianity went through all that time ago. The problem is, in the modern era, extreme violence is more readily done (think ICBMs, nukes, biological agents). We don't have centuries to change the faith this time. We need a rapid liberalization of Islam.

edit: After that, we can tackle dismantling all schisms and forms of oppression which attempt to govern societies through blind adherence and work on building societies and governance informed by independent and critical thought.

[Kris]

What exactly are the moderate Muslims supposed to do? Their religion has been hijacked by a barbaric death cult and it is ridiculous to think that they should be publicly apologising about these awful criminals when it is nothing to do with them.

At this point, I feel like we're all arguing with each other when we don't actually disagree with each other. I don't know what they are supposed to do ultimately. You're right.

But how does any social change happen then? Are they just doomed to live in fear and under barbaric leadership for the rest of their lives? What's the answer here? I can't imagine it's going to be external intervention from the West that is going to make things better. I imagine we can all agree that that would just make things worse.

I agree.  Part of the problem is, I think one of the only things that could make things better is an organized coalition of Middle East countries taking the primary role in eradicating Daech.  And that's not likely to happen any time soon.

[JZinCO]

What exactly are the moderate Muslims supposed to do? Their religion has been hijacked by a barbaric death cult and it is ridiculous to think that they should be publicly apologising about these awful criminals when it is nothing to do with them.

At this point, I feel like we're all arguing with each other when we don't actually disagree with each other. I don't know what they are supposed to do ultimately. You're right.

But how does any social change happen then? Are they just doomed to live in fear and under barbaric leadership for the rest of their lives? What's the answer here? I can't imagine it's going to be external intervention from the West that is going to make things better. I imagine we can all agree that that would just make things worse.

I agree.  Part of the problem is, I think one of the only things that could make things better is an organized coalition of Middle East countries taking the primary role in eradicating Daech.  And that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I agree. Putting 'infidel' boots on the ground is not going to help. A coalition of regional nation states is required.
On the other hand, if we treat ISIS like a nation state and the acts in Paris as state-sanctioned terrorism, there is an argument for invoking the defense of ally chapter in the NATO charter (as we did in Afghanistan). Recall that NATO has been a huge deterrent against would-be aggressors in the past.

[astvilla]

Part of it is media.  The power of media and speakers to influence thoughts, emotions, beliefs shouldn't be underestimated. Propaganda is really strong and the media has been pretty effective in saying while we all stand together, Islam/Muslims = ISIS.  They don't focus on the vast majority of Muslims because they're not causing problems or making a splash on headlines. 

I thought the Guardian's did a decent job in jihadists' manifesto.  Their tactics are really shrewd.  They're not that dumb but play to our weaknesses.  I remember Al Qaeda saying they want the US involved in Middle East, take away their freedoms, bait them to destroy current dictators to create a vacuum of power that jihadists can then go in and occupy.

President Obama (although I've criticized him before) is smart in not falling for the trap and is refusing to send boots on the ground.  Very smart, wise move. 

The problem w/jihadists and people understanding/accepting moderate Muslims is that the terrorists in many attacks were moderate Muslims. Anyone watch the interview of the brother?  Very normal people.  In fact, many acts of carnage (shootings, terrorists) were committed by people who were thought of as normal by the people around them and express shock. "OMG, how did this happen?" Not so hard to kill lots of people.  Automatic weapons, ease of information, bombs, vicious cocktail.  Who knows, maybe nukes could be next.

Merkel letting in more of these refugees increases the potential candidates for terrorism. Sure they're moderate. But they can transform to be dangerous.  Sure cells are okay, but can transform into cancer cells. 

While Muslims aren't the only ones capable of carnage (Oslo Norway, 2011), they are responsible for many attacks.  I think some people need to watch VICE's coverage on Islam in UK.  It's nuts.

And remember, many "moderate" Muslims joined ISIS in Syria. Many normal people became jihadists.
Also intriguing is that many of these people are poor, no direction.  European economy isn't great and poverty, isolation, frustration, are ripe ingredients for extremism to take root. 

This won't be the last attack either.  I expect this to be an occasional occurrence, even after ISIS is defeated. Since extremism isn't just ISIS or Al Qaeda.

[arebelspy]

What makes you think normal citizens are keeping quiet any more than the average American citizen is "keeping quiet?"  Because they don't post some trite message on Facebook.  An average citizen doesn't have a platform the way the leaders do.  I think they're as against the terrorist attacks as the non-Muslims.

Neither you nor I know the answer to your question. You can't know for certain either that your hypothesis is correct. Unfortunately we don't have access to actual polls or accurate election results. And EricL, who actually did have some first-hand experiences in Afghanistan was banned, so we can't ask him further about what he experienced. And he likely was exposed to only a teeny tiny amount of average folk too, so it's not like his perceptions would lead us to a better answer. 

What we do know is that the violence is disturbing and we're all grasping at straws and answers here.

I agree.  We don't know.

So then why are you claiming "they should do/believe X" when we don't know if they are or not?

I'm not the one making prescriptive claims about them.

We know the leaders are speaking out. That's a great start.  To claim "Muslims need to speak out," then when shown links say "MORE muslims need to speak out" is unfair.

At this point, we know the leaders are, we don't know about the people who don't have a speaking platform.  Leaders to tend to speak for their people, and people follow them.  It's a good start.  But it's disingenuous to keep claiming "those Muslims really need  to say something."

[marty998]

There's a commentator (Mohammed El-Leissy) in Australia who pops up on breakfast television each week to give his thoughts on the news headlines and invariably because he is muslim he gets asked about muslim terrorism (he must be sick of it).

He pointed out this morning that all terrorists come from 1 sect of Islam - they are all Salafists/Wahhabi adherents, which is a particularly firebrand ultra-conservative version of Sunni Islam. The other denominations such as Shia do not seem to suffer from the same affliction.

He wants all the clerics in this sect to come out in the open and be exposed and challenged on what they are preaching to their congregations.

And therein lies the problem - because it's not just imams in mosques preaching this hatred. Anyone can corrupt an impressionable youth from the comfort of their lounge room through facebook and twitter these days.

[okits]

This was very educational for me as I tried to research the history and motive of ISIS.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/#article-comments

Thanks for sharing this.  Long, but I thought it was a worthwhile read.

[justajane]

We know the leaders are speaking out. That's a great start.  To claim "Muslims need to speak out," then when shown links say "MORE muslims need to speak out" is unfair.

At this point, we know the leaders are, we don't know about the people who don't have a speaking platform.  Leaders to tend to speak for their people, and people follow them.  It's a good start.  But it's disingenuous to keep claiming "those Muslims really need  to say something."

Sigh. I don't get why you keep on claiming this when from the beginning I said likely more Muslims (not any) need to speak out for change to actually occur. The goal post has never moved, even though you keep on saying I have moved it. I haven't been caught in a gotcha here. Showing me one link that some Muslim leaders are speaking out (which I never denied in the first place) doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, a groundswell of support for something different is what's going to change a system. I don't see that as prescriptive as much as historically realistic. And dramatic change might not occur right away, or it might peter out and look like nothing changed at all - a la the Arab Spring.

You could also look at it like the "right" leaders who could possibly really make a change are possibly not speaking out yet. Take, for instance, the issue of homosexuality in the church. Certain church leaders have been outspoken about their acceptance of gay marriage for years. These are pastors from mainline liberal churches who hold no sway with the more conservative churches who continue to reject any change in theology. Ultimately it will take some of the leaders in the more conservative churches speaking out to lead to theological change in the conservative church.


 

[Gin1984]

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

So someone says Muslims don't speak out. Clear evidence is shown that they do.  Now the goalpost moves to "MORE need to speak out."  How many is enough?

"Enough" in my view happens when someone supporting murder of apostates and infidels or treatment of women as second-class becomes a social pariah and loses their social, political, religious standing. Those mass demonstrations that occur after the prophet is drawn, we need those after Islamists murder anyone whether in Paris or in a muslim-majority state.
It is akin to how it is uncouth to denigrate african americans today, but it was acceptable a generation ago.

That does not even happen here.  See the GOP primary for example.

[MoonShadow]

I'm surprised at some of the censorship exercised in these forums.  We're about open discussion.  Sometimes that means hearing things you don't want to hear, even if it's the truth. Kinda embarassing.  EricL had a point.  Even the NYT reported on some of those topics. Why is it banned here? I don't know what the First Amendment says about internet forums, but seems too reactionary.

Yeah, this isn't censorship.  Censorship would be the complete destruction of the the posts, so that no evidence of a counter-opinion continued to exist.  And since this is a privately owned forum, for which we are all guests, the owner(s) can make up whatever rules he cares to; up to and including full censorship or random bans.  The 1st amendment doesn't apply here, because the Bill of Rights refers to limitations upon government; not private internet forums.

[arebelspy]

We know the leaders are speaking out. That's a great start.  To claim "Muslims need to speak out," then when shown links say "MORE muslims need to speak out" is unfair.

At this point, we know the leaders are, we don't know about the people who don't have a speaking platform.  Leaders to tend to speak for their people, and people follow them.  It's a good start.  But it's disingenuous to keep claiming "those Muslims really need  to say something."

Sigh. I don't get why you keep on claiming this when from the beginning I said likely more Muslims (not any) need to speak out for change to actually occur. The goal post has never moved, even though you keep on saying I have moved it. I haven't been caught in a gotcha here. Showing me one link that some Muslim leaders are speaking out (which I never denied in the first place) doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, a groundswell of support for something different is what's going to change a system. I don't see that as prescriptive as much as historically realistic. And dramatic change might not occur right away, or it might peter out and look like nothing changed at all - a la the Arab Spring.

You could also look at it like the "right" leaders who could possibly really make a change are possibly not speaking out yet. Take, for instance, the issue of homosexuality in the church. Certain church leaders have been outspoken about their acceptance of gay marriage for years. These are pastors from mainline liberal churches who hold no sway with the more conservative churches who continue to reject any change in theology. Ultimately it will take some of the leaders in the more conservative churches speaking out to lead to theological change in the conservative church.

JZ said:

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

(Emphasis added.)

I responded, and you jumped in with

For the record, I did not originally say that no Muslims speak out. I said that more likely need to speak out

It seemed to me you were agreeing with JZ's post, which moved the goalpost.

I'm not trying to catch you, or something, I'm just pointing out that plenty speak out, and saying "more need to speak out" is not fair to them, because they do.

I keep seeing people blame the average Muslim, many of whom are totally against these terror attacks, and saying "oh well they should speak out."  The ones that can, are.

The more that speak out, the better.  But blaming the average person for not speaking out doesn't get us anywhere. There's a lot of things that need to be done, but blame isn't one.  :)

[justajane]

It seemed to me you were agreeing with JZ's post, which moved the goalpost.

I'm not trying to catch you, or something, I'm just pointing out that plenty speak out, and saying "more need to speak out" is not fair to them, because they do.

I keep seeing people blame the average Muslim, many of whom are totally against these terror attacks, and saying "oh well they should speak out."  The ones that can, are.

The more that speak out, the better.  But blaming the average person for not speaking out doesn't get us anywhere. There's a lot of things that need to be done, but blame isn't one.  :)

Fair enough. We're good.

But I think one can state what is likely to need to happen to bring about change without implying or assigning blame when it hasn't happened to the degree it probably needs to. In no way, shape, or form do I think that the average Muslim anywhere in the world is to blame for any of this. The perpetrators and the planners are to blame. I don't really believe tacit consent applies here, just like I don't think that, because I don't write my Congressperson weekly calling for gun control, that I am to blame for the gun violence in my own country. I only bring that up, because similar arguments are levied against Joe Americans for "letting" the insanity here continue.   

[arebelspy]

But I think one can state what is likely to need to happen to bring about change without implying or assigning blame when it hasn't happened to the degree it probably needs to. In no way, shape, or form do I think that the average Muslim anywhere in the world is to blame for any of this. The perpetrators and the planners are to blame. I don't really believe tacit consent applies here, just like I don't think that, because I don't write my Congressperson weekly calling for gun control, that I am to blame for the gun violence in my own country. I only bring that up, because similar arguments are levied against Joe Americans for "letting" the insanity here continue.

That's true.  I think most are assigning blame when saying "X group of people should do this more," but I see what you meant about "..if we want change" and how that is not a case of assigning blame.

I think you're right in what would need to happen for major change to occur.  Change tends to happen slowly, through changing the minds of people.  Look at the generational differences in beliefs about homosexual marriage.  Let's hope the next generation of everyone (Muslims and non-) around the world are taught love and peace, and not hate, as they grow into adults.

[CommonCents]

Actually, ordinary muslims are speaking out, and on social media.  #NotInMyName is reviving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAxIOC8Zisc
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-muslims-use-notinmyname-hashtag-condemn-isis-terrorism-1528938

[JZinCO]

Regarding the first paragraph, this is true but... why are reformers like Ayaan hirsi ali and Majid Nawaz attacked by the liberal media and condemned by a majority of their faith? MORE muslims need to speak out against the conflict between strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith with liberal, democratic values. It's not enough for a handful of muslim leaders to speak out.

So someone says Muslims don't speak out. Clear evidence is shown that they do.  Now the goalpost moves to "MORE need to speak out."  How many is enough?

"Enough" in my view happens when someone supporting murder of apostates and infidels or treatment of women as second-class becomes a social pariah and loses their social, political, religious standing. Those mass demonstrations that occur after the prophet is drawn, we need those after Islamists murder anyone whether in Paris or in a muslim-majority state.
It is akin to how it is uncouth to denigrate african americans today, but it was acceptable a generation ago.

That does not even happen here.  See the GOP primary for example.

Absolutely right. It doesn't cancel out my original point, but it means both are problems. ot to derail the topic, but I cannot believe that the media won't stop some of these candidates (Trump and Carson especially) mid-sentence and say "Did you really just f@cking say that?!"
Actually, I can believe that, but the fact they don't is disgusting.

[JZinCO]

But I think one can state what is likely to need to happen to bring about change without implying or assigning blame when it hasn't happened to the degree it probably needs to. In no way, shape, or form do I think that the average Muslim anywhere in the world is to blame for any of this. The perpetrators and the planners are to blame. I don't really believe tacit consent applies here, just like I don't think that, because I don't write my Congressperson weekly calling for gun control, that I am to blame for the gun violence in my own country. I only bring that up, because similar arguments are levied against Joe Americans for "letting" the insanity here continue.

That's true.  I think most are assigning blame when saying "X group of people should do this more," but I see what you meant about "..if we want change" and how that is not a case of assigning blame.

What I am saying is that, as long as it is popular to espouse a conservative view of the quran and hadith, Islamists have ground to stand on. The tide needs to shift how the religion is observed. Where is the tide now? See this pew poll:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
Here is another one: http://www.people-press.org/files/2011/08/muslim-american-report.pdf
21% of US muslims say their community supports extremism. A Rebel spy, in case you are wondering, that's still too high. In the 40s, 2/3rds of Americans supported segregation in schools. By the 90s, it was down to 4%. 48% of respondents in that last poll say that their community is not doing enough to counter messages of extremism. And that's despite the amazing change in the paradigm that US muslims demonstrate. 81% of US muslims say suicide bombing is never excused. I'd like to see that improved, but it's still far higher than in many other nations. We need similar viewpoints desperately in other corners of the world.
That's all I am arguing for.

I'll provide a semi-analogy. All law enforcement aren't to blame for a few bad apples. But everytime an apple goes bad, law enforcement unions circle the wagons in defense. It's not okay for good law enforcement to be quiet or get defensive when abuses occur. Likewise, when polled a majority of muslims do not endorse violence against those who defame mohammed. However, a large minority sympathizes with those who do react with violence. It's simply not okay.
To this end, I support muslim groups which attempt to change how the religion is interpreted and observed. Here is one group I support: http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/

And here is a succinct argument from Aayan Hirsi Ali http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626:

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts. It simply will not do for Muslims to claim that their religion has been “hijacked” by extremists....Instead of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts.

If anyone wonders where I am coming from, the modern day founding father of Turkey who, if the term was invented before, would most definetly have been called an islamophobe put it best: I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap.

[Letj]

Justajane,

Do you know where this might be true: "The portions of the Muslim world that are secular and largely democratic are proof of this." I know of no such place. Are you referring to Indonesia or Malaysia?

[justajane]

Justajane,

Do you know where this might be true: "The portions of the Muslim world that are secular and largely democratic are proof of this." I know of no such place. Are you referring to Indonesia or Malaysia?

I was mostly thinking of Indonesia and Turkey, both of which don't have a state religion. That's what I meant by secular. Islam is the state religion of Malaysia, but I guess many European countries still have a state religion and are by and large secular nations. It's an interesting question. I guess your point would be that most of the Muslim world isn't secular? Or are you questioning the claim of democracy? Despite the impressions we might gain in current media coverage, there has historically been a strong secular and democratic streak in Iran as well. You don't have to look hard to find many, many examples of a groundswell of support for democracy and rebellion against theocracy in the Middle East.

[sheepstache]

I'll provide a semi-analogy. All law enforcement aren't to blame for a few bad apples. But everytime an apple goes bad, law enforcement unions circle the wagons in defense. It's not okay for good law enforcement to be quiet or get defensive when abuses occur. Likewise, when polled a majority of muslims do not endorse violence against those who defame mohammed. However, a large minority sympathizes with those who do react with violence. It's simply not okay.
To this end, I support muslim groups which attempt to change how the religion is interpreted and observed. Here is one group I support: http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/

And here is a succinct argument from Aayan Hirsi Ali http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626:

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts. It simply will not do for Muslims to claim that their religion has been “hijacked” by extremists....Instead of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts.

But there's something quite different about cops, a profession that a. people choose to enter, b. has a lot of consistency, c. exists specifically in the US. You aren't expecting cops to apologize for violence committed by security forces in general and you aren't expecting cops to defend cops from other countries. I know the analogy is not the message, but I'm turning it around to show what I think people think is wrong with the argument that muslims need to speak out. There is no "muslims" in the way that there is "cops." You fundamentally can not talk about them in this context as a group. When the catholic priest child abuse scandal was going on, some Catholics spoke out against it. It would have been weird if someone in a completely foreign part of the world demanded to know why Baptists or American Jews didn't speak out about it. They would have appeared ignorant for not understanding the distinctions and grouping groups together.

[Kris]

Unfortunately, the refugee situation is being used by Daesch to their advantage.  And the West is walking headlong into the trap.

Think about it: Why did ISIL make a point of having one of the attackers carry a Syrian passport and masquerade as a refugee, taking care to be documented as having passed through Greece? 

It clearly wasn't that they "needed" one final person for the attacks. They obviously had no trouble recruiting disaffected youth from France and Belgium.

No. It was because they wanted to provoke a reaction by the West against the Syrian refugees. Why? Because it helps their cause if we see the Syrian refugees as a threat, and close our borders, and our hearts, to them.

We are being played.  And sadly, we're taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.  If I were at the head of Daesch, I could hardly dream up a better strategy to recruit even more people to my cause.

[mrpercentage]

Unfortunately, the refugee situation is being used by Daesch to their advantage.  And the West is walking headlong into the trap.

We are being played.  And sadly, we're taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.  If I were at the head of Daesch, I could hardly dream up a better strategy to recruit even more people to my cause.

I had the same thought. These terrorist need to die almost as bad as we need to stay out of other nations business. They play smart. They become refugees and attack so they can cause terror and add the benefit of trapping everyone in Syria so they can continue their murderous rampage. Reminds me of this.
https://youtu.be/GxSR1VgVAUk?t=2m9s

[JZinCO]

No. It was because they wanted to provoke a reaction by the West against the Syrian refugees. Why? Because it helps their cause if we see the Syrian refugees as a threat, and close our borders, and our hearts, to them.

We are being played.  And sadly, we're taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.  If I were at the head of Daesch, I could hardly dream up a better strategy to recruit even more people to my cause.

Interesting!
Clearly, they are not please with the mass exodus ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/islamic-state-video-urges-refugees-6461025 )
They could be taking advantage of the situation ( http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees ) with a motive of being able to say 'I told you so. Come back to us.' when far-right leaning govts starting enacting harsh policies towards refugees (already happening http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-attacks-refugees_5648961ae4b060377349702c ).
According to the Washington Post, pubs from ISIS concur that this is the aim of ISIS' recent attacks abroad.

[powskier]

As long as people believe:- some all powerful deity is directing them,
                                      - that life not only exists after death but is better than here,now
                                       - that ancient texts written by people less educated than a modern 14 year old are some kind of truth...
there will always be a continuation of this kind of violence and depravity.

Please note I did not say ALL people who hold this views will do these things. Please note it is anyone's right to hold any of these beliefs but becomes problematic when they seek to impose those views on the rest of us.
Please note that the enlightenment that originated in France and helped birth the USA is a direct result of the reduced influence of religion.
All religions contain good and bad ideas but it is society outside of religion that forces those religions to adapt and change. It is not hard to envision a time when all religions have edited their "holy texts" to reflect only the values society holds dear. History shows these "unchangeable/holy" texts have frequently been adapted to suit the needs of the time. All the bad ideas should be challenged all the time, as ideas. Broadly attacking the ideology goes nowhere. Attack the ideas of murdering or converting unbelievers , attack the ideas of women as property, attack the ideas of gays as sub humans, the list goes on.

The recent events in France are a continuation of problems that have been ongoing since the 80's, ISIS is simply the current torch bearer.
Me, I am just going to read more blasphemous books, enjoy the fine company and free mixing of men and women, drink wine, eat ham, have sex for pleasure and enjoy music, dancing, sporting events, you know the kind of things that can get you killed.....

[shrnjad]

As long as people believe:- some all powerful deity is directing them,
                                      - that life not only exists after death but is better than here,now
                                       - that ancient texts written by people less educated than a modern 14 year old are some kind of truth...
there will always be a continuation of this kind of violence and depravity.

Please note I did not say ALL people who hold this views will do these things. Please note it is anyone's right to hold any of these beliefs but becomes problematic when they seek to impose those views on the rest of us.
Please note that the enlightenment that originated in France and helped birth the USA is a direct result of the reduced influence of religion.
All religions contain good and bad ideas but it is society outside of religion that forces those religions to adapt and change. It is not hard to envision a time when all religions have edited their "holy texts" to reflect only the values society holds dear. History shows these "unchangeable/holy" texts have frequently been adapted to suit the needs of the time. All the bad ideas should be challenged all the time, as ideas. Broadly attacking the ideology goes nowhere. Attack the ideas of murdering or converting unbelievers , attack the ideas of women as property, attack the ideas of gays as sub humans, the list goes on.

The recent events in France are a continuation of problems that have been ongoing since the 80's, ISIS is simply the current torch bearer.
Me, I am just going to read more blasphemous books, enjoy the fine company and free mixing of men and women, drink wine, eat ham, have sex for pleasure and enjoy music, dancing, sporting events, you know the kind of things that can get you killed.....

Like you wrote yourself, people who believe in those three things can be violent or not. In my opinion, being violent is not connected to being religious, contrary to what many people believe. Resorting to violence is connected to this one thing in my opinion: HATE. You have to be hateful to resort to violence. That is at the heart of the issue.

All war propaganda that I am concious of, no mattar in what historical period will therefore always have the goal to create hatred towards a group and at the same time also create some amount of arrogance or pride in ones own group.

[JZinCO]

Like you wrote yourself, people who believe in those three things can be violent or not. In my opinion, being violent is not connected to being religious, contrary to what many people believe. Resorting to violence is connected to this one thing in my opinion: HATE. You have to be hateful to resort to violence. That is at the heart of the issue.

When someone is wholly engrained in their religion, it can be a completely loving and rational thing to harm someone. As St Augustine said "‘There is a righteous persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious. She persecutes in the spirit of love… that she may correct… that she may recall from error… [taking] measures for their good, to secure their eternal salvation.’". A father tells the authorities that a son has committed apostasy by converting to a different islamic sect and the son receives 100 lashes. Is this not done out of love? To "save" the son and protect the family from damnation?

[GuitarStv]

Like you wrote yourself, people who believe in those three things can be violent or not. In my opinion, being violent is not connected to being religious, contrary to what many people believe. Resorting to violence is connected to this one thing in my opinion: HATE. You have to be hateful to resort to violence. That is at the heart of the issue.

When someone is wholly engrained in their religion, it can be a completely loving and rational thing to harm someone. As St Augustine said "‘There is a righteous persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious. She persecutes in the spirit of love… that she may correct… that she may recall from error… [taking] measures for their good, to secure their eternal salvation.’". A father tells the authorities that a son has committed apostasy by converting to a different islamic sect and the son receives 100 lashes. Is this not done out of love? To "save" the son and protect the family from damnation?

Interpretation is everything.  There are a great many moderate religious people view ancient texts as products of their time, and interpret them through that lens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge supporter of organized religions . . . but with the extremists getting all the air time it's easy to lose track of the huge numbers of perfectly sensible, moderate people who have faith and follow religious beliefs.

[KaizenSoze]

As long as people believe:- some all powerful deity is directing them,
                                      - that life not only exists after death but is better than here,now
                                       - that ancient texts written by people less educated than a modern 14 year old are some kind of truth...
there will always be a continuation of this kind of violence and depravity.

Let me point out that Communism didn't believe in these things. Though part of point two is debatable. And it still manager to inflict epic amounts of violence and death. Scapegoating religion without understanding human nature just shows idealogical blinders. Religion is just an aspect of human nature.

[justajane]

I'm just spit firing here, but in some respects, I look at the men who are drawn to commit these horrific acts in a similar way that I look at disgruntled males in this country who shoot up theaters or schools. It's interesting to me that we label lone gunmen as mentally ill, whereas we label those who blow themselves up near a cafe as ideologues. What prompted this was a headline I saw about one of the suicide bombers in Paris who was described by his ex-wife as more like a disgruntled youth who had too much time on his hands than a passionate religious man who believed in a cause.

Obviously those who are running the show (the ones who came up with relatively ingenious plan that Kris outlined above) are more motivated by ideology. And they likely also have a higher sense of self-preservation, since clearly they aren't the ones sacrificing their lives for the cause.

I guess my question is - in light of the fact that almost all the people who commit these events are young people -- what part of this also has to do with modern disaffection and other things that have nothing to do with religion? Many of the European youth who have become radicalized and fly to Syria to be trained were not religious in the slightest. Were they bored? Seeking adventure and meaning? Were their employment prospects dim?

In general, I am fascinated by the radicalization process and how it occurs.

[JZinCO]

Like you wrote yourself, people who believe in those three things can be violent or not. In my opinion, being violent is not connected to being religious, contrary to what many people believe. Resorting to violence is connected to this one thing in my opinion: HATE. You have to be hateful to resort to violence. That is at the heart of the issue.

When someone is wholly engrained in their religion, it can be a completely loving and rational thing to harm someone. As St Augustine said "‘There is a righteous persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious. She persecutes in the spirit of love… that she may correct… that she may recall from error… [taking] measures for their good, to secure their eternal salvation.’". A father tells the authorities that a son has committed apostasy by converting to a different islamic sect and the son receives 100 lashes. Is this not done out of love? To "save" the son and protect the family from damnation?

Interpretation is everything.  There are a great many moderate religious people view ancient texts as products of their time, and interpret them through that lens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge supporter of organized religions . . . but with the extremists getting all the air time it's easy to lose track of the huge numbers of perfectly sensible, moderate people who have faith and follow religious beliefs.

Regarding the first thought, yeah I think it is obvious that interpretation matters. That was kind of my point, I mean I quoted St augustine after all.... Medieval codes don't form all or a majority of western penal codes anymore.
My point is to say that islamists do what they do because they're hateful is not true. It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK. Not because of hate as argued before, but because scripture says women have to be protected from other men and self-blaspheming given their weaknesses. The Quran and hadith proscribe it to protect the faith, the individual, the family, and, most importantly, Mohammed and God.
My whole point is that it's wholly rationale to be violent when informed by scripture. Beliefs MATTER. They always explain intent. It is NOT hate driven. This shouldn't be debatable, as its what the islamists SAY.
 Regarding your point about moderates. You're right. I just wish in many nation states, moderates comprised at least a plurality.

[Glenstache]

Unfortunately, the refugee situation is being used by Daesch to their advantage.  And the West is walking headlong into the trap.

Think about it: Why did ISIL make a point of having one of the attackers carry a Syrian passport and masquerade as a refugee, taking care to be documented as having passed through Greece? 

It clearly wasn't that they "needed" one final person for the attacks. They obviously had no trouble recruiting disaffected youth from France and Belgium.

No. It was because they wanted to provoke a reaction by the West against the Syrian refugees. Why? Because it helps their cause if we see the Syrian refugees as a threat, and close our borders, and our hearts, to them.

We are being played.  And sadly, we're taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.  If I were at the head of Daesch, I could hardly dream up a better strategy to recruit even more people to my cause.

Yep. Well said, Kris.

The right-wing reaction to this has been stomach churning. The unbridled racism, lack of understanding, and craven stances are sickening. That it is playing into the hands of Daesch is maddening.

We know that there will be future terror attacks that we will not be able to stop (though we will try). Why also give them what they want when they do succeed in their gruesome acts?

[PKFFW]

It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK.

Eritrea - Almost 90% female genital mutilation.  Christian country
Ethiopia - Almost 75% female genital mutilation.  Christian country

So tell us again how Islamists simply don't have the same values?

For a short and interesting discussion regarding exactly the type of blanket statements you are making regarding the 1.6 billion Muslims, made up of as many and varied sects as there are denominations in Christianity, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA

[arebelspy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA

That. was. excellent.

Thank you for sharing.

[alsoknownasDean]

The attacks are absolutely horrific. :(

One thing I have noticed though, is that many of the people committing acts of terror in the name of ISIL seem to be born in Western countries. It hasn't been Iraqis and Syrians that have been killing people in France, it's been Belgians and other French.

What is happening here and in other Western countries that is making young men and women decide to go overseas and get involved in such things?

[justajane]

What is happening here and in other Western countries that is making young men and women decide to go overseas and get involved in such things?

That's exactly what I was asking and spit firing about above. Is it modern isolation from community? Unemployment? Are our educational systems failing them? Is it racism against Muslims in the West that motivates them? I don't have all the answers, but I feel the need to ask the questions. I imagine the answer is different for each and every man and woman who radicalizes, although we may find some common threads.

I feel myself in between many of the views on here. I don't think you can discount JZinCO's claims regarding certain interpretations of religion and scripture. Clearly he is not saying that this is the only way to interpret the Koran, at least I don't think he is.

I've been slightly annoyed about some of the articles I've seen posted on FB with headlines like "It's not the religion; it's the politics." Well, I guess, but ultimately it's probably the interplay of religion and politics. I just think people are afraid to attack religion, lest they be seen as bigots. But IMO what makes you a bigot is when you exclusively attack religions other than your own. I would say we should absolutely put religions under the microscope and bring to light the beliefs that lead to violence and intolerance. It should go without saying, at least in my mind, that when you are criticizing intolerance you are not claiming all individuals in one religion think that way, unless you specifically say that. Like when you criticize stances on homosexuality in this country, it's clear that you're talking about the conservative wing of the church and not claiming that the UCC, the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, etc. are intolerant on this issue.

[GuitarStv]

Like you wrote yourself, people who believe in those three things can be violent or not. In my opinion, being violent is not connected to being religious, contrary to what many people believe. Resorting to violence is connected to this one thing in my opinion: HATE. You have to be hateful to resort to violence. That is at the heart of the issue.

When someone is wholly engrained in their religion, it can be a completely loving and rational thing to harm someone. As St Augustine said "‘There is a righteous persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious. She persecutes in the spirit of love… that she may correct… that she may recall from error… [taking] measures for their good, to secure their eternal salvation.’". A father tells the authorities that a son has committed apostasy by converting to a different islamic sect and the son receives 100 lashes. Is this not done out of love? To "save" the son and protect the family from damnation?

Interpretation is everything.  There are a great many moderate religious people view ancient texts as products of their time, and interpret them through that lens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge supporter of organized religions . . . but with the extremists getting all the air time it's easy to lose track of the huge numbers of perfectly sensible, moderate people who have faith and follow religious beliefs.

Regarding the first thought, yeah I think it is obvious that interpretation matters. That was kind of my point, I mean I quoted St augustine after all.... Medieval codes don't form all or a majority of western penal codes anymore.
My point is to say that islamists do what they do because they're hateful is not true. It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK. Not because of hate as argued before, but because scripture says women have to be protected from other men and self-blaspheming given their weaknesses. The Quran and hadith proscribe it to protect the faith, the individual, the family, and, most importantly, Mohammed and God.
My whole point is that it's wholly rationale to be violent when informed by scripture. Beliefs MATTER. They always explain intent. It is NOT hate driven. This shouldn't be debatable, as its what the islamists SAY.
 Regarding your point about moderates. You're right. I just wish in many nation states, moderates comprised at least a plurality.

You're talking about people who attempt to form a state and rule based on ancient religious texts.  Historically, that usually doesn't work out too well with regards to human rights and tolerance.  Again though, it's not religion specific.  The same problems are seen when a state is run by Christians, or any other religion that can dogmatically pull laws out of an ancient book.  As has been pointed out, there are modern Christian states where literal interpretation of the bible is causing all kinds of problems.  It's just bad policy to try and mix church and state for this reason.

My whole point is that it's not wholly rational to be violent when informed by scripture.  Beliefs matter, but those beliefs are founded on interpretation.  That's why the bulk of the followers of Islam in the west are pretty moderate . . . as are the bulk of the followers of most religious groups.  Extremists who want to do horrible things use religion as an excuse to do them.  Religion is not the source of the problem, it's just a banner than can easily be raised after you've already decided to be an asshole.  Get any large group of people who feel downtrodden and oppressed, who are pretty poor, who live in miserable conditions . . . then tell them that it's all the fault of another group of people, and you'll get a large force willing to commit atrocities.  It's happened over and over again.  We have so many examples of this through history . . . the Khmer Rouge (an atheist group BTW), the Nazis, etc.  Hate comes first, and absolutely is a driver in these types of conflicts.

I suspect that there are far more moderate people in the Islamic world than we know of, but they're trapped in a place where it's not safe to express those feelings.

[KaizenSoze]

I guess my question is - in light of the fact that almost all the people who commit these events are young people -- what part of this also has to do with modern disaffection and other things that have nothing to do with religion? Many of the European youth who have become radicalized and fly to Syria to be trained were not religious in the slightest. Were they bored? Seeking adventure and meaning? Were their employment prospects dim?

In general, I am fascinated by the radicalization process and how it occurs.

Look up Scott Atran. He has written quite a lot of the subject. Unlike most he has gone into the field and interviewed members of the communities where the bombers can from, their families, and the rare failed bomber.

Link to a Metafilter discussion about his last book.
http://www.metafilter.com/101818/Talking-to-the-Enemy

[JZinCO]

It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK.

Eritrea - Almost 90% female genital mutilation.  Christian country
Ethiopia - Almost 75% female genital mutilation.  Christian country

So tell us again how Islamists simply don't have the same values?

For a short and interesting discussion regarding exactly the type of blanket statements you are making regarding the 1.6 billion Muslims, made up of as many and varied sects as there are denominations in Christianity, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA

Blanket statements? Before you go playing that card, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism, is what I was describing. Islamism is an ideology. Like any ideology, there are core tenets and beliefs. Can you imagine this exchange: "Economic libertarians support maximal individual freedoms and laissez faire economic systems." "Stop that's ignorant and racist!"

And I will continue to say that Islamism does not share the same values as liberal democracies. I don't give a hoot if Eriteria or Ethiopia are christian. They're backwards too because liberal democratic ideas are not governing principles in those nations' societies. Just because a couple non-muslim majority countries practices female genital mutilation does not make it untrue that genital mutilation is a common practice where Islamism is the governing norm.

[Gin1984]

It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK.

Eritrea - Almost 90% female genital mutilation.  Christian country
Ethiopia - Almost 75% female genital mutilation.  Christian country

So tell us again how Islamists simply don't have the same values?

For a short and interesting discussion regarding exactly the type of blanket statements you are making regarding the 1.6 billion Muslims, made up of as many and varied sects as there are denominations in Christianity, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA

Blanket statements? Before you go playing that card, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism, is what I was describing. Islamism is an ideology. Like any ideology, there are core tenets and beliefs. Can you imagine this exchange: "Economic libertarians support maximal individual freedoms and laissez faire economic systems." "Stop that's ignorant and racist!"

And I will continue to say that Islamism does not share the same values as liberal democracies. I don't give a hoot if Eriteria or Ethiopia are christian. They're backwards too because liberal democratic ideas are not governing principles in those nations' societies. Just because a couple non-muslim majority countries practices female genital mutilation does not make it untrue that genital mutilation is a common practice where Islamism is the governing norm.

Except that female genital mutilation did not come from Islam, it came from cultures that Islam conquered.  So it is an area/cultural thing outside of the religion which is why the point that some Christian countries do it, and some Muslim countries don't does matter.

[JZinCO]

You're talking about people who attempt to form a state and rule based on ancient religious texts.  Historically, that usually doesn't work out too well with regards to human rights and tolerance.  Again though, it's not religion specific.  The same problems are seen when a state is run by Christians, or any other religion that can dogmatically pull laws out of an ancient book.  As has been pointed out, there are modern Christian states where literal interpretation of the bible is causing all kinds of problems.  It's just bad policy to try and mix church and state for this reason....  Extremists who want to do horrible things use religion as an excuse to do them.  Religion is not the source of the problem, it's just a banner than can easily be raised after you've already decided to be an asshole. 

I'll just put it this way. How many Jain suicide bombers have you heard of? None. Because no matter how literal and ultra-conservative your adherence to Jainism, it can not lead you to rationalize mass murder.
Beliefs matter.